in heaven; athair and arm, are words of the fame meaning, as explained by Archbishop Cormac, who lived in the tenth century, athair, ater, atri, origo, primitus dicebatur, quafi pater, i. e. athar. In Arabic, the words are also fynonimous, arm, arum, ftirps, origo; atr, radix, ftirps, and the Chaldee aram and atar, the fame, and petar, primitus; whence the Greek and Latin Pater, and English Father. Ormuzd, or the good principle, was named dei by the Perfians, in Irish Dia and Da, and Daghdae, or the good Deity. Dia, Dei, De, Dae, good; he was alfo named De thobha, or the good good, or, the good De, which Shaw tranflates Jehovah; but it is from the Chaldee tab, taba, Heb. tob. Ar. tub, taeb, toobè good, bonus; metaph. elegans, præftans, hilaris, jucundus, lætus, item fubftantivè bonum, bonitas, beneficum, and the Perfian Dei, the deity, the divinity, the good principle Ormuzd, in oppofition to Aherman, the principle of evil, in Irish a-harmuin, curfed, unbleft; and hence Dia, God; whence the Latin Deus. In like manner, we find the Deity expreffed in Irish MSS. by Barr, and Barrcean, i. e. good—the chief of goodnefs or beneficence, agreeing with the Arabic Berr, Barr, good, beneficent, juft, equitable, true-pious towards God and parents, piety, &c. &c. We alfo find Keima, Rama, one of the good genii, fignifying compaffion; Rami, name of an Ized or good genius, (De Sacy); Ar. rehim, compaffion, mercy; whence rahman, God, (the merciful.) Pref. p. xxxvii.

While we offer on the General's publication these strictures, which every one is requested to examine feverely, by a perufal of the book itfelf, we cannot refrain from deploring the miferable State of Celtic literature. Ireland poffeffes many MSS. of old laws, poems, romances, chronicles, &c. which were not compofed by pagans, though at a time when Britain was comparatively illiterate. The Chriftian clergy of the dark ages preferved or invented many of thofe improbable fables, which, during more than thirty years, General Vellancey and his fellow antiquaries have publifhed for truth. The ftories of Oifein, Fin, and his heroes, may be better learned from Irish MSS. of the 12th, than from ignorant Highland traditions of the 19th century. Such a height of difcredit have thefe traditions now attained, that fince the publications of Macpherfon, no candid inquirer dare truft in them, even when they are fupported by the most refpectable authority. Irish or Highland MSS. older than the beginning of the 18th century, muft alone determine the authenticity of the poems afcribed to Offian. Such extracts of thefe MSS. as are useful for any literary purpose, ought to be published by the joint labours of the Irish and Highland literati. The time is for ever fled, when a Highlander might forge what he pleased, and tell the world that it was a tranflation. Why does no fober antiquary compile a dictionary of the Irish from authentic MSS. and printed books, without one particle of etymology. The various fenfes of the voca

bles

bles should be taken from exifting writings, and the vernacular dialects of Ireland and Scotland. The orthography should be adjufted from MSS. or correct philological analogy, not from any theoretical derivations, with which even the quotations of fome Celtic philologifts have been corrupted. Instead of this scientific labour, the Caledonian and Hibernian antiquaries wafte long lives, and refpectable learning, in establishing fictions which a child would ridicule, and in torturing the pliable orthography of a barbarous dialect, to give it a fanciful refemblance to Sanfcrit or Phoenician. Smith's Gaelic Antiquities, the writings of the two Macphersons, and all the works of General Vallancey, are thus either a chaos of etymology, or a heap of false history and fanciful hypothefes. One folitary Gaelic publication, the Grammar by Mr Stewart of Moulin, deferves to be exempted from this charge. The author has obtained the praife of General Vallancey, because he understands Hebrew: we, on the other hand, fhould have been more difpofed to bestow upon him our own praife, had he understood no Hebrew at all, or rather made no ufe of it in that publication. Though we pretend to more knowledge of the Oriental languages than of Irith, we know enough of the latter to alert, that there is not a Hebrew or an Arabic type neceflary in printing the Dictionary which is to tranfmit it to pofterity.

