92. M. Daubenton, the associate of Buffon, and the first writer who rendered the study of Anatomy subservient to Natural History, observes-"It is, then, highly probable that man in a state of pure nature, living in a confined society, and in a genial climate,-where the earth required but little culture to produce its fruits,-did subsist upon these, without seeking to prey on animals."*

93. Gassendi, in his celebrated letter to Van Helmont, says—“ I was therefore contending, that we do not appear to be adapted by nature to the use of flesh-diet, from the conformation of the teeth. Since all animals (I speak of terrestrial ones) which nature has formed to feed on flesh, have teeth, long, conical, sharp, uneven, and with intervals between them; of which kind are lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, &c. But those which are created to subsist only on herbs and fruits, have their teeth short, broad, blunt, adjoining to one another, and distributed in even rows; of which sort are horses, horned cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and some others. And, farther, that men have received from nature teeth, which are unlike those of the first class, and resemble those of the second: it is therefore probable, since men are land-animals, that nature intended them to follow, in the selection of their food, not the carnivorous tribes, but those races of animals which are contented with the simple productions of the earth. Wherefore I repeat, that from the primeval and spotless institution of our nature, the teeth were destined to the mastication, not of flesh but of fruits." 'As to

* DAUBENTON'S OBSERVATIONS ON INDIGESTION. Translated by Dr. A. P. Buchan.

what relates to flesh, it is indeed true that man may be sustained on meat; but how many things does man do which are contrary to his nature! Such is the perversion of manners now, by a general contagion, enamelled into him, that he seems to have become a new creature. Hence the doctrines of morality and philosophy are directed to no other object, than to recal mankind to the paths of nature, which they have abandoned."*

94. Sir Everard Home says" 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."

95. Baron Cuvier, whose knowledge of Comparative Anatomy was most profound, and whose authority therefore is entitled to the greatest respect, thus writes:"Fruits, roots, and the succulent parts of vegetables, appear to be the natural food of man: his hands afford him a facility in gathering them; and his short and comparatively weak jaws, his short canine teeth not passing beyond the common line of the others, and the tuberculous teeth, would not permit him either to feed on herbage or devour flesh, unless those aliments were previously prepared by the culinary processes."

96. "The use of plants", says Ray, the celebrated botanist, "is all our life long of that universal importance and concern, that we can neither live nor subsist with any decency and convenience, or be said to live indeed at all, without them. Whatsoever food is necessary to sustain us, whatsoever contributes to delight and refresh us,

* GASSENDI'S WORKS. Vol. X. P, 20,

is supplied and brought forth out of that plentiful and abundant store. And, ah! how much more innocent, sweet, and healthful, is a table covered with these, than with all the reeking flesh of slaughtered and butchered animals. Certainly man by nature was never made to be a carnivorous animal, nor is he armed at all for prey or rapine, with jagged and pointed teeth, and crooked claws sharpened to rend and tear; but with gentle hands to gather fruit and vegetables, and with teeth to chew and eat them."*

66

97. Professor Lawrence observes Physiologists have usually represented, that our species holds a middle rank in the masticatory and digestive apparatus, between carnivorous and herbivorous animals ;- —a statement which seems rather to have been deduced from what we have learned by experience on this subject, than to have resulted fairly from an actual comparison of man and animals." After comparing the alimentary organs of man with those of other animals, he further says "The teeth of man have not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, except that their enamel is confined to the external surface. He possesses, indeed, teeth called 'canine'; but they do not exceed the level of the others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals." After sundry observations on organization, he says "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;

* EVELYN'S ACETARIA. P. 170.

all of which, in their natural state, are completely herbivorous."* (frugivorous ?)

98. Lord Monboddo says "Though I think that man has, from nature, the capacity of living either by prey or upon the fruits of the earth, it appears to me that, by nature, and in his original state, he is a frugivorous animal; and that he only becomes an animal of prey by acquired habit."

99. "The Quadrumana or monkey tribes", observes Roget, "approach nearest to the human structure in the conformation of their teeth; which appear formed for a mixed kind of food, but are especially adapted to the consumption of the more esculent fruits."

100. Mr. Thomas Bell, in his "Anatomy, Physiology, and Diseases of the Teeth", observes-" The opinion which I venture to give, has not been hastily formed, nor without what appeared to me sufficient grounds. It is, I think, not going too far to say, that every fact connected with the human organization goes to prove, that man was originally formed a frugivorous animal; and therefore tropical, or nearly so, with regard to his geographical position. This opinion is principally derived from the formation of his teeth, and digestive organs; as well as from the character of his skin, and the general structure of his limbs." The opinions of various other celebrated writers might be quoted; but they are reserved for another part of this work.

101. Seeing, then, that Comparative Anatomy is so clear in its indications of the proper food of man, and

* LECTURES ON PHYSIOLOGY, &c. P. 188, 189, 191.

that men so well qualified for giving an opinion upon the matter have expressed themselves so decidedly, it certainly is surprising to find so many authors on physiology and dietetics, ridiculing the idea of a vegetable diet; and briefly stating, without an attempt at proof, that the teeth, stomach, and other parts of man's structure, declare him to be omnivorous, or formed for a mixed diet. The misconception (for such I must consider it) seems to have arisen from confounding a fruit and farinaceous (commonly called vegetable) diet with a herbivorous one;— Professor Lawrence, even, having misapplied the latter term. It would be absurd to contend, that man was formed for deriving his subsistence from the latter kind of food; though the more esculent vegetables may occasionally be enjoyed with impunity, or positive benefit; but it does not appear to me possible to derive, from Comparative Anatomy, a single argument calculated to negative the conclusion, that the human organization is specially adapted to fruit, roots, grain, and other farinaceous vegetables.

OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.

102. Two objections to an exclusively vegetable diet may be here considered :

1. It has been objected, that although the orang-outang so nearly resembling man in his organization, is, in a perfect state of nature, strictly frugivorous, yet he readily learns to eat and enjoy the flesh of animals; and that