Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
placed at the end of each chapter. Many of the footnotes are long and
spread over several pages. Several footnotes have footnotes themselves.
The cover image was created by the transcriber
and is placed in the public domain.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.These are indicated by a dashed blue underline.
MEMORIALS OF HUMAN SUPERSTITION;
Being a Paraphrase and Commentary on the
HISTORIA FLAGELLANTIUM of the
Abbé Boileau, Doctor of the Sorbonne, Canon
of the Holy Chapel, &c.
By One who is not Doctor of the Sorbonne.
Honni soit qui mal y pense.
THE SECOND EDITION.
Page. 391.
LONDON:
Printed for G. ROBINSON, No 55, Pater-noster Row.
M DCC LXXXIV.
THE INTRODUCTION OF THE PARAPHRAST and COMMENTATOR.
THE Abbé Boileau, the author of the
Historia Flagellantium, was elder brother
to the celebrated Poet of that
name. He filled, several years, the place of
Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens,
and was thence promoted to the office of one
of the Canons of the Holy Chapel in Paris,
which is looked upon as a great dignity among
the French clergy.
While he was in that office (about the year
1700) he wrote, among other books, that
which is the subject of this work[1]. This
book, in which the public expected, from the
title of it, to find an history of the particular
sect of Hereticks called Flagellants, only contained
an aggregation of facts and quotations
on the subject of self-disciplines and flagellations
in general among Christians (which, if
the work had been well done, might however
have been equally interesting) and a mixture
of alternate commendation and blame of that
practice.
The Theologians of that time, however,
took offence at the book. They judged that
the author had been guilty, in it, of several
heretical assertions; for instance, in saying,
as he does in two or three places, that Jesus
Christ had suffered flagellation against his
will: and they particularly blamed the censures
which, amidst his commendations of it,
he had passed upon a practice that so many
saints had adopted, so many pontiffs and bishops
had advised, and so many ecclesiastical
writers had commended.
In the second place, they objected to several
facts which the author had inserted in his
book, as well as to the licentiousness of
expression he had sometimes indulged; and
they said that such facts, and such manner of
expression, ought not to be met with in a book
written by a good Christian, and much less
by a Dean of the Metropolitan Church of
Sens, a Canon of the Holy Chapel, and in
short by a man invested with an eminent dignity
in the Church; in which latter respect
they were perhaps right[2].
Among the critics of our author’s book,
were the Jesuits of Trevoux; the then conductors
of a periodical review, called the
Journal de Trevoux. The poet Boileau, taking
the part of his brother, answered their
criticisms by the following epigram.
Non, le livre des Flagellans
N’a jamais condamné, lisez le bien mes Peres,
Ces rigidités salutaires
Que pour ravir le Ciel, saintement violens,
Exercent sur leurs corps tant de Chrétiens austères.
Il blâme seulement cet abus odieux
D’étaler & d’offrir aux yeux
Ce que leur doit toûjours cacher la beinséance,
Et combat vivement la fausse piété,
Qui, sous couleur d’éteindre en nous la volupté,
Par l’austérité même & par la pénitence
Sait allumer le feu de la lubricité.
The first opportunity I had to see the Abbé
Boileau’s book, which is pretty scarce, but
which I knew from the above epigram, and
other books that mention it, was about ten
years ago, in a town of Italy, where it was
shewn to me by a Quaker, an Englishman,
who lived there; not a Quaker, however, of
the common sort, that is, a scrupulous observer
of the duties prescribed by his sect; for
he wore laced cloaths, and played admirably
well on the flute.
Having since lighted again on a copy of the
same book, I judged that its singularity, and
the nature of the facts it contains, rendered it
worthy to be laid before the public; and I
had the thought of dressing it in vulgar
tongue with the less reluctance, as, conformably
to the confession I have made in the title-page,
I have not the honour to be a doctor
of the Sorbonne. However, I found, upon a
more attentive examination of the book, that
the obscurity and want of meaning of that
part of it which properly belongs to the author,
who seems to have been as defective in
point of clearness of head as his brother the
poet was remarkable for that qualification,
rendered a translation, impracticable.
The singular contradiction, for instance,
between most of the conclusions our author
draws from the facts he relates, and the facts
themselves, is, (when it is possible to ascertain
the meaning of such conclusions) really matter
of surprise. The critics of our author,
who were sensible of this inconsistency, had
derived comfort from it, and hoped that the
book would propagate but little heresy, since
hardly any body could understand it. However,
this very manner in which our author
has composed his work, wherein he contradicts
not only the facts he relates, but even
his own assertions, sometimes two or three
times in the same page, leads us to the discovery
of his real design in writing it, and clears
him from having entertained any views of an
heretical or dangerous nature. He only proposed,
it appears, to compile together facts
and quotations which amused him, and which
he thought would also amuse the public; and
he terminated them (or sometimes whole
strings of them) with seeming conclusions and
random assertions, in order to make the reader
judge that he had a serious and even theological
design, in making his compilation.
Another cause of surprise in our Author’s
book, is, the prodigious incoherency of the
facts themselves he has linked together. But
in this respect, likewise, we discover, after a
little examination, that his views were of a
perfectly harmless kind, and that this singularity
was not owing to any design of his
own, as might at first sight be imagined, but
only to the manner in which he proceeded in
his work. His practice was, it appears, to
lay down, at the same time, upon the paper,
all the facts to his liking he found related in
the productions of the same author; and at
other times also, he introduced together, we
may suppose, all the stories and quotations
the discovery of which he had made in the
course of the same morning[3].
A translation of a book thus made, was
therefore, as hath been above said, impracticable.
And as a number of the facts and
quotations it contains are curious, either in
themselves, or on account of the authors from
whom they are extracted, I have at once enlarged
my first plan, and thought of writing
another book with the materials contained in
that of the Abbé Boileau.
With the facts and quotations, therefore,
supplied by the Abbé Boileau’s book, I have
undertaken to compose this History of the
Flagellants. With these materials, the quantity
or number of which I determined neither
to increase or decrease, I attempted to write
a book; proposing to myself a task of much
the same nature with that kind of play which
sometimes serves to amuse companies of friends
in winter evenings, in which sets of words
in appearance incompatible with one another,
are proposed, and, without any of them being
left out, or even displaced, are to be made
into some consistent speeches, by the help of
intermediate arguments. Such task I have,
as I say, tried to perform, without setting
aside any of the facts contained in the Abbé
Boileau’s book: only I have taken great liberty
with respect to placing and displacing
such facts, as, without that indulgence, the
task, on this occasion, was not to be performed.
The work or problem, therefore,
I proposed to myself, instead of being that
which more commonly occurs, and may be
expressed in the following terms: Certain arguments
being given, to find the necessary facts
to support them? was this: A certain number
of facts, pretty well authenticated, being given,
to find the natural conclusions and inductions
which they suggest?
To this paraphrase thus made on the materials
afforded by the Abbé Boileau, and to
a few occasional sentences of his, which I
have preserved, I have added an ample
Commentary, in which I have introduced not
only such facts as either my own memory, or
other authors, supplied me: so that the Abbé’s
work, a twelves book, printed on a very large
type, has swelled into the majestic octavo
which is now laid before the public.
In composing this octavo, two different
parts I have performed. In the Paraphrase
on the Abbé Boileau’s work, I have, keeping
to the subject, and preserving as much as I
could the turn of my Author’s book, expressed
myself in that style and manner, in
which it was not unlikely a doctor of the
Sorbonne, and a dean of the church of Sens,
might have written: in the Commentary, I
have followed my own inclination. Conformably
to that which is often practised on
the Stage, where the same player fills two different
parts at the same time, by speedily altering
his dress, I have, in the present work,
acted in two different alternate capacities, as
I changed sides: in the text, I acted the part
of a doctor of the Sorbonne; and then, quickly
resuming my former station, I expatiated
and commented, in the note, upon what the
doctor had just said in the text.
Thus much for the manner in which I have
accomplished this work. With respect to
giving any previous delineation of the substance
of it, it is what I find some difficulty
in doing; and which, besides, I think would
be useless, since I suppose the reader will, as
readers commonly do, peruse this Preface only
after he has turned the last leaf of the book:
taking it therefore for granted that the reader
knows, by this time, what the present performance
is, I proceed to give an account of
my views in writing it.
In the first place, I proposed to myself the
information of posterity. A period will,
sooner or later, arrive, at which the disciplining
and flagellating practices now in use, and
which have been so for so many centuries, will
have been laid aside, and succeeded by others
equally whimsical. And while the men of
those days will overlook the defects of their
own extravagant customs, or perhaps even admire
the rationality of them, they will refuse
to believe that the practices of which accounts
are given in this work, ever were in use among
mankind, and even matter of great moment
among them. My design, therefore, was
effectually to remove all their doubts in that
respect, by handing down to them the flower
and choice part of the facts and arguments on
the subject.
This book will likewise be extremely useful
to the present age; and it will in the first place
be so, the subject being considered in a moral
light. The numerous cases that are produced
in this book, of disciplines which offenders of
all classes, kings as well as others, have zealously
inflicted upon themselves, will supply
a striking proof of that deep sense of justice
which exists in the breasts of all men; and
the reader will from such facts conclude, no
doubt with pleasure, that even the offenders
of the high rank we have just mentioned, notwithstanding
the state by which they are surrounded,
and the majestic countenance which
they put on, sometimes in proportion as they
more clearly know that they are wrong, are
inwardly convinced that they owe compensation
for their acts of injustice.
Being considered in the same moral light,
this book will be useful to the present age, by
the instances it gives of corrections by which
different offences against the peace of mankind
have been requited; the consequence of
which will be the preventing of such offences.
Slanderous wits, for example, to mention only
offenders of that class, writers of satires, epigrams,
and lampoons, dealers in bon-mots,
inventors of anecdotes, by reading the instances
of disciplines by which such ingenious
pastimes have, on different occasions, been repaid,
will naturally be led to recollect, that
all possible flagellations (to use the expression
of the Alguazil introduced in a certain chapter
of Gil Blas) have not been yet inflicted;
and sudden considerations like this, which this
book will not fail to suggest to them, will be
extremely apt to check them the instant they
are preparing to make their excursions on the
reputation of their neighbours; and by that
means the good name of many an innocent
person will be preserved.
To the persons themselves who actually suffer
from the injustice or wantonness of others,
this performance will be of great service.
Those, for instance, who smart under the lash
of some insolent satirist, those who are disappointed
in their expectations, those whose secrets
have been betrayed, nay, even ladies,
treacherously forsaken by those who had given
them so many assurances of fidelity and eternal
constancy, will find their misfortunes alleviated
by reading the different instances and
facts related in this book: they will take
comfort from the thought, that what has already
happened may happen again; and cheer
themselves with the hope, that flagellations
will sooner or later be the lot of those persons
who cause their uneasiness.
Being considered in a philosophical light,
this work will be useful to the present age, in
the same manner as we have said it would be
to posterity. The present generation, at least
in this island, will find in it proofs both of the
reality of the singular practices which once
prevailed in their own country, and are still in
full force in many others, and of the important
light in which they have been considered
by mankind. They will meet with accounts
of bishops, cardinals, popes, and princes,
who have warmly commended or blamed such
practices; and will not be displeased to be
moreover acquainted with the debates of the
learned on the same subject, and with the honest,
though opposite, endeavours, of a Cerebrosus
and a Damian, a Gretzer and a Gerson.
To the critical reader this book will likewise
be serviceable, by giving him an insight into
the manner of the debates and arguments, and
into the turn of the erudition, of foreign Catholick
divines, at the same time that the information
will be conveyed to him amidst
other objects that will perhaps better amuse
him: to secure this advantage, I have, as much
as I could, preserved the appearance of our
Author’s book, using, for that purpose, the
titles of several of his chapters; only taking
care to keep more to the subject than himself
had done.
To the same critical reader this performance
will also recommend itself, by the numerous
passages from certain books which it gives
him an opportunity to peruse. And the generality
of readers will not be displeased to
meet with a number of short specimens of the
style of several authors whose works they never
would have read, though they were once
conspicuous on the particular line which they
followed, and to be thus brought to some
slight acquaintance with St. Austin, St. Jerom,
and Tertullian, of whom they knew only the
names, and with St. Fulgentius, and Peter
Chrysologus, of whom they knew nothing
at all.
In fine, to these capital advantages, possessed
by this work, I have endeavoured to add
the important one of affording entertainment;
for, entertainment is a thing which is not by
any means to be despised in this world. In
order the better to attain this end, I have avoided
offending against decency or religion; I
had of myself too little inclination to be witty
at the expence of either, especially the latter,
to avail myself of the opportunities which
the subject naturally offered; and I should
think it a great praise of this book, if I were
hereafter informed, that the graver class of
readers have read with pleasure the less serious
part of it, and that the other class have gone
with pleasure likewise through that part which
is less calculated for amusement.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The title of the book is Historia Flagellantium,
de recto & perverso flagrorum usu apud Christianos,
12mo. Parisiis, apud J. Anisson, Typographiæ
Regiæ Præfectum, MDCC.
[2] Our author, who was rather singular in the
choice of his subjects, had written another treatise
De tactibus impudicis prohibendis, and another
on the dress of clergymen, wherein he attempted
to prove that they might as well wear it short
as long.
[3] The same manner of writing is also to be
met with in most of the treatises that were written
in England, France, and especially Germany, about
an hundred years ago, or more, when a mechanical
knowledge of Latin and Greek books, and
making compilations from them, was the kind of
learning in vogue.
Page. 351.
THE
HISTORY
OF THE
FLAGELLANTS.
CHAP. I.
The substance of the reasons given by the Abbé
Boileau, for writing his Book. He seems to
have been of opinion that voluntary flagellations
were no very antient practice.
I AM not, I confess, without fear that the
design I have formed of tracing the origin
of those Flagellations which have in process
of time been introduced among Christians,
will be looked upon as a rash undertaking,
and that I may be accused of having, in that
respect, fallen into the errors of the Protestants,
whether Lutherans, or Calvinists.
In fact, those two Sects, under pretence of
shewing their obedience to the commands of
God, who orders the Israelites not to make incisions
in their own flesh for the sake of the dead,
trample upon all laws concerning Penitence,
extinguish that kind of virtue which consists
in repressing the lustful appetites of the
flesh, and ridicule those mortifications and penances
to which Tertullian advises us to
submit.
Indeed, I am far from wishing to favour the
relaxed Doctrine of Heretics. That kind of
enthusiastic fury which the Calvinists manifestest,
in the last Century, against the laborious
exercises of the Monastic life, rather heightens,
in my opinion, the glory of the Catholic
Church. I think that the manner of the antient
Anchorites of Syria, of Thebaid, and of
Egypt, the purity of their virtue, and the
surprising penances to which they submitted,
deserve our utmost reverence, however impossible
it may be for us to imitate them.
I have no other object in view, on this
occasion, than to bring back those happy
times of the primitive Church, in which the
true Science of conquering lustful appetites
flourished among our holy Forefathers. All
I propose to myself, is, to render it manifest
to every candid Reader, that those methods
of doing Penance, which are in our days
called Disciplines[4], were unknown in the
happy periods of the primitive Church. By
Disciplines I mean here to speak of those voluntary
Flagellations which Penitents inflict
upon themselves with their own hands; lashing
their own backs, or posteriors, either with
scourges or whips, or willow and birch rods.
A practice this, which, we are not to doubt,
prevails much in the Societies of modern
Monks and Nuns, especially among those who,
under pretence of reformation, have abolished
their antient Rules, and substituted new Constitutions
in their stead.
But before I enter upon this subject, I must
inform the Reader of two facts, which it is
necessary he should know, at the same time
that they are undeniable, and confirmed by
every day’s practice. The first is, that Penitents,
as we have above-mentioned, both inflict
those Disciplines on themselves with their
own hands, and receive the same from other
persons, either with scourges, or rods, or
whip-cords. The second is, that those chastisements
are inflicted on them, either on the
bare back or shoulders, or on the posteriors:
the former method is usually called the upper,
and the latter, the lower discipline[5].
Now, that this latter kind of Discipline is
a contrivance of modern times, is what
I positively aver. It was unknown, as I shall demonstrate
to the Reader, among the first Christians;
and it is moreover repugnant both to
true Piety, and to Modesty, for several reasons
which I shall deduce hereafter. I propose,
besides, to shew that this practice is an
offspring of Idolatry and Superstition; that it
ought to be banished from among Christians
as an erroneous and dangerous exercise; and
that it has only been introduced into the Christian
Church by ignorant persons, under the
specious appearance of Piety and more perfect
Mortification.
Painters, it seems, have not a little helped
to establish and strengthen the practices we
mention, by their pictures, of which Pope
Gregory the Great says, in his Epistle to Serenus
Bishop of Marseilles, that they were
“the Libraries of ignorant Christians.” In
fact, we see they have never represented any
of the antient Anchorites, without leaving
some spare corner on their canvas, whereupon
to place either whips or rods; instruments of
which those holy Hermits had not probably
made the least use during their lives, and about
which they perhaps had never so much as entertained
a thought.
A number of able Writers in the last century
have, it must be confessed, also contributed
to bring into credit the practice we mention.
Considering voluntary flagellations in
the same light as they did all methods in general
of mortifying the flesh, they commended
them, and procured them to be admitted.
My design here is not by any means to question
the good intentions of so respectable persons,
who held the first rank among the Society
of the Fathers Jesuits, and were looked
upon, if I may so express myself, like so many
Heroes in the Republic of Letters: but
yet, on the other hand, I cannot be persuaded
that it is unlawful to animadvert upon the ignorance
and impudence of Painters, of which
Lucian says that they were “as licentious as
the Poets[6];” and to endeavour, if possible,
to obtain from the Prelates of the Church,
that, since pictures are the books of ignorant
Christians, no Fables and lies be represented
in them; and that such as contain notorious
falsehoods be banished from those Churches
and Chapels in which Jesus Christ, who was
truth itself, is daily adored. At least this will
be admitted, that truth has no need of the assistance
of falsehood to protect it: supported
by its own strength, it sets at defiance the attacks
of both Folly and Sophistry.
FOOTNOTES:
[4] The word Discipline originally signified in general,
the censures and corrections which persons
who were guilty of Sins, received from their Superiors;
and when Flagellation was to be part of
those corrections, it was expressly mentioned; and
they called such Discipline, as the Reader will see
in the Sequel of this Book, “the discipline of
the whip,” (disciplina flagelli). As Flagellation
grew afterwards to be the common method of
doing penance that prevailed among persons in religious
Orders, the bare word discipline became in
course of time the technical word to express that
kind of chastisement: thus, the Reader will find
hereafter an instance in which Flagellation, when
too long continued, is called “the madness of
too long discipline,” (longioris disciplinæ insania).
And at last, those kinds of whips made of knotted
and twisted cords, commonly used for the above
pious exercises, have also been called by the same
name; and the word discipline has become in
French, for instance, the appropriated word to
express the instrument of religious flagellation.
Thus, in Molière’s Play, called the Tartuffe, or
the Hypocrite, Tartuffe tells his Man, “Laurent,
lock up my hair-cloth, and discipline, and pray
that Heaven may always illuminate you.”
Laurent, serrez ma haire avec ma discipline,
Et priez que toujours le Ciel vous illumine.
Tart. A. III. Sc. 2.
[5]Sursùm & deorsùm disciplina.——All the Women
(as the Writer of this Commentary has been
told, when in Catholic Countries) who make self-flagellation
part of their religious exercises, whether
they live in or out of Convents, use the lower
discipline, as defined above: their pious and merciful
Confessors having suggested to them, that the
upper discipline may prove dangerous, and be the
cause of hurting their breasts, especially when they
mean to proceed in that holy exercise with unusual
fervour and severity. A few Orders of Friars,
among whom are the Capuchins, also use the lower
kind of discipline; but for what reason the Commentator
has not been as yet informed.
Perhaps it will be asked here, how Priests and
Confessors have been able to introduce the use of
such a painful practice as flagellation, among the
persons who choose to be directed by them in religious
matters, and how they can enforce obedience
to the prescriptions they give them in that respect.
But here it must be remembered, that Penance
has been made a Sacrament among Catholics,
and that Satisfaction, as may be seen in the
Books that treat of that subject, is an essential
part of it, and must always precede the Absolution
on the part of the Confessor. Now, as Confessors
have it in their power to refuse this Absolution,
so long as the Penances or Satisfactions of
any kind, which they have enjoyed to their Penitents,
have not been accomplished, this confers
on them a very great authority; and though, to a
number of those who apply to them, who care but
little for such Absolution, or in case of refusal are
ready to apply to other more easy Confessors, they
scarcely prescribe any other kind of Satisfaction
than saying a certain number of prayers, or such
like mortification; yet, to those persons who think
it a very serious affair when a Confessor in whom
they trust, continues to refuse them his absolution,
they may enjoin almost what kind of penance they
please. And indeed since Confessors have been
able to prevail upon Kings to leave their kingdoms
and engage in perilous wars and croisades to the
Holy Land, and to induce young and tender
Queens to perform on foot pilgrimages to very distant
places, it is not difficult to understand how
they have been able gradually to prevail upon numbers
of their Devotees of both Sexes, to follow
practices which they had been so foolish as to
adopt for themselves, and to practise, at their own
choice, either the lower, or the upper, discipline.
[6] Dial. Ὑπὲρ τῶν Εἰκόνων—Καὶ τοὶ παλαιὸς οὕτος ὁ λόγος,
ἀνευθύνους εἶναι Ποιητὰς καὶ Γραφέας. The Greek word
ἀνευθύνους, used here, literally signifies that Poets and
Painters are not obliged to give any account of
their actions. Horace has also expressed a thought
of the same kind with regard to them, in his Ars
Poetica, “Painters and Poets have always equally
enjoyed the power of daring every thing.”
Pictoribus atque Poëtis
Quidlibet audendi semper fuit æqua potestas.
A. P. v. 9, 10.
The complaints of our Author with respect to
the loose which Painters have been used to give to
their own fancy, when they have treated religious
subjects, are well grounded; and persons who
have travelled in Catholic Countries cannot but
have taken notice of the freedom that prevails in
their Church-pictures: hence a number of stories
are related among them of Nuns, or other Women,
who have fallen in love with naked figures
of Angels and Saints, and of Men who have been
led into extravagances by the passion they had conceived
for certain statues, or pictures. As to errors
concerning facts merely, and faults against
the Costume, which our Author seems more particularly
to allude to, in this Chapter, they are
certainly very frequent in the works of Painters:
even the first among them, such as Paul Veronese
and others, are reproached with capital
ones. On this occasion the Writer of this Commentary
thinks he may relate what he himself has
seen in a Country Church in Germany, in which
a Painter, who had intended to represent the Sacrifice
of Isaac, had so far availed himself of the
potestas quidlibet audendi, mentioned above, that
he had represented Abraham with a blunderbuss in
his hand, ready to shoot his son, and an Angel,
suddenly come down from Heaven, pouring water
on the pan.
CHAP. II.
No persons, under the antient Law, inflicted on
themselves, with their own hands, voluntary
flagellations, or received them from the hands
of other persons.
FLAGELLATION, there is no doubt, is
a method of coercive punishment very
antiently used among Men. We find it mentioned
in the Old Testament, in the fifth chapter
of Exodus: it is said in that chapter, that
the Ministers of Pharaoh, who required from
the Israelites a certain number of bricks every
day, having found them to have failed in supplying
the usual number, ordered them to be
flogged; and that the latter complained of this
harsh usage.
V. 14. “And the officers of the children
of Israel, which Pharaoh’s Task masters had
set over them, were beaten[7], and demanded,
Wherefore have you not fulfilled
your task in making brick, both yesterday
and to-day, as heretofore?”
15. “Then the Officers of the children of
Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying,
Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?”
16. “There is no straw given unto thy
servants, and they say to us, Make brick:
and behold we are beaten, but the fault is
in thine own people.”—Now, I think that
no commentary is necessary to prove that the
flagellations mentioned here were not in any
degree voluntary on the part of those who underwent
them.
We also find mention made in Leviticus of
the punishment of Flagellation: this is the
punishment awarded, in the nineteenth chapter,
against those who should be guilty of the
sin of Fornication. “And whosoever lieth
carnally with a woman that is a bond-maid,
betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed,
nor freedom given her, she shall
be scourged; they shall not be put to death,
because she was not free.”
The Hebrew words in the text, which are
commonly translated by these, shall be scourged,
are justly translated so, though in the version
of the LXX. they are only translated by
the words, shall be punished[8]; for the punishment
used on those occasions was inflicted, as
the learned Vatable observes, with thongs of
ox-leather, that is to say, with scourges. To
this I think it is needless to add, that the Israelites
did not voluntarily impose on themselves
the abovementioned scourgings, and that
they never were suffered by any of them but
much against their will.
In the xxvth chapter of Deuteronomy, the
number of lashes which Offenders of any kind
were to receive, was limited to forty. V. 2.
“And it shall be, if the wicked may be worthy
to be beaten, that the Judge shall cause
him to lie down, and to be beaten before
his face, according to a certain number.”
3. “Forty stripes he may give him, and
not exceed; but if he should exceed, and
beat him above these with many stripes,
then thy brother should seem vile unto
thee.”
Now, it is evident from the above passage,
that the Israelites were very far from approving
any cruel flagellations, like those which
Monks in our days inflict on themselves with
whip-cords filled with knots, or sometimes
armed with nails or needles; since they
were even forbidden to suffer their Brother to
be too cruelly lashed in their presence. Nor
was it the incisions made on the bodies of innocent
persons before the altar of Moloch, or
at the funerals of the dead, which God meant
here to prevent; He even prescribed tenderness
to the sufferings of a convicted offender,
though he deserved the stripes that were
inflicted on him. Therefore, if the law of
God forbad any cruel excess in the chastising
of persons who were guilty of crimes, much
more did it disapprove that Men should unmercifully
lash and flay themselves with rods
and whip-cords. Indeed, the modern practice
of lashing and whipping one’s self to the
effusion of blood, is by no means intitled to
our admiration. How could it be possible
that an unhappy Friar, who lives in certain
modern Monasteries, should not have his skin
torn from head to foot, since it is a constant
practice among them to discipline themselves
three or four times every week, during the
whole time that the Miserere, the De Profundis[9],
and the Salve Regina, are singing, with
a melodious, though slow, voice; and that
too so heavily, and in such earnest, that the rattling
of the blows resounds on all sides?
Several persons, however, still insist that
religious flagellations were in use among the
ancient Jews, and draw, it must be confessed,
strong arguments from the words of David,
in Psal. lxxiii. 14: “For all the day long have
I been plagued, and chastened every morning[10].”
But if we consider attentively
these expressions of the Prophet, we shall find
that they do not by any means signify that he
lashed himself with a scourge every day, and
all the day long. Those stripes of which he
speaks are to be understood only in a figurative
sense, and they only mean those misfortunes
and tribulations which are frequently the
lot of the righteous in this world: and indeed
we see that David exclaims elsewhere, ‘For I
am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually
before me.’
Besides, we are to observe that St. Austin,
a Writer of the highest authority, paraphrases
the above-mentioned passage of Ps. lxxiii. in
the following manner: “I am never free
from afflictions from God; I discharge my
duty, and yet I am beaten, &c.” Indeed
the above is only the rational meaning of the
passage in question; and we cannot with any
degree of probability infer from it (as certain
persons do) that the practice of scourging
one’s self voluntarily, and lashing one’s hide
with rods and whip-cords, was in use among
the ancient Hebrews, and that such a whimsical
notion ever entered their heads. It is true
that Philo the Jew, and Eusebius of Cæsarea,
relate, that the Esseans, or Therapeutæ
(whether they were a particular sect of the
Jews, or are to be ranked among the first
Christians, is not clear) were celebrated on
account of the macerations which they practised;
but then we are intirely ignorant of the
methods which they used in order to mortify
themselves, and we are no where told that
they employed for that purpose either disciplines
or whips.
Yet, this cannot be disallowed, that after the
two Rabbins, Mayr, and Asse the Son, had
compiled the Babylonian Talmud[11] that is to
say, about the 476th year from the birth of
our Lord, new practices began to prevail
among the Jews. Fascinated, I do not know
by what kind of superstition, they began to
use, contrary to their former customs, a sort
of voluntary discipline; though, we are to
observe, they never inflicted such discipline
on themselves with their own hands. We are
informed of the above fact, in the Treatise
intitled Malkos, in the 3d Chapter of which it
is said, that the Jews, after they had finished
their prayers and confessed their sins (which
were exercises they derived from their ancestors)
used to lash one another with scourges.
John Buxtorf the Father, a Protestant Author,
in his Book of the Judaic Synagogue,
printed at Basil in the year 1661, describes
the above practice of the Jews at some length,
and says, That there are constantly two Men
in every Jewish school, who withdraw from
the rest of the Company, and retire into a
particular place of the room where they are
met; that the one lays himself flat on the
ground with his head turned to the North, and
his feet to the South (or his head to the
South, and his feet to the North); and that
the other, who remains standing, gives him
thirty-nine blows upon his back with a strap,
or thong of ox-leather. In the meanwhile,
the Man who is lashed, recites three times over
the thirty-eighth verse of Psal. lxxviii. This
verse, in the Hebrew language, contains just
thirteen words; at every word the Patient recites,
he receives a lash from the other Man;
which, when he has recited the whole verse
three times over, makes up the prescribed
number of thirty-nine; and at every time he
says the last word, he strikes his own breast
with his fist[12]. This operation being concluded,
the Agent in his turn becomes the
Patient, and places himself in the same situation
as the other had done, who then uses him
in the same brotherly manner in which the
former had used him, and they thus mutually
chastise each other for their sins, and rub one
another, Buxtorf observes, like Asses.
Perhaps the Reader will be surprised that
the Rabbins have limited the number of the
stripes inflicted in the manner above-described,
to thirty-nine, since the Law of Moses had
extended their number to forty; but to this
the Rabbins answer, that it is owing to the
peculiar manner in which the punishment of
stripes was inflicted in antient times. The
ancient Jews, they say, used a scourge made
of three thongs; one of which was very long,
and went round the body of the person who
was scourged, and the two others were a good
deal shorter. Thirteen blows with this three-thonged
scourge were given to the Patient;
which, according to the Rabbins’ manner of
explaining the law, made thirty-nine stripes in
all: now, if one stroke more had been given
him, he would have received forty-two, which
would have been contrary to the law of Moses,
which says, “Forty stripes he may give him,
and not exceed[13].”
FOOTNOTES:
[7] The words of the Vulgate in this place, are,
flagellati sunt, which signify, were lashed with rods
or whips: and in v. 16, flagellis cædimur, which
has the same meaning.
[8] The Hebrew words in the text are: בקרת תהיה
the Greek words for these, in the LXX.
are, ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται αὐτοῖς.—As I do not understand
Hebrew, I shall not try to make any remark on
the above Hebrew words, but trust for that to the
sagaciousness of the reader; however, with respect
to the Greek words that follow them, I think I
should be greatly wanting in my duty to the Public,
in my capacity of Commentator, if I did not
communicate to them an observation with which
those words supply me, which is, that there is a
material error in the passage above recited, in our
common translation of the Bible; for the Reader
may see that the punishment of scourging, in case
of fornication, is confined, in that passage, to the
Woman solely; whereas the word αὐτοῖς, which
is a plural word, shews that both the Man and
Woman were to be punished alike; and instead of
she shall, as our Bible is worded in that passage, it
ought to be, they shall be scourged. This remark
on the above singular alteration of the true sense
of the Bible, to the prejudice of Women (supposing
it is not an error of the press) naturally
leads me to take notice here of the unjust disposition
of Men towards Women in general, in all
that relates to the mutual intercourse of the Sexes:
a disposition that has induced them in modern
times to impose humiliating penalties on such Women
as are guilty of sins which the Men themselves
commit with the utmost freedom, and thus
to establish a mortifying difference, in that respect,
between the two sexes, instead of that amiable
equality which obtained between them under the
Jewish law, according to which the Man and Woman
who had committed together the sin of Fornication,
were lashed with equal numbers of
stripes.
[9] The Miserere is the 51st Psalm; and the De
Profundis is the 130th, which is none of the
shortest.
The singing of the Miserere seems to be particularly
appropriated, among Catholics, to regulate
both the duration of religious flagellations, and
the time to which they are to be performed, as we
may conclude from the above passage of our Author;
and also from a passage of M. de Voltaire
in his Candide, in which he says, that, when Candide
was flagellated at Lisbon, by order of the Inquisition,
he was all the while entertained with a
Miserere en faux bourdon; which is a kind of Church
Music.
[10] The expressions of the Vulgate are, fui flagellatus,
I have been whipped. The Vulgate of the
Old Testament is a very ancient Latin version of
it from the Hebrew, corrected afterwards by St.
Jerom, which is followed in all Catholic Countries.
[11] The Talmud is the Tradition, or unwritten
law of the Jews, the Law of Moses being
their written Law. This Tradition has, in process
of time, been set down in writing; and two
different Collections have been made of it: the
one, in the Jerusalem School, about three hundred
years after Jesus Christ, which is called the Jerusalem
Talmud; the other, in the Babylonian School,
five hundred years after Jesus Christ, and is called,
the Babylon Talmud. The latter is that which is
usually read among the Jews; and when they simply
say, the Talmud, they mean the Babylon
Talmud.
[12] Buxtorf, the Author from whom the above
facts are drawn, is mentioned with great praise in
the Scaligerana, which is a Collection, or mixture,
of Notes, partly French, partly Latin, found
in the papers of J. Scaliger, and printed after his
death. Buxtorf is called, in one of these Notes,
the only Man learned in the Hebrew language;
and Scaliger adds, that it is surprising how the
Jews can love him, though he has handled them
so severely; which shews that he has been impartial
in his accounts. Mirum quomodo Buxtorsius à
Judæis ametur, in illâ tamen Synagogâ Judaicâ illos
valdè perstringit.
[13] It is to be supposed, that the Jew Priests had
been well freed for the above benign interpretations
they gave of the law of Moses.
CHAP. III.
Voluntary flagellations were unknown to the first
Christians. An explanation is given of the
passage of St. Paul: I chastise my body,
and keep it under subjection[14].
FLAGELLATIONS are mentioned so often
as eleven times by the Holy Writers
of the New Testament.
Of these, five relate to Jesus Christ. The
first is in the xxth chapter of the Gospel according
to St. Matthew, v. 19; and in the
xxvith of the same, v. 26. In the xvth chapter
of St. Mark’s Gospel, v. 33. In the
xviith chapter of the Gospel according to St.
Luke, v. 33; and in the xixth chapter of the
Gospel according to St. John, v. 1[15]. No
just conclusion, as the Reader may see, can
be drawn from the above-mentioned passages,
in support of voluntary flagellations, and of
those Disciplines which Monks now-a-days inflict
on themselves; since it is plain that our
Saviour did not whip himself with his own
hands: and we might as well say that we
ought to inflict death upon ourselves, and nail
ourselves to a cross, as that we ought to lacerate
our own flesh with scourges, because Jesus
Christ was exposed to that kind of punishment.
The other six passages of the New Testament
in which whipping is mentioned, are,
first, in St. John’s (c. ii. v. 15.) And when
He had made a scourge of small cords, he drove
them out of the Temple, and the sheep, and the
oxen; and poured out the changers of money, and
overthrew the tables. The second chapter is
in the fifth chapter of the Acts (v. 40.) And
when they had called the Apostles and beaten
them with scourges, they commanded that they
should not speak in the name of Jesus; and let
them go. The third place in which scourgings
are mentioned, is the sixth chapter of the second
Epistle to the Corinthians (v. 15.) St.
Paul in that Chapter places Stripes among the
different methods of persecution which were
used against the ministers of the Gospel, and
he moreover relates the sufferings to which he
himself had been exposed. Of the Jews five
times received I forty stripes save one: and in
the next verse he says, Thrice was I beaten
with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered
shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in
the deep. Fifthly, in his Epistle to the Hebrews
(xi. 36.) the same Apostle says, speaking
in general terms, And others had trials of
cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of
bonds and imprisonments. Now, from all these
passages no authority whatever can be derived
to justify the practice of voluntary flagellation.
All the persecuted persons above-mentioned
suffered those beatings with rods, and
those scourgings, much against their will.
The sixth and last passage in which whipping
is mentioned, in the New Testament, is
therefore the only one from which any specious
conclusion may be drawn in support of the
practice of voluntary flagellation: it is contained
in the first Epistle to the Corinthians
(ix. 22); St. Paul in it says, I chastise my body,
and keep it under subjection. Indeed this
passage is well worth examining attentively.
Several men of great authority have given it
as their opinion, that the Apostle expressly
meant to say, by the above words, that it was
his practice to lash himself, in order to overcome
his vicious inclinations. Among others,
James Gretzer, an able Theologian and one
of the Fathers Jesuits, vehemently asserts that
the Greek words in the text literally signify,
“I imprint on my own body the stripes or
marks of the whip, and render it livid by
dint of blows,” and the same Father supports
his assertion by the authority of Septalius
and Guastininius, two celebrated Interpreters
of Aristotle, who, in their Commentaries,
quote Gallienus as having used the
Greek word in question (ὑπωπιάζω) in the
same sense which he (Father Gretzer) attributes
to St. Paul. To these authorities Gretzer
moreover adds those of St. Irenæus, St.
Chrysostom, Paulinus, and Theophylactus,
who (he says) have all explained the above
passage in the same manner as himself does:
so that, if we were to credit all the comments
of Father Gretzer, there would, indeed, remain
little doubt but that St. Paul meant to
say, he fustigated himself with his own hands;
and that he was thereby left an example which
all faithful Christians ought in duty to imitate.
But yet, if, setting aside, for the present,
all authorities on this head, we begin with examining
attentively into the real meaning of
the Greek word which is the subject of the
present controversy, we shall see that it cannot
have that signification which Father Gretzer
pretends. In fact, let us examine if that
word occurs in any other place of the New
Testament, and in what sense it is employed.
We meet with it in the eighteenth Chapter of
St. Luke, wherein Jesus Christ says, in the
manner of a Parable, that a Widow used to
teaze a Judge with her frequent complaints,
who was thereby compelled at last to do her
justice; and he makes him speak in the following
words: “Because this Widow troubles
me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual
coming, she weary me (ὑπωπιάζη
μὲ.)” Now, who can imagine that this
Judge entertained any fear that the Woman
should flagellate him? Yet, we must think
so, if the Greek word used in the Text (which
is the very same as that employed by St. Paul,
and on which Father Gretzer builds his system)
should always signify, as that Father pretends,
to beat, or lash. If a literal explanation of
that word, therefore, is in many cases improper
and ridiculous, it follows that it is frequently
to be understood in a figurative sense,
and that it is then only employed to express
that kind of hard usage either of one’s self, or
of others, which is exercised without any mixture
of real violence, or bodily sufferings. To
this add, that St. Paul himself, when, on other
occasions he really means to speak of blows and
actual stripes, never once makes use of the word
in question.
Besides, if in order rightly to understand the
meaning of St. Paul, we consult the holy Fathers
and Interpreters (which certainly is a
very good method of investigating the truth),
we shall scarcely find one who thought that St.
Paul either beat or lashed himself, and in the
above passage meant to speak of any such thing
as voluntary Flagellation. St. Iræneus, Bishop
of Lyons, though he has translated the
words in question into these, “I chastise my
own body, and render it livid,” has made no
mention whatever of either scourges, whips, or
rods.—St. Chrysostom likewise supposes, that
the Apostle in the above passage, only spoke of
the pains and care he took, in order to preserve
his temperance, and conquer the passions of
the flesh; and that it was the same as if he had
said, “I submit to much labour, in order to
live according to the rules of Temperance.
I undergo every kind of hardship, rather
than suffer myself to be led astray.” It must
be confessed, however, that Benedictus Haeftenus,
in his Disquisitiones Monasticæ, quotes a
passage from the above Author’s 34th Homily,
by which he pretends to prove that self-flagellations
were in use in that Father’s time; but
the words which Haeftenus has quoted in Latin
are not to be found in the original Greek
of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, and are therefore
to be attributed to some modern Flogging-Master
(Μαστιγοφόρος) who has lent them to him,
by a kind of pious fraud. Other passages to
prove our assertion, might be quoted from the
words of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, of Oecumenius,
as well as several other Greek Fathers.
The Latin have also understood St. Paul’s
words in the same sense that the Greek Fathers
have done. Indeed I do not find one among
them but who thought that St. Paul did not
actually lash himself with his own hands. St.
Ambrosius, Bishop of Milan, expresses himself
on the subject in the following words. ‘He
who says (meaning St. Paul) I chastise my
body, and bring it into subjection, does not
so much grieve (contristatur) for his own
sins, which after all could not be so very numerous,
as for ours.’
St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, and an
illustrious Discipline of St. Augustin, on this
occasion treads in the footsteps of his excellent
Master, giving the same sense as him to
the words of St. Paul. The following is the
manner in which St. Fulgentius explains those
words, in his Epistle on Virginity, addressed to
Proba. “The spiritual Spouse of Virgins
does not seek in a Virgin a body practised
in carnal pleasures; but rather wishes she
should have chastised it by abstinence. This,
the Doctor of the Gentiles used to practice
on his own body. I chastise (says he) my
body, and keep it under subjection. And
again, in watchings often, in thirst and hunger,
in fastings often: let therefore the Virgin
of Christ forbear to seek after pleasures
which, she sees, are equally with-held from
the widow.”
To all the above proofs, I know it will be
objected that St. Petrus Chrysologus, archbishop
of Ravenna, is clearly of opinion that
St. Paul lashed himself with his own hands.
The following is the manner in which he expresses
himself on this head, at least if we are
to credit the account given of his words by
that great Patron of flagellations, Father
Gretzer, in his Book printed at Ingolstadt in
the year 1609. “This St. Paul used to do,
who wrote in the following words the title-deed
of his own Servitude, I render my body
livid, and bring it into subjection: like a
faithful Slave, himself supplied the rod,
(vindictam) and severely lashed his own
back, till it grew livid[16].” Now, who
would not from these words, thus standing
alone, as Father Gretzer recites them, conclude
that St. Paul really used to cover his back
with stripes? But, if we consult the original
itself, we shall see that St. Chrysologus meant
no more than to borrow a simile from the punishment
usually inflicted on Slaves; which
punishment he mentions in the beginning of
the very passage we discuss here, and of which
Father Gretzer has artfully quoted only the
conclusion. “After all (says Peter Chrysologus)
if the Servant does not awake early
the next day, and rise before his Master,
whether he be weary or not, he will be tied
up and lashed. If the Servant therefore
knows what he owes to another Man, the
Master is thence taught what himself owes
to the Lord of Lords, and is made sensible
that he also is subject to a Master.” ‘This
is what St. Paul practised, who wrote the
title-deeds of his own servitude, and exposed
himself to thirst, hunger, and nakedness.
Like a good slave, he himself supplied
the rod, and severely lashed himself.’
If we examine into the works of St. Hierom,
St. Austin, Pope Gregory the Great,
and other Latin Fathers, we shall find that
they also understood, that St. Paul had expressed
himself in a figurative manner. And
it is only by misquotations, or arts of the
like kind, that Father Gretzer, Cardinal Demian,
and others, have attempted to prove
that self-flagellations were in use so early as the
time of St. Paul among Christians.
FOOTNOTES:
[14] As the disputes concerning religious flagellations
have been carried on with great warmth on
both sides, the two parties have ransacked the
Scriptures for passages that might support their respective
opinions; and the supporters of flagellations
have been particularly happy in the discovery
of the passage of David, mentioned in the preceding
Chapter; and that of St. Paul which is recited
here. By the former passage, the supporters of
flagellations pretend to shew, that they were in
use so early as the time of David; and that the
Prophet underwent a flagellation every morning:
by the latter passage, they endeavour to prove that
self-scourgings were practised by St. Paul, and of
course by the first Christians. As the literal meaning
of the above two passages is wholly on the
side of the supporters of flagellations, this, as it
always happens in controversies of that kind, has
given them a great advantage over their opponents,
who have been reduced, either to plead that the
expressions urged against them were only to be understood
in a figurative sense, or to endeavour, by
altering the original passage, to substitute others
in their stead. The latter is the expedient on
which our Author has chiefly relied in this chapter,
and he strives to substitute another word, to
the word ὑπωπιάζω, used by St. Paul when he said,
he chastised his flesh; which is to be found in all
the common Editions of the Greek New Testament.
And indeed it must be confessed, that the
above word is of itself extremely favourable to the
promoters of self-flagellation; little less so than
the words of Asaph, fui flagellatus (I have been
whipped) mentioned in the foregoing Chapter; its
precise meaning being the same as I bruise or discolour
with blows: it comes from the word ὐπώπιον,
which signifies a livid mark left under the eye by a
blow: on which the Reader may observe (which,
no doubt, will be matter of agreeable surprise to
him) that what is called in plain English a black-eye,
was expressed in Greek by the word ὑπώπιον.
Besides trying to substitute another word to that
attributed to St. Paul in the common Greek Editions
of the New Testament, our Author produces
several passages from Greek and Latin Fathers,
to shew that they thought that St. Paul
meant no more than to speak of his great labours,
abstinence, continence, &c.
The principal end of this Chapter is, therefore,
to discuss the interesting question, whether St.
Paul used to flagellate himself: and I have preferred
to give the above compendious account of the
contest on the subject, rather than introduce the
long discussion of Greek words, and use the whole
string of passages from Greek and Latin Fathers,
contained in the Abbé Boileau’s Book. By that
means, the present Chapter has, for the sake of
the Reader, been shortened to ten pages, instead
of thirty, it must otherwise have contained.
[15] “And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to
mock, and to scourge and to crucify him.” St.
Matth. c. xx. v. 19.... “Then Pilate took
Jesus, and scourged him.” St. John, c. xix.
ver. 1.
[16]Hoc implebat Paulus, qui servitutis suæ titulos
sic scribebat. Lividum facio corpus meum, & servituti
subjicio. Præbebat vindictam bonus servus,
qui se usque ad livorem, sic agens, jugiter verberabat.
CHAP. IV.
The use of Flagellations was known among the
ancient Heathens. Several facts and observations
on that subject.
IT is not to be doubted, that flagellations had
been invented, and were become, in early
times, a common method of punishment in
the Pagan world. Even before the foundation
of Rome, we meet with instances which prove
that it was the usual punishment inflicted on
Slaves. Justin, in his Epitome of Trogus
Pompeius, relates that the Scythians more easily
overcame their rebellious Slaves with
scourges and whips, than with their swords.
‘The Scythians being returned (says Justin)
from their third expedition in Asia, after
having been absent eight years from their
Wives and Children, found they now had a
war to wage at home against their own
Slaves. For, their Wives, tired with such
long fruitless expectation of their Husbands,
and concluding that they were no longer detained
by war, but had been destroyed, married
the Slaves who had been left to take
care of the cattle; which latter attempted to
use their Masters, who returned victorious,
like Strangers, and hinder them, by force of
arms, from entering the Country. The war
having been supported, for a while, with
success pretty nearly equal on both sides, the
Scythians were advised to change their manner
of carrying it on, remembering that it
was not with enemies, but with their own
Slaves, that they had to fight; that they
were to conquer by dint, not of arms, but
of their right as Masters; that instead of
weapons, they ought to bring lashes into the
field, and, setting iron aside, to supply themselves
with rods, scourges, and such like instruments
of slavish fear. Having approved
this counsel, the Scythians armed themselves
as they were advised to do; and had no
sooner come up with their enemies, than
they exhibited on a sudden their new weapons,
and thereby struck such a terror into
their minds, that those who could not be
conquered by arms, were subdued by the
dread of the stripes, and betook themselves
to flight, not like a vanquished enemy, but
like fugitive slaves.’
Among the antient Persians, the punishment
of whipping was also in use: it was even
frequently inflicted on the Grandees of the
Kingdom by order of the King, as we find in
Stobæus, who moreover relates in his forty-second
Discourse, ‘That when one of them
had been flagellated by order of the King,
it was an established custom, that he should
give him thanks as for an excellent favour
he had received, and a token that the
King remembered him.’ This custom of
the Persians was however in subsequent times
altered: they began to set some more value
on the skin of Men; and we find in Plutarch’s
Apophthegms of Kings, ‘That Artaxerxes, son
of Xerxes, sirnamed the Longhanded, was
the first who ordered that the Grandees of
his kingdom should no longer be exposed to
the former method of punishment; but
that, when they should have been guilty of
some offence, instead of their backs, only their
clothes should be whipped, after they had
been stripped of them.’
We also find, that it was a custom in antient
times, for Generals and Conquerors, to
flog the Captives they had taken in war; and
that they moreover took delight in inflicting
that punishment with their own hands on the
most considerable of those Captives. We
meet, among others, with a very remarkable
proof of this practice, in the Tragedy of Sophocles,
called Ajax Scourgebearer (Μαστιγοφόρος):
in a Scene of this Tragedy Ajax is introduced
as having the following conversation
with Minerva.
Minerva.
‘What kind of severity do you prepare for
that miserable man?’
Ajax.
‘I propose to lash his back with a scourge
till he dies.’
Minerva.
‘Nay, do not whip the poor Wretch so
cruelly.’
Ajax.
‘Give me leave, Minerva, to gratify, on
this occasion, my own fancy; he shall have
it, I do assure you, and I prepare no other
punishment for him.’
The punishment of flagellation was also
much in vogue among the Romans; and it
was the common chastisement which Judges
inflicted upon Offenders, especially upon those
of a servile condition. Surrounded by an apparatus
of whips, scourges, and leather-straps,
they terrified Offenders, and brought them to
a sense of their duty.
Judges, among the Romans, as has been
just now mentioned, used a great variety of
instruments for inflicting the punishment of
whipping. Some consisted of a flat strap of
leather, and were called Ferulæ; and to be
lashed with these Ferulæ, was considered as the
mildest degree of punishment. Others were
made of a number of cords of twisted parchment,
and were called Scuticæ. These Scuticæ
were considered as being a degree higher in
point of severity than the ferulæ, but were
much inferior, in that respect, to that kind of
scourge which was called Flagellum, and sometimes
the terrible Flagellum, which was made
of thongs of ox-leather, the same as those
which Carmen used for their Horses. We
find in the third Satyr of the first Book of Horace,
a clear and pretty singular account of
the gradation in point of severity that obtained
between the above-mentioned instruments of
whipping. In this Satyr, Horace lays down
the rules which he thinks a Judge ought to
follow in the discharge of his office; and he
addressed himself, somewhat ironically, to certain
persons who, adopting the principles of
the Stoics, affected much severity in their opinions,
and pretended that all crimes whatever
being equal, ought to be punished in the same
manner. ‘Make such a rule of conduct to
yourself (says Horace) that you may always
proportion the chastisement you inflict to the
magnitude of the offence; and when the
Offender only deserves to be chastised with
the whip of twisted parchment, do not expose
him to the lash of the horrid leather
scourge; for, that you should only inflict
the punishment of the flat strap on him who
deserves a more severe lashing, is what I am
by no means afraid of[17].’
The choice between these different kinds of
instruments, was, as we may conclude from
the above passage, left to the Judge, who ordered
that to be used which he was pleased
to name; and the number of blows was
likewise left to his discretion; which sometimes
were as many as the Executioner could
give. ‘He (says Horace in one of his Odes)
who has been lashed by order
of the Triumvirs,
till the Executioner was spent[18].’
Besides this extensive power of whipping
exercised by Judges among the Romans, over
persons of a servile condition, over Aliens,
and those who were the subjects of the Republic,
Masters were possessed of an unbounded
one with regard to their Slaves, over whose
life and death they had moreover an absolute
power. Hence a great number of instruments
of flagellation, besides those above-mentioned,
were successively brought into use for punishing
Slaves. Among those were particular
kinds of cords manufactured in Spain, as we
learn from a passage in an Ode of Horace, the
same that has just been quoted, and was
addressed to one Menas, a freed-man, who
had found means to acquire a great fortune,
and was grown very insolent. ‘Thou (says
Horace) whose sides are still discoloured (or
burnt) with the stripes of the Spanish
cords[19].’
A number of other instances of this practice
of whipping Slaves, as well as other different
names of instruments used for that purpose,
may be found in the antient Latin Writers,
such as Plautus, Terence, Horace, Martial,
&c. So prevalent had the above practice
become, that Slaves were frequently denominated
from that particular kind of flagellation
which they were most commonly made
to undergo. Some were called Restiones, because
they were used to be lashed with cords;
others were called Bucædæ, because they were
usually lashed with thongs of ox-leather; and
it is in consequence of this custom, that a
Man is made to say in one of Plautus’s Plays,
‘They shall be Bucædæ (that is to say, scourged
with leather-thongs) whether they will or
no, before I consent to be Restio,’ or so
much as beaten with cords[20]. And Tertullian,
meaning in one of his Writings to express
Slaves in general, uses words which simply
signify ‘those who are used to be beaten,
or to be discoloured with blows[21].’
Nay, so generally were whipping and lashing
considered among the Romans, as being
the lot of Slaves, that a whip, or a scourge,
was become among them the emblem of their
condition. Of this we have an instance in the
singular custom mentioned by Camerarius,
which prevailed among them, of placing in
the triumphal car, behind the Triumpher, a
man with a whip in his hand; the meaning of
which was to shew, that it was no impossible
thing for a Man to fall from the highest pitch
of glory into the most abject condition, even
into that of a Slave.
Suetonius also relates a fact which affords
another remarkable instance of this notion of
the Romans, of looking upon a whip as a
characteristic mark of dominion on the one
hand, and of slavery on the other. ‘Cicero
(says Suetonius, in the life of Augustus)
having accompanied Cæsar to the Capitol,
related to a few friends whom he met there,
a dream which he had had the night before.
It seemed to him, he said, that a graceful
Boy came down from Heaven, suspended
by a golden chain; that he stopped before
the gate of the Capitol, and that Jupiter
gave him a whip (flagellum). Having afterwards
suddenly seen Augustus, whom (as
he was still personally unknown to several of
his near relations) Cæsar had sent for and
brought along with him to be present at the
ceremony, he assured his friends that he was
the very person whose figure he had seen
during his sleep.’ Juvenal likewise, in one
of his Satyrs, has spoken of Augustus conformably
to the above notion of the Romans.
‘The same (says he) who, after conquering
the Romans, has subjected them to his
whip[22].’
But, besides all those instruments of flagellation
used for punishing Slaves, which have
been mentioned above, and as if the terrible
flagellum had not been of itself sufficiently so,
new contrivances were used to make the latter
a still more cruel weapon; and the thongs
with which that kind of scourge was made,
were frequently armed with nails, or small
hard bones. They also would sometimes fasten
to those thongs small leaden weights:
hence scourges were sometimes called Astragala,
as Hesychius relates, from the name of
those kinds of weights which the Ancients used
to wear hanging about their shoes. Under
the tortures which those different instruments
inflicted, it was no wonder that Slaves should
die: indeed this was a frequent case; and the
cruelty, especially of Mistresses towards their
female Slaves, grew
at last to such a pitch,
that a provision was made in the Council of
Elvira to restrain it; and it was ordained, that
if any Mistress should cause her Slave to be
whipped with so much cruelty as that she
should die, the Mistress should be suspended
from Communion for a certain number of
years. The following are the terms of the
above Ordinance, in the fifth Canon. “If a
Mistress, in a fit of anger and madness, shall
lash her female Slave, or cause her to be lashed,
in
such a manner that she expires before
the third day, by reason of the torture she has
undergone; inasmuch as it is doubtful whether
it has designedly happened, or by chance;
if it has designedly happened, the Mistress
shall be excommunicated for seven years; if
by chance, she shall be excommunicated for
five years only; though, if she shall fall into
sickness, she may receive the Communion[23].”
[21]Verberones, Subverbustos.—The latter word
literally signifies, burnt with blows: a figurative
expression commonly used among the Romans,
when they spoke of flagellations: thus, the words
flagrum and flagellum, had been derived from the
word flagrare, which signifies to burn, and Horace,
in a passage that will be quoted in page 66, says,
to be burnt with rods (virgis uri) for, to be lashed.
