JOHNL.MAHONEY
AProfile
Perhapsthephotograph thefrontispieceofthisbook saysitbetter thanmywordscan.Thereheis theintentlook,theeloquenthands, thewarmandinvitingsmile allattheserviceofthestudentswhosit beforehim.JohnMahoneyisnowheremorehimself,somewouldsay, thanwhenheisintheclassroom.Andintheclassroomheisasmuch alistenerasheisatalker,forheisinvariablyintentnotonhimself,nor evenprimarilyonhisstudents,butontheideasandimagesandwords that flowbetweenthem.NoonebutJohnwassurprisedwhen,several yearsago,hewasnamedMassachusettsProfessoroftheYear.
Auniversityfriendandcolleague,BenBirnbaum,wroteofJohnMahoneyinanelegantandeloquentarticleinthe BostonCollegeMagazine: ‘‘Evenwhilelistening,heappearstobecoveringground,thoughtand emotionplayingacrosshislong,expressivefacelikelandscapeonthe windowsofamovingtrain.’’ Intheclassroom,hegoeson, ‘‘thisattentiveenergyworkslikeagravitationalcore,drawingstudentthoughts andideas,which,amplifiedbytheprofessor’sglosses,correctionsand punctuationmarks,arethenshotbackacrosstheroomtobeinscribed asfulllecturenotesinstudentnotebooks.’’
Birnbaum’scommentaryonJohn’sclassroomperformanceishardto resist,soIpresumetoquoteitagain.Johnhadtoldhisstudentsabout ajazzrecordingwhichhefoundhe ‘‘onlylikedafterseveralhearings.’’ However,hewenton, ‘‘whenyoubreakthroughthecomplexity,you seemtoseethisluminousorder.’’ ThiswasinBirnbaum’smindwhen heattendedanotherofJohn’sclasses ‘‘andwatchedhimworkhis charms.’’‘‘ Whatweretheytakenwith?’’ hewonderedofthestudents. ‘‘Isitthetweed-wrappedauthority?Thelearning?Theconsideration withwhichhegreetseachandeveryremarkhecansqueezeoutof them?Thepassionofhisreadings?Oristheresomethingmorethatis responsibleforhisextraordinarycharismaasateacher somethinghe representstostudentsthatisrarelytobefoundinpostmodernculture
xii
APROFILE
orpostmodernclassrooms:perhapsthatveryold-fashionedandmost uncynicalpossibilityof finding(givenluckandwill)the ‘luminous order’ behindtheconfusion;thatpossibilityofanearnedwholeness?’’
Butthis ‘‘wholeness’’ inJohnMahoney’slifeisacomplexreality perhapslikethecomplexityofthatjazzrecording.Oneofhissons remarkedofJohnthathehasa ‘‘desireforanddelightinallthings beautiful.’’ Anyonewhoknowshimwillappreciatethatthisissimply theveriesttruth.Hisloveofliterature ineveryoneofitsforms is legendaryandinfectious,hisdevotiontothetheatreisalifelongpassion,hisloveandknowledgeof filmisdeepandpassionate,andheis aseriousandknowledgeablejazzafficionado.Theverymentionof,say, StevieSmithorSeamusHeaney,aproductionofTomStoppard’s Arcadia attheHuntingtonTheatreorarecent filmofDavidLynch’s,ajazz recordingbyBillEvansorMarianMcPartland,willsethimoffona wonderfulrifforanintenseexchange.Justtryhimon MyDinnerwith Andre ´ ,oneofhisfavorite films andprepareforatreat!
AstudentofseveralyearsagorecallsJohnMahoney’sclasson My DinnerwithAndre ´ asastrikingexampleofhis ‘‘deepdramaticsensibility.’’ Thecoursewas ‘‘ ThePoetryofReligiousExperience,’’ andJohn enteredtheclassandintroducedhimselfasAndre ´ Gregory.Foran hour,he was Andre ´ Gregory,thestudentrememberswithsomething approachingawe. ‘‘Neveroncedidhebreakcharacter,’’ andbytheend ofthehourhisstudents ‘‘felttheyhadmetAndre ´ Gregory.’’
This ‘‘dramaticsensibility’’ isalsocelebratedinaremembranceofa youngJesuitwhotookacoursewithJohnintheHarvardUniversity SummerSchoolsomeyearsagoon ‘‘Eighteenth-andNineteenth-CenturyLiteraryCriticism. ‘‘Amongthememorablemomentsofthe course, ’’ herecalls, ‘‘werehisimpersonationsofSamuelJohnson,which broughttheoldcritictolifeforus.’’ Heseemed,hegoeson, ‘‘tohave memorizedhalfofJohnson’sjuiciestcriticalmaxims,whichhewould recitewithJohnsoniangusto.’’
