HISTORY OF SALT.
I am approaching a subject somewhat novel and indeed difficult,
and very probably it may be regarded by some as one far from being
profitable or interesting; therefore I shall endeavour, though with
some degree of diffidence, to consider it not only from a medical point
of view, but to glance at some facts, both historical, geographical,
and geological. By so doing, we shall be touching upon other matters
not only pleasing but instructive, and which to a great many are but
indifferently known; for though salt is to be almost universally
seen on the tables of rich and poor alike, yet few are aware of its
undeniable medicinal virtues, and many are totally ignorant of the
great sustenance they derive from this indispensable and undoubtedly
savoury condiment, besides being but moderately acquainted with its
history. At the present time it is used nearly all over the world,
and is acknowledged to be at least an adjunct necessary for perfect
cookery; it is in requisition in fact everywhere, and even those who do
not use it would be considered as lacking in taste were they to discard
it altogether from their tables.
All, however, are to a certain extent cognisant of the fact of how
insipid the daintiest dishes taste, if salt is omitted in their
preparation, and the cook, however expert he may be in the culinary
art, invariably fails in giving satisfaction (except to those whose
palates are deranged or vitiated) if they are not seasoned with it;
few, I think, will deny that animal food in particular is deprived
of its pleasing flavour if it be eaten without salt. Those who have
an unnatural aversion to it should bear in mind that the ingestion
of improper animal and vegetable food frequently occasions many
severe attacks of illness, and invariably provokes and intensifies
that universal complaint, dyspepsia. George Herbert tells us in his
_Jacula Prudentum_, that “Whatever the father of disease, ill diet is
the mother;” and if food is taken into the stomach without its proper
portion of salt, it is not what one would consider as wholesome; on the
contrary, it is most decidedly “ill diet:” and being such, the system
does not derive that kind of nutriment suitable for the promotion of a
healthy action of the organs of the body, neither are the secretions
in such a condition as is compatible with health. Physiologists
inform us that the saliva[1] holds salt in solution, and that it is
also present in the gastric juice, which indicates at once how highly
necessary it is for the system to be regularly supplied with it; for it
is a physiological fact that the process of deglutition and digestion
is partly due to the disintegrating and solvent action of these two
secretions on the food, especially the latter; and consequently if
the nutritious particles are to be absorbed in a state fit to make up
for the waste of tissue, they ought to contain a sufficient amount of
the chloride of sodium to take the place of that which has passed off
through the media of the skin and the kidneys.
With these self-evident facts and a few physiological data before them
(which really require no great effort to prove, so plain are they in
their simple truth), all indeed must, or should be, convinced of the
necessity of a liberal and judicious use of a substance which plays
such an important part in the animal economy, and into which we shall
enter more fully when we come to consider the relation which salt bears
to food while it is going through the process of digestion.
Owing to the peculiar and incomprehensible prejudices of those who
labour under the false impression that they are wiser and more
discriminating than others, and who become proportionately obstinate in
their notions, we shall endeavour to bring forward undeniable evidence
in support of our arguments, though it is possible they may neither
acknowledge that they are wrong, nor admit that their preconceived
ideas prevent them from arriving at an unbiased conclusion. To such
I have no hesitation in saying that they are much deceived if they
imagine that the habit of abstaining from salt is contributive to
health; such crabbed and confined views, however, are significant of
the fact that human nature is frequently antagonistic to, and at cross
purposes with, that which is ordained by the laws of nature to be
beneficial.
I shall pass over the merits of salt as a seasoning to food, as it is
my object to consider it solely in its relation to the animal economy,
its operation in certain morbid conditions of the system, and its great
importance as a health-preserver. But before proceeding, it will be
as well to give a passing glance at its history and other attractive
matter with which it is indirectly in relation; for though our
investigations will be rather of a tentative character, and in a degree
speculative, they may at least be interesting if not instructive.
Perhaps others may be stimulated to penetrate deeper into the almost
impenetrable obscurity with which the discovery of salt as a condiment
is surrounded; and if they can bring to light who it was that primarily
found out the chloride of sodium and utilised it as an adjunct to
food, they will have solved a geological problem, and a long-standing
historical enigma will be elucidated.
