Primary Source #4
COWARDICE AND SHELL-SHOCK.FROM THE REPORT OF THE WAR OFFICE COMMITTEE OF ENQUIRY INTO SHELL-SHOCK. 1922 - H M Stationary office; Pages 138-144
Cowardice is a military crime for which the death penalty may be exacted. Some witnesses declined to define it and others did so with reservation.
Cowardice is a military crime for which the death penalty may be exacted. Some witnesses declined to define it and others did so with reservation.
Major Dowson, a barrister of considerable court-martial experience said: "Cowardice is showing signs of fear in the face of the enemy." Such a definition is not helpful to the medical officer who may be called on to decide between cowardice and shell-shock. Cowardice, if regarded as a lack of or failure to show requisite courage, renders discussion more feasible and assists us in comprehending how the brave after much stress may temporarily fail to show their wonted courage without deserving to be called by an opprobrious term. Fear is the chief factor in both cowardice and emotional "shell-shock" and it was for this reason that cowardice in the military sense was made a subject of enquiry by the Committee.
Witnesses were agreed that cowardice should be regarded as a military crime to be punished when necessary by death. Fear is an emotion common to all and evidence was given of very brave men who frankly acknowledged to it. It is obvious then that fear alone does not constitute cowardice.
Colonel Allison remarked that with second lieutenants it was their one fear, that they should show cowardice in front of their men.
Dr. Farquhar Buzzard said: "I quite see that fear passes to cowardice. But fear is really an unconscious thing and has a very definite physical manifestation." And again he remarked -" Cowardice is a voluntary attitude taken up by an individual; he adopts a certain attitude that he will not face a situation in which he believes certain things will take place. That is cowardice, if you like to apply the term, but the fact that my knees shake when I am looking over the side of a building is an absolute physical thing over which I have no control."
Prof. Roussy noted the difficulty of distinguishing between cowardice and emotional shell-shock. " Cowardice is lack of self-control of an individual over himself. In the presence of a situation in which there is an element of danger or in which there is an element likely to cause fear, any man who can control himself is a courageous man, but he who gives way, runs away or does certain other actions not esteemed worthy is defined as a coward."
It may then be accepted that neither feeling fear nor manifesting the physical signs of fear - pallor, shaking, tremors, quick pulse do not of themselves constitute cowardice though they are more or less essential to it. If the individual exercises his self-control in facing the danger he is not guilty of cowardice, if, however, being capable of doing so, he will not face the situation, he is then a coward. It is here that difficulty arises in cases of war neurosis for it becomes necessary to decide whether the individual has or has not crossed that indefinite line which divides normal emotional reaction from neurosis with impairment of volitional control.
Dr. Mapother said: “Frankly, 1 am not prepared to make a decision between cowardice and shell-shock. Cowardice I take to mean action under the influence of fear and the ordinary type of 'shell-shock' was, to my mind, persistent and chronic “fear.”
Dr. Johnson thought that when the symptoms of fear, tremors, sweating, tachycardia persisted or revived on slight emotional stimulation a psycho-neurosis was present.
Having regard to their terms of reference, the Committee have felt it incumbent upon them to make some inquiry into "Shell-Shock" in relation to courts-martial. As regards expert medical evidence and advice in courtmartial cases, the system pursued in France in the late war seems to have been a satisfactory one, namely, that when any medical question or a doubt arose before or at a trial, or on subsequent review of the Proceedings, the best possible expert advice available was placed at the immediate disposal of the military authorities, either in the form of a board or otherwise. We recommend that a similar plan should be followed in future.
The subject of courts-martial held during the war received exhaustive investigation by Mr. Justice Darling's Committee immediately upon its conclusion. The report of that committee is before us, and having regard to its terms, the steps subsequently taken to carry out its recommendations, and the evidence which has been given before us, we anticipate that in any future war justice will be administered in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, if the same or a similar policy if followed.
Our conclusions are:
Witnesses were agreed that cowardice should be regarded as a military crime to be punished when necessary by death. Fear is an emotion common to all and evidence was given of very brave men who frankly acknowledged to it. It is obvious then that fear alone does not constitute cowardice.
Colonel Allison remarked that with second lieutenants it was their one fear, that they should show cowardice in front of their men.
