TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been placed at the end of each chapter. Many of the footnotes are long and spread over several pages. Several footnotes have footnotes themselves.

In this book the [Table of Contents] is at the end of the book.

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Some minor changes to the text are noted at the [end of the book.] These are indicated by a dashed blue underline.

MEMORIALS
OF
HUMAN SUPERSTITION;

Being a Paraphrase and Commentary on the HISTORIA FLAGELLANTIUM of the Abbé Boileau, Doctor of the Sorbonne, Canon of the Holy Chapel, &c.

By One who is not Doctor of the Sorbonne.

Honni soit qui mal y pense.

THE SECOND EDITION.

Page. 391.

LONDON:

Printed for G. ROBINSON, N^o 55, Pater-noster Row.

M DCC LXXXIV.

THE
INTRODUCTION
OF THE
PARAPHRAST and COMMENTATOR.

THE Abbé Boileau, the author of the Historia Flagellantium, was elder brother to the celebrated Poet of that name. He filled, several years, the place of Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens, and was thence promoted to the office of one of the Canons of the Holy Chapel in Paris, which is looked upon as a great dignity among the French clergy.

While he was in that office (about the year 1700) he wrote, among other books, that which is the subject of this work[1]. This book, in which the public expected, from the title of it, to find an history of the particular sect of Hereticks called Flagellants, only contained an aggregation of facts and quotations on the subject of self-disciplines and flagellations in general among Christians (which, if the work had been well done, might however have been equally interesting) and a mixture of alternate commendation and blame of that practice.

The Theologians of that time, however, took offence at the book. They judged that the author had been guilty, in it, of several heretical assertions; for instance, in saying, as he does in two or three places, that Jesus Christ had suffered flagellation against his will: and they particularly blamed the censures which, amidst his commendations of it, he had passed upon a practice that so many saints had adopted, so many pontiffs and bishops had advised, and so many ecclesiastical writers had commended.

In the second place, they objected to several facts which the author had inserted in his book, as well as to the licentiousness of expression he had sometimes indulged; and they said that such facts, and such manner of expression, ought not to be met with in a book written by a good Christian, and much less by a Dean of the Metropolitan Church of Sens, a Canon of the Holy Chapel, and in short by a man invested with an eminent dignity in the Church; in which latter respect they were perhaps right[2].

Among the critics of our author’s book, were the Jesuits of Trevoux; the then conductors of a periodical review, called the Journal de Trevoux. The poet Boileau, taking the part of his brother, answered their criticisms by the following epigram.

Non, le livre des Flagellans

N’a jamais condamné, lisez le bien mes Peres,

Ces rigidités salutaires

Que pour ravir le Ciel, saintement violens,

Exercent sur leurs corps tant de Chrétiens austères.

Il blâme seulement cet abus odieux

D’étaler & d’offrir aux yeux

Ce que leur doit toûjours cacher la beinséance,

Et combat vivement la fausse piété,

Qui, sous couleur d’éteindre en nous la volupté,

Par l’austérité même & par la pénitence

Sait allumer le feu de la lubricité.

The first opportunity I had to see the Abbé Boileau’s book, which is pretty scarce, but which I knew from the above epigram, and other books that mention it, was about ten years ago, in a town of Italy, where it was shewn to me by a Quaker, an Englishman, who lived there; not a Quaker, however, of the common sort, that is, a scrupulous observer of the duties prescribed by his sect; for he wore laced cloaths, and played admirably well on the flute.

Having since lighted again on a copy of the same book, I judged that its singularity, and the nature of the facts it contains, rendered it worthy to be laid before the public; and I had the thought of dressing it in vulgar tongue with the less reluctance, as, conformably to the confession I have made in the title-page, I have not the honour to be a doctor of the Sorbonne. However, I found, upon a more attentive examination of the book, that the obscurity and want of meaning of that part of it which properly belongs to the author, who seems to have been as defective in point of clearness of head as his brother the poet was remarkable for that qualification, rendered a translation, impracticable.

The singular contradiction, for instance, between most of the conclusions our author draws from the facts he relates, and the facts themselves, is, (when it is possible to ascertain the meaning of such conclusions) really matter of surprise. The critics of our author, who were sensible of this inconsistency, had derived comfort from it, and hoped that the book would propagate but little heresy, since hardly any body could understand it. However, this very manner in which our author has composed his work, wherein he contradicts not only the facts he relates, but even his own assertions, sometimes two or three times in the same page, leads us to the discovery of his real design in writing it, and clears him from having entertained any views of an heretical or dangerous nature. He only proposed, it appears, to compile together facts and quotations which amused him, and which he thought would also amuse the public; and he terminated them (or sometimes whole strings of them) with seeming conclusions and random assertions, in order to make the reader judge that he had a serious and even theological design, in making his compilation.

Another cause of surprise in our Author’s book, is, the prodigious incoherency of the facts themselves he has linked together. But in this respect, likewise, we discover, after a little examination, that his views were of a perfectly harmless kind, and that this singularity was not owing to any design of his own, as might at first sight be imagined, but only to the manner in which he proceeded in his work. His practice was, it appears, to lay down, at the same time, upon the paper, all the facts to his liking he found related in the productions of the same author; and at other times also, he introduced together, we may suppose, all the stories and quotations the discovery of which he had made in the course of the same morning[3].

A translation of a book thus made, was therefore, as hath been above said, impracticable. And as a number of the facts and quotations it contains are curious, either in themselves, or on account of the authors from whom they are extracted, I have at once enlarged my first plan, and thought of writing another book with the materials contained in that of the Abbé Boileau.

With the facts and quotations, therefore, supplied by the Abbé Boileau’s book, I have undertaken to compose this History of the Flagellants. With these materials, the quantity or number of which I determined neither to increase or decrease, I attempted to write a book; proposing to myself a task of much the same nature with that kind of play which sometimes serves to amuse companies of friends in winter evenings, in which sets of words in appearance incompatible with one another, are proposed, and, without any of them being left out, or even displaced, are to be made into some consistent speeches, by the help of intermediate arguments. Such task I have, as I say, tried to perform, without setting aside any of the facts contained in the Abbé Boileau’s book: only I have taken great liberty with respect to placing and displacing such facts, as, without that indulgence, the task, on this occasion, was not to be performed. The work or problem, therefore, I proposed to myself, instead of being that which more commonly occurs, and may be expressed in the following terms: Certain arguments being given, to find the necessary facts to support them? was this: A certain number of facts, pretty well authenticated, being given, to find the natural conclusions and inductions which they suggest?

To this paraphrase thus made on the materials afforded by the Abbé Boileau, and to a few occasional sentences of his, which I have preserved, I have added an ample Commentary, in which I have introduced not only such facts as either my own memory, or other authors, supplied me: so that the Abbé’s work, a twelves book, printed on a very large type, has swelled into the majestic octavo which is now laid before the public.

In composing this octavo, two different parts I have performed. In the Paraphrase on the Abbé Boileau’s work, I have, keeping to the subject, and preserving as much as I could the turn of my Author’s book, expressed myself in that style and manner, in which it was not unlikely a doctor of the Sorbonne, and a dean of the church of Sens, might have written: in the Commentary, I have followed my own inclination. Conformably to that which is often practised on the Stage, where the same player fills two different parts at the same time, by speedily altering his dress, I have, in the present work, acted in two different alternate capacities, as I changed sides: in the text, I acted the part of a doctor of the Sorbonne; and then, quickly resuming my former station, I expatiated and commented, in the note, upon what the doctor had just said in the text.

Thus much for the manner in which I have accomplished this work. With respect to giving any previous delineation of the substance of it, it is what I find some difficulty in doing; and which, besides, I think would be useless, since I suppose the reader will, as readers commonly do, peruse this Preface only after he has turned the last leaf of the book: taking it therefore for granted that the reader knows, by this time, what the present performance is, I proceed to give an account of my views in writing it.

In the first place, I proposed to myself the information of posterity. A period will, sooner or later, arrive, at which the disciplining and flagellating practices now in use, and which have been so for so many centuries, will have been laid aside, and succeeded by others equally whimsical. And while the men of those days will overlook the defects of their own extravagant customs, or perhaps even admire the rationality of them, they will refuse to believe that the practices of which accounts are given in this work, ever were in use among mankind, and even matter of great moment among them. My design, therefore, was effectually to remove all their doubts in that respect, by handing down to them the flower and choice part of the facts and arguments on the subject.

This book will likewise be extremely useful to the present age; and it will in the first place be so, the subject being considered in a moral light. The numerous cases that are produced in this book, of disciplines which offenders of all classes, kings as well as others, have zealously inflicted upon themselves, will supply a striking proof of that deep sense of justice which exists in the breasts of all men; and the reader will from such facts conclude, no doubt with pleasure, that even the offenders of the high rank we have just mentioned, notwithstanding the state by which they are surrounded, and the majestic countenance which they put on, sometimes in proportion as they more clearly know that they are wrong, are inwardly convinced that they owe compensation for their acts of injustice.

Being considered in the same moral light, this book will be useful to the present age, by the instances it gives of corrections by which different offences against the peace of mankind have been requited; the consequence of which will be the preventing of such offences. Slanderous wits, for example, to mention only offenders of that class, writers of satires, epigrams, and lampoons, dealers in bon-mots, inventors of anecdotes, by reading the instances of disciplines by which such ingenious pastimes have, on different occasions, been repaid, will naturally be led to recollect, that all possible flagellations (to use the expression of the Alguazil introduced in a certain chapter of Gil Blas) have not been yet inflicted; and sudden considerations like this, which this book will not fail to suggest to them, will be extremely apt to check them the instant they are preparing to make their excursions on the reputation of their neighbours; and by that means the good name of many an innocent person will be preserved.

To the persons themselves who actually suffer from the injustice or wantonness of others, this performance will be of great service. Those, for instance, who smart under the lash of some insolent satirist, those who are disappointed in their expectations, those whose secrets have been betrayed, nay, even ladies, treacherously forsaken by those who had given them so many assurances of fidelity and eternal constancy, will find their misfortunes alleviated by reading the different instances and facts related in this book: they will take comfort from the thought, that what has already happened may happen again; and cheer themselves with the hope, that flagellations will sooner or later be the lot of those persons who cause their uneasiness.

Being considered in a philosophical light, this work will be useful to the present age, in the same manner as we have said it would be to posterity. The present generation, at least in this island, will find in it proofs both of the reality of the singular practices which once prevailed in their own country, and are still in full force in many others, and of the important light in which they have been considered by mankind. They will meet with accounts of bishops, cardinals, popes, and princes, who have warmly commended or blamed such practices; and will not be displeased to be moreover acquainted with the debates of the learned on the same subject, and with the honest, though opposite, endeavours, of a Cerebrosus and a Damian, a Gretzer and a Gerson.

