"For my part I do much admire, with what soul or with what
appetite the first man, with his mouth touched slaughter, and
reached to his lips the flesh of a dead animate."--PLUTARCH.
We ought not perhaps to insist too much on the opinions of the heathen
philosophers, because the extension of knowledge, and a more matured
experience, has shown the fallacy of many of their notions; but if we
were permitted to lay any stress on the authority of these celebrated
men, we might bring forward a mine of classical learning in commendation
of a vegetable diet; we might point to the life of a Pythagoras, or a
Seneca, as well as to the works of a Plato, and show how the wisest
among the ancients lived, as well as thought, with regard to this
subject.
But we shall be contented, as far as authority is concerned, to rest our
claims to attention, rather upon that which bears a more modern date,
and to bring forward the evidence of facts instead of the theories of
ingenuity. The subject itself we may venture to hope, though a little
homely, is not without interest, and certainly not unimportant. It is
somewhat scientific from its very nature, and so far from being a matter
confined to the medical faculty, it is one on which every man exerts,
every day of his existence, his own free choice, as far indeed as custom
has allowed him the exercise of that freedom.
But, though we will not go back to the dreams of our forefathers, (who,
if they had more genius, had fewer materials for it to work upon than
their servile children,) yet we must always make the Bible an exception,
and in the present case we find it expedient as well as becoming, to
refer to that oldest and most valuable of records. We have there no
express mention of eating flesh before the Flood; but, on the contrary,
a direct command that man should subsist on the fruits of the earth.
("Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face
of the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree
yielding seed; to _you it shall be for meat_"--Gen. i. 29.)
After the Flood, when the Israelites were distressed for want of food in
the Wilderness, we find that it was sent to them from heaven in a
vegetable form, and to denote its divine origin and its superior
excellency, it is called in the Scriptures "the corn of heaven," and
"angels' food," &c. Oftener than once this favoured but ungrateful
people despised and loathed this miraculous provision; they called out
for animal food, and accordingly quails were sent them, but they were
punished with destruction by the flesh which they desired; ("And while
the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of
the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people
with a very great plague."--Numb. xi. 33.)
Thus in the first ages of the world, and during the shepherd state of
society, men lived upon berries, and such fruits as the earth
spontaneously produced; we have mentioned generally how the philosophers
of Greece and Rome preferred to live, and there are not wanting
instances of men bred up in the sensuality of modern times who have
followed their example. The philosopher, Franklin, who reached a great
age, for a considerable portion of his life kept entirely to a vegetable
diet; and Abernethy, a name yet more familiar in our ears, has left us
this maxim, that "a vegetable diet and abstinence from fermented liquors
tends more than anything else to tranquillize the system."--(vide the
_Abernethian Code_.) Another popular and scientific writer of the
present day makes a similar confession, which coming from such an
unexpected quarter carries weight: "Although professedly friends to
gastronomy, moderated by a decided aversion to anything like sensuality,
we are of opinion that man is less fit to feed upon carnal than
vegetable substance." (Accum's _Culinary Chemistry_.)
The author of _The Art of Improving Health_, has also a passage in
point: "An animal diet, especially in temperate climates, is more
wasting than a vegetable; because it excites by its stimulating
qualities a fever after every meal, by which the springs of life are
urged into constant and weakening exertions: on the contrary, a
vegetable diet tends to preserve a delicacy of feeling, a liveliness of
imagination, and an acuteness of judgment, seldom enjoyed by those who
live principally on meat." Thus we might go on multiplying authorities
on this subject, but we shall content ourselves with referring briefly
to one or two authors of a more literary stamp, and have done with
quotation. The eloquent Shelley, in his notes to _Queen Mab_, pretty
roundly assures us, that "according to comparative anatomy, man
resembles frugivorous animals in everything, carnivorous in nothing;"
and the famous author of the _Anatomy of Melancholy_, has quaintly but
nervously observed, "As a lamp is choked with over much oil, or a fire
with too much wood, so is the natural heat strangled in the body by the
superfluous use of flesh; thus men wilfully pervert the good temperature
of their bodies, stifle their wits, strangle nature, and degenerate into
beasts." The somewhat visionary but fascinating Rousseau, has also in
his _Treatise of Education_, to which we refer our readers, most
powerfully condemned the use of flesh, and he humorously attributes the
proverbial boorishness of Englishmen to their fondness for roast beef!
