Theophrastus
On Abstinence and Sacrifice
Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food
「3rd c.」Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, Book the Second, in The Select Works of Porphyry, trans. by Thomas Taylor (London, 1823; Online at Animal Rights History, 2003)
It is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one.…But if some one should say, that God gave animals for our use, no less than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life.…Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants 「when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods」. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle.
5.…As Theophrastus says…in consequence of error gradually increasing, when men, wanting the necessaries of lie, offered, with great labour and many tears, some drops of these as first-fruits, to the Gods. Hence, they did not at first sacrifice these, but grass, which, as a certain soft wool of a prolific nature, they plucked with thier hands. For the earth produced treees prior to animals; and long before trees grass, which germinates annually.
7. And these things appear to be testified by the splendid procession in honour of the Sun and the Hours, which is even now performed at Athens, wand in which there were other herbs besides grass, and also acorns, the fruit of the crab tree, barely, wheat, a heap of dried figs, cakes make of wheaten and barley flower; and, in the last place an earthen pot. This mode, however, or offering the first-fruits in sacrifices, having at length, proceeded to great illegality, the assumption of immolations, most dire and full of cruelty, was introduced; so that it would seen that the execrations which were formerly uttered against us, have now received their consummation, in consequence of men slaughtering animals, and defiling altars with blood; and this commenced from that period in which mankind tasted of blood, through having experienced the the evils of famine and war. Divinity therefore, as Theophrastus says, being indignant, appears to have adapted a punishment to the crime. Hence some men became atheists; but others, in consequence of forming erroneous conceptions of a divine nature, may more justly be called 「may rather be called malevolent than unhappy」 because they think that the Gods are depraved, and in no respect naturally more excellent than weak. Thus, therefore, some were seen to live without sacrificing any thing, and without offering the first-fruits of their possessions to the Gods; but others sacrificed improperly, and made use of illegal obligations.
11. But what especially proves that every thing of this kind originated from injustice, is this, that the same things are neither sacrificed nor eaten in every nation, but that they conjecture what it is fit for them to do from what they find to be useful to themselves.…Theophrastus reasonably forbids those to sacrifice animals who wish to be truly pious; employing these, and other similar arguments, such as the following.
12. In the first place, indeed, because we sacrificed animals through the occurrence, as we have said, of a greater necessity. For pestilence and war were the causes that introduced the necessity of eating them. Since, therefore, we are supplied with fruits, what occasion is there to use the sacrifice of necessity? In the next place, the remunerations of, and thanks for benefits, are to be given differently to different persons, according to the worth of the benefit conferred; so that the greatest remunerations, and from things of the most honourable nature, are to be given to those who have benefited us in the greatest degree, and especially if they are the causes of these gifts. But the most beautiful and honourable of those things, by which the Gods benefit us, are the fruits of the earth. For through these they preserve us, and enable us to live legitimately; so that, from these we ought to venerate them. Besides, it is requisite to sacrifice those things by the sacrifice of which we shall not injure any one. For nothing ought to be so innoxious to all things as sacrifice. But if some one should say, that God gave animals for our use, no less than the fruits of the earth, yet it does not follow that they are, therefore, to be sacrificed, because in so doing they are injured, through being deprived of life. For sacrifice is, as the name implies, something holy. But, no one is holy who requites a benefit from things which are the property of another, whether he takes fruits or plants from one who is unwilling to be deprived of them. For how can this be holy, when those are injured from whom they are taken? If, however, he who takes away fruits from others does not sacrifice with sanctity, it cannot be holy to sacrifice things taken from others, which are in every respect more honourable than the fruits of the earth. For a more dire deed is thus perpetrated. But soul is much more honourable than the vegetable productions of the earth, which it is not fit, by sacrificing animals, that we should take away.
13. Some one, however, perhaps may say, that we also take away something from plants 「when we eat, and sacrifice them to the Gods」. But the ablation is not similar; since we do not take this away from those who are unwilling that we should. For, if we omitted to gather them, they would spontaneously drop their fruits. The gathering of the fruits, also, is not attended with the destruction of the plants, as it is when animals lose their animating principle. And, with respect to the fruit which we receive from bees, since this is obtained by our labour, it is fit that we should derive a common benefit from it. For bees collect their honey from plants; but we carefully attend to them. On which account it is requisite that such a division should be made 「of our attention and their labour」 that they may suffer no injury. But that which is useless to them, and beneficial to us, will be the reward which we receive from them 「of our attention to their concerns」. In sacrifices, therefore, we should abstain from animals. For, though all things are in reality the property of the Gods, yet plants appear to be our property; since we sow and cultivate them, and nourish them by other attentions which we pay to them. We ought to sacrifice, therefore, from our own property, and not from the property of others; since that which may be procured at a small expense, and which may easily be obtained, is more holy, more acceptable to the Gods, and better adapted to the purposes of sacrifice, and to the exercise of continual piety. Hence, that which is neither holy, nor to be obtained at a small expense, is not to be offered in sacrifice, even though it should be present.