Perhapsitshouldcomeasnosurprisethatthesonofaprintershould besopassionateaboutwords:thewrittenword thepoetryofWordsworth,thesonorousproseofDr.Johnson;orthespokenword in conversation,intheclassroom,in filmoronstage.Butitwasalong journeythattookthissonofaprinterfromtheblue-collarneighborhoodofhischildhoodinSomerville,Massachusetts,toHarvardUniversityinnext-doorCambridge.ThejourneywasbywayofaJesuit education, firstatBostonCollegeHighSchool,thenatitssisterschool,
BostonCollege.Inlocalparlancethatmakeshim referringtothe mascotofboththeseinstitutions a ‘‘doubleeagle.’’ Severalyearsof serviceinthepostwarU.S.Armyfollowed,afterwhichhereturnedto thebanksoftheCharlesRiverforhisdoctoralstudies.
AtHarvardtheaspiringscholarmetsuchliterarygiantsasDouglas Bush,PerryMiller,B.J.Whiting,AlfredHarbage,HerschelBaker andWalterJacksonBate.ItwasW.J.Bateinparticularwhowasto becomeinmanywaysamodelforhisownscholarlycareer.Theyboth beganworkintheliteratureoftheeighteenthcentury,onlytomove oninthecourseoftheircareerstobecomerespectedcriticsofthe Romanticperiod.Andfortherestofhislife,W.J.BateandJohn Mahoneyweretoremainnotonlyclosecolleaguesoneithersideofthe Charles,butclosefriends.
EventhemostcursorylookatJohnMahoney’slengthybibliography makesitclearthathisintellectualrootsareintheeighteenthcentury. Hisvery firstpublishedarticlewason ‘‘ TheClassicalTraditionin Eighteenth-CenturyRhetoricalEducation,’’ bringingtogether one mightsurmise hisJesuitrhetoricaltrainingandhiseighteenth-centurystudiesatHarvard;andhis firstpublishedbookwasaneditionof the EssayonOriginalGenius oftheeighteenth-centuryScottishcritic WilliamDuff.But,likethoseofW.J.Bate,John’sinterestsweretoo broadtobeconfinedtotheeighteenthcentury,andhesoonbeganto publishonRomanticism hisinterestculminatinginhislearnedanthology TheEnglishRomantics:MajorPoetryandCriticalTheory,publishedovertwentyyearsagoandstillinusetoday.Therefollowedhis majorbookonHazlitt, TheLogicofPassion:TheLiteraryCriticismof WilliamHazlitt;anothermajoranthology,stillinuse,on TheEnlightenmentandEnglishLiterature; abookontragedy;and finally spanning bothhismajor fieldsofscholarship hiswide-rangingstudy, TheWhole InternalUniverse:ImitationandtheNewDefenseofPoetryinBritish CriticismandAesthetics,1660–1830. Otherworkfollowed,inbooksand scholarlyjournals,leadingtohisrecentimportantbooksonWordsworth: first,hissplendid WilliamWordsworth:APoeticLife, whichfollowsinthetraditionofcriticalbiographypioneeredbyBate;andhis mostrecentbook, WordsworthandtheCritics:TheDevelopmentofa CriticalReputation. Andthereis,ofcourse,promiseofmoretocome. Besidesthesheerrangeofhisscholarship,though,oneisimpressed bywhatIcanonlycallthe ‘‘ openness ’’ ofJohn’slearning.Schooledin
anearliertraditionofliterarywork,heisalwaysopentofreshcurrents ofideasandnewmethodologies.Heisinvariablyalerttotheworkof youngercolleagues,forexample,andisnurturedbytheirapproachesto literatureeven orperhapsespecially whentheydifferconsiderably fromhisown.Ashewrote,memorably,intheintroductiontohis splendidbook WilliamWordsworth:APoeticLife, ‘‘whilemyowntemperamentcannotbedescribedasdeconstructive,Ihavelearnedvaluable lessonsabouttheheuristicandpleasurablepossibilitiesofseeingvaried andoftenconflictingmeaningsinthetextasinthelargertextofhuman experience’’ (p.xxiii).ForJohn,methodologies whatevertheymay be arealwaysinserviceofthepoetryandthepoet.Ashesaidin outlininghisapproachtoWordsworth’s ‘‘poeticlife’’: ‘‘Ilookforan approach,onethateschewsmerechronology,easycategories,andfacile generalizationsasittriestoconnectlifeandworkmoreclosely,to developawayofthinkingaboutthelifeasitnourishestheworkand theworkasitilluminatesthelife’’ (xxi).InJohnMahoney’swork,asin hislife, ‘‘ openness ’’ and ‘‘wholeness’’ areinextricablylinked.
Asanyoneisawarewhoknowshim,JohnMahoney’sgifts evenbeyondteachingandscholarship aremanyandvaried.Heservedfor severalyearswithgreatsuccessasdepartmentChair,forexample,and hisleadershiponmajorcollegeanduniversitycommitteeshasbeen frequentandhighlyrespected.Thefacultyluncheonshehasregularly organizedforthepastseveralyearshaveaddressedsubstantiveissues concerningthenatureofaJesuitandCatholicuniversity issueshe holdsdearandonwhichhespeakswithbotheloquenceandauthority. Givenhiswell-knownandhighlyregardedleadershipabilityandorganizationalskills,therehavebeenattemptstolurehimintofull-time academicadministration,butJohn’shearthasalwaysbeenintheclassroomandwithhisscholarlywork.Anditwassurelyinrecognitionnot onlyofhisteachingandscholarshipbutalsoofallhisvariedgiftsthat in1994JohnwasnamedtotheThomasP.RattiganChairofEnglish, the firstendowedprofessorshipinthehistoryoftheDepartmentof EnglishatBostonCollege.
