Howard Williams

I.
HESIOD.

THE original of the English version, given in the beginning of this work, is as follows:—

??p???, ??d? ?sas??, ?s?p???? ??s? ?a?t??,

??d’ ?s?? ?? ?a???? te ?a? ?sf?d??? ??’ ??e?a?.

* * * * * * *

???se?? ?? p??t?sta ????? e??p?? ?????p??

????at?? p???sa? ???p?a d?at’ ????te?.

?ste ?e?? d’ ????? ???d?a ???? ????te?,

??sf?? ?te? te p???? ?a? ??????? ??d? t? de????

G??a? ?p??, a?e? de p?da? ?a? ?e??a? ?????

???p??t’ ?? ?a???s? ?a??? ??t?s?e? ?p??t???

T??s??? d’ ?? ?p?? ded?????? ?s??? d? p??ta

???s?? ???? ?a?p?? d’ ?fe?e ?e?d???? ?????a

??t??t?, p????? te ?a? ?f?????? ?? d’ ??e????

?s???? e??’ ?????t? s?? ?s????s?? p???ess??,

[?f?e??? ????s?, f???? a???ess? ?e??s?][285]

??t?? ?pe?d? t??t? ????? ?at? ?a?a ?????e?,

??? ?? da???e? e?s? ???? e????? d?? ?????

?s????, ?p????????, f??a?e? ???t?? ?????p??,[286]

?? ?a f???ss??s?? te d??a? ?a? s??t??a ???a,

??a ?ss?e??? p??t? f??t??te? ?p’ a?a?,

??a?t?d?ta?? ?a? t??t? ???a? as?????? ?s???.

* * * * * * *

?e?? d? ?at?? t??t?? ???? ????? e??p?? ?????p??

????e??? p???se * *

??d? t? s?t??

?s????, ???’ ?d?a?t?? ???? ??ate??f???a ????,

?p??t??? e???? d? ?? ?a? ?e??e? ?apt??

?? ??? ?p?f???? ?p? st?a???s? ??ess??.

???a ?a? ?e?a? (Works and Days), passim.

II.

Extracts from “The Golden Verses” (???s? ?p?). An Exposition of Pythagorean Doctrine, of the Third Century, B.C., in Hexameters. (See pages 21, 22.)

??ate?? d’ e????e? t??de—

Gast??? ?? p??t?sta, ?a? ?p???, ?a??e??? te,

?a? ????? p???e?? d’ a?s???? p?te ?te et’a????

??t’ ?d??? p??t?? de a??st’ a?s???e? sa?t??.

??ta ???a??s???? ?s?e?? ???? te ???? te.

??d’ ?????st?? sa?t?? ??e?? pe?? ?d?? ????e?

???a ????e ?? ?? ?a??e?? p?p??ta? ?pas?.

* * * * * * *

??de?? ?te ???? se pa?e?p?, ?te t? ????,

????a? ?t’ e?pe?? ? t? t?? ? ??te??? ?st??

??????? de d?a?ta? ??e?? ?a???e???, ????pt??.

* * * * * * *

??d’ ?p??? a?a???s?? ?p’ ?as? p??sd??as?a?

???? t?? ?e????? ????? t??? ??ast?? ?pe??e??—

?? pa????? ?? d’ ??e?a? ?? ?? d??? ??? ?te??s???—

????e??? d’ ?p? p??t?? ?p????? ?a? etepe?ta

?e??? ?? ??p???a?, ?pep??sse?? ???st? de t??p???.

?a?ta p??e?, ta?t’ ??e??ta? t??t?? ??? ????.

?a?ta se t?? ?e??? ??et?? e?? ????a ??se??

?a? ? ??? ?et??? ???? ?a?ad??ta ?et?a?t??,

?a??? ?e???? ??se?? * * *

???t?? de ??at?sa?

G??s? ??a??t?? te Te??, ???t?? t’ ?????p??

S?stas??, ?te ??asta d????eta?, ?te ?pate?ta?.

G??s? d’ ? ???? ?st?, F?s? pe?? pa?t?? ?????

?ste se ?te ?e?pt’ ??p??e??, ?te t? ???e??.

G??s? d’ ?????p??? a??a??eta p?at’ ????ta?

?????e?, ?? t’ ??a??? p??a? ??t?? ??? ?s?p?s??

??te ?????s?? ??s?? d? ?a??? pa?p?? s???sas?.

?e? ??te?, ? p????? ?e ?a??? ??se?a? ?pa?ta?,

?? p?s?? de??a?? ??? t? da???? ????ta?.

???a s? ???se?, ?pe? ?e??? ????? ?st? ??t??s??,

??? ?e?a p??f?p??sa F?s?? de????s?? ??asta

?? e? s?? ?test?, ??at?se?? ?? se ?e?e??

