« PreviousContinue »
dinners. This summer I breakfasted one morning at Bangor, and travelled to Llanberis; from there I walked up Snowdon and down again to Llanberis-then along the Pass of Llanberis and on to Bethgellert, and from thence to Capel Curig; my food was a full pint of milk and Welsh home-made bread, and four apples; and at the end of the day I felt less fatigue than I often do on the Sabbath, which is my day of rest. Now I do those things with impunity which no other of my father's children dare attempt, and all yield to me the palm of health and strength. About the year 1850 my family were so impressed with the delicacy of my health that they insured my life for one thousand pounds at a very high premium; and as I protested against the high rate, my brother paid it himself for two years against my wish, and after I had positively informed him I would never refund one penny, still he sent the policy to me. I leave comments for those better acquainted with them.
Intelligence, Reports, &c.
A WORD WITH THE VEGETARIANS.
EDITOR OF "HEREFORD TIMES "-No. II.
J. E. K.
1. We have not "flung away" the arguments of the "Family Herald." When we selected the paragraph referred to for insertion in our columns, we thought it a good, compact summary of the objections to Vegetarianism; and the conspicuous failure of our correspondent to answer them is proof-as far as it goes-that we were right in our judgment. Our correspondent's long quotation from Schleiden proves nothing, except that in hot climates man lives chiefly on vegetables, for the obvious reason that heat-producing food is less required here than in cold countries.
2. Our correspondent has altogether failed to show that man, after the flood, was "made to be a Vegetarian." The distinct Divine permission to eat animal food, and the practice of the post-diluvian patriarchs, are flat contradictions of his assertion.
3. The argument that all men are unable to obtain animal food is no proof that they do not need it, or ought not to eat it if they could get it. As to the relative strength-giving power of animal and vegetable food, it ought to be sufficient to remind the writer that British navvies do the heaviest work, and they are great eaters of animal food; and in foreign countries, where they work side by side with vegetable eaters, there is no comparison in the amount of work done. The "table" proves nothing to the purpose. The organisation of man's stomach provides in a wonderful manner for the separation and rejection of nonnutritive ma ter from his food; and it is necessary for health that all parts of his constitution should be kept in action.
4. We admit nothing of the kind. So long as the earth's surface includes hundreds of millions of acres which are uncultivated, it is neither kind nor necessary to lower the diet of men in order to keep them in one spot; and we have already shown that Vegetarian diet is not the system provided by God for man in the altered circumstances caused by the fall.
5. We are not riotous eaters of flesh" any more than our correspondent is a courteous assailant. As for Newton being a Vegetarian, no proof is alleged; as for Chatterton, Shelley, or Swe lenbo g, we have no desire to resemble them, having no admiration for e ther literary fraud, or dreamy atheism, or lunacy. The stress which our Vegetarian lys upon the authority of Milton is unaccountable on the merits of the case. Even if he had succeeded in proving that the poet was a Vegetarian, instead of leaving the matter in doubt, what does it matter? Was Milton infallible, that he should be a law to us? How do we know that he was certain to be right about fle-h-eating, when we know that he was grievously wrong about the proper training of danghters, the treatment of his wives, the lawfulness of divorce, and the Arian heresy? The question is not one of poetic genius, upon which the poet of Paradise Lost must needs be an authority, but one of common sense, about which every intelligent man possesses as many-nay more means of forming a correct judgment than Milton could command.