‘‘Attentiveenergy,’’ wasthephraseBenBirnbaumusedofJohnMahoney.Andthisisperhapsaphrasethatcouldbeusedtocharacterize everyaspectofhislifeandwork:histeaching,hisscholarship,his ‘‘universitycitizenship,’’ hisremarkablegiftforfriendship,hisbeautifulde-
votiontoAnnandhisfamily.John’swholelife,Isuggest,ismarkedby thisquality,for asBirnbaumputsit—‘‘anindefatigableinterestinthe livesofothersisahallmarkofhissensibility.’’ Whetheritbehisbelovedfamily,hisfortunatestudents,orsuchseeminglyfar-off figures asDr.JohnsonandWilliamWordsworth,hebringstothemallhis ‘‘attentiveenergy,’’ his ‘‘indefatigableinterestinthelivesofothers’’— andhislove.Inreturn,we,hiscolleagues,students,andfriends,offer him onbehalfofsomanymorewholoveandrespecthim thistributeofouradmirationandaffection.
J.R.B.
ReligionandAnimalRights intheRomanticEra
DavidPerkins
,insignificantastheyappearinyourestimation,weremadebyGodaswellasyou....Howthencanyouexpect thatGodwillsendHisblessinguponyouif,insteadofendeavouringto imitatehiminbeingmercifultotheutmostofyourpower,youare wantonlycrueltoinnocentcreatureswhichhedesignedforhappiness.’’1 SoinSarahTrimmer’s TheRobins (1786)Mrs.Bensonreproves MissLucyJenkins,avisitingten-year-oldwhohadneglectedtofeed someyoungbirds chickswickedlytakenfromtheirnestsbyher brother.Mrs.Benson’sremarkswerecommonplaces.Similarpoints weremadeoverandoverintreatises,sermons,pamphlets,poems,and literatureforchildrensuchasTrimmer’sverypopularbook.Butinno otheragewouldtheseideashaveseemedsoobvious forexample,that animalsareinnocent,thatGoddesignedthemforhappiness,andthat Hewillpunishcrueltytothem.
Sympathy,compassion,andfellowfeelingwithandforanimalshad beenvoicedrecurrentlyfromHomerthroughtheages.Moralistshad generally,thoughnotinvariably,condemnedcrueltytoanimalsasdangerous,becauseofthepassionsstirred,bothforthepersonwhoinflicts itandultimatelyforsociety.ButinEnglandaround1775sympathyfor animalsbegantobeexpressedwithfargreaterfrequencyandemotional commitment.Argumentswerebroughtforwardthathadbeenless availableorhadseemedlessconvincinginthepast.Thebearersofthis increasingsolicitudeweremostlytobefoundinthe15%to25%of thepopulationthatmightbecalledmiddleclass.2 Thewriterswho
1 SarahTrimmer, TheRobins,or,FabulousHistories,DesignedfortheInstructionof ChildrenRespectingTheirTreatmentofAnimals (Boston,1822)69 –70.
2 Ontheproportionofthetotalpopulationthatmightbeconsideredmiddleclass,
THEFOUNTAINLIGHT
propagateditweremiddle-classintellectuals preachers,poets,philosophers,andthelike.
Theyencounteredresistancefromthestart,weredismissedas cranks,disturbers,molly-coddlers,effeminates,andradicals.Forexample,a1772sermonbyJamesGrangeronProverbs12:10, ‘‘Arighteous manregardeththelifeofhisbeast,’’ washeardwith ‘‘almostuniversal disgust.’’3 HumphreyPrimattknewin1776thathewasexposinghimselfto ‘‘obloquy’’ bypublishinghis TheDutyofMercyandSinofCruelty toBeasts. 4 Whenin1796JamesPlumptre,inspiredbyCowper’s The Task,preachedbeforetheUniversityofCambridge,inthepresenceof PrinceWilliamofGloucester,on ‘‘ TheDutiesofMantotheBrute Creation,’’‘‘thesubjectwasthenconsideredbymanyastrifling,and beneaththedignityofthepulpit,andespeciallythatoftheUniversity.’’5 Astimepassed,however,thehearersandreadersofthisdiscourseincreasinglyshareditsviewsandemotions.Animalsbecamea humanitariancauselikeslaves,prisoners,chimneysweeps,foundlings, andotherhelplessvictims,andtheefforthascontinuedeversince.6 We nowrefertoallsuchpleasandpoliticalactivityonbehalfofanimals withthecoveringterm ‘‘animalrights.’’ Twohundredyearsagothere
seeLeonoreDavidoffandCatherineHall, FamilyFortunes:MenandWomenofthe EnglishMiddleClass,1780 –1850 (London,1987)23 –24.
