[379] CHAPTER XII.

Restraints as to Wasting, and the like.

I. 1 IN order that any one may destroy the property of another without wrong, one of these three things is necessary:—either such a necessity as must be supposed to be accepted in the first institution of property: (as if any one, to save himself, threw into the river the sword of another, which a madman was going to use; in which case, however, the better opinion is, that the obligation of restitution remains:)—or some debt remaining unpaid, in which case the thing destroyed is to be reckoned as received, otherwise the right does not exist:—or some ill desert, to which such punishment is suited, and so that the loss does not exceed the desert: for, as a sound theologian rightly notes, it is not equitable that for some cattle driven away, or some houses burnt, a kingdom should be laid waste; as Polybius also said; who would not allow that in war punishment should go on to an indefinite extent, but only so far that the offenses may be equitably expiated. And for these causes, and within these limits, to damage another’s property is not to do a wrong.

2 But except there be some motive of utility, it is foolish, for no good of your own, to harm another. Therefore wise men are commonly moved by their advantages, of which the principal is, that which Onosander notes: Let the general waste, burn, and ravage the enemy’s country; for the want of money and provision breaks down a war as abundance holds it up. And so Proclus, It is the part of a good general to cut off the enemy’s resources. So Curtius, of Darius.

3 Such ravage is tolerable (to the moralist) as in a short time reduces the enemy to seek peace: which was the kind of war that Halyattes carried on against the Milesians, the Thracians against the Byzantines, the Romans against the Campanians, Capenates, Spaniards, Ligurians, Nervians, Menapians. But if you weigh the matter well, you will find that such practices are admitted, rather through spite than prudence. For it generally happens, either that these motives cease, or that other motives which act the other way are more powerful.

II. 1 That will be the case, in the first place, if we are in posses380sion of the country which yields provisions, so that it cannot avail the enemy for their supply. And to this point properly tends the divine law (Deut. xx. 19, 20), which forbids the cutting down fruit-trees for bulwarks and other warlike uses, and points out trees which do not supply food, as proper to be used for such purposes; and adds the reason, that “the tree of the field is man’s life,” and that they cannot war against man, as man can. And this Philo extends to fields which have fruit; adding, that they minister food and comfort to the victors: they pay tribute. Josephus adds, on the same place, that if the trees could speak, they would complain of the injustice of their bearing the penalty of the war, of which they are not the cause. And on the same ground rests the Pythagorean dictum in Jamblichus, that it is unlawful to hurt a fruit-bearing tree.

2 Porphyry, in his book Against Eating Animals, speaking of the manners of the Jews, being guided, as I conceive, by custom, extends this to animals used in agriculture: for he says that Moses commanded to spare these also. And the writers of the Talmud, and the Hebrew Commentators, say that this law is to be extended to anything which is destroyed without cause, as when buildings are burnt, or victuals spoiled. And with this law, agrees the prudent moderation of Timotheus, the Athenian general, who did not allow a house or city to be burnt, or a fruit-tree to be cut down, as Polyænus relates. In Plato’s Laws we have this, that the land is not to be ravaged nor houses burnt.

3 Much more will this hold after a complete victory. Cicero does not approve of Corinth being destroyed; where, nevertheless, the Roman ambassadors had been shamefully treated. The same writer elsewhere says, that a war made against walls, roofs, columns, and posts, is horrible, wicked, and stained with all spite. Livy praises the clemency of the Romans, when Capua was taken, that there were no severities exercised, by conflagration and ruin, against harmless roofs and walls. So Agamemnon, in Seneca, declares he wished of Troy.

4 The Sacred History tells us of some cities, which were given up to destruction; and that, even against the sacred law which we have mentioned; the trees of the Moabites were commanded to be cut down (2 Kings iii. 19); but this was not done in hostile spite, but in detestation of wickednesses, which were either publicly known, or were, in the judgment of God, worthy of such inflictions.

