The name Vegetarian has come to mean one who abstains from animal flesh as food; and, as some designation is necessary, it is perhaps a sufficiently suitable one. This term did not, however, originally classify those who used a bloodless diet, but is derived from the Latin Homo Vegitus, which words described to the Romans a strong, vigorous man. The definition of the word Vegitus, as given in Thomas Holyoke's Latin Dictionary, is "whole, sound, quick, fresh, lively, lusty, gallant, trim, brave," and of Vegito, "to refresh, to re-create." Professor Mayor of England adds to these definitions: "The word vegetarian belongs to an illustrious family; vegetable, which has been called its mother, is really its niece." The word has unfortunately become intermingled with various dietetic theories, but the Vegetarian who is one because his conscience for one reason or another condemns the eating of flesh, occupies a very different place in the world of ethics from one who is simply refraining from meat eating in an effort to cure bodily ills. Indeed, the dyspeptic frequenting the usual Vegetarian restaurant has little opportunity to know much about vegetables as food, the menu being, as a rule, so crowded with various mixtures which are supposedly "meat substitutes" that vegetables pure and simple find small place. This book contains no meat substitutes, as such, but receipts for the palatable preparation of what is called by many "live foods,"--that is, food which has no blood to shed and does not, therefore, become dead before it can be eaten. There will also be found lacking from the index such dishes as "Vegetarian Hamburg Steak," "Pigeon Pie, Vegetarian style," etc., which should repel rather than attract, by bringing to mind what Bernard Shaw has graphically spoken of as "scorched carcasses." It has been proven by myself and my household that flesh eating may be safely stopped in one day with no injury to health or strength, and that a table supplied from the receipts in this book can make those whom it furnishes with food well and strong as far as food can make them so. There are many reasons why thoughtful, cleanly, humane people should not feed upon animals, but there is a surprising deafness to this fact shown by the majority of those active in humane charities. One marvels to see hundreds of consecrated workers in session, putting forth every effort for the enacting of laws for the amelioration of the sufferings of cattle travelling to slaughter by car and ship, who are still content to patronise the butcher shop to buy food supplied by the dead bodies of these tortured victims of a false appetite. Mere thoughtlessness can make the kindest act cruelly inconsistent, for I once saw a woman presiding at a meeting held to discountenance the wearing of aigrettes with a sheaf of them decorating her bonnet. This looks much like receiving stolen goods while denouncing theft.