To the critical reader this book will likewise be serviceable, by giving him an insight into the manner of the debates and arguments, and into the turn of the erudition, of foreign Catholick divines, at the same time that the information will be conveyed to him amidst other objects that will perhaps better amuse him: to secure this advantage, I have, as much as I could, preserved the appearance of our Author’s book, using, for that purpose, the titles of several of his chapters; only taking care to keep more to the subject than himself had done.

To the same critical reader this performance will also recommend itself, by the numerous passages from certain books which it gives him an opportunity to peruse. And the generality of readers will not be displeased to meet with a number of short specimens of the style of several authors whose works they never would have read, though they were once conspicuous on the particular line which they followed, and to be thus brought to some slight acquaintance with St. Austin, St. Jerom, and Tertullian, of whom they knew only the names, and with St. Fulgentius, and Peter Chrysologus, of whom they knew nothing at all.

In fine, to these capital advantages, possessed by this work, I have endeavoured to add the important one of affording entertainment; for, entertainment is a thing which is not by any means to be despised in this world. In order the better to attain this end, I have avoided offending against decency or religion; I had of myself too little inclination to be witty at the expence of either, especially the latter, to avail myself of the opportunities which the subject naturally offered; and I should think it a great praise of this book, if I were hereafter informed, that the graver class of readers have read with pleasure the less serious part of it, and that the other class have gone with pleasure likewise through that part which is less calculated for amusement.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The title of the book is Historia Flagellantium, de recto & perverso flagrorum usu apud Christianos, 12mo. Parisiis, apud J. Anisson, Typographiæ Regiæ Præfectum, MDCC.

[2] Our author, who was rather singular in the choice of his subjects, had written another treatise De tactibus impudicis prohibendis, and another on the dress of clergymen, wherein he attempted to prove that they might as well wear it short as long.

[3] The same manner of writing is also to be met with in most of the treatises that were written in England, France, and especially Germany, about an hundred years ago, or more, when a mechanical knowledge of Latin and Greek books, and making compilations from them, was the kind of learning in vogue.

Page. 351.

THE

HISTORY

OF THE

FLAGELLANTS.

CHAP. I.

The substance of the reasons given by the Abbé Boileau, for writing his Book. He seems to have been of opinion that voluntary flagellations were no very antient practice.

I AM not, I confess, without fear that the design I have formed of tracing the origin of those Flagellations which have in process of time been introduced among Christians, will be looked upon as a rash undertaking, and that I may be accused of having, in that respect, fallen into the errors of the Protestants, whether Lutherans, or Calvinists.

In fact, those two Sects, under pretence of shewing their obedience to the commands of God, who orders the Israelites not to make incisions in their own flesh for the sake of the dead, trample upon all laws concerning Penitence, extinguish that kind of virtue which consists in repressing the lustful appetites of the flesh, and ridicule those mortifications and penances to which Tertullian advises us to submit.

Indeed, I am far from wishing to favour the relaxed Doctrine of Heretics. That kind of enthusiastic fury which the Calvinists manifestest, in the last Century, against the laborious exercises of the Monastic life, rather heightens, in my opinion, the glory of the Catholic Church. I think that the manner of the antient Anchorites of Syria, of Thebaid, and of Egypt, the purity of their virtue, and the surprising penances to which they submitted, deserve our utmost reverence, however impossible it may be for us to imitate them.

I have no other object in view, on this occasion, than to bring back those happy times of the primitive Church, in which the true Science of conquering lustful appetites flourished among our holy Forefathers. All I propose to myself, is, to render it manifest to every candid Reader, that those methods of doing Penance, which are in our days called Disciplines[4], were unknown in the happy periods of the primitive Church. By Disciplines I mean here to speak of those voluntary Flagellations which Penitents inflict upon themselves with their own hands; lashing their own backs, or posteriors, either with scourges or whips, or willow and birch rods. A practice this, which, we are not to doubt, prevails much in the Societies of modern Monks and Nuns, especially among those who, under pretence of reformation, have abolished their antient Rules, and substituted new Constitutions in their stead.

But before I enter upon this subject, I must inform the Reader of two facts, which it is necessary he should know, at the same time that they are undeniable, and confirmed by every day’s practice. The first is, that Penitents, as we have above-mentioned, both inflict those Disciplines on themselves with their own hands, and receive the same from other persons, either with scourges, or rods, or whip-cords. The second is, that those chastisements are inflicted on them, either on the bare back or shoulders, or on the posteriors: the former method is usually called the upper, and the latter, the lower discipline[5].

Now, that this latter kind of Discipline is a contrivance of modern times, is what I positively aver. It was unknown, as I shall demonstrate to the Reader, among the first Christians; and it is moreover repugnant both to true Piety, and to Modesty, for several reasons which I shall deduce hereafter. I propose, besides, to shew that this practice is an offspring of Idolatry and Superstition; that it ought to be banished from among Christians as an erroneous and dangerous exercise; and that it has only been introduced into the Christian Church by ignorant persons, under the specious appearance of Piety and more perfect Mortification.

Painters, it seems, have not a little helped to establish and strengthen the practices we mention, by their pictures, of which Pope Gregory the Great says, in his Epistle to Serenus Bishop of Marseilles, that they were “the Libraries of ignorant Christians.” In fact, we see they have never represented any of the antient Anchorites, without leaving some spare corner on their canvas, whereupon to place either whips or rods; instruments of which those holy Hermits had not probably made the least use during their lives, and about which they perhaps had never so much as entertained a thought.

A number of able Writers in the last century have, it must be confessed, also contributed to bring into credit the practice we mention. Considering voluntary flagellations in the same light as they did all methods in general of mortifying the flesh, they commended them, and procured them to be admitted. My design here is not by any means to question the good intentions of so respectable persons, who held the first rank among the Society of the Fathers Jesuits, and were looked upon, if I may so express myself, like so many Heroes in the Republic of Letters: but yet, on the other hand, I cannot be persuaded that it is unlawful to animadvert upon the ignorance and impudence of Painters, of which Lucian says that they were “as licentious as the Poets[6];” and to endeavour, if possible, to obtain from the Prelates of the Church, that, since pictures are the books of ignorant Christians, no Fables and lies be represented in them; and that such as contain notorious falsehoods be banished from those Churches and Chapels in which Jesus Christ, who was truth itself, is daily adored. At least this will be admitted, that truth has no need of the assistance of falsehood to protect it: supported by its own strength, it sets at defiance the attacks of both Folly and Sophistry.

FOOTNOTES:

[4] The word Discipline originally signified in general, the censures and corrections which persons who were guilty of Sins, received from their Superiors; and when Flagellation was to be part of those corrections, it was expressly mentioned; and they called such Discipline, as the Reader will see in the Sequel of this Book, “the discipline of the whip,” (disciplina flagelli). As Flagellation grew afterwards to be the common method of doing penance that prevailed among persons in religious Orders, the bare word discipline became in course of time the technical word to express that kind of chastisement: thus, the Reader will find hereafter an instance in which Flagellation, when too long continued, is called “the madness of too long discipline,” (longioris disciplinæ insania). And at last, those kinds of whips made of knotted and twisted cords, commonly used for the above pious exercises, have also been called by the same name; and the word discipline has become in French, for instance, the appropriated word to express the instrument of religious flagellation. Thus, in Molière’s Play, called the Tartuffe, or the Hypocrite, Tartuffe tells his Man, “Laurent, lock up my hair-cloth, and discipline, and pray that Heaven may always illuminate you.”

Laurent, serrez ma haire avec ma discipline,

Et priez que toujours le Ciel vous illumine.

Tart. A. III. Sc. 2.

[5] Sursùm & deorsùm disciplina.——All the Women (as the Writer of this Commentary has been told, when in Catholic Countries) who make self-flagellation part of their religious exercises, whether they live in or out of Convents, use the lower discipline, as defined above: their pious and merciful Confessors having suggested to them, that the upper discipline may prove dangerous, and be the cause of hurting their breasts, especially when they mean to proceed in that holy exercise with unusual fervour and severity. A few Orders of Friars, among whom are the Capuchins, also use the lower kind of discipline; but for what reason the Commentator has not been as yet informed.

Perhaps it will be asked here, how Priests and Confessors have been able to introduce the use of such a painful practice as flagellation, among the persons who choose to be directed by them in religious matters, and how they can enforce obedience to the prescriptions they give them in that respect. But here it must be remembered, that Penance has been made a Sacrament among Catholics, and that Satisfaction, as may be seen in the Books that treat of that subject, is an essential part of it, and must always precede the Absolution on the part of the Confessor. Now, as Confessors have it in their power to refuse this Absolution, so long as the Penances or Satisfactions of any kind, which they have enjoyed to their Penitents, have not been accomplished, this confers on them a very great authority; and though, to a number of those who apply to them, who care but little for such Absolution, or in case of refusal are ready to apply to other more easy Confessors, they scarcely prescribe any other kind of Satisfaction than saying a certain number of prayers, or such like mortification; yet, to those persons who think it a very serious affair when a Confessor in whom they trust, continues to refuse them his absolution, they may enjoin almost what kind of penance they please. And indeed since Confessors have been able to prevail upon Kings to leave their kingdoms and engage in perilous wars and croisades to the Holy Land, and to induce young and tender Queens to perform on foot pilgrimages to very distant places, it is not difficult to understand how they have been able gradually to prevail upon numbers of their Devotees of both Sexes, to follow practices which they had been so foolish as to adopt for themselves, and to practise, at their own choice, either the lower, or the upper, discipline.

[6] Dial. Ὑπὲρ τῶν Εἰκόνων—Καὶ τοὶ παλαιὸς οὕτος ὁ λόγος, ἀνευθύνους εἶναι Ποιητὰς καὶ Γραφέας. The Greek word ἀνευθύνους, used here, literally signifies that Poets and Painters are not obliged to give any account of their actions. Horace has also expressed a thought of the same kind with regard to them, in his Ars Poetica, “Painters and Poets have always equally enjoyed the power of daring every thing.”

Pictoribus atque Poëtis

Quidlibet audendi semper fuit æqua potestas.

