  KNOWN to the world generally as an eminent antiquarian and, in particular, as one of the earliest and most acute investigators of the sources of English romantic poetry, for future times his best and enduring fame will rest upon his at present almost forgotten Moral Essay upon Abstinence—one of the most able and philosophical of the ethical expositions of anti-kreophagy ever published. His birthplace was Stockton in the county of Durham. By profession a conveyancer, he enjoyed leisure for literary pursuits by his income from an official appointment. During the twenty years from 1782 to 1802 his time and talents were incessantly employed in the publication of his various works, antiquarian and critical. His first notable critique was his Observations on Warton’s History of English Poetry, in the shape of a letter to the author (1782), in which his critical zeal seems to have been in excess of his literary amenity. Of other literary productions may be enumerated his Remarks on the Commentators of Shakspere; A Select Collection of English Songs, with a Historical Essay on the Origin and Progress of National Songs (1783); Ancient Songs from the Time of King Henry III. to the Revolution (1790), reprinted in 1829—perhaps the most valuable of his archÆological labours; The English Anthology (1793); Ancient English Metrical Romances, and Bibliographia Poetica, a catalogue of English poets from the 12th to the 16th century, inclusive, with short notices of their works. These are only some of the productions of his industry and genius. We give the origin of his adhesion to the Humanitarian Creed as recorded by himself in one of the chapters of his Essay, in which, also, he introduces the name of an ardent and well-known humanitarian reformer:— “Mr. Richard Phillips, Ritson begins his Essay with a brief review of the opinions of some of the old Greek and Italian philosophers upon the origin and constitution of the world, and with a sketch of the position of man in Nature relatively to other animals. Amongst others he cites Rousseau’s Essay Upon Inequality Amongst Men. He then demonstrates the unnaturalness of flesh-eating by considerations derived from Physiology and Anatomy, and from the writings of various authorities; the fallacy of the prejudice that flesh-meats are necessary or conducive to strength of body, a fallacy manifest as well from the examples of whole nations living entirely, or almost entirely, upon non-flesh food, as from those of numerous individuals whose cases are detailed at length. He quotes Arbuthnot, Sir Hans Sloane, Cheyne, Adam Smith, Volney, Paley, and others. Next he insists upon the ferocity or coarseness of mind directly or indirectly engendered by the diet of blood:— “That the use of animal food disposes man to cruel and ferocious actions is a fact to which the experience of ages gives ample testimony. The Scythians, from drinking the blood of their cattle, proceeded to drink that of their enemies. The fierce and cruel disposition of the wild Arabs is supposed chiefly, if not solely, to arise from their feeding upon the flesh of camels: and as the gentle disposition of the natives of Hindustan is probably owing, in great degree, to temperance and abstinence from animal food, so the common use of this diet, with other nations, has, in the opinion of M. PagÈs, intensified the natural tone of their passions; and he can account, he says, upon no other principle, for the strong, harsh features of the Mussulmen and the Christians compared with the mild traits and placid aspect of the Gentoos. ‘Vulgar and uninformed men,’ it is observed by Smellie, ‘when pampered with a variety of animal food, are much more choleric, fierce, and cruel in their tempers, than those who live chiefly upon vegetables.’ This affection is equally perceptible in other animals—‘An officer, in the Russian service, had a bear whom he fed with bread and oats, but never gave him flesh. A young hog, however, happening to stroll near his cell, the bear got hold of him and pulled him in; and, after he had once drawn blood and tasted flesh, he became unmanageable, attacking every person who came near him, so that the owner was obliged to kill him.’—[Memoirs of P. H. Bruce.] It was not, says Porphyry, from those who lived on vegetables that robbers, or murderers, or tyrants have proceeded, but from flesh-eaters. “The barbarous and unfeeling sports (as they are called) of the English—their horse-racing, hunting, shooting, bull and bear baiting, cock-fighting, Ritson enforces his observations upon this head by citing Plutarch, Cowper, and Pope (in the Guardian, No. 61—a most forcible and eloquent protest against the cruelties of “sport” and of gluttony). “Superstition is the mother of Ignorance and Barbarity. Priests began by persuading people of the existence of certain invisible beings, whom they pretended to be the creators of the world and the dispensers of good and evil; and of whose wills, in fine, they were