Chapter 12
Part 12
Out of this union between war and Christianity there was born that curious bastard, Chivalry. The secular germ of it existed already in the German forests. According to Tacitus, the young German who aspired to be a warrior was brought into the midst of the assembly of the chiefs, where his father, or some other relative, solemnly equipped him for his future vocation with shield and javelin.[44] Assuming arms was thus made a social distinction, which subsequently derived its name {353} from one of its most essential characteristics, the riding a war-horse. But Chivalry became something quite different from what the word indicates. The Church knew how to lay hold of knighthood for her own purposes. The investiture, which was originally of a purely civil nature, became, even before the time of the crusades, as it were, a sacrament.[45] The priest delivered the sword into the hand of the person who was to be made a knight, with the following words, "Serve Christi, sis miles in nomine Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti, Amen."[46] The sword was said to be made in semblance of the cross so as to signify "how our Lord God vanquished in the cross the death of human lying";[47] and the word "Jesus" was sometimes engraven on its hilt.[48] God Himself had chosen the knight to defeat with arms the miscreants who wished to destroy his Holy Church, in the same way as He had chosen the clergy to maintain the Catholic faith with Scripture and reasons.[49] The knight was to the body politic what the arms are to the human body: the Church was the head, Chivalry the arms, the citizens, merchants, and labourers the inferior members; and the arms were placed in the middle to render them equally capable of defending the inferior members and the head.[50] "The greatest amity that should be in this world," says the author of the 'Ordre of Chyualry,' "ought to be between the knights and clerks."[51] The several gradations of knighthood were regarded as parallel to those of the Church.[52] And after the conquest of the Holy Land the union between the profession of arms and the religion of Christ became still more intimate by the institution of the two military orders of monks, the Knights Templars and Knights of St. John of Jerusalem.
[Footnote 44: Tactitus, _Germania_, 13. According to Honoré de Sainte Marie (_Dissertations historiques et critiques sur la Chevalerie_, p. 30 _sqq._), Chivalry is of Roman, according to some other writers, of Arabic origin. M. Gautier (_La Chevalerie_, pp. 14, 16) repudiates these theories, and regards Chivalry as "un usage germain idéalisé par l'Église." See also Rambaud, _Histoire de la civilisation française_, i. 178 _sq._]
[Footnote 45: Scott, 'Essay on Chivalry,' in _Miscellaneous Prose Works_, vi. 16. Mills, _History of Chivalry_, i. 10 _sq._ For a description of the various religious ceremonies accompanying the investiture, see _The Book of the Ordre of Chyualry or Knyghthode_, fol. 27 b _sqq._ _Cf._ also Favyn, _Theater of Honour and Knight-Hood_, i. 52.]
[Footnote 46: Favyn, _op. cit._ i. 52.]
[Footnote 47: _Ordre of Chyualry_, fol. 31 a _sq._]
[Footnote 48: Mills, _op. cit._ i. 71.]
[Footnote 49: _Ordre of Chyualry_, fol. 11 b.]
[Footnote 50: _Le Jouuencel_, fol. 94 _sqq._]
[Footnote 51: _Ordre of Chyualry_, fol. 12 a.]
[Footnote 52: Scott, _loc. cit._ p. 15.]
{354} The duties which a knight took on himself by oath were very extensive, but not very well defined. He should defend the holy Catholic faith, he should defend justice, he should defend women, widows, and orphans, and all those of either sex that were powerless, ill at ease, and groaning under oppression, and injustice.[53] In the name of religion and justice he could thus practically wage war almost at will. Though much real oppression was undoubtedly avenged by these soldiers of the Church, the knight seems as a rule to have cared little for the cause or necessity of his doing battle. "La guerre est ma patrie, Mon harnois ma maison: Et en toute saison Combatre c'est ma vie," was a saying much in use in the sixteenth century.[54] The general impression which Froissart gives us in his history is, that the age in which he lived was completely given over to fighting, and cared about nothing else whatever.[55] The French knights never spoke of war but as a feast, a game, a pastime. "Let them play their game," they said of the cross-bow men, who were showering down arrows on them; and "to play a great game," _jouer gros jeu_, was their description of a battle.[56] Previous to the institution of Chivalry there certainly existed much fighting in Christian countries, but knighthood rendered war "a fashionable accomplishment."[57] And so all-absorbing became the passion for it that, as real injuries were not likely to occur every day, artificial grievances were created, and tilts and tournaments were invented in order to keep in action the sons of war when they had no other employments for their courage. Even in these images of war--which were by no means so harmless as they have sometimes been represented to be[58]--the intimate connection {355} between Chivalry and religion displays itself in various ways. Before the tournament began, the coats of arms, helmets, and other objects were carried into a monastery, and after the victory was gained the arms and the horses which had been used in the fight were offered up at the church.[59] The proclamations at the tournaments were generally in the name of God and the Virgin Mary. Before battle the knights confessed, and heard mass; and, when they entered the lists, they held a sort of image with which they made the sign of the cross.[60] Moreover, "as the feasts of the tournaments were accompanied by these acts of devotion, so the feasts of the Church were sometimes adorned with the images of the tournaments."[61] It is true that the Church now and then made attempts to stop these performances.[62] But then she did so avowedly because they prevented many knights from joining the holy wars, or because they swallowed up treasures which might otherwise with advantage have been poured into the Holy Land.[63]
[Footnote 53: _Ordre of Chyualry_, foll. 11 b, 17 a. Sainte-Palaye, _Mémoires sur l'ancienne Chevalerie_, i. 75, 129.]
[Footnote 54: De la Nouë, _Discours politiques et militaires_, p. 215.]
[Footnote 55: See Sir James Stephen's essay on 'Froissart's Chronicles,' in his _Horæ Sabbaticæ_, i. 22 _sqq._]
[Footnote 56: Sainte-Palaye, _op. cit._ ii. 61.]
[Footnote 57: Millingen, _History of Duelling_, i. 70.]
[Footnote 58: Sainte-Palaye, _op. cit._ i. 179; ii. 75. Du Cange, 'Dissertations sur l'histoire de S. Louys,' in Petitot, _Collection des Mémoires relatifs à l'histoire de France_, iii. 122 _sq._ Honoré de Sainte Marie, _op. cit._ p. 186.]
[Footnote 59: Sainte-Palaye, _op. cit._ i. 151.]
[Footnote 60: _Ibid._ ii. 57.]
[Footnote 61: _Ibid._ ii. 57 _sq._]
[Footnote 62: Du Cange, _loc. cit._ p. 124 _sqq._ Honoré de Sainte Marie, _op. cit._ p. 186. Sainte-Palaye, _op. cit._ ii. 75.]
[Footnote 63: Du Cange, _loc. cit._ p. 125 _sq._]
Closely connected with the feudal system was the practice of private war. Though tribunals had been instituted, and even long after the kings' courts had become well-organised and powerful institutions, a nobleman had a right to wage war upon another nobleman from whom he had suffered some gross injury.[64] On such occasions not only the relatives, but the vassals, of the injured man were bound to help him in his quarrel, and the same obligation existed in the case of the aggressor.[65] Only greater crimes were regarded as legitimate causes of private war,[66] but this rule was not at all strictly observed.[67] As {356} a matter of fact, the barons fled to arms upon every quarrel; he who could raise a small force at once made war upon him who had anything to lose. The nations of Europe were subdivided into innumerable subordinate states, which were almost independent, and declared war and made treaties with all the vigour and all the ceremonies of powerful monarchs. Contemporary historians describe the excesses committed in prosecution of these intestine quarrels in such terms as excite astonishment and horror; and great parts of Europe were in consequence reduced to the condition of a desert, which it ceased to be worth while to cultivate.[68]
[Footnote 64: The right of private war generally supposed nobility of birth and equality of rank in both the contending parties (Beaumanoir, _Coutumes du Beauvoisis_, lix. 5 _sq._ vol. ii. 355 _sqq._; Robertson, _History of the Reign of Charles V._ i. 329). But it was also granted to the French _communes_, and to the free towns in Germany, Italy, and Spain (Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel des peuples modernes_, ii. 348).]
[Footnote 65: Du Cange, _loc. cit._ pp. 450, 458.]
[Footnote 66: _Ibid._ p. 445 _sq._ Arnold, _Deutsche Urzeit_, p. 341. von Wächter, _Beiträge zur deutschen Geschichte_, p. 46.]
[Footnote 67: We read of a nobleman who declared war against the city of Frankfort, because a lady residing there had promised to dance with his cousin, but danced with another; and the city was obliged to satisfy the wounded honour of the gentleman (von Wächter, _op. cit._ p. 57).]
[Footnote 68: Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 332.]
