CHAP. VIII. capable of spreading desolation over the whole face of the BOOK III. earth, and against which the most just and equitable of sovereigns, even though supported by the majority of other princes, cannot guard himself? But, in order to discuss this question on solid grounds, assassination is by all means to be distinguished from surprises, which are, doubtless, very allowable in war. Should a resolute soldier steal into the enemy's camp by night,-should he penetrate to the general's tent, and stab him,-in such conduct there is nothing contrary to the natural laws of war,nothing even but what is perfectly commendable in a just and necessary war. Mutius Scævola has been praised by all the great men of antiquity; and Porsenna himself, whom he intended to kill, could not but commend his courage.* Pepin, father of Charlemagne, having crossed the Rhine with one of his guards, went and killed his enemy in his chamber.† If any one has absolutely condemned such bold strokes, his censure only proceeded from a desire to flatter those among the great, who would wish to leave all the dangerous part of war to the soldiery and inferior officers. It is true, indeed, that the agents in such attempts are usually punished with some painful death. But that is, because the prince or general who is thus attacked exercises his own rights in turn,—has an eye to his own safety, and endeavours, by the dread of a cruel punishment, to deter his enemies from attacking him otherwise than by open force. He may proportion his severity towards an enemy according as his own safety requires. Indeed, it would be more commendable on both sides to renounce every kind of hostility which lays the enemy under a neces- [359] sity of employing cruel punishments, in order to secure himself against it. This might be made an established custom, -a conventional law of war. The generous warriors of the present age dislike such attempts, and would never willingly undertake them, except on those extraordinary occasions, when they become necessary to the very safety and being of their country. As to the six hundred Lacedæmonians, who, under the conduct of Leonidas, broke into the enemy's camp, and made their way directly to the Persian monarch's tent,‡ their expedition was justifiable by the common rules of war, and did not authorize the king to treat them more rigorously than any other enemies. In order to defeat all such attempts, it is sufficient to keep a strict watch; and it would be unjust to have recourse to cruel punishments for that purpose: accordingly, such punishments are reserved for those only who gain admittance by stealth alone, or in very small number, and especially if under cover of a disguise. See Livy, lib. ii. cap. xii.-Cicero, pro P. Sextio.-Valer. Max. lib. iii. cap. iii.-Plutarch, in Poplicol. † Grotius, lib. iii. cap. 4, 2 xviii. n. i. CHAP. VIII. BOOK III. I give, then, the name of assassination to a treacherous murder, whether the perpetrators of the deed be subjects of the party whom we cause to be assassinated, or of our own sovereign, or that it be executed by the hand of any other emissary, introducing himself as a supplicant, a refugee, a deserter, or, in fine, as a stranger; and such an attempt, I say, is infamous and execrable, both in him who executes and in him who commands it. Why do we judge an act to be criminal, and contrary to the law of nature, but because such act is pernicious to human society, and that the practice of it would be destructive to mankind? Now, what could be more terrible than the custom of hiring a traitor to assassinate our enemy? Besides, were such a liberty once introduced, the purest virtue, the friendship of the majority of the reigning sovereigns, would no longer be sufficient to insure a prince's safety. Had Titus lived in the time of the old man of the mountain, though the happiness of mankind centred in him, -though punctual in the observance of peace and equity, he was respected and adored by all potentates,-yet, the very first time that the prince of the Assassins might have thought proper to quarrel with him, that universal affection would have proved insufficient to save him; and mankind would have lost their "darling." Let it not here be replied, that it is only in favour of the cause of justice that such extraordinary measures are allowable: for all parties, in their wars, maintain that they have justice on their side. Whoever, by setting the example, contributes to the introduction of so destructive a practice, declares himself the enemy of mankind, and deserves the execration of all ages. * The assassination of [360] William, prince of Orange, was regarded with universal detestation, though the Spaniards had declared that prince a rebel. And the same nation denied, as an atrocious calumny, the charge of having had the least concern in that of Henry the Great, who was preparing for a war against them, which might have shaken their monarchy to its very foundations. In treacherously administering poison there is something See the dialogue between Julius Cæsar and Cicero, in the Mélanges de Littérature et Poésies.