Chapter V: Part 5

The name of the Buffoon in question was _Legat_, and he ventured once to try his wit upon the Queen herself, Wife to Philip II. This Queen, who was a Princess of France, and is the same whom Philip was afterwards accused of having made away with, on account of the love he supposed between her and his son Don Carlos, had taken a particular fancy for two of the Country Houses belonging to the King; and one day, being in convention with the Ladies at Court, she mentioned her liking to the two seats in question, which were situated, the one in the neighbourhood of Madrid, and the other of Valladolid; and expressed a wish they were so near to each other, that she might touch both at once with her feet: saying which, she made a motion with her legs, which she opened pretty wide: the Buffoon could not hold his tongue, and made rather a coarse remark on the subject, which Brantôme has related at length in Spanish: the consequence of which was, that he was instantly hurried out of the room, and entertained with a sound flagellation. It may not, however, be improper to add, that Brantôme tries in some degree to excuse him, at least for thinking as he did; and he concludes with saying, that the Queen (whom he had had several occasions of seeing) was so handsome, and so civil to all, that there was no want of Men disposed to love her, who were an hundred thousand times better than the Buffoon[68].

All the facts above related, manifestly shew that flagellations have been frequently used in the Palaces both of the Eastern Sovereigns, and of the Princes of Europe; that they were employed for the correction of the highest as well as the lowest personages, and for the prevention of every kind of fault, from that of meddling in State affairs (which we may suppose was the fault committed by the Empress, though the Historian of Justinian II. says nothing about it) down to wanton language and immodesty: now all these considerations are wonderfully fit to confute the jests which are thrown upon Monks and Nuns, for also making flagellations their usual means of self, or mutual, correction.

It is, however, very important to observe, that though we are fully informed of the different ceremonies with which flagellations are imposed in Convents, we have not the same advantage in regard to those which were inflicted in the Palaces of Princes, or Noble Personages. We are, for instance, told by Authors, by Du Cange among others, in one or two places of his Glossary, of the modesty with which culprits upon whom a correction is to be inflicted in Convents, are to strip off their clothes, and the silence which must be observed by the whole Assembly during the operation; unless the persons invested with the different dignities in the Convent, choose to speak in behalf of the sufferer, and pray the Abbot, or Abbess, to put an end to the flagellation. We are abundantly informed, in different Books, of the various causes for which flagellations are to be employed in Monasteries: and we moreover know that they are to be inflicted in the presence of the whole Congregation; in the Convents of Men, by the hands of a vigorous Brother; and in those of Nuns, by those of an elderly morose Sister.

In regard to the corrections of the same kind that were served in the Palaces of the Great, we have, I repeat it, no such compleat informations as these. Though the instances of such corrections are undeniable, we are much in the dark about the different rites and solemnities that used to accompany them: yet it would be a very interesting thing to be acquainted with these several circumstances, and to know, at least, what particular place, in Palaces, was set apart for the operations we mention. Concerning this latter object, I will try to offer a few conjectures; for I do not think so meanly of my Readers, as to rank them among that class of shallow readers, who only mind the outward superficies of things.

In the first place, I do not think that there was any place so expressly appropriated for flagellations, in the Palaces we speak of, but that others might occasionally be used for the same purpose, according to circumstances. Though Politicians lay it down as assured maxims, that punishments are to be inflicted for the sake of example, and that such examples ought to be public, yet, there were so great differences between the dignities of the personages who were liable to receive corrections of the kind we mention, that they must needs have introduced exceptions in favour of some of them, at least with regard to the places of the operations.

Thus, for instance, though in the Eastern Seraglios they may be fully sensible of the truth of the above maxim, and of the expediency of correcting Offenders in the presence of all, yet, we are not to think, that when the Empress herself is to receive a flagellation, such correction is served in a place absolutely public; for instance, in the third, otherwise the outmost, inclosure of the Seraglio, in which a swarm of _Icoghlans_, _Bostangis_, _Capigi-Bashis_, and other officers of every kind are admitted. Neither is the ceremony performed in the second, or the first inclosure of the Seraglio, nor even in any common apartment in the inside of the Palace, in sight of a croud of vulgar beauties, who have never been admitted to the honour of the embraces, or even of the presence of the Monarch. A flagellation served upon a personage of so much eminence as an Empress, is an event sufficiently important of itself, for the bare report of it, to produce all the good effects that are usually expected from examples of that kind. The only essential thing, is to ascertain such fact: this important point being obtained, every proper regard ought to be shewn to the delicacy of the great personage who is to receive the correction we mention; and whenever an Empress, in the Eastern Seraglios, happens to be served with a flagellation, we are to judge that the operation is performed in the Empress’s own private Chamber, in the presence of two or three favourite Sultanas.