We possess no distinct and reliable data, and in fact no information
of any kind, concerning salt in the early ages of the world as an
article of diet, outside the pages of Scripture: all we really know,
is, that in the infantile period of Europe, when the Indo-Germanic
tribes entered it from Asia, though they were unacquainted with the
sea, they were familiar with salt, as is proved by the recurrence of
its name; yet whether they used it with their food we are by no means
so sure of. The Kitchen-Middeners, who had their miserable dwellings
on the wild shores of Jutland and similar inhospitable localities,
_might_ have been acquainted with it; but when we call to mind the
nature of the food[2] on which they lived, we may, I think, fairly
conclude that they were ignorant of the use to which salt is now put;
here again, however, we have only vague conjecture to fall back upon.
The founder of Buddhism, Arddha Chiddi, a native of Capila near Nepaul,
who subsequently changed his name to Gotama, and afterwards to Chakia
Mouni, in his “Verbal Instructions,” when dealing with his inquiry into
the nature of man, asks us to consider what becomes of a grain of salt
when cast into the ocean. Of the epoch of Gotama, or Chakia Mouni,
there is great diversity of opinion; the Chinese, Mongols, and Japanese
fix it at B.C. 1000; the Cashmerians at B.C. 1332; and the Avars,
Siamese, and Cingalese fix it at B.C. 600.
The reference which Gotama thus makes to salt shows us that he was
familiarly acquainted with it, otherwise he would not have figuratively
mentioned it.
We are completely in the dark regarding salt as a condiment till Moses,
in the Book of Job, asks the pertinent question, “Can anything which is
unsavoury be eaten without salt?” As this book was penned B.C.
1520, we may conclude with a tolerable degree of certainty that it
was so used in the time of the great Jewish Law-giver, and as he was
brought up in the court of Pharaoh, and was skilled in all the wisdom
of the Egyptians, it would point to the probability that salt was in
common use in that ancient country.
The _first_ mention we possess of salt is when Moses refers to the Vale
of Siddim, which is the Salt Sea. This vast reservoir was known as the
Dead Sea,[3] and is so to this day: so the Jews, who were commanded
to use salt in their sacrifices, had a large natural depôt which
afforded them a limitless supply of the necessary material for carrying
on their worship, and likewise for individual consumption: they also
mixed a certain amount of salt with their incense. The second reference
is in relation to one of those extraordinary incidents with which the
first five books of the Old Testament teem, and that is during the
destruction of the “Cities of the Plain,” when Lot’s wife was turned
into a pillar of salt for disobedience.
We also read of salt in the Iliad of Homer, and as he did not flourish
till about B.C. 850,[4] we must give the honour of marking it
indelibly on the pages of history to Moses the Jew, who lived, if the
above date is correct, 670 years anterior to the illustrious Father of
epic poetry, and, if the Cashmerians are correct in their calculation,
188 years before Gotama gave to the world his eight hundred volumes,
pointing out the path towards individual extinction or “Nirwana.”
We may likewise conclude that as it was known to the sagacious
Hebrew, the æsthetic Greek, and the imaginative Asiatic, it was no
doubt equally well known to the Egyptians, and probably amongst the
neighbouring African tribes, long before the arrival of Joseph in the
land of the Pharaohs, and centuries before the Oracle of Delphi was
instituted.[5]
From the following lines we may justly conclude that the Greeks looked
upon salt as sacred, and used it as a thank-offering, and that it even
was an absolute necessity to go through the ceremony of washing their
hands before touching it; such extreme care and scrupulous observance
indicates that it was a substance held in the highest reverence:
“At this the Sire embraced the maid again,
So sadly lost, so lately sought in vain.
Then near the altar of the darting King,
Dispos’d in rank their hecatomb they bring; 585
With water purify their hands, and take
The sacred off’ring of the salted cake;
While thus with arms devoutly rais’d in air,
And solemn voice, the Priest directs his pray’r.”
POPE’S _Homer’s Iliad_, book i.
“And Menalaus came unbid, the last. 485
The chiefs surround the destined beast, and take
The sacred off’ring of the salted cake:
When thus the King prefers his solemn pray’r.”
_Ibid._, book ii.
“Achilles at the genial feast presides,
The parts transfixes, and with skill divides.
Meanwhile Patroclus sweats the fire to raise;
The tent is bright’ned with the rising blaze:
Then, when the languid flames at length subside,
He strows a bed of glowing embers wide, 280
Above the coals the smoking fragments turns,
And sprinkles sacred salt from lifted urns.”
