actions is a fact to which the experience of ages gives ample
testimony. The Scythians, from drinking the blood of their cattle,
proceeded to drink that of their enemies. The fierce and cruel
disposition of the wild Arabs is supposed chiefly, if not solely,
to arise from their feeding upon the flesh of camels: and as
the gentle disposition of the natives of Hindustan is probably
owing, in great degree, to temperance and abstinence from animal
food, so the common use of this diet, with other nations, has, in
the opinion of M. Pagès, intensified the natural tone of their
passions; and he can account, he says, upon no other principle,
for the strong, harsh features of the Mussulmen and the Christians
compared with the mild traits and placid aspect of the Gentoos.
‘Vulgar and uninformed men,’ it is observed by Smellie, ‘when
pampered with a variety of animal food, are much more choleric,
fierce, and cruel in their tempers, than those who live chiefly
upon vegetables.’ This affection is equally perceptible in other
animals--‘An officer, in the Russian service, had a bear whom
he fed with bread and oats, but never gave him flesh. A young
hog, however, happening to stroll near his cell, the bear got
hold of him and pulled him in; and, after he had once drawn
blood and tasted flesh, he became unmanageable, attacking every
person who came near him, so that the owner was obliged to kill
him.’--[_Memoirs of P. H. Bruce._] It was not, says Porphyry,
from those who lived on vegetables that robbers, or murderers, or
tyrants have proceeded, but from flesh-eaters.[208] Prey being
almost the sole object of quarrel amongst carnivorous animals,
while the frugivorous live together in constant peace and harmony,
it is evident that if men were of this latter kind, they would find
it much more easy to subsist happily.”
“The barbarous and unfeeling sports (as they are called) of the
English--their horse-racing, hunting, shooting, bull and bear
baiting, cock-fighting,[209] prize-fighting, and the like, all
proceed from their immoderate addiction to animal food. Their
natural temper is thereby corrupted, and they are in the habitual
and hourly commission of crimes against nature, justice, and
humanity, from which a feeling and reflective mind, unaccustomed
to such a diet, would revolt, but in which they profess to take
delight. The kings of England have from a remote period, been
devoted to hunting; in which pursuit one of them, and the son
of another lost his life. James I., according to Scaliger, was
merciful, except at the chase, where he was cruel, and was very
much enraged when he could not catch the Stag. ‘God,’ he used
to say, ‘is enraged against me, so that I shall not have him.’
Whenever he had caught his victim, he would put his arm all entire
into his belly and entrails. This anecdote may be paralleled with
the following of one of his successors: ‘The hunt on Tuesday last,
(March 1st, 1784), commenced near Salthill, and afforded a chase
of upwards of fifty miles. His Majesty was present at the death of
the stag near Tring, in Herts. It is the first deer that has been
ran to death for many months; and when opened, the heart strings
were found to be quite rent, as is supposed, with the force of
running.’[210] _Siste, vero, tandem carnifex!_ The slave trade,
that abominable violation of the rights of Nature, is most probably
owing to the same cause, as well as a variety of violent acts,
both national and personal, which usually are attributed to other
motives. In the sessions of Parliament, 1802, a majority of the
members voted for the continuance of bull-baiting, and some of them
had the confidence to plead in favour of it.”[211]
Ritson enforces his observations upon this head by citing Plutarch,
Cowper, and Pope (in the _Guardian, No. 61_--a most forcible
and eloquent protest against the cruelties of “sport” and of
gluttony).[212] In his fifth chapter he traces the origin of human
sacrifices to the practice of flesh eating:--
“Superstition is the mother of Ignorance and Barbarity. Priests
began by persuading people of the existence of certain invisible
beings, whom they pretended to be the creators of the world and
the dispensers of good and evil; and of whose wills, in fine,
they were the sole interpreters. Hence arose the necessity of
sacrifices [ostensibly] to appease the wrath or to procure the
favour of imaginary gods, but in reality to gratify the gluttonous
and unnatural appetites of _real_ demons. Domestic animals were
the first victims. These were immediately under the eye of the
priest, and he was pleased with their taste. This satisfied for a
time; but he had eaten of the same things so repeatedly, that his
luxurious appetite called for variety. He had devoured the sheep,
and he was now desirous of devouring the shepherd. The anger of
the gods--testified by an opportune thunderstorm, was not to be
assuaged but by a sacrifice of uncommon magnitude. The people
tremble, and offer him their enemies, their slaves, their parents,
their children, to obtain a clear sky on a summer’s day, or a
bright moon by night. When, or upon what particular occasion, the
first human being was made a sacrifice is unknown, nor is it of
any consequence to enquire. Goats and bullocks had been offered up
already, and the transition was easy from the ‘brute’ to the man.
The practice, however, is of remote antiquity and universal extent,
there being scarcely a country in the world in which it has not, at
some time or other, prevailed.”
He supports this probable thesis by reference to Porphyry, the most
erudite of the later Greeks, who repeats the accounts of earlier
writers upon this matter, and by a comparison of the religious rites
of various nations, past and present. Equally natural and easy was the
step from the use of non-human to that of human bodies:--
“As human sacrifices were a natural effect of that superstitious
cruelty which first produced the slaughter of other animals, so is
it equally natural that those accustomed to eat the ‘brute’ should
not long abstain from the man. More especially as, when roasted or
broiled upon the altar, the appearance, savour, and taste of both,
would be nearly, if not entirely the same. But, from whatever cause
it may be deduced, nothing can be more certain than that the eating
of human flesh has been a practice in many parts of the world from
a very remote period, and is so, in some countries, at this day.
That it is a consequence of the use of other animal food there can
be no doubt, as it would be impossible to find an instance of it
among people who were accustomed solely to a vegetable diet. The
progress of cruelty is rapid. Habit renders it familiar, and hence
it is deemed _natural_.
“The man who, accustomed to live on roots and vegetables, first
devoured the flesh of the smallest mammal, committed a greater
violence to his own nature than the most beautiful and delicate
woman, accustomed to other animal flesh, would feel in shedding
the blood of her own species for sustenance; possessed as they are
of exquisite feelings, a considerable degree of intelligence, and
even, according to her own religious system, of a _living soul_.
That this is a principle in the social disposition of mankind,
is evident from the deliberate coolness with which seamen, when
their ordinary provisions are exhausted, sit down to devour such
of their comrades as chance or contrivance renders the victim of
the moment; a fact of which there are but too many, and those too
well-authenticated instances. Such a crime, which no necessity
can justify, would never enter the mind of a starving Gentoo,
nor, indeed, of anyone who had not been previously accustomed to
other animal flesh. Even among the Bedouins, or wandering Arabs
of the desert--according to the observation of the enlightened
Volney--though they so often experience the extremity of hunger,
the practice of devouring human flesh was never heard of.”
In the two following chapters Ritson traces a large proportion of human
diseases and suffering, physical and mental, to indulgence in unnatural
living. He cites Drs. Buchan, Goldsmith, Cheyne, Stubbes (_Anatomy of
Abuses_, 1583), and Sparrman the well-known pupil of Linné (_Voyages_).
In his ninth chapter, he gives a copious catalogue of “nations and of
individuals, past and contemporary, subsisting entirely upon vegetable
foods”--not the least interesting part of his work. Some of the most
eminent of the old Greek and Latin philosophers and historians are
quoted, as well as various modern travellers, such as Volney and
Sparrman. Especially valuable are the enquiries of Sir F. M. Eden
(_State of the Poor_), who, in a comparison of the dietary of the
poor, in different parts of these islands, proves that flesh has, or
at all events _had_, scarcely any share in it--a fact which is still
true of the agricultural districts, manifest not only by the commonest
observation, but also by scientific and official enquiries of late
years.
Of individual cases, two of the most interesting are those of John
Williamson of Moffat, the discoverer of the famous chalybeate spring,
who lived almost to the age of one hundred years, having abstained
from all flesh-food during the last fifty years of his life,[213] and
of John Oswald, the author of _The Cry of Nature_. It is in this part
of his work that Ritson narrates the history of his own conversion and
dietetic experiences, and of his well-known publisher, Mr. R. Phillips.
XXXVI.
NICHOLSON. 1760-1825.
