It is in vain for mankind to abstain from animal food, as they call it, and yet run into these worse errors. The lean parts of animals not much fattened, and only rarely cooked, eaten once a day in small quantity, are far less unwholesome than many of the foregoing.

But to return to Dr. C. In speaking of the proper drink for persons inclined to gout, he thus remarks:

"With respect to drink, fermented liquors are useful only when they are joined with animal food, and that by their acescency; and their stimulus is only necessary from custom. When, therefore, animal food is to be avoided, fermented liquors are unnecessary, and by increasing the acescency of vegetables, these liquors may be hurtful. The stimulus of fermented or spirituous liquors is not necessary to the young and vigorous: and, when much employed, impairs the tone of the system."

Dr. C. might have added—what indeed we should infer by parity of reasoning—that when fermented liquors are avoided, animal food is no longer necessary, and by increasing the alkaline state of the stomach and fluids, may be hurtful. The truth is, they go best together. If we use flesh and fish, which are alkaline, a small quantity of gently acid drink, as weak cider or wine, taken either with our meals, or between them, may be useful. It is better, however, to abstain from both.

For if a purely vegetable aliment, with water alone for drink, is safe to all young persons inclining at all to gout, to whom is it unsafe? If it tends to render a young person at all weaker, that very weakness would predispose to the gout, in some of its forms, if a person were constitutionally inclined to that disease—if not to some other complaint, to which he was more inclined. It cannot, therefore, be unsafe to any, if Dr. C. is right.

But if those who are trained to it, lose nothing, even in the high latitude of Scotland—where Dr. C. wrote—by confining themselves to good vegetables and water, then they must necessarily gain, on his own principles, by this way of living, because they get rid of any sort of necessity (he might have added, lose their appetite) for fermented liquors.

More than this, as the doctor himself concludes, in another place, they prevent many acute diseases. His words are these:—"It is animal food which especially predisposes to the plethoric and inflammatory state; and that food is therefore to be especially avoided." It is true, he is here speaking of gouty persons: but his principles are also fairly susceptible, as I have shown, of a general application.

In short, it is an undeniable fact, that even a thorough-going vegetable eater might prove every thing he wished, from old established writers on medicine and health, though themselves were feeders on animal food; just as a teetotaler may prove the doctrine of abstinence from all drinks but water, from the writings of medical men, though themselves are still, in many cases, pouring down their cider, their beer, or their wine—or at least, their tea and coffee.

DR. BENJAMIN RUSH.

I find nothing in the writings of this great man which shows, with certainty, what his views were, in regard to animal food. The presumption is, that he was sparing in its use, and that he encouraged a very limited use of it in others. This is presumed, 1, from the general tenor of his writings—deeply imbued as they are with the great doctrine of temperance in all things; and, 2, from the fondness he seems to have manifested in mentioning the temperance and even abstinence of individuals of whom he was speaking.

Of Ann Woods, for example, who died at the age of ninety-six years, he says, "Her diet was simple, consisting chiefly of weak tea, milk, cheese, butter, and vegetables. Meat of all kinds, except veal, disagreed with her stomach. She found great benefit from frequently changing her aliment. Her drinks were water, cider and water, and molasses and vinegar in water. She never used spirits. Her memory (at her death) was but little impaired. She was cheerful, and thankful that her condition in life was happier than that of hundreds of other people."

In his account of Benjamin Lay, a philosopher of the sect of the Friends, in Pennsylvania, Dr. R. relates, that "he was extremely temperate in his diet, living chiefly upon vegetables. Turnips boiled and afterward roasted, were his favorite dinner. His drink was pure water. He lived above eighty years." It appears, also, that he was exceedingly healthy.

He relates of Anthony Benezet, a distinguished teacher of Philadelphia, who lived to an advanced age, that his sympathy was so great with every thing that was capable of feeling pain, that he resolved, toward the close of his life, to eat no animal food. He also relates the following singular anecdote of him. Upon coming into his brother's house, one day, when the family were dining upon poultry, he was asked by his brother's wife to sit down and dine with them. What! said he, would you have me eat my neighbors?

Dr. Caleb Bannister, in another part of this work, tells us that he was led to adopt a milk and vegetable diet, in incipient consumption, from reading the writings of Dr. Rush; and I have little doubt that Dr. R. himself lived quite abstemiously, if not altogether on vegetables.

Nor is this incidental testimony from Dr. Rush quite all. In his work "On the Diseases of the Mind," he speaks often of the evils of eating high-seasoned food, and especially animal food. And in stating what were the proper remedies for debility in young men, when induced by certain forms of licentiousness, he expressly insists on a diet consisting simply of vegetables, and prepared without condiments; and he even encourages the disuse of salt. Had Dr. Rush lived to this day, he would, ere now, in all probability, have fully adopted and defended the vegetable system. With views like his on the subject of intemperance, and a mind ever open to conviction, the result could hardly have been otherwise.

DR. WILLIAM LAMBE, OF LONDON.

Dr. William Lambe, of London, is distinguished both as a physician and a general scholar, and is a prominent member of the "College of Physicians." He was a graduate of St. John's College, Cambridge, and a fellow-student with the immortal Clarkson.

Dr. Lambe is the author of several valuable works, among which are his "Reports on Cancer," and a more recent work entitled, "Additional Reports on the Effects of a Peculiar Regimen, in Cases of Cancer, Scrofula, Consumption, Asthma, and other chronic diseases." He has also made and published numerous experiments, especially in chemistry, which is, with him, a favorite science; and it is said that he has spent fortunes in this way.

Dr. L. is now eighty-four years of age, and has lived on vegetable diet forty-two years. He commenced this course to cure himself of internal gout, and continued it because he found it better for his health. He is now only troubled with it slightly, at his extremities, which he thinks highly creditable to a vegetable course—having thrown it off from his vital organs. He is cheerful and active, and able to discharge the duties of an extensive medical practice. He walks into town, a distance of three miles from his residence, every morning, and back at night; and thinks himself as likely to live twenty years longer as he was, twenty years ago, to live to his present age.

The following is a condensed account of Dr. L.'s views, as obtained from his "Additional Reports," above mentioned. Some of the first paragraphs relate to the effects of vegetable food on those who are predisposed to scrofula, consumption, etc.

"We see daily examples of young persons becoming consumptive who never went without animal food a single day of their lives. If the use of animal food were necessary to prevent consumption, we should expect, where people lived almost entirely upon such a diet, the disease would be unknown.

"Now, the Indian tribes visited by Mr. Hearne live in this manner. They do not cultivate the earth. They subsist by hunting, and the scanty produce of spontaneous vegetation. But, among these tribes consumption is common. Their diseases, as Mr. Hearne informs us, are principally fluxes, scurvy, and consumption.

"In the last four years, several cases of glandular swellings have occurred to me at the general dispensary, and I have made particular inquiries into the mode of living of such children. In the majority, they had animal food. In opposition to the accusation of vegetable food causing tumefaction of the abdomen, I must testify, that twice in my own family I have seen such swellings disappear under a vegetable regimen, which had been formed under a diet of animal food.

"Increasing the strength, for a time, is no proof of the salubrity of diet. The increased strength may not continue, though the diet should be continued. On the contrary, there is a sort of oscillation; the strength just rising, then sinking again. This is what is experienced by the trainers of boxers. A certain time is necessary to get these men into condition; but this condition cannot be maintained for many weeks together, though the process by which it was formed is continued. The same is found to hold in the training of race-horses, and fighting-cocks.

