"We are not surprised, however, that the Vegetarian system,
when first presented to the attention of a flesh-consuming com-
munity, should be considered unworthy of serious attention ;
though the disadvantage of this can but be momentary with all
who remember the history of opinion in all times, and that the
greatest and most important troths, whether in relation to mind
or matter, have invariably had to pass through an ordeal thus
raised by the unreasoning adherents to the practices and habits
of thought most prevalent at the time. Thus our views may
well support a little surprise or merriment in t>he uninformed ;
and the more so, since there are few cases where attention is
brought to bear upon the system in which impressions in its
favour are not produced.
It is singular, though fortunate for the treatment of this ques-
tion, that some of the strongest arguments in relation to external
evidence are deduced in support of our system from the im-
partial examination of facts supposed to constitute some of the
strongest popular objections, and such as are, in the first in-
stance, commonly directed against it. We purposed that our
exposition of the system should, as much as possible, be shaped
by the nature of the objections raised in the minds of individuals
in their opposition to the practice of Vegetarianism ; and thus
we shall address ourselves to several of the strong points which
have hitherto ui)held the practice of consuming the flesh of
animals as food.
The anatomical and physiological strocture of the human frame
is usually considered to present a powerful argument in support
of a mixed diet, in relation to the character of the teeth and iutes-
* Thomaou’s “ Spring,” 1, 223.
4
INTRODUCTION.
tinal canal. The supposed seientific reason for the consumption
of flesh is more generally presented than any other ; and the
statement that man has got an arrangement of teeth intermediate
between those of the herbivora on the one hand, and the carnivora
on the other, has led to the strange conclusion that man was des-
tined to eonsume both flesh and vegetable produets ; the strength
of the argument depending on a eomparison of the teeth and the
intestinal eaual of man, with those of the herbivora and carnivora,
to the latter of which they -have been said most to approximate.
ilen are prone, in their examination of this question, in which
appetite is coneerned, to attempt to reason from their likings
and practice, instead of taking nature alone as theii’ standard,
and being ready, in the impartial view of the faets she presents,
to convict themselves, in case of need, of having departed from
the natural and best food of man. It is quite true, that the in-
ternal structure, and the teeth of man, indicate that he is an
animal different, and intermediate in his conformation, in most
respects, to the classes of animals consuming herbage only on
the one hand, and flesh solely on the other. But whilst the
mistaken process of measuring man from the crown of the head
to the feet has been resorted to, by way of comparison as to
the proportionate length of the intestinal canal with those of
the two tribes of animals above mentioned, which are measured
from the head to the termination of the spine only (thus making
him approximate in the physiological structure to the condition
of the flesh-eating animals), the broad fact has been altogether
overlooked, that, taking man as
Page 2
Presented as published in 1891. Historical recipes may not meet modern food-safety standards. Cook from the modern interpretation, not the original instructions.
AI-modernized reading of the original text
"We are not surprised, however, that the Vegetarian system, when first presented to the attention of a flesh-consuming community, should be considered unworthy of serious attention ; though the disadvantage of this can but be momentary with all who remember the history of opinion in all times, and that the greatest and most important troths, whether in relation to mind or matter, have invariably had to pass through an ordeal thus raised by the unreasoning adherents to the practices and habits of thought most prevalent at the time. Thus our views may well support a little surprise or merriment in the uninformed ; and the more so, since there are few cases where attention is brought to bear upon the system in which impressions in its favour are not produced.
It is singular, though fortunate for the treatment of this question, that some of the strongest arguments in relation to external evidence are deduced in support of our system from the impartial examination of facts supposed to constitute some of the strongest popular objections, and such as are, in the first instance, commonly directed against it. We purposed that our exposition of the system should, as much as possible, be shaped by the nature of the objections raised in the minds of individuals in their opposition to the practice of Vegetarianism ; and thus we shall address ourselves to several of the strong points which have hitherto ui)held the practice of consuming the flesh of animals as food.
The anatomical and physiological structure of the human frame is usually considered to present a powerful argument in support of a mixed diet, in relation to the character of the teeth and intestinal * Thomaou’s “ Spring,” 1, 223.
tinal canal. The supposed scientific reason for the consumption of flesh is more generally presented than any other ; and the statement that man has got an arrangement of teeth intermediate between those of the herbivora on the one hand, and the carnivora on the other, has led to the strange conclusion that man was destined to consume both flesh and vegetable produets ; the strength of the argument depending on a comparison of the teeth and the intestinal canal of man, with those of the herbivora and carnivora, to the latter of which they -have been said most to approximate.
ilen are prone, in their examination of this question, in which appetite is concerned, to attempt to reason from their likings and practice, instead of taking nature alone as theii’ standard, and being ready, in the impartial view of the faets she presents, to convict themselves, in case of need, of having departed from the natural and best food of man. It is quite true, that the internal structure, and the teeth of man, indicate that he is an animal different, and intermediate in his conformation, in most respects, to the classes of animals consuming herbage only on the one hand, and flesh solely on the other. But whilst the mistaken process of measuring man from the crown of the head to the feet has been resorted to, by way of comparison as to the proportionate length of the intestinal canal with those of the two tribes of animals above mentioned, which are measured from the head to the termination of the spine only (thus making him approximate in the physiological structure to the condition of the flesh-eating animals), the broad fact has been altogether overlooked, that, taking man as