We may mention, by the way, that Galen, on the other hand, positively forbids to eat mulberries after other food, and that it appears to have been the general rule in ages long after the time of Galen to eat figs and grapes at the beginning of a meal. (Anonym. de Diæta, ed. Ideler, t. ii, 198.) But what Celsus says respecting the proper time for eating fruit is very much to the purpose: “Secunda mensa bono stomacho nihil nocet, in imbecillo coascescit. Si quis itaque hoc parum valet, palmulas pomaque et similia primo cibo assumit.” (i, 2.) Ludovicus Nonnius, a great modern authority in dietetics, recommends us to eat the summer fruits, and cherries, strawberries, plums, peaches, and the like, at the beginning; but apples, pears, nuts, chesnuts, and the like, at the conclusion of a meal; that is to say, at the dessert.
The fig was a great favorite with the ancients. Galen states that it is decidedly nutritious, but that the flesh formed from it is not firm and compact, like that from pork and bread, but soft and spongy, like that from beans. He says that figs increase the urinary and alvine discharges. Averrhoes says that they are of a hot and humid temperament, and that they loosen the belly and strengthen the stomach. See, in particular, Athenæus (Deipnos. iii); Macrobius (Satur. iii, 20); and Haly Abbas. Haly says that the fig is the most digestible, nutritious, and wholesome fruit of this class. Galen speaks doubtfully of dried figs.
Pliny devotes a whole book to the consideration of the grape and its productions. Galen says that, like figs, grapes are nutritious, but that the flesh formed from them is deficient in firmness and durability. He remarks that their stones pass through the bowels wholly unchanged. Simeon Seth states that the grape consists of four different substances, namely, the membrane which surrounds it, the fleshy part, the juice, and the stones. Of these, he says, the outer coat and the stones ought to be rejected, because they are indigestible. Plutarch and Macrobius exert their ingenuity to explain how it happens that must, or the fresh juice of the grape, does not intoxicate like wine. The “pensilis uva,” or hung grape, is mentioned by Horace as an article of the dessert. (ii, 2.)
Galen gives mulberries the same character as our author does. Aëtius says that the proper occasion for them is when the stomach is hot and dry. According to Athenæus, the Siphnian Diphilus said that they possess moderately wholesome juices, and that they afford little nourishment, but are savoury, and of easy evacuation. Haly Abbas recommends them cooled in snow for heat of the stomach.
According to Pliny, cherries were first imported to Italy from Pontus, by the famous Lucullus, and in his (Pliny’s) time they had become naturalized even in Britain. This story, however, is not very probable, as they had been described more than a century before by Theophrastus; and further, Athenæus mentions that they had been noticed long before Lucullus by the Siphnian Diphilus. He speaks favorably of them as an article of food. Servius, the commentator on Virgil, states that there were wild cherries in Italy before the days of Lucullus. Simeon Seth says that they are of a cold and humid nature, and open the bowels. They are useful, he adds, when the stomach and constitution are hot and dry.
Galen states that the fruit of the pine contains thick and wholesome juices, but that they are not easily digested. The Siphnian Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, says that the strobili are very nutritious, smooth asperities of the trachea, and purge the breast. Mnesitheus, as quoted by the same author, says that they fatten the body, and do not impair the digestion. (Deipnos. ii.) Celsus holds them to be stomachic.
Our author’s remarks on the persica are taken from Galen. Seth calls them rhodacina, a term which is generally applied to them by the Byzantine writers, and also by Alexander Trallian. Seth says that they are cooling, diluent, and laxative, but difficult to digest. If not the same as the modern peach (which the commentators suspect), the persica was evidently a fruit nearly allied to it.
It is highly probable, but not quite certain, that the præcocia, duracina, and armeniaca, were varieties of the apricot. Galen does not use the second of these terms, and mentions, that many held the first and the last to be exactly the same fruit; and he, himself, in another place, forgets the distinction which he had endeavoured to establish between them. Simeon Seth describes them by the name of βερίκοκκα, which appears to be a corruption of the Latin præcocia. See Geopon. (x, 73, and the note of Needham); Harduin (Notes on Pliny); J. Bruyer (de Re Cibaria, xi, 13); C. Avantius (Notæ in Cœnam); Baptist. (Fier. p. 6); Ludovicus Nonnius; and Sprengel (Dioscor. i, 165.) Seth says that they are fruits which soon spoil, and form bad blood.
Mala was used by the ancients as a generic term, comprehending many species of fruit. See an interesting account of them in Pliny (xxiii, 5); Macrobius (Saturn, iii, 19); and Athenæus (Deipnos. iii), where Diphilus thus states their general characters as articles of food: “Green and unripe apples are unwholesome and unsavoury, swim in the stomach, form bile, and occasion diseases. Of the ripe, such as are sweet are more wholesome and more laxative from having no astringency; the acid are more unwholesome and constipating, but such as have also a certain degree of sweetness become more delicious, and are at the same time stomachic from having some astringency.” The ancients appear to have been well acquainted with the methods of making cider, perry, and the like. See Macrobius (Sat. vii, 6), and Pliny (H. N. xiv, 19.) The Arabian authors in general speak rather unfavorably of apples.
Cornels, or the fruit of the cornus mascula, were in little request as articles of food, and yet Pliny mentions that they were sought after in his time.
The cydonia or quinces were in great repute, not only as articles of food, but as medicines. When unripe they are very astringent and contain much acid, and hence they were used in such cases as those in which the mineral acids are now generally administered. (Pliny, H. N. xxxiii, 6.) They appear to be the “cana mala” of Virgil. Columella and Pliny describe three varieties, namely, the chrysomala, struthea, and mustea. These have not been satisfactorily determined. Some modern commentators have taken “the golden apples” of Theocritus and Virgil for oranges, but it is much more probable that they were a species of quince. No ancient author has noticed the orange.
Pears, according to Simeon Seth, are of a cold and desiccative nature. They are compounded, he says, of astringency, sweetness, and sometimes of acidity; and some have a moderate degree of heating and desiccative properties. Averrhoes gives exactly the same account of them. Of pomegranates, he says, that some are sweet and some are acid; that all of them moisten, but that the sweet are of a more hot and humid nature. Homer enumerates the pomegranate among the fruits which were suspended over the head of Tantalus to tempt his appetite. (Odyss. xi, 588.) We may suppose, therefore, that the poet held it to be a most delicious fruit. Dioscorides says that the sweet pomegranates are stomachic; but that they are prejudicial when there is fever.
Galen, who gives medlars and services much the same characters as our author, recommends them only in very small quantities. Aëtius and Seth say that ripe medlars are somewhat heating, but that the unripe are cold, astringent, and constipating. Actuarius calls them excellent astringent medicines, but bad articles of food. Dioscorides describes two species of medlars, the aronia, and setanium. The first species is called azarollo by the Italians, and the other is the common species of medlar.
See an interesting account of dates, or the fruit of the palm-tree, in the ‘Hierobotanicon’ of Olaus Celsius. The date, according to Galen, is a fruit possessing a variety of characters, but having always a certain degree of sweetness and astringency. He says, it is indigestible and apt to occasion headachs. Simeon Seth says that dates form an impure blood; and Ruffus, as quoted by him, affirms that they prove injurious to the bladder. Serapion, Rhases, and Mesue agree that the date is a cold, astringent fruit. Herodotus, Xenophon, and Athenæus make mention of a wine prepared from dates. Erotian says that a species of bread is made from dates, flour, and water. (Lexicon Hippocratis.)