III. 1 In the second place, the rule which we mention will hold, even when the possession of the land is doubtful, if there be strong hope of a speedy victory, of which the reward will be, both the land and its fruits. So Alexander restrained his soldiers from wasting Asia, telling them not to destroy what was to be their own. So Quintius exhorted his soldiers to march through Thessaly, as a country already their own. So Crœsus said to Cyrus, to dissuade him from wasting Lydia, You will not destroy my possessions, but your own.

2 To those who do otherwise, we may apply what Jocasta says in Seneca: You destroy your country while you try to win it, &c. So Cur381tius, What they spoiled they acknowledged to belong to the enemy. So Cicero argues against Pompey’s design, of reducing his country by famine. And on this ground Alexander Isius blames Philip, as Livy translates from Polybius.

IV. 1 In the third place, this holds if the enemy can support himself from other quarters; as if the sea, or boundaries on another side, be open. So Archidamus exhorting the Lacedæmonlans from war with the Athenians, asks if they depend on wasting Attica, when the Athenians have other territories (Thrace and Ionia), and can obtain supplies by sea. In such a state of things, then, it is best that agriculture should be secure, even in the contested region, which we have lately seen practised in the war in Germanic Belgium*, on paying a tribute to both parties.

2 This is agreeable to the practice of the ancient Indians, among whom the cultivators worked undisturbed close to the camps, as a race sacred from injury, and beneficial to all.

3 Xenophon says that a convention was made between Cyrus and the Assyrians, that there should be peace with the cultivator, war with the soldiers. So Timotheus let the most fertile part of the land to husbandmen, as Polyænus relates, and even, as Aristotle adds, sold the produce to the enemy, to raise money to pay his soldiers; and so Viriatus did in Spain. And the same was done in the Belgico-Germanic war of which we have spoken, with great reason, and great advantage, to the admiration of foreigners.

4 These practices are proposed for imitation by the Canons, the teachers of humanity, to all Christians, as owing and professing a humanity greater than other men. And therefore these Canons direct, not only that cultivators should be out of danger of war, but animals for the plough, and the seed for sowing. And this is for the same reason for which the Civil Laws forbid the instruments of ploughing to be taken in pledge; and among the Phrygians and Cyprians of old, and among the Athenians and Romans, it was reckoned abominable to kill the ox that drew the plough.

V. In the fourth place, it happens that some things are of such a nature that they are of no effect in making or carrying on war; and these, it is reasonable should be spared during the war. To this case belongs the pleading of the Rhodians to Demetrius the City-taker, in favour of the painting of Ialysius, which Gellius gives. They tell him that if he destroy that part of the city, he will be supposed to make war upon Protogenes the great painter. So Polybius says, that it is a mark of a savage mind to make war on things which neither weaken the loser nor strengthen him who destroys them; as temples, porticos, statues, and the like. So Cicero says, that Marcellus spared the build382ings of Syracuse, public and private, as his army had come to defend, not to destroy them. And again, that Our ancestors left to them what is a gratification to the conquered and a trifle to us.

VI. 1 And as this is true in all ornamental works, for the reason which we have mentioned, there is, besides, an especial reason in things dedicated to sacred uses. For though these, as we have said, are public in a peculiar way, and therefore may be violated with impunity by the laws of nations; yet if there be no danger from them, there is a motive for sparing them, besides those which have been mentioned, in the reverence for divine things: and especially, among those who worship the same God by the same law, even though they differ in some rites and doctrines.

2 Thucydides says that this was the rule of the Greeks. Livy says, that when Alba was destroyed, the temples were spared. When Capua was taken, Silius speaks of the religious feeling which led the Romans to preserve the temples. Livy says that it was objected to Q. Fulvius the Censor, that he built temples with the ruins of temples, as if the gods were not everywhere the same; and thus involved the Romans in religious irreverence. When Marcius Philippus came to Dius, he ordered the tents to be pitched under the temple, that nothing in the sacred place might be violated. Strabo relates that Tectosages, who had plundered the treasures at Delphi, did, in order to appease the offended deity, consecrate them at his home with additional offerings.

