Engineering Secure Software and Systems 6Th International Symposium Essos 2014 Munich Germany February 26 28 2014 Proceedings 1St Edition Jan Jürjens
Engineering Secure Software and Systems 6Th International Symposium Essos 2014 Munich Germany February 26 28 2014 Proceedings 1St Edition Jan Jürjens
Engineering Secure Software and Systems 6Th International Symposium Essos 2014 Munich Germany February 26 28 2014 Proceedings 1St Edition Jan Jürjens
https://textbookfull.com/product/search-based-software-
engineering-6th-international-symposium-ssbse-2014-fortaleza-
brazil-august-26-29-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-claire-le-goues/
https://textbookfull.com/product/architecture-of-computing-
systems-arcs-2014-27th-international-conference-lubeck-germany-
february-25-28-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-erik-maehle/
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-secure-software-and-
systems-7th-international-symposium-essos-2015-milan-italy-
march-4-6-2015-proceedings-1st-edition-frank-piessens/
Engineering Secure Software and Systems 8th
International Symposium ESSoS 2016 London UK April 6 8
2016 Proceedings 1st Edition Juan Caballero
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-secure-software-and-
systems-8th-international-symposium-essos-2016-london-uk-
april-6-8-2016-proceedings-1st-edition-juan-caballero/
https://textbookfull.com/product/supercomputing-29th-
international-conference-isc-2014-leipzig-germany-
june-22-26-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-julian-martin-kunkel/
https://textbookfull.com/product/information-technology-in-bio-
and-medical-informatics-5th-international-conference-
itbam-2014-munich-germany-september-2-2014-proceedings-1st-
edition-miroslav-bursa/
https://textbookfull.com/product/bioinformatics-research-and-
applications-10th-international-symposium-isbra-2014-zhangjiajie-
china-june-28-30-2014-proceedings-1st-edition-mitra-basu/
Jan Jürjens
Frank Piessens
Nataliia Bielova (Eds.)
Engineering
LNCS 8364
Secure Software
and Systems
6th International Symposium, ESSoS 2014
Munich, Germany, February 26-28, 2014
Proceedings
123
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 8364
Commenced Publication in 1973
Founding and Former Series Editors:
Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen
Editorial Board
David Hutchison
Lancaster University, UK
Takeo Kanade
Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Josef Kittler
University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
Jon M. Kleinberg
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Alfred Kobsa
University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
Friedemann Mattern
ETH Zurich, Switzerland
John C. Mitchell
Stanford University, CA, USA
Moni Naor
Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel
Oscar Nierstrasz
University of Bern, Switzerland
C. Pandu Rangan
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India
Bernhard Steffen
TU Dortmund University, Germany
Madhu Sudan
Microsoft Research, Cambridge, MA, USA
Demetri Terzopoulos
University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Doug Tygar
University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Gerhard Weikum
Max Planck Institute for Informatics, Saarbruecken, Germany
Jan Jürjens Frank Piessens
Nataliia Bielova (Eds.)
Engineering
Secure Software
and Systems
6th International Symposium, ESSoS 2014
Munich, Germany, February 26-28, 2014
Proceedings
13
Volume Editors
Jan Jürjens
Technical University Dortmund
Department of Computer Science
Dortmund, Germany
E-mail: [email protected]
Frank Piessens
KU Leuven
Department of Computer Science
Heverlee, Belgium
E-mail: [email protected]
Nataliia Bielova
Inria Sophia Antipolis – Mediterranee
Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
E-mail: [email protected]
the Organizing Committee for their tremendous work and for excelling in their
respective tasks. The DistriNet research group of the KU Leuven did an excel-
lent job with the website and the advertising for the conference. Finally, we owe
gratitude to ACM SIGSAC/SIGSOFT, IEEE TCSP, and LNCS for continuing
to support us in this series of symposia.