Among the least known, but none the less among the most estimable,
of the advocates of the rights of the oppressed species and the
heralds of the dawn of a better day, the humble Yorkshire printer, who
undertook the unpopular and unremunerative work of publishing to the
world the sorrows and sufferings of the non-human races, claims our
high respect and admiration. He has also another title (second only to
his humanitarian merit) to the gratitude of posterity as having been
the originator of cheap literature of the best class, and of the most
instructive sort, which, alike by the price and form, was adapted for
wide circulation.
George Nicholson was born at Bradford. He early set up a printing
press, and began the publication of his _Literary Miscellany_,
“which is not, as the name might lead one to suppose, a magazine,
but a series of choice anthologies, varied by some of the gems of
English literature. The size is a small 18mo., scarcely too large for
the waistcoat pocket. The printing was a beautiful specimen of the
typographic art, and for the illustrations he sought the aid of the
best artists. He was one of the patrons of Thomas Bewick, some of whose
choicest work is to be found in the pamphlets issued by Nicholson.
He also issued 125 cards, on which were printed favourite pieces,
afterwards included in the _Literary Miscellany_. This ‘assemblage of
classical beauties for the parlour, the closet, the carriage, or the
shade,’ became very popular, and extended to twenty volumes. The plan
of issuing them in separate numbers enabled individuals to make their
own selection, and they are found bound up in every possible variety.
Complete sets are now rare, and highly prized by collectors.”
Of his many useful publications may be enumerated--_Stenography:
The Mental Friend and Rational Companion, consisting of Maxims and
Reflections relating to the Conduct of Life_. 12mo. _The Advocate and
Friend of Woman._ 12mo. _Directions for the Improvement of the Mind._
12mo. _Juvenile Preceptor._ Three vols., 12mo. The books which concern
us now are--_On the Conduct of Man to Inferior Animals_ (Manchester,
1797: this was adorned by a woodcut from the hand of Bewick). And his
_magnum opus_, which appeared in the year 1801, under the title of
_The Primeval Diet of Man: Arguments in Favour of Vegetable Food; with
Remarks on Man’s Conduct to [other] Animals_ (Poughnill, near Ludlow).
The value of _The Primeval Diet_ was enhanced by the addition, in a
later issue, of a tract _On Food_ (1803), in which are given recipes
for the preparation of “one hundred perfectly palatable and nutritious
substances, which may easily be procured at an expense much below the
price of the limbs of our fellow animals.... Some of the recipes, on
account of their simple form, will not be adopted even by those in
the middle rank of life. Yet they may be valuable to many of scanty
incomes, who desire to avoid the evils of want, or to make a reserve
for the purchasing of books and other mental pleasures.” He also
published a tract _On Clothing_, which contains much sensible and
practical advice on an important subject.
Nicholson resided successively in Manchester, Poughnill, and Stourport,
and died at the last-named place in the year 1825. “He possessed,” says
a writer in _The Gentleman’s Magazine_ (xcv.), “in an eminent degree,
strength of intellect, with universal benevolence and undeviating
uprightness of conduct.” The learned bibliographer, to whom we are
indebted for this brief notice, thus sums up the character of his
labours: “In all his writings the purity and benevolence of his
intentions are strikingly manifest. Each subject he took in hand was
thought out in an independent manner, and without reference to current
views or prejudices.”[214]
In his brief preface the author thus expresses his sad conviction of
the probable futility of his protests:--
“The difficulties of removing deep-rooted prejudices, and the
inefficiency of reason and argument, when opposed to habitual
opinions established on general approbation, are fully apprehended.
Hence the cause of humanity, however zealously pleaded, will
not be materially promoted. Unflattered by the hope of exciting
an impression on the public mind, the following compilation is
dedicated to the sympathising and generous Few, whose opinions
have not been founded on implicit belief and common acceptation:
whose habits are not fixed by the influence of false and pernicious
maxims or corrupt examples: who are neither deaf to the cries of
misery, pitiless to suffering innocence, nor unmoved at recitals of
violence, tyranny, and murder.”