The Church made some feeble attempts to put an end to this state of things. Thus, about the year 990, ordinances were directed against the practice of private war by several bishops in the south of France, who agreed to exclude him who violated their ordinances from all Christian privileges during his life, and to deny him Christian burial after his death.[69] A little later, men engaged in warfare were exhorted, by sacred relics and by the bodies of saints, to lay down their arms and to swear that they would never again disturb the public peace by their private hostilities.[70] But it is hardly likely that such directions had much effect as long as the bishops and abbots themselves were allowed to wage private war by means of their vidames, and exercised this right scarcely less frequently than the barons.[71] Nor does it seem that {357} the Church brought about any considerable change for the better by establishing the Truce of God, involving obligatory respite from hostilities during the great festivals of the Church, as also from the evening of Wednesday in each week to the morning of Monday in the week ensuing.[72] We are assured by good authorities that the Truce was generally disregarded, though the violator was threatened with the penalty of excommunication.[73] Most barons could probably say with Bertram de Born:--"La paix ne me convient pas; la guerre seule me plaît. Je n'ai égard ni aux lundis, ni aux mardis. Les semaines, les mois, les années, tout m'est égal. En tout temps, je veux perdre quiconque me nuit."[74] The ordinance enjoining the _treuga Dei_ was transgressed even by the popes.[75] It was too unpractical a direction to be obeyed, and was soon given up even in theory by the authorities of the Church. Thomas Aquinas says that, as physicians may lawfully apply remedies to men on feast-days, so just wars may be lawfully prosecuted on such days for the defence of the commonwealth of the faithful, if necessity so requires; "for it would be tempting God for a man to want to keep his hands from war under stress of such necessity."[76] And in support of this opinion he quotes the first Book of the Maccabees, where it is said, "Whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the sabbath day, we will fight against him."[77]
[Footnote 69: 'Charta de Treuga et Pace per Aniciensem Praesulem Widonem in Congregatione quamplurium Episcoporum, Principium, et Nobilium hujus Terrae sancita,' in Dumont, _Corps universel diplomatique du droit des gens_, i. 41.]
[Footnote 70: Raoul Glaber, _Histori sui temporis_, iv. 5 (Bouquet, _Rerum Gallicarum et Francicarum Scriptores_, x. 49). Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 335.]
[Footnote 71: Brussel, _Nouvel examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France_, i. 144. How much the prelates were infected by the general spirit of the age, appears from a characteristic story of an archbishop of Cologne who gave to one of his vassals a castle situated on a sterile rock. When the vassal objected that he could not subsist on such a soil, the archbishop answered, "Why do you complain? Four roads unite under the walls of your castle" (Du Boys, _Histoire du droit criminel de l'Espagne_, p. 504).]
[Footnote 72: Raoul Glaber, _op. cit._ v. 1 (_loc. cit._ p. 59). Du Cange, _Glossarium ad scriptores mediæ et infimæ Latinitatis_, vi. 1267 _sq._ Henault, _Nouvel abrégé chronologique de l'histoire de France_, p. 106.]
[Footnote 73: Du Cange, _Glossarium_, vi. 1272. Nys, _Droit de la guerre et les précurseurs de Grotius_, p. 114.]
[Footnote 74: Villemain, _Cours de littérature française_, _Littérature du Moyen Age_, i. 122 _sq._]
[Footnote 75: Belli, _De re militari_, quoted by Nys, _op. cit._ p. 115.]
[Footnote 76: Thomas Aquinas, _op. cit._ ii.-ii. 40. 4.]
[Footnote 77: _Maccabees_, ii. 41.]
It seems that the main cause of the abolition of private war was not any measure taken by the Church, but the increase of the authority of emperors or kings. In France the right of waging private war was moderated by Louis IX., checked by Philip IV., suppressed by {358} Charles VI.[78] In England, after the Norman Conquest, private wars seem to have occurred more rarely than on the Continent, probably owing to the strength of the royal authority, which made the execution of justice more vigorous and the jurisdiction of the King's court more extensive than was the case in most other countries.[79] In Scotland the practice of private war received its final blow only late in the eighteenth century, when the clans were reduced to order after the rebellion of 1745.[80] Whilst, then, it is impossible to ascribe to the Church any considerable part in the movement which ultimately led to the entire abolition of private war, we have, on the other hand, to take into account the encouragement which the Church gave to the warlike spirit of the time by the establishment of Chivalry[81] and by sanctioning war as a divine institution. War came to be looked upon as a judgment of God and the victory as a sign of his special favour. Before a battle, the service of mass was usually performed by both armies in the presence of each other, and no warrior would fight without secretly breathing a prayer.[82] Pope Adrian IV. says that a war commenced under the auspices of religion cannot but be fortunate;[83] and it was commonly believed that God took no less interest in the battle than did the fighting warriors. Bonet, who wrote in the fourteenth century, puts to himself the question, why there are so many wars in the world, and gives the answer, "que toutes sont pour le pechié du siecle dont nostre seigneur Dieu pour le pugnir permet les guerres, car ainsi le maintient l'escripture."[84]
[Footnote 78: Robertson, _op. cit._ i. 55, 56, 338 _sqq._ Hallam, _View of the State of Europe during the Middle Ages_, i. 207. Brussel, _op. cit._ i. 142.]
[Footnote 79: _Ibid._ i. 343 _sq._ Prof. Freeman (_Comparative Politics_, p. 328 _sq._) mentions as the last instance of private war in England one from the time of Edward IV.]
[Footnote 80: Lawrence, _Essays on some Disputed Questions in Modern International Law_, p. 254 _sq._]
[Footnote 81: I do not understand how M. Gautier can say (_op. cit._ p. 6) that Chivalry was the most beautiful of those means by which the Church endeavoured to check war.]
[Footnote 82: Mills, _History of Chivalry_, i. 147.]
[Footnote 83: Laurent, _op. cit._ vii. 245.]
[Footnote 84: Bonet, _op. cit._ iv. 54, p. 150.]
Similar opinions have retained their place in the orthodox creeds both of the Catholic and Protestant {359} Churches up to the present day. The attitude adopted by the great Christian congregations towards war has been, and is still, to a considerable degree, that of sympathetic approval. The Catechism of the Council of Trent brings home that there are on record instances of slaughter executed by the special command of God Himself, as when the sons of Levi, who put to death so many thousands in one day, after the slaughter were thus addressed by Moses, "Ye have consecrated your hands this day to the Lord."[85] Even quite modern Catholic writers refer to the canonists who held that a State might lawfully make war upon a heretic people which was spreading heresy, and upon a pagan people which prevented the preaching of the Gospel.[86] Again, when the Protestant Churches became State-Churches, their ministers, considering themselves as in the service of the State, were ready to champion whatever war the Government pleased to undertake. As Mr. Gibb observes, the Protestant minister was as ready with his Thanksgiving Sermon for the victories of a profligate war, as the Catholic priest was with his _Te Deum_; "indeed, the latter was probably the more independent of the two, because of his allegiance to Rome."[87] The new Confessions of Faith explicitly claimed for the State the right of waging war, and the Anabaptists were condemned because they considered war unlawful for a Christian.[88] Even the necessity of a just cause as a reason for taking part in warfare, which was reasserted at the time of the Reformation, was subsequently allowed to drop out of sight. Mr. Farrer calls attention to the fact that in the 37th article of the English Church, which is to the effect that a Christian at the command of the magistrate may wear weapons and serve in wars, the word _justa_ in the Latin form preceding the word _bella_ has been omitted altogether.[89]
[Footnote 85: _Catechism of the Council of Trent_, iii. 6. 5.]
[Footnote 86: Adds and Arnold, _Catholic Dictionary_, p. 944.]
[Footnote 87: Gibb, _loc. cit._ p. 90.]
[Footnote 88: _Augsburg Confession_, i. 16. _Second Helvetic Confession_, xxx. 4.]
[Footnote 89: Farrer, _Military Manners and Customs_, p. 208.]
{360} Nor did the old opinion that war is a providential institution and a judgment of God die with the Middle Ages. Lord Bacon looks upon wars as "the highest trials of right; when princes and states that acknowledge no superior upon earth shall put themselves upon the justice of God, for the deciding of their controversies by such success as it shall please Him to give on either side."[90] Réal de Curban says that a war is seldom successful unless it be just, hence the victor may presume that God is on his side.[91] According to Jeremy Taylor, "kings are in the place of God, who strikes whole nations, and towns, and villages; and war is the rod of God in the hands of princes."[92] And it is not only looked upon as an instrument of divine justice, but it is also said, generally, "to work out the noble purposes of God."[93] Its tendency, as a theological writer assures us, is "to rectify and exalt the popular conception of God," there being nothing among men "like the smell of gunpowder for making a nation perceive the fragrance of divinity in truth."[94] By war the different countries "have been opened up to the advance of true religion."[95] "No people ever did, or ever could, feel the power of Christian principle growing up like an inspiration through the national manhood, until the worth of it had been thundered on the battle-field."[96] War is, "when God sends it, a means of grace and of national renovation"; it is "a solemn duty in which usually only the best Christians and most trustworthy men should be commissioned to hold the sword."[97] According to M. Proudhon, it is the most sublime phenomenon of our moral life,[98] a divine revelation more authoritative than the Gospel itself.[99] The warlike people is the religious people;[100] war is the sign of {361} human grandeur, peace a thing for beavers and sheep. "Philanthrope, vous parlez d'abolir la guerre; prenez garde de dégrader le genre humain."[101]
[Footnote 90: Bacon, _Letters and Life_, i. (_Works_, viii.), 146.]