"It seems certain that animal food predisposes to disease. Timoric, in his account of the plague at Constantinople, asserts that the Armenians, who live chiefly on vegetable food, were far less disposed to the disease than other people. The typhus fever is greatly exasperated by full living.

"It seems, moreover, highly probable that the power inherent in the human living body, of restoring itself under accidents or wounds, is strongest in those who use most a vegetable regimen.

"Contagions act with greater virulence upon bodies prepared by a full diet of animal food.

"Since fishing has declined in the isles of Ferro, and the inhabitants have lived chiefly on vegetables, the elephantiasis has ceased among them.

"Those monks who, by the rules of their institution, abstain from the flesh of animals, enjoy a longer mean term of life, as the consequence. Of this there can be no doubt. Of one hundred and fifty-two monks, taken promiscuously in all times and all sorts of climates, there lives produced a total, according to Baillot (a writer of eminence), of 11,589 years, or an average of seventy-six years and a little more than three months.

"Those Bramins who abstain most scrupulously from the flesh of animals attain to the greatest longevity.

"Life is prolonged, under incurable diseases, about one tenth by vegetable diet; so that a person who would otherwise die at seventy, will reach seventy-seven. In general, however, the proportion is about one sixth.

"Abstaining from animal food palliates, when it does not cure, all constitutional diseases.

"The use of animal food hurries on life with an unnatural and unhealthy rapidity. We arrive at puberty too soon; the passions are developed too early; in the male, they acquire an impetuosity approaching to madness; females become mothers too early, and too frequently; and, finally, the system becomes prematurely exhausted and destroyed, and we become diseased and old, when we ought to be in middle life.

"It affords no trifling ground of suspicion against the use of animal food that it so obviously inclines us to corpulency. Corpulency itself is a species of disease, and a still surer harbinger of other diseases. It is so even in animals. When a sheep has become fat, the butcher knows it must be killed or it will rot and decline. It is rare indeed for the corpulent to be long-lived. They are at the same time sleepy, lethargic, and short-breathed. Even Hippocrates says, 'Those who are uncommonly fat die more quickly than the lean.'

"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 assist 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 entitled 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 mass 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 coecum, 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 quantity or quality are most pernicious, etc. He says the solution of these and other analogous 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 Institute of France, some years ago wrote a book, entitled "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 quantity 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 quantities 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 constitutional 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 principally 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 analogy 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 coecum 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."

But, wherefore should we draw even this conclusion, if structure and instinct prove nothing, and if we are to be governed solely by reason, without regard to structure and instinct? For my own part, I believe reason is never true reason, when it turns wholly out of doors either instinct or the indications of organization. In other words, an enlightened reason would look both to the structure and organization of man, and to a large and broad experience, for the solution of a question so important as what diet is, on the whole, best for man. And the experience of the world, both in the present and all former ages, leads me to a conclusion entirely different from that to which Dr. Bell, and those who entertain the same views with him, seem to have arrived—a conclusion which is indicated by structure, and confirmed by facts and universal experience. But this subject will be further discussed and developed in another place. It is sufficient for my present purpose, to bring testimony in favor of the safety of vegetable eating, and of the doctrine that man is naturally a vegetable and fruit-eating animal; and especially if I produce, to this end, the testimony of flesh-eaters themselves.

DR. WILLIAM BUCHAN, AUTHOR OF "DOMESTIC MEDICINE."

"Indulgence in animal food, renders men dull and unfit for the pursuits of science, especially when it is accompanied with the free use of strong liquors. I am inclined to think that consumptions, so common in England, are, in part, owing to the great use of animal food. But the disease most common to this country is the scurvy. One finds a dash of it in almost every family, and in some the taint is very deep. A disease so general must have a general cause, and there is none so obvious as the great quantity of animal food which is devoured. As a proof that scurvy arises from this cause, we are in possession of no remedy for that disease equal to the free use of fresh vegetables. By the uninterrupted use of animal food, a putrid diathesis is induced in the system, which predisposes to a variety of disorders. I am fully convinced that many of those obstinate complaints for which we are at a loss to account, and which we find it still more difficult to cure, are the effects of a scorbutic taint, lurking in the habit.

"The choleric disposition of the English is almost proverbial. Were I to assign a cause, it would be, their living so much on animal food. There is no doubt but this induces a ferocity of temper unknown to men whose food is taken chiefly from the vegetable kingdom.[11]

"Experience proves that not a few of the diseases incident to the inhabitants of this country, are owing to their mode of living. The vegetable productions they consume, fall considerably short of the proportion they ought to bear to the animal part of their food. The major part of the aliment ought to consist of vegetable substances. There is a continual tendency in animal food, as well as in the human body itself, to putrefaction; which can only be counteracted by the free use of vegetables. All who value health, ought to be contented with making one meal of animal food in twenty-four hours; and this ought to consist of one kind only.

"The most obstinate scurvy has often been cured by a vegetable diet; nay, milk alone, will frequently do more in that disease than any medicine. Hence it is evident that if vegetables and milk were more used in diet, we should have less scurvy, and likewise fewer putrid and inflammatory fevers.

"Such as abound with blood (and such are almost all of us), should be sparing in the use of every thing which is highly nourishing—as fat meat, rich wines, strong ales, and the like. Their food should consist chiefly of bread and other vegetable substances; and their drink ought to be water, whey, or small beer."

Dr. B. also insists on a vegetable diet, as a preventive of many diseases; particularly of consumption. When there is a tendency to this disease, in the young, he says "it should be counteracted by strictly adhering to a diet of the farinacea, and ripe fruits. Animal food and fermented liquors ought to be rigidly prohibited. Even milk often proves too nutritious."

DR. CHARLES WHITLAW.

Dr. Whitlaw is the author of a work entitled "New Medical Discoveries," in two volumes, and of a "Treatise on Fever." He has also established medical vapor baths in London, New York, and elsewhere; and is a gentleman of much skill and eminence in his profession. Dr. Whitlaw says—

"All philosophers have given their testimony in favor of vegetable food, from Pythagoras to Franklin. Its beneficial influence on the powers of the mind has been experienced by all sedentary and literary men.

"But, that which ought to convince every one of the salubrity of a diet consisting of vegetables, is the consideration of the dreadful effects of totally abstaining from it, unless it be for a very short time; accounts of which we meet with, fully and faithfully recorded, in the most interesting and most authentic narratives of human affairs—wars, sieges of places, long encampments, distant voyages, the peopling of uncultivated and maritime countries, remarkable pestilences, and the lives of illustrious men. To this cause the memorable plague at Athens was attributed; and indeed all the other plagues and epidemical distempers, of which we have any faithful accounts, will be found to have originated in a deprivation of vegetable food.

"The only objections I have ever heard urged (the only plausible ones, he must mean, I think), is the notion of its inadequacy to the sustenance of the body. But this is merely a strong prejudice into which the generality of mankind have fallen, owing to their ignorance of the laws of life and health. Agility and constant vigor of body are the effect of health, which is much better preserved by a herbaceous, aqueous, and sparing tender diet, than by one which is fleshy, vinous, unctuous, and hard of digestion.

