the best parts of Greek philosophy were derived, in whole or in part,
from the Jewish Sacred Scriptures. For this belief, which has prevailed
so widely, which, perhaps, still lingers amongst us, and which has
engaged the useless speculation of so many minds, an Alexandrian Jew
of the age of the later Ptolemies is responsible. It is now well known
that he deliberately forged passages in the (so-called) Orphic poems
and “Sybilline” predictions, in order to gain the respect of the Greek
rulers of his country for the Jewish Scriptures. This patriotic but
unscrupulous Jew is known by his Greek name of Aristobulus. He was
preceptor or counsellor of Ptolemy VI.
[70] 2 _Sam._ vi., 19. Clement, in common with all the first Christian
writers, quotes from the _Septuagint_ version, which differs
considerably from the Hebrew. The English translators of the latter,
presuming that “flesh” must have formed part of the royal bounty,
gratuitously insert that word in the context.
[71] _Pædagogus_ ii. 1, “On Eating.”
[72] These works, which would have been highly interesting, have, with
so many other valuable productions of Greek genius, long since perished.
[73] _Miscellanies_ vii. “On Sacrifices.”
[74] See Plutarch’s denunciation of the very same practice of the
butchers of his day, _Essay on Flesh Eating_. Unfortunately for
the credit of Jewish humanity, it must be added that the method of
butchering (enjoined, it is alleged, by their religious laws) entails
a greater amount of suffering and torture to the victim than even the
Christian. This fact has been abundantly proved by the evidence of many
competent witnesses. The cruelty of the Jewish method of slaughter was
especially exposed at one of the recent International Congresses of
representatives of European Societies for Prevention of Cruelty.
[75] _Miscellanies_ ii., 18. We have used for the most part the
translation of the writings of Clement, published in the Ante-Nicene
Library, by Messrs. Clarke, Edinburgh, 1869. The Greek text is corrupt.
[76] Περὶ Ἀποχῆς Τῶν Εμψύχων
[77] “The first book discussed alleged contradictions and other marks
of human fallibility in the Scriptures; the third treated of Scriptural
interpretation, and, strangely enough, repudiated the allegories of
Origen; the fourth examined the ancient history of the Jews; and, the
twelfth and thirteenth maintained the point now generally admitted by
scholars--that _Daniel_ is not a prophecy, but a retrospective history
of the age of Antiochus Epiphanes.”--_Donaldson_ (_Hist. of Gr. Lit._)
[78] In justice to the old Greek Theology which, as it really was,
has enough to answer for, it must be remarked that its Demonology, or
belief in the powers of subordinate divinities--in the first instance
merely the internunciaries, or mediators, or _angels_ between Heaven
and Earth--was a very different thing from the _Diabolism_ of Christian
theology, a fact which, perhaps, can be adequately recognised by
those only who happen to be acquainted with the history of that most
widely-spread and most fearful of all superstitions. Necessarily, from
the vague and, for the most part, merely secular character of the
earlier theologies, the _infernal_ horrors, with the frightful creed,
tortures, burnings, &c., which characterised the faith of Christendom,
were wholly unknown to the religion of Apollo and of Jupiter.
[79] Neo or New-Platonism may be briefly defined as a _spiritual_
development of the Socratic or Platonic teaching. In the hands of some
of its less judicious and rational advocates it tended to degenerate
into puerile, though harmless, superstition. With the superior
intellects of a Plotinus, Porphyry, Longinus, Hypatia, or Proclus, on
the other hand, it was, in the main at least, a sublime attempt at the
purification and spiritualisation of the established orthodox creed.
It occupied a position midway between the old and the new religion,
which was so soon to celebrate its triumph over its effete rival.
That Christianity, on its spiritual side (whatever the ingratitude of
its later authorities), owes far more than is generally acknowledged
to both the old and newer Platonism, is sufficiently apparent to the
attentive student of theological history.
[80] Author of a _Treatise on the Abandonment of the Flesh Diet_, 1709.
He died in the year 1737.
[81] Voltaire might have added the examples of the Greek _Coenobites_.
There is at least one celebrated and long-established religious
community, in the Sinaitic peninsula, which has always rigidly excluded
all flesh from their diet. Like the community of La Trappe, these
religious Vegetarians are notoriously the most free from disease and
most long-lived of their countrymen.
[82] Article _Viande_ (_Dict. Phil._) In other passages in his writings
the philosopher of Ferney, we may here remark, expresses his sympathy
with the humane diet. See especially his _Essai sur les Mœurs et
l’Esprit des Nations_ (introduction), and his Romance of _La Princesse
de Babylone_.