[Footnote 91: Réal de Curban, _La science du gouvernement_, v. 394 _sq._]
[Footnote 92: Taylor, _Whole Works_, xii. 164.]
[Footnote 93: 'The Sword and Christianity,' in _Boston Review devoted to Theology and Literature_, iii. 261.]
[Footnote 94: _Ibid._ iii. 259, 257.]
[Footnote 95: Holland, _Time of War_, p. 14.]
[Footnote 96: _Boston Review_, iii. 257.]
[Footnote 97: 'Christianity and War,' in _Christian Review_, xxvi. 604.]
[Footnote 98: Proudhon, _La guerre et la paix_, ii. 420.]
[Footnote 99: _Ibid._i.62; ii. 435.]
[Footnote 100: _Ibid._ i. 45.]
[Footnote 101: _Ibid._ i. 43.]
In order to prove the consistency of war with Christianity appeals are still, as in former days, made to the Bible; to the divinely-sanctioned example of the ancient Israelites, to the fact that Jesus never prohibited those around Him from bearing arms, to the instances of the centurions mentioned in the Gospel, to St. Paul's predilection for taking his spiritual metaphors from the profession of the soldier, and so on.[102] According to Canon Mozley, the Christian recognition of the right of war was contained in Christianity's original recognition of nations.[103] "By a fortunate necessity," a universal empire is impossible.[104] Each nation is a centre by itself, and when questions of right and justice arise between these independent centres, they cannot be decided except by mutual agreement or force. The aim of the nation going to war is exactly the same as that of the individual in entering a court, and the Church, which has no authority to decide which is the right side, cannot but stand neutral and contemplate war forensically, as a mode of settling national questions, which is justified by the want of any other mode.[105] A natural justice, Canon Mozley adds, is inherent not only in wars of self-defence; there is an instinctive reaching in nations and masses of people after alteration and readjustment, which has justice in it, and which arises from real needs. The arrangement does not suit as it stands, there is want of adaptation, there is confinement and pressure; there are people kept away from each other that are made to be together, and parts separated that were made to join. All this uneasiness in States naturally leads to war. Moreover, there are wars of progress which, so far as they are really necessary for the due advantage of mankind and {362} growth of society, are approved of by Christianity, though they do not strictly belong to the head of wars undertaken in self-defence.[106] A doctrine which thus, in the name of religion, allows the waging of wars for rectifying the political distribution of nationalities and races, and forwarding the so-called progress of the world, naturally lends itself to the justification of almost any war entered upon by a Christian State.[107] As a matter of fact, it would be impossible to find a single instance of a war waged by a Protestant country, from any motive, to which the bulk of its clergy have not given their sanction and support. The opposition against war has generally come from other quarters.
[Footnote 102: See _e.g._, Browne, _Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles_, p. 827 _sq._; _Christian Review_, xxvi. 603 _sq._; _Eclectic Magazine_, xiii. 372.]
[Footnote 103: Mozley, 'On War,' in _Sermons preached before the University of Oxford_, p. 119.]
[Footnote 104: _Ibid._ p. 112.]
[Footnote 105: _Ibid._ p. 100 _sqq._]
[Footnote 106: _Ibid._ 104 _sq._]
[Footnote 107: On the principle of progress, Canon Mozley himself justifies (_ibid._ p. 110 _sq._) not only the wars undertaken against two Eastern empires which have shut themselves up and excluded themselves from the society of mankind, but "two of the three great European wars of the last dozen years." This was said in 1871.]
There have been, and still are, Christian sects which, on religious grounds, condemn war of any kind. In the fourteenth century the Lollards taught that homicide in war is expressly contrary to the New Testament; they were persecuted partly on that account.[108] Of the same opinion were the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century; and they could claim on their side the words of men like Colet and Erasmus. From the pulpit of St. Paul's Colet thundered that "an unjust peace is better than the justest war," and that, "when men out of hatred and ambition fight with and destroy one another, they fight under the banner, not of Christ, but of the Devil."[109] According to Erasmus "nothing is more impious, more calamitous, more widely pernicious, more inveterate, more base, or in sum more unworthy of a man, not to say of a Christian," than war. It is worse than brutal; to man no wild beast is more destructive than his fellow-man. When brutes fight, they fight with weapons which nature has given them, whereas we arm ourselves for mutual slaughter with weapons which nature never thought of. Neither do beasts break out {363} in hostile rage for trifling causes, but either when hunger drives them to madness, or when they find themselves attacked, or when they are alarmed for the safety of their young. But we, on frivolous pretences, what tragedies do we act on the theatre of war! Under colour of some obsolete and disputable claim to territory; in a childish passion for a mistress; for causes even more ridiculous than these, we kindle the flame of war. Transactions truly hellish, are called holy wars. Bishops and grave divines, decrepit as they are in person, fight from the pulpit the battles of the princes, promising remission of sins to all who will take part in the war of the prince, and exclaiming to the latter that God will fight for him, if he only keeps his mind favourable to the cause of religion. And yet, how could it ever enter into our hearts, that a Christian should imbrue his hands in the blood of a Christian! What is war but murder and theft committed by great numbers on great numbers! Does not the Gospel declare, in decisive words, that we must not revile again those who revile us, that we should do good to those who use us ill, that we should give up the whole of our possessions to those who take a part, that we should pray for those who design to take away our lives? The world has so many learned bishops, so many grey-headed grandees, so many councils and senates, why is not recourse had to their authority, and the childish quarrels of princes settled by their wise and decisive arbitration? "The man who engages in war by choice, that man, whoever he is, is a wicked man; he sins against nature, against God, against man, and is guilty of the most aggravated and complicated impiety."[110] These were the main arguments of reason, humanity, and religion, which Erasmus adduced against war. They could not leave the reformers entirely unaffected. Sir Thomas More charged Luther himself and his disciples with carrying the doctrines of peace to the extreme limits {364} of non-resistance.[111] But, as we have noticed, these peaceful tendencies only formed a passing phase in the history of Reformation, and were left to the care of sectarians.
[Footnote 108: Perry, _History of the English Church_, First Period, pp. 455, 467.]
[Footnote 109: Green, _History of the English People_, ii. 93.]
[Footnote 110: Erasmus, _Adagia_, iv. 1, col. 893 _sqq._]
[Footnote 111: Farrer, _Military Manners and Customs_, p. 185.]
Among these the Quakers are the most important. By virtue of various passages in the Old and the New Testament,[112] they contend that all warfare, whatever be its peculiar features, circumstances, or pretexts, is wholly at variance with the Christian religion. It is always the duty of Christians to obey their Master's high and holy law--to suffer wrong, to return good for evil, to love their enemies. War is also inconsistent with the Christian principle that human life is sacred, and that death is followed by infinite consequences. Since man is destined for eternity, the future welfare of a single individual is of greater importance than the merely temporal prosperity of a whole nation. When cutting short the days of their neighbour and transmitting him, prepared or unprepared, to the awful realities of an everlasting state, Christians take upon themselves a most unwarrantable responsibility, unless such an action is expressly sanctioned by their divine Master, as was the case among the Israelites. In the New Testament there is no such sanction, hence it must be concluded that, under the Christian dispensation, it is utterly unlawful for one man to kill another, under whatever circumstances of expediency or provocation the deed may be committed. And a Christian who fights by the command of his prince, and in behalf of his country, not only commits sin in his own person, but aids and abets the national transgression.[113]
[Footnote 112: _Isaiah_, ch. ii. _sqq._ _Micah_, iv. 1 _sqq._ _St. Matthew_, v. 38 _sqq._; xxvi. 52. _St. Luke_, vi. 27 _sqq._ _St. John_, xviii. 36. _Romans_, xii. 19 _sqq._ _1 Peter_, iii. 9.]
[Footnote 113: Gurney, _Views & Practices of the Society of Friends_, p. 375 _sqq._]
It must be added that views similar to these are also found independently of any particular form of sectarianism. According to Dr. Wayland, all wars, defensive as well as offensive, are contrary to the revealed will of God, aggression from a foreign nation calling not for retaliation and {365} injury, but rather for special kindness and good-will.[114] Theodore Parker, the Congregational minister, looks upon war as a sin, a corrupter of public morals, a practical denial of Christianity, a violation of God's eternal love.[115] W. Stokes, the Baptist, observes that Christianity cannot sanction war, whether offensive or defensive, because war is an "immeasurable evil, by hurling unnumbered myriads of our fellow-men to a premature judgment and endless despair."[116] Moreover, those who compare the state of opinion during the last years with that of former periods, cannot fail to observe a marked progress of a sentiment antagonistic to war in the various sections of the Christian Church.[117] Yet, speaking generally, the orthodox are still of the same opinion as Sir James Turner, who declared that "those who condemn the profession or art of soldiery, smell rank of Anabaptism and Quakery";[118] and war is in our days, as it was in those of Erasmus,[119] so much sanctioned by authority and custom, that it is deemed impious to bear testimony against it. The duties which compulsory military service imposes upon the male population of most Christian countries presuppose that a Christian should have no scruples about taking part in any war waged by the State, and are recognised as binding by the clergy of those countries. With reference to the Church of England, Dr. Thomas Arnold asks, "Did it become a Christian Church to make no other official declaration of its sentiments concerning war, than by saying that Christian men might lawfully engage in it?"[120]
[Footnote 114: Wayland, _Elements of Moral Science_, pp. 375, 379.]