3 AnApologyfortheBruteCreation,or,AbuseofAnimalsCensured;inaSermonon Proverbsxii10,2nded.(London,1773)27.
4 QuotedinRichardD.Ryder, AnimalRevolution (Oxford,1989)67.
5 ThreeDiscoursesontheCaseoftheAnimalCreationandtheDutiesofMantoThem (London,1816)v.
6 Onthiseighteenth-centurydevelopmentseeKeithThomas, ManandtheNatural World:ChangingAttitudesinEngland,1500 –1800 (London,1983)36 –192.ThefollowingbooksdealmainlywithVictorianandmoderndevelopments,buthavesome preliminarymaterialonearlierperiods:ErnestS.Turner, AllHeaveninaRage (New York,1965);HarrietRitvo, TheAnimalEstate:TheEnglishandOtherCreaturesinthe VictorianAge (Cambridge,Mass.,1987);JamesTurner, ReckoningwiththeBeast:Animals,Pain,andHumilityintheVictorianMind (Baltimore,1980);HildaKean, Animal Rights:PoliticalandSocialChangeinBritainsince1800 (London,1998).Discussions ofpoemsonthistopicincludeDixHarwood, LoveforAnimalsandHowItDeveloped inGreatBritain (NewYork,1928)andDagobertDeLevie, TheModernIdeaofthe PreventionofCrueltytoAnimals (NewYork,1947).Ihavewrittenonthecomplex relationofcertainpoetsandpoemstothecampaignonbehalfofanimals: ‘‘Cowper’s Hares,’’ EighteenthCenturyLife 20(1996):57– 69; ‘‘ WordsworthandthePolemic againstHunting: ‘Hart-leapWell,’’’ Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature 52(1998):421–445; ‘‘CompassionforAnimalsandRadicalPolitics:Coleridge’s ‘ ToaYoungAss,’’’ ELH 65(1998):929 – 944; ‘‘SweetHelpston!JohnClareonBadgerBaiting,’’ Studies inRomanticism 38(1999):387– 407; ‘‘AnimalRightsand ‘AuguriesofInnocence,’’’ BlakeQuarterly 33(1999):4 –11.
RELIGIONANDANIMALRIGHTSINTHEROMANTICERA 3 werealsoclaimsthatanimalshadnaturalrightsandshouldbegranted legalones.ButthoughIadoptourcontemporarytermforitsshorthand convenience,myfocusisthegrowinginsistencethatanimalsoughtto betreatedkindlywhethertheyhaverightsornot.
Thesourcesofthischangingattitudelieamongculturalandsocial developmentsfamiliartoallstudentsoftheperiod:sentimentalism;the redescriptionofmoralgoodnesstoemphasizesympathyandkindness; theidealizationofexternalnature,ofwhichanimalsareapart;scientificdiscovery(partlythroughvivisection!)thatthehigheranimals closelyresemblehumansintheirphysiologyandhenceprobablyalso tosomeextentintheirthoughtprocessesandpassions;agrowingmiddleclassthatwaslivingintownsorcitiesandwasnotdirectlyinvolved infarmingor financiallydependentonit;thesense,withinthissocial group,ofemergingfromaGothicpastintomoderncivilizationand refinement,sothatthegruesomeblood-sportsofthegentryandthe bull-baitingsandcock-throwingsofthepopulaceseemedatavistic ‘‘barbarian’’ wasthecommontermforcrueltiestoanimals;thespread inallclassesofpetkeeping,withtheresultthatanimalswereseenas individuals,eachwithitslifehistory,andonthemwereprojected humanmotivesandcharacteristics.Perhapsalsoatthistimeagreater modernsensitivitytopainbegantoemergeandafeelingthatitis anomalous.Certainly,theUtilitarianequationofpainwithevilsurfaces inthemostsurprisingplaces,forexampleinMaryWollstonecraft’s OriginalStoriesfromRealLife (1791),abookforchildren. ‘‘Doyou knowthemeaningofthewordGoodness?’’ asksMrs.MasonofMary, agefourteen,whohasbeenchasinginsects. ‘‘Iwilltellyou.Itis, first, toavoidhurtinganything;andthen,tocontrivetogiveasmuchpleasureasyoucan.’’7
Twohundredyearsagoargumentsaboutanimalrightsreferredhabituallytoreligion.This,infact,isthemoststrikingdifferenceinthe debatesthenandnow,forotherwisethepointsmadethenweresimilar toours,proandcon.ByreligionIdonotmeanthechurches,for althoughindividualclergymenspokeout,thevariouschurchesand sectsdidnottakeapositiononanimalrights.Thenearestthingtoan exceptionmightbefoundinMethodism;Wesleyimpressedonhis preacherskindnesstoanimalsasaconcern.8
