Study and Stimulants: Or, the Use of Intoxicants and Narcotics in Relation to Intellectual Life, as Illustrated by Personal Communications on the Subject, from Men of Letters and of Science
Science
Study and Stimulants: Or, the Use of Intoxicants and Narcotics in Relation to Intellectual Life, as Illustrated by Personal Communications on the Subject, from Men of Letters and of Science
The most recent case is that of Dr. Richardson, who was a dyspeptic
during the whole time he was a smoker. "At length," he says, "I
resolved to give up smoking. It was hard work to do so, but I
eventually succeeded, and I have never been more thankful than for the
day on which it was accomplished." In Carlyle's case a six months'
abstinence could not drive out his enemy, which he declared was the
cause of nine-tenths of his misery. A more successful illustration of
the "harmlessness" of stimulants is supplied in Mr. Augustus
Mongredien, well-known as an able expositor of the principles of Free
Trade. He is now 75 years of age, and has smoked moderately all his
life, and for the last fifty years has never, except in rare and short
instances of illness, retired to bed without one tumbler of
whiskey-toddy. But this is an exceptional case of longevity. All the
evidence favours the opinion that tobacco, like alcohol, shortens
life. It is certain that abstinence is beneficial, as shown by the
long lives of some of our hardest brain-workers. It is worthy of note,
too, that all the tough old Frenchmen still in the enjoyment of
unimpaired mental faculties never smoked. M. Dufaure, M. Barthelemy
St. Hilaire, Victor Hugo, M. Etienne Arago, brother of the astronomer,
Abbe Moigno, belong to the non-smoking school of public men. So did M.
Thiers, M. Guizot, M. Cremieux, M. Raspail, and the octogenarian,
Comte Benoit-D'Azy, who died in full possession of his mental
faculties.
Reference has been made to idiosyncrasy, a matter of great importance,
which should be borne in mind when considering the influence of any
habit on the organism, whether animal or human. Professor Christison
cites a remarkable case in which a gentleman unaccustomed to the use
of opium took nearly an ounce of laudanum without any effect. This
form of idiosyncrasy is very rare. Not only are some constitutions
able to bear large doses of poison, but others cannot take certain
kinds of food. Milk, for instance, cannot be taken by one person; pork
by a second; porridge by a third. In the use of the various
stimulants, as in the use of the various foods, the Same difference
prevails among men. "The more I see of life," says Sir Henry Thompson,
"the more I see that we cannot lay down rigid dogmas for everybody;"
and I have come to the same conclusion that it is unsafe to make one
man's experience another man's guide. Kant could work eight hours a
day after drinking a cup of tea and smoking a pipe of tobacco.
Professor Mayor finds that a day or two's fasting does him no harm,
and he thrives on "dry bread and water." Professor Boyd Dawkins finds
quinine the best stimulant; Darwin found a stimulant in snuff; Edison
finds one in chewing; Professor Haeckel finds coffee the best, and Mr.
Francillon and Mark Twain bear testimony to the value of smoking.
These differences point to the conclusion that the same rules cannot
be laid down for all. One thing is clear, however, that our best
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account