This book began as a collection of articles published over many years. These articles, however, have been revised, at times considerably, and combined to form an organic interrelated argument, reflecting the interpretational logic which underlines my view of the history of attitudes toward animals. In revising these initially separate studies it was necessary to omit all of the overlapping material, which has here been mainly consigned to the introduction. If for this reason alone, those who are interested only in one or another of these chapters would do better to go to the original versions. Other revisions have been more substantive, at times reflecting changes in my view of these topics. To these previous studies I have also added a significant new chapter which closes the book, one which puts all the other chapters in a different and more unified light. I have also attempted, as much as possible, not to repeat claims or material from my previous book on the history of attitudes toward animals, Subjugated Animals: Animals and Anthropocentrism in Early Modern European Culture. Some discussion of anthropocentrism, as of the Cartesian beast-machine theory and of early modern theriophily, could not be avoided, but I have tried to keep it to a minimum. These topics have received ample attention over the years from myself and many other scholars. Ignoring them is impossible, but neither do they require detailed (re)explanation. The term “theriophily,” “love of animals,” is used throughout the present book but, as will be explained, in a somewhat broader and looser sense than is usually customary. I have also tried to avoid as much as possible any partisanship regarding the ethical treatment of animals. As a scholar of Enlightenment historiography I do not deny the need for an ethical outlook when writing history. Nevertheless, in today's political climate anything which has to do with the environment, and specifically with animals, tends to arouse passions which are not conducive to a proper historiographical approach. This is more appropriate for philosophers than historians. In Subjugated Animals I succumbed to this temptation, to the detriment, so I believe today, of the quality of the discussion.