Talk:Castrato

Ambiguities

“…only approximatly 1% of fully or partially castrated boys developed into successful singers.” Was that partly because so few boys survived the castration? Without antiseptics or anaesthesia any surgery was very dagerous. I have heard that less than 20% survied castration under such circumstances. Anyone who know the real number?

Furthermore, I wonder what “fully or partially castrated” means. I can imagine three degrees of castration that could have been preformed in those days. The first degree means that you just open the scrotum and take out the tests. At the second the degree you cut off the whole scrotum. The third degree include the removal of all outer genitals. Can’t the autor express him- or herself more clearly?

2007-01-30 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

I agree. If you excise all but a small part of a testis... that part compensates by producing extra androgens, so effectively, although the individual is sterile, the secondary sexual characteristics are unchanged. The mortalitiy rate doesn't have to be that high either - today, a lot of farm animals are castrated without benefit of anything other than local anaesthetic (which obviously has no impact on survival, just making it safer for the vet!) and a sharp knife. There would have been some mortalities, but castration in pre-pubescent individuals is relatively easy, as the blood supply to the testes is relatively poor - heamostasis can usuall be ahieved simple with twisting and torsion of the spermatic cord/artery bundle. In addition, the smaller the testes, the easier the operation. Indeed, it used to be the case (no longer legal, at least in the UK) where cats were castrated simply by crushing the testes within the scrotum, without anaesthetic or even a blade, just using (strong) fingers. Apparently a similar method was also the practice with very young boys in Babylonian times. (Dlh-stablelights 09:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

As I understand it the boys where drugged with opium to make it easier for the “surgeon”. However, humans have a much weaker immune system than other mammals. My idea was that many castrated boys would have died from infections. Also, intentional bleeding was long used as an universal treatment to most diseases. Even if the blood loss from the surgery itself was not to large the bleeding “treatment” to the following infections would have added to that. As such accumulated blood loss may have killed even more boys. In short infections combined with their misdirected treatment would have killed most castrati: a death rate of 80% or more seams quite reasonable.

What is the medical consequences of having the tests crushed? Where such men normal except being sterile? Anyone who knows?

2007-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Gross! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.85.6 (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

References supplied

I've just done a big edit on this page, and supplied references, which I hope are sufficient for this page to get "upgraded" to one with proper citations. I'll add some images soon.--voxclamans 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the assertions made in this page are not consistent with recent research, particularly the part about castrato voices being markedly different from the female voice. Scholar Roger Freitas, in particular, feels that the distinction was primarily in technique, and not innate voice quality. Most of the assertions made in this page are derived from research done by Angus Herriot and published in 1974. I will edit the page and add citations when I get a chance, but if someone else can do it before I can, it would be nice.--Dana Scheider 11:01, 17 November 2008 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.14.247 (talk)

Your remarks are very interesting. Perhaps the idea that castrato voices differed greatly from those of women originates from the clear physical differences between them, and the fact that castrati seem to have sung in their voce di petto for a far greater proportion of their range than women did (or indeed could, without damaging their voices). There is also a lot of contemporary anecdotal evidence about the difference in sound quality.--voxclamans (talk) 11:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

More references supplied to two sections, and therefore I have removed boxes requesting such.voxclamans (talk) 10:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Signs

I don’t think there was any written signs saying “here boys are castrated” in the time of Charles Burney. Remember, there was no compulsory education in that time. People who could read and write belonged to one out of two categories: those who needed it in their work and those who grew up in the upper classes. Almost everyone else was illiterate. Furthermore, people who owned any property to talk about usually not only wanted it to be inherited by their sons but also their grandsons. Parents who wanted their sons to be castrated most likely had no such property and where illiterate. So persons performing the surgery must had announced it in some way that did of the ability to read unnecessary. Maybe they had a picture at their doors showing the surgical instrument used. If that was too blatant for the Catholic Church they may have used sings based on animal analogies or Italian wordplay. It is even possible that they relied on hearsay to get patients. I really don’t know.

2007-06-22 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

You certainly make a very good point about the high level of illiteracy during the eighteenth century. However, it must be remembered that not all castrati came from poor (and therefore, as you remark, presumably illiterate) families; this was the case, for example, with Farinelli and Caffarelli. The rumour of at least one such advertising sign in Rome survived into the second half of the nineteenth century. As to inheriting property, it should also be remembered that large families were the rule (or at least, desired) in all strata of Catholic society during the eighteenth century. Little is known about how surgeons (or others) who performed the castrations advertised their services: since castration was forbidden under Canon Law and punishable by excommunication such people would, officially at least, have found it necessary to keep their activities clandestine. The Church is itself known to have had a hand in some castrations, for example, paying for the operation - for Senesino, amongst others.--voxclamans 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The typical family in preindustrial Europe had five children out of which three survived until adulthood. Why would a rich couple want to have one of their sons castrated? Was it not equally important for sons to marry, have children and pass on the family name? Such questions might seem stupid to you, but I have quite hard to find out the motives of others.