A. P. v. 9, 10.

The complaints of our Author with respect to the loose which Painters have been used to give to their own fancy, when they have treated religious subjects, are well grounded; and persons who have travelled in Catholic Countries cannot but have taken notice of the freedom that prevails in their Church-pictures: hence a number of stories are related among them of Nuns, or other Women, who have fallen in love with naked figures of Angels and Saints, and of Men who have been led into extravagances by the passion they had conceived for certain statues, or pictures. As to errors concerning facts merely, and faults against the Costume, which our Author seems more particularly to allude to, in this Chapter, they are certainly very frequent in the works of Painters: even the first among them, such as Paul Veronese and others, are reproached with capital ones. On this occasion the Writer of this Commentary thinks he may relate what he himself has seen in a Country Church in Germany, in which a Painter, who had intended to represent the Sacrifice of Isaac, had so far availed himself of the potestas quidlibet audendi, mentioned above, that he had represented Abraham with a blunderbuss in his hand, ready to shoot his son, and an Angel, suddenly come down from Heaven, pouring water on the pan.

CHAP. II.

No persons, under the antient Law, inflicted on themselves, with their own hands, voluntary flagellations, or received them from the hands of other persons.

FLAGELLATION, there is no doubt, is a method of coercive punishment very antiently used among Men. We find it mentioned in the Old Testament, in the fifth chapter of Exodus: it is said in that chapter, that the Ministers of Pharaoh, who required from the Israelites a certain number of bricks every day, having found them to have failed in supplying the usual number, ordered them to be flogged; and that the latter complained of this harsh usage.

V. 14. “And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh’s Task masters had set over them, were beaten[7], and demanded, Wherefore have you not fulfilled your task in making brick, both yesterday and to-day, as heretofore?”

15. “Then the Officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants?”

16. “There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and behold we are beaten, but the fault is in thine own people.”—Now, I think that no commentary is necessary to prove that the flagellations mentioned here were not in any degree voluntary on the part of those who underwent them.

We also find mention made in Leviticus of the punishment of Flagellation: this is the punishment awarded, in the nineteenth chapter, against those who should be guilty of the sin of Fornication. “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bond-maid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her, she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free.”

The Hebrew words in the text, which are commonly translated by these, shall be scourged, are justly translated so, though in the version of the LXX. they are only translated by the words, shall be punished[8]; for the punishment used on those occasions was inflicted, as the learned Vatable observes, with thongs of ox-leather, that is to say, with scourges. To this I think it is needless to add, that the Israelites did not voluntarily impose on themselves the abovementioned scourgings, and that they never were suffered by any of them but much against their will.

In the xxvth chapter of Deuteronomy, the number of lashes which Offenders of any kind were to receive, was limited to forty. V. 2. “And it shall be, if the wicked may be worthy to be beaten, that the Judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to a certain number.”

3. “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed; but if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then thy brother should seem vile unto thee.”

Now, it is evident from the above passage, that the Israelites were very far from approving any cruel flagellations, like those which Monks in our days inflict on themselves with whip-cords filled with knots, or sometimes armed with nails or needles; since they were even forbidden to suffer their Brother to be too cruelly lashed in their presence. Nor was it the incisions made on the bodies of innocent persons before the altar of Moloch, or at the funerals of the dead, which God meant here to prevent; He even prescribed tenderness to the sufferings of a convicted offender, though he deserved the stripes that were inflicted on him. Therefore, if the law of God forbad any cruel excess in the chastising of persons who were guilty of crimes, much more did it disapprove that Men should unmercifully lash and flay themselves with rods and whip-cords. Indeed, the modern practice of lashing and whipping one’s self to the effusion of blood, is by no means intitled to our admiration. How could it be possible that an unhappy Friar, who lives in certain modern Monasteries, should not have his skin torn from head to foot, since it is a constant practice among them to discipline themselves three or four times every week, during the whole time that the Miserere, the De Profundis[9], and the Salve Regina, are singing, with a melodious, though slow, voice; and that too so heavily, and in such earnest, that the rattling of the blows resounds on all sides?

Several persons, however, still insist that religious flagellations were in use among the ancient Jews, and draw, it must be confessed, strong arguments from the words of David, in Psal. lxxiii. 14: “For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning[10].” But if we consider attentively these expressions of the Prophet, we shall find that they do not by any means signify that he lashed himself with a scourge every day, and all the day long. Those stripes of which he speaks are to be understood only in a figurative sense, and they only mean those misfortunes and tribulations which are frequently the lot of the righteous in this world: and indeed we see that David exclaims elsewhere, ‘For I am ready to halt, and my sorrow is continually before me.’

Besides, we are to observe that St. Austin, a Writer of the highest authority, paraphrases the above-mentioned passage of Ps. lxxiii. in the following manner: “I am never free from afflictions from God; I discharge my duty, and yet I am beaten, &c.” Indeed the above is only the rational meaning of the passage in question; and we cannot with any degree of probability infer from it (as certain persons do) that the practice of scourging one’s self voluntarily, and lashing one’s hide with rods and whip-cords, was in use among the ancient Hebrews, and that such a whimsical notion ever entered their heads. It is true that Philo the Jew, and Eusebius of Cæsarea, relate, that the Esseans, or Therapeutæ (whether they were a particular sect of the Jews, or are to be ranked among the first Christians, is not clear) were celebrated on account of the macerations which they practised; but then we are intirely ignorant of the methods which they used in order to mortify themselves, and we are no where told that they employed for that purpose either disciplines or whips.

Yet, this cannot be disallowed, that after the two Rabbins, Mayr, and Asse the Son, had compiled the Babylonian Talmud[11] that is to say, about the 476th year from the birth of our Lord, new practices began to prevail among the Jews. Fascinated, I do not know by what kind of superstition, they began to use, contrary to their former customs, a sort of voluntary discipline; though, we are to observe, they never inflicted such discipline on themselves with their own hands. We are informed of the above fact, in the Treatise intitled Malkos, in the 3d Chapter of which it is said, that the Jews, after they had finished their prayers and confessed their sins (which were exercises they derived from their ancestors) used to lash one another with scourges.

John Buxtorf the Father, a Protestant Author, in his Book of the Judaic Synagogue, printed at Basil in the year 1661, describes the above practice of the Jews at some length, and says, That there are constantly two Men in every Jewish school, who withdraw from the rest of the Company, and retire into a particular place of the room where they are met; that the one lays himself flat on the ground with his head turned to the North, and his feet to the South (or his head to the South, and his feet to the North); and that the other, who remains standing, gives him thirty-nine blows upon his back with a strap, or thong of ox-leather. In the meanwhile, the Man who is lashed, recites three times over the thirty-eighth verse of Psal. lxxviii. This verse, in the Hebrew language, contains just thirteen words; at every word the Patient recites, he receives a lash from the other Man; which, when he has recited the whole verse three times over, makes up the prescribed number of thirty-nine; and at every time he says the last word, he strikes his own breast with his fist[12]. This operation being concluded, the Agent in his turn becomes the Patient, and places himself in the same situation as the other had done, who then uses him in the same brotherly manner in which the former had used him, and they thus mutually chastise each other for their sins, and rub one another, Buxtorf observes, like Asses.

Perhaps the Reader will be surprised that the Rabbins have limited the number of the stripes inflicted in the manner above-described, to thirty-nine, since the Law of Moses had extended their number to forty; but to this the Rabbins answer, that it is owing to the peculiar manner in which the punishment of stripes was inflicted in antient times. The ancient Jews, they say, used a scourge made of three thongs; one of which was very long, and went round the body of the person who was scourged, and the two others were a good deal shorter. Thirteen blows with this three-thonged scourge were given to the Patient; which, according to the Rabbins’ manner of explaining the law, made thirty-nine stripes in all: now, if one stroke more had been given him, he would have received forty-two, which would have been contrary to the law of Moses, which says, “Forty stripes he may give him, and not exceed[13].”

FOOTNOTES:

[7] The words of the Vulgate in this place, are, flagellati sunt, which signify, were lashed with rods or whips: and in v. 16, flagellis cædimur, which has the same meaning.

[8] The Hebrew words in the text are: בקרת תהיה the Greek words for these, in the LXX. are, ἐπισκοπὴ ἔσται αὐτοῖς.—As I do not understand Hebrew, I shall not try to make any remark on the above Hebrew words, but trust for that to the sagaciousness of the reader; however, with respect to the Greek words that follow them, I think I should be greatly wanting in my duty to the Public, in my capacity of Commentator, if I did not communicate to them an observation with which those words supply me, which is, that there is a material error in the passage above recited, in our common translation of the Bible; for the Reader may see that the punishment of scourging, in case of fornication, is confined, in that passage, to the Woman solely; whereas the word αὐτοῖς, which is a plural word, shews that both the Man and Woman were to be punished alike; and instead of she shall, as our Bible is worded in that passage, it ought to be, they shall be scourged. This remark on the above singular alteration of the true sense of the Bible, to the prejudice of Women (supposing it is not an error of the press) naturally leads me to take notice here of the unjust disposition of Men towards Women in general, in all that relates to the mutual intercourse of the Sexes: a disposition that has induced them in modern times to impose humiliating penalties on such Women as are guilty of sins which the Men themselves commit with the utmost freedom, and thus to establish a mortifying difference, in that respect, between the two sexes, instead of that amiable equality which obtained between them under the Jewish law, according to which the Man and Woman who had committed together the sin of Fornication, were lashed with equal numbers of stripes.

[9] The Miserere is the 51st Psalm; and the De Profundis is the 130th, which is none of the shortest.

The singing of the Miserere seems to be particularly appropriated, among Catholics, to regulate both the duration of religious flagellations, and the time to which they are to be performed, as we may conclude from the above passage of our Author; and also from a passage of M. de Voltaire in his Candide, in which he says, that, when Candide was flagellated at Lisbon, by order of the Inquisition, he was all the while entertained with a Miserere en faux bourdon; which is a kind of Church Music.

[10] The expressions of the Vulgate are, fui flagellatus, I have been whipped. The Vulgate of the Old Testament is a very ancient Latin version of it from the Hebrew, corrected afterwards by St. Jerom, which is followed in all Catholic Countries.

[11] The Talmud is the Tradition, or unwritten law of the Jews, the Law of Moses being their written Law. This Tradition has, in process of time, been set down in writing; and two different Collections have been made of it: the one, in the Jerusalem School, about three hundred years after Jesus Christ, which is called the Jerusalem Talmud; the other, in the Babylonian School, five hundred years after Jesus Christ, and is called, the Babylon Talmud. The latter is that which is usually read among the Jews; and when they simply say, the Talmud, they mean the Babylon Talmud.

[12] Buxtorf, the Author from whom the above facts are drawn, is mentioned with great praise in the Scaligerana, which is a Collection, or mixture, of Notes, partly French, partly Latin, found in the papers of J. Scaliger, and printed after his death. Buxtorf is called, in one of these Notes, the only Man learned in the Hebrew language; and Scaliger adds, that it is surprising how the Jews can love him, though he has handled them so severely; which shews that he has been impartial in his accounts. Mirum quomodo Buxtorsius à Judæis ametur, in illâ tamen Synagogâ Judaicâ illos valdè perstringit.

