Images de page

out either tearing in pieces or over-much weakening that part of the soul which was made to be obedient to her.

Thus, moderate anger is of admirable use to courage or fortitude; hatred and aversion for ill men, promotes the execution of justice; and a just indignation against those who are prosperous beyond what they deserve, is then both convenient, and even necessary, when, with pride and insolence their minds are so swollen and elated, that they need to be repressed and taken down. Neither by any means can a man, though he never so much desire it, be able to separate himself from friendship, indulgence, and a natural propension to affection; from humanity and good nature, tenderness and commiseration; nor from true benevolence, a mutual participation of joy and grief. And if they run into an error who would take away all love, that they may destroy mad and wanton pässions, neither can those be in the right, who for the sake of covetousness condemn all other appetites and desires: which is full as ridiculous as if one should always refuse to run, because one time or other he may chance to catch a fall; or to shoot, because he may sometimes happen to miss the mark; or should forbear all singing, because a discord or a jar is offensive to the ear.

The virtue of a man and woman, is one and the same. For example, in the art of painting we can produce pictures drawn by women, similar to those of Apelles, Zeuxis, and Nicomachus. In the poetic or histronic art, we may compare Sappho's verses with Anacreon's, and the oracles of Sibil, with those of Bacchus. Thus we cannot better or more truly learn the relation of feminine to virile virtue, than by comparing the lives, exploits, and works of art of each sex; the magnanimity of Semiramis, with that of Sesostris, the address of Tanaquil with that of king Servius, the discretion of Portia with that of Brutus.

The newly married couple should avoid the first occasion of discord, as vessels newly formed are more easily put out of shape than when the materials are hardened by time.

Empedocles, held that Nature is nothing but the mixture and separation of the elements. Anaxagoras is of

the same opinion, that nature is coalition and separation, and thus are generation and corruption.

Democritus, Epicurus, and those philosophers who introduced atoms and a vacuum, affirm, that the world is not an animal, nor governed by any wise Providence, but that it is managed by Nature, which is void of reason; the other philosophers affirm that the world is informed with a soul, and governed by reason and Providence.

Pythagoras and Plato, held that the world was framed by God, and in being corporeal, is obvious to the senses, and in its own Nature is obnoxious to destruction, but it shall never perish, it being preserved by the Providence of God. Epicurus, that the world had a beginning,_so shall have an end, like as plants and animals have. Zenophanes, that the world never had a beginning, is eternal and incorruptible. Aristotle, that part of the world which is sublunary is obnoxious to passions, and their terrestrial beings find a decay.

Plato and Pythagoras, that the soul is immortal when it departs out of the body, it retreats to the soul of the world, which is a being of the same Nature with it. Epicurus and Democritus, that the soul is mortal and it perishes with the body.

They say that Pythagoras bought a draught of fishes, and presently commanded the fishers to let them all out of the net, and this shows, that he did not hate fishes, or consider them as things of another kind and destructive to man, but that they were his dearly beloved creatures, since he paid a ransom for their freedom. Therefore the tenderness and humanity of those philosophers, suggest a quite contrary reason, and I am apt to believe, that they spare fishes to instruct men, or to accustom themselves to acts of justice, for other creatures generally give men cause to afflict them, but fishes neither do, or are capable of doing us any harm. And it is easy to show both from the writings and religion of the ancients, that they thought it a great sin not only to eat, but to kill an animal that did them no harm. But afterwards being necessitated by the spreading multitude of men, and commanded (as they say) by the Delphic oracle to prevent the total decay of corn and fruit, they began to sacrifice, yet

they were so disturbed and concerned at the action, that they call it herdein and rezein as if they did some strange thing in killing an animal; and they are very careful not to kill the beast, before the wine and salt thrown upon his head; he nods in token of consent. So very cautious are they of injustice.

The water animals, neither consuming any part of our air or water or devouring the fruit, but as it were, encompassed by another world, and having their own proper bounds, which it is death for them to pass, they afford our belly no pretence at all for their destruction; and therefore to catch or be greedy after fish is mere luxury.

The Pythagoreans confining themselves, not only by the law which forbids them to injure men, but also by Nature, which commands them to do violence to nothing, fed on fish very little, or rather not at all. But suppose there were no injustice in this case, yet to delight in fish, would argue daintiness and luxury.