"So fully were the Romans, at one time, persuaded of the superior goodness of vegetable diet, that, besides the private example of many of their great men, they established laws respecting food, among which were the lex fannia, and the lex licinia, which allowed but very little animal food; and, for a period of five hundred years, diseases were banished along with the physician from the Roman empire. Nor has our own age been destitute of examples of men, brave from the vigor both of their bodies and their minds, who at the same time have been drinkers of water and eaters of vegetables.[12]

"Nothing is more certain than that animal food is inimical to health. This is evident from its stimulating qualities producing, as it were, a temporary fever after every meal; and not only so, but from its corruptible qualities it gives rise to many fatal diseases; and those who indulge in its use seldom arrive at an advanced age.

"We have the authority of the Scripture for asserting that the proper aliment of man is vegetables. See Genesis. And as disease is not mentioned as a part of the cause, we have reason to believe that the antediluvians were strangers to this evil. Such a phenomenon as disease could hardly exist among a people who lived entirely on a vegetable food; consequently all the individuals made mention of in that period of the world, are said to have died of old age; whereas, since the day of Noah, when mankind were permitted to eat animal food, such an occurrence as a man dying of old age, or a natural decay of the bodily functions, does not occur probably once in half a century.

"Its injurious effects on the mind are equally certain. The Tartars, who live principally on animal food, are cruel and ferocious in their disposition, gloomy and sullen minded, delighting in exterminating wars and plunder; while the Bramins and Hindoos, who live entirely on vegetable aliment, possess a mildness and gentleness of character and disposition directly the reverse of the Tartar; and I have no doubt, had India possessed a more popular form of government, and a more enlightened priesthood, her people, with minds so fitted for contemplation, would have far outstripped the other nations of the world in manufactures, and in the arts and sciences.

"But we need only look at the peasantry of Ireland, who, living as they do, chiefly on a vegetable—and to say the least of it, a very suspicious kind of aliment, I mean the potatoe—are yet as robust and vigorous a race of men as inherit any portion of the globe.

"The greater part of our bodily disease is brought on by improper food. This opinion has been strongly confirmed by my daily experience in the treatment of those diseases to which the people of England are peculiarly subject, such as scrofula, consumption, leprosy, etc. These disorders are making fearful and rapid strides; so much so, that not a single family may now be considered exempt from their melancholy ravages."

This is fearful testimony, but it is the result of much observation and of twenty years' experience. But the same causes are producing the same effects—at least, so far as scrofula and consumption are concerned—in this country, at the present time, of which Dr. W. complains so loudly in England. I could add much more from his writings, but what I have said is sufficient.

DR. JAMES CLARK.

Dr. Clark, physician to the king and queen of Belgium, in a Treatise on Pulmonary Consumption, has the following remarks:

"There is no greater evil in the management of children than that of giving them animal diet very early. By persevering in the use of an over-stimulating diet, the digestive organs become irritated, and the various secretions immediately connected with and necessary to digestion are diminished, especially the biliary secretion; and constipation of the bowels and congestion of the abdominal viscera succeed. Children so fed, moreover, become very liable to attacks of fever and of inflammation, affecting particularly the mucous membranes; and measles and the other diseases incident to childhood are generally severe in their attack."

The suggestion that a mild or vegetable diet will render certain diseases incident to childhood more mild than otherwise they would be, is undoubtedly an important one; and as just as it is important. But the remark might be extended, in its application. Both children and adults would escape all sorts of diseases, especially colds and epidemics, with much more certainty, or, if attacked, the attacks would be much more mild, on an exclusively vegetable diet than on a mixed one. Dr. Clark does not, indeed, say so; but I may say it, and with confidence. And Dr. C. could not probably show any reason why, on his own principles, it should not be so.

PROF. MUSSEY, OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.

Prof. R. D. Mussey, of Hanover, New Hampshire, whose science and skill as a surgeon and physician are well known and attested all over New England, has for many years taught, both directly and indirectly, in his public lectures, that man is naturally a fruit and vegetable eater. This he proves, first, from the structure of his teeth and intestines—next from his physiological character, and finally, from various facts and considerations too numerous to detail here.

He thinks the Bible doctrines are in favor of the disuse of flesh and fish; that the Jews were required to abstain from pork, and from all fat and blood, for physiological no less than other reasons. An infant, he says, naturally has a disrelish for animal food. He says that, in all probability, animal food was not permitted, though used, before the flood; and that its use, contrary to the wish of the Creator, was probably one cause of human degeneracy. Animal food, he says, is apt to produce diseases of the skin—makes people passionate and violent—excites the nervous system too much—renders the senses and faculties more dull—and favors the accumulation of what is mired tartar on the teeth, and thus causes their early and certain decay. The blood and breath of carnivorous animals emit an unpleasant odor, while those of vegetable eaters do not. The fact that man does eat flesh no more proves its necessity, than the fact that cows, and sheep, and horses can be taught it, proves its necessity to them. The Africans bear the cold better the first winter after their arrival in a northern climate than afterward. May not this be owing to their simple vegetable living?

DR. CONDIE, OF PHILADELPHIA.

The Journal of Health, edited by some of the ablest physicians of Philadelphia, has the following remarkable language on the subject of vegetable food. See vol. 1, page 277.

"It is well known that vegetable substances, particularly the farinaceous, are fully sufficient, of themselves, for maintaining a healthy existence. We have every reason for believing that the fruits of the earth constituted, originally, the only food of man. Animal food is digested in a much shorter period than vegetables; from which circumstance, as well as its approaching much nearer in its composition to the substance of the body into which it is to be converted, it might at first be supposed the most appropriate article of nourishment. It has, however, been found that vegetable matter can be as readily and perfectly assimilated by the stomach into appropriate nutriment as the most tender animal substances; and confessedly with a less heating effect upon the system generally.

"As a general rule, it will be found that those who make use of a diet consisting chiefly of vegetable matter have a vast advantage in looks, in strength, and spirits, over those who partake largely of animal food. They are remarkable for the firm, healthy plumpness of their muscles, and the transparency of their skins. This assertion, though at variance with popular opinion, is amply supported by experience."

At page 7 of the same volume of the Journal of Health we find the following remarks. The editors were alluding to those persons who think they cannot preserve their health and strength without flesh or fish, and who believe their children would also suffer without it:

"For the information of all such misguided persons, we beg leave to state, that the large majority of mankind do not eat any animal food; or, if any, they use it so sparingly, and at such long intervals, that it cannot be said to form their nourishment. Millions in Asia are sustained by rice alone, with perhaps a little vegetable oil for seasoning.

"In Italy and southern Europe, generally, bread, made of the flour of wheat or Indian corn, with lettuce and the like mixed with oil, constitutes the food of the most robust part of its population.

"The Lazzaroni of Naples, with forms so actively and finely proportioned, cannot even calculate on this much. Coarse bread and potatoes is their chief reliance. Their drink of luxury is a glass of iced water, slightly acidulated.

"Hundreds of thousands—we might say millions—of Irish do not see flesh-meat or fish from one week's end to another. Potatoes and oatmeal are their articles of food: if milk can be added it is thought a luxury. Yet where shall we find a more healthy and robust population, or one more enduring of bodily fatigue, and exhibiting more mental vivacity? What a contrast between these people and the inhabitants of the extreme north—the timid Laplanders, Esquimaux, and Samoideans, whose food is almost entirely animal?"