Nor were prudential considerations of the same kind, less attended to in the Palaces of the Western Princes. When Maids of Honour had the misfortune to draw upon themselves the correction of a flagellation, we are not to think that the persons charged with the superintendence of the ceremony, adhered so blindly to those maxims which require that examples of this kind should be public, as to have the operation performed in a place literally public and open to all persons; that they, for instance, chose for the scene of the ceremony, that vast Yard, or Court, that lay before the Palaces of Kings, and was continually filled with Grooms, Pages, Keepers of Hounds, Huntsmen, and Servants of every denomination, some of whom blew the French horn, others the trumpet, and, others played on other musical instruments. No, such a place would have been in a high degree improper: nor would any open apartment or office, within the Palace, have been much more suitable for the occasion. The bare report of a flagellation being served upon so interesting a person as a Maid of Honour, was sufficient to produce all the good effects for which such examples are commonly intended: there was no necessity rigidly to adhere either to the above-mentioned maxim, or to the rule laid down by Horace, who says, that mens’ minds are more strongly affected by such objects as are laid before their eyes, than by those of which they only receive on hearsay information. The report well ascertained, of such an event, was fully sufficient to remind a croud of unlucky Pages, and wanton Chambermaids, of their respective duties, and engage them in a serious examination of their own conduct. All that was necessary, was to put such fact beyond a doubt, to prevent its being afterwards questioned by some, and flatly denied by others: but these important ends being attained, there was no just reason to refuse to shew the greatest tenderness for the delicacy of the Lady who was to receive the above correction; and whenever one or more Maids of Honour, therefore, have been so unfortunate as to make it necessary that a flagellation should be inflicted upon them, we are to conclude that the operation was performed in a private apartment of the Palace, in which only the other Maids of Honour were admitted, with a few Ladies of the Bedchamber.

In all the above reasonings, I have only meant to offer my conjectures to the Reader, and have accordingly spoken with becoming diffidence. But with respect to the flagellations that were inflicted on persons of inferior rank, or on those Strangers, such as Fathers Jesuits or others, who had given a just cause of displeasure to the Noble Proprietor of the House, I am able to speak with more certainty, and confidently to inform the Reader, that the place appropriated for such corrections, was the Kitchen.

Nor do I found such an assertion only upon the conveniency of the place in general, upon its being sheltered from both sun and rain, upon its being plentifully stocked with the necessary implements for serving corrections of the kind we mention, or possessing other advantages of a like nature; but I ground it upon precise facts. We see, for instance, that executions of a similar culinary kind, are expressly founded upon the law of this Country, and are the means provided by it for avenging the honour of the Sovereign, when insulted in his own house. Thus, if a Man dares to strike another in the King’s _Court_, or within two hundred feet from the Palace Gate (which kind of offence has been always looked upon by Kings as a great piece of insolence) all the different Officers in the Kitchen are to co-operate in the Man’s punishment. The Serjeant of the _Wood-yard_ is to bring a block of wood to fasten the Culprit’s hands to: for the punishment is no less than to have it cut off. The Yeomen of the _Scullery_, and of the _Poultry_, are likewise to concur in the operation in one manner; the Groom of the _Saucery_ and the _Master Cook_ in another; the Serjeant of the _Ewry_, again in another: even the concurrence of the Serjeant of the _Larder_ has been deemed necessary, and a proper share has been likewise assigned him in the ceremony: nay, the chief Officers of the _Cellar_ and _Pantry_ are also ordered to lend their assistance; and their allotted function is to solace the sufferer, when the sad operation is over, by offering him a _cup of red wine_ and a _manchet_.

Another proof of the reality of the culinary executions we mention, as well as of the great share which the people of the Kitchen bore in former times, in supporting the dignity of Kings, is to be found in the description of the manner in which the Knights of the Bath are to be installed, according to the Statutes of the Order. The installed Knight is, on that occasion, to receive admonitions, not only from the Dean of the Order, but also from the Master Cook of the Sovereign, who repairs purposely on that day to Westminster Church; though the place be rather distant from his district. After the different ceremonies of the installation, such as taking the Oath, hearing the exhortation of the Dean, and the like, are over, the installed Knight, invested with the _insignia_ of his dignity, places himself on the one side of the door; the Cook, invested with the _insignia_ of his own, viz. his white linen apron and his chopping-knife, places himself on the other, and addresses the Knight in the following eloquent speech: _Sir, you know what great oath you have taken; which if you keep, it will be great honour to you: but if you break it, I shall be compelled, by my office, to hack off your spurs from your heels._

As the punishment that has been described above, is in itself of a grave nature, the particular ceremony with which it is to be inflicted, together with the respective shares allotted in the ceremony to the different Officers of the Royal Kitchen, have been carefully set down in writing. In regard to those flagellations inflicted with a view to avenge any slighter disrespect shewn for the presence or the orders of the Sovereign, as they were corrections of a different, and, we may say, of a more paternal nature, such accuracy has not been used; but there is no doubt that they were performed in the same place in which the punishment above described was to be executed, and by much the same hands; whether they were to be bestowed in the Palaces of English, or of foreign Kings, or of the great personages who were nearly related to them.

In fact, we are positively informed that the abovementioned Reverend Father Jesuit was threatened, and according to others actually served, with a flagellation in the _Kitchen_. The above Court Buffoon was chastised for his impudence in the same place, and Brantôme expressly says that he was smartly flagellated in the Kitchen (_il fut bien fouetté à la Cuisine_). Nay, when great Men, who have at all times been fond of aping Kings, have assumed in their own Palaces, or Country Seats, the above power of flagellation, the operation has also been constantly performed in their Kitchens. Of this a number of instances might be produced; but I will content myself with mentioning that which is related in the Tales of the Queen of Navarre (_Contes de la Reine de Navarre_) of a wanton Friar Capuchin, who frequented the House of a Nobleman in the Country, and who wanted once to persuade a young Chambermaid in it, to wear, by way of mortification, a hair-cloth upon her bare skin, which he himself offered to put upon her: the young Woman mentioned the fact; and the Nobleman who heard of it, grew very angry at the attempt, as he thought, committed by the Friar in his House, and got him to be soundly flagellated _in the Kitchen_. Nor that I mean, however, to offer this fact to the Reader, as a fact for the truth of which I vouch to him, in the same manner as I have done with respect to the preceding ones; but though the above-quoted Book bears only the title of _Tales_, yet, as it is undoubtedly an old Book, and has been in so much esteem as to have been supposed to have been written by Queen Margaret, Wife to Henry the Fourth, it is at least to be depended upon with respect to those particular customs and manners it alludes to[69].