General Chair
Alexander Pretschner Technische Universität München, Germany
Program Co-chairs
Jan Jürjens TU Dortmund and Fraunhofer ISST, Germany
Frank Piessens Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Publication Chair
Nataliia Bielova Inria Sophia Antipolis, France
Publicity Chair
Pieter Philippaerts Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Web Chair
Ghita Saevels Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Steering Committee
Jorge Cuellar Siemens AG, Germany
Wouter Joosen Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Fabio Massacci Universitá di Trento, Italy
Gary McGraw Cigital, USA
Bashar Nuseibeh The Open University, UK
Daniel Wallach Rice University, USA
VIII Conference Organization
Program Committee
Ruth Breu University of Innsbruck, Austria
Lorenzo Cavallaro Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
Anupam Datta Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Werner Dietl University of Washington, USA
François Dupressoir IMDEA, Spain
Eduardo Fernandez Florida Atlantic University, USA
Eduardo Fernandez-Medina
Paton Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, Spain
Cormac Flanagan U.C. Santa Cruz, USA
Dieter Gollmann TU Hamburg-Harburg, Germany
Arjun Guha Cornell University, USA
Christian Hammer Saarland University, Germany
Hannes Hartenstein Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, Germany
Maritta Heisel University of Duisburg Essen, Germany
Peter Herrmann NTNU, Trondheim, Norway
Valerie Issarny Inria, France
Limin Jia Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Martin Johns SAP Research, Germany
Jay Ligatti University of South Florida, USA
Heiko Mantel TU Darmstadt, Germany
Haris Mouratidis University of East London, UK
Martı́n Ochoa Siemens AG, Germany
Jae Park University of Texas at San Antonio, USA
Erik Poll RU Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Wolfgang Reif University of Augsburg, Germany
Riccardo Scandariato Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Ketil Stølen SINTEF, Norway
Steve Zdancewic University of Pennsylvania, USA
Mohammad Zulkernine Queens University, Canada
Additional Reviewers
Azadeh Alebrahim Kuzman Katkalov David Pfaff
Kristian Beckers Basel Katt Fredrik Seehusen
Abhishek Bichhawat Johannes Leupolz Christian Sillaber
Marian Borek Yan Li Bjørnar Solhaug
Michael Brunner Steffen Lortz Barbara Sprick
Gencer Erdogan Rene Meis Kurt Stenzel
Stephan Faßbender Jan Tobias Muehlberg Lianshan Sun
Matthias Gander Sebastian Pape Marie Walter
Jinwei Hu Davide Papini Philipp Zech
Conference Organization IX
Sponsoring Institutions
Ross Anderson
University of Cambridge, UK
Adrian Perrig
Stephan Micklitz
Model-Based Security
Detecting Code Reuse Attacks with a Model of Conformant Program
Execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Emily R. Jacobson, Andrew R. Bernat, William R. Williams, and
Barton P. Miller
Formal Methods
Automated Formal Verification of Application-Specific Security
Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Piergiuseppe Bettassa Copet and Riccardo Sisto
Fault-Tolerant Non-interference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Filippo Del Tedesco, Alejandro Russo, and David Sands
Quantitative Security Analysis for Programs with Low Input and Noisy
Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Tri Minh Ngo and Marieke Huisman
Applications
User-Centric Security Assessment of Software Configurations: A Case
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
Hamza Ghani, Jesus Luna Garcia, Ivaylo Petkov, and Neeraj Suri
1 Introduction
Code reuse attacks are an increasingly popular technique for circumventing tra-
ditional program protection mechanisms such as W ⊕ X (e.g., Data Execution
Prevention (DEP)), and the security community has proposed a wide range of
approaches to protect against these attacks. However, many of these approaches
provide ad hoc solutions, relying on observed attack characteristics that are not
intrinsic to the class of attacks. In the continuing arms race against code reuse
attacks, we must construct defenses using a more systematic approach: good
engineering practices must combine with the best security techniques.
Any such approach must be engineered to cover the complete spectrum of
attack surfaces. While more general defensive techniques, such as Control Flow
J. Jürjens, F. Piessens, and N. Bielova (Eds.): ESSoS 2014, LNCS 8364, pp. 1–18, 2014.
c Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014
Detecting Code Reuse Attacks 13
5 Evaluation
ROPStop provides protection against code reuse attacks while identifying no
false positives. We verified these characteristics with the following experiments.
First, we tested ROPStop against code reuse attacks, as well as a conventional
stack smashing attack, and show that ROPStop detects each of these attacks.
Second, we tested ROPStop against a set of conventional binaries, and show that
ROPStop results in no false positives while imposing overhead of only 5.3% on
SPEC benchmarks and 6.3% on an Apache HTTP Server.
