University of Virginia Library

15. THE ATTITUDE OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARDS WAR AND PEACE. MORAL COURAGE AND PHYSICAL COURAGE

ACCORDING to current opinion concerning the special characteristics of the female sex, we should be inclined to expect that under the dominance of women society would exhibit an exceptionally powerful trend towards peace. History teaches, however, that, under the dominance of women, just as under the dominance of men, some States are pacifically inclined, whereas others are bellicose and prone to display a fondness for wars of conquest. The Egyptians, for example, were a most unwarlike people. In almost all works on Egypt we find direct references to the pacifist disposition of the Egyptians, and this especially applies to the Old Kingdom. Müller[1] says that the Old Kingdom did not make any of those great campaigns of conquest which have been the source of most of the geographical information we possess concerning early days. He considers that the Egyptians must have been less spirited than the Nubian negroes, his reason being that the Egyptians endured so many thrashings—though he gives no proof of the latter assertion. Bolko Stern[2] expresses himself still more strongly. He writes: "We are entitled to maintain (and here we touch the chief weakness in the mentality of the ancient Egyptians) that they were unwarlike,

[1] Op. cit., p. 2.

[2] Aegyptische Kulturgeschichte, p. 28.

spiritless, and ultra-pacifist in their outlook." As late as Strabo's time, the Egyptian nation was reputed pacifist. The geographer tells us that from the earliest days the Egyptians had been a peace-loving people, and that although they were so numerous they had no taste for war. Even when their rulers were great conquerors, the Egyptians in general remained unwarlike. Thothmes III and Rameses II both uttered eloquent complaints concerning the pusillanimity and untrustworthiness of the Egyptian troops. In conformity with this, we find that the soldier's lot was considered unenviable: "If the officer has to face the enemy, he is like a bird in a cage; if he comes back to Egypt he is like worm-eaten wood." This contempt for military life explains why the Egyptians made so much use of foreign mercenary troops.

It might seem natural to attribute to the dominance of women this disinclination of the Egyptians for war. But there are two excellent reasons for rejecting such a view.

First of all, there have been Men's States which were averse from war. For instance, in the days of Julius Cæsar the ancient Britons were strongly inclined to peace. But we read in Hume's History of England that at this date the men were dominant among the Britons rather than the women.

In the second place, and this is a decisive point, there have been Women's States in which the lust for war and the desire for conquest were unquestionably rife. The Libyans, who were under the dominance of women, were a most warlike people; so were the Ethiopians, whose queens led them to war. The Gagers, among whom women held sway, were also continually engaged in wars of conquest. The Spartans, again,

were noted for their warlike propensities. Among the Dyaks, where women were dominant, the women incited the men to war and actually led in battle. Similar facts are recorded of the Chippewas. Among the ancient Teutons the women must have been extremely warlike, for in the days of Tacitus they were still given weapons and armour as wedding presents. Most warlike among women were the Amazons, whose deeds belong to the realm of saga. Bachofen insists that to discredit such traditions is to fight against the millenniums.

We infer that monosexual dominance is not the decisive factor in rendering the disposition of a people warlike or peaceful. Nevertheless, it would seem that the more extreme forms of monosexual dominance, whether masculine or feminine, tend to favour the growth of a bellicose tendency. Perhaps the two most perfect instances of extreme monosexual dominance known to us are that of the Amazons as far as Women's States are concerned and that of the former realm of Prussia as far as Men's States are concerned.

No Men's State ever enforced the dominance of men with the same perfection of absolutism as the legendary Amazons are said to have enforced the dominance of women. The Amazons went so far as practically to exclude men from the national life. They devoted themselves entirely to war and training for war. Their army consisted solely of women soldiers. To them men were merely embodiments of the procreative principle, whose existence must be tolerated in order to ensure a sufficiency of female offspring. Since the boys played no part in the national life, they were left to the fathers to take care of. Of course, in the former realm of Prussia, Men's-

State institutions were not developed to the same pitch of monosexual absolutism. But the dominance of men in Prussia was perhaps more complete than such dominance has ever been elsewhere. In Prussia, just as among the Amazons, the monosexuality of the fighters was guarded with the utmost strictness. During the late war, the exclusion of the subordinate sex from the Prussian army was rigidly maintained even during the hour of supreme need. Many of the other belligerents formed women's corps, but in Prussia a girl who, disguised as a male soldier, had smuggled herself into a troop, was sent to be trained as a hospital nurse. Now the bellicosity of Prussia is proverbial, recalling that of the Amazon State. It has been justly said: "The germ cell of the Prussian State is the soldier."

