SUICIDE, the crime of self-murder, or the person who commits it. We have often wished to see a history of crimes drawn up by a man of ability and research. In this history we would propose that the author should describe the crimes peculiar to different nations in the different stages of society, and the changes which they undergo in the progress of civilization. After having arranged the historical facts, he might, by comparing them with the religion and the knowledge of the people, deduce some important general conclusions, which would lead to a discovery of the cause of crimes, and of the remedy most proper to be applied. Some crimes are peculiar to certain stages of society, some to certain nations. Suicide is one of those crimes which we are led to believe not common among savage nations. The first instances recorded of it in the Jewish history are those of Saul and Ahitophel; for we do not think the death of Samson a proper example. We have not reason to suppose that it became common among the Jews till their wars with the Romans, when multitudes slaughtered themselves that they might not fall alive into the hands of their enemies. But at this period the Jews were a most desperate and abandoned race of men, had corrupted the religion of their fathers, and rejected that pure system which their promised Messiah came to announce.

When this crime became remarkable among the Greeks, we have not been able to discover; but it was forbidden by Pythagoras, as we learn from Athenaeus, by Socrates and Aristotle, and by the Theban and Athenian laws. In the earliest ages of the Roman republic it was seldom committed; but when luxury and the Epicurean and Stoical philosophy had corrupted the simplicity and virtue of the Roman character, they then began to seek shelter in suicide, from their misfortunes or the effects of their own vices.

The religious principles of the Brahmins of India led them to admire suicide on particular occasions as honourable. Accustomed to abstinence, mortification, and the contempt of death, they considered it as a mark of weakness of mind to submit to the infirmities of old age. We are informed that the modern Gentoos, who still in most tilings conform to the customs of their ancestors, are frequently, when old and infirm, brought to the banks of rivers, particularly to those of the Ganges, that they may die in its sacred streams, which they believe can wash away the guilt of their sins. But the maxims of the Brahmins, which have encouraged this practice, we are assured by Mr Holwell, are a corruption of the doctrines of the Shaster, which positively forbid suicide under the severest punishment. The practice which religion or affection has established among the Gentoos, for women at the death of their husbands to burn themselves alive on the funeral pile, we do not think ought to be considered as suicide, as we are not anxious to extend the meaning of the word; for were we to extend it thus far, it would be as proper to apply it to those who choose rather to die in battle than make their escape at the expense of their honour. Thus we should condemn as suicides the brave Spartans who died at Thermopylae in defence of their country. According to the Gentoo laws, “it is proper for a woman after her husband’s death to burn herself in the fire with his corpse. Every woman who thus burns shall remain in paradise with her husband three crore and fifty lacs of years. If she cannot, she must in that case preserve an inviolable chastity. If she remain chaste, she goes to paradise; and if she do not preserve her chastity, she goes to hell.”

A custom similar to this prevailed among many nations on the continent of America. When a chief died, a certain number of his wives, of his favourites, and of his slaves, were put to death, and interred together with him, that he might appear with the same dignity in his future station, and be waited upon by the same attendants. This persuasion was so deeply rooted, that many of their retainers offered themselves as victims; and the same custom prevails in many of the negro nations in Africa.[7:20:798] If we may rely on the historians of Japan, voluntary death is common in that empire. The devotees of the idol Amida drown themselves in his presence, attended by their relations and friends, and several of the priests, who all consider the devoted person as a saint, who is gone to everlasting happiness. Such being the supposed honours appropriated to a voluntary death, it is not surprising that the Japanese anxiously cherish a contempt of life. Accordingly it is a part of the education of their children “to repeat poems in which the virtues of their ancestors are celebrated, an utter contempt of life is inculcated, and suicide is set up as the most heroic of actions.”