The olive, as Pliny remarks, consists of four parts, the kernel, the oil, the flesh, and the lees. The drupæ, mentioned by our author, were the olives quite ripe and ready to fall from the tree. The colymbades and halmades were olives pickled with salt, &c. See Harduin (ad Plin. H. N. xv, 3.) The Siphnian Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, says of them that they supply little nourishment, occasion headachs; that the black injure the stomach, and bring on heaviness of the head; and that the pickled prove more stomachic and astringent of the belly, Galen mentions that olives were often eaten with bread before dinner in order to open the belly. Simeon Seth says that ripe olives are moderately hot, but that the unripe are cold, desiccative, and astringent. Serapion, in like manner, says that unripe olives are astringent. Plutarch mentions a pickled olive as a whetter of the appetite. (Sym. vi.) The ancients marked strongly their estimation of the olive when they set it down as being the emblem of peace, and sacred to the Goddess of Wisdom.
The Siphnian Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, states that walnuts occasion headach, and swim on the stomach; but such as are tender and white contain better juices, and are more wholesome; and that such as have been toasted in a furnace afford little nourishment. (Deipnos. ii.) It appears, from Macrobius, whose account of them is very interesting, that they were eaten at the dessert. He states decidedly that the royal nut of the Greeks was the juglans or walnut. (Sat. iii, 18.) Simeon Seth says that, when taken before other food, they are apt to prove laxative or emetic. Averrhoes says the like of them. He adds that filberts are not so apt to produce this effect. According to Rhases, they are apt to prove injurious to the stomach and liver.
The Siphnian Diphilus says that almonds are attenuant, diuretic, purgative, and afford little nourishment; that the green contain bad juices, and are possessed of stronger medicinal properties; but that the dried are more flatulent, and apter to swim on the stomach. He adds that such as are tender, full, and are whitened, contain milky juices which are more wholesome. Simeon Seth says that bitter almonds are hotter, more attenuant, and more incisive than the ripe. He adds that filberts are the most nutritious of the nuts but difficult to digest.
The pistachio nut has been long very celebrated in the East and in Sicily. See Celsus (Hierobotanicon), and Brydone (Tour through Sicily.) Galen says that it possesses a certain degree of bitterness and astringency, and that it proves useful in obstructions of the liver, but that it affords little nourishment. He adds that it is neither beneficial nor injurious to the stomach. Simeon Seth remarks that the moderns looked upon pistacs as stomachic. Averrhoes speaks highly of them. Rhases says they are of a hotter nature than almonds. Avicenna also says of them that they are of a heating nature. Theophrastus describes the pistachio tree as a species of turpentine, and it is now acknowledged as such.
Galen states that the best damascenes are such as are large, spongy, and astringent. He adds that taken with sweet wine they tend to open the bowels. Oribasius says that they afford little nourishment, but may be useful for moistening and cooling the stomach. Martial calls them laxative. It appears certain from Isidorus, that the coccymela and myxæ were the same as the pruna or plums. The principal variety is the prunus insiticia, or bullace plum.
Galen says of jujubes, that they suit best with the intemperaments of women and children; but that they give little nourishment. Haly Abbas states that they are cold and humid, of slow digestion, and apt to form phlegm. They are the serica of Galen, who, however, also applies the other term (zizypha) to them. (De Alim. ii, 38.)
Abu’l-fadli, as quoted by Olaus Celsius, says of the siliquæ or carobs, that they are sweet astringent fruit. Horace speaks of them as being an inferior kind of fruit. “Vivit siliquis et pane secundo.” (Ep. ii, 1.) And so, also, Juvenal (Sat. xi, 59), and Persius (iii, 55.) Galen says of them that they are woody and consequently indigestible. Aëtius says that they are of a dry and very desiccative nature, but possess some sweetness. Pliny mentions that a sort of wine was prepared from carobs.
Galen says that the sycamores hold an intermediate place between mulberries and figs. He says, further, that they are sweetish, and of a diluent and cooling nature. Dioscorides and Serapion speak unfavorably of them as being articles of food which are only used in times of famine.
The citron, or “felix malum” of Virgil (Georg. ii, 126), was greatly esteemed by the ancients. Galen calls it fragrant, aromatic, and pleasant to the taste as well as the smell. From Theophrastus downwards, it is much celebrated as an antidote to poisons. See some curious information respecting it in Athenæus (Deipnos. iii), and Macrobius (Sat. iii, 19.) Simeon Seth says that if taken in moderation it is beneficial to the stomach, but that in large quantity it proves indigestible. Serapion recommends after eating citrons to take of anise, mastich, and wine. No Greek or Latin author has noticed the lemon. Avicenna, we believe, is the first author who mentions it.
Galen says, in general, of the wild kinds of fruit, that they supply little nourishment, and that they are injurious to the stomach. The acorns, he says further, are the best of this class, being no less nutritious than the cerealia; he adds, that in ancient times men lived upon acorns; and that the Arcadians continued this practice after the cerealia were used in all the other parts of Greece. Simeon Seth says that, although nutritious, they are difficult to digest and form crude humours: and hence he recommends to abstain from them. It is well ascertained that it was the acorns of the quercus ilex which the ancients used for food.
Galen’s opinion of chesnuts agrees with the account given by our author of them. Simeon Seth says that they are very nutritious, but are hard to digest and evacuate from the body; and that they are flatulent and astringent. Haly Abbas describes them as a proper article of food. At the present day, whole nations of mankind live upon chesnuts. The opinion of Mnisitheus regarding them, as quoted by Athenæus, appears to be very judicious; he says they are difficult to digest and flatulent, but sufficiently nutritious if digested.
The strawberries, or fraga, are mentioned by Virgil (Ec. iii), and Ovid (Metam. i); but they are wholly unnoticed by the Greek writers.
We consider ourselves here called upon not to pass over unnoticed the fruit of the lotus tree, which is so celebrated in ancient poetry, and is also mentioned by the historians and writers on science. It is now well ascertained that the lotus-bread is produced by various trees in the country surrounding the great desert of Africa. The most celebrated of these trees, or rather shrubs, is the celtis australis. Rennel and Park agree that its fruit is very wholesome. On the lotus, see further, Eustathius (in Odyss. p. 337, ed. Rom.); Dionys. (Geograph.); Schweigh (ad Athen. Deipnos. xiv, 65.)
SECT. LXXXII.—ON ANIMALS; AND, FIRST, OF FOWLS.
The nourishment derived from fowls is less than that from beasts, and more especially swine, but they are of easier digestion, particularly the partridge, godwit, pigeon, hen, and pheasant. That from thrushes, blackbirds, and small sparrows (among which are those called pyrgitæ) is harder; and still more so the turtle, wood-pigeon, and duck. But the peacock is still more indigestible, harder, and more stringy. The flesh of geese and ostriches is excrementitious, and more indigestible than any of the afore-mentioned; except their wings, which are not less wholesome than the same parts in other animals. The flesh of the crane is stringy and hard. In general, the young are more juicy, digestible, and nutritious than the aged, and are more readily evacuated by the belly. The boiled are superior to the roasted and fricasseed; and those that live on dry and mountainous places are more digestible and less excrementitious than those which live in marshy places.
Commentary. Hippocrates states that fowls in general are drier than quadrupeds. The driest, he adds, are, first, the wood-pigeon, then the common pigeon, and, thirdly, the partridge, cock, and turtle. The most humid or juicy, he says, are geese. Those which live on seeds are drier than the others. The flesh of ducks, and of all fowls which live in marshes, or in water, is of a more humid nature. (De Diæta, ii, 17.) In another place, he calls the flesh of fowls one of the lightest kinds of food. (De Affect. 46.)
Their general characters are thus stated by Celsus: “Ex iis avibus, quæ in media specie sunt, valentiores eæ, quæ pedibus, quam quæ volatu magis nituntur: et ex iis, quæ volatu fidunt, firmiores quæ grandiores aves, quam quæ minutæ sunt; ut ficedula et turdus. Atque eæ quoque quæ in aqua degunt leviorem cibum præstant, quam quæ natandi scientiam non habent.” The character here given of water fowls has drawn upon the author the animadversions of Dr. Cullen. But rather than suspect Celsus of such a mistake, we are inclined to believe that the text must be corrupt, and that we ought to read leniorem instead of leviorem. We are confirmed in this conjecture from all the other authorities, as for example, Hippocrates, Galen, Aëtius, Rhases, and Haly Abbas, having stated that the flesh of water fowls is more excrementitious than that of land fowls.