All evaluation was conducted on a 2.27GHz quad-core Intel Xeon with 6GB
RAM, running RHEL Server 6.3 (kernel 2.6.32). All exploits were run inside
VirtualBox 4.2.0 virtual machines, running Debian 5.0.10 (2.6.32) or Ubuntu
10.04 (2.6.26); see Table 1. SPEC and Apache were run directly on the host.
Table 1. Details about each exploit and results for ROPStop’s detection of the attack.
All attacks were detected because of invalid stack frame heights; the exploit character-
istic that lead to the observed invalid program state is also provided.
20 %
10 %
0%
perlbench
libquantum
hmmer
omnetpp
bzip2
zeusmp
leslie3d
sphinx3
mcf
cactusADM
sjeng
milc
gromacs
namd
gobmk
soplex
h264ref
lbm
gamess
povray
gemsFDTD
tonto
wrf
bwaves
astar
mean
Fig. 2. Overhead results for SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks under ROPStop; mean rep-
resents the geometric mean of all overhead values. We omit four benchmarks, gcc,
calculix, dealII, xalancbmk; we were unable to successfully run these unmonitored.
Table 2. Full results for SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks under ROPStop. The system call
rate is reported as system calls per second based on unmonitored runtimes; components
of overhead are reported as percentages of total overhead imposed (summing to 100%).
Overhead Breakdown
Benchmark System Call Rate % Overhead % Instruction % Callstack % Context
(calls/second) Imposed Validity Validity Switching
perlbench 167.8 9.6 0.2 50.7 49.1
bzip2 2.0 0.8 0.0 43.8 56.2
bwaves 3.3 1.4 0.0 31.7 68.2
gamess 29.5 2.4 0.1 59.0 40.9
mcf 3.4 1.9 0.0 51.4 48.5
milc 25.5 5.7 0.1 23.5 76.4
zeusmp 0.2 0.7 0.0 54.2 45.7
gromacs 1.5 0.6 0.0 45.1 54.9
cactusADM 7.6 1.0 0.1 52.0 47.9
leslie3d 31.4 9.2 0.1 14.2 85.7
namd 3.1 0.9 0.0 61.6 38.4
gobmk 14.0 2.2 0.1 43.6 56.4
soplex 241.5 18.1 0.2 50.8 49.1
povray 156.2 18.1 0.1 53.3 46.6
hmmer 18.6 2.6 0.1 38.8 61.1
sjeng 4.8 1.3 0.0 40.5 59.5
GemsFDTD 88.7 7.3 0.2 40.9 59.0
libquantum 0.3 0.7 0.0 50.2 49.8
h264ref 5.1 1.3 0.0 28.9 71.0
tonto 119.6 19.1 0.1 41.2 58.7
lbm 1.4 3.4 0.0 15.5 84.5
omnetpp 3.7 8.8 0.0 12.7 87.3
astar 7.2 1.3 0.1 56.7 43.3
wrf 53.2 15.7 0.0 13.4 86.6
sphinx3 18.6 2.4 0.1 38.1 61.8
Language: English
Living in History
When Mr. Bagehot spoke his luminous words about “a fatigued
way of looking at great subjects,” he gave us the key to a mental
attitude which perhaps is not the modern thing it seems. There were,
no doubt, Greeks and Romans in plenty to whom the “glory” and the
“grandeur” of Greece and Rome were less exhilarating than they
were to Edgar Poe,—Greeks and Romans who were spiritually
palsied by the great emotions which presumably accompany great
events. They may have been philosophers, or humanitarians, or
academists. They may have been conscientious objectors, or
conscienceless shirkers, or perhaps plain men and women with a
natural gift of indecision, a natural taste for compromise and awaiting
developments. In the absence of newspapers and pamphlets, these
peaceful pagans were compelled to express their sense of fatigue to
their neighbours at the games or in the market-place; and their
neighbours—if well chosen—sighed with them over the intensity of
life, the formidable happenings of history.
