The nourishment derived from fowls is less than that from beasts, and
more especially swine, but they are of easier digestion, particularly
the partridge, godwit, pigeon, hen, and pheasant. That from thrushes,
blackbirds, and small sparrows (among which are those called _pyrgitæ_)
is harder; and still more so the turtle, wood-pigeon, and duck. But
the peacock is still more indigestible, harder, and more stringy. The
flesh of geese and ostriches is excrementitious, and more indigestible
than any of the afore-mentioned; except their wings, which are not less
wholesome than the same parts in other animals. The flesh of the crane
is stringy and hard. In general, the young are more juicy, digestible,
and nutritious than the aged, and are more readily evacuated by the
belly. The boiled are superior to the roasted and fricasseed; and those
that live on dry and mountainous places are more digestible and less
excrementitious than those which live in marshy places.
* * * * *
COMMENTARY. Hippocrates states that fowls in general are drier than
quadrupeds. The driest, he adds, are, first, the wood-pigeon, then the
common pigeon, and, thirdly, the partridge, cock, and turtle. The most
humid or juicy, he says, are geese. Those which live on seeds are drier
than the others. The flesh of ducks, and of all fowls which live in
marshes, or in water, is of a more humid nature. (De Diæta, ii, 17.) In
another place, he calls the flesh of fowls one of the lightest kinds of
food. (De Affect. 46.)
Their general characters are thus stated by Celsus: “Ex iis avibus, quæ
in media specie sunt, valentiores eæ, quæ pedibus, quam quæ volatu magis
nituntur: et ex iis, quæ volatu fidunt, firmiores quæ grandiores aves,
quam quæ minutæ sunt; ut ficedula et turdus. Atque eæ quoque quæ in aqua
degunt _leviorem_ cibum præstant, quam quæ natandi scientiam non habent.”
The character here given of water fowls has drawn upon the author the
animadversions of Dr. Cullen. But rather than suspect Celsus of such a
mistake, we are inclined to believe that the text must be corrupt, and
that we ought to read _leniorem_ instead of _leviorem_. We are confirmed
in this conjecture from all the other authorities, as for example,
Hippocrates, Galen, Aëtius, Rhases, and Haly Abbas, having stated that
the flesh of water fowls is more excrementitious than that of land fowls.
Our author takes his account of fowls from Galen, or perhaps direct from
Oribasius. Actuarius states that fowls are much lighter, but not so
nutritious as quadrupeds; that they are drier, more fibrous, and form
thinner blood; and that water fowls are the more juicy and fleshy.
Having thus stated the general characters of fowls as articles of food,
we shall now briefly notice a few of those which were in most esteem with
the _bons vivans_ of antiquity.
The partridge was accounted a rare delicacy at the tables of luxurious
Romans. See Martial (xiii, 65.) Simeon Seth says that it is easily
digested, but ought not to be eaten the day it is killed. According to
Rhases, it contains thick juices, is astringent, but very nutritious.
Psellus calls it savoury, nutritious, and digestible. Apicius directs it
to be dressed with pepper, lovage, mint, the seed of rue, pickle, wine,
and oil. As at the present day it was eaten at the dessert. (Deip. xiv,
73.) Athenæus describes distinctly two species of the partridge, which
seem clearly referrible to the _tetrao perdix_ and _tetrao rufus_. The
latter, or red-legged partridge, is still the common species in Italy.
Galen ranks the pigeon next to the partridge in excellence. The Arabians,
however, and, in imitation of them, Simeon Seth, calls the flesh of the
pigeon heating and excrementitious.
The attagen Ionicus has been celebrated by the muses of Horace and
Martial. Porphyron, one of the ancient commentators on Horace, calls it
“avis Asiatica inter noblissimas habita.” Harduin, who is deservedly
reckoned a high authority in these matters, supposes it to have been the
_gelinotte du bois_, or wood-hen. Altogether we incline to the opinion
that it was the _scolopax ægocephala_, or godwit, a water-bird still much
esteemed by the epicures of the East. We further think that the _scolopax
rasticula_, or woodcock, is the _scolopax_ of the ancients. It is well
described by the poet Nemesitanius. Athenæus quotes Aristophanes as
calling the attagen a most delicious bird. Galen, Aëtius, and Oribasius
speak of it in the same terms as Paulus. Apicius directs us to dress it
like the partridge.
Galen says of the starling that its flesh is allied to that of the
attagen. (Diæta. iv.) It is also mentioned as an article of food by
Athenæus. (ii, 24.)
Persius speaks of the thrush as being a much-esteemed delicacy. (Sat.
vi.) Horace also says that there is nothing better than a fat thrush.
(Epist. i, 15.) See Aristoph. (Nubes); Athenæus (Deipn. ii.) It is worthy
of remark that, although the thrush be by no means a delicate morsel in
the north of Europe, it is very delicious in Italy and Spain. It feeds
on juniper berries, grapes, and the like. The receipts of Apicius for
dressing thrushes, and other small birds, contain spices, aromatics,
honey, wine, pickle, and oil. Averrhoes says that their flesh is drier,
more aromatic, but grosser than that of pigeons. The Romans bestowed
great pains upon feeding thrushes, as we can learn from Varro and
Columella. The species commonly used by them for food was the fieldfare,
or _turdus pilaris_. They also ate blackbirds. Galen speaks favorably of
sparrows. Other small birds, as the lark and the siskin (_spinus_), are
noticed by Athenæus as being sometimes eaten. Galen recommends the lark
in colic affections. In general, however, the small birds were reckoned
indigestible. It is related of the gourmand Clodius Æsopus that, wishing
to make a great display of prodigality at a feast, he caused song birds
to be served up at it in place of beccafichi. See Valerius Maximus (ix,
s), and Pliny (H. N. x, 71.) Even the nightingale was sacrificed to this
monstrous taste. (Horat. Sat. ii, 3, 245.)