[13] It is to be supposed, that the Jew Priests had been well freed for the above benign interpretations they gave of the law of Moses.

CHAP. III.

Voluntary flagellations were unknown to the first Christians. An explanation is given of the passage of St. Paul: I chastise my body, and keep it under subjection[14].

FLAGELLATIONS are mentioned so often as eleven times by the Holy Writers of the New Testament.

Of these, five relate to Jesus Christ. The first is in the xxth chapter of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, v. 19; and in the xxvith of the same, v. 26. In the xvth chapter of St. Mark’s Gospel, v. 33. In the xviith chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke, v. 33; and in the xixth chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, v. 1[15]. No just conclusion, as the Reader may see, can be drawn from the above-mentioned passages, in support of voluntary flagellations, and of those Disciplines which Monks now-a-days inflict on themselves; since it is plain that our Saviour did not whip himself with his own hands: and we might as well say that we ought to inflict death upon ourselves, and nail ourselves to a cross, as that we ought to lacerate our own flesh with scourges, because Jesus Christ was exposed to that kind of punishment.

The other six passages of the New Testament in which whipping is mentioned, are, first, in St. John’s (c. ii. v. 15.) And when He had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them out of the Temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers of money, and overthrew the tables. The second chapter is in the fifth chapter of the Acts (v. 40.) And when they had called the Apostles and beaten them with scourges, they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus; and let them go. The third place in which scourgings are mentioned, is the sixth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians (v. 15.) St. Paul in that Chapter places Stripes among the different methods of persecution which were used against the ministers of the Gospel, and he moreover relates the sufferings to which he himself had been exposed. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one: and in the next verse he says, Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck; a night and a day I have been in the deep. Fifthly, in his Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 36.) the same Apostle says, speaking in general terms, And others had trials of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonments. Now, from all these passages no authority whatever can be derived to justify the practice of voluntary flagellation. All the persecuted persons above-mentioned suffered those beatings with rods, and those scourgings, much against their will.

The sixth and last passage in which whipping is mentioned, in the New Testament, is therefore the only one from which any specious conclusion may be drawn in support of the practice of voluntary flagellation: it is contained in the first Epistle to the Corinthians (ix. 22); St. Paul in it says, I chastise my body, and keep it under subjection. Indeed this passage is well worth examining attentively. Several men of great authority have given it as their opinion, that the Apostle expressly meant to say, by the above words, that it was his practice to lash himself, in order to overcome his vicious inclinations. Among others, James Gretzer, an able Theologian and one of the Fathers Jesuits, vehemently asserts that the Greek words in the text literally signify, “I imprint on my own body the stripes or marks of the whip, and render it livid by dint of blows,” and the same Father supports his assertion by the authority of Septalius and Guastininius, two celebrated Interpreters of Aristotle, who, in their Commentaries, quote Gallienus as having used the Greek word in question (ὑπωπιάζω) in the same sense which he (Father Gretzer) attributes to St. Paul. To these authorities Gretzer moreover adds those of St. Irenæus, St. Chrysostom, Paulinus, and Theophylactus, who (he says) have all explained the above passage in the same manner as himself does: so that, if we were to credit all the comments of Father Gretzer, there would, indeed, remain little doubt but that St. Paul meant to say, he fustigated himself with his own hands; and that he was thereby left an example which all faithful Christians ought in duty to imitate.

But yet, if, setting aside, for the present, all authorities on this head, we begin with examining attentively into the real meaning of the Greek word which is the subject of the present controversy, we shall see that it cannot have that signification which Father Gretzer pretends. In fact, let us examine if that word occurs in any other place of the New Testament, and in what sense it is employed. We meet with it in the eighteenth Chapter of St. Luke, wherein Jesus Christ says, in the manner of a Parable, that a Widow used to teaze a Judge with her frequent complaints, who was thereby compelled at last to do her justice; and he makes him speak in the following words: “Because this Widow troubles me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming, she weary me (ὑπωπιάζη μὲ.)” Now, who can imagine that this Judge entertained any fear that the Woman should flagellate him? Yet, we must think so, if the Greek word used in the Text (which is the very same as that employed by St. Paul, and on which Father Gretzer builds his system) should always signify, as that Father pretends, to beat, or lash. If a literal explanation of that word, therefore, is in many cases improper and ridiculous, it follows that it is frequently to be understood in a figurative sense, and that it is then only employed to express that kind of hard usage either of one’s self, or of others, which is exercised without any mixture of real violence, or bodily sufferings. To this add, that St. Paul himself, when, on other occasions he really means to speak of blows and actual stripes, never once makes use of the word in question.

Besides, if in order rightly to understand the meaning of St. Paul, we consult the holy Fathers and Interpreters (which certainly is a very good method of investigating the truth), we shall scarcely find one who thought that St. Paul either beat or lashed himself, and in the above passage meant to speak of any such thing as voluntary Flagellation. St. Iræneus, Bishop of Lyons, though he has translated the words in question into these, “I chastise my own body, and render it livid,” has made no mention whatever of either scourges, whips, or rods.—St. Chrysostom likewise supposes, that the Apostle in the above passage, only spoke of the pains and care he took, in order to preserve his temperance, and conquer the passions of the flesh; and that it was the same as if he had said, “I submit to much labour, in order to live according to the rules of Temperance. I undergo every kind of hardship, rather than suffer myself to be led astray.” It must be confessed, however, that Benedictus Haeftenus, in his Disquisitiones Monasticæ, quotes a passage from the above Author’s 34th Homily, by which he pretends to prove that self-flagellations were in use in that Father’s time; but the words which Haeftenus has quoted in Latin are not to be found in the original Greek of St. Chrysostom’s Homilies, and are therefore to be attributed to some modern Flogging-Master (Μαστιγοφόρος) who has lent them to him, by a kind of pious fraud. Other passages to prove our assertion, might be quoted from the words of Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, of Oecumenius, as well as several other Greek Fathers.

The Latin have also understood St. Paul’s words in the same sense that the Greek Fathers have done. Indeed I do not find one among them but who thought that St. Paul did not actually lash himself with his own hands. St. Ambrosius, Bishop of Milan, expresses himself on the subject in the following words. ‘He who says (meaning St. Paul) I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection, does not so much grieve (contristatur) for his own sins, which after all could not be so very numerous, as for ours.’

St. Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspe, and an illustrious Discipline of St. Augustin, on this occasion treads in the footsteps of his excellent Master, giving the same sense as him to the words of St. Paul. The following is the manner in which St. Fulgentius explains those words, in his Epistle on Virginity, addressed to Proba. “The spiritual Spouse of Virgins does not seek in a Virgin a body practised in carnal pleasures; but rather wishes she should have chastised it by abstinence. This, the Doctor of the Gentiles used to practice on his own body. I chastise (says he) my body, and keep it under subjection. And again, in watchings often, in thirst and hunger, in fastings often: let therefore the Virgin of Christ forbear to seek after pleasures which, she sees, are equally with-held from the widow.”

To all the above proofs, I know it will be objected that St. Petrus Chrysologus, archbishop of Ravenna, is clearly of opinion that St. Paul lashed himself with his own hands. The following is the manner in which he expresses himself on this head, at least if we are to credit the account given of his words by that great Patron of flagellations, Father Gretzer, in his Book printed at Ingolstadt in the year 1609. “This St. Paul used to do, who wrote in the following words the title-deed of his own Servitude, I render my body livid, and bring it into subjection: like a faithful Slave, himself supplied the rod, (vindictam) and severely lashed his own back, till it grew livid[16].” Now, who would not from these words, thus standing alone, as Father Gretzer recites them, conclude that St. Paul really used to cover his back with stripes? But, if we consult the original itself, we shall see that St. Chrysologus meant no more than to borrow a simile from the punishment usually inflicted on Slaves; which punishment he mentions in the beginning of the very passage we discuss here, and of which Father Gretzer has artfully quoted only the conclusion. “After all (says Peter Chrysologus) if the Servant does not awake early the next day, and rise before his Master, whether he be weary or not, he will be tied up and lashed. If the Servant therefore knows what he owes to another Man, the Master is thence taught what himself owes to the Lord of Lords, and is made sensible that he also is subject to a Master.” ‘This is what St. Paul practised, who wrote the title-deeds of his own servitude, and exposed himself to thirst, hunger, and nakedness. Like a good slave, he himself supplied the rod, and severely lashed himself.’

If we examine into the works of St. Hierom, St. Austin, Pope Gregory the Great, and other Latin Fathers, we shall find that they also understood, that St. Paul had expressed himself in a figurative manner. And it is only by misquotations, or arts of the like kind, that Father Gretzer, Cardinal Demian, and others, have attempted to prove that self-flagellations were in use so early as the time of St. Paul among Christians.

FOOTNOTES:

[14] As the disputes concerning religious flagellations have been carried on with great warmth on both sides, the two parties have ransacked the Scriptures for passages that might support their respective opinions; and the supporters of flagellations have been particularly happy in the discovery of the passage of David, mentioned in the preceding Chapter; and that of St. Paul which is recited here. By the former passage, the supporters of flagellations pretend to shew, that they were in use so early as the time of David; and that the Prophet underwent a flagellation every morning: by the latter passage, they endeavour to prove that self-scourgings were practised by St. Paul, and of course by the first Christians. As the literal meaning of the above two passages is wholly on the side of the supporters of flagellations, this, as it always happens in controversies of that kind, has given them a great advantage over their opponents, who have been reduced, either to plead that the expressions urged against them were only to be understood in a figurative sense, or to endeavour, by altering the original passage, to substitute others in their stead. The latter is the expedient on which our Author has chiefly relied in this chapter, and he strives to substitute another word, to the word ὑπωπιάζω, used by St. Paul when he said, he chastised his flesh; which is to be found in all the common Editions of the Greek New Testament. And indeed it must be confessed, that the above word is of itself extremely favourable to the promoters of self-flagellation; little less so than the words of Asaph, fui flagellatus (I have been whipped) mentioned in the foregoing Chapter; its precise meaning being the same as I bruise or discolour with blows: it comes from the word ὐπώπιον, which signifies a livid mark left under the eye by a blow: on which the Reader may observe (which, no doubt, will be matter of agreeable surprise to him) that what is called in plain English a black-eye, was expressed in Greek by the word ὑπώπιον. Besides trying to substitute another word to that attributed to St. Paul in the common Greek Editions of the New Testament, our Author produces several passages from Greek and Latin Fathers, to shew that they thought that St. Paul meant no more than to speak of his great labours, abstinence, continence, &c.