7 OriginalStoriesfromRealLife (1791;facsimileOxfordandNewYork,1990)5.
8 RichardE.Brantley, Locke,Wesley,andtheMethodofEnglishRomanticism (Gainesville,1984)90.
THEFOUNTAINLIGHT
TheBible,thedictatedorinspiredwordofGod,wasalsomute.It was,ofcourse,theultimatesourceofreligiousauthorityformostmiddle-classpersons,andwascombedforinstructiononhowtotreatanimals.Butthemanypertinenttextswerenotharmonious;moreover, theyweresubjecttovaryinginterpretations.Whoeverwishestoknow justwhichpassagescouldbecitedcanrefertothesermonbyJames Plumptrementionedearlier,whichtakesupalmostallofthem.UndeniablyGodhadgivenmandominionovertheanimals(Genesis1:26), buttherewasnothingtosuggestthathumansshouldbeharshoruncaring.Afterthe floodHehadmadehiscovenantnotonlywithNoah butwiththeanimalsalso(Genesis9:12),andthissurelyimpliedHis concernforthem.TherewereregulationsinDeuteronomy(22:4,6) thatenjoinedkindnesstocattleandtonestingbirds;Balaam’sass (Numbers22:21–34)hadseentheangelwhenBalaamcouldnot:Job (17:14)hadsaid ‘‘totheworm,Thouartmymother,andmysister.’’ Andsoforth.
Asanexampleoftheearnestnessandingenuitybroughttobearin interpreting,wemayviewWilliamPaley’swrestlingwiththevegetarianquestion:isitrightforhumanstoeatanimals?Meateatingwas oftennumberedamongtheconsequencesofOriginalSin,anideathat innowayincreasedpleasureatdinner.Godhadcertainlyauthorized ourfeedingonanimals(Genesis9:3),butthishadnotbeenuntilafter the flood,anditwasnolesscertain,asPaleyreadhisBible,thatman inparadisehadlivedonlyonvegetables(Genesis1:29).Mightgreens bepreferableinGod’seyes?ThusPaleywasinterestedinknowing whattheantediluviansate,thosepersonswhohadlivedbetweenthe Fallandthe flood,and,sofarastheBibleinformsus,hadnotyetbeen givenpermissiontoeatanimals. ‘‘ Whethertheyactuallyrefrainedfrom the fleshofanimals,isanotherquestion.Abel,weread,wasakeeper ofsheep;andwhatpurposehekeptthemfor,buttoeat,ishardtosay (unlessitweresacrifices):mightnot,however,someofthestrictersects amongthem[theantediluvians]bescrupulous,astothispoint;and mightnotNoahandhisfamilybeofthisdescription;foritisnot probablethatGodwouldpublishapermission,toauthoriseapractice whichhadneverbeendisputed?’’9 Thus,inferencefromtextscouldnot inspireconviction.OnecouldnotplausiblyciteBalaam’sass,or Christ’sridinganassintoJerusalem(Mark11:1–7),orevenhisbirth inastable,toeduceGod’sviewsonkindnesstocattle.
9 ThePrinciplesofMoralandPoliticalPhilosophy,2vols.(London,1785;reprintNew York,1978)84.
RELIGIONANDANIMALRIGHTSINTHEROMANTICERA 5
ItwasnotfromtheBible,then,thatSarahTrimmer,inthesentencesIquotedatthestart,derivedherpremisesandherconfidencein them.Soalsowiththegreatmanyotherwriterswhomademoreor lessthesamepointsinthesameway,thatis,ina ‘‘potted’’ fashion, briefly,withoutargument,asonestatesthegenerallyknownandaccepted.Forexample,ThomasPaine,in TheAgeofReason (1793),says that ‘‘themoraldutyofmanconsistsinimitatingthemoralgoodness andbeneficenceofGod,manifestedinthecreationtowardallHis creatures ...everythingofcrueltytoanimals,isaviolationofmoral duty’’;10 ThomasYoung,in AnEssayonHumanitytoAnimals (1798): ‘‘ TheCreatorwillsthehappinessofthesehiscreatures,andconsequentlythathumanitytowardsthemisagreeabletohim,andcruelty thecontrary’’; 11 EdwardAugustusKendallin Keeper’sTravelsinSearch ofHisMaster (1799),averypopularstoryforchildren:menshould ‘‘acknowledgetheRights;insteadofbestowingtheirCompassionupon thecreatures,whom,withthemselves,Godmade,andmadetobe happy’’;12 Wordsworthin ‘‘Hart-LeapWell’’ onthedeathofahunted deer:
ThisbeastnotunobservedbyNaturefell; Hisdeathwasmournedbysympathydivine.
TheBeing,thatisinthecloudsandair, Thatisinthegreenleavesamongthegroves, Maintainsadeepandreverentialcare Fortheunoffendingcreatureswhomheloves. 13
Clearlythefamous ‘‘moral’’ ofColeridge’s ‘‘ TheRimeoftheAncient Mariner’’ (1798)wasnotunusualinitstime:
Heprayethbest,wholovethbest Allthingsbothgreatandsmall; ForthedearGodwholovethus, Hemadeandlovethall.14
10 TheAgeofReason (1794),ed.P.S.Foner(Secaucus,N.J.,1974)98.
11 QuotedinSamuelF.Pickering,Jr., JohnLockeandChildren’sBooksinEighteenthCenturyEngland (Knoxville,1981)37.
12 Keeper’sTravelsinSearchofHisMaster (1799;Philadelphia,1801)v.
13 WilliamWordsworth, ‘‘Hart-LeapWell,’’ lines163 –168,in EnglishRomantic Writers,ed.DavidPerkins,2nded.(FortWorth,1995)322.
