Chapter IV: Part 4

Refusing to make proper satisfaction to the Abbot for offences committed, or in general persevering in denying them, were also grievous faults in the eye of the first Founders, or Reformers, of Monastic Orders. In the Rule framed fifty years after that of St. Benedict, in order to improve it, the following direction was contained. ‘If the Brothers who have been excommunicated for their faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on the ninth hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the Abbot, let them be confined, even till their death, and lashed with rods.’ Nor is the Rule of the abovementioned Bishop of Braga less severe against those Monks whose pride prevents them from making a proper confession of the offences they may have committed. ‘To him (it is said in that Rule) who, through pride and inclination to argue, continues to deny his fault, let an additional and severer flagellation be imparted.’

The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the Brethren to wickedness, was also deemed by the Founders of religious Orders to deserve severe flagellations; and St. Pacom ordered in his Rule, which, it was said, had been dictated to him by an Angel, that such as had been guilty of the above faults, and had been thrice admonished, should be publickly lashed before the gate of the Convent.

Attempts to escape from Monasteries, were, even in very early times, punished by flagellation. We read in Sozomenius, that St. Macarius of Alexandria, Abbot of Nitria in Thebaid, who had five thousand Monks under his direction, ordered that chastisement to be inflicted upon those who should attempt to climb over the walls of the Monasteries. ‘If any one continues in his wickedness, and says, I can no longer bear to stay here, but I will pack up my things, and go where God will direct me[56]; let any one of the Brothers inform the Prior, and the Prior the Abbot, of the fact; let then the Abbot assemble the Brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them, and chastised with rods.’

The holy Founders of religious Orders have also been very severe, in their provisions, against such Monks as seek for familiarities with the other Sex. In the Rule of the Monastery of Agaunus, it was ordained, that, ‘If any Monk had contracted the bad habit of looking on Women with concupiscence, the Abbot ought to be informed of the fact, and bestow upon the Monk a corrective discipline; and that, if he did not mend his manners in conference thereof, he ought to be expelled from the Society as a scabby sheep, lest he should ruin others by his example.’ The above Monastery had been built by Sigismond, King of Burgundy, to the honour of CXX. Martyrs of the Theban Legion, of which St. Maurice was the Commander, under the reign of the Emperor Maximinus.

The above-quoted Rule of St. Fructuosus, is no less severe against those Monks who seek for the Company of Women. In the XVth Chapter, which treats _of the lewd and quarrelsome_[57], it is ordered, that, ‘if after having received proper reprehensions, they persist in their wicked courses, they shall be corrected by repeated lashings.’ And St. Columbanus, who is the first who instituted the Monastic Life in France, and has written a Rule as a supplement to that of St. Benedict, also expresses himself with great severity against such Monks as are convicted of having barely conversed with a Woman in the absence of witnesses; for though there are faults for which he orders only six lashes to be given, yet, in the case here mentioned, he prescribes two hundred. ‘Let the Man who has been alone with a Woman, and talked familiarly to her, either be kept on bread and water for two days, or receive two hundred lashes[58].’

FOOTNOTES:

[51] The whole substance of the Abbé Boileau’s arguments (so far as it has been possible to make them out) is contained in the three first Chapters of this Work, and in those two which precede this: the Author is now to continue the text part of the Book, without any farther prospect of assistance from the Abbé’s observations and directions; except in the last Chapter, in which they are once more to meet, and to lay again their wise heads together.

[52] “_Noli perdere paternam diligentiam quam in ipsâ inquisitione servasti, quando tantorum scelerum confessionem cruisti, non extendente equuleo, non sulcantibus ungulis, non urentibus flammis, sed virgarum verberibus. Qui modus coercionis & à magistris artium liberalium, & ab ipsis parentibus, & sæpè etiam in judiciis solet ab Episcopis adhiberi._”--This Letter of St. Augustin, addressed to a Man invested both with military and civil power, as the Tribune Marcellinus was, in order to exhort him to employ violence and whipping against those who differed from him in their opinions, is an additional proof of a melancholy truth that has often been noticed; which is, that those who exclaim most bitterly against persecution, when exercised against them, and are the most ready to claim toleration in their own favour, are not always the most willing to grant the same favour to others.

