sirguym
Posts: 318
Joined: 8/10/2007
Status: offline
|
From HISTORY OF FLAGELLATION among DIFFERENT NATIONS A NARRATIVE OF THE Strange Customs and Cruelties of the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians, etc. with an account of its practise among the early Christians, as a religious stimulant and corrector of morals, also anecdotes of remarkable cases of flogging and of celebrated flagellants, London, 1888
(Formally the property of Newport Public Library) republished in facsimile by myself
CHAP. III.-The practice of scourging one's self unknown to the early Christians. FLAGELLATIONS of different kinds being universally practised among the heathens, this circumstance must needs have given but little encouragement to the first Christian; to imitate such mode of correction; and we may take it for granted that they had not adopted it. Indeed, we find that no mention is made of it in the writings of the first either Greek or Latin Fathers; for instance, in the Epistles of St. Ignatius, the Apologies of Justinius, the Apostolic Canons, the Constitutions attributed to Clement the Roman, the works of Origen, the Stromats of Clement of Alexandria, and all the works in general of Eusebius of Caesarea, of St. Chrysostom, of St. Basil, and of St. Basil of Selucia In all the above authors, no mention, I say, is made of flagellations; at least of those of a voluntary kind; unless we are absolutely to explain in a literal manner, passages in which they manifestly spoke in a figurative sense. We may therefore safely conclude, that the first Christians had no notion of those cruel exercises which prevailed in later days, and that to flay one's hide with scourges or rods, as is in these times the practice of numberless devotees, in or out of religious orders, were practices unknown to them. Regard for truth, however, obliges us to mention one or two instances of flagellation; which are to he found in the history of the ancient eastern Anchorites, written by Theodoret, who has been above mentioned; hut those instances are such, that certainly no argument can be derived from them, to prove that voluntary flagellations were in use in the times in which those Anchorites lived. One of those instances is to be found in the life of Abrahames. It is related in it, that the Christian populace having attempted to seize the sheets in which the body of that saint was wrapped, the lictors drove them back with whips. Now it is obvious to everyone, that the lashes which these lictors bestowed, to and fro and at random, upon those men who beset them, were not willingly received by the latter. And the same may certainly with equal truth be observed of the flagellations inflicted upon the people (which is the second instance mentioned by Theodoret) by the collectors of the public tributes, who, he says, used to collect them with scourges and whips. The rules of the first religious orders founded in the west, have been likewise silent as to the voluntary use of thongs and whips. The first rule, for instance, prescribed to the Benedictines, that ancient western order, does not mention a word about self-flagellation; and the same silence is to be observed in the rules framed by Ovisiesius, Abbot of Tabennn; by St. Aurelian, Bishop of Ades; by St. Isidorus, Bishop of Sevil; by St. Tetradius; and a number of others, whose rules Holstenius has likewise collected. From thence we may therefore conclude, that Christians in those times, had no notion of those beatings and scourgings which are now so prevalent, and that the upper and lower disciplines were alike unknown among them. The only author of weight, in the days we speak of, who seems to have made any mention of voluntary flagellations being practised in the ancient monasteries, is St. John Climax, who according to some accounts, lived in the middle of the fourth, and according to others, only in the sixth century. This author relates, that, in a certain monastery, "some, among the monks, watered the pavement with their tears; while others, who could not shed any, beat themselves."
CHAP. IV.-Corrections of a flagellatory kind, inflicted by force; the common method of correcting offences of a religious nature; and the power of inflicting them possessed alike by bishops and the heads of Monasteries. IT must be confessed, however, that though self-flagellation made no part of the rules or statutes belonging to the different monastic orders, founded in those early stages of Christianity, the same cannot be said of that method of correction, when imposed by force upon such monks as had been guilty of offences, either against the discipline of the order, or against piety: an extensive power of inflicting such salutary corrections, having, from the earliest times, been lodged in the hands of abbots and the superiors of convents. Nay more, we find that bishops during the very first times of Christianity, assumed the paternal power we mention, even with regard to persons who were bound to them by no vow whatever, when they happened to have been guilty either of breaches of piety or of heresy. Of this, a remarkable proof may be deduced from the 59th Epistle of St. Augustin, which he wrote to the Tribune Marcellinus, concerning the Donatists. St. Augustin expresses himself in the following words: "Do not recede from that parental diligence you have manifested in your researches after offenders; in which you have succeeded to procure confessions of such great crimes, not by using racks, red-hot blades of iron, or flames, but only by the application of rods. This is a method of coercion which is frequently practised by teachers of the fine arts upon their pupils, by parents upon their children, and often also by bishops upon those whom they find to have been guilty of offences." Another proof of this power of flagellation, assumed, by bishops in very early times, may be derived from the account which Cyprianus has given of Cesarius, Bishop of Arles; who says, that that bishop endeavoured as much as possible, in the exercise his power, to keep within the bounds of moderation prescribed I the law of Moses. The following are Cyprianus's words: "The holy man took constant care that those who were subjected to h authority, whether they were of a free or servile condition, when they were to be flagellated for some offence they had committed should not receive more than thirty-nine stripes. If any of then however, had been guilty of a previous fault, then indeed P permitted them to be again lashed a few days afterwards, though with a smaller number of stripes." From the two passages above, we are informed that the power of whipping, possessed by bishops, extended to persons of ever vocation, indiscriminately; and with much more reason may w think that those persons who made profession of the ecclesiastical life, were subjected to it. In fact we see that even the