Higher Laws" "Higher
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
tcny n<,rt IIInl J J A BENEFACTOR OF HIS RACE: THOREAU'S "HIGHER LAWS" AND THE HEROICS OF VEGETARIANISM ROBERT EPSTEIN grasped and lived by is the law which says: "Follow your own gen Berkeley, California ius"--be what you are, whether you are by your own nature hunter, or Was Thoreau a vegetarian or not? There wood chopper, or scholar. When you are several answers to this question. have become perfect you will be perfect; but only if you have If dietary practice is to be the sole learned to be, all along, what at criterion for judging, then Thoreau cannot be each manent you were. (pp 84-5) considered a vegetarian, since, by his own account, he ate fish and meat (though the Echoing Thoreau, the eminent psycholo latter rarely). gist, Carl G. Jung once wrote: Yet, despite this fact, Thoreau espoused I had to obey an inner law which a vegetarian ethic. So, his practice does was :irr\posed on me and left me no not suffice as a criterion for judging the freedanfreedom of choice. Of course I did extent of his vegetarianism. Consequently, not always obey it. How can anyone he has been criticized numerous times, e.g. live without inconsistency? (1965, by Wagenknecht, 1981, Garber, 1977, Jones, p. 356) 1954, for being inconsistent. How consistent was he in adhering to the vegetarian ideal? What we need to do in Thoreau scholarship- The question is not easy to answer. We must particularly regarding his dietary views--is ask: consistent from whose point of view? put aside our judgments of inconsistency The notion of consistency cannot always and (which frequently represent a defense against easily be objectively detennined,determined, because the areas of conflict in us) and attempt to un critic's own biases distort that which is derstand Thoreau franfrom within his own frame of ref~ence.[l] being viewed, in this case Thoreau's vegetar The question with which we ianism. Thoreau himself at no time expressed began has changed significantly. In the any feeling of inconsistency regarding his following pages we will be concerned with the dietary principles. Onlycnly one biographer central question which occupied Thoreau's appears in any measure to have appreciated attention: what did vegetarianism mean to this point; of Thoreau's apparent contradic him? tions . regarding diet, Joseph Wood Krutch (1974) writes: As Thoreau begins the chapter on "Higher Laws, "[2]" [ 2] which contains his IlDstllDst canpletecomplete At Walden existence was too inex statement about vegetarianism, we see him pressibly sweet to be troubled even carrying a fishing pole and a string of fish. by the contradictions in it, and even the contradictions were justi fied by the fact that they were contradictions within himself, not contradictions forced upon him frafromn PHILOSOPHYPHILOSOPHY without. The higher laws are glimpsed, but the law really 23 BEIWEEN THE SPECIES ..... ~ But there is more: not only do we see him symbolic senses--lies his faith. The young carrying fish; we behold him preparing to person, Thoreau says, may start out as d chase a woodchuck through the woods, which he hunter but will eventually discover, provided would devour raw, if caught. he has the "seeds of a better life" in him, that the animals he would slaughter are fun Thoreau appears to have no qualms about damentally of the same nature as him. Thor eating fish or meat. In fact, the author of eau declares: Walden praises the hunters and fishermen of the past as "the best people," because they No humane being, past the thought have spent the better part of their lives in less age of boyhood, will wantonly nature and so have become more a part of murder any creature which holds its Nature itself." Thoreau may even be regarded life by the same tenure that he as pro-hunting, since he goes so far as to does. (162) reconmend that young boys should be trained in hunting at an early age, so as to famil 'Ibis, at least, is Thoreau's own faith. iarize them with Nature (161). He is well aware that the majority of people still relate to Nature in an unenlightened If we take him literally, Thoreau seems way, even if they don't actually hunt and to be an ardent advocate of hunting and fish slaughter the animals they eat. Thoreau ing. Yet, he confounds everything by insist believes that animal slaughter impedes one's ing that the hunter may be more humane than moral and religious developnent, because such the Humane society (161). With this oxynor killing does violence to one's relationship on, it occurs to us that words like "humane" with the world. [4] --even "hunter" and "fisherman"-400an some In the case of fishing, Thoreau objects thing special to Thoreau. to it less because of any sentimental humane ness than because the fish "seemed not to In fact, the author of "Higher Laws" have fed me essentially" (163). By "essen typically invests familiar words with new tially," Thoreau means spiritually.