« PreviousContinue »
that a just bodily organization is neither the object nor the consequence of intellectual culture. It is rather the gift of nature, which is saying, nearly, that it results from natural habits. In fact, it has ever been more the effect of some happy combination of fortuitous circumstances than of design or wisdom.
On the place which man holds in the scale of animated beings, all naturalists are agreed. There are those, indeed, who deem it a sort of degradation to the human species to class mankind with monkeys, apes, and baboons, and to show the analogy of his structure with that of the orang-outang. But misplaced pride and an ignorant misapprehension cannot alter the nature of things. Our very language acknowledges the reality of the analogy between the races; monkey can mean nothing but mannikin, or little man. In insisting on this analogy we limit ourselves to physical facts which are undeniable. But granting it to be perfectly correct, it does not follow that man in consequence approaches more nearly to the nature of the monkey than he does to that of the otter, except in the single circumstance of the choice of food. The monkey is not in any respect superior to the otter, or the fox, or the beaver, or any other animal. In his nobler part, his rational soul, man is distinguished from the whole tribe of animals by a boundary which cannot be passed. It is only when man divests himself of his reason, and debases himself by brutal habits, that he renounces his just rank among created beings, and sinks himself below the level of the beasts.
If the question were proposed whether man were by nature intended to walk erect, or, like the animals, upon all-fours, from the mode in which the head is united to the spine, from the narrowness of the ischiadic bones, from the structure and position of the socket of the thigh, from the whole compages of the feet, I should conclude with confidence that the erect position was the most natural to the human species. Looking upon man merely as an animal, I should likewise conclude, from the structure of the hand, the form of the mouth, the articulation of the under jaw, the teeth, the stomach, the cæcum, the colon, and the length of the intestines; from all these circumstances, I say, I should conclude, that vegetable food is that which is most natural to man.* Many, indeed, assert that man
* I have argued at some length in my “Reports on Cancer," that man is in his structure herbivorous. This appears to me to be a question of extreme importance, and I have therefore thought it might be useful to give on this subject the sentiments of a writer who has made comparative anatomy a peculiar object of his study. The following quotation is from the article " Man," in Dr. Rees's Encyclopedia, written by Mr. has a structure between that of the herbivorous and carnivorous tribes. Those who argue thus, acknowledge that we ought to Lawrence, assistant-surgeon of St. Bartholemew's Hospital. “The present seems a very proper place for considering a question that is frequently agitated on this subject, whether man approaches most nearly to the carnivorous or herbivorous animals in his structure? We naturally expect to find in the figure and construction of the teeth a relation to the kind of food which an animal subsists on. The carnivorous have very long and pointed cuspidati or canine teeth, wnich are employed as weapons of offence and defence, and are very serviceable in seizing and lacerating their prey ; these are three or four times as long as the other teeth in some animals, as the lion, tiger, etc., and constitute very formidable weapons. The grinding teeth have their bases elevated into pointed prominences, and those of the lower shut within those of the upper jaw. In the herbivorous animals these terrible canine teeth are not found, and the grinders have broad surfaces opposed in a vertical line to each other in the two jaws; enamel is generally intermixed with the bone of the tooth in the latter, and thus produces ridges on the grinding surface, by which their operation on the food is increased ; in the former it is confined altogether to the surface. For further details on this subject see MAMMALIA. The articulation of the lower jaw differs very remarkably in the two kinds of animals: in the carnivorous it can only move forward and backward ; in the herbivorous it has, moreover, motion from side to side. Thus, we observe in the flesh eaters, teeth calculated only for tearing, and subservient in part, at least, to the procuring of food as well as to purposes of defence, and an articulation of the lower jaw that procludes all lateral 'motion ; in those which live on vegetables the form of the teeth and nature of the joint are calculated for the lateral or grinding motion; the former swallow the food in masses, while in the latter it undergoes considerable comminution before it is swallowed. The teeth of man bave not the slightest resemblance to those of the carnivorous animals, except that their enamel is confined to the external surface; he possesses, indeed, teeth called canine, but they do not exceed the level of the others, and are obviously unsuited to the purposes which the corresponding teeth execute in carnivorous animals. These organs, in short, very closely resemble the teeth of monkeys, except that the canine are much longer and stronger in the latter animals. In the freedom of lateral motion, the lower jaw of the human subject resembles that of herbivorous animals. In the form of the stomach again, and, indeed, in the structure of the whole alimentary canal, man comes much nearer to the monkey than to any other animal. The length and divisions of the intestinal tube are very different, according to the kind of food employed. In the proper carnivorous animals, the canal is very short, and the large intestine is cylindrical ; in the herbivora, the former is very long, and there is either a complicated stomach or a very large cæcum and a sacculated colon. In comparing the length of the intestines to that of the body in man, and in other animals, a difficulty arises on account of the legs, which are included in the former and left out in the latter; hence the comparative length of the intestinal tube is stated at less than it ought to be in man. If allowance be made for this circumstance, man will be placed on nearly the same line with the monkey race, and will be removed to a considerable distance from the proper carnivora. Soemmerring states, that the intestinal canal of man varies from three to eight times the length of the body. (De Corp. Hum. Tab. t. 6. p. 200.) În Tyson's chimpansee of and down, and live like them upon the substances to which his instinct would direct him, and which his physical powers would enable him to collect. These would probably be in harmony, as we find them in all other animals. ror, compassion, and aversion. In a warm climate, putrefaction succeeding immediately to dissolution, dead flesh must speedily diffuse an offensive odor, and occasion insuperable loathing and disgust.
As man is devoid of all natural clothing, we must suppose him placed in the tropical regions; here the air is always of a genial warmth; the fertility of the earth is abundant, and it is confined to no particular season; and the shade of the trees would protect him from the oppression of a vertical sun. The same trees which shelter would yield the principal part of his sustenance. Thus the fruit of trees would appear to be the most natural species of diet. Rousseau says it is the most abundant; as he has convinced himself from having compared the produce of two pieces of land of equal area and quality, the one sown with wheat, and the other planted with chesnuttrees. *
But man would not confine himself to fruits, or the produce of trees; he is formed equally for climbing, and for walking on the ground ; his eye may be directed with equal ease to objects above him and on the earth. His arm has a corresponding latitude of motion.
Man must have been fed previous to the invention of any art, even the simple one of making a bow and arrows. He could not then have lived by prey, since all the animals excel him in swiftness. There is no antipathy between man and other animals which indicates that nature has intended them for acts of mutual hostility. Numerous observations of travelers and voyagers have proved that in uninhabited islands, or in other countries where animals are not disturbed or hunted, they betray no fear of men; the birds will suffer themselves to be taken by the hand; the foxes will approach him like a dog. These are no feeble indications that nature intended to live in peace with the other tribes of animals.
Least of all would instinct prompt him to use the dead body of an animal for food. The sight of it would rather excite horror, compassion, and aversion. In a warm climate, putrefaction succeeding immediately to dissolution, dead flesh must speedily diffuse an offensive odor, and occasion insuperable Toathing and disgust. '
* The bread-fruit tree appears to support the most abundant population. Dr. Forster, comparing the parts of Otaheite which are best cul tivated with those of France under the same circumstances, calculated the population, about the year 1774, to be to that of the latter nearly as seventeen to one.--Forster's Of servations, 220.
Living wholly upon vegetables without culinary preparation, our man of nature could never experience thirst. Even intense heat does not appear to excite thirst, unless it be upon bodies injured by a depraved and unnatural diet. He would have no call therefore to the use of liquids, further than as they are contained in the juices of the fruits and esculent plants which he would eat. Drinking would be needless; it is an action which does not appear suited to the natural organization of man after the infant state.
Finally, it is highly probable that man under these circumstances, considered as a mere animal, would arrive at a high degree of physical perfection; that he would have a body duly formed, and a robust frame; great vigor, great activity, and uninterrupted health. I cannot think, however, that this state is comparable to the benefits of civilization ; such an opinion is an extravagance which can be maintained only from the love of paradox and singularity. This fancied state of nature excludes the very notion of morality, and admits not of intellectual improvement, principles which form the most proud distinction of the human race.
Though this picture is in a good measure the creature of the imagination, there having been found no tribes of men who depend for their subsistence solely upon their physical powers, yet solitary examples have not been unfrequent in which individuals have really subsisted by no other means. Such are the wild men, the homines sylvestres of Linnæus, who have been found in the forests, even in Europe. In intellect these did not appear to be superior to the animals, their associates; which must have resulted from having been secluded from all converse with their species. But they were in perfect health, and possessed incredible activity. They could have used nothing but fresh vegetable food; this was the sort of food of which they were the fondest; the want of it seems to have been the principal object of their regret, and the motive for attempting to return to their accustomed mode of life, as they constantly did.
If men ever lived nearly in the manner I have described, it is obvious that this condition could not continue. Man is by nature gregarious; and has naturally both the will and the power of communicating his ideas by the inflections of his voice.