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 simiæ (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.