In the whole literature of humanitarianism, nothing can be more
impressive for the sympathising reader than this putting on record
by these nobler spirits their profound consciousness of the moral
torpor of the world around them, and their sad conviction of the
prematureness of their attempt to regenerate it. In both his principal
works, he judiciously chooses, for the most part, the method of
compilation, and of presenting in a concise and comprehensive form
the opinions of his humane predecessors, of various minds and times,
rather than the presentation of his own individual sentiments. He
justly believed that the large majority of men are influenced more by
the authority of great names than by arguments addressed simply to
their conscience and reason. He intersperses, however, philosophic
reflections of his own, whenever the occasion for them arises. Thus,
under the head of “Remarks on Defences of Flesh-eating,” he well
disposes of the common excuses:--
“The reflecting reader will not expect a formal refutation of
common-place objections, which _mean nothing_, as, ‘There would be
more unhappiness and slaughter among animals did we not keep them
under proper regulations and government. Where would they find
pasture did we not manure and enclose the land for them? &c.’ The
following objection, however, may deserve notice:--‘Animals must
die, and is it not better for them to live a short time in plenty
and ease, than be exposed to their enemies, and suffered in old
age to drag on a miserable life?’ The lives of animals in _a state
of nature_ are very rarely miserable, and it argues a barbarous
and savage disposition to cut them _prematurely_ off in the midst
of an agreeable and happy existence; especially when we reflect
on the _motives_ which induce it. Instead of a friendly concern
for promoting their happiness, your aim is the gratification of
your own sensual appetites. How inconsistent is your conduct with
the fundamental principle of pure morality and true goodness
(which some of you ridiculously profess)--_whatsoever you would
that others should do to you, do you even so to them_. No man
would willingly become the food of other animals; he ought not
therefore to prey on _them_. Men who consider themselves members
of universal nature, and links in the great chain of Being, ought
not to usurp power and tyranny over others, beings naturally free
and independent, however such beings may be inferior in intellect
or strength.... It is argued that ‘man has a permission, proved by
the practice of mankind, to eat the flesh of other animals, and
consequently to kill them; and as there are many animals which
subsist wholly on the bodies of other animals, the practice is
sanctioned among mankind.’ By reason of the at present very low
state of morality of the human race, there are many evils which
it is the duty and business of enlightened ages to eradicate. The
various refinements of civil society, the numerous improvements in
the arts and sciences, and the different reformations in the laws,
policy, and government of nations, are proofs of this assertion.
That mankind, in the present stage of _polished_ life, act in
direct violation of the principles of justice, mercy, tenderness,
sympathy, and humanity, in the practice of eating flesh, is
obvious. To take away the life of any happy being, to commit
acts of depredation and outrage, and to abandon every refined
feeling and sensibility, is to degrade the human kind beneath its
professed dignity of character; but to _devour_ or eat any animal
is an additional violation of those principles, because it is the
_extreme_ of brutal ferocity. Such is the conduct of the most
savage of wild beasts, and of the most uncultivated and barbarous
of our own species. Where is the person who, with calmness, can
hear himself compared in disposition to a lion, a hyæna, a tiger or
a wolf? And yet, how exactly similar is his disposition.
“Mankind affect to revolt at murders, at the shedding of blood, and
yet eagerly, and without remorse, feed on the corpse after it has
undergone the culinary process. What mental blindness pervades the
human race, when they do not perceive that every feast of blood
is a _tacit encouragement_ and licence to the very crime their
pretended delicacy abhors! I say _pretended_ delicacy, for that
it is pretended is most evident. The profession of sensibility,
humanity, &c., in such persons, therefore, is egregious folly. And
yet there are respectable persons among everyone’s acquaintance,
amiable in other dispositions, and advocates of what is commonly
termed the cause of humanity, who are weak or prejudiced enough to
be satisfied with such arguments, on which they ground apologies
for their practice! Education, habit, prejudice, fashion, and
interest, have blinded the eyes of men, and seared their hearts.
“Opposers of compassion urge: ‘If we should live on vegetable food,
what shall we do with our _cattle_? What would become of them? They
would grow so numerous they would be prejudicial to us--they would
eat us up if we did not kill and eat them.’ But there is abundance
of animals in the world whom men do not kill and eat; and yet we
hear not of their injuring mankind, and sufficient room is found
for their abode. Horses are not usually killed to be eaten, and yet
we have not heard of any country overstocked with them. The raven
and redbreast are seldom killed, and yet they do not become too
numerous. If a decrease of cows, sheep, and others were required,
mankind would readily find means of reducing them. Cattle are at
present an article of trade, and their numbers are _industriously_
promoted. If cows are kept solely for the sake of milk, and if
their young should become too numerous, let the evil be nipped in
the bud. Scarcely suffer the innocent young to feel the pleasure
of breathing. Let the least pain possible be inflicted; let its
body be deposited entire in the ground, and let a sigh have vent
for the calamitous necessity that induced the painful act....