ART. XIII. An Effay on Abftinence from Animal Food, as a Moral Duty. By Jofeph Ritfon. 8vo. London. Phillips. 1802. pp. 236.

IN

the toilfome and unvaried round of ephemeral productions which we are conftantly obliged to run, in order to discover what works are worthy of a place in our catalogue, it does not frequently happen that we experience fo great a variety of feelings from the curfory perufal of the common tracts which load the prefs, as we have been subjected to by the author of the effay now before us. Difguft, pity, contempt, laughter, deteftation, have been alternately excited by the perufal of this most extraor dinary performance. As the author of it has formerly distinguished himself by his induftry in the ufeful and often interefting path of the antiquary, and as the fubject of thefe pages is extremely curious, in a merely fpeculative point of view, we think proper to treat our readers with a glimpfe of the prefent publication, and to relieve ourselves, by fharing with them the various emotions which it has raised in our minds.

The object of this treatife is to prove the iniquity of ufing animal food. The expediency of a vegetable diet, as conducive

to

to health of mind and body, is only touched upon in a few pages, apparently introduced as an epifode to the work itself, which has for its fubject, properly speaking, only the criminality, the moral turpitude of feeding upon flefh. Had the author treated his fubject in a pleafing and confiftent manner-had he compre→ hended in his plan the various fingular inquiries to which the general enunciation of the title evidently leads, we should with pleafure have followed him into a very curious and interefting field of difcuffion, a field in which the greatest talents of antiquity were once exerted to enlighten and improve mankind, although the more important topics of modern fcience have for fome ages buried all fuch inquiries in the libraries of the claffical fcholar. But the very narrow view which he takes of this great question, confines our fpeculations to an uninterefting branch of the fubject. The point at iffue is, Whether the ties of moral duty enjoin a ftrict abftinence from animal food, and whether the ufe of animal food does not lead to still more flagrant crimes?

The author, in his first chapter, appears to follow the example of fome ancient writers, and, for the fake of generalization, to begin with a differtation wholly devoid of any particular connexion with the fubject of the work. The title of the chapter is, Of Man.' if this differtation has any object, it is to retail all the whimfies of Lord Monboddo, and his fmall circle of adherents, in mean and vulgar language. The conclufions tacked to the end of this rhapfody, we cannot fay deduced from it, are, that man is of the fame fpecies with the lower animals; that almost all living creatures fubfift by devouring each other; that man, who boafts of his preeminence, is a prey to millions of beafts, while he only makes ufe of a few. Then, as if this were not fufficiently difgufting, we are defired to believe, that there is neither intention nor benevolence in 'nature;' and that if theprefent order of things is to continue, it were better such ‹ diabolical monsters' as all animals now are, fhould ceafe to exist. P. 39. & 40.

As the first chapter concludes with a pofitive denial, that justice, mercy, and benevolence are natural, and an open avowal of contempt for the order of nature, we are not a little furprised to find that the first argument against the ufe of animal food, is drawn from an attempt to prove that it is not natural to man.' This is the title, and we find (for it does not neceffarily follow) that this is alfo the fubject of the fecond chapter.

The author next proceeds to fhow that animal food is not neceffary for the purpose of strength or corpulency. And the three following chapters, occupying above feventy pages, are employed in arguing that cruelty and ferocity, the ufe of human facri

VOL. II. NO. 3.

I

fices,

fices, and the devouring of human flefh, are the natural confe quences of eating animal food! After the fpecimen which we have given of the excefs and the incongruity of this author's opinions, we believe our readers will readily excufe us for dropping our analysis, and proceeding to offer a very few general remarks upon the literary and mortal turpitude which marks almoft every page of the naufeous thing that we are at prefent forced to keep before us.