[53] Cap. XVI. De mendace, fure, & percussore Monacho.... _Si nec sic se emendaverit, flagelletur acerrimè._

[54] “_Furti scilicet conscium, si adhuc vocare possumus Monachum, quasi adulterum secundum, flagello subdi & magnâ coërceri afflictione jubemus; dantes illi unam cum fornicante sententiam, quia & ipse furatus est ut luxuriaretur._”

It is a little surprising that repeated adultery is, in the above Rule, expressly placed on a level with simple fornication. Whether the Framer of this Rule has done so purposely, and thought that adultery ought to be treated with indulgence, on account of the uncommon temptation he supposed Men were under to commit it, or has only been very careless in his manner of expressing himself, I shall not attempt to discuss. Yet, lest the Reader should thence be led to entertain too bad an opinion of the tenets and morals of Monks in general, I shall observe, that all are not in the same way of thinking with respect to adultery, as the Framer of the above Rule seems to have been. As a proof of this, the instance, I think, may be produced of that Monk, mentioned in one of the Epigrams of the Poet Rousseau, who was a great enemy to that sin: one day preaching against it, he grew so warm in his arguments, and took so much pains to convince his Congregation of his own abhorrence of it, that at last he broke out into the following solemn declaration: ‘Yea, my Brethren, I had rather, for the good of my soul, to have to do with ten Maidens every month, than in ten years touch one married Woman.’

The following is the Epigram of Rousseau, which is written in _Marotic_ verses; a kind of jocular style among the French, which admits of old words and turns of phrase.

_Un Cordelier prêchoit sur l’adultère,
Et s’échauffoit le Moine en son harnois
A démontrer par maint beau commentaire
Que ce péché blessoit toutes les loix.
Oui, mes Enfans, dit il, haussant la voix,
J’aimerois mieux, pour le bien de mon ame,
Avoir à faire à dix filles par mois
Que de toucher en dix ans, une femme._

[55] “_Monachus parvulorum & adolescentulorum consectator, vel qui osculo vel de quâlibet occasione turpi deprehensus fuerit inhiare, comprobatâ patenter, per accusatores verissimos, sive testes, causâ, publice verberetur._”

[56] ... _Hic ego durare non possum, sed accipiam casulam, & eam ubi voluerit Dominus._

[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].

FOOTNOTES:

[61] ... _Tum Præpositus multum scandalizans, & iracundiæ furore succensus, eisdem Carpentariis disciplinam corporis imponi jussit._

Aulus Gellius, in his _Noctes Atticæ_, relates a fact which bears much resemblance to the above; though, indeed, much greater Men were concerned in it, than the Prior of a Convent, and Carpenters: the one was a Roman Consul, and the other, the Engineer of a Town, allied to the Republick.

The name of the Consul in question was P. Crassus, who must not, however, be mistaken for the celebrated M. Crassus, the partner in power with Pompey and Cæsar; though both lived in the same times. This Consul P. Crassus, having been intrusted with the conduct of the war that was then carrying on in Asia, laid siege to the Town of Leucas; and wanting a strong beam of oak to make a battering-ram, he recollected he had lately seen at Elæa, a Town allied to the Romans, just such a piece of timber as he wished to have: he therefore wrote to the Magistrates of that place, to request them to send it to him. The Magistrates accordingly directed their Engineer to convey the beam to Crassus; but as there was another in the yards belonging to the Town, which, the Engineer thought, would be fitter for the use Crassus wanted to put it to, he made choice of the latter, and conveyed it to the Roman camp. However, the Engineer had been mistaken in his calculations, and the beam unfortunately proved too small; which the Consul did no sooner perceive, and that his orders had been neglected, than, like the above-mentioned Prior, he fell into a passion, and ordered the Engineer to be stript, and soundly lashed.