14 SamuelTaylorColeridge, ‘‘ TheRimeoftheAncientMariner,’’ lines614 – 617,in ThePortableColeridge,ed.I.A.Richards(NewYork,1950)104 –105.
THEFOUNTAINLIGHT
IfGodintendedthatanimalsshouldbehappy,itfollowedthatcruelty tothemwasimpious.Personswhourgedkindnesstoanimalsdidnot typicallybelieveinaGodofwrathandvengeance,butHewasjust. ‘‘Manmaydismisscompassionfromhisheart,/ButGodwillnever,’’ Cowperwrotein TheTask (1785),andwhoevershowednomercyto animalswouldhimself ‘‘seekit,andnot findit.’’15 Sometimesthisrhetoricbecamealarming.Blake’sThelknew ‘‘ ThatGodwouldlovea Worm...andpunishtheevilfoot/Thatwilfulbruis’ditshelpless form,’’ andthereisBlake’smuch-quotedcoupletin ‘‘AuguriesofInnocence ’’ : ‘‘ARobinRedbreastinaCage/PutsallHeaveninaRage.’’16
WehavelearnedtoreadspecialmeaningsintoBlake’swords,but shouldnotignoretheliteralthreat.In TheRightsofAnimalsandMan’s ObligationtoTreatThemwithHumanity (1838),WilliamDrummond waxedterrifying: ‘‘toinjure,toabuse,tomaim,torture,orinflictupon them[animals]anypainwhichcanbeavoided,istoactinopposition tothewillofHeaven,andriseinrebellionagainsthisMaker,’’ thesin ofSatan.17
ThattheFatherloves all Hiscreaturesandintendsthemtobehappy wasthemostpowerfulandusualargumentoftheRomanticage.Ifyou believedit,thatis,ifyouacceptedthedescriptionofGod’sbeingand attributesthatliesbehindit,andtheinferencesfromthisdescription, itstoodinthewayofhunting,baiting,whipping,driving,cramming, plucking,andinnumerableotherpractices,painfultoanimals,that wereanordinary,familiarpartoflife.Intheboxingtermsoftheera, theargumentwasnota ‘‘settler,’’ foryoucouldclaimthatthesepracticeswerenecessary,or,alternatively,thatlivegeese,forexample,do notmindhavingtheirquillsplucked defensesthatarestillusual but atleasttheargumentwasa ‘‘facer.’’ Itmadeyoupauseandthink.The burdenofproofhadnowshiftedtoyou.
ThedescriptionofGodthatgroundsthisargumentistoofamiliar toberehearsedatlength.Intheeighteenthcenturyanunfathomable, fearfulGod,whoincalculablybyHisgracesavessomepersonsandnot others,seemedincredibletomanyEnglishintellectuals.Asabeing
15 WilliamCowper, TheTask,BookVI, ‘‘ TheWinterWalkatNoon,’’ PoeticalWorks, 2vols.(London,1830),II,176,181.
16 WilliamBlake, ‘‘ TheBookofThel,’’ Plate5,lines9 –10; ‘‘AuguriesofInnocence,’’ lines5– 6,CompleteWritings,ed.GeoffreyKeynes(London,1966)130,431.
17 TheRightsofAnimalsandMan’sObligationtoTreatThemwithHumanity (London,1836)49.
RELIGIONANDANIMALRIGHTSINTHEROMANTICERA 7 perfectlygood,Godmustwishthehappinessofallbeings,sincethisis intrinsictowhatwemeanbygoodness.Somuchcouldbeknown a priori.AsThomasReidtoldhisstudentsattheUniversityofEdinburgh, ‘‘Goodness,Mercy&forbearanceareevidentlyimpliedina perfectmoralcharacter,forwithoutitwecanconceivenomoralcharacterwhatever.’’ Therefore,thelawsoftheuniversemustbeandare ‘‘fittedtopromotetheinterestofhiscreatures&togiveallthatdegree ofhappinessofwhichtheirseveralnaturesarecapable.’’18 Reidwasa universitylecturer,butthepointwasastapleofmoralandreligious instructionatalllevels.ThusSarahTrimmer: ‘‘howexcellently... inferiorcreatures ...areinformedandinstructedbytheirgreatCreator fortheenjoymentofhappinessintheirdifferentclassesofexistence. ...ThereisnodoubtthattheAlmightydesignedallbeingsforhappiness’’;Wollstonecraft:Godmadeallcreatures ‘‘tobehappy ...and whenhemadethem,didnotleavethemtoperish,butplacedthem wherethefoodthatismostpropertonourishthemiseasilyfound’’; Kendall,quotingBlair: ‘‘OneendofGodinthisvisiblecreation,was, certainly,thedelightofhiscreatures,ofwhichthemeanestreptilehas undoubtedlyitsshare.’’19 TheUnitarianJosephPriestleylookedforwardtothecollapseofthetraditionalreligioussystem,forthiswould clearthewaytothecorrect ‘‘simplebelief,thatthemercifulparentof theuniverse ...nevermeantanythingbutthehappinessofhiscreatures.’’20 God,saidtheEarlofShaftesbury, ‘‘isthebest-naturedBeing intheworld.’’21 Thus,moralidealsoftheagewereprojectedontoGod, whobecametheperfectexemplarofreasonableness,benevolence,and compassion.ToimitateGodwastocultivatethesequalities.
IshouldemphasizethatthisviewofGoddidnotgenerallyprevail inmiddle-classhouseholds.Hereamoretraditionalreligionwould probablybefound,centeredonthesenseofsinfulnessandtheexperienceofconversionthroughChrist. 22 Neitherweretheseoptimisticbeliefssharedbyallintellectuals farfromit.Buttheywerethenewer,
18 LecturesonNaturalTheology (1780),ed.ElmerH.Duncan(Washington,D.C., 1981)86.
19 Trimmer151,203;Wollstonecraft3;EdwardAugustusKendall, TheCanaryBird: AMoralStory,InterspersedwithPoetry (Philadelphia,1801)54.
20 QuotedinThomasMcFarland, ColeridgeandthePantheistTradition (Oxford, 1969)312,fromPriestley’s ThreeTracts ...(London,1791)177.
21 QuotedinBasilWilley, TheEighteenthCenturyBackground:StudiesontheIdeaof NatureintheThoughtofthePeriod (NewYork,1940)11.
22 DavidoffandHall87.
moremodernunderstandingofGodandHisrelationtoHiscreation, andtheyseepedgraduallyintopeople’sminds,mixingillogicallywith otherbeliefsandmodifyingthem.WhetherornotSarahTrimmerhad readJohnLocke,SamuelClarke,MatthewTindal,WillliamWollaston,theEarlofShaftesbury,andothershapersofthemodernfaithI donotknow.Butshewouldnothaveneededto.Theirthoughtswere echoedinsermons,journalarticles,andpoems.Theywere,aswesay, intheair.
SincefatherhoodwasausualanalogyforGod,wemaynotethat fatherlybehaviorseemsalsotohavebeenintransitionduringtheeighteenthcentury.Thefatherwasstillverymuchthehousehold figureof authority.Hewasusuallyolderthanhiswife,hadtheadvantageof experienceintheworld,andcontrolledthe finances.Womenandchildrenweredependent.However,inmiddle-classhouseholdsfathers weregenerallynotdistantparents.Theymighttakecareofchildren whenthemotherwasilloraway,nursethemwhentheyweresick,tell themstories,teachthem,andplaygameswiththem,andastheboys grewolder,thefatherwouldsettletheminbusinessoracareer.In short,fatherswerelikelytobemuchinvolvedwiththeirchildrenand tobecaring.23 Imentionthisbecausethewaysofearthlyfatherswould modifyconceptionsoftheheavenlyone perhapsquiteasmuchasthe reverseprocess.
TraditionallyithadbeensaidthatGodcreatedanimalsfortheconvenienceanduseofman,thatis,presumably,sothattheycouldbe eaten,bemadetopullcarriages,andsoforth.24 Butashadlongsince beenpointedout,Godcreatedmanyanimalsofwhichmancanmake nouse,animals,even,ofwhichwehavenoknowledge.Wasitpossible thatGodproducedanimalsforHisownsakeorforthesakeofthe creaturesthemselves?WearetouchingonwhatA.O.Lovejoycalls ‘‘theprincipleofplenitude,’’ theideathatitbelongstotheperfection ofGodtocreateallthekindsoflivingthingsthatarepossible.Along withitscorrelate,thegreatChainofBeing thatis,thehierarchical, continuousscaleofbeingsfromthelowesttoGod theideaofplenitudehad,saysLovejoy,its ‘‘widestdiffusion’’ intheeighteenthcentury.25 Inthislightitappearedthattheanimalspecieswerenotcreated
23 DavidoffandHall329 –333.
24 ForquotationsanddiscussionseeA.O.Lovejoy, TheGreatChainofBeing (1936; NewYork,1960)187–188.
25 Lovejoy183.
RELIGIONANDANIMALRIGHTSINTHEROMANTICERA 9 forthebenefitofman,andtheopinionthattheywerewassatirizedby Pope26 andmanyotherwriters.
