a pop visit ought not to pretend to.* But if we could lay down specific rules, as to the kind and quality, and also the time of taking food, there would be two grand obstacles in the way of accomplishing our object: 1. They are not always. under our control. 2. Few have moral courage enough to war against appetite and adopt them, even when they commend themselves to their judgment.

"But alas, these are subjects on which there's no reasoning;
For you'll still eat your goose, duck, or pig,t with its seasoning;

And what is far worse-notwithstanding its huffing,

You'll make for your hare and your veal a good stuffing.

And I fear if a leg of good mutton you boil,

With sauce of vile capers that mutton you'll spoil;
And though, as you think, to preserve good digestion,
A mouthful of cheese is the best thing in question,
In Gath do not tell it, nor in Askalon blab it,

You're strictly forbidden to eat a Welsh rabbit."

* I never yet met with any person of common sense (except in acute illness), whom I did not think much fitter to choose for himself than I was to determine for him.-Dr. Heberden.

+ Nothing is more common than for people to take (because advised by the doctor) a rasher of broiled or fried bacon for breakfast to cure the heartburn. (See Appendix, F.) The practice is almost too absurd to be reasoned upon. We have induced several to abandon it, with good effect. For though a small portion may not do much harm to persons who have to go to plough, or to thrash in the barn all day, to studious and sedentary persons, who have little exercise and fresh air, it must be injurious. But we are told that working men, who are the most healthy class of the community, eat bacon and pork. We ask how much of it? Not so much per month as some eat in a day; besides the fact, that they often work from twelve to sixteen hours per day in the pure open air, by means of which, and the perspiration, they throw off its noxious particles.

CHAPTER VI.

ON SOLID FOOD.

If a regular and reasonable mode of life be of such importance to the healthy and robust, how much more essential must it be for weakly persons and invalids! We are justified in asserting, that no cure can be effected without a suitable and natural diet.*-DR. WEISS.

ALL solid food is either of animal or vegetable origin; and difference of opinion prevails as to whether of the two, or an admixture of both, be best adapted to the constitution of man. As we do not wish to lead our readers blindfold-because we believe in the force of truth-we will lay before them the substance of what has been said on both sides of the question, in order that they may judge for themselves, as we have.†

In favor of animal food, it has been asserted that it is more allied to our nature, and more easily assimilated to its nourishment; that it is highly favorable to corporeal exertion; that

*The choice and measures of the materials of which our bodies are composed, and what we take daily by pounds, is at least of as much importance as what we take seldom, and only by grains and spoonfuls.— Dr. Arbuthnot.

†The author was, in part, a carnivorous animal when he commenced these sheets, but became wholly an herbivorous and frugivorous one before he had finished them. Magna est veritas!

Are not the Irish, who live almost exclusively on potatoes and buttermilk, as strong as any race of men in Europe? It is notorious that they are vigorous, even to a proverb; so that if a man remarkable for the large ness of his limbs be exhibited in London, it is ten to one but he comes from the sister kingdom. We find also, in Ulloa's book on South America, that men may be abundantly sustained on vegetables. He tells us that "instances are common," on that continent, "of persons in good health at one hundred and thirty or forty years of age." The habits of the Spaniards are very different from ours. And we are told by travelers, that it is astonishing what a distance a Spanish attendant will accompany, on

we can subsist upon it much longer without becoming hungry; and because it consists of parts which have already been digested by the proper organs of an animal, it only requires solution and mixture, whereas vegetable food must be converted into the substance of an animal nature by the proper action of our own viscera, and therefore requires more labor of the stomach, and other digestive organs.* (See Appendix, G.) For these reasons it is said the dyspeptic, the bilious, and the nervous, whose organs of digestion are weak, find in general animal food the most suitable; that men inhabiting northern regions, where the system is liable to be weakened, and even exhausted, by extreme temperature, and especially by the depressing agency of cold, a large quantity of animal food is required, as being more stimulating and invigorating. It is also said, that considered anatomically, man is evidently designed to live on animal food, at least in parts. And lastly, it is argued that na

foot, a traveler's mule or carriage-not less than forty or fifty miles a day -raw onions and bread being his only fare.

