Beatings and physical courage

Corporal punishment is sometimes deliberately inflicted with the aim, not merely of reforming and deterring the culprit, but of testing his physical courage. – Gerva D’Olbert discusses beatings and endurance in his book Chastisement Across The Ages (The Fortune Press, 1956).

Physical courage is of course held in this context to imply moral grit also; the lad who can bear his beating without flinching is considered, by this token alone, to have partly expiated his original offence. The fact is not always taken into account that boys – like adults – vary enormously in their power of bearing pain without showing it, that different races, even, vary in this way according to their degree  of excitability or the reverse; it is thus not always fair to attach too great a moral significance to purely physical courage or self-restraint, or even which may even stem from a phlegmatic nature.

None the less, the power of  “taking one's medicine” is not to be under rated as a moral symptom and ethical educator. The school system is perhaps right in claiming that life is not made to be too easy, that the ability and willingness to accept, not pain itself, but merited punishment, can wield an immense force in moulding the character for good. More especially is this so with the young.

From this attitude have arisen many unusual tactics, one of which may be worth description here. At one of our most distinguished British Public Schools, the custom prevailed (and may still do so) of dealing a lad a certain number pf strokes and then pausing to ask: “Have you had enough? To which the victim was supposed, by tradition, to return one invariable reply: a negative. This reply could of course take a number of forms: for instance, one could answer “Not yet, sir,” or “I think I deserve another half-dozen, sir,” or “I think I can stand another eight, sir,” or – not without a danger of superciliousness – “Just as you think best, sir,” or even “If it doesn't tire you too, much, sir, I could stand another dose.”

History records that lads who made such replies instantaneously and without crying rose steadily in their masters’ esteem. It showed the lad had grit. It revealed also a sense of decency in not worrying the punisher in the course of his, physically exhausting task. Above all, a reply phrased in one of the styles just given, showed that the boy bore no resentment and was free of the childish error of supposing that his master enjoyed punishing him, or that a conscientious infliction of discipline was a light and carefree task. On the contrary, nothing annoys a master or monitor more, or is more likely to increase the strength of the chastisement itself, than a belief on the boy's part that he is being thrashed for someone else’s amusement. If such a wholly erroneous belief became widely spread, the moral essence of discipline might soon evaporate.

As it is, healthy-minded boys know full well that, in a modern, reasonable school they receive corporal penalties only in the last resort, and that it is part of moral training to learn to “set one’s teeth and bear it.” Not always, however, is this principle carried to such explicit lengths: more often than not, the master or monitor assumes that the lad will submit to whatever punishment he is offered, and will not stir till all is quite clear, from words or other indications, that justice has been done. We have not to deal here with the pathological punishments of the past, for instance with the methods of a Busby or Keate; in modern times, reasonable moderation is the password, in punishment as in all else.

Sometimes, however, an ironic moment will occur when the mutual misunderstanding of master and boy can lead to increased anger on the part of the former. This is the case, for example, if it is a school tradition to ask some question like: “Have you had enough?” and to reply in the negative, while some newly arrived master is ignorant of this custom. He may then genuinely desire to spare the lad extra punishment, and his question may be literal and sincere: in such a case, the lad’s “gallant” reply will strike the master as either impertinence or bravado or lunacy. Or as some infuriating mixture of all three. Then indeed he will tend to continue the infliction with force: “if the boy admits he wants it, let him by all means have it.”

On occasions this context can prove quite pathetic: a case is recorded where a very nervous, sensitive lad, who evidently could not keep out of some boyish mischief, at first could hardly take a beating without crying out for mercy; he gradually steeled himself, and became just able to repeat the usual formula in a not too unsteady voice. Then comes a new master, ignorant of the whole custom, notices the lad’s nervousness, and out of the kindness of his heart put the question  “Well, that’s five strokes; I expect you’ve had enough?” only to be astounded at the weak-voiced reply, “Oh! no, sir, just as you think fit: I think I deserve another five.” And the boy got them.

Picture credit: Darrien

For more extracts from Chastisement Across The Ages, click here