The Bloodless Revolution: Radical Vegetarians and the Discovery of India. Tristram Stuart

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ rel="nofollow" href="#litres_trial_promo">¹⁶ In the Abrégé Bernier converted this into a full-blown defence of vegetarianism, arguing that meat broths did more harm than good and that ‘a great part of Asia believe them to be mortal to fever patients, and that this was, apparently, Hippocrates’ opinion, since he usually prescribes them nothing but oat broth’.¹⁷

      Bernier adopted the Indian method of treatment by abstinence from flesh in his own medical practice: ‘I might mention also a Person of great Eminency, who was severely tormented with the Gout, but by my Advice, yielding to live one Year very abstemiously, and scarce to Eat any Flesh (according to the Custom of the Indians, who nevertheless are very healthy and strong, and are rarely troubled with such Distempers) was perfectly cured.’¹⁸ Indeed, Bernier had cured himself of such ailments as soon as he arrived in India. This, he extrapolated, was proof that vegetarianism was a healthy diet for anyone.

      Not only did Bernier’s experience in India turn him away from the use of meat broths in medicine, it even seems to have convinced him that flesh-eating itself was bad for the health. Bernier, who despised Hinduism as a whole, ended up converting – at least on an intellectual plane – to what he saw as one of its principal doctrines.

      Bernier forcefully injected the teaching of Indian medicine into the European tradition at exactly the time that other doctors were starting to revive the ancient Hippocratic use of therapeutic dieting. This was a medical reform that profoundly affected the understanding of lifestyle and which can be seen as the beginning of modern notions about balanced diets, the requirement of fresh vegetables and the nutritional viability of vegetarianism. Bernier thought the Indian doctors were leading the way.

      In the 1670s the English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), a doctor himself, spent fifteen months curing his own ailments among medical colleagues in Montpellier. He befriended Bernier, frequently quizzed him about India, avidly making notes in his diary on Indian physiology and metempsychosis; he read his travel narratives, which inspired him to study the other major works on Hinduism by della Valle, Lord, Roe, Ovington and Rogerius, and these provided the variety of cultural perspectives Locke employed in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690).¹⁹ Locke agreed with Gassendi that animals could think, and he even seems to have been influenced by the ‘Hindu’ doctrine (reported by Rogerius) that humans were only more intelligent than animals because their brains (not their souls) were better constructed.²⁰

      It may also have been thanks to Bernier that, in his widely used educational guidebook Thoughts Concerning Education (1692), Locke joined Gassendi in criticising the custom of weaning children onto meat, suggesting that they would be much healthier if they ‘were kept wholly from flesh the first three or four years of their lives’ – a practice he recognised was hardly likely to catch on among parents who were ‘misled by the custom of eating too much flesh themselves’. Like Bernier, Locke also recommended that most children’s ailments should be cured by ‘abstinence from flesh’, and in a conclusion that foreshadowed the social critiques of later vegetarian doctors, Locke attributed ‘a great part of our diseases in England, to our eating too much flesh, and too little bread’.²¹ The anatomical vegetarianism of Gassendi merged with the Indian example observed by Bernier and became a serious foundation for a reassessment of man’s natural diet.

      Gassendi stressed that sensory observation was the means by which people acquired knowledge, and this Epicurean methodology underpinned the early Enlightenment’s emphasis on empirical observation. The similarity to Locke’s philosophical mantra has led many to suggest that Locke was deeply indebted to Gassendi, an assumption backed up by the fact that Locke spent hours in conversation with Bernier and owned a copy of the Abrégé.²² In the hands of Gassendi, Bernier and the members of the Royal Society in London, the vegetarian debate was shifted into this new empirical arena.

      Bernier’s observations in India and his trials on his patients provided a new set of empirical data that appeared to substantiate Gassendi’s anatomical argument. Decades later, when John Wallis read about Tyson’s recent meticulous dissection of animals, he remembered Gassendi’s vegetarian treatise, and realised that here was yet another set of data that might shed light on the question. While Gassendi had focused on the morphology of the teeth, Tyson and Wallis extended the enquiry to the shape and function of animals’ guts. Wallis pointed out that herbivores tended to have intestines designed for slow digestion with a large colon and ‘caecum’ (a pouch between the small and large intestine). Carnivores, on the other hand, had little or no colon and the caecum was reduced to a small appendix or was completely absent, indicating a rapid digestion of food.

      Wallis agreed that the human caecum was small and shrivelled but this was not necessarily natural, since the human foetus had a much larger, healthy caecum. Overall, the human intestines, Wallis and Tyson agreed, fell in line with the herbivores. So did those of the monkeys, baboons, apes and, as Tyson had shown, the Homo sylvestris whose guts were proportionally exactly the same dimensions as man’s.²³ On the basis of the evidence, Tyson grudgingly – but decisively – agreed with Gassendi, ‘that Nature never designed [Man] to live on Flesh; but, that the Wantonness of his Appetite, and a depraved Custom, has inured him to it.’ This was exactly the claim of the radical vegetarians. If Thomas Tryon had been in the habit of reading scientific papers he might have been enthralled to find his religious and moral theories so clearly backed up by the latest scientific research. But Tyson and Wallis were not ready to part with their ‘depraved’ meat dinners. Despite their recognition of the very strong evidence, they refused to endorse a return to the natural diet. ‘I am not fond of advancing a New Hypothesis, contrary to the common sense of mankind,’ said Wallis. ‘And I should not have ventured so far, if Gassendus had not first broken the ice.’²⁴ Wallis couldn’t face relinquishing meat, and instead he claimed that because meat-eating was universally practised it must be natural after all. Rather than accept the unpalatable conclusion that God intended he should be herbivorous, Tyson scuppered the entire basis of comparative anatomy and pointed out exceptions to the rule, such as the hedgehog and the opossum, the latter of which he had recently shown to have the gut of a herbivore but was carnivorous.²⁵

      Paradoxically, the papers published by Wallis and Tyson presented evidence in favour of the herbivorous nature of man, but argued for the opposite. It was therefore used by both vegetarians and anti-vegetarians to support both sides of the debate for decades to come. John Evelyn read and marked up his copy of these papers, finding it most surprising, for example, that both Wallis and Tyson made the blunder of asserting that there were no vegetarian people on earth.²⁶ The eighteenth-century medical lecturers Boerhaave and Haller cited the articles to support their view that man was naturally omnivorous;²⁷ John Arbuthnot claimed that they proved man was ‘a carnivorous Animal’;²⁸ while the Italian vegetarian Antonio Cocchi, on the other hand, used the evidence to argue that the human gut showed we were supposed to be herbivores.²⁹

      When naturalists started to divide all creatures on earth into a taxonomical system, Gassendi’s anatomical arguments remained profoundly influential.³⁰ In his seminal Historia Plantarum (1686–1704), the eminent botanist John Ray (1627–1705) asserted conclusively that ‘Certainly man by nature was never made to be a carnivorous animal, nor is he armed at СКАЧАТЬ