Were we inclined to undertake the difcuffion which forms the fubject of this author's book, we fhould only have to confider abstinence from animal food in its relation to duty. The queftion of expediency is altogether foreign to his views. Now, admitting all his impious farcafms and paradoxes upon the order of nature, it seems very manifeft that no better defence of animal food, as a matter of moral confideration, can poffibly be of fered, than this one fimple propofition-the use of it is prescribed by neceffity-is a part of that order of nature which fuch perfons as this writer may feoff at, but muft obey.. The wafting of animal life is not a matter of choice. Every drop of water that quenches our thirst, or laves our bodies, contains innumerable infects, who are facrificed to our neceffities or comforts; each fimple that forms a part of the most humane and fcrupulous Pythagorean or Brahmin's vegetable fare, conveys to inevitable deftruction, thoufands of the most beautiful and harmlefs of created beings. The ground on which we prefs to fuccour a wounded animal, or to adore the God of tender mercy, is by those actions neceffarily turned into a scene of torture and carnage. From the first to the laft gafp of our lives,. we never inhale the air of heaven, without butchering myriads of fentient and inno

cent creatures.

Placed as we are, then, by our deftiny, in a fituation that renders murder the action which, of all others, we moft conftantly perform, can we deem it unnatural or criminal, if, in or der to purfue the gratification of our inftinctive appetites, we fwell, by an imperceptible voluntary addition, the catalogue of neceffary enormities? Can we upbraid ourselves for fupporting our lives by the death of a few animals, many of whom are themfelves carnivorous, when the infant who has lived for a fingle day, has killed an infinitely greater number of harmlefs beings, than the longeft life would fulice to murder by defign? Or, if we facrifice either our lives or our comforts, by fcrupulously denying ourselves the ufe of animals, can we derive much confolation from confidering, that we fpare a few fcores of beings, when we involuntarily, but knowingly, are every moment maffacring more than the longest lifetime would fuffice to enumerate?

But

But the inconfiftency neceffary to the tenets fupported by the work now before us, is rendered ftill more apparent by the voluntary conduct of those who are frantic enough to adopt such doctrines. These men, with all their deteftation of cruelty towards animals, are in practice lamentably incongruous and motley. They are not content with that measure of iniquity and in humanity which they cannot avoid, they wilfully increase the catalogue of their tormentings and maffacres.

The author of this performance tells us, that for above thirty years,

- he has ever fince to the revifal of this fheet, firmly adhere'd to á milk and vegetable diet, haveing, at least, never tasteed, dureing the whole course of those thirty years, a morfel of flesh, fish, or fowl, or any thing, to his knowledge, prepare'd in or with thofe fubftanceës, or any extract thereof, unless, on one occafion, when tempted, by wet, cold and hunger, in the south of Scotland, he venture'd to eat a few potatos, drefs'd under the roaft: nothing, lefs repugnant to his feelings, being to be had; or except by ignorance or impofition; unless, it may be, in eating egs, which, however, deprives no animal of life, though may prevent fome from comeing into the world to be murdere'd and devoure'd by others.' P. 201-202.

it

And again, (p. 196.), he says,

The compileer of the prefent book, like Pythagoras and John Williamfon*, abftains from animal food.'

But how lamentably inconfiftent is this very paffage with itself! Is not the confumption of milk the ftarving of calves? and is not the devouring of eggs, the caufing of acute mifery to a tender mother, and the procuring of abortions? Befides, admitting all thefe acts to be confiftent with juftice and humanity, how wretchedly fhort does fuch conduct fall of that purity which is eafily attainable, and which is plainly prefcribed by the fame principles or feelings! We are charitable enough to suspect that this author's obedience to the common inftinct of cleanliness, leads him occafionally to attempt the expulfion of thofe intruders which frequently invade the neglected regions of the human body. What a world of animal life and happiness must he not destroy by every fuch endeavour, however feelingly it may be performed, and with however little fuccefs it may be attended! Or, if he carries his theory fo far as to fofter and cherifh all the inhabitants of his furface, does he never cover his animated

12

This perfonage is thus named in the text: John Williamson, alias Pythagoras, alias Bramin, alias Hole-John,' &c.-Ibid.