A notion seems also to have prevailed among the ancient Scythian tribes, that it was pusillanimous and ignoble for a man whose strength was wasted with disease or infirmity, so as to be useless to the community, to continue to live. It was reckoned an heroic action voluntarily to seek that death which he had not the good fortune to meet in the field of battle. Perversion of moral feeling does not spring up, we hope, spontaneously in any nation, but is produced by some peculiarities of situation. A wandering people like the Scythians, who roamed about from place to place, might often find it impossible to attend the sick, or to supply from their precarious store the wants of the aged and infirm. The aged and infirm themselves, no longer able to support the character of warriors, would find themselves unhappy. In this way the practice of putting to death such persons as were useless to the community might originate, and afterwards be inculcated as honourable; but he who put an end to his infirmities by his own hand obtained a character still more illustrious.

The tribes of Scandinavia, which worshipped Odin, the “father of slaughter,” were taught, that dying in the field of battle was the most glorious event that could befall them. This was a maxim suited to a warlike nation. In order to establish it more firmly in the mind, all were excluded from Odin’s feast of heroes who died a natural death. In As-gardia stood the hall of Odin, where, seated on a throne, he received the souls of his departed heroes. This place was called Valhalla, signifying “the hall of those who died by violence.” Natural death being thus deemed inglorious, and punished with exclusion from Valhalla, the paradise of Odin, he who could not enjoy death in the field of battle was led to seek it by his own hands when sickness or old age began to assail him. In such a nation suicide must have been very common.

As suicide prevailed much in the decline of the Roman empire, when luxury, licentiousness, profligacy, and false philosophy, pervaded the world, so it continued to prevail even after Christianity was established. The Romans, when they became converts to Christianity, did not renounce their ancient prejudices and false opinions, but blended them with the new religion which they embraced. The Gothic nations, also, who subverted the Roman empire, while they received the Christian religion, adhered to many of their former opinions and manners. Among other criminal practices which were retained by the Romans and their conquerors, that of suicide was one; but the principles from which it proceeded were explained so as to appear more agreeable to the new system which they had espoused. It was committed either to secure from the danger of apostasy, to procure the honour of martyrdom, or to preserve the crown of virginity.

When we descend to modern times, we lament to find so many instances of suicide among the most polished nations, who have the best opportunities of knowing the atrocity of that unnatural crime. The English have long been reproached by foreigners for the frequent commission of it; and the “gloomy month of November” has been stigmatized as the season when it is most common. But this disgraceful imputation, we think, may be justly attributed, not to the greater frequency of the crime in England titan in other countries, but to the custom of publishing in the newspapers every instance of suicide which is known.

It might lead to some interesting conclusions to compare together, not only the number of suicides in different countries, but also the rank and principles, the sex and age, of those unhappy persons by whom it has been committed. Mercier says, that at Paris it was the lower ranks who were most commonly guilty of it; that it was mostly committed in garrets or hired lodgings; and that it proceeded from poverty and oppression. A great many, he says, wrote letters to the magistrates before their death. Mr Moore’s correspondent from Geneva informed him, that from the year 1777 to 1787 more than 100 suicides were committed in Geneva; that two thirds of these unfortunate persons were men; that few of the clerical order have been known to commit it; and that it is not so much the end of an immoral, irreligious, dissipated life, as the effect of melancholy and poverty.^[1. Moore’s Enquiry into the subject of Suicide. Load. 1790, 2 vola. 4to. ]

Humanity would in most cases dispose us to conclude that suicide is the effect of insanity, were there not so many instances of cool deliberate self-murder. That suicide is an unnatural crime, which none but a madman would commit, compassion indeed may suppose; but the murder of a wife, a father, or a child, are also unnatural; yet compassion does not teach us in all cases to ascribe such a crime to madness. Passion may often arise to such a height of outrage as to be scarcely distinguishable from madness in its symptoms and its effects; yet we always make a distinction between that madness which arises from disease and that which is owing to a violent perturbation of mind. If a person be capable of managing his worldly affairs, of making a will, and of disposing of his property, immediately before his death, or after he formed the resolution of dying by his own hands, such a man is not to be considered as insane.

