The information we have considered so far sketches the rough outline of swimming history in Britain. But there is more to this history than meets the eye. Having considered the facts, we will now dip beneath the surface and look at the reasons behind the swimmer's demise. In time we will look at the seaside holiday and the popularity of sunbathing, but first we will consider the reasons behind Christendom's war on swimming and bathing, as we examine two perceived opposites: cleanliness and godliness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Constant feature at all lidos; 'always, everywhere, shivering boys!' (Roger Deakin)

The Good Book

Carnal Thoughts

Bad Habits

 

Things were getting out of hand; nuns were taking off their habits when visiting the spas of Europe, and young girls requested in their marriage contracts the privilege to visit the spas without their husbands. But this desire to bathe in hot water led to conflict with the Church, and thus the expression 'getting into hot water' was coined regarding persons that were heading for trouble. The condemnation of the Church meant that all over Europe the comfortable Roman baths fell into disuse and ruin. Bathing in the hot springs of Europe was considered as fit only for those worshipping the Devil. Those resisting Church teachings were condemned as degenerates. If bathing had to be practised at all, it would only be tolerated if such took place using cold water as a precaution to protect the bather's morality.

The Church propounded the belief that once a Christian was baptised, he gained purification and would remain spiritually and physically clean for the rest of his life. Henceforth there would be no further need for washing or bathing. This precaution against bathing was seen as protecting Christians from sinful thoughts directed towards themselves or others, and from the damnation that would surely result. Water was considered to be a holy cleanser and there were many superstitions surrounding its allegedly magical properties. It was felt that water in its purity, would accept only individuals that were free from guilt, repelling the unworthy. Thus, a person's being accepted by water at baptism was seen as proof of his holiness. It was also held that baptismal waters would refuse to accept a guilty individual. This reasoning led to the ducking or 'the cold water ordeal' as it was known, which was commonly used until the 13th century as a means of determining the guilt or innocence of persons whose character was in doubt. It's not surprising then, that people developed an illogical and superstitious fear of water. The teaching that water would eject such ungodly souls was obviously flawed. Yet the Roman baths had developed into a hotbed of immorality; sinners were witnessed as floating upon the waters just like their father the Devil. Despite the fact that this teaching could be found nowhere in the Bible, it was adopted, and zealously applied for centuries; bad news for would-be swimmers!     

Of course, a very important exception to the 'no bathing rule' related to baptism. When one came to be baptised, water was seen as both a cleansing and purifying agent that passed on its benefits to the participant. Total immersion was seen as essential for salvation,  irrespective of the time of year, the age, or the circumstances of the individual. Constantine postponed his baptism until his death was approaching. At the age of 65 he offered himself for baptism in his 'birthday suit' in order to gain forgiveness for a lifetime of sins. His state of undress was not unusual, as it was the practice of the Church for all candidates to be baptised in the nude. Needless to say however, men and women were baptised in either separate parts of a river, in different enclosures, or failing this at different times of the day.  As the Church developed, it was decided that even infants should be baptised, despite the fact that this contradicted Jesus's instruction wherein only disciples or taught ones were to be immersed.  Augustine of Hippo modified Jesus's command, teaching that baptism cleansed an infant from original sin. Any infant that passed away prior to baptism was thereafter to be consigned to the 'fires of hell'. During his ministry however, Jesus expressed a very different view, welcoming un-baptised infants and praising their meekness.

The Swimming of Witches

Dirty Waters

A Cruel Cut

Over in America, the 1860s saw circumcision introduced to control childhood sexuality. John Harvey Kellogg (Seventh Day Adventist) was a leading pro-moter of circumcision along with his other health cure - Kellogg's Cornflakes, which, it was said, could free a person from the urge to masturbate. In his book of 1888: Plain facts for old and young, he states: 'A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, es-pecially if it is connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases.'

Patients in hospitals for the insane were observed to be habitual mastur-bators and it was assumed that this vice was the cause of their insanity. It was then believed that semen was manufactured by harvesting resources from the blood stream and that masturbation depleted essential reserves, debilitating those who abused themselves to the point that they would become physically and mentally enfeebled.  Clerics felt no need to rely on the Bible for guidance on the matter. (The advent of the sexual revolution sees children today all but encouraged to experiment with masturbation. Young children question their sexual orientation and internet pornography edu-cates them about sex. Without moral guidance they embark on a lifestyle that desensitises their conscience, erodes family values and dismantles the security of society). Despite the fact that the Law of Moses omits to cite the practice and that it is not specifically mentioned elsewhere in scripture, they felt sure that it was an unnatural act (it could never be procreative), and therefore it was judged to be a mortal sin, greater in gravity than fornication or adultery. As the guilty supposedly faced eternal damnation in a fiery hell, it was felt essential, especially for children, to be protected from such a fate at all costs. Childhood mortality was then much more common, thus a sense of ur-gency impelled many parents to welcome the circumcision of their children as a route to salvation. Although unable to stamp out the practice of self abuse en-tirely, by removing much of the organ during surgery they sought to reduce the frequency of indulgence by decreasing the pleasure obtained.

 
Reinforcing such attitudes, in 1891 the English surgeon Jonathon Hutchinson advised the operation as a measure to prevent disease and disorders, but his premise remained the same. He writes: 'Measures more radical than circumcision would if public opinion permitted their adoption be a true kindness to many patients of both sexes.' Regarding one unfortunate he continues: 'Clarence was addicted to the secret vice practised among boys. I performed circumcision. He needed the rightful punishment of cutting pains after his illicit pleasures.' This change of tack would have dire consequences for many children. When masturbation was considered merely as a sin, true repentance would lead to sal-vation.  However, once it was perceived that a child's health might be in-volved, people became much more worried. Ideas that circumcision helped pre-vent all manner of diseases gained quick acceptance in both America and the UK, especially among the upper middle classes.  Hysterical claims were made promoting this outrageous practice; hailed as a cure for anything and everything, which was really a cover up for the abuse that medics had inflicted on countless terrified boys.  When problems surfaced, they could not bring themselves to admit that they had made a terrible mistake. Great stress was now being placed on cleanliness and the operation came to be seen as an essential modification to the human male. Many felt confident, thinking that because God introduced circumcision in Bible times there could surely be no harm in it. This was a view that our European partners remained unconvinced about, and their reluctance to 'jump on the bandwagon' meant that the sexual mutilation of boys was thankfully limited to the Anglo-American union, along with those countries over whom it held sway. In Britain today, we still circumcise more than 22,000 boys each year,  12,200 in hospitals (mostly babies), along with thousands more in private clinics and in the community, figures grossly out of proportion to numbers in the rest of Europe. In America roughly 80% are circumcised, com-pared to about 2% in Sweden. More...

Double Standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Buy-Now   

Reviews