an extreme partiality for the salangan’s nest, as a delicious seasoning
for their viands, and that they value it excessively; but they differ
strangely as to its nature, its form, and the places where it is found.
According to some, the material of these nests is a froth of the sea, or
the spawn of fish, and strongly aromatic. Others say it has no taste.
Some pretend that it is a juice gathered by the salangans from the tree
called _salambouc_; some maintain that it is a viscous humour that they
give out from the beak at a certain period of the year; and, lastly,
many affirm that these birds compose it entirely from the remains of
fish-zoophytes.
With respect to the form, some say that it is hemispherical; others that
it resembles a shell valve.
As to the places where the salangans build their nests, some observers
assure us that it is fixed on the rocks a little above the level of the
sea; in the hollows of those same rocks; and, lastly, that they conceal
them in holes which they burrow under ground. According to Kœmpfer,
these nests, so far as they are known to us, are nothing more than a
preparation concocted from the flesh of the polypi.
The celebrated traveller Poivre, while occupied one day in picking up
shells and coral near Java, penetrated a rather deep cavern at a short
distance from the sea shore, and found the sides of it covered with
little nests, in the form of a deep shell, firmly fixed to the rock.
These nests were taken on board, and several persons who had been in
China immediately recognised them as being identical with those that the
Chinese seek with such avidity. The birds which had built them were true
swallows, of about the size of the humming bird. Poivre adds that, in
the months of March and April, the sea from Java to Cochin China is
covered with spawn, which has the appearance of half-dissolved glue, and
that he had learned from the Malays and the Cochin Chinese that the
salangan builds its nest with this spawn. All agreed on this point. The
bird picks it up as he skims the water, or from the rocks where the
spawn coagulates. It is at the end of July and the commencement of
August that the Cochin Chinese collect the nests, and, as the young
birds are hatched in March and April, the species do not suffer by it.
By the subsequent examination of these nests it was found that they
presented the form of the half of a hollow, lengthened ellipsoid. They
are composed, externally, of very thin laminæ, nearly concentric, and
laid one over the other. The interior presents several layers of
irregular net-work, superposed one over another, and formed of a
multitude of threads of the same matter as the external laminæ, and
which cross and re-cross in every direction.
Their composition, which has a slight taste of salt, is of a yellowish
white and demi-transparent; it softens in warm water without dissolving,
and increases in volume. It is a substantial food, and would be
excellent for persons suffering from exhaustion, whose debile stomachs
ill perform their functions. Poivre declares that he never eat anything
more fortifying than a pottage made with these nests and some good meat.
The salangan nests are of two sorts--the white and the black. It appears
that the white nests are those of the same year, and that the black ones
belong to an epoch less recent. The birds are engaged about two months
in preparing them, and the Chinese do not take them away until the young
ones are feathered, and begin to be pretty strong on the wing.[XX-104]
* * * * *
This nomenclature would be incomplete, did we not briefly mention some
kinds of game which appeared with more or less favour on the tables of
the ancients.
The _Wood-Hen_, dear to the Greeks,[XX-84] was not common at Rome in the
time of Varro. The curious reared them in aviaries with other rare
birds.[XX-85]
The _Bustard_, the _Water-Hen_, and the _Teal_, found many
admirers.[XX-86] The Romans reared the last-named,[XX-87] and judged it
worthy of notice among the most delicate morsels of the feast.
The _Woodcock_, which is thought to be the _rustica perdix_ of
Martial,[XX-88] and the _Snipe_ do not appear to have obtained from the
gastrophilists of antiquity that attention they deserved. This delicious
game was ill-appreciated in Italy and at Athens. History, that
“conscience of posterity,” reproaches them with this oversight, and is
astonished that the _Curlew_ should have usurped, particularly in
Greece,[XX-89] a pre-eminence which it certainly does not deserve.
“The fat of the snipe is of a most delicate savour, which it acquires
only after the first appearance of the frosty season. It is cooked like
the woodcock, without being drawn.”--VIEILLOT.
The _gourmets_ have a way of knowing when the flesh of the woodcock is
arrived at the degree of flavour required to be sought after: the bird
is suspended by the beam-feather of the middle of its tail; when the
body gets loose and full, then is the time to eat it.
