Corporal Punishment In History

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN HISTORY
By Alex Birch


PART 1
Catherine Cadiere and Father Gerard

Catherine Cadiere was born in 1709 in Toulon into a deeply religious Catholic family. She was, as a very young girl, put into the Royal Seminary to be schooled by priests and eventually came into the care, fatefully, of Father John Gerard. Gerard became obsessed with the girl and she fell under his spell, being induced into fits and hysterical hallucinations for which Gerard prescribed whippings on her naked body and these became regular happenings, soon followed when Catherine was about 19 by regular sexual intercourse.

Eventually Catherine became pregnant and the terrified Gerard managed to concoct a potion which induced a miscarriage. Fearful that their liason might soon be discovered, Gerard sent Catherine off to a convent as soon as she was fit to travel. The Abbess became suspicious of Gerard's frequent visits and refused him access to the girl's cell but allowed him unsupervised access to her through the grille of her small monastic cell.

Ever resourceful, Gerard would bring a knotted flail with him under his cloak and persuade Catherine to climb up on the cell table and thrust her naked bottom against the grille for a whipping – as shown in Paula's delightful drawing, and incidentally, if you ever thought Paula was just a spanking artist, albeit a great one, just look at the depth of expression in Catherine's face.

Eventually the truth came out and Gerard faced an ecclesiastical trial. To cut a long story short, it ended well for both of them. He was acquitted because of a divided ecclesiastical jury and Catherine was returned to her mother, Gerard being denied any further access to her.


Jeanne de la Motte

Jeanne de la Motte was one of the architects of 'The Diamond Necklace Affair' when , in a gigantic fraud, she persuaded one Cardinal Rohan-Guemene to buy a fabulous diamond necklace on behalf of the ill fated Marie Antoinette. The Queen, who had been criticised for her lavish spending could not be seen to buy it herself. The Cardinal was desperate to curry favour with the Queen and Jeanne, who moved easily in court circles offered to be the 'middle woman' who would pass the necklace on to the Queen. In truth of course she was planning to steal it and flee the country

The Queen, she said, would pay back the cardinal in many ways. Jeanne de la Motte managed to locate a double of Marie Antoinette who met the Cardinal at dusk in the gardens of Versailles and promised him sexual favours as well as money if he would purchase the necklace. The Cardinal was won over completely by such promises and fell into the trap.

Eventually the plot was blown apart by the jewellers becoming suspicious and petitioning the real Queen, who knew nothing about it. Jeanne de la Motte was arrested along with some co-conspirators and sent for trial. At the end of the trial her fellow defendants were acquitted but Jeanne received a terrible shock. The royal court was determined that Jeanne should pay a heavy price for her embarrassment of the Queen and she was sentenced to be stripped naked and whipped publicly at a scaffold in the Cours de Justice , before being branded on her shoulder and sent to the whores prison at Saltpetriere.

She goes down in history as the last woman to be publicly whipped in France. However, in the long term, she did a lot better than poor Marie Antoinette, for she escaped from Saltpetriere, fled to England and grew rich on her notoriety while, of course, the poor Queen was destined for the guillotine.


PART 2
Jane Digby

Jane Digby was, back in the early 1800s, what would be known today as a 'wild c***d'. She was born into a rich family, the Coke-Digbys, and was an only daughter. Thus she was spoiled, wilful and headstrong though given of a very warm and considerate disposition towards those less well-off than herself. Her parents loved her dearly but were also firm disciplinarians. When Jane was ten, they decided her wilful nature needed to be curbed and a Governess was appointed, one Margaret Steele who lived up to her name. The redoubtable Miss Steele not only taught Jane music, needlework, religious studies and social deportment but also the consequences of breaching her instructions.

Jane wrote in her diaries of the 'dreadful anticipation of Miss Steele's strap' as she knelt over an armchair, sobbing, with her skirts raised and her drawers down. Despite, or maybe because of this firmness, Jane loved her governess dearly and they remained close for many years into Jane's adulthood. When Margaret Steele died, Jane was almost inconsolable. Her parents, enlightened for their time, had decided that Jane would receive the same education as her brothers and to achieve this she was given the best tutors and, at the age of fifteen, was sent to a seminary in Tunbridge Wells to be instructed by priests among girls of her own social class.

She returned at sixteen to her home at Holkham a beautiful young woman with a good command of French, German and Italian plus a good grounding in the arts and history. So this young lady, due to be presented at court in 1824 , was no 'bimbo' but a very intelligent young woman. She was also, by her own admission, very sexually repressed and frustrated as she grew into womanhood having taking her first tentative steps in sexual exploration with other girls at the seminary.

She would be presented at court when 18 and for the twelve months preceding that, Jane's parents decided that she would have her education 'polished' under the tutelage of a former Public School tutor named Mr. Mardon (first name never mentioned for some strange reason). It was during this period that Jane began to explore her sexuality. She was in love with her cousin, George Anson, who ignored her and in frustrated desperation began to have sexual liaisons with one of the stable grooms.

When this impropriety came to the notice of Jane's mother, Lady Andover, the good lady had had enough. She told Jane's tutor to take whatever disciplinary steps he considered necessary to get this 'wild c***d' back on track.

Thus after several warnings, Jane was summoned to her father's study where her tutor was waiting along with, to Jane's surprise, a maidservant. On the study table lay a birch rod and Jane was told she was to be birched for her behaviour, an intimate punishment which required a female witness. Jane was more horrified by the knowledge that she was to be humiliated in front of a servant than by the punishment itself. She begged that the the girl be removed but to no avail.

She was ordered to remove her dress, petticoats and drawers and to bend down holding her calves. She later confessed 'Though my cheeks were burning with shame, I shuddered with excitement at having to remove my drawers in front of a man'. With her chemise raised to her shoulders, Jane was quite naked, the maid holding the chemise up while the birching took place.

As the punishment continued, Jane became quite visibly sexually aroused by it and the whipping was brought to a premature end by the embarrassed tutor. Jane later admitted a latent love of spanking since c***dhood but this experience opened the floodgates, Jane confessing to a love of the rod which would last until her dying day.

Within a few months of that incident, Jane Digby was presented at court in 1824 where she met Lord Ellenborough, a well known womaniser and rake, to whom she was married within six months. The marriage was a disaster, though she bore him a c***d, but it was then she became famous - or rather notorious - for a whole series of affairs and liaisons in high places which made her the gossip of the land. Faced with all these rich men from whom she could have demanded anything, she turned her back on it and went to live as the mistress of an Albanian bandit chief, in a mountain cave. Finally, when in middle age, she married an Arab sheikh young enough to be her son, living out her life as a Princess and subjected, very happily, to the strictures of Arab discipline. She died at the age of 74 and was buried in Damascus, ignored by family and friends after a life of adulterous notoriety - but she claimed never to have regretted a single minute of it.


Rose Keller

On Easter Sunday, April 3rd 1768, a woman stood outside the Church of the Little Fathers in the Place des Victoires in Paris begging for alms. She was a respectable woman named Rose Keller and had done this each day since losing her job as a cotton spinner. She had been a respectably married woman from Strasbourg, but the death of her husband suddenly and the loss of her job had reduced her to penury and she decided that begging, while shameful in her eyes, was preferable to selling herself on the streets. She might have been forced into this sad state until she died of exposure but strange and unexpected circumstances came to her aid.