??a??sa?, ????? d? p???? ?p? t??de sa?se??.

???’ e????? ??t?? ?? e?p?e?, ?? te ?a??????,

?? te ??se? ????? ??????, ?a? f???e? ??asta,

??????? ????? st?sa? ?a??pe??e? ???st???

?? d’ ?p??e??a? s?a ?? a??e?’ ??e??e??? ?????,

?ssea? ????at??, ?e??, ???t??, ??? ?t? ???t??.[287]

III.

IN Texts from the Buddhist Canon, Love or Compassion for all living beings is thus inculcated by Buddha, in a sermon addressed to a number of women (belonging to a class of hunters) whose husbands were then engaged on one of their predatory excursions:—

When he had uttered these words, both men and women were admitted into the company of his disciples, and obtained rest.

There was, in times gone by, a certain mighty King, called Ho-meh (love-darkness), who ruled in a certain district where no tidings of Buddha or his merciful doctrine had yet been heard; but the religious practices were the usual ones of sacrifice and prayer to the gods for protection. Now it happened that the King’s mother, being sick, the physicians having vainly tried their medicine, all the wise men were called to consult as to the best means of restoring her health.... On the King asking them [the Brahman priests] what should be done, they replied ... sacrifices of a hundred beasts of different kinds should be offered on the four hills (or to the four quarters), with a young child, as a crowning oblation to Heaven. [Here follows a description of the King ordering a hundred head of Elephants, Horses, Oxen, and Sheep to be driven along the road from the Eastern Gate towards the place of sacrifice, and how their piteous cries rang through heaven and earth.—Editor’s Note.] On this Buddha, moved with compassion, came to the spot, and preached a sermon on “Love to all that Live,” and added these words:—

See Texts from the Buddhist Canon, commonly known as Dhammapada—with accompanying Narratives—Translated from the Chinese, by Samuel Beal, Professor of Chinese, University College, London—TrÜbner, 1878: and the similar scene in The Light of Asia, where Buddha interposes at the moment of a religious sacrifice:—

See also the annexed extracts from the Buddhist Sacred Scriptures, written probably about the third century B.C.:—

As for the older (sacerdotal) religionism of the Peninsula—that of Brahma—the force of Truth obliges us here to remark that, while the great mass of the Hindus continue to shrink with disgust and abhorrence from the Slaughter-house and from the sanguinary diet of their conquerors and rulers, Mohammedan and Christian, the richer classes, and even many of the Brahmins and priests have long conformed, in great measure at least, to Western dietetic practices; and (the flesh of the Cow or Ox excepted), no more than other religionists do they scruple to violate the laws of their Sacred Books—the Vedas—which, however, are not so humane as the teaching of the great Founder of Buddhism, as preserved in the Buddhist Sacred Scriptures, the Tripataka, being more essentially ritual and ceremonial than its popular off-shoot. Yet there are traces in the sacred writings of Hinduism of a strong consciousness of the irreligionism of feeding upon slaughtered animals, as in the Laws of Manu, their Sacred Legislator, where it is laid down that:—

It is superfluous to insist upon the fact that inhabitants of the hotter and, in particular, of the tropical regions of the globe have, as a matter of course, even less valid pretexts for resorting to butchering than have the natives of colder climates; and that proportionally, therefore, is the reprobation to which they are obnoxious. (See, among other recent testimony, that of Shib Chunder Bose in his interesting book—The Hindus as they Are. London: Ed. Stanford, 1881). The writer has usefully exposed the yearly-increasing evils to India from the example of English dietetic habits.

THE original (the peculiar beauties of which cannot easily be represented in a modern idiom) of the English version already given in this work, with the concluding verses omitted in that translation, is here subjoined:—

Nor is this the only passage in his writings in which the Pagan poet proves himself to have been not without that humaneness and feeling so rare alike in non-Christian and in Christian poetry. In the charming story of the visit of the disguised and incarnate Celestials to the cottage of the pious peasants, Philemon and Baucis, Ovid takes the opportunity to present an alluring picture of the innocent fruits which were placed before the divine guests—a picture which, probably, was present to Milton in recording the similar hospitality of Eve.

