previous next


VIII. A consideration of the diet of the sick, as compared with that of men in health, would show that the diet of wild beasts and of animals generally is not more harmful, as compared with that of men in health.1 Take a man sick of a disease which is neither severe and desperate nor yet altogether mild, but likely to be pronounced under wrong treatment, and suppose that he resolved to eat bread, and meat, or any other food that is beneficial to men in health, not much of it, but far less than he could have taken had he been well ; take again a man in health, with a constitution neither altogether weak nor altogether

[p. 27] strong, and suppose he were to eat one of the foods that would be beneficial and strength-giving to an ox or a horse, vetches or barley or something similar, not much of it, but far less than he could take. If the man in health did this he would suffer no less pain and danger than that sick man who took bread or barley-cake at a time when he ought not. All this goes to prove that this art of medicine, if research be continued on the same method, can all be discovered.

1 The text here is very uncertain ; I have combined that of Littré with that of Kéhlewein so as to give a good sense : "The diet of men in health is as injurious to the sick as the diet of wild beasts is to men in health."

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

load focus English (Charles Darwin Adams, 1868)
load focus Greek (W. H. S. Jones, 1868)
hide References (8 total)
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: