Chapter XV: The Declaration of War (1)

I think we have already distinct evidence that the Fecial Law was something more than our Treaty and Diplomatic Law. Let us examine it more particularly in action. If the law of nations ever was appealed to, and, if over and above, there was a tradition of a Divine revelation, or even of a prescriptive law founded on natural right, and having reference to war, which was ever invoked, it would have been in the first instance of aggression, supposing, as is implied in the term, that it was without fair cause and without fair warning. The declaration of war, therefore, is manifestly the hinge upon which the whole system of the law of nations turns.[324] Accordingly, the further we go back the more solemn and formal do we find the declaration of war to be.

[324] I must here do Mr Urquhart the justice to point out that he
has been the principal advocate of this doctrine, that the
declaration of war is the turning-point upon which everything
depends, and more than any other man has laboured to enforce
it. (_Vide_ "Effects on the World of the Restoration of Canon
Law," by D. Urquhart, 1869.) At p. 61, Mr Urquhart refers to
the action taken by the Fecials. I have the misfortune to
differ with Mr Urquhart on many points, but I have pleasure in
bearing testimony as above.

"In every instance the declaration of war was accompanied by
_religious formalities_. When the Senate believed that it had cause
of complaint against a nation, it sent a Fecial to his frontier.
There the pontiff, his head bound with a woollen veil,[325] exposed
the griefs of the Romans and demanded satisfaction. If it was
not granted, he went back to render an account of his mission to
the Senate, ... and after a delay of thirty or thirty-three days
they voted a declaration of war. Then the Fecial returned to the
frontier, and, _casting a javelin_ into the enemy's country, he
pronounced the following formula--'Quod populus Hermundulus,'
&c.... Every war which had not been declared in this manner was
considered as unjust, and certain to incur the displeasure of the
gods. In the _course of time_ this solemn declaration was replaced
by a vain formality."[326]

[325] The Very Rev. Dr Rock ("Textile Fabrics," p. xii.) says--"The
ancient British speciality was wool, and the postulants asking
admission to the different castes, the sacerdotal, bardic,
and the leeches or natural philosophers, were distinguished
by _stripes_ of white [Cicero (De Legibus, ii. 18) says,
"Color autem albus præcipere decorus deo est quum in cateris
tum maxima in textili"], blue, and green severally on their
mantles, although the bards themselves were distinguished by
some one of the colours above-mentioned (_vide infra_). [The
significance of this will be noted at p. 391.] I may further
remark, parenthetically, that here is an instance of national
civilisation being _pari passu_ with religious traditions.
The British speciality was wool--_query_, because "of the
heavy stress laid upon the rule which taught that the official
colour in their dress," &c. (_Id., vide ante_, chap. xii. p.
292.)

St Paul says (Heb. ix. 19), "For when every commandment of the
Lord had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the
blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet _wool_, and
hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people"
(Goguet, "Origin of Laws," ii. p. 9). The Spaniards in 1643
made a treaty of peace with the Indians of Chili; they have
preserved the memory of the forms used at the ratification.
It is said that the Indians killed many sheep, and stained
in their blood a _branch_ of the cane-tree, which the deputy
of the Caciques put into the hands of the Spanish general in
token of peace and alliance." Goguet also refers to Heb. ix.
19.

[326] De Fresquet, "_Droit Romain_," i. 48.

Montfauçon ("L'Antiquité Expliquée," ii. 1, p. iv., p. 35) says:--

"Lorsqu'ils alloient parlementer, ils avoient sur la tête un voile
tissu de laine,[327] et ils étoient couronnéz de vervaine: leur
office étoit d'impêcher que les Romains n'entreprissent point de
guerre injuste: d'aller comme legats vers les nations qui violoient
les traitez, etc.... ils prenoient aussi connaissance faits au
legats de _part et d'autre_. Quand la paix ne se trouvoit pas
faite selon les loix, ils la declaroient nulle. Si les commandans
avoient fait quelque chose _contre la justice et contre le droit
des gens_, ils reparoient leur faute et expioient leur crime, ...
à cause du violement des traites faits devant Numance, dit Ciceron
par un décret du Senat le Patrapatratus livra, C. Mancinus aux
Numantins."[328]

[327] Compare with the description of Saturn, "Saturnus, velato
capite falcam gerens."--_Fulgent. Mythol._ i. c. 2.

[328] In the above extract from Montfauçon it should have been
added, that when the Romans sent one of their fecials to
declare war he went in sacerdotal habit--"Arrivant au confins
de la ville, il _appelloit_ à temoins Jupiter et les autres
dieux comme il alloit demander réparation de l'injure au
nom des Romains, il faisoit des _imprécations_ sur lui et
sur la ville de Rome, s'il disoit rien contre la vérité,
et continuoit son chemin ... s'il rencontroient quelque
citoien quelque payisan (paysan) il _repétoit toujours_ ses
imprécations," &c.

We must content ourselves, of course, with what evidence we may get of similar institutions elsewhere; but what strikes me as strange in the contrast of modern civilisation with barbarism, is, that whereas our advances, whether in the sense of peace and war (whenever they are formally made), are commonly understood, the corresponding demonstrations on the side of barbarism are invariably misconstrued.

When, for instance, Captain Cook approached the shores of Bolabola, he describes the following scene, which reads to me very like the account we have just been reading of the Roman herald:--

"Soon after a _single man_ ran along the shore armed with _his
lance_, and when he came abreast of the boat he began to dance,
brandish his weapon, and call out in a very _shrill tone_, which
Tupia [a native of an adjacent island who was on board] said was a
_defiance from the people_.... As the boat rowed slowly along the
shore back again, _another_ champion came down, shouting defiance,
and brandishing his lance. His appearance was more formidable
than that of the other, for he wore a large cap made of the tail
feathers of the topia bird, and his body was covered _with stripes
of different coloured cloth_, _yellow, red, and brown_.... Soon
after a more grave and elderly man came down to the beach, and
hailing the people in the boat, inquired who they were, and from
whence they came.[329]... After a short conference they all began
_to pray very loud_. Tupia made his responses, but continued to
tell us they were not our friends" (i. 119).

