  ONE of the earliest pioneers of the New Reformation in Germany, chiefly from what may be termed the religious-philosophical standpoint, and one whose useful learning was equalled only by his true conception of the significance of the religious sentiment, was born at NÜrnberg, in the last year of the eighteenth century. Of a naturally feeble constitution, unable to mix in the ordinary amusements of school-life, he found ample leisure for literature and for music, to which especially he was devoted. Much of his time, also, was given to theological, and, in particular, biblical reading, so that his mother unhesitatingly fixed upon the clerical profession as his future career. He attended the Gymnasium of his native town, at that time under the direction of Hegel, who exercised a permanent influence upon his mental development. In the eighteenth year of his age he proceeded to the University of Erlangen for the study of theology. Doubts, however, began to disturb his contentment with orthodoxy; and, more and more dissatisfied with its systems, the young student relinquished the course of life for which he had believed himself destined; and, after attending the lectures of Schelling, he went to Leipsic to apply himself wholly to philology. Having completed the usual course of study, he was appointed teacher, and afterwards Professor of Latin in the NÜrnberg Gymnasium (1827). Unpleasant relations with the Rector of the schools (whose orthodoxy seems to have been less questionable than his amiability), and also, in part, his feeble health, obliged him to resign this post, and from that time he gave himself up exclusively to literary occupations, which were, for the most part, in the domain of philosophic theology. During his professoriate Daumer had written his Urgeschichte des Menschengeistes (“Primitive History of the Human Mind”), which was succeeded, at an interval of some years, by his Andeutungen eines Systems Speculativer Philosophie (“Intimations of a System of Speculative Philosophy”), in which he attempted to found and formulate a philosophic Theism. The unreality of the professions and trifling of those who had most reputation in the “religious” world, estranged him more and more from the prevalent interpretations of Christianity. His Philosophie, Religion, und Alterthum appeared in 1833. Two years later his ZÜge zu einer neuen Philosophie der Religion and Religionsgeschichte In his Anthropologismus und Kriticismus (“Anthropology and Criticism”), 1844, are many assaults upon the orthodox dietetic practices; and in EnthÜllungen Über Kaspar Hauser (“Revelations in regard to Kaspar Hauser”) he displays the noxious influences of flesh-eating upon a “wild boy of the woods,” who had been deserted or lost by his parents in his childhood, and who had lived an entirely natural life in the forests, eating only wild fruits. When he had been reclaimed from the savage state, his guardians, it seems, thought that the most effectual method of “civilising” their charge was to force him to discard fruits for flesh. The result, as shown by Professor Daumer, who watched the case with the greatest interest, was not reassuring for the orthodox believers. The inveteracy of the practice of kreophagy, which blinds men to its essential barbarism, as well as its anti-ethical, anti-humanising influences, is eloquently insisted upon:— “Among the reforms necessary for the triumph of true refinement and true morality, which ought to be our earnest aim, is the Dietetic one, which, if not the weightiest of all (allerwichtigste), yet, undoubtedly, is one of the weightiest. Still is the ‘civilised’ world stained and defiled by the remains of a horrible barbarity; while the old-world revolting practice of slaughter of animals and feeding on their corpses still is in so universal vogue, that men have not the faculty even of recognising it as such, as otherwise they would recognise it; and aversion from this horror provokes censure of such eccentricity, and amazement at any manifestion of tendency to reform, as at something absurd and ridiculous—nay, arouses even bitterness and hate. To extirpate this barbarism is a task, the accomplishment of which lies in the closest relationship with the most important principles of humaneness, morality, Æsthetics, and physiology. A foundation for real culture—a thorough civilising and refining of humanity—is clearly impossible so long as an organised system of murder and of corpse-eating (organisirten Mord-und-Leichenfratz System) prevails by recognised custom. “That through a manner of living, of a character so fostering of corrupting and putrefying principles, is generated and nourished a whole host of diseases which, “That through the cadaverous diet, also, very great disadvantages are derived to the spiritual and moral nature of men, appears to me to be proved by my experience in the case of my former foster-son, the celebrated Kaspar Hauser. This young man, maintained during his close confinement upon bread and water, for a long time after his introduction to the world ate nothing else, and wished for nothing else, as food. While he was accustomed, without ill-effect, to take bread-sops, oatmeal, and plain chocolate, from flesh, which had for him an intolerable odour, he had conceived a violent aversion. Living in this way he always looked sufficiently well-nourished, he developed a remarkable intelligence, and exhibited an extraordinarily refined and tender feeling. He was induced at last, but only by the most extraordinary caution and gradually, to take the usual flesh-dishes, by being given at first only a few drops of flesh-soup in his bread-sops, and, when he had grown in some measure accustomed to it, by infusing stronger ingredients, and so on. “There was now manifested the most disastrous change in his mind and disposition: learning became for him strangely difficult—the nobility of his nature disappeared into the background, and he turned out to be nothing more than a very ordinary individual. They ascribed this, of course, to every other cause than to his habituation to the flesh-diet. I myself was at that time very remote from the opinion of which I now am. From my present standpoint, however, I certainly cannot doubt that dietetic barbarism is for man of the most essential harm, not alone in a physical, but also in an intellectual and moral, point of view, however much it may, at