the Red, Black, and Caspian Seas, received from the Greeks, after its
death, honours in which none of the most delicate or renowned fish
participated. It was announced to the guests by the sound of trumpets;
and slaves, magnificently dressed, placed it on the table in the midst
of garlands and flowers.[XXI-31]
Joy brightened every face; a more generous wine filled fresh goblets,
and some flatterers--for the sturgeon possessed many--with eyes fixed on
the noble accipenser, compared its flesh to the ambrosia of the
immortals.[XXI-32]
The high price of the sturgeon contributed in no small degree to such
brilliant praise. This king of banquets would have ruined a modest
citizen of Athens, and hardly did the exiguity of its proportions permit
its figuring among the expensive rarities of an Attic supper, when it
had cost only a thousand drachms, or about £16 sterling.[XXI-33]
The Romans, imitators and emulators of the luxury of the Greeks, were
almost equally fond of this fish; and, like them, reserved it for
princely tables, or aristocratic opulence. It would seem, however, that
the enthusiasm excited by the sturgeon somewhat cooled under the reign
of Vespasian.[XXI-34] Perhaps at this period it became more common, or
was sold at a more moderate price. Nothing more was requisite in Rome to
deprive a dish of its most brilliant vogue and most powerful patronage.
However, the poet Martial, by nature no great flatterer, passes a
pompous eulogium on the monstrous fish,[XXI-35] and judges it worthy of
being placed on the luxurious tables of the Palatine Mount, that Westend
of Rome, rendered illustrious by the presence of kings, nobles, and
emperors.[XXI-36]
We have before observed that the sturgeon was formerly a royal dish in
England.[XXI-37] A celebrated traveller assures us that, at the present
day, the Chinese abstain from it, and that the sovereign of the
Celestial Empire consigns it to his own kitchens, or dispenses it to a
few of his greatest favourites.[XXI-38]
This gigantic accipenser, which often weighs two hundred pounds, is
quite common in Siberia, where they even catch some of a much larger
size, since some of the females have been found to contain two hundred
pounds weight of eggs.[XXI-39] In 1750, one was caught in Italy which
weighed 550 lbs. There are some in Norway, the head alone of which
yields a tun of oil,[XXI-40] and whose immense proportions would
formerly have astonished the most intrepid gastrophilists of Athens,
Syracuse, and Rome.
An alimentary substance, called caviar, furnished almost exclusively by
Russia to the rest of Europe, is prepared from the spawn of several
kinds of sturgeons.
The spawn of the large sturgeon produces caviar of an inferior quality;
that of the common sturgeon, and the sterlet, is prized as being more
delicate, when it is carefully separated from the vessels and membranes
with which it is intersected, well impregnated with brine, pressed, and
slightly dried. White caviar, it is said, is the best of all. It is
reserved for the court.[XXI-41]
There are two sorts of caviar: granulated caviar, and sack caviar.
The manufacture of the first named is performed by pressing the spawn on
a sieve, and rubbing it in every direction to remove the pellicles which
adhere to it, after which it is put into strong brine for one hour, then
drained in a sieve, and, finally, pressed close into barrels, so as to
entirely fill them before the head is fastened down.[XXI-42]
The manufacture of the other kind of caviar only differs in two
particulars. The spawn is manipulated while in the brine, in order to
soften it, and it is put, in small portions of about half-a-pound each,
into linen bags, which are powerfully twisted to extract all the brine
before it is pressed into the barrels.
The workmen employed in these operations make a third kind of caviar
with the refuse. This sort, used only by the poorest classes, deserves
no notice.
For some years past, they have introduced the method of salting the roes
as they are taken from the fish, and packing them into barrels, where
they remain seven or eight months; after which they are again salted,
and then dried in the sun.
Caviar occupies a very distinguished place in Russian, Turkish, German,
and Italian gastronomy. The Greeks, in particular, live upon it almost
exclusively during the long Lent fasts prescribed by their
Church.[XXI-43]
RED MULLET.
Philoxenes, of Cythera, supped one night with Dionysius, tyrant of
Sicily. It happened that the prince was served with a magnificent
mullet, whereas a very small one was presented to his guest. The
philosopher took his fish in his hand, and, with a very serious air,
held it to his ear. Dionysius asked him what he was doing. “I am busy
with my Galathea,” replied Philoxenes, “and I am questioning him on the
subject of Nerea; but I can obtain no answer from him, because he was
taken at too early an age. I am certain, however, that the other,
evidently much older, which lies before you, is perfectly well
acquainted with what I wish to know.” The tyrant, who happened that
evening to be in a good humour, laughed at the joke, and offered the
larger mullet to the witty gastronomist.[XXI-44]
The unbridled and cruel luxury of ancient Rome required that this fish
should be cooked by a slow fire, on the table and under a glass, that
the guests might gloat on its sufferings before they satiated their
appetites with its flesh.[XXI-45] It is true this barbarous
gratification was very expensive, and it was necessary to be very rich
to indulge in it--consequently it was decidedly very fashionable, quite
natural, and in the very best taste.
Ordinary mullets weighed about 2 lbs.;[XXI-46] these hardly deserved
that their dying agonies should for an instant amuse the guests; they
were worth only about £15 or £20 each. But sometimes fortune threw in
their way much larger ones; and the opulent amateur esteemed himself
only too fortunate when he could obtain a fish of three[XXI-47] or four
pounds[XXI-48] for a much higher sum than he had paid for the slave,
tutor of his children.
Crispinus was fond of mullets. He obtained one weighing four or six
pounds, for which the fishmonger asked only £60.[XXI-49] This was giving
it away; and certainly the man did not understand his trade. Crispinus,
on becoming the possessor of this wonderful treasure, was astonished at
his good fortune, and the whole of Rome long refused to believe it.
In the reign of Tiberius, three of these fish were sold for 30,000
sesterces,[XXI-50] or £209 9_s._ 8_d._; and this emperor was one day
generous enough to give up to P. Octavius, for the low price of 5,000
sesterces, a very fine mullet which had just been presented to
him.[XXI-51]
And yet some persons of culinary authority paid but little attention to
the flesh of this delicate fish; they sought only the liver and head;
and if they paid for it so dearly, it was solely to find some few
mouthfuls more in these two parts,[XXI-52] to which caprice, enthusiasm,
that fever of admiration, and we know not what extraordinary gastronomic
rage, gave an inestimable price, which at the present day excites only a
smile of incredulity.
Pliny speaks of a mullet caught in the red sea, which weighed eighty
pounds.[XXI-53] “At how much,” adds this great naturalist, “would it
have been valued had they caught it in the environs of Rome!” We may
suppose, without the least exaggeration, that many a senator would have
offered £1,500 to become its possessor.
It is thus that the mistress of the world foolishly dissipated in
ephemeral whims the immense treasures poured into her lap by tributary
kings--conquered and spoliated nations. Each day her patricians,
knights, and nobles, tired of their importunate opulence, solicited new
diversions, and invented new excesses. The mullet for a moment satisfied
their prodigality, and amused their barbarity; but Heliogabalus
appeared, and he imagined prodigies of gluttony which excited at once
admiration and envy. The liver of this fish appeared to him too paltry;
he took it into his head to be served with large dishes completely
filled with the gills.[XXI-54] Now, we know that the mullet possesses
only two. This dish, whose price would have enriched a hundred families,
was worthy of the Sardanapalus of Rome, who, at the age of eighteen, had
exhausted the treasures of the empire, and whom a violent death seized
most _à propos_, at the moment when he had attained the extreme limits
of crime and infamy.
The Romans served the mullet with a seasoning of pepper, rue, onions,
dates, and mustard, to which they added the flesh of the sea hedge-hog
reduced to a pulp, and oil.[XXI-55]
When the liver alone was to be eaten, it was cooked, and then seasoned
with pepper, salt, or a little garum--some oil was added, and hare’s or
fowl’s liver, and then oil was poured over the whole.[XXI-56]
The Greeks knew how to appreciate the mullet. They thought highly of
those caught on their own shores[XXI-57], and placed them in the first
rank of the most exquisite dishes of their delicate cookery.
“It is with the eggs of mullets, when salted, pressed, washed, and
dried, that the preparation known as _botargo_ or _botarcha_ is made. It
is very _recherché_ in Italy, and other southern countries, as a
seasoning.”--DR. CLOQUET.
SEA-EEL.
The sumptuous abode of L. Crassus echoes with his sighs and groans. His
children and slaves respect his profound sorrow, and leave him with
intelligent affection to solitude--that friend of great grief; so
grateful to the afflicted soul, because tears can flow unwitnessed.
Alas! the favourite sea-eel of Crassus is dead, and it is uncertain
whether Crassus can survive it!