[329] A somewhat similar scene is also indistinctly traced in the
following:--"Wood relates that on his visit to St Julian
in 1670, in walking inland he 'met seven savages, who came
running down the hill to us, making _several signs_ for us
to go back again, with much warning and noise, yet did _not
offer to_ draw their arrows. But one of them who was _an old
man_ came nearer to us than the rest, and made also signs we
should depart, to whom I threw a knife, a bottle of brandy,
and a neckcloth, to pacify him; but seeing him persist in the
_same signs as before_, and that the savageness of the people
seemed incorrigible, we returned on board again.'" Quoted by
R. O. Cunningham, "Natural History of the Straits of Magellan
and West Coast of Patagonia," 1871, p. 143. A similar scene
is described by Roggerwsen in his voyage, I think, to Easter
Island.

This, in connection with the scene at Bolabola, recalls the
mode of procedure in the Odyssey, ix. 95 (Pope), when Ulysses
reaches

"The land of Lotus and the flowering coast.
We climbed the beach and springs of water found,
Then spread our hasty banquet on the ground.
Three men were sent deputed from the crew
(A herald one) the dubious coast to view,
And learn what habitants possessed the place.
They went and found a hospitable race,
Not prone to ill, nor strange to foreign guest:
As our dire neighbours of Cyclopean birth."

Let this be taken in connection with the following narrative:--[330]

"The large canoes came close round the ship, some of the Indians
playing on a kind of flute, others singing, and the rest blowing
on a sort of shells. Soon after, a large canoe advanced, in which
was an awning, on the top of which sat _one_ of the natives holding
some _yellow_ and _red_ feathers in his hand. The captain having
consented to his coming alongside, he delivered the feathers,
and while a present was preparing for him, he put back from the
ship, and _threw the branch_ of a cocoa-tree in the air. This was
doubtless the _signal_ for an onset, for there was an instant
shout from all the canoes, which, approaching the ship, threw
volleys of stones into every part of her."

[330] _Vide_ Captain Wallis' Voyage, in "Hist. Account of all the
Voyages round the World," 1773, iii. p. 79.

Here the question appears to me to be whether this act of throwing the branch, so analogous to the throwing the javelin, which was the final act in the Roman declaration of war (and to which our throwing down the glove or the gauntlet has analogy), was merely the signal to themselves, or whether it was not also the _notice_ of attack to the enemy. Upon this will depend whether we are to consider it a treacherous "ruse" (and the presentation of the feathers has that aspect), or whether it was their traditional mode of declaration of war, and construed to be a treacherous attack, because the gallant navigator belonged to a nation more ignorant of the laws of nations than the savages they encountered.

From the very fact of their having enacted this comedy or ceremonial, it must be inferred either that they attached some superstitious importance to its performance, and expected some good effects from it to themselves, or that they thought that it would be understood by their adversaries, in which case they must implicitly have believed it to be common to all nations.

In either case it is just possible that after the manner of savages, they may have confused the symbols of peace and war, and ran into one what the Romans had carefully distinguished--the "caduceatores",[331] who went to demand peace, and the "fecials," who were sent to denounce war.

[331] Caduceatores--compare _supra_, p. 348. In connection with
these latter, let us inquire more particularly as to their
wand of office, the _caduceus_. "In its _oldest_ form" it "was
merely a _bough_ twined round with _white wool_; afterwards
a white or gilded staff with imitations of _foliage_ and
_ribands_ was substituted for the old rude symbol. These
were probably not turned into snakes till a much later
age, when that reptile had acquired a mystic character."
Müller's explanation is that it was originally the _olive
branch_ with the stemmata, which latter became developed into
serpents.--_Encyc. of Arts and Sciences._ If, therefore,
Müller's explanation is correct, the oldest form of the
symbol of office of those who were the depositaries of laws
of nations in the matter of peace and war, was a symbol which
has a special history and significance in connection with
the Deluge. Will this not tend to identify their institution
with that epoch? It will, perhaps, be said that the branch
of a tree is in any case a natural symbol of peace. But why
a symbol or token at all? Why more than a simple gesture
of salutation? unless the symbol embodied some idea which
conveyed a pledge over and above? What, then, was this idea,
unless the traditional idea? It may appear to us a natural
emblem, but it is not so from association of ideas with
the scriptural dove and olive branch? and yet consider how
universal it is. Captain Cook's Voyages (i. p. 38; London,
1846) says, "It is remarkable that the chief, like the people
in the canoes, presented to us the same symbol of peace that
is known to have been in use _among the ancient_ and mighty
nations of the northern hemisphere, _the green branch of
a tree_." This occurred both in New Zealand and Otaheite.
Wallis ("Voyages round the World," iii. 98) says that on an
occasion when the Otaheitans wished to testify fidelity and
friendliness, "the Indians cut branches from the trees and
laid them in a _ceremonious_ manner at the feet of the seamen;
they painted themselves _red_ with the berries of a tree, and
stained their garments _yellow_ with the bark of another." We
have, as we have just seen, found this symbol in the caduceus,
and it appears to me that the caduceus in its earlier form
of a staff with foliage and ribands, is recognisable in the
Gothic monuments as given in Stephens' "Central America."
_Vide_ also Cunningham's "Bhilsa Topes." Washington Irving
("Life of Columbus," iii. 214) speaks of the natives coming
forward to meet them with _white flags_; and the same, if I
remember rightly, is recorded in Cook's visit to the Sandwich
Islanders. The _white flag_ is our own symbol; but what is the
white flag but the development and refinement of the staff
and white wool? Again, why are _stripes_, in a variety of
combination of colour, the characteristic symbol of flags? The
reader will find the answer on returning to the text, where he
will also learn the significance of the red and yellow, in the
above descriptions.