It is easy to understand why warlike propensities should become accentuated among peoples where monosexual dominance is carried to an extreme. Men have less sympathy for men, and women have less sympathy for women, than men have for women or women for men. The more exclusively power is vested in one sex, the more callous does the mentality of the dominant sex tend to become towards the horrors of war.

The sex of the troops under monosexual dominance is worthy of further consideration. In some instances we find that monosexuality is strictly enforced in the army, whereas in other instances there are soldiers of both sexes. Moreover, whilst under monosexual dominance soldiers are more often of the dominant sex, this rule is not universal.

Examples are familiar of the cases in which, now in Men's States and now in Women's States, the army is exclusively recruited from the dominant sex. In

the Men's States of our own day, those with whose institutions we are well acquainted, the soldiers are all men. Conversely, in Libya and among the Amazons, the soldiers were all women. The queens of Lunda in the Congo, and the queens of Nepal, would have only women soldiers. In like manner it would seem that the ancient Teutons during the days of the dominance of women had none but female warriors. Tacitus[3] reports that in Germany it was the custom in marriage for the husband to provide a dowry, and that this consisted of cattle, a harnessed horse, a strong spear, a sword, and a shield. He expressly states that as heirlooms the weapons passed only to the women. The recital is plain evidence as to which sex then practised the arts of war. Assume that things had been the other way about, and that the bride had brought her husband war gear as a wedding gift. No one would question that in this case the husband was or had been a warrior. In the days of the Romans, German women still fought side by side with their men, for we learn that the bodies of women were often found among the corpses of those slain in battle. At this period there were still queens who led their troops to the fight. Thus in the transitional period, when the sexes enjoyed equal rights, both men and women among the ancient Teutons pursued the arts of war. Tacitus expressly declares: "The women participate in the heroisms and the vicissitudes of war. Woman shares in the toils and dangers both of war and peace."

We cannot decide whether this participation of both sexes in military service is typical of the phase of equal rights. It is not uncommon to read of the two

[3] Germania. 18.

sexes fighting side by side, but we cannot always ascertain in such cases what were the social relationships between the sexes. In ancient Syria, at a time when men were dominant, the army consisted of both sexes. Müller[4] reports that in the siege of Satuna the Syrian women helped to defend the walls of the city. In the Persian armies that attacked Athens, one of the chief generals was a woman. Among the Gagers, to whom we have frequently referred, the army was led by a queen and consisted mainly of women, but men were not excluded from military service. The Gagers made extensive conquests. Queen Tomyris, who slew Cyrus in war, had an army consisting of male and female warriors. Strabo declares that the women of the Indian courts were always trained to arms and fought beside the men. Dion Cassius, who wrote a century later than Tacitus, reports that in the days of the former there were queens both in Germany and in Britain who led their troops to battle. In Mexico a woman in priestly orders was commander-in-chief of the army, which appears to have been composed entirely of men. Meiners tells us of a queen in the Bombay district who took personal command of her troops and challenged an enemy king to a duel.

There have also been peoples among which the troops consisted, mainly at least, of members of the subordinate sex. In Dahomey[5] the sovereign was a man, and men appear to have been dominant. The king had a bodyguard consisting of one hundred heavily armed warrior women and a large number of elephant huntresses. This force was commanded by a woman general. The army was for the most part

[4] Egyptological Researches, vol. ii, p. 175.

[5] Jaeckel, op. cit., pp. 111, 115

composed of female warriors; there were also male soldiers, but these played a subordinate part. The Dahomeyans ascribed their victories chiefly to the women warriors. When the men were retreating the women would continue to advance. We learn that among these female troops there developed qualities precisely similar to those with which we are familiar in male warriors. The warrior women of Dahomey had their special regiment, which never gave quarter. Their banners and drums were decorated with death's-heads. Who can fail to be reminded of Lützow's volunteer corps and of the Death's-Head Hussars? Like so many savage fighters, the Red Indian braves for instance, these warrior women wore as trophies the scalps of the enemies they had slain.

Here is another striking point of similarity. These warrior women regarded men as cowards and weaklings. When reproaching one another for cowardice or weakness they would say: "You are a man." Herein we have a precise counterpart of the mentality of men soldiers. Every one knows that when one male warrior says to another, "You are a woman," the taunt of cowardice is implied.

