BUTTER.

Milk, the most natural and the commonest food of man, is a mixture

of three component parts, whey, butter, and cheese. The caseous part

is viscous; the butter is the fat, oily, and inflammable part, and

properly speaking, is not perfectly dissolved in the serum or whey,

but rather only diffused through it like an emulsion, so that it may

be separated by rest alone, without any artificial preparation. When

milk is in a state of rest, the oily part rises to the surface, and

forms what is called cream. When the milk has curdled, which will soon

be the case, the caseous parts separate themselves from the whey; and

this separation may be effected also by the addition of some mixture,

through means of which the produce is liable to many variations. The

caseous part, when squeezed and mixed with salt, and sometimes herbs,

and when it has been moulded into a certain form and dried, is used

under the name of cheese, which will always be better, the greater the

butyraceous part is that has been left in it. The cream skimmed, and by

proper agitation in a churn or other vessel separated from the whey and

caseous parts, becomes our usual butter.

This substance, though commonly used at present in the greater

part of Europe, was not known, or known very imperfectly, to the

ancients[1544]. The ancient translators of the Hebrew writers[1545]

seem however to have thought that they found it mentioned in

Scripture[1546]: but those best acquainted with biblical criticism,

unanimously agree that the word _chamea_ signifies milk or cream, or

sour thick milk, and at any rate does not mean butter[1547]. The word

plainly alludes to something liquid, as it appears that _chamea_ was

used for washing the feet, that it was drunk, and that it had the power

of intoxicating; and we know that mares’-milk, when sour, will produce

the like effect. We can imagine streams of milk, but not streams of

butter. This error has been occasioned by the seventy interpreters, who

translate the Hebrew word by the word _boutyron_. These translators,

who lived two hundred years after Hippocrates, and who resided in

Egypt, might, as Michaelis remarks, have been acquainted with butter,

or have heard of it; but it is highly probable that they meant cream,

and not our usual butter. Those who judge from the common translation,

would naturally conclude that the passage in Proverbs, chap. xxx.,

describes the preparation of butter by shaking or beating; but the

original words signify squeezing or pressing, _pressio_, _frictio

mulgentis educit lac_; so that milking and not making butter is alluded

to.

The oldest mention of butter, though it is indeed dubious and obscure,

is in the account given of the Scythians by Herodotus[1548]. “These

people,” says he, “pour the milk of their mares into wooden vessels,

cause it to be violently stirred or shaken by their blind slaves, and

separate the part that arises to the surface, as they consider it more

valuable and more delicious than that which is collected below it.”

The author here certainly speaks of the richest part of the milk being

separated from the rest by shaking; and it appears that we have every

reason to suppose that he alludes to butter, especially as Hippocrates,

who was almost contemporary, mentions the same thing, but in a much

clearer manner[1549]. “The Scythians,” says the latter, “pour the

milk of their mares into wooden vessels, and shake it violently; this

causes it to foam, and the fat part, which is light, rising to the

surface, becomes what is called butter. The heavy and thick part, which

is below, being kneaded and properly prepared, is, after it has been

dried, known by the name of _hippace_. The whey or serum remains in

the middle.” This author, in my opinion, speaks here very distinctly

of butter, cheese and whey. It is probable that the Scythians may have

hastened the separation of the caseous part from the whey by warming

the milk, or by the addition of some substance proper for that purpose.

These passages therefore contain the first mention of butter, which

occurs several times in Hippocrates, and which he prescribes externally

as a medicine[1550]; but he gives it another term (_pikerion_), which

seems to have been in use among the Greeks earlier than the former, and

to have been afterwards neglected. That this word signified butter,

and was no longer employed in the time of Galen, appears from his

translating it, in his explanation of the obsolete expressions of

Hippocrates, by the word _boutyron_[1551]. It was even before that

period explained in the same manner by Erotian, in his dictionary of

the words used by that Greek physician; and he remarks, from an ancient

writer, that the Phrygians called butter _pikerion_, and that the

Greeks seemed to have borrowed the word from these people. It however

occurs very seldom, and is to be found neither in Hesychius, Suidas,

nor Pollux[1552].

The poet Anaxandrides, who lived soon after Hippocrates, describing

the wedding of Iphicrates, who married the daughter of Cotys, king of

Thrace, and the Thracian entertainment given on that occasion, says

that the Thracians ate butter[1553], which the Greeks at that time

considered as a wonderful kind of food.

It is very remarkable that the word butter does not occur in Aristotle,

and that he even scarcely alludes to that substance, though we find

in his works some very proper information respecting milk and cheese,

which seems to imply careful observation. At first he gives milk

only two component parts, the watery and the caseous; but he remarks

afterwards, for the first time, in a passage where one little expects

it, that in milk there is also a fat substance, which under certain

circumstances, is like oil[1554].