The red and yellow colours of the feathers in the above account may afford a clue, when it is remembered (_vide_ note), that they coincide with the colour used by the Otaheitans to testify fidelity and friendliness; but, to appreciate this in its full significance, it will be necessary to show how commonly the traditional symbols of peace among the ancients had reference to the diluvian traditions, more especially the Dove and the Rainbow.

Assuming for the moment that Bryant is right in his derivation of the names of Juno and Venus from Jönah (Hebrew), and [Greek: Oinas] (Greek) = Dove,[332] I ask attention to the following, in connection with the red and yellow feathers of the Polynesians, and the tail feathers of the topia bird mentioned by Cook (_supra_, p. 388).[333] (Bryant, ii. 345), "As the peacock, in the full expansion of his plumes, displays all the beautiful colours of the Iris (the rainbow), it was probably for that reason made the bird of Juno, instead of the dove, which was appropriated to Venus. The same history was variously depicted in different places, and consequently as variously interpreted." (Compare p. 279.)

[332] II. p. 317.

[333] _Vide_ also in Carver's "North America" (p. 296), an engraving
of the Indian "Calumet of Peace,"--the stem is of a light wood
curiously painted with hieroglyphics in various colours, and
adorned with the _feathers_ of the _most beautiful_ birds.
It is not in my power to convey an idea of the _various
tints_ and pleasing ornaments of this much-esteemed Indian
implement"(p. 359).

If this is true, if the rainbow is the symbol of peace, and the peacock is the symbol of the rainbow, will it absolutely surprise us to find feathers of various colours presented as tokens of peace? I am prepared for the reply, that Bryant's etymology is now considered obsolete; but I shall fall back upon the argument which I have urged elsewhere, that in cases where tradition renders the transmission of certain words probable, there is a presumption which overrides the ordinary canons of philological criticism. Philologers very properly lay down, _e.g._ Mr Max Müller's "Chapter of Accidents in Comparative Theology," _Contemp. Rev._, April 1870, p. 8:--

"Comparative philology has taught us again and again that when
we find a word exactly the same in Greek and Sanscrit, we may be
certain that it cannot be the same word; and the same applies to
comparative mythology ... for the simple reason that Sanscrit and
Greek have deviated from each other, have both followed their own
way, have both suffered their own phonetic corruptions, and hence,
if they do possess the same word, they can only possess it either
in its Greek or in its Sanscrit disguise."

This is of course only upon the assumption that the languages have gone their own way, have followed their own corruptions; but if it can be shown that certain words, &c. &c., were preserved in tradition, and so guarded as not to come under the laws of deviation which philology traces out, or to come under them on different conditions, then, on the contrary, it is exceedingly probable that we should find them identical, or at least recognisable; in any case, this is a point which must be decided according to the evidences of tradition, and not according to the laws of philology. This will be better understood from a case in point. I append the evidence respecting the traditions of the Dove and the Rainbow--which are just the incidents which are likely to have impressed the imagination and memory of mankind.[334]

[334] It will hardly be denied that the tradition of the rainbow as
a sign and pledge to man existed among the ancients. _Vide_
Bryant, ii. 348. [The goddess Iris, who was sent with the
_messages_ of the gods, bore the same name as the rainbow
Iris.]

_E.g._ Homer--

"[Greek: Irissin eoikotes has te Kroniôn
en nephehi stêrixe, teras meropôn anthrôpôn].--_Il._ xi. 27.

"Like to the bow which Jove amid the clouds
Placed _as a token to desponding man_."

Also--Il. xvii. 547.

[Greek: hêute porphyreên irin thnêtoisi tanhussê
Zeus ex ouranothen teras emmenai].

"Just as when Jove mid the high heavens displays
His bow mysterious for a _lasting sign_."

And the lines (Theog. v. 700) in Hesiod, in which Iris is
called the daughter of Wonder, who is sent over the broad
surface of the sea when strife and discord arose among the
immortals, and who is also called "the _great oath_ of the
gods"--["This is the token of the _covenant_ between you and
me, for _perpetual generations_," Gen. ix. 12.]--who is told
to bring from afar in her golden pitcher the many-named water.