The principal end of this Chapter is, therefore, to discuss the interesting question, whether St. Paul used to flagellate himself: and I have preferred to give the above compendious account of the contest on the subject, rather than introduce the long discussion of Greek words, and use the whole string of passages from Greek and Latin Fathers, contained in the Abbé Boileau’s Book. By that means, the present Chapter has, for the sake of the Reader, been shortened to ten pages, instead of thirty, it must otherwise have contained.

[15] “And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge and to crucify him.” St. Matth. c. xx. v. 19.... “Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him.” St. John, c. xix. ver. 1.

[16] Hoc implebat Paulus, qui servitutis suæ titulos sic scribebat. Lividum facio corpus meum, & servituti subjicio. Præbebat vindictam bonus servus, qui se usque ad livorem, sic agens, jugiter verberabat.

CHAP. IV.

The use of Flagellations was known among the ancient Heathens. Several facts and observations on that subject.

IT is not to be doubted, that flagellations had been invented, and were become, in early times, a common method of punishment in the Pagan world. Even before the foundation of Rome, we meet with instances which prove that it was the usual punishment inflicted on Slaves. Justin, in his Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, relates that the Scythians more easily overcame their rebellious Slaves with scourges and whips, than with their swords. ‘The Scythians being returned (says Justin) from their third expedition in Asia, after having been absent eight years from their Wives and Children, found they now had a war to wage at home against their own Slaves. For, their Wives, tired with such long fruitless expectation of their Husbands, and concluding that they were no longer detained by war, but had been destroyed, married the Slaves who had been left to take care of the cattle; which latter attempted to use their Masters, who returned victorious, like Strangers, and hinder them, by force of arms, from entering the Country. The war having been supported, for a while, with success pretty nearly equal on both sides, the Scythians were advised to change their manner of carrying it on, remembering that it was not with enemies, but with their own Slaves, that they had to fight; that they were to conquer by dint, not of arms, but of their right as Masters; that instead of weapons, they ought to bring lashes into the field, and, setting iron aside, to supply themselves with rods, scourges, and such like instruments of slavish fear. Having approved this counsel, the Scythians armed themselves as they were advised to do; and had no sooner come up with their enemies, than they exhibited on a sudden their new weapons, and thereby struck such a terror into their minds, that those who could not be conquered by arms, were subdued by the dread of the stripes, and betook themselves to flight, not like a vanquished enemy, but like fugitive slaves.’

Among the antient Persians, the punishment of whipping was also in use: it was even frequently inflicted on the Grandees of the Kingdom by order of the King, as we find in Stobæus, who moreover relates in his forty-second Discourse, ‘That when one of them had been flagellated by order of the King, it was an established custom, that he should give him thanks as for an excellent favour he had received, and a token that the King remembered him.’ This custom of the Persians was however in subsequent times altered: they began to set some more value on the skin of Men; and we find in Plutarch’s Apophthegms of Kings, ‘That Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes, sirnamed the Longhanded, was the first who ordered that the Grandees of his kingdom should no longer be exposed to the former method of punishment; but that, when they should have been guilty of some offence, instead of their backs, only their clothes should be whipped, after they had been stripped of them.’

We also find, that it was a custom in antient times, for Generals and Conquerors, to flog the Captives they had taken in war; and that they moreover took delight in inflicting that punishment with their own hands on the most considerable of those Captives. We meet, among others, with a very remarkable proof of this practice, in the Tragedy of Sophocles, called Ajax Scourgebearer (Μαστιγοφόρος): in a Scene of this Tragedy Ajax is introduced as having the following conversation with Minerva.

Minerva.

‘What kind of severity do you prepare for that miserable man?’

Ajax.

‘I propose to lash his back with a scourge till he dies.’

Minerva.

‘Nay, do not whip the poor Wretch so cruelly.’

Ajax.

‘Give me leave, Minerva, to gratify, on this occasion, my own fancy; he shall have it, I do assure you, and I prepare no other punishment for him.’

The punishment of flagellation was also much in vogue among the Romans; and it was the common chastisement which Judges inflicted upon Offenders, especially upon those of a servile condition. Surrounded by an apparatus of whips, scourges, and leather-straps, they terrified Offenders, and brought them to a sense of their duty.

Judges, among the Romans, as has been just now mentioned, used a great variety of instruments for inflicting the punishment of whipping. Some consisted of a flat strap of leather, and were called Ferulæ; and to be lashed with these Ferulæ, was considered as the mildest degree of punishment. Others were made of a number of cords of twisted parchment, and were called Scuticæ. These Scuticæ were considered as being a degree higher in point of severity than the ferulæ, but were much inferior, in that respect, to that kind of scourge which was called Flagellum, and sometimes the terrible Flagellum, which was made of thongs of ox-leather, the same as those which Carmen used for their Horses. We find in the third Satyr of the first Book of Horace, a clear and pretty singular account of the gradation in point of severity that obtained between the above-mentioned instruments of whipping. In this Satyr, Horace lays down the rules which he thinks a Judge ought to follow in the discharge of his office; and he addressed himself, somewhat ironically, to certain persons who, adopting the principles of the Stoics, affected much severity in their opinions, and pretended that all crimes whatever being equal, ought to be punished in the same manner. ‘Make such a rule of conduct to yourself (says Horace) that you may always proportion the chastisement you inflict to the magnitude of the offence; and when the Offender only deserves to be chastised with the whip of twisted parchment, do not expose him to the lash of the horrid leather scourge; for, that you should only inflict the punishment of the flat strap on him who deserves a more severe lashing, is what I am by no means afraid of[17].’

The choice between these different kinds of instruments, was, as we may conclude from the above passage, left to the Judge, who ordered that to be used which he was pleased to name; and the number of blows was likewise left to his discretion; which sometimes were as many as the Executioner could give. ‘He (says Horace in one of his Odes) who has been lashed by order of the Triumvirs, till the Executioner was spent[18].’

Besides this extensive power of whipping exercised by Judges among the Romans, over persons of a servile condition, over Aliens, and those who were the subjects of the Republic, Masters were possessed of an unbounded one with regard to their Slaves, over whose life and death they had moreover an absolute power. Hence a great number of instruments of flagellation, besides those above-mentioned, were successively brought into use for punishing Slaves. Among those were particular kinds of cords manufactured in Spain, as we learn from a passage in an Ode of Horace, the same that has just been quoted, and was addressed to one Menas, a freed-man, who had found means to acquire a great fortune, and was grown very insolent. ‘Thou (says Horace) whose sides are still discoloured (or burnt) with the stripes of the Spanish cords[19].’

A number of other instances of this practice of whipping Slaves, as well as other different names of instruments used for that purpose, may be found in the antient Latin Writers, such as Plautus, Terence, Horace, Martial, &c. So prevalent had the above practice become, that Slaves were frequently denominated from that particular kind of flagellation which they were most commonly made to undergo. Some were called Restiones, because they were used to be lashed with cords; others were called Bucædæ, because they were usually lashed with thongs of ox-leather; and it is in consequence of this custom, that a Man is made to say in one of Plautus’s Plays, ‘They shall be Bucædæ (that is to say, scourged with leather-thongs) whether they will or no, before I consent to be Restio,’ or so much as beaten with cords[20]. And Tertullian, meaning in one of his Writings to express Slaves in general, uses words which simply signify ‘those who are used to be beaten, or to be discoloured with blows[21].’

Nay, so generally were whipping and lashing considered among the Romans, as being the lot of Slaves, that a whip, or a scourge, was become among them the emblem of their condition. Of this we have an instance in the singular custom mentioned by Camerarius, which prevailed among them, of placing in the triumphal car, behind the Triumpher, a man with a whip in his hand; the meaning of which was to shew, that it was no impossible thing for a Man to fall from the highest pitch of glory into the most abject condition, even into that of a Slave.

Suetonius also relates a fact which affords another remarkable instance of this notion of the Romans, of looking upon a whip as a characteristic mark of dominion on the one hand, and of slavery on the other. ‘Cicero (says Suetonius, in the life of Augustus) having accompanied Cæsar to the Capitol, related to a few friends whom he met there, a dream which he had had the night before. It seemed to him, he said, that a graceful Boy came down from Heaven, suspended by a golden chain; that he stopped before the gate of the Capitol, and that Jupiter gave him a whip (flagellum). Having afterwards suddenly seen Augustus, whom (as he was still personally unknown to several of his near relations) Cæsar had sent for and brought along with him to be present at the ceremony, he assured his friends that he was the very person whose figure he had seen during his sleep.’ Juvenal likewise, in one of his Satyrs, has spoken of Augustus conformably to the above notion of the Romans. ‘The same (says he) who, after conquering the Romans, has subjected them to his whip[22].’

But, besides all those instruments of flagellation used for punishing Slaves, which have been mentioned above, and as if the terrible flagellum had not been of itself sufficiently so, new contrivances were used to make the latter a still more cruel weapon; and the thongs with which that kind of scourge was made, were frequently armed with nails, or small hard bones. They also would sometimes fasten to those thongs small leaden weights: hence scourges were sometimes called Astragala, as Hesychius relates, from the name of those kinds of weights which the Ancients used to wear hanging about their shoes. Under the tortures which those different instruments inflicted, it was no wonder that Slaves should die: indeed this was a frequent case; and the cruelty, especially of Mistresses towards their female Slaves, grew at last to such a pitch, that a provision was made in the Council of Elvira to restrain it; and it was ordained, that if any Mistress should cause her Slave to be whipped with so much cruelty as that she should die, the Mistress should be suspended from Communion for a certain number of years. The following are the terms of the above Ordinance, in the fifth Canon. “If a Mistress, in a fit of anger and madness, shall lash her female Slave, or cause her to be lashed, in such a manner that she expires before the third day, by reason of the torture she has undergone; inasmuch as it is doubtful whether it has designedly happened, or by chance; if it has designedly happened, the Mistress shall be excommunicated for seven years; if by chance, she shall be excommunicated for five years only; though, if she shall fall into sickness, she may receive the Communion[23].”

FOOTNOTES:

[17]

—— Adsit

Regula peccatis quæ pœnas irroget æquas,

Nec Scuticâ dignum horribili sectere Flagello;

Nam, ut Ferulâ cædas meritum majora subire

Verbera, non vereor.

Lib. I. Sat. I. v. 117.

[18]

Sectus flagellis hic Triumviralibus

Præconis ad fastidium.

Lib. V. Ode IV. v. 11, 12.

[19]

Ibericis peruste funibus latus.

Lib. V. Ode IV. v. 3.

[20]

Erunt Bucædæ invitò, potius quàm ego sim Restio.

Mostell. Act. IV. Sc. II.