And now let us look a little to facts: in all ages of the world those
have ever been the most savage nations which observed an animal diet.
Thus the Tartars, the Ethiopians, the Scythians, and the Arabians, who
live wholly on animal food, possess that ferocity of mind and fierceness
of character, common to carnivorous animals, while the vegetable diet of
the Brahmins and Hindoos gives to their character a gentleness and
mildness directly the reverse; potatoes, chestnuts, &c. satisfy the
wants of the Alpine peasant, and there are numerous, harmless tribes,
who feed solely on vegetables and water. Even Homer in his time has made
the Cyclops, who were flesh eaters, horrid monsters of men, and the
Lotophagi, he has described as a people so amiable, that when strangers
had once become acquainted with them, and tasted the fruits on which
they lived, they even forgot their native country to take up their abode
with their hosts. But in those civilized countries where animal food is
commonly eaten, it must follow that the lower orders, who compose the
great majority of the population, cannot partake of it in any great
quantities; now it does not appear that the rich enjoy better health
from this luxurious mode of living, or that the poor are less healthy
from the want of it; on the contrary, the wealthier classes are subject
to many chronic and other disorders arising from their aliment, and they
have a very large body of physicians, who subsist by a constant
attendance on them, while on the other hand, those in the lower walks of
life are seldom out of health, owing to their more simple and less
injurious mode of living; they suffer only from accident and natural
disease, and, generally speaking, when they are attacked, it proves
their first and last illness. Moreover, as the poor are more at ease
while they live, so too experience shows that they live longer; cases of
longevity are very rare with those in affluent circumstances, while most
of the famous instances on record of persons arriving at extraordinary
old age, have been peasants, fishermen, &c.
An hospital was established some short time since in the neighbourhood
of London for the purpose of experiment, and it was ascertained by
actual computation, and by comparison with the bills of mortality, that
an average number of persons will reach a greater age by observing
strictly a vegetable diet.
Compared with the English, the French have a greater proportion of
arable land than pasture, and consequently they rear fewer cattle, yet
they have a thriving population, and that would hardly be if they were
stinted in quality or quantity of food. The Irish peasantry live
principally on potatoes, yet they have seldom been found fault with as
labourers, and seem to be a well-built and able-bodied race of men. But
we have not only sufficient proof of the beneficial effect of vegetable
aliment--there are many instances on record, if we had time or space for
them--to show how detrimental the contrary regimen has sometimes been.
One example is worth mentioning: a man was prevailed on by a reward to
live upon partridges without any vegetables, but he was obliged to
desist at the end of eight days, from the appearance of strong symptoms
of putrefaction.
That we live upon meat, and yet increase in growth and strength is
little to the point, but whether we might not be still better without
it; dogs thrive upon flesh, but biscuits are better for them: that we
are fond of it is still less pertinent, for who does not know that
custom alters nature itself, that it becomes, in fact, a second nature,
and that such things as we are accustomed to, though actually evil in
their own nature, yet become gradually less offensive, and at last
pleasant. We have very remarkable proofs of this in all parts of the
world. In China they eat cats and dogs, while the poorer classes think
rats, mice, and other vermin, no bad food. The Romans thought peacocks a
dainty, which we quite nauseate. The Greenlander and the Esquimaux
relish train-oil, whilst these and all savages, on first tasting our
wines are disgusted and spit them out. Horse-flesh is commonly sold in
the markets of the north. Then again, there are some wandering Moors,
who subsist entirely on gum senegal, and there have been many cases of
shipwreck where the mariners have even subsisted for weeks on old shoes,
tobacco, or whatever they could get; in short, what cannot custom
effect? The Turk, by constant habit, is enabled to take opium in
quantities that would soon destroy us; and every one must have known
private cases where individuals in this country could take laudanum in
surprising doses; we have all more or less experienced the power of
habit in our acquired tastes, and whether we derive pleasure from the
fumes of tobacco, or approve the flavour of olives, we may remember that
at first we disliked, or were indifferent about either. History itself
informs us, that Mithridates was able to drink poison; and there was a
female slave, sent to Alexander by King Porus, who was even brought up
with it from her infancy. But to bring this influence of custom upon the
taste, still more in point, we find recorded in a work upon zoology, the
following remarkable case:--The provender for a lamb, which a ship's
company had on board, was all consumed; in the absence of other food
they offered it flesh, which it was at last compelled to devour, and
gradually acquired such a relish for this new aliment, that it could
never after be prevailed on to eat any thing else.