Iris is called the daughter of Thaumas (which so closely
approximates to the Greek [Greek: Thauma] = wonder, Bryant
says to the Egyptian "Thaumus"). Bryant further thinks that
Iris and Eros were originally the same term, but that in time
the latter was formed into the boyish deity Cupid = Eros.
According to some, Iris was the mother of Eros by Zephyrus.
[There were indeed three Eroses, which mark three different
lines of tradition, _vide_ Gladstone on Iris (the rainbow),
"Homer and the Homeric Age," ii. 156.] Eros (Cupid), though
a boy, was supposed to have been at the commencement of all
things; and Lucian says, "How came you with that childish
face, when we know you to be as _old as Japetus_?" The union
of Cupid and Chaos (the Deluge is frequently alluded to as
chaos, _vide_ Bryant) "gave birth to men and all the animals."
Hesiod makes Eros the first to appear after Chaos. "At this
season (Deluge) another era began; the earth was supposed
to be renewed, and time to return to a second infancy. They
therefore formed an emblem of a child with a rainbow, to
denote this renovation of the world, and called him Eros, or
Divine Love," ... "yet esteemed the most ancient among the
gods."--Bryant, ii. 349. (Cupid is represented with a bow,
as is also Apollo and Diana, which was an allusion to the
supposed resemblance of the bow and the rain_bow_.) Probably
from his connection with Iris, he is represented as breaking
the thunderbolts of Jupiter, and riding on _dolphins_ and
subduing other monsters of the sea. Smith ("Myth. Dict.")
says Iris is derived from [Greek: erô eirô], "so that Iris
would mean the speaker or messenger," ... "but it is not
impossible that it may be connected with [Greek: eirô], 'I
join,' whence [Greek: eirênê]; so that Iris, the goddess of
the rainbow, would be the joiner, or conciliator, or the
messenger of heaven, who restores peace in nature," It appears
to me more likely that [Greek: eirênê] = _peace_ (derivation
uncertain--Liddell and Scott) was derived directly from Iris,
in accordance with the tradition, and that the Greek word for
wool, [Greek: eiros], was cognate to [Greek: eirênê], from
being an emblem of peace (_e.g._ the pontiff's caduceator,
woollen veil). In the same way, if we do not actually find
the rainbow as the token of the herald or caduceator, may we
not discover it conversely in the circumstance that _Iris_ is
represented as carrying in her hand a _herald's_ staff?

It is curious that we actually find, what I may call the
sister emblem, viz. the Dove, used by the ancients, though
just as we find, if I am right in the conjecture, the rainbow
among the Polynesians, used in a perverted way as an ensign
of war. It was possibly in superstitious remembrance of the
tradition which we find more directly among the ancient Aryans
and the Peruvians (p. 326-400), that war ought only to be
made with a disposition towards peace; and that they thought
to place themselves under the sanction of heaven by carrying
this emblem as their ensign of war. Such, however, was the
fact. Bryant (ii. 302) says:--"The dove became a favourite
hieroglyphic among the Babylonians and Chaldees.... In respect
to the Babylonians, it seems to have been taken by them for
their national ensign, and to have been depicted on their
military standard when they went to war. They seem likewise
to have been styled Iönim, or the children of _the Dove_;"
and they are thus alluded to by the Prophet Jeremiah, ch.
xxv. ver. 38 (_id._) Bryant says (ii. 285), "The name of the
Dove among the ancient Amonians (by which term he intends the
descendants of Chus) was Iön and Iönah; sometimes expressed
Iönas, from whence came the [Greek: Oinas] of the Greeks."

I should rather put it that we find the word for the Dove
common to the Hebrew and the Greek (Iönah, Hebrew; [Greek:
Oivas], Greek), and, as Bryant seems to imply, among other
nations also--_e.g._ the Babylonians--which is precisely what
we should have expected. But if this identity is allowed, we
must proceed with Bryant to see in Juno, Venus, and Diana,
simply embodiments of the tradition of the Dove. Bryant says
that "Juno is the same as Iöna," and although, as we have
seen, the peacock is said to be her bird (with reference to
the other symbol, the rainbow), and although Ovid (Bryant,
344) sends her to heaven accompanied by Iris (rainbow), yet in
the plate (from Gruter) p. 410, she will be seen with a dove
on her wand, and a pomegranate, as symbol of the ark (_vide_
p. 380), in her hand. Bryant, moreover (344), considers Juno
to be identical with Venus. There was a statue in Laconia
called Venus-Junonia. Of Dione and Venus Bryant says (ii.
341):--"I have mentioned that the name Diona was properly
Ad, or Ada, Iöna. Hence came the term Idione; which Idione
was an object of idolatry as early as the days of Moses.
But there was a similar personage named Deione.... This was
a compound of De Iöne, the dove; and Venus Dionoea may
sometimes have been formed in the same manner.... Dionusus was
likewise called Thyomus." _Vide_ also Bryant, pp. 316, 317.
In Genesis viii. 9, the dove returned to the ark, not having
found "where her foot might rest." "In the hieroglyphical
sculptures and paintings where this history was represented,
the dove could not well be depicted otherwise than as hovering
over the face of the deep. Hence it is that Venus or Dione
is said to have risen from the sea. Hence it is, also, that
she is said to preside over waters; to appease the troubled
ocean; and to cause by her presence an universal calm; that
to her were owing [on the retiring of the waters] the fruits
of the earth.... She was the Oenas ('[Greek: Oinas]') of the
Greeks; whence came the Venus of the Latins." The address of
Lucretius to this deity concludes with two lines of remarkable
significance--

"Te Dea, te fugiunt venti; te nubila coeli
Adventumque tuum; tibi rident æquora ponti;
_Pacatumque_ nitet diffuso lumine _coelum_."

"In Sicily, upon Mount Eryx, was a celebrated temple of this
goddess, which is taken notice of by Cicero and other writers.
Doves were here held as sacred as they were in Palestine or
Syria [_vide_ also in Cashmere, p. 64]. It is remarkable that
there were two days of the year set apart in this place for
festivals, called [Greek: Anagôgia] and [Greek: Katagôgia], at
which time Venus was supposed to _depart over the sea_, and
after a season to return. There were _also sacred pigeons_,
which then took their flight from the island; but one of
them was observed on the ninth day to come back from the
sea, and to fly to the shrine of the goddess. This was upon
the festival of [Greek: Anagôgia]. Upon this day it is said
that there were great rejoicings. On what account can we
imagine this veneration for the bird to be kept up, ... but
for a memorial of the dove sent out of the ark, and of its
return from the deep to Noah? The history is recorded upon
the ancient coins of Eryx; which have on one side the head of
_Janus_ bifrons, and on the other the sacred dove."--Bryant,
ii. 319.