Among the Spartans the institutions of Dahomey were reversed. Women were dominant, but the fighters apparently were all males. The women seem to have participated in defensive operations, but not in hand-to-hand warfare. Plutarch, indeed, tells us that the Lacedæmonian women were no less valiant than the men, for they had the same title to honour. Nor must we forget that in this question of the existence of women warriors, as in so many others, Men's-State historians have been inclined to suppress or distort uncongenial details. In earlier days many

peoples must have had armies of female warriors. Sesostris erected monuments to commemorate his victorious campaigns, and on a number of these monuments some of the figures have the sexual characters of women whilst others have those of men. The gloss put on the matter by Men's-State historians has been that the male sexual characters were introduced to denote that the king's enemies had fought bravely, like men, and that the female sexual characters indicated that they had surrendered without striking a blow and had therefore demeaned themselves like women. But this interpretation is fallacious. Egyptian statuary of those days always depicts the king in the presence of slain or fleeing enemies. Schneider says that the idea was not yet current that a victory is more splendid when the foe has fought stoutly. It would, therefore, have been contrary to the spirit of the age had Sesostris, on these monuments, done honour to the valiancy of his enemies but contemned their cowardice.

Furthermore, in the land of Sesostris the prestige of women was great, and they were more highly honoured than men. According to Nymphodorus, Sesostris was the king who introduced the dominance of women into Egypt. He it was who, erecting columns in honour of his wife and himself, made the two columns of the same height. We are expressly told that when in danger he sought counsel of his wife and followed her advice. The epithet "womanish" could not therefore have had among the Egyptians of his day a derogatory Men's-State signification. When we recall, in addition, that the Egyptian women were spoken of as "lionesses," the credibility of the foregoing interpretation is still further reduced. The

only alternative explanation is that, on the monuments in question, Sesostris wished to depict actual men and actual women. The male sexual characters must indicate that Sesostris' army consisted on one occasion of male troops and on another of female troops; or else that the enemy he had defeated had had an army of male warriors or of female warriors as the case may be.

The deeds of women conquerors show that women can unfortunately exhibit a no less warlike disposition than men. Some women rulers have been fierce and bellicose, whilst others have been lovers of peace. The legends of Semiramis describe her as a great conqueror. Tomyris, the queen who defeated and slew Cyrus, seems to have been a lover of peace. It is recorded that after the victory, angered by Cyrus' onslaught, she had the body of her defeated enemy dipped in blood, saying. "Drink thy fill, conqueror!" Whereas Hatshepsu preserved the peace in the realm of Egypt for decades and bridled her husband's lust for conquest, Elizabeth of England laid the foundations of that country's political predominance by strenuous fighting quite as much as by shrewd statecraft. When Elizabeth ascended the throne, England was a State of the second rank, but by the time of her death it had become one of the leading countries of Europe. Maria Theresa detested war, but Elizabeth of Russia delighted in it. Jaeckel[6] gives a long list of female sovereigns, and quite a number of these were warmongers. Zenobia, wife of Odenathus of Palmyra, was co-ruler during her husband's lifetime, and after his death was monarch of a realm embracing Syria and most of the provinces of Asia Minor.

[6] Op. cit., pp. 155 et seq.

The emperor Aurelian, who fought against her, said of her: "This woman was such a terror to all the nations of the east and of Egypt, that the Arabs, the Saracens, and the Armenians were afraid to move a finger." Here are some more names of female sovereigns found in Jaeckel's list—which is far from complete: Placidia, who ruled the Roman Empire with unrestricted power from 425 to 450 A.D.; the Frankish queen, Brunhilde, who for half a century led the fortunes of her country through murder and blood; Zarina, queen of Scythia, more honoured by her subjects after her death than any male ruler had been; Queen Artemisia II, more admired by Herodotus than any other great figures of the Persian wars; Adelheid, wife of Otto the Great, who during her husband's lifetime (like all the German empresses of that day) shared in the powers of government, without whose advice Otto would do nothing, and who after Otto's death ruled "vigorously and wisely"; Adelheid's daughter Mathilda, who presided over German affairs of State when her nephew Otto III was in Italy; Isabella of Castile, whose reign Oviedo described as "the golden age of justice"; Catherine of Portugal, who ruled "with great circumspection and justice"; Christina of Sweden, described by the Parisians when she was thirty years of age as "a handsome lad," a huntress who always brought down her quarry at the first shot, but also a learned woman skilled in statecraft, who abdicated after reigning for ten years because she found state ceremonial and the tyranny of maintaining royal dignity too repugnant to her intense love of freedom.