[83] Οἰκειώσις strictly means adoption, admission to intimacy and
family life, or “domestication.”
[84] The founder of the new Academy at Athens, and the vigorous
opponent of the Stoics.
[85] That unreasoning arrogance of human selfishness, which pretends
that all other living beings have come into existence for the sole
pleasure and benefit of man, has often been exposed by the wiser, and
therefore more humble, thinkers of our race. Pope has well rebuked this
sort of monstrous arrogance:--
“Has God, thou fool, worked solely for thy good,
Thy joy, thy pastime, thy attire, thy food?
* * * * *
Know, Nature’s children all divide her care,
The fur that warms a monarch, warmed a bear.
While man exclaims: ‘See, all things for my use!’
‘See, man for mine,’ replies a pampered goose.
And just as short of reason he must fall,
Who thinks _all made for one, not one for all_.”
_Essay on Man, III._
And, as a commentary upon these truly philosophic verses, we may
quote the words of a recent able writer, answering the objection,
“Why were sheep and oxen created, if not for the use of man? replies
to the same effect as Porphyry 1600 years ago:” It is only pride and
imbecility in man to imagine all things made for his sole use. There
exist millions of suns and their revolving orbs which the eye of man
has never perceived. Myriads of animals enjoy their pastime unheeded
and unseen by him--many are injurious and destructive to him. All exist
for purposes but partially known. Yet we must believe, in general, that
all were created for their own enjoyment, for mutual advantage, and for
the preservation of universal harmony in Nature. If, merely because we
can eat sheep pleasantly, we are to believe that they exist only to
supply us with food, we may as well say that man was created solely
for various parasitical animals to feed on, “_because_ they do feed on
him.”--(_Fruits and Farinacea: the Proper Food of Man._ By J. Smith.
Edited by Professor Newman. Heywood, Manchester; Pitman, London.) See,
also, amongst other philosophic writers, the remarks of Joseph Ritson
in his “Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food a Moral Duty”--(Phillips,
London, 1802). As to Oxen and Sheep, it must be further remarked that
they have been made what they are by the intervention of man alone. The
original and wild stocks (especially that of sheep) are very different
from the metamorphosed and almost helpless domesticated varieties.
Naturam violant, pacem appellant.
[86] The Artificer or _Creator, par excellence_. In the Platonic
language, the usual distinguishing name of the subordinate creator of
our imperfect world.
[87] Cf. Ovid’s _Metam._, xv.; Plutarch’s _Essay on Flesh-Eating_;
Thomson’s _Seasons_.
[88] Περὶ Ἐποχῆς κ. τ. λ. In the number of the traditionary reformers
and civilisers of the earlier nations, the name of Orpheus has always
held a foremost place. In early Christian times Orpheus and the
literature with which his name is connected occupy a very prominent
and important position, and some celebrated forged prophecies passed
current as the utterances of that half-legendary hero. Horace adopts
the popular belief as to his radical dietetic reform in the following
verses:--
Silvestres homines sacer, interpresque Deorum,
_Cædibus et fœdo victu_ deterruit Orpheus.
--_Ars Poetica._
Virgil assigns him a place in the first rank of the Just in the Elysian
paradise.--_Æn._ vi.
[89] In his witty satire, the _Misopogon_ or _Beard-Hater_--“a sort
of inoffensive retaliation, which it would be in the power of few
princes to employ”--directed against the luxurious people of Antioch,
who had ridiculed his frugal meals and simple mode of living, “he
himself mentions his vegetable diet, and upbraids the gross and sensual
appetite” of that orthodox but corrupt Christian city. When they
complained of the high prices of flesh-meats, “Julian publicly declared
that a _frugal city ought to be satisfied with a regular supply of
wine, oil, and bread_.”--_Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, xxiv.
[90] Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, xxii. The
philosophical fable of Julian--_The Cæsars_--has been pronounced by
the same historian to be “one of the most agreeable and instructive
productions of ancient wit.” Its purpose is to estimate the merits or
demerits of the various Emperors from Augustus to Constantine. As for
the _Enemy of the Beard_, it may be ranked, for sarcastic wit, almost
with the _Jupiter in Tragedy_ of Lucian.
[91] Article, “Chrysostom,” in the _Penny Cyclopædia_.
[92] Baur’s _Life and Work of St. Paul_. Part ii., chap. 3.
