_The last Chapter, in which the Abbé Boileau is personally
introduced: he is of opinion that the lower discipline is contrary
to decency, and the upper discipline is liable to bring defluxions
on the eyes_[118].
Several Divines, as we have seen, have united in blaming the cruel
severity with which certain persons used to inflict disciplines
upon themselves, by which those persons assimilated themselves to
Idolaters and Pagans; besides, it is well worth observing that, by
this very severity, those zealous performers of disciplines in the
issue obstruct their own piety, and defeat their own ends.
In fact, Physicians and Anatomists inform us, that such is the
secret, or open, communication between all parts of the human body,
that it is impossible to do any material and continual kind of injury
to any, without the other parts being, sooner or later, affected by
it: hence it follows that those persons who execute disciplines upon
themselves with the great severity we mention, in process of time
fall into serious distempers of some kind or other; so that they at
length find themselves disabled from continuing those practices by
which they intended to procure the improvement of their morals.
The next and the most tender parts are, in the cases we speak of,
unavoidably affected by the consequence of the injury that is thus
done to the other parts; and from harsh disciplines repeatedly
performed upon the shoulders, at length arise, as the learned
Bartholinus observes, disorders and defluxions on the eyes.
This inconvenience from the exercises we mention, much perplexed
Father Gretzer, who, as hath been before observed, was a great
friend to the practice of discipline; and in order to be thoroughly
satisfied on that subject, he one day consulted a Physician, a
friend of his, who partly freed him from his fears, and partly
confirmed them. This Physician made answer, that disciplines executed
on the shoulders, when performed with moderation, were perfectly
harmless with respect to the eyesight; but then he absolutely avoided
giving any such opinion in regard to those which were performed
in a harsh or cruel manner. The following is the oracle which the
Physician in question delivered.
‘The vulgar opinion, that lashes, applied to the back, are apt to
hurt the eyes, is not well grounded. It is true that the great
loss of blood injures the brain, and consequently the eyes, which
are called by some the _sprouts_ of it; and this it effects by the
diminution it causes of the vital heat. But there does not arise from
disciplines, such a great loss of blood as that the brain may thereby
suffer any considerable deperdition of its heat: on the contrary;
since scarifications on the back are often employed with success
for the cure of disorders in the eyes, why should bad consequences
to them be feared from a few stripes? Those therefore alone who are
of a weakly habit of body the exercise in question can hurt, but
not persons of a good constitution; and when disciplines are so
moderately inflicted as to cause no loss of blood, and barely to
affect the colour of the skin, no detriment certainly ought to be
feared from them.’ Such was the decision of this excellent Physician,
and to it Father Gretzer adds that he willingly and readily
subscribes[119].
All physicians, however, have not agreed with him whose authority we
have just quoted. Some have delivered different opinions concerning
the harmlessness of discipline with respect to the eyes; and whether
it was that the Capuchin Friars thought the advice of these latter
of greatest weight, or that they intended their zeal should be
unrestrained by any apprehension, they have adopted the use of the
lower discipline; and the generality of Nuns have done the same, from
the like intention, of securing their eye sight. Determined thereto
by the advice of able Physicians and pious persons, they have given
up the method of flagellating themselves on their shoulders, in order
to belabour and slash their loins and posteriors with knotted small
cords and hardened rods[120].
But while the persons we speak of have endeavoured to prevent dangers
of one kind, they have incurred others which are still worse. By
most of the antient Monastic Rules, religious persons were forbidden
to inspect any part of their naked bodies, for fear of the wicked
thoughts to which such indulgence might give rise: now, how is it
possible for persons who strip intirely naked, in order to take
discipline, to help, however great their piety may be, having a sight
of those parts of themselves which they have been directed never to
look on? How can Nuns avoid, in those instants, having at least a
glance of those excellent beauties[121] which they are forbidden to
survey, and which they thus imprudently expose to the light of the
Sun? By substituting one kind of discipline to the other, religious
persons have, I am afraid, only laid themselves open, as hath been
above observed, to dangers of a still worse nature than those they
meant to avoid, and have perhaps only fallen from Charybdis into
Scylla[122].
Neither, if such disciplines cannot be performed in secret without
danger, is it very prudent to execute them in the presence of
witnesses. Tertullian observes, that ‘Nature has made either fear or
shame, the attendants of every evil action.’ Now, if we judge from
this rule, we shall become convinced of the truth of the observations
we are making here. In fact, what Man or Woman could, without fear or
shame, execute a lower discipline in company with other persons? who
could without reluctance firk their loins and posteriors with rods,
on an exalted place, and in the middle of a numerous Assembly of
People? who could thus undauntedly expose their nakedness to the rays
of the Sun, and to the eyes of a multitude of Spectators[123]?
[Illustration: (end of chapter mark)]