Dec. 2, 1831.] 



KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



91 



degree only. Inability to commit new matter to the 

 iiieniory witli customary facility seems as likely to be a 

 sign of niiscluef as inability to recollect matters forming 

 (ordinarily) a part of our stock of familiarly known facts. 

 Again, it is clear we need not fear that mind is necessarily 

 1,'oing astray because for a time the memory fails in slight 

 degree. Wc see that very serious failures of the power of 

 memory may occur where the brain has suffered no irre- 

 parable mischief. But since we see that nmch overwork 

 will cause serious temporary mischief of this particular 

 kind, we learn that where a slight lapse of memory is 

 noticed, the indication may l>e taken as a sign that rest is 

 needed. But there arc, as we have seen, other ways in 

 which this special [lower may come to be affected ; so that 

 if the memory should show signs of failure where we have 

 no reason to believe that overwork has caused the mischief, 

 we may infer that some one or other of the causes which, 

 as we have seen, may affect the memory seriously have 

 operated injuriously in slight degree. Nor in general need 

 we be in much doubt as to the true nature of the cause, 

 simply because we cannot fail (usually) to recognise in the 

 ■ ircumstances preceding the attack the origin of the mis- 

 ' hief. Thus, although a serious failure of the memory 

 ' onsidered apart from the circumstances preceding it might 

 Kave the pliysician in doubt whether depletion or plethora 

 (to mention two possible causes) had produced the mischief, 

 \ et the physician, apart even from an examination of the 

 patient's condition, could leam at once from him whether 



■ither of these two opposite conditions had existed before 

 tlie attack. In like manner, any person whose memory 

 •-addenly seemed weakened could, as his own physician, 

 ascertain (unles?;, indeed, his memory failed to remind him 

 how he had passed the hours or days preceding the attack) 

 whether the ujiscliief resulted from deticiency or excess in the 

 amount of food or stimulants he had previously taken, whether 

 the proper remed) would be, on the one hand, some such 

 uiedicine as a glass of wine and a chop, or, on the other 

 liand, a diminution during two or three days of the amount 



f food consumed or the avoidance of some of the more 

 imulating articles of diet. Here, however, we are con- 



■ lering rather those mental troubles which are produced 

 liy mental work, whether relating to subjects of great 

 difficulty or carried on too long. We would notice also 

 that in dealing with other indications of mental mischief 

 we need not be careful to show how the more serious cases 



'f each kind suggest the significance of the slighter and 

 fir commoner mental troubles which form our real subject 

 if inquiry ; for this reason, simply that what we have here 

 -aid about failure or loss of memory applies equally to 

 'ither signs of temporary mischief. 



MAX A FRUIT-EATER.* 



MAN'S nearest of kin among the animals is the aj)e. 

 Tliis is shown not only by those outward features 

 ' hich all can recognise, but more clearly and more cer- 

 Minly by the structure of the nervous sy.stem. The animal 

 in which this system resemljles most closely the nervous 

 system in man is the ape, and of all apes, that which comes 

 nearest to man in this respect is the orang. The brain 

 ' onvolutions, which in rodents (gnawing quadrupeds — 

 i-ats, squinels, ic.) and edentates (toothless quadru- 

 peds — ant-eaters, ground-hogs, <kc.), are very simple, 



* " The Perfect Way in Diet; a Treatise advocating a return to 

 'Jie natural and ancient fruit of onr race." By Anna Kingsford, 

 Doctor of Medicine of the Faculty of Paris. (London : Kegan Paul, 

 Trench, i Co.) 



in the flesh-eating animals are more developed, and in 

 the ajies, especially the orangs, tliey are developed still 

 more fully. '• We are authorised in concluding," says 

 Professor Mi \ art, that "the difference between the brain of 

 the orang and tliat of man, as far as yet ascertained, is a 

 difference of absolute mass ; it is a difference of degree, 

 and not of kind." 



Starting from this relationship. Miss Kingsford, in the 

 book before us, proceeds to indicate the bearing of man's 

 kinship to apes on the \ exed question of man's proper or 

 natural food. Carefully studying the entire digestive 

 apparatus of animals and men, and especially comparing 

 this apparatus in men and apes, she is led to the conclusion 

 that man approaches nearest in this respect to tho.se 

 animals whieh are eaters of fruits and herbs. " If," she 

 says, " we have consecrated to this sketch of comparative 

 anatomy and physiology a paragraph which may seem 

 a little wearisome in detail, it is because it appears 

 necessary to combat certain erroneous impressions aflecting 

 the structure of man, which obtain credence, not only in 

 the vulgar world, but even among otherwise instructed 

 persons. How many times, for instance, have we not 

 heard people speak with all the authority of conviction 

 alx)ut the 'canine teeth' and 'simple stomach' of man as 

 certain evidence of his natural adaptation for a flesh diet ? 

 At least we have demonstrated one fact, that if such 

 arguments are vaMd, they apply with even greater force 

 to the anthropoid apes — whose ' canine ' teeth are much 

 longer and more powerful than those of man — and the 

 scientists nmst make haste, therefore, to announce a recti- 

 fication of their present division of the animal kingdom in 

 order to class with tlie carnivora (flesh-eaters) and their 

 proximate species all those animals which now make up 

 the order primates (men and apes). And yet, with the 

 solitar}- exception of man, there is not one of these last 

 which does not in a natural condition refuse to feed on 

 flesh I " Pouchet says that all the details of man's 

 digestive apparatus, as well as his dentition, are proofs 

 of his frugi\orous (fruit-eating) origin. Professor Owen 

 agrees that the close analogy between apes and man 

 demonstrate his frugivorous nature. So Cu^-ier, Linnseus, 

 Lawrence, Bell, Gassendi, Flourens, and a host of other 

 authorities. 



Yet another belief is as common as it is erroneous, viz., 

 that '■ flesh food contains the elements of physical force, 

 and that to be strong, robust, and endowed with muscular 

 energy it is necessary to partake largely of animal food." 

 Yet no flesh-fed animal rivals in strength the herb-eating 

 rhinoceros, in endurance the horse, the mule or the camel. 

 A gorilla feeding on fruits and nuts is more than a match 

 for the far heavier lion. '"Tlie butt'alo, the bison, the 

 hippopotamus, the bull, the zebra, the stag, are types of 

 physical power and vast bulk, or of splendid development 

 of limb. Only in ferocity ai'e flesh-eating animals superior 

 (1) to tho.se who find their food in fruits and herbs." 



As regards man himself, the idea that the flesh-eaters are 

 the most powerful, is erroneous, as is the cognate idea that 

 to acquire strength, a man should eat daily large quantities 

 of flesh meat. " In the palmy days of Greece and Rome, 

 before intemperance and licentious li\-ing had robbed those 

 kingdoms of their glory and greatness, their sons, who were 

 not only soldiers but heroes, subsisted on simple vegetable 

 food, rj-e meal, fruits, and milk. The daily rations of the 

 Roman soldier were one pound of barley, three ounces of 

 oil, and a pint of thin w ine. It was no regimen of fle^li 

 that inspired the magniticent courage of the Spartan 

 patriots who defended the defiles of Thermopyla;, or that 

 filled with indomitable valour and enthusiasm the con- 

 querors of Salamis and Marathon." Among the nations of 