Since August, 1914, the turmoil and anguish incidental to the
world’s greatest war have accentuated every human type,—heroic,
base, keen, and evasive. The strain of five years’ fighting was borne
with astounding fortitude, and Allied statesmen and publicists saw to
it that the clear outline of events should not be blurred by ignorance
or misrepresentation. If history in the making be a fluid thing, it swiftly
crystallizes. Men, “living between two eternities, and warring against
oblivion,” make their indelible record on its pages; and other men
receive these pages as their best inheritance, their avenue to
understanding, their key to life.
Therefore it is unwise to gibe at history because we do not chance
to know it. It pleases us to gibe at anything we do not know, but the
process is not enlightening. In the second year of the war, the
English “Nation” commented approvingly on the words of an English
novelist who strove to make clear that the only things which count for
any of us, individually or collectively, are the unrecorded minutiæ of
our lives. “History,” said this purveyor of fiction, “is concerned with
the rather absurd and theatrical doings of a few people, which, after
all, have never altered the fact that we do all of us live on from day to
day, and only want to be let alone.”
“These words,” observed the “Nation” heavily, “have a singular
truth and force at the present time. The people of Europe want to go
on living, not to be destroyed. To live is to pursue the activities
proper to one’s nature, to be unhindered and unthwarted in their
exercise. It is not too much to say that the life of Europe is something
which has persisted in spite of the history of Europe. There is
nothing happy or fruitful anywhere but witnesses to the triumph of life
over history.”
Presuming that we are able to disentangle life from history, to
sever the inseverable, is this a true statement, or merely the
expression of mental and spiritual fatigue? Were the great historic
episodes invariably fruitless, and had they no bearing upon the lives
of ordinary men and women? The battles of Marathon and
Thermopylæ, the signing of the Magna Charta, the Triple Alliance,
the Declaration of Independence, the birth of the National Assembly,
the first Reform Bill, the recognition in Turin of the United Kingdom of
Italy,—these things may have been theatrical, inasmuch as they
were certainly dramatic, but absurd is not a wise word to apply to
them. Neither is it possible to believe that the life of Europe went on
in spite of these historic incidents, triumphing over them as over so
many obstacles to activity.
When the “Nation” contrasts the beneficent companies of strolling
players who “represented and interpreted the world of life, the one
thing which matters and remains,” with the companies of soldiers
who merely destroyed life at its roots, we cannot but feel that this
editorial point of view has its limitations. The strolling players of
Elizabeth’s day afforded many a merry hour; but Elizabeth’s soldiers
and sailors did their part in making possible this mirth. The strolling
players who came to the old Southwark Theatre in Philadelphia
interpreted “the world of life,” as they understood it; but the soldiers
who froze at Valley Forge offered a different interpretation, and one
which had considerably more stamina. The magnifying of small
things, the belittling of great ones, indicate a mental exhaustion
which would be more pardonable if it were less complacent. There
are always men and women who prefer the triumph of evil, which is
a thing they can forget, to prolonged resistance, which shatters their
nerves. But the desire to escape an obligation, while very human, is
not generally thought to be humanity’s noblest lesson.
Many smart things have been written to discredit history. Mr.
Arnold called it “the vast Mississippi of falsehood,” which was easily
said, and has been said in a number of ways since the days of
Herodotus, who amply illustrated the splendours of unreality. Mr.
Edward Fitzgerald was wont to sigh that only lying histories are
readable, and this point of view has many secret adherents. Mr.
Henry Adams, who taught history for seven years at Harvard, and
who built his intellectual dwelling-place upon its firm foundations,
pronounced it to be “in essence incoherent and immoral.”
Nevertheless, all that we know of man’s unending efforts to adjust
and readjust himself to the world about him we learn from history,
and the tale is an enlightening one. “Events are wonderful things,”
said Lord Beaconsfield. Nothing, for example, can blot out, or
obscure, the event of the French Revolution. We are free to discuss
it until the end of time; but we can never alter it, and never get away
from its consequences.
The lively contempt for history expressed by readers who would
escape its weight, and the neglect of history practised by educators
who would escape its authority, stand responsible for much mental
confusion. American boys and girls go to school six, eight, or ten
years, as the case may be, and emerge with a misunderstanding of
their own country, and a comprehensive ignorance of all others.
They say, “I don’t know any history,” as casually and as
unconcernedly as they might say, “I don’t know any chemistry,” or “I
don’t know metaphysics.” A smiling young freshman in the most
scholarly of women’s colleges told me that she had been conditioned
because she knew nothing about the Reformation.
