5. For I shall omit to mention the innumerable multi- tude of Nomades and Troglodyte, who know of no other nutriment than that of flesh; but to us who appear to live mildly and philanthropically, what work would be left for us on the earth or in the sea, what illustrious art, what ornament of our food would remain, if we conducted ourselves innoxiously and reverentially towards brutes, as if they were of a kindred nature with us? For it would be impossible to assign any work, any medicine, or any remedy for the want which is destructive of life, or that we can act justly, unless we preserve the ancient boundary and law.
To fishes, savage beasts, and birds, devoid Of justice, Jove to devour each other Granted; but justice to mankind he gave ©.
ὃ. 6. towards each other.
6. But it is not possible for us to act unjustly towards those to whom we are not obliged to act justly. Hence, for those who reject this reasoning, no other road of justice is left, either broad or narrow, into which they can enter. For, as we have already observed, our nature, not being. sufficient to itself, but indigent of many things, would be entirely destroyed, and enclosed in a life involved in difficulties, unorganic, and deprived of neces- ¢ Hesiod. Op. et Di. lib. I. v. 275, &c.
saries,. if excluded from the assistance derived from animals. It is likewise said, that those first men did not live prosperously; for this superstition did not stop at animals, but compelled its votaries even to spare plants. For, indeed, what greater injury does he do, who cuts the throat of an ox or a sheep, than he who cuts down a fir tree or an oak? since, from the doctrine of: transmigration, a soul is also implanted in these. These therefore are the principal arguments of the Stoics and _. Peripatetics.
The Arguments of the Epicureans, from Hermachus'.
7. Tue Epicureans, however, narrating, as it were, along genealogy, say, that the ancient legislators, look- ing to the association of life, and the mutual actions of men, proclaimed that manslaughter was unholy, and punished it with no casual disgrace. Perhaps, indeed, a certain natural alliance which exists in men towards each other, through the similitude of form and soul, is the reason why they do not so readily destroy an animal of this kind, as some of the other animals which are conceded to our use. Nevertheless, the greatest cause why manslaughter was considered as a thing grievous to be borne, and impious, was the opinion that it did not contribute to the whole nature and condition of human life. For, from a principle of this kind, those who are capable of perceiving the advantage arising from this decree, require no other cause of being restrained from a deed so dire. But those who are not able to have a sufficient perception of this, being terrified by the magni- tude of the punishment, will abstain from readily destroy- ing each other. For those, indeed, who survey the utility of the before-mentioned ordinance, will promptly observe it; but those who are not able to perceive the benefit with which it is attended, will obey the mandate, f This philosopher was a Mitylenzan, and is said to have been an auditor of, and also the successor of, Epicurus.
6 ON ABSTINENCE FROM in consequence of fearing the threatenings of the laws; which threatenings certain persons ordained for the sake of those who could not, by a reasoning process, infer the beneficial tendency of the decree, at the same time that most would admit this to be evident.
8. For none of those legal institutes which were established from the first, whether written or unwritten, and which still remain, and are adapted to be transmitted, [from one generation to another] became lawful through violence, but through the consent of those that used them. For those who introduced things of this kind to the multitude, excelled in wisdom, and not in strength of body, and the power which subjugates the rabble. Hence, through this, some were led to a rational consideration of utility, of which before they had only an irrational sensation, and which they had frequently forgotten; but others were terrified by the magnitude of the punish- ments. For it was not possible to use any other remedy for the ignorance of what, is beneficial, than the dread of the punishment ordained by law. For this alone even now keeps the vulgar in awe, and prevents them from doing any thing, either publicly or privately, which is not beneficial [to the community]. But if all men were similarly capable of surveying and recollecting what is advantageous, there would be no need of laws, but men would spontaneously avoid such things as are prohibited, and perform ‘such as they were ordered to do. For the survey of what is useful and detrimental, is a suffi- cient incentive to the avoidance of the one and the choice of the other. But the infliction of punishment has a reference to those who do not foresee what is bene- . ficial. For impendent punishment forcibly compels such as these to subdue those impulses which lead them to useless actions, and to do that which is right.
