meet the assertions of the (practical) materialists, who draw their
arguments from the Jewish Sacred Scriptures, or elsewhere, his replies
to the common subterfuges or prejudices of the orthodox dietists are
able and conclusive. His _humane_ arguments, indeed, are worthy of the
most advanced thinkers of the present day; and those who are versed
in the anti-kreophagist literature of the last thirty years--in the
controversy in the press, and on the platform--will, perhaps, be
surprised to find that the ordinary prejudices or subterfuges of this
year “of Grace” are identical with those current in the year 1683. We
wish that we could transcribe some of these replies. We cannot forbear,
however, to quote his representation of the changed condition of things
under the imagined humanitarian _régime_:--
“Here all contention ceaseth, no hideous cries nor mournful groans
are heard, neither of man nor of ‘beast.’ No channels running with
the blood of slaughtered animals, no stinking shambles, nor bloody
butchers. No roaring of cannons, nor firing of towns. No loathsome
stinking prisons, nor iron grates to keep men from enjoying their
wife, children, and the pleasant air; nor no crying for want of
food and clothes. No rioting, nor wanton inventions to destroy as
much in one day as a thousand can get by their hard labour and
travel. No dreadful execrations and coarse language. No galloping
horses up hills, without any consideration or fellow-feeling
of the victim’s pains and burdens. No deflowering of virgins,
_and then exposing them and their own young to all the miseries
imaginable_. No letting lands and farms so dear that the farmer
must be forced to oppress himself, servants, and cattle almost
to death, and all too little to pay his rent. No oppressions of
inferiors by superiors; neither is there any want, because there
is no superfluity nor gluttony. No noise nor cries of wounded men.
No need of chirurgeons to cut bullets out of their flesh; nor no
cutting off hands, broken legs, and arms. No roaring nor crying out
with the torturing pains of the gout, nor other painful diseases
(as leprous and consumptive distempers), except through age, and
the relics of some strain they got whilst they lived intemperately.
Neither are their children afflicted with such a great number of
diseases; but are as free from distempers as lambs, calves, or the
young ones of any of the ‘beasts’ who are preserved sound and
healthful, because they have not outraged God’s law in Nature, the
breaking of which is the foundation of most, or all, cruel diseases
that afflict mankind; there being nothing that makes the difference
between Man and ‘Beasts’ in health, but only superfluity and
intemperance, both in quality and in quantity.”
His chapter, in which he deals with the relations between the sexes and
the married state, shews him to have been as much in advance of his
time, in a sound knowledge and apprehension of Physiology, and of the
laws of Health, in that important part of hygienic science, as he was
in the special branch of Diet.[299]
Affixed to this work is a very remarkable Essay, in the shape of _A
Dialogue between an East-Indian Brachman and a French Gentleman,
concerning the Present Affairs of Europe_. In this admirable piece, the
author ably exposes the folly no less than the horrors of war--and,
in particular, _religious_ war--all which he ultimately traces to
the first source--the iniquities and barbarism of the Shambles. The
Dialogue is worthy of the most trenchant of the humanitarian writers
of the next century. It was by meeting with _The Way to Health_ that
Benjamin Franklin, in his youth, was induced to abandon the flesh-diet,
to which revolutionary measure he ascribes his success, as well as
health in after life.
IX.
HECQUET. 1661-1737.
This meritorious medical reformer, at first intended for the Church,
happily (in the event) adopted the profession which he has so truly
adorned, by his virtues, as well as by his enlightened labours. After
a long and severe course of Anatomy and Physiology, in 1684 he was
admitted as “Doctor” at Reims, and as Fellow (_Agrégé_) in the College
of Physicians in his native town. He then returned to Paris to perfect
himself in physiological science. Disgusted with the _tricasseries_
which were excited against him by the members of his profession,
he withdrew (in 1688) to Port-Royal-des-Champs, where he succeeded
Hamon, who had just died, as physician. Here he practised the reforms
he taught, while he devoted himself to the most laborious works of
charity, giving all his time and attention to the poor for several
leagues round, and travelling the distances, great as they were, on
foot.
His health enfeebled by excessive labour in this way, he was induced
to retire from his post at Port-Royal, and he went back to the capital
where, having gone through the necessary formalities, he was regularly
enrolled as Doctor of the Paris University, receiving the official hat
after an examination of “rare success” (1697).