But though a regard for truth prevents us from ascribing suicide in ail cases to insanity, we must ascribe it either to insanity or to vicious passion. These two divisions, we imagine, will comprehend every species of it, whether arising from melancholy, taedium vitae or ennui, disappointment in schemes of ambition or love, pride, gaming, or a desire to avoid the shame of a public execution; passions which are often increased by false views of God, of man, and of a future state, arising from deism and infidelity. If these be the causes of suicide in modern times, what a disgraceful contrast do they form to those principles which actuated many of the ancient philosophers, the Gentoos, the Japanese, and the worshippers of Odin? When they committed suicide, they committed it from principle, from a belief of its lawfulness, and the hope of being rewarded for what they judged an honourable sacrifice. But in modern times, we are sorry to say, when it is not the effect of madness, it is the effect of vice: and when it is the effect of vice, it proves that the vicious passions are then indulged to the highest degree; for there is no crime which a man can commit that is so strong a symptom of the violence of particular passions. It is from not attending to this circumstance that it has been found so difficult to refute the arguments in favour of suicide. If the criminality of suicide be confined merely to the violent action, many apologies may be made for it; but if it be considered solely as the effect of vice, as the strongest symptom of ungoverned passion, he who undertakes its defence must undertake the defence of what all men will loudly condemn.

As suicide was deemed a crime by the most illustrious[7:20:799] and virtuous of the Greek and Roman philosophers, it was considered as a crime by the laws, and treated with ignominy. By the law of Thebes suicides were to have no honours paid to their memory. The Athenian law ordained the hand which committed the deed to be cut off, and burnt apart from the rest of the body. The body was not buried with the usual solemnities, but was ignominiously thrown into some pit. In Cea and Massilia (the ancient Marseille), it was considered as a crime against the state; and it was therefore necessary for those who wished to destroy themselves to obtain permission from the magistrates. Plutarch acquaints us, that an unaccountable passion for suicide seized the Milesian virgins; from indulging which they could not be prevented by the tears and entreaties of parents and friends: but what persuasion and entreaty could not effect was accomplished by very different means. A decree was issued, “that the body of every young woman who hanged herself should be dragged naked through the streets by the same rope with which she had committed the deed.” This wise edict put a complete stop to the extraordinary phrensy, and suicide was no longer committed by the virgins of Miletus.

In the early part of the Roman history there seems to have been seldom occasion for framing any laws against suicide. The only instance recorded occurs in the reign of Tarquinius Priscus. The soldiers who were appointed to make drains and common sewers, thinking themselves disgraced by such servile offices, put themselves to death in great numbers. The king ordered the bodies of all the self-murderers to be exposed on crosses, and this put an effectual stop to the practice. It is doubtful whether there was any standing law against suicide during the existence of the republic; but during the reign of the emperors it was thought proper to lay it under certain regulations, though not absolutely to condemn it its a crime. In Justinian’s Pandects there is a law, by which it was enacted, “that if persons accused, or who had been found guilty, of any crime, should make away with themselves, their effects should be confiscated.” But this punishment only took place when confiscation of goods happened to be the penalty appointed by the law for the crime of which the self-murderer was accused or found guilty, and was not inflicted for suicide committed in any other circumstances.

When the Christian church had extended its jurisdiction in the Roman empire, it was decreed in the sixth century, that no commemoration should be made in the eucharist for such as destroyed themselves; neither should their bodies be carried out to burial with psalms, nor have the usual service said over them. This ecclesiastical law continued till the reformation, when it was admitted into the statute law of England. As an additional punishment, however, confiscation of land and goods seems to have been adopted from the Danes, as we learn from Bracton. l At present the punishment consists in confiscating all the personal property of a felo de se for the use of the crown, and in excluding his body from interment in consecrated ground.