Martial intimates that when he could get a fat turtle to dine upon he was
indifferent about other delicacies. According to Averrhoes, it is of a
hot nature, and has a wonderful effect in sharpening the understanding.
Apicius directs us to dress it like the partridge. Galen states that the
turtle, partridge, and all fowls which are of a dry nature, should be
suspended for a day before they are eaten.
Galen mentions that the flesh of pheasants resembles that of domestic
hens, but is more nutritious and savoury. Simeon Seth says that it is
wholesome, easily digested, and forms good blood. Averrhoes prefers it to
all other fowls. The tetrao, which is mentioned by Pliny and Athenæus, is
generally supposed to be the bustard; but Bellonius and Ludovicus Nonnius
take it for the _fasiano negro_ of the Italians, or the wood pheasant.
Galen and our author have omitted to take notice of quails. Simeon Seth
says that their flesh is heating, coarse, indigestible, and unwholesome.
Rhases, however, says of the quail, that in lightness it is second only
to the starling; that it is not very excrementitious, nor accounted
very heating. Averrhoes says that it is of a moderate temperament, but
somewhat heating; that it is delicate, forms good chyme, and is excellent
food for persons in good health, and for convalescents. Lucretius and
Galen mention that the quail can live upon hellebore.
Q. Hortensius is “damned to everlasting fame,” for having first presented
the peacock at his table. (Varro, de Agricult. iii; Macrobius, Satur.
iii, 13; Pliny, H. N. x, 20; Ælianus, H. A. v, 25; Tertulianus, de
Pallio.) It came afterwards to be thought an exquisite delicacy, although
Horace had declared of it that, were it not for its price, it would not
be thought superior to the common domestic fowl. (Sat. ii, 2.) Simeon
Seth, like Galen and our author, says that its flesh is indigestible
and excrementitious. Apicius directs us to dress it like the thrush. The
poet Juvenal asserts that sudden deaths are occasioned by the indigestion
arising from eating peacocks, (Sat. i.) It appears, from Varro and Pliny,
that the Romans reared them in great numbers for the table.
The ostrich is often mentioned by the ancient authors as an article of
food, although, as Galen says, it be excrementitious and indigestible;
and hence, most probably, it is proscribed in Scripture. Agatharcides
makes mention of a savage race of people, who were called Ostrich-eaters,
(Ap. Photium.) The “afra avis,” mentioned by Horace, is said by his
commentator, Acron, to have been the ostrich. Porphyrion, however,
rather supposes it to be the gallina numidica, or _guinea-hen_. It was
the same as the meleagris, which Schneider (ad Ælian. N. A. iv, 42), and
Schweighäuser (ad Athen. xiv, 20), agree in referring to the pintada, or
_guinea-hen_. Apicius directs us to dress it with pepper, lovage, thyme
or savory, honey, mustard, vinegar, pickle, and oil. Rhases says that its
flesh is very coarse.
The otis was the _otis tarda_, or bustard. Xenophon, who gives a graphic
description of the mode of hunting it in Persia, says that its flesh is
most delicious. Galen and Simeon Seth say that its flesh is intermediate
between the goose and the crane. Apicius gives very complicated receipts
for dressing it. It is the tetrax of Nemesianus.
The flesh of the domestic fowls, says Simeon Seth, is of easy digestion,
and contains good juices, especially the flesh of those which are
beginning to lay eggs. Chickens, he adds, are of easy digestion, and form
blood of moderate consistence, neither very thin nor too thick: they are
excellent food for persons who do not take strong exercise. It appears
from Martial that the Romans were fond of capons. (xiii.) Both Aristotle
and Pliny mention that cocks were converted into capons by means of a
heated iron.
The ficedula, called συκαλὶς by Aristotle, was much sought after by the
Romans. It was the _beccafigo_ of the modern Italians, who are still very
fond of it. Its flesh being fat, it was dressed with much pepper, as we
learn from Martial and Petronius Arbiter.
Galen and Simeon Seth agree that the flesh of geese is indigestible and
excrementitious, and nearly allied to the ostrich. It would appear, from
Odyss. xix, 536, that tame geese were reared for food in the heroic ages.
According to Martial, the breast and neck are the only parts of the duck
which are fit to be eaten. (Xenia.)
Athenæus mentions that the swan was sometimes brought to the table.
(Deipnos. ix.) Its flesh is very hard.
The crane and the stork were not regular articles of food, but Horace
mentions that the latter had been used as such for the first time in
his days (Sat. ii, 2, 49); and Athenæus enumerates the former among the
viands at a banquet. Psellua calls the crane nutritious, but difficult of
digestion.
The tongue of the flamingo (_Phœnicopterus ruber_) was reckoned an
exquisite delicacy by the Roman epicures. See Martial (xiii, 71); Juvenal
(Sat. ii); Philostratus (in vit. Apoll.) The favorite delicacy of
Heliogabalus was the tongue of the flamingo. (Aug. Hist.)
The present is as good an occasion as we shall most probably find,
of saying something regarding the use of the locust, or _gryllus
migratorius_, as an article of food. Every person will think of John
the Baptist, who lived on locusts and wild honey, in the desert of
Arabia. Agatharcides gives a very curious account of the _Acridophagi_
or locust-eaters. He describes them as being of a very slender make, and
extremely swarthy. He says they did not live beyond forty, being cut
off by a sort of tick (_ricinus_) which formed in their bodies. (Apud
Photium.)