A man approached her, after watching for some minutes as passers by thrust small change into her hand, and offered her two livres (almost ?6 in English money) if she would follow him to his country cottage. This in 1768 was an enormous sum of money. Rose was no fool and immediately sensed what might be involved in such a visit and indignantly announced that she was not that kind of woman, despite her circumstances.

The man glibly informed Rose that he was a temporary resident in Paris who needed a housekeeper and this was a way to help her out of her difficulties. She was persuaded that the job carried a guarantee of plentiful food and a shelter and then she gratefully accepted.

He introduced himself as Donatien Alphonse Francois, the Marquis de Sade and Rose was impressed by his title. He took her to his cottage at Arcueil, just outside Paris, and showed her a bedchamber in which she could rest while he prepared food. The poor woman was overwhelmed by her apparent good fortune.

Instead he came up to her bedroom and locked the door behind him. He ordered Rose to take off all her clothes. Genuinely shocked and angry, Rose refused saying she was not a prostitute and had been tricked. Sade told her that unless she obeyed he would kill her and bury her in the garden. Terrified , she obeyed but refused to remove her chemise. The enraged Marquis tore off her chemise, pushed her face down on the bed and began to whip her back and buttocks with a bundle of canes and a cat o nine tails. During the whipping, she later testified, Sade poured molten wax into her cuts and weals. The louder she screamed, the harder he whipped until he reached orgasm and then the whipping stopped.

Rose was then locked in the bedroom and, terrified, she tore the bedsheets into strips and escaped through the window. Hysterical she ran to the nearest village and reported the crime to the local Bailiff. The Bailiff's wife, one Mme Lambert, was given the task of inspecting Rose's wounds to establish the truth of her story and she was so shocked by Rose's condition that she burst into tears and fled to her room. To the credit of the local magistrate, De Sade's title counted for nothing and a a charge was brought before a judge the very next day on Easter Monday.

De Sade's family now realised that Donatien was in serious trouble and they tried to buy Rose off. To their shock they discovered that this 'simple beggar woman' had a sound business head on her shoulders and she demanded 3000 livres - nearly ?9000 - to drop any charges. Well, of course, in 1768 that was a phenomenal sum but they paid up.

Rose Keller's life changed for the better overnight. A nightmare encounter during which she feared death had resulted in riches beyond her dreams, and she took the chance of a new life and met a new husband then, as far as we know, lived happily ever after.

For the Marquis de Sade, although he appeared to have got away with it, it was the final act by which his mother-in-law, who despised him and his influence on her daughter, could get rid of him. She petitioned the King to have him committed to an asylum and, even while the King was considering it, De Sade organised a week long orgy of flagellation with young girls which led to more protests and his arrest.

He was finally locked away in the lunatic asylum at Charenton where he would spend most of the rest of his adult life, and where he wrote most of his controversial works, until released, an old and sick man, by the forces of the French Revolution.


PART 3
Boadicea

The humiliating flogging of the Druid Queen Boadicea (or as Winston Churchill once famously wrote 'Boudicca, to the learned') was one of the earliest documented examples of public corporal punishment and one which prompted a violent and unexpected backlash which took the occupying Roman army by surprise and forced a terrible and bloody conflict.

Boadicea was the wife of Prasutagus, Druid King of the Iceni, a tribe whose lands spanned the modern English counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and parts of Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. Prasutagus had come to an agreement with the Roman conquerors that he would cooperate if left to rule in peace, a deal beneficial to both parties. However by AD60 there was a mood of simmering revolt among the Druids, especially after the Romans had tried to subjugate the historic Isle of Mona, a Druid sanctuary, by force. They were at first repelled by an onslaught of screaming naked Druid women (that must have been some sight!) who charged the Roman ranks carrying only fiery torches, but eventually the Romans triumphed after killing virtually every man, woman and c***d in the community.

The incident created violent unrest in the rest of Britain as news was carried from tribe to tribe. Prasutagus, now very ill, recognised the danger and tried to protect his wife and daughters from harm by making a will which left the Roman Emperor, Nero, a third share in his lands and property. In AD61 Prasutagus died, content that he had safeguarded his family.

Unfortunately, when the terms of the will were declared to Paulinus Suetonius, Nero's British Consul, he was enraged that this Druid 'underling' should have the temerity to decide what the Emperor of Rome was owed. Telling his commanders that the Iceni needed a lesson in humility he told them to accomplish just that.

The result was swift and shocking for within days, a Roman regiment, including some slaves, was despatched to Prasutagus's palace where they forced an entry and began to ransack the place. Boadicea, then around 45 years old, and her two daughters, were then dragged out of the palace into the grounds where the shocked Boadicea was forced to watch while the two girls were stripped and ****d by the Roman soldiers who then handed them over to the slaves to be further violated. Boadicea herself was taken prisoner and taken to a large public square where she was tied to a whipping post in front of Roman soldiers and many of her subjects, then stripped and flogged until blood was drawn. ( I love this picture by Paula and the outraged angry expression on the Iceni queen's face)

Until this moment, Boadicea had been a quiet and dutiful queen but the old adage 'Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' ...or in this case, humiliated, has never rung truer. Boadicea and her daughters travelled the length and breadth of the Iceni lands urging revolt and soon were joined by other tribes sick of the Roman yoke. Thus began a wave of revolt the like of which the Romans had never seen. The raggle taggle Iceni forces attacked Colchester, a centre of Roman culture, burned the city virtually to the ground and killed virtually every Roman soldier and citizen in it. The Iceni then turned their attention on London, much smaller then of course, and killed everyone who stood in their way. They did the same to St. Albans, the death toll exceeding 70,000.

Eventually the Romans were reinforced after suffering terrible losses and, though still outnumbered, chose a battleground which suited their military skills, the result being a massive annihilation of Boadicea's forces, the British tribes losing 80,000 men and women while the Romans lost only 400 men. The Romans exhibited terror tactics for one of the earliest recorded occasions, cutting off the genitals of the dead British, disembowelling them and hanging the mutilated bodies up for all to see.

Boadicea herself, seeing defeat was inevitable, took poison and died on the battlefield while her daughters were captured and sent into slavery. The Romans were forced to send another 40,000 troops from Germany to keep the British under control, which they did with terrible v******e but one wonders if Paulus Suetonius ever reflected ruefully on the cost of his decision to humiliate and degrade Boadicea and her daughters!.


Lady Sophia Lindsay

In 1660, after a bitter Civil War and many years of Cromwell's protectorate, England was restored to a monarchy with the triumphant return of Charles II as King. The delight of many at the return of the King was soon tempered by the degree of retribution the new monarch exercised for past crimes against his father and against those who had supported Cromwell.

Before his return from exile, the new King had promised that all religious opinions throughout England and Scotland would be respected - yet soon after taking the throne signed an Act of Parliament which outlawed any religious gathering which did not subscribe to the recognised Prayer Book. A prime target for this legislation was the Presbyterian Scots whose religious dissent was put down with ruthless ferocity.

The King's brother James, Duke of York, was appointed a sort of roving representative for Scotland, more or less his brother's eyes and ears in the rebellious north. He was a Catholic which made him suspect to the new Anglican parliament in London. A new law covering Scotland was brought in at the Duke's behest which insisted that every Scot pledged allegiance to the organised Protestant faith - a breathtaking piece of hypocrisy from a man who continued to practise his Catholicism in private.

The Scottish Parliament included the Earl of Argyll, a Presbyterian, who publicly announced that he could sign the pledge of allegiance while still remaining true to his Presbyterian values. The claim was inflammatory and the Earl was arrested and charged with high treason. He was found guilty and sentenced to hang.

