f a coward. Such it truly is, when committed in the civilized
society of our day. But in studying primitive races, or in going back
along the line of our own ancestry to the civilized society of two
centuries ago, we must face and acknowledge the strange paradox of a
valorous and honorable people (according to their lights) who, in
certain cases, practiced assassination without compunction and, in fact,
with pride. History is red with it in those very "richest ages of our
race" that Professor Shaler cited. Until a century or two ago,
throughout Christendom, the secret murder of enemies was committed
unblushingly by nobles and kings and prelates, often with a pious "Thus
sayeth the Lord!" It was practiced by men valiant in open battle, and by
those wise in the counsels of the realm. Take Scotland, for example, as
pictured by a native writer.--

"No tenet nor practice, no influence nor power nor principality in
the Scotland of the past has outvied assassination in ascendancy or
in moment. Not theoretically, indeed, but practically, it occupied
for centuries a distinct, almost a supreme, place in her political
constitution--was, in fact, the understood if not recognized
expedient always in reserve should other milder and more hallowed
methods fail of accomplishing the desired political or, it might
be, religious consummation....

"For centuries such justice as was exercised was haphazard and
rude, and practically there was no law but the will of the
stronger. Few, if any, of the great families but had their special
feud; and feuds once originated survived for ages; to forget them
would have been treason to the dead, and wild purposes of revenge
were handed down from generation to generation as a sacred legacy.

"To take an enemy at a disadvantage was not deemed mean and
contemptible, but--

'Of all the arts in which the wise excel
Nature's chief masterpiece.'

To do it boldly and adroitly was to win a peculiar halo of renown;
and thus assassination ceased to be the weapon of the avowed
desperado, and came to be wielded unblushingly not only by
so-called men of honor, but by the so-called religious as well. A
noble did not scruple to use it against his king, and the king
himself felt no dishonor in resorting to it against a dangerous
noble. James I. was hacked to death in the night by Sir Rob