TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  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.

  In this book the Table of Contents is at the end of the book.

  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.




                              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.

                    [Illustration: _Page._ 391.]

                               LONDON:

         Printed for G. ROBINSON, N^o 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.




[Illustration: _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].”

[Illustration: (decorative end of chapter icon)]


FOOTNOTES:

[17]

                              ---- _Adsit
      Regula peccatis quæ pœnas irroget æquas,
      Nec Scuticâ dignum horribili sectere Flagello;
      Nam, ut Ferulâ cædas meritum majora subire
      Verbera, non vereor._
                          Lib. I. Sat. I. v. 117.


[18]

          _Sectus flagellis hic Triumviralibus
      Præconis ad fastidium._
                        Lib. V. Ode IV. v. 11, 12.


[19]

      _Ibericis peruste funibus latus._
                     Lib. V. Ode IV. v. 3.


[20]

      _Erunt Bucædæ invitò, potius quàm ego sim Restio._
                          Mostell. Act. IV. Sc. II.


[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_.

[22]

      _Ad sua qui domitos deduxit flagra Quirites._
                             Juv. Sat. X. v. 99.

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].”

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


FOOTNOTES:

[24]

      ... _Memini quæ plagosum mihi parvo
        Orbilium dictare._--Lib. II. Ep. i. v. 70.


[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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


FOOTNOTES:

[28] Pag. 1002. Litt. C. μαντικὸς ἦν μαρτύρομαι δὲ, ἦ μὴν καὶ ἱερέας
αὐτῶ αποδειχθήσεσθαι μαστίγων ἢ καυτηρίων.

[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.”

  _Madame_ JOURDAIN.

  _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
      Annexus, tergum dedit ut servile flagellis.
      Perstat adhuc, templumque gerit veneranda Columna,
      Nosque docet cunctis immunes vivere flagris._”

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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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.

[Illustration: _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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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.

[46] Οἱ μὲν ἐν ἐκείνοις τὸ ἔδαφος τοῖς δάκρυσιν ἔβρεχον, οἱ δὲ
δακρύων ἀποροῦντες ἑαυτοὺς κατέκοπτον.

[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.

[49] _Insidet dorso ejus festivus Gladiator, & latera calcibus,
cervicem flagello verberans._

[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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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._

[57] Cap. XV. _De lascivis & clamosis_.

[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 nigr_orum, _quæ vastant res Monach_orum, _Renes &
  vent_er, _& pocula sumpta frequen_ter.

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.

[59] Which signifies, to _sip_, or to _swallow_.

[60] He who drinks three times before the others.




CHAP. X.

  _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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


FOOTNOTES:

[90]

      _Es vir sacrilegus si res sacras violasti,
      Si percussisti personam religiosam,
      Vel quem de Clero; nisi percussio sancta,
      Doctor discipulum, Confessor probra fatentem._


[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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


FOOTNOTES:

[95] Ἀφορισμοῦ τινὰ λύοντες, γυμνοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἕως ὀσφύος, καὶ
μαστίζοντες ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ λώροις, ἀπολύουσιν ὡς συγκεχωρημένον ἐντευθεν.

[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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: _Page._ 264.]

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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.

[105] _Causes célèbres_, Vol. IV.

[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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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].’

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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. (_See_ p. 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. (_See_ p. 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].

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


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]?

[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]


FINIS.


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.

  _Alcoran_ of the Cordeliers, what Book, 394.

  _Amorous_ History of Gauls, quoted, 342.

  _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.

  _Apuleius_, quoted, 86.

  _Aulus Gellius_, quoted, 149.

  _Austin_ (St.) his remarkable advice to the Tribune Marcellinus,
          concerning Heretics, 133.

  _Augustus_, is said to have subjected the Romans to his whip, 60.


  B.

  _Bastinadoes_, are but incomplete acts of penance, 224, 395.

  _Bath_ (Knights of the) at the time of their installation are to
          receive admonitions from the Master Cook of the Sovereign,
          186.

  _Bernardinus_ de Bustis, a sermon of his quoted, 310.

  _Bernardinus_ of Sienna, in what manner he receives the advances of a
          Lady, 263.
    Is not a fit model for ordinary persons to imitate, 294, 297.

