Jan. 2, 1885.] 



♦ KNOWLEDGE ♦ 



&C.) are sinful, might be met, even in the general case, by 

 the answer that a child born into the world may possibly 

 have a quite different future ; but in particular cases the 

 probabilities are so enormously against the happier, and in 

 favour of t lie less happy, fate, that the argument ((/" (V is 

 trortfi aiii/t.hiiii/ at all) might be applied very ell'ectively, 

 at any rate, against early marriage. Be this, however, 

 as it may, it is evident that due consideration of 

 the doctrine of heredity should lead a parent, who 

 recognises his own faults in his offspring, to be very 

 careful and tender, however earnest, in his endeavour to 

 eradicate such faults. When I hear of, or see parents 

 harshly punishing their children for faidts which they 

 must hnow that they themselves po!^scss and have trans- 

 mitted to their offspring, I am inclined sometimes to 

 wonder whether they will be able to look their children in the 

 face in after year.=, when the real origin of such faults has 

 become as clear to the younger as to the older possessors of 

 them. If the younger were not, happily, much more for- 

 giving as a rule than their elders, how much might the 

 peace of families he disturbed in after years by the recollec- 

 tion of past severities inflicted by parents on children for 

 faults which would have had no existence but for the 

 parents, and which the parents .show in at least as marked a 

 degree as their offspring. And, again, how singularly 

 would the lives of young people be alFected if parents 

 considered carefully the precept, " Let him that is without 

 fault," itc. — ^'ewca^lle Wetlli/ Chronicle. 



THE CHEMISTRY OF COOKERY. 



By W. Mattieu William-s. 

 L.— TEE VEGETARIAN QUESTION. 



IX my introductory paper I said, " The fdct that we use 

 the digestive and nutrient apparatus of sheep, oxen, 

 ic, for the preparation of our food is merely a transitory 

 barbai'ism, to be ultimately superseded when my present 

 subject is sufficiently understood and applied to enable us 

 to prepare the constituents of the vegetable kingdom to be 

 as easily assimilated as the prepared grass which we call 

 beef and mutton." 



This has brought me in communication with a very 

 earnest body of men and women, who at considerable 

 social inconvenience are abstaining from fle,sh-food, and 

 doing it purely on princi[)lc. Some people sneer at them, 

 call them " crotchetty,'' "faddy," etc., but, for my own 

 part, I have a great respect for crotchetty people, having 

 learned long ago that every first great step that has ever 

 been taken in the path of human progress was denounced 

 as a crotchet by those it was leaving behind. This respect 

 is quite apart from the consideration of whether I agree or 

 disagree with the crotchets themselves. 



I therefore willingly respond to the request that I should 

 devote one short jjaper of this series to the subject. The 

 fact that there are now in London nine exclusively vege- 

 tarian restaurants, and all of them flouri.shing, shows that 

 it is one of wide interest. 



At the outset it is necessary to brush aside certain false 

 issues that are commonly raised in discussing this subject. 

 The question is not whether we are herbivorous or car- 

 nivorous animals. It is perfectly certain that we are 

 neither. The carnivora feed on flesh alone, and eat that 

 flesh raw. Nobody proposes that we should do this. The 

 herbivora eat raw grass. Nobody suggests that we should 

 follow their example. 



It is perfectly clear that man cannot be classed either 



not even to be classed 

 He stands apart from 



with the omnivorous 

 all as TiiK Cooking 



our ancestors ate 



with the carnivorous animals nor the herbivorous animals, 

 nor with the graniinivoroiia animals. His teeth are not con- 

 structed for munching and grinding raw grain, nor his 

 digestive organs for assimilating such grain in this 

 condition. 



He is 

 animals. 

 Animal. 



It is true that there was a time when 

 raw flesh, including that of each other. 



In the limestone caverns of this and other European 

 countries we find human bones gnawed by human teeth, 

 and s|ilit open by flint imiiUmcnts for the evident jmrpose 

 of extracting the marrow, according to the domestic economy 

 of the period. 



The shell mounds that these prehistoric bipeds have left 

 biihind, show that mussels, oysters, and other mollusca were 

 also eaten raw, and they doubtless varied the menu with 

 snails, slugs, and worms, as the remaining Australian savages 

 .still do. Besides these they probably included roots, succu- 

 lent plants, nuts, and such fruit as then existed. 



There are many among us who are very proud of their 

 ancient lineage, and who think it honouraVfle to go back as 

 far as possible, and to maintain the customs of their fore- 

 fathers ; but they all seem to draw a line somewhere, none 

 desiring to go as far back as to their interglacial trogloditic 

 ancestors, and, therefore, I need not discuss the desirability 

 of restoring their dietary. 



All human beings became cooks as soon as they learned 

 how to make a fire, and have all continued to be cooks 

 ever since. 



We should, therefore, look at this vegetarian que-tion 

 from the point of view of preparfd food, which excludes 

 nearly all comparison with the food of the brute creation. 

 I say " nearly all," because there is one case in which all 

 the animals that approacli the nearest to ourselves — tbe 

 mammalia — are provided naturally with a specially pre- 

 pared food, viz., the mother's milk. The composition of 

 this preparation appears to mo to throw more light than 

 anything else upon this vegetarian controversy, and yet it 

 seems to have been entirely overlooked. 



The milk prepared fi^r the young of the different animals 

 in the laboratory or kitchen of Nature is surely adapted to 

 their structure as regards natural food requirements. 

 Without assuming that the human dietetic requirements 

 are identical with either of the other mammals, we may 

 learn something concerning our approximation to one class 

 or another by comparing the competition of human milk 

 with that of the animals in question. 



I find ready to hand in Dr. Miller's "Chemistry," Vol. 

 III., a comparative statement of the mean of several 

 analyses of the milk of woman, cow, goat, ass, sheep, and 

 bitch. The latter is a moderately carnivorous animal, 

 nearly approaching the omnivorous character commonly 

 ascribed to man. The following is th-j .statement ; — 



According to this it is quite evident that nature regards 

 our food requirements as approaching much nearer to the 

 herbivora than to the carnivora, and has provided for us 

 accordingly. 



If we are to begin the building-up of our bodies on a 

 food more nearly resembling the herbivora than the carni- 