[93] We here take occasion to observe that, while final appeals to
our sacred Scriptures to determine any sociological question--whether
of slavery, polygamy, war, or of dietetics--cannot be too strongly
deprecated, a candid and impartial inquirer, nevertheless, will gladly
recognise traces of a consciousness of the unspiritual nature of the
sacrificial altar and shambles. He will gladly recognise that if--as
might be expected in so various a collection of sacred writings
produced by different minds in different ages--frequent sanction of the
materialist mode of living may be urged on the one side; on the other
hand, the inspiration of the more exalted minds is in accord with the
practice of the true spiritual life. Cf. _Gen._ i., 29, 30; _Isaiah_
i., 11-17, and xi., 9 _Ps._ l., 9-14; _Ps._ lxxxi., 14-17; _Ps._
civ., 14, 15; _Prov._ xxiii., 2, 3, 20, 21; _Prov._ xxvii., 25-27:
_Prov._ xxx., 8, 22; _Prov._ xxxi., 4; _Eccl._ vi., 7; _Matt._ vi. 31;
1 _Cor._ viii., 13, and ix., 25; _Rom._ viii., 5-8, 12, 13; _Phil._
iii., 19, and iv., 8; _James_ ii., 13, 4, and iv., 1-3; 1 _Pet._ ii.,
11. Perhaps, next to the alleged authority of _Gen._ ix. (noticed
and refuted by Tertullian, as already quoted), the trance-vision of
St. Peter is most often urged by the _bibliolaters_ (or those who
revere the _letter_ rather than the _true inspiration_ of the Sacred
Books) as a triumphant proof of biblical sanction of materialism. Yet,
unless, indeed, _literalism_ is to over-ride the most ordinary rules
of common sense, as well as of criticism, all that can be extracted
from the “Vision” (in which were presented to the sleeper “all manner
of four-footed beasts of the earth, and _wild beasts_ and _creeping
things_,” which it will hardly be contented he was expected to eat)
is the fact of a mental illumination, by which the Jewish Apostle
recognises the folly of his countrymen in arrogating to themselves the
exclusive privileges of the “Chosen People.” Besides, as has already
been pointed out, the earliest traditions concur in representing St.
Peter as always a strict abstinent, insomuch that he is stated to have
celebrated the “Eucharist” with nothing but bread and salt.--_Clement
Hom._, xiv., 1.
[94] _Homily_, lxix. on _Mat._ xxii., 1-14.
[95] The _male_ sex, according to our ideas, might have been more
properly apostrophised; and St. Chrysostom may seem, in this passage
and elsewhere, to be somewhat partial in his invective. Candour,
indeed, forces us to remark that the “Golden-mouthed,” in common
with many others of the Fathers, and with the Greek and Eastern
world in general, depreciated the qualities, both moral and mental,
of the feminine sex. That the weaker are what the stronger choose
to make them, is an obvious truth generally ignored in all ages and
countries--by modern satirists and other writers, as well as by a
Simonides or Solomon. The _partial_ severity of the Archbishop of
Constantinople, it is proper to add, may be justified, in some measure,
by the contemporary history of the Court of Byzantium, where the
beautiful and licentious empress Eudoxia ruled supreme.
[96] St. Chrysostom seems to have derived this forcible appeal from
Seneca. Compare the remarks of the latter, Ep. cx.: “At, mehercule,
ista solicite scrutata varieque condita, cum subierint ventrem, una
atque cadem fæditas occupabit. Vis ciborum voluptatem contemnere?
_Exitum specta._”
[97] The _Homilies_ of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of
Constantinople, Translated by Members of the English Church. Parker,
Oxford. See _Hom._ vii. on _Phil._ ii. for a forcible representation of
the inferiority, in many points, of our own to other species.
[98] For example, we may refer to the fact of trials of “criminal”
dogs, and other non-human beings, with all the formalities of ordinary
courts of justice, and in the gravest manner recorded by credible
witnesses. The convicted “felons” were actually hanged with all the
circumstances of human executions. Instances of such trials are
recorded even so late as the sixteenth century.