Soon afterwards the Faculty named him _Docteur-Régent_, and appointed
him to the post of Professor of _Materia Medica_. “Hecquet had soon
numerous and illustrious patients, and his services were eagerly
sought for, particularly in religious communities and in hospitals. He
attached himself to that of Charity.” In 1712 he was named Dean of the
Faculty. In the midst of so much work, he found time to publish several
medical books.
“He exercised his art with a noble disinterestedness. The poor were
his favourite patients. He presented himself at the houses of the rich
only when absolutely obliged, or when courtesy required it. He had
much studied his art, and contributed with all his power, to advance
it, as well by his writings as by his guidance and encouragement of
young physicians.... He was in correspondence with the most famous
savants and physicians of his age. His style in Latin is correct, and
does not want eloquence; in French he is more negligent, and a little
unpolished. He was animated (_vif_) in debate, and strongly attached to
his opinions; but he sought Truth in good faith.”
Amongst his numerous works are:--
_De l’Indécence aux Hommes d’Accoucher les Femmes, et de l’Obligation,
de Celles-ci de nourrir leurs enfants._ (On the Indecency of Male
Physicians Attending Women in Child-Birth) 1708. _Traité des Dispenses
du Carême_, 1709--his most celebrated book. _De la Digestion et des
Maladies de l’Estomac_, 1712. _Novus Medicinæ Conspectus cum Appendice
De Peste_, 1722. “He there combats the various systems upon the origin
of diseases, which he attributes to the disorders which supervene, in
accordance with the laws which direct the movement of the blood:” the
Plague, upon which he writes, was desolating the south of France at
that time. Also, at this period, various _brochures_ upon the Small-Pox.
_La Médecine, la Chirurgie, et la Pharmacie des Pauvres_ (1740-2),
his most popular book--_La Brigandage de la Médecine_ (1755),
which he supplemented with _Brigandage de la Chirurgie, et de la
Pharmacie_--will sufficiently mark his attitude towards the orthodox
Schools of Medicine of his day. _Le Naturalisme des Convulsions dans
les Maladies_ (1755), with several other books upon the same subject.
The history of the _Convulsionnaires_ occupies a curious episode in
the religious history of the period, as it has occupied, and, in some
measure still, in fact, occupies the attention of physiologists and
psychologists of our own age. Hecquet, with the physiologists of the
present time, attributes the phenomena to physical and natural causes.
_La Médecine Naturelle_: “in this work the author alleges that it is
not in the blood only that is to be sought the causes of maladies, but
also in the nervous fluid.”[300]
The books in which he treats of reform in Dietetics are the _Traité des
Dispenses and La Médecine des Pauvres_.
However _dietetically_ heterodox and heretical, the author of _The
Treatise on Dispensations_ was of unsuspected ecclesiastical as well
as theological orthodoxy; yet he takes occasion, at the outset of
his book, to reproach his Church with its indifferentism towards so
essentially important a matter as Dietetics--scientific or moral:--
“It will, perhaps, be found that much theology enters into this
undertaking. We acknowledge it. One might even expect that some
zealous ecclesiastic or other would have done himself the credit of
sustaining so beautiful a cause (que quelque ecclesiastique zelé
se seroit fait gloire de soutenir une si belle cause). It might be
hoped, especially in an age like ours, when physical science is
in honour and for the benefit of everyone, and in which Medicine
has become the property of every condition.... It ought then to
have been the duty of so many Abbés, Monks and Religious Orders,
who invest themselves with the titles of physicians--who receive
their pay, who fill their employments--to advocate this part of
ecclesiastical discipline [abstinence]. But, instead of doing so,
though they undertake the care of the body, they, in fact, apply
themselves solely to the _healing_ of maladies.... One can see
enough of it, nevertheless, to be convinced that the public has
gained less from their _secrets_ than they themselves, while their
patients die more than ever under their hands....”
In Chap. VI., _Que les Fruits, les Grains, les Legumes sont les Alimens
les plus Naturels à l’Homme_, after appealing to _Gen._ i. and “the
Garden of Eden,” Hecquet proceeds to insist that our foods should be
analogous and consistent with the juices which maintain our life; and
these are Fruits, Grains, Seeds, and Roots. But prejudice, of long
standing, opposes itself to this truth. The false ideas attached to
certain traditional terms have warped the minds of the majority of the
world, and they have succeeded in persuading themselves that it is upon
stimulating foods that depend the strength and health of men. From
thence has come the love of wine, of spirituous liquors, and of gross
meats. The ambiguity (équivoque) comes from confounding the idea of
Remedy with that of Food.