Mr Cox's ("Mythology," ii. ch. ii. sec. vii.)
counter-explanation, if I rightly gather it, is that "on
Aphroditê (Venus), the child of _the froth or foam of the
sea_, was lavished all the wealth of words denoting the
loveliness of the morning; and thus the Hesiodic poet goes
on at once to say that the grass sprung up under her feet as
she moved, that Eros, Love, walked by her side, and Himeros,
longing, followed after her." "This is but saying, in other
words, that the morning, the child of the heavens, springs up
_first from_ the sea, as Athene is born by the water-side."
But why should the morning spring first from the sea?--more
particularly when the effects of her rising is noted in the
springing up of flowers on the land? If the rainbow, we
see the reason in her connection with the Deluge, and her
connection with the subsequent renovation of nature. Mr Cox
also says (p. 3):--"In her brilliant beauty she is Argunî, a
name which appears again in that of Arguna, the companion of
Krishna and the Hellenic Argynius." Does not this complete the
chain of her connection with Juno? Mr Cox (p. 8) says:--"The
Latin Venus is, in strictness of speech, a mere name, to which
any epithet might be attached according to the conveniences
or the needs of the worshipper.... The name itself has been,
it would seem, with good reason, connected with the Sanscrit
root 'van,' to desire love or favour,"--a derivation which
equally accords with Bryant's view. Then there is the striking
connection of Venus with Dionusos (_vide_ p. 395). Mr
Cox (p. 9) says, "The myth of Adonis links the legends of
Aphrodite (Venus) with those _of Dionusos_. Like the Theban
_wine_-god Adonis, born only on the death of his mother; and
the two myths are, in one version, _so far the same_ that
_Dionysos_, like Adonis, is placed _in a chest_, which, being
_cast into the sea_, is carried to Brasiæ, where the body of
his mother is buried." (Comp. Kabiri, Bunsen.) Mr Cox connects
Athene with Aphrodite (Venus) (p. 4). Therefore we must ask
him to reconsider his explanation of "the Athenian maidens
embroidering the sacred peplos for _the ship_ presented to
Athêne at the great Dionysiac festival." Compare evidence,
_supra_, in chap. on Boulanger, &c.; Catlin.

The digression we have just made involves some risk of distracting attention from the point it was intended to enforce--viz. the traditionary character of the mode, and, by implication, the traditionary recognition of the obligation, of the declaration of war. We have already seen in Ozanam (_supra_, p. 371) indications of the probability of similar traditions among the primitive tribes of Germany. Will it clench the argument if we find Romans and Gauls on a common understanding in these matters, when brought for the first time into contact since their original separation?--

"The great misfortunes which befel the city from the Gauls, are
said to have proceeded from the violation of these sacred rites.
For when the barbarians were besieging Clusium, Fabius Ambustus was
sent ambassador to their camp with proposals of peace, in favour
of the besieged. But receiving a harsh answer, he thought himself
released from his character of ambassador, and rashly taking up
arms for the Clusians, challenged the bravest man in the Gaulish
army. He proved victorious, ... but the Gauls having discovered who
he was, sent _a herald_ to Rome to accuse Fabius of bearing arms
against them, contrary to _treaties and good faith_, and _without
a declaration of war_. Upon this the Feciales exhorted the Senate
to deliver him up to the Gauls, but he appealed to the people, and,
being a favourite with them, was screened from the sentence. Soon
after this, the Gauls marched to Rome, and sacked the whole city
except the Capitol, as we have related at large in the life of
Camillus."--_Plutarch's Numa._

I venture further to think that the traditionary modes of the declaration of war may be detected among the Gauls in Cæsar's time, in the manner of their challenge. _E.g._ it so came about that Cæsar wished to draw the enemy (the Nervii) to his side of the valley and to engage them at a disadvantage before his camp. To this end he simulated fear. "Our men meanwhile retiring from the rampart, they approached still nearer, _cast their darts_ on all sides within the trenches and _sent heralds_ round the camp to proclaim," &c. (Duncan's Cæsar, B. v. xlii.)

We will now turn to the Greek tradition. I quote from an old author who has examined the matter more fully than I find it treated elsewhere. Rous. ("Archæologiæ Atticæ," lib. 6, s. 3, civ.) says:--"As careful and cunning as they were in warlike affairs, I cannot find but that they did 'propere signi quæ piget inchoare,' bear a great affection to _peace_; as may appear in their honourable receiving of ambassadors, to whom they gave hearing in no worse place than a _temple_.... The usual ensign carried by Greek ambassadours was [Greek: kêrykeon], _caduceus_,[335] a right _staff of wood_ with snakes twisted about it and looking one another in the face.... If the peace could not be kept, but they must needs have war, yet they would be sure to give warning and fair play, and make proclamations of their intentions before they marcht. The manner in proclaiming war was to send a fellow of purpose _either to cast a spear_ or let loose _a lamb_ into the borders of the country, or into the city itself whither they were marching (which Hesychius rather thinks to have been the signal before a battel), thereby showing them, that what was then a habitation for men, should shortly be a pasture for sheep."[336] I should rather have thought that it had analogy with the Jewish scapegoat; but, whatever the idea, it was apparently symbolled and commemorated in the _woollen_ veil prescribed to the Roman pontiff in the declaration of war. It would seem, however, that the signal for battle (chap. v.) was "instead of sounding a trumpet, they had fellows whom they called [Greek: pyrphorous], that went before with torches, and throwing them down in the midst between the two armies, gave the sign.... Now, this business they might do safely and without any danger, ... for the torch-bearers were peculiarly protected by Mars, and accounted sacred."[337]

[335] _Vide ante_, 391. That the entwined snakes were of late date
would appear, I think, from the allusions to the suppliants'
wands in Æschylus, _e.g._ (_vide_ Plumtre's Æschylus,
"Libation Pourers," v. 1024) when Orestes puts on the
suppliants wreaths, and takes the olive branch in his hand--

"The branch of _olive_ from the topmost growth,
With amplest tufts of _white wool_ meetly wreathed."

and in the Supplicants (22)--

"Holding in one hand the branches
Suppliant, wreathed with _white wool_ fillets."

