This is the passage--one red-hot sentence--concerning eels:--

"If an eel had the wisdom of Solomon, he could not help himself in

the ill-usage that befalls him; but if he had, and were told, that

it was necessary for our subsistence that he should be eaten, that

he must be skinned first, and then broiled; if ignorant of man's

usual practice, he would conclude that the cook would so far use

her reason as to cut off his head first, which is not fit for

food, as then he might be skinned and broiled without harm; for

however the other parts of his body might be convulsed during the

culinary operations, there could be no feeling of consciousness

therein, the communication with the brain being cut off; but if

the woman were immediately to stick a fork into his eye, skin

him alive, coil him up in a skewer, head and all, so that in the

extremest agony he could not move, and forthwith broil him to

death: then were the same Almighty Power that formed man from the

dust, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, to call

the eel into a new existence, with a knowledge of the treatment he

had undergone, and he found that the instinctive disposition which

man has in common with other carnivorous animals, which inclines

him to cruelty, was not the sole cause of his torments; but that

men did not attend to consider whether the sufferings of such

insignificant creatures could be lessened: that eels were not the

only sufferers; that lobsters and other shell fish were put into

cold water and boiled to death by slow degrees in many parts of

the sea coast; that these, and many other such wanton atrocities,

were the consequence of carelessness occasioned by the pride of

mankind despising their low estate, and of the general opinion

that there is no punishable sin in the ill-treatment of animals

designed for our use; that, therefore, the woman did not bestow

so much thought on him as to cut his head off first, and that

she would have laughed at any considerate person who should have

desired such a thing; with what fearful indignation might he

inveigh against the unfeeling metaphysician that, like a cruel

spirit alarmed at the appearance of a dawning of mercy upon

animals, could not rest satisfied with opposing the Cruelty

Prevention Bill by the plea of possible inconvenience to mankind,

highly magnified and emblazoned, but had set forth to the vulgar

and unthinking of all ranks, in the jargon of proud learning, that

man's obligations of morality towards the creatures subjected to

his use are imperfect obligations!"

The poem "The Beggar-Man," in _Poetry for Children_, 1809 (see Vol.

III.), was also from John Lamb's pen.

Page 85, asterisks. _Society for the Relief of_--Distrest Sailors,

says Lamb's Key.

Page 86, last line of essay. "_Through the green plains of pleasant

Hertfordshire_." This line occurs in a sonnet of Lamb's written many

years before the essay (see Vol. IV.). Probably, however, Lamb did

not invent it, for (the late W.J. Craig pointed out) in Leland's

_Itinerary_, which Lamb must have known, if only on account of the

antiquary's remarks on Hertfordshire, is quoted a poem by William

Vallans (_fl._ 1578-1590), "The Tale of the Two Swans," containing

the line--

The Works of Charles and Mary Lamb — Volume 2 Elia and The Last Essays of Elia · 第 132 / 155 题