In Strabo there are three passages that refer to this subject, but

from which little information can be obtained. This author says that

the Lusitanians used butter instead of oil; he mentions the same

circumstance respecting the Ethiopians; and he relates in another

place, that elephants, when wounded, drank this substance in order to

make the darts fall from their bodies[1555]. I am much astonished,

I confess, to find that the ancient Ethiopians were acquainted with

butter, though it is confirmed by Ludolfus[1556]. It ought to be

remarked also, that according to Aristotle, the elephants, to cure

themselves, did not drink butter, but oil[1557]. In this he is followed

by Pliny[1558]; and Ælian says, that for the above purpose these

animals used either the bloom of the olive-tree, or oil itself[1559];

but Arrian, who lived a hundred years after Strabo, and who has

related everything respecting the diseases of the elephant and their

cures, in the same order as that author, has omitted this circumstance

altogether[1560]. Is the passage of Strabo, therefore, genuine? Ælian

however says, in another part of his book, that the Indians anointed

the wounds of their elephants with butter[1561].

We are told by Plutarch, that a Spartan lady paid a visit to Berenice,

the wife of Dejotarus, and that the one smelled so much of sweet

ointment, and the other of butter, that neither of them could endure

the other. Was it customary, therefore, at that period, for people to

perfume themselves with butter?

Of much more importance are the remarks made by Dioscorides and Galen

on this subject. The former says that good butter was prepared from

the fattest milk, such as that of sheep or goats, by shaking it in

a vessel till the fat was separated. To this butter he ascribes the

same effects, when used externally, as those produced by our butter

at present. He adds also, and he is the first writer who makes the

observation, that fresh butter might be melted and poured over pulse

and vegetables instead of oil, and that it might be employed in pastry

in the room of other fat substances. A kind of soot likewise was at

that time prepared from butter for external applications, which was

used in curing inflammation of the eyes and other disorders. For this

purpose the butter was put into a lamp, and when consumed, the lamp

was again filled till the desired quantity of soot was collected in a

vessel placed over it.

Galen, who distinguishes and confirms in a more accurate manner the

healing virtues of butter, expressly remarks that cow’s-milk produces

the fattest butter; that butter made from sheep’s- or goat’s-milk is

less rich; and that ass’s-milk yields the poorest. He expresses his

astonishment, therefore, that Dioscorides should say that butter was

made from the milk of sheep and goats. He assures us that he had seen

it made from cow’s-milk, and that he believes it had thence acquired

its name[1562]. “Butter,” says he, “may be very properly employed for

ointments; and when leather is besmeared with it, the same purpose is

answered as when it is rubbed over with oil. In cold countries, which

do not produce oil, butter is used in the baths; and that it is a real

fat may be readily perceived by its catching fire when poured over

burning coals[1563].” What has been here said is sufficient to show

that butter must have been very little known to, or used by, the Greeks

and Romans in the time of Galen, that is, at the end of the second

century.

The Roman writers who give an account of the ancient Germans, all

relate that they lived principally on milk; but they disagree in one

thing, because many of them tell us that they used cheese, while others

affirm that they were not even acquainted with the method of preparing

it[1564]. Pliny, on the other hand, says that they did not make cheese,

but butter, which they used as a most pleasant kind of food. He

ascribes to them also the invention of it; for it is highly probable

that under the expression “barbarous nations” he meant the people of

Germany: and his description of butter appears to me so clear, that

I do not see how it can be doubted[1565]. He very justly remarks,

that, in order to make butter in cold weather, the milk ought to be

warmed, but that in summer this precaution is not necessary. The vessel

employed for making it seems to have had a great likeness to those used

at present; we are told at least that it was covered, and that in the

lid there were holes[1566]. What he says however respecting _oxygala_

is attended with difficulties; and I am fully persuaded that his

words are corrupted, though I find no variations marked in manuscripts

by which this conjecture can be supported. Having made an attempt by

transposing the words to discover the real sense, I found that I had

placed them in the same order as that in which they had been before

arranged by Dithmar, who, in his annotations on Tacitus, quotes them

in the same manner as I would read them, and with so much confidence

that he does not even hint they were ever read otherwise. Had we both

been critics, this similarity might have given our conjecture perhaps

more authority; but Dithmar also was a professor of the œconomical

sciences[1567].

