Among quadrupeds, swine’s flesh is more nourishing than any other food,
because it is most nearly allied to the human in taste and smell, as
some have declared who have tasted human flesh by mistake. But the
nourishment derived from it is viscid and imperspirable. That from sheep
is excrementitious, and supplies bad juices. That from goats is acrid,
and has bad juices. But the worst of all is the flesh of the buck-goat
as to the quality of its juices and to digestion. That of oxen forms
melancholic humours; that of hares has thick juices, but less so than
that of sheep and oxen. That of roes is hard and of difficult digestion.
In general, the flesh of young beasts is more humid, more tender, and
more digestible than that of the aged; of gelded animals than of those
having testicles; and of the well-fed than of the lean.
* * * * *
COMMENTARY. Athenæus remarks that the flesh of beasts, especially oxen,
formed the principal part of men’s food in the heroic ages, as appears
from Homer. From one passage in the Iliad (xxiv, 263), and another in
the Odyssey (ix, 220), it may be reasonably conjectured that they also
lived upon lambs and kids. (Deipn. i, 19.) We may add, that Sophocles
represents Philoctetes as living, while in Lemnos, upon the birds which
he killed with his fatal bow. It is generally supposed that Pythagoras
interdicted his disciples entirely from the flesh of animals; but the
truth of the matter seems to be, that he recommended a spare use of
it, and allowed to eat such animals only as were used for sacrifices.
See Iamblichus and Porphyrius (De Vitâ Pythagoræ.) Plutarch, in two
treatises, discusses the propriety of eating flesh.
Hippocrates states the particular characters of the different kinds
of flesh very correctly. He remarks that the flesh of wild animals is
lighter than that of domesticated.
According to Aristotle, the flesh of beasts which have been reared upon
marsh pasture is less wholesome than that of beasts brought up on higher
grounds. (Hist. An. viii, 12.)
The general remarks of Celsus may best be given in his own words:
“Quadrupes omne animal, si lactens est, minus alimenti præstat. Omne
etiam ferum animal domestico levius; et quodcunque humido cœlo, quam quod
sicco natum est. Deinde eadem omnia pinguia, quam macra; recentia quam
salsa; nova quam vetusta, plus alimenti habent. Tum res eadem magis alit
jurulenta, quam assa; magis assa, quam elixa.”
Galen remarks that the fleshy parts of quadrupeds form the best blood.
When boiled, he says, it supplies the body with more juicy, and when
roasted, with drier food. The temperament of domesticated animals, he
adds, is more humid or juicy than that of wild, owing to the dampness of
the atmosphere in which they live, and their inactivity. For wild animals
among the mountains being exposed to privations and fatigue, their flesh
is drier, contains no fat, and is less disposed to putrefaction than the
flesh of domesticated animals. He states that of all animals, whether
fowls or beasts, the flesh of such as are growing is better than those
which are past their utmost growth; that such as are at their growth hold
an intermediate character; but that the flesh of such as are very young
or old is bad, because, in the latter case, it is hard, dry, and fibrous,
whence it is difficult to digest, and not nutritious; while, on the other
hand, the bodies of very young animals, being mucous (gelatinous?),
watery, and therefore excrementitious, readily pass through the bowels
undigested.
Actuarius states that animals which lead an indolent life are more humid
and excrementitious; whereas such as are much exercised are drier and
lighter. Upon the whole, he adds, the more the colour of flesh declines
from white, the farther is it removed from wholesomeness; it is also to
be known that wild animals are hotter and drier than domesticated.
Haly Abbas says that the flesh of all animals is heating and humid, forms
much blood, and is nutritious. Avicenna remarks that flesh strengthens
the body, and is readily converted into blood. According to Rhases, flesh
is the most nutritious of all aliments, and disposes most to plethora;
hence, those who live much upon it require frequent venesection,
especially if at the same time given to drinking wine.
Of all kinds of animal food, pork was almost universally esteemed by
the ancients as the best. Hippocrates repeatedly speaks of it as being
most wholesome and nutritious, and Galen says the same of it in the
strongest language. He states that the athletæ, if for one day presented
with the same bulk of any other article of food, immediately experienced
a diminution of strength; and if the change of diet was persisted in
for several successive days, that they fell off in flesh. He adds that
he had been credibly informed by persons who had been compelled, under
extraordinary circumstances, to taste human flesh, that pork bears a
near resemblance to it. Celsus praises it for its lightness: “Inter
domesticas vero quadrupedes, levissima suilla est.” Aëtius, Oribasius,
and, in a word, all the Greek authorities subsequent to Galen, deliver
exactly the same character of it as he. See, in particular, Simeon Seth.
He says, that the flesh of swine a year old is the best, and that very
young pigs are not to be eaten, as being too humid and excrementitious.
He adds that the flesh of wild boars furnish the best food, being neither
so excrementitious nor so viscid as that of tame swine. Martial declares
his fondness for young pigs fed upon milk. The Arabian authors display
(as might be expected) their religious prejudices against the flesh of
swine. Avicenna merely remarks of it that the Christians, and those who
imitate them, say that the flesh of the wild boar is the best of all.