This sensitive Roman caused this beloved fish to be buried with great
magnificence: he raised a monument to its memory, and never ceased to
mourn for it.[XXI-58]
This man, who displayed so little tenderness towards his servants, had
an extraordinary weakness concerning his fine sea-eels. He passed his
life beside the superb fish-pond, where he lovingly fattened them from
his own hand. Ornamented with necklaces of the finest pearls, and
earrings of precious stones,[XXI-59] all, at a signal, swam towards him;
several fearlessly took the food he offered them; and some, as familiar
as their absent and regretted companion, allowed their master to caress
them without seeking to bite or avoid him.[XXI-60]
This singular passion, which at the present day we can hardly believe,
in spite of the respectable authority of the most serious writers, was
very common at Rome, amongst those who were rich enough to rear such
fish. C. Hirtius was the first to construct fish ponds on the sea shore,
to which many visitors were attracted by their magnificence.[XXI-61] The
family of Licinius took their surname of _Muræna_ from these fish, in
order thus to perpetuate the most silly affection, and the remembrance
of their insanity.[XXI-62]
Sea-eels necessarily pleased men cloyed with pleasures, and who
substituted a kind of cold and cruel curiosity for the terrible emotions
which beings peculiarly organized hope to find in evil-doing:
gladiators murdering each other; lions or tigers lacerating the
_bestiarii_; all these agonies of the amphitheatre had long since lost
the attraction of novelty. It was a much more exciting spectacle to
witness a swarm of sea-eels tearing to pieces an awkward or rebellious
slave; besides, it greatly improved the fish. The atrocious Vedius
Pollio, who understood these matters, never failed to have sea-eels
served him after their odious repast, that he might have the pleasure of
eating some part of the body of his victim.[XXI-63]
Thank Heaven! however, some amateurs of this dreaded fish were not so
barbarous; they fattened them very well without having recourse to such
criminal food. Veal was cut into thin slices, and steeped in the blood
of the animal for ten days, after which the fish greedily regaled
themselves with it.[XXI-64]
It was, doubtless, in this manner that the skilful speculator,
Hirtius,--the same already mentioned--nourished his sea-eels, which
produced him an immense revenue. His fish ponds contained so great a
number that he was able to offer six thousand to Julius Cæsar on the
occasion of the public feast that general gave the day of his triumphal
return from the conquest of Gaul.[XXI-65]
The greater part of the Roman emperors were exceedingly fond of
sea-eels. The greedy Vitellius, growing tired of this dish, would at
last only eat the soft roes: and numerous vessels ploughed the seas in
order to obtain them for him.[XXI-66] This exquisite rarity again
appeared too common to the maniac child, who dismayed and astonished
Rome for the space of three years. Heliogabalus brought the soft roe of
the sea eel into disrepute by ordering that the peasants of the
Mediterranean should be gorged with it.[XXI-67] This folly amused him,
and only cost several millions. That was a trifle when compared with the
blood which almost always flowed to satisfy his whims.
The Greeks and Latins thought much of sea-eels caught in the straits of
Sicily.[XXI-68] They were sometimes served surrounded with
crawfish;[XXI-69] but more frequently they were dressed with a seasoning
much in fashion, composed of pepper, alisander, savory, saffron, onion,
and stoned Damascus plums. These various substances were mixed together,
and to them were added wine, sweet sun-made wine, old wine reduced by
boiling, garum, vinegar, and oil.[XXI-70]
At Rome the fish market was abundantly supplied with sea-eels from the
Tiber. Connoisseurs thought nothing of them;[XXI-71] they were sold at
a low price, and their disgrace became complete directly they appeared
on plebeian tables.
The Egyptians venerated this fish, and always esteemed it sacred.[XXI-72]
Among the Sybarites, just appreciators of its culinary qualities, the
fishers and sellers of sea-eels were exempt from all taxes.[XXI-73] They
often procured some of such enormous size, that we should be tempted to
accuse the old chroniclers of exaggeration, if we were not aware that
this animal attains considerable dimensions. In the year 1786 a sea-eel
was taken in the Elbe, weighing sixty pounds. This extraordinary fish
measured seven feet two inches in length, and twenty-five inches in the
girth.[XXI-74]
LAMPREY.
