Memorials of Human Superstition / being a paraphrase and commentary on the Historia Flagellantium of the Abbé Boileau, Doctor of the Sorbonne

by Jean Louis de Lolme

CHAP. XXIV.

The last Chapter, in which the Abbé Boileau is personally introduced: he is of opinion that the lower discipline is contrary to decency, and the upper discipline is liable to bring defluxions on the eyes[118].

SEVERAL Divines, as we have seen, have united in blaming the cruel severity with which certain persons used to inflict disciplines upon themselves, by which those persons assimilated themselves to Idolaters and Pagans; besides, it is well worth observing that, by this very severity, those zealous performers of disciplines in the issue obstruct their own piety, and defeat their own ends.

In fact, Physicians and Anatomists inform us, that such is the secret, or open, communication between all parts of the human body, that it is impossible to do any material and continual kind of injury to any, without the other parts being, sooner or later, affected by it: hence it follows that those persons who execute disciplines upon themselves with the great severity we mention, in process of time fall into serious distempers of some kind or other; so that they at length find themselves disabled from continuing those practices by which they intended to procure the improvement of their morals.

The next and the most tender parts are, in the cases we speak of, unavoidably affected by the consequence of the injury that is thus done to the other parts; and from harsh disciplines repeatedly performed upon the shoulders, at length arise, as the learned Bartholinus observes, disorders and defluxions on the eyes.

This inconvenience from the exercises we mention, much perplexed Father Gretzer, who, as hath been before observed, was a great friend to the practice of discipline; and in order to be thoroughly satisfied on that subject, he one day consulted a Physician, a friend of his, who partly freed him from his fears, and partly confirmed them. This Physician made answer, that disciplines executed on the shoulders, when performed with moderation, were perfectly harmless with respect to the eyesight; but then he absolutely avoided giving any such opinion in regard to those which were performed in a harsh or cruel manner. The following is the oracle which the Physician in question delivered.

‘The vulgar opinion, that lashes, applied to the back, are apt to hurt the eyes, is not well grounded. It is true that the great loss of blood injures the brain, and consequently the eyes, which are called by some the sprouts of it; and this it effects by the diminution it causes of the vital heat. But there does not arise from disciplines, such a great loss of blood as that the brain may thereby suffer any considerable deperdition of its heat: on the contrary; since scarifications on the back are often employed with success for the cure of disorders in the eyes, why should bad consequences to them be feared from a few stripes? Those therefore alone who are of a weakly habit of body the exercise in question can hurt, but not persons of a good constitution; and when disciplines are so moderately inflicted as to cause no loss of blood, and barely to affect the colour of the skin, no detriment certainly ought to be feared from them.’ Such was the decision of this excellent Physician, and to it Father Gretzer adds that he willingly and readily subscribes[119].

All physicians, however, have not agreed with him whose authority we have just quoted. Some have delivered different opinions concerning the harmlessness of discipline with respect to the eyes; and whether it was that the Capuchin Friars thought the advice of these latter of greatest weight, or that they intended their zeal should be unrestrained by any apprehension, they have adopted the use of the lower discipline; and the generality of Nuns have done the same, from the like intention, of securing their eye sight. Determined thereto by the advice of able Physicians and pious persons, they have given up the method of flagellating themselves on their shoulders, in order to belabour and slash their loins and posteriors with knotted small cords and hardened rods[120].

But while the persons we speak of have endeavoured to prevent dangers of one kind, they have incurred others which are still worse. By most of the antient Monastic Rules, religious persons were forbidden to inspect any part of their naked bodies, for fear of the wicked thoughts to which such indulgence might give rise: now, how is it possible for persons who strip intirely naked, in order to take discipline, to help, however great their piety may be, having a sight of those parts of themselves which they have been directed never to look on? How can Nuns avoid, in those instants, having at least a glance of those excellent beauties[121] which they are forbidden to survey, and which they thus imprudently expose to the light of the Sun? By substituting one kind of discipline to the other, religious persons have, I am afraid, only laid themselves open, as hath been above observed, to dangers of a still worse nature than those they meant to avoid, and have perhaps only fallen from Charybdis into Scylla[122].

Neither, if such disciplines cannot be performed in secret without danger, is it very prudent to execute them in the presence of witnesses. Tertullian observes, that ‘Nature has made either fear or shame, the attendants of every evil action.’ Now, if we judge from this rule, we shall become convinced of the truth of the observations we are making here. In fact, what Man or Woman could, without fear or shame, execute a lower discipline in company with other persons? who could without reluctance firk their loins and posteriors with rods, on an exalted place, and in the middle of a numerous Assembly of People? who could thus undauntedly expose their nakedness to the rays of the Sun, and to the eyes of a multitude of Spectators[123]?

F I N I S.