Chapter VIII: Part 8

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.

The ancients were acquainted with several species of mackerel (_scomber scomber_), which Xenocrates represents as nutritious, but unpalatable and flatulent.

The anguilla, or common eel, and the congrus, or conger-eel, were despised by the Roman _gourmands_, but were greatly esteemed by the Greeks. Icesius says that eels are the best of fishes. See Athen. (l. c.)

It is supposed, by most of the classical commentators, that the accipenser was the sturgeon, but this is not quite agreed.—See this point fully discussed by Rondelet, Gesner, and Willoughby. The celebrated Artedi, and the writer of the article on Ichthyology in the ‘Encycl. Method.’ are quite decided in the affirmative. We need have little difficulty, then, in determining it to be the _accipenser sturio_. To our minds there can be no doubt but that it is the fish described by Constantine Porphyrogenita, under the name of βερζήτικον. (De Admin. Imp. 42.) Both in the days of the Romans, and under the Greek empire, the sturgeon was commonly procured from the Pontus or Black Sea. Its popularity appears to have been great in the days of Horace, but it had fallen into disrepute in the time of Pliny. It seems, however, to have retrieved its character afterwards; for one of the authorities quoted by Athenæus says that it was presented at the Roman banquets, crowned with garlands, and accompanied with the playing of pipes. See also Macrobius (Sat. iii, 16.) Martial speaks of it as a much-esteemed delicacy at the imperial table. The elops and the galeus rhodius were fishes nearly allied to the sturgeon. See Pliny and Athenæus.

The isinglass fish (_accipenser huso_), although described by Herodotus (Hist. iv, 53), Strabo (Geogr.), and Ælian (xiv, 23), is not noticed by the dietetical writers, unless we suppose it the fish alluded to by Athenæus (vii, 21), where see the notes of Coray and Schweighäuser.

Martial mentions the gobius, or gudgeon, as being the first of the viands presented at the banquets of the Venetians. (Xenia, Ep. 83.) Juvenal speaks of it as being a fish of little value, or, at least, low priced. (Sat. xi, 37.) It is, in fact, as Galen states, a very small fish; but he represents it as being delicious, digestible, and wholesome, especially when caught on a stony or rocky shore. Seth gives the same account of it. Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, says, that when its flesh is white the gudgeon is tender, wholesome, and digestible.

The perch, according to the same authority, bears a close resemblance to the gudgeon. Ausonius calls it the _deliciæ mensarum_. Galen calls it a delicious fish, which is not only of easy digestion but most wholesome. He adds that it, and other fishes of the same description, form blood of a middling consistence, that is to say, neither very watery nor too thick. Both the _perca fluviatilis_ and the _P. marina_ are described by Aristotle, Galen, Athenæus, and the other writers on dietetics.

The umber (_sciæna umbra_), a fish resembling the perch, but of great size, was in much esteem as a pickle, which was called _saperda_, and brought from Pontus. See Athen. (iii, 31), and Persius (Sat.)

The merle (_labrus merula_) is mentioned among the rock fishes by Galen. Diocles in Athenæus says it is of easy digestion and highly nutritive. The iülis, called _donzella_ by the Italians, a fish of the same genus, is mentioned by Galen and Xenocrates as having soft flesh.

The fish called _serran_ in French (_serranus anthius_ Cuv.), and its congener the _labrus hepatus_ L. are briefly noticed by the dietetical authorities as wholesome fishes.

On the _salmon_ the Greek authors are entirely silent. It is briefly noticed by Pliny (H. N. ix, 32); but the first and only satisfactory account of it which is to be found in any Latin classic is contained in the Mosella of Ausonius. We shall give an extract from the lines in which it is first described:

“Teque inter species geminas, neutrumque et utrumque,
Qui necdum Salmo, nec jam Salar, ambiguusque
Amborum medio Fario intercepte sub ævo.”

Here we find marked the three progressive stages in the growth of the fish. The salar is the sea-trout, the fario is what in the north of Scotland is called the grilse, and the salmo is the full-grown salmon. Of the salmon he says:

“Tu loricato squamosus pectore, frontem
Lubricus, et dubiæ facturus fercula cænæ,
Tempora longarum fers incorrupte morarum,
Præsignis maculis capitis: cui prodiga nutat
Alvus, opimatoque fluens abdomine venter.”

The sea-trout is well described in the following line:

“Purpureisque Salar stellatus tergora guttis.”

Nonnius considers the salmon to be the _anchorago_ of Cassiodorus. (De Esu Piscium, 31.) Gesner holds the same opinion. (De Aquat.)

Ludovicus Nonnius confesses his inability to determine what the scarus was. It would seem to have been the fish now called _labrus scarus_ L., a small fish, according to Bellonius, being seldom more than a fathom long. Xenocrates praises it as being very savoury and of easy digestion, but of difficult distribution and evacuation. For a curious account of it, see Macrobius (Sat. iii, 16.) The sargus nearly resembles the scarus, but is more astringent and nutritious. It is the _sparus sargus_ L., and, according to Rondelet, is called _sargo_ by the Italians. The melanurus (_sparus m._) is very like to it in shape and qualities.

The aurata, called by Bruyer and Nonnius in French _brame de mer_; and by Ainsworth and Artedi, gilt-head in English, (namely, the _sparus aurata_ L.) is said by Celsus and Mnesitheus as quoted by Athenæus, to be a fish of difficult digestion but very nutritious. Xenocrates says that its flesh is firm, white, of easy distribution, and nutritious.

The passer, called platessa by Ausonius, is supposed by Artedi and Nonnius to have been the plaice (_pleuronectes platessa_.) It is mentioned by Horace among the delicacies at the supper of Nasidienus. The solea or sole, called lingualaca by Festus and Varro, was nearly allied to it. It is the _P. solea_. Diphilus says that both are very savoury and nutritious.

The lamprey (_petromyzon lampetra_ L.) is the mustella of Ausonius, the exormiston of Cassiodorus, the γαλάξιας of Galen, the ἐχένηις of Oppian, and the βδέλλα of Strabo. See Bruyer, Nonnius, and Rondelet. It was reckoned unwholesome.

The capros, or carp, is called by Archestratus “The flower of nectar.” (Athenæus Deipnos. vii.) It is the _cyprinus carpio_ L.

The hake (_gadus merluccius_) is generally supposed to be the _gadus_ of Athenæus (vii); the _asellus_ of Ovid, Varro, and Pliny; and _oniscus_ of Marcellus Sideta. It was reckoned wholesome. The ancients do not appear to have been acquainted with the _gadus eglofinus_, or haddock.

According to Willoughby, the Latin poet Ausonius is the only ancient author who has noticed the tench or _cyprinus tinca_. We are inclined, however, to think that it is the ψύλων of Aristotle (H. A. vi, 14), and the γναφεὺς of Athenæus (vii.) See Casaubon (l. c.), and Rondelet (de Piscibus.)

We may mention here, although somewhat out of place, that neither the Greeks nor Romans would appear to have used the _frog_ as an article of food.

SECT. XCI.—ON THE TESTACEA, OR SHELL-FISH.

The testacea in general form a saltish and crude chyme; but of them the oysters have the softest flesh, and are most laxative. The chemæ, purpuræ, solenes, spondyli, buccinæ, cochleæ, and such like, are hard. And those covered with a soft shell (_crustacea_) such as the astaci, paguri, crabs, common lobsters, and those called squillæ, are of difficult digestion, nutritious, and bind the belly when often boiled in sweet water. The juices of all the testacea are laxative, and therefore from the land snails, although their flesh be hard, indigestible, nutritious, and contains bad juices, some make a sauce, with oil and pickle, which they use for opening the belly. The sea urchins (_echini_) are moderately cooling, contain little nourishment, and are diuretic.

* * * * *

COMMENTARY. Coray correctly states in his ‘Notes on the Fragment of Xenocrates,’ that, in the ancient classification of animals, the ὀστρακώδη or ὀστρακόδερμα, were divided into the σκληρόστρακα, or testacea, comprehending oysters, muscles, &c.; and the μαλακόστρακα, or crustacea, comprehending the crabs, paguri, &c. But, as he remarks afterwards, the σκληρόστρακα were often called by the generic term, ὀστρακόδερμα. The ancient division of the lower classes of animals is derived from Aristotle’s ‘History of Animals’ (iv), and with some slight modifications it is the same as the classification adopted by Baron Cuvier. Pliny thus distinguishes the mollusca, crustacea, and testacea: “Piscium quidam sanguine carent, de quibus dicemus. Sunt autem tria genera: in primis quæ mollia appellantur (_mollusca?_): deinde contecta crustis tenuibus (_crustacea?_): postremo testis conclusa duris (_testacea?_). Mollia sunt, loligo, sepia, polypus, et cetera ejus generis,” &c. In another place, however, he introduces confusion by applying the term mollia to the crustacea. This mistake probably originated in the resemblance between the Greek terms μαλάκια and μαλακόστρακα. (Hist. Nat. ix.)

We may mention further, that, in Oppian’s delightful poem on ‘Fishing,’ the crustacea are described at book i, l. 259, the testacea at l. 283, and the mollusca at l. 638. On the terms used by Ælian, see ‘De Nat. Animal.’ (ix, 6, ed. Schneider.) Athenæus gives a long disquisition on these animals in the third book of the ‘Deipnosophistæ.’

Of the testacea described by the ancient writers on dietetics, we are inclined to refer the chema to the genus _chema_ of modern naturalists, comprehending several species of the cockle: the purpura to the _helix ianthina_ or purple fish, in particular: the solen to the genus _solen_ or bag-fish: the spondylus to the genus _spondylus_ or prickly oyster: the buccina to the _buccinum harpa_: the cochlea to the _helix pomatia_ or edible snail: the astacus to the _astacus fluviatilis_ or crawfish: the pagurus to the _cancer pagurus_ or common crab: and the cancer to some variety of the same: the _locusta_ to more than one species of the _locusta_ or lobster; the squilla to the _crangon vulgaris_ Cuv. or shrimp: and the leo marinus indefinitely to the genus _cancer_. We think it but right, however, to confess that our own acquaintance with this department of natural history is not so extensive as to warrant us in speaking authoritatively on these matters.

We shall now briefly notice the ancient opinions on their dietetical qualities. From Athenæus, we can only find room for the following extract: “Regarding the testacea (ὀστρακόδερμα) the Siphnian Diphilus writes thus: ‘Of the testacea, the squilla, astacus, locusta aquatica, cancer, and leo marinus, are of the same genus, but differ from one another: the leo is larger than the astacus; the locusta is more fleshy than the cancer; and the cancer, or crab, is heavy and indigestible.’ Mnesitheus, the Athenian, in his work on ‘Dietetics,’ says, that the locusta, cancer, squilla, and the like, are all of difficult digestion, and yet they are much easier digested than other fishes.”

Galen’s account of them is interesting, and our author’s is abridged from it. In general, he remarks, those which have hard flesh are most nutritious, but indigestible. They all contain saltish juices which are of a laxative nature. He says of the crustacea that they have all firm flesh, and are, therefore, difficult to digest, but nutritious. Aëtius and Oribasius copy from him without the slightest alteration of any consequence.

Frequent mention of the squilla occurs in the works of Horace, Juvenal, and Martial, as a favorite article of food. A poet in Athenæus says it should be prepared with fig leaves.

According to Dioscorides and Alexander, the echinus is stomachic and diuretic. Ælian, in like manner, calls it a restorative to a weak stomach. (N. A. xiii.)

Actuarius says that the crustacea hold an intermediate place between the fishes and mollusca; that they are, therefore, not so digestible as the mollusca, and form purer and thinner blood; that the testacea, as they get no exercise, are less proper; and that all form a thin and watery blood.

We need scarcely remark, that the Romans esteemed the cochlea, i. e. limaçon, or white snail, as an exquisite delicacy.

Simeon Seth’s account is entirely borrowed from Galen.

The receipts of Apicius for dressing the locusta and carabus contain pepper, cumin, rue, mint, vinegar, wine, and oil.

It appears from the following lines of Juvenal that British oysters were greatly esteemed by the Roman gourmands:

“Circæis nata forent, an
Lucrinum ad saxum, Rutupinove edita fundo
Ostrea callebat primo deprendere morsu.”

(Sat. iv.)

Rochester is supposed to be the ancient Rutupinum. Seneca represents them as whetters and not food. “Ostrea non cibi, sed oblectamenta sunt, ad edendum saturos cogentia.” The poet Matron, as quoted by Athenæus, calls them “the truffles of the sea.” Athenæus says that oysters caught in the sea adjacent to a lake or river are the best. Xenocrates remarks that sea oysters are small and saltish.

It does not appear that the ancients often used the sea tortoise or turtle fish as an article of food, and yet it is clear from Athenæus (viii, 17), that it was sometimes eaten. See Schweigh. (l. c.) Zenobius says that the flesh of the tortoise, if eaten in small quantities, is apt to produce tormina, and that if eaten largely, it purges. (Cent. iv, 32.) See also Actuarius (iv.) It is to be kept in view that the Mediterranean turtle is generally unwholesome, and the ancients in general could have little acquaintance with any other species. Ælian, however, makes mention of the Indian turtle. (N. A. xvi, 14.) See further Gesner (de Aquat. 1141.) The chelonopliagi, or turtle-eaters, are noticed by Strabo (xvi); Solinus (xvii); and Pliny (Hist. Nat. vii, 28.)

SECT. XCII.—ON THE MOLLUSCA.

The mollusca, such as polypi, sepiæ, and loligines, are hard and indigestible, and particularly the polypi. Their juices are saltish, but when digested they furnish considerable nourishment to the body.

* * * * *

COMMENTARY. Galen remarks that the mollusca, or mollia, have no scales, nor any rough testaceous skin, but a soft one, like that of men. Their flesh, he says, is hard, indigestible, and contains a small proportion of saltish juices; but, if digested, it affords no little nourishment to the body. The sepia, or cuttle-fish, was anciently, and is at present, much used in Rome as an article of food. Pliny states that it is laxative. He adds that it is taken in food, boiled with oil, salt, and barley-meal. Simeon Seth says of it, that it is difficult to digest, but that, if digested, it affords considerable nourishment to the body, and engenders crude humours; on which account, it ought to be taken with acrid condiments, and an old thin wine drunk afterwards. Mnesitheus, as quoted by Athenæus, says that the flesh of the mollusca is indigestible and aphrodisiacal.

Apicius directs us to dress them in much the same way as recommended by Seth; that is to say, he recommends us to add to them spices, hot aromatics, wine, vinegar, and the like.

The sepia of the ancients was indisputably the _sepia officinalis_ L. or cuttle-fish; the loligo probably the _loligo parva_ of Rondelet, _Angl._ calamary. The term polypus is vaguely applied, and may comprehend several species of _hydra_.

SECT. XCIII.—ON THE CARTILAGINOUS FISHES.

Of the cartilaginous fishes, the torpedo and pastinaca have soft and sweet flesh, which passes readily downwards, is easily digested, and proves nutritive. The flairs (_raiæ_), skates (_leviraiæ_), monk fish (_squatina_), and the like, are harder and difficult to digest, and more nutritious. In general, those animals which have hard flesh are difficult to digest, and contain much nourishment. When properly digested, they furnish much and substantial nourishment.

* * * * *

COMMENTARY. For an account of the σελάχη, or cartilaginea, see Aristotle (H. A. v); Pliny (H. N. ix, 40); Oppian (Halieut, i); Ælian (N. A. xi, 37.)

Galen says that they are called σελάχη from σέλας ἔχειν, because their flesh had a shining appearance at night. He states that they are moderately nutritious. He remarks, that the parts about the tail of such fishes are more fleshy than the middle.

According to Athenæus, the cartilaginous fishes in general are flatulent, fleshy, of difficult digestion, and, if eaten in great quantity, blunt the sight. (Deipnos. viii.)

Dr. Coray says that the French call the Ῥίνη ange or angelot, the Βάτος raie bouclée or cavellade, the Λειόβατος raie miralet, the Νάρκη torpille or raie torpille, and the Τρυγὼν pastinaque. Harduin gives them nearly the same French names. We are inclined to refer the ῥίνη to the _squalus squatina_ L. monk or angel-fish: the βατὶς and λειόβατὶς to the _raia batis_ and _raia varia_, two species of skate; the νάρκη to the _raia torpedo_ or cramp-fish; and the τρυγὼν to the _raia pastinaca_ L. or fire-flair.

SECT. XCIV.—ON THE CETACEA, OR LARGE FISHES.

The cetacea, such as the whales, seals, balance-fish, dolphin, and great tunnies, have hard and indigestible flesh, containing thick juices. When pickled, they are more moderately so. And of the other fishes, those which are most humid and excrementitious are most fitted for pickling; but there is the same difference in pickles as in the fishes from which they are formed.

* * * * *

COMMENTARY. Under the class cetacea (κῆτος), the ancient naturalists ranked all the large fishes, such as the whale, the dolphin, the shark, &c. Aristotle was aware that the class called _plagiuri_ by Artedi, comprehending the whale, the dolphin, &c. are viviparous, and have lungs like quadrupeds, instead of gills like fishes. The balæna of the Greeks was a species of physeter, or cachelot.

Galen states that the flesh of all the cetacea in its recent state is excrementitious, but when pickled becomes more attenuate, and easier converted into blood. He gives them, in short, the same characters as our author does.

For a full account of the pickled fishes of the ancients, we refer to the Fragment of Xenocrates, and the third book of Athenæus. We shall give the general character of them as delivered by the latter, upon the authority of the Siphnian Diphilus. He says that the pickles prepared from sea, lake, and river fishes afford little nourishment, contain few juices, are of a heating nature, are good for the belly, and whet the appetite. The old, he adds, are better and more acrid. Of all the pickled fishes, the most celebrated was the one brought from the Pontus, called _saperda_. According to Athenæus, it was prepared from the umber (_sciæna umbra_ L.) See also Galen (de Alim. Facult. iii, 41.) Hippocrates says they are desiccant, attenuant, and for the most part laxative. (De Diæta.) Diphilus says they are whetters and laxatives; and hence Galen directs them to be taken at the commencement of a meal, and particularly recommends them for old men. Rhases speaks more unfavorably of them.

It may be proper in this place to give some account of the _isitia_, or _isicia_ of the ancients. With regard to the etymology of the word, then, it is derived by Macrobius ab insectione. They consisted of minced meat, either flesh or fish, boiled or roasted, and seasoned with pepper, cumin, lovage, and the like. Apicius gives receipts for preparing several dishes of this kind, from the loligo, sepia, locusta, and swine’s liver. The last mentioned was inclosed in the omentum, or cowl, and must therefore have resembled the dish now called a haggis. Lampridius says that the emperor Heliogabalus was the first who prepared isicia from fishes, oysters, lobsters, squillæ, and the like. If this statement be true, the works of Apicius which we possess cannot be genuine. _Isicia_ from shell-fish, the sepia, loligo, &c. are very favorably spoken of by Alexander Trallian (xi.) On the _Isicia_, see further Ludovicus Nonnius (de Piscium Esu, xxxviii), and Lambecius (ad Apic.)

SECT. XCV.—ON THE PROPERTIES OF WINE.