An interesting experience, possibly beneficial for consideration on the topic of incentives, of solutions short-term vs long-term, of foreign affairs.
"The Danes, before they durst attempt any important enterprise against England, made an inconsiderable descent by way of trial; and having landed from seven vessels near Southampton, they ravaged the country, enriched themselves by spoil, and departed with impunity. Six years after, they made a like attempt in the west, and met with like success. The invaders having now found affairs in a very different situation from that in which they formerly appeared, encouraged their countrymen to assemble a greater force, and to hope for more considerable advantages. [MN 991.] They landed in Essex, under the command of two leaders; and having defeated and slain at Maldon, Brithnot, duke of that county, who ventured, with a small body, to attack them, they spread their devastations over all the neighbouring provinces. In this extremity, Ethelred, to whom historians give the epithet of the UNREADY, instead of rousing his people to defend with courage their honour and their property, hearkened to the advice of Siricius, Archbishop of Canterbury, which was seconded by many of the degenerate nobility; and paying the enemy the sum of ten thousand pounds, he bribed them to depart the kingdom. This shameful expedient was attended with the success which might be expected. The Danes next year appeared off the eastern coast, in hopes of subduing a people who defended themselves by their money, which invited assailants, instead of their arms, which repelled them. [...]"
David Hume, History of England: From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to the Revolution of 1688, Volume 1A, Chapter 3, 1762
THOUGHT #1
It seems clear that Hume's opinion is that bribing an enemy either threatening or actively working violence is a bad method of dealing with said enemy, since it rewards the offender for the offense. He calls it a 'shameful expedient,' and I find it interesting how he expresses how that "shameful expedient was attended with the success which might be expected," as if the outcome, the return of the Danes, of the method ought to have been obvious. Why should Ethelred and Siricius have trusted the Danes, the invaders, to not return?
THOUGHT #2
This is also a good example to illustrate the idea that human intention is not necessarily what guarantees the desired result. With this paragraph by itself, I have no reason to suspect that either Ethelred or Archbishop Siricius were men of poor character or poor intent. I don't think that they wanted the Danes to return and cause more havok. You could even argue that maybe they aimed at protecting the life of their countrymen, maybe they feared their chances at victory, maybe they were more convinced of immediate end to the conflict by bribery (giving the violator what he/she is seeking, for which he/she has committed violation) then by armed conflict. None of these are bad intentions. But it nevertheless is obvious that the bribe to depart was also a bribe to return. Now, one could argue that perhaps Ethelred and the Archbishop anticipated the return of the Danes sometime following the bribe, that the bribery was strategic meant to allow the Saxons to properly prepare for the next conflict. I'm less convinced of this, since I get the impression from Hume's account that the return of the Danes caught the Saxons again unprepared.
THOUGHT #3
I think this leads to a pertinent question: how does one prepare to meet evil? are we ever truly free from the threat of evil? Now, I'm of course not not infer that Danish as a people are evil, but it cannot be denied that the Danish ancestors in this story committed an evil act, invading their Saxon neighbors with the intent to pilfer and pillage and murder.
The righteousness of peoples and nations have waxed and waned at different times and places.
Recognizing this does not excuse the times that other peoples have committed similar crimes (including the Saxons among themselves), which I think contributes to the pertinence of the question, because of course this is not an isolated incident in history. There have been evil acts committed by people since the beginning of human existence to the modern day, probably the most publicized in the United States are the mass shootings that have occurred over the last few years. While this topic may have many branches of discussion, I wish to highlight just one for now, how does one legislate the extinction of evil? can it be done?
No comments:
Post a Comment