different dignities which they might possess in the church, did not exempt them from having a flagellation inflicted upon them by their bishops, when they had been guilty of offences of rather a serious kind; and Pope St. Gregory the Great, moreover; recommended to the bishops of his time, to make a proper use of their authority In his sixty-sixth Epistle, he himself prescribes to Bishop Pasehasins, the manner in which he ought to chastise Deacon Hilary who had caluminated Deacon John. "Whereas" he says, "guilt ought not to pass without adequate satisfaction, we recommend to Bishop Pasehasius to deprive the same Deacon Hilary of his office, and after having caused him to be publicly lashed, to confine him to some distant place; that the punishment inflicted upon one, may thus serve to the correction of many." This power of inflicting the brotherly correction of whipping was also possessed by the abbots and priors in all the ancient monasteries; though, at the same time, it was expressly provided by the rules of the different orders, that the same should be assumed by no other persons. "Let no man, except the abbot or him to whom he has intrusted his authority, presume to excommunicate, or flog a brother." When the faults committed by monks were of a grevious kind, the abbot was not only charged to correct them by means of his discretionary power of flagellation, but he was moreover expressly directed to exert that power with rigour. In the rule framed by St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, it is ordained with respect to a monk who is convicted of being a liar, a thief, or a striker, "That if, after being warned by the elder monks he neglects to mend his manners, he shall, on the third time, be exhorted in the presence of all the brethren, to leave off his bad practices. If he still neglects to reform, let him be flagellated with the utmost severity." The above rule of St. Fructuosus is mentioned by Echert, in his Collection of Canons, which together with his Councils of England, has been published by Spelman. St. Ferreol, Bishop of Usez, framed a rule for monks, which like that above, makes severe provisions against such monks as are addicted to the practice of thieving. "With regard to the monk who stands convicted of theft, if we may still call him a monk, lie shall be treated like him who is a of adultery for the second time; let him therefore be chastised with the whip, and with great rigour too. The same punishment ought to be inflicted upon him as upon a fornicator, since it may be justly suspected that his lewdness has induced him to commit theft." Committing indecencies with other monks, or with boys, were offences which the Statutes of Convents likewise directed to be punished by severe flagellations; and the above St. Fructuosus, Bishop of Braga, ordered that the punishment should, in the above case, he inflicted publicly. "If a monk " it is said in rule, "is used to tease boys and young men, or is caught attempting to give them kisses, or in any other indecent acti and the fact be proved by competent witnesses, let him publicly whipped." Refusing to make proper satisfaction to the abbot for offences committed, or in general persevering in denying them, were a grevious faults in the eye of the first founders, or reformers, monastic orders. In the rule framed fifty years after that of Benedict, in order to improve it, the following direction v contained: "If the brothers who have been excommunicated their faults, persevere so far in their pride, as to continue, on t ninth hour of the next day, to refuse to make proper satisfaction to the abbot let them be confined, even till their death, a lashed with rods." Nor is the rule of the above-mentioned Bishop of Braga less severe against those monks whose pride prevents them from making a proper confession of the offences they m have committed. "To him" it is said in that rule, "who, throu pride and inclination to argue, continues to deny his fault, let additional and severer flagllation be imparted." The habit of holding wanton discourses, or soliciting the brethren to wickedness, was also deemed by the founders religious orders to deserve severe flagellations; and St Paco ordered in his rule, which it was said had been dictated to him I an angel, that such as had been guilty of the above faults, and had been thrice admonished, should be publicly lashed before the gate of the convent. Attempts to escape from monasteries, were, even in very earl times, punished by flagellation. We read in Sozomenius, tha St. Macanus of Alexandria, Abbot of Nitria in Thebaid, who had five thousand monks under his direction, ordered the chastisement to be inflicted upon those who should attempt to climb over the walls of the monasteries. "If anyone continues in his wickedness, and says, I can no longer bear to stay here, but I will pack up my things and go where God will direct me; let any one of the brothers inform the prior, and the prior the abbot, of the fact; let then the abbot assemble the brothers, and order the offender to be brought before them and chastised with rods." The holy founders of religious orders have also been very severe, in their provisions, against such monks as seek for familiarities with the other sex. In the rule of the Monastery of Agaunus, it was ordained, that, "If any monk had contracted the bad habit of looking on women with concupiscence, the abbot ought to be informed of the fact and bestow upon the monk a corrective discipline; and that, if he did not mend his manners in consequence thereof, he ought to be expelled from the society as a scabby sheep, lest he should ruin others by his example." The above monastery had been built by Sigismond, King of Burgundy, to the honour of one hundred and twenty Martyrs of the Theban Legion, of which St. Maurice was the commander, under the reign of the Emperor Maximinus. The above-quoted rule of St. Fructuosus, is no less severe against those monks who seek for the company of women. In the fifteenth chapter, which treats of the lewd and quarrelsome, it is ordered, that, "if after having received proper reprehensions they persist in their wicked courses, they shall be corrected by repeated lashings." And St. Columbanus, who is the first who instituted the monastic life in France, and has written a rule as a supplement to that of St. Benedict, also expresses himself with great severity against such monks as are convicted of having barely conversed with a woman in the absence of witnesses; for though there are faults for which he orders only six lashes to be given yet, in the case here mentioned be prescribes two hundred. "Let the man who has been alone with a woman, and talked familiarly to her, either be kept on bread and water for two days, or receive two hundred lashes."
|
Self Flagellation - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread