81 s CAR 
animals. Pythagoras and his followers looked on it as a 
great impiety, and ftrictly abftained from all flelh, from 
the notion of a metempfychofis; and their fuccenTors, the 
Bramins, continue the fame to this day. The confidera- 
tion Gaffendus chiefly infills on, why man fhould not be 
Carnivorous, is the ftrudure and conformation of our teeth, 
the mod of them being either incifores or molares, not 
fuch as carnivorous animals are furniflied with, proper to 
tear flefli, except the four canir.i; as if nature had rather 
prepared uS for cutting herbs, roots, &c. than for eating 
meat. To which may be added, that, when we do feed on 
flefli, it is not without preparatory codion, by boiling, 
roafting, &c. And even then, as Dr. Drake obferves, it 
is the hardeft of digeftion ot all other foods, and is prohi¬ 
bited in fevers, and many other diflempers: and laftly, 
that children are rather averfe to animal food till their 
palates become vitiated by cuflom; and the breeding of 
worms in them is generally afcribed to the top hafty eating 
of flelh. To thefe arguments Dr. Wallis fubjoins another, 
which is, that all quadrupeds which feed on herbs or 
plants, have a long colon, with a coecum at the upper end 
of it, or fomewhat equivalent, which conveys the food, by 
a long and large progrefs, from the ftomach downwards, 
in order to its flower paflage, and longer flay in the intef- 
tines ; but that in carnivorous animals, fuch coecum is 
wanting, and inllead thereof there is a more fliort and lien- 
der gut, and quicker paflage through the inteltines. Now, 
in man, the coecum is very vifible : a llrong prefumption 
that nature, who is confident with herfelf, did not intend 
him for a carnivorous animal. It is true, the caecum is 
but fmall in adults, and feems of little or no life; but in 
a foetus it is much larger in proportion, and it is proba¬ 
ble, our cultomary change of diet, as we grow up, may 
occafioti this (bl inking. 
To the arguments ufed by Dr.Wallis and others, to prove 
that man is not naturally carnivorous, Dr.Tyfon anfwers, 
that, if man had been defigned by nature not to be carni¬ 
vorous, there would doubtlefs have been found (omewhere 
in the globe people who do not feed on flelh ; and, as hif- 
tory feems not to furnifh any inlfance thereof, may not we 
iay, that what is done univerfally by the whole fpecies is 
natural? For what the Pythagoreans did in abltaining 
from flefli, was on the principle of a tranfmigration, a mif- 
take in their philofophy,not a law of nature: and, though 
in fome countries men feed more fparinglyon flelh than in 
others, this is owing to their own choice, from the advan¬ 
tage they perceive by it. He adds, that carnivorous ani¬ 
mals are not always w ithout a colon and coecum ; nor are 
all animals carnivorous which have thofe parts; but that 
the carigueya, or opofliim, for inftance, has both a colon 
and a coecum, yet feeds on poultry and other flelh ; where¬ 
as the hedge-hog has neither colon nor coecum, and there¬ 
fore ought to be carnivorous, yet feeds only on vegetables ; 
add, that hogs, which have both, will feed greedily on 
flelh, w hen they can get it; and that rats and mice, which 
have large coeca, feed on bacon, as well as on bread and 
cheefe. And, from the multitude of carnivorous animals 
which want thofe parts, and of non-carnivorous which 
have one or both, no abfolute conclufion can be drawn; 
fince we might as well argue, that becaufe the neat-kind, 
flag-kind, goat-kind, and flieep-kind, which live on her¬ 
bage, have four ftomachs, therefore all thofe which have 
not four flomachs were not defigned by nature to be gra¬ 
minivorous ; whereas the horfe-kind and hare-kind have 
but one ftomach, yet feed ongrafslike the former: add, 
that in many animals which live on the fame fort of food, 
the ftrudure of the ftomach is found very different; and 
that in others, which live on different foods, e.g. on flelh, 
on fruits, on grafs, &c. the ftomachs are found fo like, that 
it is difficult to affign any difference between them ; and 
if we cannot make a judgment what food is molt natural 
from the ftrudure of its ftomach, which is the part mod 
concerned in djgefting it, much lefs can we judge from 
the colon or coecum, which are parts remote from the ffo- 
nuch, and feem rather as a cloaca for the reception of the 
CAR 
faeces, than of ufe for digefting or diftributing the food. 
