Teutons a man’s highest aspiration was to acquire military glory. The Scandinavians considered it a disgrace for a man to die without having seen human blood flow;98 even the slaying of a tribesman they often regarded lightly when it had been done openly and bravely. In Greece, in ancient times at least, war was the normal relation between different states, and peace an exception, for which a special treaty was required;99 while to conquer and enslave barbarians was regarded as a right given to the Greeks by Nature. The whole statecraft of the early Republic of Rome was no doubt based upon similar principles;100 and in later days, also, the war policy of the Romans was certainly not conducted with that conscientiousness which was insisted upon by some of their writers.
90 Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States, ii. 420. Clavigero, History of Mexico, i. 371.
91 Clavigero, op. cit. i. 363.
92 Bancroft, op. cit. ii. 740, 745.
93 Amélineau, L’évolution des idées morales dans l’Égypte ancienne, p. 344.
94 Cf. Seldeft, De Synedriis et Præfecturis Juridicis veterum Ebræorum, iii. 12, p. 1179 sqq.; Lament, Études sur l’histoire de l’humanité, i. 384 sq.
95 This was later on admitted by Lane (Modern Egyptians, p. 574), who had previously maintained that the duty of waging holy war is strongly urged in the Koran.
96 Pool, Studies in Mohammedanism, p. 246.
97 Logan, The Scottish Gael, i. 101. de Valroger, Les Celtes, p. 186.
98 Njála, ch. 40, vol. i. 167. Maurer, Rekehrung des Norwegischen Stammes, ii. 172.
99 Schmidt, Ethik der alten Griechen, ii. 280. Laurent, op. cit. i. 46. Plato, Leges, i. 625. Livy, xxxi. 29: “Cum alienigenis, cum barbaris aeternum omnibus Graecis bellum est.”
100 Cf. Lecky, History of European Morals, ii. 257.
However, the foreigner is not entirely, or under all circumstances, devoid of rights. Among the nations of archaic civilisation, as among the lower races, hospitality is a duty, and the life of a guest is as sacred as the life of any of the permanent members of the household. In various cases the commencement of international hostilities is preceded by special ceremonies, intended to justify acts which are not considered proper in times of peace. In ancient Mexico it was usual to send a formal challenge or declaration of war to the enemy, as it was held discreditable to attack a people unprepared for defence;101 and, according to the fecial law of the Romans, no war was just unless it was undertaken to reclaim property, or unless it was solemnly denounced and proclaimed beforehand.102 In some cases warfare is condemned, or a distinction is made between just and unjust war with reference to the purpose for which the war is waged. The Chinese philosophers were great advocates of peace.103 According to Lao-Tsze, a superior man uses weapons “only on the compulsion of necessity”;104 there is no calamity greater than lightly engaging in war,105 and “he who has killed multitudes of men should weep for them with the bitterest grief.”106 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.107 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.108 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.”109 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.110 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.”111 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.112 Yet there seems to have been a general 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.113
101 Clavigero, op. cit. i. 370. Bancroft, op. cit. ii. 420, 421, 423.
102 Cicero, De officiis, i. 11.
103 Cf. Lanessan, Morale des philosophes chinois, pp. 54, 107.
104 Táo Teh King, xxxi. 2.
105 Ibid. lxix. 2.
106 Ibid. xxxi. 3.
107 Mahabharata, Bhisma Parva, iii. 81 (pt. xii. sq. p. 6).
108 Philo, Quod liber sit