9. Hence also, legislators ordained, that even invo- luntary manslaughter should not be entirely void of punishment; in order that they might not only afford no pretext for the voluntary imitation of those deeds which ῳ were involuntarily performed, but also that they might prevent many things of this kind from taking place, which happen, in réality, involuntarily. For neither. is this advantageous through the same causes by which men were forbidden voluntarily to destroy each other. Since, therefore, of involuntary deeds, some proceed from a cause which is unstable, and which cannot. be guarded against by human nature; but others are’ produced by our negligence and inattention to different circumstances; hence legislators, wishing to restrain that indolence which is injurious to our neighbours, did: not even leave aq involuntary noxious deed without punishment, but, through the fear of penalties, prevented the commission of numerous offences of this kind. I also am of opinion, that the slaughters which are allowed by law, and which receive their accustomed expiations through certain puri- fications, were introduced by these ancient. legislators, who first very properly instituted these things for no other reason than that they wished to prevent men as much as possible from voluntary slaughter. For the vulgar every where require something which may impede them from promptly performing what is not advantageous {to the community]. Hence those who first perceived this to be the case, not only ordained the punishment of fines, but also excited a certain other irrational dread, through proclaiming those not to be pure who in any way whatever had slain a man, unless theyeused purifications after the commission of the deed. For that part of the soul which is void of intellect, being variously dis- ciplined, acquired a becoming mildness, certain taming arts having been from the first invented for the purpose of subduing the irrational impulses of desire, by those who governed the people. And one of the precepts pro- mulgated on this occasion was, that men should not destroy each other without discrimination.
10. Those, however, who first defined what we ought to do, and what we ought not, very properly did not forbid us to kill. other animals. For the advantage 8. ON ABSTINENCE FROM arising from these is effected by.a contrary practice, since, it is not possible that men could be preserved, unless- they endeavoured to defend those who are nur- tured with themselves from the attacks of other animals. At that time, therefore, some of those, of the most elegant manners, recollecting that they abstained from slaughter because it was useful to the public safety, they also reminded the rest of the people in their mutual asso- ciations of what was the consequence of this abstinence; in order that, by refraining from the slaughter of their kindred, they might preserve that communion which greatly contributes to the peculiar safety of each indi- vidual. But it-was not only found to be useful for men not to separate from each other, and not to do any thing injurious to those who were collected together in the. same place, for the purpose of repelling the. attacks of animals of another species; but also for defence against men whose design was to act nefariously. Toa certain extent, therefore, they abstained from the slaughter of men, for these reasons, viz. in order that there might be a communion among them in things that are neces- sary, and that a certain utility might be afforded in each of the above-mentioned incommodities. In the course of time, however, when the offspring of mankind, through their intercourse with each other, became. more widely extended, and animals of a different species were ex- pelled, certam persons directed their attention in a rational way to what was useful to men in their mutual nutriment, and did not alone recal this to their memory in an irrational manner.
11. Hence they endeavoured still more firmly to restrain those who readily destroyed each other, and who, through an oblivion of past transactions, prepared a more imbecile defence. But in attempting to effect this, they introduced those- legal institutes which still remain in cities and nations; the multitude spontaneously assenting to them, in consequence of now perceiving, in a greater degree, the advantage arising from an association with ANIMAL FOOD.—BOOK IJ. 9 each other. For the destruction of every thing noxious, and. the.preservation of that. which. is subservient to its..extermination, similarly contribute to a fearless life. And hence it is reasonable to suppose, that one. of.the. above-mentioned particulars was forbidden, but that the other was not prohibited. Nor must it be said, that the. law allows us to destroy some. animals which are not corruptive of human nature, and which. are not in any other way injurious to our life. For, as I. may say, no animal among those. which the law permits. us to kill is of this kind; since, if we suffered them to increase excessively, they. would become injurious to.us. But through the number. of them which is now. preserved, certain advantages are imparted to human life. For sheep and oxen, and every such like.animal, when. the. number of them is moderate, are beneficial to our neces- sary wants; but if they. become redundant in the extreme, and far.exceed the number which is sufficient, they then. become detrimental to our life; the latter by employing their strength, in consequence of participating. of this through an innate power of nature, and the former, by consuming the nutriment which springs up from the. earth for our benefit alone. Hence, through this cause, the slaughter of animals of this kind is not prohibited, in order that as. many of them as are sufficient for our use, and which we may be. able easily to subdue, may. be left. For it is not with horses, oxen, arfd sheep, and with all tame animals, as it is with lions and wolves, and, in short, with all such as are called savage animals, that, whether the number of them is small or great, no multitude of them can be assumed, which, if left, would alleviate the necessity of our life. And on this account, indeed, we utterly destroy some of them; but of. others, we take away as many as are found to be more than com- mensurate to our use.
