[95] Ἀφορισμοῦ τινὰ λύοντες, γυμνοῦσιν αὐτὸν ἕως ὀσφύος, καὶ
μαστίζοντες ἐπὶ γυμνοῦ λώροις, ἀπολύουσιν ὡς συγκεχωρημένον ἐντευθεν.
[96] ... _Carnemque suam nudam disciplinæ virgarum supponens, à
singulis viris religiosis, quorum multitudo magna convenerat, ictus
ternos vel quinos accepit._
Among the instances of Sovereigns who have been publickly
flagellated, may also be reckoned that of Raymond, Count of Toulouse,
whose Sovereignty extended over a very considerable part of the South
of France. Having given protection in his dominions to the Sect
called the _Albigenses_, Innocent III. the most haughty Pope that
ever filled the Papal Chair, published a Croisade against him; his
dominions were in consequence seized, nor could he succeed to have
them restored to him, before he had submitted to receive discipline
from the hands of the Legate of the Pope, who stripped him naked to
the waist, at the door of the Church, and drove him up to the altar
in that situation, all the while beating him with rods.
With respect to the discipline undergone by King Henry II. though
he may be said to have freely submitted to it, yet it did not, at
bottom, materially differ from that imposed upon Raymond, Count of
Toulouse. This Prince had, no doubt, too much understanding to submit
to a ceremony of this kind, out of regard for some prevailing notion
of the vulgar merely, and much less out of any superstition of his
own; but he thought it necessary to perform some remarkable religious
act of that sort, for silencing at once the clamours of the Priests,
the whole body of whom, incensed by the death of Becket, were every
where endeavouring to spirit up the people to a revolt; and he may
with truth be said to have submitted to being flagellated, in order
to preserve his kingdom: which may serve as a proof, among others,
that it is a pleasing thing to be a King.
The last instance of a Sovereign who received a correction from the
Church, was that of Henry IV. of France, when he was absolved of his
excommunication and heresy; and the discipline undergone by that
Prince supplies the solution for an interesting question, that may be
added to those above discussed; viz. Which is the most comfortable
manner of receiving a flagellation?--It is by Proxy.--This was the
manner in which the King we speak of, suffered the discipline which
the Church inflicted upon him. His proxies were Mess. D’Ossat, and
Du Perron, who were afterwards made Cardinals. During the performing
of the ceremony of the King’s absolution, and while the Choristers
were singing the Psalm _Miserere mei Deus_, the Pope, at every
verse, beat, with a rod on the shoulders of each of the two proxies;
which shews how essential a part of the ceremony of an absolution,
flagellations have been thought to be; and also, how strictly the
Church of Rome adheres to such forms as are prescribed by its
Ritual, or, by the _Pontifical_, as it is called. Express mention
was moreover made of the above beating, in the written process that
was drawn of the transaction. _Dominus Papa verberabat & percutiebat
humeros Procuratorum, & cujuslibet ipsorum, virgâ quam in manibus
habebat._
As a farther indulgence to the King who was thus disciplined by
proxy, and very likely also out of regard for the age in which the
ceremony was performed, the two Gentlemen who represented him, were
suffered to keep their coats on, during the operation; and the lashes
seem moreover not to have been laid upon them, with any great degree
of vigour. However, some persons at the Court of France, either out
of envy against the two above Gentlemen, on account of the commission
with which the King had honoured them, or with a view to divert
themselves, had, it seems, circulated a report, that, on the day of
the ceremony, the 17th of September 1595, they had been made actually
to strip in the Church, and undergo a dreadful flagellation. This
report M. D’Ossat contradicts in one of his Letters, the collection
of which has been printed; and he says, that the discipline in
question was performed to comply with the rules set down in the
_Pontifical_, but that ‘they felt it no more than if it had been a
fly that had passed over them, being so well coated as they were.’
Very express mention of the above discipline was nevertheless made,
as hath been above observed, in the written process drawn on the
occasion; though the French Ministers would not suffer it to be
joined with the Bull of absolution which was sent to the King for
his acceptation, and in which no such account was contained. This,
another French Author observes, did not prevent the Italians from
deriving triumph from the event, and saying that the King of France
had been disciplined at Rome.
From the above two instances of Henry II. of England, and Henry IV.
of France (the authenticity of which is beyond any doubt) we find
that two crowned Heads, Kings of the two most powerful States in
Europe, both of the name of Henry, have publicly submitted to the
discipline of flagellation, either in their own person, or by proxy:
the one, to preserve his Crown; and the other, in order to qualify
himself for taking possession of it. I desire the judicious Reader to
ponder well all these facts, and not to charge me with having chosen
too unimportant a subject to treat in this Work.
It may be added, that an instance of a Sovereign submitting to a
flagellation, may be seen in our days, at every vacancy of the See
of Wurtzburgh; a sovereign Bishoprick in Germany. It is an antient
custom in the Chapter of that Church, that the person who has been
elected to fill the place of the late Bishop, must, before he can
obtain his installation, run the gantlope, naked to the waist,
between the Canons, who are formed in two rows, and supplied with
rods. Some say this custom was established in order to discourage
the German Princes from being Candidates for the above Bishoprick;
but perhaps also the Canons who established the same, had no other
design than procuring the pleasure to themselves and successors, when
they should afterwards see their equal become their Sovereign, of
remembering that they had cudgelled him.
Other facts, besides that of Henry the Second, shew that the power
of the Clergy was carried as far, at least, in England, as in any
other Country. Bishop Goodwin relates, that in the reign of Edward
I. Sir Osborn Gifford, of Wiltshire, having assisted in the escape
of two Nuns from the Convent of Wilton, John Peckham, who was then
Archbishop of Canterbury, made him submit, before he absolved him
of his excommunication, to be publicly whipped, on three successive
Sundays, in the Parish Church of Wilton, and also in the Market and
Church of Shaftsbury[97].
[97] See Dr. Berkenhout’s _Biographia Litteraria_, Art. _John
Peckham_.