Montesquieu
 

XXIV.25 The drawback of transporting a religion from one country to another

It fol­lows from this that there are very often many draw­backs to trans­por­ting a reli­gion from one coun­try into ano­ther.

“The pig,” says Mr. de Boulainvilliers, “must be very rare in Arabia, where there are hardly any woods,1 and almost nothing fit for these ani­mals to eat ; moreo­ver, the sal­ti­ness of the waters and of the foods makes peo­ple very sus­cep­ti­ble to skin disea­ses.”2 This local law could not be good for other coun­tries3 where the hog is an almost uni­ver­sal food, and in a sense neces­sary.

I will offer a reflec­tion here. Santorio has obser­ved that there is lit­tle trans­pi­ra­tion of the hog flesh we eat,4 and that this food even lar­gely pre­vents the trans­pi­ra­tion of other foods ; he has found that the reduc­tion came to one-third.5 We know, moreo­ver, that the lack of trans­pi­ra­tion cau­ses or irri­ta­tes skin disea­ses ; consump­tion of the pig must the­re­fore be for­bid­den in cli­ma­tes where peo­ple are sub­ject to these disea­ses, as the cli­ma­tes of Palestine, Arabia, Egypt and Libya.

[It was a common practice in Europe to let hogs run in the forests, where they could live on acorns.]

Life of Mohammed.

De medecicine statica aphorismi, Sect. 3, aphorism 22.

De medecicine statica aphorismi, Sect. 3, aphorism 22.

Sect. 3, aphorism 23.