The news was received with horror by his family and it was resolved that something daring needed to be done to save him. One of the visitors allowed him during his incarceration was his beautiful daughter, Lady Sophia Lindsay, wife of the Earl of Buccleugh. She very bravely decided to visit her father accompanied by a number of maidservants and pages. She was allowed such luxuries given her status in society. They took extra clothing with them and after distracting the guard, they made up the Earl's bed with rolled up blankets to make it appear he was sleeping, then spirited him out of jail dressed as a page. The deception was not discovered until too late and the Earl was on his way, in a boat , to Holland.

When the deception was discovered , Lady Sophia Lindsay was arrested and tried by a Civil Council. Such was the anger at her effrontery, the Council voted that she should be stripped to the waist like a common prostitute, tied to a cart tail, and whipped all day through the streets of Edinburgh. The sentence was received with horror by her family, not least by her husband who sought urgent talks with the Duke of York, pleading desperately for the humiliation to be reduced and citing that the whole family had long been supporters of the new King and had worked for his return.

The Duke listened sympathetically and to the Earl of Buccleugh's relief, agreed to substitute an alternative private punishment. Thus on a May morning in 1681, Lady Sophia Lindsay was taken to a private room in Edinburgh Castle and there she found a waiting Sergeant-At-Arms, a duty guard, her embarrassed husband and her frantically weeping mother. She was told to kneel over a low stool after which her long dress and petticoats were raised and pinned to her shoulders, exposing her naked bottom to all. The Sergeant-at-Arms then took one of a sheaf of birch rods from a bucket of brine and proceeded to give Lady Sophia a very thorough and painful birching, some reports say she received 50 strokes, after which she was released into the custody of her husband. The experience must have been embarrassing and painful but surely preferable to the original sentence!

Sad to say the sacrifice of Lady Sophia's bottom - and accompanying dignity - was in vain for her father, the Earl of Argyll, made his way secretly back to Scotland where he was caught, tried once more and this time he was executed.


PART 4
The Boston Quakers

From the very beginning of the migration of religious dissidents from England to the New World, Puritans, mainly Calvinists, had built and developed the city of Boston as a tribute to God's Kingdom on earth , a shining example of strict theology, subservience to church elders and to elected magistrates. They perceived true faith to be represented through strong personal discipline and obedience. Then, in 1656, the first Quakers began to arrive in Massachusetts, many missionaries finding their way to Boston.

Initially there were no laws within Boston preventing Quakers from worshiping as they saw fit or spreading their version of the faith. However, it soon became clear to the Calvinists just what a frightening threat to the established order the Quakers presented with their ideology of 'inner light' , independent convictions and individual conscience. All this 'anarchy' was complete anathema to the strict Puritan ethic and very soon the leaders of the community resolved to rid the state of Quakers by any means possible. The first 'shot across the bows' was fired when a ship called The Swallow arrived in Boston harbour in July 1656, carrying two devout Quaker missionaries named Mary Fisher and Anne Austin. They were immediately arrested when they set foot on shore and all their belongings confis**ted. Both women were stripped naked in the presence of six male magistrates and humiliatingly searched for evidence of witchcraft. None was found and the two women were sent back to England, but only after all their Quaker tracts had been burned in the market place.

Laws were hastily brought in tightening the screw on Quakers and making it i*****l to ship them into Boston. The laws included a whipping sentence for all Quakers who entered the city and heavy fines on any ships captain who transported them. All this did was encouraged more brave Quakers to flood into the city to advance their faith and to express their outrage. In 1659, three Quakers travelled from Rhode Island to Massachusetts to protest against the persecution of their faith. The two men were arrested and hanged and the woman, Mary Dyer, escaped death and was returned to Rhode Island. This brave, or foolhardy (take your pick), woman returned a year later saying it was God's will that she be sent to Boston and this time she too was hanged.

One incident above all others changed the climate for the Quakers because it shamed and embarrassed the local populace and forced a re think of some attitudes. This was the arrival in 1662 of three young English Quaker women to the township of Dover, near Boston. They were Ann Coleman, Mary Tompkins and Alice Ambrose. They made a general nuisance of themselves preaching against the established faith and restrictions on individual conscience. Eventually an influential church elder named (yes honestly!) Hatevil Nutter organised a petition to have the women arrested. On receipt of the petition, Richard Waldron, the Crown magistrate issued an order to the constables of each of eleven towns within the Boston area that the three young women should be tied to a cart tail, stripped to the waist, and given ten stripes apiece with a horse whip on their naked backs in each of the eleven towns.

This was a hideous ruling, a total of 110 stripes each, in addition to the forced march tied half naked to the cart tail to each of the towns, a journey of more than 80 miles in bitterly cold winter weather.

On a freezing cold day, in Dover, the three young women were stripped to the waist, tied to the cart tail and severely whipped while the local populace stood and laughed. They were then towed to Hampton, the second of the towns, and delivered to the constable. Early the next day, the cart was set up in the market place and the three women were again ordered to strip to the waist. Two of them obeyed, but Anne Coleman bravely refused. As a result she was stripped completely naked by the constable, displayed to the crowd and then forced to suffer her whipping naked before being allowed to dress her lower half again. Then the three women were towed to Salisbury where the appalling punishment was delivered for a third time.

In Salisbury however, providence came to their aid. A local doctor who was also a magistrate, one William Barefoot, rather bravely overturned the Crown order and declared the punishment to be complete. He personally dressed the wounds of the three women and returned them personally to the state of Maine and safety just across the river. Had the full sentence been administered there is every possibility that the women might have died. As it was, the public humiliation vented on these poor women gave some Boston worthies some uncomfortable food for thought, and pressure to ease up on Quaker persecution began to grow.

Eventually in 1663, these three brave young women returned to Dover and established a Quaker church. By the year 1670, a third of the citizens of Dover, Massachusetts were Quakers, so the sacrifice made by these young women and their predecessors did at last bear fruit


Catherine de Medici

Catherine de Medici was born in 1519 in Auvergne and was related via her maternal grandmother to the royal house of France. She was orphaned when only a baby but her fortunes appeared to have changed when, still only thirteen years old, she was given in marriage to Henry, the second son of King Francis I of France. A lot of political intrigue had surrounded this match as Pope Clement VII was Catherine's uncle and the King had hoped to gain much influence in papal circles. Sadly for Catherine, the Pope died the year after the wedding so Catherine was of no use to the King. She was virtually consigned to obscurity for ten years even after her husband became King. The humiliations she suffered were intense, having to pander to the whims of her husband's beautiful mistress, Diane of Poitiers, merely to retain some respect and authority. It is held that her experiences of her own public humiliation coloured many of her later attitudes.

She became influential once more when her husband died in 1559 and her son Francis II took the throne of France. He was the husband of Mary Stuart and worshiped his mother, allowing her great political influence in the affairs of state which she grasped eagerly, being a shrewd political operator. In 1560, her son Francis died and then Catherine became very powerful once more. As her second son, Charles IX, was only ten years old, Catherine became regent and virtually Queen of France. She displayed great skill in dealing with Protestant England under Elizabeth I, Catholic Spain under Philip II (her son-in-law) and the Huguenots within her own borders. She managed some very clever balancing tricks in handling her political alliances.

In 1574, Charles IX died aged only 24, and Catherine's third son, Henry , Duke of Anjou, became Henry III, King of France. He was a much more independent and strong minded man than either of his brothers and Catherine's influence again began to wane.