_Oxygala_ was evidently a kind of cheese, the preparation of which has

been best described by Columella[1568]. In order to make it, sweet

milk was commonly rendered sour, and the serum was always separated

from it. Of this process Pliny speaks likewise; but he first mentions

under the above name a kind of cheese formed from the caseous parts

which remained behind in the butter-milk, and which when separated from

it by acids and boiling, were mixed and prepared in various ways. It

must in general have been sourish; for, according to the account of

Galen[1569], it affected the teeth, though he mentions also another

kind of cheese, under the name of _caseus oxygalactium_[1570], which

was perfectly mild. In the Geoponica[1571] directions are given

how this cheese may be kept fresh for a long time. If my reading

be adopted, the medicinal effects spoken of by Pliny are not to be

ascribed to the butter, but to the sour cheese[1572]; and physicians

undoubtedly will be much readier to allow them to the latter than to

the former. Whether Tacitus by _lac concretum_, which he says was

the most common food of the Germans, meant cheese or butter I cannot

examine, as we have no grounds to enable us to determine this question,

respecting which nothing more can be known[1573].

I have now laid before the reader, in chronological order, every thing

that I found in the works of the ancients respecting butter; and it is

certain, from what has been said, that it is not a Grecian, and much

less a Roman invention; but that the Greeks were made acquainted with

it by the Scythians, the Thracians and the Phrygians, and the Romans

by the people of Germany[1574]. It appears also, that when they had

learned the art of making it, they employed it only as an ointment in

their baths, and particularly in medicine. Besides the proofs already

quoted, a passage of Columella[1575] deserves also to be remarked,

because that author, and not Pliny, as Vossius thinks, is the first

Latin writer who makes use of the word _butyrum_. Pliny recommends it

mixed with honey to be rubbed over children’s gums in order to ease the

pain of teething, and also for ulcers in the mouth[1576]. The Romans

in general seem to have used butter for anointing the bodies of their

children to render them pliable[1577]; and we are told that the ancient

Burgundians besmeared their hair with it[1578]. A passage of Clemens

of Alexandria, in which he expressly says that some burned it in their

lamps instead of oil, is likewise worthy of attention[1579]. It is

however certain, on the other hand, that it was used neither by the

Greeks nor the Romans in cookery or the preparation of food, nor was

it brought upon their tables by way of dessert, as at a later period

was the custom. We never find it mentioned by Galen and others as a

food, though they have spoken of it as applicable to other purposes.

No notice is taken of it by Apicius; nor is there anything said of it

in that respect by the authors who treat on agriculture, though they

have given us very particular information concerning milk, cheese

and oil. This, as has been remarked by other writers, may be easily

accounted for, by the ancients having entirely accustomed themselves

to the use of good oil; and in the like manner butter at present is

very little employed in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and the southern parts

of France, where it is sold in the apothecaries’ shops for medicinal

purposes[1580]. It is certain besides, that in warm countries it is

difficult to preserve it for any length of time.

To conclude, I shall offer one remark, which, in my opinion is entirely

new. It appears to me, by the information which I have here collected

from the ancients, that at the period when these authors wrote, people

were not acquainted with the art of making butter so clean and so

firm as that which we use on our tables. On the contrary, I am fully

persuaded that it was rather in an oily state, and almost liquid. They

all speak of butter as of something fluid. The moderns cut, knead

and spread butter; but the ancients poured it out as one pours out

oil. Galen tells us, that, to make soot of butter, the butter must be

poured into a lamp. Had the ancients used in their lamps hard or solid

butter, as our miners use tallow in the lamps that supply them with

light under ground, they would not have made choice of the expression

_to pour out_. We are told that the elephants drank butter; and liquid

butter must have been very familiar to the Greek translators of the

Sacred Scriptures, when they could mention it as flowing in streams.

Hecatæus, quoted by Athenæus, calls the butter with which the Pæonians

anointed themselves, oil of milk[1581]. Casaubon observes on this

passage, that the author makes use of these words, because butter was

then employed instead of oil, and spoken of in the like manner, as was

the case with sugar, which was at first considered to be a kind of

honey, because it was equally sweet and could be applied to the same

purposes. Hippocrates, on the like grounds, calls swine’s seam, swine’s

oil[1582]. This explanation I should readily adopt, did not such

expressions respecting butter, as one can apply only to fluid bodies,

occur everywhere without exception. In warm countries, indeed, butter

may be always in a liquid state; but I am of opinion that the ancients

in general did not know by means of kneading, washing and salting, to

render their butter so firm and clean as we have it at present. On this

account it could not be long kept or transported, and the use of it

must have been very much limited.

I shall remark in the last place, that butter appears to have been

extremely scarce in Norway during the ages of paganism; for we find

mention made by historians of a present of butter which was so large

that a man could not carry it, and which was considered as a very

respectable gift[1583].