ing power of adaptability to the new circumstances in which his progressive development places him. This adaptability is certainly fully recognized by our author, but its practical results are lost by bending facts to his theory: Adapted by nature for feeding upon neither flesh nor herbage, he is (notwithstanding) created with an adaptability to either or both, as climate or circumstances may render necessary; but we are not justified in inferring that he enjoys, by this deviation from nature, that full share of health, pleasure, and longevity, which would be secured by a strict adherence to his more natural diet. If, therefore, we would judge correctly of organs and their functions, we must carefully distinguish between adaptation and adaptability; and must not hastily conclude that, because an animal can exist and be comparatively well upon a certain kind of diet, it was designed to live on that diet as its best and most natural food. Each animal has been organized upon fixed principles, and each organ has its determinate function and special adaptation; but an all-wise Creator has provided against emergencies, by conferring on each organ-particularly if connected with existence or with organic life-a considerable latitude, by which it can (to a certain extent) vary its functions without destroying its power, or so far impairing the constitution as suddenly to destroy life." (p. 89) Here is at once the double assumption that there has been in man a deviation from nature, and that each animal has been organized upon fixed principles of adaptation; whereas, on the one hand we have no scientific knowledge whatever of man's "state of nature," and on the other the tribes, genera, and species of animals pass into each other so frequently, and often so imperceptibly, that adaptability is in fact the law, and appears to determine the generic and specific characteristics. It is by this law that surrounding circumstances act upon the senses and the organs necessary to secure food. At the call of certain common instincts and sensations, the powers of the animal are put into vigorous operation, under circumstances different from those by which itself or its parents had been surrounded. The repeated exercise of these powers develops the organs suitable to their exercise, what was at first strange and displeasing becomes habitual and pleasing, and at last the nature of the animal is adapted to the circumstances. As the circumstances of man with regard to climate, opportunity of obtaining food, clothing, &c., vary greatly, so do his nature' and his corporeal form vary; and consequently there is no fixed type or condition invariably applicable to all men. But even the comparative development of the senses scarcely presents the grounds for Mr. Smith's argument, which he takes up. Having, for example, demonstrated from a consideration of the masticatory organs of the simiæ, that their food is that which is most adapted to the masticatory organs of man, we find him contradicting himself in the consideration of the senses. In man, Mr. Smith observes, we find this sense [the olfactory] placed in a closer relation with fruit than with any other article of dieta mere assumption, by the by,-and yet in the possession of the maxillary sinus, he is much more allied to the goat and other ruminants than to the simiæ, in whom it is nearly obliterated. The last argument Mr. Smith introduces in favour of vegetable diet as the natural food of man, is founded on his sensitive and moral feelings. Every manifestation of pain and suffering in a sensitive being, he observes, must at all times awaken the sympathies of the human heart, except in those who are constitutionally obdurate, or whose feelings have been blunted by repeated acts or scenes of cruelty and misery. "Can we suppose, then, that the Deity would have implanted in the human breast such an aversion to the taking of life, such a horror of shedding blood, and such a heart-sickness on witnessing it; such a hatred of cruelty, and such a sympathy with creatures writhing with pain, if he had intended us to feed upon the flesh of slaughtered animals? Would he not rather have formed us cruel and ferocious, like all carnivorous animals, which seem to derive pleasure from witnessing the sufferings of their victims? Or has the All-wise Creator departed from that harmony of design, so conspicuous in all his works, and rendered necessary for man's support a food, the procuring of which shall do violence to the best and kindliest feelings of his nature; shall be continually weakening and tending to exterminate the attributes of benevolence, mercy, and love; and gradually defacing the image in which God created him? Could he intend that the human race should eat their food with compunction, that every morsel should be purchased with a pang, and every meal empoisoned with remorse? No! Consistency runs through all the works and designs of God!" (p. 114.) The designs of God have made it requisite that all animals shall destroy each other. Even the herbivorous trample down, crush, and masticate hundreds of insects, while whole nations of men are hunters and fishermen. Indeed, man is a hunting animal; the love of the chase is one of his strongest instincts. So much for the facts on which Mr. Smith grounds his argument. On the other hand, carnivorous animals display warm sympathy for pain and suffering. All persons conversant with dogs know that even the expression of pain on the countenance of those with whom they associate is sufficient to awaken their sympathy, while the cries of suffering will distress the faithful animals exceedingly. In short, the whole argument is merely a display of an effeminancy of sentiment, which would be contemptible were it not well-meaning. Our Pythagorean having, as he imagines, proved "that vegetables were the original, and are now (as well as in former ages) the natural food of man," he next attempts to demonstrate that they are the best food of man. His arguments are derived from various sources. Firstly, he devotes a chapter to the consideration of the chemistry of dietetics, with a view to show that vegetables