-Farrudge, sultan of Egypt, sent to Timur-bec an ambassador, accompanied by two villains, who were to assassinate that conqueror during the audience. This infamous plot being discovered, "It is not," said Timur, "the maxim of kings to put ambassadors to death: but as to this wretch, who, under the sacred garb of religion, is a monster of perfidy and corruption, it would be a crime to suffer him and his accomplices to live." Pursuant, therefore, to that passage of the Koran which says that "treachery falls on the traitor's own head," he ordered him to be despatched with the same poniard with which he had intended to perpetrate the abominable deed. The body of the traitor was then committed to the flames, as an example to others. The two assassins were only condemned to suffer the amputation of their noses and ears; Timur contenting himself with this punishment, and forbearing to put them to death, because he wished to send them back with a letter to the sultan.-{Petis de la Croix.} Hist. of Timur-bec, book v. chap. xxiv. {p. 313. Ed. Delf. 1723.} CHAP. VIII. still more odious than in assassination: it would be more BOOK III. difficult to guard against the consequences of such an attempt; and the practice would be more dreadful; accordingly, it has been more generally detested. Of this Grotius has accumulated many instances.* The consuls Caius Fabricius and Quintus Æmilius rejected with horror the proposal of Pyrrhus's physician, who made an offer of poisoning his master; they even cautioned that prince to be on his guard against the traitor,-haughtily adding: "It is not to ingratiate ourselves with you that we give this information, but to avoid the obloquy to which your death would expose us."t And they justly observe, in the same letter, that it is for the common interest of all nations not to set such examples.‡ It was a maxim of the Roman Senate, that war was to be carried on with arms, and not with poison.§ Even under Tiberius, the proposal of the prince of the Catti was rejected, who offered to destroy Arminius, if poison were sent him for that purpose: and he received for answer, that "it was the practice of the Romans to take vengeance on their enemies by open force, and not by treachery and secret machinations ;"|| Tiberius thus making it his glory to imitate the virtue of the ancient Roman commanders. This instance is the more remarkable, as Arminius had treacherously cut off Varus, together with three Roman legions. The senate, and even Tiberius himself, thought it unlawful to adopt the use of poison, even against a perfidious enemy, and as a kind of retaliation or reprisals. Assassination and poisoning are therefore contrary to the laws of war, and equally condemned by the law of nature and the consent of all civilized nations. The sovereign who [ 361 has recourse to such execrable means should be regarded as the enemy of the human race; and the common safety of mankind calls on all nations to unite against him, and join their forces to punish him. His conduct particularly authorizes the enemy, whom he has attacked by such odious. means, to refuse him any quarter. Alexander declared, that "he was determined to proceed to the utmost extremities against Darius, and no longer to consider him as a fair enemy, but as a poisoner and an assassin."¶ The interest and safety of men in high command require, that, so far from countenancing the introduction of such prac Book iii. chap. iv. xv. † Ο δε γαρ ταύτα σῃ χαριτι μηνυομεν, αλλ' όπως μη το σον παθος ήμιν διαβολην EVEуKŋ. Plut. in Pyrr. Sed communis exempli et fidei ergo visum est, uti te salvum velimus; ut esset, quem armis vincere possemus. -Aul. Gell. Noct. Attic. lib. iii. cap. viii. Armis bella, non venenis, geri debere.-Valer. Maxim. lib. vi. ch. v. num. i. Non fraude, neque occultis, sed palam, et armatum,-populum Romanum hostes suos ulcisci.-Tacit. Annal. lib. ii. cap. lxxxviii. xviii. Quint. Curt. lib. iv. cap. xi. num. BOOK III. tices, they should use all possible care to prevent it. It was CHAP. VIII. wisely said by Eumenes, that "he did not think any general wished to obtain a victory in such manner as should set a pernicious example which might recoil on himself."* And it was on the same principle that Alexander formed his judgment of Bessus, who had assassinated Darius.