  _Bishops_, are invested, in the earliest times, with a power of
          flagellation over their flock, 132, & _seq._

  _Boileau_ (the Abbé) specimens of his Latin, 232, 263;
      personally introduced, 400;
      reprimanded, 405.

  _Bolingbroke_ (Lord) writes Ministerial dispatches on the posteriors
          of his Mistress, 285.

  _Bonner_, Bishop of London, his method of informing Hereticks, 258.

  _Boston_ Magistrates and Select-men served with a flagellation, 273,
          & _seq._

  _Bottom, a_, a boxing technical expression; its meaning, 386.

  _Brantôme_, quoted, 173, 176, 178, 239, 407.

  _Bridget_, a holy Nun, sets both St. Chrysostom and St. Austin right,
          by means of a vision she has, 107.

  _Buchanan_, his flagellatory jokes, 160.

  _Buckhorse_, his prowess, 385.

  _Buffoon_ (a Court) in Spain, his witticism at the expence of the
          Queen, and flagellatory reward for the same, 178.

  _Burnet_, quoted, 259, 267.

  _Buxtorf_, his Judaic Synagogue quoted, 35, 36.


  C.

  _Caligula_ (the Emperor) his expedients for silencing those who made a
          noise near him in the Theatre, 266.

  _Calot_, the celebrated Engraver, mentioned, 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.

  _China_, bastinadoes submitted to for money, 386.

  _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.

  _Cicero_, quoted, 59, 80.

  _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._

  _Cobbing-board_, an instrument on board ships, 292.

  _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.

  _Cornelian_ discipline defined, 235.
    See _Discipline_.

  _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.

  _Disciplinants._ See _Flagellants_.

  _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._

  _Du Cange_, his Glossary, quoted, 142, 180, 200.


  E.

  _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.

  _Fielding_, quoted, 294, 376.

  _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_ (recommendatory) 162, & _seq._

  _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.


  G.

  _Gay_ quoted, 77.

  _Gelasius_ (Pope), puts an end to the festival of the Lupercalia, 94.
    Improvements that had been made in it in his time, _ibid._

  _Gerald_ (Sylvester) his _Itinerarium Cambriæ_, quoted, 317.

  _Gil Blas_, quoted, 78.

  _Girard_ (Father), inflicts Cornelian disciplines on Miss Cadiere, 237.

  _Gerund_ de Campazas, a Spanish Novel, quoted, 293, 379.

  _Goddesses_, weapons with which the Antients supplied them, 60, 319.

  _Gretzer_ (Father), a strenuous promoter of flagellations, 44, 45.
    His consultation of a Physician recited, 402, 403.

  _Gymnosophists_, or naked Sages, 391.


  H.

  _Heloisa._ The friendship of Abelard to her, 236, 243.

  _Henry_ II. of England, receives a correction from the Church, 251,
          252.

  _Henry_ III. of France, inlists as a Brother in a fraternity of
          Disciplinants, 356, & _seq._ 372.

  _Henry_ IV. of France, receives likewise a correction from the Church,
          253.
    The great indulgence with which he is treated on that occasion, 254,
          255.

  _Hermits_, what kind of men they are, 115.
    No better than common Friars; story of one, _ibid._

  _Hérodote (Apologie pour)_, an account of the Book, 128.
    Again quoted, 247, 315.

  _Herodotus_, quoted, 85.

  _Hooëden_ (the Rector of), accident that happened to his Concubine,
          317.

  _Hope_ (Cape of Good), in what manner fires are prevented there, 292.

  _Horace_, quoted, 24, 55, 56, 65, 71, 283.

  _Hudibras_, quoted, 327, 339, 376.

  _Hume_ (Mr.) quoted, 259.

  _Husbands_ corrected by their Wives, 339.
    The subject is extensive and deep, and requires a Treatise apart,
          340.


  I.

  _James_ I. flagellated by his Preceptor, 160.

  _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._

  _Justin_, quoted, 51.

  _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.


  K.

  _Kennet_ (Bishop), his Chronicle, quoted, 237.

  _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.

  _Lafontaine_, the Poet, quoted, 116, 196, 243, 322, 409.

  _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.

  _Libanius_, the Sophist, quoted, 288.

  _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.

  _Lucian_, quoted, 24, 81, 82, 96, 319.

  _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.

  _Menagiana_ quoted, 233.

  _Menas_, a Spanish Friar, does not keep his word to his female
          penitents, 246.