Some apology, however, may be made in favour of the action of the Roman Consul. As himself observed upon the spot, the whole business of war would be at an end, if those whose duty it is to obey, were permitted to canvass the orders which they receive, and to set aside what part they please: besides that an allowance should be made for Men of a military life, and who are invested with military command; and some little indulgence, I think, ought to be shewn them, when they happen to inflict flagellations somewhat cavalierly. But as to the above holy Prior, who had made so many vows of obedience, humility, forbearance, and the like, it is not, indeed, quite so easy a talk to excuse him: I shall not, therefore, undertake it; and I will content myself with observing, how advantageous it would have been both for the above Engineer and Carpenters, in the perplexing situations in which they were respectively placed, to have possessed a power of the same kind as that which the Golden Legend (or perhaps some other Book of equal merit) supposes Jesus Christ to have exerted on a similar occasion. Joseph, as it is related, who had the care of the infant Jesus trusted to him, tried to bring him up to his own trade of a Carpenter; and one day, finding that the Boy had sawed a piece of wood shorter than the measure he had prescribed, he ran up to him, full of anger, with a stick raised in his hand, in order to chastise him; but the arch apprentice, who was beginning to be conscious of his power of working miracles, on a sudden exerted it, and lengthened the piece of wood to its proper size.

[62] ... _Nec mora, vestes exuit Electus, & Decani validissimam disciplinam accepit: quâ acceptâ, vestibus reindutus, Decano cum maximâ oris gratiâ coram omnibus dixit; gratias ago Deo, & Patronæ Remensis Ecclesiæ ejus piissimæ genitrici, quod te talem in regimine relinquo._ Lib. II. Cap. XXXIX. Num. 20.

[63] The arbitrary power of inflicting flagellations, possessed by Abbots, ought, one should think, to insure them in a high degree the veneration of their Monks; yet, from the manner in which St. Romuald is above said to have been used by those under his government, we may conclude the case is otherwise.

A farther proof of the great freedom with which Monks use their Abbots, is to be derived from what Mons. Richelet says, in his well-known Dictionary of the French language, that Monks never trouble their heads about waiting for their Abbot, when he comes too late to dinner. Mons. Richelet informs us of this fact under the word _Abbé_, when he explains the origin of the French common saying, _on l’attend comme les Moines font l’Abbé_ (they wait for him, as Monks do for their Abbot), which is said jocularly of a person who is not at all waited for: this saying is derived, the above Gentleman observes, from the remarkable expedition with which Monks sit down to their dinner, as soon as the bell strikes, without caring whether the Abbot is come or not.

This singular piece of neglect on the part of Monks, towards a person invested with such formidable prerogatives as those abovementioned, may be accounted for, different ways. In the first place, since Monks are so celebrated for their love of good dinners, and even entertain such high notions of the value of a plentiful table, as to have rated the hardship of living upon bread and water, at that of receiving a hundred lashes a day, we may naturally suppose, that, when their mess is served upon the table, their attention is so agreeably engaged by the presence of that object, that they presently run to it, wholly regardless of any trifling flagellation that may afterward be the consequence of such expedition.

The same neglectful conduct of Monks towards their Abbot, though he is possessed of such a despotic power over them, may also be explained in another manner: for, the subject is deep, and being considered in a political light, may admit a number of different interpretations. In general, it may be observed, that Monks may easily form close combinations among themselves against their Abbots; that as the latter live together with them, within the walls of the same Monasteries, they have it in their power to play them a thousand tricks; and that these considerations are very apt to induce Abbots to make a mild use of their authority, at least with respect to the greater part of their Monks.

Indeed this latter explanation agrees pretty well with several facts. It has frequently happened, for instance, that Abbots who have used their Monks with cruelty, have been made away with, in some way or other, within the walls of their Monasteries. The Abbé Boileau informs us in his Book, that St. Romuald was much maltreated, and at last expelled by his Monks; which, no doubt, was owing to the flagellations he inflicted upon them; flagellations which the Abbé also mentions, though he does not assign the causes of them, whether it was because they did not wait for him at dinner, or for some other reason, but the truth and severity of which we shall the more readily believe, if we consider that the Saint, upon a certain occasion, as will be related hereafter, flagellated even his own Father. Nay, it is not quite unlikely that those flagellations which the Saint used to imagine he received from the hands of the Devil, were the effects of the revenge of his Monks; till at last they openly revolted against him, and turned him out of the Monastery.

Since we are upon the subject of St. Romuald, it will not be amiss to add, that the flagellations which he received both from the Devil, and from his Monks, were however nothing in comparison with the danger to which he was once exposed, on account of his very sanctity.