Dr. Farquhar Buzzard said: "I quite see that fear passes to cowardice. But fear is really an unconscious thing and has a very definite physical manifestation." And again he remarked -" Cowardice is a voluntary attitude taken up by an individual; he adopts a certain attitude that he will not face a situation in which he believes certain things will take place. That is cowardice, if you like to apply the term, but the fact that my knees shake when I am looking over the side of a building is an absolute physical thing over which I have no control."
Prof. Roussy noted the difficulty of distinguishing between cowardice and emotional shell-shock. " Cowardice is lack of self-control of an individual over himself. In the presence of a situation in which there is an element of danger or in which there is an element likely to cause fear, any man who can control himself is a courageous man, but he who gives way, runs away or does certain other actions not esteemed worthy is defined as a coward."
It may then be accepted that neither feeling fear nor manifesting the physical signs of fear - pallor, shaking, tremors, quick pulse do not of themselves constitute cowardice though they are more or less essential to it. If the individual exercises his self-control in facing the danger he is not guilty of cowardice, if, however, being capable of doing so, he will not face the situation, he is then a coward. It is here that difficulty arises in cases of war neurosis for it becomes necessary to decide whether the individual has or has not crossed that indefinite line which divides normal emotional reaction from neurosis with impairment of volitional control.
Dr. Mapother said: “Frankly, 1 am not prepared to make a decision between cowardice and shell-shock. Cowardice I take to mean action under the influence of fear and the ordinary type of 'shell-shock' was, to my mind, persistent and chronic “fear.”
Dr. Johnson thought that when the symptoms of fear, tremors, sweating, tachycardia persisted or revived on slight emotional stimulation a psycho-neurosis was present.
Having regard to their terms of reference, the Committee have felt it incumbent upon them to make some inquiry into "Shell-Shock" in relation to courts-martial. As regards expert medical evidence and advice in courtmartial cases, the system pursued in France in the late war seems to have been a satisfactory one, namely, that when any medical question or a doubt arose before or at a trial, or on subsequent review of the Proceedings, the best possible expert advice available was placed at the immediate disposal of the military authorities, either in the form of a board or otherwise. We recommend that a similar plan should be followed in future.
The subject of courts-martial held during the war received exhaustive investigation by Mr. Justice Darling's Committee immediately upon its conclusion. The report of that committee is before us, and having regard to its terms, the steps subsequently taken to carry out its recommendations, and the evidence which has been given before us, we anticipate that in any future war justice will be administered in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, if the same or a similar policy if followed.
Our conclusions are:
- That the military aspect of cowardice is justified.
- That seeming cowardice may be beyond the individual's control.
- That experienced and specialised medical opinion is required to decide in possible cases of war neurosis of doubtful character.
- That a man who has already proved his courage should receive special consideration in case of subsequent lapse.
In this document, titled “Cowardice and Shell-shock,” a number of people involved in the first World War are asked to discern the difference between cowardice and shell-shock. Shell-shock is the equivalent of today’s diagnosable and treatable post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The document begins by stating that cowardice is a crime in the military the may be punishable by death. This belief seemed quite reasonable according to the witnesses’ testimonials. They also agreed that fear is common and understandable and likely out of a soldier’s control. At the time, they at least knew that an experienced medical specialist would be required to determine if a man was shell-shocked. Lastly, it is stated that if a man proves himself to be courageous, this must be remembered if or when he shows fear.
This document was likely created in order to help present and future military personnel and the public understand that shell-shock was separate from cowardice. Despite the fact that doctors and nurses do not understand what is happening to soldiers, they are attempting to understand it. In previous wars, men showing signs of fear and/or reluctance would likely be executed on the spot. This document, though it seems primitive, was at least a step towards understanding that those suffering from shell-shock were not cowards, but that they were humans suffering from something that was beyond their control.
Nonetheless, this document’s creation shows the lack of understanding that people, medical professionals and ordinary people, had regarding mental health at this time. Soldiers were likely ridiculed, mistreated, and even killed because those around them simply didn’t understand that PTSD was a real disease; those who were afflicted were not at fault for their acts of so-called cowardice. Shell-shock was not only a mystery to the public, but also to medical professionals. In Mrs. Dalloway, even Dr. Holmes and Dr. Bradshaw, who are supposed to be treating Septimus, have no idea what is wrong. An interesting aspect addressed in the document is that courageous men can not be blamed for lapses in character. According to Lucrezia, Septimus had been very different before the war. But, of course, he can not be blamed for his acting different -- for his lapses in character.