You ask of me then for what reason it was that Pythagoras abstained from eating of flesh. I for my part do much admire in what humor, with what soul, or reason the first man with his mouth touched slaughter, and reached to his lips, the flesh of a dead animate; and having set before people courses of ghastly corpses and ghosts could give those parts the names of meat and victuals, that but a little before lowed, cried, moved and saw; how his sight could endure the blood of slaughtered, slayed and mangled bodies; how his smell could bear their scent; and how the very nastiness happened not to offend the taste.

Whence is it that a certain ravenousness and frenzy drives you in these happy days to pollute yourselves with blood, since you have such an abundance of things necessary for your subsistence? why do you belie the earth as unable to maintain you? why do you profane the lawgiver Ceres, and shame the mild and gentle Bacchus, as not furnishing you with sufficiency? are you not ashamed to mix tame fruits with blood and slaughter? you are indeed wont to call serpents, leopards, and lions savage creatures, but yet yourselves are defiled with blood: and come nothing behind them in cruelty. What they kill, is

their ordinary nourishment, but what you kill indeed is your better fare. For we eat not lions and wolves by way of revenge; but let those go, and catch the harmless, and tame sort, and such as have neither stings nor teeth to bite with, and slay them; which so may jove help us, that Nature seems to us to have produced for their beauty and comeliness only." *

But we are nothing put out of countenance, either by the beauteous gaiety of the colors, or by the charmingness of the musical voices, or by the rare sagacity of the intellects, or by the cleanliness and neatness of diet, or by the rare discretion and prudence of these poor unfortunate animals; but for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh, deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time it had been born into the world to enjoy. And then we fancy that the voices it utters and screams forth to us are nothing else but certain inarticulate sounds and noises, and not the several deprecations, entreaties and pleadings of each of them as it were saying thus, to us; I deprecate not thy necessity, (if such there be) but thy wantonness; kill me for thy feeding: but do not take me off for thy better feeding. O horrible - cruelty! it is truly an affecting sight to see the very table of rich people laid before them, who keep their cooks and caterers to furnish them with dead corpses for their daily fare; but it is yet more affecting to see it taken away, for there is more left than was eaten. These therefore were slain to no purpose.

From the smoothness of the tongue, and the slowness of the stomach to digest, our Nature seems to disclaim all pretence to fleshy victuals. But if you will contend that yourself was born to an inclination for such food, you have now a mind to eat; do you then yourself kill, what you would eat. But do it your own self; without the help of a chopping knife, mallet or axe; as wolves, bears, and lions do, who kill and eat at once. Rend an ox with thy teeth, worry a hog with thy mouth, tear a lamb or a hare in pieces, and fall on and eat it alive as they do.

[The swine excepted, which Pythagoras allowed to be eaten, perhaps from its assimilation to the biped breed.]

But if thou hadst rather stay until what thou eatest is become dead, and if thou are loath to force a soul out of its body, why then dost thou against Nature eat an animate thing? nay there is no body that is willing to eat even a lifeless and a dead thing as it is, but they boil it and roast it, and alter it by fire and medicines, as it were changing and quenching the slaughtered gore with thousands of sweet sauces, that the palate being thereby deceived, may admit of such uncouth fare. It was indeed a witty expression of a Lacedemonian, who having purchased a small fish in a certain inn, delivered it to his landlord to be dressed; and as he demanded cheese, and vinegar, and oil to make sauce, he replied, if I had had those, I would not have bought the fish. But we are grown so wanton in our bloody luxury, that we have bestowed upon flesh the name of meat, and then require other meat (food) to this same flesh, mixing oil, wine, honey, pickle, vinegar, and spices, as though we really meant to embalm it after its decease. Indeed when things are dissolved, and made thus tender and soft, and are as it were turned into a sort of a carrionly corruption, it must needs be a great difficulty for concoction to master them, and when it hath mastered them, they must needs cause grievous oppressions, and qualmy indigestions.

But to pass by these considerations, is not accustoming one's self to mildness and an humane temper of mind an admirable thing? for who could wrong or injure a man that is so sweetly and humanely disposed with_respect to the ills of strangers that are not of his kind? But we are more sensible of what is done against custom than against Nature.

It is indeed a severe and difficult task to undertake (as Cato once said) to dispute with men's bellies that have no ears; since most have already drunk that draught of custom, which is like that of Circe, of groans and frauds and sorcery complete.

It would indeed be a good action, if as the Egyptians draw out the stomach of a dead body, and cut it open and expose it to the sun, as the cause of all its evil actions; so we could by cutting out our gluttony and blood-shedling, purify and cleanse the remainder of our lives. For

« PrécédentContinuer »