_Strictness of certain Superiors of Convents, in exerting their
power of flagellation. The same is abused by several of them._
The Reader has seen, in the preceding Chapter, that the punishment
of flagellation was extended to almost every possible offence Monks
could commit; and the duration of the flagellations was, moreover,
left pretty much to the discretion of the Abbot, whether in
consequence of the generality of the terms used in the Statutes, or
through some express provision made for that purpose. In the ancient
Constitutions of the Monastery of Cluny, for instance, which St.
Udalric has collected in one volume, several kinds of offence are
mentioned, for the punishment of which it is expressly said, that the
Offender shall be lashed _as long as the Abbot shall think meet_.
That Abbots and Priors have at all times well known how to exert
those discretionary and flagellatory powers we mention, there is no
manner of doubt. On this occasion, the two following stories may be
related.
The first is that of the discipline which the Prior of a certain
Monastery, who lived in the times of Charles Martel (A. 750)
inflicted on some Carpenters who were employed by him in the service
of the Convent, and who having too carelessly marked the proper size
of a certain piece of timber, with their string rubbed with chalk,
made afterwards a mistake in sawing it. The fact, as it is recited in
the life of St. Pardulph, is as follows.
‘One _Liframnus_, the then Prior of the Monastery, resolved to build
a few wooden steps, in the Chapel of St. Albinus the Martyr. After
the Carpenters had measured the place on which those steps were to be
raised, he took them to the wood, where they accordingly cut a beam,
which they loaded upon a Cart, and conveyed to the Convent; but when
they attempted to settle it upon the proper spot, it was found to be
eighteen inches too short. The Prior, amazed at such a gross mistake,
fell into a passion, and ordered _disciplines_ to be inflicted upon
the Carpenters[61].’
The other fact I mean to relate, to prove the great strictness
of certain Ecclesiastical Superiors in exerting their power of
flagellation, is contained in the Book written by _Thomas de
Chantpré_. ‘There was (that Author says) in the Church of Rheims, a
very able Dean, an Englishman by birth (_genere Anglicano_), who, as
I have been informed by several persons who knew him, used stoutly
to correct his brother Canons for their faults. It happened in his
time, that the venerable Albert, Bishop of Liege, and Brother to the
Duke of Brabant, was driven out of Germany by the Emperor Henry, and
treacherously slain by a few Soldiers of that Emperor, near the
City of Rheims. On the day appointed to celebrate his funeral, the
venerable Rothard, who, though he was still Archdeacon of Rheims,
had lately been elected Bishop of Châlons in _Champagne_, made his
appearance, accompanied by a number of noble persons, without being
clothed in his Canonical gown. After the ceremony was concluded,
the Dean called all the Canons together, and among them the above
Bishop. As soon as they were seated, the Dean said to the Prelate,
You have not, as far as I know, resigned yet your Canonship, or
Archdeaconship? The latter made answer, he had not. Well then, said
the Dean, come and make satisfaction to the Church, and prepare your
back for a discipline in the presence of the Brothers, for your
having been at the choir without the nuptial robe. The Bishop-elect
made no objection: he rose from his seat, stripped himself, and
received a most vigorous discipline from the Dean: this done, he put
on again his clothes, and, before the whole congregation, said to
the Dean in a most graceful manner, I give thanks to God, and to his
blessed Mother, the Patroness of the Church of Rheims, that I leave
it under the government of such a person as you[62].’
Indeed so far have a number of Abbots, or Superiors of Convents,
been from suffering their power of flagellation to lay dormant and
useless, that they, on the contrary, have abused it to a great
degree. Ovisiesius cautioned them, in very early days, against being
guilty of such a fault. Nay, certain Heads of Monasteries have
gone such lengths in that respect, that Cesarius, Bishop of Arles,
was obliged to remind them, that, ‘if they inflicted flagellations
continued too long upon Offenders, so that they died in consequence
thereof, they were guilty of homicide.’
Among those Abbots who have distinguished themselves by their
severity, St. Romuald may be mentioned, who, as we are informed in
his Life written by Cardinal Damianus, was once exposed to a calumny
of the blackest kind, from a Monk whom he used to scourge with great
severity: nay, that holy Man’s Monks, as we are also informed by
Cardinal Damianus, in one instance rose against him, flogged him
without mercy, and drove him out of the Convent. This Saint, besides,
had before been frequently lashed by the Devil[63].
[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]