“The woodcock is cooked with the entrails in, which, being pounded with
what they contain, form its own and best seasoning.”--_Sonnini._
The _Crow_, an object of superstitious worship among the
Egyptians,[XX-90] offered to the less scrupulous inhabitants of
Alexandria a dish unequalled in delicacy;[XX-91] but which never seems
to have tempted the nations of the west.
The _Turtle Dove_,[XX-92] whose timid innocence caused it to be revered
in Assyria,[XX-93] had a less glorious destiny at Rome. It was roasted,
and epicures greedily devoured the legs.[XX-94]
The _Lark_ joined to the delicate flavour of its flesh a more precious
quality; either roast or boiled, it infallibly cured persons attacked
with the colic.[XX-95] We cannot say whether it possesses this useful
property at the present day.
“The common lark, which is called at Paris _mauviette_, is generally
looked upon as a wholesome, delicate, and light game. It is dressed in
various ways; and the _gourmets_ appreciate the value of the excellent
lark pies which have established the reputation of the town of
Pithiviers in France.”--SONNINI.
The Romans went to almost fabulous expenses in order to procure game.
What enormous sums, may we not imagine, were given for those dishes of
flamingoes’ tongues and ostriches’ brains already mentioned! What must
have been the cost of the seven thousand birds which the brother of
Vitellius served to the voracious emperor![XX-96] And yet all these
follies fall far short of those they committed through their love of
fish.
The inventive genius of the Greeks discovered in ichthyophagy strange
refinements, though always impressed with we know not what kind of
propriety, which seems to palliate their excesses. The Romans at first
imitated, and soon afterwards surpassed them. Their frightful gluttony
was revived by crime, and exulted in barbarity. The sea eels (conger, or
_muræna helena_) will not eat; let a slave be thrown to them, young and
healthy, his flesh will be more tempting and alive, that his struggle
against unspeakable tortures may the better irritate the devouring
ardour of these beloved fish. And a few days afterwards, the grave
patrician, or the noble knight, again offered them this human food; and
no remorse, no doubt, no gloom, ever clouded his brow; no thrill of
horror crossed his mind, while he feasted on those sea eels he had
fattened so well.
More than two-thirds of the inhabitants of the most civilised countries
were plunged in slavery, and employed solely to gratify the sensuality
of the other third. That alone gives a terrifying idea of the contempt
in which man was held by his fellow-man, of the power of egotism, and of
the vast corruption resulting from it. And what cruelties were committed
in the face of heaven, sanctioned by the law, and by the manners and
customs of society! The masters had absolute power over their slaves,
and could punish them with blows or death at their own will and
pleasure.[XX-97] If an unfortunate servant happened to taste a sauce, or
the remains of a fish, this unpardonable crime was often punished by
crucifixion.[XX-98] The virtuous Cato sold his old slaves at whatever
price they would fetch, rather than feed useless beings.[XX-99] The
senator, Q. Flaminius, put one of his domestics to death as a new
spectacle for one of his friends, who had never enjoyed the pleasure of
seeing a man killed.[XX-100] If the father of a family was assassinated
in his house, and the murderer was not discovered, all the slaves were
subject to the capital punishment. One of the grandees of Rome, who
possessed four hundred of them, having been killed by one of the number,
they were all put to death.[XX-101] At the funeral of rich persons, a
certain number of slaves were often slain as victims agreeable to their
manes.
And what is remarkable is, that these things, which we can hardly
believe, were not viewed as excesses, not even as an abuse of power, but
simply as the exercise of a natural right. Such scenes were witnessed
daily, without exciting the least censure, or the slightest
protestation, on the part of those numerous writers and sophists, who
passed their whole lives in declaiming against the manners of the age.
It is true that legislation had taken the lead by applying to slaves
this dreadful aphorism: “They are still more null than vile;”--_Non tam
viles quam nulli sunt_.[XX-102]
Such were the conquerors of the world! Such were those Romans who
invented dreadful crimes through love of good living!
XXI.
FISH.
Perhaps it has not been sufficiently remarked that the science of
ichthyophagy is generally developed in a direct ratio with the
civilization of a people. Man began at first by satisfying the imperious
necessities of his stomach; he then eat to live, and all was good to
him. Experience by degrees gave rise to _eclectism_--choice. It was then
discovered that a coarse and solid food might be replaced by a delicate
and savoury alimentation; joyous appetite, and sensuality, its
effeminate companion, took the place of hunger, and this happy couple
gave birth to the more amiable of fairies, who, under the name of
Gastronomy, was soon to govern the world and prescribe to it
imperishable laws.
It is asserted that the art of preparing fish was one of the first boons
of this powerful sovereign, and that, instructed by her, Thetis rendered
ichthyophagist the god of light and the fine arts.[XXI-1]
The Jews, an agricultural people, living far from the borders of the
sea, attached but very little importance to fishing and the researches
necessarily attendant on it; so much so, that we hardly perceive any
trace among them of this kind of food, which Moses did not entirely
interdict, since that wise legislator was satisfied with prohibiting
fishes without scales or fins.[XXI-2] What an immense wealth remained
unexplored! Let us pity them for not having known how to profit by it,
notwithstanding the good will of the Phœnicians, inhabitants of the
coast, who brought them the produce of their maritime excursions.
Let us say it: the Hebrews were tolerably bad cooks. They possessed most
admirable laws, a fertile country, courage and many virtues, but their
sobriety never would allow them to understand the art of good living. In
that, they are to be pitied.
We must agree that the Egyptians had better taste. Worshippers of
certain fish, they used to embalm them[XXI-3] as a means of
preservation; and what is still better, they eat others in spite of the
example of their priests, who never touched them.[XXI-4] In fact, the
preparation of those dishes required the trouble of a little study and
culinary labour; therefore, to avoid it, they eat the fish raw when very
hungry; the epicures dried them in the sun, and they were served salted
on great solemnities.
But it was left to a woman to understand this wholesome and delicate
food, and to raise it to the rank it ought always to have occupied.
Gatis--let her be named with admiration--Queen of Syria, and no doubt a
beautiful woman, was so fond of fish that, in order to be continually
supplied with the choicest quality, she ordered all caught in her
kingdom to be brought to her, and that none should be eaten without the
royal permission. This law, for it really was one, created great
dissatisfaction; but she very sensibly allowed them to complain, and
continued to treat herself and those of her privileged subjects whom she
condescended sometimes to admit to her table, with the most exquisite
dishes of fish, such as the tunny, conger eel, and carp.[XXI-5] It is
much to be regretted that the chroniclers of that time have forgotten to
transmit to us the name of the cook of this illustrious Queen, and the
recipes of the sauces she preferred.
With great pleasure we turn to the Greeks, that charming people who had
only to set their foot on the most barren soil to cover it with flowers,
and who laid the foundation of ichthyophagy as well as all other
sciences.
It appears, however, that, at first, they thought but little of fish as
an aliment. None had ever been served to the heroes of Homer, and
Ulysses, relating that his hungry companions had partaken of some fish,
seems to excuse them, by saying: “Hunger pressed their digestive
organs.”[XXI-6] To be sure a celebrated philosopher,[XXI-7] and also an
amiable epicurean,[XXI-8] attributed this grievous abstinence of those
warriors to the fear of being enervated by dishes too delicious. And
then, the terrible Achilles and the impetuous Ajax could not, perhaps,
make up their minds to degustate under their tents a sole _au gratin_,
or a fried herring, with the slow precaution more humble mortals
willingly submit to.
But shortly after that, fresh and salt fish became one of the principal
articles of diet with the Hellenes.
Aristophanes and the gastrophilist Athenæus, allude to it a hundred
times in their writings, and various personages are the subjects of
biting sarcasms on account of their excessive partiality to the mullet,
scar, and turbot. We may name, among others, Philoxenes of Cythera, who
learning from his doctor that he was going to die of indigestion, for
having eaten too much of a most exquisite fish: “Be it so,” he calmly
exclaimed; “but, before I go, allow me to finish the remainder.”[XXI-9]
Everyone knows the witty jokes of Lucian, who informs us that he knew a
philosopher who examined, with the most serious comicality, the nature
of the soul of an oyster.[XXI-10]
Highly favoured by the neighbourhood of the sea, the Greek population
applied themselves, with that peculiar taste which characterized them,
to distinguish the best species; and skilful cooks knew how to give to
fish the most refined flavour, thanks to the numerous combinations of
ingredients which we too have learned from the ancient authors who have
written on dietetics. They possessed various ways of preparing them with
salt or oil, and aromatics.[XXI-11] Athenæus has transmitted to us some
very important precepts upon their seasoning. Æschylus and Sophocles
were not above lowering their tragic muse by sometimes introducing
remarks on fish sauce.
