2 than lightly engaging in war,' and "he who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief." In the Indian poem, Mahabharata, needless warfare is condemned; it is said that the success which is obtained by negotiations is the best, and that the success which is secured by battle is the worst. Among the Hebrews the sect of the Essenes went so far in their reprobation of war that they would not manufacture any martial instruments whatever.+ Roman historians, even in the case of wars with barbarians, often discuss the sufficiency or insufficiency of the motives "with a conscientious severity a modern historian could hardly surpass." According to Cicero, a war, to be just, ought to be necessary, the sole object of war being to enable us to live undisturbed in peace. There are two modes of settling controversies, he says, one by discussion, the other by a resort to force. The first is proper to man, the second is proper to brutes, and ought never to be adopted except where the first is unavailable." Seneca regards war as a "glorious crime," comparable to murder: What is forbidden in private life is commanded by public ordinance. Actions which, committed by stealth, would meet with capital punishment, we praise because committed by soldiers. Men, by nature the mildest species of the animal race, are not ashamed to find delight in mutual slaughter, to wage wars, and to transmit them to be waged by their children, when even dumb animals and wild beasts live at peace with one another." 7 History attests that the Romans, in their intercourse with other nations, did not act upon Cicero's and Seneca's lofty theories of international morality; as Plutarch observes, the two names peace" and " "war are mostly used only as coins, to procure, not what is just, but what is expedient. Yet there seems to have been a general 8 Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 258. 6 Cicero, De officiis, i. 11. 7 Seneca, Epistule, 95. 8 Plutarch, Vita Pyrrhi, xii. 3, p. 389. feeling in Rome that the waging of a war required some justification. In declaring it, the Roman heralds called all the gods to witness that the people against whom it was declared had been unjust and neglectful of its obligations.' Even in war the killing of an enemy is, under certain circumstances, prohibited either by custom or by enlightened moral opinion. Among the ancient Nahuas, who never accepted a ransom for a prisoner of war, the person of an ambassador was at all events held sacred.2 In the Book of Rewards and Punishments,' which embodies popular Taouism, it is said, "Do not massacre the enemies who yield themselves, nor kill those who offer their submission." 3 The Hebrews, whilst being commanded to "save alive nothing that breatheth" of the cities which the Lord had given them for an inheritance, were to deal differently with cities which were very far off from them to kill only the men, and to take to themselves the women and the little ones.4 The Laws of Manu lay down very humane rules for a king who fights with his foes in battle: "Let him not strike with weapons concealed in wood, nor with such as are barbed, poisoned, or the points of which are blazing with fire. Let him not strike one who in flight has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands in supplication, nor one who flees with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says thine'; nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another foe; nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted with sorrow, nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; but in all these cases let him remember the duty of honourable warriors."5 The Mahabharata contains expressions of 1 Livy, i. 32. 2 Bancroft, op. cit. ii. 426, 412. 3 Douglas, Confucianism and Taou ism, p. 261. Deuteronomy, xx. 13 sqq. 'I am 2 A similar chivalrous sentiments in regard to enemies. car-warrior should fight only with a car-warrior, a horseman with a horse-man, a foot-soldier with a foot-soldier. "Always being led by consideration of fitness, willingness, bravery, and strength, one should strike another after having challenged him. None should strike another who is confiding or who is panic-striken. One fighting with another, one seeking refuge, one retreating, one whose weapon is broken, and one who is not clad in armour should never be struck. Charioteers, animals, men engaged in carrying weapons, those who play on drums and those who blow conchs should never be smitten." Among the Greeks, in the Homeric age, it was evidently regarded as a matter of course that, on the fall of a city, all the men were slain, and the women and children carried off as slaves; but in historic times such a treatment of a vanquished foe grew rarer, and seems, under ordinary circumstances, to have been disapproved of. The rulers of this land, says the messenger in the 'Heraclidæ,' do not approve of slaying enemies who have been taken alive in battle. In Rome the customs of war underwent a similar change. In ancient days the normal fate of a captive was death, in later times he was generally reduced to slavery ; but many thousands of captives were condemned to the gladiatorial shows, and the vanquished general was commonly slain in the Mamertine prison. On the other hand, nations or armies that voluntarily submitted to Rome were habitually treated with great leniency. Cicero says: -"When we obtain the victory we must preserve those enemies who behaved without cruelty or inhumanity during the war; for example, our forefathers received, even as members of their state, the Tuscans, the Aequi, the Volscians, the Sabines, and the Hernici, but utterly destroyed Carthage and Numantia. . . . And, while we 1 Mahabharata, Bhisma Parva, i. 27 sqq. (pt. xii. sq. p. 2). Iliad, ix. 593 sq. 3 Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 281 sqq; 4 Euripides, Heraclidæ, 966. 5 Laurent, op. cit. iii. 20 sq. Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 257. are bound to exercise consideration toward those whom we have conquered by force, so those should be received into our protection who throw themselves upon the honour of our general, and lay down their arms, even though the battering rams should have struck their walls."1 1 Cicero, De officiis, i. 11. CHAPTER XV HOMICIDE IN GENERAL (continuea) CHRISTIANITY introduced into Europe a higher regard for human life than was felt anywhere in pagan society. The early Christians condemned homicide of any kind as a heinous sin. And in this, as in all other questions of moral concern, the distinction of nationality or race was utterly ignored by them. The sanctity which they attached to the life of every human being led to a total condemnation of warfare, sharply contrasting with the prevailing sentiment in the Roman Empire. In accordance with the general spirit of their religion, as also with special passages in the Bible, they considered war unlawful under all circumstances. Justin Martyr quotes the prophecy of Isaiah, that "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more," 2 and proceeds to say that the instruction in the word of God which was given by the twelve Apostles " had so good effect that we, who heretofore were continually devouring each other, will not now so much as lift up our hand against our enemies." 3 Lactantius asserts that "to engage in war cannot be lawful for the righteous man, whose warfare is that of righteousness itself." Tertullian asks, "Can it be lawful to "4 1 St. Matthew, v. 9, 39, 44. Romans, xii. 17. Ephesians, vi. 12. 2 Isaiah, ii. 4. 3 Justin Martyr, Apologia I. pro Christianis, 39 (Migne, Patrologia cursus, Ser. Graeca, vi. 387 sq.). 4 Lactantius, Divine institutiones, vi. ('De vero cultu') 20 (Migne, op. cit. vi. 708). |