Chapter XXXV: Ritson. 1761-1830

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,[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_.

“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,[213] and of John Oswald, the author of _The Cry of Nature_. It is in this part of his work that Ritson narrates the history of his own conversion and dietetic experiences, and of his well-known publisher, Mr. R. Phillips.