_Ibid._, book ix.
At the time of the Exodus, Egypt was the great disseminator of
knowledge, the centre of civilisation, and the emporium of trade, being
then at its zenith of prosperity and power;[6] and the countries which
were conterminous no doubt regarded it with feelings of admiration
and emulation, and were only too desirous to adopt its customs, as
well as to avail themselves of the learning and culture which were
only to be found in the land of obelisks and pyramids. Even the
Greek philosophers were fain to acknowledge that Egypt[7] was their
storehouse of wisdom and æsthetic art; neither Athenian, Spartan,
or Corinthian, ever disavowed his presumed Egyptian descent: and if
history is to be relied on, the first King of Attica was a citizen of
Sais; though this is a disputed point, for not only is the country
of Cecrops a topic for controversy, but even his very existence is
questioned, and by some altogether denied. This legend, if it is such,
however, tends to show that the communication between the two countries
(though of the two, Egypt was much more exclusive) was frequent;
however, it is still a theme upon which classical commentators continue
to exercise their controversial dexterity, some of whom affirm that
there is no foundation for the myth. Yet many philosophical authors
who flourished in Athens believed implicitly in the Egyptian genealogy
of Cecrops; so that there is no reason why it should be stamped as
fictitious, especially when it is verified by those who lived closer
to that period of time than the incredulous moderns, whose great
delight is to hint that many past historical events are incredible,
and therefore apocryphal. I think we may certainly conclude that the
sage discriminating Athenians were acquainted with their Egyptian
descent,[8] for they were the last people to believe in uncertainties,
save such as were connected with their religion; and what nation is
there, I should like to know, which is not similarly imposed upon by
its own strange credulity, and the artful designs of schemers in this
particular?
Cecrops, no doubt, while he introduced Egyptian arts and sciences into
his adopted country, was too wise, and too well conversant with such an
important commodity as salt, to forget both its existence and utility,
on his arrival in the peninsula. Presuming for one moment that the
emigration of Cecrops from Egypt is a fable, it is indicative of the
fact that a perpetual intercourse, though of a modified nature, existed
between that country and Greece. We know, however, that both Egyptian
and Grecian histories, about the period of Cecrops, are involved in
much obscurity and uncertainty (particularly as regards dates); and if,
therefore, Cecrops and his foundation of a Pelasgic colony in Attica
is a mythological tale, we may justly infer that Greece, owing to the
greater antiquity of Egypt, imitated many of the social customs which
were in vogue in the ancient and luxurious cities of the Nile.
We are also aware that at this early age, with a few brilliant
exceptions like Egypt (we possess no reliable records of China, Japan,
or Hindostan[9]) the world was in a state of mental stagnation—chaotic
is more descriptive: the thoughtful and mystical Egyptians were really
the only recipients and parsimonious (if historical accounts are to be
credited) disseminators of knowledge to their neighbours.
Many centuries later, we find a very remarkable instance of this
influence of Egypt, which, though of a religious character, bears
indirectly on our subject, by exemplifying this intellectual supremacy;
the worship of Isis was established even in Imperial Rome herself, and
we are told that the goddess was a most popular divinity amongst the
wealthy citizens, a temple being erected to her honour in the Campus
Martius; while she was designated by her enthusiastic worshippers, Isis
Campensus. Now, though an Egyptian goddess was admitted with so much
apparent readiness to occupy such an exalted position in the capital
of the empire, when the Romans, with supercilious toleration, allowed
the worship of as many gods as the people chose to venerate, yet the
fact of building a temple for her exclusive worship, when all the
other gods and goddesses were mixed and scattered hither and thither,
without the slightest regard to order or attributes, is sufficient
proof to substantiate the truth of my argument; and again if we call
to mind the jealous pride of the Romans, and their disinclination to
conform to the habits and customs of the countries which succumbed to
their iron will, the admission of Isis to such elevated and almost
unprecedented honours, would tend to show that many customs of Egyptian
origin were not only adopted by the haughty Roman, but also by the Jew,
Greek, Assyrian, and Persian, with a willingness in proportion to their
utility, ornamentation, and agreeableness; and in some instances in
deference to the intellectual ascendancy and scientific acquirements of
this ancient people.