This notion of the Romans, of looking upon
a scourge as a characteristic appendage of dominion,
was so general among them, as is observed
above, that they moreover supposed the gods
themselves to be supplied with whips; and even
Venus had also been thought to be furnished with
one. In consequence of this supposition, Horace,
who, as we may conclude from thence, had cause
to be dissatisfied with some trick his Mistress had
played him, or perhaps only with her impertinence
in general, desires Venus to chastise her with her
whip, “Do, Queen, (says he, addressing Venus)
do, for once, give arrogant Chloe a touch with
your sublime whip.”
Regina, sublimi flagello
Tange Chloën semel arrogantem.
Od. 26. Lib. III. ad Ven.
[23] The absolute dominion possessed by Masters
over the persons of their slaves, led them to use a
singular severity in the government of them. So
frequently were flagellations the lot of the latter,
that appellations and words of reproach drawn
from that kind of punishment, were, as hath been
above observed, commonly used to denominate
them; and expressions of this kind occur in the
politest writers: thus, we find in the Plays of Terence,
an Author particularly celebrated for his
politeness and strict observance of decorum, Slaves
frequently called by the words Verberones, Flagriones,
or others to the same effect.
As for Plautus, who had been the Servant of a
Baker, and who was much acquainted with every
thing that related to Slaves, and their flagellations
in particular, he has filled his scenes with nicknames
of Slaves, drawn from this latter circumstance;
and they are almost continually called in
his Plays, flagritribæ (a verbis, flagrum & terere)
plagipatidæ, ulmitribæ, &c. besides the appellations
of Bucædæ and Restiones, above-mentioned.
Sometimes the flagellations of Slaves, or the
fear they entertained of incurring them, served
Plautus as incidents for the conduct of his plots;
thus, in his Epidicus, a Slave who is the principal
character in the Play, concludes upon a certain
occasion, that his Master has discovered his whole
scheme, because he has spied him, in the morning,
purchasing a new scourge at the shop in
which they were sold. The same flagellations
in general, have moreover been an inexhaustible
fund of pleasantry for Plautus. In one place, for
instance, a Slave, intending to laugh at a fellow-slave,
asks him how much he thinks he weighs,
when he is suspended naked, by his hands, to the
beam, with an hundred weight (centupondium) tied
to his feet; which was a precaution taken, as
Commentators inform us, in order to prevent the
Slave who was flagellated from kicking the Man
(Virgator) whose office it was to perform the operation.
And in another place, Plautus, alluding
to the thongs of ox-leather with which whips were
commonly made, introduces a Slave engaged in
deep reflection on the surprizing circumstance of
“dead bullocks, that make incursions upon living
Men.”
Vivos homines mortui incursant boves!
But it was not always upon their Slaves only
that Masters, among the Romans, inflicted the
punishment of flagellation: they sometimes found
means to serve in the same manner the young Men
of free condition, who insinuated themselves into
their houses, with a design to court their Wives.
As the most favourable disguise on such occasions,
was to be dressed in Slaves clothes, because a Man
thus habited was enabled to get into the house,
and go up and down without being noticed, Rakes
engaged in amorous pursuits, usually chose to
make use of it; but, when the Husband either
happened to discover them, or had had previous
information of the appointment given by his faithful
Spouse, he feigned to mistake the Man for a
run-away Slave, or some strange Slave who had
got into his house to commit theft, and treated
him accordingly. Indeed the opportunity was a
most favourable one for revenge; and if to this
consideration we add that of the severe temper of
the Romans, and the jealous disposition that has
always prevailed in that country, we shall easily
conclude that such an opportunity, when obtained,
was seldom suffered to escape, and that many
a Roman Spark, caught in the above disguise, and
engaged in the laudable pursuit of seducing his
neighbour’s wife, has, with a centupondium to his
feet, been sadly rewarded for his ingenuity. A
misfortune of that kind actually befell Sallust
the Historian. He was caught in a familiar intercourse
with Faustina, wife to Milo, and daughter
of the Dictator Sylla. The husband caused him
to be soundly lashed (loris bene cæsum); nor did he
release him till he had made him pay a considerable
sum of money. The fact is related by Aulus
Gellius, who had extracted it from Varro. To
it was very probably owing the violent part which
Sallust afterwards took against Milo, while the
latter was under prosecution for slaying the Tribune
Clodius, and the tumult he raised on that occasion,
which prevented Cicero from delivering
the speech he had prepared.
An allusion is made to the above practices in
one of Horace’s Satyrs. He supposes in it, that
his Slave, availing himself of the opportunity of
the Saturnalia, to speak his mind freely to him,
gives him a lecture on the bad courses in which
he thinks him engaged, and uses, among others,
the following arguments.
‘When you have stripped off the marks of
your dignity, your equestrian ring, and your
whole Roman dress, and from a Man invested
with the office of Judge, shew yourself at once
under the appearance of the Slave Dama; disgraced
as you are, and hiding your perfumed
head under your cloak, you are not the Man
whom you feign to be: you are at least introduced
full of terror, and your whole frame
shakes through the struggles of two opposite passions.
In fact, what advantage is it to you,
whether you are cut to pieces with rods, or
slaughtered with iron weapons?’
Tu cum projectis insignibus, annulo Equestri
Romanoque habitu, prodis ex judice Dama,
Turpis, odoratum caput obscurante lacernâ
Non es quod simulas; metuens induceris, atque
Altercante libidinibus tremis ossa pavore.
Quid refert uri virgis, ferroque necari?
Lib. II. Sat. 7.
The above
uncontrouled power of inflicting
punishments on their Slaves, enjoyed by Masters
in Rome, was at last abused by them to the greatest
degree. The smallest faults committed in their
families by Slaves, such as breaking glasses, seasoning
dishes too much, or the like, exposed them
to grievous punishments; and it even was no unusual
thing for Masters (as we may judge from the
description of Trimalcion’s entertainment in the
Satire of Petronius) to order such of their Slaves
as had been guilty of faults of the above kind, to
be stripped, and whipped in the presence of their
guests, when they happened to entertain any at
their houses.
Women in particular seem to have abused this
power of flagellation in a strange manner; which
caused express provisions to be made, at different
times, in order to restrain them; of which the
Canon above-quoted is an instance. It was often
sufficient, to induce the Roman Ladies to cause
their Slaves to be whipped, that they were dissatisfied
with the present state of their own charms;
or, as Juvenal expresses it, that their nose displeased
them: and when they happened to fancy
themselves neglected by their husbands, then indeed
their Slaves fared badly. This latter observation
of Juvenal, Dryden, in his translation
of that Author’s Satires, has expressed by the following
lines:
‘For, if over night the husband has been slack, }
Or counterfeited sleep, or turn’d his back, }
Next day, be sure, the servants go to wrack.’ }
Here follows the literal translation of the
passage of Juvenal, in which he describes in a
very lively manner, the havock which an incensed
Woman usually made on the above occasion. “If
her husband has, the night before, turned his
back on her, woe to her waiting Woman;
the dressing Maids lay down their tunicks;
the errand Slave is charged with having returned
too late; the straps break on the back of
some; others redden under the lash of the leather
scourge, and others, of the twisted parchment.”
Si nocte maritus
Aversus jacuit, periit Libraria; ponunt
Cosmetæ tunicas; tardè venisse Liburnus
Dicitur; hic frangit ferulas; rubet ille flagellis,
Hic scuticâ.
Juv. Sat. VI.
The wantonness of power was carried still farther
by the Roman Ladies, if we may credit the
same Juvenal. It was a customary thing with several
among them, when they proposed to have
their hair dressed both with nicety and expedition,
to have the dressing Maid who was charged with
that care, stripped naked to the waist, ready for
flagellation, in case she became guilty of any fault
or mistake, in performing her task. The following
is the passage in Juvenal on that subject. “For,
if she has determined to be dressed more nicely
than usual, and is in haste, being expected in
the public gardens, the unfortunate Psechas
then dresses her head, with her own hair in the
utmost disorder, and her shoulders and breasts
bare. Why is that ringlet too high?—The
leather-thongs instantly punish the crime of a
hair, and an ill-shaped curl.”
Nam si constituit solitoque decentiùs optat
Ornari & properat, jamque expectatur in hortis,
Componit crinem, laceratis ipsa capillis,
Nuda humeros, Psechas infœlix, nudisque mamillis:
Altior hic quare cicinnus? taurea punit
Continuò flexi crimen, facinusque capilli.
These abuses which Masters, in Rome, made
of the power they possessed over their Slaves, were
at last carried by them to such a pitch, either by
making them wantonly suffer death, or torturing
them in numberless different ways, that, in the
beginning of the reign of the Emperors, it was
found necessary to restrain their licence.
Under the reign of Claudius (for it is not clear
whether any provision to that effect was made under
Augustus) it was ordained, that Masters who
forsook their Slaves when sick, should lose all right
over them, in case they recovered; and that those
who deliberately put them to death, should be banished
from Rome.
Under the Emperor Adrian, the cruelties exercised
by Umbricia, a Roman Lady, over her female
Slaves, caused new laws to be made on that
subject, as well as the former ones to be put in
force, and Umbricia was, by a rescript of the Emperor,
banished for five years. (l. 2. in fine, Dig.
L. I. t. 6.)
New laws to the same ends were likewise made
under the following Emperors, among which Civilians
make particular mention of a constitution of
Antonius Pius (Divus Pius); and in subsequent
times, the Church also employed its authority to
prevent the like excesses, as we may see from the
Canon above-recited (Si quæ domina, &c.) which
was framed in the Council held at Elvira, a small
Town in Spain, that has been since destroyed.
But the disorder was of such a nature as was not
to be cured so long as the custom itself of slavery
was allowed to subsist; and it has been remedied
at last, only by the thorough abolition of an usage
which was a continual insult on Humanity: an
advantage which (to be, once at least, very serious
in the course of this learned and useful Work) we
are indebted for, to the establishment of Christianity,
whatever other evils certain Writers may reproach
it with having occasioned.
CHAP. V.
The subject continued.
THE punishment of flagellation was
thought among the Antient Heathens,
as we have just seen, to possess great efficacy
to mend the morals of persons convicted of
offences, and insure the honesty and diligence
of Slaves. Nor were Schoolmasters behindhand
either with Judges or Masters, in regard
to whipping those persons who were subjected
to their authority.
Of this we have an undoubted proof in
one of the Epistles of Horace; and it moreover
appears that he had had, when at school,
the bad luck of being himself under the tuition
of one who had strong inclination to inflict
that kind of chastisement
[24]. ‘I remember
(says he) that the flogging Orbilius, who
when I was a boy, used to dictate to us the
verses of Livius Andronicus—.’
Quintilian has also mentioned this practice
of Schoolmasters of whipping their Disciples;
and the severity which they used, as well as
other considerations, induced him to disapprove
of it intirely. The following are his
expressions on that subject. ‘With respect to
whipping School-boys, though it be an established
practice, and Chrysippus is not averse
to it, yet I do not in any degree approve it.
First, it is a base and slavish treatment; and
certainly if it were not for the youth of those
who are made to suffer, it might be deemed
an injury that might call for redress.
Besides, if a Disciple is of such a mean
disposition that he is not mended by censures,
he will, like a bad Slave, grow equally
insensible to blows. Lastly, if Masters
acted as they ought, there would be no occasion
for chastisement; but the negligence
of Teachers is now so great, that, instead
of causing their Disciples to do what they
ought, they content themselves with punishing
them for not having done it. Besides,
though you may compel the obedience of a
Boy, by using the rod, what will you do with
a young Man, to whom motives of a quite
different nature must be proposed? Not to
add, that several dangerous accidents which
are not fit to be named, may be occasioned
either by the fear or the pain attending such
punishments. Indeed, if great care is not
taken in choosing Teachers of proper dispositions,
I am ashamed to say to what degree
they will sometimes abuse their power
of lashing: but I shall dwell no longer on
that subject, concerning which the Public
knows already too much[25].’
After these dismal accounts of Disciples
flogged by their Teachers, and of the cruel
severity used by the latter, the Reader will
not certainly be displeased to read instances of
Teachers who were flogged by their Disciples.
A very remarkable instance of this kind
occurs in the case of that Schoolmaster of the
Town of Falerii, who is mentioned in the
fifth Book of the Decad of Livy. The Town
of Falerii being besieged by the Romans, under
the command of the Dictator Camillus,
a Schoolmaster in that Town, thinking he
would be splendidly rewarded for his service,
one day led, by treachery, and under pretence
of making them take a short walk out of the
gates of the Town, the children of the most
considerable families, who had been entrusted
to his care, to the Roman camp, and delivered
them up to the Dictator. But the latter,
incensed at his perfidy, ordered him to be
stripped naked, with his hands tied behind
his back, and having supplied the children
with rods, gave the Schoolmaster up to them,
to drive him back in that condition to their
Town[26].
Another instance of the like kind is also to
be met with in more modern times. The
Tutor’s name was Sadragesillus, and his Disciple
was Dagobert, son of Clotaire, King of
France, who reigned about the year of Jesus
Christ, 526. The transaction is related in the
following manner by Robert Gaguin, in his
History of France. ‘Dagobert (says he)
having received from his Father a Tutor
who was to instruct him in the worldly sciences,
and whom the King had made Duke
of Aquitain, the young Man, who did not
want parts for one of his years, soon perceived
that Sadragesillus (such was the Pedagogue’s
name) was much elated with
pride on account of his newly-acquired dignity,
so that he began to fail in the respect
he owed to him, and grew remiss in the
discharge of his duty. The Prince having
once invited him to dine with him, and Sadragesillus
having not only placed himself
at table opposite the Prince, but also offered
to take the cup from him as if he had been
his companion, the Prince ordered him to
be soundly whipped with rods, and caused
his beard, which he wore very long, to be
cut off.’ The above fact is also related
by Tilly, Scrivener of the Parliament of Paris,
in his Chronicles of the Kings of France.
In fine, to the passages above produced
concerning the Flagellations of Children,
from which we find that very great men have
much differed in their opinions in regard to
them, we may add, that King Solomon, that
Oracle of Wisdom, has, without reserve, declared
in favour of that mode of correction.
‘He that spareth the rod, hateth his son;
but he that loves him, chastises him betimes.’
The Greek Philosopher Chrysippus
has afterwards manifested the same opinion.
And Petrarch, who may be called
here a modern Author, has also adopted the
opinion of King Solomon; and, notwithstanding
Quintilian’s arguments on the subject,
has sided with the antient Moralist and Sage:
“Correct your son (says Petrarch) in his
tender years, nor spare the rod: a branch,
when young, may easily be bent at your
pleasure[27].”
[25] ... “Jam si minor in diligendis custodum &
præceptorum moribus fuit cura, pudet dicere in qua
proba nefandi homines isto jure cædendi abutantur;
non morabor in parte hac, nimium est quod intelligitur.”—Institut.
Orat. Lib. I. Cap. 3.
[26] “Denudari deindè, Ludi-magistrum jussit, eumque
pueris tradidit reducendum Falerios, manibus post
tergum illigatis; virgas quoque eis dedit, quibus proditorem
agerent in urbem verberantes.”
The inhabitants of Falerii were so struck with
the just conduct of the Dictator (Livy adds) that
a total change of their dispositions towards the
Romans was the consequence; and the Senate
having been assembled thereupon by the Magistrates,
they came to the resolution of opening their
gates, and surrendering to the Romans; which
was soon after effected.
[27] From the above-mentioned passages of king
Solomon, Livy, and other antient authors, down
to Petrarch, we may safely conclude that the practice
of flagellating children has been followed in
the world during a number of successive centuries;
and we know from undoubted authorities, that
the same practice continues in our days to prevail,
especially among Schoolmasters. Nay more, very
respectable Writers inform us, that Schoolmasters
still possess the same strong inclination to exert
their authority that way, as they did in the times
of Horace and Quintilian.
Thus, Mr. Henry Fielding, a Writer who, better
than most others, knew the manners of Men,
in his History of a Foundling, represents Thwackum
the Schoolmaster, as having, upon every occasion,
recourse to his rod, and describes him to us as a
true successor of the plagosus Orbilius.
Mr. Gay, another writer, who, too, was deeply
versed in the knowledge of Mankind, expresses
himself with still more precision on that head, and
lays it down as an undoubted maxim, that the
delight of a Schoolmaster is to use his whip. The
opinion of that Author on the subject is contained
in a song written by him: this song was composed
in honour of Molly Mog, an Innkeeper’s daughter,
at Oakingham in Berkshire: the verses are
fifteen in all; and the name of Molly Mog is to be
found in each of them, with a rhyme to it.
The School-boy’s desire is a play-day,
The Schoolmaster’s joy is to flog,
The milk-maid’s delights are on May-day;
But mine are in sweet Molly Mog.
However, the researches of our Author on the
present deep subject, as well as mine in my humble
capacity of Commentator, can bear no comparison,
I think, in point of sagaciousness, with
the discovery made by Thomas Perez, the Uncle
of Diego, who relates his own history in the third
volume of the Adventures of Gil Blas, and who
takes that occasion to mention the great abilities
of his Uncle as an Antiquary. “If it had not
been for him (says he) we should still be ignorant
that children, in Athens, cried when their
Mothers whipped them.”
CHAP. VI.
Flagellations of a religious and voluntary kind
were practised among the ancient Heathens.
WE have hitherto only treated of involuntary
Flagellations, and such as
were in all cases inflicted by force on those
who suffered them. But besides Flagellations
of this kind, there were others of a voluntary
sort among the Heathens, to which those who
underwent them, freely and willingly submitted,
and which may indeed create our surprise
in a much greater degree than the former.
Thus, at Lacedæmon, there was a celebrated
Festival, which was kept annually, and
was named the Day of Flagellations, on account
of the ceremony that was performed in
it, of whipping before the altar of Diana a
number of Boys, who freely submitted to that
painful treatment; and this Festival has been
mentioned by a great number of Authors.
Plutarch, for instance, in his Book of the
Customs of the Lacedæmonians, relates, that
he had been an eye-witness of the celebration
of the solemnity we speak of. ‘Boys (says
he) are whipped for a whole day, often to
death, before the altar of Diana the Orthian;
and they suffer it with chearfulness,
and even joy: nay, they strive with each
other for victory; and he who bears up the
longest time, and has been able to endure
the greatest number of stripes, carries the
day. This solemnity is called The Contest
(or race) of Flagellations; and is celebrated
every year.’
Cicero, in his Tusculana, has also mentioned
this custom of the Lacedæmonians.
‘Boys (says he) at Sparta are lashed before
the Altar in so severe a manner, that the
blood issues from their body. While I was
there, I several times heard it said that Boys
had been whipped to death; none of whom
ever uttered the least complaint, or so much
as groaned.’ And in another place Cicero
likewise says, ‘Boys, at Sparta, utter no
complaint, though lacerated by repeated
lashes.’ Nay more; Mozonius, in Stobæus,
relates that the Spartan Boys were rather
pleased with these flagellating solemnities.
‘The sons of the Lacedæmonians make it
very evident (says Mozonius) that stripes do
not appear to them either shameful or hard
to be borne, since they allow themselves to
be whipped in public, and take a pride
in it.’
The Scholiast or Commentator of Thucydides
relates the same things of the Lacedæmonian
young men; and says that those among
them who could bear the greatest number of
lashes, acquired much glory by it. ‘And
indeed (says he) the Flagellations are performed
at particular times during a certain
number of days; and those who receive the
greatest number of stripes, are accounted
the most manly.’
The Parents of the young men who were
thus publickly whipped, were commonly present
during the performance of the ceremony;
and so far were they from discouraging their
Sons from going through it, that, as Lucian
relates, they deemed it a shameful piece of
cowardice in them, if they seemed to yield to
the violence of the lashes, and in consequence
of this notion they exhorted them to go stoutly
through the whole trial. ‘Indeed (continues
Lucian) a number of them frequently
died in the conflict, thinking it was unworthy
of them, so long as they continued to
live, to yield to blows and bodily pain, in
sight of their friends and relations.’ ‘And
to those who die upon those occasions, Statues,
as you will see, are erected at Sparta,
in the public places.’
Seneca, in his Treatise upon Providence,
has also mentioned those singular Flagellations
which took place at Lacedæmon, as well as
the conduct of the Lacedæmonian Fathers on
those occasions. ‘Do not you think (says
he) that the Lacedæmonians hate their children,
who try their tempers by having them
lashed publickly? Their very Fathers exhort
them firmly to bear the lashes of the
whips; and intreat them, when torn to
pieces and half dead, still to continue to offer
their wounds to other wounds.’
In fine, with so much solemnity were the
flagellating ceremonies and trials we mention
performed, that a Priestess, as Silenus of
Chios relates, constantly presided over them,
holding up a small statue of the Goddess in
her hand while the young Men were lashed;
and, to crown all, Priests were established to
inspect the stripes and marks of the blows,
and draw omens from them. ‘I am witness
(says Lucian) that there are Priests appointed
to inspect the lashes and stripes[28].’ To
this it maybe added, that these extraordinary
ceremonies of the Lacedæmonians, which are
here described, were preserved among them,
notwithstanding the numerous revolutions
which their Republic underwent, to very late
times; and Tertullian mentions them as continuing,
in his days, to be regularly celebrated
every year. ‘For (says that Author)
the Festival of The Flagellations is still in
these days looked upon as a very great solemnity
at Lacedæmon. Every body knows
in what Temple all the young Men of the
best families are lashed in the presence of
their Relations and friends, who exhort
them to bear to the last this cruel ceremony[29].’
Even Philosophers among the Greeks, I
mean particular sects of them, had adopted
the practice of voluntary Flagellation. Lucian
relates in one of his Dialogues, that there
were Philosophers in his time, ‘who trained
young Men to endure labour, pain, and
want; and who made the practice of virtue
consist in these austerities. A number of
them would bind themselves; others whipped
themselves; and those who were the
most tender, flead their outer skin with instruments
of iron made for that purpose.’
However, austerities of this kind were only
practised by particular Sects of Philosophers,
as hath been above observed; and the
generality of them were so far from adopting
such practices, that a great many ridiculed
them. Of this we have an instance in the
Book of the Life of Apollonius Tyanæus, written
by Philostrates. In this Book, Apollonius
is said to have spoken in the following manner
to Thespesion. ‘Flagellations are practised
before the altar of Diana Scythia, because
the Oracles have ordered it so; now, I think
that it would be folly to resist the will of the
Gods. If so (Thespesion answers) you
shew, O Apollonius, that the Gods of the
Greeks possess but little wisdom, since they
prescribe to Men who think they are free, to
lash themselves with whips.’
Nor was the practice of those Flagellations
to which the persons who underwent them
willingly submitted, confined to the Nations
of Greece; but the same had also been
adopted in other Countries. It obtained
among the Thracians, as we find in Artemidorus.
‘The young Men of noble families
among the Thracians (says that Author)
are on certain occasions cruelly lashed.’
Voluntary Flagellations were also in use
among the Egyptians. It even seems that this
practice took its origin among them; and
they used them as a method of atoning for
their sins, and appeasing the incensed Deity.
Herodotus has left us an account of the manner
in which they commonly performed their
flagellations, in the account he has given of
the Festival which they celebrated in honour
of the great Goddess. ‘After preparing
themselves by fasting (he says) they begin
to offer Sacrifices, and they mutually beat
each other during the time that the offerings
are burning on the Altar: this done, the
viands which remain after the sacrifice is
accomplished, are placed upon tables before
those who compose the Assembly.’
The same Herodotus says on another occasion,
‘I have already related in what manner
the Festival of Isis is celebrated in the city
of Busiris. While the Sacrifice is performing,
the whole Assembly, amounting to several
thousands of both Men and Women,
beat one another.’ To this Herodotus adds,
that ‘he is not allowed to mention the reason
why those beatings were performed[30].’
Among the Syrians, we likewise find that the
use of voluntary Flagellations had been adopted;
and their Priests practised them upon
themselves with astonishing severity. Apuleius,
in his Metamorphosis of the Golden
Ass, relates the manner in which these Priests
both made incisions in their own flesh, and
lashed themselves voluntarily.
‘In fine, they dissect their own arms with
two-edged knives, which they use constantly
to carry about them. In the mean while,
one of them begins to rave and sigh, and
seems to draw his breath from his very
bowels. He at last feigns to fall into a
kind of phrenetic fit, pretending that he is
replete with the spirit of the Goddess; as
if the presence of the Gods ought not to
make Men better, instead of rendering them
disordered and weak. But now, behold
what kind of favour the Divine Will is going
to bestow upon him. He begins to vociferate,
and, by purposely contrived lies,
to upbraid and accuse himself in the same
manner as if he had been guilty of having
entertained bad designs against the mysteries
of their holy Religion. He then proceeds
to award a sentence of punishment against
himself; and at the same time grasping his
scourge, an instrument which those Priests
constantly wear about them, and which is
made of twisted woollen cords armed with
small bones, he lashes himself with repeated
blows; all the while manifesting a wonderful,
though affected firmness, notwithstanding
the violence and number of the stripes.’
From all that is above related, it is pretty evident
that those Syrian Priests used (or seemed
to use) themselves, in this cruel manner, only
with a view to raise admiration in the minds of
weak and superstitious persons by this extraordinary
affectation of superior sanctity, and
thereby to cheat them out of their money.
At least this is the conjecture made by Philippus
Beroaldus, in his Commentaries on the
Metamorphosis of the Golden Ass, who says,
that those Priests were no better than Jugglers,
or rather Cheats, who only aimed at catching
the money of the Fools who gazed at them[31].
Nay, the opinion of the merit of voluntary
or religious Flagellations, was in antient times
grown so universal, that we find them to have
also been practised among the Romans, who
had adopted notions on that subject of the
same kind with those of the Syrians and the
Egyptians, and thought that the Gods were,
upon particular occasions, to be appeased by
using scourges and whips. An instance of
this notion or practice is to be met with in the
Satyricon of Petronius, in which Encolpus relates,
that, being upon the sea, the people of
the ship flagellated him, in order, as they
thought, to prevent a storm. ‘It was resolved
(he says) among the Mariners, to give
us each forty stripes, in order to appease the
tutelar Deity of the ship. No time accordingly
is lost; the furious Mariners set
upon us with cords in their hands, and endeavour
to appease the Deity by the effusion
of the meanest blood: as to me, I received
three lashes, which I endured with Spartan
magnanimity[32].’
But the most curious instance of religious
Flagellations, among the Romans, and indeed
among all other Nations, is that of the ceremony
which the Romans called Lupercalia; a
ceremony which was performed in honour
of the God Pan, and had been contrived in
Arcadia, where it was in use so early as the
times of King Evander, and whence it was
afterwards brought over to Italy. In this Festival,
a number of Men used to dance naked,
as Virgil informs us: ‘Here (says he) the
dancing Salii, and naked Luperci[33].’ And
Servius, in his Commentary upon this verse
of Virgil, explains to us who these Luperci
were. They were (he says) Men who, upon
particular solemnities, used to strip themselves
stark naked; in this situation they ran about
the streets, carrying straps of leather in their
hands, with which they struck the Women
they met in their way. Nor did those Women
run away from them; on the contrary,
they willingly presented the palms of their
hands to them, in order to receive their blows;
imagining, through a superstitious notion received
among the Romans, that these blows,
whether applied to their hands or to their belly,
had the power of rendering them fruitful,
or procuring them an easy delivery.
The same facts are also alluded to, by Juvenal,
who says in his second Satire, ‘Nor
is it of any service to her, to offer the palms
of her hands to a nimble Lupercus[34].’ And
the antient Scholiast on Juvenal observes on
this verse, that barren Women, in Rome,
used to throw themselves into the way of the
Luperci when become furious, and were beaten
by them with straps[35].
Other Authors, besides those above, have
mentioned this festival of the Lupercalia.
Among others, Festus, in his Book on the
Signification of words, informs us, that the
Luperci were also sometimes called Crepi, on
account of the kind of noise (crepitus) which
they made with their straps, when they struck
the Women with them: ‘For it is a custom
among the Romans (continues the same Author)
for Men to run about naked during
the festival of the Lupercalia, and to strike
all the Women they meet, with straps.’
Prudentius, I find, has also mentioned the
same festival in his Roman Martyr: ‘What is
the meaning (says he) of this shameful ceremony?
By thus running about the streets
under the shape of Luperci, you show that
you are persons of low condition. Would
you not deem a Man to be the meanest of
Slaves, who would run naked about the
public streets, and amuse himself with striking
the young Women[36]?’
All the Flagellations we have abovementioned
were performed in public Solemnities,
or with religious views of some kind or other;
but there were other instances of voluntary
fustigations (as we learn from the ancient
Authors) in which those who performed them
were actuated by no such laudable motives;
or at least, had no precise intention that has
been made known to us. Such were the Flagellations
mentioned by St. Jerom, in his Observations
on the Epitaph of the Widow Marcella.
In these Observations St. Jerom informs
us, that there were Men in Rome silly enough
to lay their posteriors bare in the public Markets,
or open Streets, and to suffer themselves
to be lashed by a pretended Conjuror. ‘It
is no wonder (says he) that a false Diviner
lashes the buttocks of those blockheads in
the middle of the Streets, and in the Market-place[37].’
And these Conjurors not only lashed the
persons who desired them to do so, but they,
at other times, would also lash themselves, as
we learn from Plautus, though an early Writer;
for those Flagellations we mention were,
it seems, an old practice among the vulgar
in Rome. ‘Pray, is it not (says an Actor in
one of this Author’s Plays) is it not the Conjuror
who lashes himself[38]?’
Another proof of the practice of those both
active and passive flagellations which prevailed
among the People in Rome, is also to be
drawn from the above-mentioned Book of
Festus, on the Signification of words. Festus,
explaining in that Book the signification of
the word Flagratores, says, that this word signified
‘those who allowed themselves to be
whipped for money.’ And M. Dacier, a
person of consummate learning in all that relates
to Antiquity, says, in his Notes on the
above Author, that the word Flagratores signified
likewise ‘those who whipped others:’
he adds, that this was the more common acceptation
of the word[39].
Besides the flagellations just mentioned, which
perhaps were also owing to some superstitious
notion or other in those persons who practised
them, we find, in antient Authors, instances
of lashings and whippings performed
in a way perfectly jocular, and as a kind of
innocent pastime. None is more remarkable
than that which is related by Lucian of the
Philosopher Peregrinus. This Peregrinus (Lucian
observes) was a Cynic Philosopher of a
very impudent disposition. He lived in the
time of the Emperor Trajan: after having
embraced the Christian Religion, he returned
to his former Sect: and then used frequently
to lash himself in public in rather an indecent
manner. ‘Surrounded by a croud of Spectators,
he handled his pudendum (αἰδοῖον)
which he exhibited as a thing, he said, of
no value. He afterwards both gave himself,
and received from the Bystanders, lashes upon
his posteriors, and performed a number
of other juvenile tricks equally surprizing
as these.’
We also find in Suetonius another instance
of sportive lashings or slappings among the
Ancients; and these, too, practiced upon no
less a person than a Roman Emperor. The
Emperor here alluded to, was the Emperor
Claudius. ‘When he happened (says Suetonius)
to fall asleep after his dinner, which
was a customary thing with him, they threw
stones of olives or of dates at him, in order
to awaken him; or sometimes the Court
Buffoons would rouse him, by striking him,
in a jocular way, with a strap or a scourge[40].’
In fine, I shall conclude this Chapter with
an instance of voluntary flagellation among the
Ancients, which was not only free either from
the superstition or wantonness above-mentioned,
but was moreover produced by rational,
and, we may say, laudable motives. The instance
I mean, is that of the flagellations
bestowed upon himself by a certain Philosopher,
mentioned by Suidas. The Philosopher’s
name was Superanus: he was a Disciple
of Lascaris; though past the age of thirty
years, he had taken a strong resolution of applying
himself to Science, and began at that
time to read the works of the most famous
Orators. So earnest was he in his design of
succeeding in those studies which he had undertaken,
that ‘he never grudged himself
either the rod or sharp lectures, in order to
learn all that Schoolmasters and Tutors
teach their Pupils. He even was more than
once seen, in the public Baths, to inflict upon
himself the severest corrections[41].’
[29] Pag. 158. Edit. Rig. Namque hodie apud
Lacedæmonas solemnitas maxima est διαμαστίγωσις, id
est, flagellatio. Non latet in quo Sacro ante aram nobiles
quique adolescentes flagellis afficiantur, adstantibus
parentibus atque propinquis, & uti perseverarint
adhortantibus.
[30] In Euterpe, Lib. II. Cap. 42. pag. 113.
Ἐφ’ ὅτω δὲ τύπτονται, οὐ μοι ὅσιόν ἐστι λέγειν.
[31] Whether those Priests whipped themselves in
earnest, or only made a feint so to do, as Beroaldus
suspects, is difficult to determine; but with
respect to the incisions which they pretended to
make in their own flesh, there is just ground to
think that they only imposed upon their spectators,
since a law was made by the Emperor Commodus,
which Dr. Middleton has quoted in his
Letter from Rome, by which it was ordered that
those Priests should be made really to suffer the
amputations which they pretended they made on
themselves. Bellonæ servientes brachia verè exsecare
præcepit. Lamprid. in Com.
[32] “Itaque ut Tutela navis expiaretur, placuit
quadragenas utrique plagas imponi. Nulla ergo fit
mora; aggrediuntur nos furentes nautæ cum funibus,
tentantque vilissimo sanguine Tutelam placare; & ego
quidem tres plagas Spartanâ nobilitate concoxi.”—Pet.
Arb. Sat. L. II.——The Story, as it is to be
found in Petronius, is this. Encolpus and Giton
had embarked, unawares, on the ship of one Lycas,
to whom Encolpus had formerly given offence;
and on board the same ship was also a Lady
named Tryphena, who owed a grudge to Giton,
by whom she thought she had on a former occasion
been slighted. Encolpus and Giton no sooner
discovered in whose ship they were, than they
were afraid of being ill-used, and attempted to disguise
themselves in the dress of Slaves, and for that
purpose cut off their hair; a thing which (though
they did not know it) was the worst of omens
during a voyage, as it never was done but in a
storm, in order to make offerings to the incensed
Deities of the sea. Somebody spied Encolpus
and Giton while they were performing the above
operation; the rumour of such a nefarious act, in
fair weather, soon spread about the ship, and
the crew thereupon used our two passengers in the
manner above related. Encolpus (as himself says)
bore the three first blows with great magnanimity;
but Giton, who was of a more tender frame,
screamed so loud at the first blow, that Tryphena
heard him, knew his voice, ran upon the deck, and
instead of being moved by the sight of his nakedness,
insisted upon the whole number of blows
being given him: other passengers then took the
part of the two culprits; which brought on a battle
between them and the crew: at last the affair
was compromised, and Encolpus and Giton were
released. As for the latter, a Maid slave found
means afterwards to fit him with a wig, and paste
false eyebrows to his forehead, which made him
appear as charming as ever, and Tryphena’s favour
was restored to him.
[33] “Hic exultantes Salios nudosque Lupercos.”
Æn. Lib. III.
[34] “Nec prodest agili palmas præbere Luperco.”
Juv. Sat. II.
[35] “Steriles mulieres februantibus Lupercis se offerebant,
& ferulâ verberabantur.”
[36] From the above sentiments delivered by Prudentius,
we might be induced to think that only
persons of low condition, in Rome, or even
Slaves alone, used to run, in the festival of the
Lupercalia; yet this does not seem to have been
the case, and the lines of Prudentius appear to
have contained more declamation than real truth.
The Luperci were in very early times formed
into two bands, which were called by the names
of the most distinguished families in Rome, Quintiliani
and Fabiani; and to these was afterwards
added a third band, called Juliani, from J. Cæsar’s
name. Marc Antony, as every one knows,
did not scruple to run as one of the Luperci, having
once harangued the people in that condition:
and if he was afterwards inveighed against, on that
account, by several persons, and among others by
Cicero, his personal enemy, it was owing to his
being Consul, when he thus ran among the Luperci:
a thing which, it was said, had never been
done by any Consul before him.
The festival in question (which may surprise
the Reader) continued to be celebrated so late as
the year 496, long after the establishment
of Christianity; and persons of noble families not only
continued to run among the Luperci, but a great
improvement was moreover made about those
times in the ceremony; the Ladies, no longer
contented with being slapt on the palms of their
hands, as formerly, began to strip themselves
naked, in order both to give a fuller scope to the
Lupercus to display the vigour and agility of his
arm, and enjoy, themselves, the entertainment of
a more compleat flagellation. The whole ceremony
being thus brought to that degree of perfection,
was so well relished by all parties, that it
continued to subsist (as has just now been observed)
long after the other ceremonies of Paganism
were abolished; and when Pope Gelasius at last
put an end to it, he met with a strong opposition
from all orders of Men, Senators as well as others.
The general discontent became even so great, that
the Pope, after he had carried his point, was obliged
to write his own Apology, which Baronius
has preserved: one of his arguments, among
others, was drawn from the above practice of the
Ladies, of stripping themselves naked in public
in order to be lashed.—Apud illos, nobiles ipsi currebant,
& matronæ nudato corpore vapulabant.
[37] “Nec mirum si, in plateis & foro rerum venalium,
fictus Ariolus stultorum verberet nates.” Lib.
II. adv. Juv. Cap. XIX. & Lib. I. Apolog. adv.
Austin. Cap. IV.—Reverà, non nates, sed nares
(subjungit Author noster) legendum estimaverunt
Erasmus & M. V. Reatinus; sed ex Codicibus Manuscriptis,
nares in nates, denuò emendaverunt Grævius,
& doctissimus Jesuita H. Rosveidus.
[38]Nùm obsecro, num Ariolus qui ipsus se verberat?
[39]Immò potius ii videntur fuisse qui flagris cædebant.
[40] “Quoties post cibum obdormisceret, quod ei ferè
quotidiè accidebat, olearum & palmularum ossibus incessebatur:
interdùm ferulâ flagrove velut per ludum
excitabatur à Copreis.”
[41] This Superanus, who considered whipping as
a necessary circumstance to make a complete education,
has been followed in that opinion by no
less a man than the celebrated Loyola, the Founder
of the Order of the Jesuits. Ignatius of
Loyola, after having led a military life, took it
into his head, though past thirty years of age, to
begin his studies; and in order to render his course
of learning as complete as possible, he insisted, on a
certain occasion, on the Master inflicting the correction
of the School upon him, in the presence of
all the Boys. Some Writers have advanced,
that Loyola was thirty-three years old, when he
underwent the above flagellation; while others
say, he was thirty-seven. On the other hand,
certain Protestant Authors, in order to rob
the Saint of the praise of humility he acquired
on that occasion, pretend, that when he desired
to undergo the above correction, he knew that the
Professor had, of himself, resolved to inflict it
upon him. The question is also examined in
Bayle’s Dictionary, whether Ignatius of Loyola
was served in the manner above-recited, at Bayonne,
or in the Montaigu School, at Paris.
Molière, in his Bourgeois Gentilhomme, introduces
just such another character as Superanus and
Loyola. M. Jourdain, though a Man of a middle
age, and without education, takes it into his
head to be on a sudden a learned Man and a fine
Gentleman: and in consequence of this fancy,
fills his house with Fencing Masters, Dancing
Masters, Masters of Music, Masters of Philosophy,
and Masters of every kind. His Wife and
Maid Servant, being very angry to
see their apartments full of dust, and their floors covered
with dirt, take him to task on that account, and
the Wife, who is a sort of blunt, vulgar Woman,
among other peevish expressions of her displeasure,
asks him, “Do you mean, at your age, to
get yourself whipped, one of these days?”—To
which Mr. Jourdain, like a true Superanus, answers,
“Why not? Would to God I were whipped
this very instant before all the world, and
knew what is to be learnt at School.”
MadameJourdain.
N’irez vous point un de ces jours vous faire donner
le fouët, à votre âge?
M.Jourdain.
Pourquoi non? Plût à Dieu d’avoir tout à l’heure
le fouët, devant tout le monde, & savoir ce qu’on apprend
au Collège.
From the extensive use of flagellations that took
place among the antient Heathens, the Abbé Boileau
ten or twelve times draws the conclusion in
different parts of his Book, that the first Christians
held that mode of punishment in detestation, and
never adopted it for themselves. However, the
other Catholic Divines are very far from admitting
this conclusion, nor by any means grant that,
because certain practices were adopted by the antient
Heathens, it follows that the first Christians
abstained from them. They, on the contrary,
say that the Abbé himself ought to know, that
Christians have imitated several ceremonies of the
Pagans, which they have sanctified by the intentions
with which they perform them; and on
this subject they quote Polydore Vergil, who remarks,
that the custom adopted by Prelates, of
giving the outside of their hand to be kissed, when
they officiate in their Pontifical dresses, the custom
of making prayers for the dead on the seventh
day after their burial, the offering of pictures
to those Saints by whose assistance dangers
have been escaped, &c. &c. are practices derived
from the Heathens.
They moreover add, that even the Temples
of the Pagans have been converted by Christians,
to their own use; and on this occasion they alledge,
among other instances, that of Pope Gregory
the Great, who wrote to St. Augustin, Apostle
of England (or rather to Melitus, with an
injunction to inform the Apostle) that he must
not demolish the temples of the idols in the above
kingdom, but that he ought to preserve those
which are well built (benè constructa), and after purifying
them with holy water, and by placing relicks,
appropriate them to the use of the Church.
CHAP. VII.
Containing the most ingenious arguments of the
Abbé Boileau. The practice of scourging one’s-self
was unknown to the first Fathers of the
Church; and also to the first Anchorites, or
Hermits.
FLAGELLATIONS of different kinds
being universally practised among the Heathens,
this circumstance must needs have given
but little encouragement to the first Christians,
to imitate such mode of correction; and we
may take it for granted that they had not
adopted it. Indeed, we find that no mention
is made of it in the writings of the first, either
Greek or Latin Fathers; for instance, in
the Epistles of St. Ignatius, the Apologies of
Justinius, the Apostolic Canons, the Constitutions
attributed to Clement the Roman, the
works of Origen, the Stromats of Clement
of Alexandria, and all the works in general
of Eusebius of Cæsarea, of St. Chrysostom,
of St. Basil, and of St. Basil of Seleucia. In
all the above Authors, no mention, I say,
is made of flagellations; at least, of those of
a voluntary kind; unless we are absolutely to
explain in a literal manner passages in which
they manifestly spoke in a figurative sense:
we may therefore safely conclude, that the
first Christians had no notion of those cruel
exercises which prevail in our days, and that
to flay one’s hide with scourges or rods, as is
in these times the practice of numberless Devotees,
in or out of religious Orders, were
practices unknown among them.
So far, indeed, were the first Christians from
approving the practice of self-flagellations,
that they seem on the contrary to have entertained
a notion, that their very quality of
Christians freed them from any kind of flagellation
whatever, as we may learn from the
inscription in Latin verses that had been placed
by them upon the column to which Jesus
Christ was fastened when he was whipped:
the following is the translation of that inscription:
‘In this House our Lord stood bound;
and, being fastened to this column, like a
slave, offered his back to the whip. This
venerable column is still standing, continuing
to support the fabric of the Temple, and
teaches us to live exempt from every kind
of flagellation.’
“Vinctus in his Dominus stetit ædibus, atque Columnæ
Now, if the first Christians had been used
to inflict daily discipline upon themselves, or
to receive it from other persons, it is altogether
improbable that they would have said
that they were exempt from every kind of flagellation.
The above lines, it may not be
amiss to observe, were thought to have been
written by Prudentius, who lived about the
latter end of the fourth century. Fabricius,
in his Edition of the Christian Poets,
ascribes the same lines to one Amœnus, who
lived in the eighth Century; and, on the
other hand, Johannes Siccardus says, that Sedulius,
who lived under the reign of Theodosius
junior, is the Author of them. Be it as
it may, it does not much matter on this occasion
to know who has written them; it is sufficient
to observe that they are very useful to
confirm the assertion, as to the novelty of voluntary
flagellations[42].
Arguments have also been derived by the
promoters of flagellations, from those which
Jesus Christ was made to suffer, in order to
prove that they were practised upon themselves
by the first Christians. But though it
may be a meritorious action to endure whipping
with as much patience as Jesus Christ,
and for causes of the same kind as he did,
yet it is no proof that the first Christians had
any thought of exposing themselves voluntarily
to a punishment which had been imposed
upon him by force. Besides, the first Christians
could not possibly be induced by their desire
of imitating Jesus Christ’s whipping (supposing
they really had such desire) to flagellate
themselves in the cruel manner that has since
prevailed; for they did not think that the flagellation
undergone by our Lord was in a
very high degree painful, and they looked
upon it as having been but an inconsiderable
part of the punishment he was made to suffer.
In fact, St. Chrysostom and St. Austin, as the
Reader may see in their works, relate that Pilate
ordered Jesus Christ to be scourged after
the manner, not of the Romans, among whom
the punishment of whipping was inflicted
with great severity, but of the Jews, who never
suffered the number of forty stripes to be
exceeded. And though the truth in that respect,
has afterwards been better known, yet,
it was only in latter times that the discovery
was made, and that St. Bridget, a holy Nun,
by means of a revelation she had on that subject,
was informed, and thereby enabled to
inform the world, that the two holy Fathers
were wrong in their opinions, and that Jesus
Christ had really been flagellated with great
cruelty[43].
Besides those Fathers who have been quoted
above, as having made no mention of flagellations
in their writings, except in a figurative
manner, there are others no less commendable
for their learning, who have been equally silent
on that subject. St. Jerom, among
others, deserves to have particular notice
taken of him; and he once had, we are to observe,
a very natural opportunity of mentioning
voluntary flagellations, if he had had any
notion of such a practice. I mean here to
speak of the letter he wrote to Deacon Sabinus,
in order to admonish him of his sins, and
exhort him to repent of them. This Sabinus
was a most profligate man, who was publicly
known to have been guilty of the crime of
adultery, and who had, in one instance, carried
his wickedness so far as to attempt to ravish
a girl in the very manger in which Jesus Christ
had received the adoration of the three Eastern
Kings. St. Jerom exerts the utmost
powers of his eloquence in order to bring that
man to a sense of his crimes, and engage him
to do a suitable penance for them, and yet he
makes no mention whatever about whipping
or discipline. Now, is it in any degree credible
that he would, on such an occasion, have
been silent as to the use of whips, leather-thongs,
or scourges, if they had been commonly
in use, and avowed by the Church?
The supporters of flagellations, however,
urge that the same St. Jerom, in his Epistle to
Eustachius, says, speaking of himself, ‘I remember
to have many a time spent the
whole day in loud lamentations, and to have
only ceased to beat my breast when the admonitions
of our Lord restored tranquillity
to me.’ But this very passage, which is
made use of to prove that voluntary flagellations
were in use during the times of the primitive
Church, manifestly proves the contrary,
and that St. Jerom was an utter stranger to
the use either of scourges or rods. It is true,
he lamented, as he says, for his sins, and beat
his breast, in order to expel by this natural
method of venting his grief, the wicked
thoughts with which he felt himself agitated;
but in doing this, he employed, and could
employ, only his fists: the short distance between
his arms and his breast
made it altogether
impracticable for him to use rods, thongs,
straps, sticks, scourges, besoms, or whips.
Nor is any argument to be drawn from what
is related of the same St. Jerom, that the
Angels once fustigated him in the presence of
God, and covered him with stripes, because he
was fired with an ardent desire of acquiring
the style and eloquence of Cicero: for it is
evident, that this flagellation was imposed upon
him by force, and as an involuntary chastisement.
Besides (which would make it completely
unjust to draw any inference from this
fact) St. Jerom only suffered the flagellation
in question in a dream, as himself with great
wisdom observes, in his Apology against Ruffinus:
‘I was asleep (says he) when I promised
before the tribunal of God never to
engage in the study of worldly letters; so
that the sacrilege and perjury he charges me
with, amount to no more than the violation
of a dream.’
If we peruse the History of the Lives of
the ancient Anchorites of the East, we shall
find great reason to think that they likewise
were strangers to the practice of self-flagellation.
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who distinguished
himself so honourably in the fifth
Council of Chalcedon, has, for instance, written
the lives of thirty of these Solitaries, who
were particularly celebrated on account of the
great austerities and mortifications which they
practised, and who were afterwards on that
account raised to the dignities of Priests or of
Bishops; and yet, he has made no mention of
their using either rods or whips, in the numerous
and different penances which they performed.
Thus, we are informed in the Book of Theodoret,
that St. James of Nisibe (who was afterwards
made a Bishop) had voluntarily deprived
himself, during his whole life-time, of
the use of fire. He lay upon the ground;
he never wore any woollen clothes, but only
used goat-skins to hide his nakedness.
It is related in the same book, that St. Julian
only ate bread made of millet, and that
he abstained from the use of almost every kind
of drink. St. Martianus never ate but once
in a day, and that very sparingly too; so that
he continually endured the tortures of hunger
and thirst: this holy Man had, besides, a
Disciple who never touched either bread or
meat.
St. Eusebius used to wear an iron chain
round his body; his continual fastings and
other kinds of macerations rendered him so
lean and emaciated, that his girdle would
continually slide down upon his heels; and
Publius the elder, voluntarily submitted to
mortifications of the same kind.
Simeon only fed upon herbs and roots. St.
Theodosius the Bishop used to wear a hair-cloth
around his body, and iron chains at his
hands and feet. St. Zeno never rested upon a
bed, nor looked into a Book. Macedonius,
during forty years, never used any other food
than barley, and was not afterwards raised to
the dignity of Priest, but against his own consent.
Bishop Abrahames never tasted bread
during the whole time of his being a Bishop,
and carried his mortifications so far, as to forbear
the use of clear water.
The same Theodoret, continuing to relate
the life of the holy Hermits, says, that some
of them used to wear iron shoes, and others
were constantly burdened with cuirasses inwardly
armed with points. Some would willingly
expose themselves to the scorching heat
of the sun in summer days, and to the nipping
cold of winter evenings: and others
(continues Theodoret) as it were buried themselves
alive in caverns, or in the bottom of
wells; while others made their habitations,
and in a manner roosted, upon the very tops
of columns.
Now, among all those numerous and singular
methods of self-mortification which Theodoret
describes as having been constantly practised
by the above-named holy Hermits, we
do not find, as hath been above observed, any
mention made of flagellations: methods of
doing penance, these, which it is hardly credible,
Theodoret would have neglected to mention,
if those holy Men had employed them[44].
FOOTNOTES:
[42] Our Doctor of the Sorbonne and Abbé
Boileau (whose meaning is here faithfully laid
before the reader) speaks with much confidence
of the proofs he derives in support of his opinion,
from the above Latin lines, which he adds he
thinks he has done well and wisely to produce;
and I have postponed to the end of his argument,
to make any remark upon the subject, in order to
let him enjoy his triumph a little longer. However,
his whole reasoning is no more than a quibble
on the sense of the word flagrum; which, indeed
signifies a whip, but also signifies a lustful passion:
both come from the verb flagrare, to burn;
and flagrare amore, to burn with love: hence
the word flagrans delictum, which is said of a Man
who is caught in the act of debauching another
Man’s wife, or as some Civilians express it, alienam
Uxorem subagitans: from the above expression
the French have made the words flagrant délit,
which have the same meaning; and they say of a
Man under the above circumstances, that he is
caught en flagrant délit. The real meaning of the
Latin lines above-quoted, is, therefore, that Christians
ought to be free, not from every kind of flagellation,
but from lustful passions. Those lines,
it may be observed, together with the quibble
contained in them, of which our Author has
availed himself to support his private opinion, are
in the same taste with the other productions of
Monks, during the times of the middle age, and
of the general decay of literature, when finding
out quibbles and puns, and succeeding in composing
acrostics, anagrams, and other difficiles nugæ,
engrossed the whole ambition of Versificators:
though, to say the truth, worse lines than the
above have been written in that kind of style.
[43] Instances of revelations, like those of St.
Bridget, concerning the person of Jesus Christ
and his sufferings, are very frequent among Nuns;
and, to say the truth, it is nowise surprising that
they should, at times, have visions of this kind.
As those Women who are destined to live in the
condition of Nuns, are commonly, not to say always,
made to take their vows at an early age,
that is, at a time when their passions are most disposed
to be inflamed, and when an object of love
may be looked upon as one of the necessaries of
life, this, together with the circumstance of their
close confinement, induces a number of them to
contract a real and ardent love for the person of
Jesus Christ, whose pictures they see placed almost
in every corner, who is, besides, expressly
called their Husband, whose Spouses they are
said to be, and to whom, at the final and solemn
closing of their vows, they have been actually
betrothed, by having a ring put on their finger.
To the mind of such of those unfortunate
young Women as have once begun to indulge
fancies of this kind, the image of their beloved
Spouse is continually present, under some one of
the figures by which he is represented in the above-mentioned
pictures; and his flagellations, and
other hardships he was made to undergo, are,
among other things, the objects of their tenderest
concern: hence the numberless visions and revelations
which Nuns, like St. Bridget, have at all
times had upon those subjects: and several among
them, whose love was more fervent, or who
thought themselves intitled to some particular distinction
from their Spouse, have even fancied,
on certain occasions, that they had been favoured
with a visible impression of his sacred Stigmats,
that is, of the marks of the five main wounds
which he received when he was put to death. The
idea of those visible marks or Stigmats of Jesus
Christ’s wounds, we may observe, was, in the first
instance, a contrivance of St. Francis, who pretended
that they had been impressed on his body
during a vision he had in a remote place; and he
prevailed upon his Monks, and other adherents,
to consider them as emblems of a close affinity between
him and our Lord, and as a kind of order
of knighthood that had been conferred on him.
[44] Among those Solitaries who, as is above-mentioned,
fixed their habitations upon the tops
of columns, particular mention is made of one
who was afterwards, on that account, denominated
St. Simeon Stylites, from the Greek word
Στύλος, a column. This St. Simeon Stylites was a
native of Syria; and the column upon which he
had chosen to fix his habitation, was sixty cubits
high. Numbers of people resorted to it from all
parts, in order to consult him upon different subjects,
and he delivered his oracles to them from
his exalted mansion. One of his methods of
mortifying himself was, to make frequent genuflexions;
and he made them so quickly, it is said,
and in such numbers, that a person, who one day
spied him from some distance, and attempted to
count them, grew tired, and left off when he had
told two thousand.
The existence of the above Hermit, as well as
of those mentioned by our Author, together with
the hard penances to which they submitted, seem
in general to be facts pretty well ascertained; and
the amazing hardships which the Fakirs in the
East Indies, still continue in these days to impose
upon themselves, make the above accounts
appear the less incredible. However, they have
been since wonderfully magnified in the Compilations
of Lives of Saints, and Histories of miracles;
especially in that called the Golden Legend,
which is the most remarkable of all, and was
compiled a few Centuries ago by one Jacobus de
Voragine, and has been since translated into several
languages: it is a thick folio book, bound in
parchment, which is found at all the Inns in Catholic
Countries.
The life of a Hermit still continues to be followed
by several persons. Those who make profession
of it, are Men who, like the first Anchorites
of the East, choose to live by themselves, in
places more or less remote from Towns, without
being tied by any vows; they only wear a particular
kind of habit, and perform certain religious
duties.
Whatever may be the real or affected sanctity
of a few of them, the whole tribe of Hermits,
however, have not escaped the common misfortune
of Friars and Nuns, who have numbers of
amorous stories circulated on their account; often
for no other reason, we are charitably to suppose,
than the additional degree of relish which they
derive from the contrast between the facts they
contain, and the outward life and professions of
those of whom they are related. Thus, the celebrated
La Fontaine has made the contrivance of a
certain Hermit, for obtaining possession of a young
Woman who lived in a neighbouring cottage, the
subject of one of his Tales. And Poggio has related
another story of an Hermit, which I think worthy
of a place here, since this book is designed no
less for the entertainment than the information of
the Reader.
The Hermit in question lived in the neighbourhood
of Florence. He was a great favourite
with the Ladies; and the most distinguished at
Court flocked daily to the place of his retreat.