“Here the greater part of the world take alarm. ‘How,’ say they,
‘can we be supported on Grains, which furnish but dry meal, fitter
to cloy than to nourish; on Fruits, which are but condensed water;
with vegetables, which are fit but for manure (fumier)?’ But this
meal, well prepared, forms Bread, the strongest of all aliments,
this condensed water is the same that has caused the Trees to
attain so great bulk, this _fumier_ becomes such only because
they prepare vegetables badly, and eat of them to excess. Besides,
how can men affect to fear failure in strength, in eating what
nourishes even the most robust animals, who would become even
formidable to us, if only they knew their own strength.”
In Chap. VII., _Que l’Usage de la Viande n’est pas le plus naturel à
l’Homme, ni absolument Nécessaire_, he remarks:--
“It is incredible how much Prejudice has been allowed to operate
in favour of [flesh] meat, while so many facts are opposed to the
pretended necessity of its use.”
Having entered into the physiological argument, now so well-worn, among
other reasons he adduces the fact that “the soundest part of the world,
or the most enlightened, have believed in the obligation to abstain
from flesh,” and “the very nature of flesh, which is digested with
difficulty, and which furnishes the worst juices.”
Nature being uniform in her method of procedure, is anything else
necessary to determine whether Man is intended to live upon flesh-meats
than to compare the organs which have to prepare them for his
nourishment, with those of animals whom Nature manifestly has destined
for carnage? And herein it may be clearly recognised, since men have
neither fangs nor talons to tear flesh, that it is very far from being
the food most natural to them.
He quotes numerous examples of eminent persons, as well as of nations
in all times, and adds, as an argument not easy to be answered, that:--
“It is proved it would not be difficult to nourish animals who live
on flesh with non-flesh substances, while it is almost impossible to
nourish with flesh those who live ordinarily upon vegetable substances.”
Hecquet devotes several chapters to a description of various Fruits and
Herbs, and also of various kinds of Fish, which he holds to be much
less objectionable and more innocent food than flesh. Comparing the two
diets, we must acknowledge:--
“It causes our nature to revolt, and excites horror to eat raw
flesh, and as it is presented to us naturally; and it becomes
supportable for us to the taste and to the sight only after long
preparation of cooking, which deprives it of what is inhuman and
disgusting in its original state; and, often, it is only after
_many_ various preparations and strange seasonings that it can
become agreeable or sanitarily good. It is not so with other meats:
the majority, as they come from the hand of Nature, without cookery
and without art, are found proper to nourish, and are pleasant to
the taste--plain proof that they are intended by Nature to maintain
our health. Fruits are of such property that, when well-chosen and
quite ripe, they excite the appetite by _their own virtue_, and
might become, without preparation, sufficing.... If Vegetables or
Fish have need of fire to accommodate them to our nature, the fire
appears to be used less to _correct_ these sorts of foods than to
penetrate them, to make them soft and tender, and to develope what
in them is most proper and suitable for health.... In fine, it is
clear that vegetables and fish have need of less, and less strange
and récherché, condiments--all sensible marks that these aliments
are the most natural and suited to man.”[301]
Hecquet’s _Traité des Dispenses_ received the formal approval and
commendation of several “doctors regent” of the Faculty of Medicine
of the Paris University, which testimonies are prefixed to the second
edition of 1710. With his English contemporary, Dr. Cheyne, and other
medical reformers, however, he experienced much insult and ridicule
from anonymous professional critics.
X.
POPE. 1688-1744.
_Primâque e cæde ferarum
Incaluisse putem maculatum sanguine ferrum._
(Ovid _Metam._ XV. 106).
“I cannot think it extravagant to imagine that mankind are no
less, in proportion, accountable for the ill use of their dominion
over the lower ranks of Beings, than for the exercise of tyranny
over their own species. The more entirely the inferior creation
is submitted to our power, the more answerable we should seem for
the mismanagement of it; and the rather, as the very condition of
Nature renders these beings incapable of receiving any recompense
in another life, for their ill-treatment in this.