[Footnote 115: Parker, _Sermon of War_, p. 23.]
[Footnote 116: Stokes, _All War inconsistent with the Christian Religion_, p. 41.]
[Footnote 117: _Cf._ Gibb, _loc. cit._ p. 81.]
[Footnote 118: Turner, _Pallas Armata_, p. 369.]
[Footnote 119: Erasmus, _op. cit._ iv. 1. 1. col. 894.]
[Footnote 120: Arnold, _On the Church_, p. 136.]
The protest against war which exercised perhaps the widest influence on public opinion came from a school of moralists whose tendencies were not only anti-orthodox, but distinctly hostile to the most essential dogmas of Christian theology. Bayle, in his Dictionary, calls Erasmus' essay {366} against war one of the most beautiful dissertations ever written.[121] He observes that the more we consider the inevitable consequences of war, the more we feel disposed to detest those who are the causes of it.[122] Its usual fruits may, indeed, "make those tremble who undertake or advise it, to prevent evils which, perhaps, may never happen and which, at the worst, would often be much less than those which necessarily follow a rupture."[123] To Voltaire war is an "infernal enterprise," the strangest feature of which is that "every chief of the ruffians has his colours consecrated, and solemnly prays to God before he goes to destroy his neighbour."[124] He asks what the Church has done to suppress this crime. Bourdaloue preached against impurity, but what sermon did he ever direct against the murder, rapine, brigandage, and universal rage, which desolate the world? "Miserable physicians of souls, you declaim for five quarters of an hour against the mere pricks of a pin, and say no word on the curse which tears us into a thousand pieces."[125] Voltaire admits that under certain circumstances war is an inevitable curse, but rebukes Montesquieu for saying that natural defence sometimes involves the necessity of attack, when a nation perceives that a longer peace would place another nation in a position to destroy it.[126] Such a war, he observes, is as illegitimate as possible:--" It is to go and kill your neighbour for fear that your neighbour, who does not attack you, should be in a condition to attack you; that is to say, you must run the risk of ruining your country, in the hope of ruining without reason some other country; this is, to be sure, neither fair nor useful."[127] The chief causes which induce men to massacre in all loyalty thousands of their brothers and to expose their own people to the most terrible misery, are the ambitions and {367} jealousies of princes and their ministers.[128] Similar views are expressed in the great Encyclopédie:--"La guerre est le plus terrible des fléaux qui détruisent l'espèce humaine: elle n'épargne pas même les vainqueurs; la plus heureuse est funeste. . . . Ce ne sont plus aujourd'hui les peuples qui déclarent la guerre, c'est la cupidité des rois qui leur fait prendre les armes; c'est l'indigence qui les met aux mains de leurs sujets."[129]
[Footnote 121: Bayle, _Dictionnaire historique et critique_, vi. 239, art. Erasme.]
[Footnote 122: _Ibid._ ii. 463, art. Artaxata.]
[Footnote 123: _Ibid._ i. 472, art. Alting (Henri).]
[Footnote 124: Voltaire, _Dictionnaire philosophique_, art. Guerre (_[OE]uvres complètes_, xl. 562).]
[Footnote 125: _Ibid._ p. 564.]
[Footnote 126: Montesquieu, _De l'esprit des lois_, x. 2 (_[OE]uvres complètes_, p. 256).]
[Footnote 127: Voltaire, _loc. cit._ p. 565.]
[Footnote 128: _Ibid._ pp. 466, 564. For Voltaire's condemnation of war, see Morley, _Voltaire_, p. 311 _sq._ I have availed myself of Lord Morley's translation of some of the passages quoted.]
[Footnote 129: _Encyclopédie méthodique_, Art militaire, ii. 618 _sq._]
However vehemently Voltaire and the Encyclopedists condemned war, they did not dream of a time when all wars would cease. Other writers were more optimistic. Already in 1713 Abbé Saint-Pierre--whose abbotship involved only a nominal connection with the Church--had published a project of perpetual peace, which was based on the idea of a general confederation of European nations.[130] This project was much laughed at; Voltaire himself calls its author "un homme moitié philosophe, moitié fou." But once called into being, the idea of a perpetual peace and of a European confederation did not die. It was successively conceived by Rousseau,[131] Bentham,[132] and Kant.[133] But on the other hand it met with a formidable enemy in the awakening spirit of nationalism.
[Footnote 130: Saint-Pierre, _Projet de Traité pour rendre la paix perpétuelle entre les souverains Chrétiens_.]
[Footnote 131: Rousseau, _Extrait du Projet de paix perpétuelle, de M. l'Abbé de Saint-Pierre_ (_[OE]uvres complètes_, i. 606 _sqq._).]
[Footnote 132: Bentham, _A Plan for an universal and perpetual Peace_ (_Works_, ii. 546 _sqq._).]
[Footnote 133: Kant, _Zum ewigen Frieden._]
The Napoleonic oppression called forth resistance. Philosophers and poets sounded the war trumpet. The dream of a universal monarchy was looked upon as absurd and hateful, and the individuality of a nation as the only possible security for its virtue.[134] War was no longer attributed to the pretended interests of princes or to the caprices of their advisers. It was praised as a vehicle of the highest right,[135] as a source or national renovation.[136] {368} By war, says Hegel, "finite pursuits are rendered unstable, and the ethical health of peoples is preserved. Just as the movement of the ocean prevents the corruption which would be the result of perpetual calm, so by war people escape the corruption which would be occasioned by a continuous or eternal peace."[137] Similar views have been expressed by later writers. War is glorified as a stimulus to the elevated virtues of courage, disinterestedness, and patriotism.[138] It has done more great things in the world than the love of man, says Nietzsche.[139] It is the mother of art and of all civil virtues, says Mr. Ruskin.[140] Others defend war, not as a positive good, but as a necessary means of deciding the most serious international controversies, denying that arbitration can be a substitute for all kinds of war. Questions which are intimately connected with national passions and national aspirations, and questions which are vital to a nation's safety, will never, they say, be left to arbitration. Each State must be the guardian of its own security, and cannot allow its independence to be calmly discussed and adjudicated upon by an external tribunal.[141] Moreover, arbitration would prove effective only where the contradictory pretensions could be juridically formulated, and these instances are by far the less numerous and the less important.[142] And would it not, in many cases, be impossible to find impartial arbiters? Would not arbitration often be influenced by a calculation of the forces which every power interested could bring into the field, and would not war be resorted to where arbitration failed to reconcile conflicting interests, or where a decision was opposed to a high-spirited people's sense of justice? These and similar arguments are constantly adduced against the idea of a perpetual peace. But at the same time the opponents of war are becoming more numerous {369} and more confident every day. Already after the fall of Napoleon, when there was a universal longing for peace in the civilised world, the first Peace Societies were formed;[143] and the idea of Saint-Pierre, from being the dream of a philosopher, has become the object of a popular movement which is rapidly increasing in importance. There is every reason to believe that, when the present high tide of nationalism has subsided, and the subject of war and peace is no longer looked upon from an exclusively national point of view, the objections which are now raised against arbitration will at last appear almost as futile as any arguments in favour of private war or blood-revenge. There is an inveterate tendency in the human mind to assume that existing conditions will remain unchanged. But the history of civilisation shows how unfounded any such assumption is with reference to those conditions which determine social relationships and the extent of moral rights and duties.
[Footnote 134: Fichte, _Reden an die deutsche Nation_. _Cf._ _Idem_, _Ueber den Begriff des wahrhaften Krieges_.]
[Footnote 135: Arndt, quoted by Jähns, _Krieg, Frieden und Kultur_, p. 302.]
[Footnote 136: Anselm von Feuerbach, _Unterdrückung und Wiederbefreiung Europens_.]
[Footnote 137: Hegel, _Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts_, § 324, p. 317 (English translation, p. 331).]
[Footnote 138: See, _e.g._, Mabille, _La Guerre_, p. 139.]
[Footnote 139: Nietzsche, _Also sprach Zarathustra_, i. 63.]
[Footnote 140: Ruskin, _Crown of Wild Olive_, Lecture on War (_Works_, vi. 99, 105).]
[Footnote 141: Lawrence, _op. cit._ p. 275 _sq._ Sidgwick, 'Morality of Strife,' in _International Journal of Ethics_, i. 13.]
[Footnote 142: Geffken, quoted by Jähns, _op. cit._ p. 352, n. 2.]
