Chapter III: Part 3

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].’

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].

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.

That the above-mentioned instances of the wantonness of the Devil, with respect to Saints, were not willingly submitted to by the latter, needs not, I think, to be supported by any proof: it must certainly have been with great reluctance, that they felt themselves exposed to the lash of so formidable a Flagellator[50].

FOOTNOTES:

[45] Conclusions against the antiquity of the _upper_ and the _lower_ disciplines, are frequent in the Abbé Boileau’s book; though I have thought it unnecessary to lay them all before the reader. Against the latter kind of discipline, he has been particularly zealous; and, besides his usual charge of novelty, he has, on one occasion, taxed it with being a remnant of idolatry and Pagan superstition. This imputation has much displeased a French Curate, who wrote an answer to him: he thought it reflected on those Saints who practised the discipline in question, and he animadverted on the Abbé in the following terms. _Quelle plus grande injure peut-on faire aux Saints & aux Saintes qui se disciplinent par en bas, que de dire qu’ils sont des idolatres & des superstitieux?... Peut on les deshonorer davantage, ces Saints, que d’en parler comme fait M. Boileau?_ ‘Can a greater insult be put upon those Saints of both Sexes who practise the lower discipline, than saying that they are superstitious persons and idolaters? Is it possible to shew more disrespect to those Saints, than speaking of them as Mons. Boileau does?’

With respect to the silence of the first Monastic Rules, concerning voluntary flagellation, it may be observed that it has been amply compensated in subsequent ones. The _Carmes_ are to discipline themselves twice a week, and the Monks of _Monte Cassino_, once at least; the _Ursuline_ Nuns, every Friday; the _Carmelite_ Nuns, on Wednesdays and Fridays; the Nuns of the _Visitation_, when they please; the English _Benedictines_, a greater or less number of times, weekly, according to the season of the year; the _Celestines_, on the eve of every great festival; and the _Capuchin_ Friars are to perform a lower discipline every morning in the week, &c. &c.

[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].’