present, be taken under the patronage of physiologists and physicians—upon no other ground, apparently, than because they themselves, to a melancholy degree, are devotedly attached to this inhuman diet. For, alas! man is wont to make use of his reason to justify by specious show of reasoning what he likes and delights in upon quite other grounds.” Of the rest of the little band of the propagators of the truer Philosophy in Germany no longer living—who resolutely bore aloft the standard of the Humanitarian Creed, at a time when it was yet more scouted and scorned by the infidels than even at the present day—deserving as they are of everlasting gratitude and remembrance at the hands of their more fortunate successors, the limits of this book compel us to be content with recording here the witness of one or two more only; while for acquaintance with the numerous able and eloquent expositions of their living representatives—of such earnest humanitarian and social reformers as Ed. Baltzer, Emil WeilshÄuser, Theodor Hahn, Dr. Aderholdt, A. von Seefeld, R. Springer, and others— From Der Weg zum Paradiese (“The Way to Paradise”) the following extract sufficiently represents the inspiration of the writer, Dr. W. Zimmermann:— “Men are almost entirely everything that they are by the force of custom; and this force, for the most part, resists every other power, and remains victorious over all. Reason itself, morality, and conscience are submissive to it. In the matter of Dietary Reform it displays itself as the enemy par excellence (die Hauptmacht). People will fall back upon alleged impossibilities, although it is a question only of will and resolution. They will reject many of the dietetic propositions hitherto advanced as dangerous ‘abstractions,’ although they are founded in history, reason, and human destiny; although a brief enquiry ought to suffice to convince one of the first importance of the Reform. For although one must suppose that all would prefer a long, healthy, and happy existence to a feeble, painful life upon the old regimen, yet will the majority of human beings think it easier to attempt to assuage their torments and pains by uncertain, and, by no means, unhazardous medicine, rather than to remove them by obedience to Nature’s laws. As it is with most of the highest truths, so is it especially with Dietary Reform. People will reject it as an abstraction, and pronounce it an impossibility. In the future, however, by the greater number of the higher minds—for such a sacrifice of the lower and unnatural appetite we dare not expect from the ordinary run of men—will it be regarded in practice as a great blessing. For even now there are many exceptions in the social organism for whom Nature’s laws are superior to unreasoning impulse; for whom morality is superior to materialistic and mere sensual living; for whom duty is superior to superfluity. Besides, we are advancing towards a humaner century; and, as the present is a humaner time than the century before, so later will there be a milder rÉgime than now. Just as, in our days, exposure of children, combats of gladiators, torture of prisoners, and other atrocities are held to be scandalous and shameful, while in earlier times they were thought quite justifiable and right, so in the future will the murder of animals, to feed upon their corpses, be pronounced to be immoral and indefensible. Already (1846) are associations being formed for the protection of these beings; already now are there many who, like the nobler spirits of antiquity, apply to their diet the watchword of morality (das Losungswort der Moral) to do good and to abstain from wrong is always, and above everything, possible, and no longer give their sanction, by feeding on animals, to the torture and killing of innocent sentient beings. “According to the number of proselytes will the importance of the evidence be adjudged. When thousands, practising natural diet, are observed in the midst of diseased flesh-eaters to be in the enjoyment of a prolonged, happy, old age, without disease and the sufferings of a vicious method of life, then will the way be laid down for the many to abandon the living upon the corpses of other animals.” Of a like inspiration is the indignant protest of another of the apostles of Humanitarianism in Germany:— “What humiliation, what disgrace for us all, that it should be necessary for one man to exhort other men not to be inhuman and irrational towards their fellow-creatures! Do they recognise, then, no mind, no soul in them—have they not feeling, pleasure in existence, do they not suffer pain? Do their voices of joy and sorrow indeed fail to speak to the human heart and conscience—so that they can murder the jubilant lark, in the first joy of his spring-time, who ought to warm their hearts with sympathy, from delight in bloodshed or for their ‘sport,’ or with a horrible insensibility and recklessness only to practise their aim in shooting! Is there no soul manifest in the eyes of the living or dying animal—no expression of suffering in the eye of a deer or stag hunted to death—nothing which accuses them of murder before the avenging Eternal Justice?... Are the souls of all other animals but man mortal, or are they essential in their organisation? Does the world-idea (Welt-Idee) pertain to them also—the soul of nature—a particle of the Divine Spirit? I know not; but I feel, and every reasonable man feels like me, it is in miserable, intolerable contradiction with our human nature, with our conscience, with our reason, with all our talk of humanity, destiny, nobility; it is in frightful (himmelschreinder) contradiction with our poetry and philosophy, with our nature and with our (pretended) love of nature, with our religion, with our teachings about benevolent design—that we bring into existence merely to kill, to maintain our own life by the destruction of other life.... It is a frightful wrong that other species are tortured, worried, flayed, and devoured by us, in spite of the fact that we are not obliged to this by necessity; while in sinning against the defenceless and helpless, just claimants as they are upon our reasonable conscience and upon our compassion, we succeed only in brutalising ourselves. This, besides, is quite certain, that man has no real pity and compassion for his own species, so long as he is pitiless towards other races of beings.” |
|