That flagellations were, in not very remote times, much in use in the Palaces of the Great, and were served in the Kitchen, are therefore assured facts. With respect to our being so imperfectly informed of the different ceremonies that usually accompanied such corrections, it is owing to different causes; and first, to a kind of carelessness with which, it must be confessed, the affair was commonly transacted. The great Personages who gave orders in that respect, were not sufficiently correct in their manner of giving them; nor did they take sufficient care to confine themselves to any settled forms of words for that purpose: whence it always proved an impossible thing for the Masters of the Ceremonies to collect and set down in writing any thing precise on that head. For here we are to observe, that the Princes who gave such orders, did not give them in their capacity of Trustees of the Executive, Legislative, Military, or Judicial Powers in the Nation. Neither did the Great Men about them, order corrections of the same kind in their own houses, in their capacity of Admirals, Generals, or Knights of the Garter, or of the _St. Esprit_. The flagellations in question, as hath been above observed, were corrections of quite a paternal kind: they were commonly ordered on a sudden, according as circumstances arose, _pro re natâ_, without much ceremony or solemnity; and they may extremely well be compared with those boxes on the ears which Queen Elizabeth would sometimes bestow upon her Maids of Honour, or with those marks of attention with which she honoured those who made their appearance in the neighbourhood of her Palaces with high ruffs and long swords, who had them immediately clipped or broken.

When the above great Personages were desirous that a flagellation should be inflicted, a word from them, a gesture, an exclamation, commonly proved sufficient. The numerous Servants who surrounded them, through a zeal that cannot be too much praised, constantly saved them the trouble of expressing themselves more at length on the subject: they quickly laid hold of the person of the culprit; hurried him down into the Kitchen; and without loss of time proceeded to serve the prescribed flagellation, the conduct of which was now intirely left to their discretion: only they took care to regulate their actions upon what they had formerly seen practised on similar occasions, or in cases of a more serious nature: they, for instance, never forgot, when the flagellation was accomplished, to offer the sufferers the abovementioned _cup of wine_ and _manchet_; nor are we to think that the latter always refused to accept them.

And indeed it is no wonder, to conclude on this subject, that the Kitchen had become the appropriated part of Palaces for serving flagellations. The Kitchen was the place of the general resort of those numerous bodies of Servants, who, in former times, filled the Houses of the Great: it was the place in which they deliberated upon every important occurrence; in which they kept their Archives; and where their General Estates were continually assembled. There Great Men were sure, upon every sudden emergency, to find a sufficient _Posse_ of Servants, ready to do any kind of mischief under the sanction of their Royal or Noble Master, and who were never so pleased as when their assistance was requested to effect a flagellation. When a Reverend Father Jesuit, or some saucy Friar Capuchin, was to be the sufferer, the contentment was, no doubt, much increased; but when the Buffoon himself, who commonly was the most mischievous animal of the whole Crew, was to be flagellated, then indeed we may safely affirm, that an universal joy and uproar prevailed over the whole Royal or Noble mansion.

[68] Corrections of a flagellatory kind continue, in these days, to be looked upon as excellent expedients for insuring good order, in the houses of great people, in Russia, in some districts of Germany, and especially in Poland, where most of the feudal customs that prevailed two or three hundred years ago in other parts of Europe, are still in full force: _lower_ disciplines are, in the latter kingdom, the method commonly employed for mending the manners of Servants of both sexes. A regulation was made, a few years ago, in Poland, as it appeared from the foreign news-papers, with a view to abridge the power assumed by Masters in regard to their Servants.

[69] The French word _Cuistre_, which is the common word to express a flagellator, in a public School, was the old word for a Cook: whence we may conclude, that, in large public Schools also, the people of the Kitchen were supposed to possess peculiar abilities for performing flagellations.

CHAP. XIII.

_The subject of voluntary flagellations among Christians is at last
introduced. That method of self-mortification appears to have been
practised in very early times; but it does not seem to have been
universally admitted before the years 1047 and 1056; which was the
time Cardinal Damianus wrote[70]._

Voluntary flagellations were not a practice that was contrived on a sudden, and then immediately diffused over the Christian world.

Long before the period in which their use began to be universally adopted, they were practised by divers persons, in different times and places, as we may judge from the accounts that have been left us, of several early facts; a few of which I here purpose to relate.

One is contained in the Life of St. Peter, the Hermit of the _Pont Euxin_, which was written by Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, who has been mentioned in a former Chapter, and lived about the year 400. This holy Hermit having found means to rescue a young Woman from the hands of a military Officer, who wanted to seduce her, was much perplexed afterwards how to prevent the effects of both the wrath and lust of that impure man; nor could he, in the issue, compass this any other way than by locking himself up, as Theodoret relates, and severely flagellating himself, in company with the Mother of the young Woman[71].