It was at this time that a now ageing and embittered woman began her flirtation with the sect of the flagellants. To the consternation of her son and many other influential people, Catherine joined the Black Brotherhood, a flagellant sect which she soon took over. As her power slipped away, so the dark side of Catherine's nature began to assert itself. Dark stories began to circulate around the Palace that Catherine had begun to physically chastise her errant female staff and that one lady's maid, who had been caught trying on a dress belonging to the, now, Queen-Mother had been whipped with birch rods until her bottom bled copiously.

This became a regular pattern of behaviour during the latter part of Catherine's life and there were few maidservants who survived a week without severe stripes across their buttocks. The least blemish by any of her maidservants, a soiled bed-sheet, dust in the corners, breakfast brought late, all punished by the poor girl stripping naked for a sound dose of the rod before being allowed tearfully and painfully to resume her duties.

Catherine began to preach the gospel of religious flagellation as an instrument of restored moral values and of corporal punishment as a necessary agent of domestic correction. She attempted to persuade her son, Henry, to restore the flagellant sect to a position of influence within the country but Henry was outraged and would have none of it. So she compensated by practising on her staff at every opportunity.

Perhaps the most notorious of Catherine's excesses followed a violent outburst of anger when she overheard four of her ladies-in-waiting making fun of her irritability and increasingly eccentric behaviour. These were no common serving maids but themselves daughters of the nobility for whom serving the Queen-Mother was a stepping stone to finding a husband of wealth and influence. What followed therefore must have been as humiliating an experience as it was possible to imagine. Catherine hosted a dinner party for a number of influential members of the nobility during which the four errant young ladies were summoned into the room.

To the shock and genuine embarrassment of the male guests, some of them parents and close relatives of the young ladies, the four girls were ushered into the room naked from the waist down and made to stand in front of all the guests while Catherine delivered a public condemnation of their behaviour. Then, in front of the assembled gathering, the four young women were ordered to bend low over a table where they were birched personally by Catherine until their screams rang round the Hall.

Such was the disgust felt by many of the onlookers that Henry III was obliged to warn his mother that no such behaviour would ever be tolerated again, and it seems she heeded his warning. Meanwhile Henry, growing older had fallen into bad company and had no c***dren. Catherine lost her fourth son Francis de Valois in 1584 leaving the way open to a Protestant succession in the shape of Henry Bourbon, a prospect which horrified Catherine. Still she tried to use her political skills to save Henry III from his own bad judgments until she discovered that her son had murdered his arch rival, the Duke of Guise.

Old, bitter and finally disillusioned with her wayward son, the flagellant Queen-Mother died on 5th January 1589, aged 69.


PART 5
Father Cornelius Adriason

Cornelius Adriason was born in Brussels in 1518, effectively an only c***d, though his mother had given birth to a still-born infant earlier. He was brought up in a well-to-do, caring and religiously devout family whose most earnest wish was to see their son pass his theological examinations and enter the priesthood, which he succeeded in doing after hard work and application, not being the most naturally gifted of students.

He spent some time teaching in a church school and was, by all accounts, industrious rather than inspirational and it was not long before he realised his calling lay in more internal Church work. He applied through his diocese for an assignment to a monastic order and was duly appointed to a monastery in Brussels teaching theology where his plodding manner was not so much of a handicap.

Cornelius appears to have been a success in this role which he undertook for five years when, at the age of 30 he was appointed as spiritual mentor to the Convent of the Little Sisters in Bruges in 1548. This was a marked step up the ladder for Cornelius for, in such a convent where he was the only male authority figure, his word was law, his standing in the convent hierarchy above even that of the Mother Superior. By understood convention, however, the spiritual mentor did not interfere with the running of the convent in any way but had overall responsibility for the spiritual well-being of the nuns within its walls.

For the first six months of his tenure, he appears to have applied himself to the role with legitimate and wholesome vigour, earning much respect from the nuns and strengthening his individual position. Sometime within that first year, Cornelius, who had always been a solitary man with no experience of women, underwent an experience which was to change his life. On two separate occasions and concerning two different girls, Cornelius was approached by the Mother Superior with very serious concerns about the behaviour of a young nun. Cornelius, along with the Mother Superior, counselled the errant girl on each occasion and, prompted by the Mother Superior's insistence that suitable punishment should follow, it was agreed that Cornelius would flagellate the offender in public view of the entire convent. As was the custom, the girl was stripped to the waist and a scourge applied to her naked back.

Although by Cornelius' own account the punishments were not overly severe, the humiliation of a half-naked girl displayed to all and the administration of the whip appears to have fired desires in the priest which were to lead to outrageous excesses.

Adjacent to the convent was a girls' school which served the daughters of the wealthy merchants of Bruges and which functioned as a finishing school for older female pupils, virtually young women, who would become distinguished ladies in the society of the time. The school was proud of both its academic record and its commitment to teaching the Catholic faith, visits both to church on Sundays and to regular confessional at the adjacent convent being mandatory for all the girls. The pupils were indoctrinated with the power of the church and an awed respect for their spiritual confessor who they would visit, in the convent, to receive a blessing any any appropriate penance. Cornelius soon realised, by the very nature of his position, how much power he had over these girls and he soon determined to take advantage of it.

He was very careful in the way he devised his scheme, not rushing his fences or allowing himself to fall prey to carnal temptation which would have ruined the plan. Instead he counseled all the girls over a period of time, chose the ones he considered to be the most desirable and vulnerable, then proceeded to work on their innate sense of guilt. In modern legal parlance, Cornelius was undoubtedly guilty of 'grooming'. Soon he managed to persuade most of the girls he had targeted that mere penances of prayer and drudgery were not achieving the desired results and that more painful remedies were necessary. These poor impressionable girls, many very upset by what they now perceived to be their dreadful failings, were induced to virtually beg for corporal punishment to expiate their sins.

Cornelius was so cunning that he even demanded that they be certain that a whipping was what they needed then, on receiving affirmation, would accompany the girl to her home. There he would confront the distressed parents, the poor girl would break down and admit all her sins, and Cornelius would obtain written consent from the parents to administer discipline in any way he chose.

The trap having been laid and the bait taken, Cornelius was free to do as he wished. The errant girls were taken to his home which adjoined the convent, each girl having to report to him on a weekly basis. He arranged his schedule in such a way that he had 'wicked girls' to punish every day of the week. When the girl, nervous and ashamed, was ushered into Cornelius' home she was ordered to strip completely. Too frightened and respectful of the priest to refuse, she would do his bidding immediately. The girl would then be ordered to bend over a stool whereupon Cornelius would administer a variable number of strokes, either with a birch or a whip, to the girl's naked bottom. After the punishment, the girl would have to display her stripes for some time before being allowed to dress and return home.

Unbelievably, this practice continued, unabated for ten years during which time Cornelius later admitted, at his ecclesiastical enquiry, to having whipped or birched over 500 young women, some on multiple occasions. How long he would have continued to enjoy his abuse of power is anybody's guess but eventually, in 1558, the sexual desire which inevitably accompanied the whippings finally proved his undoing, but even then his unmasking was through accidental discovery, and not as the result of a victim's complaint.