In spite of its soft and viscid flesh, this fish occupied in Rome a most
honourable rank among the multitudinous dishes which intemperance was
ever augmenting, and preference was given to that species caught by
enterprising speculators in that strait which separates Sicily from
Italy. These good people averred that lampreys which rise to the surface
of the sea are immediately dried up by the sun, and cannot any more
descend to the depths of the ocean.[XXI-75] This little story did no
harm to their sale; on the contrary, they became on that account more
curiously interesting.
It was also said, and the serious Gesner himself has repeated this
fable:[XXI-76] That if the fish fastens its mouth to the side of a
vessel it immediately stops, and that the combined power of the wind and
the efforts of the rowers are unavailing.[XXI-77] The fact is that, by
means of a kind of suction, it can fasten firmly on any bodies; and one
weighing only three pounds has been seen to sustain in the air, with its
mouth, a stone weighing twelve pounds.[XXI-78]
The lamprey has not always been the fashion, but it has had brilliant
and glorious epochs. In 1135 it caused so great a fit of indigestion to
Henry I., King of England, that that prince died in consequence of
it.[XXI-79] Since then, in the 16th century, it has been honoured with
the reputation of having caused more than one death.[XXI-80] It was sold
at a very high price, £3 at least, and at certain periods the Roman
nobles even paid as much as £20 for one of these fish.[XXI-81] The
ancient metropolis of the world had sometimes strange reminiscences of
her former grandeur.
The Italian epicures of that remarkable era used to kill the lamprey in
Candian wine. A nutmeg was placed in the mouth, and a clove in each of
the openings of the gills. They rolled them round in a saucepan, and
after adding crushed almonds, bread crumbs, Candian wine, and spices,
the whole was cooked over a slow fire.[XXI-82]
SEA-WOLF.
Hicesius, one of the most estimable ichthyophagists of antiquity, does
not hesitate to place the sea-wolf above all the fish which by their
excellence were dear to Greece;[XXI-83] and the great Archestratus says,
that the _lubridan_ (a species of the sea-wolf) is a child of the
gods.[XXI-84]
The Romans, touched no doubt by these magnificent praises, granted to
the sea-wolf that favour which a high reputation commands. The immense
sturgeon itself was eclipsed by it, and the sea-wolf had the glory of
throwing this powerful and renowned rival into oblivion.[XXI-85]
Their love for its white and tender flesh knew no bounds,[XXI-86] and
the fishermen of the Tiber were no longer equal to the task of supplying
them for the impatient gluttony of the rich inhabitants of the Palatine
Mount. Still this fish only fetched a high price when taken in a certain
part of the river; from any other place it hardly commanded a few _as_
(pence). Between the Sublicius and Senatorius bridges, a deep, black,
and fetid water announced the presence of the continual flood of filth
which the giant city poured into it night and day. It was in the midst
of these impurities that shoals of sea-wolves were seen disporting; they
fattened on that shocking slime, and thence passed to the delicate
tables of Lucullus and Cæsar.[XXI-87]
The Greeks contented themselves with lubridans taken in clear water, and
preferred the head to any other part.[XXI-88]
SCARUS, OR, PARROT-FISH.
The scarus--its modern name is still problematic--furnished the Greeks
with one of those exquisite dishes the remembrance of which never dies.
The Romans were not yet acquainted with it, when Octavius, the commander
of a fleet, brought on board the vessels a great quantity of this fish,
which he ordered to be thrown into the sea along the coast of Campania,
and which soon became the delight of the epicures of Rome.[XXI-89]
History has shown too much disdain by neglecting to say more than a few
passing words on the subject of this great service. May a tardy homage
of gratitude be paid to the memory of the benefactor of his country.
The scarus was prepared without being embowelled, and epicures found it
impossible to satiate themselves with the entrails,[XXI-90] which
obtained for it a gastronomic vogue it long enjoyed without a
rival.[XXI-91] It was asserted that the fish ruminates;[XXI-92] that it
feeds only on herbage;[XXI-93] and that, far from being mute, like the
other inhabitants of the water, it not only emits sounds, but is able to
express by its cries the different sensations it experiences.[XXI-94]
These anomalies, either real or supposed, had, perhaps, as great a share
in rendering the scarus celebrated, as the delicacy of its flesh, and
the exquisite flavour of its intestines. Merit the most real can so
rarely keep the field unsupported by cajollery.
TURBOT.
Rome and Italy were indebted to the prætor, Sempronius, or to Rufus
Rutilius,[XXI-95] for the turbot, which they taught their countrymen to
appreciate. This fish quickly obtained the success which it merited, and
was compared to the pheasant, as soles were likened to partridges,
lampreys to quails, and sturgeons to peacocks. Some preferred turbot
from the Adriatic Sea, others that of Ravenna;[XXI-96] but all united in
declaring that there was not a more delicious food, and that a feast
loses all its charm when this delicacy is wanting.