Again, at page 187 we are told that "the more simple the aliment, and the less altered by culinary processes, the slower is the change in digestion; but, at the same time, the less is the stimulation and wear of the powers of life. The Bramins of Hindostan, who live on exceedingly simple food, are long livers, even in a hot and exhausting climate. The peasants of Switzerland and of Scotland, nourished on bread, milk, and cheese, attain a very old age, and enjoy great bodily strength.

"Where there is too much excitement of the body, generally, from fullness of the blood-vessels, or of any one of the organs, owing to a wrong direction of the blood to it (and in one or the other of these conditions we find almost every body now-a-days), animal food, by being long retained in the stomach, and calling into greater action other parts during digestion, as well as furnishing them with more blood afterward, must be obviously improper. The more of this kind of food is taken under such circumstances, the greater will be the oppression; and the weakness, different from that of a healthy person long hungered, will only be increased by the increased amount of blood carried to the diseased part."

It is true that the editors of the Journal of Health connect with the foregoing paragraphs the statement that, "if it be desirable to give nutriment in a small bulk, to obtund completely the sensation of hunger and restore strength to the body, a small quantity of animal will be preferable to much vegetable food." But then it is only in a few diseased cases that any such thing is desirable. And even then, if we look carefully at the language used, the comparison is not made between animal and vegetable food in moderate or reasonable quantities, but between a small quantity of the former and much of the latter.

DR. J. V. C. SMITH, OF BOSTON.

The following remarks are extracted from the Boston Medical Intelligencer, at a period when Dr. J. V. C. Smith was the editor. They have the appearance of being from Dr. Smith's own pen. Dr. S. is at present the editor of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal:

"It is true[13] that animal food contains a greater portion of nutriment, in a given quantity, than vegetables; but the digestive functions of the human system become prematurely exhausted by constant action, and the whole system eventually sinks under great or uninterrupted excitement. If, for the various ragouts with which modern tables are so abundantly furnished, men would substitute wholesome vegetables and pure water, we should see health walking in paths that are now crowded with the bloated victims of voluptuous appetite. Millions of Gentoos have lived to an advanced age without having tasted any thing that ever possessed life, and been wholly free from a chain of maladies which have scourged every civilized nation on the globe. The wandering Arabs, who have traversed the barren desert of Sahara, subsisting on the scanty pittance of milk from the half-famished camel that carried them, have seen two hundred years roll round without a day of sickness."

SYLVESTER GRAHAM.

Although Mr. Graham does not, so far as I know, lay claim to the "honors" of any medical institution, it cannot be doubted that his knowledge of physiology, to say nothing of anatomy, pathology, and medicine, is such as to entitle him to a high rank among medical men; and I have, therefore, without hesitation, concluded to insert his testimony in this place.

Of his views, however, on the subject before us, it seems almost superfluous to speak, as they are set forth, and have been set forth for many years, so conspicuously, not only in his public lectures, but in his writings, that the bare mention of his name, in almost any part of the country, is to awaken the prejudices, if not the hostilities, of every foe, and of some friends (supposed friends, I mean), of "temperance in all things." It is sufficient, perhaps, for my present purpose, to say of him, that, after the most rigid and profound examination of the subject which he is capable of making—and his capabilities are by no means very limited—it is his unhesitating belief, that in every climate, and in all circumstances in which it is proper for man to be placed, an exclusively farinaceous and fruit diet is the best adapted to the development and improvement of all his powers of body, mind, and soul; provided, however, he were trained to it from the first. And even at any period of life, unless in the case of certain forms of diseases, he believes it would be preferable to exchange, in a proper manner, every form of mixed diet for one purely vegetable. Such opinions as these, as a part of his views in relation to the physical duties of man, he publicly, and strenuously, and eloquently, announces and defends.

DR. JOHN M. ANDREW.

Dr. Andrew is a practitioner of medicine in Remsen, Oneida county, State of New York. His letter was intended for chapter iv., but came too late. This fact is the only apology for inserting it in this place. Several interesting cases of dietetic reform accompanied the letter, but I must omit them, for want of room, in this work.

REMSEN, April 28, 1838.

DEAR SIR—It is now about sixteen months since I adopted an exclusively vegetable diet. I have, however, never been very much inclined to animal food; and, indeed, before I ever heard of the Graham system I laid it aside, during summer, when farming—which, by the by, had always been my occupation till I commenced my professional course, about four years ago. I have, to the best of my knowledge, enjoyed what is commonly called good health, and possessed a degree of strength surpassed only by few; and in connection with the assiduous cultivation of my mental faculties, I have carefully sought to improve my physical powers, which I deem of incalculable worth to the student, as well as to the laborer.

My attention was first called to the subject of vegetable eating by Professor Mussey, in a lecture before the medical class of the Western Medical College of New York, while fulfilling the duties of the professorship, to which he was called in 1836. In that lecture our adaptations, and the design of the Creator in regard to our mode of subsistence, were clearly held forth, and such was the impression made on my mind, that I was induced at once to adopt the vegetable system, both in practice and theory. In my change of diet I did not suffer any inconvenience. The fact that I had, for some length of time, been living mostly on vegetables, will account for that circumstance, however.

But the great advantages derived from the change were soon perceptible, though not appreciated by others. I met with much opposition from my friends, frequently being told that I was fast losing my flesh and all my youthful vigor and vivacity. And yet, for one year and more, I have not lost a pound of flesh.

I was gazed upon as an anomaly in society; some anxiously looking, and others fearfully expecting my downfall and destruction; but both are alike disappointed. The system, though I have not been able to follow it so strictly as I could wish, from the circumstances in which I have been placed, has far exceeded my expectations. One year and more has rolled away, and I thank God I can look back, with some degree of satisfaction, on the time spent in the enjoyment of that alone which sweetens the cup of life. My most able advocacy has been my manual exertions and I have demonstrated the utility of the system alike to the professional and laboring classes of community.

I do not go beyond the truth when I say, that I cannot find a man to vie with me in the field, with the scythe, the fork, or the axe. I do not want any thing but potatoes and salt; and I can cut and put up four cords of wood in a day, with no very great exertion. I have frequently been told, by friends, that my potato and salt system would not stand the test of the field; but I have silenced their clamor by actual demonstration with all the implements above named.

At present, no consideration would induce me to return to my former mode of living.

JOHN M. ANDREW.

DR. WILLIAM SWEETSER, OF BOSTON.

Dr. Sweetser is the author of a "Treatise on Consumption," and of a "Treatise on Digestion." He has also been a medical professor in the University of Vermont, and a public lecturer on health, in Boston.

In his work on consumption, while speaking of the prevailing belief of a necessity for the use of animal food to those children who possess the scrofulous or consumptive tendency, he thus remarks:

"A diet of milk and mild farinaceous articles, with perhaps light animal decoctions, appears best suited to the early years of life. Whenever there exists an evident inflammatory tendency, as is the case in some scrofulous systems, solid animal food, if used at all, should be taken with the greatest precaution.

"And again—how often is it that fat, plethoric, meat-eating children, their faces looking as though the blood was just ready to ooze out, are with the greatest complacency exhibited by their parents as patterns of health! But let it ever be remembered, that the condition of the system popularly called rude or full health, and which is the result of high feeding, is too often closely bordering on a state of disease."

In his work on digestion he seems to regard man as naturally an omnivorous animal; and, taking this for granted, he speaks as follows respecting his diet:

"One would hardly assert that even in temperate climates his (man's) system requires animal food. I doubt whether any instance can be adduced—unless man be regarded as such—of an omnivorous animal incapable of being adequately nourished by a sufficient and proper vegetable diet.