BecausetheperfectgoodnessofGodentailed,forsomereasoners, Hisintentionthatanimalsshouldbehappy,itfurtherrequiredthat animalsoulsbeimmortal.Expressionsofthisbeliefmightbemainly wishfulorsentimental,aswhenAlexanderPopetoldSpencethatdogs musthavesouls ‘‘asimperishableintheirnatureasours....Where wouldbetheharmtousinallowingthemimmortality.’’27 Robert Southey,grievingforadeadspaniel,wrotethat ‘‘thereisanother world,/Forallthatliveandmove abetterone.’’28 Theimmortality ofhumansoulscouldbeinferredwithoutbiblicalrevelation,andthe sameargumentswerecogentforanimals.Wollaston,forexample,observedthattheworldburstswithinnocentsuffering: ‘‘howcanweacquitthe justice and reasonableness ofthatBeing ...if therebeno future state,wheretheproperamendsmaybemade.’’29 Wollastondoesnot mentionanimals,butotherspointedoutthattheirinnocentlivesmay alsocontainahugeexcessofpainoverpleasure.Moreover,someofthe traditionalrationalizationsofevilandsufferingdidnotapplyverywell toanimals,suchasthatsufferingimprovesmoralandspiritualcharacterandredirectsattentiontowardGod.Inhisconsiderationof ScripturalandPhilosophicalArguments...thatBrutesHaveSouls (1824), PeterBuchanconcludedthatsinceajustGodmustrecompense ‘‘undeservedpain,’’ Hemusthaveappointed ‘‘afuturestate’’ foranimals.30 RichardDean,aclergyman,triedtoprovethisbytheBible,relyingon suchpassagesasRomans8:21andIsaiah65:25.Butinhis Essayon theFutureLifeofBruteCreatures (1768)healsousedtherationalist argument:animalssufferinthisworld;iftheyarenotcompensatedin thenextworld, ‘‘Iknownotwhetherweshallnotbeobligedto... impeachthedivineGoodness.’’31
Likeotherideasthatweakenedthedistinctionbetweenhumansand
26 AlexanderPope, AnEssayonMan,I,131–140,ed.MaynardMack(NewHaven, 1950).
27 JosephSpence, Observations,Anecdotes,andCharactersofBooksandMen,ed.J.M. Osborn,vol.1(Oxford,1966)118 –119.
28 Poems (1797;Oxford,1989), ‘‘OntheDeathofaFavouriteOldSpaniel,’’ 133.
29 WilliamWollaston, TheReligionofNatureDelineated (1724;NewYork,1978) 203.
30 ScripturalandPhilosophicalArguments...thatBrutesHaveSouls (Peterhead,1824) 17.
31 AnEssayontheFutureLifeofBruteCreatures,2vols.(London,1768),I,21.
THEFOUNTAINLIGHT
animals,theimmortalityofanimalsoulswasobjectionableonemotional,moral,andreligiousgroundsaswellasonpractical,economic ones.ForthinkerslikeSamuelTaylorColeridge,whomaintainedthat thetruthofimmortalityisknownbyself-awareness,thepossessionof suchideasconstitutedthehumanityinhumanbeingsincontradistinctiontoanimals.32 Even ‘‘acommonmanwouldstartleathearingtalk ofthe Souls ofBrutes:forheconnectswiththewordthefacultyof Self-consciousness,and(onthestrengthofthis)believesinimmortality.’’33 ForSamuelJohnson,totakeanotherexample,thepromotionof animalstoimmortalitywould,Ithink,haveactivatedlatentdoubts aboutthatofhumans.WhenRichardDean’sbookwasmentionedin conversationbya ‘‘gentleman’’ (probablyBoswell),Johnson ‘‘discouragedthistalk’’ andwas ‘‘offendedatitscontinuation.’’34 Boswellcalls animalimmortalitya ‘‘curiousspeculation,’’ andnodoubtformostpeopleitwasmerelythat.Yetithadweightysupportevenamongreligious thinkers.Wesleybelievedit,andsodidBishopJosephButler,whom Coleridgethoughtoneof ‘‘thethreegreatest,nay,onlythree great MetaphysicianswhichthisCountry has produced.’’35
Intheeyesoftheage,themainachievementofmodernreligious thoughtwastheelaboration,throughempiricalstudyofthenatural world,ofthetraditionalargumentfromdesign.Observationofnature provedtheexistenceandatleastsomeattributesofitsCreator.When statedinsmug,popularways,theargumentfromevidencesofdesign innaturewaseasytoparodyandlaughaway.Butwhencarefullystated, evensopowerfulalogicianasKantfounditalmostimpossibletoresist, thoughKantbelievedhehadrefutedit.Fewpersonsyetthoughtthat specieshadevolvedunderthepressureofnaturalselection.Eachspecies,itseemed,andeachorganandinstinctofaspecies,musthave originatedinaseparateactofcreation.HenceonecouldinferaCreator,andthemarvelousintricacyandfunctionaleffectivenessofthe
32 OntheConstitutionoftheChurchandState,ed.JohnColmer(Princeton,1976) 47n.
33 ShorterWorksandFragments,ed.H.J.JacksonandJ.R.deJ.Jackson,2vols. (Princeton,1995),II,958n.AnyaTaylor, Coleridge’sDefenseoftheHuman (Columbus, 1985)35– 60,emphasizeshow firmlyColeridgemaintainedthatthereisanessential distinctionbetweenhumansandanimals.
34 JamesBoswell, LifeofJohnson,ed.GeorgeBirkbeckHill,rev.L.F.Powell,6vols. (Oxford,1934)II,54.
35 SamuelTaylorColeridge, CollectedLetters,ed.EarlLeslieGriggs,6vols.(Oxford, 1956 –1971)II,703.