2007-07-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Why would such questions be regarded as "stupid"? Far from it. I would be very interested to know where you found the statistic about "the typical family in pre-industrial Europe", please. The facts about Caffarelli are that, at the age of ten, he was given the income from two vineyards owned by his grandmother "that he might ... give attention to Music with the utmost propriety, towards which the said Gaetano is said to have a large inclination, desiring to be castrated and to be made a eunuch." (Translated from E. Faustini-Fassini, Gli astri maggiori del bel canto napoletano, in Note d'archivo 15, (1938), p12.) Why Caffarelli wanted this, I do not know, and we cannot ask him. As far as I am aware, it is not known for sure why Farinelli was castrated. voxclamans 09:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My point was that most people did not have loads of children before Industrialism. How many children did you think they had? Also, did not the majority of castrati have illiterate parents? In that case written signs would have been inefficient at best.

2007-07-25 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Contradiction?

This article seems to contradict itself. In the section "Castrati in the European Classical Tradition" it says "In 1589, by the bull Cum pro nostri temporali munere, Pope Sixtus V re-organised that choir specifically to include castrati, and in 1599, they were first admitted into the Pope's personal choir of the Sistine Chapel...". This clearly seems to indicate that the Pope accepted the use of castrati in church choirs. But then in the section "Castrati in Opera" it says "Castration 'for music' was an almost totally Italian practice, and under the Catholic church's Canon Law, strictly illegal: it was mutilation, and thus punishable by excommunication." How could castration be "strictly illegal" if the Pope had specifically asked for castrati in his choir? Or is the church just that hypocritical? —Edward Tremel (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they really were that hypocritical. Mind you, there is a quote in Isaiah somewhere about there being a special place in heaven reserved for eunuchs, or something like that, so perhaps they used that as justification. Then again, other parts of the old Testament (specifically Deuteronomy AFAICR) are quite castrato-hostile. I guess that's just the RC Church for you. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Burney (Present State Italy etc, p.109): "Serbelloni, a con'tralto castrato, who was in England some years ago, has had a dispensation to become a priest, and now only sings in the church." The Pope is considered chosen by God, and therefore speaks and acts for God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.133.144 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

New to Wiki, noticed bias

Because of a misreading of the first canon of the Council of Nicea of 325 directed at clergy alone and, no doubt, based on the Mosaic ban against "castrated" priests mentioned in Leviticus 21:20 that is currently translated as "herniated," many Italians errouneously assumed (as many people still erroneously assume) that castration was and is a forbidden act of mutilation for all men by the Catholic church. This general ban would not only directly contradict a highly rational interpretation of Wisdom 3:14, 15; Isaiah 56:4, 5; Acts 8:26-40; and the teachings of Christ found in Matthew 5:29, 30; 18:1-9; 19:12 and Mark 9:42-48, it would make Rome look ridiculously hypocritical. It would also look blatantly hypocritical since castration is an ancient and internationally recognized aid to sexual purity, a clearly stated goal of Catholic holiness. In addition to the practices of the Vatican involving the castrati and its exultation of the scriptures just cited, Rome still considers Origen to be a Greek Father of the Church in spite of the strong belief that he castrated himself. Those who wish to protray Rome as violating its own teachings regarding castration clearly need to cite their sources for the alleged prohibition.

Thats super biased. Definitely not encyclopedic voice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.166.82 (talk) 09:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think thatthe Roman church ever feared something that "would make Rome look ridiculously hypocritical." I think that their religion and behaviour does that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariddles (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Deuteronomy 23:1-11 KJV. "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD."

Did the procedure always involve removal of the testicles?