It transpired that one student, who I believe to have been named Marie-Ann Leveque (although accounts differ), a niece of the Mayor of Bruges, was one of the penitents whose parents had agreed to regular disciplinary visits and who were quite happy in the knowledge that their daughter was receiving corporal correction at the hands of the priest. After all it WAS for her own good...Marie-Ann had admitted so herself. However one morning, the girl's mother woke her sleeping daughter, who had returned from a disciplinary visit to the priest the previous evening unusually tearful and distressed, and pulled back the sheet.

She was somewhat shocked by the number and intensity of red weals on her daughter's bottom but even more concerned by what were obviously spots of blood on the sheet. There being no obvious signs of broken skin as a result of the punishment, the girl was questioned by her angry mother and, under intense interrogation, Marie-Ann broke down. She said that when the punishment was over , the priest had held her tightly while she remained bending over then she felt something enter her 'shameful place'. A doctor was called who confirmed anal penetration and a shocked Leveque family began proceedings against the priest.

At first a wall of silence was thrown around the complaints by the Church but eventually, after great persistence by the girl's family and their influential civic contacts, an ecclesiastical enquiry was opened into the conduct of Father Cornelius Hadrian.
Amazingly, the priest did little to defend himself, virtually admitting every charge that was thrown at him, possibly because of guarantees obtained in advance to avoid embarrassing the Catholic Church with a protracted ecclesiastical 'trial'. He was dismissed from his post as mentor to the convent but on full pension and no criminal charges were ever brought against him.

It is assumed that the embarrassed parents, shocked at their own gullibility, had no wish to see their naivety exposed in open court thus Cornelius virtually escaped scot-free, happy in the knowledge, one assumes, that it was great while it lasted!






PART 6
The Countess ('Princess') Irene Batthyany

The name of the Countess Irene Batthyany is not one which is familiar to most people, but, nevertheless, she had a brief flirtation with both fame and humiliation as the beautiful wife of Count Lajos Batthyany, whose reign as President of Hungary was brief and tragic, ending in his execution. The widowed Countess, though spared such a fate, was nonetheless subjected to a very public shame.

To provide some background, in the mid 19th century, Europe was controlled by mighty empires, one of the largest being the Austrian Empire which then included part of Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia and Hungary. The year of 1848 became known as the year of revolution because, almost simultaneously, many of these subordinate nations began to flex their muscles and demand varying degrees of self-government. In the forefront of these nations was Hungary. The politics involved in the issue were complex and so the reader will be spared too much insomnia - inducing background to the independence struggle. To understand how Irene Batthyany arrived at her humiliating fate, it is necessary to mention a few names and look at a brief summary of events.

The first of these names is Louis Kossuth. He was the leader of the opposition to Austrian control and, in 1848, amid a tide of revolt, he saw the opportunity to demand a certain degree of self-government for the Hungarians. Austria at first reacted with anger and indignation, but when revolution actually broke out in Vienna itself, the Austrians, fearing Hungary might secede from the empire, capitulated.

Amid scenes of joy,a fellow member of the Austrian opposition, Count Lajos Batthyany, was appointed provisional President of the new semi-independent Hungary and the provisional government sought to set up a type of government acceptable to the people and that turned out to be pseudo-monarchy with Batthyany at its head. So Batthyany adopted the courtesy title of Prince and his proud and lovely wife Irene became Princess Batthyany. Countess ('Princess') Irene Batthyany was a dark haired beauty in her early forties at the time of the revolt, the mother of five c***dren including three adult sons who were serving in the Hungarian army.

The national joy was short-lived, for, although Hungary had its limited self-government, it immediately inherited problems. Within Hungary's borders lay the state of Croatia whose people also sought self rule. Given the lesser of two evils, if the Croatians had disliked being slaves of Austria, they positively detested falling under the writ of the 'Magyars' and immediately began to agitate against the situation with their overall rulers in Austria.

So a new key name in the saga emerged when Austria appointed a new Commissar for Croatia, a Colonel Joseph Jellacic, who was fiercely anti-Hungarian. Once in power he broke off relations between Croatia and Hungary on 19th April 1848, putting the new Hungarian regime immediately in doubt over its survival. On 10th May, a Slovak minority within Hungary asked for independent rights and five days later the Romanians condemned the new union with Hungary.

Prince Batthany, realising that his newly self governing nation was facing trouble from all quarters, tried to do deals with his Austrian masters if they disavowed Croatian Commissar Jellacic. Batthyany and his wife were contemptuous of Jellacic and his motives and made no secret of the fact in public utterances, which drove the Croatian leader to fury. Given subsequent events, this was to prove a terrible error of judgment by the Batthyany family, for the Austrians, while apparently sympathetic to Batthyany's problems, were secretly boosting Jellacic in undermining the Hungarian regime.

Confident now that he had Austria's blessing, Joseph Jellacic's Croatian army, together with a Serbian force, attacked Hungary in June of 1848 and very quickly captured much of southern Hungary.

The hapless Prince Batthyany resigned and the Hungarian government attempted a compromise with their Austrian masters but to no avail, Batthyany's resignation proving to be the catalyst for an open war between the young Hungarian government and the Austrian monarchy.

Despite the Prince's resignation from government, the brave and determined Hungarians were at first remarkably successful on the battlefield, turning the early tide against them, and prompting the abdication of the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand in favour of his nephew, Franz-Joseph. Soon, however, the weight of numbers was too much and the reconstituted Austrian army launched two new assaults taking the Hungarian capital city of Pest within 2 weeks.

The outcome of hostilities was finally decided when the Russians, under Czar Nicholas I, who had stood by and watched developments, finally decided that if Hungarian insurrection proved successful, revolt might begin within the Russian empire, and so decided to crush the Hungarians in order to deter such a possibility.

In June of 1849, two Russian armies entered Hungary, a total of nearly half a million men now opposing the fledgling regime. It was too much. The Hungarian government fled into exile, and on 13th August 1849, the Russian commander Marshal Paskievicz was able to report to the Czar, 'Hungary lies at your feet, your Majesty.'

Now the full weight of Austrian and Russian retribution hit Hungary. The country was placed under a military administration and thirteen of Hungary's senior officers were publicly hanged. Prince Batthyany, unable to escape from the country with his family, had tried to commit suicide by cutting his throat but he was forcibly prevented from doing so. He was arrested, along with his sons who were serving in the free Hungarian army. The sons were sent to prison and on October 6th 1849, Prince Lajos Batthyany was shot by firing squad. The occupying forces then proceeded to run riot, tearing down Hungarian flags and wrecking shops. About 100 executions followed until an amnesty spared the remainder, including the widowed Princess Irene Batthyany who was allowed to remain in the lavish family home until it was decided what to do with her.

The mood of the mob, which at first had been supportive of Hungarian independence, turned sour in the wake of humiliating defeat, much of the anger turning on the exiled government and the Batthyany family. Boosted by the public mood, a group of Russian officers decided to teach the widowed Princess Irene Batthyany a humiliating lesson. A group of Russian soldiers gate-crashed the Palace of the Batthyany family and found Princess Irene alone apart from her personal maid. Frightened, she demanded that they leave only to be told that, because of her past arrogance towards the country's true rulers, and because she had encouraged her sons to fight with the rebel Hungarian forces, she was going to be taught a lesson for her part in bringing the country out into revolt.

Despite her shrieks of protest, Irene Batthyany was carried out of her palace by the officers and dragged, kicking and screaming, to the Pest market square where an enthusiastic mob soon gathered to witness Irene's humiliation. The terrified Princess was dragged up onto a platform and her head and hands secured in a pillory normally reserved for vagrants and prostitutes.