“You mean,—” I began questioningly.
“I mean just what I say,” she interrupted. “I didn’t know what it was,
or where it was, or who had anything to do with it.”
I said I didn’t wonder she had come to grief. The Reformation was
something of an episode. And I asked myself wistfully how it
happened she had ever managed to escape it. When I was a little
schoolgirl, a pious Roman Catholic child with a distaste for polemics,
it seemed to me I was never done studying about the Reformation. If
I escaped briefly from Wycliffe and Cranmer and Knox, it was only to
be met by Luther and Calvin and Huss. Everywhere the great
struggle confronted me, everywhere I was brought face to face with
the inexorable logic of events. That more advanced and more
intelligent students find pleasure in every phase of ecclesiastical
strife is proved by Lord Broughton’s pleasant story about a member
of Parliament named Joliffe, who was sitting in his club, reading
Hume’s “History of England,” a book which well deserves to be
called dry. Charles Fox, glancing over his shoulder, observed, “I see
you have come to the imprisonment of the seven bishops”;
whereupon Joliffe, like a man engrossed in a thrilling detective story,
cried desperately, “For God’s sake, Fox, don’t tell me what is
coming!”
This was reading for human delight, for the interest and agitation
which are inseparable from every human document. Mr. Henry
James once told me that the only reading of which he never tired
was history. “The least significant footnote of history,” he said, “stirs
me more than the most thrilling and passionate fiction. Nothing that
has ever happened to the world finds me indifferent.” I used to think
that ignorance of history meant only a lack of cultivation and a loss of
pleasure. Now I am sure that such ignorance impairs our judgment
by impairing our understanding, by depriving us of standards, of the
power to contrast, and the right to estimate. We can know nothing of
any nation unless we know its history; and we can know nothing of
the history of any nation unless we know something of the history of
all nations. The book of the world is full of knowledge we need to
acquire, of lessons we need to learn, of wisdom we need to
assimilate. Consider only this brief sentence of Polybius, quoted by
Plutarch: “In Carthage no one is blamed, however he may have
gained his wealth.” A pleasant place, no doubt, for business
enterprise; a place where young men were taught how to get on, and
extravagance kept pace with shrewd finance. A self-satisfied, self-
confident, money-getting, money-loving people, honouring success,
and hugging their fancied security, while in far-off Rome Cato
pronounced their doom.
There are readers who can tolerate and even enjoy history,
provided it is shorn of its high lights and heavy shadows, its heroic
elements and strong impelling motives. They turn with relief to such
calm commentators as Sir John Seeley, for years professor of
modern history at Cambridge, who shrank as sensitively as an
eighteenth-century divine from that fell word “enthusiasm,” and from
all the agitation it gathers in its wake. He was a firm upholder of the
British Empire, hating compromise and guiltless of pacifism; but,
having a natural gift for aridity, he saw no reason why the world
should not be content to know things without feeling them, should
not keep its eyes turned to legal institutions, its mind fixed upon
political economy and international law. The force that lay back of
Parliament annoyed him by the simple primitive way in which it beat
drums, fired guns, and died to uphold the institutions which he
prized; also because by doing these things it evoked in others
certain simple and primitive sensations which he strove always to
keep at bay. “We are rather disposed to laugh,” he said, “when poets
and orators try to conjure us with the name of England.” Had he lived
a few years longer, he would have known that England’s salvation
lies in the fact that her name is, to her sons, a thing to conjure by.
We may not wisely ignore the value of emotions, nor underestimate
the power of the human impulses which charge the souls of men.
The long years of neutrality engendered in the minds of Americans
a natural but ignoble weariness. The war was not our war, yet there
was no escaping from it. By day and night it haunted us, a ghost that
would not be laid. Over and over again we were told that it was not
possible to place the burden of blame on any nation’s shoulders.
