Analysis

With an understanding of where this treatise fits into history, I will now examine the work itself. I briefly examine the physical artifact itself, noting that on page two of the PDF artifact (not the actual work), the book’s binding is visible.¹ This type of binding - three holes with some string threaded between them – indicates that the work was mass-produced. This combined with the presence of advertisements for various health reform pamphlets, health goods, and the Health Reformer itself suggests that the target audience was the layperson interested in health reform.

Turning to the work itself, it argues that people are naturally vegetarian, or more specifically, frugivorous,² by summarizing a number of biological, historical, and moral arguments for this position. In its first section, the work draws heavily on findings of science and particularly anatomy, to argue that humans are frugivorous. Arguing that human teeth are most similar to “orang-outang” teeth, and thus humans are frugivorous, is one of the ways in which the treatise appeals to science as an authority.³ The treatise also explicitly appeals to other scientists as authority figures, stating “many of our ablest anatomists and physiologists, … unhesitatingly pronounce man to be purely frugivorous as regards his dietetic character”⁴ and naming scientists such as Linnaeus of taxonomy fame who were claimed to have shared this viewpoint. It is also worth noting that in this work, there appears to be no tension between the work's scientific and religious claims, countering the so-called "conflict" narrative betwen religion and science which states that they are inherently opposed.⁵ The second section of the work, the “physiological evidences”, makes arguments along much of the same lines as previous health reformers. The work states, “[b]ut there is still another reason why flesh food cannot be considered as the best suited to supply the dietetic wants of man; viz, it is stimulating in its character.”⁶ This argument clearly draws from the attitude of earlier health reformers as described in Harvey Green’s work, who saw meat as excessively stimulating.⁷ Although the treatise draws explicitly and heavily on science as an authority to argue for vegetarianism, its arguments are nevertheless aligned with those of earlier 19^th century health reformers.

On the other hand, the presence of religion within the treatise is more implicit than the presence of science. Although there are explicit references to Christianity in the work, there are only a few of these in the work. One of these references concerns India, where the work notes that “a new sect has recently sprung up among the natives of India who are strict vegetarians, and adopt the Christian religion”.⁸ This quote explicitly indicates the connection the work makes between vegetarianism and religion, or specifically Christianity. Although the work’s explicit appeal to religion and Christianity is limited, the work references religion implicitly as well. The treatise’s argument that meat is stimulating, and more specifically that “stimulation is a diseased process”⁹ implicitly links meat to disease. As Jonathan Butler argues, the Seventh-day Adventist concern for health evolved out of Millerism's healings, which in turn were seen as "'signs and wonders' which fulfilled the biblical promise for the 'last days.'"¹⁰ Given this link between health and religion in Adventist beliefs, the work introduces religion as an implicit authority in making its argument.

To conclude, the treatise “The Proper Diet For Man” is a work that incorporates both science and religion as authorities to argue for vegetarianism in a widely circulated pamphlet. Its incorporation of explicit scientific arguments makes the work compelling to a late 19^th-century reader due to rapidly expanding scientific knowledge and education. Its less explicit incorporation of Christianity makes the work more appealing to readers who may not be devoted Seventh-day Adventists, but the work still incorporates enough religious authority to satisfy Adventists. Overall, the work indicates that Seventh-day Adventists saw both science and religion as important reasons for supporting health reform, and that using both authorities would be an effective way to promote it.