The Egyptians, owing to the central position of their country, the
knowledge they were known to possess, their unrivalled skill in
irrigation, the sublimity of their architecture, the abstruse wisdom
of their priests, the mysterious erudition of their astrologers, and
their wonderful agricultural proficiency and renown, caused their
country to be frequently visited (sometimes by stealth, owing to
their stringent laws against the admission of foreigners) by Greeks,
Phœnicians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans, and indeed by all who professed
the study[10] of science, learning, and philosophy; so that we may be
sure they very naturally carried back to their respective countries
many of the domestic customs, as well as the knowledge of their
learned entertainers and instructors. The great city of Thebes stood to
Ethiopia, as well as to Egypt, in the same relation as that occupied
by Rome to mediæval Christendom: the construction of her temples
and palaces, and the vast population of priests and their thousands
of attendants, in addition to the presence of the court, must have
attracted thither multitudes of merchants, artists, artisans, and
indeed travellers from all parts; for it was the centre in those
days of civilisation and commerce; and it was easy of access, for an
opening in the Arabian Sea afforded communication with the port of
Kosseir on the Red Sea; while on the other side, the city was the best
starting-point for the caravan routes across the desert to the three
chief _oases_ (the Greater, the Lesser, and that of Ammon), and to the
interior of Africa. Thus Egypt, through Thebes, commanded the trade
with India, and with the gold, ivory, and aromatic districts; and the
mines of the neighbouring limestone hills added to her enormous wealth,
and gave employment to thousands.
There is another point which we must not overlook, and that is,
the Egyptians did not remain secluded in their own country, though
they were jealous of the entry of strangers. They were a courageous
and seafaring people (though much inferior in that respect to the
adventurous Phœnicians), as far as the times went; for they engaged
in many nautical enterprises after Psammetichus, about B.C.
670, had completely overthrown the ancient system of isolation,
showing their dormant marine proclivities, which had hitherto been
but secretly indulged in.[11] Before these barriers had been broken
down, their expeditions, as far as we know, never extended beyond the
ancient Pillars of Hercules, which was regarded as an extraordinary
exploit in those days (so we are told). One thing we may be practically
certain of—wherever they went they carried with them not only their
learning, but also their own peculiar customs and habits; and doubtless
they experienced a satisfaction and pride in displaying their
superiority not only in matters appertaining to knowledge, but also in
civilisation. May we not justly infer that in their peregrinations they
promulgated the utility and advantages of such a valuable commodity
as salt wherever they went, wherever they settled? And would not the
various peoples whom they visited, after having once experienced
the palatableness of salt, take to it with an eagerness approaching
avidity? The following paragraph, which I have extracted _in extenso_
from the work of a highly gifted American author, and which is, I am
proud to say, confirmatory of my own observations, delineates in a
most forcible and graphic style the wonderful pitch of excellence in
the sciences to which the Egyptians had attained, and their remarkable
approach to the goal of indefectibility.
“The hieroglyphic writing had passed through all its stages of
formation; its principles had become ascertained and settled long
before we gain the first glimpse of it; the decimal and duodecimal
systems of arithmetic were in use; the arts necessary in hydraulic
engineering, massive architecture, and the ascertainment of the
boundaries of land, had reached no insignificant degree of perfection.
Indeed, there would be but very little exaggeration in affirming that
we are practically as near the early Egyptian as was Herodotus himself.
Well might the Egyptian priests say to the earliest Greek philosophers:
‘You Greeks are mere children, talkative and vain; you know nothing at
all of the past.’”[12]
There is another channel which we will now take into consideration: the
Philistines, who are supposed to have been descended from the Hycksos,
or Shepherd Kings of Egypt, must have carried with them not a few of
those customs which were in fashion amongst the sons of the founders
of the gloomy temples of Memphis and Luxor; and on their expulsion by
the regenerated Egyptians they were probably much assimilated with
them, owing to many years’ intercourse, and being located in the same
country, though their nationalities were entirely distinct and their
habits antagonistic, and notwithstanding the dislike the Egyptians
had for, and their abhorrence of all those who were connected with,
the grazing and the breeding of cattle; for whenever two nations mix
promiscuously, however limited it may be, they are sure to adopt more
or less each other’s peculiarities, both in language and customs.