[Footnote 143: Jähns, _op. cit._ p. 307 _sq._]
It is said that, though Christianity has not abolished war, it has nevertheless, even in war, asserted the principle that human life is sacred by prohibiting all needless destruction. The Canon, 'De treuga et pace,' laid down the rule that non-resisting persons should be spared;[144] and Franciscus a Victoria maintained not only that between Christian enemies those who made no resistance could not lawfully be slain,[145] but that even in war against the Turks it was wrong to kill children and women.[146] However, this doctrine of mercy was far in advance of the habits and general opinion of the time.[147] If the simple peasant was often spared, that was largely from motives of prudence,[148] or because the valiant knight considered him unworthy of the lance.[149] As late as the seventeenth century, Grotius was certainly not supported by the spirit of the age when he argued that, "if justice {370} do not require, at least mercy does, that we should not, except for weighty causes tending to the safety of many, undertake anything which may involve innocent persons in destruction";[150] or when he recommended enemies willing to surrender on fair conditions, or unconditionally, to be spared.[151] Afterwards, however, opinion changed rapidly. Pufendorf, in echoing the doctrine of Grotius,[152] spoke to a world which was already convinced; and in the eighteenth century Bynkershoek stands alone in giving to a belligerent unlimited rights of violence.[153] In reference to the assumption that this change of opinion is due to the influence of the Christian religion, it is instructive to note that Grotius, in support of his doctrine, appealed chiefly to pagan authorities, and that even savage peoples, without the aid of Christianity, have arrived at the rule which in war forbids the destruction of helpless persons and captives.
[Footnote 144: Gregory IX. _Decretales_, i. 34. 2.]
[Footnote 145: Franciscus a Victoria, _op. cit._ vi. 13, 35, 48; pp. 232, 241, 246 _sq._]
[Footnote 146: _Ibid._ vi. 36, p. 241.]
[Footnote 147: Hall, _Treatise on International Law_, p. 395, n. 1.]
[Footnote 148: d'Argentré, _L'histoire de Bretagne_, p. 391.]
[Footnote 149: Mills, _op. cit._ p. 132.]
[Footnote 150: Grotius, _op. cit._ iii. 11. 8.]
[Footnote 151: _Ibid._ iii. 11. 14 _sqq._]
[Footnote 152: Pufendorf, _De jure naturæ et gentium_, viii. 6. 8, p. 885.]
[Footnote 153: van Bynkershoek, _Questiones juris publici_, i. 1, p. 31: "Omnis enim vis in bello justa est." Hall, _Treatise on International Law_, p. 395, n. 1.]
The prevailing attitude towards war indicates the survival, in modern civilisation, of the old feeling that the life of a foreigner is not equally sacred with the life of a countryman. In times of peace this feeling is usually suppressed; it appears in no existing law on homicide, nor does it, generally, find expression in public opinion. It dares to disclose itself only in the form of national aggressiveness, under the flag of patriotism, or, perhaps, in the treatment of the aborigines of some distant country. The behaviour of European colonists towards coloured races only too often reminds us of the manner in which savages treat members of a foreign tribe. It was said that the frontier peasants at the Cape found nothing morally wrong in the razzias which they undertook against the Bushmans, without any provocation whatsoever, though they would consider it a heinous sin to do the same to their Christian fellow-men.[154] In Australia {371} there are instances reported of young colonists employing the Sunday in shooting blacks for the sake of sport. "The life of a native," says Mr. Lumholtz, "has but little value, particularly in the northern part of Australia, and once or twice colonists offered to shoot blacks for me so that I might get their skulls. On the borders of civilisation men would think as little of shooting a black man as a dog. The law imposes death by hanging as the penalty for murdering a black man, but people live so far apart in these uncivilised regions that a white man may in fact do what he pleases with the blacks. . . . In the courts the blacks are defenceless, for their testimony is not accepted. The jury is not likely to declare a white man guilty of murdering a black man. On the other hand if a white man happens to be killed by the blacks, a cry is heard throughout the whole colony."[155]
[Footnote 154: Waitz, _Introduction to Anthropology_, p. 314.]
[Footnote 155: Lumholtz, _Among Cannibals_, p. 346 _sqq._ See also Mathew, in _Jour. & Proceed. Roy. Soc. N. S. Wales_, xxiii. 390; Breton, _Excursions in New South Wales_, p. 200 _sq._; Stokes, _Discoveries in Australia_, ii. 459 _sqq._]
CHAPTER XVI
HOMICIDE IN GENERAL (_concluded_)
IN the last two chapters we have only been concerned with the statement of facts; we shall now make an attempt to explain those facts. What is the source of the moral commandment, "Thou shalt not kill"? And what is the cause of its original narrowness and of its subsequent extension?
Mr. Spencer suggests that the taking of life was regarded as a wrong done to the family of the dead man or to the society of which he was a member, before it came to be conceived of as a wrong done to the murdered man himself.[1] But considering the mutual sympathy which prevails in small savage communities, it seems extremely probable that sympathetic resentment felt on account of the injury suffered by the victim has from the beginning been a potent cause of the condemnation of homicide. Savages, no less than civilised mankind, practically regard a man's life as his highest good. Whatever opinions may be held about the existence after death, whatever blessings may be supposed to await the disembodied soul, nobody likes to be hurried into that existence by another's will. According to early beliefs, the soul of a murdered man is furious with the person who slew him, and finds no rest until his death has been avenged.[2] His friends and comrades pity his fate and {373} feel resentment on his behalf; whereas, in a state of culture where sympathy is restricted to a narrow group of people, no such resentment will be felt if the victim is a member of another group. On the contrary, when he is regarded as an actual or potential enemy, or when the slaying of him is taken for a test of courage, the manslayer will be applauded by his own people, and his deed will be styled good or meritorious. In some cases superstition, also, is an encouragement to extra-tribal homicide. The Kukis believe that, in paradise, all the enemies whom a man has killed will be in attendance on him as slaves.[3] A similar belief partly lies at the bottom of the custom of head-hunting;[4] whilst, according to other notions, the soul of the man whose head is procured is transformed into a guardian spirit.[5] A Kayan chief said of the custom in question, "It brings us blessings, plentiful harvests, and keeps off sickness and pains; those who were once our enemies, hereby become our guardians, our friends, our benefactors."[6] Now, progress in civilisation is generally marked by an expansion of the altruistic sentiment; and this largely explains why the prohibition of homicide has come to embrace more and more comprehensive circles of men, and finally, in the most advanced cases, the whole human race.
[Footnote 1: Spencer, _Principles of Ethics_, ii.]
[Footnote 2: See _infra_, on Blood-revenge.]
[Footnote 3: Dalton, _Descriptive Ethnology of Bengal_, p. 46.]
[Footnote 4: Ling Roth, _Natives of Sarawak_, ii. 141.]
[Footnote 5: Wilken, _Het animisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel_, p. 124.]
[Footnote 6: Furness, _Home-Life of Borneo Head-Hunters_, p. 59.]
But whilst homicide is censured as a wrong done to the person slain, it is at the same time viewed as an injury inflicted upon the survivors. It deprived his friends of his company, his family and community of a useful member. In Arabia, when a man was killed, his tribesmen, instead of mentioning his name, used to say, "Our blood has been spilt."[7] According to Lafitau, the loss of a single person seemed to the North American Indians a subject or great regret, because it weakened the family.[8] {374} Among the Basutos, again, murder is condemned "as a violation of the sacred rights of a father, who is deprived of the services of his son, or of a widow and orphans, who are left without support."[9] Especially when a person is considered more or less the property of another, the taking of his life is largely looked upon as an offence against the owner. Mr. Warner states of the Kafirs, "All homicide must . . . be atoned for; the principle assumed being, that the persons of individuals are the property of the Chief, and that having been deprived of the life of a subject, he must be compensated for it."[10] We meet with a somewhat similar notion in the history of English legislation. In his book on the Commonwealth of England, Thomas Smith observes, "Attempting to impoison a man, or laying a waite to kill a man, though hee wound him dangerously, yet if death follow not, it is no fellony by the law of England, for the Prince hath lost no man, and life ought to be giuen we say for life only."[11] In the Middle Ages homicide was conceived as a breach of the "King's peace"; and both before and afterwards it has been stigmatised as a disturbance of public tranquillity and an outrage on public safety. In the Anglo-Saxon _wer_ and _wite_ we find a clear distinction between the private and public aspects of homicide.[12]
[Footnote 7: Robertson Smith, _Marriage and Kinship in Early Arabia_, p. 26.]
[Footnote 8: Lafitau, _M[oe]urs des sauvages ameriquains_, ii. 163.]
[Footnote 9: Casalis, _Basutos_, p. 224 _sq._]
[Footnote 10: Warner, in Maclean, _Compendium of Kafir Laws_, p. 60 _sq._]
[Footnote 11: Thomas Smith, _Common-wealth of England_, p. 194 _sq._]
[Footnote 12: _Cf._ Pollock and Maitland, _History of English Law before the Time of Edward I._ i. 48.]