In William Berger's book about the life and opi of Verdi he runs through a brief history of opera and mentions that the practice of castration involved the severing of a duct in the boy's scrotum, stopping the boy's voice from breaking. It also led to the boy's sexual maturation being stopped which was clearly still barbaric but not in the same league as having the meat and two veg whipped off. Can anyone confirm/deny this? I can't find a referral to it anywhere else... Andrew Riddles (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is fundamentally correct. From memory Western castration involved simply cutting the sperm ducts, I guess mostly because they didn't have the medical technology do to much more safely, and even that was pretty darn risky. In the Orient, castration did involve removal of a lot more. Moreschi (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The changes boys undergo during puberty is caused by increased production of testosterone. This hormone is produced in the boys’ testes hence the name. To prevent or stop the process the testes had to be surgically removed. You seem to have mixed up castration with vasectomy. The later result in sterility but does not affect hormone production. As such the castrati had their testes surgically removed before their voices begun to break. The surgery may have involved the removal of part or all of the scrotum as well. I see no reason to think that they had their penises removed which is an other misunderstanding of “castration”. In some Asian countries all external genitals could be surgically removed which does not seem to have been unusual. This practise continues to this day on the Indian subcontinent albeit only illegally. Anyway, my point is that the castrati did have their testes removed – this is what “surgical castration” means in a strict medical sense – otherwise they would not have developed in the way they did.

2010-05-14 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

So, where does that leave the very first paragraph about the process where the writer speaks of a crushing "massage" as the way in which the procedure is performed? Is there a reference (anywhere) to that fact? Tom12ga (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not only is that crushing method uncited, but the entire "Method of Castration" section is completely uncited. There is even a quote in there from a source that is not named. It appears to have personal opinions mixed in with sentences that read like facts. I just edited it so it would sound somewhat more encyclopedic, but it needs a lot more work. I guess I'll put the 'citations missing' thing over the section and hope that whoever came up with this information comes back with sources. Ganstaman (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've actually removed the whole section Method of Castration which was partly original research and completely unreferenced. This is a long-standing article written by an expert on the history of castrato singers. That section was added a few months ago. Anyone who wishes to restore it must be prepared to provide inline citations to reliable sources for all the assertions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

List Of Opera Featuring Castrato Parts

Would it not be a good idea to create an article with a title such as List of Opera to feature Castrato Parts ? If there are no objections, I may begin doing that shortly :-) Baroque n Roll (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That would need clear criteria as to what qualifies as a castrato role. There are many instances of "castrato roles" that were in fact originally written for women playing trouser roles. That is a rather knotty problem, but I would suggest that the best place to have such a debate would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera. Moreschi (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Um.... I suggest List of castrato opera roles. The use of "parts" in conjunction with "castrato", might lead to some rather unfortunate misinterpretations of the title. Seriously though, I think it could be viable, but I'd approach it slightly differently. You could at first restrict it to roles which were actually created by castrati. These are well documented. You could then have a section on roles created by female singers which were also sung by castrati. You'd probably find a fair amount for that since female singers were banned from the stage in the Papal States. I'd definitely leave out words like "featuring" from the title – too hard to define. Voceditenore (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. Moreschi's right, you might get some good suggestions etc. with a wider audience at WikiProject Opera. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Two (possibly spurious) additions removed

I have removed the following two recent additions:

• Ethan Lawrence (1735–1749) – No evidence this person ever existed
• Luigi Marchesi (1735–1749) – Note that the link is to this Luigi Marchesi (1754–1829) who was already on the list. I can find no evidence for a second Luigi Marchesi.

I also find it odd that the same birth/death dates were given for both these added singers, with both allegedly dying at age 14. Voceditenore (talk) 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Another spurious addition

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to add Thom Yorke to the section on famous castrati. Thom Yorke (born 1968) is the lead vocalist of the rock band Radiohead with two children. He is by no means a castrated 19th century opera singer. He may sing in falsetto (I'm not even sure if that's true), but that doesn't make him a castrato. Please provide a reference to a published reliable source which verifies that he is a castrato. And please read Wikipedia's policy on the biographies of living persons:

"contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."

- Voceditenore (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

Section "Opera", para 2, beginning "Farinelli drew every . . ." doesn't make any sense to me. I am not sure if this is vandalism or just a hopelessly unclear quote. Darkman101 (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It's an accurate quote from 1755 (hence the somewhat odd form of expression). Pickering was basically saying that everyone flocked to the Haymarket Theatre to hear Farinelli who had a fab voice and technique which drove everyone to ecstasy, but he was lumbering and clumsy like the pregnant cows that were still seen in various rural parts of London. The formatting was such that it wasn't obvious that it was a quote or where it came from. I've fixed that now. Can't do much about the clarity of the language, though. Voceditenore (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Imitator of the last castrato

Domenico Mancini was so good at imitating Alessandro Moreschi that he was mistaken for a castrato. Does anyone know if he suffered from natural defiance in testosterone? That would explain how he could be so good at imitating him.

2013-12-31 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

He was a falsettist. You can hear him being interviewed on YouTube. Double sharp (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Castrato. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090630004501/http://www.jimmyscottofficialwebsite.org:80/ to http://malesopranos.com/cat/10/3-0/aris-christofellis
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081017111540/http://www.ghionannini.com:80/Main.asp to http://www.ghionannini.com/Main.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090520014327/http://www.jimmyscottofficialwebsite.org:80/ to http://www.jimmyscottofficialwebsite.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

could somebody with an account create a redirect page from Castrata?