"Man, dwelling in a temperate climate, and with the power to choose, almost uniformly employs a mixture of animal and vegetable food; but how much early education may have to do in forming his taste for a mixed diet it is difficult to estimate. Habit has certainly great influence in attaching us to particular kinds of aliment. One who has long been accustomed to animal food cannot at once abstain from it without experiencing some feebleness for the want of its stimulation, and perhaps even temporary emaciation. And, on the other hand, he who has long been confined to a vegetable diet is apt to lose his relish for flesh, and, on recurring suddenly to its use, to find it too exciting.

"The liberal use of animal food has been generally thought requisite in arctic climes, to stimulate the functions, and thus furnish a more abundant supply of animal heat, to preserve against the extremity of external temperature. Northern voyagers mostly believe that fat animal food and oils are essential to the maintenance of health and life in the inhabitants of those frozen regions. But to me it would seem that their habits, in respect to diet, prove the capabilities, rather than the necessities, of their systems. They learn to eat their coarse fare because they can get no other. Their food, moreover, as is generally the case in savage life, is precarious; and thus, being at times exposed to extreme want, they are stimulated to greater excesses when their supplies are ample.

"The fact of man's dwelling in them (the arctic regions), and eating what he can get there, no more proves him to be naturally a flesh-eating animal than the circumstance of some cattle learning to eat fish, when they are in situations where they can obtain no other food, proves them to be piscivorous.

"Haller conceived it necessary that human life should be sustained by animal and vegetable food, so apportioned that neither should be in excess; and he asserts that abstinence from animal food causes great weakness in the body, and usually a troublesome diarrhoea. But such an opinion is certainly incorrect, since not only particular individuals, but even numbers of people, dwelling in temperate climates, from various causes, subsist almost wholly on vegetable substances, and yet preserve their health and vigor.

"Were we educated to its exclusive use, I am persuaded that a vegetable diet would afford us ample support; but whether, if restrained from animal food, we should, as a consequence, in the course of time, and under equally favoring circumstances in other respects, rise still higher in our moral and physical nature, remains, as I conceive, to be proved."

These views of Dr. S. were repeated, in substance, in a course of lectures given by him at the Masonic Temple, in Boston, in 1838. It will be seen that he concedes what the friends of the vegetable system deem a very important point, viz., that man's whole powers, physical, intellectual, and moral, can be well developed on a diet exclusively vegetable. We do not ask him to grant more. If man is as well off on vegetable food as without it, we have moral reasons of so much weight to place against animal food, as, when duly considered, will be, by all candid persons, sufficient to lead to its rejection.

True, we do not believe, with Dr. S.—at least I do not—that "whether a diet purely vegetable, or one comprehending both animal and vegetable food, would be most conducive to health, longevity, and intellectual, moral, and physical development, is a question only to be determined by a long course of experiments, made by various individuals in equal health, and placed, in all other respects, under as nearly similar circumstances as practicable." I believe this course of experiment does not remain to be made, but that it has been made, most fully, during the last four or five thousand years, and that the question is settled in favor—wholly so—of vegetable food. Still I do not ask physicians and other medical men to grant more than Dr. S. has; it is quite as much as we ought to expect of them.

DR. A. L. PIERSON.

Dr. Pierson, of Salem, in Massachusetts, a physician and surgeon of considerable eminence, in a lecture some time ago, before the American Institute of Instruction, observed that "young men who were anxious to avail themselves of the advantages of a liberal education, and were therefore compelled to consult economy, had found out that it was not necessary to pay three or four dollars a week for mere board, when the most vigorous and uniform health may be secured by a diet of mere vegetable food and water."

I know not that Dr. P. avows himself an advocate for the exclusive use of vegetable food, but if what I have quoted is not enough to satisfy us in regard to his opinion of its safety, and its full power to develop body and mind, I know not what would be. If the most vigorous and uniform health can be secured on vegetable food, what individual in the world—in view of the moral considerations at least—would ever resort to the carcasses of animals?

STATEMENT OF DR. C. BYINGTON, OF PHILADELPHIA.

A physician of some eminence, residing in Philadelphia, has been heard to say that it was his decided opinion that mankind would live longest, and be healthiest and happiest, on mere bread and water. I may add here, that there was every evidence but one that he was sincere in this statement, although I do not fully accord with him, believing that the best health requires variety of food—not, indeed, at the same meal, but at different ones. The exception I make in regard to his sincerity, is in reference to the fact, that while he professed to believe a bread and vegetable diet to be best for mankind, he did not adopt it.

TESTIMONY OF A PHYSICIAN IN NEW YORK.

In the work entitled "Hints to a Fashionable Lady," by a physician—his name not given—we find the following testimony:

"Young persons invariably do best on simple but moderately nutritious fare. Too large a proportion of animal food and fatty substances are pernicious to the complexion. On the contrary, a diet which is principally vegetable, with the luxuries of the dairy (not butter, surely, for that is elsewhere prohibited), is most advantageous. Nowhere are finer complexions to be found than in those parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland, where the living is almost exclusively vegetable.

"Those who subsist entirely on vegetable food have seldom, if ever, a constantly bad breath, or an offensive perspiration. It has been ascertained that the teeth are uniformly best in those countries where least animal food is used."

THE FEMALE'S CYCLOPEDIA.

From a fugitive volume, entitled "The Female's Cyclopedia," I have concluded to make the following extract, because I have reason to believe the writer to have been a physician:

"Animal food certainly gives most strength; but its stimulancy excites fever, and produces plethora and its consequences. The system is sooner worn out by a repetition of its stimuli, and those who indulge greatly in such diet are more likely to be carried off early by inflammatory diseases; or if, by judicious exercise, they qualify its effects, they yet acquire such an accumulation of putrescent fluids as becomes the foundation for the most inveterate chronic diseases in after age.

"The most valuable state of the mind, however, appears to be connected with somewhat less of firmness and vigor of body. Vegetable aliment, as never over-distending the vessels or loading the system, does not interrupt the stronger emotions of the mind; while the heat, fullness, and weight of animal food, are inimical to its vigorous exertion. Temperance, therefore, does not so much consist in the quantity—since the appetite will regulate that—as in the quality; namely, in a large proportion of vegetable aliment."

DR. VAN COOTH.

Dr. Van Cooth, a learned European writer—I believe a Hollander—has recently maintained, incidentally, in a learned medical dissertation, that the great body of the ancient Egyptians and Persians "confined themselves to a vegetable diet." To be sure, Dr. V. does not seem to be a vegetable eater himself, but the friends of the latter system are not the less indebted to him for the concession. The physical and moral superiority of those vegetable eating nations, in the days of their glory, are well known; and every intelligent reader of history, and honest inquirer after truth, will make his own inferences from the facts which I have mentioned.

DR. WILLIAM BEAUMONT.

The work of this gentleman, entitled "Experiments and Observations on the Gastric Juice, and the Physiology of Digestion," is well known—at least to the medical community. The following are some of the conclusions to which his experiments conducted him:

"Solid aliment, thoroughly masticated, is far more salutary than soups, broths, etc.

"Fat meats, butter, and oily substances of every kind, are difficult of digestion, offensive to the stomach, and tend to derange that organ and induce disease.

"Spices, pepper, stimulating and heating condiments of every kind, retard digestion and injure the stomach.