A manslayer not only causes a loss to the group which he deprives of a member, but he also may give trouble to his own people, who, in consequence, disapprove of his act. Among the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego, says Mr. Bridges, "many things conspire to make the shedding of blood a fearful thing. A murderer imperils all his friends and connections more or less, and consequently estranges them from himself. This state of things is the greatest safeguard to human life we can conceive."[13] Among the Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush, "the mere killing of an {375} individual is looked upon as a small affair, provided that he does not belong to the tribe, or to another near tribe with which it is at peace, for in the latter case it might result in war."[14]
[Footnote 13: Bridges, in _South American Missionary Magazine_, xiii. 153.]
[Footnote 14: Scott Robertson, _Káfirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 194.]
We have still to notice the common idea that a manslayer is unclean. The ghost of the victim persecutes him, or actually cleaves to him like a miasma; and he must undergo rites of purification to get rid of the infection. Until this is done, he is among many peoples regarded as a source of danger, and is consequently cut off from free intercourse with his fellows.
Among the Ponka Indians Mr. Dorsey found the belief that a murderer is surrounded by the ghosts, who keep up a constant whistling; that he can never satisfy his hunger, though he eat much food; and that he must not be allowed to roam at large lest high winds arise.[15] Of the warriors among certain North American Indians Adair wrote that, "as they reckon they are become impure by shedding human blood," they hasten to observe a fast of three days.[16] Among the Natchez, according to Charlevoix, "those who for the first time have made a prisoner or taken off a scalp, must, for a month, abstain from seeing their wives, and from eating flesh. They imagine, that if they should fail in this, the souls of those whom they have killed or burnt, would effect their death, or that the first wound they should receive would be mortal; or at least, that they should never gain any advantage over their enemies."[17] The Kafirs and Bechuanas practise various ceremonies of purification after their fights.[18] The Basutos say, "Human blood is heavy, it prevents him who has shed it from running away."[19] They consider it necessary that, on return from battle, "the warriors should rid themselves, as soon as possible, of the blood they have shed, or the shades of their victims would pursue them incessantly and disturb their slumbers"; hence they go in full armour to the nearest stream, and, as a rule, at the moment they enter the water a diviner, placed {376} higher up, throws some purifying substances into the current.[20] Among the Bantu Kavirondo, "when a man has killed an enemy in warfare he shaves his head on his return home, and his friends rub 'medicine' (generally the dung of goats) over his body to prevent the spirit of the deceased from worrying the man by whom he has been slain."[21] Among the Ja-luo, a warrior who has slain an enemy not only shaves his hair, but, after entering the village, prepares a big feast to propitiate the man he has killed so that his ghost may not give trouble.[22] Among the Wagogo of German East Africa, the father of a young warrior who has shed blood gives to his son a goat "to clean his sword."[23] After the slaughter of the Midianites, those Israelites who had killed any one, or touched the slain, had to remain outside the camp for seven days, purifying themselves and everything in their possession either by water, or fire, or both.[24] So, also, if a person had been slain in the land of Israel, and the perpetrator of the deed could not be detected, the elders of the city which was next unto the slain had to undergo a ceremony of purification in order to rid the city of "the guilt of innocent blood.[25] According to the Laws of Manu, a person who has unintentionally killed a Brâhmana shall make a hut in the forest and dwell in it during twelve years;[26] in order to remove the guilt he shall throw himself thrice headlong into a blazing fire,[27] or walk against the stream along the whole course of the river Sarasvatî,[28] or shave off all his hair.[29] The ancient Greeks believed that one who had suffered a violent end, when newly dead, was angry with the author of his death.[30] The blood-guilty individual, as though infected with a miasma, shunned all contact and conversation with other people, and avoided entering their dwellings.[31] Even the involuntary manslayer had to leave the country for some time; according to Plato's 'Laws,' he "must go out of the way of his victim for the entire period of a year, and not let himself be found in any spot which was familiar to him throughout the country."[32] {377} Nor must he return to his land until sacrifice had been offered and ceremonies of purification performed.[33]
[Footnote 15: Dorsey, 'Siouan Cults,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ xi. 420.]
[Footnote 16: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, p. 388.]
[Footnote 17: Charlevoix, _Voyage to North America_, ii. 203.]
[Footnote 18: Arbousset and Daumas, _Exploratory Tour to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope_, p. 394 _sqq._ Alberti, _De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika_, p. 104.]
[Footnote 19: Casalis, _op. cit._ p. 309.]
[Footnote 20: _Ibid._ p. 258.]
[Footnote 21: Johnston, _Uganda Protectorate_, ii. 743 _sq._]
[Footnote 22: _Ibid._ ii. 794.]
[Footnote 23: Cole, 'Notes on the Wagogo of German East Africa,' in _Jour. Anthr. Inst._ xxxii. 321.]
[Footnote 24: _Numbers_, xxxi. 19 _sqq._]
[Footnote 25: _Deuteronomy_, xxi. 1 _sq._]
[Footnote 26: _Laws of Manu_, xi. 73.]
[Footnote 27: _Ibid._ xi. 74.]
[Footnote 28: _Ibid._ xi. 78.]
[Footnote 29: _Ibid._ xi. 79.]
[Footnote 30: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 865.]
[Footnote 31: Müller, _Dissertations on the Eumenides of Æschylus_, p. 103. Aeschylus says (Eumenides, 448 _sqq._) it is the custom that a murderer should not speak anything until he has been sprinkled with the spurted blood of a slain sucking-pig. _Cf._ Apollonius Rhodius, _Argonautica_, iv. 700 _sqq._; Aristotle, _De republica Atheniensium_, 57.]
[Footnote 32: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 865.]
[Footnote 33: Demosthenes, _Contra Aristocratem_, 71 _sqq._, p. 643 _sq._ Müller, _Dissertations_, p. 106 _sq._ Frazer, _Golden Bough_, i. 341. On the uncleanness of manslayers see also Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii. 433 _sq._; Frazer, _op. cit._ i. 331 _sqq._]
The state of uncleanness incurred by the shedding of human blood does not intrinsically involve moral guilt. As appears from many of the instances just referred to, it results not only from the murder of a tribesman, but from so meritorious a deed as the slaying of a foe. In Nukahiva, for instance, a man who has killed the highest person, or one of the highest, among the enemy, is tabooed for ten days, during which he is not allowed to hold intercourse with his wife nor to meddle with fire; but, at the same time, he is treated with distinction, and presents of pigs are brought to him.[34] On the other hand, there can be no doubt that in various cases the polluting effect attributed to manslaughter has exercised some influence upon the moral judgment of the act. Whenever the commission of an act of homicide has any tendency at all to call forth moral blame, the disapproval of the deed will easily be enhanced by the spiritual danger attending on it, as also by the inconvenient restrictions laid on the tabooed manslayer and the ceremonies of purification to which he is subject. The deprivations which he has to undergo come to be looked upon in the light of a punishment, and the rights of cleansing as a means of removing guilt. The taboo rules which, among the Omahas, a murderer whose life was spared had to observe for a period varying from two to four years are spoken of by Mr. Dorsey as his "punishment," and this seems also partly to have been the native point of view. The murderer sometimes wandered at night, crying, and lamenting his offence, until, at the end of the designated period, the kindred of his victim heard his crying, and said:--"It is enough. Begone, and walk among the crowd. {378} Put on moccasins and wear a good robe."[35] Moreover, the notion of a persecuting ghost may be replaced by the notion of an avenging god. Confusions are common in the world of mystery; doings or functions attributed to one being are afterwards transferred to another--this is a rule of which many important examples will be given in following chapters. The Jbâla of Northern Morocco do not nowadays believe in ghosts, yet they regard a person who has shed human blood to be in some degree unclean for the rest of his life. Poison oozes out from underneath his nails; hence anybody who drinks the water in which he has washed his hands will fall dangerously ill. The meat of an animal which he has killed is difficult to digest, and so is any food eaten in his company. If he comes to a place where people are digging a well, the water will at once run away. He is said to be _mejnûn_, haunted by _jnûn_ (_jinn_), a race of beings entirely distinct from men, living or dead. The Greenlanders believed that an abortion or a child born under concealment was transformed into an evil spirit called _ángiaq_, for the purpose of avenging the crime.[36] In Eastern Central Africa, "after killing a slave, the master is afraid of _Chilope_. This means that he will become emaciated, lose his eye-sight, and ultimately die a miserable death. He therefore goes to his chief and gives him a certain fee (in cloth, or slaves, or such legal tenders), and says, 'Get me a charm (_luasi_), because I have slain a man.' When he has used this charm, which may be either drunk or administered in a bath, the danger passes away."[37] Among the Omahas the ghost of the murdered man was not lost sight of; the murderer "was obliged to pitch his tent about a quarter of a mile from the rest of the tribe when they were going on the hunt lest the ghost of his victim should raise a high wind, which might cause damage." But at the same time his deed was considered offensive to {379} Wakanda; no one wished to eat with him, for they said, "If we eat with whom Wakanda hates, for his crime, Wakanda will hate us."[38] In the Chinese books there are numerous instances of persons haunted by the souls of their victims on their death-bed, and in most of these cases the ghosts state expressly that they are avenging themselves with the special authorisation of Heaven.[39] The Greek belief in the Erinys of a murdered man no doubt originated in the earlier notion of a persecuting ghost, whose anger or curses in later times were personified as an independent spirit.[40] And the transformation went further still: the Erinyes were represented as the ministers of Zeus, who by punishing the murderer carried out his divine will. Zeus was considered the originator of the rites of purification; when visited with madness by the Erinyes, Ixion appealed to Zeus Hikesios, and at the altar of Zeus Meilichios Theseus underwent purification for the shedding of kindred blood.[41] Originally, as it seems, only the murder of a kinsman was an offence against Zeus and under the ban of the Erinyes, but later on their sphere of action was expanded, and all bloodshed, if the victim had any rights at all within the city, became a sin which needed purification.[42] Uncleanness was thus transformed into spiritual impurity. When the pollution with which a manslayer is tainted is regarded as merely the work of a ghost or of some spirit-substitute who, like the Moorish _jnûn_, has nothing to do with the administration of justice, it may be devoid of all moral significance in spite of the dread it inspires; but the case is different when it comes to be conceived of as a divine punishment, or as a sin-pollution in the eyes of the supreme god. Such a transformation of ideas could hardly take place {380} unless the act, considered polluting, were by itself apt to evoke moral disapproval. But it is obvious that the gravity of the offence is increased by the religious aspect it assumes.