Among the fragrant dishes—“savoury fruits, of taste to please true appetite”—appear Figs, Nuts, Dates, Plums, Grapes, Apples, Olives, Radishes, Onions, and Endive, with Honey, Eggs, and Milk:—

We are not surprised, however, that, notwithstanding all this variety of sufficient foods, ignorant peasants, imitating the vicious examples of their rich neighbours, thought it due to “hospitality” to sacrifice life; and they were on the point of slaughtering the only non-human being belonging to them—a Goose, the “guardian of the cottage”—when the heavenly visitants intervene, and forbid the unnecessary barbarism:—

When the rest of the inhabitants of Phrygia, were, for their wickedness, destroyed by indignant Heaven, the two old peasants, we may add, found safety from the general Deluge. (Metam. viii. 664–688).[291]

It may be noted in this place that the great “Epicurean” poet, Horace (Ovid’s contemporary), bon-vivant though he was, and apparently uninspired by humanitarian feeling, yet now and again expresses his conviction of the superiority of the Fruit to the Flesh banquet, and of the greater compatibility of the former with the poetic genius. E.g. Carmina I., 31. Ad Apollinem:—

Satire II. 2. “Frugality.:”—

His arraignment of the rich glutton, who obliges and allows the poor man to starve in the midst of plenty, is worthy of the morality of Seneca:—

A STOIC writer of great repute with his contemporaries, son of a Roman Eques, was born at Volsinii (Bolsena), in Etruria, at the end of the reign of Augustus. He was banished by Nero, who especially hated the professors of the Porch; but by Vespasian he was held in extraordinary honour when the rest of the philosophers were expelled from Rome. The time of his death is uncertain. He was the author of various philosophical works which are characterised by SuÏdas as “distinguished writings of a highly philosophic nature,” who also attributes to him (but on uncertain evidence) letters to Apollonius of Tyana. We are indebted for knowledge of his opinions to a work (of unknown authorship) entitled Memoirs of Musonius the Philosopher. It is from this work that StobÆus (Anthologion), Aulus Gellius, Arrian, and others seem to have borrowed, in quoting the dicta of the great Stoic teacher. All the extant fragments of his writings are carefully collected by Peerlkamp (Haarlem, 1822). (See also Herr Ed. Baltzer’s valuable monograph, Musonius: Charakterbild aus Der RÖmischen Kaiserzeit. Nordhausen, 1871):—

BORN at Brechten, a town in Brabant, of influential family, this noted Hygeist, at a very early age, exhibited so exceptional a disposition as to be known among his school-fellows as the “prophet.” His ardour for learning was so intense as to cause him to forget the hours of meals, and to reduce his time for sleep to the shortest period possible. Having obtained a scholarship at the Arras College in Louvain, Lessio pursued the course of studies there with the greatest success, and by his fellow-students was proclaimed “prince of philologers.” At the age of seventeen he entered the Society of Jesus. Two years later he was elected to the Chair of Philosophy at Douai. In 1585 he accepted the Professorship of Theology at Louvain.

So extraordinary were the respect and veneration which he had attracted in his Order and from all who had access to him, that not only did his death cause the greatest regret, but (as we are assured) his friends contended among themselves for possession of every possible relic and memento “of one who had composed so admirable works.” He was interred before the high altar of the church of his college in Louvain. Held in high honour during life, after his death so rare an ornament of his Church was signally eulogised by the Pope, Urbano VIII.; and he was even believed to have worked miracles. His praises are especially recorded in a book entitled De Vit et Moribus R. P. Leonardi Lessii—reprinted at Paris, 1644.

Principal Writings: De Justiti et de Jure Actionum, Humanarum, &c. (reprinted seven times). Many of the propositions, it seems, eventually came under the censure of the Theological Faculty, the Bishops, and the Pontiffs.

QuÆ Fides et Religio sit Capessenda, Consultatio. Anvers, 1610. In the estimation of S. FranÇois de Sales, a work “not so much that of Lessio as of an Angel of the Judgment (Ange du Grand Conseil).”

Hygiasticon (Anvers, 1613–14, 8vo); it is superfluous to remark, his really valuable work. It was translated from the Latin into French by Sebastian Hardy, with the title of Le Vrai RÉgime de Vivre pour la Conservation du Corps et de l’Ame. Paris, 1646. Another editor, La BonnodiÈre, added notes, republishing it under the title of De la SobriÉtÉ et de Ses Avantages. Paris, 1701.

“Lessio,” writes the author of the article in the Biographie Universelle, “having been condemned by the physicians to have no more than two years longer to live, himself studied the principles of Hygiene, was struck by the example of Cornaro, resolved to imitate him, and found himself so well from such imitation that he translated his book (Della Vita Sobria), joining to it the results of his own experience, to which he owed the prolongation of his life by forty years.” For the rest, he was a man of extensive erudition; and Justus Lipsius celebrates, in some fine verse, the variety of his talents. (See Biog. Universelle Ancienne et Moderne. À Paris, chez Michaud, 1819.)

The Hygiasticon is prefaced by testimonials from three eminent physicians, setting forth their concurrence in the principles of the author. The English translation (1634) has prefixed to it addresses, in verse, to him; one of which is by Crashaw, the friend of Cowley, and a Dialogue between Glutton and Echo, also in verse. Affixed to this edition are an English version of Cornaro, by George Herbert, and a translation of an anonymous treatise by another Italian writer—That a Spare Diet is better than a Splendid and Sumptuous One: A Paradox.