In the reign of Domitian a monstrous turbot was taken; such a one had
never been seen in the imperial kitchens.[XXI-97] The emperor convoked
the senate, and deferred to them to decide in what dish it should be
cooked, in order that it might be served whole. The deliberation was
long and stormy; all Rome was in a state of expectancy; and the august
assembly strove to prove itself worthy of the high confidence reposed in
it by Cæsar. At length the illustrious old men were tolerably unanimous
in their idea that the best way would be to make a dish expressly for
the fish--since there was none large enough ready-made--and also that a
stove should be constructed vast enough to allow the dish to be placed
commodiously upon it.[XXI-98]
The emperor, the city, and the court applauded the profound wisdom of
this decision; and “_le turbot fut mis à la sauce piquante_.”[XXI-99]
Aristotle does not mention this fish; but his compatriots esteemed
highly the turbots of Attica.[XXI-100]
TUNNY.
The Greeks greatly praised the tunny fish of Pachynum.[XXI-101] Persons
who prided themselves on their knowledge in the art of good living, eat
only the belly part,[XXI-102] and never touched the remainder.
The Synopians formerly gained immense sums by the tunny fishery along
their shores,[XXI-103] the effigy of which, perhaps in gratitude, they
stamped on their money. This fish came from Palus Meotides, and passed
thence to Trebizond and Pharnacia, whence it followed the coast of
Sinopus, and, at length, reached Byzantium, where they took nearly all
those which escaped the fisheries of the two first-named
stations.[XXI-104]
The Romans offered tunny fish in sacrifice to Neptune, in order that
that god might deign to prevent the _xiphias_ fish from tearing their
nets, and forbid the too officious dolphins to assist in their
escape.[XXI-105] They sold it at a very good price during the autumn and
winter; but it fetched less in summer because it was thought to be
unwholesome during that season.[XXI-106] The jole and belly were thought
the most delicate parts.[XXI-107] They were either fried or boiled, with
pepper, alisander, cummin, onion, mint, sage, and dates, to which was
added a mixture of honey, vinegar, oil, and mustard.[XXI-108]
Archestratus, who, on account of his gastronomic voyages, was looked
upon as a high authority, asserts that Sicily and the neighbourhood of
Constantinople furnished excellent tunny fish; but that the best were
those from Samos.[XXI-109] These latter were much renowned among the
Greeks, who carefully prepared the entrails, and feasted on this dish.
Athenæus relates, on this subject, a witticism of the poet Dorio, a keen
and caustic spirit of the period of Aristotle and Philip of Macedon.
Being at supper with that prince, a guest ridiculously praised a dish
of tunny-fish intestines, just placed on the table. “They are certainly
excellent,” said Doric, “when eaten as I eat them.” “How, then, do you
eat them?” rejoined the gastronomic courtier. “With the firm
determination,” replied the poet, “of thinking of nothing
better.”[XXI-110]
This fish abounds in certain seas, and Pliny avers that it obstructed
the navigation of the Indian Sea to such an extent, that the fleet of
Alexander the Great was obliged to change its course, in order to avoid
this impassable barrier.[XXI-111]
Tunny fish sometimes attain an immense size. Father Cetti tells us, that
some were caught in Sardinia weighing no less than 1,000 lbs., and
sometimes even 1,800 lbs.[XXI-112]
CONGER-EEL.
Near Sicyona, a city of the Peloponnesus,[XXI-113] they formerly caught
conger-eels of such immense size, that it required a waggon drawn by
oxen to carry a single one.[XXI-114] The body, the whole of the head,
and even the intestines[XXI-115] were eaten. This dish, worthy of being
offered by Neptune to his divine colleagues, was capable, like ambrosia,
of bestowing immortality on those who had the good fortune of tasting
it, and the dead would return to life, had it been possible to serve
them with a piece of this exquisite fish.[XXI-116]
These childish exaggerations have not prevented Galen from treating the
conger-eel with very little respect: he affirms, that nothing is more
hard or indigestible.[XXI-117] And, indeed, epicureans of some repute
allowed only the head to appear on their tables;[XXI-118] and then only
at rare intervals, and under the auspices of a relishing sauce which
assured its reception.