Castrata is a word and it has a meaning that should redirect to Castrato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castrata — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.11.48 (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition of castration in Italy

The incipit of the article contains a statement to the effect that castration "was made illegal in the Papal States, the last to prohibit them[?], in 1870". Since no source was cited, I had added the template "citation needed". User 138.88.149.170, however, has now removed the template adding a source stating that "in 1870 [prepubescent castration] was made illegal in Italy". This source does not evidently refer to the Papal States (which btw ceased to exist as a sovereign territorial entity exactly in 1870), but to the whole of Italy. The information it gives, moreover, is bogus because "eviration" had been a crime since the unification of the country in 1861 when the previous penal code of the Kingdom of Sardinia was extended to almost all of the new state (article 552). Consequently I am going to restore the template "citation needed". Unfortunately, I don't know, personally, when the Papal States or generally the Holy See prohibited castration, provided it was ever officially permitted.--Jeanambr (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

George Washington Carver

I removed a claim that George Washington Carver may have been castrated. The link was dead, and the page on him says nothing about it. Hamster Drink (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The claim has been restored by user JMyrleFuller with a different reliable source. But I wonder: what does Carver have to do with castrati? I am not aware that he was a renowned opera or church singer who had been specially castrated for the purpose of preserving his beautiful voice to make him a singer. He was just a person who might have been castrated for whatever reason in his youth, no one knows at what age. The reference to his case would much better fit the article on Castration than the one on emasculated singers. Further, the whole section on modern castrati seems to me quite out of place: they are not at all modern "castrati", but falsettists who today strive to perform at their best the ancient castrato repertoire. In my opinion, these are two completely different historical phenomena.--Jeanambr (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Performance and Social Change

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Balloon releaser (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Balloon releaser (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

LGBT?

Regarding the recent changes edited in this page by user Smasongarrison and user Gehenna1510 (see here and here), I fail to see what connection exists between castrati and the LGBT category. Jeanambr (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I tagged it because it was nested within Category:LGBT. If you follow the categories on the page, you can get there via Category:Androgyny Mason (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I know next to nothing about how the thousands of categories and sub-categories that have been created on the English Wikipedia work. However, as a simple user, even after Mason's answer, I keep wondering: what ever is the so close actual connection between castrato singers of yore and 'LGBT', 'sexology and sexuality', and 'religion', that led to the inclusion of this talk page in those categories? And why just the talk page and not the main article? I also ping @Dimadick and Johnsoniensis who made edits in this matter respectively in 2016 and 2017.--Jeanambr (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

What's your goal here? Are you *really* trying to understand why others consider this page interesting to those projects? Also, I don't understand what you mean by this: "And why just the talk page and not the main article" because the categories are on the main page. Projects get tagged on the talk page. Mason (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think castrati have anything special to do with the 'LGBT', 'sexology and sexuality', and 'religion' categories and my goal would be to get the article removed from those categories. None of them are listed at the bottom of the main article, but only at the talk page's, where they are styled: "Categories:...". The categories listed at the bottom of the main article are precisely: Voice types, Castrati, Opera history, Italian opera terminology, Obsolete occupations, Androgyny. Jeanambr (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok -- projects are different from categories. The point of projects on a talk page is to track pages that interest specific wikiprojects. I think that there is no harm in keeping them and that there's some benefit to having multiple projects monitoring the page. Honestly, I think that your time is better spent elsewhere rather than on policing projects. Mason (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have no intention of getting involved in policing projects, I'm only interested in the history of opera and this article is on my watchlist: when I see some edits that don't seem convincing to me, I just try to get them changed by discussing with other users, being also ready to change my mind. You asked me whether I was *really* trying to understand why others find this page interesting to their projects. Of course, I am, and I was willing to spend my time in it, but, unfortunately, your posts have not made me progress in understanding other users’ points of view on the subject. I only perceived a certain hostility but didn't find any new material to reason upon. Nevertheless, if you and others truly believe that castrati have some kind of logical connection with religion or LGBT, worthy of being specially highlighted within a reliable encyclopaedia, I am not going to raise further objections myself (while of course maintaining my strong disagreement) Jeanambr (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Castrati are a type of eunuch, who have traditional associations with effeminacy. And castration has been used for religious reasons through history. Dimadick (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Informal tone

This article's tone is, at least to me, very informal and uses too much emotional language. Surfingtheinterweb (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)