But no more do we find among all these great queens a general love of peace, than among the kings

who have made their mark in history, a universal inclination to war. We are not entitled to count upon the possession by women of a natural inclination to peaceful courses. Foerster[7] is unfortunately wrong when he says: "The male spirit is obsessed with the ancient traditions of battle, but women are free from this burden. Women, therefore, are better fitted than men to practise the sublime art of maintaining peace." In persons of either sex, a lust for war may be increased by bodily weakness. Many of the worst war-maniacs have been men who were weaklings or who suffered from bodily deformity. Suffice it to mention Homer Lea, a hunchback who wrote great war books.[8] Plutarch gives us an analogous instance in the case of a woman. The poetess Telesilla was weak and sickly, but when her native city of Argos was being besieged by the Spartans she composed war songs inciting her female compatriots to take up arms. She herself took the lead of the women, and with their aid repulsed the Spartans. At any rate Telesilla drew the logical deduction from her enthusiasm for war, and was willing to back up words with deeds. During the recent war there were plenty of weaklings who vigorously beat the war drum in order to send others to the front while they themselves remained safe at home. Though history is silent on the point, we may assume with considerable probability that there were women of the same kidney in Women's States.

To-day the notion of courage is intimately associated with the idea of war. Before all, courage is the courage of the soldier: next it is courage in bodily

[7] Politische Ethik, p. 468.

[8] The Day of the Saxon, etc.

peril, as training and preparation for war. Moral courage, "civil courage" as Bismarck termed it, is regarded as of trifling importance in comparison with the courage of the soldier. The latter has driven the former, not merely out of current speech, but out of the realm of practice. The courage of the soldier and respect for authority are not opposites; they are qualities apt to be associated. What about courage in Women's States and Men's States respectively? The question of masculine or feminine dominance seems to have little influence. The decisive point is whether the general disposition of the nation is warlike or unwarlike. We find that in warlike States the dominant sex is always brave, or is reputed to be so. Among ourselves, men are presumed to be courageous, are educated to be brave, in former days were actually drilled to be brave. In Sparta, during the days of women's dominance, the women were noted for courage. Meiners says that they exhibited a "masculine" and "unwomanly" courage. To Meiners, the Men's-State writer, the courage which was "womanly" in Sparta, naturally seems "masculine" and "unwomanly."

Among unwarlike peoples, neither sex seems to attach much value to courage—or at any rate to the qualities that warlike nations denote by that term. For this reason historians have often accused the Egyptians of cowardice, for to peoples of bellicose inclinations a pacifist disposition and cowardice seem identical. For example Bolko Stern[9] writes: "The modern Egyptians are reputed cowardly. Their behaviour during the Mahdist campaigns justified the accusation. In ancient Egypt things seem to have

[9] Op. cit., p. 28.

been little better." It is obvious that the writer infers the existence of cowardice because those about whom he is writing were unwarlike. Persons with bellicose inclinations are apt to overlook the consideration that undue respect for authority is a form of cowardice, perhaps greater than cowardice displayed in war, inasmuch as it is moral cowardice. They overlook this because respect for authority involves no hindrance to efficiency in war. On the contrary, it promotes such efficiency by facilitating obedience.

It is unfortunately very difficult to institute any comparisons between respect for authority in Men's States on the one hand and Women's States on the other, for owing to the bellicose complexion of history details are lacking. Concerning the Chamorros, the indigens of the Ladrone Islands, among whom the dominance of women was absolute, we know from the reports of various travellers that they were of a peaceful disposition, but were very proud, and were easily affronted. Here we find a peaceful disposition in conjunction with a high spirit, with a mentality that is free from an undue respect for authority. We are told that the Cingalese had a great love of liberty, and also that they were peacefully disposed. Respect for authority is probably an outcome of the frame of mind associated with a bellicose disposition, just as contempt for authority flourishes most in connexion with the mentality of peace. In Prussia, the most bellicose State of modern times, respect for authority was already so highly developed in the days of Bismarck's power as to arouse uneasiness even in this absolutist, notwithstanding his general esteem for subordination and obedience. This is why Bismarck reproached the Germans for their "lack of civil

courage." It is true that Prussia was an absolutist Men's State, just as the community of the Chamorros was an extreme type of Women's State; but it seems to us that they differed in the point we are now considering, not because men were dominant in the former and women in the latter, but because the former was bellicose whereas the latter was pacific.

