The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh-Eating, Howard Williams (1883)

“Do vegetarians eat meat by night?”

“What on earth do you live on?”

“The animals were ‘sent’ to humans for food.”

“What would otherwise become of the animals?”

 

ethicsofdietEvery modern-day vegan or vegetarian has been asked these questions by meat-eating friends or family members incredulous that it is even possible “to survive without meat and so we must be cheating somewhere, at some time.” And then we, in whatever way that is comfortable to us, defend ourselves. But what makes these questions particularly remarkable is that they are the questions swirling around 1877 London challenging those vegetarians to come up with a defense against their choice not to consume animal flesh.

Howard Williams, a five-year vegetarian, professor of history and the well-known biographer of Pope and Swift railed against the ignorance and mockery of these flesh-eating tormentors and decided to remedy the absence of knowledge about the long tradition of flesh abstention. He would write the history of vegetarianism from the point of view of well-known nonflesh-eaters of the past.

The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh-Eating was published in 1883. Arranged in a historical timeline beginning with Hesiod and ending with Schopenhaur, Williams provides 50 sources made up of well-known philosophers, scientists, religious and literary figures who provide the reader with a historical record of their treatises, poems, discourses, biographies and literary works that speak of animal rights, human health, the morality against eating animals, the economics of taking up land for animals and not people and the meat-centered diet of the rich. Before each entry Williams gives a brief biographical sketch and summation of their thoughts. For many of these famous individuals their beliefs came from considering the perfect society or advanced civilizations where flesh eating made no sense. Some had personal experiences that triggered thoughtful examination of what their culture termed the normal treatment of animals for food that led them to see things differently.

I find this collection to be terribly important as a foundation against the so-called mockery and disdain of my own times. Vegetarianism has a long history practiced by the great and the humble for all kinds of economic, moral, philosophical and religious reasons. There is also a sense of camaraderie in knowing that famous vegetarians have been asked the same questions I have! Their arguments, thoughts and pleadings in defense of animals from so long ago is hopeful. Defending animals against the belief they are commodities or inferior life forms to be treated without regard has always had their champions and with this book there is the weight of Pythagoras and Voltaire, Seneca and Shelley.

No matter our diet, the question—must we eat meat or not—is as old as the hills with both sides bearing a long tradition of discourse.

Excerpts

Ovid (43 BC-18 AD), quoting Pythagoras (c570BC-c470BC)

Pythagoras was the first to forbid animals to be served up at the table and he was first to open his lips to say….”Forbear O mortals! to pollute your bodies with such abominable food…there are the fruits which bear down the branches with their weight, and there are the grapes swelling on the vines; the lavish earth heaps up her riches and her gentle foods, and offers you dainties without blood and without slaughter…It is not enough that such wickedness is committed by men. They have involved the gods themselves in this abomination, that they believe this deity in the heavens can rejoice in the slaughter of the laborious and useful ox. The spotless victim, excelling in the beauty of its form, decked out with garlands with gold is placed before their altars, and the fruits which it cultivated placed on its head between its horns and struck down, with its life-blood it dyes the sacrificial knife…”

Clement of Alexandria (c150BC-c215BC) Essay on Man

“Pythagoras seems to me to have derived his mildness towards irrational animals from the Law [Jewish Law]. For instance, he interdicted the employment of the young of sheep and goats and cows for some time after their birth; not even on the pretext of sacrifice allowing it, on account both of the young ones and of the mother; training men to gentleness by their conduct toward those beneath them. ‘Resign,’ he says, ‘the young one to the mother for the proper time’. For if nothing takes place without a cause, and milk is produced in large quantity in parturition for the sustenance of the progeny, he who tears way the young one from the supply of the milk and the breast of the mother, dishonors Nature.”

“The Law, too, expressly prohibits the slaying of such animals as are pregnant till they have brought forth, remotely restraining the proneness of men to do wrong to men; and thus also it has extended its clemency to the irrational animals, that by the exercise of humanity to beings of different races we may practise amongst those of the same species a larger abundance of it.

Rousseau (1712-1778)

“One of the proofs that the taste of flesh is not natural to man is the indifference which children exhibit for that sort of meat, and the preference they all give to vegetable foods, such as milk-porridge, pastry, fruits, etc. It is of the last importance not to denaturalize them of this primitive taste and not to render them carnivorous, if not for health reasons, at least for the sake of their character. For, however the experience may be explained, it is certain that great eaters of flesh are, in general, more cruel and ferocious than other men.

_______________

My Edition
Title: The Ethics of Diet: A Catena of Authorities Deprecatory of the Practice of Flesh-Eating
Author: Howard Williams
Publisher: University of Illinois Press
Device: Trade paperback
Year: 2003 (1883)
Pages: 394

The Bright Hour: A Memoir of Living and Dying, Nina Riggs (2017)

“We are breathless, but we love the days. They are promises. They are the only way to walk from one night to the other.”

 

brighthourMy best friend Dinah died of breast cancer in 2009. It amazes me every day that I have been able to live without her and that we will not be rocking-chair old ladies together. I had never been closely involved in someone’s cancer fight before and while the pain of this loss is deep, the humor and wit she was known for is also part of my memories.

After decades of a close friendship Dinah shared easily her thoughts on her prognosis and living for almost 5 years with stage four breast cancer, the 3 ½ rounds of chemo and when she finally called it quits, the hair loss/regrowth and loss again and how she playfully exploited her baldness to get to the front of any line and the best table in restaurants, and finally her belief that Jesus would heal her, even when it was obvious she was going to die.

Through the years after her death, I have often picked up memoirs of cancer survivors or in the case of The Bright Hour, those who died. I am not sure what I want from these books, but I am drawn to how people live, not knowing the outcome, and how like Dinah they put one foot in front of the other and just keep going, keep living and experiencing life as fully as they can.

In The Bright Hour, Nina Riggs is a 37 year-old wife and mother of two young boys when she learns she has breast cancer. At first it is just “one small spot,” but chemo and radiation do not do their job and by the time she tries the last treatment available she is at stage four.

Between treatments she tries to live as normally as possible for her boys. She and her husband John are always honest with the latest treatment outcome. Freddy and Ben learn to live in an atmosphere of uncertainty over their mother’s health.

As if Nina’s fight isn’t consuming enough, her mother has been fighting breast cancer for five years and provides some of the lighter moments in the book. A dedicated book club member, even at death’s door she wants to keep up with the book selection schedule. With poignant moments, the clubbers understand.

Nina’s optimism carries her a long way, the title being a clue. As the great, great, great granddaughter of Ralph Waldo Emerson, she is trying to live in that bright hour and not “be a prisoner of this sickly body and to become as large as the World.”

This isn’t a depressing book, but because I knew she was going to die there was a bit of dread at each page turn wondering when and how that would occur. Her writing style is contemporary and conversational which adds to this feeling of immediacy, but also gives a measure of comfort as if I was peering into the heart of my own friend. Nina does not gloss over the effects the various treatments and procedures have on her physically and in that regard the book may not appeal to everyone. But this is the reality I experienced with Dinah and no matter how gross or painful, this is the reality of our friends and family.

In the afterword written by John, we learn Nina finished the manuscript for the book in late January 2017. And with the prospects grim, entered hospice in February. She died on the 26th.

Nina leaves us with a good outcome, even though hers was not so good–live life as best as you can, because…well, you just don’t know what’s up ahead. Books like this help us turn our sadness into marveling at the human spirit that just wants to live well, no matter the prognosis.

_____________

My Edition
Title:The Bright Hour: A Memoir of Living and Dying
Author: Nina Riggs
Publisher: Simon and Schuster
Device: Hard cover
Year: 2017
Pages: 320
Full plot summary

Challenges: Library Love, Nonfiction Reading