The question is about the contemporary usage of the following distich:
For he that fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day ;
...and whether historical events and imprecision have upstaged its original meaning - which might have been about pragmatism - in contemporary english.
Demosthenes
Historically, this is attributed to Demosthenes, an epic Greek orator opposed to Alexander the Great; but it is not part of his oratory corpus. He is credited for the saying after the Battle of Chaeronea in 338BC where, according to notes, he deserted or did nothing admirable(yet not a bad tactic considering he died some 15 years later, in 322BC).
Willis's Current Notes article
Much later, in the 1854 Willis's Current Notes - a fabulous anthology piece - we are introduced to the surreal idea that a British newspaper printed a half page with a very similar saying to basically make fun of the behavior of Lord George Sackville at the Battle of Minden in 1760(wikipedia explains):
Ferdinand called for a British cavalry charge to complete the victory, but Sackville withheld permission for their advance. Ferdinand sent his order several times, but Sackville was estranged from Lord Granby, the force commander. He continued to withhold permission for Granby to gain glory through an attack.
He asked to be court-martialed to expose his innocence, but was rather made an example of in a surprisingly forceful manner. The author then discusses Rabelais, Shakespeare's Henry VIII(I, I, 206), and other tasty bits, and finishes his analysis of the sources with the work of Vice Admiral Sir John Mennes:
The distich in Butler's Hudibras:-
For those that fly may fight again,
Which he can never do that's slain,
is evidently a translation from Scarron; but the couplet,-
For he that fights and runs away,
May live to fight another day ;
was written by Sir John Mennes in ridicule of Sir John Suckling's expedition to Scotland, in 1641.
And references the work Musarum Deliciae and Censura Literaria which he can't find. This seems to be the same poem and indeed there's the cowardise idea but it's really about finding an excuse to stay in his tent, or staying at the rear ten miles aback, all tongue-in-cheek one could say; it's quite colorful but nothing formal like the couplet above. When you read it you wouldn't think Sir Mennes would say something as polite as that couplet about Sir Suckling. And indeed a note ("P. 96, 1. 5." ) from an editor seemingly echoes that observation. So if not Mennes then who coined this?
Q. From Willis's document it feels like in the 19th it was common knowledge that this was used in a derisive way, more than once, and in a striking fashion. Where does that leave us with the current usage? Is there any of that historical mocking connotation associated with using this today?