The report of the licentious life he led, reached
the ears of the Grand Duke, who ordered the
Man to be seised and brought before him: and as
it was well known he had been connected with the
first Ladies at Court, he was commanded by the
Secretary of State to declare the names of all the
Ladies whose favours he had received: when he
named three or four, and said there were no more.
The Secretary insisted upon his telling the whole
truth, and as he was very hard upon him, the
Hermit named a few more, assuring that now
he had told all. The Secretary then gave him
threats, and again insisted with great warmth upon
his declaring the names of all the Ladies; when
the Hermit, fetching a deep sigh, said, Well then,
Sir, write down your own: which words confounded
the Secretary, and afforded much merriment
to the Grand Duke and his Courtiers.
CHAP. VIII.
A few more of the Abbé Boileau’s arguments are
introduced. It does not appear that self-flagellation
made a part of the duties prescribed
in the first Monasteries, during the times of
the first establishments of that kind. The
only positive instances of flagellations suffered by
Saints, or the Candidates for that title, in the
days we speak of, are those which the Devil
has inflicted upon them.
IN the antient Monasteries of Egypt, and
of the East, that is to say, in the first regular
religious establishments which took place
among Christians, it does not seem that self-flagellations
were in use, and that they had
any notion of those frequent lashings and
scourgings with which Monasteries have since
resounded.
In fact, we find that that Rule which commonly
goes under the name of St. Anthony,
who lived about the year 300, and was the
very first professor of Monastic Life, is entirely
silent on that subject. The same is to be
observed of the Rules framed by the Abbot
Isaiah, who lived in much the same time as St.
Anthony; of those composed by the Fathers
Serapion, Macarius, Paphnutius, another Macarius,
and several other very antient Rules,
framed in the Monasteries of the East, which
the learned Lucas Holstenius, Librarian of
the Vatican, has published in his Code of Rules.
The Rules of the first religious Orders
founded in the West, have been likewise silent
as to the voluntary use of thongs and
whips. The first Rule, for instance, prescribed
to the Benedictines, that antient Western
Order, does not mention a word about self-flagellation:
and the same silence is to be observed
in the Rules framed by Ovisiesius, Abbot
of Tabennæ, by St. Aurelian, Bishop of
Arles, by St. Isidorus, Bishop of Sevil, by
St. Tetradius, and a number of others, whose
Rules Holstenius has likewise collected. From
thence we may therefore conclude, that Christians,
in those times, had no notion of those
beatings and scourgings which are now so prevalent;
and that the upper and the lower disciplines
were alike unknown among them[45].
The only Author of weight, in the days
we speak of, who seems to have made any
mention of voluntary flagellations being practised
in the antient Monasteries, is St. John
Climax, who, according to some accounts,
lived in the middle of the fourth, and, according
to others, only in the sixth Century.
This Author relates, that, in a certain Monastery,
‘some, among the Monks, watered
the pavement with their tears; while others,
who could not shed any, beat themselves[46].’
Several Writers have laid great stress on that
passage, and quoted it as an undoubted proof
of the antiquity of the practice of voluntary
flagellation; yet I will take the liberty to dissent
from their opinion, since other Writers
have judged that St. John Climax only spoke
in a figurative manner, and have translated
the above passage, by saying that ‘those monks
who could not shed tears, lamented themselves[47].’
Regard for truth, however, obliges us to
mention one or two instances of flagellations,
which are to be found in the history of the antient
Eastern Anchorites, written by Theodoret,
who has been abovementioned; but
those instances are such, that certainly no argument
can be derived from them, to prove
that voluntary flagellations were in use in the
times in which those Anchorites lived.
One of those instances is to be found in the
life of Abrahames. It is related in it, that the
Christian populace having attempted to seize
the sheets in which the body of that Saint was
wrapped, the lictors drove them back with
whips. Now, it is obvious to every one, that
the lashes which these lictors bestowed, to and
fro and at random, upon those men who beset
them, were not willingly received by the latter.
And the same may certainly with equal
truth be observed of the flagellations inflicted
upon the people (which is the second instance
mentioned by Theodoret) by the Collectors of
the public Tributes, who, he says, used to
collect them with scourges and whips[48].
To those instances of involuntary flagellations,
during the times of the Eastern Anchorites,
and the first Monks, we may, I think, safely
add those which the Devil, jealous of their
merit, has inflicted upon them: a case which
has frequently happened, if we are to credit
the Writers of those times.
In the life of St. Anthony, which was written
by St. Athanasius, we read that that Saint
was frequently set upon, and lashed in his cell,
by the Infernal Spirit.
St. Hilarion was also often exposed to the
same misfortune; as we are informed by St.
Jerom, who wrote an account of his life.
‘This wanton Gladiator (says St. Jerom,
speaking of the Devil) bestrides him, beating
his sides with his heels, and his head
with a scourge[49].’
A great many other Saints, which it would
be too tedious to mention, have been exposed
to the like treatment; and the priest Grimlaïcus,
the Author of an ancient Monastic Rule,
observes that Devils will often insolently lay
hold of Men, and lash them, in the same manner
as they used to serve the blessed Anthony.
Page. 126.
That the above-mentioned instances of the
wantonness of the Devil, with respect to
Saints, were not willingly submitted to by the
latter, needs not, I think, to be supported by
any proof: it must certainly have been with
great reluctance, that they felt themselves exposed
to the lash of so formidable a Flagellator[50].
FOOTNOTES:
[45] Conclusions against the antiquity of the upper
and the lower disciplines, are frequent in the Abbé
Boileau’s book; though I have thought it unnecessary
to lay them all before the reader. Against the
latter kind of discipline, he has been particularly zealous;
and, besides his usual charge of novelty, he
has, on one occasion, taxed it with being a remnant
of idolatry and Pagan superstition. This imputation
has much displeased a French Curate, who wrote
an answer to him: he thought it reflected on those
Saints who practised the discipline in question,
and he animadverted on the Abbé in the following
terms. Quelle plus grande injure peut-on faire
aux Saints & aux Saintes qui se disciplinent par en
bas, que de dire qu’ils sont des idolatres & des superstitieux?...
Peut on les deshonorer davantage, ces
Saints, que d’en parler comme fait M. Boileau?
‘Can a greater insult be put upon those Saints of
both Sexes who practise the lower discipline,
than saying that they are superstitious persons
and idolaters? Is it possible to shew more disrespect
to those Saints, than speaking of them as
Mons. Boileau does?’
With respect to the silence of the first Monastic
Rules, concerning voluntary flagellation, it
may be observed that it has been amply compensated
in subsequent ones. The Carmes are to discipline
themselves twice a week, and the Monks
of Monte Cassino, once at least; the Ursuline Nuns,
every Friday; the Carmelite Nuns, on Wednesdays
and Fridays; the Nuns of the Visitation,
when they please; the English Benedictines, a
greater or less number of times, weekly, according
to the season of the year; the Celestines, on
the eve of every great festival; and the Capuchin
Friars are to perform a lower discipline every
morning in the week, &c. &c.
[47] The above passage of St. Climax, like those
of David and St. Paul, discussed in the 2d and
3d Chapters, has caused much disputation between
the Assertors, and the Opposers, of the doctrine of
the antiquity of voluntary flagellations. The
Abbé Boileau has taken much pains, in his text, to
prove that St. John Climax, notwithstanding the
precision of the expression he has used, only
meant to speak in a figurative sense; and he has
for that purpose produced a number of authorities
from different books, and entered into a long
grammatical dissertation on the Greek words used
by that Saint, in which he at last bewilders
himself, and says the very reverse of what he
had promised to prove. He has also bestowed
some pains on different passages of other
Greek fathers, which are as positive as that quoted
from St. John Climax; and among others, upon
one of St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, who
expresses himself with great clearness, and says,
he whips himself, and exhorts his friends to do the
same.
However, notwithstanding the great precision
of the words used by the above good Fathers, whether
in speaking of themselves, or of other persons,
we are not perhaps intirely to refuse to admit
the assertions of the Abbé Boileau, that they
only spoke in a figurative sense. It is not absolutely
impossible that the passages which are quoted
from them, though ever so expressly mentioning
flagellations, beatings, and scourgings, were no more,
after all, than canting ways of expression, like
those commonly used by men who affect pretensions
to superior sanctity; who take every opportunity
of magnifying their sufferings, or those
of their friends, though often of an imaginary
kind. However, on this important subject, I
shall leave the Reader to determine: I will only
observe, that the most zealous Supporters of self-flagellation
confess, that the same was never so
much practised among the Eastern as among the
Western Christians, as they had adopted several
other means of self-mortification.
[48] Sir Robert Walpole’s Excise Scheme made a
wonderful noise in this Nation; but we may safely
suppose, that if flagellations, like those above-mentioned,
had been made part of the project,
the noise would have been still greater.
A fact, supplied by the Abbé Boileau himself,
will be introduced in a subsequent Chapter, from
which it appears, that Theodoret was not unacquainted
with the practice of self-flagellation. The
silence of that Author on the subject, in certain
parts of his writings, only shews that that practice
was not yet become, in his time, that settled
method of atoning for past sins, which has been
since adopted, and that a scourge had not yet been
made a necessary part of the furniture of Devotees.
[50] Instances of flagellations bestowed by the Devil,
occur frequently in the Books in which the
Lives of Saints, either antient or modern, are recited;
whether it was that those Saints, after having
dreamed of such flagellations, fancied they
had in reality received them, and spoke accordingly,
or that they had some scheme in view,
when they made complaints of that kind. St.
Francis of Assisa, for instance, as is related in the
Golden Legend, received a dreadful flagellation
from the Devil the very first night he was in Rome,
which caused him to leave that place without delay.
And, to say the truth, it is not at all unlikely
that, having met there with a colder reception
than he judged his sanctity intitled him to, he
thought proper to decamp immediately, and when
he returned to his Convent, told the above story
to his Monks.
Among those Saints who received flagellations,
or visits in general, from the Devil, St. Anthony
is however the most celebrated. At sometimes the
Devil, as is mentioned above, flagellated him vigorously;
and at others, employed temptations of
quite a different kind, in order to seduce him:
thus, he assumed in one instance, the shape of a
beautiful young Woman, who made all imaginable
advances to the Saint: but, happily, all was
to no purpose. The celebrated Engraver Calot
has made one of those visits of the Devil to St.
Anthony, the subject of one of his Prints, which
is inscribed The Temptation of St. Anthony; and he
has represented in it such a numerous swarm of
Devils of all sizes, pouring at once into the Saint’s
cavern, and exhibiting so surprising a variety of
faces, postures, and ludicrous weapons, such as
squirts, bellows, and the like, that this Print may
very well be mentioned as an instance, among
others, of the great fertility of the imagination of
that Engraver.
Besides the persecutions which St. Anthony suffered
from the Devil, he has the farther merit of
having been the first Institutor of the Monastic
life, several other Hermits having in his time
chosen to assemble together, and lived under his
direction; and though he has not expressly been
the Founder of any particular Order, yet it is
glory enough for him to have been the Father of
the whole family of Friars and Nuns. In more
modern times, however, his relicks having been
brought from Egypt to Constantinople, and thence
transferred to Dauphiné, in France, a Church was
built on the spot where they were deposited, and a
new Order of Friars was a little after established,
who go by the name of Monks of St. Anthony.
These Monks form a kind of Order distinct from
all others; but yet they have no less ingenuity
than the other Monks for procuring the good of
their Convent, as may be judged from the following
story, which, I think, I may venture to relate
as a conclusion both of this Note, and of the
whole Chapter.
The Story I mean, is contained in the Book of
the Apologie pour Hérodote, which was written about
the year 1500 by Henry Etienne, on purpose to
shew that those who intirely reject the facts related
by Herodotus, on account of their incredibility,
treat him with too much severity, since a number
of facts daily happen, which are altogether as surprising
as those that are found in that Author.
Before relating the story in question, the Reader
ought to be informed, that St. Anthony is commonly
thought to have a great command over fire,
and a power of destroying, by flashes of that element,
those who incur his displeasure: the common
people have been led into this belief, by constantly
seeing a fire placed by the side of that
Saint, in the representations that are made of him;
though this fire is placed there for no other reason
than because the Saint is thought to have the power
of curing the erysipelas, which is also called the
sacred fire (ignis sacer), in the same manner as St.
Hubert cures the Hydrophoby, St. John the Epilepsy,
and other Saints other disorders. A certain
Monk of St. Anthony (to come to our point)
who was well acquainted with the above prepossession
of the vulgar concerning the power of his
Saint, used on Sundays to preach in public, in
different villages within a certain distance from his
Convent. One day he assembled his congregation
under a tree on which a magpye had built her nest,
into which he had previously found means to convey
a small box filled with gunpowder, which he
had well secured therein; and out of the box
hung a long thin match, that was to burn slowly,
and was hidden among the leaves of the tree. As
soon as the Monk, or his Assistant, had touched
the match with a lighted coal, he began his sermon.
In the mean while the magpye returned to
her nest; and finding in it a strange body which
she could not remove, she fell into a passion, and
began to scratch with her feet, and chatter unmercifully.
The Friar affected to hear her without
emotion, and continued his sermon with great
composure; only he would now and then lift up
his eyes towards the top of the tree, as if he wanted
to see what was the matter. At last, when he
judged the fire was very near reaching the gun-powder,
he pretended to be quite out of patience,
he cursed the magpye, and wished St. Anthony’s
fire might consume her, and went on again with
his sermon; but he had scarcely pronounced a
few periods, when the match on a sudden produced
its effect, and blew up the magpye with her
nest; which miracle wonderfully raised the character
of the Friar, and proved afterwards very
beneficial both to him and his Convent.
CHAP. IX.
Corrections of a flagellatory kind, inflicted by
force, were however, though in very early
times, the common method of correcting offences
of a religious nature; and the power
of inflicting them was possessed alike by Bishops,
and the Heads of Monasteries[51].
IT must be confessed, however, that though
self-flagellations made no part of the rules
or statutes belonging to the different monastic
Orders, founded in those early ages of Christianity,
the same cannot be said of that method
of correction, when imposed by force
upon such Monks as had been guilty of offences,
either against the discipline of the Order,
or against piety: an extensive power of
inflicting such salutary corrections, having,
from the earliest times, been lodged in the
hands of Abbots, and the Superiors of Convents.
Nay more, we find that Bishops, during
the very first times of Christianity, assumed
the paternal power we mention, even with regard
to persons who were bound to them by
no vow whatever, when they happened to
have been guilty either of breaches of piety,
or of heresy. Of this, a remarkable proof
may be deduced from the 59th Epistle of St.
Augustin, which he wrote to the Tribune Marcellinus,
concerning the Donatists. St. Augustin
expresses himself in the following
words: ‘Do not recede from that paternal diligence
you have manifested in your researches
after offenders; in which you have
succeeded to procure confessions of such
great crimes, not by using racks, red-hot
blades of iron, or flames, but only by the
application of rods. This is a method of
coercion which is frequently practised by
Teachers of the fine Arts upon their Pupils,
by Parents upon their Children, and often
also by Bishops upon those whom they find to
have been guilty of offences[52].’
Another proof of this power of flagellation,
assumed by Bishops in very early times,
may be derived from the account which Cyprianus
has given of Cesarius, Bishop of Arles;
who says, that that Bishop endeavoured
as much as possible, in the exercise of his
power, to keep within the bounds of moderation
prescribed by the law of Moses. The
following are Cyprianus’s words. ‘This holy
Man took constant care, that those who were
subjected to his authority, whether they were
of a free, or a servile condition, when they
were to be flagellated for some offence they
had committed, should not receive more
than thirty-nine stripes. If any of them,
however, had been guilty of a grievous
fault, then indeed he permitted them to be
again lashed a few days afterwards, though
with a smaller number of stripes.’
From the two passages above, we are informed
that the power of whipping, possessed
by Bishops, extended to persons of every
vocation, indiscriminately; and with much
more reason may we think that those persons
who made profession of the Ecclesiastical Life,
were subjected to it. In fact, we see that even
the different dignities which they might possess
in the Church, did not exempt them from
having a flagellation inflicted upon them by
their Bishops, when they had been guilty of
offences of rather a grievous kind; and Pope
St. Gregory the Great
moreover recommended to the Bishops of his time, to make a
proper use of their authority. In his sixty-sixth
Epistle, he himself prescribes to Bishop
Paschasius, the manner in which he ought
to chastise Deacon Hilary, who had calumniated
Deacon John, ‘Whereas (he says)
guilt ought not to pass without adequate satisfaction,
we recommend to Bishop Paschasius
to deprive the same Deacon Hilary of
his office, and, after having caused him to
be publickly lashed, to confine him to some
distant place; that the punishment inflicted
upon one, may thus serve to the correction
of many.’
This power of inflicting the brotherly correction
of whipping, was also possessed by the
Abbots and Priors in all the antient Monasteries;
though, at the same time, it was expressly
provided by the Rules of the different
Orders, that the same should be assumed by
no other persons. ‘Let no Man, except the
Abbot, or him to whom he has intrusted
his authority, presume to excommunicate, or
flog, a Brother.’
When the faults committed by Monks were
of a grievous kind, the Abbot was not only
charged to correct them by means of his discretionary
power of flagellation; but he was
moreover expressly directed to exert that
power with rigour. In the Rule framed by
St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, it is ordained
with respect to a Monk who is convicted of
being a Liar, a Thief, or a Striker, ‘That
if, after having been warned by the elder
Monks, he neglects to mend his manners,
he shall, on the third time, be exhorted, in
the presence of all the Brethren, to leave off
his bad practices. If he still neglects to reform,
let him be flagellated with the utmost
severity[53].’ The above Rule of St. Fructuosus
is mentioned by Ecbert, in his Collection
of Canons, which, together with the
Councils of England, has been published by
Spelman.
St. Ferreol, Bishop of Usez, has framed a
Rule for Monks, which, like that above,
makes severe provisions against such Monks
as are addicted to the practice of thieving.
‘With regard to the Monk who stands convicted
of theft, if we may still call him a
Monk, he shall be treated like him who is
guilty of adultery for the second time; let
him therefore be chastised with the whip,
and with great rigour too: the same punishment
ought to be inflicted upon him as upon
a fornicator, since it may be justly suspected
that his lewdness has induced him to
commit theft[54].’
Committing indecencies with other Monks,
or with Boys, were offences which the Statutes
of Convents likewise directed to be punished
by severe flagellations; and the above St.
Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, ordered that
the punishment should, in the above case, be
inflicted publickly. ‘If a Monk (it is said
in his Rule) is used to teaze Boys and young
Men, or is caught in attempting to give
them kisses, or in any other indecent action,
and the fact be proved by competent witnesses,
let him be publickly whipped[55].’
Refusing to make proper satisfaction to the
Abbot for offences committed, or in general
persevering in denying them, were also grievous
faults in the eye of the first Founders, or
Reformers, of Monastic Orders. In the Rule
framed fifty years after that of St. Benedict,
in order to improve it, the following direction
was contained. ‘If the Brothers who have
been excommunicated for their faults, persevere
so far in their pride, as to continue,
on the ninth hour of the next day, to refuse
to make proper satisfaction to the Abbot,
let them be confined, even till their
death, and lashed with rods.’ Nor is the
Rule of the abovementioned Bishop of Braga
less severe against those Monks whose pride
prevents them from making a proper confession
of the offences they may have committed.
‘To him (it is said in that Rule) who,
through pride and inclination to argue, continues
to deny his fault, let an additional
and severer flagellation be imparted.’
The habit of holding wanton discourses,
or soliciting the Brethren to wickedness, was also
deemed by the Founders of religious Orders
to deserve severe flagellations; and St. Pacom
ordered in his Rule, which, it was said, had
been dictated to him by an Angel, that such
as had been guilty of the above faults, and
had been thrice admonished, should be publickly
lashed before the gate of the Convent.
Attempts to escape from Monasteries, were,
even in very early times, punished by flagellation.
We read in Sozomenius, that St. Macarius
of Alexandria, Abbot of Nitria in
Thebaid, who had five thousand Monks under
his direction, ordered that chastisement to
be inflicted upon those who should attempt to
climb over the walls of the Monasteries. ‘If
any one continues in his wickedness, and
says, I can no longer bear to stay here, but
I will pack up my things, and go where
God will direct me[56]; let any one of the
Brothers inform the Prior, and the Prior the
Abbot, of the fact; let then the Abbot assemble
the Brothers, and order the offender
to be brought before them, and chastised
with rods.’
The holy Founders of religious Orders have
also been very severe, in their provisions, against
such Monks as seek for familiarities with the
other Sex. In the Rule of the Monastery of
Agaunus, it was ordained, that, ‘If any
Monk had contracted the bad habit of looking
on Women with concupiscence, the Abbot
ought to be informed of the fact, and
bestow upon the Monk a corrective discipline;
and that, if he did not mend his
manners in conference thereof, he ought
to be expelled from the Society as a scabby
sheep, lest he should ruin others by his example.’
The above Monastery had been
built by Sigismond, King of Burgundy, to
the honour of CXX. Martyrs of the Theban
Legion, of which St. Maurice was the Commander,
under the reign of the Emperor
Maximinus.
The above-quoted Rule of St. Fructuosus,
is no less severe against those Monks who seek
for the Company of Women. In the XVth
Chapter, which treats of the lewd and quarrelsome[57],
it is ordered, that, ‘if after having
received proper reprehensions, they persist
in their wicked courses, they shall be
corrected by repeated lashings.’ And St.
Columbanus, who is the first who instituted
the Monastic Life in France, and has written
a Rule as a supplement to that of St. Benedict,
also expresses himself with great severity
against such Monks as are convicted of having
barely conversed with a Woman in the
absence of witnesses; for though there are
faults for which he orders only six lashes to be
given, yet, in the case here mentioned, he
prescribes two hundred. ‘Let the Man who
has been alone with a Woman, and talked
familiarly to her, either be kept on bread
and water for two days, or receive two hundred
lashes[58].’
FOOTNOTES:
[51] The whole substance of the Abbé Boileau’s
arguments (so far as it has been possible to make
them out) is contained in the three first Chapters
of this Work, and in those two which precede
this: the Author is now to continue the text part
of the Book, without any farther prospect of assistance
from the Abbé’s observations and directions;
except in the last Chapter, in which they
are once more to meet, and to lay again their wise
heads together.
[52] “Noli perdere paternam diligentiam quam in
ipsâ inquisitione servasti, quando tantorum scelerum
confessionem cruisti, non extendente equuleo, non sulcantibus
ungulis, non urentibus flammis, sed virgarum
verberibus. Qui modus coercionis & à magistris
artium liberalium, & ab ipsis parentibus, & sæpè
etiam in judiciis solet ab Episcopis adhiberi.”—This
Letter of St. Augustin, addressed to a Man
invested both with military and civil power, as the
Tribune Marcellinus was, in order to exhort him
to employ violence and whipping against those who
differed from him in their opinions, is an additional
proof of a melancholy truth that has often
been noticed; which is, that those who exclaim
most bitterly against persecution, when exercised
against them, and are the most ready to claim toleration
in their own favour, are not always the
most willing to grant the same favour to others.
[53] Cap. XVI. De mendace, fure, & percussore
Monacho.... Si nec sic se emendaverit, flagelletur
acerrimè.
[54] “Furti scilicet conscium, si adhuc vocare possumus
Monachum, quasi adulterum secundum, flagello
subdi & magnâ coërceri afflictione jubemus; dantes
illi unam cum fornicante sententiam, quia & ipse furatus
est ut luxuriaretur.”
It is a little surprising that repeated adultery is,
in the above Rule, expressly placed on a level with
simple fornication. Whether the Framer of this
Rule has done so purposely, and thought that
adultery ought to be treated with indulgence, on
account of the uncommon temptation he supposed
Men were under to commit it, or has only
been very careless in his manner of expressing
himself, I shall not attempt to discuss. Yet, lest
the Reader should thence be led to entertain too
bad an opinion of the tenets and morals of Monks
in general, I shall observe, that all are not in the
same way of thinking with respect to adultery, as
the Framer of the above Rule seems to have been.
As a proof of this, the instance, I think, may be
produced of that Monk, mentioned in one of the
Epigrams of the Poet Rousseau, who was a great
enemy to that sin: one day preaching against
it, he grew so warm in his arguments, and
took so much pains to convince his Congregation
of his own abhorrence of it, that at last he broke
out into the following solemn declaration: ‘Yea,
my Brethren, I had rather, for the good of my
soul, to have to do with ten Maidens every
month, than in ten years touch one married
Woman.’
The following is the Epigram of Rousseau,
which is written in Marotic verses; a kind of jocular
style among the French, which admits of
old words and turns of phrase.
Un Cordelier prêchoit sur l’adultère,
Et s’échauffoit le Moine en son harnois
A démontrer par maint beau commentaire
Que ce péché blessoit toutes les loix.
Oui, mes Enfans, dit il, haussant la voix,
J’aimerois mieux, pour le bien de mon ame,
Avoir à faire à dix filles par mois
Que de toucher en dix ans, une femme.
[55] “Monachus parvulorum & adolescentulorum
consectator, vel qui osculo vel de quâlibet occasione turpi
deprehensus fuerit inhiare, comprobatâ patenter, per
accusatores verissimos, sive testes, causâ, publice verberetur.”
[56] ... Hic ego durare non possum, sed accipiam
casulam, & eam ubi voluerit Dominus.
[58] “Qui solus cum solâ fœminâ sine personis certis
loquitur familiariter, maneat sine cibo, duobus diebus,
in pane & aquâ, vel ducentis plagis afficiatur.”
This Article, in which the Founder of a religious
Order expressly rates the hardship of living
upon bread and water for one day, at that of receiving
an hundred lashes, is somewhat surprising.
And supposing the generality of Readers should
agree that the loss of a good dinner has really been
over-rated by the good Father, his decision on
that head, may then serve as one proof of that
remarkable love of good eating and drinking
which prevails among Monks; a disposition with
which, to say the truth, they have long ago been
charged. On this occasion, I shall quote the two
following lines in Monkish style, recited by Du
Cange in his Glossary, in which the love of good
cheer is said to be one of the three things that
prove the ruin of Monks: these lines only mention
the black Monks; but this has been done, we
may suppose, for the sake of the measure, and
their meaning was, no doubt, also intended to be
applied to the Grey and White.
Sunt tria nigrorum, quæ vastant res Monachorum,
Renes & venter, & pocula sumpta frequenter.
Other modern Latin Writers have also exerted
their wit at the expence of the Clergy: some have
pretended that the word Sorbona (the Sorbonne)
comes from sorbendo[59]; and others have derived
the word Præsbiter (a Priest), from præ aliis bibens
ter[60], &c. &c.
As an instance of the love of Monks for entertainments,
I shall relate the following story, which
is extracted from a Monkish Book, and may serve
to give the reader some insight into the manner in
which Monks live among themselves, and the internal
polity of their Convents.
A certain Friar, in a Convent of the Benedictine
Order, found means to procure, besides plenty
of good wine, a certain number of dishes extremely
nice and well seasoned, several of which
were expressly forbidden by the Institutes of the
Order; and he invited a select party of Brothers
to partake of his fare. As they could not, with
any degree of safety, carry on the entertainment
in the cell of any of them, they thought of repairing
to one of the cellars of the House; where
they hid themselves in one of those wide and shallow
tuns (about eight or nine feet in diameter,
and three or four deep) which serve in the making
of wines. The Abbot, in the meanwhile, missing
so many of the Monks from the Convent,
went in search of them through all the different
apartments: being unable to find them, he at
last went down into the cellars, and soon perceived
whereabout they lay: he stepped up to the
place, and, on a sudden, made his appearance
over the edge of the tun. The Monks were prodigiously
alarmed at this unexpected appearance of
the Abbot; and there was none among them but
who would have gladly compromised the affair, by
giving up his remaining share of the entertainment,
and submitting to instant dismission. But
the Abbot, contrary to all hope, put on a mild
and chearful look: he kindly expostulated with
the Monks on their having made a secret of the
affair to him; expressed to them the great pleasure
it would have been for him to be one of their party;
and added, that he should still be very glad to
be admitted to partake of the entertainment. The
Monks answered, by all means: the Abbot thereupon
leaped into the tun; sat down among them;
partook of their excellent wine and well-seasoned
dishes with the greatest freedom, in just the same
manner as it is said the late Sir James Lowther
would of the dinner of his servants in his own
kitchen; and, in short, spent an hour or two with
them in the tun, in the most agreeable and convivial
manner.
At last, the Abbot thought proper to withdraw;
and as soon as he had taken his leave, some of the
Monks began to admire his extraordinary condescension;
while the others were not without
fears that it foreboded some misfortune. Indeed,
the latter were in the right; for the Reader must
not think that the Abbot had acted in the manner
above-described, out of any sudden temptation he
had felt at the sight of the jollity of the Friars, or
of the dainties that composed their entertainment:
by no means; his design had only been, by thus
making himself guilty along with them, to be the
better able to shew them afterwards the way to repentance,
and thereby derive good from evil. In
fact, the next day, a chapter having been summoned,
the Abbot desired the Prior to fill his
place, while himself took his feat among the rest
of the Monks. Soon after the Chapter was met,
he stepped forward into the middle of the Assembly,
accused himself of the sin he had committed
the day before, and requested that discipline
might be inflicted upon him. The Prior objected
much to a discipline being inflicted on the Abbot;
but the latter having insisted, his request was
complied with. The other Monks were at first
greatly astonished; but seeing no possibility of
keeping back on that occasion, they stepped into
the middle of the Chapter, and likewise confessed
their sin; when the Abbot, by means of a proper
person he had selected for that purpose, got a lusty
discipline to be inflicted upon every one of his late
fellow-banqueters.
Strictness of certain Superiors of Convents, in
exerting their power of flagellation. The
same is abused by several of them.
THE Reader has seen, in the preceding
Chapter, that the punishment of flagellation
was extended to almost every possible
offence Monks could commit; and the duration
of the flagellations was, moreover, left
pretty much to the discretion of the Abbot,
whether in consequence of the generality of
the terms used in the Statutes, or through
some express provision made for that purpose.
In the ancient Constitutions of the Monastery
of Cluny, for instance, which St. Udalric
has collected in one volume, several kinds of
offence are mentioned, for the punishment of
which it is expressly said, that the Offender
shall be lashed as long as the Abbot shall think
meet.
That Abbots and Priors have at all times
well known how to exert those discretionary
and flagellatory powers we mention, there is
no manner of doubt. On this occasion, the
two following stories may be related.
The first is that of the discipline which
the Prior of a certain Monastery, who lived
in the times of Charles Martel (A. 750) inflicted
on some Carpenters who were employed
by him in the service of the Convent, and
who having too carelessly marked the proper
size of a certain piece of timber, with their
string rubbed with chalk, made afterwards a
mistake in sawing it. The fact, as it is recited
in the life of St. Pardulph, is as follows.
‘One Liframnus, the then Prior of the
Monastery, resolved to build a few wooden
steps, in the Chapel of St. Albinus the Martyr.
After the Carpenters had measured
the place on which those steps were to be
raised, he took them to the wood, where
they accordingly cut a beam, which they
loaded upon a Cart, and conveyed to the
Convent; but when they attempted to settle
it upon the proper spot, it was found to
be eighteen inches too short. The Prior,
amazed at such a gross mistake, fell into a
passion, and ordered disciplines to be inflicted
upon the Carpenters[61].’
The other fact I mean to relate, to prove
the great strictness of certain Ecclesiastical Superiors
in exerting their power of flagellation,
is contained in the Book written by Thomas de
Chantpré. ‘There was (that Author says) in
the Church of Rheims, a very able Dean,
an Englishman by birth (genere Anglicano),
who, as I have been informed by several
persons who knew him, used stoutly to correct
his brother Canons for their faults. It
happened in his time, that the venerable Albert,
Bishop of Liege, and Brother to the
Duke of Brabant, was driven out of Germany
by the Emperor Henry, and treacherously
slain by a few Soldiers of that Emperor,
near the City of Rheims. On the
day appointed to celebrate his funeral, the
venerable Rothard, who, though he was still
Archdeacon of Rheims, had lately been
elected Bishop of Châlons in Champagne,
made his appearance, accompanied by a
number of noble persons, without being
clothed in his Canonical gown. After the
ceremony was concluded, the Dean called all
the Canons together, and among them the
above Bishop. As soon as they were seated,
the Dean said to the Prelate, You have not,
as far as I know, resigned yet your Canonship,
or Archdeaconship? The latter made
answer, he had not. Well then, said the
Dean, come and make satisfaction to the
Church, and prepare your back for a discipline
in the presence of the Brothers, for
your having been at the choir without the
nuptial robe. The Bishop-elect made no
objection: he rose from his seat, stripped
himself, and received a most vigorous discipline
from the Dean: this done, he put on
again his clothes, and, before the whole congregation,
said to the Dean in a most graceful
manner, I give thanks to God, and to
his blessed Mother, the Patroness of the
Church of Rheims, that I leave it under the
government of such a person as you[62].’
Indeed so far have a number of Abbots, or
Superiors of Convents, been from suffering
their power of flagellation to lay dormant and
useless, that they, on the contrary, have abused
it to a great degree. Ovisiesius cautioned
them, in very early days, against being guilty
of such a fault. Nay, certain Heads of Monasteries
have gone such lengths in that respect,
that Cesarius, Bishop of Arles, was obliged
to remind them, that, ‘if they inflicted
flagellations continued too long upon Offenders,
so that they died in consequence
thereof, they were guilty of homicide.’
Among those Abbots who have distinguished
themselves by their severity, St. Romuald
may be mentioned, who, as we are informed
in his Life written by Cardinal Damianus, was
once exposed to a calumny of the blackest
kind, from a Monk whom he used to scourge
with great severity: nay, that holy Man’s
Monks, as we are also informed by Cardinal
Damianus, in one instance rose against him,
flogged him without mercy, and drove him
out of the Convent. This Saint, besides,
had before been frequently lashed by the
Devil[63].
FOOTNOTES:
[61] ... Tum Præpositus multum scandalizans, &
iracundiæ furore succensus, eisdem Carpentariis disciplinam
corporis imponi jussit.
Aulus Gellius, in his Noctes Atticæ, relates a
fact which bears much resemblance to the above;
though, indeed, much greater Men were concerned
in it, than the Prior of a Convent, and
Carpenters: the one was a Roman Consul, and
the other, the Engineer of a Town, allied to the
Republick.
The name of the Consul in question was P.
Crassus, who must not, however, be mistaken for
the celebrated M. Crassus, the partner in power
with Pompey and Cæsar; though both lived in
the same times. This Consul P. Crassus, having
been intrusted with the conduct of the war that
was then carrying on in Asia, laid siege to the
Town of Leucas; and wanting a strong beam of
oak to make a battering-ram, he recollected he had
lately seen at Elæa, a Town allied to the Romans,
just such a piece of timber as he wished to have:
he therefore wrote to the Magistrates of that place,
to request them to send it to him. The Magistrates
accordingly directed their Engineer to convey
the beam to Crassus; but as there was another
in the yards belonging to the Town, which, the
Engineer thought, would be fitter for the use
Crassus wanted to put it to, he made choice of the
latter, and conveyed it to the Roman camp. However,
the Engineer had been mistaken in his calculations,
and the beam unfortunately proved too
small; which the Consul did no sooner perceive,
and that his orders had been neglected, than, like
the above-mentioned Prior, he fell into a passion,
and ordered the Engineer to be stript, and soundly
lashed.
Some apology, however, may be made in favour
of the action of the Roman Consul. As
himself observed upon the spot, the whole business
of war would be at an end, if those whose
duty it is to obey, were permitted to canvass
the orders which they receive, and to set aside
what part they please: besides that an allowance
should be made for Men of a military life, and
who are invested with military command; and
some little indulgence, I think, ought to be shewn
them, when they happen to inflict flagellations
somewhat cavalierly. But as to the above holy
Prior, who had made so many vows of obedience,
humility, forbearance, and the like, it is not, indeed,
quite so easy a talk to excuse him: I shall
not, therefore, undertake it; and I will content
myself with observing, how advantageous it would
have been both for the above Engineer and Carpenters,
in the perplexing situations in which they
were respectively placed, to have possessed a power
of the same kind as that which the Golden Legend
(or perhaps some other Book of equal merit)
supposes Jesus Christ to have exerted on a similar
occasion. Joseph, as it is related, who had
the care of the infant Jesus trusted to him, tried
to bring him up to his own trade of a Carpenter;
and one day, finding that the Boy had sawed a
piece of wood shorter than the measure he had
prescribed, he ran up to him, full of anger,
with a stick raised in his hand, in order to chastise
him; but the arch apprentice, who was beginning
to be conscious of his power of working
miracles, on a sudden exerted it, and lengthened
the piece of wood to its proper size.
[62] ... Nec mora, vestes exuit Electus, &
Decani validissimam disciplinam accepit: quâ acceptâ,
vestibus reindutus, Decano cum maximâ oris gratiâ coram
omnibus dixit; gratias ago Deo, & Patronæ
Remensis Ecclesiæ ejus piissimæ genitrici, quod te talem
in regimine relinquo. Lib. II. Cap. XXXIX.
Num. 20.
[63] The arbitrary power of inflicting flagellations,
possessed by Abbots, ought, one should
think, to insure them in a high degree the veneration
of their Monks; yet, from the manner in
which St. Romuald is above said to have been used
by those under his government, we may conclude
the case is otherwise.
A farther proof of the great freedom with which
Monks use their Abbots, is to be derived from
what Mons. Richelet says, in his well-known
Dictionary of the French language, that Monks
never trouble their heads about waiting for their
Abbot, when he comes too late to dinner. Mons.
Richelet informs us of this fact under the word
Abbé, when he explains the origin of the French
common saying, on l’attend comme les Moines font
l’Abbé (they wait for him, as Monks do for their
Abbot), which is said jocularly of a person who
is not at all waited for: this saying is derived, the
above Gentleman observes, from the remarkable
expedition with which Monks sit down to their
dinner, as soon as the bell strikes, without caring
whether the Abbot is come or not.
This singular piece of neglect on the part of
Monks, towards a person invested with such formidable
prerogatives as those abovementioned,
may be accounted for, different ways. In the first
place, since Monks are so celebrated for their love
of good dinners, and even entertain such high
notions of the value of a plentiful table, as to
have rated the hardship of living upon bread
and water, at that of receiving a hundred lashes
a day, we may naturally suppose, that, when their
mess is served upon the table, their attention is so
agreeably engaged by the presence of that object,
that they presently run to it, wholly regardless of
any trifling flagellation that may afterward be the
consequence of such expedition.
The same neglectful conduct of Monks towards
their Abbot, though he is possessed of such
a despotic power over them, may also be explained
in another manner: for, the subject is deep,
and being considered in a political light, may
admit a number of different interpretations. In
general, it may be observed, that Monks may easily
form close combinations among themselves
against their Abbots; that as the latter live together
with them, within the walls of the same Monasteries,
they have it in their power to play them
a thousand tricks; and that these considerations
are very apt to induce Abbots to make a mild use
of their authority, at least with respect to the
greater part of their Monks.
Indeed this latter explanation agrees pretty well
with several facts. It has frequently happened,
for instance, that Abbots who have used their
Monks with cruelty, have been made away with,
in some way or other, within the walls of their
Monasteries. The Abbé Boileau informs us in
his Book, that St. Romuald was much maltreated,
and at last expelled by his Monks; which, no
doubt, was owing to the flagellations he inflicted
upon them; flagellations which the Abbé also
mentions, though he does not assign the causes of
them, whether it was because they did not wait for
him at dinner, or for some other reason, but the
truth and severity of which we shall the more readily
believe, if we consider that the Saint, upon a
certain occasion, as will be related hereafter, flagellated
even his own Father. Nay, it is not quite unlikely
that those flagellations which the Saint used
to imagine he received from the hands of the Devil,
were the effects of the revenge of his Monks;
till at last they openly revolted against him, and
turned him out of the Monastery.
Since we are upon the subject of St. Romuald,
it will not be amiss to add, that the flagellations
which he received both from the Devil, and from
his Monks, were however nothing in comparison
with the danger to which he was once exposed, on
account of his very sanctity.
The Saint, as is related in the History of his
Life, was once settled in a certain Convent in Catalonia,
and was in great reputation for his virtue
in the neighbourhood. The report having been
spread that the holy Man was going to leave the
Country, the People began to be afraid that they
should thereby be deprived of the possession of his
relicks, to which they thought they had a fair title,
on account of the length of time he had resided
among them; and they formed the ingenious
scheme of murdering him, in order to secure
to themselves the possession of his body; but the
Saint, having received timely information of the
plot, thought proper to decline the honour that
was intended for him, and made his escape.
CHAP. XI.
Disciplines of the same wholesome kind have
been prescribed for Novices, and such persons
as are intended to embrace the Ecclesiastical
Life.
THE framers of Rules and Statutes of religious
Orders have also extended their
attention to the young Men and Novices
brought up in Convents; and have ordered
flagellations to be inflicted upon them, for the
improvement of their morals. In the Rule
framed by the holy Fathers Serapion, Macarius,
and Paphnutius, which is to be found in
the Collection of Holstenius, it is ordered,
‘That if any Novice is found guilty of theft,
he shall be lashed with rods, and never admitted
to the degree of Clerk.’
St. Pacom, in that Rule which was dictated
to him by an Angel, expresses himself in the
following terms: ‘Let those Boys who are regardless
of the evil consequences of sin, and
are so imprudent as not to mind the judgments
of Heaven, in case admonitions prove
useless, be whipped till they have the fear
of God.’
In the Rule of St. Benedict, Art. LXX.
flagellations are prescribed as excellent methods
of improving the minds of such Boys
as are brought up to the Ecclesiastic life; and
are more particularly recommended to be used
till they are fifteen years of age.
St. Isidorus, archbishop of Seville, observes,
that Boys ought not to be excommunicated
for their sins, but that this awful mode of correction
ought to be supplied, with them, by
flagellations.
At the same time, lest those who were to
inspect the conduct of the Novices, should
suffer themselves to be influenced by passion,
in the flagellations they were directed to inflict,
an express provision was made in the
Rule of St. Benedict, that such Teachers as
should be guilty of the above fault, should
themselves receive a sound flogging[64].
FOOTNOTES:
[64] A certain modern Latin Author, whose
name I have forgot, has written a Treatise on the
antiquity of the practice so much recommended
above, of whipping boys at School. Had I been
so happy as to have seen his Book, I would have
been enabled to make, in this place, learned remarks
on the subject; but as I have not had that
advantage, I find myself unable to make any, and
can only refer the Reader to the discovery of Uncle
Thomas, as well as to the few other critical
annotations that are contained in p. 76, 77, 78,
of this Work.
I could have likewise wished much to be able to
add the names of some of those illustrious Characters
who have distinguished themselves in the
practice of flagellating School-boys, to those of the
respectable Thwackum, and the plagosus Orbilius,
mentioned in the above place; but though the
History of great Schools, in this and other Countries,
supplies numbers of such names, yet I have
not been able to discover any of sufficient eminence
to deserve a place in this Book; except indeed
that of the great Doctor Tempête, who is
mentioned by Rabelais as a celebrated flagellator
of School-boys in the College of Montaigu, in Paris,
and which I therefore insert in this place.
Neither should we neglect to mention here, the
name of Buchanan, his pupil having afterwards
been a King; and the more so, as he used, it
seems, to make the flagellations bestowed by him
on his royal disciple (the Anointed of the Lord) the
subject of his jokes with the Ladies at Court[65].
The justice which is due to the Reverend Fathers
Jesuits, also requires that we should, in a
Book like this, give an account of the laudable
regularity with which they used to inflict flagellations
upon the young Men who pursued their studies
in their Schools, as well as upon such Strangers
as were occasionally recommended to them for
that purpose. Among the different facts which
may serve to prove both the spirit of justice that
has constantly directed the actions of the Society,
and the punctuality of their flagellations, the following
is not the least remarkable.
It was, the Reader ought to know, an established
custom in their Schools, to give prizes
every year to such Scholars as had made the best
Latin verses upon proposed subjects. One year it
happened that the subject which had been fixed
upon, was the Society of the Jesuits itself; and a
Scholar took that opportunity, only by quibbling
on the names of the two principal Schools belonging
to the Fathers, to give them a smart stroke
of satire. The name of the one of these two
Schools, was the School of the Bow (le Collège de
l’Arc), which was situated at Dôle, in Franche-Comté;
and the other happened to be called, the
School of the Arrow (la Flêche), it being situated
near the Town of that name in Anjou, and was
originally a Royal mansion which was given by
the Crown to the Society, in the reign of King
Henry the Fourth. The import of
the distich made by the School-boy (or perhaps by somebody
else for him) was this: “Dôle gave the Bow to
the Fathers, mother France gave them the Arrow;
who shall give them the String which they have
deserved?” The following are the Latin verses
themselves, which indeed are very beautiful.
Arcum Dôla dedit Patribus, dedit alma Sagittam
Gallia; quis funem quem meruere dabit?
The Reverend Fathers, struck with the merit
of these lines, and, at the same time, unwilling
to suffer a bon-mot made at their expence, and
that was so likely to be circulated, to go unpunished,
delivered the prize to the boy, and ordered
him to be flagellated immediately after.
The celebrated Fathers of St. Lazare, in Paris,
whose School was otherwise named the “Seminary
of the good Boys” (des bons enfans) have no
less recommended themselves by the regularity of
the disciplines they inflicted, than the Reverend
Fathers Jesuits. They were even superior to the
latter, in regard to those recommendatory flagellations
mentioned above, which were administered to
such persons as were, by some means or other,
induced to deliver letters to the Fathers for that
purpose. Being situated in the metropolis, the
Seminary carried on, a very extensive business in
that way. Fathers or Mothers who had undutiful
Sons, Tutors who had unruly Pupils, Uncles
who were intrusted with the education of ungovernable
Nephews, Masters who had wickedly-inclined
Apprentices, whom they durst not themselves
undertake to correct, applied to the Fathers
of St. Lazare, and by properly seeing them, had
their wishes gratified. Indeed the Fathers had
found means to secure their doors with such good
bolts, they were so well stocked with the necessary
implements or giving disciplines, and had such
a numerous crew of stout Cuistres to inflict them,
that they never failed to execute any job they had
engaged to perform, and without minding either
age, courage, or strength, were at all times ready
to undertake the most difficult flagellations. So
regular was the trade carried on, by the good Fathers
in that branch of Business, that letters of
the above kind directed to them, were literally
notes of hand payable on sight; and provided
such notes did but come to hand, whoever the
bearer might be, the Fathers were sure to have
them discharged with punctuality.
This kind of business, as it was carried on, for
a number of years, frequently gave rise to accidents,
or mistakes, of rather a ludicrous kind.
Young men who had letters to carry to the House
of St. Lazare, the contents of which they did not
mistrust, would often undesignedly charge other
persons to carry the same for them, either on account
of their going to that part of the town, or
for some other reason of a like kind: and the unfortunate
bearer, who suspected no harm, had no
sooner delivered the dangerous letter with which
he had suffered himself to be intrusted, than he
was collared, and rewarded for his good-nature
by a severe and unexpected flagellation.
Ladies, it is likewise said, who had been forsaken,
or otherwise ungenteelly used, by their Admirers,
when every other means of revenge failed,
would also recur to the ministry of the Fathers
of St. Lazare. Either by making interest with
other persons, or using some artfully-contrived
scheme, the provoked Fair-one endeavoured to
have the Gentleman who caused her grief, inveigled
into the House of the Seminary: at the
same time she took care to have a letter to recommend
him, sent there from some unknown quarter,
with proper fees in it; for that was a point
that must not be neglected: and when the Gentleman
came afterwards to speak with the Fathers,
he was no sooner found by them, either from the
nature of the business he said he came upon, or
other marks, to be the person mentioned in the
letter they had before received, than they shewed
him into an adjoining-room, where this treacherous
and deceitful Lover was immediately seized,
mastered, and every thing in short was performed
that was requisite to procure ample satisfaction to
the fair injured Lady.
It is also said (for a number of stories are related
on that subject, and the Seminary of St. Lazare
was become for a while an object of terror to
all Paris) that schemes of the most abusive kind
were in latter times carried on, through the connivance
which the Fathers began to shew at the
knavery of certain persons: and this indeed seems
to be a well-ascertained part of the story. Abuses
of the same kind as those which once prevailed in
the Mad-houses established in this country, were
at last practised in the Seminary. Men possessed
of estates which some near relations wanted to
enjoy, or whom it was the interest of other persons
to keep for a while out of the way, were inveigled
into the House of St. Lazare, where they
were detained, and large sums paid monthly for
their board. Though they might be full-grown
persons, they were boldly charged with having
been naughty, or such-like grievous guilt; and
the Fathers, in order to shew that they meant to
act a perfectly honest part in the affair, ordered
them to be flagellated with more than common
regularity.
Nor was it of any service for the unfortunate
boarders to expostulate with the Fathers, to insist
that it was unlawful to detain them by force in a
strange house, and use them in the manner they
were used, that they had important affairs which
they must go and settle, that they were no boys,
after all, or to offer other equally pertinent arguments:
the Fathers continued to be well paid;
they cared for no more; and all the complainants
got by raising objections like these, were cold negative
answers, and fresh flagellations. Abuses
of the kind we mention, came at last to the knowledge
of the Government, which interposed its
authority, and the Seminary was abolished.
[65] King James the First.—See Dr. Berkenhout’s Biographia
Literaria.
CHAP. XII.
The same discretionary power of
inflicting disciplines, has been established in the Convents
of Nuns, and lodged in the hands of the Abbesses,
and Prioresses.
NOR have the holy Founders of religious
Orders considered flagellations as being
less useful in the Convents of Women, than
in those of Men; and in the Rules they have
framed for them, they have accordingly ordered
that kind of correction to be inflicted
upon those whose bad conduct made it necessary.
This chastisement of flagellation, upon Women
who make profession of a religious life,
is no new thing in the world. It was the
chastisement appropriated to the Vestals, in antient
Rome; and we find in the Historians,
that when faults had been committed by them
in the discharge of their functions, it was
commonly inflicted upon them by the hands
of the Priests, or sometimes of the Great
Priest himself.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates, that the
Virgin Urbinia was lashed by the Priests, and
led in procession through the Town.
The High-priest, Publius Licinius, ordered,
as we read in Valerius Maximus, ‘that a
certain Vestal who had suffered the sacred
fire to be extinguished, should be lashed and
dismissed.’
Julius likewise relates, ‘that the fire in the
Temple of Vesta, having happened to be
extinguished, the Virgin was whipped by
the High-priest, M. Æmilius, and promised
never to offend again in the same manner.’
And Festus says in his Book, that ‘whenever
the fire of Vesta came to be extinguished,
the Virgins were lashed by the Great Priest.’
Severities of the like kind have been deemed
necessary to be introduced into the Convents
of modern Nuns, by the holy Fathers
who have framed religious Rules for them.
In that very antient Rule for the conduct of
Nuns, which is contained in Epistle CIX. of
St. Augustin, the mortification of discipline
is prescribed to the Prioress herself. ‘Let her
(it is said in the above Rule) be ever ready
to receive discipline, but never impose it but
with fear[66].’
Cesarius, Archbishop of Arles, in the Rule
framed by him, which is mentioned with
praise by several antient Authors, such as Gennadius,
and Gregory of Tours, prescribes the
discipline of flagellation to be inflicted upon
Nuns who have been guilty of faults; and
enters, besides, into several particulars about
the propriety as well as usefulness of this method
of correction. ‘It is just (he says) that
such as have violated the institutions contained
in the Rule, should receive an adequate
discipline: it is fit that in them should
be accomplished what the Holy Ghost has
in former times prescribed through Solomon.
He who loves his Child, frequently applies the
rod to it.’
St. Donat, Archbishop of Bezancon, in
the Rule he has framed for Nuns, has expressed
the same paternal disposition towards them,
as Archbishop Cesarius has done: he recommends
flagellations as excellent methods of
mending the morals of such of them as are
wickedly inclined, or careless in performing
their religious duties; and he determines the
different kinds of faults for which the above
correction ought to be bestowed upon them,
as well as the number of the blows that are to
be inflicted. The above Rule of St. Donat
has been mentioned with much praise by the
Monk Jonas, in his Account of the Life of
St. Columbanus, which the venerable Beda
has inserted in the third volume of his Works.
In that Rule, commonly called the Rule of
a Father, which St. Benedict, Bishop of Aniana,
in his Book on the Concordance of Rules,
and Smaragdus, in his Commentaries on the
Rule of St. Benedict, have both mentioned,
provisions of the same kind as those above,
are made for the correction of Nuns. ‘If a
Sister (it is said in that Rule) that has been
several times admonished, will not mend her
conduct, let her be excommunicated for a
while, in proportion to the degree of her
fault: if this kind of correction proves useless,
let her then be chastised by stripes.’
Striking a Sister, has likewise been looked
upon as an offence of a grievous kind; and
St. Aurelian, in the Rule he has framed for
Nuns, orders a discipline to be inflicted on
such as have been guilty of it.
To the above regulations, Archbishop Cesarius
has added another, which is, that the
corrections ought, for the sake of example,
to be inflicted in the presence of all the Sisters.
‘Let also the discipline be bestowed upon
them in the presence of the Congregation,
conformably to the precept of the Apostle,
Confute Sinners in the presence of all[67].’
FOOTNOTES:
[66] Num. XII. “Disciplinam lubens habeat, metuens
imponat.”
[67] The Abbé Boileau, after the manner of the
Learned of former times, has added to his quotations
on the flagellations of Vestals, a string of
names of Writers who have also occasionally mentioned
that custom; such as Rosinus on the Roman
Antiquities, Fortunius Licetus on the Lamps of
the Ancients, Josephus Laurens of Lucca, Polymathias
in his Dissertations, and Jacobus Ghuterius
on the rights of the ancient Pontiffs. These
Writers, as far as I can perceive, have neglected
to inform us of an important circumstance, which
is, of what kind those disciplines were, that were
inflicted upon Vestals; whether upper or lower
disciplines. However, they have informed us of
a fact about which the Reader, no doubt, particularly
wishes to be satisfied; which is, that a
great regard was paid to decency in the above flagellations;
and that, as the correction was inflicted
in an open place, and by the hands of a
Priest, the guilty Vestal was wrapped in a veil during
the ceremony.
The flagellations which persons who live in
Convents, are upon different occasions made to undergo,
the obligation they are under, of receiving
such corrections before the whole Brotherhood or
Sisterhood, together with the companions which
the holy Founders of religious Orders have made
of them with naughty children, have drawn numerous
jests upon them; but such jests can only
come from persons who have not paid a sufficient
attention to the subject.
Politicians inform us, that it is absolutely necessary
that, in all States, there should be Powers
of different kinds, established to maintain the general
harmony of the whole, and that Legislative,
Executive, Military, and Judicial Powers, for instance,
should be formed, and lodged in different
hands. Hence we may conclude, that some power
analogous to these, ought to exist in every numerous
Society either of Men or Women, for the
preservation of good Order, and that it is necessary
that, in such Societies, a power of flagellation
should be lodged somewhere.
Nor are we to think that Convents are the
only Societies in which some authority of this
kind takes place. In the Eastern Seraglios, for
instance, Societies which are by no means contemptible,
and may very well bear a comparison
with Convents, we are not to doubt, a power of
occasionally inflicting flagellations, exists: nay,
we are expressly informed that Empresses themselves
are not always exempt from them. Thus
M. de Montesquieu, in the 26th Chapter of the
Book XIX. of his Spirit of Laws, relates, after
the Historian of Justinian the Second, that the
Empress, Wife of the Emperor, ‘was threatened,
by the great Eunuch, with that kind of
chastisement with which children are punished
at School:’ a treatment certainly very severe,
and from which one should be tempted to judge
that Empresses, at least, ought to be exempt, if it
were not that the advantages of peace and good
order are such, as ought to supersede every other
consideration.
In the Palaces of the Western Sovereigns,
though they have constantly borne a very different
appearance either from Convents or Seraglios, we
find that disciplines like those abovementioned
were found extremely useful about two centuries
ago (a time when Men had notions of decorum
much superior to ours) and were in consequence
employed as common methods of preserving good
order, without much distinction of rank or sex.
