What is the impulse to kill, to hurt, to destroy?
For countless generations the existence of any tribe depended on all the male members of it (at least) hunting habitually. To kill was the primary duty; the penalty for neglecting it was:—starvation for oneself and one's wife and children, as well as more or less of injury to one's tribe.
Try to make a mind-picture of this state of things. One's livelihood depended on being able to kill, and skilful at killing. The man who disliked that business was an object of contempt. He who was slack or indifferent about it was an idler, a fool. All respectability, fame, honour and glory centred round extra cleverness in, and love of, killing creatures.
Just think of it! The man who could see a rabbit or pheasant without trying to kill it took the same rank in the estimation of his neighbours as does now the vagabond loafer who leaves his family to starve or be supported by the parish.
Then there arose quarrels between different tribes of men. The safety of one's wife and children, as well as one's duty to one's tribe, depended on one's being skilful in killing, and willing to kill, men. The man who could see a member of an alien tribe without trying to hurt him was regarded as we now regard the mother who is slack in ridding her children of vermin, or in disinfecting after an invasion of fever-microbes. There were, in those days, neither butchers nor standing army; to kill was the duty of every male, and of many females as well, for countless generations.
And we have to remember that the finer and more perfect the specimen, whether of rival or of prey, the