the sole interpreters. Hence arose the necessity of sacrifices [ostensibly] to appease the wrath or to procure the favour of imaginary gods, but in reality to gratify the gluttonous and unnatural appetites of real demons. Domestic animals were the first victims. These were immediately under the eye of the priest, and he was pleased with their taste. This satisfied for a time; but he had eaten of the same things so repeatedly, that his luxurious appetite called for variety. He had devoured the sheep, and he was now desirous of devouring the shepherd. The anger of the gods—testified by an opportune thunderstorm, was not to be assuaged but by a sacrifice of uncommon magnitude. The people tremble, and offer him their enemies, their slaves, their parents, their children, to obtain a clear sky on a summer’s day, or a bright moon by night. When, or upon what particular occasion, the first human being was made a sacrifice is unknown, nor is it of any consequence to enquire. Goats and bullocks had been offered up already, and the transition was easy from the ‘brute’ to the man. The practice, however, is of remote antiquity and universal extent, there being scarcely a country in the world in which it has not, at some time or other, prevailed.” He supports this probable thesis by reference to Porphyry, the most erudite of the later Greeks, who repeats the accounts of earlier writers upon this matter, and by a comparison of the religious rites of various nations, past and present. Equally natural and easy was the step from the use of non-human to that of human bodies:— “As human sacrifices were a natural effect of that superstitious cruelty which first produced the slaughter of other animals, so is it equally natural that those accustomed to eat the ‘brute’ should not long abstain from the man. More especially as, when roasted or broiled upon the altar, the appearance, savour, and taste of both, would be nearly, if not entirely the same. But, from whatever cause it may be deduced, nothing can be more certain than that the eating of human flesh has been a practice in many parts of the world from a very remote period, and is so, in some countries, at this day. That it is a consequence of the use of other animal food there can be no doubt, as it would be impossible to find an instance of it among people who were accustomed solely to a vegetable diet. The progress of cruelty is rapid. Habit renders it familiar, and hence it is deemed natural. “The man who, accustomed to live on roots and vegetables, first devoured the flesh of the smallest mammal, committed a greater violence to his own nature than the most beautiful and delicate woman, accustomed to other animal flesh, would feel in shedding the blood of her own species for sustenance; possessed as they are of exquisite feelings, a considerable degree of intelligence, and even, according to her own religious system, of a living soul. That this is a principle in the social disposition of mankind, is evident from the deliberate coolness with which seamen, when their ordinary provisions are exhausted, sit down to devour such of their comrades as chance or contrivance renders the victim of the moment; a fact of which there are but too many, and those too well-authenticated instances. Such a crime, which no necessity can justify, would never enter the mind of a starving Gentoo, nor, indeed, of anyone who had not been previously accustomed to other animal flesh. Even among the Bedouins, or wandering Arabs of the desert—according to the observation of the enlightened Volney—though they so often experience the extremity of hunger, the practice of devouring human flesh was never heard of.” In the two following chapters Ritson traces a large proportion of human diseases and suffering, physical and mental, to indulgence in unnatural living. He cites Drs. Buchan, Goldsmith, Cheyne, Stubbes (Anatomy of Abuses, 1583), and Sparrman the well-known pupil of LinnÉ (Voyages). In his ninth chapter, he gives a copious catalogue of “nations and of individuals, past and contemporary, subsisting entirely upon vegetable foods”—not the least interesting part of his work. Some of the most eminent of the old Greek and Latin philosophers and historians are quoted, as well as various modern travellers, such as Volney and Sparrman. Especially valuable are the enquiries of Sir F. M. Eden (State of the Poor), who, in a comparison of the dietary of the poor, in different parts of these islands, proves that flesh has, or at all events had, scarcely any share in it—a fact which is still true of the agricultural districts, manifest not only by the commonest observation, but also by scientific and official enquiries of late years. Of individual cases, two of the most interesting are those of John Williamson of Moffat, the discoverer of the famous chalybeate spring, who lived almost to the age of one hundred years, having abstained from all flesh-food during the last fifty years of his life, |
|
