Oh, I would give my all — all the world if mine — for the repossession of that health — life — I have carelessly and wantonly squandered, and that without having received any value _ 488 THE VALUE AND DAWS OF HEALTH in return for this choicest gift of heaven. Then what consumate foolishness to trifle with health as almost all do now? Esau’s folly was wisdom in comparison with those who carelessly give away a lifetime of vigor for one of feebleness— who even barter life itself for some momentary indulgence. Let then the preservation of health be the great concern, the paramount business of life, as it is the perfection of wisdom and the great instrumentality of enjoyment Since health consists in the normal and vigorous action of all the physical functions, its preservation of course consists in their preservation and its restoration in their restoration. “Meat' gives force and strength.” Brute force it does, but of this men has relatively too much already, as we shall soon show. “Would you then,” it is farther objected, “have us abstain from flesh, and thus become as pusillanimous as the Hin¬ doos?” But are the meat eating Indians and Laplanders so very forcible? What have they ever accomplished — what triumph ever achieved other than with the scalp¬ ing knife and the tomahawk? If meat alone gives force one Indian would master two pale faces whereas one white man is equal to a score of red ones. The former eat less meat, yet, under every disadvantage has driven the latter back and back again, farther and still farther upon the setting sun, till they bid fair-foul? to exterm¬ inate his race. Admitted that meat gives force, yet mark the kind of force it imparts. Analogous to that of the tiger and wolf — force to dare and kill rather than to do. Does the lion accomplish so much more than the horse? Or is the wild bull so extra tame and feeble? Do not both the strongest and the fleetest of animals live upon vegetables? The elephant and rhinoceros eat no meat, yet their muscular power and endurance far transcend those of the lion and the tiger. The deer, antelope and gazelle live on herbage, yet distance all flesh-eating animals in the open chase. Since, there¬ fore, the fleetest and the strongest of animals, eat no 489 — GAN CEL’S CULINARY ENCYCLOPEDIA meat, must man eat It, or be weak or sluggish? Or tc apply this principle directly to man : Is the Highland Scotchman, who was brought up on oatmeal, and tasted meat no oftener than the moon quartered, so very in¬ efficient? Are the potato-fed Irish weak? Can our own beef-gourmands dig or carry more? Try, you meat advocates. The rice-fed Chinese will outdo “John Bull” and “Uncle Sam” except in shedding blood. So will the herbenious inhabitants of the Pacific Isles. Not that animal food does not develop muscular strength. Carnivorous animals are strong, but herbiverous ani¬ mals are stronger, yet have less propensity. Hence since meat develops propensity, yet it is not necessary to either strength or force— since it animalizes and de¬ praves, and thus does a positive damage, but not a necessary good— why injure ourselves by consumption? HYGIENE, DIET, LONGEVITY “Cuisine, c’est la mddecine; c’est la mede- cine preventive la meilleure” — J. Michelet.

AI-modernized reading of the original text

Oh, I would give my all — all the world if mine — for the repossession of that health — life — I have carelessly and wantonly squandered, and that without having received any value _ 488 THE VALUE AND LAWS OF HEALTH in return for this choicest gift of heaven. Then what consumate foolishness to trifle with health as almost all do now? Esau’s folly was wisdom in comparison with those who carelessly give away a lifetime of vigor for one of feebleness— who even barter life itself for some momentary indulgence. Let then the preservation of health be the great concern, the paramount business of life, as it is the perfection of wisdom and the great instrumentality of enjoyment Since health consists in the normal and vigorous action of all the physical functions, its preservation of course consists in their preservation and its restoration in their restoration. “Meat' gives force and strength.” Brute force it does, but of this men has relatively too much already, as we shall soon show. “Would you then,” it is farther objected, “have us abstain from flesh, and thus become as pusillanimous as the Hin¬ doos?” But are the meat eating Indians and Laplanders so very forcible? What have they ever accomplished — what triumph ever achieved other than with the scalp¬ ing knife and the tomahawk? If meat alone gives force one Indian would master two pale faces whereas one white man is equal to a score of red ones. The former eat less meat, yet, under every disadvantage has driven the latter back and back again, farther and still farther upon the setting sun, till they bid fair to extermin¬ inate his race. Admitted that meat gives force, yet mark the kind of force it imparts. Analogous to that of the tiger and wolf — force to dare and kill rather than to do. Does the lion accomplish so much more than the horse? Or is the wild bull so extra tame and feeble? Do not both the strongest and the fleetest of animals live upon vegetables? The elephant and rhinoceros eat no meat, yet their muscular power and endurance far transcend those of the lion and the tiger. The deer, antelope and gazelle live on herbage, yet distance all flesh-eating animals in the open chase. Since, there¬ fore, the fleetest and the strongest of animals, eat no 489 — meat, must man eat It, or be weak or sluggish? Or tc apply this principle directly to man : Is the Highland Scotchman, who was brought up on oatmeal, and tasted meat no oftener than the moon quartered, so very in¬ efficient? Are the potato-fed Irish weak? Can our own beef-gourmands dig or carry more? Try, you meat advocates. The rice-fed Chinese will outdo “John Bull” and “Uncle Sam” except in shedding blood. So will the herbenious inhabitants of the Pacific Isles. Not that animal food does not develop muscular strength. Carnivorous animals are strong, but herbiverous ani¬ mals are stronger, yet have less propensity. Hence since meat develops propensity, yet it is not necessary to either strength or force— since it animalizes and de¬ praves, and thus does a positive damage, but not a necessary good— why injure ourselves by consumption? HYGIENE, DIET, LONGEVITY “Cuisine, c’est la mddecine; c’est la medecine preventive la meilleure” — J. Michelet.

Gancel's culinary encyclopedia of modern cooking