[21] Verberones, Subverbustos.—The latter word literally signifies, burnt with blows: a figurative expression commonly used among the Romans, when they spoke of flagellations: thus, the words flagrum and flagellum, had been derived from the word flagrare, which signifies to burn, and Horace, in a passage that will be quoted in [page 66], says, to be burnt with rods (virgis uri) for, to be lashed.

[22]

Ad sua qui domitos deduxit flagra Quirites.

Juv. Sat. X. v. 99.

This notion of the Romans, of looking upon a scourge as a characteristic appendage of dominion, was so general among them, as is observed above, that they moreover supposed the gods themselves to be supplied with whips; and even Venus had also been thought to be furnished with one. In consequence of this supposition, Horace, who, as we may conclude from thence, had cause to be dissatisfied with some trick his Mistress had played him, or perhaps only with her impertinence in general, desires Venus to chastise her with her whip, “Do, Queen, (says he, addressing Venus) do, for once, give arrogant Chloe a touch with your sublime whip.”

Regina, sublimi flagello

Tange Chloën semel arrogantem.

Od. 26. Lib. III. ad Ven.

[23] The absolute dominion possessed by Masters over the persons of their slaves, led them to use a singular severity in the government of them. So frequently were flagellations the lot of the latter, that appellations and words of reproach drawn from that kind of punishment, were, as hath been above observed, commonly used to denominate them; and expressions of this kind occur in the politest writers: thus, we find in the Plays of Terence, an Author particularly celebrated for his politeness and strict observance of decorum, Slaves frequently called by the words Verberones, Flagriones, or others to the same effect.

As for Plautus, who had been the Servant of a Baker, and who was much acquainted with every thing that related to Slaves, and their flagellations in particular, he has filled his scenes with nicknames of Slaves, drawn from this latter circumstance; and they are almost continually called in his Plays, flagritribæ (a verbis, flagrum & terere) plagipatidæ, ulmitribæ, &c. besides the appellations of Bucædæ and Restiones, above-mentioned.

Sometimes the flagellations of Slaves, or the fear they entertained of incurring them, served Plautus as incidents for the conduct of his plots; thus, in his Epidicus, a Slave who is the principal character in the Play, concludes upon a certain occasion, that his Master has discovered his whole scheme, because he has spied him, in the morning, purchasing a new scourge at the shop in which they were sold. The same flagellations in general, have moreover been an inexhaustible fund of pleasantry for Plautus. In one place, for instance, a Slave, intending to laugh at a fellow-slave, asks him how much he thinks he weighs, when he is suspended naked, by his hands, to the beam, with an hundred weight (centupondium) tied to his feet; which was a precaution taken, as Commentators inform us, in order to prevent the Slave who was flagellated from kicking the Man (Virgator) whose office it was to perform the operation. And in another place, Plautus, alluding to the thongs of ox-leather with which whips were commonly made, introduces a Slave engaged in deep reflection on the surprizing circumstance of “dead bullocks, that make incursions upon living Men.”

Vivos homines mortui incursant boves!

But it was not always upon their Slaves only that Masters, among the Romans, inflicted the punishment of flagellation: they sometimes found means to serve in the same manner the young Men of free condition, who insinuated themselves into their houses, with a design to court their Wives. As the most favourable disguise on such occasions, was to be dressed in Slaves clothes, because a Man thus habited was enabled to get into the house, and go up and down without being noticed, Rakes engaged in amorous pursuits, usually chose to make use of it; but, when the Husband either happened to discover them, or had had previous information of the appointment given by his faithful Spouse, he feigned to mistake the Man for a run-away Slave, or some strange Slave who had got into his house to commit theft, and treated him accordingly. Indeed the opportunity was a most favourable one for revenge; and if to this consideration we add that of the severe temper of the Romans, and the jealous disposition that has always prevailed in that country, we shall easily conclude that such an opportunity, when obtained, was seldom suffered to escape, and that many a Roman Spark, caught in the above disguise, and engaged in the laudable pursuit of seducing his neighbour’s wife, has, with a centupondium to his feet, been sadly rewarded for his ingenuity. A misfortune of that kind actually befell Sallust the Historian. He was caught in a familiar intercourse with Faustina, wife to Milo, and daughter of the Dictator Sylla. The husband caused him to be soundly lashed (loris bene cæsum); nor did he release him till he had made him pay a considerable sum of money. The fact is related by Aulus Gellius, who had extracted it from Varro. To it was very probably owing the violent part which Sallust afterwards took against Milo, while the latter was under prosecution for slaying the Tribune Clodius, and the tumult he raised on that occasion, which prevented Cicero from delivering the speech he had prepared.

An allusion is made to the above practices in one of Horace’s Satyrs. He supposes in it, that his Slave, availing himself of the opportunity of the Saturnalia, to speak his mind freely to him, gives him a lecture on the bad courses in which he thinks him engaged, and uses, among others, the following arguments.

‘When you have stripped off the marks of your dignity, your equestrian ring, and your whole Roman dress, and from a Man invested with the office of Judge, shew yourself at once under the appearance of the Slave Dama; disgraced as you are, and hiding your perfumed head under your cloak, you are not the Man whom you feign to be: you are at least introduced full of terror, and your whole frame shakes through the struggles of two opposite passions. In fact, what advantage is it to you, whether you are cut to pieces with rods, or slaughtered with iron weapons?’

Tu cum projectis insignibus, annulo Equestri

Romanoque habitu, prodis ex judice Dama,

Turpis, odoratum caput obscurante lacernâ

Non es quod simulas; metuens induceris, atque

Altercante libidinibus tremis ossa pavore.

Quid refert uri virgis, ferroque necari?

Lib. II. Sat. 7.

The above uncontrouled power of inflicting punishments on their Slaves, enjoyed by Masters in Rome, was at last abused by them to the greatest degree. The smallest faults committed in their families by Slaves, such as breaking glasses, seasoning dishes too much, or the like, exposed them to grievous punishments; and it even was no unusual thing for Masters (as we may judge from the description of Trimalcion’s entertainment in the Satire of Petronius) to order such of their Slaves as had been guilty of faults of the above kind, to be stripped, and whipped in the presence of their guests, when they happened to entertain any at their houses.

Women in particular seem to have abused this power of flagellation in a strange manner; which caused express provisions to be made, at different times, in order to restrain them; of which the Canon above-quoted is an instance. It was often sufficient, to induce the Roman Ladies to cause their Slaves to be whipped, that they were dissatisfied with the present state of their own charms; or, as Juvenal expresses it, that their nose displeased them: and when they happened to fancy themselves neglected by their husbands, then indeed their Slaves fared badly. This latter observation of Juvenal, Dryden, in his translation of that Author’s Satires, has expressed by the following lines:

‘For, if over night the husband has been slack, }

Or counterfeited sleep, or turn’d his back, }

Next day, be sure, the servants go to wrack.’ }

Here follows the literal translation of the passage of Juvenal, in which he describes in a very lively manner, the havock which an incensed Woman usually made on the above occasion. “If her husband has, the night before, turned his back on her, woe to her waiting Woman; the dressing Maids lay down their tunicks; the errand Slave is charged with having returned too late; the straps break on the back of some; others redden under the lash of the leather scourge, and others, of the twisted parchment.”

Si nocte maritus

Aversus jacuit, periit Libraria; ponunt

Cosmetæ tunicas; tardè venisse Liburnus

Dicitur; hic frangit ferulas; rubet ille flagellis,

Hic scuticâ.

Juv. Sat. VI.

The wantonness of power was carried still farther by the Roman Ladies, if we may credit the same Juvenal. It was a customary thing with several among them, when they proposed to have their hair dressed both with nicety and expedition, to have the dressing Maid who was charged with that care, stripped naked to the waist, ready for flagellation, in case she became guilty of any fault or mistake, in performing her task. The following is the passage in Juvenal on that subject. “For, if she has determined to be dressed more nicely than usual, and is in haste, being expected in the public gardens, the unfortunate Psechas then dresses her head, with her own hair in the utmost disorder, and her shoulders and breasts bare. Why is that ringlet too high?—The leather-thongs instantly punish the crime of a hair, and an ill-shaped curl.”

Nam si constituit solitoque decentiùs optat

Ornari & properat, jamque expectatur in hortis,

Componit crinem, laceratis ipsa capillis,

Nuda humeros, Psechas infœlix, nudisque mamillis:

Altior hic quare cicinnus? taurea punit

Continuò flexi crimen, facinusque capilli.

These abuses which Masters, in Rome, made of the power they possessed over their Slaves, were at last carried by them to such a pitch, either by making them wantonly suffer death, or torturing them in numberless different ways, that, in the beginning of the reign of the Emperors, it was found necessary to restrain their licence.

Under the reign of Claudius (for it is not clear whether any provision to that effect was made under Augustus) it was ordained, that Masters who forsook their Slaves when sick, should lose all right over them, in case they recovered; and that those who deliberately put them to death, should be banished from Rome.

Under the Emperor Adrian, the cruelties exercised by Umbricia, a Roman Lady, over her female Slaves, caused new laws to be made on that subject, as well as the former ones to be put in force, and Umbricia was, by a rescript of the Emperor, banished for five years. (l. 2. in fine, Dig. L. I. t. 6.)

New laws to the same ends were likewise made under the following Emperors, among which Civilians make particular mention of a constitution of Antonius Pius (Divus Pius); and in subsequent times, the Church also employed its authority to prevent the like excesses, as we may see from the Canon above-recited (Si quæ domina, &c.) which was framed in the Council held at Elvira, a small Town in Spain, that has been since destroyed. But the disorder was of such a nature as was not to be cured so long as the custom itself of slavery was allowed to subsist; and it has been remedied at last, only by the thorough abolition of an usage which was a continual insult on Humanity: an advantage which (to be, once at least, very serious in the course of this learned and useful Work) we are indebted for, to the establishment of Christianity, whatever other evils certain Writers may reproach it with having occasioned.

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].”

FOOTNOTES:

[24]

... Memini quæ plagosum mihi parvo

Orbilium dictare.—Lib. II. Ep. i. v. 70.

[25] ... “Jam si minor in diligendis custodum & præceptorum moribus fuit cura, pudet dicere in qua proba nefandi homines isto jure cædendi abutantur; non morabor in parte hac, nimium est quod intelligitur.”—Institut. Orat. Lib. I. Cap. 3.

[26] “Denudari deindè, Ludi-magistrum jussit, eumque pueris tradidit reducendum Falerios, manibus post tergum illigatis; virgas quoque eis dedit, quibus proditorem agerent in urbem verberantes.”