Of the above fact we have a proof, in the
misfortune that befel Mademoiselle de Limeuil,
at the Court of France, where she was a Maid of
Honour to the Queen, Wife to King Henry II.
as we find in the Mémoires de Brantôme: for my
respect for the Reader induces me to offer him
only such anecdotes as are supported by good
authorities. Mademoiselle de Limeuil, as Brantôme
relates, was a very witty handsome young
Lady, extremely ready at her pen, and related to
the best families in the Kingdom. She was placed
at Court in the capacity of Maid of Honour to
the Queen; and she had been there but a few
months, when she tried her wit at the expence of
the Gentlemen and Ladies at Court, and wrote a
copy of verses, or Pasquinade, in which few Characters
were spared. As these verses were ingeniously
written, they spread very fast; and people
were very curious to know who had composed this
piece of satire: at last, it was found out that Mademoiselle
de Limeuil was the Author of it; and
as the Queen, besides being a person of a serious
temper, was grown disgusted with the great licence
of writing that had of late prevailed at Court,
and had determined at least to prevent any satire,
or lampoon, from originating in her own Houshold,
orders were given in consequence of which
Mademoiselle de Limeuil was rewarded for her
verses by a flagellation; and those young Ladies
in the suite of the Queen, who had been privy to
the composition of the Pasquinade, were likewise
flagellated.
The instances of flagellations just now related,
from which, neither the beauty, nor the birth,
nor the rank of the Culprits, nor the brilliancy of
their wit, their readiness at their pen, nor happy
turn for Satire, could screen them, clearly shew
how much flagellations were in esteem in the times
we speak of, and how much efficacy they were
thought to possess, for insuring those two great advantages,
good order and decorum. There is no
doubt therefore, but that they were still more
strictly used for the improvement of the morals of
those swarms of unruly young Men, who then
filled the Houses of Kings, or of the Great, and
went by the name of Pages. Indeed we find that
the Gentlemen, or Equerries, whose care it was
to superintend their conduct, were invested with a
very extensive power of inflicting flagellations;
and so frequent were the occasions in which they
found it necessary to use corrections of this kind,
that the words flagellation, and Page, are become
as it were essentially connected together, and it is
almost impossible to mention the one, without
raising an idea of the other: I shall therefore forbear
to relate any instances of such corrections;
and flagellations of Pages, like those of School-boys,
are too vulgar flagellations to have a place in
this Book.
Nor were disciplines like those we mention,
imposed only upon those persons who expressly
made part either of the Royal of Noble Housholds,
for the edification of which they were inflicted;
but wholesome corrections of the same
kind were also occasionally bestowed upon such
Strangers as happened to infringe the rules of decorum,
or in any other manner, offended against
the respect that was owing to the Royal or Noble
Proprietor of the House.
Of this we have an undeniable proof in the
Story of that Reverend Father Jesuit, who was
flagellated at Vienna, as Brantôme relates, by
command of a Princess of the Austrian House,
whose displeasure he had incurred.
The Princess here alluded to, was daughter to
the Emperor Maximilian II. She had been formerly
married to Charles IX. King of France; and
after the death of that Prince, by whom she had
had no children, she retired to Vienna in Austria.
Philip II. King of Spain, having about that time
lost his wife, sent proposals of marriage to the
Princess we mention, who was at the same time
his Niece; and the Mother of the Princess, a Sister
to Philip II. was very pressing to induce her to
accept the above proposals; which the Princess
Elizabeth (such was her name) otherwise Queen-Dowager
of France, persevered in refusing. The
Empress, and the King of Spain, then thought
of employing the agency of a Father Jesuit, a
learned smooth-tongued Man, who was to persuade
the Princess to accept the offers of Philip;
but the endeavours of the Father having proved
ineffectual, he at last desisted from importuning
the Princess any more, and retired. The King of
Spain then sent new letters to the Princess concerning
the same subject, and the Jesuit was sent
for a second time, and injoined to exert again all
his efforts to make the affair succeed. In consequence
of these orders, the Jesuit resumed his
function; but the Princess, whom Brantôme
represents as having been a person of much merit,
and who certainly must have had some,
since she resolutely persevered in refusing to marry
that abominable Tyrant, Philip the Second, the
Princess, I say, grew much displeased with the
importunities of the Jesuit; and at last spoke very
harshly to him, and plainly threatened him, if he
dared to mention a word more to her on the subject,
with an immediate flagellation (de le faire
fouetter en sa cuisine).
To the above account Brantôme adds, that some
say that the Jesuit having been so imprudent as to
renew afterwards
his solicitations, actually received
the chastisement he had been threatened
with. But though himself is rather inclined to
disbelieve the fact, yet he does not, we are to observe,
alledge any reasons for so doing, that are
drawn, either from the impropriety of flagellations
in general, or from the inability he supposes in
them to repress bold intrusion, to put a stop to
teazing importunities, or to confute captious arguments:
by no means; he only says that the
Princess in question was of too gentle a temper to
have made good her threats to the Jesuit; besides
that she generally bore great respect to Men of
his cloth.
To the above remarkable instances of flagellations
performed in the Palaces of the Great, I
will add another which is not less pregnant with
interesting consequences. I mean to speak of the
Story of that Court Buffoon, who, upon a certain
occasion, was flagellated at the Court of Spain.
The fact is related in the same Memoirs of
Brantôme, in a Chapter the subject of which is,
that ‘Ladies ought never to be disrespectfully spoken
to, and the ill consequences thereof.’
The name of the Buffoon in question was Legat,
and he ventured once to try his wit upon the
Queen herself, Wife to Philip II. This Queen,
who was a Princess of France, and is the same
whom Philip was afterwards accused of having
made away with, on account of the love he supposed
between her and his son Don Carlos, had
taken a particular fancy for two of the Country
Houses belonging to the King; and one day, being
in convention with the Ladies at Court, she
mentioned her liking to the two seats in question,
which were situated, the one in the neighbourhood
of Madrid, and the other of Valladolid;
and expressed a wish they were so near to each
other, that she might touch both at once with her
feet: saying which, she made a motion with her
legs, which she opened pretty wide: the Buffoon
could not hold his tongue, and made rather a
coarse remark on the subject, which Brantôme has
related at length in Spanish: the consequence of
which was, that he was instantly hurried out of
the room, and entertained with a sound flagellation.
It may not, however, be improper to add,
that Brantôme tries in some degree to excuse him,
at least for thinking as he did; and he concludes
with saying, that the Queen (whom he had had several
occasions of seeing) was so handsome, and
so civil to all, that there was no want of Men disposed
to love her, who were an hundred thousand
times better than the Buffoon[68].
All the facts above related, manifestly shew that
flagellations have been frequently used in the Palaces
both of the Eastern Sovereigns, and of the
Princes of Europe; that they were employed for
the correction of the highest as well as the lowest
personages, and for the prevention of every kind
of fault, from that of meddling in State affairs
(which we may suppose was the fault committed
by the Empress, though the Historian of Justinian
II. says nothing about it) down to wanton
language and immodesty: now all these considerations
are wonderfully fit to confute the jests which
are thrown upon Monks and Nuns, for also making
flagellations their usual means of self, or mutual,
correction.
It is, however, very important to observe, that
though we are fully informed of the different ceremonies
with which flagellations are imposed in
Convents, we have not the same advantage in
regard to those which were inflicted in the Palaces
of Princes, or Noble Personages. We are, for
instance, told by Authors, by Du Cange among
others, in one or two places of his Glossary, of
the modesty with which culprits upon whom a
correction is to be inflicted in Convents, are to
strip off their clothes, and the silence which must
be observed by the whole Assembly during the operation;
unless the persons invested with the different
dignities in the Convent, choose to speak in
behalf of the sufferer, and pray the Abbot, or
Abbess, to put an end to the flagellation. We
are abundantly informed, in different Books, of
the various causes for which flagellations are to be
employed in Monasteries: and we moreover know
that they are to be inflicted in the presence of the
whole Congregation; in the Convents of Men,
by the hands of a vigorous Brother; and in those
of Nuns, by those of an elderly morose Sister.
In regard to the corrections of the same kind
that were served in the Palaces of the Great, we
have, I repeat it, no such compleat informations
as these. Though the instances of such corrections
are undeniable, we are much in the dark
about the different rites and solemnities that used
to accompany them: yet it would be a very interesting
thing to be acquainted with these several
circumstances, and to know, at least, what particular
place, in Palaces, was set apart for the operations
we mention. Concerning this latter object,
I will try to offer a few conjectures; for I
do not think so meanly of my Readers, as to rank
them among that class of shallow readers, who
only mind the outward superficies of things.
In the first place, I do not think that there was
any place so expressly appropriated for flagellations,
in the Palaces we speak of, but that others might
occasionally be used for the same purpose, according
to circumstances. Though Politicians lay it
down as assured maxims, that punishments are to
be inflicted for the sake of example, and that such
examples ought to be public, yet, there were so
great differences between the dignities of the personages
who were liable to receive corrections of
the kind we mention, that they must needs have
introduced exceptions in favour of some of them,
at least with regard to the places of the operations.
Thus, for instance, though in the Eastern Seraglios
they may be fully sensible of the truth of
the above maxim, and of the expediency of correcting
Offenders in the presence of all, yet, we
are not to think, that when the Empress herself
is to receive a flagellation, such correction is served
in a place absolutely public; for instance, in the
third, otherwise the outmost, inclosure of the Seraglio,
in which a swarm of Icoghlans, Bostangis,
Capigi-Bashis, and other officers of every kind
are admitted. Neither is the ceremony performed
in the second, or the first inclosure of the Seraglio,
nor even in any common apartment in the inside
of the Palace, in sight of a croud of vulgar
beauties, who have never been admitted to the
honour of the embraces, or even of the presence
of the Monarch. A flagellation served upon a
personage of so much eminence as an Empress, is
an event sufficiently important of itself, for the
bare report of it, to produce all the good effects
that are usually expected from examples of that
kind. The only essential thing, is to ascertain such
fact: this important point being obtained, every
proper regard ought to be shewn to the delicacy of
the great personage who is to receive the correction
we mention; and whenever an Empress, in the
Eastern Seraglios, happens to be served with a flagellation,
we are to judge that the operation is performed
in the Empress’s own private Chamber, in
the presence of two or three favourite Sultanas.
Nor were prudential considerations of the same
kind, less attended to in the Palaces of the Western
Princes. When Maids of Honour had the
misfortune to draw upon themselves the correction
of a flagellation, we are not to think that the
persons charged with the superintendence of the
ceremony, adhered so blindly to those maxims
which require that examples of this kind should
be public, as to have the operation performed in
a place literally public and open to all persons;
that they, for instance, chose for the scene of the
ceremony, that vast Yard, or Court, that lay before
the Palaces of Kings, and was continually
filled with Grooms, Pages, Keepers of Hounds,
Huntsmen, and Servants of every denomination,
some of whom blew the French horn, others the
trumpet, and, others played on other musical instruments.
No, such a place would have been in
a high degree improper: nor would any open
apartment or office, within the Palace, have been
much more suitable for the occasion. The bare
report of a flagellation being served upon so interesting
a person as a Maid of Honour, was sufficient
to produce all the good effects for which
such examples are commonly intended: there was
no necessity rigidly to adhere either to the above-mentioned
maxim, or to the rule laid down by
Horace, who says, that mens’ minds are more
strongly affected by such objects as are laid before
their eyes, than by those of which they only
receive on hearsay information. The report well
ascertained, of such an event, was fully sufficient
to remind a croud of unlucky Pages, and wanton
Chambermaids, of their respective duties, and engage
them in a serious examination of their own
conduct. All that was necessary, was to put such
fact beyond a doubt, to prevent its being afterwards
questioned by some, and flatly denied by
others: but these important ends being attained,
there was no just reason to refuse to shew the
greatest tenderness for the delicacy of the Lady
who was to receive the above correction; and
whenever one or more Maids of Honour, therefore,
have been so unfortunate as to make it necessary
that a flagellation should be inflicted upon them,
we are to conclude that the operation was performed
in a private apartment of the Palace, in which
only the other Maids of Honour were admitted,
with a few Ladies of the Bedchamber.
In all the above reasonings, I have only meant
to offer my conjectures to the Reader, and have
accordingly spoken with becoming diffidence. But
with respect to the flagellations that were inflicted
on persons of inferior rank, or on those Strangers,
such as Fathers Jesuits or others, who had given
a just cause of displeasure to the Noble Proprietor
of the House, I am able to speak with more certainty,
and confidently to inform the Reader, that
the place appropriated for such corrections, was
the Kitchen.
Nor do I found such an assertion only upon the
conveniency of the place in general, upon its being
sheltered from both sun and rain, upon its being
plentifully stocked with the necessary implements
for serving corrections of the kind we
mention, or possessing other advantages of a like
nature; but I ground it upon precise facts. We
see, for instance, that executions of a similar culinary
kind, are expressly founded upon the law of
this Country, and are the means provided by it
for avenging the honour of the Sovereign, when
insulted in his own house. Thus, if a Man dares
to strike another in the King’s Court, or within
two hundred feet from the Palace Gate (which
kind of offence has been always looked upon by
Kings as a great piece of insolence) all the different
Officers in the Kitchen are to co-operate in
the Man’s punishment. The Serjeant of the
Wood-yard is to bring a block of wood to fasten
the Culprit’s hands to: for the punishment is no
less than to have it cut off. The Yeomen of the
Scullery, and of the Poultry, are likewise to concur
in the operation in one manner; the Groom of
the Saucery and the Master Cook in another; the
Serjeant of the Ewry, again in another: even the
concurrence of the Serjeant of the Larder has
been deemed necessary, and a proper share has
been likewise assigned him in the ceremony: nay,
the chief Officers of the Cellar and Pantry are also
ordered to lend their assistance; and their allotted
function is to solace the sufferer, when the sad
operation is over, by offering him a cup of red
wine and a manchet.
Another proof of the reality of the culinary
executions we mention, as well as of the great
share which the people of the Kitchen bore in former
times, in supporting the dignity of Kings, is
to be found in the description of the manner in
which the Knights of the Bath are to be installed,
according to the Statutes of the Order. The installed
Knight is, on that occasion, to receive admonitions,
not only from the Dean of the Order,
but also from the Master Cook of the Sovereign,
who repairs purposely on that day to Westminster
Church; though the place be rather distant from
his district. After the different ceremonies of the
installation, such as taking the Oath, hearing the
exhortation of the Dean, and the like, are over,
the installed Knight, invested with the insignia of
his dignity, places himself on the one side of the
door; the Cook, invested with the insignia of his
own, viz. his white linen apron and his chopping-knife,
places himself on the other, and addresses
the Knight in the following eloquent speech: Sir,
you know what great oath you have taken; which if
you keep, it will be great honour to you: but if you
break it, I shall be compelled, by my office, to hack off
your spurs from your heels.
As the punishment that has been described
above, is in itself of a grave nature, the particular
ceremony with which it is to be inflicted, together
with the respective shares allotted in the ceremony
to the different Officers of the Royal Kitchen,
have been carefully set down in writing.
In regard to those flagellations inflicted with a
view to avenge any slighter disrespect shewn for
the presence or the orders of the Sovereign, as
they were corrections of a different, and, we may
say, of a more paternal nature, such accuracy
has not been used; but there is no doubt that they
were performed in the same place in which the punishment
above described was to be executed, and
by much the same hands; whether they were to be
bestowed in the Palaces of English, or of foreign
Kings, or of the great personages who were nearly
related to them.
In fact, we are positively informed that the
abovementioned Reverend Father Jesuit was
threatened, and according to others actually
served, with a flagellation in the Kitchen. The
above Court Buffoon was chastised for his impudence
in the same place, and Brantôme expressly
says that he was smartly flagellated in the Kitchen
(il fut bien fouetté à la Cuisine). Nay, when great
Men, who have at all times been fond of aping
Kings, have assumed in their own Palaces, or
Country Seats, the above power of flagellation,
the operation has also been constantly performed
in their Kitchens. Of this a number of instances
might be produced; but I will content myself
with mentioning that which is related in the Tales
of the Queen of Navarre (Contes de la Reine de Navarre)
of a wanton Friar Capuchin, who frequented
the House of a Nobleman in the Country,
and who wanted once to persuade a young
Chambermaid in it, to wear, by way of mortification,
a hair-cloth upon her bare skin, which he
himself offered to put upon her: the young Woman
mentioned the fact; and the Nobleman who
heard of it, grew very angry at the attempt, as
he thought, committed by the Friar in his House,
and got him to be soundly flagellated in the Kitchen.
Nor that I mean, however, to offer this
fact to the Reader, as a fact for the truth of
which I vouch to him, in the same manner as I
have done with respect to the preceding ones; but
though the above-quoted Book bears only the title
of Tales, yet, as it is undoubtedly an old Book,
and has been in so much esteem as to have been
supposed to have been written by Queen Margaret,
Wife to Henry the Fourth, it is at least to be
depended upon with respect to those particular customs
and manners it alludes to[69].
That flagellations were, in not very remote
times, much in use in the Palaces of the Great,
and were served in the Kitchen, are therefore assured
facts. With respect to our being so imperfectly
informed of the different ceremonies that
usually accompanied such corrections, it is owing
to different causes; and first, to a kind of carelessness
with which, it must be confessed, the affair
was commonly transacted. The great Personages
who gave orders in that respect, were not sufficiently
correct in their manner of giving them;
nor did they take sufficient care to confine themselves
to any settled forms of words for that purpose:
whence it always proved an impossible thing
for the Masters of the Ceremonies to collect and
set down in writing any thing precise on that head.
For here we are to observe, that the Princes who
gave such orders, did not give them in their capacity
of Trustees of the Executive, Legislative,
Military, or Judicial Powers in the Nation. Neither
did the Great Men about them, order corrections
of the same kind in their own houses, in
their capacity of Admirals, Generals, or Knights
of the Garter, or of the St. Esprit. The flagellations
in question, as hath been above observed,
were corrections of quite a paternal kind: they
were commonly ordered on a sudden, according
as circumstances arose, pro re natâ, without much
ceremony or solemnity; and they may extremely
well be compared with those boxes on the ears
which Queen Elizabeth would sometimes bestow
upon her Maids of Honour, or with those marks
of attention with which she honoured those who
made their appearance in the neighbourhood of
her Palaces with high ruffs and long swords, who
had them immediately clipped or broken.
When the above great Personages were desirous
that a flagellation should be inflicted, a word from
them, a gesture, an exclamation, commonly proved
sufficient. The numerous Servants who surrounded
them, through a zeal that cannot be too
much praised, constantly saved them the trouble
of expressing themselves more at length on the
subject: they quickly laid hold of the person of
the culprit; hurried him down into the Kitchen;
and without loss of time proceeded to serve the
prescribed flagellation, the conduct of which was
now intirely left to their discretion: only they
took care to regulate their actions upon what they
had formerly seen practised on similar occasions, or
in cases of a more serious nature: they, for instance,
never forgot, when the flagellation was
accomplished, to offer the sufferers the abovementioned
cup of wine and manchet; nor are we to
think that the latter always refused to accept them.
And indeed it is no wonder, to conclude on this
subject, that the Kitchen had become the appropriated
part of Palaces for serving flagellations.
The Kitchen was the place of the general resort
of those numerous bodies of Servants, who, in
former times, filled the Houses of the Great: it
was the place in which they deliberated upon every
important occurrence; in which they kept their
Archives; and where their General Estates were
continually assembled. There Great Men were
sure, upon every sudden emergency, to find a sufficient
Posse of Servants, ready to do any kind of
mischief under the sanction of their Royal or Noble
Master, and who were never so pleased as
when their assistance was requested to effect a flagellation.
When a Reverend Father Jesuit, or
some saucy Friar Capuchin, was to be the sufferer,
the contentment was, no doubt, much increased;
but when the Buffoon himself, who
commonly was the most mischievous animal of
the whole Crew, was to be flagellated, then indeed
we may safely affirm, that an universal joy
and uproar prevailed over the whole Royal or
Noble mansion.
[68] Corrections of a flagellatory kind continue, in these
days, to be looked upon as excellent expedients for insuring
good order, in the houses of great people, in Russia, in some
districts of Germany, and especially in Poland, where most
of the feudal customs that prevailed two or three hundred
years ago in other parts of Europe, are still in full force:
lower disciplines are, in the latter kingdom, the method
commonly employed for mending the manners of Servants of
both sexes. A regulation was made, a few years ago, in
Poland, as it appeared from the foreign
news-papers, with a view to abridge the power assumed by Masters in regard to
their Servants.
[69] The French word Cuistre, which is the common word
to express a flagellator, in a public School, was the old word
for a Cook: whence we may conclude, that, in large public
Schools also, the people of the Kitchen were supposed to possess
peculiar abilities for performing flagellations.
CHAP. XIII.
The subject of voluntary flagellations among
Christians is at last introduced. That method
of self-mortification appears to have been
practised in very early times; but it does not
seem to have been universally admitted before
the years 1047 and 1056; which was the
time Cardinal Damianus wrote[70].
VOLUNTARY flagellations were not a
practice that was contrived on a sudden,
and then immediately diffused over the Christian
world.
Long before the period in which their use
began to be universally adopted, they were
practised by divers persons, in different times
and places, as we may judge from the accounts
that have been left us, of several early
facts; a few of which I here purpose to
relate.
One is contained in the Life of St. Peter,
the Hermit of the Pont Euxin, which was
written by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who
has been mentioned in a former Chapter, and
lived about the year 400. This holy Hermit
having found means to rescue a young
Woman from the hands of a military Officer,
who wanted to seduce her, was much perplexed
afterwards how to prevent the effects of
both the wrath and lust of that impure man;
nor could he, in the issue, compass this any
other way than by locking himself up, as
Theodoret relates, and severely flagellating
himself, in company with the Mother of the
young Woman[71].
Palladius, Bishop of Hellenopolis, in his
History of the Lives of several holy Solitaries,
which he wrote in the year 420, and dedicated
to Lausus, whence the Book was called
Lausiacum, relates a fact which incontestably
proves that flagellations voluntarily submitted
to, by those persons who underwent them,
were in use so early as the fourth Century.
He says, in the Life of Abbot Arsisius,
that on the mountain of Nitria, in Thebaid,
there was a very large Church, in the vicinity
of which stood three Palm-trees, on each of
which hung a scourge: the one served to chastise
such Monks as proved refractory against
the Rule; the other to punish Thieves; and
the third served to correct such accidental
comers as became guilty of some fault: the
delinquents, according to what class they belonged,
embraced one of the Palm-trees,
and in this situation received a certain number
of lashes with one of the above scourges.
It is expressly said of St. Pardulph, a Benedictine
Monk and Abbot, who lived during
the time of Charles Martel, about the
year 737, that he used in Lent-time to strip
himself stark-naked, and order one of his
disciples to lash him. The fact is related
in the life of that Saint, formerly written
by an Author who lived about the same
time; and it was, two hundred years afterwards,
put into more elegant language, by
Yvus, Prior of Clugny, at the desire of the
Monks of St. Martial, in the Town of Limoges:
Hugh Menard, a Benedictine Father,
and a very learned Man in all that relates to
Ecclesiastical Antiquities, has inserted part of
it in his Book, intitled, Observations on the
Benedictine Martyrology. The following is
the Passage in St. Pardulph’s Life, which is
here alluded to. ‘St. Pardulph seldom went
out of his cell; whenever sickness obliged
him to bathe, he would previously make
incisions in his own skin. During Lent, he
used to strip himself intirely naked, and ordered
one of his disciples to lash him with
rods[72].’
St. William, Duke of Aquitain, who lived
in the time of Charlemain, that is, about the
year 800, and many years before Cardinal Damian,
is said to have also used flagellations,
as a means of voluntary penance. Arduinus,
the Writer of the holy Duke’s Life, and a
cotemporary Writer, says, that ‘it was commonly
reported that the Duke did frequently,
for the love of Christ, cause himself to
be whipped, and that he then was alone
with the person who assisted him[73].’ Haeftenus,
Superior of the Monastery of Affligen,
relates the same fact, and says that the Duke
of Aquitain ‘took a great delight in sleeping
upon a hard bed, and that he moreover
lashed himself with a scourge.’ Hugh Menard,
the learned Benedictine just now mentioned,
has adopted the testimony of Arduinus,
and upon that Writer’s authority inserted
the above fact in his Observations on the
Benedictine Martyrology.
Other persons, who lived before the times
of Cardinal Damian, are also mentioned by
different Writers, as having practised voluntary
flagellations. Gualbertus, Abbot of
Pontoise, who lived about the year 900, upon
a certain occasion, ‘severely flagellated himself
(as M. Du Cange relates in his Glossary)
with a scourge made of knotted thongs.’
And the abovementioned Haeftenus, Prior of
Affligen, has advanced that the same practice
was followed by St. Romuald, who lived
about the same time as Gualbertus, and by
the Monks of the Camaldolian order, who
were settled in Sitria.
Another early instance of voluntary flagellations
occurs in the Life of Guy, Abbot of
Pomposa. Heribert, it is said, Archbishop of
Ravenna, formed the design of pulling down
the Monastery of Pomposa; and this piece of
news caused both Abbot Guy and his Monks,
‘to lock themselves up in the Capitular
House, and to lash themselves every day, for
several days, with rods[74].’ Abbot Guy was
born in the year 956; and he was made Abbot
of Pomposa in the year 998, in which capacity
he continued forty-eight years.
All the facts above related were anterior to
the year 1056, the time at which Peter Damian
de Honeslis was raised to the Cardinalship
by Pope Stephen IX; and it is evident
from them, that the practice of voluntarily
flagellating one’s-self, as a penance for committed
sins, had been adopted before the period
in question; though it cannot be said to
have been then universally prevalent: at least,
only a few instances of it have been left us by
the Writers of those times. But at the æra
we mention, this pious mode of self-correction,
owing to the public and zealous patronage
with which the above Cardinal favoured
it, acquired a vast degree of credit, and grew
into universal esteem; and then it was that
persons of religious dispositions were every
where seen to arm themselves with whips, rods,
thongs, and besoms, and lacerate their own
hides, in order to draw upon themselves the
favour of Heaven.
We are informed of this fact by the learned
Cardinal Baronius, in his Ecclesiastical Annals:
‘At that time (he says) the laudable
usage of the faithful, of beating themselves
with whips made for that purpose, though
Peter Damian may not be said to have been
the author of it, was much promoted by
him the Christian Church; in which he
followed the example of the blessed Dominic
the Cuirassed, a holy Hermit, who had
subjected himself to his authority[75].’
The same Cardinal Damian has moreover
left numerous accounts of voluntary flagellations
practised by certain holy Men of his
times; but these are surely more apt to create
our admiration, than to excite us to imitate
them, indeed, the flagellations he mentions
cannot be proposed to the Faithful as examples
they ought to follow, and they were
executed with such dreadful severity, as makes
it impossible for the most vigorous Men to go
through the like, without a kind of miracle.
In the Life of the Monk St. Rodolph, who
was afterwards made Bishop of Eugubio,
the Cardinal relates, ‘That this holy Man
would often impose upon himself a penance
of an hundred years, and that he performed
it in twenty days, by the strenuous application
of a broom, without neglecting the
other common methods used in doing penance.
Every day, being shut up in his
cell, he recited the whole Psalter (or Book
of Psalms) at least one time when he could
not two, being all the while armed with a
besom in each hand, with which he incessantly
lashed himself[76]’
The account which the Cardinal has left
of Dominic, sirnamed the Cuirassed, is not
less wonderful. ‘His constant practice (he
says) is, after stripping himself naked, to
fill both his hands with rods, and then vigorously
flagellate himself: this he does in
his times of relaxation. But during Lent-time,
or when he really means to mortify
himself, he frequently undertakes the hundred
years penance; and then he every day
recites the Psalter at least three times over,
all the while flogging himself with besoms[77].’
Cardinal Damian then proceeds to relate
the manner in which the same Dominic informed
him he performed the hundred years
penance. ‘A Man (said he) may depend he
has accomplished it, when he has flagellated
himself during the whole time the Psalter
was sung twenty times over[78].’ The same
Author adds several circumstances which make
the penances performed by the holy Man appear
in a still more admirable light. He, in
the first place, was so dextrous as to be able
to use both his hands at once, and thus laid
on twice the number of lashes others could
do, who only used their right-hand. In one
instance, he fustigated himself during the time
the whole Book of Psalms was sung twice
over; on another occasion he did the same
while it was sung eight times; and on another,
while it was repeated twelve times over;
‘which filled me with terror,’ the Cardinal
adds, ‘when I heard the fact[79].’
Cardinal Damian also relates of the same
Dominic the Cuirassed, that he at last changed
his discipline of rods into that of leather-thongs,
which was still harsher; and that he
had been able to accustom himself to that laborious
exercise. Nay, so punctual was he in
performing the duties he had imposed upon
himself, that, ‘when he happened to go
abroad (being an Hermit) he carried his
scourge in his bosom, to the end that, wherever
he happened to spend the night, he
might lose no time, and flog himself with
the same regularity as usual. If the place
in which he had taken his refuge for the
night, did not allow him to strip entirely,
and fustigate himself from head to foot,
he at least would severely beat his legs and
head[80].’
FOOTNOTES:
[70] The Reader, no doubt, feels a great pleasure
in seeing the subject of pious flagellations among
Christians again introduced, and a fresh Chapter
begun upon it: indeed the Author had taken a
great liberty, in losing sight of his main subject
for so long a time, and dwelling, through so many
pages, upon the flagellatory corrections which,
after the example of Convents, were, in not very
remote days, practised in the Palaces of the Great:
his zeal in the defence of Friars and Nuns has insensibly
carried him these lengths.
In the present Chapter, the Author has also indulged
himself in a piece of great freedom with
the Abbé Boileau, his original, or rather his model:
which is no less than to have given a direct
contradiction to the main doctrine advanced by
the Abbé in his Work.
Thus, the principal, or rather sole point, which
the Abbé labours to prove in his Book, is, that
voluntary flagellations only began to be practised
among Christians, in the years 1047 or 1056; this
is an assertion which he introduces almost at every
page, and which expressly constitutes the title of
one of his Chapters (the 7th): yet he has himself
quoted (without disputing the truth of them)
several facts that shew such practice to have been
much older: I have therefore taken the liberty, in
the present Chapter, in which those facts are collected,
to dissent from the doctrine maintained by
him, and have advanced, that voluntary flagellations
were practised in early times among Christians,
though they began to be universally admitted
only in the years 1047 and 1056.
And indeed if the Reader now asked my own
opinion concerning the antiquity, or novelty, of
the practice in question, a subject which has
caused much disputation among Catholic Divines,
I would answer, that I do not think it in the least
probable, that a practice like this, after having
been unknown for so many Centuries, should afterwards
have been thought of on a sudden, and
then adopted by the whole Christian world, at the
same period.
In the first place it is to be observed, that
though the strict truth of those early instances of
voluntary flagellations, which are to be found in the
Abbé’s text, might perhaps be controverted, yet,
as the reader will see, such instances are related by
early and contemporary Writers, as common facts,
at which they do not express any surprise.
In the second place, since the opposers of the
opinion of the antiquity of self-flagellations admit,
that cruel voluntary penances, such as wearing
iron cuirasses inwardly armed with points, being
continually loaded with enormous weights,
dwelling in the bottom of dwells, or on the tops
of columns, were practised by the first Christians,
it is difficult to understand why they make such
objections against flagellations in particular, which
they agree to have been employed, from the earliest
times, by Ecclesiastical Superiors, as common
methods of correcting offences of a religious kind,
and which were likewise used for pious purposes,
before the establishment of Christianity.
Nay, beating and lashing one’s self, are means
of self-mortification, which, more readily than
any other, occur to the minds either of superstitious,
or hypocritical persons. Practices of this
kind presently gratify the sudden fits of fanaticism
of the one, and serve extremely well the purposes
of the other, in that they catch the minds of the
vulgar, by the display of an apparatus of cruel instruments
and a show of great severity, at the same
time that they are in reality much less difficult to
be borne than the penances above alluded to, and
want what constituted the most intolerable hardship
of these latter, diuturnity and uninterruption.
Besides, those who make self-flagellation part of
their religious exercises, always have it in their
power to take, like Sancho, their own time for
performing them, as well as to choose what station
they please for that purpose. In Summer, they
may settle themselves in a cool place; in Winter,
near a good fire; and have constantly by them
some excellent liquor, to refresh themselves with,
during the different pauses they think proper to
make.
They may moreover use just what degree of severity
they choose. They even may, like Sancho,
who only lashed the trees around him, or
like the Hermit mentioned by La Fontaine,
content themselves with flagellating the walls of
their apartment: nay, they may perform no flagellation
at all, and yet make afterwards what
boast they please. Having duly weighed all the
above important considerations, as well as the facts
quoted by the Abbé, the truth of which he does
not take the trouble to deny, I have ventured to
dissent from his inconsistent assertions, and have
made the abovementioned change in his doctrine.
[71] The above fact related by Theodoret is very
positive; and it supplies an evident proof, that the
practice of self-flagellation was not unknown in
the times of that early Writer: the silence of the
same Author in other parts of his Writings, concerning
the practice in question, shews nothing
more, except that the same was not universally
adopted in his time, as hath been observed in the
Note, pag. 124 of this Work.
The hasty assertions of the Abbé Boileau against
the antiquity of self-flagellation, which are repeated
almost in every page of his Book, in spite
of the facts which himself produces, gives just
cause to guess that he used to practise but little
upon himself that salutary kind of mortification.
[72] ... Tempore quadragesimo, toto corpore nudato,
se à quodam discipulo virgis cædi præcipiebat.
[73] Part I. Actor. Ord. S. Benedicti, pag. 208.
Aiunt nonnulli se sæpe pro Christi amore flagellis cædi,
nullo alio præter eum qui aderat conscio, jussisse.
[74] ... Quotidiè acriter se cædendi virgis in domo
Capitulari.
[75] The Abbé Boileau, in his Book, concludes
the above quotation, with wishing that Baronius
had been pleased to inform us of the name of the
real Author of the practice of voluntary flagellation.
As he thinks that there has existed a certain
particular period, at which this practice began
to be universally followed, prior to which it
was utterly unknown, so he hopes that some undisputed
inventor of the same may be fixed upon.
[76]Sæpè pœnitentiam centum suscipiebat annorum,
quam per viginti dies, allisione scoparum, cæterisque
pœnitentiæ remediis, persolvebat. Psalterium quotidiè,
cùm duo non posset unum saltem, non negligebat implere:
quod nimirùm cùm esset in cellula constitutus,
armatâ scopis utrâque manu, totum cùm disciplinâ continuare
consueverat.
[77]Cap. viii. Hanc autem vitæ consuetudinem indifferenter
habet, ut utrâque manu scopis armatâ, nudum
corpus allidat; & hoc remissiori tempore. Nam
quadragesimalibus circulis, sive cum pœnitentiam peragendam
habet, crebro centum annorum pœnitentiam
suscipit: tunc per dies singulos, dum se scoparum tunsionibus
afficit, ut minus tria Psalteria meditando
persolvit.
[78]Hominem tempore quo viginti Psalteria recitabantur
vapulantem, pœnitentiam centenarium explevisse.
[79] Cap. X. Quod certè quum audivi tremefactus
expavi.
[80]Hoc flagellum, si quando egrederetur, portabat in
sinu, ut ubicunque eum jacere contingeret, à verberibus
non vacaret, &c.
Carrying a discipline constantly about one, like
the above Dominic, and making an ostentatious
display of it, are among the number of those
characteristical circumstances which are looked
upon, in Catholic Countries, as marking hypocrisy:
to this notion a frequent allusion is made
both in Novels and Plays; thus, the first words
of Tartuffe, or the Hypocrite, in the
Play of Molière which bears that name, who makes his first
appearance only when the Play is somewhat advanced,
are to order his Man, with a loud affected
voice, to lock up his hair-cloth and discipline.
However, we are not to think that all those who
thus make a display of their discipline, use it with
so much earnestness and perseverance as the above-mentioned
Dominic the Cuirassed, or Rodolph of
Eugubio; though it cannot be denied that several
persons of a gloomy superstitious temper, still
practise in these days mortifications of that kind
with great severity; and indeed, as hath been observed
in a former Note, the astonishing penances
practised by Fakirs in the East Indies, which are
undeniable facts, make every account of that sort
appear credible to us.
If the evil arising from the above cruel practices,
reached no farther than the useless sufferings
which those who follow them, bring upon themselves,
one might sincerely pity their infatuation;
but it is a truth confirmed by experience, that superstitious
exercises or mortifications like these, are
seldom introduced but at the expence of other really
essential obligations; and though the rigour
of such mortifications is very wisely abated gradually
every day, so that they are at length reduced to
only some trifling practices, yet, they are made to
supply the place of almost every duty which Men
owe to one another: thus, to quote only one
striking instance on the subject, Lewis the Eleventh
of France, after he had paid a few devotions
of his own contrivance to a leaden image of
the Virgin he constantly wore stuck to his hat,
thought he had fully atoned beforehand for any
crime he meditated to commit.
I shall conclude this Note with a stroke of
ridicule which M. de Voltaire, in one of his
Pieces mêlées, throws upon the dangerous, and at
the same time arrogant, pretensions of those persons
who voluntarily submit to mortifications like
those here alluded to. He supposes a conversation
to take place with a Fakir, of which a Turk,
then on his travels in India, writes an account to
one of his friends.
‘I happened to cross a Fakir, who was reading
in his Book: Ah wretched Infidel! cried he;
thou hast made me lose a number of vowels that
I was counting, which will occasion my soul to
pass into the body of a hare, instead of that of
a parrot, with which I had before the greatest
reason to flatter myself: I gave him a Rupee to
comfort him for the accident. In going a few
paces farther, I had the misfortune to sneeze;
the noise I made roused a Fakir who was in a
trance.—Heavens, cried he, what a dreadful
noise! where am I! I can no longer see the
tip of my nose! the heavenly light has disappeared.—If
I am the cause, said I, of your seeing
farther than the tip of your nose, here is a
Rupee to repair the injury: squint again, and
resume the heavenly light[81].
‘Having thus brought myself off discreetly
enough, I passed over to the side of the Gymnosophists,
several of whom brought me a parcel
of mighty pretty nails to drive into my arms,
and thighs, in honour of Brahma: I bought
their nails, and made use of them to fasten my
boxes. Others were dancing upon their hands;
others cut capers on the slack-rope; and others
went always upon one foot. There were some
who dragged about a heavy chain with them;
and others carried a pack-saddle; some had always
their heads in a bushel; the best people in
the world to live with. My friend Omri carried
me to the cell of one of the most famous
of them. His name was Bahabec. He was as
naked as he was born, and had a great chain
about his neck, that weighed upwards of sixty
pounds. He sat on a wooden chair, very neatly
decorated with little points of nails, that ran
into his posteriors; and you would have thought
he sat on a velvet cushion. Numbers of Women
flocked to him, to consult him: he was
the Oracle of all the families in the neighbourhood;
and was, truly speaking, in great reputation.
I was witness to a long conversation
that Omri had with him.—Do you think, Father,
said my friend, that, after having gone
through seven metempsychoses, I may at length
arrive at the house of Brama.—That is as it may
happen, said the Fakir. What sort of life do
you lead?—I endeavour, answered Omri, to be
a good subject, a good husband, a good father,
and a good friend: I lend money without interest
to the rich who want it, and I give it to
the poor: I preserve peace among my neighbours.—But
have you ever run nails into your
backside, demanded the Brahmin.—Never, reverend
Father.—I am sorry for it, replied the
Father; very sorry for it indeed. It is a thousand
pities; but you will not certainly reach
above the nineteenth Heaven.—No higher? said
Omri. In troth I am very well satisfied with
my lot. But pray, what heaven do you think
of going to, good Mr. Bahabec, with your
nails and your chain? Into the thirty-fifth, said
Bahabec, &c. &c.[82]’
The above recited feats of Dominic the Cuirassed,
and Rodolph of Eugubio, who have had
numerous imitators, together with the very serious
endeavours of Men in the station of Cardinal Damian,
to recommend such practices, are very extraordinary
facts. It really seems that, in our part of
the world, where the Arts and Sciences have been
promoted to so high a degree, and the powers of
the human mind carried to their utmost extent,
we have, in regard to the folly and ignorance of
our superstitious notions and customs, been equal
to any Nation upon earth, to any of those Nations
whom we despise most: nay, perhaps it
might be strictly proved that we have been worse.
[81] It is needless to observe that all this alludes to real
penances or practices of the Indian Fakirs.
[82] See Voltaire’s Works, translated by
Smollett, Franklin, and others, Vol. XIII. pag. 23, &c.
CHAP. XIV.
The practice of self-flagellation meets with some
opposition; but this is soon over-ruled by the
fondness of the Public.
VOLUNTARY flagellations, notwithstanding
the zeal with which Cardinal
Damian endeavoured to promote them, were
not, however, admitted, in his time, by all
persons, without exception. Thus, Odillon,
Abbot of Cluny, and Maurus of Cesena, two
Saints whose Lives Cardinal Damian himself
has written, forbore the use of flagellations;
or at least no mention is made of their having
practised them, in the Accounts the Cardinal
has given of their actions.
Nay, several persons openly blamed the pious
ceremonies in question, during the times
of Cardinal Damian; for it was too alarming
a practice, for Men not to be concerned at its
sudden progress; it was an exercise of too
ticklish a nature, for them to suffer themselves
to fall asleep on its introduction, or too interesting
in its consequence, for them not to
be roused by the rattling of the blows.
Among those who thus condemned voluntary
flagellations, the most conspicuous was
Peter Cerebrosus, a Monk who lived in those
times, and was moreover a friend to Cardinal
Damian. This brought on, an epistolary debate
on the subject, between Cerebrosus and
the Cardinal, as we learn from the Works of
the latter. Nor did the Cardinal, it is to be
observed, advance in his letters, that self-flagellations
were matter of strict duty: he
only proved by the authority of the Scriptures,
that it was lawful to flagellate persons
who were guilty of offences; and he then
gave it as his opinion, that it was a laudable
act in a Christian, voluntarily to inflict upon
himself that punishment which God had awarded
against him, and which he ought to suffer
from the hands of other persons.
The opposition made by Cerebrosus had
especially for its object, the manner in which
voluntary flagellations were performed. He
blamed the length of time, and the vehemence,
with which certain persons executed
them; and condemned the extraordinary severity
with which the abovementioned Flogging-Masters
used to lash themselves, while
they were singing a number of Psalms over.
This caused the Cardinal to write a new letter
to him, in order to desire him to explain better
his sentiments on that subject: the following
is an extract from the Cardinal’s
letter: ‘Perhaps you do not blame the
practice of self-discipline, though you condemn
it when too long continued, and performed
with cruelty: perhaps you do not
disapprove that discipline be performed during
the time one Psalm is singing, but you
shudder at the thought of singing the whole
Psalter over. Now speak, my Brother, I
beseech you, if I may ask you the question,
do you find fault with those disciplines
which are practised in the chapters of Convents?
do you also blame the use adopted
in them, of prescribing to a Father who
confesses himself guilty of any slight fault,
to undergo twenty, or at most fifty lashes?’
To the above facts, an observation is to be
added, which is, that, though Cerebrosus
maintained a different opinion from that of
Cardinal Damian, yet the latter never charged
him with having fallen, in that respect, into
any kind of criminal error, or heresy, but on
the contrary, calls him his dear Son, his Brother
in Christ, and his good Friend, as appears
from his Epistles xxvii and xxviii; as
well as from his lxiid Epistle, which he wrote
to the Fathers of the Monastery of Mount
Cassin, in commendation of flagellations. This
mild and civil manner with which the above
dispute was carried on, between Cardinal Damian,
and Peter Cerebrosus, reflects much
honour upon both, and shews that they were
personages of eminent merit. Nor did the
Cardinal use the opinions of Cardinal Stephen,
who, when alive, had likewise opposed self-flagellations,
with less moderation; and he frequently
calls him a Man of pious memory:
though it is but just to add, that this Cardinal
Stephen was commonly suspected of having
died suddenly, on account of his having despised
the exercise in question.
However, notwithstanding the doubts of
Peter Cerebrosus, and of Cardinal Stephen,
the practice of voluntary flagellations soon
spread itself far and wide; and we find it to
have been adopted, since the times we mention,
by numbers of persons, eminent on account
either of their dignity, or their merit;
several of whom have been mentioned by Father
Gretzer. Among them were St. Andrew
Bishop of Fiesola, Laurence Justinian, Abbot
Poppo, and especially St. Anthelm, Bishop
of Bellay, who lived about an hundred years
after Dominic the Cuirassed and Rodolph of
Eugubio, and gloriously trod in the footsteps
of these two holy Men. ‘Every day (it is
said in that Saint’s Life, which was written
by one of his intimate friends) every day he
scourged himself, making lashes fall thick
on his back and sides, and by thus heaping
stripes upon stripes, he never suffered
his skin to remain whole, or free from marks
of blows[83].’
Even Sovereigns, and Great Men, in the
times we speak of, adopted for themselves the
practice of voluntary flagellation.
The Emperor Henry, who lived about the
year 1070, ‘never ventured (if we may credit
Reginard’s account) to put on his Imperial
robes, before he had obtained the permission
of a Priest for that purpose, and had deserved
it by confession and discipline.’
William of Nangis, in the Life of St.
Lewis King of France, which he has written,
relates that that Prince, after he had made
his confession, constantly received discipline
from his Confessor. To this the same Author
adds the following curious account. ‘I ought
not to omit to say, concerning the Confessor
the King had before Geoffrey de Bello loco,
and who belonged to the Order of the Predicant
Friars, that he used to inflict upon
him, hard and immoderate disciplines;
which the King, whose skin was rather tender,
had much ado to endure. This hardship,
however, he never would speak of
to this Confessor; but after his death, he
mentioned the fact, somewhat jocularly,
though not without humility, to the new
Confessor[84].’
An instance of much the same nature with
the facts above recited, is to be found in one
of Osbertus’s Books. A certain English Count
having contracted an unlawful marriage with
one of his near relations, not only parted afterwards
with her, but requested besides to
be disciplined in the presence of St. Dunstan,
and of the General Assembly of the Clergy.
‘Terrified (says Osbertus) by the greatness of
his offence, his obstinacy ceased; and after
having renounced his unlawful wedlock, he
imposed upon himself the task of penitence.
As Dunstan was then presiding over a meeting
of the Clergy of the Kingdom, which
was holden according to custom, the Count
came into the middle of the Assembly, bare-footed,
clothed with wool, and carrying
rods in his hands; and threw himself, groaning
and weeping, at the feet of St. Dunstan.
This instance of piety moved the whole Assembly,
and Dunstan more than the rest.
However, as his wish was thoroughly to reconcile
the Man with God, he preserved an
appearance of severity in his looks, suitable
to the occasion, and for a whole hour persevered
in denying his request: when, at last,
all the Prelates having joined in the entreaties
of the Count, St. Dunstan granted him
the indulgence he was suing for.’ From
the above fact, we might conclude that flagellations
voluntarily submitted to, had become,
even before the æra of Cardinal Damian,
a settled method of atoning for past
sins, since St. Dunstan lived about an hundred
years before the Cardinal; that is, about the
year 950.
Instances of Sovereigns, and Great Men,
requesting to undergo flagellations, must have
been pretty common in the days we mention,
frequent allusions being made to it, in old
books: among others, in that old French Romance
intitled, The History of the Round Table,
and the Feats of the Knight, Lancelot du
Lac. King Arthur is supposed in it, to have
summoned all the Bishops who were in his army,
to his Chapel; and there to have requested
of them, a correction of the same kind as
that undergone by the Count mentioned by
Osbertus[85].
From the times we mention, we find
numerous proofs of self-flagellations being
used in Convents: and indeed it would have
been a very extraordinary circumstance, if,
while the persons above-named adopted that
practice, Monks had rejected it. In the liiid
Article of the Statutes of the Abbey of Cluny,
which were collected by Peter Maurice,
sirnamed the Venerable, who was raised to the
dignity of Abbot in the year 1122, the following
account is given. ‘It was ordained
(it is said in that Article) that that part of
the Monastery which is on the left, beyond
the left Choir, should remain open to no
strange persons, whether Ecclesiastical or
Lay, as it was formerly, and nobody admitted
into it, except the Monks. This was
thus settled, because the Brothers had no
place, except the old Church of St. Peter,
in which they could practise such holy and
secret exercises as are usual with religious
persons, they therefore claimed the use of
the above new part of the Church, both for
the night and the day, that they might constantly
therein make offerings of the perfumes
of their prayers to God, supplicate
their Creator by frequent acts of repentance
and genuflexions, and mortify their bodies
by often inflicting upon themselves three
flagellations, either as penances for their
sins, or as an increase of their merit[86].’
The practice in question gained so much
credit, about those times, in Monasteries, that
St. Bruno, who, a few years after the death of
Cardinal Damian, founded the Carthusian
Order, thought it necessary to restrain his
Monks in that respect; not unlikely, perhaps,
with the view to check the pride which they
used to derive from such exercises. In one of
the statutes laid by that Saint, which Prior
Guigues has collected, the following regulation
is contained. ‘In regard to such disciplines,
watchings, and other religious exercises
as are not expressly enjoined by our Institution,
let nobody among us perform
them, except it be by the Prior’s permission.’
So much were flagellations grown into
fashion in the days we mention, such attractions
did they even seem to possess, that Ladies
of high rank would also inlist among the
abovementioned Whippers, and almost vied
with Dominic the Cuirassed, Rodolph de Eugubio,
St. Anthelm, and Abbot Poppo, in
regard to the regularity with which they performed
such meritorious exercises. Among
those Ladies, particular mention is made of
St. Maria of Ognia, of St. Hardwigge, Dutchess
of Poland, of St. Hildegarde, and above
all of the Widow Cechald, who lived in the
very times of Cardinal Damian, and performed
wonderful feats in the same career, as we
are informed by St. Antonius, in the second
Volume of his History. The following is the
account given by St. Antonius, upon the authority
of Cardinal Damian himself. ‘Not
only Men, but also Women of noble birth
eagerly sought after that kind of Purgatory;
and the Widow of Cechaldus, a Woman of
great birth and dignity, gave an account,
that in consequence of an obligation she had
previously imposed upon herself, she had
gone through the hundred years penance,
three thousand lashes being the number allotted
for every year[87].’
FOOTNOTES:
[83] The abovementioned Anthelm, I think I
have read, lived to a very great age. The famous
self-flagellator Dominic the Cuirassed, lived eighty-four
years; St. Romuald, notwithstanding the
flagellations he received from himself and his
Monks, attained, it is said, the age of an hundred
and twenty years; and Leon of Preza, another
illustrious self-flagellator, lived, according to
some accounts, to the age of an hundred and forty.
If so, it would thence result, that self-flagellations,
besides the other great advantages they
possess, are also attended with that of being conducive
to health.
[84] ... Jocando ridendo hoc alteri Confessori suo
humiliter recognovit.
[85] ... Après, prist discipline d’eux; moult doucement
la reçut. Imprimé à Paris, par A. Gerard,
le 1. Juillet, 1494. This must have been one of
the first books that were printed.
[86] ... ubi sancta & secreta orationum aromata
Deo assiduè accenderent; frequentibus metanœis vel genufluxionibus
pio conditori supplicarent; à tribus sæpè
flagellis, vel ad pœnitentiam, vel ad augendum meritum,
corpus attererent.
I will take this occasion to inform the Reader,
that Monks, or persons of religious dispositions,
do not always mean, in the penances they impose
on themselves, to atone for their sins, which they
do not by any means consider as being in proportion
to the number of their flagellations. They
practise mortifications of this kind, either for the
good of other persons, or for delivering souls from
Purgatory, or in order (as the Reader may see
from the words above quoted) to increase their
own merit, and, like the Fakir mentioned in a
former place, go of course to the thirty-fifth
Heaven.
[87] Tit. 16. Cap. VIII. fol. 102.—Ut non solùm
viri sed & mulieres nobiles hoc purgatorii genus inhianter
acciperent; relictamque Cechaledi, mulierem magni
generis & magnæ dignitatis, retulisse se, per præfixam
hujus regulæ disciplinam, pœnitentiam centum
annorum peregisse, tribus disciplinarum millibus pro uno
computatis anno.
The Widow Cechald, in her account of the
wonderful penance she performed after the example
of Dominic the Cuirassed, has neglected to
inform us in what manner she performed it, and
whether she imitated that holy Man in every respect,
and used, for instance, both her hands at
once in the operation. Be it as it may; three
hundred thousand lashes, the total amount of the
hundred years penance she went through, were
certainly a very hard penance. However, as we
are not to doubt either the account which the
above Widow gave in that respect, or the declaration
Cardinal Damian made after her, the wonder
is to be explained another way, and perhaps by
the nature of the instruments she made use of:
they possibly were of much the same kind as those
used by a certain Lady, who was likewise much
celebrated on account of the frequent disciplines
she bestowed upon herself, and who was at last
found out to use no other weapons for performing
them, than a bunch of feathers, or, as others
have said, a fox’s tail.
CHAP. XV.
Another difficulty. Which is the best plight to
be in, for receiving a discipline?
EMINENT persons, in the times we
speak of, did not differ
from one another only in their opinions concerning the advantages
of religious flagellations; but they
also dissented with respect to the manner of
performing them, as we may likewise conclude
from the Writings and Ordinances of
those times. Cardinal Damian, the great Patron
of Flagellators, prescribed to them to
strip themselves naked, and when thus perfectly
free from every obstruction and impediment,
to flog themselves in company with one
another: this we learn from his xliid Opusculum,
which he wrote to the Fathers of
Mount Cassin, who were not intirely reconciled
to the thought of those flagellations. On
the other hand, an Ordinance which had been
framed in the Assembly which was held at
Aix-la-Chapelle, so early as the year 817, under
the reign of Lewis le Débonnaire, forbad
the above manner of flagellating Monks, because
it did more harm than good. ‘Let the
Monks (it is said in the 16th Canon) never
be lashed naked, in the presence of the
other Monks; let them not be whipped
naked, for every trifling fault, in sight of
the Brothers.’
Several religious Orders submitted to the
directions of the above Canon; St. Lanfranc,
among others, ordered, in his Statutes, ‘That
Monks, guilty of offences, should be beaten
with a thick rod, or wand,
over their gowns.’ The Monks of Affligen, in the
Netherlands, adopted the same Canon; and
it was settled in their Ritual, as Haeftenus
informs us, that the Monks should have their
gowns on, when they were to be cudgelled.
However, the wise precautions we mention
were adopted only in a few particular places;
and the regard which ought to be paid to decency,
as well as to the prudent Ordinance
of the Assembly held at Aix-la-Chapelle, was
utterly forgotten in most Monasteries; the
practice recommended by Cardinal Damian
being adopted in them, upon the score of
more complete mortification. Nay, so cheap
did the Framers of regulations, in several Monasteries,
make their own nakedness, as well
as that of the Brothers, that in certain cases
they ordered delinquents to be stript in order
to be flagellated, in sight not only of the
Congregation, but even of the whole Public.
In an Article of the Constitutions of the Abbey
of Cluny, which Udalric has collected
together, it is expressly settled that the persons
guilty of the different faults enumerated
therein, are ‘to be stripped naked in the middle
of the next street or public place, so
that every person who chooses may see them,
and there tied up and lashed[88].’
Among the Promoters and Recommenders
of nakedness, we must not omit to mention
Cardinal Pullus, a person of no less importance
than Cardinal Damian, and who, in his
life-time, was high Chancellor of the Roman
Church: in the Collection of Sentences with
which this Cardinal has obliged the World,
he gives it as his opinion, that the very nakedness
of the Penitent, is a considerable increase
of his merit[89].
FOOTNOTES:
[88] Pars Cap. III. p. 166.—Cunctis enim qui
videre voluerint, videntibus, & maximè in mediâ
plateâ, nudatur, ligatur, & verberatur.