It is very certain that the most natural tastes are the most simple: our
first aliment is milk, and it is only by degrees we bring ourselves to
relish strong food; one speaking proof that such stimulating diet is not
natural to the human palate, is the indifference children have for such
food, and they evidently prefer pastry, fruit, &c., until the digestive
organs become more depraved. Neither has man the peculiarities of a
carnivorous animal; he has no hawk-bill, no sharp talons to tear his
prey, and he wants that strength of stomach and power of digestion which
is requisite to assimilate such heavy fare; his tongue is not rough,
but, as compared with that of ravenous animals, of a very smooth
texture; neither are his teeth pointed and rough like a saw, which above
all is a distinguishing mark. It is well known that in our West Indian
colonies, all the negroes still surviving, who were originally brought
over from Africa, have their teeth filed down to this day, which was at
first expressly done for the purpose of tearing and eating human flesh.
It is probable that the first man who adopted this most horrible custom,
was driven to it by necessity and the want or scarcity of other food,
and we know certainly that cannibals are as much excited by the spirit
of revenge as by an appetite for flesh, in devouring their captured
enemies; we, however, have not even this poor plea; we are even
ungrateful in attending to the satisfaction of our desires, for we kill
without remorse, as well the ox that labours for us, as the sheep that
clothes us, and disregarding all the natural wealth of the fields, and
the delicacies of the garden, we capriciously destroy creatures who are
no doubt sent into the world to enjoy life as well as ourselves. But you
who contend that you are born with an inclination to such food, why
object to kill what you would eat? do it, however, with your own hands,
and without the aid of a knife; tear your victim to pieces with your
fingers, as lions do with their claws, and after worrying a hare or a
lamb, fall on and eat alive as they do; drink up the flowing blood, and
devour the flesh while it is yet warm! Is not the very idea horrible? we
know we could not do it; as it is, the sight of uncooked flesh with all
its raw horror excites loathing and disgust, and it is only by culinary
preparation, it can be softened and rendered somewhat more susceptible
of mastication and digestion; it must be completely transformed by
roasting, boiling, &c., and afterwards so disguised by salts, spices,
and various sauces, that the natural taste is gone, the palate is
deceived into the admission of such uncouth fare, and finds a flavour in
the taste of these cadaverous morsels.
May we be allowed to take for granted, that health may be preserved
through the same means by which it is recovered? If so, animal food is
clearly an impediment to a healthy state of body, for health is restored
by a simple and fleshless diet, and therefore may be preserved by the
same regimen. That animal food is highly stimulant there can be no
doubt; but like all other stimulants, it produces weakness eventually,
for when excitement has been brought to its acme, debility must of
necessity succeed.
The grand objection to an animal diet, is its detrimental effect upon
the mind: it is well known that flesh-eating makes the body strong and
lusty, (and it is for that reason recommended to pugilists who are in a
course of training,) but the mind becomes weak and inactive; for it must
needs happen, where a muddy and clogged body is shackled down by heavy
and unnatural nourishment, that all the vigour and brilliancy of the
understanding must be confused and made dull, and that, wanting
clearness for nobler things, it must ramble after little and unworthy
objects. The passions cannot fail to be excited, and thus the whole of
the irrational nature becoming fattened as it were, the soul is drawn
downward and abandons its proper love of true being. The truth of this
we must all more or less have experienced: we are never so lively when
we have dined, and the studious man knows well that the morning is the
more proper time for his employment.
Why then should we not liberate ourselves from such inconvenience, by
abandoning as far as we can a fleshy diet? and let us remember, that
even on the score of comfort, the pain of indigence is much milder than
that which is produced by repletion. We should thus free ourselves at
once from a heavy and somnolent condition of body, from many and
vehement diseases, from the want of medical assistance, from "the
crassitude of the corporeal bond," and above all, from that savage and
unnatural strength which incites to base actions, so as to escape an
Iliad of evils!