The Saint, as is related in the History of his Life, was once settled in a certain Convent in Catalonia, and was in great reputation for his virtue in the neighbourhood. The report having been spread that the holy Man was going to leave the Country, the People began to be afraid that they should thereby be deprived of the possession of his relicks, to which they thought they had a fair title, on account of the length of time he had resided among them; and they formed the ingenious scheme of murdering him, in order to secure to themselves the possession of his body; but the Saint, having received timely information of the plot, thought proper to decline the honour that was intended for him, and made his escape.

CHAP. XI.

_Disciplines of the same wholesome kind have been prescribed
for Novices, and such persons as are intended to embrace the
Ecclesiastical Life._

The framers of Rules and Statutes of religious Orders have also extended their attention to the young Men and Novices brought up in Convents; and have ordered flagellations to be inflicted upon them, for the improvement of their morals. In the Rule framed by the holy Fathers Serapion, Macarius, and Paphnutius, which is to be found in the Collection of Holstenius, it is ordered, ‘That if any Novice is found guilty of theft, he shall be lashed with rods, and never admitted to the degree of Clerk.’

St. Pacom, in that Rule which was dictated to him by an Angel, expresses himself in the following terms: ‘Let those Boys who are regardless of the evil consequences of sin, and are so imprudent as not to mind the judgments of Heaven, in case admonitions prove useless, be whipped till they have the fear of God.’

In the Rule of St. Benedict, Art. LXX. flagellations are prescribed as excellent methods of improving the minds of such Boys as are brought up to the Ecclesiastic life; and are more particularly recommended to be used till they are fifteen years of age.

St. Isidorus, archbishop of Seville, observes, that Boys ought not to be excommunicated for their sins, but that this awful mode of correction ought to be supplied, with them, by flagellations.

At the same time, lest those who were to inspect the conduct of the Novices, should suffer themselves to be influenced by passion, in the flagellations they were directed to inflict, an express provision was made in the Rule of St. Benedict, that such Teachers as should be guilty of the above fault, should themselves receive a sound flogging[64].

FOOTNOTES:

[64] A certain modern Latin Author, whose name I have forgot, has written a Treatise on the antiquity of the practice so much recommended above, of whipping boys at School. Had I been so happy as to have seen his Book, I would have been enabled to make, in this place, learned remarks on the subject; but as I have not had that advantage, I find myself unable to make any, and can only refer the Reader to the discovery of Uncle Thomas, as well as to the few other critical annotations that are contained in p. 76, 77, 78, of this Work.

I could have likewise wished much to be able to add the names of some of those illustrious Characters who have distinguished themselves in the practice of flagellating School-boys, to those of the respectable Thwackum, and the _plagosus_ Orbilius, mentioned in the above place; but though the History of great Schools, in this and other Countries, supplies numbers of such names, yet I have not been able to discover any of sufficient eminence to deserve a place in this Book; except indeed that of the great Doctor _Tempête_, who is mentioned by Rabelais as a celebrated flagellator of School-boys in the _College_ of _Montaigu_, in Paris, and which I therefore insert in this place.

Neither should we neglect to mention here, the name of Buchanan, his pupil having afterwards been a King; and the more so, as he used, it seems, to make the flagellations bestowed by him on his royal disciple (_the Anointed of the Lord_) the subject of his jokes with the Ladies at Court[65].

The justice which is due to the Reverend Fathers Jesuits, also requires that we should, in a Book like this, give an account of the laudable regularity with which they used to inflict flagellations upon the young Men who pursued their studies in their Schools, as well as upon such Strangers as were occasionally recommended to them for that purpose. Among the different facts which may serve to prove both the spirit of justice that has constantly directed the actions of the Society, and the punctuality of their flagellations, the following is not the least remarkable.

It was, the Reader ought to know, an established custom in their Schools, to give prizes every year to such Scholars as had made the best Latin verses upon proposed subjects. One year it happened that the subject which had been fixed upon, was the Society of the Jesuits itself; and a Scholar took that opportunity, only by quibbling on the names of the two principal Schools belonging to the Fathers, to give them a smart stroke of satire. The name of the one of these two Schools, was the School of the Bow (_le Collège de l’Arc_), which was situated at Dôle, in Franche-Comté; and the other happened to be called, the School of the Arrow (_la Flêche_), it being situated near the Town of that name in Anjou, and was originally a Royal mansion which was given by the Crown to the Society, in the reign of King Henry the Fourth. The import of the distich made by the School-boy (or perhaps by somebody else for him) was this: “Dôle gave the Bow to the Fathers, mother France gave them the Arrow; who shall give them the String which they have deserved?” The following are the Latin verses themselves, which indeed are very beautiful.

