Vegetable Diet: As Sanctioned by Medical Men, and by Experience in All Ages Part 19

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.--Sh.e.l.ley, 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 const.i.tution 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 princ.i.p.ally 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 a.s.signed 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 surpa.s.s 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 ma.s.s 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 const.i.tution. 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 carca.s.ses on which we feed. The difficulty of digesting such a ma.s.s 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 appet.i.te directed itself against the laborious ox, the useful and fleece-bearing sheep, and the c.o.c.k, the guardian of the house. At last, by this preparatory discipline, man became matured for human ma.s.sacres, 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 appet.i.te first induced man to taste of a dead carca.s.s; or what motive could suggest the notion of nouris.h.i.+ng 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."

He takes pains to persuade men of the truth of the two following propositions:

1st. "That a conquest over the appet.i.tes and pa.s.sions will greatly contribute to preserve health and to remove distempers.

2d. "That a simple vegetable food, being easily procured and easily digested, is a mighty help toward obtaining this conquest over ourselves."

To prove the first proposition, he appeals to experience, and proves that many of his acquaintance who had disengaged themselves from the care of ama.s.sing riches, and turning their thoughts to spiritual subjects, had got rid entirely of their bodily distempers.

In confirmation of the second proposition, he argues in the following manner: "Give me a man who considers, seriously, what he is, whence he came, and whither he must go, and from these considerations resolves not to be led astray nor governed by his pa.s.sions; and let such a man tell me whether a rich animal diet is more easily procured or incites less to irregular pa.s.sions and appet.i.tes than a light vegetable diet! But if neither he, nor a physician, nor indeed any reasonable man whatsoever, dares to affirm this, why do we oppress ourselves with animal food, and why do we not, together with luxury and flesh meat, throw off the inc.u.mbrances and snares which attend them?"

LORD BACON.

Lord Bacon, in his treatise on Life and Death, says, "It seems to be approved by experience, that a spare and almost a Pythagorean diet, such as is prescribed by the strictest monastic life, or practiced by hermits, is most favorable to long life."

SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE.

"The patriarchs' abodes were not in cities, but in open countries and fields. Their lives were pastoral, and employed in some sorts of agriculture. They were of the same race, to which their marriages were generally confined. Their diet was simple, as that of the ancients is generally represented. Among them flesh and wine were seldom used, except at sacrifices at solemn feasts.

"The Brachmans, among the old Indians, were all of the same races, lived in fields and in woods, after the course of their studies was ended, and fed only upon rice, milk, and herbs.

"The Brazilians, when first discovered, lived the most natural, original lives of mankind, so frequently described in ancient countries, before laws, or property, or arts made entrance among them; and so their customs may be concluded to have been yet more simple than either of the other two. They lived without business or labor, further than for their necessary food, by gathering fruits, herbs, and plants. They knew no other drink but water; were not tempted to eat or drink beyond common appet.i.te and thirst; were not troubled with either public or domestic cares, and knew no pleasures but the most simple and natural.

"From all these examples and customs, it may probably be concluded that the common ingredients of health and long life are, great temperance, open air, easy labor, little care, simplicity of diet--rather fruits and plants than flesh, which easier corrupts--and water, which preserves the radical moisture without too much increasing the radical heat. Whereas sickness, decay, and death proceed commonly from the one preying too fast upon the other, and at length wholly extinguis.h.i.+ng it."

CICERO.

This eminent man sometimes, if not usually, confined himself to vegetable food. Of this we have evidence, in his complaints about the refinements of cookery--that they were continually tempting him to excess, etc. He says, that after having withstood all the temptations that the n.o.blest lampreys and oysters could throw in his way, he was at last overpowered by paltry beets and mallows. A victory, by the way, which, in the case of the eater of plain food, is very often achieved.

CYRUS THE GREAT.

This distinguished warrior was brought up, like the inferior Persians, on bread, cresses, and water; and, notwithstanding the temptations of a luxurious and voluptuous court, he rigorously adhered to his simple diet. Nay, he even carried his simple habits nearly through life with him; and it was not till he had completely established one of the largest and most powerful empires of antiquity that he began to yield to the luxuries of the times. Had he pursued his steady course of temperance through life, the historian, instead of recording his death at only seventy, might have told us that he died at a hundred or a hundred and fifty.

PETER Ga.s.sENDI.

Two hundred and twenty years ago, Peter Ga.s.sendi, a famous French philosopher--and by the way, one of the most learned men of his time--wrote a long epistle to Van Helmont, a Dutch chemist, on the question whether the teeth of mankind indicate that they are naturally flesh-eaters.

In this epistle, too long for insertion here,[18] Ga.s.sendi maintains, with great ingenuity, that the human teeth were not made for flesh. He does not evade any of the facts in the case, but meets them all fairly and discusses them freely. And after having gone through with all parts of the argument, and answered every other conceivable objection, he thus concludes:

"And here I feel that it may be objected to me: Why, then, do you not, yourself, abstain from flesh and feed only on fruits and vegetables? I must plead the force of habit, for my excuse. In persons of mature age nature appears to be so wholly changed, that this artificial habit cannot be renounced without some detriment. But I confess that if I were wise, and relinquis.h.i.+ng the use of flesh, should gradually accustom myself to the gifts of the kind earth, I have little doubt that I should enjoy more regular health, and acquire greater activity of mind. For truly our numerous diseases, and the dullness of our faculties, seem princ.i.p.ally produced in this way, that flesh, or heavy, and, as I may say, too substantial food, overloads the stomach, is oppressive to the whole body, and generates a substance too dense, and spirits too obtuse.

In a word, it is a yarn too coa.r.s.e to be interwoven with the threads of man's nature."

I know how it strikes many when they find such men as Ga.s.sendi, admitting the doctrines for which I contend, in theory, and even strenuously defending them, and yet setting them at naught in practice.

Surely, say they, such persons cannot be sincere. For myself, however, I draw a very different conclusion. Their conduct is perfectly in harmony with that of the theoretic friends of cold water, plain dress, and abstemiousness in general. They are compelled to admit the truth; but it is so much against their habits, as in the case of Ga.s.sendi, besides being still more strongly opposed to their l.u.s.ts and appet.i.tes, that they cannot, or rather, will not conform to what they believe, in their daily practice. Their testimony, to me, is the strongest that can be obtained, because they testify against themselves, and in spite of themselves.

PROF. HITCHc.o.c.k.

This gentleman, a distinguished professor in Amherst College, is the author of a work, ent.i.tled "Dyspepsia Forestalled and Resisted," which has been read by many, and execrated by not a few of those who are so wedded to their l.u.s.ts as to be unwilling to be told of their errors.

I am not aware that Professor H. has any where, in his writings, urged a diet exclusively vegetable, for all cla.s.ses of the community, although I believe he does not hesitate to urge it on all students; and one might almost infer, from his works of various kinds, that if he is not already a believer in the doctrines of its universal superiority to a mixed diet, he is not very far from it. In a sermon of his, in the National Preacher, for November, 1834, he calls a diet exclusively vegetable, a "proper course of living."