Timeline: Antiquity » Medieval » Renaissance » Age of Enlightenment: Restoration » Augustan » Sensibility » Romantic Age » Victorian Age » Early 20thc.

Universal Magazine

1794-Nov | Clemens, "On a Prevalent Species of Cruelty," Universal Magazine, 95 (1794-Nov): 357-359; Digitized by Google; Online at Google Books.

On a Prevalent Species of Cruelty

Clemens

Universal Magazine

Nihil quod crudele, utile. Est enim hominum natuurae, quam fequi debemus, maxime inimical crudelitas. Cicero de Off. Lib. Iii.

CERES is said to have first taught the Athenians to lead a social life, and it is commonly believed that she gave them laws by her favoriteTriptolemus. The whole body of her laws were comprised in one line: 'Honour your parents; worship the gods; hurt not animals.' Draco, the celebrated legislator of Athenians, retained these precepts, and made them the foundation of his institutions. It may be easily conceived that they would have a great tendency to soften the ferocious nature of a barbarous people, and to attune their minds to those pleasures which result from performing the duties of social life. IN the laws of modern nations, morality is provided for only negatively; certain crimes are forbidden, but on duties are enjoined; the moderns wisely considering, that by this means the opposite of every vice would be declared a virtue.

Of these percepts of the Athenians, that which enters into no part of our laws, but which nevertheless is highly deserving of attention, is the last: 'hurt not animals'.

All sensible and virtuous parents will naturally point out to their children the wickedness of tormenting animals, or of killing them wantonly; yet whatever pains such parents may take, it is impossible not to consider cruelty to animals as one of those vices which pervade the nation in no common degree. WE cannot walk the streets of the metropolis without meeting with frequent and shocking instances of it, and what may seem to aggravate the crime is, that the most useful of animals are selected as the objects of the greatest cruelty.

With respect to children, it is rather a singular, but a very notorious fact, that they are, in general, disposed toward cruelty to animal; and this disposition will acquire an uncommon degree of obstinacy and strength, if not checked by the prudent watchfulness of the parent. Without entering into the question about innate ideas, or the original corruption of human nature, we happily find it not difficult to persuade a sensible child that it is cruel and unlawful to hurt dumb animals. They seem to err from ignorance only, (for children are not devoid of sympathy or affection) and never conceive that an animal so small as a fly or a moth can feel pain, because they do not hear its moans, nor witness its agonies. But once represent to them, that the smallest animals are endued with feeling as acutely as the largest, and they will be struck with the cruelty of what they have done. Teach them to repeat, from Shakespeare, that

—The poor beetle, that we tread upon,
In corporal sufferance feels a pang as great
As when a giant dies—

and they will be ashamed of having injured any thing so helpless and innocent. Continue to repeat the advice as the child grows more capable of comprehending the great duty of universal benevolence and humanity, and the impression will be too deep to be eradicated afterward. There are few children, I apprehend who might not be cured by this easy process.

Yet sill it must be confessed, that there is in young people a certain harness of heart (I do mean in the worse sense) which inclines them to take pleasure in witnessing scenes of cruelty. A man of the greatest humanity has often assured me, that when he was a boy of fourteen or fifteen years of age, he took great delight in going into slaughtering-houses to see the various animals killed, but that, in a very few years, without knowing why, or perceiving any change in his disposition otherwise, he began to reflect with the utmost abhorrence on that part of his conduct, and no bribe could ever after induce him to witness any thing of the kind. The same experience, I have been assured of, from other persons.

It may be objected here, that I have termed the killing of animals for man's food an act of cruelty. It is not meant, however, to impute that act of cruelty to him who kills the animal, because it is an act of necessity; nature having granted us those animals for our subsistence, and the butcher is no more to be blamed than the judge who passes, or the hangman who executes, the sentence of the law. Yet, with regard to the animal itself, we must account it an act of cruelty, because it occasions pain and temporary distress; temporary, because they are interrupted in no career of intellectual pleasure.

The lamb thy riot dooms to bleed to day:
Had he they reason, who he skip and play? POPE.

Yet however necessary it may be to kill these animals for the sustenance of man, this very operation too often affords and argument in favour of my assertion, 'that cruelty to animals pervades this nation in no common degree.' Sufficient means are not used to render the death of the animal as quick as it might be; and the various cruelties inflicted upon oxen, sheep, &c. in conducting them to market, are not only a reproach to the immediate perpetrators, but to those who are authorized to make examples of them for the public good. But the conduct of butchers, or their young and thoughtless servants, is humanity itself when compare with that of other purveyors of luxury. I need only mention the manner of preparing eels, lobsters, and some other species of fish. The first is an instance of barbarity, which, if it did obtain one moment's consideration, could not bear that short reflection. I know nit whether I shall incur the imputation of severity and fastidious delicacy, but I cannot suppress the opinion that it would be truly honorable in men of sense and feeling to renounce such luxuries for ever, if they could be procured by no other means than the most dreadful and lingering torments of a poor, helpless animal. I may excuse the man who will receive this opinion with silent contempt, but I do not envy his heart who will receive it with a smile.

To prosecute the various stages of cruelty is not a very gracious task, and I might incur very general censure were I to instance hunting as a cruelty of great enormity. Yet how to reconcile it with any principles of humanity, I am utterly at a loss. Here is no plea of necessity, as might have existed in former days. We have no wild beasts infesting our forests, destroying the provender of the industrious peasant, or preying upon the heedless passenger. The amusement consists in pursuing, for many hours, and animal kept for the purpose, enjoying its various agonies and fears, and permitting, at length, the dogs to devour it, or, which is not more merciful, reserving it for future sport. Such are the 'joys of the chase' so often and so poetically celebrated! If they are consistent with humanity, if a really humane mind can, without the least uneasy reflection, accommodate itself to them, and partake of them with pleasure, I can only say that there are some phaenomena in the human mind which it is not easy to explain, and for myself, some contradictions which I shall never be able to reconcile.

'There is great difference,' says Dr. Hawkesworth, 'between killing for food, and for sport. To take pleasure in that by which pain is inflicted, if it is not vicious, is dangerous; and every practice which, if not criminal in itself, yet wears out the sympathizing sensibility of a tender mind, must render human nature proportionally less fit for society.'—Here, indeed, is the great mischief attached to the practice of what some may think harmless. Cruelty, however, is one principle. We cannot subdivide it into parts, and make a distinction between cruelty to man and cruelty to beasts. It is the same principle in all cases, differing only in its object, which is merely accidental. It is impossible to suppose that a man who delights to torment, and by lingering deaths to kill, dumb animals, would have much scruple to shed human blood, were his passions exasperated and the fear of the law removed. Hogarth has admirably illustrated the progress of cruelty in four prints so called. The young man who began with tormenting kittens, and other small animals, ended in the murder of an unhappy woman with child by him. The lesson, I allow, is intended for the lower classes of society; but let not those of better rank imagine that they can claim an exemption from the frailty of human nature. Let them not suppose that wanton cruelty, unchecked by reflection, may not, in time, lead them to enormities at which they now would shudder.

If, in any part of this short paper, it should appear that I have advance opinions which are singular and too severe, their singularity will, I hope, excite the curiosity to examine into their truth; and, for their severity, I have not better apology at hand, than a desire to vindicate a nation of acknowledged humanity from those inconsistencies of character which render that humanity more specious than solid. We have, with great justice, been exclaiming against the barbarities of a neighbouring unhappy people. To avoid sharing, in any degree, in their crimes, lest us revive the genuine spirit of that religion to which every species of cruelty id adverse.

CLEMENS.