Arcum _Dôla dedit Patribus, dedit alma_ Sagittam _Gallia_; _quis_
funem _quem meruere dabit?_

The Reverend Fathers, struck with the merit of these lines, and, at the same time, unwilling to suffer a bon-mot made at their expence, and that was so likely to be circulated, to go unpunished, delivered the prize to the boy, and ordered him to be flagellated immediately after.

The celebrated Fathers of St. _Lazare_, in Paris, whose School was otherwise named the “Seminary of the good Boys” (_des bons enfans_) have no less recommended themselves by the regularity of the disciplines they inflicted, than the Reverend Fathers Jesuits. They were even superior to the latter, in regard to those _recommendatory_ flagellations mentioned above, which were administered to such persons as were, by some means or other, induced to deliver letters to the Fathers for that purpose. Being situated in the metropolis, the Seminary carried on, a very extensive business in that way. Fathers or Mothers who had undutiful Sons, Tutors who had unruly Pupils, Uncles who were intrusted with the education of ungovernable Nephews, Masters who had wickedly-inclined Apprentices, whom they durst not themselves undertake to correct, applied to the Fathers of St. Lazare, and by properly seeing them, had their wishes gratified. Indeed the Fathers had found means to secure their doors with such good bolts, they were so well stocked with the necessary implements or giving disciplines, and had such a numerous crew of stout _Cuistres_ to inflict them, that they never failed to execute any job they had engaged to perform, and without minding either age, courage, or strength, were at all times ready to undertake the most difficult flagellations. So regular was the trade carried on, by the good Fathers in that branch of Business, that letters of the above kind directed to them, were literally notes of hand payable on sight; and provided such notes did but come to hand, whoever the bearer might be, the Fathers were sure to have them discharged with punctuality.

This kind of business, as it was carried on, for a number of years, frequently gave rise to accidents, or mistakes, of rather a ludicrous kind. Young men who had letters to carry to the House of St. Lazare, the contents of which they did not mistrust, would often undesignedly charge other persons to carry the same for them, either on account of their going to that part of the town, or for some other reason of a like kind: and the unfortunate bearer, who suspected no harm, had no sooner delivered the dangerous letter with which he had suffered himself to be intrusted, than he was collared, and rewarded for his good-nature by a severe and unexpected flagellation.

Ladies, it is likewise said, who had been forsaken, or otherwise ungenteelly used, by their Admirers, when every other means of revenge failed, would also recur to the ministry of the Fathers of St. Lazare. Either by making interest with other persons, or using some artfully-contrived scheme, the provoked Fair-one endeavoured to have the Gentleman who caused her grief, inveigled into the House of the Seminary: at the same time she took care to have a letter to recommend him, sent there from some unknown quarter, with proper fees in it; for that was a point that must not be neglected: and when the Gentleman came afterwards to speak with the Fathers, he was no sooner found by them, either from the nature of the business he said he came upon, or other marks, to be the person mentioned in the letter they had before received, than they shewed him into an adjoining-room, where this treacherous and deceitful Lover was immediately seized, mastered, and every thing in short was performed that was requisite to procure ample satisfaction to the fair injured Lady.

It is also said (for a number of stories are related on that subject, and the Seminary of St. Lazare was become for a while an object of terror to all Paris) that schemes of the most abusive kind were in latter times carried on, through the connivance which the Fathers began to shew at the knavery of certain persons: and this indeed seems to be a well-ascertained part of the story. Abuses of the same kind as those which once prevailed in the Mad-houses established in this country, were at last practised in the Seminary. Men possessed of estates which some near relations wanted to enjoy, or whom it was the interest of other persons to keep for a while out of the way, were inveigled into the House of St. Lazare, where they were detained, and large sums paid monthly for their board. Though they might be full-grown persons, they were boldly charged with having been naughty, or such-like grievous guilt; and the Fathers, in order to shew that they meant to act a perfectly honest part in the affair, ordered them to be flagellated with more than common regularity.