Palladius, Bishop of Hellenopolis, in his History of the Lives of several holy Solitaries, which he wrote in the year 420, and dedicated to Lausus, whence the Book was called _Lausiacum_, relates a fact which incontestably proves that flagellations voluntarily submitted to, by those persons who underwent them, were in use so early as the fourth Century. He says, in the Life of Abbot Arsisius, that on the mountain of Nitria, in Thebaid, there was a very large Church, in the vicinity of which stood three Palm-trees, on each of which hung a scourge: the one served to chastise such Monks as proved refractory against the Rule; the other to punish Thieves; and the third served to correct such _accidental comers_ as became guilty of some fault: the delinquents, according to what class they belonged, embraced one of the Palm-trees, and in this situation received a certain number of lashes with one of the above scourges.

It is expressly said of St. Pardulph, a Benedictine Monk and Abbot, who lived during the time of Charles Martel, about the year 737, that he used in Lent-time to strip himself stark-naked, and order one of his disciples to lash him. The fact is related in the life of that Saint, formerly written by an Author who lived about the same time; and it was, two hundred years afterwards, put into more elegant language, by Yvus, Prior of Clugny, at the desire of the Monks of St. Martial, in the Town of Limoges: Hugh Menard, a Benedictine Father, and a very learned Man in all that relates to Ecclesiastical Antiquities, has inserted part of it in his Book, intitled, _Observations on the Benedictine Martyrology_. The following is the Passage in St. Pardulph’s Life, which is here alluded to. ‘St. Pardulph seldom went out of his cell; whenever sickness obliged him to bathe, he would previously make incisions in his own skin. During Lent, he used to strip himself intirely naked, and ordered one of his disciples to lash him with rods[72].’

St. William, Duke of Aquitain, who lived in the time of Charlemain, that is, about the year 800, and many years before Cardinal Damian, is said to have also used flagellations, as a means of voluntary penance. Arduinus, the Writer of the holy Duke’s Life, and a cotemporary Writer, says, that ‘it was commonly reported that the Duke did frequently, for the love of Christ, cause himself to be whipped, and that he then was alone with the person who assisted him[73].’ Haeftenus, Superior of the Monastery of Affligen, relates the same fact, and says that the Duke of Aquitain ‘took a great delight in sleeping upon a hard bed, and that he moreover lashed himself with a scourge.’ Hugh Menard, the learned Benedictine just now mentioned, has adopted the testimony of Arduinus, and upon that Writer’s authority inserted the above fact in his _Observations on the Benedictine Martyrology_.

Other persons, who lived before the times of Cardinal Damian, are also mentioned by different Writers, as having practised voluntary flagellations. Gualbertus, Abbot of Pontoise, who lived about the year 900, upon a certain occasion, ‘severely flagellated himself (as M. Du Cange relates in his Glossary) with a scourge made of knotted thongs.’ And the abovementioned Haeftenus, Prior of Affligen, has advanced that the same practice was followed by St. Romuald, who lived about the same time as Gualbertus, and by the Monks of the Camaldolian order, who were settled in Sitria.

Another early instance of voluntary flagellations occurs in the Life of _Guy_, Abbot of _Pomposa_. Heribert, it is said, Archbishop of Ravenna, formed the design of pulling down the Monastery of _Pomposa_; and this piece of news caused both Abbot _Guy_ and his Monks, ‘to lock themselves up in the Capitular House, and to lash themselves every day, for several days, with rods[74].’ Abbot Guy was born in the year 956; and he was made Abbot of Pomposa in the year 998, in which capacity he continued forty-eight years.

All the facts above related were anterior to the year 1056, the time at which Peter Damian _de Honeslis_ was raised to the Cardinalship by Pope Stephen IX; and it is evident from them, that the practice of voluntarily flagellating one’s-self, as a penance for committed sins, had been adopted before the period in question; though it cannot be said to have been then universally prevalent: at least, only a few instances of it have been left us by the Writers of those times. But at the æra we mention, this pious mode of self-correction, owing to the public and zealous patronage with which the above Cardinal favoured it, acquired a vast degree of credit, and grew into universal esteem; and then it was that persons of religious dispositions were every where seen to arm themselves with whips, rods, thongs, and besoms, and lacerate their own hides, in order to draw upon themselves the favour of Heaven.

We are informed of this fact by the learned Cardinal Baronius, in his Ecclesiastical Annals: ‘At that time (he says) the laudable usage of the faithful, of beating themselves with whips made for that purpose, though Peter Damian may not be said to have been the author of it, was much promoted by him the Christian Church; in which he followed the example of the blessed Dominic the _Cuirassed_, a holy Hermit, who had subjected himself to his authority[75].’

The same Cardinal Damian has moreover left numerous accounts of voluntary flagellations practised by certain holy Men of his times; but these are surely more apt to create our admiration, than to excite us to imitate them, indeed, the flagellations he mentions cannot be proposed to the Faithful as examples they ought to follow, and they were executed with such dreadful severity, as makes it impossible for the most vigorous Men to go through the like, without a kind of miracle.

