"The ourang-outang perfectly resembles man, both in the order and number of his teeth. The ourang-outang is the most anthropomorphous of the ape tribe, all of which are strictly frugivorous. 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 to that of the ourang-outang, is greater than to that of any other animal.
"The intestines are also identical with those of herbivorous animals, which present a large surface for absorption, and have ample and cellulated colons. The cœcum also, though short, is larger than that of carnivorous animals; and even here the ourang-outang retains its accustomed similarity.
"The structure of the human frame, then, is that of one fitted to a pure vegetable diet, in every essential particular. It is true, that the reluctance to abstain from animal food, in those who have been long accustomed to its stimulus, is so great in some persons of weak minds, as to be scarcely overcome; but this is far from being any argument in its favor. A lamb, which was fed for some time on flesh by a ship's crew, refused its natural diet at the end of the voyage. There are numerous instances of horses, sheep, oxen, and even wood-pigeons, having been taught to live upon flesh, until they have loathed their natural aliment."
No one will deny that Baron Cuvier was in favor of flesh eating; but it was not because he ever believed, for one moment, that man was naturally a flesh-eating animal. Man is a reasoning animal (he argues), and intended to be so. If left to the guidance of his instincts, the same yielding to the law of his structure which would exclude flesh meats, should also exclude cookery. Or, in other words, if he is not permitted to depart from the line of life which his structure indicates, he must no more cook his vegetables than eat animal food. Besides, he is made, as Cuvier supposes, for artificial society, and the Creator designed him to improve his food; and, if I understand his reasoning, he is better able, with his present structure of teeth, jaws, stomach, intestines, etc., to make this improvement, and rise above his nature, and yield to the force and indications of reason and experience, than if he possessed any other known living structure.
To this structure, however, as well as to the same power of adaptation, the monkey race, and especially the ourang-outang, closely typo approximates. Cuvier's reasoning, in my view, applies only to the adaptability (if I may be allowed the expression) of the human animal, without deciding how far he should avail himself of his power to make changes.
DR. LUTHER V. BELL.
I have alluded, in another part of this work, to the prize essay of Dr. Bell, awarded to him by the Boylston Medical Committee on the subject of the diet of laborers in New England. Dr. Bell is a physician of respectable talents, and is at present the Physician to an Insane Hospital in Charlestown, near this city.
Dr. Bell admits, with the most distinguished naturalists and physiologists of Europe,—Cuvier, Lawrence, Blumenbach, Bell of London, Richerand, Marc, etc.,—that the structure of man resembles closely that of the monkey race; and hence objects to the conclusion to which some of these men have arrived (by jumping over, as it were), that man is an omnivorous animal. He freely allows—I use his own words—"that man does approximate more closely to the frugivorous animals than to any others, in physical organization." But then he insists that the conclusion which ought to be drawn from this similarity "is, that he is designed to have his food in about the same state of mechanical cohesion, requiring about the same energy of masticatory organs, as if it consisted of fruits, etc., alone."
But, wherefore should we draw even this conclusion, if structure and instinct prove nothing, and if we are to be governed solely by reason, without regard to structure and instinct? For my own part, I believe reason is never true reason, when it turns wholly out of doors either instinct or the indications of organization. In other words, an enlightened reason would look both to the structure and organization of man, and to a large and broad experience, for the solution of a question so important as what diet is, on the whole, best for man. And the experience of the world, both in the present and all former ages, leads me to a conclusion entirely different from that to which Dr. Bell, and those who entertain the same views with him, seem to have arrived—a conclusion which is indicated by structure, and confirmed by facts and universal experience. But this subject will be further discussed and developed in another place. It is sufficient for my present purpose, to bring testimony in favor of the safety of vegetable eating, and of the doctrine that man is naturally a vegetable and fruit-eating animal; and especially if I produce, to this end, the testimony of flesh-eaters themselves.