[99] His biographer, Marinus, writes in terms of the highest admiration
of his virtues as well as of his genius, and of the perfection to which
he had attained by his unmaterialistic diet and manner of living. He
seems to have had a remarkably cosmopolitan mind, since he regarded
with equal respect the best parts of all the then existing religious
systems; and he is said even to have paid solemn honours to all the
most illustrious, or rather most meritorious, of his philosophic
predecessors. That his intellect, sublime and exalted as it was, had
contracted the taint of superstition must excite our regret, though
scarcely our wonder, in the absence of the light of modern science;
nor can there be any difficulty in perceiving how the miracles and
celestial apparitions--which form a sort of halo around the great
teachers--originated, viz., in the natural enthusiasm of his zealous
but uncritical disciples. One of his principal works is _On the
Theology of Plato_, in six books. Another of his productions was a
Commentary on the _Works and Days of Hesiod_. Both are extant. He
died at an advanced age in 485, having hastened his end by excessive
asceticism.
[100] _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, xl. This testimony of
the great historian to the merits of the last of the New-Platonists is
all the more weighty as coming from an authority notoriously the most
unimpassioned and unenthusiastic, perhaps, of all writers. Compare
his remarkable expression of personal feeling--guardedly stated as it
is--upon the question of kreophagy in his chapter on the history and
manners of the Tartar nations (chap. xxvi).
[101] _Trattato della Vita Sobria_, 1548.
[102] _Sævior armis Luxuria._ We may be tempted to ask ourselves
whether we are reading denunciations of the gluttony and profusion of
the sixteenth century or contemporary reports of public dinners in our
own country, _e.g._, of the Lord Mayor’s annual dinner. The vast amount
of slaughter of all kinds of victims to supply the various dishes of
_one_ of these exhibitions of national gluttony can be adequately
described only by the use of the Homeric word _hecatomb_--slaughter of
hundreds.
[103] _Amorevole Esortazione a Seguire La Vita Ordinata e Sobria._
[104] Cornaro’s heterodoxy in dietetics was not allowed, as may well
be supposed, to pass unchallenged by his contemporaries. One of his
countrymen, a person of some note, Sperone Speroni, published a reply
under the title of “Contra la Sobrietà;” but soon afterwards recanting
his errors (_rimettendosi spontaneamente nel buon sentiero_) he
wrote a Discourse in favour of Temperance. About the same time there
appeared in Paris an “Anti-Cornaro,” written “against all the rules
of good taste,” and which the editors of the _Biographie Universelle_
characterise as full of remarks “_tout à fait oiseuses_.”
[105] More points out very forcibly that to hang for theft is
tantamount to offering a premium for _murder_. Two hundred and fifty
years later Beccaria and other humanitarians vainly advanced similar
objections to the criminal code of christian Europe. It is hardly
necessary to remark that this Draconian bloodthirstiness of English
criminal law remained to belie the name of “civilisation” so recently
as fifty years ago.
[106] Erasmus (who, to lash satirically and more effectively the
various follies and crimes of men places the genius of Folly itself in
the pulpit) seems to have shared the feeling of his friend in regard to
the character of “sport.” “When they (the ‘sportsmen’) have run down
their victims, what strange pleasure they have in cutting them up! Cows
and sheep may be slaughtered by common butchers, but those animals that
are killed in hunting must be mangled by none under a gentleman, who
will fall down on his knees, and drawing out a slashing dagger (for a
common knife is not good enough) after several ceremonies shall dissect
all the joints as artistically as the best skilled anatomist, while
all who stand round shall look very intently and seem to be mightily
surprised with the novelty, though they have seen the same thing a
hundred times before; and he that can but dip his finger and taste of
the blood shall think his own bettered by it. And yet the constant
feeding on such diet does but assimilate them to the nature (?) of
those animals they eat,” &c.--_Encomium Moriæ_, or _Praise of Folly_.
If we recall to mind that three centuries and a half have passed away
since More and Erasmus raised their voices against the sanguinary
pursuits of hunting, and that it is still necessary to reiterate the
denunciation, we shall justly deplore the slow progress of the human
mind in all that constitutes true morality and refinement of feeling.
[107] _Utopia_ II.
[108] For a full and eloquent exposition of the social evils which
threaten the country from the natural but mischievous greed of
landowners and farmers, our readers are referred, in particular,
to Professor Newman’s admirable Lectures upon this aspect of the
Vegetarian creed, delivered before the Society at various times.
(Heywood: Manchester.)
[109] _Utopia._ Translated into English by Ralph Robinson, Fellow of
Corpus Christi College. London: 1556; reprinted by Edward Arber, 1869.
We have used this English edition as more nearly representing the style
of Sir Thomas More than a modern version. It is a curious fact that no
edition of the _Utopia_ was published in England during the author’s
lifetime--or, indeed, before that of Robinson, in 1551. It was first
printed at Louvain; and, after revision by the author, it was reprinted
at Basle, under the auspices of Erasmus, still in the original Latin.