6. Our correspondent's attempts to reply to the other objections are truly woful. Thus, for instance, we are told that, because Bloomfield says nothing about our Lord eating animal food, therefore it is a "shame" for us to quote the distinct statement of the Evangelist that He dil eat" broiled fish." So that we are actually to be bound by the silence of Bloomfield! When he attempts Greek criticism, our correspondent is altogether mistaken. We are almost ashamed to go back to one of our youthful lessons, learnt nearly thirty years ago, for the sake of explaining that the word xvos is a noun, and not a verb- the genitive case of
xous, a fish; and that it does not mean "to rush impetuously," the equivalent to which would be the middle or pas-ive voice of èpopμaw. Thus in Homer, éyxeɩ épopμáσdai, Iliad xvii. 465, and Hesiod 7pis épopμýłny, Od xi. The only shret of foundation for our correspondent's rendering is the bare possibility that ixus is derived from ovo in its second meaning, "I move along violently." Although possible, this derivation is highly improbable, the motion of a fish rather suggesting the idea of ease. It would be more reasonable to derive the word from lovs, the Ionic and Epic form of evous, straightforward, as suggested by the darting motion of a fish. As, therefore, xovos means simply "of a fish," when our Vegetarian says that it might mean a steam-engine or a horse," he utters rank nonsense. He does not perceive that his etymology, even if it were sound, would not help his argument in any way, unless he could produce beans and cabbages which are ad licte to "rus ing impetuously." His reference to ovapor is not more for unate. This word is the diminutive of oor, which originally meant boiled meat, then generally flesh, and finally a relish or con timent eaten out, i.e. late, or after the evening meal. That it means neither vegetable fod nor butter, but animal food, is shown by the anti hesis in the old Greek proverb, Oveap oor Tois ẞpeder opéyeɩ (** Gnomai Hellenikai," cap. 4, 1. 145), which we translate. "for infants the mother's breast is better than fish." "At Athens," indeed, say Liddell and Scott, "the word meant fish, the chief dainty of the Athenians;" and Schrævelius, being so unfitunate as to differ from our correspondent, actually trans ates the word by "pisciculus." Probably the word, in the time of the evangelist, had come to me in sina i fishes which were eaten with bread, as -ardines are now, the only difference being that they then formed the dessert instead of the breakfast. There is no pretence for saying that the word means buter." As to the teeth of mịn, we may here supply an omission in our last rejoinder to the Vegetarian. Writing in a hurry, we om tted to notice that the fact that man has tearing teeth which do not project beyond the line of the other t eth, and Cuvier's inference thence that man was not meant to eat flesh food aw, harmonises exactly with our argument, since it shows that man was intended to be a cooking animal, and to eat mixed food, the smaller portion of which was to be animal. As to our correspondent's denial that he "compared "man's teeth with those of animals, it is only necessary to say that, to speak of one thing being longer than another, is "comparing" them. The Vegetar an's quibbling with the plain language of Genesis ix. 3, 4, is pitiful. Of course "every moving thing that liveth must mean animals, c'ean and unclean." Does he forget that the Mosaic law, which first invented that distinction, was not promulgated for centuries after God had given man permission to eat animals? In the same wretched style does our Vegetarian nibble at the precept of the Apostle Paul. Yet he must know, if he has ever carefully read the passage, that the words, eat that which is set before you, asking no questions," distinc ly refer to animal food; and that the Apostle nowhere gives the faintest hint that he thought the food "evil" because it was flesh.
8. We appealed to the rule of nature in the case of cattle, and it is no answer to that appeal to quite monstrosities, which every one admits to be exceptions. The broad facts are that the cow's stomach was not made to digest animal food, and that man's was; to these we appealed at first, and still appeal.
9. If our correspondent is right, the unavoidable consequence is that the All-wise and Perfect Teacher was wrong. Need we remind the Vegetarian that, after partaking with llis disciples of a me in which animal food-the pa-chal lamb-was the essential element, our Lord said, "I have left you an example;" and that on another occasion he challenged his enemies with the words, Which of you convinceth (ie., convicteth) me of sin ?" If eating | an mal food were a sin, what becomes of either the example or the challenge? Does our Vegetarian rea ly mean to say that we are to believe him in preference to the Great Teacher?
We teach" that Goa has given to men permission to eat animal food as well as vegetable,
and we do eat of both moderately. Where is the inconsistency in that?
