animal matter, so long as there remains a prevalence of those appearances which denote the insane orgasm. It also can be ascertained that, on the first establishment of the institution, when the number within its walls was far inferior to the present, and when of course the funds were more competent, and the regular allowance of animal food stood for once a week, that then, in like manner, the effect among the insane was precisely what it now is known to be, when produced by a similar cause, at two or three festivals within the year.' This evidence is highly important, whether considered either negatively or positively. We will examine it in each point of view. First, it affords very decisive evidence (if it were wanting) that avoiding animal food and fermented liquors will neither prevent nor cure insanity. Such was the customary diet of the great body of these patients; and though the abuse of distilled spirits is assigned as having an active share in the increased frequency of insanity, it is neither pretended, nor is it all likely, that this abuse was universal. Pinel has related the case of a young man, "an inflexible disciple of Pythagoras in his system of diet," whe became subject, first to deep hypochondriacism, and, finally, to total insanity. In no long time he died. On this point, then, there can be no doubt; and insanity must be reckoned among the diseases which cannot be avoided, much less cured, by the strictest adherence to the established rules of temperance and abstinence from animal food. But it is equally clear, on the other hand, that both the use of animal food, and still more of fermented liquors, aggravates and exasperates the disease. On this point the evidence of Dr. Hallaran is decisive; and it ought to be attended to in our English establishments, and a proper practice enforced by law. In all of them both the one and the other are allowed to a large extent, and in some with little or no restriction. I myself have seen a lunatic, a gross, fat man, in one of our largest private establishments, with boiled beef, porter, and a bottle of wine before him. It is high time that these abuses should be done away. Probably many might be restored to reason without * Dr. William Saunders Hallaran, on Insanity, p. 93, etc. I have seen the facts related by Pinel on the deplorable consequences of a scanty and insufficient nutriment on the patients of the Bicetre, cited in opposition to Dr. Hallaran's testimony. (See Pinel on Insanity, p. 209.) But the mischiefs described by Pinel were not from farinaceous food, but from a deficient quantity of any kind. Indeed, he says expressly, that the reduction which took place, and which did so much mischief to the poor people, was in the daily allowance of bread. any further measure than a strict enforcement of temperance and abstinence. All certainly can not. There can be no doubt, then, that animal food is unfavorable to the intellectual powers. In some measure this effect is instantaneous, it being hardly possible to apply to any thing requiring thought after a full meal of meat; so that is has been not improperly said of the vegetable feeders, that with them it. is morning all day long. But its effect is not confined to the immediate impression. As well as the senses, the memory, the understanding, and the imagination, have been observed to improve by a vegetable diet. Notwithstanding those palpable and well-known observations, I see it is asked, in a tone of triumph, Whether it is possible that the species of food which has formed a Fox and a Pitt, can be unfavorable to the production of talent? Why did not the writer (see Dr. Rees's Encyclopedia, Article Man) who has used this argument carry it to its full extent, and prove that a plentiful use of the bottle does not injure the intellect? For it is well known that one of those illustrious men indulged very freely in his daily potations; nor was the other, I believe, remarkable for his temperance. But was it ever asserted that the use of animal food absolutely extinguished talent, and reduced all men to idiotcy? or that it affected all alike, so that no difference of talent can be observed among those who use it? Animal food, it is obvious, excites and stimulates for a time the whole nervous system; and as some under its influence are able to perform prodigious feats of strength, so others may, perhaps, be excited to intellectual exertions equally gigantic. But such phenomena do not prove that animal food promotes either healthy strength, or healthy intellect.* I think it might be asked, with much more reason, how happens it that the families of the whole body of the British nobility could produce but one Fox and one Pitt to head the conflicting parties of our senate? how happens it that the same body has produced not one man, no, not one, who is the acknowledged inheritor of the talents of these illustrious statesmen? one; though the prize of successful exertion is the most splendid that can be proposed to honorable ambition-the offices, the dignities, and honors of the first empire of the world. Not *The habits of Milton, it is said, were what would be ordinarily termed austere. He was abstemious in diet, chaste, an early riser, and industrious. He tells us that a lyrist may indulge in wine and a freer life, but that he who would write an epic to the nations must eat beans and drink water.