Nor was it of any service for the unfortunate boarders to expostulate with the Fathers, to insist that it was unlawful to detain them by force in a strange house, and use them in the manner they were used, that they had important affairs which they must go and settle, that they were no boys, after all, or to offer other equally pertinent arguments: the Fathers continued to be well paid; they cared for no more; and all the complainants got by raising objections like these, were cold negative answers, and fresh flagellations. Abuses of the kind we mention, came at last to the knowledge of the Government, which interposed its authority, and the Seminary was abolished.

[65] King James the First.--See Dr. Berkenhout’s _Biographia Literaria_.

CHAP. XII.

_The same discretionary power of inflicting disciplines, has been
established in the Convents of Nuns, and lodged in the hands of the
Abbesses, and Prioresses._

Nor have the holy Founders of religious Orders considered flagellations as being less useful in the Convents of Women, than in those of Men; and in the Rules they have framed for them, they have accordingly ordered that kind of correction to be inflicted upon those whose bad conduct made it necessary.

This chastisement of flagellation, upon Women who make profession of a religious life, is no new thing in the world. It was the chastisement appropriated to the Vestals, in antient Rome; and we find in the Historians, that when faults had been committed by them in the discharge of their functions, it was commonly inflicted upon them by the hands of the Priests, or sometimes of the Great Priest himself.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus relates, that the Virgin Urbinia was lashed by the Priests, and led in procession through the Town.

The High-priest, Publius Licinius, ordered, as we read in Valerius Maximus, ‘that a certain Vestal who had suffered the sacred fire to be extinguished, should be lashed and dismissed.’

Julius likewise relates, ‘that the fire in the Temple of Vesta, having happened to be extinguished, the Virgin was whipped by the High-priest, M. Æmilius, and promised never to offend again in the same manner.’ And Festus says in his Book, that ‘whenever the fire of Vesta came to be extinguished, the Virgins were lashed by the Great Priest.’

Severities of the like kind have been deemed necessary to be introduced into the Convents of modern Nuns, by the holy Fathers who have framed religious Rules for them.

In that very antient Rule for the conduct of Nuns, which is contained in Epistle CIX. of St. Augustin, the mortification of discipline is prescribed to the Prioress herself. ‘Let her (it is said in the above Rule) be ever ready to receive discipline, but never impose it but with fear[66].’

Cesarius, Archbishop of Arles, in the Rule framed by him, which is mentioned with praise by several antient Authors, such as Gennadius, and Gregory of Tours, prescribes the discipline of flagellation to be inflicted upon Nuns who have been guilty of faults; and enters, besides, into several particulars about the propriety as well as usefulness of this method of correction. ‘It is just (he says) that such as have violated the institutions contained in the Rule, should receive an adequate discipline: it is fit that in them should be accomplished what the Holy Ghost has in former times prescribed through Solomon. _He who loves his Child, frequently applies the rod to it._’

St. Donat, Archbishop of Bezancon, in the Rule he has framed for Nuns, has expressed the same paternal disposition towards them, as Archbishop Cesarius has done: he recommends flagellations as excellent methods of mending the morals of such of them as are wickedly inclined, or careless in performing their religious duties; and he determines the different kinds of faults for which the above correction ought to be bestowed upon them, as well as the number of the blows that are to be inflicted. The above Rule of St. Donat has been mentioned with much praise by the Monk Jonas, in his Account of the Life of St. Columbanus, which the venerable Beda has inserted in the third volume of his Works.

In that Rule, commonly called the _Rule of a Father_, which St. Benedict, Bishop of Aniana, in his Book _on the Concordance of Rules_, and Smaragdus, in his Commentaries on the Rule of St. Benedict, have both mentioned, provisions of the same kind as those above, are made for the correction of Nuns. ‘If a Sister (it is said in that Rule) that has been several times admonished, will not mend her conduct, let her be excommunicated for a while, in proportion to the degree of her fault: if this kind of correction proves useless, let her then be chastised by stripes.’

Striking a Sister, has likewise been looked upon as an offence of a grievous kind; and St. Aurelian, in the Rule he has framed for Nuns, orders a discipline to be inflicted on such as have been guilty of it.