At this stage the Editor of the "Family Herald" and a carnivorous sinner, the communication of the latter is intended to be jocular but is too personal. The letter of the former is what we should expect, and being such we are confirmed in our already published decision not to cumber our columns with a notice of him or his productions.
W. G. W.'s fourth letter opens with pointing out the arguments overlooked or unanswered by the Editor. He then continues,—
4. I will give one case, and one is as good as a hundred. You started out with the assertion that all first class brains" were to be found amongst flesh eaters. Now mind "all." I adduced Milton, Newton, Chitte ton, She ley, Swedenborg, We-ly, &c., as the "first class brains," and yet they were Vegetarians. Now you tell me you do not want to resemble them. Who asked you? Who so silly as to imagine if you did want you could resemble them? Then you attack the rel gion of Shelley. What, sir, I ask, in the name of fairness and dece cy, what has the religion of Shelley to do with you? to do with the question? Take care of your own religion, and leave Shelley's religion to Him who will
judge rightly and mercifully. And pray what right have you to attach lunacy to Swedenborg? Putting aside his religious works, his scientific attainments elevate him far above any newsp per editor, perhaps even beyond their comprehension if we may judge from some late exhibisins of scientific ignorance. Now, sir, do not wander from the question; you have no roving commission to enquire into the relig on or the lunacy of any man. Had Sir Isaac Newton, had Swedenborg, had Chat erton, had Milton, had Howard, bad Shelley, had Wesley, first class brains? They hid. And they were Vegetarians. The efore the "alt" you started with, falsely coined by one Editor, and passed by you, another Editor, as good coin, is after all as false a piece as any "utterer' ever cheated the public with.
6. The French traveller Crevecour states that a North American chief in exhorting his people, the tribe of the Missisais. said-"Do you not see the whites living upon seeds, while we eat flesh? That the fle-h requires more than thirty moons to grow up, and is then often scarce? That each of the wonderful seeds they sow in the earth returns them one hundredfold? That the flesh on which we subs st has four legs to escape from us, while we can use but two to pursue and capture it? That the grains remain where the whites sow the and grow? That winter, which with us is the time for laborious hunting, to them is a period of rest? For those rea-ons have they so many children, and live longer than wed. I say, therefore, unto every one that wil hear me, that before the cedars of our village shall have died down with age, and the map e trees of the valley shall have cea el to give us sugar, the race of the little corn-sowers will have exterminated the race of the flesh-eaters, provided their huntsinen do not resolve to become sowers." I commend the eighteed wis lom of this thoughtful, yet uncivilized Indian to you for your fature government. I have not done yet with your paragraph 4. You cone ude with Vegetarianism is not the system provided by God for man in the altered ci cumstances caused by the fall,"
7. Now then, sir, the Bible says differently. We read after the fall that God again prescribes man his diet, and even then it is Vegetarian: "And thou shalte at the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return unto the ground. Genesis iii, 18, 19. For s xten hundred years after the fall we find man continued a Vegetarian. Then comes your Noachie permission, which you read to suit your app tite, acco ding to the wisdom of the belly. And then we have from Sinai the command Thou shalt not kill." Of course, your belly law would limit this to man. Pray by what authority?"The cattle u on a thousand hils are mine" said Jehovah. And when did you get th right of killing animals never given you at all for the s aughter-house? Then we have the testimony of the Bibl that God kept a whole nat on for forty years on vegetable food, and when they lusted for flesh God gave it them: "While the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the judgment of the Lord was against the peop e, and they were afflicted with a great p'ague." I have not the Sept ag`nt to refer to, but I believe the word plague is there "cholera." So much for your state nent as to the effects of the fall upon diet. Never man surely rushed into rash statements more heedlessly than you have done.