These Philistines, when they emigrated on their defeat, took with them
Egyptian civilisation, and the various tribes surrounding their newly
acquired territory were very soon initiated into customs of which,
perhaps, they were previously ignorant. There is nothing to prove this,
but we may certainly surmise as much, if only by inference.[13]
Though we possess no historical record, we may, owing to the influence
which Egypt doubtless exerted over the civilised parts of Europe, come
to the conclusion that through her instrumentality the use of salt was
made known to the surrounding nations and tribes; the sons of Jacob and
their families were not sufficiently numerous to render them important
in the estimation of their neighbours, nor were they powerful enough to
extort respect or generate emulation.
We learn from Herodotus, who was born B.C. 484, that the
Egyptians eat salted food, but nothing as regards using it in the same
way as we do. He says, “They live on fish, raw, but sun-dried, or
steeped in brine; they eat also raw quails and ducks, and the smaller
birds, salted beforehand.”[14] The climate of Egypt, being remarkably
dry and hot, would soon cause the decomposition of fresh animal food,
and the Egyptians doubtless were aware of the fact that a prolonged
immersion in brine or salt would be a complete deterrent; therefore
there is no reason to doubt but that it was as common a custom amongst
them as it is amongst us at the present day.[15] The “Father of
History” does not mention that salt was used as a condiment; though we
may presume as much.
We might feel inclined at first to ascribe the honour of promulgating
the utility of salt to the Hebrews, owing to the fact of one of their
nation being the first to mention it, and of our possessing no other
record of so early a date. Abraham was very probably cognisant of
the virtues of salt, but though he was the founder of the people
whose mission and chief delight was indiscriminate massacre, he was
not one of them, but a Chaldean, a people famed for their wisdom;
besides, he was the progenitor of two nations, viz. the Hebrews and the
Ishmaelites, so that if Isaac was acquainted with the properties of
salt, his half-brother Ishmael was equally so. Ishmael’s descendants
speedily developed into a free, independent nation, while Isaac’s
became slaves, and were made to construct costly monuments, build
gigantic palaces, and raise majestic temples for their highly-cultured
and imperious oppressors.
Which branch was likely to be imitated? Not the labouring, ignorant
Hebrew, smarting under the lash of servitude, but rather the wandering
Ishmaelite, who roamed at pleasure over the burning solitudes of
Arabia; still, we must remember they were like a drop in the bucket
when compared with their exclusive neighbours over the Red Sea. We are
all aware that to this day the Eastern custom of placing salt before
a guest is a token of amity and goodwill, and is significant enough
to tell the visitor that he is for the time being in perfect safety;
no Arab, even under provocation, would injure his most violent enemy
after having once eaten salt with him under cover of his tent, till he
was out in the desert.[16] This custom has descended from generation
to generation, and perhaps was instituted by the exiled son of Abraham
and Hagar. This fact would seem to corroborate my hypothesis, that if
the Jews, through Abraham, were aware of the properties of salt, their
wild brothers of the desert were also acquainted with it, and from the
same source. Where Abraham obtained the knowledge of salt rests in
obscurity; he may have acquired the secret from the Egyptians, or, as
he is termed the friend of the Founder of the Universe, probably he
learnt it from a higher authority. I think we may dismiss the idea that
we owe the discovery of salt to the Hebrews.
Our speculations on this point are, however, comparatively vain, for
we cannot possibly determine who first discovered it, or who first
utilised it as a condiment to food: all we really know is that it
has become universal, and that from time immemorial; but whether the
Egyptians, Chinese, or Hindoos first made use of it, will be one of
those dark secrets the solution of which may interest the curious and
ingenious, and test the patience and erudition of the profound. Such
an investigation might probably be considered by some as unprofitable,
even if it were attended with success. To such I do not think it will
be unjust or irrelevant to observe that many scientific discussions
which from time to time have occupied the learned world have been, as
far as the results are concerned, not of much moment to humanity at
large. For instance, of what practical utility is the modern theory of
evolution, upon which so much erudition of a minute kind, and thought,
is expended, except as indicative of the ingenuity of the author?