Once at least we were told that the causes and objects of the
contest, the obscure fountains from which had burst this stupendous
and desolating flood, were no concern of ours. But this proffered
release from serious thinking brought us scant peace of mind. Every
honest man and woman knew that we had no intellectual right to be
ignorant when information lay at our hand, and no spiritual right to be
unconcerned when great moral issues were at stake. We could not
in either case evade the duty we owed to reason. The Vatican
Library would not hold the books that have been written about the
war; but the famous five-foot shelf would be too roomy for the
evidence in the case, the documents which are the foundation of
knowledge. They, at least, are neither too profuse for our patience,
nor too complex for our understanding. “The inquiry into the truth or
falsehood of a matter of history,” said Huxley, “is just as much an
affair of pure science as is the inquiry into the truth or falsehood of a
matter of geology; and the value of the evidence in the two cases
must be tested in the same way.”
The resentment of American pacifists, who, being more human
than they thought themselves, were no better able than the rest of us
to forget the state of Europe, found expression in petulant
complaints. They kept reminding us at inopportune moments that
war is not the important and heroic thing it is assumed to be. They
asked that, if it is to figure in history at all (which seems, on the
whole, inevitable), the truth should be told, and its brutalities, as well
as its heroisms, exposed. They professed a languid amusement at
the “rainbow of official documents” which proved every nation in the
right. They inveighed bitterly against the “false patriotism” taught by
American schoolbooks, with their absurd emphasis on the
“embattled farmers” of the Revolution, and the volunteers of the Civil
War. They assured us, in and out of season, that a doctor who came
to his death looking after poor patients in an epidemic was as much
of a hero as any soldier whose grave is yearly decorated with
flowers.
All this was the clearest possible exposition of the lassitude
induced in faint-hearted men by the pressure of great events. It was
the wail of people who wanted, as the “Nation” feelingly expressed it,
to be let alone, and who could not shut themselves away from the
world’s great tragedy. None of us are prepared to say that a doctor
and a nurse who perform their perilous duties in an epidemic are not
as heroic as a doctor and a nurse who perform their perilous duties
in war. There is glory enough to go around. Only he that loveth his
life shall lose it. But to put a flower on a soldier’s grave is a not too
exuberant recognition of his service, for he, too, in his humble way
made the great sacrifice.
As for the brutalities of war, who can charge that history smooths
them over? Certain horrors may be withheld from children, whose
privilege it is to be spared the knowledge of uttermost depravity; but
to the adult no such mercy is shown. Motley, for example, describes
cruelties committed three hundred and fifty years ago in the
Netherlands, which equal, if they do not surpass, the cruelties
committed six years ago in Belgium. Men heard such tales more
calmly then than now, and seldom sought the coward’s refuge—
incredulity. The Dutch, like other nations, did better things than fight.
They painted glorious pictures, they bred great statesmen and good
doctors. They traded with extraordinary success. They raised the
most beautiful tulips in the world. But to do these things peacefully
and efficiently, they had been compelled to struggle for their national
existence. The East India trade and the freedom of the seas did not
drop into their laps. And because their security, and the comeliness
of life which they so highly prized, had been bought by stubborn
resistance to tyranny, they added to material well-being the “luxury of
self-respect.”
To overestimate the part played by war in a nation’s development
is as crude as to ignore its alternate menace and support. It is with
the help of history that we balance our mental accounts. Voltaire was
disposed to think that battles and treaties were matters of small
moment; and Mr. John Richard Green pleaded, not unreasonably,
that more space should be given in our chronicles to the missionary,
the poet, the painter, the merchant, and the philosopher. They are
not, and they never have been, excluded from any narrative
comprehensive enough to admit them; but the scope of their
authority is not always sufficiently defined. Man, as the
representative of his age, and the events in which he plays his
vigorous part,—these are the warp and woof of history. We can no
more leave John Wesley or Ignatius Loyola out of the canvas than
we can leave out Marlborough or Pitt. We know now that the
philosophy of Nietzsche is one with Bernhardi’s militarism.
As for the merchant,—Froissart was as well aware of his prestige
as was Mr. Green. “Trade, my lord,” said Dinde Desponde, the great
Lombard banker, to the Duke of Burgundy, “finds its way
everywhere, and rules the world.” As for commercial honour,—a
thing as fine as the honour of the aristocrat or of the soldier,—what
can be better for England than to know that after the great fire of
1666 not a single London shopkeeper evaded his liabilities; and that
this fact was long the boast of a city proud of its shopkeeping? As for
jurisprudence,—Sully was infinitely more concerned with it than he
was with combat or controversy. It is with stern satisfaction that he
recounts the statutes passed in his day for the punishment of
fraudulent bankrupts, whom we treat so leniently; for the annulment
of their gifts and assignments, which we guard so zealously; and for
the conviction of those to whom such property had been assigned. It
was almost as dangerous to steal on a large scale as on a small one
under the levelling laws of Henry of Navarre.