Self-preservation justifies a man in putting noxious animals to
death, yet cannot warrant the least act of cruelty to any being.
By suddenly despatching one when in extreme misery, we do a kind
office, an office which reason approves, and which accords with our
best and kindest feelings, but which (such is the force of custom)
we are denied to show, though solicited, to our own species. When
they can no longer enjoy happiness, they may perhaps be deprived
of life. Do not suppose that in this reasoning an intention is
included of _perverting_ nature. No! some animals are savage and
unfeeling; but let not _their_ ferocity and brutality be the
standard and pattern of the conduct of _man_. Because _some_ of
them have no compassion, feeling, or reason, are _we_ to possess no
compassion, feeling, or reason?”
In another section of his book Nicholson undertakes to expose the
inconsistencies of flesh-eaters, and the strange illogicalness of the
position of many protestors against various forms of cruelty, who
condone the greatest cruelty of all--the (necessary) savagery of the
butchers:--
“The inconsistencies of the conduct and opinions of mankind in
general are evident and notorious; but when ingenious writers fall
into the same glaring errors, our regret and surprise are justly
and strongly excited. Annexed to the impressive remarks by Soame
Jenyns, to be inserted hereafter, in examining the conduct of man
to [other] animals, we meet with the following passage:--
“‘God has been pleased to create numberless animals intended for
our sustenance, and that they are so intended, the agreeable
flavour of their flesh to our palates, and the wholesome nutriment
which it administers to our stomachs, are sufficient proofs; these,
as they are formed for our use, propagated by our culture, and fed
by our care, we have certainly a right to deprive of life, because
it is given and preserved to them on that _condition_.’
“Now, it has already been argued that the bodies of animals are
_not_ intended for the sustenance of man; and the decided opinions
of several eminent medical writers and others sufficiently
disprove assertions in favour of the wholesomeness of the flesh
of animals. The _agreeable taste_ of food is not always a proof
of its _nourishing_ or _wholesome_ properties. This truth is too
frequently experienced in mistakes, ignorantly or accidentally
made, particularly by children, in eating the fruit of the deadly
nightshade, the taste of which resembles black currants, and is
extremely inviting by the beauty of its colour and shape.[215]
“That we have a right to make attacks on the existence of any being
_because_ we have assisted and fed such being, is an assertion
opposed to every established principle of justice and morality. A
‘condition’ cannot be made without the mutual consent of parties,
and, therefore, what this writer terms ‘a condition,’ is nothing
less than an unjust, arbitrary, and deceitful imposition. ‘Such is
the deadly and stupifying influence of habit or custom,’ says Mr.
Lawrence, ‘of so poisonous and brutalising a quality is prejudice,
that men, perhaps no way inclined by nature to acts of barbarity,
may yet live insensible of the constant commission of the most
flagrant deeds.’ ... A cook-maid will weep at a tale of woe, while
she is skinning a living eel; and the devotee will mock the Deity
by asking a blessing on food supplied by murderous outrages against
nature and religion! Even women of education, who readily weep
while reading an affecting moral tale, will clear away clotted
blood, still warm with departed life, cut the flesh, disjoint
the bones, and tear out the intestines of an animal, without
sensibility, without sympathy, without fear, without remorse.
What is more common than to hear this _softer_ sex talk of, and
assist in, the cookery of a deer, a hare, a lamb or a calf (those
acknowledged emblems of innocence) with perfect composure? Thus
the female character, by nature soft, delicate, and susceptible of
tender impressions, is debased and sunk. It will be maintained that
in other respects they still possess the characteristics of their
sex, and are humane and sympathising. The inconsistency then is the
more glaring. To be virtuous in some instances does not constitute
the moral character, but to be uniformly so.”
We can allow ourselves space only for one or two further quotations
from this excellent writer. The remarks upon the common usage of
language, by which it is vainly thought to conceal the true nature of
the dishes served up upon the tables of the rich, are particularly
noteworthy, because the inaccurate expression condemned is almost
universal, and that even, from force of habit, amongst reformed
dietists themselves:--