46o POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ing. Now it was, that, being on some occasion made ashamed of my ignorance 

 in figures, which I had twice failed learning when at school, I took Crocker's 

 book on Arithmetic, and went through the whole by myself with the greatest 

 ease. (Sparks's 'Life of Franklin,' p. 19). 



The early literature of the vegetarian movement in this country 

 indicates a greater tendency toward the substitution of arguments 

 based on scientific observation in place of purely sentimental consid- 

 erations than do the trans- Atlantic publications of similar date. It 

 must not be inferred from this statement, however, that visionary and 

 unscientific doctrines were wanting. Evidence to the contrary is 

 readily available. In 1833 the Boylston Medical Committee of Har- 

 vard University offered a prize for the best dissertation on the follow- 

 ing question : ' What diet can be selected which will ensure the greatest 

 probable health and strength to the laborer in the climate of jSTew Eng- 

 land? quantity and quality, and the time and manner of taking it, to 

 be considered.' The prize was awarded to Dr. Luther V. Bell, whose 

 essay (1836) may still be read with interest. The status of the prop- 

 aganda against flesh-eating as summarized by him is quoted here, 

 since it indicates how similar have been the personal characteristics 

 and motives of the vegetarian advocates in the most widely separated 

 localities. Bell wrote: 



Some extraordinary, and to the improfessional class, doubtless novel, views 

 in regard to diet were broached and have since been pressed upon attention, 

 and that too by at least some men of scientific reputation, ingenious lecturers 

 and individuals who from weight of personal character, or their position before 

 the public, possess no limited influence. They have persuaded themselves, and 

 labored hard to proselyte to their owai faith, that the use of animal food in all 

 its forms and varieties, is a custom, unnatural, injurious to bodily health, and 

 even prejudicial to intellectual and moral sanity; — a custom at once unneces- 

 sary and inexpedient. How far, or how durably, they may have impressed the 

 public with their views, time only can show; at present it need only be said, 

 that such effect has at least been produced, as to raise a laudable curiosity and 

 wish for the truth, in the minds of many, deserving to be gratified. 



Bell adds the following interesting remarks: 



Their views are by no means new or original. They date their origin at 

 least as far back as the ancients, and they have been received in every century 

 from the time of Pythagoras to the days of the philosopher of Geneva (Rous- 

 seau). "It is not intended to deny the right of ingenious men to propose 

 innovations, and it is a fortunate circumstance that the public is as much too 

 slow in coming into a practical acknowledgment of new truths, as men of 

 erratic and visionary genius are too sanguine in promulgating and inculcating 

 new hypotheses. It is dangerous to unsettle long established truth, for it is 

 difficult to limit the extent of error. The gratification of a morbid desire to 

 be distinguished as the propagator of new principles in philosophy, or as the 

 head of a new sect, is not the only result to be expected from such heresies. 

 New opinions or doctrines, whether true or false, will have admirers and 

 followers, and will lead to practical results, and the errors of one man may 

 lead thousands into the same vortex." (Bell, 'A dissertation on the Boylston 

 prize question for 1835,' pp. 6-7.) 