[89] To the above dissertation on the properest
plight for receiving flagellations, another, no less
interesting, might be added, viz. which are the
fittest instruments for inflicting them? Indeed, an
infinite variety of instruments have been used for
that purpose, whether they were contrived at leisure
by the ingenious persons who were to use
them, or were suddenly found out, from the spur
of some urgent occasion. Incensed Pedants, who
could not quickly enough find their usual instrument
of discipline, have frequently used their hat,
their towel, or, in general, the first things they
laid their hands upon. I once saw a Gentleman
flagellate a saucy young fish-women, with
all the flounders in her basket. Among Saints,
some, like Dominic the Cuirassed, have used besoms:
others, like St. Dominic the Founder of
the Dominican Order, have used iron chains;
others, like Gualbert, have employed knotted
leather-thongs; others have used nettles, and
others thistles. A certain Saint, as I have read in
the Golden Legend, had no discipline of his own,
but constantly took, to discipline himself with,
the very first thing that came under his hand, such
as the tongs for the fire, or the like. St. Bridget,
as I have read in the same book, disciplined herself
with a bunch of keys; a certain Lady, who
hath been mentioned in a former place, used a
bunch of feathers for the same purpose; and lastly,
Sancho did things with much more simplicity,
and flagellated himself with the palms of his hands.
CHAP. XVI.
Confessors at length assume to themselves a kind
of flagellatory power over their Penitents.
The abuses that arise from it.
THE submission of Sovereigns to receive
disciplines from the hands of their Confessors,
together with the accounts of such
disciplines, which, though they might not always
be true, were industriously circulated in
Public, helped much, without doubt, to increase
the good opinion which people entertained
of the merit of flagellations, as well as to
strengthen the power of Confessors in general.
In fact the latter, from prescribing Disciplines,
soon passed to inflicting them upon their penitents
with their own hands; and, without
loss of time, converted this newly-assumed
authority into an express kind of privilege, to
which it was a most meritorious act, on the
part of penitents, readily to submit. On this
occasion, I shall again quote the old French
Book, mentioned in p. 218; which, though
it be only a Romance, may serve to shew the
opinions generally entertained by people, during
the times in which it was written. ‘If
you are estranged from our Lord’s love, you
cannot be reconciled to him, unless by the
three following means: First, by confession
of mouth; secondly, by a contrition of
heart; thirdly, by works of alms and charity.
Now, go and make a confession in that
manner, and receive discipline from the
hands of thy Confessors; for it is the sign
of merit.’
The power of Confessors of disciplining
their penitents, became in process of time so
generally acknowledged, that it obtained even
with respect to persons who made profession
of the Ecclesiastical life, and superseded the
laws that had been made against those who
should strike an Ecclesiastic. To this an allusion
is made, in the lines of that Poet of
the middle age, who has put the Summula of
St. Raymund into Latin verses. ‘You are
guilty of sacrilege if you have violated holy
things, if you have struck a person in religious
Orders, or of the Clergy; unless it
be a holy beating, such as is performed by
a Teacher with respect to his Disciple, or a
Confessor with respect to a person who confesses
his sins[90].’
Attempts were, however, made to put a
stop to these practices of Priests and Confessors;
and so early as under Pope Adrian I.
who was raised to the Purple in the year 772
(which by the by shews that the power assumed
by Confessors, was pretty ancient) a regulation
was made to forbid Confessors to beat
their Penitents. ‘The Bishop (it is said in the
Epitome of Maxims and Canons) the Priest,
and the Deacon, must not beat those who
have sinned[91].’ But this regulation proved
useless: the whole tribe of Priests, as well as
the first Dignitaries of the Church, nevertheless
continued to preach up the prerogatives
of Confessors and the merit of flagellations;
and Cardinal Pullus, that Chancellor of the
Roman Church who has been mentioned in
the foregoing Chapter, did not scruple to declare,
that the nakedness of the Penitent, and
his situation at the feet of his Confessor, were
additional merits in him in the eye of God, as
being additional tokens of his humility[92].
All these different practices of stripping
and flagellating Devotees and Penitents, at
length gave rise to abuses of a very serious
nature; instances of which take place, we
may say, every day. Numbers of Confessors,
in process of time, have made such religious
acts as had been introduced with a view to
mortification, serve to gratify their own lust
and wantonness. They have tried to inculcate
the same notions, as to the merit of flagellations,
into the minds of their Devotees of the
other sex, as they had brought even Kings
and Princes to entertain; and at last have
made it a practice to inflict such corrections on
their female Penitents, and under that pretence,
to take such liberties with them, as the
blessed St. Benedict, St. Francis, St. Dominic,
and St. Loyola, had not certainly given
them the example of.
Among the many instances that might be
recited of the abuses here alluded to, it will
suffice to produce that of a Man who wore a
hood, and was girt with a cord (a Cordelier or
Franciscan) who lived about the year 1566.
This Man’s name was Cornelius Adriasem; he
was a native of Dort, and belonged to a Convent
in Bruges, and was a most violent
preacher against the Heretics, called Gueux.
He had found means to persuade a certain
number of Women, both married and unmarried,
to promise him implicit obedience,
by certain oaths he made them take for that
purpose, and under the specious pretence of
greater piety. These Women he did not indeed
lash with harsh and knotted cords, but
he used gently to rub their bare thighs and
posteriors, with willow or birch rods[93].
In order to shew how common the above
practices were become, as well as to entertain
the Reader, I shall conclude this Chapter with
the following story, which is to be found
in Scot’s Book, entitled, Mensa Philosophica.
A Woman, says Scot, who was gone to
make her confession, had been secretly followed
by her husband, who was jealous of her;
and he had hid himself in some place in the
Church, whence he might spy her; but as
soon as he saw her led behind the altar by the
Priest, in order to be flagellated, he made his
appearance, objected that she was too tender
to bear a flagellation, and offered to receive it
in her stead. This proposal the Wife greatly
applauded; and the Man had no sooner placed
himself upon his knees, than she exclaimed,
‘Now, my Father, lay on lustily, for I am a
great Sinner[94].’
[91] Cap. XV. Episcopus, Presbyter & Diaconus,
peccantes fideles diverberare non debeant.
[92]Card. Pulli sententiarum L. vii. Cap. 3. p.
220. Est ergo satisfactio quædam, aspera tamen, sed
Deo tanto gratior quanto humilior, cum quilibet sacerdotis
prostratus ad pedes, se cædendum virgis exhibet
nudum.
[93] I have in the course of this Work frequently
produced the original words of the Authors
who are quoted therein, as I thought this precaution
would not be disagreeable to the critical part
of Readers. In regard to the Abbé Boileau himself,
no occasion has offered of doing the same, as
he seldom introduces any fact, in his Book, but
in the words of the Writer from whom he borrows
it: however, as in relating the above story,
which he has extracted from a much longer account,
he speaks for himself, I shall take this opportunity
of introducing him personally to the
Reader, and of transcribing his own words, in
order to enable the Reader to judge of the goodness
of his Latin.——‘Inter exempla tam infaustæ
notitiæ non pertimescam Historiam narrare hominis
cucullati et cordigeri, Conventus Brugensis, anno
circiter MDLXVI, cui nomen erat Cornelius Adriasem,
origine Dordracensis, adversus hæreticos Guezios
stomachosissimi concionatoris, qui puellas seu fœminas
quasdam sacramento fidelitatis & obedientiæ
sibi adstrictas, & specie pietatis devotas, non quidem
asperatis & nodosis funibus verberabat, sed nudata
earum femora & nates, inhonestis vibicibus rorantes,
betuleis aut vimineis virgis, ictibus molliter
inflictis, perfricabat.’
[94] ‘Domine, tota tenera est; ego pro ipsâ recipio
disciplinam: quo flectente genua dixit Mulier, Percute
fortiter, Domine, quia magna peccatrix sum.’—Men.
Phil. Lib. iv. Cap. 18.
The above story, related by Scot, together
with the words he supposes to have been said by
the Woman, have since been turned into a French
epigram, which I have met with in the Menagiana,
as well as in two or three different collections of
French Poetry.
Une femme se confessa,
Le Confesseur à la sourdine
Derriere l’Autel la troussa
Pour lui donner la discipline.
L’époux non loin d’elle caché
De miséricorde touché
Offrit pour elle dos & fesse.
La femme y consentit dabord,
Je sens, dit-elle, ma foiblesse,
Mon mari sans doute est plus fort;
Sus donc, mon Pere, touchez fort,
Car je suis grande pecheresse.
The abovementioned flagellating practices of
Confessors, are alluded to in several Books; and
Confessors are expressly charged with them by several
Writers, besides what is said above. Among
others, Sanlec, a bel Esprit who lived under Lewis
the Fourteenth, and wrote several Satires, in one
of them, which he has intitled The Directors, has
made the above practices of Confessors, or Directors,
the subject of his animadversion. ‘This
zealous Confessor (says Sanlec) who, for every
trifling fault, with a discipline in his hand, fustigated
his female Devotees.’
Ce Confesseur zèlé, qui, pour les moindres fautes,
La discipline en main fustigeoit ses Dévotes.
Among the number of those who have administered
disciplines of the kind here alluded to, a
few have been so happy as to acquire much more
reputation than the others. Among these must
be ranked the abovementioned Cornelius Adriasem,
whose case is related at length by Meteren,
in his Latin History of the Netherlands, published
in the year 1568, from which the Abbé
Boileau has extracted it. This Cornelius Adriasem
(or Adriansen) was a loud declaimer against the
faction called the Gueux, whom the Abbé calls
Hereticks, but who were, in fact, the same party
who opposed the Spanish Government in those
parts, and afterwards succeeded in overthrowing
it, and founded the Republic of Holland. As the
above Reverend Father had thus strongly opposed
a powerful, numerous, as well as incensed party,
in the State and the Church, the discovery that
was made of his frailties, afforded matter of much
triumph, as well as made a great noise, and supplied
his enemies with an opportunity of inveighing
afterwards against him, which they did not
neglect, as we may conclude from Meteren’s account
of the fact, which he relates at great length,
and with much spleen and dulness. However,
new names were coined to express that particular
kind of discipline which Cornelius Adriansen used
to serve upon his female penitents: those who
loved to deduce their new appellations of things
from Greek words, called it the Gynopygian discipline;
and others, who, proceeding upon a more
liberal plan, thought that the proper appellation
of any particular practice, ought to be derived from
the name of some person who has eminently
distinguished himself by it, called the discipline in
question, from the name of the above Gentleman,
the Cornelian discipline: a name by which it still
continues to be expressed in those quarters.
The devisers of the appellation just now mentioned,
did not however mean to say, that Cornelius
Adriansen was the inventor of the above
kind of discipline, or even the first man of note
who had recourse to it: or, if such was their meaning,
they were wrong. In fact, Abelard, who
certainly is a well-known character, also used to
administer flagellatory corrections to his pupil Heloisa,
whose name is not less illustrious than that
of her Master. The Canon Fulbert, as every one
knows, had intrusted him with the care of her education;
and as the Canon was very desirous she
should become distinguished by her learning, he
had permitted him to correct her, whenever she
should fail in performing her duty. Abelard, in
time, made an extensive use of the power that had
thus been conferred upon him; though, to say
the truth (and as himself confesses in one of those
Latin letters he wrote to her after their separation)
he, at last, did not so much use it, when she had
been guilty of faults, as when she too obstinately
refused to commit any.—Sed & te nolentem (says
he) sæpiùs minis atque flagellis ad consensum trahebam.
As Cornelius Adriansen was preceded in the
career we mention, by a character as distinguished
as himself, so has he been followed by another
who was no less so, and who made no less noise
in the world. The person I mean, is the celebrated
Jesuit, Father Girard; and among the
number of his pupils or penitents, was Miss Cadiere,
who certainly may also be looked upon as
an illustrious character. The Cornelian disciplines
which the Father used to serve upon her,
were one of the subjects of the public complaint
she afterwards preferred against him, about
the year 1730; which gave rise to a criminal lawsuit
or prosecution that made a prodigious noise,
as it was thought to be a kind of stroke levelled at
the whole Society of the Jesuits, and was known
to have been stirred up by Monks belonging to
Orders who were at open enmity with them. The
Demoiselle Cadiere likewise brought against Father
Girard a charge of sorcery, and of having bewitched
her; in order, no doubt, to apologize
for her having peaceably submitted to the licentious
actions of which she accused the Father,
as well as to those disciplines with which she reproached
him, which she circumstantially described
in the original complaint, or charge, which
she preferred against him; for Judges are persons
who will not understand things by half words;
one must speak plain to them, and call every thing
by its proper name.
Among those who have distinguished themselves
in the same career of flagellation, Readers (I
mean those who possess some patriotism and love
of their Country) will, no doubt, be much pleased
to find one who belonged to this Nation; I mean
to speak of the Reverend Zachary Crofton, Curate
of St. Botolph’s, Aldgate, who, on a certain
occasion, served a Cornelian discipline upon his
Chambermaid, for which she afterwards sued him
at Westminster.
The aforesaid Zachary Crofton, as Bishop Kennet
relates in his Chronicle, from Dr. Calamy’s
notes, was formerly a Curate at Wrenbury, in
Cheshire (it was a little before the Restoration)
and he used to engage with much warmth in the
religious and political quarrels of his times: his
refusal to take the engagement, and endeavours to
dissuade others from taking it, caused him to be
dismissed from his place. He was, however, afterwards
provided with the Curacy of St. Botolph’s,
Aldgate; but as his turn for religious and
political quarrels still prevailed, and he had written
several pamphlets, both English and Latin,
about the affairs of those times, he was sent to the
Tower, and deprived of his Curacy: he was afterwards
cast into prison likewise in his own County,
and when he procured his liberty, set up a
Grocer’s shop. While he was in the above Parish
of St. Botolph, ‘he gave,’ as Dr. Calamy
relates, ‘the correction of a school-boy to his servant-maid,’
for which she prosecuted him in
Westminster-hall. This fact the Doctor relates
as an instance of the many scrapes into which
Zachary Crofton’s warm and zealous temper
brought him; and he adds that, on the last mentioned
occasion, ‘he was bold to print his defence.’——Indeed
this fact of Parson Crofton’s
undauntedly appealing to the Public in print
concerning the lawfulness of the flagellation he
had performed, places him, notwithstanding what
Dr. Calamy may add as to the mediocrity of his
parts, at least upon a level with the Geniuses
abovementioned, as well as any other of the kind
that may be named, and cannot fail for ever to secure
him a place among the most illustrious Flagellators.
In fine, to this list of the persons who have
distinguished themselves by the flagellations they
have atchieved, I think I cannot avoid adding that
Lady, mentioned by Brantôme, who (perhaps as
an exercise conducive to her health) took great delight
in performing corrections of this kind, with
her own hands. This Lady, who was moreover
a very great Lady, would often, as Brantôme relates,
cause the Ladies of her Houshold to strip
themselves, and then amuse herself in giving them
slaps upon their posteriors, pretty lustily laid on:
with respect to those Ladies who had committed
faults, she made use of good rods; and in general,
she used less or greater severity, according
(Brantôme says) as she proposed to make them either
laugh or cry. The following are Brantôme’s
own words.
‘J’ai ouï parler d’une grande Dame de par le
monde, voire grandissime, qui ne se contentant pas de
lasciveté naturelle, & étant mariée & étant Veuve,
pour la provoquer & exciter davantage, elle faisoit
depouiller ses Dames & filles, je dis les plus belles,
& se delectoit fort à les voir, & puis elle les battoit
du plat de la main sur les fesses, avec de grandes
clacquades & blamuses assez rudes; & les filles qui
avoient delinqué en quelques chose, avec de bonnes
verges.——Autres fois, sans les depouiller, les faisoit
trousser en robes, car pour lors elles ne portoient
point de calecons, & les clacquettoit sur les fesses, selon
le sujet qu’elles lui en donnoient, pour les faire ou
rire, ou pleurer.’
It is no easy matter to point out what precise
views the Lady in question had, when she served
the abovementioned flagellations. Brantôme, who
had much travelled, and was grown much acquainted
with the wickedness of the world, insinuates
that she was actuated by motives of rather
a wanton kind; but since it is extremely difficult
to believe that thoughts like those Brantôme supposes,
could be entertained, I shall not say by a
Lady, but by a person of the high rank of the
Lady in question, I will endeavour to account for
her conduct in a different manner; and I shall consider
my time as exceedingly well employed, if I
can clear her from the aspersion thrown upon her
by the above Gentleman.
In the first place, it is very possible, that (as
hath been above insinuated) she considered the flagellations
in question as an exercise advantageous
to her health: and Physicians have often made
worse prescriptions.
In the second place, she might, without looking
farther, be prompted by a desire of doing justice;
for Brantôme makes express mention of Ladies
who had committed faults: now, such a conduct
on the part of the Lady we speak of, would
reflect much honour upon her, and shew that she
did not disdain to superintend her own family.
Perhaps also it might be, that the abovementioned
flagellations were of the same jocular kind
merely, with those which, as hath been related in
the sixth Chapter of this Book, were in use in
Rome, and were often practised in the presence of
the Emperor Claudius, and sometimes upon that
Emperor himself. Nor is the circumstance mentioned
by Brantôme, of the high Lady in question
sometimes using pretty great severity, contrary
to this supposition: it is a well-known fact
that Great people, when they do their inferiors
the honour to play with them, will often carry
the joke too far, farther than the latter have a
liking to: jokes or tricks of this kind, gave rise
to the French common saying, Jeux de Princes,
qui plaisent à ceux qui les font. ‘Tricks of Princes,
which please those (only) by whom they are
played.’
In fine, since the flagellations in question were
often carried on, as appears from the account of
Brantôme himself, in a manner really very jocular,
even so much so as to make the Ladies laugh,
it is natural to suppose that they were then executed
by the common and perfectly free consent
of the whole company. The Ladies possibly proposed
to represent among themselves the festival of
the Lupercalia, which has been described in a
former Chapter: intending to represent it as it
was performed in the times of Pope Gelasius,
they stripped themselves in the manner Brantôme
has related: the great Lady, in consideration
of her high birth and station, was permitted
to fill the part of the Lupercus; the wielding
of the discipline was of course exclusively left
to her: nor was this peculiar advantage which the
other Ladies granted her, in that kind of farce
they agreed to act among themselves, materially
different from the favour which certain Clergymen
used to grant to their Bishop, when they
played at Whist with him, who allowed his Lordship
the privilege of naming the trump.
In regard to the Gentlemen who have been
mentioned above, it is however pretty evident that
(owing, no doubt, to the good-nature inherent
in their sex) they used no kind of severity in those
disciplines they used to bestow; except indeed Parson
Crofton, who, from the circumstance of his
writing a pamphlet, and a quarto pamphlet too,
in defence of the flagellation he had performed,
seems really to have been in earnest, both when
he planned, and when he served it.
Thus Abelard, in one of the abovementioned
Letters he wrote to his Pupil, while she lived retired
in the Monastery of Paraclet, expressly says
that the blows he gave her, were such blows as
friendship alone, not anger, suggested: he even
adds that their sweetness surpassed that of the
sweetest perfumes,——verbera quandoque dabat
amor, non furor, gratia, non ira, quæ omnium unguentorum
suavitatem transcenderent.
Father Girard, as is evident from the whole
tenor of the declaration of Miss Cadiere herself,
had as little intention as Abelard, to do any kind
of injury to his pupil or penitent; and Cornelius
Adriansen, as appears from Meteren’s account,
used to proceed with the same caution and tenderness
for his disciples, as the two above-mentioned
gentlemen, and contented himself, as the
Abbé Boileau observes, with gently rubbing them
with his instruments of discipline;—molliter perfricabat.
That Confessors should contract sentiments of
friendship for their female penitents, like those
mentioned by Abelard, is however nowise surprizing.
La Fontaine says, that
Tout homme est homme, & les Moines sur tous.
“Every Man is a Man, and Monks above all
others.” He might at least have said, “Every
Man is a Man, and Monks as well as others;”
and to this have added, that their virtue, especially
that of Confessors, is exposed to dangers of
a peculiar kind. In fact, the obligation which
those who perform that office are under, to hear,
with seeming indifference, the long confessions
of Women of every age, who frequently enter
into numerous particulars concerning the sins
which they have either committed, or had distant
wishes to commit, is no very easy talk for Men
who, as hath just now been observed, are after
all nothing but Men; and they are, under such
circumstances, frequently agitated by thoughts
not very consonant with the apparent gravity and
sanctity of their looks. Nay, raising such
thoughts in them, and in general creating sentiments
of love in their Confessors, are designs
which numbers of female penitents, who at no
time entirely cease being actuated by womanish
views, expressly entertain, notwithstanding the
apparent ingenuity of their confessions, and in
which they but too often succeed, to their own,
and their frail Confessors, cost. Thus, it appears
from Miss Cadiere’s declarations, that she had
of herself aimed at making the conquest of Father
Girard, though a Man past fifty years of age,
being induced to it, by his great reputation both
as a Preacher and a Man of parts; and she expressly
confessed that she had for a long while been
making interest to be admitted into the number
of his penitents.
Indeed, these dangers to which Confessors are
exposed from their continual and confidential intercourse
with the Sex, (for, to the praise of Women
be it spoken, they are infinitely more exact
than Men in making their confessions) are much
taken notice of in the books in which directions
are given to such Priests as are designed for that
employment; and they are warned against nothing
so much as an inclination to hear preferably the
confessions of the other Sex.——St. Charles
Borrommee, as I have read in one of those books,
prescribed to Confessors to have all the doors
wide open, when they heard the confession of a
Woman; and he had supplied them with a set of
passages from Psalms, such as, Cor mundum crea
in me Domine, and the like, which he advised
them to have pasted on some conspicuous place
within their sight, and which were to serve them
as ejaculatory exclamations by which to vent the
wicked thoughts with which they might feel
themselves agitated, and as kinds of Abracadabras,
or Retrò Satanas, to apply to, whenever they
should find themselves on the point of being overcome
by some too sudden temptation.
Numbers of Confessors however, whether it
was that they had forgotten to supply themselves
with the passages recommended by St.
Charles Borrommee, or that those passages really proved
ineffectual in those instants in which they were
intended to be useful, have, at different times,
formed serious designs upon the chastity of their
penitents; and the singular situation in which
they were placed, both with respect to the Public,
and to their penitents themselves, with
whom, changing the grave supercilious Confessor
into the wanton lover, was no easy transition,
have led them to use expedients of rather singular
kinds, to attain their ends. Some, like Robert
d’Arbrissel, (and the same has been said of Adhelm,
an English Saint who lived before the Conquest)
have induced young Women to lie with
them in the same beds, giving them to understand,
that, if they could prove superior to every
temptation, and rise from bed as they went to it,
it would be in the highest degree meritorious.
Others, Menas for instance, a Spanish Monk
whose case was quoted in the proceedings against
Father Girard, persuaded young Women to live
with him in a kind of holy conjugal union,
which he described to them, but which did not
however end, at last, in that intellectual manner
which the Father had promised. Others have
persuaded Women that the works of matrimony
were no less liable to pay tithes than the fruits of
the earth, and have received these tithes accordingly.
This scheme was, it is said, contrived
by the Fryars of a certain Convent in a small
Town in Spain, and La Fontaine has made it
the subject of one of his Tales, which is entitled
The Cordeliers of Catalonia, in which he describes
with much humour the great punctuality of the
Ladies in that Town, in discharging their debts
to the Fathers, and the vast business that was,
in consequence, carried on in the Convent of
the latter.
Lastly, other Confessors have had recourse to
their power of flagellation, as an excellent
expedient for preparing the success of their
schemes, and preventing the first suspicions
which their penitents might entertain of their
views.
In order the better to remove the scruples which
the modesty of these latter caused them at first to
oppose, they used to represent to them, that our
first Parents were naked in the garden of Eden;
they moreover asked, whether people must not
be naked, when they are christened; and shall
not they likewise be so, on the day of Resurrection?
Nay, others have made such a state of
nakedness, on the part of their penitents, a matter
of express duty, and have supported this doctrine,
as the Author of the Apologie pour Hérodote
relates, by quoting the passage of Jesus Christ,
in which he says, Go, and shew thyself to the
Priest.
However, instances of the wantonness of Priests
like this latter, in which a serious use was made
of passages from the Books on which Religion
is grounded, in order to forward schemes of a
guilty nature, certainly cannot, in whatever light
the subject be considered, admit of any justification:
though on the other hand, when the national
calamities produced by sophisms of this
kind and the arts of Men of the same cloth, are
considered, one cannot help wishing that they
had constantly employed both these sophisms and
their artifices in pursuits like those above-mentioned,
and that, ensnaring a few female penitents
(who were not perhaps, after all, extremely
unwilling to be ensnared) and serving flagellations,
had been the worst excesses they ever had committed.
CHAP. XVII.
The Church at large also claims a power of publicly
inflicting the discipline of flagellation.
Instances of Kings and Princes who have submitted
to it.
AS it was the constant practice of Priests
and Confessors, to prescribe flagellation
as a part of the satisfaction that was owing for
committed sins, the opinion became at last to
be established, that, receiving this kind of
correction, was not only an useful, but even
an indispensable act of submission: without it
penitence was thought to be a body without a
soul; nor could there be any such thing as
true repentance. Hence the Church itself at
large, became also in time to claim a power
of imposing castigations of the kind we mention,
upon naked sinners; and a flagellation
publicly submitted to, has been made one of
the essential ceremonies to be gone through,
for obtaining the inestimable advantage of the
repeal of a sentence of excommunication:
the Roman Ritual expressly mentioning and
requiring this test of the culprit’s contrition.
These flagellatory claims and practices of
the Western Christian Church, are, we may
observe, one of the objections made against
it by the Greek, or Eastern, Christians, as
the learned M. Cotelier, a Doctor of the Sorbonne,
observes in his Monuments of the Greek
Church: ‘When they absolve a person from
his excommunication (they say) he is stripped
down to the waist, and they lash him
with a scourge on that part which is bare,
and then absolve him, as being
forgiven his sin[95].’
Among the different instances of disciplines
publicly inflicted by the Church, upon
independent Princes, we may mention that
which was imposed upon Giles, Count of the
Venaissin County, near Avignon. This Count
having caused the Curate of a certain Parish
to be buried alive, who had refused to bury
the body of a poor Man, till the usual fees
were paid, drew upon himself the wrath of
the Pope, who fulminated against him a sentence
of excommunication. And in order to
procure the repeal of it, he found it necessary
to submit to a flagellation, which was inflicted
upon him before the gate of the Cathedral
Church of Avignon.
But no fact can be mentioned more striking,
and more capable of having gratified the
pride of the Clergy, at the time, than that
of Henry II. King of England. This Prince
having, by a few hasty angry words he uttered
on a certain occasion, been the cause of the
assassination of Thomas Becket, Archbishop
of Canterbury, expressed afterwards the greatest
sorrow for his imprudence: but neither
the Priests nor the Nation would take his
word on that account: they only gave credit
to the reality of his repentance, when he had
submitted to the all-purifying trial of a flagellation;
and in order the more completely
to remove all doubts in that respect, he went
through it publicly. The following is the
account which Matthew Paris, a Writer who
lived about those times, has given of the
transaction. ‘But as the slaughterers of this
glorious Martyr had taken an opportunity
to slay him from a few words the King had
uttered rather imprudently, the King asked
absolution from the Bishops who were present
at the ceremony, and subjecting his bare
skin to the discipline of rods, received four
or five stripes from every one of the religious
persons, a multitude of whom had assembled[96].’
[96] ... Carnemque suam nudam disciplinæ virgarum
supponens, à singulis viris religiosis, quorum
multitudo magna convenerat, ictus ternos vel quinos
accepit.
Among the instances of Sovereigns who have
been publickly flagellated, may also be reckoned
that of Raymond, Count of Toulouse, whose
Sovereignty extended over a very considerable part
of the South of France. Having given protection
in his dominions to the Sect called the Albigenses,
Innocent III. the most haughty Pope that
ever filled the Papal Chair, published a Croisade
against him; his dominions were in consequence
seized, nor could he succeed to have them restored
to him, before he had submitted to receive discipline
from the hands of the Legate of the Pope,
who stripped him naked to the waist, at the door
of the Church, and drove him up to the altar in
that situation, all the while beating him with
rods.
With respect to the discipline undergone by
King Henry II. though he may be said to have
freely submitted to it, yet it did not, at bottom,
materially differ from that imposed upon Raymond,
Count of Toulouse. This Prince had,
no doubt, too much understanding to submit to a
ceremony of this kind, out of regard for some
prevailing notion of the vulgar merely, and much
less out of any superstition of his own; but he
thought it necessary to perform some remarkable
religious act of that sort, for silencing at once the
clamours of the Priests, the whole body of whom,
incensed by the death of Becket, were every where
endeavouring to spirit up the people to a revolt;
and he may with truth be said to have submitted
to being flagellated, in order to preserve his kingdom:
which may serve as a proof, among others,
that it is a pleasing thing to be a King.
The last instance of a Sovereign who received
a correction from the Church, was that of Henry
IV. of France, when he was absolved of his excommunication
and heresy; and the discipline undergone
by that Prince supplies the solution for
an interesting question, that may be added to those
above discussed; viz. Which is the most comfortable
manner of receiving a flagellation?—It is by
Proxy.—This was the manner in which the King
we speak of, suffered the discipline which the
Church inflicted upon him. His proxies were
Mess. D’Ossat, and Du Perron, who were afterwards
made Cardinals. During the performing
of the ceremony of the King’s absolution, and
while the Choristers were singing the Psalm Miserere
mei Deus, the Pope, at every verse, beat,
with a rod on the shoulders of each of the two
proxies; which shews how essential a part of the
ceremony of an absolution, flagellations have been
thought to be; and also, how strictly the Church
of Rome adheres to such forms as are prescribed
by its Ritual, or, by the Pontifical, as it is called.
Express mention was moreover made of the above
beating, in the written process that was drawn of
the transaction. Dominus Papa verberabat & percutiebat
humeros Procuratorum, & cujuslibet ipsorum,
virgâ quam in manibus habebat.
As a farther indulgence to the King who was
thus disciplined by proxy, and very likely also out
of regard for the age in which the ceremony was
performed, the two Gentlemen who represented
him, were suffered to keep their coats on, during
the operation; and the lashes seem moreover not
to have been laid upon them, with any great degree
of vigour. However, some persons at the
Court of France, either out of envy against the
two above Gentlemen, on account of the commission
with which the King had honoured them,
or with a view to divert themselves, had, it seems,
circulated a report, that, on the day of the ceremony,
the 17th of September 1595, they had
been made actually to strip in the Church, and
undergo a dreadful flagellation. This report M.
D’Ossat contradicts in one of his Letters, the
collection of which has been printed; and he
says, that the discipline in question was performed
to comply with the rules set down in the Pontifical,
but that ‘they felt it no more than if it
had been a fly that had passed over them, being
so well coated as they were.’
Very express mention of the above discipline
was nevertheless made, as hath been above observed,
in the written process drawn on the occasion;
though the French Ministers would not suffer
it to be joined with the Bull of absolution
which was sent to the King for his acceptation,
and in which no such account was contained.
This, another French Author observes, did not
prevent the Italians from deriving triumph from
the event, and saying that the King of France
had been disciplined at Rome.
From the above two instances of Henry II. of
England, and Henry IV. of France (the authenticity
of which is beyond any doubt) we find that
two crowned Heads, Kings of the two most powerful
States in Europe, both of the name of Henry,
have publicly submitted to the discipline of
flagellation, either in their own person, or by
proxy: the one, to preserve his Crown; and the
other, in order to qualify himself for taking possession
of it. I desire the judicious Reader to ponder
well all these facts, and not to charge me with
having chosen too unimportant a subject to treat
in this Work.
It may be added, that an instance of a Sovereign
submitting to a flagellation, may be seen in
our days, at every vacancy of the See of Wurtzburgh;
a sovereign Bishoprick in Germany. It
is an antient custom in the Chapter of that
Church, that the person who has been elected to
fill the place of the late Bishop, must, before he
can obtain his installation, run the gantlope, naked
to the waist, between the Canons, who are
formed in two rows, and supplied with rods. Some
say this custom was established in order to discourage
the German Princes from being Candidates
for the above Bishoprick; but perhaps also
the Canons who established the same, had no
other design than procuring the pleasure to themselves
and successors, when they should afterwards
see their equal become their Sovereign, of remembering
that they had cudgelled him.
Other facts, besides that of Henry the Second,
shew that the power of the Clergy was carried as
far, at least, in England, as in any other Country.
Bishop Goodwin relates, that in the reign
of Edward I. Sir Osborn Gifford, of Wiltshire,
having assisted in the escape of two Nuns from the
Convent of Wilton, John Peckham, who was
then Archbishop of Canterbury, made him submit,
before he absolved him of his excommunication,
to be publicly whipped, on three successive
Sundays, in the Parish Church of Wilton,
and also in the Market and Church of Shaftsbury[97].
[97] See Dr. Berkenhout’s Biographia Litteraria, Art. John
Peckham.
CHAP. XVIII.
The glory of flagellations completed: they are
made use of for curing heresy.
AMONG all the instances contained in
this Book, of the extensive advantages
of flagellations, we certainly ought not to
omit mentioning the application that has been
made of them to the information of Heretics;
the holy personages whose office it was to convert
them, having frequently recurred to them
as an excellent expedient, either for opening
the eyes of such as absolutely refused to believe,
or for confirming the faith of those
who did as yet believe but imperfectly. As
one instance of that use of flagellations we
speak of, we may mention that of Bonner,
Bishop of London, who, though he had, under
the reign of Henry VIII. consented to the
schism which then took place in the Church,
made it his constant practice, under Queen
Mary, to fustigate the Protestants with rods
with his own hands, at least if we are to credit
the account given by Bishop Burnet, in
his History of the Reformation, in England[98].
FOOTNOTES:
[98] I do not remember to have met with the
above fact in Burnet: Mr. Hume, who also mentions
it, quotes, it seems, another Author: however,
Bishop Burnet relates a fact of much the
same nature, which is that of Mr. James Bainham,
a Gentleman of the Temple, who was accused
of favouring the new opinions: Chancellor
More caused him to be fustigated in his own
(More’s) house, and thence sent him to the Tower.
The Abbé Boileau, from whose text I have
really borrowed the instance of Bishop Bonner,
had however no occasion to look out of his own
Country, for instances of Heretics who have been
reformed by flagellations: though, to say the
truth, that instance, together with that of Chancellor
More, which is here added to it, are the
more interesting, in that they evince the great
merit of flagellations, since the Divines of all
Countries have alike resorted to them.
CHAP. XIX.
The subject of the merit of flagellations, continued.
Holy persons, though without any public
authority, have used them occasionally, in
order to give weight to their admonitions.
THE general esteem for flagellations,
which had led people to consider them
as an infallible method of atoning for past
sins, also induced them to think they would
be extremely useful to strengthen those admonitions
with which it is the duty of good Christians
to assist each other. Hence we find that
Saints, who, like other persons, have been
pretty free with their advices to other men,
have frequently assumed a power to corroborate
them by flagellations.
Among those instances of corrections bestowed
by Saints upon persons who did not
ask them for their advice, none can be quoted
more remarkable than that of St. Romuald,
who, on a certain occasion, severely flagellated
his very Father, whose conduct he disapproved,
as Cardinal Damian relates, who, we may
observe, greatly approves the action of the
Saint. The following is the account given by
the Cardinal. ‘After he had received permission
for that purpose from his Superiors,
he set out upon his intended journey, without
either horse or cart, but only with a
stick in his hand, and with his feet bare;
and, from the remotest borders of France,
at last reached Ravenna. There finding his
Father determined to return to the World,
he put him in the stocks; he tied him with
heavy chains, dealt hard blows to him, and
continued using him with this pious severity,
till, by the favour of God, he had brought
his soul back to a state of salvation[99].’
To those flagellations bestowed by Saints
upon persons who did not ask for them, we
may safely add those with which they have, at
different times, served such Ladies, as, smitten
with their charms (with the Saints charms,
I mean) have ventured to make them proposals
totally inconsistent with their virtue. These
proposals the Saints not only constantly rejected
magnanimously, but moreover seldom
dismissed the Ladies who attempted them,
without making them feel the points of their
disciplines. This was the manner in which
St. Edmund, who was afterwards Bishop of
Canterbury, behaved on an occasion like those
we mention, as the learned Claude Despence,
a Parisian Theologian, relates in his Book on
Continence. St. Edmund, the above Writer
says, during the time he was pursuing his studies
in Paris, was solicited by a young Woman
to commit with her the sin of fornication;
he thereupon bade her come to his study,
where, after tearing off her clothes, he flagellated
her naked, so severely, that he covered
her whole body with stripes[100].
Brother Mathew, of Avignon, a Capuchin
Friar who lived about the year 1540, and
spent many years in Corsica with a reputation
of sanctity, gave just such another capital
instance of virtue as that exhibited by St.
Edmund. The Saint having been charitably
received in a certain Castle in Piedmont, where
he was then begging about the Country, a
young Lady, extremely handsome, and of
noble birth, came during the night, stripped
to her shift, to visit him, in the room that
had been assigned to him, and approaching
the bed in which he was asleep, solicited him
to commit the carnal sin. But the holy Friar,
instead of answering her, ‘took up his discipline,
made with sound and well-knotted
Spanish small cords, and flagellated her so
briskly upon her thighs, her posteriors, and
back, that he not only made her blush with
shame, but moreover left upon her skin
numberless visible marks of the lecture he
gave her[101].’
To these instances of the holy severity with
which Saints have treated such Ladies as ventured
to make attempts upon their virtue,
may be added that of Bernardin of Sienna,
according to the account given by Surius;
for the virtue of Saints has been exposed to
more dangers than the vulgar think of. ‘One
day (says Surius) as Bernardin was gone
abroad to buy some bread, a Woman, the
Wife of a Citizen of Sienna, called him to
her house: as soon as he had got into it, she
locked the door, and said, Unless you now
let me have my wish, I declare I will cover
you with shame, and say that you have offered
violence to me. Bernardin, finding
himself drawn into such a dangerous situation,
prayed to God, within himself, not to
forsake him; for he greatly detested that
crime. God did not disregard his prayer;
he presently suggested to him to tell the
Woman, that since she would absolutely
have it so, she must strip off her clothes.
To this the Woman made no objection;
and she had scarcely done when Bernardin
exhibited his whip, which he happened to
have about him, and laying fast hold of her,
began to exert it vigorously; nor did he
give up fustigating her, till her lustful ardour
was extinguished. She loved the holy
Man the better for that afterwards; and so
did her Husband, when he knew how things
had been transacted[102].’
Page. 264.
FOOTNOTES:
[99] ... “In ligno pedes ejus fortiter strinxit, gravibus
eum vinculis alligavit, verberibus duris afflixit,
& tamdiù corpus ejus piâ severitate perdomuit, donec
ejus mentem ad salutis statum Deo medente reduxit.”
[100] ... “Eam ad musæum suum excivit, ibique
spoliatam virgis cæcidit, ac nudatum corpus vibicibus
conscribillavit.”
[101] Here an opportunity occurs of giving a second
specimen of the Latin of the Abbé Boileau;
the first was produced in p. 232.
... Eandem flagello nodis asperato, ex funibus
Ibericis compacto, tamdiù diverberavit, totque vibicibus
sulcos sanguinolentos in femoribus, clunibus, ac scapulis
diduxit, ut non solùm suffuso vi pudoris, verum
etiam effuso vi doloris, sanguine, fugaverit.
[102] ... Eâ causâ impensiùs mulier amavit sanctum
virum, itemque maritus cjus, ubi comperit rem ab es
gestam.
The accounts of the advances Ladies have made
to the above holy personages, must certainly give
pleasure to the judicious and sensible Reader. Considering
the opinion entertained by a number of
persons, that Rakes, Coxcombs, and in general
the most worthless part of the male sex, are commonly
the most welcome to the favours of the
Ladies, I think it reflects much honour upon
them all, that several have gone the greatest lengths
in favour of Saints, and have set aside, out of
love for them, those rules of reserve and decency
which Ladies are otherwise so naturally inclined
to respect.
In regard to the manner in which the Saints
themselves used the Ladies, it is certainly somewhat
singular: however, I must postpone giving
my opinion about it, till a few remarks are made,
on what more precisely constitutes the subject of
the foregoing Chapters, which is the great merit
and dignity of flagellations. In fact, we find that
Great Men, Conquerors, and Kings, have publicly
submitted to receiving them; and they
have moreover occasionally inflicted them with
their own hands. The Reader may remember
the method mentioned at pag. 54 of this Work,
which was adopted by the Grecian Heroes, for
conveying to their vanquished Opponents, a proper
sense of their superiority and indignation. And
the same magnanimous kind of admonition was
also commonly made use of by the Romans, in
regard to those Kings or Generals whom they had
taken in war.
Caligula, a Roman Emperor, did not disdain,
as we read in Suetonius, to use the same kind of
correction, for silencing those who happened to
make a noise near him in the Theatre, and thereby
prevented him from attending to the play, and
especially to his favourite Actor: the culprit was
instantly stripped; and the Emperor himself did
the rest[103].
Another Emperor we may name here, viz. Peter
the First, of Russia. He frequently condescended
to bestow, with his own imperial hands,
that kind of Russian flagellation, the Knout: at
other times, when he could not attend to the business,
he trusted the care of it to his Buffoon
Witaski; who was moreover invested with an unlimited
power of cudgelling those who came to
pay their court to his Czarian Majesty.
The instances of flagellations above produced,
have however been confined to actions of Kings,
Conquerors, Emperors, and Saints, or to cases of
great emergency, in which whole Nations were
concerned, such as the confutations of heresies,
and the acquisition of Sovereignties and Kingdoms;
but if we descend into the different spheres of private
life, we shall find their advantages to have
also been very extensive.
Thus, flagellations have been useful to several
persons, to make their fortunes. Not to mention
here the common story about those who have been
flagellated, when Boys, in the room of the Heir
to the Crown, we find that the two abovementioned
Gentlemen, Messrs. D’Ossat and Du Perron,
who had had the honour to be disciplined at
Rome, on the account of their Royal Master,
were afterwards, through his interest, promoted to
the high dignity of Cardinals, besides obtaining
considerable emoluments.
Others, though they have not gained such substantial
advantages as places and pensions, have acquired,
which in the opinion of many judicious
persons is not less valuable, extensive reputations.
Some have acquired such reputations, by
the flagellations they have inflicted,—among these
are to be ranked Cornelius Adriansen, Zachary
Crofton, and the Lady mentioned by Brantôme;
and others, by the flagellations they have undergone;
such was Titus Oates, so well known in
the History of this Country; Bishop Burnet expressly
observing, that this treatment did rather raise
Oates’s reputation, than sink it. (A. 1685.)
In the intercourse of private life, though among
persons distinguished from the vulgar, flagellations,
being employed as corrections, have also
proved of very great service.
Thus bon-mots, at the expence of other persons,
satires, lampoons, have, on numberless occasions,
been confuted by flagellations. The Reader surely
has not forgotten the case of Miss de Limeuil,
which has been recited in a former place; nor that
of the Court Buffoon which is introduced in the
same Chapter: and to these instances might be
added that of the Poet Clopinel, the Continuator
of that old and celebrated Romance, the Roman
de la Rose, who was once very near being flagellated
by the Ladies of the Court of France,
for his having tried his wit at the expence of the
Sex in general, as will be related in another place.
Indeed, to discuss the subject of the usefulness
of flagellations in a manner adequate to its importance
and extensiveness, would lead us into
narratives without end: I will therefore, for the
sake of shortness, content myself with adding a
few facts to those before recited; as, besides supplying
interesting consequences, they are sufficiently
authenticated.
The first, which is very useful to prove that
the secrets of Ladies ought never to be betrayed, is that
of the flagellation which was inflicted on a certain
Surgeon, who gave a loose to his tongue, at the
expence of a great Lady to whom his assistance
had been useful. The Lady I mean, was Wife
to the Prince who became afterwards King of
France, under the name of Henry IV: she was
herself much more nearly allied to the Crown than
the Prince her Husband, and would have mounted
the Throne in her own right, if it had not
been for the Salic Law. The Princess in question
was learned, witty, handsome; and she had, in
particular, such a fine arm, that it was commonly
reported that the Marquis of Canillac, under
whose guard she lived for a while as state prisoner,
fell in love with her on the sight of it. With
these qualifications she united gay, amorous dispositions,
having even been suspected to love the
great Duke of Guise, who afterwards nearly possessed
himself of the Crown; and she had besides
a turn for political intrigues. During the celebrated
civil wars of the League, being in the City
of Agen, she attempted to make herself mistress
of the place; but the opposite party having found
means to raise an insurrection against her, she was
obliged to fly, accompanied by a body of about
80 Gentlemen and 40 soldiers: her flight was even
so precipitate, that she was obliged to get on horseback
without having time to procure a pillion,
and in that situation she rode a great number of
miles, behind a gentleman, being continually exposed
to the greatest danger, for she passed through
a body of a thousand Harquebusiers, who killed
several of her followers: having at last reached a
place of safety, she borrowed a dry shift from a
servant maid, and thence pursued her journey to
the next Town, named Usson, in Auvergne, where
she recovered from her fears. However, the great
fatigue she had undergone, threw her into a fever
that lasted several days; and moreover, the want
of that comfortable accommodation which has
been just mentioned, a pillion, during her long
precipitate flight, had caused that part of her body
on which she sat, to be in a sad condition. A
Surgeon was therefore applied to, to procure her
relief; and such was the epulotick, sarcotick, cicatrizive,
incarnative, healing, consolidant, sanative,
nature of the salves he employed, that she
was cured in a short time; and thus far the Surgeon
certainly deserved her thanks: but as he afterwards
indulged himself in idle stories concerning
the cure he had performed, the Princess, who
heard of it, grew much incensed against him, and
caused him to be served with that kind of correction
which is the subject of the present dissertation;
that is to say, she caused him, as Scaliger
assures, to be served with a flagellation (elle-lui fit
donner les étrivieres.)
Nobody certainly will think that the revenge
taken by the above Princess was improper; on
the contrary, all persons will agree that it was a
very becoming satisfaction, and which she owed
to herself. It is true, every body looks with detestation
upon the action of the Princess of Gonzaga,
commonly called the fair Juliet, who caused
a Gentleman to be assassinated, who had assisted
her in making her escape from the Town of Fondi,
which the celebrated Corsair Barbarossa had
surprised during the night, with a view, as it is
said, to seize upon her person, in order to make a
present of her to the Grand-Signior,—being incensed
at the remembrance of the Gentleman
having seen her run in her shift, across the fields,
by moon-light. But without making any remark
on the difference of the treatment the above Ladies
had recourse to, it will suffice to observe that
no comparison can be made between the case of
the above Gentleman, and that of the Surgeon:
the latter had been guilty of an indiscretion of the
blackest kind, and which none but a talkative
Frenchman could have committed; a thing with
which we are not told the Gentleman in question
had been charged;—and when we reflect on the
enormity of his fault, instead of judging that he
was too severely used, we find he was treated with
excessive mildness.
Indeed, the more we consider the circumstances
of the whole affair, the more we are affected by
the treacherous conduct of that miserable Surgeon.
A wretch whom the Princess had distinguished
in so flattering a manner from all the
other persons of the same profession to whom she
might have equally applied,—a scoundrel, a rascal,
a fellow, whom she had with so much affability
acquainted with the disagreeable situation in which
she found herself, and to whom she had, no
doubt, afterwards given such a bountiful and magnificent
reward, for such a man to betray the secret
of the Princess, and give a loose to his prating
tongue at her expence! He certainly richly deserved
the flagellation that was bestowed upon
him, and, I hope those whose duty it was to serve
him with it, were animated with the same sense
of his guilt with which this article is written.
To this I shall add nothing, except that it is very
likely that, conformably to what has been observed
in a former Chapter, the flagellation inflicted
on the above Surgeon, or Barber, was inflicted
in the Kitchen.
Flagellations have also been of service for punishing
iniquitous Judges. I could wish to have
many instances of that kind to relate: however, I
will produce the following one. The story made
its appearance in a news-paper, some years ago, at
the time of the great paper-war that was waged
about the American affairs, before the beginning
of actual hostilities. The Writer who sent it to
the Gazetteer, had adopted the signature of A Boston
Saint; and as it made the whole of his first
Essay, he had meant it, it seems, as a sort of specimen
to introduce himself by, to the notice of
the Public: he continued to write under that signature;
and proved equal, at least, to any of those
who drew their pens on the occasion, and even
was decisively superior in point of local knowledge
of the Colonies. The Story, which will be inserted
in that Writer’s own words, gives a curious
insight into the puritanical manners that prevailed
in the New-England Provinces. Now, that they
have the seat of their Government among them,
these manners will undergo an alteration: they
cannot be much longer the leading fashion of the
Country.
“About forty years ago, many of the Chief
Saints, at Boston, met with a sad mortification:
yea, a mortification in the flesh.
“Captain St. Loe, Commander of a ship of
War, then in Boston Harbour, being ashore, on a
Sunday, was apprehended by the Constables, for
walking on the Lord’s day. On Monday he was
carried before a Justice of the peace: he was
fined; refused to pay it; and for his contumacy
and contempt of authority, was sentenced to sit
in the Stocks, one hour, during the time of
Change. This sentence was put in execution,
without the least mitigation.
“While the Captain sat in durance, grave Magistrates
admonished him to respect in future the
wholesome laws of the Province; and Reverend
Divines exhorted him ever after to reverence and
keep holy the Sabbath-day. At length the hour
expired; and the Captain’s legs were set at liberty.
“As soon as he was freed, he, with great seeming
earnestness, thanked the Magistrates for their
correction, and the Clergy for their spiritual advice
and consolation; declaring that he was
ashamed of his past life; that he was resolved to
put off the old Man of Sin, and to put on the
new Man of Righteousness; that he should ever
pray for them as instruments in the hands of God,
of saving his sinful soul.
“This sudden conversion rejoiced the Saints.
After clasping their hands, and casting up their
eyes to heaven, they embraced their new Convert,
and returned thanks for being made the humble
means of snatching a soul from perdition. Proud
of their success, they fell to exhorting him afresh;
and the most zealous invited him to dinner, that
they might have full time to complete their work.
“The Captain sucked in the milk of exhortation,
as a new-born babe does the milk of the
breast. He was as ready to listen as they were to
exhort. Never was a Convert more assiduous,
while his station in Boston Harbour lasted: he
attended every Sabbath-day their most sanctified
Meeting-house; never missed a weekly lecture; at
every private Conventicle, he was most fervent
and loudest in prayer. He flattered, and made
presents to the Wives and Daughters of the Godly.
In short, all the time he could spare from the
duties of his station, was spent in entertaining
them on board his Ship, or in visiting and praying
at their houses.
“The Saints were delighted with him beyond
measure. They compared their wooden Stocks
to the voice of Heaven, and their Sea-convert to
St. Paul; who, from their enemy, was become
their Doctor.
“Amidst their mutual happiness, the mournful
time of parting arrived. The Captain received
his recall. On this he went round among the
Godly, and wept and prayed, assuring them he
would return, and end his days among his friends
in the Lord.
“Till the day of his departure, the time was
spent in regrets, professions, entertainments, and
prayer. On that day, about a dozen of the principal
Magistrates, including the Select-men, accompanied
the Captain to Nantasket Road, where
the Ship lay, with every thing ready for sailing.
“An elegant dinner was provided for them on
board; after which many bowls and bottles were
drained. As the blood of the Saints waxed warm,
the crust of their hypocrisy melted away: their
moral see-saws; and Scripture-texts, gave place to
double-entendres, and wanton songs: the Captain
encouraged their gaiety; and the whole Ship resounded
with the roar of their merriment.
“Just at that time, into the Cabin burst a body
of Sailors, who, to the inexpressible horror
and amazement of the Saints, pinioned them fast.
Heedless of cries and intreaties, they dragged them
upon deck, where they were tied up, stripped to
the buff, and their breeches let down; and the
Boatswain with his Assistants, armed with dreadful
cat-o’-nine-tails provided for the occasion, administered
unto them the law of Moses in the
most energetic manner. Vain were all their prayers,
roarings, stampings, and curses: the Captain
in the mean time assuring them, that it was consonant
to their own doctrine and to Scripture, that
the mortification of the flesh tended towards the
saving of the Soul, and therefore it would be criminal
in him to abate them a single lash.
“When they had suffered the whole of their
discipline, which had flayed them from the nape
of the neck to the hams, the Captain took a polite
leave, earnestly begging them to remember
him in their prayers. They were then let down
into the boat that was waiting for them: the Crew
saluted them with three cheers; and Captain
St. Loe made sail. The Boston Select-men, to
this day, when they hear of the above, grin like
infernal Dæmons, out of sympathy to their predecessors[104].”
Another use that has been made of flagellations
among polite people, and distinguished from the
vulgar, has been to repress the aspiring views of
rivals who pretended (unjustly, as the others
thought) to an equality in point of birth, wit,
beauty, or other accomplishments. On this occasion
we might relate the treatment that was inflicted
by two Ladies of noble family, near the
Town of Saumur, in France, on the daughter of
a wealthy Farmer, whose beauty had caused her to
be invited to an entertainment that was given in a
neighbouring Castle, or Manor: an affair which
attracted the notice of the Public, at the time (A.
1730) as we may judge from the account of it being
contained in the collection of Celebrated Causes
decided in the French Courts of Law. But our
attention is called off by another much more interesting
instance of the same kind, which happened
in the reign of Lewis the Fourteenth, and
made a very great noise. I mean to speak of the
flagellation that was served by the Marchioness of
Tresnel, on the Dame, or Lady, of Liancourt:
a fact which by all means deserves a place in this
Chapter, as being in itself an extremely illustrious
instance of flagellation. Indeed, one advantage
the Author is proud of, which is, that he has
inserted nothing vulgar in this Book, nothing but
what is worthy the attention of persons of taste
and sentiment.
The Story is as follows. The Lady of Liancourt
was originally born of Parents in middling
circumstances. Having had the good luck to marry
a rich Merchant, she had address enough to
prevail upon him to leave her, at his death, which
happened a few years after their marriage, the
bulk of his fortune; and, being now a rich,
handsome Widow, she married the Sieur, or Lord,
of Liancourt; a man of birth, whose fortune
was somewhat impaired by his former expensive
way of living. The Lady of Liancourt used to
reside, during the summer, at the Castle, or Estate,
of her Husband, near the town of Chaumont:
and in the same neighbourhood was situated the
Estate of the Marquis of Tresnel. The manner
of living of the Lady of Liancourt, together with
the reputation of her wit and beauty, excited the
jealousy of the Marchioness of Tresnel, who, on
account of her birth, considered herself as being
greatly superior to the other: and a strong competition
soon took place between the two Ladies,
which became manifested in several places in a remarkable
manner, especially at Church, where the
Marchioness went once so far as violently to push
the other Lady from her seat: the Lady of Liancourt,
on the other hand, was said to have written
a copy of verses against the Marchioness; and
in short, matters were carried to such lengths between
them, that the Marchioness resolved to
damp at once the pretensions of her rival, and for
that purpose applied to that effectual mode of correction
which, as hath been seen in the course of
this Book, so many great and celebrated personages
have undergone, namely, a flagellation.
Having well laid her scheme in that respect, and
resolved that her rival should undergo the correction,
not by proxy, like King Henry the Fourth,
but in her own person, the Marchioness, one day
she knew the Lady of Liancourt was to visit at
a Castle a few miles distant from her own, got
into her coach and six, accompanied by four Men
behind, and three armed Servants on horseback;
and care had been previously taken to lay in a stock
of good disciplines, which were placed in the
coach-box. Having arrived too late at the place
on the highway at which she proposed to meet her
antagonist, the Marchioness alighted at the house
of the Curate of the Parish, in order to wait for
her return, and staid there, under some pretence,
several hours, till at last a Servant who had been
left on the watch, came in haste, and brought
tidings that the Lady Liancourt’s coach was in
sight: the Marchioness thereupon got into her
coach with the utmost speed, and arrived just in
time to throw herself across the way, and stop the
other Lady; when the Servants, who had been
properly directed beforehand, without loss of
time took the latter out of her coach, immediately
proceeding to execute the orders they had received:
and, from the complaint afterwards preferred
by the suffering Lady, it really seems that
they endeavoured to discharge their duty in such a
manner as might convince their Mistress of their
zeal in serving her.