8. Your section 3 opens with the same libel upon Providence that is involved in section 4. If animal food were necessary to man, God wou d have provided it plenteously for his It is not necessary, therefore he has not provided it. As to navvies, I have travelled England over for twenty years, and know rather more about them than an editor at his de-k, and I have not found that they are great eaters of flesh. I knew a case myself in Lincolnshire, when the Great Northern railway was making, of some parties making great pr vision of flesh under such a mistake as you are labouring under, and the butchers shops had to be contracted in number, for it was found the nivvies subsiste chiefly on bread and butter. Turn to the life of Brindley, the great engineer, who presided at the birth of the class "navvy," and his testimony is that oatmeal built up their large frames and supported them. And when anything is known of chemistry, the common sense of the question is seen at Flesh is 36 6-10 hs solid matter, and 63 4 10ths water, while oatmeal 91 ports solid food and 9 parts only water. Now, sir, if you wil inquire into the chemistry of the solid part you will find further proof in favour of the Vegetarian.
12. Your 9th paragrah is a painful one. Why need you place our Lord in the a'ternative you have done? I refrain from disentangling and criticising the paragraph. It would be more humiliating to you than profitable to the public. If you, in daring rashness, wish it done, I will do it another week.
3. We do not go farther into the chymical argument for three sufficient reasons: first, the general question his been already discussed at a leng l which is (we fear) too great for the patience of our readers, and certainly exceeds the intrinsic importance of the Vegetarian hypothe-is; secondly, it has been amply treated, as our correspondent admits, by "the old bold doctors"; and thirdly, because our time is fully occupied with "more useful employ
As to the examples quoted by our Vegetarian, it is unnecessary to repeat our former criticisms. In just ficati ›n, we have only to say that we should not have noticed Shelley's atheism-which our corresponde at calls religion-if Shelley had kept it to himself; but the author of "Queen Mab "chal enged all men's attention to his opinions, which in our view de erve no quarter. As to the luncy of Swedenborg, we leave it to any candid man who wades patiently (as we have done) through the miss of metaphysical nonsense published as the works of that pretender to inspiration. Before commencing our tedious and unprofitable task, we had formed no opinion about either Swe le borg or his system, knowing him only as an ei ent mineralogist; but he re-ult was to leave us in no doubt whatever as to the fitness of the writer for Bedlam. Thus our correspondent's seven Vegetarians, "all first-class bains," may be thus correctly catalogued as to the point in dispute. Milton, doubtful; Newto. not prove; Chatterton, Shelley, Swedenborg, unworthy to be cited as authorities for anything; leaving as the so e residuum John Wesley, no doubt a great and god man, but not infallib e either on that or any other point. Having the direct exam le of our Divine Master, we do not hold oursives bound by the example of any of his followers, however eminent, where it is not in exact accordance with His.
12. The adroitness of our correspondent in wriggling out of a dilemma may be worthy of p aise, but it must be at the expense of his honesty in argument. We have twice put to him a plain questio, which inv Ives his whole theory, and we can get nothing but pions ho ror at our "daring rashness." If he prefer it in the syllogistic form we have no objection to gratity him. Thu: the eating of animal food is unwise in theory and sinful in practice; our Saviour provided animal food by miracle on several occasions for his people, and ate of it hm elf; therefore our Saviour, the All-wise and Perfect One, was mi-taken in theory and a sinner in practice. There is "daring rashness" in such a conclusion, but it is chargeable on the Vegetarian, out of whose theory the conclusion comes. It is, indeed, altogether unavoidable, if we grant the major and the minor propositions. To our view the major is fals; and so the couclusion falls to the ground; but as our Vegetarian maintains that the major is true, while we cannot deny the minor, he is bound to grapple with the conclusion. If he argue fairy he will find him-elf compelled to give up either Vegetaria isin or Christia ty. If our correspondent is not ashamed of his principles and afraid of following them to their legitimate conc usion, he will at once address him-elf to the task to which we aga n challenge him. His flourish about standing on the rock of truth" is absurd in a nan who shrinks from the logical consequences of his own system. while he vituperates all who see those consequences and reject the system on their account.