[336] Also, "Joannis Meursii Themis Athica, sive de Legibus
Alticis," i. xi. says, "Postquam vero exercitus eductus esset
pugnam inire, non _licebat antiquam_ emissum agmen hostium
quis, hunc _expectans accepisset_."

[337] This has something in common with the fiery cross sent round
by the Highlanders as the summons to war. In another aspect
it has resemblances with the Indian mode of declaration of
war. "The manner in which the Indians declare war against
each other is by sending a slave with a hatchet, the handle
of which is painted _red_, to the nation which they intend
to break with; and the messenger, notwithstanding the danger
to which he is exposed from the sudden fury of those whom he
thus sets at defiance, executes his commission with great
fidelity."--_Carver's "Travels in North America,"_ p. 307.

The sense of national responsibility in war, and the reluctance of kings to involve themselves without the consent of their people would appear from OEschylos' "Supplicants" (v. 393, 363).

I have referred (p. 326) to the Peruvian traditions of Manco Capac's laws of war, and that "in every stage of the war the Peruvian was open to propositions for peace."

From the Hindoo tradition, apparently, Manu's code was conceived in an identical spirit. (_Vide_ "Hist. of India," "The Hindu and Mahometan Periods," by the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone; Murray, 1866, ch. ii. p. 26.) "The laws of war (Manu's code) are honourable and humane. Poisoned arrows and mischievously barbed arrows and fire arrows are all prohibited." [Dr Hooker, in his "Himalayan Journal," mentions a similar tradition among the Limboos, I think, or Lepchas.[338]] "There are many situations in which it is by no means allowable to destroy the enemy. Among those who must always be spared are unarmed or wounded men, and those who have broken their weapons, and one who says, 'I am thy captive.' Other prohibitions are still more generous.... The settlement of a conquered country is conducted on equally liberal principles. Immediate security is to be assured to all by proclamation. The religion and laws of the country are to be maintained and respected." And I have fancied (_vide_ 395) that the recognition at least of such a tradition, if it be only the "homage which vice pays to virtue," is to be read in the devices carried by the Babylonians.[339]

[338] That there may be limitations to the horrors of war, seems
to be established by the instance of the prohibition
of explosive bullets. I read in the _Times_ (March 11,
1871):--"The _British Medical Journal_ declares its opinion
that the charges which have been put forward of _explosive
bullets_ having been used by the contending armies have been
groundless; and is inclined to believe that the _articles of
the St Petersburg Convention_ have been _faithfully adhered
to_, notwithstanding the mutual recriminations to the contrary
by both French and German Governments."

[339] Indirect evidence of the importance formerly attached to the
declaration of war may, I think, be discovered in the formal
addresses and invocations of the gods by the Homeric heroes
previous to combat, which to us seem so forced and unnatural;
and the same sentiment was noticed by the Spaniards, when they
first came over, among the Peruvians, who did not neglect
the punctilio of the declaration of war even in their most
high-handed aggressions, _e.g_. Garcilasso de la Vega (Hakluyt
Soc. ed. ii. 141) says--"The invaders sent _the usual summons_
that the people might not be able to allege afterwards that
they had been taken unawares."

There was, moreover, a law at Athens which forbade them to declare war until after a deliberation of three days--"Bellum vero antequam decerneretur, triduo deliberare lex jubebat" (Apsines, Marcell. in Hermog. ap. J. Meursii Them. Att., l. i. c. xi.); and we have seen that the Senate at Rome postponed the declaration of war for thirty days. I cannot help thinking, though it is the merest surmise, that it is in the dim recollection of some such tradition that we must account for the meaningless and superstitious delays which we occasionally read of in the warfare of barbarous nations; _e.g_. Cæsar (De Bello Gallico, i. xl. c.) had drawn up his troops and offered the enemy battle, but Ariovistus thought proper to sound a retreat. "Cæsar inquiring of the prisoners why Ariovistus so obstinately refused an engagement, found that it was the custom among the Germans for _the women_ to decide by lots and divination when it was proper to decide a battle; and that these had declared the army would not be victorious if they fought _before the new moon_."[340] [There was also a law at Athens that it was not lawful to lead forth an army before the seventh day of the month. "Vetitum Athenis erat, exercitum educere ante diem septimum."] J. Muersii, _id._

[340] Carver ("Travels in North America," p. 301) says of the
Indians--"Sometimes private chiefs make excursions.... These
irregular sallies, however, are not always approved of by
the elder chiefs, though they are often obliged to connive
at them.... But when war is national, and undertaken by the
community, their deliberations are formal and slow. The elders
assemble in council, to which all the head warriors and young
men are admitted, when they deliver their opinions in solemn
speeches; weighing with maturity the nature of the enterprise
they are about to engage in, and balancing with great sagacity
the advantages or inconveniences that will arise from it.
Their priests are also consulted on the subject, and even
sometimes the advice of the most intelligent of _their women_
is asked. If the determination be for war they prepare for it
with much ceremony."