If her shame at such treatment was not enough , Irene was further mortified to see the Croat leader Jellicec, who she had so often derided, seated on the platform along with a number of Croat officers.....and, worse still, her three sons who had been brought from prison to witness their mother's ordeal.

Cheered on by the mob, the Russian officers lifted Irene's dress and petticoats , securing them to her shoulders, then pulled down her lace drawers, exposing her naked bottom to the jeering mob. One of the Russian officers then removed his thick leather belt and proceeded to spank the bare bottom of the shrieking Princess before handing over to another officer who continued the punishment. When three officers had administered a harsh dose of the belt to Irene's now scarlet and roasting bottom, she was shrieking in anguish and the Russians relented and released her. She was made to kiss the hand of Jellicec and offer apologies for past slights before being allowed to dress and return home.

If it was any consolation to the unfortunate Irene, she was not alone. The Austrians, in their anger, targeted a number of high born society women who had given encouragement to the revolution, stripped them naked and whipped them all with birch rods in public. One of the most famous of these, in addition to the Princess, was Madam Maderspach, who was stripped naked and whipped cruelly. She survived the whipping and subsequently gave evidence on the matter but her husband was so ashamed by the treatment dished out to his wife that he committed suicide. A number of plaques and statues to these female victims can be found in Budapest today.

Addendum:
If anyone is interested in pursuing the veracity of this account you could start with Stephen Bonsal's 'Balkan Report' written in 1890 and 'Revolutions of 1848' by Priscilla Robertson



PART 7
Jeanne Du Barry and Caroline de Rozen

The future Countess du Barry was born on August 19th 1743 in Vaucouleurs, France, as humble Jeanne Becu, a c***d born out of wedlock to a pastry cook named Annie Becu. It is suggested that Jeanne's father may well have been a friar who served as spiritual advisor to the local convent ( the irony is not lost!) a man named Jean Baptiste Gormand of Vaubernier who was certainly Annie Becu's lover.

Thanks to the friar's influence, Jeanne had a better education than she might have expected at the convent of Saint-Aure in Paris. At fifteen she left school and took on several positions as lady's maid to the wealthy and influential, thus she had access to the nobility of Paris. In 1763 she met a notorious rake named Jean du Barry, and eventually became his mistress. He was known in Paris as 'Jean the Vile' and was frequently interviewed by the police for his custom of prostituting his lovers, Jeanne Becu included. It appears from journals written to friends that Jeanne had begun to loathe the degradation into which she had sunk and was anxious to attain more respectability.

In 1768, Jeanne Becu was introduced at court and came to the attention of Louis XV who was immediately attracted to her and wanted her as his mistress. Convention at the time decreed that, in order to deflect gossip, a mistress had to be a married woman who would thus arrive at court with her husband, the husband then presumably waiting patiently while the King dallied with his wife, and would then, dutifully, take her home. Decorum was thus preserved. So Jeanne Becu married Guillaume Barry, the brother of her procurer, Jean, in order to become one of Louis XV's many mistresses. Her future was thus secured and she became a woman of some influence.

Jeanne du Barry became a patron of the arts and a known protector of artists and intellectuals. She was an attractive, excitable woman of strong passions and little patience. It is said that she made friends easily thanks to her outward-going nature and easy laughter, but frequently lost them again thanks to her jealousy and sensitivity to perceived slights.

Among the many contacts the Countess du Barry made at court were the Countess of Provence and her teenage lady-in-waiting, Caroline, Marchioness de Rozen. While the relationship between the two Countesses was never more than cordial at best, Jeanne du Barry formed an immediate attachment to the pretty young lady-in-waiting who was eighteen or nineteen at the time of their first meeting. It appears to have been reciprocal for the young Marchioness appeared to revel in the company of the vivacious Jeanne du Barry. So much so that the two became firm friends, the young Caroline always being on Du Barry's guest list for every social function. There was no suggestion of any sexual liaison, they were like two sisters, happy in each others company, and the young Marchioness would boast to her friends that she was one of Jeanne du Barry's favourites, never far away when she was needed and always present at every glittering ball and social function.

Given natural human jealousy and possessiveness, such an idyllic existence could not last for ever and the Countess of Provence, who had watched the developing friendship with growing anger, finally put her foot down. She told her young lady-in-waiting, in no uncertain terms, that this close friendship with Du Barry had to stop. It was, she told the girl, demeaning for herself to be excluded from so many functions to which the young Marchioness was invited and that the girl was not to continue the friendship any longer. Frightened of the wrath of her mentor, the Marchioness ignored future invitations to any of Du Barry's social occasions and, when compelled to go to the Palace with her own mistress, treated Jeanne du Barry with coldness and indifference.

Jeanne was furious and very upset by this snub and complained to Louis XV about the slight she had received. The King, most probably in jest, replied that the Marchioness was little more than a c***d with all the temperamental vagaries of a c***d. He apparently suggested that 'a taste of the rod would do that little thing no harm' and chuckled that he wouldn't mind watching Caroline's young bottom get a taste of it either!

Whether this was intended to be taken seriously or not, the angry Jeanne du Barry took him at his word. She sent a message to the young Marchioness asking if she could visit in secret the next morning as there were important matters that needed to be discussed relating to her future at court, suggesting it would be to her benefit if she could get away. Flattered by the hint, and undoubtedly curious, Caroline made some excuse to her mistress and took a carriage into Paris to Du Barry's sumptuous home.

In the meantime, Jeanne du Barry had informed the King that, if he were to arrive in secret and hide behind a dressing screen in her boudoir, he might see something to his liking. Puzzled, but happy to play his lover's games the King duly arrived and took his place behind the screen.

Downstairs, an apparent reconciliation had been effected with Jeanne and the young Marchioness breakfasting together amid great cordiality. Once the repast was over, Jeanne du Barry told her young guest that there were documents pertaining to her future role at court in Jeanne's boudoir and that they should go up there with all haste. Suspecting nothing, Caroline de Rozen followed the Countess into her bedroom whereupon the door was rapidly slammed shut and four very strong chamber-maids grabbed the young Marchioness and dragged her, screaming, over to the bed where she was thrown face down.

As the girl shrieked in fear and shame, at a word from Jeanne du Barry, her long skirts and petticoats were hoisted up high on her back, completely baring her bottom. Jeanne then angrily told the girl this was the price for snubbing the Countess du Barry, and that, after today's experience, she would never do such a thing again.

Before the delighted eyes of the King secreted behind the screen, while two of the maids held the struggling Caroline, the other two picked up stout birch rods and began to whip the young Marchioness across her bare buttocks very severely until the skin broke and little spots of blood began to run down her thighs. At this point Jeanne du Barry ordered that the whipping be stopped and the girl be allowed to rise. This she did with great difficulty, weeping hysterically before fleeing back to her carriage and home..presumably kneeling all the way!

Unable to tell her mistress, the Countess of Provence, what had happened for she had broken a promise and would be in more trouble, Caroline de Rozen wrote directly to the King complaining about her treatment. She received a reply, apparently sympathetic, saying he would question Jeanne du Barry on the matter , but that of course he would be unable to do anything unless Caroline was prepared to come to court and display the evidence to him. Such a humiliating proposal made it obvious to the Marchioness that her complaint was falling on deaf ears, and she sought advice from her friends on what to do next.

All, without exception, suggested that she make up with Jeanne du Barry with all haste for the Countess was too powerful an enemy to confront, and Caroline took the advice. She wrote to Jeanne asking if she could visit once more, apologising for past slights and confessing that her chastisement was no more than she deserved.