"Coffee and tea debilitate the stomach and impair digestion.

"Simple water is the only fluid called for by the wants of the economy; the artificial drinks are all more or less injurious—some more so than others; but none can claim exemption from the general charge."

If it should be said that this testimony of Dr. Beaumont is by no means directly in favor of a diet exclusively vegetable. I admit it. But he certainly goes very far toward conceding every thing which I claim, when he says that "fat meats, butter, and oily substances of every kind, are difficult of digestion, offensive to the stomach, and tend to derange that organ and induce disease;" and especially when he speaks so highly of farinaceous substances and good fruits. Pray, what animal food can be eaten which does not contain, at least, a small quantity of oil? And if this oil tends to induce disease, and farinaceous food does not, why should not animal food be excluded?

SIR EVERARD HOME.

This distinguished philosopher and medical gentleman, though, like many others, he insisted that vegetable food did not produce full muscular development, yet admitted the natural character of man to be that of a vegetable eater, in the following, or nearly the following, terms:

"In the history of man—in the Bible—we are told that dominion over the animal world was bestowed upon him at his creation; but the divine permission to indulge in animal food was not given till after the flood. The observations I have to make accord strongly with this tradition; for, while mankind remained in a state of innocence, there is every ground to believe that their only food was the produce of the vegetable kingdom."

DR. JENNINGS.

Dr. Jennings is the author of a work published at Oberlin, Ohio, in 1847, entitled "Medical Reform." In this volume, at page 198, we find the following facts and statements. The author is comparing the effects of animal food on the human system with those of alcohol, from which we learn his views concerning the former:

"Position I.—Animal food, in common with alcohol, creates a feverish diathesis, evidences of which are—1. An impaired state of the respiratory function. 2. The pulse is rendered more frequent and irregular, both by alcohol and meat. 3. A feverish heat is generated in the system, and persons are made more thirsty, by the use of both these substances. 4. Both substances equally induce what is called the digestive fever.

"Position II.—Alcoholic drinks lay the foundation for occasional disturbances in the system, of different kinds and grades, as bilious bowel affections, etc., and so do flesh meats. In the production of colds, animal food is far the most efficient.

"Position III.—Animal food tends, quite as strongly as the moderate use of alcoholic liquors, to weaken and disturb the balance of action between the secerning and excerning systems of vessels, by which some persons become leaner and others fleshier than they should be.

"Position IV.—With about equal potency alcohol and flesh meats weaken the force of the capillaries of the system, on which healthy action so much depends.

"Position V.—A flesh diet, in common with the use of strong drink, impairs the tone of the nutritive apparatus, by which its ability to work up raw material and manufacture it into sound, well finished vital fabric, is diminished, and of course the appetite or call for food is satisfied with a less quantity of the raw material. This fact has given rise to the opinion that animal food contains more nutriment than vegetable.

"Position VI.—The total abandonment of an habitual use of animal food is attended with all the perplexing, uncomfortable, and distressing difficulties that follow the giving up of an habitual use of strong drink. A change from one kind of simple nutriment to another has no such effect. It is only when the constant use of some stimulating substance is abandoned that such difficulties are experienced."

DR. JARVIS.

This gentleman, in his "Practical Physiology," at page 86, has the following thoughts:

"Some have contended that man was designed to eat only of the fruits and vegetables of the earth; while others maintain, with equal confidence, that he should add to these the flesh of beasts. There are many individuals, both in this and other countries, who confine themselves to vegetable diet. They believe they enjoy better health, and maintain greater strength of body and mind, than those who live on a mixed diet. The experiment has not been tried on a sufficiently extensive range to determine its value. It has not proved a failure, nor has it demonstrated, to the satisfaction of all, that flesh is injurious."[14]

DR. TICKNOR.

"From the fact," says this author, "that animal food is proper and necessary for health in polar regions, and that a vegetable diet is equally proper and necessary in the torrid zone, we may conclude that in winter, in our own climate, an animal diet is the best; while vegetables are more conducive to health in the summer season."

It would not be difficult to prove, from the very concessions of Dr. T., that vegetable food is better adapted to health, in general, than animal; but I forbear to do so, in this place. The subject will be fully discussed in the concluding chapter.

DR. COLES.

The author of a small volume recently published at Boston, entitled the "Philosophy of Health; or, Health without Medicine," is more decided in his views on diet than any late writer I have seen, except Dr. Jennings and O. S. Fowler. He says, at page 35:

"Man, in his original, holy state, was provided for from the vegetables of that happy garden which was given him to prune. This was the Creator's original plan; * * * * the eating of flesh was one of the consequences of the fall. Living on vegetable food is undoubtedly the most natural and healthy method of subsistence."

Again, at page 45—"The objections, then, against meat-eating are threefold—intellectual, moral, and physical. Its tendency is to check intellectual activity, to depreciate moral sentiment, and to derange the fluids of the body."

DR. SHEW.

This active physician is zealously devoted to the propagation of hydropathy. He uses no medicine in the management of disease—nothing at all but water. To this, however, he adds great attention to diet. In his Journal,[15] and elsewhere, he is a zealous and able advocate of the vegetable system, preferring it himself, and recommending it to his patients and followers.

Dr. Shew's opinion, in this particular, is entitled to the more weight from the fact of his having been very familiar with disease and diet, both in the old world and the new. He has been twice to Germany; and has spent much time at Graefenberg, with Priessnitz, the founder of the system which he so zealously defends and practices, and so strongly advocates.

DR. MORRILL.

Dr. C. Morrill, in a recent work entitled, "Physiology of Woman, and her Diseases," says much in favor of an exclusively vegetable diet in some of the diseases of woman; and among other things, makes the following general remarks:

"Even by those who labor (referring here to the healthy), meat should be taken moderately, and but once a day. The sedentary, generally, do not need it."

DR. BELL.

This gentleman's testimony has been given elsewhere. I only subjoin the following: "By far the greater number of the inhabitants of the earth have used, in all ages, and continue to use, at this time, vegetable aliment alone."

DR. BRADLEY.

Dr. D. B. Bradley, the distinguished missionary at Bangkok, in Siam, though not exactly a vegetable eater, is favorably disposed to the vegetable system. He has read Graham and myself with great care, and is an anxious inquirer after all truth.

DR. STEPHENSON.

Dr. Chauncy Stephenson, of Chesterfield, Massachusetts, in what he calls his "New System of Medicine," commends to all his readers, for their sustenance, "pure air, a proper temperature, good vegetable food, and pure cold water." And lest he should be misunderstood, he immediately adds—"The best articles of food for general use are good, well-baked cold bread, made of rye and Indian corn, wheat or barley meal; rice, good ripe fruits of all kinds, both fresh and dried, and a proper proportion of good roots, such as potatoes, parsneps, turnips, onions, etc." Even milk he regards as a questionable food for adults or middle aged persons.

Again, he says: "Animal food, in general, digests sooner than most kinds of vegetables; and not being so much in accordance with man's nature, constitution, and moral character, it is very liable, finally, to generate disease, inflammation, or fever, even when it is not taken to excess." He closes by advising all persons to content themselves with "pure vegetable food;" and that in the least quantity compatible with good health.

DR. J. BURDELL,

A distinguished dentist of New York, has long been a vegetable eater, and a zealous defender of the faith (in this particular) which he professes.