contain all the elements and qualities necessary for the complete nutrition of man; that they are easy of digestion, and that "they are superior to animal food or a mixed diet for maintaining all the vital processes; for producing the mens sana in corpore sano, in the greatest perfection and for the longest period." The whole chapter shows considerable and praiseworthy research, but the conclusion is lame. It is this: "Organic chemistry, however, has not yet been brought to such perfection as will enable us to mete out man's food by its laws. We have yet much to learn in this respect; and a short notice of the subject is introduced here only to show that from the vegetable kingdom may be selected, for human food, such articles as will bear a comparison with a mixed diet so far as our present knowledge will permit us to judge; and that the light already thrown upon the matter by chemistry, is sufficient to prove that fruits, grain, roots, and other esculent vegetables, if used in a natural, unrefined, and unconcentrated state, contain every principle necessary for the nourishment of man." (p. 163 ) The next chapter is occupied by proofs that the experience of nations and individuals is in favour of a vegetable diet as the best for man. Pythagoras heads a list comprising the names of Plutarch, Porphyry, Haller, Ritson, Cheyne, Lambe, Newton, (not Sir Isaac, but one who wrote a work entitled Return to Nature,') Shelley, Hufeland, Sir Richard Phillips, sundry Americans, St. Matthew, the three most ancient orders of priests, the Brahmins, Magi, and Druids; and also the Athenian prince Triptolemus, who established the Eleusinian mysteries.' The maxims and practice of these persons are set forth at length in the next chapter in proof that the use of fruits and farinacea is conducive to health. Numerous nations in every clime and continent are also referred to in detail, as living almost or altogether on vegetables, and yet being strong, active, and remarkable for their longevity. Our author's style of argument and mode of treating his subject may be gathered from the following extract: "Examples might be multiplied, from all parts of the world, of people living entirely upon vegetable food, and enjoying perfect health and bodily vigour but perhaps none are more striking than those we have in close proximity to us. The chairmen, porters, and coalheavers, the strongest men in the British dominions, are said to be (the greater part of them) from the lowest rank of people in Ireland, which are generally fed with the potato. No food can afford a more decisive proof of its nourishing quality, or of its being peculiarly suitable to the health of the human constitution.' This remark has been amply confirmed by the recent experiments of Professor Forbes, on the weight, height, and strength of above eight hundred individuals, his tables clearly showing that the Irish are more developed than the Scotch at a given age, and the English less. The Rev. Howard Malcolm, of Boston, who has travelled extensively in Europe, Asia, and America, says: The finest specimens of the human body I ever beheld I saw in Ireland, and they had never tasted animal food.' Many English farmers, who have been in the habit of employing the natives of the emerald isle, bear testimony to the fact, that those who are steady and refrain from spirituous liquors, are indefatigable, and are capable of performing a much greater amount of agricultural labour, on their simple meal of potatoes and butter-milk, than the English labourer, though feeding on abundance of flesh-meat." (p. 222.) A chapter is headed "Influence of azotized food in the production of certain diseases." The comment is not, however, suitable to the text, as in fact Mr. Smith's arguments are really directed against an intemperate use of animal food. Of the baneful effect of such intemperance there can be no doubt whatever. The following paragraph contains so much common sense, that one cannot but feel a little surprise at the frequent aberrations from a sound judgment manifested by the author : "Without entering further into the nature of disease or its causes, we may show: 1. That too stimulating a diet, or one that is unnatural in quality or quantity, is a very general cause of functional disorder. 2. That an abstemious diet of fruit, grain, and other farinaceous vegetables is, in general, the surest means of restoration to health. Let it however be clearly understood, that improper food is not considered the only means of introducing disease; inattention to exercise, pure air, cleanliness, the cutaneous and other excretions, together with a number of acquired and unnatural habits, may be equally effective in destroying health; and a man who lives temperately upon a mixed diet of animal and vegetable food, and is at the same time regular in other sanitary habits, will enjoy a far greater share of health, and be less liable to epidemic diseases, than the man who adheres to a vegetable diet but neglects all other physiological laws." (p. 239.) There can be no doubt that the intemperate use of flesh meat induces (as our author argues) gouty and urinary diseases. It is certain also that there are individuals (as, for example, with a highly arthritic constitution, or who have already been gluttonous) for whom a strictly vegetable diet, may be prescribed with the best result. We think it, however, scarcely warrantable to infer, that a mixed animal diet in moderation induces disease, or to propose that all mankind shall adopt a strictly vegetable diet, because examples of this kind have occasionally occurred. It seems to us much more reasonable to infer, that the exceptions prove the rule. Nor does it follow, that because the flesh of diseased animals is injurious, that flesh must necessarily not be eaten. Fruits and farinaceous vegetables may also be poisonous when diseased. Whole districts sometimes suffer in Germany and other parts of the continent, where rye bread is the ordinary food of the people, from the mixture of ergotted rve. Mr. Smith would, we imagine, think it monstrously unfair to interdict the use of rye bread on this account; and