3 To come to Christians: Agathias relates that the Franks spared the temples; being of the same religion as the Greeks, whom they conquered. And even men were commonly spared on account of the temples, as (not to adduce examples of heathen nations, which are numerous, inasmuch as writers call this the common usage of the Greeks,) by the Goths, when they took Rome; which Augustine praises.

VII. 1 What has been said of sacred places, may be applied also to burial-places, and to the monuments of the dead: for these, though the Law of Nations allows wrath to do its work on them with impunity, cannot be violated without trampling on humanity. Jurists say that that is the highest Reason, which is on the side of religion. So Euripides, speaking both of temples and of tombs. Apollonius Tyanæus interpreted the war of the giants against the gods to mean, that they violated the temples. In Statius, Annibal is called sacrilegus, for that he Deum face miscuit aras, put the torch to the altar.

2 Scipio, when Carthage was taken, gave donations to the soldiers, except those who had transgressed against Apollo’s temple. Cæsar would not venture to destroy the trophy erected by Mithridates, as being consecrated to the gods. Marcellus, withheld by religion, did not touch what victory only had made profane, as Cicero says; and adds, that there are enemies who, even in war, respect the rights of religion and custom. And elsewhere, he calls the violence of Brennus, done to the 383fane of Apollo, nefarious. The act of Pyrrhus, in despoiling the treasure of Proserpine, is called, by Livy, foul and contumacious against the Gods. So Diodorus speaks of Himilco; Livy, of Philip. Florus, of the same, calls it wickedness and madness. Polybius, touching on the same history, says the like, as already quoted; and does not admit the excuse of retaliation.

VIII. 1 Although it is not a part of our purpose to speak of the advantages of any course of conduct, but rather to restrain the loose license of war to that which is lawful by nature, or among the lawful ways, the better; yet even Virtue, in this age often little esteemed on her own account, ought to pardon me, if I try to make her value apparent by her utility. First, then, this moderation in preserving things which do not affect the course of war, takes away from an enemy that great weapon, despair. So Archidamus says, that the enemy’s land is a hostage, to be spared that despair may not give them strength. So Agesilaus advised to let the Acarnians sow their land; saying, that they would be all the more desirous of peace. So Juvenal, spoliatis arma supersunt, when men have lost all they find arms. So Livy says the Gauls judged; when they took the city.

2 Add, that such a course, during war, presents the appearance of a great confidence of victory; and that clemency is apt to bend and conciliate men’s minds. So Annibal, in his conduct towards the Tarentines, does not waste the land; not from moderation, but to conciliate them. So Augustus acted towards the Pannonians. So Timotheus, in the case already mentioned, obtained the good will of the enemy. So Quintius and the Romans, in the case above given, found that, as the fruit of their conduct, the cities of Thessaly and the others came over to them. The city of the Lingones, which escaped the apprehended ravage in the war against Civilis, was reduced to obedience, and supplied seventy thousand armed men; as Frontinus relates.

3 The opposite cause leads to an opposite result. Livy gives an example in Annibal, when he committed ravage in his retreat, and alienated the minds, both of those who suffered, and of those who feared.

4 It is also most true, as some theologians have noted, that it is the duty of rulers and leaders, who wish to be reckoned Christians by God and by men, to abstain from storming of cities, and other like violent proceedings; which cannot take place, without great calamity to many innocent persons, and often do little to promote the ends of the war: so that Christian goodness almost always, justice mostly, must inspire a repugnance to them. The tie of Christians amongst each other is closer than was that of the Greeks formerly; and yet there was a decree of the Amphictyons, that in their wars, no Greek city should be destroyed. And the ancients relate, that Alexander the Great never repented of anything, so much as he did of the destruction of Thebes.