DR. THOMAS SMETHURST,

In a work entitled Hydrotherapia, says, "Children thrive best upon a simple, moderately nourishing vegetable diet." And if children thus thrive the best, why not adults?

DR. SCHLEMMER.

Dr. C. V. Schlemmer, a German by birth, but now an adopted son of old England, in giving an account of the diet of himself, his three sons of eleven, ten, and four years of age, with their tutor, observes: "Raw peas, beans, and fruit are our food: our teeth are our mills; the stomach is the kitchen." And all of them, as he affirms, enjoy the best of health. For himself, as he says, he has practiced in this way six years.

DR. CURTIS, AND OTHERS.

Dr. Curtis, a distinguished botanic physician of Ohio, with several other physicians, both of the old and the new school, whom I have not named, do not hesitate to regard a pure vegetable diet, in the abstract, as by far the best for all mankind, both in health and disease.

Dr. Porter, of Waltham, for example, when I meet him, always concedes that a well-selected vegetable diet is superior to every other. He has repeatedly told me of an experiment he made, of three months, on mere bread and water. Never, says he, was I more vigorous in body and mind, than at the end of this experiment. But the reader well knows that I am not an advocate of a diet of mere bread and water. I regard fruits, or fruit juices—unfermented—almost as necessary, to adults, as bread.

PROF. C. U. SHEPARD.

The reputation of this gentleman, in the scientific world, is so well known, that no apology can be necessary for inserting his testimony. As a chemist, he is second to very few, if any, men in this country. The following are his remarks:

"Start not back at the idea of subsisting upon the potato alone, ye who think it necessary to load your tables with all the dainty viands of the market—with fish, flesh, and fowl, seasoned with oil and spices, and eaten, perhaps, with wines;—start not back, I say, with disgust, until you are able to display in your own pampered persons a firmer muscle, a more beau-ideal outline, and a healthier red than the potato-fed peasantry of Ireland and Scotland once showed you, as you passed by their cabin doors!

"No; the chemical physiologist will tell you that the well ripened potato, when properly cooked, contains every element that man requires for nutrition; and in the best proportion in which they are found in any plant whatever. There is the abounding supply of starch for enabling him to maintain the process of breathing, and for generating the necessary warmth of body; there is the nitrogen for contributing to the growth and renovation of organs; the lime and phosphorus for the bones; and all the salts which a healthy circulation demands. In fine, the potato may well be called the universal plant."

BLACKWOOD, IN HIS MAGAZINE.

"Chemistry," says Blackwood's Magazine, "has already told us many remarkable things in regard to the vegetable food we eat—that it contains, for example, a certain per centage of the actual fat and lean we consume in our beef, or mutton, or pork—and, therefore, that he who lives on vegetable food may be as strong as the man who lives on animal food, because both in reality feed on the same things, in a somewhat different form."

There is this difference, however, that in the one case—that is, in the use of the vegetables which contain the elements referred to—we save the trouble of running it through the body of the living animal, and losing seven eighths of it, as we do, practically in the process; whereas in the other we do not. We also save ourselves the necessity of training the young and the old to scenes of butchery and blood.

PROF. JOHNSTON.

This gentleman, in a recent edition of his "Elements of Agricultural Chemistry and Geology," tells us that from experiments made in the laboratory of the Agricultural Association of Scotland, wheat and oats, when analyzed, contain of nutritious properties the following proportion:

Musc. matter. Fat. Starch. Wheat, 10 pounds, 3 pounds, 50 pounds. Oats, 18 " 6 " 65 "

Thus oats, and even wheat, are quite rich in that which forms muscular matter in the human body.

SIMEON COLLINS, OF WESTFIELD, MASS.

This gentleman, in his fifty-first year, states that having been for several years afflicted with a severe cough, which he supposed bordered upon consumption, he "discontinued the use of flesh meat, fish, fowl, butter, gravy, tea, and coffee, and made use of a plain vegetable diet." "My bread," says he, "is made of unbolted wheat meal; my drink is pure cold water; my bed, for winter and summer, is made of the everlasting flower; and my health is, and ever has been, perfect, since I got fairly cleansed from the filthiness of flesh meat, and other pernicious articles of diet in common use.

"My business requires a great degree of activity, and I can truly say that I am a stranger to weariness or languor. At the time of entering upon this system, I had a wife and five children, the youngest eight years of age;—they all soon entered upon the same course of living with myself, and soon were all benefited in health. I have now six children—the youngest fifteen months old, and as happy as a lark. Previous to the time of our adopting the present system of living, my expenses for medicine and physicians would range from $20 to $30 a year—for the last four years it has been nothing worth naming."

REV. JOSEPH EMERSON.

Mr. Emerson was a teacher of eminence, known throughout the United States, but particularly so in Massachusetts and Connecticut. He died in the latter state, in 1833, aged about fifty-five. He had long been a miserable dyspeptic, but was probably kept alive amid certain strange violations of physical law, such as studying hard till midnight, for example, for many years, by his great care in regard to his diet. Mrs. Banister, late Miss Z. P. Grant (the associate, at Ipswich, of Miss Lyon, who died recently at South Hadley, who was his pupil), thus speaks of his rigid habits:

"He not only uniformly rejected whatever food he had decided to be injurious to him, but whatever he deemed necessary for his food or drink, was always taken, whether at home or abroad. As his diet, for several years, consisted generally, either of bread and milk, or of bread and butter, what solid food he wanted could be supplied at any table."[16]

It is also testified of him, by his brother, Prof. Emerson, of Andover, that "for more than thirty years he adopted the practice of eating but one kind at a meal." If I do not misremember, for I knew him well, he was in favor of banishing flesh and fish, and substituting milk and fruits in their stead, on Bible ground.—I refer here to the Divine arrangement in the first chapter of Genesis; and which has never, that I am aware, been altered.

TAK SISSON.

Tak Sisson, as he was called, was a slave in the family of a man in Rhode Island, before and during the Revolution.

From early childhood he could never be prevailed on to eat any flesh or fish, but he subsisted on vegetable food and milk; neither could he be persuaded to eat high seasoned food of any kind. When he was a child, his parents used to scold him severely, and threaten to whip him because he refused to eat flesh. They said to him (as I have been told a thousand times), that if he did not eat meat he would never be good for any thing, but would always be a poor, puny creature.

But Tak persevered in his vegetable and unstimulating diet, and, to the surprise of all, grew fast, and his body was finely developed and athletic. He was very stout and robust, and altogether the most vigorous and dexterous of any of the family. He finally became more than six feet high, and every way well proportioned, and remarkable for his agility and strength. He was so uncommonly shrewd, bright, strong, and active, that he became notorious for his shrewdness, and for his feats of strength and agility. Indeed, he was so full of his playful mischief as greatly to annoy his overseer.

During the Revolutionary War it became an object to take Gen. Prescott. A door was to be forced where he was quartered and sleeping, and Tak was selected for the work. Having taken his lesson from the American officer, he proceeded to the door, plunged his thick head against it, burst it open, roused Gen. P., like a tiger sprung upon him, seized him in his brawny arms, and in a low, stern voice, said, "One word, and you are a dead man." Then hastily snatching the general's cloak and wrapping it round him, at the same time telling a companion to take care of the rest of his clothes, he took him in his arms, as if a child, and ran with him to a boat which was waiting, and escaped with his prisoner without rousing even the British sentinels.