yet this is precisely one of the arguments on which he rejects the use of animal food. Another reason why animal food should be interdicted is, that it conduces to caries of the teeth. As an example of Mr. Smith's loose mode of argument we quote the following: An intelligent sea-captain, who had visited most parts of our globe, informed Mr. Graham that he found those people who used hot liquids, and hot food, and smoked tobacco and other narcotic substances, always had black and much decayed teeth; but that in the islands of the Pacific, and other parts, where the people seldom or never take anything hot into their mouths, use little or no animal food, and are very simple, plain, and natural in their diet; they had very regular teeth-white, clean, and free from decay. In Mexico the higher classes consume great quantities of animal food, generally eating it three times a day; and they are noted for the early decay of their teeth, and for nervous complaints; whereas the Indians, residing in the same locality, but who live on vegetable produce, are remarkable for their fine white teeth, for their mild expression of countenance, and for their general good health." (p. 273.) The fact is, that the higher classes in Mexico, of both sexes, are inveterate smokers, a reason quite sufficient of itself for the bad state of their teeth. Young Mexican ladies esteem it as much à la mode to smoke cigars as do our English dandies. A chapter details numerous examples of the beneficial effects of vegetable food on invalids, and will be read with interest. The case of Dr. Lambe, one of the Elects of the College of Physicians, is worthy record: "In a letter dated April 16, 1825, (?)_ Dr. Lambe writes as follows:"From the age of nineteen to thirty-five, I was constantly suffering from the usual symptoms of dyspepsia, which toward the latter period were accompanied by a constant and oppressive pain about the stomach. At the age of thirty-five I had an attack of enteritis, which was severe enough to require two venesections; after this I never went out in the damp of the evening without feeling some tenderness over the abdomen. Under these circumstances, together with a general feebleness of health, I determined to try the effect of substituting distilled water for common water as my drink. The effect of this change was a thorough relief of the dyspeptic pains, and abdominal tenderness. In the ensuing three years, a headache, from which I had occasionally suffered earlier in life, returned so frequently and so severely, as to induce me to take active measures for its relief. I then determined to abstain from animal food, as well as from the use of common water. The intensity of the paroxysms was instantly relieved; yet they recurred in a mitigated form, for at least thirty years. I have been engaged in the active duties of my profession until the middle of last year, which was the eightieth year of my life. Since then, from a partial failure in my sight, I have retired into the country, where, making allowance for my time of life, I enjoy a good share of health." (p. 281) We believe Mr. Smith's printer has here substituted 1825 for 1845; as Dr. Lambe's age is certainly nearer 80 than 100. But even if the date were correct, the example of such a Pythagorean centenarian would avail more if we did not occasionally find inveterate smokers and drinkers attain to a longevity not much inferior to this. It is a remarkable circumstance too, developed by the recent sanitary inquiries, that persons attain to an extreme old age, who have been immersed amongst agencies extremely noxious to health; some having been exposed to these all their life; some taking up their residence in the unhealthy localities after middle life. Mr. Smith next argues that a vegetable diet is protective against epidemics. His facts are of the same one-sided character as those we have previously criticised, or are stated with a carelessness that is scarcely excusable. In opposition to his assertions, we may observe that whole tribes of Indians in Mexico have been swept off by epidemics. The exemption of the negroes of the West Indies from yellow fever is confidently attributed to their use of a vegetable diet! The same remarks apply to the facts adduced in proof that a vegetable diet is conducive to personal symmetry; to the acuteness and perfection of the organs of special sense; and to real sensual pleasures and enjoyment. The case of Casper Hauser, who was fed in a dark dungeon on bread and water, is quoted as an example of the perfection of the senses induced by a vegetable diet; as if the confinement in darkness had no effect in developing the acuteness of vision, &c. observed in that individual. So also in the case of nations remarkable for their physical conformation, no account is taken of the race from which they have sprung, or of their habits. On the other hand, many of the North-American tribes, living almost exclusively on flesh, are remarkable for the fine symmetry of their persons; yet our author takes special care not to allude to them. The recommendation of a vegetable diet would not be complete, unless it were accompanied by proofs that such a diet was favorable to the government of the passions and propensities, and to the development of man's moral power. These proofs Mr. Smith boldly undertakes to give, and they are like those that have gone before: "In general," he observes, "those nations and individuals who indulge much in flesh-meat, are more licentious, ferocious, and cruel, than those who subsist on a less stimulating diet; and men noted for barbarity and violence, have an irresistible penchant for animal food, while those who are blessed with milder dispositions, and more benevolent feelings, seem instinctively to adopt a vegetable diet." This easy assumption of false facts is really amusing. The southern French and Spaniards are by no means remarkable for their gentleness: the latter form probably the most bloodthirsty nation in Europe, yet little flesh do they eat in comparison with the inhabitants of the British isles, more especially the English. In fact, Mr. Smith makes small ac |