12. On this account, from. the above-mentioned causes, it is similarly requisite to think, that what per- tains to. the eating of animals, was ordained by {8956 who.
10 ON ABSTINENCE FROM from the first established the laws; and that the advan- tageous and the disadvantageous were the causes why some animals were permitted to be eaten and others not. So that those who assert, that every thing beautiful and just subsists conformably to the peculiar opinions of men respecting those who established the laws, are full of a certain most profound stupidity. For it is not possible that this thing can take place in any other way than that in which the other utilities of life subsist, such as those that are salubrious, and an innumerable multitude of others. Erroneous opinions, however, are entertained in many particulars, both of a public and private nature. For certain persons do not perceive those legal institutes, which are similarly adapted to all men; but some, con- ceiving them to rank among things of an indifferent nature, omit them; while others, who are of a contrary opinion, think that such things as are not universally pro- fitable, are every where advantageous. Hence, through this cause, they adhere to things which are unappro- priate; though in certain particulars they discover what is advantageous to themselves, and what contributes to general utility. And among these are to be enumerated the eating of animals, and the legally ordained destruc- tions which are instituted by most nations on account of the peculiarity of the region. It is not necessary, however, that these institutes should be preserved by us, because we do not dwell in the same place as those did by whom they were made. If, therefore, it was possible to make a certain compact with other animals in the same manner as with men, that we should not kill them, nor they us, and that they should not be indiscriminately destroyed by us, it would be well to extend justice as far as to this; for this extent of it would be attended with security. But since it 1s among things impossible, that animals which are not recipients of reason should participate with us of law, on this account, utility cannot be in a greater degree procured by security from other animals, than from inanimate natures. But we can alone obtain security from the liberty which we now possess of putting them to death. And such are the arguments of the Epicureans. ΝΝ The Arguments of Claudius the Neapolitan, who published a Treatise against Abstinence from Animal Food.
13. Ir now remains, that we should adduce what plebeians and the vulgar are accustomed to say on this subject. For they say, that the ancients abstained from animals, not through piety, but because they did not yet know the use of fire; but that as soon as they became acquainted with its utility, they then conceived it to be most honourable and sacred. They likewise called it Vesta, and from this the appellation of convestals or com- panions was derived; and afterwards they began to use animals. For it is natural to man to eat flesh, but con- trary to his nature to eat it raw. Fire, therefore, being discovered, they embraced what is natural, and admitted the eating of boiled and roasted flesh. Hence lynxes are [said by Homer® to be] crudivorous, or eaters of raw flesh; and of Priam, also, he says, as a disgraceful circum- stance, ΄ Raw flesh by you, O Priam, is devoured ", And, Raw flesh, dilacerating, he devouredi.
And this is said, as if the eating of raw flesh per- tained to the impious. Tetemachus, also, whem Minerva was his guest, placed before her not raw, but roasted flesh. At first, therefore, men did not eat animals, for man is not [naturally] a devourer of raw flesh. But when the use of fire was discovered, fire was employed not only for the cooking of flesh, but also for most other eatables. For that man is not [naturally] adapted to eat ͵ 12 ON ABSTINENCE FROM raw flesh, is evident from certain nations that feed on_ fishes. For these ‘they roast, some. upon stones that are very much heated by the sun; but others roast. them in the sand. That man, however, is adapted to feed on flesh, is evident from this, that no nation abstains from animal food. Nor is this adopted by the Greeks through depravity, since the same custom is admitted by the bar- barians.