In fine, lince man has all manner of teeth, fit for the pre¬ 
paration of all forts of food, fhould it not rather feem that 
nature intended we fhould live on all ? And, as the alimen¬ 
tary dud in the human-kind is fitted for digefting all forts 
of food, may we not rather conclude that nature did not 
intend to deny us any ? Phil.Tranf. No. 269, p.775. Abr. 
vol. v. p. 10. 
CAR'NO, a river of Wales, which runs into the Se¬ 
vern, in Montgomery (hire. 
CARNOE'T, or Cap.net, a town of France, in the 
department of the North Coaft, and chief place of a can¬ 
ton, in the diftrid of Roftrenen ; containing about 1100 
inhabitants : fix leagues fouth-vvell of Guingamp. 
C ARNO'SJTY,y. [ carnojue , Fr.] Flefiiy excrefcence. 
—By this method, and by this courle of diet, with fudo- 
rifics, the ulcers are healed, and that carnofity refolved. 
Wifeman .—This term is ufed by fome authors for a little 
flelhy excrefcence, tubercle, or wen, formed in the ure¬ 
thra, the neck of the bladder, or penis, which hinders the 
paflage of the urine. Thefe caruncles, however, have been 
demonftrated in few if any inftances by difledion ; and 
Mr. Hunter abfolutely denies their exiftence. 
CARNOT' (Louis Nicolas Margueritte), one 
of the leaders of the French revolution, was born at Nolas, 
in Burgundy, on the 13th of May 1753. His family was 
conlidered as one of the mod ancient in tlie place ; but it 
was neither rich nor illuftrious, as appears by the profef- 
fion of his father, who was an advocate. The Ion at an 
early period of life entered into the corps of engineers, 
and devoted his time alternately to the fciences and belles- 
lettres. He was fuccefsful in both. The mathemati¬ 
cal eflays that he publifhed, procured him his aggrega¬ 
tion to feveral learned focieties ; his panegyric ot mar- 
Ihal Vaubah, which obtained the prize at the academy of 
Dijon, was remarkable for the force and purity ol the 
ftyle; while feveral of liis fugitive pieces of poetry were 
written with a fpirit and delicacy that would not have dif- 
honoured the pen of Tibullus or Anacreon. The rank of 
a captain of engineers, would probably have been the only 
reward of thefe verfatile talents, if the revolution had not 
happened, and carried him fucceffively into the legiflative 
aflembly, the national convention, and the famous com¬ 
mittee of public welfare. When he was defied a mem¬ 
ber of the latter, the republican armies were grown familiar 
with difgrace, and the iron frontier of France pierced to 
its centre. The war loon after aflumed a very different 
afped. In the campaigns of 1793 and 1794, the vail and 
profound plans in which the French armies aded, the re¬ 
gularity of their progrefs, and the art with which their 
movements were combined, afitoniftied all the nations of 
Europe. They wondered what foul it was that infpired 
thefe mighty maflfes of men with an uniform fpirit, and 
urged them on to confentaneous adion. It was Carnot, 
who, in a committee-room at Paris, broke the ranks and 
the league of the ednfederate powers, juft as Archimedes, 
from his clofet in Syracufe, icattered death and deftruc- 
tion among the Roman legions, and let all their boafted 
tadics and difcipline at nought. Nor was Carnot merely 
the guide of the French commanders. He fometimes vied 
in intrepidity with the braved foldiers, and more than once 
contributed by his prefence to turn the fcale of vidory. 
He was at the battle of Maubeuge ; and commanded one 
of the columns which carried the poll of Wattignies. 
The reign of Carnot, however, was not long. Sufped- 
ed of favouring a party in the legiflative body which aim¬ 
ed at the reftoration of royalty, lie was involved in their 
profeription, and in the decree by which they were con¬ 
demned to tranfportation without a trial. The latter 
circumftance renders it impoffible to judge of the full me¬ 
rits of His cafe. The molt probable fuppofition feems to be, 
that Carnot did not fee a neceflity for the violent proceed¬ 
ings of the diredory, and that his moderation was con- 
ftrued into guilt. He was not taken into cuftody with his 
colleague Barthelemy, and with the fuppofed confpirators 