In the Life of the Monk St. Rodolph, who was afterwards made Bishop of Eugubio, the Cardinal relates, ‘That this holy Man would often impose upon himself a penance of an hundred years, and that he performed it in twenty days, by the strenuous application of a broom, without neglecting the other common methods used in doing penance. Every day, being shut up in his cell, he recited the whole Psalter (or Book of Psalms) at least one time when he could not two, being all the while armed with a besom in each hand, with which he incessantly lashed himself[76]’

The account which the Cardinal has left of Dominic, sirnamed the _Cuirassed_, is not less wonderful. ‘His constant practice (he says) is, after stripping himself naked, to fill both his hands with rods, and then vigorously flagellate himself: this he does in his times of relaxation. But during Lent-time, or when he really means to mortify himself, he frequently undertakes the hundred years penance; and then he every day recites the Psalter at least three times over, all the while flogging himself with besoms[77].’

Cardinal Damian then proceeds to relate the manner in which the same Dominic informed him he performed the hundred years penance. ‘A Man (said he) may depend he has accomplished it, when he has flagellated himself during the whole time the Psalter was sung twenty times over[78].’ The same Author adds several circumstances which make the penances performed by the holy Man appear in a still more admirable light. He, in the first place, was so dextrous as to be able to use both his hands at once, and thus laid on twice the number of lashes others could do, who only used their right-hand. In one instance, he fustigated himself during the time the whole Book of Psalms was sung twice over; on another occasion he did the same while it was sung eight times; and on another, while it was repeated twelve times over; ‘which filled me with terror,’ the Cardinal adds, ‘when I heard the fact[79].’

Cardinal Damian also relates of the same Dominic the _Cuirassed_, that he at last changed his discipline of rods into that of leather-thongs, which was still harsher; and that he had been able to accustom himself to that laborious exercise. Nay, so punctual was he in performing the duties he had imposed upon himself, that, ‘when he happened to go abroad (being an Hermit) he carried his scourge in his bosom, to the end that, wherever he happened to spend the night, he might lose no time, and flog himself with the same regularity as usual. If the place in which he had taken his refuge for the night, did not allow him to strip entirely, and fustigate himself from head to foot, he at least would severely beat his legs and head[80].’

FOOTNOTES:

[70] The Reader, no doubt, feels a great pleasure in seeing the subject of pious flagellations among Christians again introduced, and a fresh Chapter begun upon it: indeed the Author had taken a great liberty, in losing sight of his main subject for so long a time, and dwelling, through so many pages, upon the flagellatory corrections which, after the example of Convents, were, in not very remote days, practised in the Palaces of the Great: his zeal in the defence of Friars and Nuns has insensibly carried him these lengths.

In the present Chapter, the Author has also indulged himself in a piece of great freedom with the Abbé Boileau, his original, or rather his model: which is no less than to have given a direct contradiction to the main doctrine advanced by the Abbé in his Work.

Thus, the principal, or rather sole point, which the Abbé labours to prove in his Book, is, that voluntary flagellations only began to be practised among Christians, in the years 1047 or 1056; this is an assertion which he introduces almost at every page, and which expressly constitutes the title of one of his Chapters (the 7th): yet he has himself quoted (without disputing the truth of them) several facts that shew such practice to have been much older: I have therefore taken the liberty, in the present Chapter, in which those facts are collected, to dissent from the doctrine maintained by him, and have advanced, that voluntary flagellations were practised in early times among Christians, though they began to be universally admitted only in the years 1047 and 1056.

And indeed if the Reader now asked my own opinion concerning the antiquity, or novelty, of the practice in question, a subject which has caused much disputation among Catholic Divines, I would answer, that I do not think it in the least probable, that a practice like this, after having been unknown for so many Centuries, should afterwards have been thought of on a sudden, and then adopted by the whole Christian world, at the same period.

In the first place it is to be observed, that though the strict truth of those early instances of voluntary flagellations, which are to be found in the Abbé’s text, might perhaps be controverted, yet, as the reader will see, such instances are related by early and contemporary Writers, as common facts, at which they do not express any surprise.

In the second place, since the opposers of the opinion of the antiquity of self-flagellations admit, that cruel voluntary penances, such as wearing iron cuirasses inwardly armed with points, being continually loaded with enormous weights, dwelling in the bottom of dwells, or on the tops of columns, were practised by the first Christians, it is difficult to understand why they make such objections against flagellations in particular, which they agree to have been employed, from the earliest times, by Ecclesiastical Superiors, as common methods of correcting offences of a religious kind, and which were likewise used for pious purposes, before the establishment of Christianity.

Nay, beating and lashing one’s self, are means of self-mortification, which, more readily than any other, occur to the minds either of superstitious, or hypocritical persons. Practices of this kind presently gratify the sudden fits of fanaticism of the one, and serve extremely well the purposes of the other, in that they catch the minds of the vulgar, by the display of an apparatus of cruel instruments and a show of great severity, at the same time that they are in reality much less difficult to be borne than the penances above alluded to, and want what constituted the most intolerable hardship of these latter, diuturnity and uninterruption.

Besides, those who make self-flagellation part of their religious exercises, always have it in their power to take, like Sancho, their own time for performing them, as well as to choose what station they please for that purpose. In Summer, they may settle themselves in a cool place; in Winter, near a good fire; and have constantly by them some excellent liquor, to refresh themselves with, during the different pauses they think proper to make.

They may moreover use just what degree of severity they choose. They even may, like Sancho, who only lashed the trees around him, or like the Hermit mentioned by La Fontaine, content themselves with flagellating the walls of their apartment: nay, they may perform no flagellation at all, and yet make afterwards what boast they please. Having duly weighed all the above important considerations, as well as the facts quoted by the Abbé, the truth of which he does not take the trouble to deny, I have ventured to dissent from his inconsistent assertions, and have made the abovementioned change in his doctrine.

[71] The above fact related by Theodoret is very positive; and it supplies an evident proof, that the practice of self-flagellation was not unknown in the times of that early Writer: the silence of the same Author in other parts of his Writings, concerning the practice in question, shews nothing more, except that the same was not universally adopted in his time, as hath been observed in the Note, pag. 124 of this Work.

The hasty assertions of the Abbé Boileau against the antiquity of self-flagellation, which are repeated almost in every page of his Book, in spite of the facts which himself produces, gives just cause to guess that he used to practise but little upon himself that salutary kind of mortification.

[72] ... _Tempore quadragesimo, toto corpore nudato, se à quodam discipulo virgis cædi præcipiebat._

[73] Part I. Actor. Ord. S. Benedicti, pag. 208. _Aiunt nonnulli se sæpe pro Christi amore flagellis cædi, nullo alio præter eum qui aderat conscio, jussisse._

[74] ... _Quotidiè acriter se cædendi virgis in domo Capitulari._

[75] The Abbé Boileau, in his Book, concludes the above quotation, with wishing that Baronius had been pleased to inform us of the name of the real Author of the practice of voluntary flagellation. As he thinks that there has existed a certain particular period, at which this practice began to be universally followed, prior to which it was utterly unknown, so he hopes that some undisputed inventor of the same may be fixed upon.

[76] _Sæpè pœnitentiam centum suscipiebat annorum, quam per viginti dies, allisione scoparum, cæterisque pœnitentiæ remediis, persolvebat. Psalterium quotidiè, cùm duo non posset unum saltem, non negligebat implere: quod nimirùm cùm esset in cellula constitutus, armatâ scopis utrâque manu, totum cùm disciplinâ continuare consueverat._

[77] _Cap. viii. Hanc autem vitæ consuetudinem indifferenter habet, ut utrâque manu scopis armatâ, nudum corpus allidat; & hoc remissiori tempore. Nam quadragesimalibus circulis, sive cum pœnitentiam peragendam habet, crebro centum annorum pœnitentiam suscipit: tunc per dies singulos, dum se scoparum tunsionibus afficit, ut minus tria Psalteria meditando persolvit._

[78] _Hominem tempore quo viginti Psalteria recitabantur vapulantem, pœnitentiam centenarium explevisse._

[79] Cap. X. _Quod certè quum audivi tremefactus expavi._

[80] _Hoc flagellum, si quando egrederetur, portabat in sinu, ut ubicunque eum jacere contingeret, à verberibus non vacaret, &c._

Carrying a _discipline_ constantly about one, like the above Dominic, and making an ostentatious display of it, are among the number of those characteristical circumstances which are looked upon, in Catholic Countries, as marking hypocrisy: to this notion a frequent allusion is made both in Novels and Plays; thus, the first words of _Tartuffe_, or the Hypocrite, in the Play of Molière which bears that name, who makes his first appearance only when the Play is somewhat advanced, are to order his Man, with a loud affected voice, to lock up his hair-cloth and _discipline_. However, we are not to think that all those who thus make a display of their discipline, use it with so much earnestness and perseverance as the above-mentioned Dominic the _Cuirassed_, or Rodolph of Eugubio; though it cannot be denied that several persons of a gloomy superstitious temper, still practise in these days mortifications of that kind with great severity; and indeed, as hath been observed in a former Note, the astonishing penances practised by Fakirs in the East Indies, which are undeniable facts, make every account of that sort appear credible to us.

If the evil arising from the above cruel practices, reached no farther than the useless sufferings which those who follow them, bring upon themselves, one might sincerely pity their infatuation; but it is a truth confirmed by experience, that superstitious exercises or mortifications like these, are seldom introduced but at the expence of other really essential obligations; and though the rigour of such mortifications is very wisely abated gradually every day, so that they are at length reduced to only some trifling practices, yet, they are made to supply the place of almost every duty which Men owe to one another: thus, to quote only one striking instance on the subject, Lewis the Eleventh of France, after he had paid a few devotions of his own contrivance to a leaden image of the Virgin he constantly wore stuck to his hat, thought he had fully atoned beforehand for any crime he meditated to commit.

I shall conclude this Note with a stroke of ridicule which M. de Voltaire, in one of his _Pieces mêlées_, throws upon the dangerous, and at the same time arrogant, pretensions of those persons who voluntarily submit to mortifications like those here alluded to. He supposes a conversation to take place with a Fakir, of which a Turk, then on his travels in India, writes an account to one of his friends.

‘I happened to cross a Fakir, who was reading in his Book: Ah wretched Infidel! cried he; thou hast made me lose a number of vowels that I was counting, which will occasion my soul to pass into the body of a hare, instead of that of a parrot, with which I had before the greatest reason to flatter myself: I gave him a Rupee to comfort him for the accident. In going a few paces farther, I had the misfortune to sneeze; the noise I made roused a Fakir who was in a trance.--Heavens, cried he, what a dreadful noise! where am I! I can no longer see the tip of my nose! the heavenly light has disappeared.--If I am the cause, said I, of your seeing farther than the tip of your nose, here is a Rupee to repair the injury: squint again, and resume the heavenly light[81].

‘Having thus brought myself off discreetly enough, I passed over to the side of the Gymnosophists, several of whom brought me a parcel of mighty pretty nails to drive into my arms, and thighs, in honour of Brahma: I bought their nails, and made use of them to fasten my boxes. Others were dancing upon their hands; others cut capers on the slack-rope; and others went always upon one foot. There were some who dragged about a heavy chain with them; and others carried a pack-saddle; some had always their heads in a bushel; the best people in the world to live with. My friend Omri carried me to the cell of one of the most famous of them. His name was Bahabec. He was as naked as he was born, and had a great chain about his neck, that weighed upwards of sixty pounds. He sat on a wooden chair, very neatly decorated with little points of nails, that ran into his posteriors; and you would have thought he sat on a velvet cushion. Numbers of Women flocked to him, to consult him: he was the Oracle of all the families in the neighbourhood; and was, truly speaking, in great reputation. I was witness to a long conversation that Omri had with him.--Do you think, Father, said my friend, that, after having gone through seven metempsychoses, I may at length arrive at the house of Brama.--That is as it may happen, said the Fakir. What sort of life do you lead?--I endeavour, answered Omri, to be a good subject, a good husband, a good father, and a good friend: I lend money without interest to the rich who want it, and I give it to the poor: I preserve peace among my neighbours.--But have you ever run nails into your backside, demanded the Brahmin.--Never, reverend Father.--I am sorry for it, replied the Father; very sorry for it indeed. It is a thousand pities; but you will not certainly reach above the nineteenth Heaven.--No higher? said Omri. In troth I am very well satisfied with my lot. But pray, what heaven do you think of going to, good Mr. Bahabec, with your nails and your chain? Into the thirty-fifth, said Bahabec, &c. &c.[82]’

The above recited feats of Dominic the _Cuirassed_, and Rodolph of Eugubio, who have had numerous imitators, together with the very serious endeavours of Men in the station of Cardinal Damian, to recommend such practices, are very extraordinary facts. It really seems that, in our part of the world, where the Arts and Sciences have been promoted to so high a degree, and the powers of the human mind carried to their utmost extent, we have, in regard to the folly and ignorance of our superstitious notions and customs, been equal to any Nation upon earth, to any of those Nations whom we despise most: nay, perhaps it might be strictly proved that we have been worse.

[81] It is needless to observe that all this alludes to real penances or practices of the Indian Fakirs.

[82] See Voltaire’s Works, translated by _Smollett, Franklin, and others_, Vol. XIII. pag. 23, &c.

CHAP. XIV.

_The practice of self-flagellation meets with some opposition; but
this is soon over-ruled by the fondness of the Public._

Voluntary flagellations, notwithstanding the zeal with which Cardinal Damian endeavoured to promote them, were not, however, admitted, in his time, by all persons, without exception. Thus, Odillon, Abbot of Cluny, and Maurus of Cesena, two Saints whose Lives Cardinal Damian himself has written, forbore the use of flagellations; or at least no mention is made of their having practised them, in the Accounts the Cardinal has given of their actions.

Nay, several persons openly blamed the pious ceremonies in question, during the times of Cardinal Damian; for it was too alarming a practice, for Men not to be concerned at its sudden progress; it was an exercise of too ticklish a nature, for them to suffer themselves to fall asleep on its introduction, or too interesting in its consequence, for them not to be roused by the rattling of the blows.

Among those who thus condemned voluntary flagellations, the most conspicuous was Peter Cerebrosus, a Monk who lived in those times, and was moreover a friend to Cardinal Damian. This brought on, an epistolary debate on the subject, between Cerebrosus and the Cardinal, as we learn from the Works of the latter. Nor did the Cardinal, it is to be observed, advance in his letters, that self-flagellations were matter of strict duty: he only proved by the authority of the Scriptures, that it was lawful to flagellate persons who were guilty of offences; and he then gave it as his opinion, that it was a laudable act in a Christian, voluntarily to inflict upon himself that punishment which God had awarded against him, and which he ought to suffer from the hands of other persons.

The opposition made by Cerebrosus had especially for its object, the manner in which voluntary flagellations were performed. He blamed the length of time, and the vehemence, with which certain persons executed them; and condemned the extraordinary severity with which the abovementioned Flogging-Masters used to lash themselves, while they were singing a number of Psalms over. This caused the Cardinal to write a new letter to him, in order to desire him to explain better his sentiments on that subject: the following is an extract from the Cardinal’s letter: ‘Perhaps you do not blame the practice of self-discipline, though you condemn it when too long continued, and performed with cruelty: perhaps you do not disapprove that discipline be performed during the time one Psalm is singing, but you shudder at the thought of singing the whole Psalter over. Now speak, my Brother, I beseech you, if I may ask you the question, do you find fault with those disciplines which are practised in the chapters of Convents? do you also blame the use adopted in them, of prescribing to a Father who confesses himself guilty of any slight fault, to undergo twenty, or at most fifty lashes?’

To the above facts, an observation is to be added, which is, that, though Cerebrosus maintained a different opinion from that of Cardinal Damian, yet the latter never charged him with having fallen, in that respect, into any kind of criminal error, or heresy, but on the contrary, calls him his dear Son, his Brother in Christ, and his good Friend, as appears from his Epistles xxvii and xxviii; as well as from his lxiid Epistle, which he wrote to the Fathers of the Monastery of Mount Cassin, in commendation of flagellations. This mild and civil manner with which the above dispute was carried on, between Cardinal Damian, and Peter Cerebrosus, reflects much honour upon both, and shews that they were personages of eminent merit. Nor did the Cardinal use the opinions of Cardinal Stephen, who, when alive, had likewise opposed self-flagellations, with less moderation; and he frequently calls him a Man of pious memory: though it is but just to add, that this Cardinal Stephen was commonly suspected of having died suddenly, on account of his having despised the exercise in question.