* Dr. Cheyne has combated this notion, and asserts that the jelly—the juices or chyle of animal substances-is infinitely more tenacious and gluey (vide "Memoirs of the Academy Royal," for 1729 and 1730), and its last particles more closely united, and separated with greater difficulty, than those of vegetable substances. The flesh of animals, I say, must with far greater difficulty be digested and separated. As a proof of which, is it not said in favor of animal food, that a person can go longer on it than he can on vegetables? Yes! because the former is not so easily or so soon digested, or cleared off the stomach.

This is, perhaps, the best reason of the whole, if it be applied to cases in an extremely cold climate. (See Appendix, H.) Hence the Russian will consume his three pounds of tallow, and three quarts of train oil per day, which contain about sixty per cent. of carbon-and which is also about the per centage of fat bacon and ham.

This is a most unfortunate argument in favor of animal food, because the reverse is notoriously the fact. Comparative anatomy teaches us that man resembles frugivorous and herbivorous animals in every thing, and carnivorous animals in nothing; he has neither claws wherewith to seize or hold his prey, nor distinct and pointed teeth, to tear the living fibre, as is the case with the lion, tiger, wolf, dog, cat, etc.; the vulture, owl, hawk, etc. It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culi

ture seems to have provided other animals for the use of man, from the astonishing increase of some sorts.*

Against a vegetable diet it has been argued, that it has a constant tendency to sourness; is not so easily assimilated to our nature; distends the stomach by the quantity of air which it contains, and which is extricated or let loose by the warmth of the stomach; that it does not contain so large a proportion of nutriment, and is not, therefore, so nutritious and invigorating as animal food; and that vegetables of the pulse kind are liable to strong objections as articles of diet by civil

nary preparations, that it is rendered susceptible of mastication and digestion, and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horus do not excite intolerable loathing and disgust. The orang-outang perfectly resembles man, both in the order and number of his teeth, and is the most anthropomorphous of the ape tribe, which are strictly frugivorous. This animal, which lives on fruits and vegetables, is so vigorous, that when first taken it requires half a dozen men to hold him. Formerly those who had the care of them in menageries, etc., fed them on flesh, from which they have now ceased, or nearly so, because it rendered them gross and shortened their lives. 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 and that of the "Man of the Woods," is greater than that of any other animal. The intestines are also identical with those of herbivorous animals, which presents a large surface for absorption, and have ample and cellulated colons. The cæcum also, though small, is larger than that of carnivorous animals; and even here, the orang-outang retains its accustomed similarity. See more on this subject in Cuvier, Lecons d'Anat. Comp. tom. iii. etc. Rees, Cyclop.. Man.

*So large is the increase of pigeons, that in the space of four years 14,760 may come from a single pair; and in the same time, 1,274,840 from a pair of rabbits. But it should be remembered, that the increase of animals, as also the production of a certain amount of any kind of vegetable food, depends, to a large extent, on the will of man. Hence we sometimes obstruct this increase.

+ This is true of cabbage, greens, etc., which are fit, as articles of diet, for cows, pigs, etc. Nevertheless, this distension of the stomach, to some extent, is essential.

From analyses by experienced chemists-such as MM. Percy, Van

ized man,* as being very indigestible, at least to all but the robust, etc. (See Appendix, I.)

On the other hand, it has been argued in favor of a vegetable diet, and against animal food, that in temperate climates, like ours, an animal diet is more wasting than a vegetable, because it excites, by its stimulating properties, a temporary fever after each meal made of it, by which the springs of life are urged into constant preternatural and weakening exertion; that persons who live chiefly on animal food are subject to determination of blood to the head, to corpulency, and to various acute and fatal disorders, as the scurvy, malignant ulcers, inflammatory fevers, etc.; and that there appears in this mode

guielin, etc.—it is found that the proportion of nutritious matter, in some of the most common human aliments, is as follows:

*Not so, then, it seems to the man of nature, who only eats to answer the demands of nature, and not merely to gratify his appetite.

+ If adopting a vegetable diet should occasion considerable paleness and shrinking of features for a time, it is no bad sign, and is not essential to the system, as young children who are so brought up have a fine color in the second year, and enjoy perfect health and considerable strength. Nor should such paleness, etc., excite our apprehension, since the vessels being less loaded, it is thus the determination of blood to the head is prevented.