Our author takes his account of fowls from Galen, or perhaps direct from Oribasius. Actuarius states that fowls are much lighter, but not so nutritious as quadrupeds; that they are drier, more fibrous, and form thinner blood; and that water fowls are the more juicy and fleshy.
Having thus stated the general characters of fowls as articles of food, we shall now briefly notice a few of those which were in most esteem with the bons vivans of antiquity.
The partridge was accounted a rare delicacy at the tables of luxurious Romans. See Martial (xiii, 65.) Simeon Seth says that it is easily digested, but ought not to be eaten the day it is killed. According to Rhases, it contains thick juices, is astringent, but very nutritious. Psellus calls it savoury, nutritious, and digestible. Apicius directs it to be dressed with pepper, lovage, mint, the seed of rue, pickle, wine, and oil. As at the present day it was eaten at the dessert. (Deip. xiv, 73.) Athenæus describes distinctly two species of the partridge, which seem clearly referrible to the tetrao perdix and tetrao rufus. The latter, or red-legged partridge, is still the common species in Italy.
Galen ranks the pigeon next to the partridge in excellence. The Arabians, however, and, in imitation of them, Simeon Seth, calls the flesh of the pigeon heating and excrementitious.
The attagen Ionicus has been celebrated by the muses of Horace and Martial. Porphyron, one of the ancient commentators on Horace, calls it “avis Asiatica inter noblissimas habita.” Harduin, who is deservedly reckoned a high authority in these matters, supposes it to have been the gelinotte du bois, or wood-hen. Altogether we incline to the opinion that it was the scolopax ægocephala, or godwit, a water-bird still much esteemed by the epicures of the East. We further think that the scolopax rasticula, or woodcock, is the scolopax of the ancients. It is well described by the poet Nemesitanius. Athenæus quotes Aristophanes as calling the attagen a most delicious bird. Galen, Aëtius, and Oribasius speak of it in the same terms as Paulus. Apicius directs us to dress it like the partridge.
Galen says of the starling that its flesh is allied to that of the attagen. (Diæta. iv.) It is also mentioned as an article of food by Athenæus. (ii, 24.)
Persius speaks of the thrush as being a much-esteemed delicacy. (Sat. vi.) Horace also says that there is nothing better than a fat thrush. (Epist. i, 15.) See Aristoph. (Nubes); Athenæus (Deipn. ii.) It is worthy of remark that, although the thrush be by no means a delicate morsel in the north of Europe, it is very delicious in Italy and Spain. It feeds on juniper berries, grapes, and the like. The receipts of Apicius for dressing thrushes, and other small birds, contain spices, aromatics, honey, wine, pickle, and oil. Averrhoes says that their flesh is drier, more aromatic, but grosser than that of pigeons. The Romans bestowed great pains upon feeding thrushes, as we can learn from Varro and Columella. The species commonly used by them for food was the fieldfare, or turdus pilaris. They also ate blackbirds. Galen speaks favorably of sparrows. Other small birds, as the lark and the siskin (spinus), are noticed by Athenæus as being sometimes eaten. Galen recommends the lark in colic affections. In general, however, the small birds were reckoned indigestible. It is related of the gourmand Clodius Æsopus that, wishing to make a great display of prodigality at a feast, he caused song birds to be served up at it in place of beccafichi. See Valerius Maximus (ix, s), and Pliny (H. N. x, 71.) Even the nightingale was sacrificed to this monstrous taste. (Horat. Sat. ii, 3, 245.)
Martial intimates that when he could get a fat turtle to dine upon he was indifferent about other delicacies. According to Averrhoes, it is of a hot nature, and has a wonderful effect in sharpening the understanding. Apicius directs us to dress it like the partridge. Galen states that the turtle, partridge, and all fowls which are of a dry nature, should be suspended for a day before they are eaten.
Galen mentions that the flesh of pheasants resembles that of domestic hens, but is more nutritious and savoury. Simeon Seth says that it is wholesome, easily digested, and forms good blood. Averrhoes prefers it to all other fowls. The tetrao, which is mentioned by Pliny and Athenæus, is generally supposed to be the bustard; but Bellonius and Ludovicus Nonnius take it for the fasiano negro of the Italians, or the wood pheasant.
Galen and our author have omitted to take notice of quails. Simeon Seth says that their flesh is heating, coarse, indigestible, and unwholesome. Rhases, however, says of the quail, that in lightness it is second only to the starling; that it is not very excrementitious, nor accounted very heating. Averrhoes says that it is of a moderate temperament, but somewhat heating; that it is delicate, forms good chyme, and is excellent food for persons in good health, and for convalescents. Lucretius and Galen mention that the quail can live upon hellebore.
Q. Hortensius is “damned to everlasting fame,” for having first presented the peacock at his table. (Varro, de Agricult. iii; Macrobius, Satur. iii, 13; Pliny, H. N. x, 20; Ælianus, H. A. v, 25; Tertulianus, de Pallio.) It came afterwards to be thought an exquisite delicacy, although Horace had declared of it that, were it not for its price, it would not be thought superior to the common domestic fowl. (Sat. ii, 2.) Simeon Seth, like Galen and our author, says that its flesh is indigestible and excrementitious. Apicius directs us to dress it like the thrush. The poet Juvenal asserts that sudden deaths are occasioned by the indigestion arising from eating peacocks, (Sat. i.) It appears, from Varro and Pliny, that the Romans reared them in great numbers for the table.
The ostrich is often mentioned by the ancient authors as an article of food, although, as Galen says, it be excrementitious and indigestible; and hence, most probably, it is proscribed in Scripture. Agatharcides makes mention of a savage race of people, who were called Ostrich-eaters, (Ap. Photium.) The “afra avis,” mentioned by Horace, is said by his commentator, Acron, to have been the ostrich. Porphyrion, however, rather supposes it to be the gallina numidica, or guinea-hen. It was the same as the meleagris, which Schneider (ad Ælian. N. A. iv, 42), and Schweighäuser (ad Athen. xiv, 20), agree in referring to the pintada, or guinea-hen. Apicius directs us to dress it with pepper, lovage, thyme or savory, honey, mustard, vinegar, pickle, and oil. Rhases says that its flesh is very coarse.
The otis was the otis tarda, or bustard. Xenophon, who gives a graphic description of the mode of hunting it in Persia, says that its flesh is most delicious. Galen and Simeon Seth say that its flesh is intermediate between the goose and the crane. Apicius gives very complicated receipts for dressing it. It is the tetrax of Nemesianus.
The flesh of the domestic fowls, says Simeon Seth, is of easy digestion, and contains good juices, especially the flesh of those which are beginning to lay eggs. Chickens, he adds, are of easy digestion, and form blood of moderate consistence, neither very thin nor too thick: they are excellent food for persons who do not take strong exercise. It appears from Martial that the Romans were fond of capons. (xiii.) Both Aristotle and Pliny mention that cocks were converted into capons by means of a heated iron.
The ficedula, called συκαλὶς by Aristotle, was much sought after by the Romans. It was the beccafigo of the modern Italians, who are still very fond of it. Its flesh being fat, it was dressed with much pepper, as we learn from Martial and Petronius Arbiter.
Galen and Simeon Seth agree that the flesh of geese is indigestible and excrementitious, and nearly allied to the ostrich. It would appear, from Odyss. xix, 536, that tame geese were reared for food in the heroic ages.
According to Martial, the breast and neck are the only parts of the duck which are fit to be eaten. (Xenia.)
Athenæus mentions that the swan was sometimes brought to the table. (Deipnos. ix.) Its flesh is very hard.