To the above regulations, Archbishop Cesarius has added another, which is, that the corrections ought, for the sake of example, to be inflicted in the presence of all the Sisters. ‘Let also the discipline be bestowed upon them in the presence of the Congregation, conformably to the precept of the Apostle, _Confute Sinners in the presence of all_[67].’

FOOTNOTES:

[66] Num. XII. “_Disciplinam lubens habeat, metuens imponat._”

[67] The Abbé Boileau, after the manner of the Learned of former times, has added to his quotations on the flagellations of Vestals, a string of names of Writers who have also occasionally mentioned that custom; such as _Rosinus_ on the Roman Antiquities, _Fortunius Licetus_ on the Lamps of the Ancients, _Josephus Laurens_ of Lucca, _Polymathias_ in his Dissertations, and _Jacobus Ghuterius_ on the rights of the ancient Pontiffs. These Writers, as far as I can perceive, have neglected to inform us of an important circumstance, which is, of what kind those _disciplines_ were, that were inflicted upon Vestals; whether _upper_ or _lower_ disciplines. However, they have informed us of a fact about which the Reader, no doubt, particularly wishes to be satisfied; which is, that a great regard was paid to decency in the above flagellations; and that, as the correction was inflicted in an open place, and by the hands of a Priest, the guilty Vestal was wrapped in a veil during the ceremony.

The flagellations which persons who live in Convents, are upon different occasions made to undergo, the obligation they are under, of receiving such corrections before the whole Brotherhood or Sisterhood, together with the companions which the holy Founders of religious Orders have made of them with naughty children, have drawn numerous jests upon them; but such jests can only come from persons who have not paid a sufficient attention to the subject.

Politicians inform us, that it is absolutely necessary that, in all States, there should be Powers of different kinds, established to maintain the general harmony of the whole, and that Legislative, Executive, Military, and Judicial Powers, for instance, should be formed, and lodged in different hands. Hence we may conclude, that some power analogous to these, ought to exist in every numerous Society either of Men or Women, for the preservation of good Order, and that it is necessary that, in such Societies, a power of flagellation should be lodged somewhere.

Nor are we to think that Convents are the only Societies in which some authority of this kind takes place. In the Eastern Seraglios, for instance, Societies which are by no means contemptible, and may very well bear a comparison with Convents, we are not to doubt, a power of occasionally inflicting flagellations, exists: nay, we are expressly informed that Empresses themselves are not always exempt from them. Thus M. de Montesquieu, in the 26th Chapter of the Book XIX. of his Spirit of Laws, relates, after the Historian of Justinian the Second, that the Empress, Wife of the Emperor, ‘was threatened, by the great Eunuch, with that kind of chastisement with which children are punished at School:’ a treatment certainly very severe, and from which one should be tempted to judge that Empresses, at least, ought to be exempt, if it were not that the advantages of peace and good order are such, as ought to supersede every other consideration.

In the Palaces of the Western Sovereigns, though they have constantly borne a very different appearance either from Convents or Seraglios, we find that disciplines like those abovementioned were found extremely useful about two centuries ago (a time when Men had notions of decorum much superior to ours) and were in consequence employed as common methods of preserving good order, without much distinction of rank or sex.

Of the above fact we have a proof, in the misfortune that befel Mademoiselle de Limeuil, at the Court of France, where she was a Maid of Honour to the Queen, Wife to King Henry II. as we find in the _Mémoires de Brantôme_: for my respect for the Reader induces me to offer him only such anecdotes as are supported by good authorities. Mademoiselle de Limeuil, as Brantôme relates, was a very witty handsome young Lady, extremely ready at her pen, and related to the best families in the Kingdom. She was placed at Court in the capacity of Maid of Honour to the Queen; and she had been there but a few months, when she tried her wit at the expence of the Gentlemen and Ladies at Court, and wrote a copy of verses, or Pasquinade, in which few Characters were spared. As these verses were ingeniously written, they spread very fast; and people were very curious to know who had composed this piece of satire: at last, it was found out that Mademoiselle de Limeuil was the Author of it; and as the Queen, besides being a person of a serious temper, was grown disgusted with the great licence of writing that had of late prevailed at Court, and had determined at least to prevent any satire, or lampoon, from originating in her own Houshold, orders were given in consequence of which Mademoiselle de Limeuil was rewarded for her verses by a flagellation; and those young Ladies in the suite of the Queen, who had been privy to the composition of the Pasquinade, were likewise flagellated.