[Footnote 34: von Langsdorf, _Voyages and Travels_, i. 133.]
[Footnote 35: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 369.]
[Footnote 36: Rink, _Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo_, pp. 45, 439 _sq._]
[Footnote 37: Macdonald, _Africana_, i. 168.]
[Footnote 38: Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 369.]
[Footnote 39: de Groot, _Religious System of China_, (vol. iv. book) ii. 441.]
[Footnote 40: See Müller, _Dissertations_, p. 155 _sqq._; Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 247; _Idem_, 'Paralipomena,' in _Rheinisches Museum für Philologie_, 1895, p. 6 _sqq._]
[Footnote 41: Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, i. 66 _sqq._ Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 249. _Idem_, in _Rheinisches Museum_, 1895, p. 18. Stengel, _Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer_, p. 140.]
[Footnote 42: Farnell, _op. cit._ i. 68, 71. Rohde, _Psyche_, p. 247.]
In yet another way the defiling effect attributed to the taking of human life has had an influence on religious and moral ideas. Such defilement is shunned not only by men, but, in a still higher degree, by gods. The shedding of human blood is commonly prohibited in sacred places. "In almost every Indian nation," says Adair, "there are several peaceable towns, which are called 'old-beloved,' 'ancient, holy, or white towns'; they seem to have been formerly 'towns of refuge,' for it is not in the memory of their oldest people, that ever human blood was shed in them; although they often force persons from thence, and put them to death elsewhere."[43] The Aricaras of the Missouri, according to Bradbury, have in the centre of the largest village a sacred lodge called the "medicine lodge," which, "in one particular corresponds with the sanctuary of the Jews, as no blood is on any account whatsoever to be spilled within it, not even that of an enemy."[44] At Athens the prosecution for homicide began with debarring the criminal from all sanctuaries and assemblies consecrated by religious observances.[45] According to Greek ideas, purification was an essential preliminary to an acceptable sacrifice.[46] Hector said, "I shrink from offering a libation of gleaming wine to Zeus with hands unwashed; nor can it be in any way wise that one should pray to the son of Kronos, god of the storm-cloud, all defiled with blood {381} and filth."[47] In many parts of Morocco, a man who has slain another person is never afterwards allowed to kill the sacrificial sheep at the "Great Feast."[48] When David had in his heart to build a temple, God said to him, "Thou shalt not build a house for my name, because thou hast been a man of war, and **hast shed blood."[49] A decree of the penitential discipline of the Christian Church, which was enforced even against emperors and generals, forbade anyone whose hands had been imbrued in blood to approach the altar without a preparatory period of penance.[50]
[Footnote 43: Adair, _History of the American Indians_, p. 159.]
[Footnote 44: Bradbury, _Travels in the Interior of America_, p. 165 _sq._ Our informer adds, "Nor is any one, having taken refuge there, to be forced from it"; but with facts of this kind we are not concerned at present. They belong to the right of sanctuary, in the strict sense of the term, and, as will be seen, this right is based on a different principle, which prevents even the polluted manslayer, tainted with newly shed blood, from being dragged out of the sanctuary to which he has fled in the capacity of a suppliant.]
[Footnote 45: Aristotle, _De republica Atheniensium_, 57. Müller, _Dissertations_, p. 103.]
[Footnote 46: Donaldson, 'Expiatory and Substitutionary Sacrifices of the Greeks,' in _Transactions Roy. Soc. Edinburgh_, xxvii. 433. Farnell, _op. cit._ i. 72.]
[Footnote 47: _Iliad_, vi. 266 _sqq._ _Cf._ Vergil, _Æneis_, ii. 717 _sqq._]
[Footnote 48: I found this custom prevalent both among Arab and Berber tribes in different parts of the country; see my article, "The Popular Ritual of the Great Feast in Morocco," in _Folk-Lore_, xxii. 144.]
[Footnote 49: _1 Chronicles_, xxviii. 2 _sq._]
[Footnote 50: Lecky, _History of European Morals_, ii. 39.]
Whilst, from fear of contaminating anything holy, casual restrictions have thus been imposed on all kinds of manslayers, whether murderers or those who have killed an enemy in righteous warfare, more stringent rules have been laid down for persons permanently connected with the religious cult. Adair states that the "holy men" of the North American Indians, like the Jewish priests, were by their function absolutely forbidden to shed human blood, "notwithstanding their propensity thereto, even for small injuries."[51] Herodotus says of the Persian Magi that they "kill animals of all kinds with their own hands, excepting dogs and men."[52] The Druids of Gaul never went to war,[53] probably in order to keep themselves free from blood-pollution;[54] it is true, they sacrificed human victims to their gods, but those they burnt.[55] To the same class of facts belong those decrees of the Christian Church which forbade clergymen taking part in a battle. Moreover, if a Christian priest passed a sentence of death {382} he was punished with degradation and imprisonment for life;[56] nor was he allowed to write or dictate anything with a view to bringing about such a sentence.[57] He must not perform a surgical operation by help of fire or iron.[58] And if he killed a robber in order to save his life, he had to do penance till his death.[59] The hands which had to distribute the blood of the Lamb of God were not to be polluted with the blood of those for whose salvation it was shed.[60]
[Footnote 51: Adair, _op. cit._ p. 152.]
[Footnote 52: Herodotus, i. 40. The Shluh of Southern Morocco and some other Berber tribes, in the central parts of the same country, consider that not only homicide, but the killing of a dog for ever after prevents a person from performing sacrifice at the "Great Feast"; see _Folk-Lore_, xxii, 144.]
[Footnote 53: Cæsar, _De bello gallico_, vi. 14.]
[Footnote 54: d'Arbois de Jubainville, _Civilisation des Celtes_, p. 254.]
[Footnote 55: Cæsar, _De bello gallico_, vi. 16.]
[Footnote 56: Gratian, _Decretum_, ii. 23. 8. 30.]
[Footnote 57: _Concilium Lateranense IV._, A.D. 1215, ch. 18 (Labbe-Mansi, _Sacrorum Conciliorum collectio_, xxii. 1007).]
[Footnote 58: _Concilium Lateranense IV._, A.D. 1215, ch. 18 (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xxii. 1007).]
[Footnote 59: Thomassin, _Dictionnaire de discipline ecclésiastique_, ii. 1074.]
[Footnote 60: _Ibid._ ii. 1069.]
It cannot be doubted that this horror of blood-pollution had a share in that regard for human life which from the beginning, and especially in early times, was a characteristic of Christianity. But in other respects also, Christian feelings and beliefs had an inherent tendency to evoke such a sentiment. The cosmopolitan spirit of the Christian religion could not allow, in theory at least, that the life of a man was less sacred because he was a foreigner. The extraordinary importance it attached to this earthly life as a preparation for a life to come naturally increased the guilt of any one who, by cutting it short, not only killed the body, but probably to all eternity injured the soul.[61] In a still higher degree than most other crimes, homicide was regarded as an offence against God, because man had been made in His image.[62] Gratian says that even the slayer of a Jew or a heathen has to undergo a severe penance, "quia imaginem Dei et spem futuræ conversionis exterminat."[63]
[Footnote 61: _Concilium Lugdumense I._, A.D. 1245, Additio, de Homicidio (Labbe-Mansi, _op. cit._ xxiii. 670).]
[Footnote 62: von Eicken, _Geschichte und System der Mittelalterlichen Weltanschauung_, p. 568.]
[Footnote 63: Gratian, _Decretum_, i. 50. 40.]