14. But that animals do not rank among things which may be procured easily, and at a small expense, may be seen by directing our view to the greater part of our race : for we are not now to consider that some men abound in sheep, and others in oxen. In the first place, therefore, there are many nations that do not possess any of those animals which are offered in sacrifice, some ignoble animals, perhaps, excepted. And, in the second place, most of those that dwell in cities themselves, possess these but rarely. But if some one should say that the inhabitants of cities have not mild fruits in abundance ; yet, though this should be admitted, they are not in want of the other vegetable productions of the earth ; nor is it so difficult to procure fruits as it is to procure animals. Hence an abundance of fruits, and other vegetables, is more easily obtained than that of animals. But that which is obtained with facility, and at a small expense, contributes to incessant and universal diety.
20. But that God is not delighted with the amplitude of sacrifices, but with any casual offering, is evident from this, that of our daily food, whatever it may be that is placed before us, we all of us make an offering to the Gods, before we have tasted ourselves ; this offering being small indeed, but the greatest testimony of honour to divinity. Moreover, Theophrastus shows, by enumerating many of the rites of different countries, that the sacrifices of the ancients were from fruits, and he narrates what pertains to libations in the following manner: “Ancient sacrifices were from the most part performed with soriety. ut those sacrifices are sober in which the liations are made with water. AFterwards, however, libations were made with honey. For we first receive this liquid fruit prepared fro us by the bees. In hte third place, libations were made with oil; and in the foruth and last place with wine.”
For, as it appears to me, when friendship and a proper sense of the duties pertaining to kindred natures, was possessed by all men, no one slaughtering any living being, in consequence of thinking that other animlas were allied to him.
27.… Hence, as if they had made no ignoble sacrifices to the Gods, they proceeded also to taste the animals which they immolated; a nd from this, as a principle of the deed, the eating of animals became an addtion to men to the nutriment derived from fruits. As, therefore, antiquity offfred the first produce of fruits to the Gods, and gladly, after their pious sacrifice, toasted firstling of aniamls to the divinites, they thought that the same thing ought to be done by them, though ancient piety did not ordain these particulars after this manner, but venerated each of the Gods from frutis. or with such oblations, both nature, and every sense of the human soul, are delighted.
No alter then was wet with the blood of bulls
Irrationally slain; but this was thought
To be of every impious deed the worst,
Limbs to devour of brutes deprived of life.
31. Hence, neither did the ancients conceive it to be holy to slay animals that co-operated with us in works eneficial to our life, and we should avoid doing this even now. And as formerly it was not pious for men to injure these animals, so not it should e considered as unholy to slay them for food. If, however, this is to be done from the motives of religious reverence of the Gods, yet every passion or affection which is essentially produced from bodies is to be rejected, in order that we may not procure food from improper substance,s and thus have an incentive to violence as the intimate associate of our live. For by such a rejection we shall, at least, all of us derive great benefit in what pertains to our mutal security, if we do not in any thing else. For those whose sense is averse to the destruction of animals of a species different from thier own, will evidently abstain from injuring those of thier own kind. Hence it would perhaps have been best, if men in after-times had immediately abstained from slaughtering these animals; ut since no one is free from error, it reamains for posterity to take way by purifications the crime of thier ancestors, respecting nutriment.…
32. But the benefit derived from fruits is the first and greates of all others. and which, as soon as they are matured should be offerred to the Gods, and tho the Earth, by whom they are produced. For she is the common Vesta of Gods and men; and it is requisite that all of us, reclining on her surface, as on the bosom of our mother and nurse, should celebrate her divinity, and love her with parental affection, as the source of our existence. For thus, when we exchange one life for another, we shall again be thought worthy of a residence in the heavens, and of associating with all the celestial Gods, whom, now beholding, we outhg to venerate with those fruits of which they are the causes, sacrficing indeed toThis therefore is the sustance of the arguments adduced by Tehophrastus to show that animals ougth not to be sacrificed; exclusive of the interspersed fablous narrations, a a few things which we have atted to what he has said.
