_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].”
[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]