CHAP. V.
The subject continued.
THE punishment of flagellation was thought among the Antient Heathens, as we have just seen, to possess great efficacy to mend the morals of persons convicted of offences, and insure the honesty and diligence of Slaves. Nor were Schoolmasters behindhand either with Judges or Masters, in regard to whipping those persons who were subjected to their authority.
Of this we have an undoubted proof in one of the Epistles of Horace; and it moreover appears that he had had, when at school, the bad luck of being himself under the tuition of one who had strong inclination to inflict that kind of chastisement [24]. ‘I remember (says he) that the flogging Orbilius, who when I was a boy, used to dictate to us the verses of Livius Andronicus—.’
Quintilian has also mentioned this practice of Schoolmasters of whipping their Disciples; and the severity which they used, as well as other considerations, induced him to disapprove of it intirely. The following are his expressions on that subject. ‘With respect to whipping School-boys, though it be an established practice, and Chrysippus is not averse to it, yet I do not in any degree approve it. First, it is a base and slavish treatment; and certainly if it were not for the youth of those who are made to suffer, it might be deemed an injury that might call for redress. Besides, if a Disciple is of such a mean disposition that he is not mended by censures, he will, like a bad Slave, grow equally insensible to blows. Lastly, if Masters acted as they ought, there would be no occasion for chastisement; but the negligence of Teachers is now so great, that, instead of causing their Disciples to do what they ought, they content themselves with punishing them for not having done it. Besides, though you may compel the obedience of a Boy, by using the rod, what will you do with a young Man, to whom motives of a quite different nature must be proposed? Not to add, that several dangerous accidents which are not fit to be named, may be occasioned either by the fear or the pain attending such punishments. Indeed, if great care is not taken in choosing Teachers of proper dispositions, I am ashamed to say to what degree they will sometimes abuse their power of lashing: but I shall dwell no longer on that subject, concerning which the Public knows already too much[25].’
After these dismal accounts of Disciples flogged by their Teachers, and of the cruel severity used by the latter, the Reader will not certainly be displeased to read instances of Teachers who were flogged by their Disciples.
A very remarkable instance of this kind occurs in the case of that Schoolmaster of the Town of Falerii, who is mentioned in the fifth Book of the Decad of Livy. The Town of Falerii being besieged by the Romans, under the command of the Dictator Camillus, a Schoolmaster in that Town, thinking he would be splendidly rewarded for his service, one day led, by treachery, and under pretence of making them take a short walk out of the gates of the Town, the children of the most considerable families, who had been entrusted to his care, to the Roman camp, and delivered them up to the Dictator. But the latter, incensed at his perfidy, ordered him to be stripped naked, with his hands tied behind his back, and having supplied the children with rods, gave the Schoolmaster up to them, to drive him back in that condition to their Town[26].
Another instance of the like kind is also to be met with in more modern times. The Tutor’s name was Sadragesillus, and his Disciple was Dagobert, son of Clotaire, King of France, who reigned about the year of Jesus Christ, 526. The transaction is related in the following manner by Robert Gaguin, in his History of France. ‘Dagobert (says he) having received from his Father a Tutor who was to instruct him in the worldly sciences, and whom the King had made Duke of Aquitain, the young Man, who did not want parts for one of his years, soon perceived that Sadragesillus (such was the Pedagogue’s name) was much elated with pride on account of his newly-acquired dignity, so that he began to fail in the respect he owed to him, and grew remiss in the discharge of his duty. The Prince having once invited him to dine with him, and Sadragesillus having not only placed himself at table opposite the Prince, but also offered to take the cup from him as if he had been his companion, the Prince ordered him to be soundly whipped with rods, and caused his beard, which he wore very long, to be cut off.’ The above fact is also related by Tilly, Scrivener of the Parliament of Paris, in his Chronicles of the Kings of France.
In fine, to the passages above produced concerning the Flagellations of Children, from which we find that very great men have much differed in their opinions in regard to them, we may add, that King Solomon, that Oracle of Wisdom, has, without reserve, declared in favour of that mode of correction. ‘He that spareth the rod, hateth his son; but he that loves him, chastises him betimes.’ The Greek Philosopher Chrysippus has afterwards manifested the same opinion. And Petrarch, who may be called here a modern Author, has also adopted the opinion of King Solomon; and, notwithstanding Quintilian’s arguments on the subject, has sided with the antient Moralist and Sage: “Correct your son (says Petrarch) in his tender years, nor spare the rod: a branch, when young, may easily be bent at your pleasure[27].”