† may be used in war. 156. Whe- The use of poisoned weapons may be excused or defended ther poison- with a little more plausibility. At least, there is no treachery ed weapons in the case, no clandestine machination. But the practice is nevertheless prohibited by the law of nature, which does not allow us to multiply the evils of war beyond all bounds. You must of course strike your enemy in order to get the better of his efforts: but if he is once disabled, is it necessary that he should inevitably die of his wounds? Besides, if you poison your weapons, the enemy will follow your example; and thus, without gaining any advantage on your side for the decision of the contest, you have only added to the cruelty and calamities of war. It is necessity alone that can at all justify nations in making war: they ought universally to abstain from every thing that has a tendency to render it more destructive: it is even a duty incumbent on them to oppose such practices. It is therefore with good reason, and in conformity to their duty, that civilized nations have classed among the laws of war the maxim which prohibits the poisoning of weapons; and they are all warranted by their common safety to repress and punish the first who should offer to break through that law. 2157. Whe may be poisoned. A still more general unanimity prevails in condemning the ther springs practice of poisoning waters, wells, and springs, because (say some authors) we may thereby destroy innocent persons,we may destroy other people as well as our enemies. This is indeed an additional reason: but it is not the only nor even [362] the true one; for we do not scruple to fire on an enemy's ship, although there be neutral passengers on board. But though poison is not to be used, it is very allowable to divert the water, to cut off the springs, or by any other means to render them useless, that the enemy may be reduced to surrender. This is a milder way than that of arms. (163) I cannot conclude this subject, of what we have a right to positions to do against the person of the enemy, without speaking a few ? 158. Dis *Nec Antigonum, nec quemquam ducum, sic velle vincere, ut ipse in se exemplum pessimum statuat.-Justin. lib. xiv. cap. i. num. xii. † Quem quidem [Bessum] cruci ad- Grotius, book iii. ch. iv. 2 xvi. (163) But, in modern warfare, whatever may be the necessary practice in starving the besieged fortress into a surrender, we have instanced the English supplying the French army with medicine, to prevent the progress of a destructive disorder, although, if a petty policy were allowed to prevail, such an indulgence of humane feeling might appear injudicious (ante).-C. towards an enemy. words concerning the dispositions we ought to preserve to- BOOK III. wards him. They may already be deduced from what I have CHAP. VIII. hitherto said, and especially in the first chapter of the second be preserved book. Let us never forget that our enemies are men. Though reduced to the disagreeable necessity of prosecuting our right by force of arms, let us not divest ourselves of that charity which connects us with all mankind. Thus shall we courageously defend our country's rights without violating those of human nature.* Let our valour preserve itself from every stain of cruelty, and the lustre of victory will not be tarnished by inhuman and brutal actions. Marius and Attila are now detested; whereas we cannot forbear admiring and loving Cæsar; his generosity and clemency almost tempt us to overlook the injustice of his undertaking. Moderation and generosity redound more to the glory of a victor than his courage; they are more certain marks of an exalted soul. Besides the honour which infallibly accompanies those virtues, humanity towards an enemy has been often attended with immediate and real advantages. Leopold, duke of Austria, besieging Soleure, in the year 1318, threw a bridge over the Aar, and posted on it a large body of troops. Soon after, the river having, by an extraordinary swell of its waters, carried away the bridge together with those who were stationed on it, the besieged hastened to the relief of those unfortunate men, and saved the greatest part of them. Leopold, relenting at this act of generosity, raised the siege and made peace with the city. The duke of Cumberland, after his victory at Dettingen, appears to me still greater than in the heat of battle. As he was under the surgeon's hands, a French [ 363 ] officer, much more dangerously wounded than himself, being brought that way, the duke immediately ordered his surgeon to quit him, and assist that wounded enemy. If men in exalted stations did but conceive how great a degree of affection and respect attends such actions, they would study to The laws of justice and equity are not to be less respected even in time of war. The following I quote as a remarkable instance :-Alcibiades, at the head of an Athenian army, was engaged in the siege of Byzantium, then occupied by a Lacedæmonian garrison; and finding that he could not reduce the city by force, he gained over some of the inhabitants, who put him in possession of it. One of the persons concerned in this transaction was Anaxilaus, a citizen of Byzantium, who, being afterwards brought to trial for it at Lacedæmon, pleaded in his defence, that, in surrendering the city, he had not acted through ill-will to the Lacedæmonians, or under the influence of a bribe, but with a view to save the Watteville's Hist. of the Helvetic |