The affair soon made a great noise, and the
King, who heard of it, immediately sent express
orders to the Husbands of the Ladies to take no
share in the quarrel. The Lady of Liancourt applied
to the ordinary course of law, and brought
a criminal action against the Marchioness, before
the Parliament of Paris; the consequence of
which was, that the latter was condemned to
ask her pardon in open Court upon her knees,
and to pay her about two thousand pounds damages,
besides being banished from the whole extent
of the jurisdiction of the Parliament. The
Servants, who are generally very severely dealt
with in France, when they suffer themselves to
become the instruments of the violence of their
Masters, were sent to the Gallies. And Miss De
Villemartin, who had been co-spectatress of the
flagellation, in the same coach with the Marchioness,
and had shared her triumph, was summoned
to appear personally in Court, there to be admonished,
and condemned to pay a fine of twenty
livres, ‘for the bread of the prisoners[105].’
That part of the bodies of their enemies, to
which Captain St. Loe, and the above-named
Marchioness, directed the corrections and insults
by which they proposed to humble them, naturally
leads us to remark the opposite lights in
which that part has been considered by Mankind,
and to notice the fantastical and contradictory disposition
of the human mind.
The part we mention, which, to follow the
common definition that is given of it, is that part
on which Man sits, is, of itself, extremely deserving
of our esteem. It is, in the first place, a
characteristic part and appendage of Mankind:
it is formed by the expansion of muscles which,
as Anatomists inform us, exist in no other animal,
and are intirely proper to the human
species.
Nor does that part confer upon Man a distinction
from animals, that is of an honorific kind
merely, like the faculty of walking in an erect situation,
which, as Ovid remarks, enables him to
behold the Sun or the Stars, as he goes forward:
but, by allowing him to sit, it enables him to calculate
the motions, whether real or apparent, of
those same Stars, to ascertain their revolutions,
and foreknow their periodical returns. It puts
him in a condition to promote the liberal Arts and
Sciences, Music, Painting, Algebra, Geometry,
&c. not to mention the whole tribe of mechanic
Arts and manufactures. It even is, by that power
of assiduity (or of being seated) it confers upon Man,
so useful to the study of the Law, that it has been
looked upon as being no less conducive to it than
the head itself, with which it has, in that respect,
been expressly put upon a par; and it is a common
saying in the Universities abroad, that, in
order to succeed in that study, a Man must have
an iron head, and leaden posteriors; to which they
add, a golden purse, to buy books with:—caput
ferreum, aurea crumena, nates plumbeæ.
Nor does the part of the human body we mention,
only serve to make Man a learned and industrious
animal; but it moreover contributes
much to the beauty of the species, being itself capable
of a great degree of beauty.
Without mentioning the opinion of different
savage Nations on that account, who take great
pains to paint and adorn that part, we see that the
Greeks, who certainly were a well-cultivated and
polite People, entertained high notions of its
beautifulness. They even seem to have thought
that it had the advantage, in that respect, of all
the other parts of the human body; for, though
we do not find that they ever erected altars to fine
arms, fine legs, fine eyes, or even to a handsome
face, yet, they had done that honour to the part
we mention, and had expressly erected a Temple
to Venus, under the appellation of Venus with
fair posteriors (Ἀφροδίτη Καλλίπυγη): the above
Temple was built, as some say, on occasion of a
quarrel that arose between two Sisters, who contended
which of the two was most elegantly shaped
in the part we mention; a quarrel that happened
to make a great noise. To this we may
add, by the by, that so little did the Greeks in
general think that the part we allude to, was undeserving
of attention, that they sometimes drew
from it indications of the different tempers of
people; and they, for instance, gave the appellation
of a Man with white posteriors (Πύγαργος) to a
Man whom they meant to charge with having too
much softness and nicety.
The Latins entertained the same notions with
the Greeks, as to the beauty of that part, or those
parts, on which Man sits. Horace more than
once bestows upon them the appellation of fair
(pulchræ): he even in one place expressly declares
it as his opinion, that, for a Mistress to be defective
in those parts (depygis) is one of the greatest
blemishes she can have,—is a defect equal to
that of being with
a flat nose (nasuta) or a long
foot, and is in short capable of spoiling, where it
exists, all other bodily accomplishments. (Hor.
Sat. 2. Lib. I.)
Among the Moderns, notions of the same kind
have prevailed. Rabelais, a well-known Writer,
places one of his best stories to the account of a
certain Nun, whom he calls Sister, or Sœur Fessue;
which he would not certainly have done, if he
had not been of opinion that the size and exact
shape of those parts of the Nun’s body from
which he denominated her, were in the number
of her greatest perfections.
In times posterior to Rabelais, other Writers
among the French, have expressed opinions exactly
alike. La Fontaine, if I mistake not, speaking
in one of his Tales, of a certain Beauty
whose charms he means to extoll, exclaims,
‘Breasts, Heaven knows, and a rump fit for a
Canon!’
Tetins, Dieu fait, & croupe de Chanoine!
And the celebrated Poet Rousseau, happening, in
one of his Epigrams, to speak of the abovementioned
Temple which the Greeks had erected to
Venus, declares that it would have been that Temple
of Greece which he would have frequented
with the greatest devotion.
Nay, other persons have thought, that, besides
the above advantages, the part we mention was
moreover capable of dignity, and partaking of
the importance of its owners. This is an opinion
which the Poet Scarron (to continue to
draw our examples from French Authors) clearly
expressed, in a copy of verses he wrote to a certain
Lady, whose Husband having lately been made a
Duke, she had thereby acquired a right to be
seated in the Queen’s Assembly, or, as they express
it, had been given the Tabouret (a stool.)
‘To the no small pleasure of all (said Scarron,
who, we may observe, had assumed a right to
say every thing he pleased) and of your own
legs, your Backside, which is without doubt
one of the handsomest Backsides in France,
like a Backside of importance, has at last, at
the Queen’s, received the Tabouret.’
Au grand plaisir de tous & de vôtre jarret,
Vôtre cû, qui doit être un des beaux cûs de France,
Comme un cû d’importance,
A recu chez la Reine enfin le tabouret.
Favourable sentiments of the kind just mentioned,
seem also to have been entertained by the celebrated
Lord Bolingbroke, whose distinguished
character as a Statesman, a Politician, and a Philosopher,
render him extremely fit to be quoted
in this place: it was on that part of his Mistress’s
body we are alluding to, his Lordship, then a
Secretary of State, chose to write, and to sign,
one of the most important dispatches of his Ministry,
and on which the repose of Europe depended
at that time[106].
In fine, others have carried their notions still
farther, and have thought that the part in question
was capable, not only of beauty and dignity, but
even of splendor. Thus, Mons. Pavillon, a
French Bel Esprit under the reign of Lewis XIV.
who filled the office of King’s General Advocate
at Metz, who was one of the forty Members of
the French Academy, and Nephew to a Bishop,
wrote a copy of verses that is inserted in the Collection
of his Works, which he intitled, Métamorphose
du Cû d’Iris en Astre. ‘The Metamorphose
of Iris’s Bum, into a Star.’ By a Star of
that kind, the Duke of York, afterwards King
James II., was dazzled, when he became enamoured
with Miss Arabella Churchill, a Maid of
Honour to the Duchess, at the time that Lady
had a fall from her horse, in a party of hunting:
and to his Royal Highness being so dazzled, the
first advancement of the great Duke of Marlborough,
then Mr. Churchill, the Lady’s Brother,
became owing; together with the capital advantages
that accrued to this Nation, from his getting
afterwards into great employments.
Yet, on the other hand, we find that that same
part, which has been thought by some to possess
so many accomplishments, and has accordingly
become the subject of their respect and
their admiration, has been made by others, the
object of their scoffs,
and expressly chosen as a mark to direct their insults to.
The facts that have been recited a few pages
before this, might be produced as confirmations
of this remark. The prevailing vulgar practice, in
cases of provocation, of threatening, or even
serving, the part in question with kicks, might
also be mentioned on this occasion. But it will
be better to observe in general, that, among all
Nations, the part we are speaking of, has been
deemed a most proper place for beatings, lashings,
and slappings.
That this notion prevailed among the Romans,
we are informed by the passages of Plautus, and
of St. Jerom, that are recited in the sixth Chapter
of this Book (p. 94, 95.) The same practice
was also adopted by the Greeks, as may be proved
by the instance of the Philosopher Peregrinus,
which has been mentioned in the same Chapter.
And under the reign of the Emperors, when the
two Nations (the Greek and Roman) had, as it
were, coalesced into one, the same notions concerning
the fitness of the same part, to bear verberations
and insults, continued to prevail. Of
this we have a singular instance in the manner in
which the statue of the Emperor Constantine was
treated, at the time of the revolt of the Town of
Edessa: the inhabitants, not satisfied with pulling
that statue down, in order to aggravate the insult
flagellated it on the part we mention. Libanius
the Rhetor informs, us of this fact, in the Harangue
he addressed to the Emperor Theodosius,
after the great revolt of the City of Antioch; in
which he mentions the pardon granted by Constantine
for the above indignity, as an argument
to induce the Emperor to forgive the inhabitants
of the last-mentioned City: a request, however,
which Libanius was not so happy as to obtain.
Among the French, notions of the same kind
likewise prevail. Of this, not to confine ourselves
to particular facts, we may derive proofs
from their language itself; in which the verb that
is derived from the word by which the part here
alluded to, is expressed, signifies of itself, and
without the addition of any other word, to beat
or verberate it: thus, Mons. de Voltaire supposes
his Princess Cunegonde to say to Candide,—Tandis
qu’on vous fessoit, mon cher Candid; by which,
however, that Author does not mean expressly to
say that Candide was flagellated upon the part we
speak of, by order of the Inquisition; he only uses
the above word to render his story more jocular.
From the above French word fesser, has been again
derived the noun fessade, signifying a verberation
on the same part; the same as the word claque
(or clack, as they pronounce it) which originally
meant a flap in general, but, by a kind of antonomatia
(a particular figure of speech) is now
come expressly to signify a slap on the part in question.
Among the Italians, the practice of verberating
the same part, also obtains, if we are to trust to
proofs likewise derived from their language; and
from the word chiappa, they have made that of
chiappata, the meaning of which is the same with
that of the French word claque.
If we turn our eyes to remote Nations, we
find they entertain notions of the same sort.
Among the Turks, a verberation on the part we
speak of, is the common punishment that is inflicted
either on the Janissaries, or Spahis; I do
not remember which of the two. Among the Persians,
punishments of the same kind are also established;
and we find in Chardin, an instance of a
Captain of the outward gate of the King’s Seraglio,
who was served with it, for having suffered a
stranger to stop before that gate, and look through
it. And the Chinese also use a like method of
chastisement, and inflict it, as Travellers inform
us, with a wooden instrument, shaped like a large
solid rounded spoon.
Among the Arabians, the part here alluded to,
is likewise considered as a fit mark for blows and
slaps. We find an instance of this, in one of the
Arabian Tales, called The one thousand and one
Nights: an original Book, and which contains true
pictures of the manners of that Nation. The story
I mean, which is well worth reminding the reader
of, is that of a certain Cobler, whose name, if I
mistake not, was Shak-Abak. This Cobler having
fallen in love with a beautiful Lady belonging
to some wealthy Man, or Man of power, of whom
he had had a glance through the window of her
house, would afterwards keep for whole hours every
day, staring at that window. The Lady, who
proposed to make game of him, one day sent one
of her female slaves to introduce him to her, and
then gave him to understand, that if he could overtake
her, by running after her through the apartments
of her house, he would have the enjoyment
of her favours: he was besides told, that in order
to run more nimbly, he must strip to his shirt. To
all this Shak-Abak agreed; and after a number of
turns, up and down the house, he was at last enticed
into a long, dark, and narrow passage, at the
farthest extremity of which an open door was to be
perceived; he made to it as fast as he could, and
when he had reached it, rushed headlong through
it; when, to his no small astonishment, the door
instantly shut upon him, and he found himself in
the middle of a public street of Bagdat, which was
chiefly inhabited by shoemakers. A number of
these latter, struck at the sudden and strange appearance
of the unfortunate Shak-Abak, who, besides
stripping to his shirt, had suffered his eye-brows
to be shaved, laid hold of him, and, as the Arabian
Author relates, soundly lashed his posteriors with
their straps.
If we turn again to European Nations, we shall
meet with farther instances of the same kind of
correction. It was certainly adopted in Denmark,
and even in the Court of that Country, towards
the latter end of the last Century, as we are informed
by Lord Molesworth, in his Account of
Denmark. It was the custom, his Lordship says,
at the end of every hunting-match at Court, that,
in order to conclude the entertainment with as
much festivity as it had begun, a proclamation was
made,—if any could inform against any person
who had infringed the known laws of hunting,
let him stand forth and accuse. As soon as the
contravention was ascertained, the culprit was made
to kneel down between the horns of the stag that
had been hunted; two of the Gentlemen removed
the skirts of his coat; when the King, taking a
small long wand in his hand, laid a certain number
of blows, which was proportioned to the
greatness of the offence, on the culprit’s breech;
whilst, in the mean time (the Noble Author adds)
the Huntsmen with their brass horns, and the
dogs with their loud openings, proclaimed the
King’s Justice, and the Criminal’s punishment:
the scene affording diversion to the Queen, and
the whole Court, who stood in a circle about the
place of execution[107].
Among the Dutch, verberations on the posteriors
are equally in use; and a serious flagellation
on that part, is the punishment which is established
at the Cape of Good Hope, one of their Colonies,
as Kolben informs us in his Description of
it, for those who are found smoaking tobacco in
the streets: a practice which has frequently been
there the cause of houses being set in fire.
In Poland, a lower discipline is the penance
constantly inflicted upon fornicators, in Convents,
previously to tying them together by the bond of
matrimony; or sometimes afterwards.
In England, castigations of the same kind, not
to quote other instances, are adopted among that
respectable part of the Nation, the Seamen, as we
find in Falconer’s Marine Dictionary; and a
Cobbing-board is looked upon as a necessary part of
the rigging of his Majesty’s ships.
Among the Spaniards, they so generally consider
the part of the human body of which we are
treating here, as the properest to bear ill usage
and mortification, that in every place there is
commonly some good Friar who makes his posteriors
answerable for the sins of the whole Parish;
and who, according as he has been fee’d for
that purpose, flogs himself, or at least tells his
Customers he has done so: hence the common
Spanish saying, which is mentioned in the History
of Friar Gerundio de Campazas, Yo soi el culo del
Frayle;—‘I am as badly off as the Friar’s backside;’
which is said by persons who think that they
are made to pay, or suffer, for advantages they
are not admitted to share.
Nor is the above method of self-correction confined
to Spanish friars only: it is likewise adopted
by a number of religious Orders of Men, established
in the other Countries of Europe. It is
also by correlations directed to the same part, that
is to say, by Cornelian disciplines, that numbers
of pious Confessors, zealous for the purity of the
morals of their female penitents, endeavour to
procure their improvement. Nay, it is upon the
same part we speak of, upon that part to which the
Greeks had erected a Temple, that the whole
tribe of Nuns and female Devotees constantly
choose to practice those mortifications and lower
disciplines by which they seek to atone for their
sins; and several among them really treat that
part, by which they perhaps have the best chance
to create themselves admirers, with wonderful
severity.
The above Dissertation, which, before I engaged
in it, I did not think would prove so long,
or so interesting, has till now kept me from delivering
my opinion concerning those flagellations
with which certain holy Men have served those
Ladies who ventured to make amorous applications
to them: a satisfaction which, before I conclude,
I must give the Reader, as having pledged my
word for it. Now, to fulfill my engagement in
that respect, I declare that I totally disapprove
such flagellations; and I am firmly of opinion
that this kind of treatment ought to be ranked
among those actions of Saints, which, as hath
been observed in a former place, are not fit for all
persons to imitate.
In fact, we find that several Authors, among
those who best knew the world, and were excellent
Judges of propriety, who had occasion to describe
situations like those in which the above
Saints were placed, have made their personages act
in quite a different manner from that in which the
Saints behaved; and on this occasion we may mention
the conduct of Parson Adams, one of the
Heroes of Fielding, in that celebrated night he
spent at Lady Booby’s. If, in the first instance,
he, as must be confessed, gave Mrs. Slipslop that
remembrance in her guts mentioned by the Author,
it was not till she had herself given him a
dreadful cuff on his chops; besides that he did not
know yet her sex, nor what she meant. But when
he afterwards found himself in the same bed with
Fanny, which, as he thought, was his own bed,
he shrunk, as it were, and retired to the farthest
extremity of it, where he lay quiet, and above all
manifested no thought whatever of flagellating
her; which if he had done, Joseph would not
certainly have thanked him for it.
Don Quixote, in Cervantes, when the lovely
Maritornes came during the night to his bed, and
threw herself into his arms, had no thought of
employing either whips or straps for dismissing the
amorous Fair-one; and certainly if he had applied
to an expedient of this kind, he would have
had no right to complain of the boxes and kicks
with which the Muleteer presently after belaboured
him in the dark. But, like a gallant and exceedingly
well-bred Knight, he excused himself
from the nature of the anterior engagements he
was under, and above all did not forget to pay
proper compliments to the Lady’s beauty and
great perfections. Indeed, the speech which the
Knight addressed to the fair Maritornes, may be
proposed as a pattern of compliment for occasions
of the kind. ‘Oh! thou most lovely temptation!
Oh that I now might but pay a warm acknowledgment
for the mighty blessing which
your great goodness would lavish on me! Yes,
most beautiful Charmer, I would give an empire
to purchase your more desirable embraces;
but Fate has put to it an invincible obstacle; I
mean my plighted faith to Dulcinea del Toboso,
the sole mistress of my wishes, and absolute sovereign
of my heart. Oh! did not this oppose
my present happiness, I could never be so insensible
a Knight as to lose the benefit of this
extraordinary favour you now condescend to offer
me.’
Nor ought the Gentleman, after delivering the
above speech, or some other equally respectful, to
stop there; it would be moreover extremely proper
for him to desire the Lady to do him the honour
to sit upon his bed, and then enter into a
fuller explanation of his conduct, and of the nature
of those prior engagements by which he is so
fatally tied.
This done, and the Lady being perfectly convinced
of the propriety of his conduct, he should
rise from his bed, and offer to attend her, I do
not say to the bottom of the stairs, and so far as
the street door, for that might be the means of
discovering the secret of the affair to other persons
and endangering the Lady’s reputation, but
to the remotest door of his own apartment. I
would moreover have him, in his passage to that
door, keep the Lady’s hand tenderly squeezed in
his own, and all the while manifest, by the nature
of his gestures and exclamations, the grief
under which he labours. And lastly, when he
had reached the furthest place to which he may
safely conduct her, he ought to take leave of her
by a low and most respectful bow, in order completely
to convince her, that the kindness she had
ventured to shew him, has not, in the least, lowered
her in his esteem.
Such, dear Reader, is the manner in which,
for my own part, I have always acted on those delicate
occasions we are speaking of. However, I
do not pretend to dictate to others the manner in
which they ought to behave, nor insist upon any
of the above circumstances in particular. All I
intreat of you, is, by all means to forbear to use
those sudden and harsh flagellations that were
recurred to, by St. Edmund, St. Bernardin of
Sienna, and Brother Mathew. Such a treatment
savours too much of ingratitude: nay, to have
recourse to it, is cruel in the extreme; it is heaping
distress upon the distressed. Nor are you to
expect that the Lady will love you the better for
it afterwards, as was the case with St. Bernardin
of Sienna; on the contrary, such a proceeding
on your part, if it were once known, would irreparably
destroy your reputation with the whole
Sex, and you may depend, no proposal or application
of the like kind would be made to you
ever after. Now, though you may be ever so
firmly determined to reject all proposals like these;
yet, as every Lady will tell you, it
is no unpleasing thing to have them made to you: besides that
you do not know but you may afterwards alter
your resolution.
[103] He punished differently, on a certain occasion, a Roman
Knight who had been guilty of the abovementioned
fault. He sent him, without delay, to carry a letter to
Africa; without allowing the time to call at his house, and
take leave of his family.
[104] Gazetteer—Tuesday, Dec. 20, 1774. The main circumstances
of the same fact are also to be found in Dr.
Burnaby’s Travels through the middle Settlements of North
America, published in the year 1775.
[106] Miss Gumley.—She became a few years afterwards,
Countess of Bath. His Lordship, no doubt, boasted of the
fact, as it seems to have made some noise at the time.
[107] See Lord Molesworth’s Account of Denmark, IVth
Edit. p. 108, 109.
CHAP. XX.
The fondness of people for flagellations, gives
rise to a number of incredible stories on that
subject.
THE supporters of the practice of flagellation
did not confine their endeavours
in recommending it, to setting the example
of it, like Rodolph of Eugubio, or Dominic
the Cuirassed, or to supporting it by arguments
and voluminous writings, like Cardinal
Damian; but they mixed their accounts with
numbers of stories of an extravagant kind;
whether their enthusiasm in favour of the
practice in question, induced them to believe
such stories to be true, or they thought that
their very incredibility would be extremely fit
to bring into credit with the vulgar, a doctrine
in favour of which they were themselves so
prepossessed.
Thus, flagellations were given out by some,
as having the power of rescuing souls from
Hell itself; a thing which even Masses, though
constantly used to draw them out of Purgatory,
were not thought to be able to perform.
As an instance of the stories that were circulated
on that account, may be produced the
following, related by one Vincent, who lived
in the year 1256.
‘Archbishop Umbert (says Vincent) recited,
that in the Monastery of St. Sylvester,
in the duchy of Urbino, in Italy, a
certain Monk died; and the Brothers continued
singing Psalms by his body, from the
first evening crowing of the Cock, till two
o’clock in the morning, and as soon as they
began, in the Mass they celebrated for his
sake, to sing the Agnus Dei, behold! the
dead Man suddenly rose. The Brothers,
greatly astonished, came near him, to hear
what he had to say; when he began to throw
forth abuses and curses against God; he spit
on the Cross that was offered him to kiss;
he uttered the most opprobrious expressions
against the immaculate Mother of God, and
said, Of what service to me is your singing
psalms, and offering sacrifices? I have been
in the flames of Hell, where my Lord and
Master Lucifer placed a brass crown, glowing
with inextinguishable heat, on my head,
and laid a coat of the same metal, with
which himself was covered, on my shoulders:
this coat was not long enough to
reach down to my heels, but it was so violently
heated, that drops seemed to fall from
it to the ground. The Brothers having then
continued to exhort him to repent of his
sins, he anathemised them, and denied, in a
sacrilegious manner, all the mysteries of our
Redeemer. The Monks thereupon prayed
for him heartily, and after stripping off their
clothes, flagellated themselves, uttering every
manner of supplication in his behalf;
when behold! that desperate Man recovered
the use of his reason;
he confessed the omnipotence of our Saviour; he renounced the
errors of Satan, adored the Cross, and intreated
to be admitted to the Sacrament of
Confession and Penitence. Now, the crime
of which he accused himself was that of
having committed fornication, after he had
renounced the world; a thing which he had
kept secret to his death. He thus continued
to live, praising and blessing God, to
the next day, when he again gave up the
ghost.’
Besides stories of the same kind with that
above, which were contrived to heighten the
merit of flagellations, the admirers of that
practice have excogitated others, in order to
terrify those who declined adopting it, or attempted
to confute it by arguments. As a specimen
of this, we may quote the report that
was circulated concerning Cardinal Stephen,
which hath been mentioned in a former place
(p. 214) that he had died suddenly, for having
despised the exercise in question.
Another story, contrived in the same view
we speak of, is to be found in Thomas de
Chantpré’s Book, in which it is related of a
certain Hugh, a Canon of St. Victor, that,
having on account of his weak state of health,
constantly forbore, during his life-time, the
use of flagellations, he paid dearly afterwards
for this tender care he had taken of his skin;
for at his passage into Purgatory, the whole
tribe of Devils lashed him with scourges.
‘Hugh (says Thomas de Chantpré) was one
of the Regular Monks in the Monastery of
St. Victor, in Paris. He was called the second
St. Austin, that is to say, the second
Man in point of learning since St. Austin;
but though he deserved much praise in that
respect, yet, the same cannot be said of his
constant refusal to practice flagellations and
disciplines, for his quotidian misdeeds, either
in private, or in the Chapter, in company
with the Brothers: he was, as I have
been informed, of a tender frame of body,
and had, besides, been too much indulged
in his childhood. Now, because he took no
pains to overcome by exercise the defect of
his nature, or rather his bad habit, very fatal
consequences ensued to him, as I am going
to relate. Being near his death, a brother
Canon, who was his intimate friend,
intreated him to shew himself again to him,
after he was dead. I will, says he, if the
Master of life and death consents to it. As
Hugh was making this promise, he died;
nor was it long before he returned to his
friend, who was still in expectation of him,
and said, Here I am; make haste to ask
what question you intend to ask, for I cannot
stay. The other, who, though he was
exceedingly pleased, yet was not a little
frighted, said, How is it with you, my dear
friend? It is well with me, said Hugh; but
because I have refused, while I was alive,
to receive discipline, there has hardly been a
single Devil in the whole infernal empire,
but who gave me a smart lash, as I was in
my way to Purgatory.’
Others, in order to bring flagellations into
still greater credit, have supposed that the Devils
themselves were so sensible of the merit
that was in them, that they would occasionally
practise them upon each other. Thus, St. Allen
relates that the Holy Virgin Mary having
resolved to rescue a certain James Hall, an
Usurer, from the claws of the Dæmons, these
unclean spirits, a great number of whom were
present, no sooner saw her make her appearance,
than they took to blaspheming, flagellated
each other, and ran away.
The Devil himself has also, on certain occasions,
prescribed flagellations, as an atonement
for sins; which is certainly wonderful
enough. It is related in the Life of St. Virgil,
that a Man possessed by the Devil, was
fustigated with four rods, by the Devil’s prescription,
for having stolen four wax-candles
from the Saint’s altar. ‘I am not come (said
the possessed Man) of my own accord; but
I have been compelled to it: I have carried
off the wax-candles and offerings that were
on the tomb of the Man of God; and if
they are not speedily returned, my Master
will come with seven spirits worse than himself,
and will for ever continue in me. However,
when the candles, of which they had
been a long while in search, were found
again, by the Devil’s assistance, and brought
back, the Devil directed them to fustigate
the unhappy Man with as many besoms as
there were candles.’
To these instances of flagellations voluntarily
practiced among Devils, we ought not to
omit to add one, in which the Devil was
smartly flagellated in spite of his teeth, by a
Saint, and a female Saint too; a fact which
cannot fail to give the greatest pleasure to the
Reader, who remembers the deplorable accounts
that have been given in a former Chapter,
of the wanton flagellations he has himself
inflicted upon Saints. The name of the female
Saint who thus gave the Devil his due,
was Cornelia Juliana, as the Reverend Father
Jesuit, Bartholomew Fisen, relates, in his book
on the Ancient Origin of the Festival of the
body of Christ. ‘One day (says he) the other
Nuns heard a prodigious noise in the room
of Cornelia Juliana, which turned out to be
a strife she had with the Devil, whom, after
having laid hold of him, she fustigated unmercifully;
then, having thrown him upon
the ground, she trampled him under her
foot, and continued ridiculing him in the
most bitter manner[108].’ The above Reverend
Father has neglected to inform us, how
the Devil came to be in Juliana’s room; but
it is most likely he was come upon his usual
antic errand of flagellating Saints, and meant
to serve Juliana in the same manner: fortunately
she was upon the watch, and proved
too many for him. As for the dreadful noise
that was to be heard in the Saint’s room, it
was the natural consequence of the hard struggle
that took place between her and the Devil,
while they were thus striving who should
flog the other.
The Saints who inhabit Paradise have also
been supposed to have occasionally recourse to
flagellations; not, to be sure, to inflict them
any longer upon themselves; but to chastise,
at the request of their friends, those who persecuted
them. This misfortune happened to
a certain Servant of the Emperor Nicephorus,
who, not satisfied with exacting unjust tributes
from the common people with great rigour,
offered afterwards to use Monasteries in the
same manner. ‘The Emperor (says the Author
from whom this fact is extracted) sent
one of the Grooms of his bed-chamber to
receive the usual tribute. As he was a Man
exceedingly eager after money and unlawful
gain, he committed great oppressions both
on the common citizens, and the inhabitants
of the Monastery of St. Nicon; for
the government of cities, and the care of
levying duties, are usually intrusted, not to
the just and mild, but to hard-hearted and
inhuman persons. The Monks, who were
possessed of no money, endeavoured to sooth
the above cruel unmerciful Man by their
discourses; but he, thirsty after gold, was
as deaf to their prayers, as the asp to conjurations,
and made no more account of
their remonstrances, than, to use the words
of the Scripture, of the crackling of thorns
under a pot. On the contrary, his wrath
and insolence increasing farther, he caused
several of them to be thrown into a jail, and
prepared to plunder the Monastery. The
remaining Monks then applied to their Saint
for assistance, who presently made them experience
the happy effects of it; for during
the following night, he appeared to the
Groom, with a threatening indignant aspect,
and lashed him severely; then speaking to
him, told him, for his words ought to be
recorded, Thou hast thrown the Heads of the
Monastery into chains; if thou dost not release
them instantly, thy death shall be the consequence.’
The Virgin Mary herself, has also been
said to have applied to corrections of the same
kind as those here alluded to, in order to
avenge the injustices done to those whom she
protected; and she, for instance, caused a certain
Bishop to be flagellated in her presence,
who had taken his prebend from a Canon,
who was indeed, but an indifferent person to
fill his office, but who paid much devotion to
her, and with his eyes cast down, sung every
day before her Altar certain words contained
in the Angelic salutation. The illustrious Cardinal
Damian informs us of this fact, in his
Opusc. xxxiii. Cap. iii. which is entitled, The
blessed Virgin directs that his prebend should be
returned to a Clergyman who used to pay devotion
to her. ‘The same Stephanus (says Cardinal
Damian) related to me another fact of
much the same kind. I remember, he said,
that there was a certain Clergyman, who
was a dunce, an idle man, a dullard; to
this add that he was endowed with no religious
gift, and possessed no canonical gravity.
Yet, amidst the dead ashes of his
useless life, some small particles of pious
fire continued to subsist, so that he would
every day approach the altar of the holy
Mother, and, inclining his head with reverence,
sing the following both angelic and
evangelic line, Hail, Mary, full of grace, the
Lord is with thee; blessed art thou among
Women. The new Bishop, however, who
soon discovered the incapacity of the Man,
thought it wrong that an useful office should
be left to an useless person, and he took from
him the prebend he had obtained from the
preceding Bishop. But as the Canon was
thereby reduced to great poverty, having
no other means of supporting himself, the
blessed Virgin interfered in his behalf. During
the dead of night she appeared to the
Bishop, preceded by a Man who carried a
discipline in one of his hands, and a burning
torch in the other, and ordered him to
chastise the Bishop by some lashes of it;
then addressing this latter,—Why, said she,
did you take from a Man who used to pay
daily homages to me, a clerical advantage
it was not you who had conferred on him?
The Bishop, filled with terror, and soon
awaking from his sleep, presently returned
the prebend to the Clergyman, and afterwards
greatly honoured as a Man whom God
loved, a person who, he thought, was unknown
to him.’
FOOTNOTES:
[108]Corneliæ sodales ingentem aliquando audierunt
strepitum ex ejus cubiculo, & contentionem Julianæ
adversus dæmonem, quem manibus comprehensum
quanti poterat cædebat; in terram deinde prostratum
pedibus obterebat, lacerabat sarcasmis.
CHAP. XXI.
A remarkable instance of a flagellation performed
in honour of the Virgin Mary.
SO well established was the opinion that
Saints, and especially the Virgin Mary,
were to be appeased by flagellations, and such
was, in general, the fondness of people during
a certain period of time, for that pious
mode of correction, that a Franciscan Monk,
who wore a hood, and was girt with a cord,
did not scruple, under the Pontificate of Sixtus
IV, to expose to the open day, in the public
market-place, the bare rump of a Professor
in Divinity, and lashed him with his
hand, in sight of a croud of astonished spectators,
because he had preached against the
immaculate conception of the blessed Virgin.
The fact is related in a Sermon written by
Bernardinus de Bustis, which, together with
his whole Work in honour of the Virgin
(Opus Mariale) he dedicated to Pope Alexander
VI, and seems therefore to be a fact well
enough authenticated: the following is the
manner in which Bernardinus gives the account.
‘He laid hold of him, and threw him upon
his knees; for he was very strong. Having
then taken up his gown; because this
Minister had spoken against the holy Tabernacle
of God, he began to lash him with
the palm of his hand upon his huge breech,
(the Author’s expression is, upon his square
tabernacles) which was bare; for he wore
neither drawers nor breeches: and because
he had attempted to slander the blessed Virgin,
by quoting perhaps Aristotle in the
book of Priors, this Preacher confuted him
by reading in the book of his Posteriors;
which greatly diverted the Bystanders. Then
a certain female Devotee exclaimed, saying,
Mr. Preacher, give him four more slaps for
my sake: another presently after said, Give
him also four more for me; and so did a
number of others: so that if he had attempted
to grant all their requests, he would
have had nothing else to do for the whole
day[109].’
Nay, so proper did Bernardinus de Bustis
think the above correction to have been, so
well calculated did he judge it, to appease the
holy Virgin’s wrath, that he did not scruple
to declare, in the sequel of his Sermon, that
the Monk who inflicted it, had possibly been
actuated by an inspiration from the Virgin herself.
‘Perhaps (says he) was it the Virgin
herself, who induced him so to do, moreover
granting him an exemption from the censures
incurred, according to the Laws of the
Church, by those who strike an Ecclesiastic,
and relaxing the rigour of these laws in his
favour[110].’
FOOTNOTES:
[109]Apprehendens ipsum, revolvit super ejus genua;
erat enim valdè fortis. Elevatis itaque pannis, quia
ille Minister contrà sanctum Dei tabernaculum locutus
fuerat, cœpit cum palmis percutere super quadrata tabernacula,
quæ erant nuda, non enim habebat femoralia
vel antiphonam; & quia ipse infamare voluerat
beatam Virginem, allegando forsitan Aristotelem in
Libro Priorum, iste Prædicator illum confutavit legendo
in libro ejus Posteriorum: de hoc autem omnes
qui aderant, gaudebant. Tunc exclamavit quædam
devota mulier, dicens, Domine Prædicator, detis ei
alias quatuor palmatas pro me; & alia postmodum
dixit, detis ei etiam quatuor; sicque multæ aliæ rogabant;
ità quòd si illarum petitionibus satisfacere voluisset,
per totum diem aliud facere non potuisset.——In
Opere Mariali, Serm. viii. de Conceptione
Beatæ Virginis, circ. fin.
[110] There prevails, as may have been perceived,
a kind of competition between the Abbé Boileau
and me, who shall find out the best story, which
is extremely for the benefit of the Reader. However,
the story above quoted from Bernardinus de
Bustis, with which we are supplied by the Abbé’s
book, is so good in itself, so full of Attic salt, so
well in the true Monkish style, that I despair of
producing any thing that can match it. I will
try, therefore, to make up in number what I may
want in point of intrinsic merit; and, instead of
one story, I will relate two; which, that I may
keep as near to my model as may be (for here it
inspires me with uncommon emulation) will both
have Friars for their object, and be of the same
turn with the above.
The first is contained in the book of the Apologie
pour Hérodote, the Author of which says he
heard it from a Gentlewoman of Lorrain, who
had been an eye-witness to it. A Monk, one
day, preached in a Country Church, upon the
subject of Hell. He took much pains to inspire
his Congregation with a great aversion for the
place, and made as frightful a description of it as
he could; but now and then, pretending that
proper expressions failed him, he stopped suddenly,
and then exclaimed,—In short, Hell is as horrid
as the breech of the Bell-ringer of the Parish;
which saying, he uncovered the posteriors of the
latter, who had placed himself there for that purpose,
and had agreed with the Friar to act that
farce with him.
The second story I propose to relate, which I
do not remember where I have read, perhaps in
the same book above quoted, is that of another
jolly Predicant Friar, who laid a wager he would
make one half of his Congregation laugh, and
the other cry. As for making his hearers cry, it
was what he had often succeeded in doing, being
a very good preacher. On the appointed day, he
accordingly came to Church, provided with an
excellent Sermon, with that, of his stock, which
he knew was most likely to produce the desired effect,
and he presently after began reciting it; for
they never read their Sermons. But, before I
proceed farther, I must inform the Reader that the
pulpit in which he preached, stood in the middle
of the Church; and, besides leaving the door behind
him open, he had found means to adjust his
gown and breeches in such a manner, that he might
let the latter fall down whenever he pleased. When
he had gone through the greater part of his preaching,
and his hearers were very near being in
the necessary disposition to make him win one
half of the wager, he, on a sudden, let his
breeches drop upon his heels, and exhibited, to
use the expression of Bernardinus de Bustis, his
square tabernacles to the full view of that part of
the Congregation who were seated behind the pulpit.
With respect to him, however, pretending
to perceive nothing of the matter, and to be
wholly taken up with his Sermon, he went on
with it as before: and as he had now reached the
latter part of it, consequently that which contained
his most interesting descriptions as well as
strongest arguments, he exerted so much eloquence
in it, and such a power of declamation,
that that part of the Congregation who were
placed in front of the pulpit, were really melting
in tears, while those who sat behind, minding
less what they heard than what they saw, were in
a situation of mind quite different; and it is needless
to say that the Friar won the wager.
To the above stories a number of others of the
same kind might be added; which, though it
might be a hard matter to vouch for their truth,
yet are related by different Authors in a very serious
manner, and such as shews that they hoped
their accounts would be believed. Thus, the
Author of the Apologie pour Hérodote, says he had
heard the story he mentions, from a person who
had been an eye-witness to it. And Bernardinus
de Bustis, not only pretends he greatly approves
the fact he relates, which he represents as having
been peculiarly agreeable to the Virgin, but
has moreover inserted it in a Sermon which he
published, and dedicated to a Pope.
From the above stories, as well as from many
others related in the same manner, we are therefore
at least to conclude, that they bear great resemblance
to a number of facts which commonly
happened in the times of the Authors who relate
them; and we may thence admire the singular licence
of manners which prevailed among Monks
and the Clergy in general, during a certain period
of time: a licence which we find to have especially
obtained when, being the dominant, or rather
the sole Christian Church that existed, they
were without rivals or competitors; and it may
really be said, that the event of the Reformation
proved, in several respects, as much a reformation
for them, as for those who expressly adopted it.
CHAP. XXII.
Another Story of a female Saint appeased by a
flagellation.
AND not only the Virgin Mary, but
other female Saints, inhabitants of Paradise,
have also been thought to be extremely
well disposed to be appeased, when they had
received offence, by flagellatory corrections.
The following Story is to be found in the
Book intitled, Itinerarium Cambriæ, wrote by
Sylvester Geraldus, a native of the Country of
Wales, who wrote about the year 1188.
‘In the Northern borders of England, and
on the other side of the river Humber, in
the Parish of Hooëden, lived the Rector of
that Church, with his Concubine. This
Concubine, one day sat rather imprudently,
on the tomb of St. Osanna, sister to
King Osred, which was made of wood,
and raised above the ground in the shape of
a seat. When she attempted to rise from
the place, her posteriors stuck to the wood
in such a manner, that she never could be
parted from it, till, in the presence of the
people who ran to see her, she had suffered
her clothes to be torn from her, and had
received a severe discipline on her naked
body, and that, to a great effusion of blood,
and with many tears and devout supplications
on her part: which done, and after
she had engaged to submit to farther penitence,
she was divinely released[111].’
FOOTNOTES:
[111] ... Quæ cum recedere vellet, fixis ligno natibus,
evelli non potuit, &c.—Itinerarii Cambriæ,
Lib. I.
This opinion of Catholic Divines concerning
the great power of flagellations to appease the
wrath of female Saints, and the content which
they have supposed the latter to receive from such
ceremonies, after the example of the antient Goddesses,
might furnish a new subject of comparison
between the Catholic Religion, and that of the
ancient Heathens; and if Dr. Middleton had
thought of it, he might have added a new article
on that head, to his Letter from Rome.
In fact, the Reader may remember the account
that has been given in
the sixth Chapter of this Book, of the singular ceremonies that were exhibited
at Lacedæmon, before the altar of Diana.
(
Seep. 79, &c.) The same was done sometimes
before the altar of Juno. Rites of much
the same flagellatory kind were practised in the
Temple of the Goddess of Syria. And similar
ceremonies also used to be performed in honour
of the great Goddess, in Egypt. (
Seep. 85, 86.)
So prevalent was become the opinion that Goddesses
delighted in seeing such corrections inflicted
before their altars, that several of them, among
whom was Venus herself, were supposed to be
supplied with the necessary implements to inflict
them with their own hands, occasionally (p. 55).
Nay, the Muses themselves had been provided
with instruments of the same kind: Lucian, in
his Letter or Address “to an ignorant Man who
was taking much pains in collecting a Library,”
says to him, that the Muses will drive him from
Parnassus, with their whips of myrtle. And Bellona,
the Goddess of war, has also been armed
by Virgil, in the 8th Book of his Æneid, with
an enormous whip.
Quem cùm sanguineo sequitur Bellona flagelio.
These notions of the Ancients, concerning the
inclination they attributed to Goddesses, for corrections
of the kind here alluded to, may be explained
in different ways.
In the first place, they perhaps thought it was
owing to the greater irascibility of temper of the
Sex, which prompts them to give effectual marks
of their resentment, when they have good reason
to think that no resistance will be attempted. In
the second place, they possibly ascribed that inclination
they supposed in the female Sex, to their
love of justice; which is certainly a very laudable
disposition. And, thirdly, they perhaps also
considered that propensity of Women, to use instruments
which were, in those times, deemed to
be characteristic emblems of power, as the effect
of that love of dominion with which the Sex has
at all times been charged, and the consequence of
some ambitious wish they supposed in them, of
having the uncontrouled sway of the terrible
flagellum.
However, if I am allowed to deliver my opinion
concerning the above inclination of the fair
Sex, about which the Antients seem to have entertained
so great a prepossession, I will say that I
think it owing to the second of the causes abovementioned,
that is to say, to their laudable love of
justice, and at the same time, to the peculiar nature
of the Sex, which makes them feel a great reluctance
in using any instruments, either of a
cruel, or an unwieldly and ungraceful kind, for instance
fire-arms or javelins, swords or clubs, but
prompts them to employ, when they mean to give
effectual tokens of their resentment, instruments
suitable to the mercifulness of their tempers, and
the elegance of their manners.
Of this love of justice inherent in Women, a
singular instance occurs in the Greek History. I
mean to speak of the flagellations which Ladies,
in Lacedæmon, who had reached a certain age
without finding husbands, used to bestow, before
the altar of Juno, upon such Men as continued
past a certain time of life, to live in an unmarried
state. These flagellations the unmarried Lacedæmonian
Ladies (no doubt through the long use
they had made of them) had at last converted into
an express right; and the ceremony was performed
every year, during a certain solemnity established
for that purpose. Whether they flagellated
all the unmarried Men without exception,
who came within the words of the regulation on
that subject, Historians have neglected to inform
us: perhaps they served in that manner only a certain
number, in order to shew the right they had
of flagellating all the rest.
Nor have Women of modern times less distinguished
themselves than the Greek Ladies, by
their love of justice, or paid less regard to elegance
in their choice of the means they have employed
to avenge the insults they may have received.
In fact, we have seen in the present Chapter,
that the persons who have raised the fabric of the
Catholick Church, or rather Creed, persons who
certainly were good observers of the manners
of Mankind, have given the same inclination
and the same attributes, to their female inhabitants
of Paradise, as the Ancients had given
to their Goddesses. And conclusions to the
same effect may be derived from the works of
imagination of a number of respectable modern
Authors, who have all given to the Ladies
of whom they had occasion to speak, the
same elegant dispositions we mention, and made
them act, when offended, upon the same principles
as the Ladies in Lacedæmon: these works I
do not scruple to mention as weighty authorities;
for though they may be, as I said, works in appearance
of imagination merely, yet it is well
known that such great Authors, when they relate
any stories, always allude to certain facts of which
they have either been eye-witnesses, or received
assured information.
And to quote one or two on the subject, we
find that the celebrated La Fontaine, in one of
his Tales which he has entitled The Pair of Spectacles,
makes certain Nuns, who, as they thought,
had had a great affront put upon their Monastery,
have immediate recourse to the elegant method of
revenge here alluded to. The story is as follows.
Several Nuns, in a certain Convent, were
found to be in a situation which, though pretty
natural for Women to be in, yet was not quite
so with Women who were supposed to have
constantly lived inclosed in the same walls with
other Women, and made the Abbess judiciously
conclude that some male Nun was harboured
among them, or, as it was expressed, that some
wolf lay hidden among the sheep: a suspicion
which, by the by, was well grounded; for a
young Man, who had as yet no beard, had found
means to introduce himself into the Convent,
where he lived, dressed like the Sisters, and was
reckoned one among them. In order both to ascertain
such suspicion, and discover so dangerous
a person, all the Nuns were ordered into one
room, and there made to strip themselves stark
naked; when the Abbess, with her spectacles on
her nose (whence the Tale has received its name)
inspected them all, one after another, carefully.
To relate how the young Man, notwithstanding
the ingenious precautions he had taken, came
to be found out, and how the Abbess’s spectacles
were thrown from her nose and broken, is foreign
to our subject: let it here suffice to say that
the young Man was really found out; and that
the Nuns, except those who had been concerned
with him, who were previously locked up in a safe
place,—that the Nuns, I say, laid hold of him,
led him into a wood that stood close to their Convent,
and there tied him to a tree, naked as he
was, in order to make him atone for his audaciousness
by a smart flagellation. Having forgotten
to supply themselves with the necessary instruments
of correction, they ran back to the Convent
to fetch them, and whether from the mislaying
of a key, or some other accident, were detained
a little time. In the mean time a Miller,
riding upon his Ass, went through the wood;
and seeing the young Man in the abovementioned
plight, stopped, and asked him the reason of it:
to which the latter made answer, that it was those
wicked Nuns who had put him in that situation,
because he would not gratify their wanton requests;
that he had rather die than be guilty of such
thing. The Miller then cast upon him a look of
the utmost contempt ... but it will be better to
refer the Reader to the abovementioned Author
himself, for the inimitable Dialogue that passed
between the young Man and the Miller: here it
will be enough to say, that this latter proposed to
the other to put himself in his place, and warranted
him he would behave in quite a different
manner, and much more to the satisfaction of the
Nuns than he had done. The young Man had
no need of much encouragement to accept the
proposal: after the Miller had released him, and
stripped himself, he tied him fast to the same tree,
and had just time enough to steal away, and hide
himself behind some neighbouring bush, when
the Nuns rushed again out of the same door at
which they had got in, armed with all the disciplines
and besoms they had been able to find in
the Convent. They immediately marched up to
the person who was tied to the tree, and without
minding the broad shoulders and brawny limbs
which were now offered to their view, began to
use their disciplines with great agility. In vain
did the Miller expostulate with them on their using
him so ill: in vain did he remonstrate that he was
not the Man whom they took him to be; that he
was not that
beardless stripling, that milk-sop
simpleton, with whom they had formerly had to
do, that woman-hater who had given them so just
a cause of dissatisfaction; that they ought to try
him before they entertained so bad an opinion of
him:—in vain did he even at last, in the extremity
of pain, apply to the utmost powers of his
native language, to convey to them the clearest
ideas he could, both to those wishes he supposed
in them, and of his great abilities to gratify
them: the more loudly and clearly he spoke, the
more unmercifully they laid on, and only left him
when they had worn out their disciplines.
Cervantes likewise, whose authority is equal to
that of any Author, and who has moreover
thrown a great light upon the subject of flagellations,
has introduced a fact which greatly serves
to confirm the observations we are discussing here.
I mean to speak of what happened in that memorable
night in which the Senora Rodriguez paid a
visit to the valorous Don Quixote, in his bed.
That Gentlewoman having, in the course of the
conversation she had with the Knight, dropped
several reflections of a very bad kind on the
Duchess and the fair Altisidora, who were at that
very instant listening at the door, these two Ladies,
though justly and greatly offended at the liberty
that was thus taken with their character, recurred
to no expedient of a coarse and rough kind
to avenge the insult; but they immediately applied
to the summary, yet smart,—genteel, yet
effectual, mode of correction here alluded to,
namely, a flagellation. And here the Author we
mention has taken an opportunity of giving a singular
instance of the readiness of wit of the fair
Sex, and of the quickness with which they usually
extricate themselves out of the seemingly most
perplexing difficulties. The Duchess and Altisidora
were entirely destitute of the necessary instruments
to inflict the chastisement they had resolved
upon; but they had the great presence of mind to
think of using their slippers for that purpose:
they presently pulled them off their feet; bounced
the door open; ran to the Senora Rodriguez; in
the twinkling of an eye made her ready for flagellation,
and immediately began to exert their
new weapons with great dexterity. Thence, still
in the dark, they passed to the astonished Knight,
who lay snug in his bed, and who, by his listening
to the stories of the Senora, and also by his
questions, had encouraged her to proceed in her
reflections (a thing which he might full as well
have avoided doing) and bestowed upon him a few
of those favours they had so plentifully heaped
upon the above Gentlewoman.
At this place might also be mentioned, as being
extremely well in point to the subject we are treating,
the kind of satisfaction required by Dulcinea,
from Sancho, and that which the Lady introduced
by Butler, prescribed to the renowned
Hudibras, while he was in the stocks; though, I
confess, it might be said that the corrections here
alluded to, were only advised, not inflicted, by
the above Ladies. But it will suffice to mention,
as a conclusion of these quotations from great
Authors, the manner in which Lazarillo de Tormes,
the notorious Spanish Cheat, was served by
his four Wives. Having found out the place of
his abode, they immediately agreed among themselves
to serve him with the elegant kind of chastisement
here mentioned; and having all together
surprized him one morning, while he was asleep,
they tied him fast to his bed, and served upon him
one of the most dreadful flagellations that ever
were inflicted, since the use of them has been
contrived, as we are told in the History of the
Life of the said Lazarillo; a Book which is still
in repute in Spain, it being written with humour,
and containing true pictures of the manners of
that Country, and being even, as some say, founded
on real facts.
Nor are true and well-authenticated instances
wanting, to confirm the same observations.
None, however, can be mentioned, that sets
in a stronger light the love of justice inherent in
the female Sex, and their constant attention to
make choice of expedients of an elegant kind to
express their resentment, than the custom that
prevails in France and Italy, and perhaps in other
Countries, according to which, Ladies use to flagellate
their acquaintances, while they are yet in
bed, on the morning of the day of the festival of
the Innocents; whence this flagellatory custom is
called “giving the Innocents” (dar gli Innocenti):
the word Innocent, we may observe, has, in both
the Italian and French languages, besides the English
signification of it, that of fool, or simpleton;
hence the words, the Day of the Innocents, seem
also to signify in those two languages, the Fools
day, or the day of the Unwary.
Nay, so well established is the custom we mention,
that Women, in those parts, look upon that
day, as a day of general justice and retribution,
or an Assize or Sessions day, to which they refer
taking satisfaction for the slight offences they may
receive in the course of the year, especially from
their male friends. They even will sometimes,
when the latter hesitate too much in granting
their requests, or misbehave in any manner,
hint to them the fatal consequences that may ensue
from such a conduct, and plainly intimate to
them, that a certain day in the year is to come
on which every thing is to be atoned for.
When this important day is arrived, those Ladies
who have agreed to join together in the same
party, or (to continue the comparison drawn from
the law that has been above employed) who have
agreed to go together upon the circuit, repair early
in the morning to the appointed place of rendezvous,
for instance the apartment of one of
them, sufficiently provided with disciplines from
their respective kitchens; and after laying the
plan of their operations, they sally out, to take
a round to the apartments of their different acquaintances.
The prudent and cautious, on such an important
day, take great care to secure well the bolts
and locks of their doors; or rather, fearing that
sleep should overcome them, and knowing how
fatal neglect might prove, they take that precaution
on the evening before, when going to bed,
and as an additional security, they heap all the
chairs and tables against the door. Others, who
are of a bold and daring spirit, on the contrary
affect on that day, to leave the doors of their
rooms wide open, and stay in bed, resolved to
wait the event, and undauntedly to face the storm.
However, as such an affectation of bravery seems
to indicate that some present trick, or at least some
future retaliation of some kind or other is intended,
the Ladies commonly keep clear from a place they
judge so ominous; unless there happens to be
one among them of an uncommonly courageous
turn of mind, who places herself in the van,
encourages the whole party; and they all together
rush into the room and fall upon the adventurous
Hero, who is then made to pay dearly for
his temerity. When this does not happen to be
the case, and at the same time they find the doors
of all those persons whom they had expressly
marked out for chastisement, to be proof against
either a coup-de-main or a regular siege, as they
must not part without some effectual business has
been transacted, the cloud commonly breaks upon
some unfortunate Simpleton, who has left his door
open for no other reason than because he had forgot
what day of the month it was; they lay fast
hold of him, and seldom leave him before their
disciplines are worn out to the stumps. The story
is soon circulated in whispers in the neighbourhood;
and if any person who has not yet heard
of it, observes that the Gentleman appears that
day uncommonly grave and sulky, his wonder
presently ceases, when he is told that, on the
morning, they have given him the Innocents.
The custom we mention, seems to be of pretty
ancient date; it is alluded to in that old Book formerly
quoted, The Tales of the Queen of Navarre.
A Man, an Upholsterer by trade, as it is
said in one of these Tales (for Men will sometimes
avail themselves of the practice in question
when it may serve their turn) a Man was in love
with his servant Maid; and as he did not know
how to find an opportunity to escape the vigilance
of his Wife, and be alone with her, he pretended,
in a conversation he brought about on
the subject, on the eve of Innocent’s day, to find
much fault with the Maid; complained that she
was a lazy Wench, and so on; and added, that,
in order to teach her better, he proposed, on the
next morning, to give her the Innocents. The
Wife greatly applauded his resolution: at break
at day, he accordingly rose from his bed, took
up a discipline of such a monstrous size, that his
Wife’s heart aked to think what correction the
Maid was about to undergo, and ran up stairs
with a disposition of seemingly very great severity:
however, I am happy to inform the Reader, that,
after he had bounced the door open, and at first
frighted the Maid very much, every thing was
concluded in an amicable manner.
If from Ladies of a middling station in life,
and in the class of Upholsterers, we turn our eyes
towards Ladies of rank, and Court Ladies, we
shall meet with instances no less instructive and
interesting.
We may, in the first place, mention the case of
the Poet Clopinel, which has been alluded to in a
former Chapter. This Poet, who was also called
John of Mehun (a small Town on the river Loire)
lived about the year 1300, under the reign of
Philip the Fair, King of France, at whose Court
he was well received. He wrote several Books,
and among others translated into French the Letters
of Abelard to Heloisa: but that of his works
which gave him most reputation, was his conclusion
of the celebrated Roman de la Rose; a Poem
of much the same turn with Ovid’s Art of Love,
which had been begun by William de Lorris, and
met with prodigious success in those times, and
was afterwards imitated by Chaucer. However,
Clopinel gave great offence to the whole Sex, by
four lines he had inserted in that Poem, the
meaning of which is as follows:—“All of you are,
will be, or were, either in deed, or intention,
wh-res; and whoever would well search into
your conduct, wh-res would find you all
to be.”
Toutes êtes, serez, ou futes
De fait ou de volonté, putes;
Et qui bien vous chercheroit
Toutes putes vous trouveroit.