In this vast and varied chronicle, war plays its appointed part. “We
cannot,” says Walter Savage Landor, “push valiant men out of
history.” We cannot escape from the truths interpreted, and the
conditions established by their valour. What has been slightingly
called the “drum-and-trumpet narrative” holds its own with the
records of art and science. “It cost Europe a thousand years of
barbarism,” said Macaulay, “to escape the fate of China.”
The endless endeavour of states to control their own destinies, the
ebb and flow of the sea of combat, the “recurrent liturgy of war,”
enabled the old historians to perceive with amazing distinctness the
traits of nations, etched as sharply then as now on the imperishable
pages of history. We read Froissart for human delight rather than for
solid information; yet Froissart’s observations—the observations of a
keen-eyed student of the world—are worth recording five hundred
years after he set them down.
“In England,” he says, “strangers are well received”; yet are the
English “affable to no other nation than their own.” Ireland, he holds
to have had “too many kings”; and the Scotch, like the English, “are
excellent men-at-arms, nor is there any check to their courage as
long as their weapons endure.” France is the pride of his heart, as it
is the pride of the world’s heart to-day. “In France also is found good
chivalry, strong of spirit, and in great abundance; for the kingdom of
France has never been brought so low as to lack men ready for the
combat.” Even Germany does not escape his regard. “The Germans
are a people without pity and without honour.” And again: “The
Germans are a rude, unmannered race, but active and expert where
their own personal advantage is concerned.” If history be “philosophy
teaching by example,” we are wise to admit the old historians into
our counsels.
To withhold from a child some knowledge—apportioned to his
understanding—of the world’s sorrows and wrongs is to cheat him of
his kinship with humanity. We would not, if we could, bruise his soul
as our souls are bruised; but we would save him from a callous
content which is alien to his immaturity. The little American, like the
little Austrian and the little Serb, is a son of the sorrowing earth. His
security—of which no man can forecast the future—is a legacy
bequeathed him by predecessors who bought it with sweat and with
blood; and with sweat and with blood his descendants may be called
on to guard it. Alone among educators, Mr. G. Stanley Hall finds
neutrality, a “high and ideal neutrality,” to be an attribute of youth. He
was so gratified by this discovery during the years of the war, so sure
that American boys and girls followed “impartially” the great struggle
in Europe, and that this judicial attitude would, in the years to come,
enable them to pronounce “the true verdict of history,” that he
“thrilled and tingled” with patriotic—if premature—pride.
“The true verdict of history” will be pronounced according to the
documentary evidence in the case. There is no need to vex our souls
over the possible extinction of this evidence, for closer observers
than our impartial young Americans are placing it permanently on
record. But I doubt if the equanimity which escapes the ordeal of
partisanship is to be found in the mind of youth, or in the heart of a
child. Can we not remember a time when the Wars of the Roses
were not—to us—a matter for neutrality? Our little school histories,
those vivacious, anecdotal histories, banished long ago by rigorous
educators, were in some measure responsible for our Lancastrian
fervour. They fed it with stories of high courage and the sorrows of
princes. We wasted our sympathies on “a mere struggle for power”;
but Hume’s laconic verdict is not, and never can be, the measure of
a child’s solicitude. The lost cause fills him with pity, the cause which
is saved by man’s heroic sacrifice fires him to generous applause.
The round world and the tale of those who have lived upon it are his
legitimate inheritance.
Mr. Bagehot said, and said wisely after his wont, that if you catch
an intelligent, uneducated man of thirty, and tell him about the battle
of Marathon, he will calculate the chances, and estimate the results;
but he will not really care. You cannot make the word “Marathon”
sound in his ears as it sounded in the ears of Byron, to whom it had
been sacred in boyhood. You cannot make the word “freedom”
sound in untutored ears as it sounds in the ears of men who have
counted the cost by which it has been preserved through the
centuries. Unless children are permitted to know the utmost peril
which has threatened, and which threatens, the freedom of nations,
how can they conceive of its value? And what is the worth of
teaching which does not rate the gift of freedom above all earthly
benefactions? How can justice live save by the will of freemen? Of
what avail are civic virtues that are not the virtues of the free?
