"As a general, rule, the florid are less healthy than those who have little color; an increase of color having ever been judged, by common sense, to be a sign of impending illness. Some, however, who are lean upon animal food, thrive upon vegetables, and improve in color.
"All the notions of vegetable diet affording only a deficient nutriment--notions which are countenanced by the language of Cullen and other great physicians--are wholly groundless.
"Man is herbivorous in his structure.
"I have observed no ill consequences from the relinquishment of animal food. The apprehended danger of the change, with which men scare themselves and their neighbors, is a mere phantom of the imagination.
The danger, in truth, lies wholly on the other side.
"There is no organ of the body which, under the use of vegetable food, does not receive an increase of sensibility, or of that power which is thought to be imparted to it by the nervous system.
"Socrates, Plato, Zeno, Epicurus, and others of the masters of ancient wisdom, adhered to the Pythagorean diet (vegetable diet), and are known to have arrived at old age with the enjoyment of uninterrupted health.
Celsus affirms that the bodies which are filled with much animal food become the most quickly old and diseased. It was proverbial that the ancient athletae were the most stupid of men. The cynic Diogenes, being asked what was the cause of this stupidity, is reported to have answered, "Because they are wholly formed of the flesh of swine and oxen." Theophrastus says that feeding upon flesh destroys the reason, and makes the mind more dull.
"Animal food is unfavorable to the intellectual powers. The effect is, in some measure, instantaneous; it being hardly possible to apply to any thing requiring thought after a full meal of meat; so that it has been not improperly said of vegetable feeders, that _with them it is morning all day long_. But the senses, the memory, the understanding, and the imagination have also been observed to improve by a vegetable diet.
"It will not be disputed that, for consumptive symptoms, a vegetable diet, or at least a vegetable and milk diet, is the most proper.
"It has been said, that the great fondness men have for animal food, is proof enough that nature intended them to eat it. As if men were not fond of wine, ardent spirits, and other things which we know cut short their days!
"In every period of history it has been known that vegetables alone are sufficient for the support of life; and the bulk of mankind live upon them at this hour. The adherence to the use of animal food is no more than a gross persistence in the customs of savage life, and an insensibility to the progress of reason and the operation of intellectual improvement. This habit must be considered as one of the numerous relics of that ancient barbarism which has overspread the face of the globe, and which still taints the manners of civilized nations.
"The use of fermented liquors is, in some measure, a necessary concomitant and appendage to the use of animal food. Animal food, in a great number of persons, loads the stomach, causes some degree of oppression, fullness, and uneasiness; and, if the measure of it be in excess, some nausea and tendency to sickness. Such persons say meat is too heavy for the stomach. Fish is still more apt to nauseate. The use of fermented liquors takes off these uneasy feelings, and is thought to a.s.sist digestion. In short, in the use of animal food, man having deviated from the simple aliment offered him by the hand of nature, and which is the best suited to his organs of digestion, he has brought upon himself a premature decay, and much intermediate suffering connected with it. To this use of animal food almost all nations that have emerged from a state of barbarism, have united the use of spirituous and fermented liquors."
It is but justice to Dr. L., however, as the above was written by him over thirty years ago, to say, that though he still adheres to the same views, he thinks pure distilled water a very important addition to the vegetable diet, in the cure of chronic diseases. The following are his remarks in a letter to Mr. Graham, dated ten or twelve years ago.
"My doctrine is, that for the preservation of health, and more particularly for the successful treatment of chronic diseases, it is necessary to attend to the _whole_ ingesta--to the _fluid_ with as much care as the solid. And I am persuaded that the errors into which men have fallen with regard to supposed mischiefs or inconveniences (as weakness, for example), as resulting from a restriction to a vegetable diet, have, to a very considerable extent arisen from a want of a proper attention to the quality of the water they drank. So far back as the year 1803, I found that the use of pure distilled, instead of common water, relieved a state of habitual suffering of the stomach and bowels.
On this account, I always require that _distilled_ water shall be joined to the use of a vegetable diet; and consider this to be essential to the treatment."
PROFESSOR LAWRENCE.
Professor Lawrence is the author of a work ent.i.tled Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man. He is a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, London, Professor of Anatomy and Surgery to the College, and Surgeon to several Hospitals. In his work above mentioned, after much discussion in regard to the natural dietetic character of man, he thus remarks:
"That animal food renders man strong and courageous, is fully disproved by the inhabitants of northern Europe and Asia, the Laplanders, Samoiedes, Ostiacs, Tungooses, Burats, and Kamtschadales, as well as by the Esquimaux in the northern, and the natives of Terra del Fuego in the southern extremity of America, which are the smallest, weakest, and least brave people of the globe, although they live almost entirely upon flesh, and that often raw.
"Vegetable diet is as little connected with weakness and cowardice, as that of animal matter is with physical force and courage. _That men can be perfectly nourished, and their bodily and mental capabilities fully developed in any climate, by a diet purely vegetable, admits of abundant proof from experience._ In the periods of their greatest simplicity, manliness, and bravery, the Greeks and Romans appear to have lived almost entirely on plain vegetable preparations. Indifferent bread, fruits, and other produce of the earth, are the chief nourishment of the modern Italians, and of the ma.s.s of the population in most countries in Europe. Of those more immediately known to ourselves, the Irish and Scotch may be mentioned, who are certainly not rendered weaker than their English fellow-subjects by their free use of vegetable aliment.
The Negroes, whose great bodily powers are well known, feed chiefly on vegetable substances; and the same is the case with the South Sea Islanders, whose agility and strength were so great that the stoutest and most expert English sailors had no chance with them in wrestling and boxing."
The concession of Prof. L., which I have placed in italic, is sufficient for our purpose; we ask no more. Nevertheless, I am willing to hear his views of the indications afforded by our anatomical character, which are, as will be seen, equally decisive in favor of vegetable eating.
"Physiologists have usually represented that our species holds a middle rank, in the masticatory and digestive apparatus, between the flesh-eating and herbivorous animals--a statement which seems rather to have been deduced from what we have learned by experience on the subject, than to result from an actual comparison of men and animals.
"The teeth and jaws of men are, in all respects, much more similar to those of monkeys than of any other animal. The number is the same as in man, and the form so closely similar, that they might easily be mistaken for human. In most of them, except the ourang-outang, the canine teeth are much larger and stronger than in us; and so far, these animals have a more carnivorous character than man.
"Thus we find, that whether we consider the teeth and jaws, or the immediate instruments of digestion, the human structure closely resembles that of the simiae (monkey race), all of which, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous. Man possesses a tolerably large coec.u.m, and a cellular colon; which I believe are not found in any herbivorous animal."
The ourang-outang naturally prefers fruits and nuts, as the professor himself shows by extracts from the statements of travelers and naturalists. He is also fond of bread. On board a ship or elsewhere, _in confinement_, he may, however, be taught, like men, to eat almost any thing;--not only to eat milk and suck eggs, but even to eat raw flesh.
It is true, indeed, after all these foregoing statements and concessions in regard to man"s native character and the wholesomeness of a diet exclusively vegetable--and after admitting that the human body and mind can be fully and perfectly nourished and _developed_ on it, this distinguished writer goes on to say that it is still doubtful which diet--animal, vegetable, or mixed--is on the whole _most_ conducive to health, and strength--which is best calculated to avert or remove disease--whether errors in quant.i.ty or quality are most pernicious, etc.
He says the solution of these and other a.n.a.logous questions, can only be expected from experimental investigation. He proceeds to say--
"_Mankind are so averse to relinquish their favorite indulgences, and to desert established habits_, that we cannot entertain very sanguine expectations of any important discovery in this department. We must add to this, that there are many other causes affecting human health, besides diet. Before venturing to draw any inferences on a subject beset with so many obstacles, it would be necessary to observe the effects of a purely animal and a purely vegetable diet on several individuals of different habits, pursuits, and modes of life; to note their state, both bodily and mental; and to learn the condition of two or three generations fed in the same manner."
Now, the only difference between this opinion and what I conceive to be the truth in the case is, that just such experimental investigations as those to which he refers have, to all intents and purposes, been already made; as, I trust, will be distinctly shown in the sequel of this work.
DR. SALGUES.
Dr. Salgues, Physician, and Professor of Anatomy, Physiology, etc., etc., to the Inst.i.tute of France, some years ago wrote a book, ent.i.tled "Rules for Preserving the Health of the Aged," which contained many very judicious remarks on diet. There is nothing in the volume, however, which is decidedly in favor of a diet exclusively vegetable, unless it is a few anecdotes; and I have introduced his name chiefly as a sort of authority for those anecdotes. They are the following:
"Josephus informs us that the Essenes were very long lived; many lived upward of one hundred years, solely from their simple habits and sobriety. Aristotle and Plato speak of Herodicus the philosopher, who, although of a feeble and consumptive habit, lived, in consequence of his sobriety, upward of one hundred years. Phabrinus, mentioned by Athenius, lived more than one hundred years, drinking milk only. Zoroaster, according to Pliny, remained twenty years in a desert, living on a small quant.i.ty of cheese only."
THE AUTHOR OF "SURE METHODS," ETC.
The British author of "Sure Methods of Improving Health and Prolonging Life," supposed by many to be the distinguished Dr. Johnson, speaks thus:
"It must be confessed that, in temperate climates, at least, an animal diet is, in one respect, more wasting than a vegetable, because it excites, by its stimulating qualities, a temporary fever after every meal, by which the springs of life are urged into constant, preternatural, and weakening exertions. Again; persons who live chiefly on animal food are subject to various acute and fatal disorders, as the scurvy, malignant ulcers, inflammatory fevers, etc., and are likewise liable to corpulency, more especially when united to inordinate quant.i.ties of liquid aliment. There appears to be also a tendency in an animal diet to promote the formation of many chronic diseases; and we seldom find those who indulge much in this diet to be remarkable for longevity.
"In favor of vegetables, it may be justly said, that man could hardly live entirely on animal food, but we know he may on vegetable. Vegetable aliment has likewise no tendency to produce those const.i.tutional disorders which animal food so frequently occasions. And this is a great advantage, more especially in our country (he means in Great Britain), where the general sedentary mode of living so powerfully contributes to the formation and establishment of numerous severe chronic maladies. Any unfavorable effects vegetable food may have on the body, are almost wholly confined to the stomach and bowels, and rarely injure the system at large. This food has also a beneficial influence on the powers of the mind, and tends to preserve a delicacy of feeling, and liveliness of imagination, and acuteness of judgment, seldom enjoyed by those who live princ.i.p.ally on meat. It should also be added, that a vegetable diet, when it consists of articles easily digested, as potatoes, turnips, bread, biscuit, oatmeal, etc., is certainly favorable to long life."
BARON CUVIER.[10]
Perhaps it is not generally known that Baron Cuvier, the prince of naturalists, in the progress of his researches came to the most decisive conclusion, that, so far as any thing can be ascertained or proved by the investigation of science in regard to the natural dietetic character of man, he is a fruit and vegetable eater. I have not seen his own views; but the following are said, by an intelligent writer, to be a tolerably faithful transcript of them, and to be derived from his Comparative Anatomy.
"Man resembles no carnivorous animal. There is no exception, unless man be one, to the rule of herbivorous animals having cellulated colons.
"The ourang-outang perfectly resembles man, both in the order and number of his teeth. The ourang-outang is the most anthropomorphous of the ape tribe, all of which are strictly frugivorous. There is no other species of animals, which live on different food, in which this a.n.a.logy exists.
In many frugivorous animals, the canine teeth are more pointed and distinct than those of man. The resemblance also of the human stomach to that of the ourang-outang, is greater than to that of any other animal.
"The intestines are also identical with those of herbivorous animals, which present a large surface for absorption, and have ample and cellulated colons. The coec.u.m also, though short, is larger than that of carnivorous animals; and even here the ourang-outang retains its accustomed similarity.
"The structure of the human frame, then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet, in every essential particular. It is true, that the reluctance to abstain from animal food, in those who have been long accustomed to its stimulus, is so great in some persons of weak minds, as to be scarcely overcome; but this is far from being any argument in its favor. A lamb, which was fed for some time on flesh by a ship"s crew, refused its natural diet at the end of the voyage. There are numerous instances of horses, sheep, oxen, and even wood-pigeons, having been taught to live upon flesh, until they have loathed their natural aliment."
No one will deny that Baron Cuvier was in favor of flesh eating; but it was not because he ever believed, for one moment, that man was _naturally_ a flesh-eating animal. Man is a reasoning animal (he argues), and intended to be so. If left to the guidance of his instincts, the same yielding to the law of his structure which would exclude flesh meats, should also exclude cookery. Or, in other words, if he is not permitted to depart from the line of life which his structure indicates, he must no more cook his vegetables than eat animal food.
Besides, he is made, as Cuvier supposes, for artificial society, and the Creator designed him to _improve_ his food; and, if I understand his reasoning, he is better able, with his present structure of teeth, jaws, stomach, intestines, etc., to make this improvement, and rise above his nature, and yield to the force and indications of reason and experience, than if he possessed any other known living structure.
To this structure, however, as well as to the same power of adaptation, the monkey race, and especially the ourang-outang, closely typo approximates. Cuvier"s reasoning, in my view, applies only to the adaptability (if I may be allowed the expression) of the human animal, without deciding how far he should avail himself of his power to make changes.
DR. LUTHER V. BELL.
I have alluded, in another part of this work, to the prize essay of Dr.
Bell, awarded to him by the Boylston Medical Committee on the subject of the diet of laborers in New England. Dr. Bell is a physician of respectable talents, and is at present the Physician to an Insane Hospital in Charlestown, near this city.
Dr. Bell admits, with the most distinguished naturalists and physiologists of Europe,--Cuvier, Lawrence, Blumenbach, Bell of London, Richerand, Marc, etc.,--that the structure of man resembles closely that of the monkey race; and hence objects to the conclusion to which some of these men have arrived (by jumping over, as it were), that man is an omnivorous animal. He freely allows--I use his own words--"that man does approximate more closely to the frugivorous animals than to any others, in physical organization." But then he insists that the conclusion which ought to be drawn from this similarity "is, that he is designed to have his food in about the same state of mechanical cohesion, requiring about the same energy of masticatory organs, as if it consisted of fruits, etc., alone."