Averrhoes refers to the opinion of Avicenna. Rhases, who has treated
of Dietetics in three distinct works, has nowhere, so far as we can
discover, recommended pork as an article of food. Haly Abbas, however,
speaks favorably of it; he, it would appear, being a Magian. Various
receipts for dressing pork are given by Apicius. As a sauce for the flesh
of the wild boar, he recommends a composition of honey, pickle, sodden
wine, and raisin wine. The wild boar is mentioned as a favorite delicacy
of the Roman epicures by Juvenal and other writers of that age. Cato, the
Censor, gives very sensible directions for the preparation of ham. (De
Re Rusticâ, 162.) It will be perceived that our author states that pork
is imperspirable. Sanctorius confirms the truth of this statement. Both
Cicero and Porphyry quote the saying of Chrysippus, that a soul or living
principle was given to swine, as a sort of salt, to preserve their flesh
from putrefaction for the use of man.
Mutton was no great favorite with the ancients. Galen, Aëtius,
Oribasius, and Simeon Seth agree with our author, that it is inferior
to pork, as being more excrementitious, and containing worse juices.
Averrhoes, however, accuses Galen of being prejudiced against the flesh
of wethers and lambs, which, he affirms, are inferior only to kids in
excellence; he even speaks favorably of the flesh of rams. (Collect. v,
32.) Rhases ranks mutton as second only to kid. Seth says that the best
mutton is that of a sheep a year old. Apicius gives full directions for
cooking mutton and lamb. (viii.)
All the ancient authorities speak of goats’ flesh in much the same terms
as our author; namely, as being acrid, and containing unwholesome juices.
Hippocrates says it has all the bad qualities of beef. That of buck-goats
is said by Galen to be particularly bad; and, next to it, those of rams
and of bulls. Of kid, he speaks favorably, as being next in excellence
to pork; then he ranks veal. But lamb, he says, is humid, gelatinous,
and mucous. Rhases and Averrhoes rank kid first, and then lamb. The poet
Hesiod recommends kid as a delicious article of food during the heat of
summer. (Op. et Dies, i, 590.) According to Athenæus, kid imparts more
firm and substantial nourishment to the body than any other kind of
flesh, not even excepting pork and lamb. (ix, 66.)
The Arabians mention the gazelle (_antelope dorcas_) as being nearly
allied but superior to the goat. Simeon Seth says that the flesh of the
dorcas is better than that of any other wild animal, and that it is
allied to the human body.
Hippocrates calls beef a strong, astringent, and indigestible article of
food. Celsus ranks it among the articles which are not apt to spoil in
the stomach. Oribasius says, that it is more than moderately nutritious,
but imperspirable, and forms thick blood. Like Galen and our author, he
says that it proves injurious to those who are subject to collections of
black bile. Seth says that it is difficult of digestion and distribution,
but when digested, sufficiently nutritious. Rhases says, that it supplies
much nourishment of a gross nature, and forms thick blood. Averrhoes says
that the flesh of heifers is good, not being so viscid, cold, and dry
as the flesh of oxen. The sauces recommended by Apicius for the flesh
of oxen and heifers contain various spices, and aromatics with vinegar,
pickle, and oil.
The glis is mentioned as a favorite delicacy of the Romans by Varro,
Pliny, Martial, Galen, and Ammianus Marcellinus. We learn from Varro that
it was regularly reared for the table. (R. R. iii, 15.) It is the _glis
esculentus_ or rellmouse.
All the authorities agree that the flesh of the stag or roe is difficult
to digest. Hence Rhases forbids it, except after hard exercise. Simeon
Seth adds that, as in summer, stags frequently eat poisonous serpents,
it may be dangerous to take of their flesh at that season. Celsus
appears to have had a more favorable opinion of venison than most of
the ancient authorities, for he ranks “omnis venatio” among the things
which agree best with the stomach. Seth says that hare is sufficiently
nutritious, if properly digested, but that it disagrees with persons
of a dry temperament, and is apt to form melancholic humours. The poet
Martial also praises it extravagantly. Apicius gives many complicated
receipts for dressing hares. Pliny remarks that there never is any fat on
hares. (Hist. Nat. xi, 85.) Hippocrates says that their flesh is dry and
astringent. Horace frequently praises the shoulder of the hare. (Sat. ii,
4, 44.) In our days, the loins are preferred. The cuniculus, or rabbit,
was greatly esteemed in Spain, but does not appear to have been much used
by the Greeks or Romans.
Galen says the ass was eaten in times of scarcity, but was not a regular
article of food. Xenophon, however, mentions, in the 1st book of the
‘Anabasis,’ that the flesh of the wild asses caught in the Syrian desert
was most delicious. Martial also speaks of the wild ass as being tender.
(Epigr. xiii, 97.)