Pericles bade the Athenians to bear reverently in mind the Greeks
who had died for Greece. “Make these men your examples, and be
well assured that happiness comes by freedom, and freedom by
stoutness of heart.” Perhaps if American boys bear reverently in
mind the men who died for America, it will help them too to be stout
of heart, and “worthy patriots, dear to God.”
In the remote years of my childhood, the study of current events,
that most interesting and valuable form of tuition, which,
nevertheless, is unintelligible without some knowledge of the past,
was left out of our limited curriculum. We seldom read the
newspapers (which I remember as of an appalling dulness), and we
knew little of what was happening in our day. But we did study
history, and we knew something of what had happened in other days
than ours; we knew and deeply cared. Therefore we reacted with fair
intelligence and no lack of fervour when circumstances were forced
upon our vision. It was not possible for a child who had lived in spirit
with Saint Genevieve to be indifferent to the siege of Paris in 1870. It
is not possible for a child who has lived in spirit with Jeanne d’Arc to
be indifferent to the destruction of Rheims Cathedral in 1914. If we
were often left in ignorance, we were never despoiled of childhood’s
generous ardour. Nobody told us that “courage is a sublime form of
hypocrisy.” Nobody fed our young minds on stale paradoxes, or
taught us to discount the foolish impulsiveness of adults. Our
parents, as Mr. Henry James rejoicingly observes, “had no desire to
see us inoculated with importunate virtues.” The Honourable
Bertrand Russell had not then proposed that all teaching of history
shall be submitted to an “international commission,” “which shall
produce neutral text-books, free from patriotic bias.” There was
something profoundly fearless in our approach to life, in the
exposure of our unarmoured souls to the assaults of enthusiasms
and regrets.
The cynic who is impatient of primitive emotions, the sentimentalist
whose sympathy is confined exclusively to his country’s enemies,
grow more shrill-voiced as the exhaustion of Europe becomes
increasingly apparent. They were always to be heard by those who
paused amid the thunderings of war to listen to them; but their words
were lost in the whirlwind. It was possible for a writer in the “Survey”
to allude brutally in the spring of 1916 to the “cockpit of Verdun.” It
was possible for Mr. Russell to turn from the contemplation of Ypres,
and say: “The war is trivial for all its vastness. No great human
purpose is involved on either side, no great principle is at stake.” If
the spiritual fatigue of the looker-on had found an echo in the souls
of those who were bearing the burden and heat of the day, the world
would have sunk to destruction. “The moral triumph of Belgium,” said
Cardinal Mercier, when his country had been conquered and
despoiled, “is an ever memorable fact for history and civilization.”
Who shall be the spokesman of the future?
In the last melancholy pages of that able and melancholy book,
“The Economic Consequences of the Peace,” Mr. Keynes describes
the apathy of victorious England, too spent to savour victory. “Our
power of feeling or caring beyond the immediate questions of our
own material well-being is temporarily eclipsed. We have been
moved already beyond endurance, and need rest. Never, in the
lifetime of men now living, has the universal element in the soul of
man burnt so dimly.”
Never perhaps in the centuries, for when in the centuries has that
element been so ruthlessly consumed? England is like a swimmer
who has carried the lifeline to shore, battling amid the breakers,
tossed high on their crests, hurled into their green depths, pounded,
battered, blinded, until he lies, a broken thing, on the shore. The
crew is safe, but until the breath comes back to his labouring lungs,
he is past all acute consideration for its welfare. Were Mr. Keynes
generous enough to extend his sympathy alike to foes and friends,
he might even now see light shining on the horizon. It would do him
—it would do us all—good to meditate closely on the probable state
of Europe had Germany triumphed. The “hidden currents” of which
we are warned may be sweeping us on a reef; but the most
imminent and most appalling calamity has been averted. “Events are
wonderful things,” and we may yet come to believe with Froissart,
lover of brave deeds and honourable men, that “the most profitable
thing in the world for the institution of human life is history.”