Delighted by the success of her actions, Jeanne was pleased to welcome back her young friend and agreed that the friendship would continue in secret in order that the Countess of Provence would not be discomfited in any way, and so it was done.

In 1774, Louis XV died and, for some time, Jeanne du Barry became a forgotten figure in France. Not one to let the grass grow under her feet for long, she courted the new power in the land, the Duke of Brissac and became his lover of many years. in 1789, the French Revolution began and Jeanne began to make many trips to London, ostensibly to secure her jewellery in safe banks. She made contact with a number of exiled aristocrats while in England, a very dangerous practice, which led eventually to her downfall and death. The Revolutionary Government considered her actions as treacherous and, in 1793, Jeanne du Barry was arrested and charged with working against the revolution.

She was sentenced to death and on 8th December 1793, at the age of fifty, the Countess Jeanne du Barry went to the guillotine. She did not meet impending death with any great courage or dignity (and who could blame her!) , collapsing several times in the tumbril en route to the guillotine and screaming to the crowd from the platform "Why do you want to hurt me? Why?" and eventually becoming so hysterical that she was difficult to restrain. The last words she ever spoke are probably her most famous , "Encore un moment, monsieur le bourreau, un petit moment," ("One moment more, executioner, one little moment") and then the blade did its work.



PART 8
Martha Douglas

Before I commence my narrative I must confess that the name 'Martha Douglas' is fictitious though the case is not. In George Ryley Scott's references to this case the girl is referred to as 'MD' while in 'History of the Rod' by the Rev William Cooper she is simply referred to as 'M -" but I gave her a name to humanise her, and to make the narrative more appealing.

The United States, throughout its history, has long had a tradition of corporal punishment and even today when so-called 'civilised' Europe has made the beating of c***dren and prisoners i*****l, the U.S. continues to exercise 'state's rights' in the application of corporal punishment in its schools to both boys and girls, thus there is no common policy across the country.

Why then is this article going back nearly 200 years when C.P. is so prevalent in today's American schools? The reason is that the case in point created a flurry of attention for a number of reasons and eventually led to a change in the law in the state of Massachusetts.

Martha Douglas was born into a well-to-do household in Cambridge. Mass in 1806, an attractive and intelligent girl whose parents had always taught her to respect her elders and to be polite, but to stand up for herself, honestly and firmly. The young girl took the words of her parents to heart and grew up to be a daughter of whom they could be proud. At the time of the incident in question, Martha Douglas was one month short of her 17th birthday,a young woman rather than a c***d, and already 'walking out' with a young man with marriage a distinct possibility in the not so distant future. Until then, Martha had to behave like any other obedient schoolgirl studying for her examinations.

She was a keen and enthusiastic student at her public school in Cambridge which was renowned for its strict discipline and its educational successes. Martha frequently received glowing reports for her attitude and application. Like most public schools the classes were a mix of both boys and girls.

The school employed an English teacher named Jessica Stowe and rumour had it that Mrs. Stowe was not over enamoured of Martha Douglas, considering the girl to be too smart, too ready with a quick answer and , in effect, a show-off. Such feelings were maybe a recipe for what was to occur on the fateful day in May during Mrs. Stowe's English class.

During the lesson, Mrs. Stowe heard what she later described to a packed court-room as whispering and giggling from behind her as she wrote on the blackboard. She also swore that the voice, she was certain, belonged to Martha Douglas. She turned around and ordered Martha to walk out to the front of the class and extend the palm of her hand for one stroke of the switch across her palm.

It was now that the girl's upbringing and her heeding of parental advice to be honest and to stand up for herself were to prove her undoing. Red-faced with embarrassment, the girl rose to her feet and said, politely, "Ma'am I have done nothing to be punished for." Aghast at this show of insolence, and the undermining of her authority, Mrs Stowe demanded that the girl come out to the front where the punishment would be increased to three strokes for her insubordination. Close to tears, Martha remained defiantly in her place and muttered, "With respect, Ma'am, no I will not. I am guilty of no offence." The class was now buzzing, for no pupil had ever dared to show defiance in this way before.

Jessica Stowe, white-faced with rage, stormed out of the classroom and returned some minutes later accompanied by the male Principal and two other male teachers. Whatever story Mrs. Stowe had told had clearly convinced the Principal that here was a serious case of student rebellion, for , at his behest, the two teachers seized Martha and dragged her, kicking and screaming, to the front of the class where she was forcibly stretched across the teachers desk.

As the girl shrieked in horror and shame, one of the teachers lifted her long skirt and petticoats while the Principal untied the strings of her drawers and pulled them down, baring her bottom to the entire class. Producing a birch rod, he then told Martha that she would receive a punishment she would remember all her life for her outrageous behaviour, then delivered twelve scorching strokes of the birch to the girl's naked buttocks as she wept and squealed. When the punishment was over she was made to stand in the corner, red buttocks on display, for the remainder of the lesson.

When the lesson was over, and risking further punishment, the humiliated Martha fled from school and ran home, collapsing in hysterics in the arms of her mother. When the facts were known and the damage inspected, Mrs. Douglas sent for the magistrate - quite an astonishing step in those far off days. As a result, the three male participants were arrested and charged with the indecent abuse of a minor.

The court case lasted three weeks and the legal wrangles went back and forth as the prosecution argued that the laws of Massachusetts had clearly been broken as the whipping of females on the bare buttocks was clearly forbidden by statute. Defence lawyers argued that a school was 'a state within a state' where decrees pertaining to the judicial treatment of females did not apply. They argued that the school had a written constitution and a clearly stated corporal punishment policy.

The prosecution then argued that this did not cover the bare-bottom punishment of pupils and in full public view of their classmates, thus the teachers had exceeded their authority and committed an offence punishable under the law. The defence then countered that the corporal punishment policy was deliberately vague and open ended in order to allow for situations such as this 'unruly girl' to be dealt with in the appropriate manner. They argued, and produced signed statements to support them, that all parents who valued the preservation of in loco parentis authority would support the action of the Principal and his staff. They argued that the laws of the State of Massachusetts had no place in this matter and that, unless wilful and malicious cruelty could be proved, the school was within its rights to punish the girl as it saw fit.

The defence argument won the day and the three teachers were acquitted without a stain on their characters. The arguments about the decision raised hackles in the American press with the Conservative newspapers supporting the decision and the Liberals calling it an 'outrage'.

Martha's parents appealed against the verdict but to no avail. They then sued privately and lost that too, Martha now being forced to leave school after so much notoriety meant she could no longer expect to receive fair and unbiased treatment.

Although she lost the battle, in the long term the case brought by the girl's family won the war, although a little late to save Martha from humiliation and indignity. The state senate, embarrassed by the adverse publicity, brought forward at its next sitting a bill which now ensured that the State's schools were encompassed and which expressly forbade the corporal punishment of pupils of either sex on the naked buttocks, either in public or in private.



PART 9
Catherine the Great

Catherine the Second of Russia, later to be known as Catherine the Great, was born Sophia Augusta Fredericka, Princess of Auhalt-Zerbst on 2nd May 1729 in Stettin, Prussia. Her father was Prince Christian August, a general in the Prussian army but the driving force in the young Sophia's eventual rise to fame was her mother, Princess Johanna Elizabeth, a woman of great ambition.