The inhabitants of Falerii were so struck with the just conduct of the Dictator (Livy adds) that a total change of their dispositions towards the Romans was the consequence; and the Senate having been assembled thereupon by the Magistrates, they came to the resolution of opening their gates, and surrendering to the Romans; which was soon after effected.

[27] From the above-mentioned passages of king Solomon, Livy, and other antient authors, down to Petrarch, we may safely conclude that the practice of flagellating children has been followed in the world during a number of successive centuries; and we know from undoubted authorities, that the same practice continues in our days to prevail, especially among Schoolmasters. Nay more, very respectable Writers inform us, that Schoolmasters still possess the same strong inclination to exert their authority that way, as they did in the times of Horace and Quintilian.

Thus, Mr. Henry Fielding, a Writer who, better than most others, knew the manners of Men, in his History of a Foundling, represents Thwackum the Schoolmaster, as having, upon every occasion, recourse to his rod, and describes him to us as a true successor of the plagosus Orbilius.

Mr. Gay, another writer, who, too, was deeply versed in the knowledge of Mankind, expresses himself with still more precision on that head, and lays it down as an undoubted maxim, that the delight of a Schoolmaster is to use his whip. The opinion of that Author on the subject is contained in a song written by him: this song was composed in honour of Molly Mog, an Innkeeper’s daughter, at Oakingham in Berkshire: the verses are fifteen in all; and the name of Molly Mog is to be found in each of them, with a rhyme to it.

The School-boy’s desire is a play-day,

The Schoolmaster’s joy is to flog,

The milk-maid’s delights are on May-day;

But mine are in sweet Molly Mog.

However, the researches of our Author on the present deep subject, as well as mine in my humble capacity of Commentator, can bear no comparison, I think, in point of sagaciousness, with the discovery made by Thomas Perez, the Uncle of Diego, who relates his own history in the third volume of the Adventures of Gil Blas, and who takes that occasion to mention the great abilities of his Uncle as an Antiquary. “If it had not been for him (says he) we should still be ignorant that children, in Athens, cried when their Mothers whipped them.”

CHAP. VI.

Flagellations of a religious and voluntary kind were practised among the ancient Heathens.

WE have hitherto only treated of involuntary Flagellations, and such as were in all cases inflicted by force on those who suffered them. But besides Flagellations of this kind, there were others of a voluntary sort among the Heathens, to which those who underwent them, freely and willingly submitted, and which may indeed create our surprise in a much greater degree than the former.

Thus, at Lacedæmon, there was a celebrated Festival, which was kept annually, and was named the Day of Flagellations, on account of the ceremony that was performed in it, of whipping before the altar of Diana a number of Boys, who freely submitted to that painful treatment; and this Festival has been mentioned by a great number of Authors.

Plutarch, for instance, in his Book of the Customs of the Lacedæmonians, relates, that he had been an eye-witness of the celebration of the solemnity we speak of. ‘Boys (says he) are whipped for a whole day, often to death, before the altar of Diana the Orthian; and they suffer it with chearfulness, and even joy: nay, they strive with each other for victory; and he who bears up the longest time, and has been able to endure the greatest number of stripes, carries the day. This solemnity is called The Contest (or race) of Flagellations; and is celebrated every year.’

Cicero, in his Tusculana, has also mentioned this custom of the Lacedæmonians. ‘Boys (says he) at Sparta are lashed before the Altar in so severe a manner, that the blood issues from their body. While I was there, I several times heard it said that Boys had been whipped to death; none of whom ever uttered the least complaint, or so much as groaned.’ And in another place Cicero likewise says, ‘Boys, at Sparta, utter no complaint, though lacerated by repeated lashes.’ Nay more; Mozonius, in Stobæus, relates that the Spartan Boys were rather pleased with these flagellating solemnities. ‘The sons of the Lacedæmonians make it very evident (says Mozonius) that stripes do not appear to them either shameful or hard to be borne, since they allow themselves to be whipped in public, and take a pride in it.’

The Scholiast or Commentator of Thucydides relates the same things of the Lacedæmonian young men; and says that those among them who could bear the greatest number of lashes, acquired much glory by it. ‘And indeed (says he) the Flagellations are performed at particular times during a certain number of days; and those who receive the greatest number of stripes, are accounted the most manly.’

The Parents of the young men who were thus publickly whipped, were commonly present during the performance of the ceremony; and so far were they from discouraging their Sons from going through it, that, as Lucian relates, they deemed it a shameful piece of cowardice in them, if they seemed to yield to the violence of the lashes, and in consequence of this notion they exhorted them to go stoutly through the whole trial. ‘Indeed (continues Lucian) a number of them frequently died in the conflict, thinking it was unworthy of them, so long as they continued to live, to yield to blows and bodily pain, in sight of their friends and relations.’ ‘And to those who die upon those occasions, Statues, as you will see, are erected at Sparta, in the public places.’

Seneca, in his Treatise upon Providence, has also mentioned those singular Flagellations which took place at Lacedæmon, as well as the conduct of the Lacedæmonian Fathers on those occasions. ‘Do not you think (says he) that the Lacedæmonians hate their children, who try their tempers by having them lashed publickly? Their very Fathers exhort them firmly to bear the lashes of the whips; and intreat them, when torn to pieces and half dead, still to continue to offer their wounds to other wounds.’

In fine, with so much solemnity were the flagellating ceremonies and trials we mention performed, that a Priestess, as Silenus of Chios relates, constantly presided over them, holding up a small statue of the Goddess in her hand while the young Men were lashed; and, to crown all, Priests were established to inspect the stripes and marks of the blows, and draw omens from them. ‘I am witness (says Lucian) that there are Priests appointed to inspect the lashes and stripes[28].’ To this it maybe added, that these extraordinary ceremonies of the Lacedæmonians, which are here described, were preserved among them, notwithstanding the numerous revolutions which their Republic underwent, to very late times; and Tertullian mentions them as continuing, in his days, to be regularly celebrated every year. ‘For (says that Author) the Festival of The Flagellations is still in these days looked upon as a very great solemnity at Lacedæmon. Every body knows in what Temple all the young Men of the best families are lashed in the presence of their Relations and friends, who exhort them to bear to the last this cruel ceremony[29].’

Even Philosophers among the Greeks, I mean particular sects of them, had adopted the practice of voluntary Flagellation. Lucian relates in one of his Dialogues, that there were Philosophers in his time, ‘who trained young Men to endure labour, pain, and want; and who made the practice of virtue consist in these austerities. A number of them would bind themselves; others whipped themselves; and those who were the most tender, flead their outer skin with instruments of iron made for that purpose.’

However, austerities of this kind were only practised by particular Sects of Philosophers, as hath been above observed; and the generality of them were so far from adopting such practices, that a great many ridiculed them. Of this we have an instance in the Book of the Life of Apollonius Tyanæus, written by Philostrates. In this Book, Apollonius is said to have spoken in the following manner to Thespesion. ‘Flagellations are practised before the altar of Diana Scythia, because the Oracles have ordered it so; now, I think that it would be folly to resist the will of the Gods. If so (Thespesion answers) you shew, O Apollonius, that the Gods of the Greeks possess but little wisdom, since they prescribe to Men who think they are free, to lash themselves with whips.’

Nor was the practice of those Flagellations to which the persons who underwent them willingly submitted, confined to the Nations of Greece; but the same had also been adopted in other Countries. It obtained among the Thracians, as we find in Artemidorus. ‘The young Men of noble families among the Thracians (says that Author) are on certain occasions cruelly lashed.’

Voluntary Flagellations were also in use among the Egyptians. It even seems that this practice took its origin among them; and they used them as a method of atoning for their sins, and appeasing the incensed Deity. Herodotus has left us an account of the manner in which they commonly performed their flagellations, in the account he has given of the Festival which they celebrated in honour of the great Goddess. ‘After preparing themselves by fasting (he says) they begin to offer Sacrifices, and they mutually beat each other during the time that the offerings are burning on the Altar: this done, the viands which remain after the sacrifice is accomplished, are placed upon tables before those who compose the Assembly.’

The same Herodotus says on another occasion, ‘I have already related in what manner the Festival of Isis is celebrated in the city of Busiris. While the Sacrifice is performing, the whole Assembly, amounting to several thousands of both Men and Women, beat one another.’ To this Herodotus adds, that ‘he is not allowed to mention the reason why those beatings were performed[30].’

Among the Syrians, we likewise find that the use of voluntary Flagellations had been adopted; and their Priests practised them upon themselves with astonishing severity. Apuleius, in his Metamorphosis of the Golden Ass, relates the manner in which these Priests both made incisions in their own flesh, and lashed themselves voluntarily.

‘In fine, they dissect their own arms with two-edged knives, which they use constantly to carry about them. In the mean while, one of them begins to rave and sigh, and seems to draw his breath from his very bowels. He at last feigns to fall into a kind of phrenetic fit, pretending that he is replete with the spirit of the Goddess; as if the presence of the Gods ought not to make Men better, instead of rendering them disordered and weak. But now, behold what kind of favour the Divine Will is going to bestow upon him. He begins to vociferate, and, by purposely contrived lies, to upbraid and accuse himself in the same manner as if he had been guilty of having entertained bad designs against the mysteries of their holy Religion. He then proceeds to award a sentence of punishment against himself; and at the same time grasping his scourge, an instrument which those Priests constantly wear about them, and which is made of twisted woollen cords armed with small bones, he lashes himself with repeated blows; all the while manifesting a wonderful, though affected firmness, notwithstanding the violence and number of the stripes.’ From all that is above related, it is pretty evident that those Syrian Priests used (or seemed to use) themselves, in this cruel manner, only with a view to raise admiration in the minds of weak and superstitious persons by this extraordinary affectation of superior sanctity, and thereby to cheat them out of their money. At least this is the conjecture made by Philippus Beroaldus, in his Commentaries on the Metamorphosis of the Golden Ass, who says, that those Priests were no better than Jugglers, or rather Cheats, who only aimed at catching the money of the Fools who gazed at them[31].

Nay, the opinion of the merit of voluntary or religious Flagellations, was in antient times grown so universal, that we find them to have also been practised among the Romans, who had adopted notions on that subject of the same kind with those of the Syrians and the Egyptians, and thought that the Gods were, upon particular occasions, to be appeased by using scourges and whips. An instance of this notion or practice is to be met with in the Satyricon of Petronius, in which Encolpus relates, that, being upon the sea, the people of the ship flagellated him, in order, as they thought, to prevent a storm. ‘It was resolved (he says) among the Mariners, to give us each forty stripes, in order to appease the tutelar Deity of the ship. No time accordingly is lost; the furious Mariners set upon us with cords in their hands, and endeavour to appease the Deity by the effusion of the meanest blood: as to me, I received three lashes, which I endured with Spartan magnanimity[32].’