The crane and the stork were not regular articles of food, but Horace mentions that the latter had been used as such for the first time in his days (Sat. ii, 2, 49); and Athenæus enumerates the former among the viands at a banquet. Psellua calls the crane nutritious, but difficult of digestion.
The tongue of the flamingo (Phœnicopterus ruber) was reckoned an exquisite delicacy by the Roman epicures. See Martial (xiii, 71); Juvenal (Sat. ii); Philostratus (in vit. Apoll.) The favorite delicacy of Heliogabalus was the tongue of the flamingo. (Aug. Hist.)
The present is as good an occasion as we shall most probably find, of saying something regarding the use of the locust, or gryllus migratorius, as an article of food. Every person will think of John the Baptist, who lived on locusts and wild honey, in the desert of Arabia. Agatharcides gives a very curious account of the Acridophagi or locust-eaters. He describes them as being of a very slender make, and extremely swarthy. He says they did not live beyond forty, being cut off by a sort of tick (ricinus) which formed in their bodies. (Apud Photium.)
SECT. LXXXIII.—ON EGGS.
The eggs of hens and pheasants are the best of all; those of geese and ostriches not good: of all animals, fresh eggs are superior to the old. Those that are moderately boiled are most nutritive; those that are slightly boiled pass downwards most easily, and smooth asperities in the throat. All the other kinds are difficult to digest and evacuate, and contain thick juices, except those that are said to be suffocated. These are prepared by beating up raw eggs, sauce, wine, and oil, and coagulating to a middling consistence in a double vessel. In this state they are of easy digestion, and supply good juices. But of all others the fried are the worst.
Commentary. Our author, Oribasius, and Aëtius copy their account of eggs from Galen.
Hippocrates says that they are nutritious, strengthening, and flatulent. See also Celsus (ii, 18.)
See a curious account of the medicinal properties of eggs in Pliny. (H. N. xxix. 3.)
Rhases recommends to eat eggs in a soft state, with pepper and marjoram. (Cont. xxxiii.) He says that the best eggs are those of the hen and partridge, and next to them those of the duck. Those of geese, he says, should not be eaten. (Ad Mansor. iii, 13.)
The ancients preserved their eggs in the flour of beans, chaff, or bran. (Pliny, H. N. x, 61; Columella, viii, 6; Varro, De Re Rustica, iii, 9.) Pliny mentions that, if an egg be macerated in vinegar, it will become so soft that it may be drawn through a ring without breaking. Harduin says that he had verified the truth of this fact by experiment.
Horace affirms that eggs of an oblong shape are the best:
We have here adopted the emendation of Bentley. The commentator Acron, however, read alba, but took it in the same sense as alma.
The ancients used to begin their banquets with eggs, and hence the expression “ab ovo ad malum;” that is to say, from beginning to end of a banquet.
Galen and Simeon Seth agree that eggs which are boiled hard, or which have been roasted in ashes until they are hard, become indigestible, and supply heavy nourishment to the body; but such as have been fried they more especially condemn. When boiled to such a consistence as that the white was just beginning to coagulate, they were called tremula. When so soft that the albumen was not all coagulated, they were called sorbilia. In both these states they are much approved of by Galen, Seth, and all the authorities. Galen especially commends the eggs of the hen and of the pheasant. Those of the goose and ostrich, he says, are inferior.
SECT. LXXXIV.—ON BEASTS.
Among quadrupeds, swine’s flesh is more nourishing than any other food, because it is most nearly allied to the human in taste and smell, as some have declared who have tasted human flesh by mistake. But the nourishment derived from it is viscid and imperspirable. That from sheep is excrementitious, and supplies bad juices. That from goats is acrid, and has bad juices. But the worst of all is the flesh of the buck-goat as to the quality of its juices and to digestion. That of oxen forms melancholic humours; that of hares has thick juices, but less so than that of sheep and oxen. That of roes is hard and of difficult digestion. In general, the flesh of young beasts is more humid, more tender, and more digestible than that of the aged; of gelded animals than of those having testicles; and of the well-fed than of the lean.
Commentary. Athenæus remarks that the flesh of beasts, especially oxen, formed the principal part of men’s food in the heroic ages, as appears from Homer. From one passage in the Iliad (xxiv, 263), and another in the Odyssey (ix, 220), it may be reasonably conjectured that they also lived upon lambs and kids. (Deipn. i, 19.) We may add, that Sophocles represents Philoctetes as living, while in Lemnos, upon the birds which he killed with his fatal bow. It is generally supposed that Pythagoras interdicted his disciples entirely from the flesh of animals; but the truth of the matter seems to be, that he recommended a spare use of it, and allowed to eat such animals only as were used for sacrifices. See Iamblichus and Porphyrius (De Vitâ Pythagoræ.) Plutarch, in two treatises, discusses the propriety of eating flesh.
Hippocrates states the particular characters of the different kinds of flesh very correctly. He remarks that the flesh of wild animals is lighter than that of domesticated.
According to Aristotle, the flesh of beasts which have been reared upon marsh pasture is less wholesome than that of beasts brought up on higher grounds. (Hist. An. viii, 12.)
The general remarks of Celsus may best be given in his own words: “Quadrupes omne animal, si lactens est, minus alimenti præstat. Omne etiam ferum animal domestico levius; et quodcunque humido cœlo, quam quod sicco natum est. Deinde eadem omnia pinguia, quam macra; recentia quam salsa; nova quam vetusta, plus alimenti habent. Tum res eadem magis alit jurulenta, quam assa; magis assa, quam elixa.”
Galen remarks that the fleshy parts of quadrupeds form the best blood. When boiled, he says, it supplies the body with more juicy, and when roasted, with drier food. The temperament of domesticated animals, he adds, is more humid or juicy than that of wild, owing to the dampness of the atmosphere in which they live, and their inactivity. For wild animals among the mountains being exposed to privations and fatigue, their flesh is drier, contains no fat, and is less disposed to putrefaction than the flesh of domesticated animals. He states that of all animals, whether fowls or beasts, the flesh of such as are growing is better than those which are past their utmost growth; that such as are at their growth hold an intermediate character; but that the flesh of such as are very young or old is bad, because, in the latter case, it is hard, dry, and fibrous, whence it is difficult to digest, and not nutritious; while, on the other hand, the bodies of very young animals, being mucous (gelatinous?), watery, and therefore excrementitious, readily pass through the bowels undigested.
Actuarius states that animals which lead an indolent life are more humid and excrementitious; whereas such as are much exercised are drier and lighter. Upon the whole, he adds, the more the colour of flesh declines from white, the farther is it removed from wholesomeness; it is also to be known that wild animals are hotter and drier than domesticated.
Haly Abbas says that the flesh of all animals is heating and humid, forms much blood, and is nutritious. Avicenna remarks that flesh strengthens the body, and is readily converted into blood. According to Rhases, flesh is the most nutritious of all aliments, and disposes most to plethora; hence, those who live much upon it require frequent venesection, especially if at the same time given to drinking wine.