Is science at all advanced when we are gravely told that the human
organism springs from protoplasm, and that plastidules consist of
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, and that they possess souls? It
is true that these abstruse inquiries have been productive of inciting
a greater desire for studying the workings of nature, and a great
deal of which previous generations were profoundly ignorant has been
ingeniously disclosed, and accurately elucidated, for one is bound to
admit that, though in many instances their researches have failed in
their ultimate results, they have been the indirect cause of giving a
remarkable impetus to scientific investigation. Many recondite subjects
have thus been exhaustively analysed, unintentionally, owing to the
anxiety and eagerness of the authors to arrive at the goal of their
wishes; for while they are seeking for that which probably will never
be found, they discover others which, to all intents and purposes, very
likely would never have been conceived of. Perhaps these remarks may be
considered unjust and hypercritical as regards their researches into
the mysteries of life, and do not appear to give sufficient importance
to those philosophical deductions and enunciations, which the authors
no doubt demand as an imperative right; for scientific physicists
are apt to be tyrannical, and are not over-endued with the virtue of
practicality, and naturally do not like their opinions and metaphysical
reveries relegated to that region which Milton humorously baptized
the “Paradise of Fools,” but prefer their speculations to be regarded
as irrefragable facts. As this is, however, the age for far-fetched
theories, I think we may be allowed with perfect fairness to discuss a
subject which has partially escaped the eyes of the inquisitive; and
if it is not treated so elegantly as the learned theses of the leaders
of science and philosophy of to-day, I cannot help thinking that we
may probably gain considerably more by studying a subject which is
practically of interest to all, than attempting to penetrate into the
invisible and undefinable mechanism of biology.
Notwithstanding the proofs (vague though they be), which I have
already mentioned to show that we are indebted to the Egyptians for
the discovery of this most valuable substance, I nevertheless do so
with diffidence, because they are of a hypothetical tendency, and
consequently refutable.[17] We may endeavour to trace the custom
of using salt as a condiment to several nations, or even to one
particular nation, with as much earnestness as the modern speculatists
attempt to account for unaccountable phenomena appertaining to the
material and spiritual worlds; but, as far as the real evidence goes,
we are as unsuccessful, and our inquiries almost as unsatisfactory, as
theirs have been hitherto.
There is great probability, however, that the Egyptians first made
known to other nations, directly and indirectly, the utility of salt,
and that through their sole agency it was introduced into Europe
through the media of commerce and other channels of communication, and
no doubt, as I have previously stated, in deference to their superior
wisdom. We learn from those scholars who are giving their attention
to Egyptian remains, that Greece was indebted to Egypt for all her
science, architecture, literature, art, and mythology; and, indeed, her
domestic life was derived from that venerable country. “From Egypt, it
now appears, were derived the prototypes of the Greek architectural
orders, and even their monuments and conventional designs; thence came
the models of the Greek and Etruscan vases; thence came many of the
ante-Homeric legends ... thence came the first ritual for the dead,
litanies to the sun, and painted, or illuminated, missals; thence came
the dogma of a queen of heaven!”[18]
In confirmation of this we are told that Moses, as I have before
remarked, was skilled in Egyptian wisdom: this is most emphatic,
and we cannot but conclude that that wisdom was in a high state
of perfection; and their works, which are still the surprise and
admiration of travellers, testify to the truth of Holy Writ. Do not
their monuments, which have set time at defiance, prove that they were
a people highly gifted? Their ruins are more sublime than any other
architectural remains which are extant, excelling, both in magnificence
and magnitude, the classic temples of Greece, and the elegant buildings
which once graced the banks of the golden Tiber. In reference to this
I may quote Dr. Lepsius, who states that “all the principal cities of
Egypt were adorned with temples and palaces.... These temples were
filled with the statues of gods and kings, generally colossal, and hewn
from costly stones.”
Possibly, owing to the fact that salt is valued almost universally,
and is a substance which has been demonstrated by experience to be
necessary to humanity, it may have been, for all we can say, as well
known to the Antediluvians as it is to us; and if so, then we are
indebted to Noah. But these are but surmises; we really possess no
authentic record, except that which we find in Holy Writ: and, with
my reader’s leave, we will now proceed to examine those passages of
Scripture in which salt is mentioned.