The instances of flagellations just now related, from which, neither the beauty, nor the birth, nor the rank of the Culprits, nor the brilliancy of their wit, their readiness at their pen, nor happy turn for Satire, could screen them, clearly shew how much flagellations were in esteem in the times we speak of, and how much efficacy they were thought to possess, for insuring those two great advantages, good order and decorum. There is no doubt therefore, but that they were still more strictly used for the improvement of the morals of those swarms of unruly young Men, who then filled the Houses of Kings, or of the Great, and went by the name of Pages. Indeed we find that the Gentlemen, or Equerries, whose care it was to superintend their conduct, were invested with a very extensive power of inflicting flagellations; and so frequent were the occasions in which they found it necessary to use corrections of this kind, that the words _flagellation_, and _Page_, are become as it were essentially connected together, and it is almost impossible to mention the one, without raising an idea of the other: I shall therefore forbear to relate any instances of such corrections; and flagellations of Pages, like those of School-boys, are too vulgar flagellations to have a place in this Book.

Nor were disciplines like those we mention, imposed only upon those persons who expressly made part either of the Royal of Noble Housholds, for the edification of which they were inflicted; but wholesome corrections of the same kind were also occasionally bestowed upon such Strangers as happened to infringe the rules of decorum, or in any other manner, offended against the respect that was owing to the Royal or Noble Proprietor of the House.

Of this we have an undeniable proof in the Story of that Reverend Father Jesuit, who was flagellated at Vienna, as Brantôme relates, by command of a Princess of the Austrian House, whose displeasure he had incurred.

The Princess here alluded to, was daughter to the Emperor Maximilian II. She had been formerly married to Charles IX. King of France; and after the death of that Prince, by whom she had had no children, she retired to Vienna in Austria. Philip II. King of Spain, having about that time lost his wife, sent proposals of marriage to the Princess we mention, who was at the same time his Niece; and the Mother of the Princess, a Sister to Philip II. was very pressing to induce her to accept the above proposals; which the Princess Elizabeth (such was her name) otherwise Queen-Dowager of France, persevered in refusing. The Empress, and the King of Spain, then thought of employing the agency of a Father Jesuit, a learned smooth-tongued Man, who was to persuade the Princess to accept the offers of Philip; but the endeavours of the Father having proved ineffectual, he at last desisted from importuning the Princess any more, and retired. The King of Spain then sent new letters to the Princess concerning the same subject, and the Jesuit was sent for a second time, and injoined to exert again all his efforts to make the affair succeed. In consequence of these orders, the Jesuit resumed his function; but the Princess, whom Brantôme represents as having been a person of much merit, and who certainly must have had some, since she resolutely persevered in refusing to marry that abominable Tyrant, Philip the Second, the Princess, I say, grew much displeased with the importunities of the Jesuit; and at last spoke very harshly to him, and plainly threatened him, if he dared to mention a word more to her on the subject, with an immediate flagellation (_de le faire fouetter en sa cuisine_).

To the above account Brantôme adds, that some say that the Jesuit having been so imprudent as to renew afterwards his solicitations, actually received the chastisement he had been threatened with. But though himself is rather inclined to disbelieve the fact, yet he does not, we are to observe, alledge any reasons for so doing, that are drawn, either from the impropriety of flagellations in general, or from the inability he supposes in them to repress bold intrusion, to put a stop to teazing importunities, or to confute captious arguments: by no means; he only says that the Princess in question was of too gentle a temper to have made good her threats to the Jesuit; besides that she generally bore great respect to Men of his cloth.

To the above remarkable instances of flagellations performed in the Palaces of the Great, I will add another which is not less pregnant with interesting consequences. I mean to speak of the Story of that Court Buffoon, who, upon a certain occasion, was flagellated at the Court of Spain.

The fact is related in the same Memoirs of Brantôme, in a Chapter the subject of which is, that ‘_Ladies ought never to be disrespectfully spoken to, and the ill consequences thereof._’