But the most curious instance of religious Flagellations, among the Romans, and indeed among all other Nations, is that of the ceremony which the Romans called Lupercalia; a ceremony which was performed in honour of the God Pan, and had been contrived in Arcadia, where it was in use so early as the times of King Evander, and whence it was afterwards brought over to Italy. In this Festival, a number of Men used to dance naked, as Virgil informs us: ‘Here (says he) the dancing Salii, and naked Luperci[33].’ And Servius, in his Commentary upon this verse of Virgil, explains to us who these Luperci were. They were (he says) Men who, upon particular solemnities, used to strip themselves stark naked; in this situation they ran about the streets, carrying straps of leather in their hands, with which they struck the Women they met in their way. Nor did those Women run away from them; on the contrary, they willingly presented the palms of their hands to them, in order to receive their blows; imagining, through a superstitious notion received among the Romans, that these blows, whether applied to their hands or to their belly, had the power of rendering them fruitful, or procuring them an easy delivery.

The same facts are also alluded to, by Juvenal, who says in his second Satire, ‘Nor is it of any service to her, to offer the palms of her hands to a nimble Lupercus[34].’ And the antient Scholiast on Juvenal observes on this verse, that barren Women, in Rome, used to throw themselves into the way of the Luperci when become furious, and were beaten by them with straps[35].

Other Authors, besides those above, have mentioned this festival of the Lupercalia. Among others, Festus, in his Book on the Signification of words, informs us, that the Luperci were also sometimes called Crepi, on account of the kind of noise (crepitus) which they made with their straps, when they struck the Women with them: ‘For it is a custom among the Romans (continues the same Author) for Men to run about naked during the festival of the Lupercalia, and to strike all the Women they meet, with straps.’

Prudentius, I find, has also mentioned the same festival in his Roman Martyr: ‘What is the meaning (says he) of this shameful ceremony? By thus running about the streets under the shape of Luperci, you show that you are persons of low condition. Would you not deem a Man to be the meanest of Slaves, who would run naked about the public streets, and amuse himself with striking the young Women[36]?’

All the Flagellations we have abovementioned were performed in public Solemnities, or with religious views of some kind or other; but there were other instances of voluntary fustigations (as we learn from the ancient Authors) in which those who performed them were actuated by no such laudable motives; or at least, had no precise intention that has been made known to us. Such were the Flagellations mentioned by St. Jerom, in his Observations on the Epitaph of the Widow Marcella. In these Observations St. Jerom informs us, that there were Men in Rome silly enough to lay their posteriors bare in the public Markets, or open Streets, and to suffer themselves to be lashed by a pretended Conjuror. ‘It is no wonder (says he) that a false Diviner lashes the buttocks of those blockheads in the middle of the Streets, and in the Market-place[37].’

And these Conjurors not only lashed the persons who desired them to do so, but they, at other times, would also lash themselves, as we learn from Plautus, though an early Writer; for those Flagellations we mention were, it seems, an old practice among the vulgar in Rome. ‘Pray, is it not (says an Actor in one of this Author’s Plays) is it not the Conjuror who lashes himself[38]?’

Another proof of the practice of those both active and passive flagellations which prevailed among the People in Rome, is also to be drawn from the above-mentioned Book of Festus, on the Signification of words. Festus, explaining in that Book the signification of the word Flagratores, says, that this word signified ‘those who allowed themselves to be whipped for money.’ And M. Dacier, a person of consummate learning in all that relates to Antiquity, says, in his Notes on the above Author, that the word Flagratores signified likewise ‘those who whipped others:’ he adds, that this was the more common acceptation of the word[39].

Besides the flagellations just mentioned, which perhaps were also owing to some superstitious notion or other in those persons who practised them, we find, in antient Authors, instances of lashings and whippings performed in a way perfectly jocular, and as a kind of innocent pastime. None is more remarkable than that which is related by Lucian of the Philosopher Peregrinus. This Peregrinus (Lucian observes) was a Cynic Philosopher of a very impudent disposition. He lived in the time of the Emperor Trajan: after having embraced the Christian Religion, he returned to his former Sect: and then used frequently to lash himself in public in rather an indecent manner. ‘Surrounded by a croud of Spectators, he handled his pudendum (αἰδοῖον) which he exhibited as a thing, he said, of no value. He afterwards both gave himself, and received from the Bystanders, lashes upon his posteriors, and performed a number of other juvenile tricks equally surprizing as these.’

We also find in Suetonius another instance of sportive lashings or slappings among the Ancients; and these, too, practiced upon no less a person than a Roman Emperor. The Emperor here alluded to, was the Emperor Claudius. ‘When he happened (says Suetonius) to fall asleep after his dinner, which was a customary thing with him, they threw stones of olives or of dates at him, in order to awaken him; or sometimes the Court Buffoons would rouse him, by striking him, in a jocular way, with a strap or a scourge[40].’

In fine, I shall conclude this Chapter with an instance of voluntary flagellation among the Ancients, which was not only free either from the superstition or wantonness above-mentioned, but was moreover produced by rational, and, we may say, laudable motives. The instance I mean, is that of the flagellations bestowed upon himself by a certain Philosopher, mentioned by Suidas. The Philosopher’s name was Superanus: he was a Disciple of Lascaris; though past the age of thirty years, he had taken a strong resolution of applying himself to Science, and began at that time to read the works of the most famous Orators. So earnest was he in his design of succeeding in those studies which he had undertaken, that ‘he never grudged himself either the rod or sharp lectures, in order to learn all that Schoolmasters and Tutors teach their Pupils. He even was more than once seen, in the public Baths, to inflict upon himself the severest corrections[41].’

FOOTNOTES:

[28] Pag. 1002. Litt. C. μαντικὸς ἦν μαρτύρομαι δὲ, ἦ μὴν καὶ ἱερέας αὐτῶ αποδειχθήσεσθαι μαστίγων ἢ καυτηρίων.

[29] Pag. 158. Edit. Rig. Namque hodie apud Lacedæmonas solemnitas maxima est διαμαστίγωσις, id est, flagellatio. Non latet in quo Sacro ante aram nobiles quique adolescentes flagellis afficiantur, adstantibus parentibus atque propinquis, & uti perseverarint adhortantibus.

[30] In Euterpe, Lib. II. Cap. 42. pag. 113. Ἐφ’ ὅτω δὲ τύπτονται, οὐ μοι ὅσιόν ἐστι λέγειν.

[31] Whether those Priests whipped themselves in earnest, or only made a feint so to do, as Beroaldus suspects, is difficult to determine; but with respect to the incisions which they pretended to make in their own flesh, there is just ground to think that they only imposed upon their spectators, since a law was made by the Emperor Commodus, which Dr. Middleton has quoted in his Letter from Rome, by which it was ordered that those Priests should be made really to suffer the amputations which they pretended they made on themselves. Bellonæ servientes brachia verè exsecare præcepit. Lamprid. in Com.

[32] “Itaque ut Tutela navis expiaretur, placuit quadragenas utrique plagas imponi. Nulla ergo fit mora; aggrediuntur nos furentes nautæ cum funibus, tentantque vilissimo sanguine Tutelam placare; & ego quidem tres plagas Spartanâ nobilitate concoxi.”—Pet. Arb. Sat. L. II.——The Story, as it is to be found in Petronius, is this. Encolpus and Giton had embarked, unawares, on the ship of one Lycas, to whom Encolpus had formerly given offence; and on board the same ship was also a Lady named Tryphena, who owed a grudge to Giton, by whom she thought she had on a former occasion been slighted. Encolpus and Giton no sooner discovered in whose ship they were, than they were afraid of being ill-used, and attempted to disguise themselves in the dress of Slaves, and for that purpose cut off their hair; a thing which (though they did not know it) was the worst of omens during a voyage, as it never was done but in a storm, in order to make offerings to the incensed Deities of the sea. Somebody spied Encolpus and Giton while they were performing the above operation; the rumour of such a nefarious act, in fair weather, soon spread about the ship, and the crew thereupon used our two passengers in the manner above related. Encolpus (as himself says) bore the three first blows with great magnanimity; but Giton, who was of a more tender frame, screamed so loud at the first blow, that Tryphena heard him, knew his voice, ran upon the deck, and instead of being moved by the sight of his nakedness, insisted upon the whole number of blows being given him: other passengers then took the part of the two culprits; which brought on a battle between them and the crew: at last the affair was compromised, and Encolpus and Giton were released. As for the latter, a Maid slave found means afterwards to fit him with a wig, and paste false eyebrows to his forehead, which made him appear as charming as ever, and Tryphena’s favour was restored to him.

[33] “Hic exultantes Salios nudosque Lupercos.” Æn. Lib. III.

[34] “Nec prodest agili palmas præbere Luperco.” Juv. Sat. II.

[35] “Steriles mulieres februantibus Lupercis se offerebant, & ferulâ verberabantur.”

[36] From the above sentiments delivered by Prudentius, we might be induced to think that only persons of low condition, in Rome, or even Slaves alone, used to run, in the festival of the Lupercalia; yet this does not seem to have been the case, and the lines of Prudentius appear to have contained more declamation than real truth.

The Luperci were in very early times formed into two bands, which were called by the names of the most distinguished families in Rome, Quintiliani and Fabiani; and to these was afterwards added a third band, called Juliani, from J. Cæsar’s name. Marc Antony, as every one knows, did not scruple to run as one of the Luperci, having once harangued the people in that condition: and if he was afterwards inveighed against, on that account, by several persons, and among others by Cicero, his personal enemy, it was owing to his being Consul, when he thus ran among the Luperci: a thing which, it was said, had never been done by any Consul before him.

The festival in question (which may surprise the Reader) continued to be celebrated so late as the year 496, long after the establishment of Christianity; and persons of noble families not only continued to run among the Luperci, but a great improvement was moreover made about those times in the ceremony; the Ladies, no longer contented with being slapt on the palms of their hands, as formerly, began to strip themselves naked, in order both to give a fuller scope to the Lupercus to display the vigour and agility of his arm, and enjoy, themselves, the entertainment of a more compleat flagellation. The whole ceremony being thus brought to that degree of perfection, was so well relished by all parties, that it continued to subsist (as has just now been observed) long after the other ceremonies of Paganism were abolished; and when Pope Gelasius at last put an end to it, he met with a strong opposition from all orders of Men, Senators as well as others. The general discontent became even so great, that the Pope, after he had carried his point, was obliged to write his own Apology, which Baronius has preserved: one of his arguments, among others, was drawn from the above practice of the Ladies, of stripping themselves naked in public in order to be lashed.—Apud illos, nobiles ipsi currebant, & matronæ nudato corpore vapulabant.