Tak lived on his vegetable fare to a very advanced age, and was remarkable, through life, for his activity, strength, and shrewdness.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] By seed, Dr. C. means the farinaceous grains; wheat, corn, rye, etc.

[10] Cuvier was not a medical man, but I have classed him with medical men, on account of his profound knowledge of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology.

[11] "Unless," as a writer in the Graham Journal very justly observes, "these latter indulge, habitually and freely, in the use of intoxicating substances."

[12] Such was Gen. Elliot, so distinguished at the famous siege of Gibraltar. Such, too, was Mr. Shillitoe, of whom honorable mention will be made in another place;—besides many more.

[13] So he thinks, but I think otherwise. Animal food, as I have shown elsewhere, is not so nutritious as some of the farinaceous vegetables.

[14] Dr. J. here overlooks one important fact, viz., that the testimony of all those who have tried the exclusive use of vegetable food is positive in its nature; while that of others, who have not tried it, is, and necessarily must be, negative.

[15] The Water-Cure Journal.

[16] An aged lady, of Dedham—a pillar in every good cause—has, for twelve or fifteen years, carried abroad with her, when traveling, some plain bread and apples; and no entreaties will prevail with her, at home or abroad, to eat luxuries.



CHAPTER VI.

TESTIMONY OF PHILOSOPHERS AND OTHER EMINENT MEN.

General Remarks.—Testimony of Plautus.—Plutarch.—Porphyry.—Lord Bacon.—Sir William Temple.—Cicero.—Cyrus the Great.—Gassendi.—Prof. Hitchcock.—Lord Kaims.—Dr. Thomas Dick.—Prof. Bush.—Thomas Shillitoe.—Alexander Pope.—Sir Richard Phillips.—Sir Isaac Newton.—The Abbe Gallani.—Homer.—Dr. Franklin.—Mr. Newton.—O. S. Fowler.—Rev. Mr. Johnston.—John H. Chandler.—Rev. J. Caswell.—Mr. Chinn.—Father Sewall.—Magliabecchi.—Oberlin and Swartz.—James Haughton.—John Bailies.—Francis Hupazoli.—Prof. Ferguson.—Howard, the Philanthropist.—Gen. Elliot.—Encyclopedia Americana.—Thomas Bell, of London.—Linnaeus, the Naturalist.—Shelley, the Poet.—Rev. Mr. Rich.—Rev. John Wesley.—Lamartine.

GENERAL REMARKS.

This chapter might have been much more extended than it is. I might have mentioned, for example, the cases of Daniel and his three brethren, at the court of the Babylonian monarch, who certainly maintained their health—if they did not even improve it—by vegetable food, and by a form of it, too, which has by many been considered rather doubtful. I might have mentioned the case of Paul,[17] who, though he occasionally appears to have eaten flesh, said, expressly, that he would abstain from it while the world stood, where a great moral end was to be gained; and no one can suppose he would have done so, had he feared any injury would thereby result to his constitution of body or mind.

The case of William Penn, if I remember rightly what he says in his "No Cross no Crown," would have been in point. Jefferson, the third President of the United States, was, according to his own story, almost a vegetable eater, during the whole of his long life. He says he abstained principally from animal food; using it, if he used it at all, only as a condiment for his vegetables. And does any one, who has read his remarks, doubt that his "convictions" were in favor of the exclusive use of vegetable food?

However, to prevent the volume from much exceeding the limits originally assigned it, I will be satisfied—and I hope the public will—with the following selections of testimonies, ancient and modern; some of more, some of less importance; but all of them, as it appears to me, worthy of being collected and incorporated into a volume like this, and faithfully and carefully examined.

PLAUTUS.

Plautus, a distinguished dramatic Roman writer, who flourished about two thousand years ago, gives the following remarkable testimony against the use of animal food, and of course in favor of the salubrity of vegetables; addressed, indeed, to his own countrymen and times, but scarcely less applicable to our own:

"You apply the term wild to lions, panthers, and serpents; yet, in your own savage slaughters, you surpass them in ferocity; for the blood shed by them is a matter of necessity, and requisite for their subsistence.

"But, that man is not, by nature, destined to devour animal food, is evident from the construction of the human frame, which bears no resemblance to wild beasts or birds of prey. Man is not provided with claws or talons, with sharpness of fang or tusk, so well adapted to tear and lacerate; nor is his stomach so well braced and muscular, nor his animal spirits so warm, as to enable him to digest this solid mass of animal flesh. On the contrary, nature has made his teeth smooth, his mouth narrow, and his tongue soft; and has contrived, by the slowness of his digestion, to divert him from devouring a species of food so ill adapted to his frame and constitution. But, if you still maintain that such is your natural mode of subsistence, then follow nature in your mode of killing your prey, and employ neither knife, hammer, nor hatchet—but, like wolves, bears, and lions, seize an ox with your teeth, grasp a boar round the body, or tear asunder a lamb or a hare, and, like the savage tribe, devour them still panting in the agonies of death.

"We carry our luxury still farther, by the variety of sauces and seasonings which we add to our beastly banquets—mixing together oil, wine, honey, pickles, vinegar, and Syrian and Arabian ointments and perfumes, as if we intended to bury and embalm the carcasses on which we feed. The difficulty of digesting such a mass of matter, reduced in our stomachs to a state of liquefaction and putrefaction, is the source of endless disorders in the human frame.

"First of all, the wild, mischievous animals were selected for food; and then the birds and fishes were dragged to slaughter; next, the human appetite directed itself against the laborious ox, the useful and fleece-bearing sheep, and the cock, the guardian of the house. At last, by this preparatory discipline, man became matured for human massacres, slaughters, and wars."

PLUTARCH.

"It is best to accustom ourselves to eat no flesh at all, for the earth affords plenty enough of things not only fit for nourishment, but for enjoyment and delight; some of which may be eaten without much preparation, and others may be made pleasant by adding divers other things to them.

"You ask me," continues Plutarch, "'for what reason Pythagoras abstained from eating the flesh of brutes?' For my part, I am astonished to think, on the contrary, what appetite first induced man to taste of a dead carcass; or what motive could suggest the notion of nourishing himself with the flesh of animals which he saw, the moment before, bleating, bellowing, walking, and looking around them. How could he bear to see an impotent and defenceless creature slaughtered, skinned, and cut up for food? How could he endure the sight of the convulsed limbs and muscles? How bear the smell arising from the dissection? Whence happened it that he was not disgusted and struck with horror when he came to handle the bleeding flesh, and clear away the clotted blood and humors from the wounds?

"We should therefore rather wonder at the conduct of those who first indulged themselves in this horrible repast, than at such as have humanely abstained from it."

PORPHYRY, OF TYRE.

Porphyry, of Tyre, lived about the middle of the third century, and wrote a book on abstinence from animal food. This book was addressed to an individual who had once followed the vegetable system, but had afterward relinquished it. The following is an extract from it:

"You owned, when you lived among us, that a vegetable diet was preferable to animal food, both for preserving the health and for facilitating the study of philosophy; and now, since you have eat flesh, your own experience must convince you that what you then confessed was true. It was not from those who lived on vegetables that robbers or murderers, sycophants or tyrants, have proceeded; but from flesh-eaters. The necessaries of life are few and easily acquired, without violating justice, liberty, health, or peace of mind; whereas luxury obliges those vulgar souls who take delight in it to covet riches, to give up their liberty, to sell justice, to misspend their time, to ruin their health and to renounce the joy of an upright conscience."