not, and perhaps could not,
hurt himself on such things as plain dry bread; but they also appeared
to believe, _practically_, at least,--and the belief is very
common,--that the use of bread would atone for other transgressions.
Thus, suppose he were to have, for once, a rich pudding to eat, or some
baked beans, or sweetened rice pudding,--which, as you know, are of
themselves very pure nutriments,--set before him, and he were to eat to
the full, till the question should begin to arise in his own mind,
whether he had not gone too far, it was apt to be thought, or rather
_felt_, that an addition of plain bread, or some fruit, or a few cold
potatoes, or some other vegetable, would be a correction for the
preceding excess. Such, I say, is the virtue which, by a kind of
tradition, is awarded to coarse and plain food, and to fruits, and even
nuts. I know, indeed, that this idea would hardly be defended in so
many words; still, it is practically entertained.

To make plainer a great dietetic error, I will explain my meaning. It is
believed, for example, that a pound or two of greasy baked beans would
not be so likely to hurt a person, if a little bread or fruit or potatoe
or sauce were eaten after them, as if eaten alone,--a belief than which
none can be more unfounded or dangerous.

One more proof that Samuel was constantly inclined to excess in eating,
is found in the fact that there was a continual tendency, in his
stomach, to acidity, which was best relieved by a day of entire
abstinence; and the same might be said of a tendency to relaxation of
the bowels, and its correction. In short, if there be a plain truth
fairly deducible from the facts in the case, it is that he was destroyed
by a carbonaceous nutriment in too great proportion for his expenditure.

It may have been feared by his friends, that he yielded, at this period,
to _other propensities_. Indeed, one letter which I received after his
death, more than intimated all this. The remark alluded to was as
follows:--"I have had the fear that there was something unexplained
about his case, as you say you once had." For various reasons, I am
inclined to believe that the indulgence referred to had little to do
with his comparatively sudden death. His whole soul was pivoted on that
great central organ, the stomach. For this he lived, and for this,
probably, he died.

My own principal error, in relation to the case, was, in suffering him
to go upon the farm with such