I have discussed the ancient mode of declaration of war at some length as an instance of tradition. There are some, I am afraid, to whom the discussion will appear ineffably trifling; and I may even be misconstrued to say that everything would be set right in Europe, if only a herald were sent in proper form to declare war. There are men of a certain cast of mind to whom forms are repugnant; there are others to whom they are unintelligible. It has been observed, however, that the rejection of forms is one thing, the neglect of them another. The rejection of forms may be, on some principle, good, though misapplied, often does unconscious homage when it means to spurn, and may be compensated for in other ways. The neglect of them is simply evidence of laxity. Cromwell perfectly well knew the divinity which attached to forms when he said, "Take away that bauble;" and, on the other hand, no one better than he would have judged the state of an army (not his own) in which he was told that it was the custom of soldiers not to salute their officers. The declaration of war without any solemnity, still more the commencement of hostilities without any declaration at all,[341] seems to me closely analogous--as a sign of disorganisation--to the absence of any form of salute at a parade. I am far from contending that old forms, when they have become obsolete, can be resuscitated; but I do contend for the resuscitation of ancient maxims and ideas. In any age fully imbued with the responsibility of war, in which it was considered unseemly to declare it until after a three days' deliberation in solemn conclave, and which even then protracted the declaration till the seventh or the thirtieth day, would it have been possible for two great nations to have gone to war because there had been "a breach of etiquette," if indeed there was a breach of etiquette, "at a German watering-place?"[342] Allowing that this was merely the ostensible pretext, and that the real grounds remained behind--if these long deliberations had been necessarily interposed, would there not have been a thousand chances in favour of such a European intervention as saved the peace of Europe three years before in the affair of Luxembourg? Yet, so far as we know at present, the following is the history of the commencement of the most horrible, the most destructive, and the most barbarous war[343] of modern times.

[341] "In ancient times war was solemnly declared either by certain
fixed ceremonies or by the announcement of heralds; and a war
commenced without such declaration was regarded as informal
and irregular, and contrary to the usages of nations. Grotius
says that a declaration of war is not necessary by the law
of nations--"Naturali jure nulla requiritur declaratio," but
_that it was required by the law of nations, jure gentium_, by
which term, be it remembered, he means the usages of nations.
And in this he was right, as until the age in which he lived
wars were almost invariably preceded by solemn declarations.
The Romans, according to Albericus Gentilis, did not grant a
triumph for any war which had been commenced without a formal
declaration (De Jure Belli, c. ii. § i.); but the Greeks do
not seem to have been at all regular in the observance of the
custom (Bynkershock, Quæs. Jur. Pub., l. i. c. ii.) During the
times of chivalry declarations of war were usually given with
great formality, the habits of knighthood being carried into
the customs of general warfare, and it being held mean to fall
upon an adversary when unprepared to defend himself (Ward,
Introd. ii. 206-230). With the decline of chivalry this custom
fell into disuse. Gustavus Adolphus invaded Germany without
any declaration of war (Zouch, De Judicio inter Gentes, P.
ii. § x. 1); but this appears to have been _an exception_ to
the usages of the age, and Clarendon speaks of declarations
of war as being customary in his time, and blames the war in
which the Duke of Buckingham went to France, as entered into
'without so much as the formality of a declaration from the
king, containing the ground and provocation and end of it,
according to custom and obligation in the like cases.' Formal
denunciations of war _by heralds_ were discontinued about the
time of Grotius; the last instance having been, according
to Voltaire, when Louis XIII. sent a herald to Brussels
to declare war against Spain in 1635."--_W. Oke Manning's
Commentaries on Law of Nations._

[342] "Looking back on the history of the autumn ... we may yet
be impressed by the conviction that, had the union of
the _European family of nations_ been strengthened as it
might have been before the war broke out, it might never
have been begun, or would have long since terminated. The
Treaty of Paris put on record a declaration in favour of
arbitration, but it proved to be worthless when sought to be
applied."--_Times_, Feb. 15, 1871. I shall have a word to say
presently on the declaration of the Treaty of Paris.

[343] It must not be forgotten, however, that it was the revolution
in Paris which gave this war its abnormal character, and
created situations for which the law of nations had no
precedents, or precedents only which were of doubtful
application.

"A private letter from Paris relates that the Duc de Grammont,
who has taken to spend his evenings at the Jockey Club, was
lately asked there, 'How he came to blunder into such a fatal
war?'[344] He replied, 'I asked the Minister of War, Leboeuf,
if he was ready, and he answered, "Ready! ay, and doubly ready;"
_otherwise_,' added the Duc, 'I should have taken care not
_to have counselled_ a war which there _were twenty modes of
averting_.'"--_Times_, Sept. 1, 1870.[345]

[344] Compare _infra_, p. 412.

[345] Compare with the following account of the declaration of war
by M. F. de Champagny, de L'Acad. Fr., in the _Correspondant_,
25 Juin 1871:--"A government wrongly inspired proposed to
us a war. Without asking it why it wished to make it,
without asking if it could make it, without reflection,
without discussion, without listening to the men of name and
experience, who implored of us _at least twenty-four hours
for reflection_, we accepted this war, I do not say with
enthusiasm, but with frivolous levity, not as crusaders,
but as children. It seemed to us sufficient to tipple in
the 'cafés,' singing the 'Marseillaise,' to intoxicate
the soldiers, to throw squibs into what were then called
sensational journals, to cry 'à Berlin!' in order to go right
off to Berlin. And when it was discovered that we were not
going on at all to Berlin, but that Berlin was coming to
Paris, that this enthusiasm of the 'café' did not cause armies
to spring into life, what was our resource? Always the same:
to overthrow a government!"

The extent of the disorganisation and the laxity into which we have fallen, appears perhaps as strikingly as in any anything else in the frequency of the complaints of the little regard paid to "parlémentaires" and officers bearing flags of truce. But what startles us more than all is the light manner in which this transgression of the law of nations is referred to even by the parties aggrieved.

I will here place two extracts which I have made in juxtaposition:--

Carver ("Travels in North America," p. 358) says, that when a deputation sets out together for their enemy's country with propositions of peace, "They bear before them the pipe of peace, which, I need not inform my readers, is of the same nature _as a flag of truce_ among the Europeans, and is treated with the greatest respect and veneration _even by the most barbarous_ nations. _I never heard of an instance_ wherein the _bearers of this sacred_ badge of friendship were ever treated disrespectfully, or its rights violated. The Indians believe that the Great Spirit _never suffers an infraction_ of this kind to go unpunished."

Count Chandordy, in his reply to Count Bismarck,
dated Bordeaux, Jan. 25, 1871, says:--"Count
Bismarck reproaches the French armies with
having _fired on parlémentaires_." An accusation
of this nature had already been brought to the
knowledge of the Paris Government, and we may
quote the following words of M. Jules Favre
in his circular of 12th January--"I have the
satisfaction to acquaint your excellency that
the Governor of Paris has hastened to order an
inquiry into the facts alleged by Count Bismarck,
and in announcing this to him he has brought
_much more numerous facts_ of the same nature to
his own cognizance which are imputed to Prussian
sentinels, but _which he never would have allowed
to interrupt ordinary relations_."

I do not know whether this contrast between barbarism, such as it existed in the last century, and modern civilisation, will astonish those partisans of success whom in truth nothing in all the multiform atrocities of this dreadful war seems to have astonished or shocked, so that it was at times almost ludicrous to hear these _introuvables_ declare such things as the bombardment of hospitals and churches, as at Strasburg and Paris, quite right, which even the German commanders, when the matter was brought to their attention, admitted to be wrong.

This perhaps is the worst symptom of corruption we have yet seen, and yet there was a time, and that quite recent, when a different sentiment prevailed. I have just referred[346] to the declaration in the Treaty of Paris, which thought to inaugurate a new era by bringing all causes of conflict in Europe to a settlement of arbitration. But let no one be discouraged or cease to believe in the possibility of such a consummation because of the result. There never was a stronger instance of the intellect of the world vainly striving to create an international code and system for itself which was to be distinct from the law of nations; for at the same moment that the diplomatists who were collected in Paris set to work upon their tower, which was to erect itself above the waters of any future inundation, they one and all agreed to demolish, and as a first step to pull down, the cornerstone from the temple of the past. How this was brought about will best be told in an extract from the Count de Montalembert's "Pie IX. et la France en 1849 et 1859," p. 10:--

"Let us go back to the origin of the evil, ... it dates back more
especially from the Congress of Paris in 1856, from that diplomatic
reunion which, after having solemnly declared that none of the
contracting powers _had the right to interfere either collectively
or individually in the relations of a sovereign with his subjects_
(Protocol of 18th March), after having proclaimed the principle
of the absolute independence of the sovereigns, for the benefit
of the Turkish Sultan against his Christian subjects, thought it
within its competency, in its protocol of the 8th of April, and
in the absence of any representative of the august accused, to
proclaim that the situation of the Pontifical States was 'abnormal'
and 'irregular.' This accusation developed and exaggerated at the
Tribune, and elsewhere by Lord Palmerston and Count Cavour, was
equally formulated under the Presidency and upon the initiative of
the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, and it is consequently
France which must bear the principal responsibility before the
Church and Europe. We can recall the grief and surprise which this
strange proceeding created in the Catholic world."

[346] _Vide_ note 19, p. 403.

Thus was the game set rolling; and the policy thus indicated was pursued with the eager and unrelenting pertinacity of some, and with the tacit approval of the rest of the co-signatories.

The war declared by France against Austria, which was the precipitating cause of the storm which broke upon the Papal States, can, it is true, only be regarded as evidence of the conspiracy--inasmuch as it was declared by one of the conspirators at the instigation of another, whose ultimate aim was the seizure of the States of the Church and of the other independent Italian sovereignties to the profit of Piedmont. So soon as the victory of the French arms was decided, the Emperor's proclamation from Milan appeared, inciting the populations to insurrection. All then followed in sequence--the revolt of the Romagnas four days after the Milan manifesto, their annexation along with the other independent states of Central Italy by Piedmont, this annexation being effected with the connivance, if not the consent, of France, and for which payment was eventually made in the cession of Nice and Savoy (all this being in contravention of the treaties of Villafranca and Zurich). But what mattered the contravention of treaties in comparison with the scenes which followed? The programme of the congress, or, if that is denied, the programme of two (if not three, for it is difficult to acquit Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell of participation by consent) of the powers who had entered into the conspiracy against European order, and these, at that time, the powers in the highest state of military efficiency, was to be carried out _per fas et nefas_. Naples and the patrimony of St Peter had to be secured, and as they morally presented no vulnerable side, they were seized by the hand of the marauder in defiance of "all law, human and divine."[347] Garibaldi's descent on Sicily, effected under the cover of the English navy, was simply a brusque and flagrant act of piracy, for which no plea of justification has ever been set up. The usurpation of the Papal States, though not less ruthlessly accomplished in the end, was carried through with more regard to form in its preliminary stages; yet at the last the diplomatic mask was torn off, and the invasion was made without any pretext or justification known to the law of nations, and without even a declaration of war.

[347] These were the words which the Marquis of Bath had the courage
to use in the House of Lords when everybody else was joining
in a ludicrous "dirge of homage" to Cavour. I wish to put this
protest, as well as the similar protests of the Marquis of
Normanby and the Earl of Donoughmore on record, as there may
come a time when England will be glad to recur to them.