-S. Surely, a stronger proof cannot be given of the baleful and depressing effects of luxury upon the human character; how much it benumbs the faculties and stifles the embryo genius; how much it emasculates the spirit, and paralyzes the best energies of body and mind. I do not doubt that the great ornament of our island, our immortal Shakspeare, ate flesh daily. Nor do I see what this proves but that among all the flesh eaters the genius of Shakspeare was the most transcendent. But he, who understood human nature the best perhaps of all the sons of men, was not ignorant that luxury debased the intellect: for he said. "Fat paunches have lean pates; and dainty bits No one is ignorant that an increased portion of animal food is often prescribed in disease, as is asserted, with great success. I have already remarked upon what I deem this great abuse, and the fallacy by which it is commonly supported. I shall defer what I have to say of its alleged use in scrofula to another part of these papers; and shall here content myself with some observations on its supposed utility in diabetes, and one or two other cursory observations. The treatment of this disease by a rigid abstinence from vegetables is said to have been first suggested by Dr. Home; but the practice was introduced by Dr. Rollo, with the assistance of Mr. Cruikshank, at Greenwich Hospital, about the year 1796. Dr. Rollo professed to have cured one case by this method, but in a second of longer standing he failed. However, the practice was for a time universally imitated, and various examples of its efficacy have been given. Many examples of its failure have also occurred. The method of treatment has been extolled by some as a most important discovery. One of Dr. Rollo's friends pronounced it to be "another triumph to the pneumatic physicians, which blends with it relief to human misery hitherto incurable." Dr. Latham has also spoken of it in his treatise on diabetes, in language equally warm. It must be observed, however, that various examples of this disease being cured or subsiding spontaneously have been related by medical writers; and the methods employed have been occasionally the very opposite to this used by Dr. Rollo. Willis, who was the first that observed the sweetness of the urine in this disease, relates the case of the nobleman who recovered from it two or three times by a milk diet, and the use of some any further measure than a strict enforcement of temperance and abstinence. All certainly can not. There can be no doubt, then, that animal food is unfavorable to the intellectual powers. In some measure this effect is in stantaneous, it being hardly possible to apply to any thin requiring thought after a full meal of meat; so that is has bee not improperly said of the vegetable feeders, that with them is morning all day long. But its effect is not confined to t' immediate impression. As well as the senses, the memory, t understanding, and the imagination, have been observed improve by a vegetable diet. 7 Notwithstanding those palpable and well-known observati I see it is asked, in a tone of triumph, Whether it is poss that the species of food which has formed a Fox and a can be unfavorable to the production of talent? Why did the writer (see Dr. Rees's Encyclopedia, Article Man) whe used this argument carry it to its full extent, and prove t plentiful use of the bottle does not injure the intellect? is well known that one of those illustrious men indulged freely in his daily potations; nor was the other, I believ markable for his temperance. But was it ever asserte the use of animal food absolutely extinguished talent, a duced all men to idiotcy? or that it affected all alike, no difference of talent can be observed among those w it? Animal food, it is obvious, excites and stimulate time the whole nervous system; and as some under its in are able to perform prodigious feats of strength, so othe. perhaps, be excited to intellectual exertions equally But such phenomena do not prove that animal food either healthy strength, or healthy intellect.* I think it might be asked, with much more reason, h pens it that the families of the whole body of the British. could produce but one Fox and one Pitt to head the c parties of our senate? how happens it that the same produced not one man, no, not one, who is the ackn inheritor of the talents of these illustrious statesme one; though the prize of successful exertion is the me did that can be proposed to honorable ambition-tl the dignities, and honors of the first empire of t f *The habits of Milton, it is said, were what would be termed austere. He was abstemious in diet, chaste, an early industrious. He tells us that a lyrist may indulge in wine life, but that he who would write an epic to the nations mus and drink water.-S. er |