Of all kinds of animal food, pork was almost universally esteemed by the ancients as the best. Hippocrates repeatedly speaks of it as being most wholesome and nutritious, and Galen says the same of it in the strongest language. He states that the athletæ, if for one day presented with the same bulk of any other article of food, immediately experienced a diminution of strength; and if the change of diet was persisted in for several successive days, that they fell off in flesh. He adds that he had been credibly informed by persons who had been compelled, under extraordinary circumstances, to taste human flesh, that pork bears a near resemblance to it. Celsus praises it for its lightness: “Inter domesticas vero quadrupedes, levissima suilla est.” Aëtius, Oribasius, and, in a word, all the Greek authorities subsequent to Galen, deliver exactly the same character of it as he. See, in particular, Simeon Seth. He says, that the flesh of swine a year old is the best, and that very young pigs are not to be eaten, as being too humid and excrementitious. He adds that the flesh of wild boars furnish the best food, being neither so excrementitious nor so viscid as that of tame swine. Martial declares his fondness for young pigs fed upon milk. The Arabian authors display (as might be expected) their religious prejudices against the flesh of swine. Avicenna merely remarks of it that the Christians, and those who imitate them, say that the flesh of the wild boar is the best of all. Averrhoes refers to the opinion of Avicenna. Rhases, who has treated of Dietetics in three distinct works, has nowhere, so far as we can discover, recommended pork as an article of food. Haly Abbas, however, speaks favorably of it; he, it would appear, being a Magian. Various receipts for dressing pork are given by Apicius. As a sauce for the flesh of the wild boar, he recommends a composition of honey, pickle, sodden wine, and raisin wine. The wild boar is mentioned as a favorite delicacy of the Roman epicures by Juvenal and other writers of that age. Cato, the Censor, gives very sensible directions for the preparation of ham. (De Re Rusticâ, 162.) It will be perceived that our author states that pork is imperspirable. Sanctorius confirms the truth of this statement. Both Cicero and Porphyry quote the saying of Chrysippus, that a soul or living principle was given to swine, as a sort of salt, to preserve their flesh from putrefaction for the use of man.
Mutton was no great favorite with the ancients. Galen, Aëtius, Oribasius, and Simeon Seth agree with our author, that it is inferior to pork, as being more excrementitious, and containing worse juices. Averrhoes, however, accuses Galen of being prejudiced against the flesh of wethers and lambs, which, he affirms, are inferior only to kids in excellence; he even speaks favorably of the flesh of rams. (Collect. v, 32.) Rhases ranks mutton as second only to kid. Seth says that the best mutton is that of a sheep a year old. Apicius gives full directions for cooking mutton and lamb. (viii.)
All the ancient authorities speak of goats’ flesh in much the same terms as our author; namely, as being acrid, and containing unwholesome juices. Hippocrates says it has all the bad qualities of beef. That of buck-goats is said by Galen to be particularly bad; and, next to it, those of rams and of bulls. Of kid, he speaks favorably, as being next in excellence to pork; then he ranks veal. But lamb, he says, is humid, gelatinous, and mucous. Rhases and Averrhoes rank kid first, and then lamb. The poet Hesiod recommends kid as a delicious article of food during the heat of summer. (Op. et Dies, i, 590.) According to Athenæus, kid imparts more firm and substantial nourishment to the body than any other kind of flesh, not even excepting pork and lamb. (ix, 66.)
The Arabians mention the gazelle (antelope dorcas) as being nearly allied but superior to the goat. Simeon Seth says that the flesh of the dorcas is better than that of any other wild animal, and that it is allied to the human body.
Hippocrates calls beef a strong, astringent, and indigestible article of food. Celsus ranks it among the articles which are not apt to spoil in the stomach. Oribasius says, that it is more than moderately nutritious, but imperspirable, and forms thick blood. Like Galen and our author, he says that it proves injurious to those who are subject to collections of black bile. Seth says that it is difficult of digestion and distribution, but when digested, sufficiently nutritious. Rhases says, that it supplies much nourishment of a gross nature, and forms thick blood. Averrhoes says that the flesh of heifers is good, not being so viscid, cold, and dry as the flesh of oxen. The sauces recommended by Apicius for the flesh of oxen and heifers contain various spices, and aromatics with vinegar, pickle, and oil.
The glis is mentioned as a favorite delicacy of the Romans by Varro, Pliny, Martial, Galen, and Ammianus Marcellinus. We learn from Varro that it was regularly reared for the table. (R. R. iii, 15.) It is the glis esculentus or rellmouse.
All the authorities agree that the flesh of the stag or roe is difficult to digest. Hence Rhases forbids it, except after hard exercise. Simeon Seth adds that, as in summer, stags frequently eat poisonous serpents, it may be dangerous to take of their flesh at that season. Celsus appears to have had a more favorable opinion of venison than most of the ancient authorities, for he ranks “omnis venatio” among the things which agree best with the stomach. Seth says that hare is sufficiently nutritious, if properly digested, but that it disagrees with persons of a dry temperament, and is apt to form melancholic humours. The poet Martial also praises it extravagantly. Apicius gives many complicated receipts for dressing hares. Pliny remarks that there never is any fat on hares. (Hist. Nat. xi, 85.) Hippocrates says that their flesh is dry and astringent. Horace frequently praises the shoulder of the hare. (Sat. ii, 4, 44.) In our days, the loins are preferred. The cuniculus, or rabbit, was greatly esteemed in Spain, but does not appear to have been much used by the Greeks or Romans.
Galen says the ass was eaten in times of scarcity, but was not a regular article of food. Xenophon, however, mentions, in the 1st book of the ‘Anabasis,’ that the flesh of the wild asses caught in the Syrian desert was most delicious. Martial also speaks of the wild ass as being tender. (Epigr. xiii, 97.)
SECT. LXXXV.—ON THE PARTS OF ANIMALS.
The extremities are tendinous, without fat and without flesh; and are therefore viscid, contain little nourishment, and are laxative of the belly, except those of birds owing to their great dryness. The snout and ears are gristly and indigestible. The tongue is spongy, full of blood, and gives little nourishment. The glands are sweet and friable; and those of the breast are sweeter than the others, and, in particular, those of swine which are giving milk. These are no less nutritious than the flesh. The kidneys and testicles are strong-smelled and indigestible, but those of cocks fed upon grain are sweet, and supply a good nourishment to the body; whereas those of bulls, buck-goats, and rams are indigestible, and contain bad juices. The brain produces phlegm, thick and bad chyme, is difficult to evacuate and digest, injurious to the stomach, and occasions nausea; but when properly digested it is sufficiently nutritious. The marrow is oily and sweeter than the brain, but in other respects resembles it. Fat and suet contain little nourishment, and are hurtful to the stomach. The heart and liver contain thick juices, are difficult to digest and evacuate. But the liver of swine is better. The spleen contains bad juices, and occasions melancholic humours. The lungs are more digestible as being spongy, but contain less nourishment and form phlegm. The stomach, womb, and intestines are hard, indigestible, and form phlegm. In general, the nourishment from wild animals is drier and less excrementitious than that from tame. All blood is of difficult digestion, especially the thick and melancholic, as is that of oxen; but that of hares is esteemed very delicious, and many are in the practice of boiling it with the liver, and some with the other viscera. Some eat also that of young swine; and even Homer was aware that the blood of goats is eaten by certain people.
Commentary. Since our author has stated very distinctly the characters of the parts of animals (having abridged the fuller account of Galen), it will serve no purpose for us to enlarge upon every one of these articles; and, therefore, we shall be content with making a few cursory remarks. For further information, see Galen (de Alim. Facult. and de Euchym.); Oribasius (Med. Coll. v); Aëtius (ii); Rhases (ad Mansor. iii, 11); Haly Abbas (Theor. v, 22); Serapion (de Simpl. ex Animal.)
Galen remarks that, as some rendered the liver of swine sweet, by feeding them upon dried figs, so he knew some persons who were in the practice of preparing the livers of geese in like manner, by feeding them upon milk, by which means they were rendered not only delicious, but also very nutritious, wholesome, digestible, and not difficult to evacuate. Oribasius and Haly Abbas speak of it in much the same terms; but Haly adds that much of it ought not to be eaten at once, as it is slowly digested. Athenæus speaks of it as a delicacy in great request at Rome. (Deipnos. ix, 32). The liver of a white goose fed upon fatty figs is one of the delicacies mentioned by Horace as having been presented at the supper of Nasidienus. (Sat. ii, 8.) See also Juvenal (v, 114), and Persius (vi, 7.) If we may believe Martial, the liver, in these cases, sometimes grew to such a size as to surpass the body of the animal. (Epigr. xiii, 58.) We are informed by Pliny, that it was disputed to whom the culinary art was indebted for the discovery of this exquisite delicacy. (H. N. x, 21.)