[5] When meaning. "Hunter," for example, signifies speaking of meat-eating, which includes fish, not simply a hunter of animals but, in a Thoreau refers to his imagination several metaIborical sense, anyone who is a seeker. times. Animal food, he writes, is objection Similarly, Thoreau uses the word "fisher" to able because it offends his imagination. One mean saneone who is angling for something could perhaps ask why meat-eating should so hidden, concealed below the surface. Both offend the imagination, but Thoreau firmly hunter and fisher, in short, symbolize seek states that such inquiries are vain (164) • ers of self-knowledge. He says that he is satisfied that the imagin ation will not be reconciled to meat-eating. 'nloreau borrows these images from the Thoreau, in fact, is convinced that the pre Bible[3] and transfonns them for his own use. dilection for fish and animal food is not Regarding their use, Charles Anderson ob instinctive but, rather, an aaruired taste. serves: Indeed, he declares in no uncertain terms his conviction that if anything is an instinct, As with all Thoreau's allusions to the it is the repugnance to animal food (165). Bible, these are transmuted to new neanings. Hunter and fisher for him In realizing the miserable existence of become archetypes of those who praise the meat-eater, Thoreau makes a pronouncement God and serve men. He does not unparalleled in Walden. Not the aboli intend any evangelical meaning of tiomst, not the individualist, not even the "hunters and fishers of men" as those poet receives the status accorded the true dedicated to saving souls for Christ. vegetarian: They are poetic names for the author of a new scripture, whose mission was to He [the vegetarian] will be re hunt and fish for the human condition, garded as a benefactor of his race for the true nature of man buried under who shall teach man to confine a material civilization. (1968, p. 149) himself to a more innocent and wholesome diet. (164) Behind Thoreau's notions about hunting and fishing--both in their literal as well as Thoreau adds: BEl'WEEN THE SPEX::IES 24 III7 IIiI'$ iIIIIII Whatever my own practice may be, I flicted on any creature is to its have no doubt that it is a part of extent a suicide. What peace- the destiny of the human race, in or life--can a murderer have? (May its gradual ilnprovement,improvement, to leave 28, 1854) off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off If, after all this, Thoreau appears to eating each other when they came in contradict himself by shockingly declaring contact with the m:>reIJX)re civilized. his willingness to eat a fried rat, the con (164)(164) • tradiction results fran a literal and super ficial reading. Not only is a rat--fried or With this declaration, Thoreau creates not--an unappetizing diet, but it is also one the possibility of a new heroics, an heroics of the lowliest creatures, one which feeds on of vegetarianism. filth and transmits disease. To the extent that a fried rat is inedible, it serves the His vegetarianism is a new heroics, at same p.rrpose as board nails, which Thoreau least in Western culture, because it symbol says he could also live on: he means his izes the willingness--even m:>reIJX)re critically, vegetarian convictions to be taken seriously the courage--to let Nature alone. Increas and not dismissed as the caprice of a faddist ingly over the centuries and with unbridled (Anderson, 1968, p. 156). manentmn during ThoreauThoreau'sI s time, people had seized Nature under the pr~tense of manifest But Thoreau has another p.rrposepurpose in men destiny. The illusion of conquest was, h0w tioning the rat: by taking an extreme exam ever, a cover for cowardice: in an economy ple of meat-eating, Thoreau pushes the reader of scarcity where Nature represents 'peril,peril, into direct contact with his/her own repul there is constant fear ~ to combat that fear, sion to animal food. For this strategy to the roots of which are within, people learned work requires both sensitivity and receptivi to daninate others in a desperate effort ty on the reader'sreader I s part to what has been to gain control. As part of Nature, non discussed by Thoreau hitherto. An unsympa expropriated and held as the property of all thetic reader will see in Thoreau'sThoreau I s fried rat people, animals were available and vulnerable no IJX)rem:>re than an instance ofof, his absurdity.