Virginia Woolf, who is believed to have suffered from depression and other psychological issues, was clearly trying to express and understand the struggles she faces through Septimus’ character. She could not have known what modern medical professionals know about PTSD, but she seems to have some insight into what its sufferers and their family members went through. It is interesting and disturbing that one of Woolf’s characters commits suicide and then she herself, does the same later in her life. Perhaps writing was not only her attempt to understand her inward emotions, but also her outlet for them.
This document was likely created in order to help present and future military personnel and the public understand that shell-shock was separate from cowardice. Despite the fact that doctors and nurses do not understand what is happening to soldiers, they are attempting to understand it. In previous wars, men showing signs of fear and/or reluctance would likely be executed on the spot. This document, though it seems primitive, was at least a step towards understanding that those suffering from shell-shock were not cowards, but that they were humans suffering from something that was beyond their control.
Nonetheless, this document’s creation shows the lack of understanding that people, medical professionals and ordinary people, had regarding mental health at this time. Soldiers were likely ridiculed, mistreated, and even killed because those around them simply didn’t understand that PTSD was a real disease; those who were afflicted were not at fault for their acts of so-called cowardice. Shell-shock was not only a mystery to the public, but also to medical professionals. In Mrs. Dalloway, even Dr. Holmes and Dr. Bradshaw, who are supposed to be treating Septimus, have no idea what is wrong. An interesting aspect addressed in the document is that courageous men can not be blamed for lapses in character. According to Lucrezia, Septimus had been very different before the war. But, of course, he can not be blamed for his acting different -- for his lapses in character.
Virginia Woolf, who is believed to have suffered from depression and other psychological issues, was clearly trying to express and understand the struggles she faces through Septimus’ character. She could not have known what modern medical professionals know about PTSD, but she seems to have some insight into what its sufferers and their family members went through. It is interesting and disturbing that one of Woolf’s characters commits suicide and then she herself, does the same later in her life. Perhaps writing was not only her attempt to understand her inward emotions, but also her outlet for them.
Primary Source #5
This article, titled, “An Artist Vanishes,” is Virginia Woolf’s obituary from TIME magazine. It was published on April 14, 1941, several weeks after she went missing on March 28 of that year. The notes she left her husband and sister led them to believe she was dead. Later, Woolf’s body was found at the bottom of a lake; she had filled her pockets with rocks and drown herself. Mr. Woolf explicitly told the press he believed his wife to be deceased. Her family agreed she must have committed suicide, which means they had suspected for some time that she would take her own life. The destruction resulting from World War II seemed to have a profound negative effect of Woolf’s mental state. She had already expressed harsh criticisms of her own work, namely Between the Acts, even when other people believed it to be genius. Previously, she had felt so terrible a towards her own writings that Woolf went through mental breakdowns. She was deeply disturbed and those around her were unable to help. The article went on to talk of three of Woolf’s successful novels and her writing style, particularly the mood she evoked with it. At the end, Woolf was compared to two of her characters: Clarissa Dalloway, who had felt unhappy after World War I, and Septimus Smith, who commits suicide as a result of post traumatic stress disorder, at this time known as “shell-shock.”
The author was writing about a British, female novelist for an American audience. He or she had to dramatize a serious and tragic obituary. It’s disturbing to read someone turn the suicide of a talented woman into a ghastly scandal. The article begins as though it’s a thrilling novel. The audience, just as they would today, would read this article, briefly feel some semblance of sadness, then move on with their daily lives. Perhaps because it was old news at that time of publication or because she was not an American celebrity, the article was very short; it gives the sense that whoever wrote this didn’t really care about Virginia Woolf, but rather they intended to write a compelling story that would sell copies. |
Virginia Woolf’s TIME obituary, though written emotionlessly, provides an interesting insight to the troubled writer’s life. Clearly, she suffered from depression and may have also lived with other psychological issues. Treatment for mental illness was virtually nonexistent at this time, and the people she was close to would have had no idea how to help her. However, it seems that she found an outlet for these feelings: writing. Woolf was able to express inner negativity through the worlds and characters she created. In Clarissa Dalloway, she showed her own distress and turmoil after the end of a major war. Woolf may have also sought to understand these feelings by developing these fictional people. For example, Septimus Smith is also suicidal, but he has an evident cause of his depression; he’s a veteran suffering from shell-shock. Woolf has no way of truly understanding her dark mental state, which may be a large reason as to why she began writing and eventually ended her own life.