The meaning of these verses, if we take from
them the coarseness of the expressions, which did
not perhaps sound so harsh in those times as they
would in our days, did not at bottom differ from
the well-known line of Pope,
“—Every Woman is at heart a Rake.”
Yet we do not hear that this Poet suffered any
flagellation on that account, from the Court Ladies,
or any other Ladies; whether it was that he
prudently took care, after writing the above line,
to keep for some time out of the way, or that the
Ladies felt no resentment at the accusation. With
respect to Clopinel, however, the case proved
otherwise: and whether his expressions really had,
notwithstanding what has been above suggested,
much the same coarse meaning as now, or Ladies
had, in those days, a nicer sensibility to any thing
that might touch their honour, the Ladies at
Court were much offended at the harsh charge that
was thus brought against the whole Sex without
distinction: they resolved to make the insolent
Poet properly feel the effects of their resentment:
and as they were at the same time firmly determined,
especially being Court Ladies, not to use any
expedient but of an elegant and refined kind, they
resolved upon a flagellation. One day, accordingly,
as Clopinel was coming to Court, entirely
ignorant of the fate that awaited him, the Ladies,
who had previously supplied themselves with
proper instruments, laid hold of him, and immediately
proceeded to make him ready for correction.
No possible assistance could rescue Clopinel from
having that chastisement served upon him which
he so justly deserved, except his wit; which happily
did not fail him in so imminent a danger,
and suggested to him to ask leave to speak a few
words. The favour was granted him, with express
injunction, however, to make his story
short: when, after acknowledging the justice of
the sentence that had been passed upon him, he
requested it, as an act of mercy, that that Lady
who thought herself most affronted by his lines,
should give the first blow: this request struck
the Ladies with so much surprise (owing no doubt
to the fear every one of them immediately conceived,
of giving an advantage against herself for
which she might afterwards repent) that, to use
the expression of the Author of Moreri’s Dictionary,
from which this fact is extracted, the rods
fell from their hands, and Clopinel escaped unpunished.
Court Ladies of more modern times, have
given similar instances of refinement and elegance
in their method of revenging the affronts they
had received. On this occasion the Reader may
be reminded of the case of the Marchioness of
Tresnel, which has been related at length in a
former place. Another instance of the justice of
Ladies, still more interesting by far, occurred at
the Court of Russia about the year 1740. The
object of the Ladies resentment, was a Fop of
quality, lately returned from his Travels; nor
will the Reader question the propriety of the flagellation
that was served upon him, when he shall
be informed that this presumptuous Spark had
been guilty of no less an offence than having publicly
boasted of having received favours which had
never been shewn him. The fact is related in a
Book intitled, Letters from Russia, which was
published by a Lady whose husband resided at that
Court in a public capacity, between the years
1730 and 1740: the book is written in a pleasing
style, and contains a deal of interesting information
concerning the Russian Court at that time.
The Author, it is said, lived a few years ago at
Windsor: her Letters from Russia were addressed
to a female friend in England.
In the eleventh letter, the following account is
contained. ‘I long to tell you a story; but your
prudery (I beg pardon, your prudence) frightens
me: however, I cannot resist; so pop your
fan before your face, for I am going to begin.
We have here a young fellow of fashion, who
has made the tour of France, &c. &c. At his
return he fell in company with three or four
pretty Women at a friend’s house, where he
sung, danced, laughed, was very free with the
Ladies, and behaved quite a-la-mode de Paris.
As he had given the gazing audience a specimen
of his airs, so he did not fail afterwards to brag
of the fondness of the Ladies for him, and of
the proofs they had given him of it. This he
repeated in all companies, till it reached the
ears of the husbands, who looked glum in silence;
and at last, in plain terms, expressed the
cause of their ill-humour.’ To abridge the account,
it will suffice to say that the Ladies resolved
to punish the vain-boasting fop as he deserved: a
letter was written to him by one of them, appointing
a place where she was to meet him: “he
flew on the wings of love to the rendezvous,” perfumed,
we are to suppose, and in his smartest
dress. Though he expected to meet only one of
the Ladies, he found them all four waiting for
him; and instead of that delightful afternoon he
had prepared himself to spend, he was entertained
with a most serious flagellation. ‘Some say
(continues the Author who relates this fact)
that the Ladies actually whipped him; others,
they ordered their maids to do it: that the punishment
was inflicted with so much rigour as
to oblige him to keep his bed some time, is certain;
but whether the Ladies were executioners
or spectators only, is a doubt.’
For my own part, I shall be bolder than the fair
Author who gives this account; and I will take
upon myself to decide that the Ladies were spectators
only. Had this young fellow of fashion we
are speaking of, committed an offence of no very
grievous kind; had he, for instance, been guilty
of some word, or even action, moderately indecent
in the presence of the Ladies, or affronted
them by some ill-timed jokes, or had he, like
Clopinel, indulged himself in a bon-mot, or even
a whole song, against the honour of the Sex, then
we might suppose the Ladies arms, to have possessed
sufficient vigour to have served him with a correction
proportioned to the degree of his guilt. Not
that I consider, however, as some Readers will perhaps
do,
the falsehood of the facts he had boasted
of, as being any aggravation of his offence: very
far from it: it is when such facts are true, that the
boasting of them is really a fault of a black nature:
it is such, in my humble opinion, that no
possible flagellation can atone for it; the ungrateful
Tell-tale ought to be stitched in a bag, and
thrown into the river. However, as the vain
speeches of the young fellow were in themselves
highly wicked, we are to suppose that the Ladies
trusted the care of chastising him to more robustious
hands than their own; and we must side with
that part of the Public, who thought that they ordered
their Maids to perform for them; that is to
say, a set of Maid slaves selected among the stoutest
of those who composed their housholds, Maids
imported from the banks of the Palus-meotis, or the
Black Sea, and who thought it a glorious opportunity
for shewing their mistresses their zeal in serving
them. This supposition agrees extremely well
with the ensuing part of the account, viz. that this
vain-boasting Coxcomb was obliged to keep his bed
some time: who knows? perhaps five or six weeks.
The only personal share, we are to think, the
Ladies took in the affair, was, when the execution
was concluded, to admonish the culprit as to his
future conduct. Milton makes the observation,
which is quoted by the Author of the Spectator,
that the Devil seemed once to be sensible of shame;
it was when he received a censure (unexpected for
him, we may suppose) from a young Angel of remarkable
beauty. In like manner, what must
have been the shame of that young Coxcomb, who
perhaps had never blushed in his life, when he
heard himself addressed by the Ladies who had
caused him to be served with so just a chastisement!
what must have been his remorse for his naughty
behaviour! his grief in considering, that, had
he perhaps waited patiently a little time longer,
they would have willingly honoured him with
their most valuable favours! The Lady who possessed
the easiest and most elegant delivery, advanced
towards him a few steps; and, accompanying
her short speech with the action of an arm of
an exquisite form and hand as white as snow,
and with a frown on her face, which, without
lessening its beauty, gave a true expression of her
just resentment, she made him sensible, in few
words, of the greatness of his fault, and the justice
of the chastisement that had been administered
to him: then turning towards the Calmouk and
Tartarian Maids who had so well executed her
former orders, she directed them to shew him
the way to the street door.
To these instances of the justice of Ladies, we
may add those of the corrections they have bestowed
upon their husbands; as they have an undoubted
right. A very remarkable case of that sort
is alluded to, in the I. Canto P. II. of Hudibras.
Did not a certain Lady whip
Of late her husband’s own Lordship?
And, though a Grandee of the House,
Clawed him with fundamental blows.
Tied him stark-naked to a bed-post,
And firked his hide, as if sh’ had rid post;
And after, in the Sessions Court,
Where whipping’s judged, had honour for’t.
The noble person here mentioned, was Lord
Munson: similar acts of authority on their husbands,
were performed, about the same time, by
Sir William Waller’s Lady, Mrs. May, and Sir
Henry Mildmay’s Lady. From these instances
we find, that, amidst the general wreck of the
Monarchical, Aristocratical, and Clerical, powers
in the Nation, and while the King, Lords, and
High Clergy, had their prerogatives wrested from
them and annihilated, Wives knew how to assert
their jurisdiction over their Husbands, and preserve
their just authority. The subject however
is too deep to be discussed at large here: I intend
to offer more facts to the Public in a separate
Work, which will be a compleat Treatise, and a
kind of Matrimonial Code in which the true principles
shall be laid concerning the rights of Wives,
and the submission of Husbands[112].
Those Authors who have treated of the manner
in which Men ought to behave in their intercourse
with the fair Sex, have been so sensible
that the latter must unavoidably, at one time or
other, have occasion to bestow lectures and corrections
on their Suitors or Lovers (and also their
Husbands) that they have made it a point to these,
to bear those momentary mortifications with patience
and humility, and not to think that such
submission reflects any dishonour upon them.
This is the precept expressly given by Ovid, in
his Art of Love;—‘Do not think it in any degree
shameful for you, to submit to the harsh
words, and the blows, of the young Woman
you court.’
Nec maledicta puta, nec verbera ferre puellæ
Turpe——
And indeed we find that those Lovers who have
best understood their business, have not only constantly
followed the advice of Ovid, and chearfully
submitted to receive such corrections as their Mistresses
were pleased to impose upon them; but
when they have happened to have been involuntarily
guilty of offences of a somewhat grievous
kind, they have done more; they have, of themselves,
offered freely to submit to them. Thus
Polyenos, in the Satyr of Petronius, who had
been guilty with Circe of one of those faults
which Ladies so difficultly prevail upon themselves
to forgive, who had in short committed that offence
which the abovementioned Miller boasted
he never happened to be guilty of, wrote afterwards
to her,—“If you want to kill me, I will
come to you with an iron weapon; or if you are
satisfied with stripes, I run naked to my Mistress.”
(Polyaenos Circæ salutem.... Sive occidere placet,
cum ferro venio; sive verberibus contenta es, curro
nudus ad dominam. Id tantum memento, non me, sed
instrumenta, peccasse, &c. Cap. 130.)
The illustrious Count of Guiche, as we find
in the Count of Buffi’s Amorous History of Gauls,
a Book which caused the disgrace of its Author,
on account of the liberties he had taken in it with
the character of King Lewis the Fourteenth, and
his Mistress, Madame de la Valiere, the Count of
Guiche, I say, one of the first-rate Beaux of the
Court of the King just mentioned, behaved in the
same manner that Polyenos had done. Having
committed a fault with the well-known Countess
of Olonne, of the same kind with that of Polyenos,
he wrote the next day to the Countess
in much the same terms as the latter had done
to Circe. ‘If you want me to die, I will
bring you my sword; if you think I only deserve
to be flagellated, I will come to you in my
shirt.’ (Si vous voulez ma mort, j’irai vous porter
mon épée; si vous jugez que je ne mérite que le fouët,
j’irai vous trouver en chemise.)
The celebrated Earl of Essex, in one of the
misunderstandings between him, and Queen Elizabeth,
having given her a more than common
cause of offence, and wishing in a particular
manner to soothe her resentment, wrote to her
in much the same terms as those abovementioned.
He gave the Queen, as we find in Camden,
explicit thanks for the corrections she had
inflicted upon him, and kissed (to use his words,
as recited by the above Author) and ‘kissed her
Majesty’s Royal Hand, and the rod which had
chastised him.’ Not that I propose, however,
by quoting the above expressions of the Earl,
positively to affirm that they were meant to allude
to any express corrections of the kind mentioned
in this Book, which his Royal Mistress
had at any time used to inflict upon him, or the
other persons in her service; but yet, when we,
on the one hand, attend to the invariable corruption,
profligacy, shamelessness, wickedness,
and perverseness of Ministers, ever since the beginning
of the world, and on the other, consider
to what degree those employed by the Princess
we speak of, proved just, and zealous for
the public good, we cannot help thinking that
that great and magnanimous Queen had found
out some very peculiar method of rendering them
such[113].
[112] The abovementioned Lord Munson had sat as one of the
Judges at the King’s Trial: he lived at St. Edmundsbury,
when his Wife, with the assistance of her Maids, served him
with a flagellation. An allusion to the same fact is also made
in a song which is to be found in the Collection of Loyal
Songs. The thanks her Ladyship received from the Sessions
Court, were owing to its being generally suspected the Noble
Lord had altered his political principles; for which his Wife
had chastised him.
It really seems that a kind of flagellating fanaticism had
taken place, in those days, in this Country, similar in many
respects to that which arose in the times of Cardinal Damian
and Dominic the Cuirassed: there was this difference however,
that it had for its object to flagellate, not one’s-self, but
others; which was the wiser folly of the two. The thanks
publicly decreed to Lady Munson (not to mention several puritanical
publications of those days) are proofs of that flagellating
spirit we mention; as well as the correction inflicted
by Zachary Crofton upon his servant maid (see p. 238), and
the pamphlet he wrote in defence of it; which was very
likely grounded on certain religious tenets concerning the
mortification of the flesh, &c. that were current in those
times.
[113] It came out, in a certain late debate in the House of
Commons (June 1783) that, among the expences in the office
of a prime Minister, about a year before out of place, there
was an article (introduced among the Stationary ware) of three
hundred and forty pounds for whip-cord, for one year. It
is very probably since the days of Queen Elizabeth, that this
kind of commodity has been made part of the national expenditure.
CHAP. XXIII.
Formation of the public Processions of Flagellants.
Different success they meet with, in
different Countries.
THE example which so many illustrious
personages had given of voluntarily
submitting to flagellation, and the pains which
Monks had been at, to promote that method
of mortification by their example likewise, as
well as by the stories they related on that subject,
had, as we have seen, induced the generality
of people to adopt the fondest notions
of its efficacy. But about the year 1260, the
intoxication became as it were complete. People,
no longer satisfied to practise mortifications
of this kind in private, began to perform
them in sight of the Public, under pretence
of greater humiliation: regular associations
and fraternities were formed for that
purpose; and numerous bodies of half-naked
Men began to make their appearance in the
public streets, who after performing a few religious
ceremonies contrived for the occasion,
flagellated themselves with astonishing fanaticism
and cruelty.
The first institution of public Associations
and Solemnities of this kind, must needs have
filled with surprise all moderate persons in
those days, and in fact we see that Historians
of different Countries, who lived in the times
when their ceremonies were first introduced,
have taken much notice of them, and recorded
them at length in their Histories or Chronicles.
I will lay extracts from a few of these
different Books, before the Reader; it being
the best manner, I think, of acquainting him
with the origin of these singular flagellating
solemnities and processions, which continue in
use in several Countries.
The first Author from whom we have a circumstantial
account on that subject, is that
Monk of St. Justina, in Padua, whose Chronicle
Wechelius printed afterwards at Basil.
He relates how the public superstitious ceremonies
we mention, made their first appearance
in the Country in the neighbourhood of
Bologna, which is the spot where, it seems,
they took their first origin, and whence they
were afterwards communicated to other Countries.
The following is the above Author’s
own account.
“When all Italy was sullied with crimes of
every kind, a certain sudden superstition, hitherto
unknown to the world, first seized the
inhabitants of Perusa, afterwards the Romans,
and then almost all the Nations of Italy.
To such a degree were they affected with
the fear of God, that noble as well as ignoble
persons, young and old, even children five
years of age, would go naked about the
streets, with only their private parts covered,
and, without any sense of shame, thus walked
in public, two and two, in the manner
of a solemn procession. Every one of them
held in his hand a scourge made of leather-thongs,
and with tears and groans they lashed
themselves on their backs, till the blood
ran; all the while weeping and giving tokens
of the same bitter affliction as if they had really
been spectators of the passion of our Saviour,
imploring the forgiveness of God and
his Mother, and praying that He who had
been appeased by the repentance of so many
Sinners, would not disdain theirs.
“And not only in the day time, but likewise
during the nights, hundreds, thousands,
and ten thousands of these Penitents, ran,
notwithstanding the rigour of winter, about
the streets, and in churches, with lighted wax-candles
in their hands, and preceded by Priests
who carried crosses and banners along with
them, and with humility prostrated themselves
before the altars: the same scenes were to be
seen in small Towns and Villages; so that the
mountains and the fields seemed to resound
alike the voice of Men who were crying to
God.
“All musical instruments and love songs
then ceased to be heard. The only Music that
prevailed, both in Town and Country, was
that of the lugubrious voice of the Penitent,
whose mournful accents might have moved
hearts of flint; and even the eyes of the obdurate
Sinner could not refrain from tears[114].
“Nor were Women exempt from the general
spirit of devotion we mention: for not
only those among the common people, but
also Matrons and young Maidens of noble families,
would perform the same mortifications
with modesty, in their own rooms. Then
those who were at enmity with one another,
became again friends. Usurers and Robbers
hastened to restore their ill-gotten riches to
their right owners. Others, who were contaminated
with different crimes, confessed
them with humility, and renounced their vanities.
Gaols were opened; prisoners were
delivered; and banished persons permitted to
return to their native habitations. So many
and so great works of sanctity and christian
charity, in short, were then performed by
both Men and Women, that it seemed as if
an universal apprehension had seized Mankind,
that the divine Power was preparing
either to consume them by fire, or destroy
them by shaking the earth, or some other of
those means which divine Justice knows how
to employ for avenging crimes.
“Such a sudden repentance, which had
thus diffused itself all over Italy, and had even
reached other Countries, not only the unlearned,
but wise persons also admired. They
wondered whence such a vehement fervour of
piety could have proceeded; especially since
such public penances and ceremonies had been
unheard of in former times, had not been approved
by the sovereign Pontiff, who was
then residing at Anagni, nor recommended by
any Preacher or person of eminence, but had
taken their origin among simple persons,
whose example both learned and unlearned
had alike followed.”
The Ceremonies we mention were soon imitated,
as the same Author remarks, by the
other Nations of Italy: though they, at first,
met with opposition in several places, from divers
Princes, or Governments, in that Country.
Pope Alexander the Fourth, for instance,
who had fixed his See at Anagni, refused at
first, as hath been above said, to give his
sanction to them; and Clement VI. who had
been Archbishop of Sens, in France, in subsequent
times condemned those public flagellations
by a Bull for that purpose (A. 1349).
Manfredus, likewise, who was Master of Sicily
and Apulia, and Palavicinus, Marquis of
Cremona, Brescia, and Milan, prohibited the
same processions in the Countries under their
dominion; though, on the other hand, many
Princes as well as Popes countenanced them,
either in the same times, or afterwards.
This spirit of public penance and devotion
was in time communicated to other Countries;
it even reached so far as Greece, as we are informed
by Nicephorus Gregoras, who wrote
in the year 1361. Attempts were likewise
made to introduce ceremonies of the same
kind into Poland, as Baronius says in his Annals;
but they were at first prohibited: nor
did they meet, at the same period, with more
encouragement in Bohemia, as Dubravius relates in his
History of that Country.
In Germany, however, the Sect, or Fraternity,
of the Flagellants proved more successful.
We find a very full account of the
first flagellating processions that were made in
that Country, in the year 1349 (a time during
which the plague was raging there) in the
Chronicle of Albert of Strasbourg, who lived
during that period.
“As the plague (says the above Author)
was beginning to make its appearance, People
then began in Germany to flagellate themselves
in public processions. Two hundred
came, at one time, from the Country of
Schwaben to Spira, having a principal Leader
at their head, besides two subordinate ones,
to whose commands they paid implicit obedience.
When they had passed the Rhine, at
one o’clock in the afternoon, crouds of people
ran to see them. They then drew a circular
line on the ground, within which they
placed themselves. There they stripped off
their clothes, and only kept upon themselves
a kind of short shirt, which served them instead
of breeches, and reached from the waist
down to their heels: this done, they placed
themselves on the above circular line, and began
to walk one after another around it, with
their arms stretched in the shape of a Cross,
thus forming among themselves a kind of procession.
Having continued this procession a
little while, they prostrated themselves on the
ground, and afterwards rose one after another,
in a regular manner, every one of them, as
he got up, giving a stroke with his scourge to
the next, who in his turn likewise rose, and
served the following one in the same manner.
They then began disciplining themselves with
their scourges, which were armed with knots
and four iron points, all the while singing the
usual Psalm of the invocation of our Lord,
and other Psalms: three of them were placed
in the middle of the ring, who, with a sonorous
voice, regulated the chaunt of the others,
and disciplined themselves in the same manner.
This having continued for some time,
they ceased their discipline; and then, at a
certain signal that was given them, prostrated
themselves on their knees, with their arms
stretched, and threw themselves flat on the
ground, groaning and sobbing. They then
rose, and heard an admonition from their
Leader, who exhorted them to implore the
mercy of God on the people, on both their
benefactors and enemies, and on the souls in
Purgatory: then they placed themselves again
upon their knees, with their hands lifted towards
heaven, performed the same ceremonies
as before, and disciplined themselves anew, as
they walked round. This done, they, put on
their clothes again; and those who had been
left to take care of the clothes and the luggage,
came forwards, and went through the
same ceremonies as the former had done.
They had among them Priests, and noble as
well as ignoble persons, and men conversant
with letters.
“When the disciplines were concluded,
one of the brotherhood rose, and with a loud
voice, read a letter, which he pretended had
been brought by an Angel to St. Peter’s
Church, in Jerusalem: the Angel declared in
it, that Jesus Christ was offended at the wickedness
of the age, several instances of which
were mentioned, such as the violation of the
Lord’s day, blasphemy, usury, adultery, and
neglect with respect to fasting on Fridays. To
this the Man who read the letter added, that
Jesus Christ’s forgiveness having been implored
by the Holy Virgin and the Angels, he
had made answer, that in order to obtain mercy,
sinners ought to live exiled from their
Country for thirty-four days, disciplining
themselves during that time.
“The inhabitants of the Town of Spira
were moved with so much compassion for these
Penitents, that they invited every one of them
to their houses: they however refused to receive
alms severally, and only accepted what
was given to their Society in general, in order
to buy twisted wax-candles, and banners.
These banners were of silk, painted of a purple
colour: they carried them in their processions,
which they performed twice every day.
They never spoke to Women, and refused to
sleep upon feather-beds. They wore crosses
upon their coats and hats, behind and before,
and had their scourges hanging at their
waist.
“About an hundred Men, in the Town of
Spira, inlisted in their Society, and about a
thousand at Strasburgh, who promised obedience
to the Superiors, for the time abovementioned.
They admitted nobody but who engaged
to observe all the above rules during
that time, who could spend at least four-pence
a day, lest he should be obliged to beg, and
who declared that he had confessed his sins,
forgiven his enemies, and obtained the consent
of his Wife. They divided at Strasburgh:
one part went up, and another part
down, the Country; their Superiors having
likewise divided. The latter directed the new
brothers from Strasburgh, not to discipline
themselves too harshly in the beginning; and
multitudes of people flocked from the Country
up and down the Rhine, as well as the inland
Country, in order to see them. After
they had left Spira, about two hundred Boys
twelve years old, entered into an Association
together, and disciplined themselves in public.”
Flagellating processions and Solemnities of
the same kind, were likewise introduced into
France, where they met, at first, with but indifferent
success; and even several Divines opposed
them. The most remarkable among
them was John Gerson, a celebrated Theologian,
and Chancellor of the University of Paris,
who purposely wrote a Treatise against the
ceremonies in question, in which he particularly
condemned the cruelty and great effusion
of blood with which these disciplines were
performed. ‘It is equally unlawful (Gerson
asserted) for a Man to draw so much blood
from his own body, unless it be for medical
reasons, as it would be for him to castrate
or otherwise mutilate himself. Else it might
upon the same principle be advanced, that
a Man may brand himself with red-hot
irons; a thing which nobody hath, as yet,
either pretended to say, or granted, unless it
be false Christians and Idolaters, such as are
to be found in India, who think it a matter
of duty for one to be baptized through fire.’
Under King Henry the Third, however,
the processions of Disciplinants found much
favour in France; and the King we mention,
a weak and bigoted Prince, not only encouraged
these ceremonies by his words, but
even went so far as to inlist himself in a Fraternity
of Flagellants. The example thus
given by the King, procured a great number
of Associates to the Brotherhood, and several
Fraternities were formed at Court, which
were distinguished by different colours, and
composed of a number of Men of the first families
in the Kingdom. These processions,
thus formed of the King and his noble train
of Disciplinants, all equipped like Flagellants,
frequently made their appearance in the public
Streets of Paris, going from one Church
to another; and in one of those naked processions,
the Cardinal of Lorrain, who had
joined in it, caught such a cold, it being about
Christmas time, that he died a few days afterwards.
The following is the account to be
found on that subject, in the President J. A.
de Thou’s History of his own times.
“While the civil war was thus carrying
on, on both sides, scenes of quite a different
kind were to be seen at Court; where the
King, who was naturally of a religious temper,
and fond of ceremonies unknown to Antiquity,
and who had formerly had an opportunity
to indulge this fancy in a Country subjected
to the Pope’s dominion, would frequently
join in the processions which masked
Men used to perform, on the days before
Christmas.
“For more than an hundred years past, a
fondness for introducing new modes of worship
into the established Religion, had prevailed;
and a sect of Men had risen, who,
thinking it meritorious to manifest the compunction
they felt for their offences, by outward
signs, would put on a sack-cloth, in the
same manner it was ordered by the antient
Law; and from a strained interpretation they
gave of the passage in the Psalmist, ad flagella
paratus sum, flagellated themselves in public;
whence they were called by the name of Flagellants.
John Gerson, the Chancellor of the
University of Paris, and the purest Theologian
of that age, wrote a Book against them.
Yet the holy Pontiffs, considering then that
Sect with more indulgence than former ones
had done, shewed much countenance to it;
so that multitudes of Men, all over Italy, in
these days inlist in it, as in a kind of a religious
militia, thinking to obtain by that means
forgiveness of their sins. Distinguished by
different colours, blue, white, and black, in
the same manner as the Green and Blue factions,
though proposing to themselves different
objects, were formerly in Rome, they likewise
engrossed the attention of the public, and
in several places gave rise to the warmest contentions.
“The introduction which was made of
these ceremonies into France, where they had
till then been almost unknown, forwarded the
designs of certain ambitious persons, the contempt
they brought on the person of the
King, having weakened much the regal authority.
While the King mixed thus with processions
of Flagellants, and the most distinguished
among his Courtiers followed his example,
Charles, Cardinal of Lorrain, who was
one of the party, was, by the coldness of the
evening, thrown into a violent fever, attended
with a most intense pain in his head; and a
delirium as well as continual watchfulness
having followed, he expired two days before
Christmas.”
The Historian we have just quoted says, in
another place, that the King was principally
induced to perform the above superstitious
processions, by the solicitations of his Confessor,
Father Edmund Auger, who wrote a
Book on that subject, and of John Castelli,
the Apostolic Nuntio in France; and that the
weak complaisance shewn to him on that occasion,
by the Chancellor Birague, and the
Keeper of the Seals, Chiverny, encouraged
him much to pursue his plan in that respect,
notwithstanding the strong advices to the contrary,
that were given him by Christopher de
Thou, President of the Parliament, and Pierre
Brulart, President of the Chambre des Enquêtes.
As there was, in those times, a powerful
party in France, that opposed the Court, and
even was frequently at open war with it, there
was no want of Men, in Paris, who found
fault with the disciplining processions of the
King. When they first made their appearance,
some, as the above Historian relates,
laughed at them, while others exclaimed that
they were an insult both to God and Man.
Even Preachers joined in the party, and pointed
their sarcasms from the pulpit against those
ceremonies.
The most petulant among these popular
Preachers, was one Maurice Poncet, of the
Abbey of Melun, who, using expressions borrowed
from a Psalm, compared the King and
his brother Disciplinants, to Men who would
cover themselves with a wet sack-cloth, to
keep off the rain: he was at last banished to
his Monastery. The example which the Court,
and the Metropolis, had set, was followed in
a number of Country Towns, where fraternities
of Flagellants were instituted; and among
them particular mention is made of the Brotherhood
of the Blue Penitents, in the City of
Bourges, on account of the Sentence passed
in the year 1601, by the Parliament of Paris,
in consequence of a motion of Nicolas Servin,
the King’s Advocate General, which expressly
abolished it[115].
FOOTNOTES:
[114]Siluerunt tunc tempore omnia musica instrumenta
& amatoriæ cantilenæ. Sola cantio pœnitentis lugubris
audiebatur ubique, tam in civitatibus quam in
villis, ad cujus flebilem modulationem corda saxea movebantur,
& obstinatorum oculi lacrymis non poterant
continere.——This Monk of St. Justina, whose
account is here translated at length, was certainly
no mean Writer: he was quite another Man than
the Abbé Boileau.
[115] It has no doubt been perceived, that, in the
course of this Work, I have commonly taken
care to conclude the different Chapters into which
it is divided, with a Note or Commentary of a
certain length, upon the same subject with the
Chapter itself, though of a less grave and serious
turn. This precaution I thought necessary
for the relief of the Reader, after the great exertion
of his mind, occasioned by the weighty objects
that had just been offered to his consideration.
Such final Note I considered as a farce, after
a serious and moral Drama, and as a kind of
petite piece, or if you please, of interlude, calculated
to revive the exhausted spirits of the Reader,
and enable him to begin a fresh Chapter with
alacrity.
On this occasion, however, I find great difficulty
in pursuing the same plan. The processions of
Disciplinants that have just been described, are
such a dismal and gloomy subject, that it suggests
no ideas but what are of a serious kind; it precludes
all thoughts of mirth and jocularity; and
I despair, in this Note, of being able to entertain
the Reader so well as I flatter myself I have succeeded
in doing in the former ones.
The flagellating practices and ceremonies alluded
to in this Chapter, are certainly most astonishing
facts in the History of Man: and if any
thing renders our surprise less than it otherwise
would be, it is the consideration that such practices
have not been imagined on a sudden, and at
once, but have been the result of a long series of
slow innovations, introduced by different persons,
at different times, and in places remote from one
another.
Besides, it really seems that there is a secret propensity
in Mankind, for arduous modes of worship
of all kinds. The observation has been
made, that in the Science of Moral, speculatively
considered, Men, whatever may be their private
conduct, are most pleased with such maxims as
are most rigid; and so, with respect to religious
rites, do they seem to be most taken with, and
most strongly to adhere to, such as are most laborious,
and even painful.
We see, in fact, that bodily austerities of a
cruel kind, performed with religious intentions,
have obtained among almost all the Nations in the
World; and self-scourgings, in particular, were
practised with views of this kind among almost
all the Nations of antiquity of whom accounts
have been left us: on which the Reader is referred
to the sixth Chapter of this Book.
The same practice we mention, besides the advantage
of its obviousness to recommend it, had
in its favour, with Christians, the farther circumstance
of its being in a manner sanctified by the
History itself of the facts on which their religion
is grounded. As a punishment of that kind made
express part of the ill treatment which our Saviour
underwent, the thoughts of pious persons were
naturally directed to a mode of mortification of
which so frequent mention was made in books,
hymns, sermons, and religious conversations:
hence has it happened, that the practices here alluded
to, have been much more constantly and
universally adopted by Christians, than by the
professors of any other Religion.
A difference, however, took place in the above
respect, between the Eastern and the Western
Christians. As the Christians who were settled in
the East, lived almost always in the midst of hostile
Nations, and besides, never formed among
themselves any very numerous sect, they never
went such lengths in their opinions, nor gave into
such extravagant practices, as the Christians in
the West. They had not, for instance, adopted
the fond notions since entertained by the latter,
on the efficaciousness of self-flagellations to atone
for past sins. Their religious notions had taken
a different turn. They generally considered a
certain deep sense of past offences, a state of unbounded
contrition for the same, as the competent
means of atonement. They considered tears as
the last stage of such contrition, and in a manner
a necessary token of it. Shedding tears was, therefore,
the thing they aimed at, in all their devotional
acts: self-scourging was thought by them
to be an excellent expedient for obtaining so happy
an effect; and they hence resorted to it, not
(as hath been done in the West) as to a direct and
immediate method of compensating past sins, but
only as to a subsidiary operation, and a means
which, they sagaciously thought, would soon bring
them to the requisite state of tears and salutary
compunction.
Of this turn of the devotion of the Eastern
Christians, as well as of the ends they proposed
to themselves in their acts of self-flagellation, we
find proofs in the few instances that have been left
us in Books, of their having performed acts of
that sort: I shall relate the following one, which
is to be found in the work of Gabriel, Archbishop
of Philadelphia, intitled Πατερικὸν, or Collection
of actions of Fathers, or Saints.
A certain Saint had come to a resolution of renouncing
the World, and had fixed his habitation
on the celebrated Mountain of Nitria, in
Thebaid; and next to the cell to which he had
retired, was that of another Saint, whom he
heard every day bitterly weep for his sins. Finding
himself unable to weep in the same manner,
and heartily envying the happiness of the other
Saint, he one day spoke to himself in the following
terms: ‘You do not cry, you wretch; you do
not weep for your sins. I will make you cry;
I will make you weep by force, since you will
not do it of your own accord; I will make you
grieve for your sins, as you ought:’ saying which,
he took up in a passion a large scourge that lay
by him, and laid lashes upon himself so thick and
in so effectual a manner, that he soon brought
himself to that happy state which was the object
of his ambition.
Another instance of the manner of the devotion
of the Eastern Christians, is supplied by the
passage in St. John Climax, that has been recited
at pag. 121. Both the Opposers, and the Promoters,
of the practice of self-flagellation, have
gone too far in their interpretations of that passage.
The latter have asserted that it expressly alluded
to religious disciplines, performed in the
same manner, and with the same views, as they
now are in modern Monasteries; while the former
have been as positive that it meant no such thing
as beating or scourging, and is only to be understood
of the lamentations of the Monks in the
Monastery in question, that is, in a bare figurative
manner. The passage in St. John Climax is this:
‘Some among the Monks watered the pavement
with their tears, while others, who could not
shed any, beat themselves.’ The expression
used in this passage, to say that some among the
Monks beat themselves, is certainly as precise as
any the Greek language can supply; yet neither
does it supply a sufficient proof that they performed,
in the above Monastery, regular and periodical
flagellations of the same kind with those that
have been since used in the Western Monasteries,
in the times of Cardinal Damian, and the Widow
Cechald: the self-flagellations alluded to, in
the passage we speak of, appear to have been of the
same kind with those performed by the Saint of
the Mountain of Nitria who has been abovementioned,
and were calculated to enable those who
could not weep, to weep plentifully.
But among the Western Christians, as the extensive
Country over which they became in time
to be spread, without any intervening opponents,
afforded a vast field for innovations of every kind,
they, as hath been above said, went the greatest
lengths in their opinions concerning the usefulness
of the practices we mention, to which the
History of their Religion had at first given rise.
In the first place, mortifications of the kind
here alluded to, were used among them from notions
of much the same sort with those entertained
by the Eastern Christians, that is, with a view
of sanctifying themselves by their repentance, and
assisting their compunction.
In the second place, they were actuated by a
sense of love for Jesus Christ, and a desire of
uniting themselves to him in his sufferings. The
intention we speak of, is particularly recommended
in the Statutes of different religious Orders;
and the Brothers are exhorted in them, ‘when
they inflict discipline upon themselves, to call to
their mind Jesus Christ, their most amiable
Lord, fastened to the column, and to endeavour
to experience a few of those excessive pains he
was made to endure.’ This notion of religious
persons, which proceeds from an unbounded sense
of gratitude towards their Divine Saviour, from
a wish of repaying in any manner the immense
service he had conferred upon them in saving them
from destruction, and of at least sharing his sufferings,
since they cannot alleviate them, has certainly
something interesting in its principle.
But the most universal use, by far, that has
been made of flagellatory disciplines among Christians,
in these parts of the world, has been to
atone for past sins. And indeed it is no wonder
that a practice of so convenient a kind, which enabled
every one, by means of an operation of the
duration and severity of which he was the sole
judge, to pay, as he thought, an adequate price
for every offence he might have committed, and
silence a troublesome conscience whenever he
pleased, should so easily gain ground, and meet
with so much favour, not only from the vulgar,
but also from great Men, and even Kings; to
whom we may no doubt add their Ministers.
Among the superstitious notions that may be
hurtful to Society, it is difficult to imagine one of
a worse tendency than that here mentioned, the
immediate consequence of which is to render useless
all the distinctions implanted in the human
mind between evil and good, and, by making offenders
easy with themselves, to take off the only
punishment that is left for the greater number of
crimes. When notions like these were adopted
by Kings, with respect to whom human laws are
silent, the consequences were pernicious in the extreme;
practices of this sort became as dangerous
to the peace and happiness of their subjects,
as they would have been conducive to them, if
the disciplines we speak of, instead of being inflicted
upon such high Offenders, every time they
were conscious they deserved them, by the hands
of Confessors aiming at Bishopricks, or under fear
of dungeons, had been dealt them to the full satisfaction
of a Jury composed of impartial persons,
and nowise afraid to speak their minds.
These notions of the usefulness of self-flagellations,
were carried to a most extravagant pitch by
a Sect formed of those itinerant Disciplinants, accounts
of whom have been above given. Proud
of the cruel disciplines they inflicted upon themselves,
they looked upon them as being of far
greater merit than the practice of any Christian
virtue; and they at last formed among themselves
a particular Sect of Heretics, who were called
Flagellants. The title of History of the Flagellants,
which the Abbé Boileau has given to his Work,
might seem to indicate that he intended to write an
History of that Sect, and of those public processions
of Disciplinants which have succeeded it:
yet, he only mentions that Sect and those Processions
in his usual loose manner, in his ninth
Chapter, without even distinguishing the one from
the other. The proper title of his book (and
of this, which is imitated from it) should be, The
History of religious Flagellations among different
Nations, and especially among Christians.
Among the different tenets of the Hereticks we
speak of, were the following. They pretended
that the blood they shed, during their flagellations,
was mixed with that of Jesus Christ;—that self-flagellations
made confession useless;—that they
were more meritorious than martyrdom, for they
were voluntary, which martyrdom was not;—that
baptism by water was of no use, as every
true Christian must be baptized in his own blood;—that
flagellation could atone for all past and future
offences, and supplied the want of all other
good works. To these tenets, and to several
others of the same sort, they added Stories of different
kinds; such as that of the abovementioned
letter brought from Heaven by an Angel, to order
self-flagellations; they gave out that a certain Brother
of their Sect, who lived at Erford in Thuringe,
was Elias; and that another, whose name
was Conrad Smith, was Enoch, &c. &c.
As the principles maintained by these Hereticks,
were destructive of most of the essential tenets received
by the Church, this reason, together with
the cruelties they practised upon themselves, and
in general their fanaticism, which really was of a
despicable kind, caused Pope Clement IV. to issue
a Bull against them, in the year 1350; and several
Princes expressly prohibited that Sect, in the
places under their dominion.
From those Hereticks, must therefore be distinguished
the common Fraternities of Disciplinants,
which continue in these days to be established in
several Countries. These Fraternities are composed
of good orthodox Christians, who do not in any
degree pretend that their disciplines supersede the
necessity of Baptism or Confession, or of any
other Sacrament; who tell no stories about Elias,
or Enoch; who dutifully subscribe to all the tenets,
without exception, recommended by the
Church, and above all pay implicit obedience to
the authority of the Heads of it. They are Associations
of much the same kind with common
Clubs, or if you please, like Lodges of Freemasons:
they have a stock of effects and furniture
belonging to the Fraternity, such as banners, crucifixes,
ornaments for altars, and so on; and each
contributes a certain small sum annually, for keeping
the above effects in repair, and defraying the
expences of paying the music, feeing Priests, and
others of a like kind: they have, besides, peculiar
Statutes, not unlike the Articles of a common
Club.
The principal engagement of these Fraternities
is to discipline themselves in times of great Solemnities;
such as the Sundays in the Advent,
the Sundays before Palm-Sunday, on Maunday
Thursday, and certain days during the Carnival.
On these days they walk about Towns in regular
processions. They carry along with them banners,
painted with the appropriated colour of the
Brotherhood: the Brothers are equipped in a peculiar
kind of dress for the occasion, all wearing,
besides, masks over their faces. With this apparatus
they visit different Churches, exhibiting an
appearance which, when seen from some distance,
is not unlike that of the trading Companies,
in London, on a Lord Mayor’s Day;
and their banners, together with the other ornaments
they display, cut a figure not very short of
the paraphernalia of the City.
In the principal Church whence they set off,
and perhaps also in those which they visit, they
hear a short sermon from a Priest, on the Passion
of our Saviour; and as soon as the Priest has said
the words, “let us mend and grow better” (emendemus
in melius) the disciplines begin with the singing
of the Miserere, and are continued in the
streets, as they walk in procession. By one Article
of their Statutes, it is ordered that no Brother
shall put a Man to discipline himself in his stead.
Plenty of Indulgences are granted to those who
discharge their duty on those occasions. And
moreover, Bishops are ordered to inspect, in their
respective Dioceses, the Fraternities there established,
and examine their Statutes, in order to
strike out such articles as may contain seeds of
Heresy.
Fraternities of this kind obtain in most of the
Catholic Countries in Europe; though with different
encouragement from their different Governments.
In France they were, as hath been above said,
in the greatest favour at Court, under Henry the
Third: this Prince, who, before he was called to
the Throne on the death of his Brother, had given
every hope of an able warrior, and a great King,
having inlisted in one of these Fraternities. As
a powerful party was at that time set up, in France,
against the authority of the Crown, and most of
the people in Paris favoured that party, the King
had attempted to overaw them by a display of Majesty,
and being constantly accompanied when he
made his appearance in public, by a numerous
body of Halberdiers; but this not having succeeded,
he tried to amuse the People by public shews;
and in that view, as a Writer of those times says,
instituted in Paris Fraternities of Penitents, in
which he made himself a Brother. This expedient,
however, did not succeed: these disciplining
processions only served to bring sarcasms upon the
Court, and the King himself; and among them
that of Maurice Poncet has been recorded, who,
besides other invectives he delivered from the pulpit,
compared the disciplining Penitents, as hath
been abovementioned, to men who should cover
themselves with a wet cloth to keep off the rain.
This reflection of Poncet was thought to be the
more pointed, as, the very day before, the King
had Walked in a procession of Penitents, during
which a most heavy shower of rain had fallen, and
the King with his Chancellor, and the whole
train of Disciplinants, had been thoroughly
soaked. The King was informed, the next day,
of the jest of Poncet; and this, together no doubt
with the remembrance of the rain of the day before,
caused him to be much incensed against the
Preacher: however, as notwithstanding his vices
and weakness, he was a Man of the mildest temper,
as well as of unbounded liberality, he contented
himself with having the Monk sent back
to his Convent.
In subsequent times, that is in the year 1601,
under the reign of Henry IV. a Sentence was
passed, as hath been abovementioned, by the Parliament
of Paris, to abolish the Fraternity of the
Blue Penitents, in the City of Bourges. The motive
of the Parliament was not, however, their
tender care for the skin of these Blue Penitents:
but that Fraternity had been rendered a kind of
political Association against the reigning King,
who was during his whole life persecuted by bigotry,
till he fell a victim to it at last; and they
had joined several treasonable declarations and engagements,
to their Statutes: for this reason the
Fraternity was forbidden to meet again, under
pain of being prosecuted as guilty of High Treason.
From that time Brotherhoods of Penitents
have been constantly discountenanced in France;
and they are continued only in some Towns in
the Southern Provinces, distant from the Metropolis.
But the Countries in which the processions we
mention (which certainly are as extraordinary as
any ceremony of which any Religion affords an instance)
are most prevalent, and where they are in
a manner naturalized, are, Italy, and Spain.
In the latter Country, in Spain, the flagellating
Solemnities we speak of, have received a peculiar
turn from the peculiar manners of the Inhabitants;
and they are (which is certainly extraordinary)
as well operations or scenes of gallantry, as
acts of devotion. Lovers will frequently go, at
the head of a procession of friends, and discipline
themselves under the windows of their Mistresses:
or, when they pass by chance under these windows,
with a procession to which they belong,
they redouble the smartness of their flagellations.
All Disciplinants in general, shew attentions of
the same kind to such Ladies as they meet in their
way, when these Ladies appear to them possessed
of some charms; and when the latter engage their
attention in a peculiar manner, they never fail,
especially if the procession happens to move slowly
or to stop, by means of the increased briskness
of their flagellations and skilful motions of their
disciplines, plentifully to sprinkle them with their
blood. These facts are attested by all Travellers;
and Madame d’Aunoy among others, a French
Lady of quality who in the last Century published
a relation of her journey into Spain, a Book
written with judgment, after giving an account of
the same facts with those above to the friend to
whom she wrote, adds that what she relates is literally
true, and without any exaggeration. The
Ladies who are the cause of this increased zeal of
the Disciplinants, and to whom such an agreeable
piece of courtship is addressed, reward the latter
by raising the veil which covers their face, or
even are obliged by the Bystanders to do so (destapar,
as they call it) in much the same manner as
the croud which stands at the door of a House
where there is a masquerade, will, in this Country,
oblige the masks, as they get into, or out of
the House, to uncover their faces.
How the Spanish Ladies can be pleased with
feats of that kind, is certainly difficult to understand;
unless it be that, with Ladies, the
bare intention of shewing them courtesy, is
enough to procure their good-will; or perhaps also
it may be, that the extreme gracefulness with
which the disciplines we mention, are performed,
has the power of rendering them pleasing to the
Ladies. An opinion of this kind has been delivered
by the Author of Hudibras:
“Why may not whipping have as good
A grace, perform’d in time and mood,
With comely movement, and by art,
Raise a passion in a Lady’s heart?”
This power of the graces to render whipping
agreeable, is certainly a strong argument in their
favour, and well worth adding to those urged in
their behalf, in a certain celebrated publication
of late times.
That Disciplinants in Spain, flagellate themselves
with the extreme gracefulness we mention,
is a fact about which no doubt is to be entertained:
nay, there are Masters in most Towns,
whose express business is to teach the time, mood,
comely movements and arts, above described,
and in short to shew how to perform disciplines
with elegance.——Fielding, in one of his Works,
has inserted an advertisement of the celebrated
Broughton which had just made its appearance, by
which the latter offered his services to the public,
to instruct them in the art of boxing, and all the
mysteries of it: that Author thought posterity
would be extremely glad to meet with that interesting
and incontrovertible monument of the manners
of the times in which he wrote: an advertisement
from one of the Spanish flagellating Masters
we speak of, would, in like manner, be extremely
proper to be produced in this place; and
if I do not insert here the copy of any such advertisement,
the reader may be persuaded that it
is solely because I have none in my possession.
When the Gentlemen who propose to discipline
themselves in honour of their Mistresses, are of
considerable rank, the ceremony is then performed
with great state and magnificence. Madame
D’Aunoy relates that the day the Duke of Vejar
disciplined himself, an hundred white wax-candles
were carried before the procession: the Duke
was preceded by sixty of his friends (vassals perhaps,
or dependents) and followed by an hundred,
all attended by their own pages and footmen; and
besides them there were no doubt abundance of
Priests and crucifixes.
As these Spanish Gallants have no less honour
than devotion, battles frequently take place between
them, for the assertion of their just prerogatives;
and this, for instance, seldom fails to be
the case when two processions happen to meet in
the same street: each party think they are intitled
to the most honourable side of the way; and a
scuffle is the consequence. This happened at the
time of the procession of the abovementioned
Duke of Vejar: another procession, conducted by
the Marquis of Villahermosa, entered the same
street, at the other end of it: the light-armed
troops, otherwise the servants with their lighted
long wax-candles, began the engagement, bedaubing
the clothes, and singeing the whiskers and
hair of each other; then the body of Infantry,
that is to say the Gentlemen with their swords,
made their appearance, and continued the battle;
and at last the two noble Champions themselves
met, and began a fight with their disciplines (another
instance of Penitents using their disciplines
as weapons, is, if I mistake not, to be found in
Don Quixote) the two noble Champions, I say,
began a smart engagement with each other; their
self-flagellations were for a while changed, with
great rapidity, into mutual ones; and their weapons
being demolished, they were about to begin
a closer kind of fight, when their friends interfered,
and parted them: the high sharp and stiff
cap of one of the two Combatants, which had
fallen in the dirt, was taken up, properly cleansed,
and again placed upon his head; and the two processions
went each their own course, dividing as
chance determined it. The whole ceremony was
afterwards concluded with splendid entertainments
which each of the Noble Disciplinants gave in
their Houses, to the persons who had formed their
respective processions; during which abundance
of fine compliments were paid them on their piety,
their gallantry, and their elegance in giving
themselves discipline.
If such acts both of devotion and courtship are
performed in Spain, by persons of the first rank,
much more may we think that practices of the
same kind prevail among the vulgar: and on this
occasion I shall produce an extract from the Spanish
Book intitled, the Life of Friar Gerund de
Campazas. As this Novel, which is of a humorous
kind, was written in later times by a native
of the Country, and a Man of learning (a Father
Jesuit, I think) an extract from it may give
a surer insight into the above singular customs of
the Spaniards, than any relation of Travellers
perhaps can.
‘Anthony was then studying at Villagarcia, and
already in the fourth class, as hath been said,
and in the twenty-fifth year of his age. The
fortnight vacation for the Holy and Easter Week
arrived, and he went home to his own town, as
is the custom for all those students whose home
is within a short distance. The Devil, who never
sleeps, tempted him to play the penitent on
Maunday Thursday; for, as our young Penitent
was now well shot up and his beard grown,
he looked lovingly upon a Damsel that had been
a neighbour of his, ever since they went to
School together to the clerk of the Parish, to
learn the horn-book; and in order to court her
in the most winning manner, he thought it expedient
to go forth as a disciplinant: as this, the
Reader is to know, is one of the gallantries
with which the Women of Campos are most
pleased; for it is a very old observation there,
that the greatest part of the marriages are concerted
on the day of the cross of the May, on
the evenings on which there is dancing, and on
Maunday Thursday: some of the Women being
so very devout and compunctious, that they are
as much delighted with seeing the instruments of
discipline applied, as with the rattling of the
castanets.
‘The rogue of an Anthony was not ignorant
of this inclination of the girls of his Town, and
therefore went out as disciplinant, on Maunday
Thursday, as we have above said. At a league’s
distance he might, notwithstanding his mask,
and his hood which hung down almost to his
waist, have been known by Catanla Rebollo,
which was the name of his sweetheart, neighbour,
and old school-fellow; for, besides that
there was no other cap in the whole procession
so spruce or so stiff-standing as his, he wore as
a mark, a black girdle which she had given him,
upon his taking leave of her on Luke’s-day, to
go to Villagarcia. She never took her eyes
from him, during the time he was passing near
her; and he, who knew it well, took that opportunity
to redouble the briskness of his discipline,
making her, by the way, unobserved by
others, two little amorous obeisances by nodding
his cap: which is one of the tender passes
that never fail to win the hearts of the marriageable
girls, who are very attentive to it; and the
bumkin who knows how to do it with most
grace, may pick and choose among them,
though at the same time he may not be the most
expert at the rural games and exercises.
‘At length, as Anthony had made too much
haste to give himself a plentiful bleeding, one
of the Majordomos who superintended the procession,
bade him go home and take care of himself,
before the procession was over. Catanla
took herself after him, and being a neighbour,
followed him into the house, where there stood
ready the wine, rosemary, salt and tow, which
is all the apparatus for these cures. They well
washed his shoulders, and applied the pledgets;
after which he put on his usual clothes, and
wrapped himself up in his grey cloak. They
afterwards went to see the procession, except Catanla,
who said she would stay with him, and
keep him company, &c.’
The disciplining ceremonies above described,
are, as hath been observed, also admitted in Italy;
and they are performed there with no less regularity
and applause, than in Spain. Most Travellers
into that Country give some account of them:
Doctor Middleton, for instance, describes at some
length in his Letter from Rome, two processions
of that kind, to and in the Church of St. Peter,
of which he had been a witness.
But, as the ceremonies we speak of, have been
made in Spain, expeditions of gallantry, in which
nicety of honour and amorous prowess are displayed
by turns, so in Italy, they have been turned
into perfect farces, and scenes of mimickry.
Father Labat, who has published a relation of
a Journey to Spain and Italy, in which he gives
accounts of disciplining processions in both Countries,
recites that in one of these processions he
saw at Civita Vecchia, there were in the first place
to be seen at the head of that procession several
figures or persons who represented Jesus Christ in
the different stages or acts of his condemnation:
these different figures are commonly expressed by
technical or cant Latin words; and among those
which Father Labat mentions as having made
part of the above procession, was an Ecce Homo,
which is a figure intended to represent Jesus Christ
when he made his appearance before Pilate, clad in
purple robe, with a reed in his hand, and a crown
on his head.
Another personage afterwards made his appearance,
who represented our Lord going to the place
of his death: eight Executioners surrounded him,
who teased him, and pulled the chains with which
he was loaded; and a Simeon of Cyrene walked
behind him, who assisted him in carrying his
cross. Several Men followed, who were likewise
loaded with heavy crosses, and were meant, I suppose,
to represent the Robbers who suffered on
that day. Among these different figures were
abundance of Roman Soldiers, armed with casques
and bucklers.
After these came a number of persons who,
by their tears and groans, expressed the deep affliction
they felt: and then the train of the Disciplinants
made their appearance, who manifested
their grief in another manner, that is, by their
flagellations. Among the latter were two particular
figures who were thoroughly naked, except
those parts which must absolutely be covered, for
which purpose they wore a kind of short apron.
These two figures, who were called the two St.
Jeroms, on account of the blows with which they
at times beat their breast, possessed a kind of skill
not very unlike that exerted by Dominic the Cuirassed,
who could discipline himself with both his
hands at once: they performed both the upper and
the lower discipline at the same time, and lashed
themselves from head to foot, with large scourges
they had provided for the occasion. However, as
the two latter personages exhibited rather a striking
appearance, they were, the ensuing year, ordered
to do like the other Penitents, and to wear
breeches.
In the same train we describe, were also the family
of Joseph, with a number of female mourners,
and among them Mary Magdalen, with the
Virgin Mary; and, lastly, to crown the whole,
there was in the procession a figure fitted with a
red-haired wig, and a red beard, who represented
Judas, and held up with great triumph in his
hand, a purse, in which he shook and jingled a
few pieces of money, which were supposed to
be the reward he had received for betraying our
Saviour.
In fine, what much increases our surprise concerning
the flagellating ceremonies and processions
we describe, is the great severity and earnest
zeal with which those who perform
them, lay these disciplines upon themselves; different, in
that, from the Priests of the Goddess of Syria
mentioned in pag. 87, who, as the Emperor Commodus,
and after him Philip Beroald, shrewdly
suspected, only performed sham flagellations. The
cruel severities exercised upon themselves by the
modern Penitents, are facts about which all Writers
of Relations agree; all mention the great
quantity of blood which these Flagellants lose,
and throw to and fro with their disciplines. It is
commonly reported, I do not know with what
truth, in the places where such processions use to
be performed, that those who have been accustomed
for several years to discipline themselves in
them, cannot leave it off afterwards, without danger
of some great disorder, unless they get themselves
bled at that time of the year at which those
ceremonies use to take place[116]. Madame D’Aunoy
says that the first time she saw one of these
processions, she thought she should faint away;
and she concludes the account she has given of the
gallant flagellating excursions that have been abovementioned,
with saying that the Gentleman who
has thus so handsomely trimmed himself, is often
laid up in his room for several days afterwards,
and so sick that he cannot go to Mass on Easter
Sunday. All the above facts shew how much
hardship, practice really may bring Men to bear:
and the feats of the above Penitents are not, after
all, much more surprising than the prowess of
the illustrious Buckhorse, in this Country, who
submitted to receive boxes upon any part of his
body, and as stoutly applied as people chose to
lay them on, for six-pence apiece: he only covered
his stomach with his arms across it; and
the whole was meant as an advantageous exercise
for those who proposed to improve themselves in
the art of boxing.