The next letter of W. G. W. was suppressed, and the controversy suddenly terminated on the ground of the violent nature of its contents. We have already expressed our regret at this feature of the discussion, though we are bound to say, looking at the fact that in the last week three other correspondents were allowed to join in the attack, our friend might be excused for turning upon the huntsmen and goring some of them. However, we are under some obligation to the editor of the Hereford Times for permitting a discussion to appear in his columus, and we have no doubt it will have served a useful purpose, though not in the way he designed it. On the whole he has maintained his cause with ability and spirit, but he manifestly feels the facts of creation are against him, and he was far more chary of approaching them than W. G. W. was of the Bible argument. In the misty land of vision there is a possibility of escape when victory is impossible.
To Readers and Correspondents.
J. D. You are quite right in selecting such farinaceous foods, fruits, &c., as contain mrst nutriment in a case of rupture of a blood-vessel. We recommend Neave's Farinaceous Food for Invalids," which has been analysed by Dr. Lethby with the following results :—". 4·9; flesh-jorming matter, gluten, &c., 136; respiratory food, starch, sugar, gum, &c., 78; saline malt r 12; cllulose, 2.3. Compared with the best descriptions of wheater flour, this ' fool is remarkable for the small proportion of moisture, and for the large amounts of the three principal constituents, namely, the flesh forming matter, the respiratory matter and the
We are obliged to several correspondents for articles and information, which must, however, be
All Communications for the DIETETIC REFORMER should be addressed to the Secretary, the
ALEXANDER IRELAND & Co., Printers, Pall Mall Court, Manchester.
THE question of HUMAN DIET is one that is happily receiving increased attention, and a more searching and scientific investigation, than at any former period. In the Journal of the Statistical Society for September, 1863, we find an able and very elaborate paper on "Sufficient and Insufficient Dietaries, with especial Reference to the Dietaries of Prisoners." The article is from the pen of Dr. W. A. Guy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, King's College, London, Medical Superintendent to the Prison at Millbank, and one of the Honorary Secretaries of the Statistical Society, London. It had been previously read before the Statistical Society, and it bears the marks of careful preparation, extensive research, and close observation. Dr. Guy writes like a man who can and dare think for himself; and who honestly aims to find out the truth; and having found it, is not afraid to state it, even though it may run counter to many popular prevailing conceptions.
We should be glad, if our space would permit us, to quote the bulk of the article extending over upwards of forty pages; but as that is not convenient, we must content ourselves with some copious extracts, referring our readers who wish to peruse the entire statement, to the pages of the Statistical Journal.
Dr. Guy remarks very justly:-"If the most distinguished of our chemists, physiologists, and physicians, were asked, each for himself, to prescribe a fitting diet for an individual of a given sex and age, the task would not be found an easy one." And again he observes:-"The elementary constituents of a wholesome diet, and the proportions in which they ought to be blended, are much better understood than the quantities necessary to the support of life and health.”
Having pointed out the inherent difficulties of the subject he had undertaken to examine, Dr. Guy says:-"I shall begin by seeking to throw some light upon it from the researches of science; then proceed to place myself under the direct teaching of experience; and conclude by giving some account of our existing prison dietaries."
Under the head of "Scientific Considerations" occur the following passages relating to milk as a nourishing element of primary importance in human diet:
For one or two years, and in some cases longer, nature nourishes and builds up the frame of the infant, by the milk of the mother, which may be described as an emulsion consisting of a certain quantity of solid elements, intimately mixed up with about eight times their weight of water. The researches of the chemist have shown that this solid portion consists of less than half its bulk of saccharine matter, more than a third of its bulk of the matter of cheese, somewhat more than a quarter of its bulk of oil or butter, with about one hundredth part of mineral substances, of which by far the larger proportion consists of phosphate of lime. The cheese, the mineral matters, and part of the butter supply he solid structures, while the sugar and the rest of the butter keep the body warm by their combustion. It is worthy of a passing remark that the milk of herbivorous animals is sometimes