“Mr. Richard Phillips,[206] the publisher of this compilation, a vigorous, healthy, and well-looking man, has desisted from animal food for upwards of twenty years; and the compiler himself, induced to serious reflection by the perusal of Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, in the year 1772, being the 19th year of his age, has ever since, to the revisal of these sheets [1802], firmly adhered to a milk and vegetable diet; having, at least, never tasted, during the whole course of those thirty years, any flesh, fowl, or fish, or anything, to his knowledge, prepared in or with those substances or any extract from them, unless, on one occasion, when tempted by wet, cold, and hunger in the south of Scotland, he ventured to eat a few potatoes dressed under roasted flesh, nothing less repugnant to his feelings being obtainable; or, except by ignorance or imposition, unless, it may be, in eating eggs, which, however, deprives no animal of life, although it may prevent some from coming into the world to be murdered and devoured by others.”[207]
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.[208] Prey being almost the sole object of quarrel amongst carnivorous animals, while the frugivorous live together in constant peace and harmony, it is evident that if men were of this latter kind, they would find it much more easy to subsist happily.”
“The barbarous and unfeeling sports (as they are called) of the English—their horse-racing, hunting, shooting, bull and bear baiting, cock-fighting,[209] prize-fighting, and the like, all proceed from their immoderate addiction to animal food. Their natural temper is thereby corrupted, and they are in the habitual and hourly commission of crimes against nature, justice, and humanity, from which a feeling and reflective mind, unaccustomed to such a diet, would revolt, but in which they profess to take delight. The kings of England have from a remote period, been devoted to hunting; in which pursuit one of them, and the son of another lost his life. James I., according to Scaliger, was merciful, except at the chase, where he was cruel, and was very much enraged when he could not catch the Stag. ‘God,’ he used to say, ‘is enraged against me, so that I shall not have him.’ Whenever he had caught his victim, he would put his arm all entire into his belly and entrails. This anecdote may be paralleled with the following of one of his successors: ‘The hunt on Tuesday last, (March 1st, 1784), commenced near Salthill, and afforded a chase of upwards of fifty miles. His Majesty was present at the death of the stag near Tring, in Herts. It is the first deer that has been ran to death for many months; and when opened, the heart strings were found to be quite rent, as is supposed, with the force of running.’[210] Siste, vero, tandem carnifex! The slave trade, that abominable violation of the rights of Nature, is most probably owing to the same cause, as well as a variety of violent acts, both national and personal, which usually are attributed to other motives. In the sessions of Parliament, 1802, a majority of the members voted for the continuance of bull-baiting, and some of them had the confidence to plead in favour of it.”[211]
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).[212] In his fifth chapter he traces the origin of human sacrifices to the practice of flesh eating:—
“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.