There does however seem to exist one difference between Men's States and Women's States which must be charged to the account of masculine or feminine influence, as the case may be. We refer to the appraisement of the fear of death. In the Women's State the fear of death is considered an estimable quality, a positive virtue; in the Men's State, on the other hand, the fear of death is considered shameful, and contempt for death is deemed a virtue. In the Men's State the phrase runs, "Life is not the greatest good"; but in the Women's State life is regarded as the greatest good. Such an utterance as "navigare necesse cst, vivere non necesse" is a typical Men's-State utterance. A woman would say: "Unless I go on living, I cannot journey by sea, so life must take the first place." But in the Men's State life is so lightly regarded that the undervaluation leads to logical contradiction.

Both in Egypt and in Sparta, the two civilised Women's States, the fear of death was highly esteemed. Plutarch[10] says of the Spartans that they honoured the god of fear, but not in order that they might overcome their feelings of fear, for they regarded fear as in itself a power for good. "Courage," continues Plutarch, "seems to me to be regarded here

[10] Cf. Schulte-Vaerting, op. cit., p. 203; Plutarch, Cleomenes, 9.

not as freedom from fear, but actually as fear of death." In Sparta not merely was the fear of death greatly esteemed, and not merely was there a god of fear to whom this virtue was consecrated, but fear was actually erected into a duty. Even in war this duty was incumbent. When fighting, every one must do his utmost to protect himself. Whoever sought out death was buried without honour. This was the fate of Aristodemus, the only survivor of Thermopylæ, who felt his lot to be shameful, and subsequently sought death in battle. A soldier who threw away his shield in the fight forfeited his honour. On the other hand it was permissible for a soldier to disembarrass himself of his weapons. The lack of courage for attack was tolerated as a natural manifestation, but the sacrifice of the requisites for the protection of life was punished as shameful.

In the songs of ancient Egypt, the fear of death is openly acclaimed. "The fast runner hurries away to a strange land. . . . He is afraid of the lions and of the Asiatics." Amongst us the emphasis would be laid upon the courageous desire to fight with the lions and the Asiatics. To the general taste of our day, it seems a grave defect that a nation should have no songs in praise of martial courage. H. Oldenberg gives open expression to his discontent with India on this account. In ancient Hindustan, where matriarchy is known to have prevailed, we find in the battle songs neither lust of combat nor praise of martial courage. In this connexion Oldenberg[11] remarks: "How different are the moods from those that seem natural to us when we sing of war and victory. There is no challenging note, such as can awaken a virile longing

[11] Die Literatur des alten Indien.

to fight and to dare. There is no clarion tone of resolution, of the determination to give life for goods that are greater than life. The language of these songs and their mode of feeling are prehistoric."

Thus both in warlike and in unwarlike Women's States the fear of death was looked upon as a virtue, whereas in Men's States it is contempt for death that is a virtue. Unquestionably this difference is the outcome of differing valuations of life. We must not jump to the conclusion that we have evidence here of a congenital difference between men and women. Probably there is no difference in this matter between the inborn characteristics of the two sexes. There is another way in which the difference we are now considering might originate. The sexual and psychical constitution exhibits in the two sexes unequal powers of resistance to the dangers of monosexual dominance.[12] The vital energy is more readily impaired in the sex that has less powers of resistance. But the more the vital energy is impaired, the greater will be the contempt for death. For this very reason Kammerer has regarded contempt for death as a stigma of degeneration. It may further be pointed out that the statistics of the Men's State show that suicide is far more common in men than in women. And suicide is the highest and the last expression of the lack of vital energy.

Aristotle had already noted a peculiarity as regards the attitude towards war where women were dominant. He says that the dominance of women produced an aptitude for the offensive only, but was ineffective as far as the defensive was concerned. The difference is apparent merely, as we can show from a comparison drawn from the late war. What Aristotle, generalis-

[12] The authors propose to prove this assertion in a later work.

ing his experience of Sparta, said of the dominance of women, could equally well be said of the dominance of men if we were to generalise from our experience of Prussia. The men of Prussia are strong in attack but weak in defence. The reason is not to be found in the dominance of men or in the dominance of women, qua men or women, but in the general character of monosexual dominance. When monosexual dominance shows its weak side, we are prone to think that the failure must be the fault of the sex which happens to be dominant.