CHAPTER XVII
THE KILLING OF PARENTS, SICK PERSONS, CHILDREN--FETICIDE
WE have found that among mankind at large there is a moral rule which forbids people to kill members of their own society. We shall now see that the stringency of this rule is subject to variations, depending on the special relationship in which persons stand to one another or on their social _status_, and that there are cases to which it does not apply at all.
Owing to the regard which children are expected to feel for their parents, parricide is considered the most aggravated form of murder. Nowhere have parents been more venerated by their children than among the nations of archaic culture, and nowhere has parricide been regarded with greater horror. In China it is punished with the most ignominious of all capital punishments, the so-called "cutting into small pieces"; and in some instances, when the crime has occurred in a district, in addition to all punishments inflicted on persons, the wall of the city where the deed was committed is pulled down in parts, or modified in shape, a round corner is substituted for a square one, or a gate removed to a new situation, or even closed up altogether.[1] In Corea the parricide is burned to death.[2] {384} Among the ancient Egyptians, we are told, he was sentenced to be lacerated with sharpened reeds, and after being thrown on thorns he was burned.[3] In Exodus we read of the "smiting" of parents, but parricide is not expressly mentioned, perhaps because the Hebrew legislator, like Solon at Athens,[4] did not think it possible that any one could be guilty of so unnatural a barbarity.[5] Herodotus states that the same notion was held by the ancient Persians, who said that no one ever yet killed his own father or mother, and that all cases of so-called parricide if carefully examined, would be found to have been committed by supposititious children or those born in adultery, it being beyond the bounds of probability that a true father should be murdered by his own son.[6] Plato says in his 'Laws':--"If a man could be slain more than once, most justly would he who in a fit of passion has slain father or mother undergo many deaths. How can he whom, alone of all men, even in defence of his life, and when about to suffer death at the hands of his parents, no law will allow to kill his father or his mother who are the authors of his being, and whom the legislator will command to endure any extremity rather than do this--how can he, I say, lawfully receive any other punishment?"[7] At Athens parricides were the only persons accused of murder who were not allowed the chance of escaping before sentence was passed, but were instantly arrested.[8] According to Roman Law, a committer of _parricidium_ was not subjected to any of the regular modes of capital punishment, but for "the most execrable of crimes" was provided "the most strange of punishments." The criminal was sewn up in a leathern sack with a cur, a cock, a viper, and an ape, and, when cooped up in this fearful prison, was hurled into the sea, or into {385} some neighbouring river.[9] But by the term _parricidium_ was not understood the murder of a parent only. According to the 'Lex Pompeia de parricidiis,' it included the murder of any of the following persons: an ascendant or descendant in any degree,[10] a brother or sister, an uncle or aunt, a cousin, a husband or wife, a bridegroom or bride, a father- or mother-in-law, a son- or daughter-in-law, a step-parent or step-child, a patron; and Mommsen suggests that in earlier times it had a still wider significance, being applied to intentional homicide in general.[11] But whilst the punishment just referred to was in other cases of _parricidium_ replaced by banishment, it was, during the Empire at least, actually inflicted upon him who murdered an ascendant.[12]
[Footnote 1: Doolittle, _Social Life of the Chinese_, i. 338 _sq._ Smith, _Chinese Characteristics_, p. 229.]
[Footnote 2: Griffis, _Corea_, p. 236.]
[Footnote 3: Diodorus Siculus, _Bibliotheca historica_, i. 77. 8.]
[Footnote 4: Diogenes Laërtius, _Solon_, 10. Cicero, _Pro S. Roscio Amerino_, 25. Orosius, _Historiæ_, v. 16.]
[Footnote 5: _Exodus_, xxi. 15. _Cf._ Keil, _Manual of Biblical Archæology_, ii. 376.]
[Footnote 6: Herodotus, i. 137.]
[Footnote 7: Plato, _Leges_, ix. 869. _Cf._ _ibid._ ix. 873.]
[Footnote 8: Müller, _Dissertations on the Eumenides of Æschylus_, p. 91. _Cf._ Euripides, _Orestes_, 442 _sqq._]
[Footnote 9: _Institutiones_, iv. 18. 6.]
[Footnote 10: Unless the descendant was in the _potestas_ of him who committed the deed.]
[Footnote 11: Mommsen, _Römisches Strafrecht_, pp. 644, 645, 612 _sq._]
[Footnote 12: _Ibid._ p. 645 _sq._]
Whilst Christianity generally increased the sanctity of human life, it could add nothing to the horror with which parricide was regarded by the ancients. The Church punished it more severely than ordinary murder,[13] and so did, at least in Latin countries, the secular authorities.[14] In France, even to this day, a person convicted of parricide is "conduit sur le lieu de l'exécution en chemise, nu-pieds, et la tête couverte d'un voile noir";[15] and whilst _meurtre_ is excusable if provoked by grave personal violence or by an attempt to break into a dwelling-house by day, parricide is never excusable under any circumstances.[16]
[Footnote 13: Gregory III., _Judicia congrua p[oe]nitentibus_, ch. 3 (Labbe-Mansi, _Conciliorum collectio_, xii. 289). _P[oe]nitentiale Bigotianum_, iv. 1 (Wasserschleben, _Bussordnungen der abendländischen Kirche_, p. 453). _P[oe]nitent. Pseudo-Theodori_, xxi. 18 (_ibid._ p. 588).]
[Footnote 14: Chauveau and Hélie, _Théorie du Code Pénal_, iii. 394 (France). Salvioli, _Manuale di storia del diritto italiano_, p. 570. In Scotland, also, parricide formerly had a place in the list of aggravated murders (Hume, _Commentaries on the Law of Scotland_, i. 459 _sq._; for a sentence passed in 1688, see Pitcairn, _Criminal Trials in Scotland_, iii. 198); though nowadays it is penalised in the same way as other forms of murder (Erskine, _Principles of the Law of Scotland_, p. 559). There never was any special punishment for parricide in English law (Blackstone, _Commentaries on the Laws of England_, iv. 202. Stephen, _History of the Criminal Law of England_, iii. 95).]
[Footnote 15: _Code Pénal_, art. 13.]
[Footnote 16: _Ibid._ art. 321 _sqq._]
{386} As regards the feelings with which ordinary parricide is looked upon by uncivilised peoples, direct information is almost entirely wanting. It is rarely mentioned at all, no doubt because it is very unusual.[17] Among the Kafirs of Natal, though murder is generally punished by a fine, death is inflicted on him who kills a parent.[18] Among the Ossetes a parricide draws upon himself a fearful punishment: he is shut up in his house with all his possessions, surrounded by the populace and burned alive.[19] To judge from the respect which, among the majority of uncivilised peoples, children are considered to owe to their parents, it seems very probable that the murder of a father or a mother is generally condemned by them as a particularly detestable form of homicide. But to this rule there is an important exception. According to a custom prevalent among various savages or barbarians, a parent who is worn out with age or disease is abandoned or killed.
[Footnote 17: Among the Omahas there have been a few cases of parricide caused by drunkenness (Dorsey, 'Omaha Sociology,' in _Ann. Rep. Bur. Ethn._ iii. 369). A Chukchi killed his father for charging him with cowardice and awkwardness (Sarytschew, 'Voyage of Discovery,' in _Collection of Modern and Contemporary Voyages_, vi. 51). In Lánda "it is no uncommon thing for a son to murder his father in order to step into his shoes" (_Emin Pasha in Central Africa_, p. 230). See also Wilson and Felkin, _Uganda_, i. 224.]
[Footnote 18: Shooter, _Kafirs of Natal_, p. 103.]
[Footnote 19: von Haxthausen, _Transcaucasia_, p. 415.]
Hearne states that, among the Northern Indians, one half at least of the aged persons of both sexes, when no longer capable of walking, are left alone to starve and perish of want.[20] Among the Californian Gallinomero, when the father can no longer feebly creep to the forest to gather his back-load of fuel or a basket of acorns, and is only a burden to his sons, "the poor old wretch is not infrequently thrown down on his back and securely held while a stick is placed across his throat, and two of them seat themselves on the ends of it until he ceases to breathe."[21] The custom of killing or abandoning old parents has been noticed among several other North {387} American tribes,[22] the natives of Brazil,[23] various South Sea Islanders,[24] a few Australian tribes,[25] and some peoples in Africa[26] and Asia.[27] According to ancient writers, it occurred formerly among many Asiatic[28] and European nations, including the Vedic people[29] and peoples of Teutonic extraction.[30] As late as the fifth or sixth century it was the custom among the Heruli for relatives to kindle a funeral pile for their old folks, although a stranger was employed to give the death wound.[31] And there is an old English tradition of "the Holy Mawle, which they fancy hung behind the church door, which when the father was seaventie, the sonne might fetch to knock his father in the head, as effete and of no more use."[32]
[Footnote 20: Hearne, _Journey to the Northern Ocean_, p. 346.]
[Footnote 21: Powers, _Tribes of California_, p. 178.]