In his chap. v. “Of the Advantages which a Sober Diet brings to the Body, and first, That it freeth almost from all Diseases”—Lessio promises the adherents of it, that in the first place:—

Lessio proceeds to descant upon the other benefits of the reformed regimen—such as that it prolongs life (other things being equal) to extreme old age, produces cheerfulness, activity, memory, and the like.[293]

Moffet, another hygienic writer of the sixteenth century, demands indignantly:—

THE author of the Anatomy of Abuses, a writer of the same period, denouncing the unnatural and luxurious living of his time, compares the two diets with equal force and truth:—

AMONG the poets of the age second only to Milton and to Dryden. The Garden, from which we extract the following just sentiments, is prefixed by way of dedication to the Kalendarium Hortense of John Evelyn, his personal and political friend. The Gardener’s Almanac, it is worthy of note, is one of the earliest prototypes of the numerous more modern treatises of the kind. It had reached a tenth edition in 1706.

ONE of the best known of the seventeenth century humane Hygeists, was born at Bibury, a village in Gloucestershire. His father was a tiler and plasterer, who by stress of poverty was forced to remove his son, when no more than six years of age, from the village school, and to set him at the work of spinning and carding, (the woollen manufacture being then extensively carried on in Gloucestershire). At eight years of age he became so expert, he tells us, as to be able to spin four pounds a day, earning two shillings a week. At the age of twelve he was made to work at his father’s employment. At this period he first learned to read. He next took to keeping sheep. With the sum of three pounds, realised by the sale of his four sheep, he went to London to seek his fortune, when seventeen years old, and bound himself apprentice to a “castor-maker,” in Fleet Street. His master was an Anabaptist—“an honest and sober man;” and, after two years’ apprenticeship, Tryon adopted the same religious creed. All his spare time was now devoted entirely to study; and, with the usual ardour of scholars who depend upon their own talents and exertions, he scarcely gave any time to food or sleep. The holiday period, too, spent by his fellow-apprentices in eating and drinking, and gross amusements, was utilised in the same way. Science, and Physiology in particular, attracted his attention.

At the age of twenty-three he first adopted the reformed diet, “my drink being only water, and food only bread and some fruit, and that but once a day for some time; but afterwards I had more liberty given me by my guide, Wisdom, to eat butter and cheese; my clothing being mean and thin; for, in all things, self-denial was now become my real business.” This strict life he maintained for more than a year, when he relapsed, at intervals, during the next two years. At the end of this period he had become confirmed in his reform, and he remained to the end strictly akreophagist, and, indeed, strictly frugal, “contenting myself with herbs, fruits, grains, eggs, butter and cheese for food, and pure water for drink.” About two years after his marriage he made voyages to Barbadoes and to Holland in the way of trade—“making beavers.” He finally settled himself in England, and at the age of forty-eight he published his first book on Dietetics.

His brief autobiography, from which the above facts are drawn, ends at this period. His editor adds, as to his appearance and character: “his aspect easily discovered something extraordinary; his air was cheerful, lively, and brisk; but grave with something of authority, though he was of the easiest access. Notwithstanding he was of no strong make, yet, through his great temperance, regularity, and by the strength of his spirits and vigour of his mind, he was capable of any fatigue, even to his last illness, equally with any of the best constitutions of men half his years. Through all his lifetime he had been a man of unwearied application, and so indefatigable that it may be as truly said of him as it can be of any man that he was never idle; but of such despatch that, though fortune had allotted him as great multiplicity of business as, perhaps, to any one of his contemporaries, yet, without any neglect thereof, he found leisure to make such a search into Nature, that perhaps few of this age equalled him therein: and not only into Nature, but also into almost all arts and sciences, of some whereof he was an improver, and of all innocent and useful ones an encourager and promoter.”[295]

In spite of that penetration of mind and justness of thought which influenced him to abandon the cruelty and coarseness of the orthodox diet, the author of The Way to Health could not free himself from certain of the credulous fancies of his age; and, it must be admitted, his writings are by no means exempt from such prejudices. It is as a moral reformer that he has deserved our respect, and of his numerous books the following are noteworthy:—

Nothing can be more just or forcible than these expostulations:—

As to the unsuspected cause of the various diseases so abundant:—

In his xiv chapter, “Of Flesh and its Operation on the Body and Mind,” Tryon employs all his eloquence in proving that the practice of slaughtering for food is not only cruel and barbarous in itself, but originates, or, at all events, intensifies the worst passions of men.

Eulogising the milder manners of the followers of Pythagoras, and of the Hindus generally, he tells his countrymen that:—

Whatever may be thought of the zealous attempt of the pious author to 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:—

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.

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:—

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.

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:—

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.

“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.

“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.”