ing. Now it was, that, being on some occasion made ashamed of my ignorance in figures, which I had twice failed learning when at school, I took Crocker's book on Arithmetic, and went through the whole by myself with the greatest ease. (Sparks's 'Life of Franklin,' p. 19).
The early literature of the vegetarian movement in this country indicates a greater tendency toward the substitution of arguments based on scientific observation in place of purely sentimental considerations than do the trans- Atlantic publications of similar date. It must not be inferred from this statement, however, that visionary and unscientific doctrines were wanting. Evidence to the contrary is readily available. In 1833 the Boylston Medical Committee of Harvard University offered a prize for the best dissertation on the following question: 'What diet can be selected which will ensure the greatest probable health and strength to the laborer in the climate of New England? quantity and quality, and the time and manner of taking it, to be considered.' The prize was awarded to Dr. Luther V. Bell, whose essay (1836) may still be read with interest. The status of the propaganda against flesh-eating as summarized by him is quoted here, since it indicates how similar have been the personal characteristics and motives of the vegetarian advocates in the most widely separated localities. Bell wrote:
Some extraordinary, and to the unprofessional class, doubtless novel, views in regard to diet were broached and have since been pressed upon attention, and that too by at least some men of scientific reputation, ingenious lecturers and individuals who from weight of personal character, or their position before the public, possess no limited influence. They have persuaded themselves, and labored hard to proselyte to their own faith, that the use of animal food in all its forms and varieties, is a custom, unnatural, injurious to bodily health, and even prejudicial to intellectual and moral sanity;—a custom at once unnecessary and inexpedient. How far, or how durably, they may have impressed the public with their views, time only can show; at present it need only be said, that such effect has at least been produced, as to raise a laudable curiosity and wish for the truth, in the minds of many, deserving to be gratified.
Bell adds the following interesting remarks:
Their views are by no means new or original. They date their origin at least as far back as the ancients, and they have been received in every century from the time of Pythagoras to the days of the philosopher of Geneva (Rousseau). "It is not intended to deny the right of ingenious men to propose innovations, and it is a fortunate circumstance that the public is as much too slow in coming into a practical acknowledgment of new truths, as men of erratic and visionary genius are too sanguine in promulgating and inculcating new hypotheses. It is dangerous to unsettle long established truth, for it is difficult to limit the extent of error. The gratification of a morbid desire to be distinguished as the propagator of new principles in philosophy, or as the head of a new sect, is not the only result to be expected from such heresies. New opinions or doctrines, whether true or false, will have admirers and followers, and will lead to practical results, and the errors of one man may lead thousands into the same vortex." (Bell, 'A dissertation on the Boylston prize question for 1835,' pp. 6-7.)