However, notwithstanding the doubts of Peter Cerebrosus, and of Cardinal Stephen, the practice of voluntary flagellations soon spread itself far and wide; and we find it to have been adopted, since the times we mention, by numbers of persons, eminent on account either of their dignity, or their merit; several of whom have been mentioned by Father Gretzer. Among them were St. Andrew Bishop of Fiesola, Laurence Justinian, Abbot Poppo, and especially St. Anthelm, Bishop of Bellay, who lived about an hundred years after Dominic the _Cuirassed_ and Rodolph of Eugubio, and gloriously trod in the footsteps of these two holy Men. ‘Every day (it is said in that Saint’s Life, which was written by one of his intimate friends) every day he scourged himself, making lashes fall thick on his back and sides, and by thus heaping stripes upon stripes, he never suffered his skin to remain whole, or free from marks of blows[83].’

Even Sovereigns, and Great Men, in the times we speak of, adopted for themselves the practice of voluntary flagellation.

The Emperor Henry, who lived about the year 1070, ‘never ventured (if we may credit Reginard’s account) to put on his Imperial robes, before he had obtained the permission of a Priest for that purpose, and had deserved it by confession and discipline.’

William of Nangis, in the Life of St. Lewis King of France, which he has written, relates that that Prince, after he had made his confession, constantly received discipline from his Confessor. To this the same Author adds the following curious account. ‘I ought not to omit to say, concerning the Confessor the King had before Geoffrey _de Bello loco_, and who belonged to the Order of the _Predicant_ Friars, that he used to inflict upon him, hard and immoderate disciplines; which the King, whose skin was rather tender, had much ado to endure. This hardship, however, he never would speak of to this Confessor; but after his death, he mentioned the fact, somewhat jocularly, though not without humility, to the new Confessor[84].’

An instance of much the same nature with the facts above recited, is to be found in one of _Osbertus’s_ Books. A certain English Count having contracted an unlawful marriage with one of his near relations, not only parted afterwards with her, but requested besides to be disciplined in the presence of St. Dunstan, and of the General Assembly of the Clergy. ‘Terrified (says _Osbertus_) by the greatness of his offence, his obstinacy ceased; and after having renounced his unlawful wedlock, he imposed upon himself the task of penitence. As Dunstan was then presiding over a meeting of the Clergy of the Kingdom, which was holden according to custom, the Count came into the middle of the Assembly, bare-footed, clothed with wool, and carrying rods in his hands; and threw himself, groaning and weeping, at the feet of St. Dunstan. This instance of piety moved the whole Assembly, and Dunstan more than the rest. However, as his wish was thoroughly to reconcile the Man with God, he preserved an appearance of severity in his looks, suitable to the occasion, and for a whole hour persevered in denying his request: when, at last, all the Prelates having joined in the entreaties of the Count, St. Dunstan granted him the indulgence he was suing for.’ From the above fact, we might conclude that flagellations voluntarily submitted to, had become, even before the æra of Cardinal Damian, a settled method of atoning for past sins, since St. Dunstan lived about an hundred years before the Cardinal; that is, about the year 950.

Instances of Sovereigns, and Great Men, requesting to undergo flagellations, must have been pretty common in the days we mention, frequent allusions being made to it, in old books: among others, in that old French Romance intitled, _The History of the Round Table, and the Feats of the Knight, Lancelot du Lac_. King Arthur is supposed in it, to have summoned all the Bishops who were in his army, to his Chapel; and there to have requested of them, a correction of the same kind as that undergone by the Count mentioned by Osbertus[85].

From the times we mention, we find numerous proofs of self-flagellations being used in Convents: and indeed it would have been a very extraordinary circumstance, if, while the persons above-named adopted that practice, Monks had rejected it. In the liiid Article of the Statutes of the Abbey of Cluny, which were collected by Peter Maurice, sirnamed the Venerable, who was raised to the dignity of Abbot in the year 1122, the following account is given. ‘It was ordained (it is said in that Article) that that part of the Monastery which is on the left, beyond the left Choir, should remain open to no strange persons, whether Ecclesiastical or Lay, as it was formerly, and nobody admitted into it, except the Monks. This was thus settled, because the Brothers had no place, except the old Church of St. Peter, in which they could practise such holy and secret exercises as are usual with religious persons, they therefore claimed the use of the above new part of the Church, both for the night and the day, that they might constantly therein make offerings of the perfumes of their prayers to God, supplicate their Creator by frequent acts of repentance and genuflexions, and mortify their bodies by often inflicting upon themselves three flagellations, either as penances for their sins, or as _an increase of their merit_[86].’

The practice in question gained so much credit, about those times, in Monasteries, that St. Bruno, who, a few years after the death of Cardinal Damian, founded the Carthusian Order, thought it necessary to restrain his Monks in that respect; not unlikely, perhaps, with the view to check the pride which they used to derive from such exercises. In one of the statutes laid by that Saint, which Prior Guigues has collected, the following regulation is contained. ‘In regard to such disciplines, watchings, and other religious exercises as are not expressly enjoined by our Institution, let nobody among us perform them, except it be by the Prior’s permission.’