14. But he who forbids men to feed on animals, and thinks it is unjust, will also say that it is not just to kill them, and deprive them of life. Nevertheless, an innate and just war is implanted in us against brutes. For some of them voluntarily attack men, as, for instance, wolves and-lions; others not voluntarily, as serpents, since they bite not, except they are trampled on. And some, indeed, attack men; but others destroy the fruits of the earth. From all these causes, therefore, we do not spare the life of brutes; but we destroy those who commence hostilities against us, as also those who do not, lest we should suffer any evil from them.. For there is no one who, if he sees a serpent, will not, if he is able, destroy it, in order that neither it, nor any other serpent, may bite a man. And this arises, not only from our hatred of those that are the destroyers of our race, but likewise from that kindness which subsists between one man and another. But though the war against brutes is just, yet we abstain from many which associate with men. Hence, the Greeks do not feed either on dogs, or horses, or asses, because of these, those that are tame are of the same species as the wild, Nevertheless, they eat swine and birds. For a hog is not useful for any thing but food. The Phecenicians, however, and Jews, abstain from it, because, in short, it is not produced in those places. . For it is said, that this animal is not seen in Ethiopia even at present. As, therefore, no Greek sacrifices a camel or an elephant to the Gods, because Greece does not produce these animals, so neither is a hog sacrificed to the Gods in Cyprus or Phenicia, because it is not ANIMAL FOOD.—BOOK I. 1 19 indigenous in those places. And, for the same reason, neither do the Egyptians sacrifice this animal to the Gods. In short, that some nations abstain from a hog, is similar to our being unwilling to eat the flesh of camels.
15. But why should any one abstain from animals? Is it because feeding on them makes the soul or the body worse? It is, however, evident, that neither of these is deteriorated by it. For those animals that feed on flesh © are more sagacious than others, as they are venatic, and possess an art, by which they supply themselves with food, and acquire power and strength; as‘is evident in lions and wolves. So that the eating of flesh neither injures the soul nor the body. This likewise is manifest, both from the athlete, whose bodies become stronger by feeding on flesh, and from. physicians, who restore bodies to health by the use of animal food. For this - is no small indication that Pythagoras did not think sanely, that none of the wise men embraced his opinion; since neither any one of the seven wise men, nor any of the physiologists who lived after them, nor even the most wise Socrates, or his followers, adopted it.
16. Let it, however, be admitted that all men are persuaded of the truth of this dogma, respecting absti- nence from animals. But what will be the boundary of the propagation of animals? For no one is ignorant how numerous the progeny is of the swine and the hare. And to these add all other animals. Whence, therefore, will they be supplied with pasture? And what will hus- bandmen do? For they will not destroy those who destroy the fruits of the earth. And the earth will not ‘be able to bear the multitude of animals. Corruption also will be produced from the putridity of those that will die. ' And thus, from pestilence taking place, no refuge will be left. For the sea, and rivers, and marshes, will be filled with fishes, and the air with birds, but the earth will-be full of reptiles of every kind.
17. How many likewise will be prevented from hay- ing their diseases cured, if animals are abstained from?
14 ON ABSTINENCE FROM For we see that those who are blind recover their sight by eating a viper. A servant of Craterus, the physician, happening to be seized with a new kind of disease, in which the flesh fell away from the bones, derived no benefit from medicines; but by eating a viper prepared after the manner of a fish, the flesh became conglutinated to the bones, and he was restored to health. Many other animals also, and their several parts, cure diseases when they are properly used for that purpose; of all which remedies he will be frustrated who rejects animal food.
18. But if, as they say, plants also have a soul, what will become of our life if we neither destroy animals nor plants? If, however, he is not impious who cuts off plants, neither will he who kills animals.
