A — Antropophages

We have spoken of love. It is hard to pass from people who kiss one another to people who eat one another. It is only too true that there have been cannibals. We found them in America; perhaps some remain. The Cyclopes were not the only people in antiquity who sometimes fed on human flesh. Juvenal relates that among the Egyptians—that people so wise, so renowned for its laws, so pious that it worshiped crocodiles and onions—the Tentyrites ate an enemy who had fallen into their hands. He does not tell this tale on hearsay: the crime was committed almost before his eyes. He was then in Egypt, not far from Tentyra. On this occasion he cites the Gascons and Saguntines, who once fed on the flesh of their countrymen.

In 1725 four savages from the Mississippi were brought to Fontainebleau. I had the honor of conversing with them. Among them was a lady of that country, whom I asked whether she had eaten human beings. She answered quite simply that she had. I appeared a little scandalized. She excused herself by saying it was better to eat one’s dead enemy than leave him to be devoured by beasts, and that the victors deserved first choice. In pitched battles or otherwise, we kill our neighbors; for the vilest reward, we work in the kitchen of ravens and worms. There lies the horror, there lies the crime. Once one is killed, what does it matter whether a soldier eats one, or a raven and a dog?

We respect the dead more than the living. We ought to have respected both. The nations called civilized were right not to put their defeated enemies on the spit: if eating one’s neighbors were permitted, people would soon eat their fellow citizens, which would be a great inconvenience to the social virtues. But civilized nations have not always been so; all were savage for a long time. Through the countless upheavals this globe has undergone, humankind has sometimes been numerous and sometimes very scarce. What now happens to elephants, lions, and tigers, whose numbers have greatly diminished, has happened to human beings. When a region was sparsely inhabited, its people had few arts; they were hunters. The habit of feeding on what they had killed easily led them to treat their enemies like their deer and boars. Superstition caused human victims to be sacrificed; necessity caused them to be eaten.

Which is the greater crime: to assemble piously and plunge a knife into the heart of a young girl adorned with ribbons in honor of the Divinity, or to eat a vile man one has killed in self-defense?

Yet we have far more examples of girls and boys sacrificed than of girls and boys eaten. Almost every known nation has sacrificed boys and girls. The Jews sacrificed them. This was called anathema; it was a true sacrifice, and chapter 29 of Leviticus commands that the living souls dedicated by vow should not be spared. But nowhere are the Jews commanded to eat them; they are only threatened with it. Moses, as we have seen, tells the Jews that if they do not observe the ceremonies, not only will they have scabies, but mothers will eat their children. It is true that in Ezekiel’s time the Jews must have been accustomed to eating human flesh, for he predicts in chapter 39 that God will make them eat not only their enemies’ horses but their riders and other warriors as well. This is explicit. Indeed, why should the Jews not have been cannibals? That would have been the only thing lacking for God’s people to be the most abominable people on earth.

I have read, in anecdotes of English history from Cromwell’s time, that a Dublin candlemaker sold excellent candles made from English people’s fat. Some time afterward a customer complained that her candles were no longer so good. “Alas!” she said, “we have run short of English people this month.” I ask who was more culpable: those who slaughtered the English, or this woman who made candles from their tallow?

We have been discussing love. It is unpleasant to move from people who kiss each other to people who eat each other. Cannibals certainly have existed. We found them in America, and perhaps they still exist there. In the ancient world, the Cyclopes were not the only ones who sometimes ate human flesh. Juvenal says the Tentyrites in Egypt ate an enemy they had captured. This happened among the Egyptians, a people so wise and so famous for their laws, so pious that they worshiped crocodiles and onions. Juvenal was not just repeating a rumor. The crime happened almost in front of him: he was in Egypt then, close to Tentyra. He also mentions the Gascons and Saguntines, who once ate their fellow countrymen.

Four savages from the Mississippi were brought to Fontainebleau in 1725. I had the honor of talking with them. One was a woman from that country. I asked whether she had eaten people. She answered very straightforwardly that she had. I looked a little shocked. In her defense, she said it was better to eat a dead enemy than leave him for animals to eat, and that the winners deserved the first choice. We kill our neighbors in organized battles and in other fighting. For a miserable reward, we prepare meals for ravens and worms. That is where the horror and the crime lie. Once you have been killed, does it matter whether a soldier eats you or a raven and a dog do?

We show more respect for dead people than for living ones. We should respect both. The countries we call civilized were right not to roast their defeated enemies on spits. If people could eat their neighbors, they would soon start eating their fellow citizens. That would be very bad for social morality. Yet civilized nations were not always civilized. All of them were savage for a long time. During the countless upheavals the world has experienced, the human population has sometimes been large and sometimes very small. People have experienced what elephants, lions, and tigers are experiencing now: their numbers have greatly declined. When few people lived in a region, they had few arts and were hunters. They were used to eating what they killed, so it was easy for them to treat enemies as they treated deer and wild boars. Superstition made people sacrifice human victims. Necessity made them eat them.

Which is worse: gathering devoutly to put a knife into the heart of a young girl dressed in ribbons, in honor of the deity, or eating a bad man you killed while defending yourself?

We have many more examples of boys and girls being sacrificed than being eaten. Nearly every nation we know of has sacrificed boys and girls. The Jews did so. They called it anathema, and it was a real sacrifice. Chapter 29 of Leviticus orders that living beings dedicated by vow must not be spared. But nowhere are the Jews told to eat them. They are only threatened with that punishment. As we have seen, Moses tells them that if they fail to keep the ceremonies, they will not just get scabies: mothers will eat their children. The Jews must have been used to eating human flesh in Ezekiel’s time, because in chapter 39 he predicts that God will make them eat their enemies’ horses, their riders, and the other warriors as well. That is explicit. And why would the Jews not have been cannibals? It would have been the only thing missing to make God’s people the most abominable people on earth.

In stories about England during Cromwell’s time, I read that a woman in Dublin sold excellent candles made from English people’s fat. Later, a customer complained that her candles were no longer as good. “Unfortunately,” she said, “we have been short of English people this month.” Who was more guilty: the people who slaughtered the English, or the woman who used their tallow to make candles?