1882.] Analyses of Books. 417 
have adopted their habits, or the Guachos of the Pampas, — all 
of them far more carnivorous than the inhabitants of civilised 
Europe, — are very liable to suffer from chills and draughts ? Or 
the Fuegians, whose diet consists of little other than animal 
matter, and who yet, according to Darwin, must be unsurpassed 
in their power of enduring cold and damp ? To continue our 
quotation : — “ For the cure of the evil a vegetarian diet is best- 
adapted, also the drinking plenty of spring water, a liberal use of 
baths, avoidance of beer and of such clothing and house-heating as 
tend to keep the body uncomfortably hot.” We may here remark 
that, in England at least, clothing and house-heating which render 
the body “ uncomfortably hot ” are rare indeed. But the author 
continues : — “ In addition to this, man should follow the example 
of the lower animals, only washing and bathing in cold water 
(temperature about 22 0 or 20° Reaumur), and taking just so much 
exercise as will gently stimulate without fatiguing the body.” 
Many of the readers of the learned Dodfor’s pamphlet in its 
English version may not be aware that this cold water is from 
8i° to 77 0 F. ! How, we ask, are the lower animals in so-called 
temperate climes to get water so warm as this ? In England the 
average temperature of the streams and pools will not exceed 
50° F. Even amongst men, bathing in water at 77 0 F. is a luxury 
open only to the few. Again, we should like to know what pro- 
portion of mankind in these days can take “just so much exercise 
as will gently stimulate without fatiguing”? Multitudes are 
compelled to take very much more, and multitudes who follow 
sedentary occupations cannot have nearly enough. 
At a loss what to say or think of an author who can gravely 
advise us to follow the example of the lower animals, by bathing 
in water at 77 0 F., we read further : — “ There is a prevalent notion 
that people gain strength by meat diet and spirituous liquors, and 
make themselves fitter for work, whereas the very reverse is the 
case. This will appear beyond a doubt if we look at horses and 
cattle, and compare their strength and ‘ fulness of life ’ with their 
mode of living.” This is most lamentable reasoning. A horse 
or an ox is doubtless stronger than a man, being a very much 
larger and heavier animal. But neither horse nor ox has any- 
thing like the £s fulness of life ” of a healthy man. Both of them 
sink much more rapidly under continuous work. Drive, e.g., an 
ox 40 miles a day for ten or twelve successive days, and note the 
result. But irrespective of this particular case, the author’s mode 
of reasoning is thoroughly fallacious. Suppose any animal is 
stronger than man, it does not follow that man would gain in 
strength by imitating the diet of that animal. What would Dr. 
Hamernik reply to an anti-vegetarian who should turn his own 
argument upon him, and say — “This will appear beyond doubt 
if we look at grizzly bears and tigers, and compare their strength 
and fulness of life with their mode of living ” ? 
We read further — “ That the food taken finally influences the 