“It is observable of those noxious animals, who have qualities
most powerful to injure us, that they naturally avoid mankind, and
never hurt us unless provoked, or necessitated by hunger. Man, on
the other hand, _seeks_ out and pursues even the most inoffensive
animals on purpose to persecute and destroy them. Montaigne thinks
it some reflection on human nature itself, that few people take
delight in seeing ‘beasts’ caress or play together, but almost
every one is pleased to see them lacerate and worry one another.
“I am sorry this temper is become almost a distinguishing character
of our own nation, from the observation which is made by foreigners
of our beloved _Pastimes_--Bear-baiting, Cock-fighting, and the
like. We should find it hard to vindicate the destroying of
anything that has Life, merely out of wantonness. Yet in this
principle our children are bred, and one of the first pleasures we
allow them is the licence of inflicting Pain upon poor animals.
Almost as soon as we are sensible what Life is ourselves, we make
it our Sport to take it from other beings. I cannot but believe a
very good use might be made of the fancy which children have for
Birds and Insects. Mr. Locke takes notice of a mother who permitted
them to her children; but rewarded or punished them as they treated
well or ill. This was no other than entering them betimes into a
daily exercise of Humanity, and improving their very diversion to a
Virtue.
“I fancy, too, some advantage might be taken of the common notion,
that ’tis ominous or unlucky to destroy some sorts of Birds, as
Swallows or Martins. This opinion might possibly arise from the
confidence these Birds seem to put in us, by building under our
roofs, so that it is a kind of violation of the laws of Hospitality
to murder them. As for Robin-red-breasts, in particular, ’tis
not improbable they owe their security to the old ballad of the
_Children in the Wood_. However it be, I don’t know, I say, why
this prejudice, well-improved and carried as far as it would go,
might not be made to conduce to the preservation of many innocent
beings, who are now exposed to all the wantonness of an ignorant
barbarity....
“When we grow up to be men we have another succession of sanguinary
Sports--in particular, _Hunting_. I dare not attack a diversion
which has such Authority and Custom to support it; but must have
leave to be of opinion, that the agitation of that exercise, with
the example and number of the chasers, not a little contribute to
resist those checks which Compassion would naturally suggest in
behalf of the Animal pursued. Nor shall I say, with M. Fleury,
that this sport is a remain of the Gothic Barbarity; but I must
animadvert upon a certain custom yet in use with us, barbarous
enough to be derived from the Goths or even the Scythians--I mean
that savage compliment our Huntsmen pass upon ladies of quality who
are present at the death of a Stag, when they put the knife into
their hands to cut the throat of a helpless, trembling, and weeping
creature.
“_Questuque cruentus,
Atque imploranti similis._”[302]
“But if our ‘Sports’ are destructive, our _Gluttony_ is more so,
and in a more inhuman manner. Lobsters roasted alive, Pigs whipt
to death, Fowls sewed up,[303] are testimonies of our outrageous
Luxury. Those who (as Seneca expresses it) divide their lives
betwixt an anxious Conscience and a Nauseated Stomach, have a
just reward of their gluttony in the diseases it brings with it.
For human savages, like other wild beasts, find snares and poison
in the provisions of life, and are allured by their appetite to
their destruction. I know nothing more shocking or horrid than the
prospect of one of their kitchens covered with blood, and filled
with the cries of Beings expiring in tortures. It gives one an
image of a giant’s den in a romance, bestrewed with the scattered
heads and mangled limbs of those who were slain by his cruelty.
“The excellent Plutarch (who has more strokes of good nature in
his writings than I remember in any author) cites a saying of Cato
to this effect:--_That ’tis no easy task to preach to the Belly
which has no ears._ Yet if (says he) we are ashamed to be so out
of fashion as not to offend, let us at least offend with _some_
discretion and measure. If we kill an animal for our provision, let
us do it with the meltings of compassion, and without tormenting
it. Let us consider that it is, in its own nature, cruelty to put a
living being to death--we, at least destroy a soul that has sense
and perception.[304]
“History tells us of a wise and polite nation that rejected a
person of the first quality, who stood for a justiciary office,
only because he had been observed, in his youth, to take pleasure
in teasing and murdering of Birds. And of another that expelled a
man out of the Senate for dashing a bird against the ground who
had taken refuge in his bosom. Every one knows how remarkable the
Turks are for their Humanity in this kind. I remember an Arabian
author, who has written a Treatise to show how far a man, supposed
to have subsisted in a desert island, without any instruction, or
so much as the sight of any other man, may, by the pure light of
Nature, attain the knowledge of Philosophy and Virtue. One of the
first things he makes him observe is the benevolence of Nature, in
the protection and preservation of her creatures.[305] In imitation
of which, the first act of virtue he thinks his self-taught
philosopher would, of course, fall into, is to relieve and assist
all the animals about them in their wants and distresses....
“Perhaps that voice or cry, so nearly resembling the human, with
which Nature has endowed so many different animals, might purposely
be given them to move our Pity, and prevent those cruelties we are
to apt to inflict upon our Fellow Creatures.”
Pope quotes, in part, the admirable verses of Ovid, Metam. XV., with
Dryden’s translation--and an apposite _fable_ of the Persian Pilpai,
which illustrates the base ingratitude of men who torture and slaughter
their fellow labourers.--“I know it” (this common ingratitude) said
the Cow, “by woful experience; for I have served a man this long time
with milk, butter, and cheese, and brought him, besides, a Calf every
year--but now I am old, he turns me into this pasture with design to
sell me to a butcher, who, shortly, will make an end of me.”--_The
Guardian_, LXI, May 21, 1713.
With Pilpai or Bidpai’s fable, compare that of La Fontaine on the same
subject--_L’Homme et la Couleuvre_.
XI.
CHESTERFIELD. 1694-1773.
To the expression of the opinion or feeling of Lord Chesterfield on
butchering, given, in its place, in the body of this work (page 140),
is here subjoined the remainder of his paper in _The World_. The value
of such testimony may be deemed proportionate to the extreme rarity
of any protests of this sort from those who, by their influential
position, are the most _bound_ to make them:--
“Although this reflection [the fact of the preying of the
stronger upon the weaker throughout Nature] had force enough to
_dispythagorise_ me _before my companions_ [in his college at
the University of Oxford] _had time to make observations upon my
behaviour, which could by no means have turned to my advantage in
the world_, I for a great while retained so tender a regard for
all my fellow-creatures, that I have several times brought myself
into imminent peril by putting butcher-boys in mind, that their
Sheep were going to die, and that they walked full as fast as
could reasonably be expected, without the cruel blows they were so
liberal in bestowing upon them. As I commonly came off the worst
in these disputes, and as I could not but observe that I often
aggravated, never diminished, the ill-treatment of these innocent
sufferers, I soon found it necessary to consult my own ease, as
well as security, by turning down another street, whenever I met
with an adventure of this kind, rather than be compelled to be a
spectator of what would shock me, or be provoked to run myself into
danger, without the least advantage to those whom I would assist.
“I have kept strictly, ever since, to this method of fleeing from
the sight of cruelty, wherever I could find ground-room for it;
and I make no manner of doubt, that I have more than once escaped
the horns of a Mad Ox, as all of that species are called, that do
not choose to be tortured as well as killed. But, on the other
hand, these escapes of mine have very frequently run me into great
inconveniences. I have sometimes been led into such a series of
blind alleys, that it has been matter of great difficulty to me to
find my way out of them. I have been betrayed by my hurry into the
middle of a market--_the proper residence of Inhumanity_. I have
paid many a six-and-eightpence for non-appearance at the hour my
lawyer had appointed for business; and, what would hurt some people
worse than all the rest, I have frequently arrived too late for the
dinners I have been invited to at the houses of my friends.
“All these difficulties and distresses, I began to flatter myself,
were going to be removed, and that I should be left at liberty
to pursue my walks through the straightest and broadest streets,
when Mr. Hogarth first published his Prints upon the subject of
Cruelty.[306] But whatever success so much ingenuity, founded upon
so much humanity, might deserve, all the hopes I had built of
seeing a Reformation, proved vain and fruitless. I am sorry to say
it, but there still remain in the _streets_ of this metropolis,
more scenes of Barbarity than, perhaps, are to be met with in all
Europe besides. Asia (at least in the larger population of it--the
Hindus) is well known for compassion to ‘brutes’; and nobody who
has read Busbequius, will wonder at me for most heartily wishing
that our common people were no crueller than Turks.