A remarkable instance of this power of use, to
enable us to bear hardships, and even blows, occurs
among the Chinese. It appears, from the
accounts of Travellers, that there are Men, in
China, who make it their trade, being properly
fee’d for it, to receive bastinadoes in the room of
those who are sentenced to it by the Mandarine;
in the same manner as there are Men about the
Courts of Law, in this Country, ready to bail
upon any occasion. As the bastinadoe is inflicted
on the spot, while the Mandarine is dispatching
other business, the thing is to bribe the Officer
who is to superintend the operation: the real
Culprit then flips out of the way; the Man who
is to do duty for him comes forth, suffers himself
to be tied down to the ground, and receives the
bastinadoe; which is laid on in such earnest, that a
fresh Man, or Executioner, is employed after every
ten or twelve strokes.
However, there is perhaps something in all
this, arising from the peculiar constitution and
frame of the body, besides practice and resolution.
This disposition to bear blows without being disturbed,
is greatly valued by Boxers, who set it almost
upon a par with skill, agility, and real
strength. I hope the Reader will thank me if I
inform him that this advantageous capability to
receive blows without minding them, is technically
called by Boxers, a Bottom: at least as it
seems from certain publications of those days
when the art of boxing was encouraged by the
Public in a higher degree than it is at present.
The use that has been made of flagellations in
public shows and processions, the different Edicts
of Princes for prohibiting or permitting such ceremonies,
the Bulls issued by different Popes to
approve or condemn them, and the decisions and
regulations of a number of Men invested with the
first dignities in the Church on the subject of
voluntary discipline, are not the only circumstances
that prove the great importance of which
these practices have gradually grown to be in the
Christian World: we ought not to omit to say
that they have been the cause of much difference
in opinion among the Learned; for something essential
would certainly be wanting to the glory of
flagellations, had they not been the cause of dissentions
among Men, and if at least Treatises pro
and con had not been written on occasion of them.
Some among the Learned have, it seems, blamed
the pious exercises here alluded to, without restriction:
such were the Cardinal Stephen, and
Peter Cerebrosus, who have been mentioned in a
former place, as well as certain learned Ecclesiastics
in Rome, against whom Cardinal Damian
likewise wrote. Others have condemned the cruelty
with which the same exercises were sometimes
performed: among them was Gerson, whose arguments,
together with those of the Advocate-General
Servin in his speech against the Blue Penitents
of Bourges, are recited at some length in
the Abbé Boileau’s ninth Chapter.
Debates have, moreover, taken place among
the Learned, concerning the precise views with
which disciplines ought to be performed, as well
as on the properest occasions. And disputes have
in particular run high, concerning the degree of
efficaciousness of such pious exercises: on which
the Reader may remember what has lately been
said of the doctrines advanced by the Hereticks
called Flagellants.
Differences in opinion have also prevailed with
respect to the manner in which disciplines are to
be executed: some asserting that penitents ought
to inflict them upon themselves with their own
hands; and others being equally positive that they
ought to receive them from the hands of other
persons; this was one of the arguments of Gerson.
In fine, debates have taken place concerning
the properest situation for penitents to be in, when
undergoing such mortifications. Some have objected
to the disciplining persons laying themselves
bare for that purpose, as being contrary to
decency; while others, at the head of whom was
Cardinal Damian, have strenuously declared for a
state of unlimited nakedness. The following is
one of the arguments of the Cardinal on the
subject.
‘Tell me, whoever you may be, who are actuated
by so much pride as to deride the Passion
of our Saviour, and who, refusing to be stripped
along with him, ridicule his nakedness, and
call his sufferings mere dreams or trifles, tell
me, pray, what you prepare to do, when you
shall see this heavenly Saviour, who was publicly
stripped and fastened to a cross, clad with
majesty and glory, accompanied by an innumerable
multitude of Angels, surrounded by incomparable
and inexpressible splendours, and
infinitely more glorious than all visible and invisible
things? what will you do, I say, when
you shall see him whose ignominy you pretend
to despise, seated upon a Tribunal exalted and
surrounded by fire, and judging all Mankind in
a manner both equitable and terrible? Then
will the Sun lose its lustre; the Moon will be
involved in darkness; the Stars will fall from
their places; the foundations of mountains will
be shaken; only a few scarce gloomy rays will
be sent from the skies; the earth and air will be
consumed by impetuous fires, and all the elements
confounded together: what, once more,
will you do, when all these things shall happen?
of what service to you will these clothes and
garments be, with which you now are covered,
and which you refuse to lay aside, to submit to
the exercise of penitence? with what presumptuous
audaciousness do you hope to partake
of the glory of Him whose shame and ignominy
you now refuse to share?’——The above
is certainly the best argument I have hitherto read
in favour of nakedness; and it reconciles me to
Cardinal Damian, whom I find to have been no
bad Writer.
This necessity of nakedness to complete the merit
of Penance, has been insisted upon by other
Men of importance besides him whom we have
just spoken of; and without alledging any further
authority on this subject, it will suffice to observe
that the greatest personages have submitted to that
part of Penitence we mention; several instances
of which have been produced in a former
Chapter.
Nay, the more complete was this privation of
clothes, the more merit there was thought to be
in it: hence we find that several Offenders have
proportioned their freedom from habiliments, to
the greatness of the sense they entertained of their
offences; and on this occasion may be recited the
penance performed by Fulk, surnamed Grisegonnelle,
about the year 1000.
This Fulk, who was a very powerful Man in
France, being the Son of the great Seneschal of
the Kingdom, had been a most bad and violent
Man in those times of feudal Anarchy, when
force was almost the only law that existed, and
the Nobles and Lords were rather Heads of
Robbers, than persons invested with any precise
dignity. Among other crimes the above Fulk
had committed, he had killed with his own hand
Conan, Duke of Britanny. He had performed
three pilgrimages to the Holy Land; and on the
last, meaning to render his penance complete and
perfectly unexceptionable, he caused himself to be
drawn naked upon a hurdle, with a halter round
his neck, through the streets of Jerusalem. Men
who had been directed so to do, lashed him by
turns, with scourges; and a person appointed for
that purpose, cried at certain intervals, Lord!
have mercy on the traitor and forswearer Fulk. He
lived very devoutly afterwards, and founded several
Monasteries. An account of this Fulk, and
his penance, is to be found in Moreri’s Dictionary.
Others have carried their notions on the present
subject still farther, and have thought that bare
freedom from habiliments, had some sanctity peculiar
to it, and possessed, of itself, a great degree
of merit. The Cynic Philosophers in Greece,
among whom Diogenes was particularly remarkable,
frequently made, we find, their appearance
in public, without even a single rag to cover their
nakedness; and the Indian Philosophers called
Gymnosophists, constantly appeared in the same light
kind of dress, as we learn from their appellation
itself, which signifies naked Sages.
Sages of the same kind still continue to exist in
the same quarters we speak of; and we have likewise
had, in our parts of the World, particular
Sages or Sectaries, who have attributed no less
merit to a state of nakedness. Such were the Adamites,
mentioned by St. Austin. These Adamites,
thinking they would effectually assimilate themselves
to our first Parents before their fall, if they
appeared in the same habit, would put themselves
in a compleat state of nature during certain solemnities
of their own, and either ventured to make
their appearance in the public streets in that condition,
or did the same, both Men and Women
together, in private conventicles or houses, which,
if it was winter time, they took care to have well
warmed beforehand.
About the year 1300, a Sect of the same kind,
called the Turlupins (which word rather seems to
have been a nickname, than a serious appellation
of that sect) made their appearance in France,
again declaring themselves, as well by their example
as by their words, for freedom from accoutrements.
To these the Picards, a century afterwards,
succeeded in Germany, who carrying
their opinion on the sanctity of nakedness, and
their abhorrence of such unhallowed thing as
clothing, farther than the Adamites had done, made
at all times their appearance in a perfect state of
nature. A certain party of Anabaptists, adopting
the doctrine of these Picards, tried, on the
thirteenth day of February in the year 1535, to
make an excursion in the streets of Amsterdam, in
the hallowed state we mention; but the Magistracy,
not taking the joke so well as they ought to
have done, used these Adventurers in rather a severe
manner.
In fine, to the instances of nakedness we have
just recited, we ought not to omit to add that of
Brother Juniperus, a Friar of the Franciscan Order:
and the merit of this Friar was the greater
in that, different from the abovementioned partisans
of nakedness, he performed his own processions
alone, with great assurance and composure.
‘Another time he entered the Town of Viterbo;
and while he stood within the gate, he
put his breeches on his head, and, his gown
being tied round his neck in the shape of a load,
he walked through the streets of the Town,
where he suffered many tricks from the inhabitants;
and still in the same situation, he went to
the Convent of the Brothers, who all exclaimed
against him; but he cared little for them, so
holy was this good little Brother[117].’
This account of Brother Juniperus, is extracted
from the Book called “Of the Conformities”
(De Conformitatibus) or rather from that called the
Alcoran of the Cordeliers, which is an extract from
the former: for this Book of the Conformities exists,
it is said, no longer; or at least only two or
three Copies of it are to be come at, in certain
Libraries, the name of which I have forgotten.
The Book in question, which is well known from
other old Books that mention it, was a compilation
made by Franciscan Monks: the design of it, besides
reciting pious Anecdotes relative to the Order,
was to investigate the conformities between
Jesus Christ, and their Founder St. Francis;
and the advantage commonly was, in these comparisons,
modestly given to the latter. After the
period of the Reformation, the Monks of the
Order we speak of, became somewhat ashamed of
the performance, and have since succeeded in suppressing
it, only two or three copies, as hath been
above observed, being now left: a Protestant Minister,
who procured sight of one of them, has,
in this Century, done the Cordeliers or Franciscans
the charitable service of giving an extract
from the most remarkable Articles to the World,
under the abovementioned title of the Alcoran
of the Cordeliers.
However, these stark-naked processions performed
by the Cynic Philosophers, by the Adamites,
the Turlupins, the Picards, and by Brother
Juniperus, never met, we find, with any great
and lasting countenance from the Public; and, as
beatings without nakedness, that is mere bastinadoes,
have generally been considered as being but
dull and unmeritorious acts of penance, and accordingly
never experienced any degree of encouragement,
so, nakedness without beatings, has
been but indifferently practiced or relished. But
when flagellations have been employed, then has
the scene become cheered and enlivened; then
have Penitents entertained sufficient consciousness
of their merit, to continue their exercises with
perseverance and regularity; then have numerous
converts contributed to perpetuate the practice;
then have the World thought the affair worth engaging
their attention, and public shews, ceremonies,
and solemnities, have been instituted.
Ceremonies of this kind have, however, been
planned with different success, by which I mean
with different degrees of ingenuity, among different
Nations.
The flagellating Solemnities, for instance, that
took place in Lacedæmon, are not in any degree
intitled to our approbation; very far from it. The
cruel advantage that was taken in them, of the
silly pride of Boys, to prevail upon them to suffer
themselves to be cut to pieces, rendered such ceremonies
a practice of really a brutish kind; and it
is difficult to decide whether there was in them
more inhumanity, or stupidity. The same is to
be said of the Solemnities of a similar kind that
were performed among the Thracians.
Less exceptionable than those just mentioned
certainly were the ceremonies exhibited by the
Egyptians, and by the Syrian Priests of Bellona;
since it is evident that no kind whatever of compulsion
took place in them, in regard to any person.
The same observation is to be made in favour
of the processions of modern Flagellants, in which
every one has the scourging of his own skin; and
at the same time it must be owned that the gallantry
and courtship paid to the fair Sex, which
so eminently prevail in those processions, are circumstances
that greatly recommend them. On
the other hand, the gloomy affectation of sanctity
which is mixed with the festivity and pageantry of
those disciplining solemnities, gives the whole an
air of hypocrisy, which is in some degree disgusting,
and the degree of real cruelty with which
they are attended, cannot but compleat the aversion
of such persons as use has not reconciled to
the thought of them.
The festival of the Lupercalia that was performed
in Rome, had indeed greatly the advantage of
all the ceremonies of the kind that ever were instituted.
It really deserved to have been contrived,
or continued, by a People more polite and refined
than the Romans, especially in early times,
are represented to us to have been.
Among other excellencies the Festival we speak
of possessed, it was performed but once a year,
and only continued a few days: for, ceremonies
of this kind ought to occur but seldom, and be
only of short duration; and it was like a short
time of Saturnalia, during which each Sex kindly
exhibited to the sight of the other those personal
charms and advantages which they wisely kept hidden
during the rest of the whole year.
In the second place, the real design of the whole
transaction was pretty openly and candidly acknowledged:
and if we except the few religious
rites by which the ceremony was begun, which
served to give dignity to it, and the notion of the
power of the slaps of the Luperci to render Women
fruitful, which served to give importance to
the whole solemnity, it was agreed fairly enough
on all sides, that no more was meant than temporary
pastime and amusement.
In the third place, no cruelty whatever took
place in the performance of the Festival we speak
of, nor was it possible any should; and from the
lightness and the breadth of the straps which the
Luperci employed, we may judge of their tender
anxiousness not to do, through zeal or other cause,
any injury to the fair objects who made application
to them.
When one of the three bands of Luperci (out
of which every Man who wanted an excellent
shape or elegant address, was no doubt irremissibly
blackballed) had been let loose out of the
Temple of the God Pan, and after the coming of
a Lupercus into any particular street had been
announced by the flourishes of the haut-boys, the
clarinets, the trumpets, kettle-drums, and other
musical instruments that were stationed near the
entrance of it (for we are absolutely to suppose
that music contributed to embellish so charming a
festival) some one of the amiable persons who
proposed to receive benefit from the Lupercus’s
services, moved out of the croud, and threw herself
into his way.
On sight of her, the whole fierceness of the
Lupercus became softened. However kindled his
spirits might have been by the religious rites by
which the ceremony was begun, by the course he
had just performed, and the sight of the multitude
of spectators who lined the streets, whatever in
short might be that state of fever in which Festus
seems to represent him, the februans Lupercus,
at the sight of the lovely creature who obstructed
his passage, felt his agitation succeeded by sensations
of the most benevolent sort.
So far from entertaining designs of a severe of
cruel nature, he scarcely possessed sufficient power
to raise his arm, and perform with a faint hand
the office that was expected from him. His bosom
was filled with the softest passions. Intirely
lost in the contemplation of the lovely object that
made application to him, already did he begin to
have thoughts of employing remedies of a more
obvious and natural kind,—already, forgetting all
Mankind, did he attempt to inclose her in his
arms; when the acclamations of the spectators
and the sudden explosion of the musical instruments,
at once recalled him to himself; he flew
from the amiable person who had thus so thoroughly
engaged his attention, and hastened to
other objects equally amiable, who likewise came
to crave his assistance. If I was called upon to
give my vote for any ceremony of the kind here
mentioned, I would give it for the festival of the
Lupercalia, especially with the improvements that
had been made in it about the time of Pope Gelasius.
(See p. 94.)
[116] In a certain Spanish book, the name of which I do not
remember, a Man is reproached with having besmeared himself
with sheep’s blood, in order to make people believe he
had flagellated himself in a distinguished manner.
[117]Aliâ vice intravit Viterbium, & dùm esset in portâ, fœmoralibus
positis in capite, habitu in modum fardeli ligato ad
collum, sic nudus ad plateas ivit civitatis, ubi multas verecundias
perpessus est; & nudus ad locum fratrum ivit, omnibus
contrà eum clamantibus, ipso tamen de us parùm curante, tam
sanctus fuit iste fratricellus.
CHAP. XXIV.
The last Chapter, in which the Abbé Boileau is
personally introduced: he is of opinion that
the lower discipline is contrary to decency,
and the upper discipline is liable to bring defluxions
on the eyes[118].
SEVERAL Divines, as we have seen,
have united in blaming the cruel severity
with which certain persons used to inflict disciplines
upon themselves, by which those persons
assimilated themselves to Idolaters and
Pagans; besides, it is well worth observing
that, by this very severity, those zealous performers
of disciplines in the issue obstruct their
own piety, and defeat their own ends.
In fact, Physicians and Anatomists inform
us, that such is the secret, or open, communication
between all parts of the human body,
that it is impossible to do any material and
continual kind of injury to any, without the
other parts being, sooner or later, affected
by it: hence it follows that those persons who
execute disciplines upon themselves with the
great severity we mention, in process of time
fall into serious distempers of some kind or
other; so that they at length find themselves
disabled from continuing those practices by
which they intended to procure the improvement
of their morals.
The next and the most tender parts are, in
the cases we speak of, unavoidably affected
by the consequence of the injury that is thus
done to the other parts; and from harsh disciplines
repeatedly performed upon the shoulders,
at length arise,
as the learned Bartholinus observes, disorders and defluxions on
the eyes.
This inconvenience from the exercises we
mention, much perplexed Father Gretzer,
who, as hath been before observed, was a great
friend to the practice of discipline; and in
order to be thoroughly satisfied on that subject,
he one day consulted a Physician, a friend
of his, who partly freed him from his fears,
and partly confirmed them. This Physician
made answer, that disciplines executed on the
shoulders, when performed with moderation,
were perfectly harmless with respect to the eyesight;
but then he absolutely avoided giving
any such opinion in regard to those which were
performed in a harsh or cruel manner. The
following is the oracle which the Physician in
question delivered.
‘The vulgar opinion, that lashes, applied
to the back, are apt to hurt the eyes, is not
well grounded. It is true that the great
loss of blood injures the brain, and consequently
the eyes, which are called by some
the sprouts of it; and this it effects by the
diminution it causes of the vital heat. But
there does not arise from disciplines, such a
great loss of blood as that the brain may
thereby suffer any considerable deperdition
of its heat: on the contrary; since scarifications
on the back are often employed with
success for the cure of disorders in the eyes,
why should bad consequences to them be
feared from a few stripes? Those therefore
alone who are of a weakly habit of body
the exercise in question can hurt, but not
persons of a good constitution; and when
disciplines are so moderately inflicted as to
cause no loss of blood, and barely to affect
the colour of the skin, no detriment certainly
ought to be feared from them.’ Such
was the decision of this excellent Physician,
and to it Father Gretzer adds that he willingly
and readily subscribes[119].
All physicians, however, have not agreed
with him whose authority we have just quoted.
Some have delivered different opinions concerning
the harmlessness of discipline with respect
to the eyes; and whether it was that the
Capuchin Friars thought the advice of these
latter of greatest weight, or that they intended
their zeal should be unrestrained by any apprehension,
they have adopted the use of the
lower discipline; and the generality of Nuns
have done the same, from the like intention,
of securing their eye sight. Determined thereto
by the advice of able Physicians and pious
persons, they have given up the method of
flagellating themselves on their shoulders, in
order to belabour and slash their loins and posteriors
with knotted small cords and hardened
rods[120].
But while the persons we speak of have endeavoured
to prevent dangers of one kind,
they have incurred others which are still worse.
By most of the antient Monastic Rules, religious
persons were forbidden to inspect any
part of their naked bodies, for fear of the
wicked thoughts to which such indulgence
might give rise: now, how is it possible for
persons who strip intirely naked, in order to
take discipline, to help, however great their
piety may be, having a sight of those parts of
themselves which they have been directed never
to look on? How can Nuns avoid, in those
instants, having at least a glance of those excellent
beauties[121] which they are forbidden to
survey, and which they thus imprudently expose
to the light of the Sun? By substituting
one kind of discipline to the other, religious
persons have, I am afraid, only laid themselves
open, as hath been above observed, to dangers
of a still worse nature than those they meant
to avoid, and have perhaps only fallen from
Charybdis into Scylla[122].
Neither, if such disciplines cannot be performed
in secret without danger, is it very prudent
to execute them in the presence of witnesses.
Tertullian observes, that ‘Nature has
made either fear or shame, the attendants of
every evil action.’ Now, if we judge from
this rule, we shall become convinced of the
truth of the observations we are making here.
In fact, what Man or Woman could, without
fear or shame, execute a lower discipline in
company with other persons? who could
without reluctance firk their loins and posteriors
with rods, on an exalted place, and in
the middle of a numerous Assembly of People?
who could thus undauntedly expose their
nakedness to the rays of the Sun, and to the
eyes of a multitude of Spectators[123]?
F I N I S.
FOOTNOTES:
[118] In order to support his opinion concerning
the dangers of disciplines, the Abbé Boileau has
quoted Bartholinus’s treatise De medico flagrorum
usu, and that wrote by John-Henry Meibomius,
a Professor at Lubeck, De usu flagrorum in re venereâ.
The singularity of these titles led me to
look into both publications, in order to be able to
give my opinion about them, and also in hope I
might pick a few facts and quotations to entertain
the Reader with: but I have been disappointed;
both Treatises being as dull unconnected farragos
as ever were printed. From Meibomius’s Treatise,
and also from Cœlius Rhodiginus’s Book, the
Abbé had however borrowed two stories, which I
at first intended to insert in this Chapter; but as
I have found them, upon more attentive examination,
to be related in no pleasing nor even probable
manner, besides being very long, I have set
them aside, contrary to the design of this Work,
as I have explained it in the Introduction, which
was to make use of and introduce, in the Text, all
the facts and quotations scattered in the Abbé’s
Book: I therefore make my apology to the Reader,
for the omission.
To the other facts thus supplied by the Abbé’s
Work, I have in this Chapter, conformably to the
promise made at p. 131, added the Abbé’s own
expressions and remarks, not only on account of
their great ingenuity, but also in order that the
present final Chapter might be a common conclusion
of our respective talks, and that the Abbé
and me, joining hands again in it, might thus
have an opportunity, as is the custom at the end
of Plays, to make our obeisance together, and
take a joint leave of the Public.
[119] ... ad cujus sententiam, meam libens volensque
adjungo.
[120]Quippecum eâ de causâ Capucini, multæque Moniales,
virorum Medicorum ac piorum hominum consilio,
ascesim flagellandi sursum humeros reliquerint, ut
sibi nates lumbosque strient asperatis virgis, ac nodosis
funiculis conscribillent.
[121]Ho, ho, Monsieur l’Abbé! How come you to
be so well acquainted with beauties of the kind
you mention here, and to speak of them in so positive
a manner? For, the Reader must not think
I here lend any expressions to the Abbé which are
not his own: Num probrosum (says he), soli ostendere
lumbos & femora juvenilia, excellenti formê,
quamvis religionis honestate consecrata? This Monsieur
l’Abbé, for his excursion upon objects and
beauties which, one should have thought, lie out
of his province, richly deserves a lecture of the
same kind with that which Parson Adams received
from Lady Booby, when he ventured to expatiate,
in her Ladyship’s presence, on the beauties of
Fanny.
[122] These dangers arising from self-examination
I do not allow myself to call in question; since,
besides the Abbé Boileau, the Framers of Monastic
Rules have taken notice of them; and indeed
I find Brantôme has entertained thoughts of
the same kind; and many facts are to be found in
that Chapter of his which he has intitled Of Sight
in Love, that fully confirm the above observations.
But besides these serious dangers into which a too
curious examination of one’s-self may lead, there
are others very well worth mentioning: I mean
to speak of the acts of pride, vanity, self-admiration
and complacency, to which the above curiosity
may give rise. Vanity and a disposition to
admire one’s-self, are dispositions that are but too
general among Mankind; and there is hardly a
time in life at which we may be said to be perfectly
cured of such worldly affections. On this occasion
I shall produce the following anecdote,
which is related by Brantôme.
A certain Lady, who had been very handsome,
and now was somewhat advanced in years, would
no longer look at her face in the looking-glass,
for fear of discovering some new injury time might
have done to it; but she used to survey the other
parts of her body, and then, suddenly actuated by
the worldly vanity we speak of, she exclaimed,
“God be thanked, here I do not grow old” (je
ne vieillis point.)
These dangers of a too curious examination of
one’s own person, are extremely well expressed by
Ovid, in that part of his Metamorphosis where
he describes Narcissus sitting near that clear silver
fountain in which he contemplated himself:
Fons erat illimis, nitidis argenteus undis.
And the Poet relates, in a very lively manner, the
astonishment of the Youth, at the sight of, as he
thought, his own charms and perfections.
... visæ correptus imagine formæ
Adstupet ipse sibi.
That unexperienced Nuns should be led, by
their disciplines, into faults of a similar kind, are
therefore very natural apprehensions. Being thoroughly
engaged in the contemplation of those
beauties which they expose to light, it is no wonder
that all their thoughts of a religious kind
should vanish: and they even may very well in
the issue, inchanted as they are by what they are
beholding, intirely forget and neglect those pious
exercises which they have purposely retired to
their cell to perform.
[123]Quid turpius excogitari potest, sivè viro sivè fœminæ,
quàm, lumbis & femoribus ad radios Solis
apertis, seipsum diverberare?... Quis in edito
& aperto loco, plenis comitiis, in conspectu hominum,
lumbos natesque virgis cædere non pertimescat?
This exhibition of nakedness to the rays of the
Sun, the Poet Lafontaine observes, is only fit for
the New World. He expresses this opinion in
that Tale which has been above quoted, The Pair
of Spectacles, when he attempts to express the objects
which the Nuns exhibited to the sight of
each other, and of the Abbess: “Niggardly and
proud charms, which the Sun is allowed to see
only in the New World, for this does not shew
them to him.”
—— chiches & fiers appas
Que le Soleil ne voit qu’au nouveau monde,
Car celui-ci ne les lui montre pas.
However, notwithstanding the opinion of the
Poet Lafontaine, it seems that an exhibition of
charms and attractions, even superior to what takes
place in the New World, is common in Russia;
which is certainly a part of our Old World: the
Reader may see in the accounts given by Travellers,
that individuals of both Sexes, after some
stay in the hot-baths and stoves in use in that
Country, will rush out promiscuously together,
stark-naked, playing, and delightfully rolling themselves
in the snow. If Russia had been more visited
by Travellers in the times of Cardinals Damian
and Pullus, these two great Promoters of
nakedness would have been supplied with facts
much to the advantage of their doctrine.
Bartholinus too, from the accounts of the same
Travellers would have been supplied with excellent
materials for composing his abovementioned
Treatise, On the physical use of Flagellations. The
Abbé Dauteroche, one of the latest Travellers
who have published an account of Russia, where
he went to observe the transit of Venus, gives a
somewhat accurate description of the baths and
stoves we mention. The heat is commonly carried
in them to so high a degree as the fiftieth of Reaumur’s
scale (which answer to the 130th of Fahrenheit’s;
the greatest summer heat in England
seldom surpasses, or even reaches, 80) a suffocating
steam is raised by throwing plenty of water
upon stones kept constantly red hot; and, in order
to carry the agitation of the blood still farther,
flagellations are applied to: a bundle of birchen
twigs, with the leaves on, which being dry are
soon stripped off, is as constant a part of the bathing
implements and furniture, as a handkerchief
or a towel. All these different operations being
fulfilled, the bathers, as is above said, rush out
into the external air, sometimes ten, or even twenty
degrees colder than it was in this Country in the
year 1740, and roll themselves in the snow, or
jump into water through holes made in the ice.
These are certainly surprising instances of what
the human body may be brought to bear; much
more remarkable than those that have been before
mentioned; and the boxes of Buckhorse, the
Chinese bastinadoes, and the flagellations of the
Italian and Spanish disciplinants, are nothing in
comparison to it. But, for a farther account of
the Russian stoves, and of the trial the Abbé Dauteroche
had the curiosity to make of them, as well
as of the unexpected and unwelcome entertainment
he received, I must refer the Reader to the
Work itself he has published.
INDEX.
Abbots, possess an unlimited power of imposing disciplines on their Monks, 135, 139. Trick played by a certain Abbot to his Monks, 143, & seq. Are not respected by their Monks in proportion to their great power over them, 154, & seq. An explanation of the common saying, they wait for him as Monks do for their Abbot, ibid. See Priors.
Abelard, the great pains he takes for the instruction of Heloisa, 235, 236. His letters to her, quoted, 236, 243.
Adamites, mentioned by St. Austin, what sect they were, 392.
Adams (Parson), proposed as a pattern of gallantry and proper behaviour, 294. Receives a lecture from a Lady, which he deserves, 405.
Adhelm, an English Saint, the kind of mortification he recommends to young women, 246.
Adriasem, alias Adriansen (Cornelius), what kind of penance he imposes upon his female penitents, 231. A farther account of him, 234. Is the inventor, or at least the promoter, of the Cornelian discipline, 235.
Adrian I. (Pope) occupied the Holy Chair in the year 772, and forbids Confessors to beat their penitents, 229.
Ægyptians, an account of their religious ceremonies and flagellations, 85.
Ajax Mastigophoros, a Tragedy of Sophocles, a remarkable passage in it, quoted, 54.
Anabaptists, a pious expedition and procession of theirs, 393.
Anchorites of the East, accounts of their self-mortifications, 112, & seq.
Anthony (St.) is the Institutor of Monastical Life, 127. Frequent visits he receives from the Devil, and the different treatments he experiences from him, 125, 127.
Canillac (the Marquis of) falls in love with Margaret, Queen of Navarre, on sight of her fine arm, 269.
Canon (an English) Dean of the Church of Rheims, bestows a sound admonition and discipline on the Bishop of Châlons, 151, 152. Thanks given him by the latter, ibid.
Captives, the treatment they experienced from their Conquerors, in antient times, 53, 54, 265.
Capuchin Friars, declare for the use of the lower discipline, 21, 404. Charitable offer of one to a young woman, 188. His success in that affair, ibid.
Cechald (the widow) resolutely performs the hundred years penance, 221.
Celebrated Causes (the Collection of) quoted, 281.
Cerebrosus (the Monk) opposes the practice of self-flagellation, and writes against Cardinal Damian on that subject, 212.
Cervantes, quoted, 295. Has thrown a great light on the subject of flagellations, 325.
Chantpré (the Monk)
runs the gantelope through the whole tribe of Devils, for his having refused to practice self-flagellation while he was alive, 302.
Christians, did not, at the time of the first establishment of Christianity, adopt the use of voluntary flagellations, 39, & seq. Nor do they seem to have practised them in the times which immediately followed that period, 102, & seq. Have confessedly imitated several practices from the antient Pagans, 100, 101. The time at which the use of voluntary disciplines, evidently appears to have become universally received among them, 192, & seq.201, & seq. Voluntary flagellations have never been so commonly practised among the Eastern, as among the Western Christians, 123. Difference in the notions of these two Sects, with respect to such practices, 362, & seq. A crimination of the Greek or Eastern Christians, against the Latin or Western Christians, 250.
Church, how strictly adheres to its forms and ritual, 254.
Churchill (Miss Arabella) dazzles his Royal Highness the Duke of York; by what means, 286.
Claudius (the Emperor) jokes of his buffoons with him, 97.
Clergy, it is a sacrilege to beat one of the Clergy, 228. Exception to that rule, ibid. Surprising licence that prevailed among them at a certain period, 316.
Climax (St. John) examination of a passage in his Book, 121, 122. The truer meaning of this passage, 365.
Clopinel (the Poet) his case hinted at, 268. Farther account of him, 332, & seq. His witticism at the expence of the Fair Sex, 333; the sentence passed upon him on that occasion by the Court Ladies, and his lucky escape, ibid.
Cobler, a remarkable adventure of an Arabian Cobler, 290.
Column (the), to which Jesus Christ was fastened, the inscription put afterwards upon it, 103. True meaning of that inscription, 105.
Commodus (the Emperor), a law of his to prevent the cheats of the Priests of Bellona, in Syria, 87, 88.
Confessors. Their great influence over their penitents, and the reason of it, 21, 22. Assume a power of beating their penitents, 227. Are forbidden by Pope Adrian I. to do so, 229. Ingenious penances imposed by some of them, 230, & seq. Dangers of their profession, 243, & seq. Advice given them by St.
Charles Borromee, 245. Their situation with respect to decorum, ibid. The expedients contrived by some among them, 246, 247.
Conformities (the Book of the) a farrago of superstitious trash; an account of the book, 394.
Cornelia Juliana, a Holy Nun, gives the Devil his due, 305.
Cotelier, a Doctor of the Sorbonne, his Monuments of the Greek Church quoted, 250.
Coxcomb, a Russian; how chastised by a set of Ladies, 334, & seq.
Crofton (Zachary), a Reverend Divine, and a propagator of Cornelian flagellations in this Country, 237. Farther account of him, 238.
Cuistre, a flagellator in a public School; the original meaning of the word, 189.
Curate (a French), animadverts upon the Abbé Boileau for his depreciating the lower discipline, 120.
Cynic Philosophers, great partisans of nakedness, 391.
D.
Dacier (Mons.) a very learned man in all that relates to antiquity, quoted, 96.
Dagobert, heir to the Crown of France in the year 526, orders a correction to be inflicted upon his preceptor, 74, 75.
Damian (the Cardinal) the great Patron of Flagellations, 192, 201, & seq. Declares freedom from accoutrements the best state, for performing such pious exercises, 223. A convincing argument of his on the subject, quoted, 389.
D’Aunoy (Madame), a French Lady of quality, her Journey into Spain quoted, 375, 377, 385.
D’Arbrissel (Robert), lies with young women by way of mortification, 246.
Dauteroche (Abbé Chappe), his Journey to Siberia quoted, 409, 410.
Denmark, flagellations are not unknown in that Country, and are even sometimes performed at Court, 291.
Devil (the), makes it a common practice to flagellate Saints, 125, & seq. A holy Nun at last proves an overmatch for him, 305.
Disciplines, the different meanings of that word, 19. The great variety of instruments used for inflicting them, 226. The Cornelian discipline, what it is, 235. The upper and lower disciplines defined, 21. The lower discipline is practised by a number of Saints of both Sexes, 120. The dangers of these two kinds of disciplines, 400, & seq. See Lower Discipline. Voluntary disciplines, see Voluntary Flagellations.
Dominic the Cuirassed, a Hero in the career of self-flagellation, 203, & seq.
Edesse, the familiar manner in which its inhabitants treated the statue of the Emperor Constantine, 288.
Edmund (St.) Archbishop of Canterbury, a great instance of his virtue, while he pursues his studies in Paris, 262.
Elizabeth (Queen), no lover of formality in giving tokens of her displeasure, 190. Seems to have used peculiar methods for rendering her Ministers what they ought to be, 343, 344.
Empress, the, wife to Justinian II. is threatened with a flagellation by the great Eunuch, 173.
Engineer, an, of the Town of Elæa, an officious mistake of his, and atonement for the same, 149, 150.
Essex (the Earl of) his letter to Queen Elizabeth, quoted, 343.
F.
Fakirs, their astonishing penances, which are well-ascertained facts, render every account of that kind credible, 115, 206. Dialogue between one and a Turk, quoted from M. de Voltaire, 207.
Fathers, antient Greek and Latin, are their expressions about self-scourgings and beatings to be taken in a literal sense? 122, 123.
Flagellants, the formation of their processions, 345, & seq. The success they met with in different Countries, 350. Description of one of their itinerant processions in Germany, 351, & seq. Their establishment and first success in France, 355, 372, & seq. are there discountenanced at last, 373. Their fraternities must be distinguished from the sect of Hereticks, called Flagellants, 368. Account of these Hereticks, 369. Account of these fraternities, 370, & seq. Are, as it were, naturalised in Italy and Spain, 374. Manner in which they perform these processions in Spain, 374, & seq. In Italy, 382, & seq. Real cruelty of these Flagellants upon themselves, 384, 385.
Flagellating fanaticism, a kind of, seems to have taken place in England about the time of the Rebellion, 340. Proofs of it, ibid.
Flagellations, are either of a voluntary, or a corrective, or a recommendatory kind. Voluntary flagellations were in use among most Nations of Antiquity, 79, & seq. Were unknown, it seems, to the first Christians, 102. Were not prescribed to religious persons by the first Founders of Monastic Orders, 118. Conjectures about the times in which they grew into use among Christians, 192, & seq. The time at which they certainly became universally used among them, 201, & seq. Cruelty with which they are performed, 203, & seq.384, & seq. Incredible and superstitious stories contrived to recommend them, 299, & seq.
Flagellations (corrective) their use is known from the earliest times, 51. Are used as a means of procuring victory in war, 52; by Masters over their Slaves; great power of Masters in Rome in that respect, 57, & seq. Both in antient and modern times by Schoolmasters, 71, & seq. by Judges, 55; by Ladies to correct misbehaviour, 319, & seq. Are useful to defeat captious arguments, 177. To reward satires or bon-mots, 177, 178, 268, & seq. To check those who betray the secrets of others, 268, & seq. To repress competitors, 277. To confute heresy, 258. Are, in modern times, used in Seraglios, 172; in the palaces of the western Sovereigns, 173, & seq. in Monasteries and the rites with which they are performed there, 131, & seq.180.
Flagellations (jocular) performed as a pastime, 96, 97, 39, 240, 241.
Flagellations (in general) are undergone by Sovereigns and Great Men, 265. Are served by Emperors with their own hands, ibid. Are useful to make one’s fortune, 267. To acquire reputation, ibid. Are very proper to enliven and embellish public festivals, 395. Are capable of being performed with much gracefulness, 375, 376. The most comfortable manner to receive them, 253. Their glory completed, 258.
Francis (St.) his stigmats, a contrivance of his, 109. Is flagellated by the Devil the very first night after his arrival at Rome, 126.
Friars, miracle effected by one, 128, & seq. Contrivance of certain Friars in Catalonia, 247. See Monks.
Fulk Grisegonelle, an account of the penance he performs, 391.
James II. dazzled by Miss Arabella Churchill’s posteriors, 286.
Jerom (St.) his observations on the epitaph of the widow Marcella, quoted, 94. His exhortation to Sabinus, 109. Does not seem to have practised any beatings upon himself, otherwise than with his fists, 110. Fired with an ardent desire of acquiring the style of Cicero, 111. Fustigated for that reason by the Angels before the Tribunal of God, ibid.
Jesuit, a Reverend Father Jesuit acts as an agent from Philip II. of Spain, to persuade a Princess of the Austrian House to marry him, 176. The eloquence of the Father, ibid. He only draws in the issue a flagellation upon himself, 177. Is served with it in the kitchen, 177, 187.
Jesuits, their regularity in inflicting flagellations, 161. Excellent Latin distich made at the expence of the society by one of their School-boys, 162.
Jews (the antient) made not self-flagellations part of their religious worship, 27, & seq. The impartiality shewn to both sexes among them, 30. The modern Jews adopt the practice of voluntary flagellations, 35. A description of their manner of performing them, 35, & seq. Coercive flagellations were known among them, 27, 28. The number of the blows was fixed by the Law of Moses at forty, 30.
Innocents (the day of the), a day of great retribution and justice, 328, & seq. Giving the innocents is an antient as well as ingenious custom, 330, 331.
Italy. Processions of Disciplinants are much in vogue in that Country, 381. The pageantry and festivity by which they are accompanied, 381, & seq.
Juliet of Gonzaga, abominable act of ingratitude and vanity of that woman, 271.
Juniperus (Brother), a great partisan of nakedness, 393. His public entrance into the town of Viterbo, and noble carriage as well as sanctity on that occasion, Ibid.
Justina (the Monk of St.) his Chronicle quoted, 346, & seq.
Juvenal, his singular expression with respect to Augustus, 60. His account of the cruel wantonness of Roman Mistresses with their slaves, 67, & seq. The festival of the Lupercalia alluded to by him, 91.
Kitchen (the), is the appropriated place for flagellations in the Palaces of the Western Kings and great Men, 185. Advantages of the place, ibid. The great share the people of the kitchen bore in former times in supporting the dignity of Kings, 186. Farther remark on the importance of the people of the kitchen, 191. Their laudable zeal in assisting their Masters, 190, 191.
Kolben, his description of the Cape of Good Hope, quoted, 292.
L.
Labat (Father), his travels into Spain and Italy quoted, 382.
Lacedæmon Flagellating solemnities that took place there, 79, & seq. Are described, or alluded to, by Cicero, Plutarch, Lucian, Seneca, &c. ibid. Are still in use in the times of Tertullian, 83. It is difficult to say whether there was more inhumanity or stupidity in these processions, 395.
Ladies have an abhorrence to cruelty, even in their acts of revenge, 320. Neither do they intirely overlook offences; remarkable instances of both their spirited resentment and mercifulness, 321, & seq. Aim at elegance in all their actions, 320, & seq. The singular power of the graces to engage their attention, 376. Have a right to flagellate their Husbands, 339, 340.
Lady (a great), mentioned by Brantôme; the remarkable entertainments and festivity that took place in her house, 239, & seq.
Lancelot du Lac, the Knight, his History quoted, 218, 228.
Law (the study of the), what is necessary to succeed in it, 282.
Lazare (the Fathers of), their seminary; the excellent institution it was, 162. The extensiveness of their operations, 163, 164. Their scrupulous exactness in performing their engagements, ibid. The occasion of their seminary being abolished, 165, 166.
Lazarillo de Tormes, the notorious Spanish Cheat; how punished by his four Wives, 327.
Legend (Golden), a farrago of Monkish stories compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, 115. Again quoted, 151.
Lewis XI. of France; the rascally turn of his devotion, 207.
Liancourt (the Lady of), account of this Lady; her competition with the Marchioness of Tresnel, 278. Is worsted in the issue, 280.
Limeuil (Mademoiselle de), a Maid of Honour to the Queen of France, 173, 174. The misfortune that befalls her, ibid.
Lower discipline defined, 21. Is adopted by Capuchin Friars and the whole Tribe of Nuns, 21, 404. Were not unknown to the Greeks and Romans, 287. Are known in France, 288. In Italy, ibid. Among the Persians, 289. The Turks, ibid. The Chinese, ibid. The Arabs, 290. In Denmark, 291. Among the Dutch, 292. In Poland, 179, 292. In England, ibid. In Spain, 293. A few remarks on their propriety, 400, & seq.
Loyola (Ignatius of), gets himself whipt at School, 98.
Lupercalia, account of that festival, 90, & seq. It is continued to very late times, 93. Is greatly improved, 94. An attempt to revive it, 241. A farther description of it, 396, & seq. Had vastly the advantage of all the festivals of the like kind, contrived by other nations, ibid.
M.
Margaret, Queen of Navarre, attempts to make herself Mistress of the Town of Agen, 269. Is forced to fly on horseback with the utmost hurry and expedition, ibid. The consequences of it, ibid.
Masters in Rome; the great power they possessed over their slaves, 57. To what degree they abused it, 57, & seq. Instances of this abuse, 61, 66, & seq. Provisions made by the Emperors to restrain them, 69, 70; and by the Church, 61, 70.
Marlborough (the great Duke of), to what he owed his first advancement, 286.
Mathew (Brother), the godly personage he was, 262. The lecture he bestows upon a young Lady who pays a visit to him in his bed, 263. Ought not to be imitated, except by persons who possess as much sanctity as him, 294, 297.
Mind (the human), how variable and fantastick in her opinions, 281. Singular instance of it, 281, & seq.287, & seq.
Miserere, or 51st Psalm, the singing of it particularly used to enliven as well as regulate the time of religious flagellation among Christians, 32, 371.
Mistresses in Rome; the abuse they made of their power over their female slaves. See Masters.
Molesworth (Lord), his description of a hunting-match at the Court of Denmark, 291.
Molly Mog, the song made to her honour by Gay, 77.
Monasteries: voluntary disciplines were not in use in them, in the times of their first foundation, 118, & seq.
Monks, receive frequent disciplines from their Abbots, 135, & seq. Cases in which such disciplines ought to be inflicted on them, ibid. Do not much respect their Abbot, notwithstanding his power of flagellation, 154, & seq. An explanation of this singularity, ibid. Great lovers of entertainments, 142. Account of a treat given by one to some others, 143, 144; after reckoning for the same, 145, 146. The remarkable zeal of one against adultery, 138. The great zeal of another in vindicating the honour of the Virgin, 310, 311. The wager made by a certain Monk, 314; comes off winner, 315. See Friars.
More (Chancellor), adopts the opinion of the usefulness of flagellations for converting Hereticks, 259.
Munson (Lord), chastised by his Lady, 339. Farther account of him, 340.
N.
Nakedness is thought by some to possess, of itself, a degree of sanctity, 391, & seq. Account of several of its practitioners, ibid. The strong arguments of Cardinal Damian in its favour, 389. Is after all but an incomplete act of penance, 395.
Navarre (the Tales of the Queen of), quoted, 188, 330, 331.
Nuns, their confinement and amorous visions, 107, 108. Settled days on which they are to inflict disciplines upon themselves, 120, 121. Power of the Abbess to inflict disciplines upon them, 167, & seq. Cases in which she is directed to use that power, ibid. The spirited manner in which certain Nuns assert the honour of their Convent, 322, & seq.
Ovid, his advice to Lovers, 341. Again quoted, 407.
P.
Pardulph (St.) affords an instance of voluntary discipline, in early times, 198.
Pavillon, his verses to the praise of Iris’s Bum, 286.
Penance, or Penitence, is a Sacrament among Catholicks, 22; its essentials, ibid. The hundred years penance, what it is, 203, & seq. Is sometimes performed in twenty days, ibid. Was but a trifle for Rodolph of Eugubio, and Dominic the Cuirassed, ibid. The Widow Cechald likewise performs it, 221.
Penitents, processions of Penitents. See Flagellants. Blue Penitents in the City of Bourges; their fraternity abolished, 360, 373.
Peregrinus (the Philosopher), flagellatory pastimes of his, 96.
Persians, the use of flagellations is known among them, 53. Are used at Court, ibid.
Peter I. (the Czar), inflicts flagellations with his own hands, 266.
Philip II. of Spain, sends proposals of marriage to a Princess of the House of Austria, widow to the late King of France, 176. Employs in this affair the agency of a Father Jesuit, ibid. His success and that of the Jesuit, 177.
Philosophers, particular Sects of them among the Greeks practise self-flagellations, 83. The greater number of them ridicule practices of this kind, 84.
Physician (a), consulted by Gretzer on the ill consequences of the upper discipline, 403. His learned decision, ibid.
Picards, a Sect in Germany, declare for a state of complete nakedness, 392. Carry their notions farther than the Adamites had done, ibid.
Pictures in Churches, are the Libraries of ignorant Christians, 25. Their too great licence, ibid. Many wicked thoughts propagated by them, 26; as well as errors, ibid.
Plautus had been the servant of a Baker, 62; quoted, 63, & seq. His allusion to a singular practice of the vulgar in Rome, 95.
Plutarch quoted, 53. Had been an eye-witness of the flagellating solemnities in Lacedæmon, 79, 80.
Poland; lower disciplines used in that Kingdom for mending the manners of Servants, 179. For punishing Fornicators, 292.
Pont Euxine (the Hermit of the), his contrivance to rescue a young Woman from the hands of a military Man, 196.
Priors or Superiors of Monasteries, are the substitutes of the Abbots, 135. Are invested with the same power of flagellation, ibid. Great passion of one and remarkable use made by him of his power, 148. Are apt to carry the joke too far in their use of flagellations, 153. Are cautioned against it, ibid. See Abbots.
Quixote (Don), his excellent and polite speech to the fair Maritornes, 295. Is rather too inquisitive in his conversation with the Senora Rodriguez, 326, 327; experiences the resentment of the Dutchess and the fair Altisidora, on that occasion, ibid.
Rakes, how served in Rome by the Husbands of the Wives whom they courted, 64, & seq.
Raymond, Count of Toulouse, how absolved of his excommunication, 252.
Rodolph of Eugubio, his great feats in the career of flagellation, 202, 203.
Romans, the great power of Masters among them over their Slaves, 57. See Masters. Consider a whip as a characteristic mark of dominion, 59, 60. Flagellations were performed among them with religious views, 88, & seq. Singular practices of this kind among the vulgar, 94, & seq.
Romuald (St.) a great flagellator, 153. In one instance flagellates even his own father, 260, 261. His Monks retaliate his flagellations upon him, 154. His lucky escape, 157.
Russian Ladies; how properly they punish a boasting Coxcomb who had affronted them, 334, & seq. See Ladies.
S.
Sadragesillus, preceptor to Dagobert, heir to the Crown of France, 74. How used by his Pupil, 75.
St. Loe (Captain) gets the Boston Magistrates and Select-men served with a flagellation, 273, & seq.
Saints, the frequent tricks the Devil puts upon them, 125, & seq. How they have received the advances of the Fair Sex, 261, & seq. The expedient of a certain Eastern Saint to make himself cry, 364.
Sallust (the Historian), makes free with Milo’s Wife; how served by the Husband, 65.
Schoolmasters of modern times are as fond of using their discipline as ancient ones, 71, & seq. Are not worth mentioning in so interesting a book as this, 160, 175.
Scot, a good Story of his, in his Mensa Philosophica, 232.
Scythians, their expedient to conquer their revolted Slaves, 51; and success, 52.
Sovereigns; instances of Sovereigns upon whom disciplines have been publicly inflicted, 250, & seq.
Spain. An account of the processions of Penitents established there, 374, & seq. Gallantry and nicety of honour that prevail in them, ibid. The art of performing flagellations with gracefulness is taught there by Masters for that purpose, 376.
Superanus, a Greek Philosopher; laudable flagellations he inflicts upon himself, 98.
Surgeon, great favour and confidence shewn to him by a great Princess, 270. His ungrateful conduit, ibid. The greatness of his guilt displayed, 271, 272; his punishment, ibid. extreme justice of the same, ibid.
Syrians, flagellations of a religious kind used among them, 86, 87.
T.
Tales, Arabian Tales quoted, 290. Of the Queen of Navarre, 188, 330, 331.
Thracians, flagellations of a voluntary kind used among them, 84.
Tresnel (the Marchioness of), is incensed at the arrogant competition of the Lady of Liancourt, a woman of inferior birth, 278. Gets her served with a flagellation, 279. More serious consequences of the affair, 280.
Triumpher among the Romans, the companion he had in his Car, 59.
V.
Venus, the strange weapon with which the Antients supplied her, 60, 319. The Temple which the Greeks erected to her, 283.
Virgin Mary rescues an Usurer from the hands of the Devils, 304. The assistance she gives to a person who used to pay devotion to her, 308. The remarkable zeal of a Monk to assert her honour, 310, & seq.
Visitation (Nuns of the), discipline themselves when they please, 121.
Walpole (Sir Robert), his Excise Scheme, preferable, upon the whole to the schemes that took place in the times of the Roman Emperors, 124.
Whipcord, the great expence made about it by Government, 344. At what time it began to be used, ibid.
Wife, Roman Wives not much better than modern ones, 64. Instance of conjugal love of one whose husband offered himself to be disciplined in her stead, 232. Inflict castigations upon their husbands, 339, 340.
Witasky, the Buffoon to Peter I. is a good hand at flagellating and cudgelling, 266.
Wurtzbourg, a Sovereign Bishoprick in Germany; a flagellation is
an indispensable step to procure the installation to that See, 256.
Chap. I. The substance of the account given by the Abbé Boileau of his design in writing his Book: he seems upon the whole to have been of opinion that voluntary flagellations were no very antient practice,
Chap. VII. Containing the most ingenious arguments of the Abbé Boileau. The practise of scourging one’s-self was unknown to the first Fathers of the Church; and also to the first Anchorites or Hermits,
Chap. VIII. A few more of the Abbé Boileau’s arguments are introduced. Self-flagellations did not make a part of the duties prescribed in the first Monasteries. The only positive instances of flagellations suffered by Saints, or the Candidates for that title in the days we speak of, are those which the Devil has inflicted upon them,
Chap. IX. Corrections of a flagellatory kind, inflicted by force, were however, though in very early times, the common method of correcting offences of a religious nature; and the power of inflicting them was possessed alike by Bishops, and the Heads of Monasteries,
Chap. XII. The same discretionary powers of flagellation have been established in the Convents of Nuns, and lodged in the hands of the Abbesses, or Prioresses,
Chap. XIII. The subject of voluntary flagellations among Christians, is at last introduced. That method of self-mortification appears to have been practised in very early times; but it does not seem to have been universally admitted before the years 1044 and 1056; which was the time Cardinal Damian wrote,
Chap. XVII. The Church at large also claims a power of publicly inflicting the discipline of flagellation. Instances of Kings and Princes who have submitted to it,
Chap. XIX. The subject of the merit of flagellations continued. Holy persons, though without any public authority, have used them occasionally to give weight to their admonitions,
Chap. XXIV. The last Chapter, in which the Abbé Boileau is personally introduced: he is of opinion that the lower discipline is contrary to decency, and the upper discipline is liable to bring defluxions on the eyes,
The character ſ (long-form s) has been replaced by the normal s.
The Greek ϛ (stigma) has been replaced by στ.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed, some added,
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained.
Pg 4: ‘I hvae not the’ replaced by ‘I have not the’. Pg 9: ‘Sarbonne, and a dean’ replaced by ‘Sorbonne, and a dean’. Pg 22: ‘I potively aver’ replaced by ‘I positively aver’. Pg 56: ‘of the Trumvirs’ replaced by ‘of the Triumvirs’. Pg 61: ‘at last so such’ replaced by ‘at last to such’. Pg 62: ‘such a mnner that’ replaced by ‘such a manner that’. Pg 66 Fn [23]: ‘uncontroubled power’ replaced by ‘uncontrouled power’. Pg 71: missing anchor [24] placed after ‘chastisement.’. Pg 93 Fn [36]: ‘of Chritianity; and persons of noble familities’ replaced by
‘of Christianity; and persons of noble families’. Pg 99 Fn [41]: ‘see their appartments’ replaced by ‘see their apartments’. Pg 110: ‘made it altother’ replaced by ‘made it altogether’. Pg 134: ‘moveover recommended’ replaced by ‘moreover recommended’. Pg 139: ‘or solliciting the’ replaced by ‘or soliciting the’. Pg 162 Fn [64]: ‘the distieh made’ replaced by ‘the distich made’. Pg 167: ‘inflicting disciciplines’ replaced by ‘inflicting disciplines’. Pg 177 Fn [67]: ‘his sollicitations’ replaced by ‘his solicitations’. Pg 179 Fn [68]: ‘new-papers, with’ replaced by ‘news-papers, with’. Pg 184 Fn [67]: ‘receive an hearsay’ replaced by ‘receive on hearsay’. Pg 206 Fn [80]: ‘Play of Mollere’ replaced by ‘Play of Molière’. Pg 210 Fn [82]: ‘Smollet, Franklin’ replaced by ‘Smollett, Franklin’. Pg 223: ‘from one anther’ replaced by ‘from one another’. Pg 224: ‘over their growns’ replaced by ‘over their gowns’. Pg 245 Fn [94]: ‘Charles Borommee’ replaced by ‘Charles Borrommee’. Pg 249: ‘an indispensible act’ replaced by ‘an indispensable act’. Pg 250: ‘forgiven his his sin’ replaced by ‘forgiven his sin’. Pg 284 Fn [102]: ‘a flat noise’ replaced by ‘a flat nose’. Pg 287 Fn [102]: ‘and expresly chosen’ replaced by ‘and expressly chosen’. Pg 289 Fn [102]: ‘come expresly to’ replaced by ‘come expressly to’. Pg 298 Fn [102]: ‘is no unpleassing’ replaced by ‘is no unpleasing’. Pg 301: ‘he comfessed the’ replaced by ‘he confessed the’. Pg 318 Fn [111]: ‘the fifth chapter’ replaced by ‘the sixth chapter’. Pg 319 Fn [111]: ‘See p. 71’ replaced by ‘See p. 79’. Pg 319 Fn [111]: ‘See p. 76, 77’ replaced by ‘See p. 85, 86’. Pg 325 Fn [111]: ‘beardless strippling’ replaced by ‘beardless stripling’. Pg 333 Fn [111]: ‘porper instruments’ replaced by ‘proper instruments’. Pg 337 Fn [111]: ‘the falshood of’ replaced by ‘the falsehood of’. Pg 357: ‘same manner it it was’ replaced by ‘same manner it was’. Pg 381 Fn [115]: ‘bad him go home’ replaced by ‘bade him go home’. Pg 384 Fn [115]: ‘them, Iay these’ replaced by ‘them, lay these’. Pg 402: ‘at the learned’ replaced by ‘as the learned’.
Index: Pg 413: ‘runs the grantlope’ replaced by ‘runs the gantelope’. Pg 414: ‘Charles Borromeo’ replaced by ‘Charles Borromee’. Pg 422: ‘Quixotte’ replaced by ‘Quixote’. Pg 424: ‘indispensible step’ replaced by ‘indispensable step’.