  _Middleton_, his Letter from Rome quoted, 87, 318, 381.

  _Milo_, how serves Sallust the Historian, who had meddled with his
          Wife, 65.

  _Milton_ quoted, 338.

  _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.

  _Molière_ quoted, 20, 99, 206.

  _Monastic_ Orders; by whom first instituted, 118.

  _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._


  O.

  _Orbilius_ (the flogging), 71, 160.

  _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.

  _Petrarch_ recommends flagellations, 76.

  _Petronius_, his Satyricon quoted, 88, 89.

  _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.

  _Poggio_, a tale of his quoted, 116.

  _Presbyter_, whence the word is derived, 143.

  _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_.


  Q.

  _Quintilian_ quoted, 72.

  _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._


  R.

  _Rabelais_ quoted, 160, 284.

  _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.

  _Rousseau_ the Poet quoted, 138, 284.

  _Russian_ Baths and Stoves described, 409.

  _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.

  _Sancho_, his manner of discipline, 195, 226.

  _Sanlec_, a French Poet; his Satire on Confessors quoted, 234.

  _Scarron_ quoted, 285.

  _Scaligerana_ quoted, 36, 270.

  _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.

  _Seneca_ quoted, 82.

  _Slaves_, the wanton usage of them in Rome, 61, & _seq._ 66, & _seq._
    See _Masters_.

  _Solomon_ (King), recommends flagellations, 76.
    His opinion confirmed afterwards by that of Chrysippus, _ibid._

  _Sorbona_, whence the word is derived, 143.

  _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.

  _Spirit_ of Laws quoted, 173.

  _Stephen_ (Cardinal), dies suddenly for his having neglected the use
          of flagellations, 214, 302.

  _Stylites_ (St. Simeon), an Anchorite who had fixed his habitation on
          the top of a column, 114.

  _Suetonius_ quoted, 59, 97.

  _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.

  _Vestals_, how punished, 167, & _seq._

  _Villemartin_ (Miss de), is co-spectatress of a flagellation, 280;
      is admonished never to do so anymore, 281.

  _Virgil_ quoted, 90.

  _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.

  _Voltaire_ (M. de), quoted, 32, 207, 288.

  _Upper_ discipline defined, 21.
    See _Discipline_.


  W.

  _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.




CONTENTS.


  _The_ INTRODUCTION,                                                1

  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_,                                   17

  Chap. II. _No persons, under the old Law, inflicted flagellations
  on themselves, with their own hands, or received the same
  from other persons_,                                              27

  Chap. III. _Voluntary flagellations were unknown to the first
  Christians_,                                                      39

  Chap. IV. _The use of flagellations was known among the antient
  Heathens_,                                                        51

  Chap. V. _The subject continued_,                                 71

  Chap. VI. _Flagellations of a religious and voluntary kind were
  practised among the antient Heathens_,                            79

  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_,                                                     102

  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_,                                            118

  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_,                                                 131

  Chap. X. _Strictness of certain Superiors of Convents, in exerting
  their power of flagellation. The same is abused by several
  of them_,                                                        147

  Chap. XI. _Disciplines of the same wholesome kind have been
  prescribed for Novices and such persons as are intended to embrace
  the ecclesiastical Life_,                                        158

  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_,                                 167

  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_,             192

  Chap. XIV. _The practice of self-flagellation meets with some
  opposition; but this is soon over-ruled by the fondness of the
  Public_,                                                         211

  Chap. XV. _Another difficulty. Which is the best plight to be in,
  for receiving a discipline?_                                     223

  Chap. XVI. _Confessors at length assume a kind of flagellatory
  power over their Penitents. The abuses that arise from it_,      227

  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_,                           249

  Chap. XVIII. _The glory of flagellations completed: they are made
  use of for curing Heresy_,                                       258

  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_,          260

  Chap. XX. _The fondness of people for flagellations, gives rise
  to a number of incredible stories on that subject_,              299

  Chap. XXI. _A remarkable instance of a flagellation performed in
  honour of the Virgin Mary_,                                      310

  Chap. XXII. _Another story of a female Saint appeased by a
  flagellation_,                                                   317

  Chap. XXIII. _Formation of the public procession of Flagellants.
  Different success they meet with in different Countries_,        345

  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_,                                   400

[Illustration: (decorative end of book icon)]




  TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

  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’.