The seeds of influence were sown early when Prince Karl August, one of Princess Johanna's brothers, became engaged to Elizabeth, the Empress of Russia, but the boy died unexpectedly in 1727 before any nuptials could be arranged. Johanna's cousin, Karl Frederick, had also married the daughter of Peter the Great, so the strength of relationship between the Prussian and Russian courts was firmly established by the early part of the 18th century.

When Empress Elizabeth sought a wife for her son and successor, Peter III, much deep and earnest correspondence ensued between Elizabeth and the Prussian Princess Johanna with the result that, on January 1st 1744, the young Sophia and her mother were invited to St. Petersburg by Elizabeth and her son. Sophia was then just f******n years old. The Empress was delighted by the young Sophia for she found a very attractive young girl, intelligent and perceptive beyond her years. Thus it was agreed that, subject to Sophia's conversion to the Russian Orthodox Church, the girl would marry Peter. As part of the conversion process, Sophia had to be given a new name ordained by the Empress and Elizabeth chose to call the girl 'Catherine' in honour of her own mother.

Peter III proved to be a sickly young man and had several bouts of serious illness during Catherine's visit, and had survived a serious bout of measles in 1743 which left him sterile. This fact appears to have been withheld from Catherine until well after the two were married on 2nd August 1745.

Marriage thus proved to be a horror for Catherine. Her role was to produce a male heir and it didn't happen. She began to feel guilty and fractious, leaning on only a few trusted advisors and friends. She saw little of her husband, spending her time riding horses and reading the works of Voltaire. A few months into the marriage, the Empress Elizabeth reorganised Catherine's court circle, dismissing many of the girl's close friends and replacing them with advisors of her own choosing. One of these was Sergei Saltykov, a long time friend of the Empress and. many dared only whisper, probably more than that. Saltykov had a reputation as a strong and virile ladies man who was encouraged by Empress Elizabeth to become close to the young Princess Catherine. It soon became clear to the young girl what her mother in law was doing and she acceded to the Empress's clear desire that she take Saltykov to her bed in order to produce a c***d, a task for which her husband was incapable.

After two miscarriages Catherine finally gave birth to a son on 20th September 1754, the c***d being named Paul. The fact that the c***d was a boy took all the weight of expectation from Catherine's shoulders and allowed her greater freedom of movement and a chance to study English, at which she rapidly became fluent.

In 1761 the now ailing Empress Elizabeth died on Christmas Day and Peter III became Emperor of Russia. If his health was not a big enough handicap , Peter lacked any political savvy and consequently, during his period of waiting to step into his mother's shoes, had made himself very unpopular. Catherine, his wife, on the other hand, had steadfastly cultivated her own friends,her own advisors and her own 'court' and, amazingly for someone who was a foreigner, was very popular throughout Russia.

Catherine was advised, even before Elizabeth was laid to rest, to overthrow her husband and take the Russian throne but she sought various counsel and decided against it.

The coup was not long in coming, however, and by June 1762, Catherine and her advisors realised that there could be no further prevarication for the situation in the country was becoming ever more hostile to Peter so, on 28th June 1762, Catherine led a march through St Petersburg which picked up support and momentum along the way. Peter and his mistress escaped from the city to a country retreat where, on July 6th, he was tracked down by Catherine's agents and murdered. It became clear that Count Alexei Orloff, one of Catherine's most trusted advisors, had conspired with her in this murder but she justified it on the grounds that Russian independence was threatened by the Prussian links of her late husband.....of which she, of course, was the first!

Catherine was crowned on Sunday 22nd September 1762 in the Kremlin and proceeded to install all her trusted advisors in key positions, including the aforementioned Count Orloff who became Minister of Police and the Interior, a role in which he would exercise more than a slight taste for corporal punishment. Catherine ruled as a benign dictator who, in fact, scrapped the death penalty and brought in some enlightened social legislation.

If Catherine was basically a benign and enlightened despot, there were two areas in which she would have no patience or sympathy. One was her lack of regard for anyone who, whether through foolishness or malice, might betray Russia, and the other was anyone who would spread malicious gossip about Catherine herself. Catherine had ample cause to worry on both counts for revolts and minor uprisings were rife in the early years of her reign and her propensity for affairs with countless men left her vulnerable to attack. In both areas her wrath was manifested through severe physical retribution.

An example of such was an incident which followed a masked ball at the Palace of St Petersburg where a very well connected lady, the wife of a senior Russian general, had apparently drunk a little too much and was making very indiscreet remarks concerning Russia's alliances and her husband's opinion of them. The ball was attended by a number of foreign dignitaries who could clearly hear some of the lady's opinions and were not best pleased. The lady's indiscretions soon came to the ear of Catherine and she passed word to Orloff to get something done about it. The lady was told that her husband, who was away in the army, had left word for her and she was to return home. Unsuspecting, the General's wife left the ball in the company of Orloff's men, but instead of being taken home, she was taken to Orloff's Interior Ministry and down to a basement.

To her horror, she saw that the room contained a vaulting horse and an array of rods and birches. Count Orloff himself came into the room and read her the riot act about loose tongues undermining the Empress and the State. To her shame and horror, the frightened lady was told to strip naked, at which she protested violently, citing her position in society and her husband's rank. Orloff told her, in no uncertain terms, that her husband would have no military rank if she did not do as she was told and, as far as her position in society was concerned, the punishment had been ordained by the Empress Catherine herself, and that her future at court was very much in the balance.

The lady hesitated no longer and stripped naked, then was firmly strapped down over the vaulting horse. On Orloff's command, she was birched soundly until her shrieks rang round the room and her bottom was red raw. She was then released, allowed to dress, and sent home with a warning that any repeat of such injudicious behaviour would result in imprisonment.

An example of what happened when Catherine's personal trust was betrayed can be illustrated by the experience of one of her most trusted Maids Of Honour. The girl was responsible for the Empress's intimate dressing and bathing, thus of course found herself privy to some very private secrets including the sight of certain of Catherine's lovers arriving and departing the boudoir. The girl was engaged to be married and could not resist passing some juicy tittle-tattle to her fiance who, in turn, repeated it at one of his dining clubs in St Petersburg. Inevitably the gossip got back to the Empress who was livid with rage. Instead of reacting immediately, Catherine bided her time until the girl's wedding. After the happy couple had retired to the bedroom to consummate their marriage, the bedroom was forced open by six men of Catherine's personal bodyguard. Without ceremony, the sheets were stripped from the naked couple and the girl dragged out of bed. She was 'horsed' on the back of one of the guards while another birched her bottom mercilessly. The helpless husband was ordered to kneel naked and watch the proceedings on his knees.

When the birching was over and the girl was crying in anguish, the couple was told to enjoy their married life and, as far as Catherine was concerned, the flogging was the end of the matter. The couple was told that should any further indiscretions occur, however, both would be sent to a labour camp in Siberia. Needless to say the 'hint' was taken seriously.

Catherine's reign was a difficult one in many ways, yet she ruled Russia for over thirty years. Although she had her critics, she was greatly loved for her enlightened social policies and her military wisdom. Her final years were haunted by illness and depression, including a loss of faith in her son, Paul, who she attempted to have removed from the line of inheritance. The attempts failed and the now ailing Catherine died, following a stroke, on 5th November 1796. Her son did indeed inherit the throne of Russia, immediately tried to reverse many of his mother's reforms, and in fact, restored the memory of his 'father', Peter III, holding a new lying in ceremony so that Peter was buried next to his wife in the Peter and Paul Cathedral of St Petersburg.