ANIMALS AND THEIR MASTERS

Otago Witness, Issue 3489, 25 January 1921, Page 56

ANIMALS AND THEIR MASTERS

I wonder whether anv of my readers know the pleasant and ’thoughtful essays in conversational form by Sir Arthur Helps, very popular in the’ latter part of Queen Victoria’s reign? "Friends in Council” was, I think, the first; then followed a book with the title I have used for this article, and 1 think there were others. If I am not mistaken these essays first appeared in serial form in Blackwood’s. They are planned on the following scheme: a number of friends, with many intellectual interests in common, meet at the house of one of the group, and discuss informally subjects of intellectual or social interest. "it was sonu-times their fancy to take one theme as the subject of their conversation,

and this would be kept to as closely as the s discursive nature of some of them, notably ] of Sir John Ellesmere, would allow.” This . conversational form of essay writing has 1 been adopted by many eminent authors, , and is admirably adapted for presenting j different points of view ; it also favours a bright and animated mode of treatment The conversations under the above title < are introduced in this way:- —One of the members having had a lucky escape from a boating accident, tells his friends that he has made up his mind nob to go out in a boat again nor take a journey upon a certain railway (one wonders what he would have thought of the perils of air flights!) till he has put down his thoughts on the important question of the treatment of animals. So the friends in several meetings discuss the relations of men and animals, and in the intervals consult authorities, showing opinions which have been held on the mental faculties of animals and on the duties of human beings towards animals down the ages. And the result is a very pleasant book, containing a great amount of information, particularly on historical views of animals. It has always seemed to me, and 1 arn supported by the quotations cited in this book, that, considering the boasted civilisation and humanity of our era, we have made surprisingly little advance in treatment of animals since primitive times. Indeed, there has often been regression rather than advance; primitive people seldom kill or give pain to animals byway of amusement. And there is testimony that in early pagan civilisations, and also among the ancient Jews, animals were regarded more sympathetically than they commonly have been, in modern Christian Europe. Often in ancient writings we meet with recognition of the principle that animals have rights and men have duties towards them, whereas in our own modern world it has been usual to deny them all rights. They have been judged irrational, existing merely for the service of man, who is not under any obligation, respecting them. It lias, indeed, usually been felt to be evidence of an amiable disposition to treat animals kindly, but so averse have people been to recognise that animals have a rightful claim to humane treatment, that the first attempts to provide legal protection for domestic animals were met with verygeneral ridicule, and were long unsuccessful. Probably the explanation of inferior regard for animals m Christian times is that Christianity emphasised the difference between human beings and animals. Under pagan religions special animals were often regarded as divine, or a deity was worshipped under the guise of an animal, and the early Christians in their revolt against such idolatry went to the extreme of contemning them altogether as soulless and created but for man’s use. “Doth God care for oxen?” asks St. Paul, in what seems to me almost the sole unlovelyutterance of that great and noble-hearted man that has come down to us. But this explanation does not seem wholly satisfactory, since the Old Testament contains many * precepts inculcating kindly treatment of animals, as that quoted by St. Paul, the command that if a bird’s young were taken the mother bird should be left at liberty, and others. Then there are such passages as that in the Book of Jonah, “Should not I spare Nineveh, that great city wherein are more than six score thousand persons that cannot discern between there right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle?” And the storv of Balaam’s ass, which testify to sympathetic regard for animals and sense of duty towards them. Probably the philosophy of the schoolmen of the Middle Ages contributed much to general contempt for animals, for many of these philosophers, not content with denying animals souls, 'even denied them feeling! And later the famous French philosopher of the 17th century, Descartes, demonstrated to his own satisfaction that animals were automata, devoid of perception and feeling. It is strange how devotion to a theory will prevent people from using their powers of observation and common sense ! The schoolmen’s theories ruled the mediaeval church, and filtering down from better to less educated; have helped to maintain the feeling that animals are unworthy of regard. But no doubt in all ages there were exceptions. The most notable was that most lovable of saints, St. Francis of Assissi (13th century), who cailed the birds his dear brothers and sisters, and loved all created things. But the Christian Church, as an organisation, lias been regardless of the lower creation. One of the characters in the book before me notes that in all his life he has scarcely heard a reference from the pulpit in regard to human duties towards animals. Ihis criticism still holds good. Some time ago it was proposed by, I think, Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, that clergymen should be asked to devote one sermon in the year to inculcating humanity towards animals. A very modest request surely, but, if made, nothing nas come of if. so far as T know at all events. j Going back to the ancient pagan world we find many indications of regard for animals greater than is common to-day. Tims Plutarch, finding fault with Cato’s hard treatment of his slaves, says lie him self would not neglect in its old age i beast of burden that had worked for him, ar.d adds that the fountain of courtesy and humanity, which should never dry up in any- man, is not for human beings alone; animals, too, merit mercy and gentleness. And he mentions that the Athenians decreed that the mules used during the building of one of their great temples should afterwards have their freedom and be allowed to graze at will. What would be thought of such “senti- ■ mentality” in our days. But in all times i people endowed with imagination and sensiI bilitv —poets pre-eminently —have sympathised with animals. Taking our English 1 poets alone volumes might be filled with ; poems or passages of poems showing keen ‘ sympathy with them and claiming human ] consideration for them. It is not those highest above the brute world in mind and

soul that show least sympathy for animals, but the contrary. The more highlydeveloped soul in man is quickest to feel brotherhood with all creatures that have, even in slight measure, feelings and passions like our own. And every truly humane person recognises that the question, as Jeremy Bentham said, is not, Can animals speak? or can they reason? but can they suffer? and that it is a human duty to spare them needless suffering. Yet how many fall short of consistent humanity towards animals as towards their own kind! It is over 300 years since Shakespeare penned his pathetic lines on a hare hunte-ch to the death; it is over 100 since Wordsworth wrote his “Hart Leap Well,” and Coleridge his “Ancient Mariner,” yet hunting and coursing still rank first among British sports, and here we have our pigeon shootsing matches and coursing of imprisoned hares—and I suppose more women than ever find pleasure in taking part in or witnessing, the hunting and slaughtering of harmless animals. How long will it be before men and women generally learn the lesson of Wordsworth’s lines : Never to blend our pleasure or our pride With sorrow of the meanest thing that feels