[110] “With plaintive cries, all covered with blood, and in the
attitude of a suppliant.” See the story of the death of Silvia’s deer
(_Æneis_, viii.)--the most touching episode in the whole epic of
Virgil. The affection of the Tuscan girl for her favourite, her anxious
care of her, and the deep indignation excited amongst her people by the
murder of the deer by the son of Æneas and his intruding followers--the
cause of the war that ensued--are depicted with rare grace and feeling.
[111] “It was in the slaughter, in the primæval times, of wild beasts
(I suppose) the knife first was stained with the warm life-blood.”--See
_Ovid Metam._ xv.
[112] _Christian_ theology, to which doubtless Montaigne here refers,
the force of truth compels us to note, has always uttered a very
“uncertain sound” in regard to the rights and even to the frightful
sufferings of the non-human species. Excepting, indeed, two or three
isolated passages in the Jewish and Christian sacred Scriptures which,
according to the theologians, bear a somewhat _equivocal_ meaning, it
is not easy to discover what _particular_ theological or ecclesiastical
maxims Montaigne could adduce.
[113] We use the term in deference to universal custom, although
Francis Bacon protested 250 years ago that “Antiquity, as we call
it, is the young state of the world; for those times are ancient
when the world is ancient, and not those we vulgarly account ancient
by computing backwards--so that the present time is the real
Antiquity.”--_Advancement of Learning, I._ See also _Novum Organum_.
[114] Compare Shakspere’s eloquent indignation:--
“Man, proud Man,
Dressed in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assured--
His glassy essence--like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven,” &c.
_Measure for Measure._
[115] With these just and common-sense arguments of Montaigne compare
the very remarkable treatise (remarkable both by the profession and
by the age of the author) of Hieronymus or Jerome Rorarius, published
under the title--“That the [so-called] irrational animals often make
use of reason better than men.” (_Quod Animalia Bruta Sæpe Utantur
Ratione Melius Homine._) It was given to the world by the celebrated
physician, Gabriel Naudé, in 1648, one hundred years after it was
written, and, as pointed out by Lange, it is therefore earlier than
the Essais of Montaigne. “It is distinguished,” according to Lange,
“by its severe and serious tone, and by the assiduous emphasising of
just such traits of the lower animals as are most generally denied to
them, as being products of the higher faculties of the soul. With their
virtues the vices of men are set in sharp contrast. We can therefore
understand that the MS., although written by a priest, who was a friend
both of Pope and Emperor, had to wait so long for publication.” (_Hist.
of Materialism._ Vol. i., 225. Eng. Trans.) It is noteworthy that the
title, as well as the arguments, of the book of Rorarius reveals its
original inspiration--the Essay of Plutarch. Equally heterodox upon
this subject is the _De La Sagesse_ of Montaigne’s friend, Pierre
Charron.
[116] _Essais_ de Michel de Montaigne, II., 12.
[117] See Article in _English Cyclopædia_.
[118] See _Elémens de la Philosophie de Newton_. The whole passage
breathes the true spirit of humanity and philosophy, and deserves
to be quoted in full in this place: “Il y a surtout dans l’homme
une disposition à la compassion aussi généralement répandue que nos
autres instincts. Newton avait cultivé ce sentiment d’humanité, et
il l’etendait jusqu’aux animaux. Il était fortement convaincu avec
Locke, que Dieu a donné aux animaux une mésure d’idées, et les mêmes
sentiments qu’à nous. Il ne pouvait penser que Dieu, qui ne fait rien
en vain, eût donné aux animaux des organes de sentiment, _afin qu’elles
n’eussent point de sentiment_. Il trouvait une contradiction bien
affreuse à croire que les animaux sentent, et à les faire souffrir.
Sa morale s’accordait en ce point avec sa philosophie. _Il ne cédait
qu’avec répugnance à l’usage barbare de nous nourrir du sang et de
la chair des êtres semblables à nous_, que nous caressons tous les
jours. Il ne permit jamais dans sa maison qu’on les fit mourir par
des morts lentes et recherchées, pour en rendre la nourriture plus
délicieuse. Cette compassion qu’il avait pour les animaux se tournait
en vraie charité pour les hommes. En effet, _sans l’humanité--vertu
qui comprend toutes les vertus--on ne mériterait guère le nom de
philosophe_.”--_Elémens_ v. An expression of feeling in sufficiently
striking contrast to the ordinary ideas. Compare _Essay on the Human
Understanding_, ii., 2.