Galen states that all fat and suet are of an oily nature, and that they ought rather to be used as condiments than as articles of food. Serapion gives the most circumstantial account of the qualities of these animal oils.
The vulva or womb of a sow was esteemed an exquisite delicacy by the Romans. There were three kinds of it—that is to say, it was taken in three different states of the animal. The first, called ejectitia, was procured by forcing the animal to part with its young. The second, or porcaria, was the womb of the animal, taken after it had littered. The third, called sterilis, was the womb of a sow that had never been with young. This last is ranked by Celsus among those things which are useful to the stomach. See Plutarch (de Esu Carnium); Pliny (Hist. Nat. xi, 37.) Simeon Seth, however, condemns it as indigestible. (See Not. Bogdani.)
SECT. LXXXVI.—ON MILK.
Milk, when digested, is nutritive, but is injurious to the gums and teeth; and, therefore, after taking it, one ought to rinse one’s mouth, first with honied water, and then with an astringent wine. It also produces headach, occasions flatulence of the stomach, and hypochondria, and engenders stones in the kidneys. The more watery kind contains less nourishment, but is more laxative, while, on the other hand, the thick is more nutritive, and moves the belly less. That of the goat is of a middling consistence, as that of the sheep is thicker; and it, immediately after the ewe has brought forth lambs, is thinner, but it afterwards becomes thicker and worse.
Commentary. It appears, from Homer, that the milk of various animals was used for food in the heroic ages of Greece. His commentator, Eustathius, remarks that it is very nutritious, and, in proof of this, relates the case of one Philinus, who used no other food or drink. (Ad Iliad. xiii, 6.)
Hippocrates, who often makes mention of milk as a medicine, and as an article of food, states that it sometimes occasions the formation of stones in the bladder (de Aer., Aquis et Locis, 24); and this opinion was adopted by all the ancient authorities on medicine. Milk, he says, is bad for those who are subject to headach, for those in fever, or who have flatulency of the bowels, with rumbling or thirst; also for those who are bilious and have bloody discharges from the bowels. He recommends it in consumption, and during convalescence from protracted fevers. (Aph. v, 64.)
According to Galen, the thickest milk of all, and the fattest, is that of cows; the most liquid and least fat is that of the camel; and after it that of the mare, and then of the ass; the milk of goats is of a middle consistence, and that of sheep thicker than it. It is clear, he adds, that thick milk contains more cheese, and liquid more whey. Liquid milk, therefore, is more laxative than thick; and, on the contrary, thick milk is more nutritious than liquid. He mentions that whey, either alone or with a certain mixture of salt, may often be used as an excellent laxative medicine. He states that if a goat or any other animal eat of scammony or spurge, her milk will be rendered purgative. He says that milk is most beneficial in complaints of the chest, but most injurious in diseases of the head and hypochondrium. He, and all the ancient authorities after him, state that milk is apt to hurt the teeth.
Celsus calls milk a wholesome and nutritious article of food; but says that it is apt to disagree with the stomach, and to prove flatulent. The learned Varro says of milk: “Est omnium rerum quas cibi causa capimus liquentium maxime alibile, et id ovillum, inde caprinum.” (De R. R. ii, 11.)
Aristotle arranges the milk of the camel, the mare, and the ass, in the same order, with respect to consistence, as Galen. (H. A. iv, 20.) Pliny, evidently having in view this passage of Aristotle, says that the milk of camels is the thinnest, then that of the mare, and that the milk of asses is the thickest. This is going further than he was justified by his authority. He remarks that the milk of cows gives the most cheese. (Hist. Nat. xi, 41.)
Dioscorides calls milk nutritious, laxative and flatulent. His account of its properties is interesting. (ii, 74.)
All the Greek authorities subsequent to Galen evidently copy from him. Seth says that the longer milk is kept the worse it becomes. When properly digested, he adds, it moistens the body, induces soundness thereof, and is useful in complaints of the chest.
According to Haly Abbas, the milk of cows is the thickest of all, and the most nutritious; that of camels the thinnest, and the least nutritious; goat’s milk is intermediate between them; the milk of sheep, intermediate between that of cows and goats; and the milk of asses, between that of goats and of camels. (Theor. v, 26.) Rhases enumerates them in a considerably different order; he says that the milk of cows is the thickest, and that of asses the thinnest, while that of goats is intermediate. (Ad Mansor. iii, 15.) Averrhoes calls the milk of asses and of goats the best. See also Serapion (ex Animalibus, 457); and Avicenna (ii, 2, 434.)
The following remarks of Macrobius seem to us very acute and pertinent; and, if well founded, they ought to operate as a powerful consideration to every healthy mother to suckle her own offspring: “Quamobrem non frustra creditum est, sicut valeat ad fingendas corporis et animi similitudines vis et natura seminis, non secus ad eandem rem lactis quoque ingenia et proprietates valere. Neque in hominibus id solum, sed in pecudibus quoque animadversum. Nam si ovium lacte hædi, aut caprarum agni forsitan alantur: constat ferme in his lanam duriorem, in illis pilum gigni teneriorem.” (Saturn. v, 11.)
The Galactophagi, a Scythian nation who lived principally upon mare’s milk, are made mention of by Homer (Iliad, xiii), and by Stobæus (Sermo, v.) Eustathius says that they made much use of a preparation from milk, called oxygala. (Ad Iliad, u. s.)
Aristotle calls butter the fat of milk, which has concreted to the consistence of oil. (Hist. Animal.) Hecatæus, in Athenæus, calls it the oil of milk. (Deipnos. x.) Dioscorides says that it is used for condiments instead of oil, and in confectionary instead of suet.
SECT. LXXXVII.—ON THE DRINKING OF MILK.
He who drinks milk ought to abstain from all other food until it be digested, and pass downwards. It is best therefore to drink it in the morning, newly milked, and to take no food after it, nor any hard exercise, because this would make it turn acid. But it is better to walk about gently, and rest between, without sleeping. After doing this, the first part will be evacuated, and then one may drink another part, and when it is evacuated another may be taken. At first, therefore, it purges properly, not indeed from the general system, but what was contained in the belly. Afterwards it enters the veins, and nourishes excellently, and is no longer evacuated. In bilious defluxions, and colliquative diarrhœas, the milk should be given boiled. Boil it at first gently, and for a short time, so that none of it may run over, and that part of it may be consumed. Afterwards it may be boiled more and more, taking care not to burn it, nor convert it into cheese. This will be best guarded against by boiling it softly, and clearing away what is separated by the agitation. It may be agitated with a smooth and slender reed; and, if it froth at the lips, this may be cleared away with a sponge, for often the part there spoils all the rest. The milk then, as is said, ought to be boiled until it become thicker and sweeter than the raw. And the thin and serous part may be dissipated by putting heated pebbles into the milk. This is beneficial in defluxions of the belly, and particularly in bilious ones.
Commentary. This account of the process of administering milk is taken from Oribasius, who, in his turn, is indebted to Ruffus. Avicenna, in like manner, copies from Ruffus. There is not in any other ancient author so full a description of the process of boiling milk. On the ancient modes of preparing milk for various purposes, and their uses, see ‘Geopon.’ (xviii), and Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxviii, 38.) Pliny mentions that some cure gout in the hands and feet by milk. Simeon Seth joins our author, or rather Ruffus, in recommending boiled milk in dysentery. He likewise praises its effects in phthisis and dry coughs.
The method of preparing milk for use by putting heated stones into it, is mentioned by Dioscorides, Pliny, and others. Serapion recommends heated iron. See the following Section. Galen was aware that milk coagulates in the stomach before it is digested. (De Al. Fac. iii, 15.)
SECT. LXXXVIII.—ON CURDS AND WHEY.