The productions of the sea had for Athens such an irresistible interest,
that a law of police forbad all fishmongers to sit down until they had
parted with the whole of their stock; so that the uncomfortable position
of standing made them more submissive, and induced them to dispose of
the fish at a more reasonable price.[XXI-12] This regulation in the
“Billingsgate” of Athens was very rigorously observed, and the
purchasers were highly delighted with it.
They also required that the fish should always be out of the water; and
this wise law, consequently, did not allow its being preserved, or the
price to be increased.[XXI-13] And finally, as soon as any kind of fish
was brought to market, they were required to call the customers together
immediately, by a kind of market-bell, which was a sort of invitation to
come and make their purchases.[XXI-14]
Some would-be philosophers, members of the opposition of that period,
thought of raising their voices against the common taste. Symmachus,
Polycrates, and Lamprias, tried to prove, in their writings, that those
who eat fish were the most cruel and ferocious of men. These tender
ichthyophilists were laughed at, and their works had no sale.
The Romans inherited the predilection of the Greeks, “For the dumb
companions of the fair Amphitryte;” but, excited by the love of the
marvellous, they stocked the sea with imaginary beings; and they saw
whales of four acres, fishes of two hundred cubits, and even that eel,
or that serpent, which veridical navigators have seen again in our days.
It was then thirty feet in length,[XXI-15] but now it is much longer!
Pliny, who believed so many things, swore to these by the twelve great
gods of Olympus. At all events, we are much indebted to that laborious
naturalist for very precious information. He has made us acquainted with
the scare, which the Roman epicures preferred to every other species.
After the scare, the eel-pout or lotas’-liver enjoyed a great
reputation. The red mullet, which is still much esteemed, was considered
as one of the most delicate of dishes, and the Romans in fashionable
circles employed it in a refinement of pleasure of a singular kind.
It is well known that this fish, when the scales are removed, still
remains of a fine pink colour. The fops of Rome having remarked that, at
the death, this colour passed through a succession of the most beautiful
shades, the poor mullet was served alive, inclosed in a glass vessel;
and the guests, attentive and greedy of emotions, enjoyed this cruel
spectacle, which presented to them a gradation of colours, which
insensibly disappeared.[XXI-16]
The greatest sensualists killed it in brine, and Apicius was the first
who invented this kind of luxury. The brine most in use, in such cases,
was made with the blood of mackerel, and that was one of the varieties
of that famous garum so highly praised by the Latin authors, and which
was to them, at that period, what the fish sauces of the English are
now. We will give, in this work, the various preparations of this so
celebrated condiment, and the reader will then be able to judge for
himself.
Apicius, the man of culinary progress, proposed a prize to any one who
could invent a new brine made with the liver of red mullets. History has
not transmitted to us the name of the fortunate conqueror; but Juvenal
informs us that Asinius Celer offered sixty pounds for one of these
fishes which weighed six pounds.[XXI-17]
This was, after all, but a trifling folly, in the midst of so many
extravagances which several writers have carefully registered. Lucullus,
the most ostentatious of the patricians, had a mountain cut through in
the neighbourhood of Naples, so as to open a canal and bring up the sea
and its fishes to the centre of the gardens of his sumptuous
villa.[XXI-18]
The love of fish became a real mania: turbots excited a _furore_ of
admiration--the _muræna Helena_ was worshipped. Hortensius, the orator,
actually wept over the death of the one he had fed with his own hands;
the daughter of Drusus ornamented hers with golden rings; each had a
name, and would come with speed when it heard the voice of the master,
whose happiness depended on his fish.[XXI-19]
Sometimes, in a moment of over tenderness for his dear _muræna Helena_,
Vedius Pollio, a Roman knight of the highest distinction, and one of the
intimate friends of the Emperor Augustus, could find nothing better to
do than to feed them with the flesh of his slaves, who were thrown to
them alive.[XXI-20] It is true that these wretched creatures generally
deserved this terrible chastisement; for instance, Seneca speaks of one
who had the awkwardness to break a crystal vase[XXI-21] while waiting at
supper on the irascible Pollio. This unfortunate slave having managed to
escape from the hands of those who were conducting him to this horrible
death, he went and fell on his knees at the feet of Cæsar, whom he
implored to inflict some less frightful torture. Augustus, moved to the
very soul, granted him his liberty, had all of Vedius’s vases broken,
and ordered that the pieces should be used to fill up the reservoir in
which the barbarous knight fed his _muræna Helena_.[XXI-22]
Having given this rapid sketch of the principal periods of ichthyophagy
among the ancients, little remains to be said of later ages in which we
find few traces of any particular or excessive predilection for this
kind of alimentation. If we are to believe Dio,[XXI-23] the first
inhabitants of Great Britain never eat fish. The English have not
thought it expedient to imitate their ancestors in this respect.
Under the reign of Edward II., certain fish, especially the sturgeon,
never appeared in England except on the table of the king: it was
prohibited to all others. In 1138, Stephen wanted to modify this
interdiction; but after his reign it was again in vigour, and considered
as a royal prerogative.
In France, anybody could eat fish, of any and all kinds; but every
fishmonger was obliged to obtain permission from the king to sell
it.[XXI-24]
The sumptuary laws of that kingdom inform us of nothing very interesting
on this essential of gastrology. We find, however, by the Edict of 1294,
that Philip-le-Bel allowed, on fast-days, two herring-pottages, and only
one sort of fish--a meagre dinner, if ever there was one, and which,
thank heaven, has fallen into complete disuse. Louis XII. was very fond
of good cheer, and, consequently, he appointed six fishmongers to supply
his table with fresh-water fish;[XXI-25] Francis I. had
twenty-two;[XXI-26] Henry the Great, twenty-four.[XXI-27]
Under the reign of Louis XIV. fish acquired a singular vogue in the city
as well as at court, owing to the marvellous talent of that prince’s
cook, who discovered the art, supposed to be lost, of giving to the
delicate flesh of the pike, the carp, and the trout, the shape and
flavour of the most exquisite game.
At this period we have the celebrated Vatel, one of the most illustrious
officers of the household that ever flourished in the palace of the
Princes of Condé. This inimitable major-domo understood that a dinner
without fish was a cheerless one. One day when his noble master
entertained Louis XIV. at a royal banquet, at Chantilly, which the
genius of Vatel rendered more brilliant, the fish from the coast failed;
he sent everywhere, but none could be found. He was completely
bewildered: he met his august master, whose kind words, full of
benevolence, only served to increase his desperation; he left him, ran
to his chamber, took his sword, and three times pierced his heart.
Shortly after, fish arrived from all quarters. Vatel was called--no
Vatel! He was sought for, and at last discovered--Vatel was no more!
It appears that, in former times, there was a remarkable consumption of
fish in England on the 4th of July, the Festival of St. Ulric. The
following verses, by Barnaby Gouge prove it:--
ST. HULDRYCHE.
“Wheresoever Huldryche hath his place, the people there brings in
Both capes and pykes, and mullets fat, his favour here to win.
Amid the church there sittieth one, and to the aultar nie,
That selleth fish, and so good cheep, that every man may buie;
Nor any thing he loseth here, bestowing thus his paine,
For when it hath beene offred once, ’tis brought him all againe,
That twise or thrise he selles the same, vngodlinesse such gaine
Both still bring in, and plentiously the kitchen doth maintaine,
Whence comes this same religion newe? What kind of God is this,
Same Huldryche here, that so desires and so delightes in fishe?”[XXI-28]
An ordinance of King John informs us that, in the 14th century, people
eat porpoises and even seals.[XXI-29] In the days of the troubadours,
they fished for dolphins and whales in the Mediterranean, and the flesh
of these sea monsters was considered excellent.[XXI-30]
STURGEON.