19. But some one may, perhaps, say it is not proper to destroy that which belongs to the same tribe with ourselves; if the souls of animals are of the same essence with ourselves. If, however, it should be granted that souls are inserted in bodies voluntarily, it must be said that if is through a love of juvenility: for in the season of youth there is an enjoyment of all things. Why, therefore, do they not again enter into the nature of man’? But if they enter voluntarily, and for the sake of juvenility, and pass through every species of animals, they will be much gratified by being destroyed. For thus their return to the human form will be more rapid. The bodies also which are eaten will not produce any pain in the souls of those bodies, in consequence of the souls being liberated from them; and they will love to be implanted in the nature of man. Hence, as much as they are pained on leaving the human form, so much will they rejoice when they leave other bodies. For thus they will more swiftly become man again, who predo- minates over all irrational animals, in the same manner as God does over men. There is, therefore, a sufficient cause for destroying other animals, viz. their acting unjustly in destroying men. But if the souls of men _are immortal, but those of irrational animals mortal, men ΝΕ, will not act unjustly by destroying irrational animals. And if the souls of brutes:are immortal, we shall benefit them by liberating them from their bodies. For, by killing them, we shall cause them to return to the human nature. z 20. If, however, we [only] defend ourselves [in put- ting animals to death], we do not act unjustly, but we take vengeance on those that injure us. Hence, if the souls of brutes are indeed immortal, we benefit them by .destroying them. But if their souls are mortal, we do nothing impious in putting them to death. And if we defend ourselves against them, how is it possible that in so doing we should not act justly. For we destroy, indeed, a serpent and a scorpion, though they do not attack us, in order that some other person may not be injured by them; and in so doing we defend the human race in general. But shall we not act justly in putting those animals to death, which either attack men, or those that associate with men, or injure the fruits of the earth?
21. If, however, some one should, nevertheless, think it Is unjust to destroy brutes, such a one should neither use milk, nor wool, nor sheep, nor honey. For, as you injure a man by taking from him his garments, thus, also, you injure a sheep by shearing it. For the wool which you take from it is its vestment. Miulk, hkewise, was not produced for you, but for the young of the animal that has it. The bee also collects honey as food for itself; which you, by taking away, administer to your own pleasure. I pass over in silence the opinion of the Egyptians, that we act unjustly by meddling with plants. But if these things were produced for our sake, then the bee, being ministrant to us, elaborates honey, and the’ wool grows on the back of sheep, that it may be an orna- ment to us, and afford us a bland heat.
22. Co-operating also with the Gods themselves in what contributes to piety, we sacrifice animals: for, of the Gods, Apollo, indeed, is called λυκοκτονος, the slayer of wolves; and Diana, θηροκτονος, the destroyer of wild beasts.
16 ON ABSTINENCE FROM Demi-gods likewise, and all the heroes who excel us both in origin and virtue, have so much approved of the slaughter of animals, that they have sacrificed to the Gods Dodeceides* and Hecatombs. But Hercules, among other things, is celebrated for being an ox-devourer.
23. It is, however, stupid to say that Pythagoras exhorted men to abstain from animals, in order that he might, in the greatest possible degree, prevent them from eating each other. For, if all men at the time of Pytha- goras were anthropophagites, he must be delirious who drew men away from other animals, in order that they _ might abstain from devouring each other. For, on this account, he ought rather to have exhorted them to become anthropophagites, by showing them that it was an equal crime to devour each other, and to eat the flesh ᾿ οὗ oxen and swine. But if men at that time did not eat each other, what occasion was there for this dogma? And if he established this law for himself and his asso- ciates, the supposition that he did so is disgraceful. For it demonstrates that those who lived with Pythagoras were anthropophagites.
24. For we say that the very contrary of what he con- jectured ‘would happen. For, if we abstained from ani- mals, we should not only be deprived of pleasure and riches of this kind, but we should also lose our fields, which would be destroyed by wild beasts; since the whole earth would be occupied by serpents and birds, so that it would be difficult to plough the land; the scat-. tered seeds would immediately be gathered by the birds; and all such fruits as had arrived at perfection, would be consumed by quadrupeds. But men being oppressed by such a want of food, would be compelled, by bitter necessity, to attack each other..
25. Moreover, the Gods themselves, for the sake of a ‘remedy, have delivered mandates to many persons about sacrificing animals. For history is full of instances of -k 7, e, Sacrifices from twelve animals.