By powerful boiling at a strong fire without smoke, the serous part of the milk is separated from the caseous, and is then strained through a sieve or piece of rag carefully, and to the serous part is added a moderate quantity of honey, or of vinegar and honey, or salts; and it is given to evacuate the bowels in the quantity of two sextarii to adults, and to younger persons not less than a sextarius. And milk thickened by ignited pebbles or iron may be given with advantage for dysenteries and alvine discharges.
Commentary. The method of preparing the schiston is thus described by Pliny: “Medici speciem unam addidere lactis generibus, quod schiston appellavere. Id fit hoc modo: fictili novo fervet caprinum maxime, ramisque ficulneis recentibus miscetur, additis totidem cyathis mulsi, quot sint heminæ lactis. Cum fervet, ne circumfundatur, præstat cyathus argenteus cum frigida aqua demissus ita ne quid infundat: ablatum deinde igni refrigeratione dividitur et discedit serum a lacte.” (Hist. Nat. xxviii, 33.) The same process is briefly described by Dioscorides (ii, 77.) Pliny recommends the whey thus prepared for epilepsy, melancholy, paralysis, leprosy, elephantiasis, and arthritis. This preparation of milk is often noticed by the ancient authors on medicine. It evidently consisted of the whey of the milk, separated from the cheese by a peculiar process.
The melca was a preparation from milk, and is mentioned by our author in the Fourth Book § 27. It also appears to have been a sort of curds and whey, or du lait caillé of the French, prepared by pouring hot vinegar upon milk. The process is minutely described in the Geoponics (xviii.)
The oxygal, or lac acidum, consisted of the caseous part of the milk, separated from the whey by a very complicated process, which is fully described by Columella. (xii, 8.) It is said by Galen to possess very refrigerant properties.
The aphrogala, or spuma lactis, appears to have been milk reduced to a state of foam by violent agitation.
SECT. LXXXIX.—ON CHEESE.
All cheese is acrid, occasions thirst, is difficult to digest, forms bad chyme, and engenders stones. That is best which is new, spongy, soft, sweet, and has a moderate share of salt. The opposite kind is the worst.
Commentary. Hippocrates calls cheese flatulent and indigestible. Celsus also calls it flatulent, and ranks old cheese among the unwholesome articles of food. He speaks favorably, however, of soft new-made cheese. Dioscorides, in like manner, says that new-made cheese without salt is nutritious, good for the stomach, of easy distribution, forms flesh, and is moderately laxative. Old cheese, he adds, is constipating. Pliny describes the kinds in most repute when he lived. (Hist. Nat. xi, 97.) He says that salted cheese wastes the body, but that soft is nutritious, (xxviii, 34.) Varro, in like manner, says that soft and recent cheese is nourishing, and not astringent, but that the old and dry is the contrary. (De R. R. ii, 11.) The spongy cheese prepared from the first milk of a goat was reckoned very delicious. It was called colostrum. (Martial, Epigr. xiii, 33.)
Galen’s account of the nature and properties of cheese is so ample that our limits will not admit of doing justice to it in our brief abstract. (De Alim. iii, 17.) He remarks that milk, when it is converted into cheese, loses its watery part, and acquires heating properties, whence it becomes more apt to excite thirst, more indigestible, and unwholesome. He speaks most favorably of new-made cheese, and mentions that there was a kind much used by rich Romans, called Vatusicus, which was peculiarly excellent. As to consistence, the best cheese, he remarks, should be intermediate between the glutinous and the friable, and it ought to possess no distinct quality as to taste, unless, perhaps, a certain degree of sweetness. Aëtius, Oribasius, and Simeon Seth evidently adopt the views of Galen. Seth says that new cheese is laxative, and old astringent.
The Arabians deliver the same characters of cheese as their Grecian masters. Avicenna, Averrhoes, and Haly Abbas speak favorably of new cheese, as being of a cold and humid nature.
Hippocrates mentions a species of cheese prepared by the Scythians, from mares’ milk, and called by them hippace. (De Aer.) The same is noticed by Theophrastus (Hist. Pl. ix), and by Pliny (Hist. Nat. xxv, 44.) Cheese variously prepared and served up was esteemed a great delicacy by the gourmands. See Athenæus (ix, 14.) It was taken towards the conclusion of a feast. (Id. xv, 22.)
SECT. XC.—ON FISHES.
That all fishes are of a colder and more humid temperament is obvious. Those that are found among rocks are the best of all, being of easy digestion, furnishing good juices, and being moderately moistening when their flesh is not hard. Of those that do not abide among rocks, those that abide in the sea are much better than those that dwell among mud, or where rivers meet the sea. But still worse are those which are found in marshes and stagnant parts of the sea. In particular, the mullet (capito) being a sea fish, is moderately sweet, not very indigestible, and furnishes good chyme; but the blood formed from it is thin and weak. So it is also with the bass (lupus). The surmullet, as being a sea fish, is harder than the others, friable, digestible, nutritive, sweet, and free of fat.
Commentary. Ancient authors make mention of whole nations of mankind that subsisted entirely upon fish. For an account of the Ichthyophagi, see Herodotus (iii, 20); Pliny (xi); Strabo (Geogr. xv); Diodorus Siculus (iv, 15); Ptolemæus (Geogr. iv); Arrianus (in Indicis); Solinus (Polyhistor, lxv); Philostratus (in Vita Apollonii, iii.) The description given of them by Diodorus is the most circumstantial and interesting. He says that the simplicity of their diet preserved them free from diseases, but that they were short-lived. A very interesting, and seemingly a very authentic account of the fish-eaters on the borders of the Red Sea is also given by Agatharcides. (Ap. Photium.) Pliny states that fish was used by his countrymen as food from the building of the city. (Hist. Nat. xxxii, 10.) Eustathius says that, in the heroic ages, it was seldom used but in cases of want. (Ad Iliad. v, 487.) It would appear that fish was generally high priced in Greece. See Athen. (vi, 12, ed. Schweigh.) In the luxurious days of the Romans, the rage for fishes esteemed as rare was excessive. See Horace, Juvenal, and Martial (pluries.)
Hippocrates thus details the dietetical qualities of fish. Speaking generally, then, he says fishes are light food, both when boiled and roasted, by themselves or with other things. They differ from one another as follows: Those which live in lakes, the fat, and river fishes, are heavier; of sea fish, such as are found near the shore are lighter, and those which are well boiled are lighter than such as are roasted. The stronger kind, therefore, are to be given when our object is to recruit, but the lighter when we wish to attenuate or reduce. (De Affect. 46.)
Celsus ranks fish among those things which hold an intermediate place between articles of a strong and of a weak nature. He thus distinguishes them from one another: “Levior piscis inter saxa editus, quam in arenâ, levior in arenâ, quam in limo: quo fit ut ex stagno, vel lacu, vel flumine eadem genera graviora sint: leviorque, qui in alto, quam qui in vado vixit.”
Plutarch states that fish is much more easily digested than flesh. (Sympos. iv.)
For a full, interesting, and judicious account of the qualities of fishes as articles of food, see Athenæus (Deipnos. viii.) We can only afford room to mention his opinion of their more general properties. He says, then, upon the authority of the Siphnian Diphilus, that of sea fishes those that live among rocks are of easy digestion, contain good juices, are detergent, light, and afford little nourishment; and that those which inhabit the depths of the sea are difficult to digest, very nutritious, and of difficult assimilation.
Galen states that fishes which live in marshes, lakes, and muddy rivers, are the worst as articles of food, because they are little exercised in swimming, and have impure food. Such fishes as live in the depths of the sea, he says, are almost free from fault as aliment, for they are more wholesome and delicious than any of the others. He mentions, as the characteristics of good fish, that they have no offensive taste or smell, have little fat, and can be kept for a considerable time without becoming putrid, especially if put in ice. He says that fish is the best possible food to persons of indolent habits, old men, and invalids, but that it does not answer so well with persons who take strong exercise.
Of fishes, as aliments, there is an excellent account in a Fragment of Xenocrates, published a few years ago, with interesting notes, by the learned Dr. Coray, of Paris. He says that roasted fishes are most nutritious, but are of difficult evacuation; that the boiled are less nutritious, but are readily evacuated; that sea fishes are savoury, agree with the stomach, are of easy distribution, form proper blood, impart a good colour, and clear the bowels. Such as live in rivers and lakes, he adds, are bad for the stomach, form thick juices, and are of difficult evacuation. The characters of the different fishes are afterwards stated by him very fully. He says that the parts next to the tail, as being most exercised, are most wholesome.
Oribasius’s account of fishes is mostly taken from Xenocrates. Aëtius is full and correct on this subject. He says that the best fishes are those which live in a sea of pure water, especially if it be agitated by winds, and if its shores be sandy, and not clayey.
Actuarius says, that of fishes which live at the sea-shore, and among the rocks, the larger supply much nourishment, of a thick nature; and the smaller, little nourishment, of a pure nature. He says, further, that sea fishes in general, being preferable to those which live in fresh waters, differ however from one another in several respects; that such as live in the open sea are more exercised, and enjoy purer food, than the others, and hence their flesh is firmer and purer, and they are more nutritious, and form thick blood; that such as live in canals and marshes are bad and unwholesome; and that those which live among rocks in pure waters have better flesh, and, being light and digestible, form thin and pure blood.
Simeon copies freely from Galen and our author. Upon the whole, he says, the blood which fishes form is thinner than that from land animals. Fish, he says, is the most proper food of invalids and convalescents.
Alexander Aphrodisiensis discusses the question why rock fishes are peculiarly excellent, and decides that it is because the water about rocks is constantly in motion, which keeps the fishes there in perpetual exercise. (Prob. ii, 82.) He would appear to have had in view Galen, (de Facult. Alim. iii, 20.) Considering that rock fishes are particularly commended by all the authorities on dietetics, both Greek and Arabian, it has justly excited the wonder of Joannes Bruyerinus Campegius and Ludovicus Nonnius, two very learned writers on the Res Alimentaria of the ancients, that Celsus should rank the “pisces saxatiles” among the “res mali succi.” (ii. 21.) This appears the more remarkable, as he had previously (18) classed “omnes sexatiles” among the “res leviores,” and had said again of them, “levior piscis inter saxa editus, quam in arena.” Taking all this into consideration, we cannot hesitate in coming to the conclusion that in the passage first quoted the text must be in fault. We beg to offer, as a conjectural emendation, “fluviatiles.” Galen, Xenocrates, Psellus, Seth, and other authorities, agree in condemning river fishes, with the exception of those that run up from the sea. We may further mention, as tending to confirm this conjecture, that the same character of river fishes is given by the great Italian authority on dietetics, Domenico Romoli. (See Singulare Dottrina, &c. vii, 50.)
Rhases states that sea and river fishes are the best, especially such as have rough scales, are not mucilaginous, and are naturally of a white colour. Those, he adds, which are of a black or red colour should be abstained from. He says that all fish remains long in the stomach undigested. It is now generally admitted that it is less digestible than the tender flesh of quadrupeds.
Avicenna delivers the general characters of fishes in the same terms as Galen. He says that the best are those the flesh of which is neither too hard and dry; nor, on the other hand, too mucilaginous; and which are neither very large nor very small. Averrhoes repeats this account of them. Haly Abbas, in like manner, abridges Galen. He says that fresh fish is of a cold and humid nature, and engenders phlegm.
The ancients ate their fish either roasted, boiled, fried, or in soups. Invalids were recommended to take them boiled. The fried were believed to suit only with persons of a strong constitution.
We shall now offer a few remarks upon the fishes which were in most request at the tables of the ancients.
The labrax, or lupus, has been taken for the pike. But Aristotle, Oppian, and Cassidorus describe it as being a cunning fish, which does not accord with the character of the pike. Bochart concludes that it is the fish called λαύρακι, by the modern Greeks; varolo, by the Italians; and bar, by the French. It seems indisputable that it was the bass, i. e. labrax lupus Cuvier. Icesius, as quoted by Athenæus, says of it, that it contains good juices, but is not very nutritious, nor readily evacuated, but is the most delicious of all fishes. Archestratus calls it “the offspring of the gods.” All the authorities, in a word, speak highly of it. Lupi caught in the Tiber were esteemed the best. See Horace (Sat. ii, 2,) and Macrobius (Saturn. iii, 16.) There were two species, the lanatus and the varius, of which the former was in most esteem.
The pike is unquestionably the “lucius” of Ausonius (Mosella); but it seems doubtful whether it be noticed by the Greek writers. The hepatus would seem to be a congener. Galen says its flesh is intermediate between the soft and the hard.
The barb (cyprinus barbus L.) is not described by the Greeks, but is mentioned by the Latin poet Ausonius (l. c.) who says of it that it is the only fish which is improved by age.
The rhombus was esteemed a remarkable delicacy. The classical reader will recollect the ludicrous importance attached to the capture of one by the flatterers of Domitian, as described in the 4th Satire of Juvenal. It is frequently made honorable mention of by Horace and Martial. According to Harduin and Nonnius, it was the turbot, yet not the common turbot of this country (pleuronectus maximus), but the species called carrelet in French (P. rhombus L.) Athenæus calls it sweet and nutritious. Celsus ranks it among “res boni succi.” According to Athenæus, it is the same as the ψήττα of Aristotle. It is, we suppose, the ψίσσα of Alexander (ii, 6.) It is the ψίσιον of Seth (V. Notæ Bogdani). He calls it wholesome and of easy digestion.
The cephalus was a species of the mullet, as is stated by Harduin (ad Plinii Hist. Nat. ix, 26); Schneider (ad Æliani Nat. Anim. i, 12); and Ludovicus Nonnius. It is the mugil cephalus L. Oppian describes the fishing of it in the most striking manner. Galen remarks that the flesh of it differs much in quality, according to the nature of the place in which it is found. Athenæus ranks it among the fishes which are sweet and nutritious. Simeon Seth and Aëtius say that the river mullet is bad for the stomach, indigestible, and apt to form phlegm. It appears from Anaxilas, as quoted by Athenæus, that its head was in most repute. Archestratus says that it is best in the winter season.
The trigla, or mullus, as Nonnius, Harduin, Schneider, and Coray state, was the surmullet, or mullus barbatus L. It is mentioned as a rare delicacy of great price by Horace (Sat. ii, 2); Juvenal (Sat. iv, 15); Martial (Xenia, 74); and Macrobius (Saturnal. iii, 16.) Athenæus says of it, “Diocles writes that the flesh of the mullus is hard.” (vii, 21.) Its liver prepared with oil and wine is said by Galen to have been esteemed as a peculiar delicacy.
We need not say how much the murene was sought after by all the lovers of good eating in ancient Rome. Pliny, Martial, and Macrobius inform us that those from Sicily were in most esteem; and Brydone takes notice of the peculiar excellence of the Sicilian murenes at the time when he performed his tour through that island. According to Icesius, it is as nutritious as the eel. (Athen. vii.) He mentions that the murene was called “the Helen of suppers;” and hence, no doubt, Linnæus has named the fish muræna Helena. It was held in much esteem, he says, before spawning. (Ibid.) Apicius gives various receipts for the dressing of it. Pepper, wine, vinegar, and oil are ingredients in almost every one of them. The murene which was served up at the supper of Nasidienus had a sauce or soup formed of such things. (Horace, Sat. ii, 8.) It is related of Vedius Pollio, that he fed his murenes with the bodies of condemned slaves. (Plin. Hist. Nat. ix, 23, and Tertullian, De Pallio.) L. Crassus, the orator, put on mourning clothes for the death of a murene. (Macrobius, Sat. iii, 15.) The muræna ophis is mentioned by Galen as having the same character as its congener.