We find that whenever salt is named, it is done so in language of a
character stamping it as a most important essential; and especially
do we notice this in the directions for the religious services of the
Israelites. They were commanded in the most explicit language that
in all their offerings they should “offer salt.”[19] There is also
another point which we must not omit, and that is, whenever salt is
referred to in the Inspired Volume, it is invariably in connection
with some important transaction: for example, when Elisha sweetened
the waters of the fountain of Jericho, he cast salt into them; this
act of the prophet illustrates, figuratively, the purifying properties
of salt, for he said, “I have healed these waters.”[20] When Abimelech
captured Shechem, he strewed salt over the ruins;[21] and when Abijah
harangued Jeroboam from the Mount Zemaraim, he speaks of a “covenant of
salt.”[22] We read farther on of this “covenant of salt” in the Book
of Numbers.[23] In fact, in the Old Testament, as well as in the New,
considerable stress is laid on this evidently important substance,
which shows that nothing was considered as thoroughly accomplished if
salt, in some way or other, was not intimately connected with it.
It was also a custom amongst the Hebrews, which was never departed
from, to rub new-born infants with salt:[24] this practice was in every
respect healthy and cleanly, and if we Christians were wise we should,
from a hygienic point of view, strictly follow a custom which is so
conducive to health; for salt hardens the skin of newly-born children
and renders it more firm, and prevents (unless there is an hereditary
taint) any irritation or local eruption of the skin.
The first mention of salt as a condiment is to be found in Job;[25]
and as this beautiful book, which delineates the vicissitudes to which
life is subjected, is supposed to have been written by Moses when he
was dwelling amongst the Midianites, there is no doubt but that it was
in general use not only in Egypt, but also amongst the surrounding
nations. The answer to the question propounded by the persecuted man of
Uz is the same now as it was three thousand years ago—there is nothing
savoury without salt, and to a certainty there is no real permanent
health without salt.
The Jews, like all Asiatic races, were much afflicted with various
forms of leprosy, and as salt is an indirect antidote to cutaneous
eruptions, they used it not so much as a condiment, but as a shield to
ward off and protect them from those repulsive diseases which rendered
those who were attacked obnoxious to their fellow-countrymen, by whom
they were treated as outcasts till they had recovered from their
loathsome maladies. To this day we find that by far the greater number
who suffer from cutaneous diseases hardly ever eat salt with their
food; this is an unquestionable fact, and truly significant of its
inestimable virtue as an anti-morbific agent.
The Great Master says (and who will dispute such an unanswerable
verity?) “salt is good;” and then He adds, “but if the salt has
lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it?”[26] Addressing His
disciples, He says: “Ye are the salt of the earth,” and also, “Have
salt in yourselves.”[27] These sayings prove in the most unmistakable
language that salt is highly necessary. Our Saviour applies it in a
religious sense, it is true, but He was too much of a philosopher, too
great a logician, to use a metaphor of which the application could
be shaken and disproved in the abstract, if the image or figure were
fundamentally incorrect or inconsistent with the lesson which it was
intended to convey; besides, He never would have declared it “good” had
it been in the slightest degree provocative of anything deleterious to
the human race, neither would He have made use of a figurative mode of
speech if He could not have based it on a physical fact.
We are thus told in three simple words the value of salt, and none save
the shallow, or the sophist, would attempt to prove the contrary. All
must acknowledge the fact that salt is equally pleasant to the gourmand
and the temperate; and that animal and vegetable food is not palatable
without it. As it is pronounced to be “good” by the highest authority,
we must regard it as one of Heaven’s best gifts to man. It would be
a comparatively small matter were it but a condiment rendering food
more pleasant to the taste; but when we know that it is indirectly
a preserver of health, and that it also contravenes the attacks of
disease, its value will, I hope, be considerably increased.
I shall be more than satisfied if I am able to persuade those unwise
people who make it a rule never to use salt, to resort to it at once
without hesitation; for if they wish to be in a fair state of health,
to have clear wholesome skins and fresh complexions, to be free from
intestinal parasites and cutaneous diseases, to have their digestive
organs perform their functions compatible with health and personal
comfort, they must have, practically speaking, salt in themselves.
We have thus, from very scanty records concerning salt, essayed to
clear up, though very inconclusively, and I fear unsatisfactorily,
certain points which have been unnoticed, by reason, I think, of
the dense obtenebration with which the subject is surrounded; for
it has hitherto baffled the researches of the geologist to discover
its pristine source, and neither do we know who first used it as
a condiment. The chemist can experimentalise with this inorganic
substance to detect the presence of other bodies, and he knows its
worth in the laboratory; but as for its origin, he is as much in the
dark as the geologist.