conclusions and acknowledge principles which do not accord with their preferences, nor correspond with their practices, the testimony merits a still higher respect,"[1]
Linnæus, one of the most celebrated naturalists that ever existed, speaking of fruit, says: "This species of food is that which is most suitable to man, which is evinced by the series of quadrupeds; analogy; wild men; apes; the structure of the mouth, of the stomach, and the hands."[2]
M. Daubenton, the associate of Buffon, and the first writer who rendered the study of Anatomy subservient to Natural History, observes:—"It is, then, highly probable that man in a state of pure nature, living in a confined society, and in a genial climate, where the earth required but little culture to produce its fruits, did subsist upon these, without seeking to prey on animals."[3]
Gassendi, in his celebrated letter to Van Helmont, says: "I was therefore contending that we do not appear to be adapted by nature to the use of flesh diet, from the conformation of the teeth; since all animals that live on land, and whom nature has formed to feed on flesh, have teeth long, conical, sharp, uneven, and with intervals between them; of which kind are lions, tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, &c. But those which are created to subsist only on herbs and fruits have their teeth short, broad, blunt, adjoining to one another, and distributed in even rows; of which sort are horses, horned cattle, sheep, goats, deer, and some others. And further, that men have received from nature teeth which are unlike those of the first class, and resemble those of the second. It is therefore probable, since men are land animals, that nature intended them to follow, in the selection of their food, not the carnivorous tribes, but those races of animals which are contented with the simple productions of the earth. Wherefore I repeat that, from the primeval and spotless institution of our nature, the teeth were destined to the mastication, not of flesh, but of fruits." "As to what relates to flesh, it is indeed true that man may be sustained on meat; but how many things does man do which are contrary to his nature! Such is the perversion of manners now, by a general contagion, ingrained into him, that he seems to have become a new creature. Hence the doctrines of morality and philosophy are directed to no other object than to recall mankind to the paths of nature, which they have abandoned."[4]
Sir Everard Home says: "While mankind remained in a state of innocence, there is every ground to believe that their only food was the produce of the vegetable kingdom."
