That all fishes are of a colder and more humid temperament is obvious.
Those that are found among rocks are the best of all, being of easy
digestion, furnishing good juices, and being moderately moistening when
their flesh is not hard. Of those that do not abide among rocks, those
that abide in the sea are much better than those that dwell among mud,
or where rivers meet the sea. But still worse are those which are found
in marshes and stagnant parts of the sea. In particular, the mullet
(_capito_) being a sea fish, is moderately sweet, not very indigestible,
and furnishes good chyme; but the blood formed from it is thin and weak.
So it is also with the bass (_lupus_). The surmullet, as being a sea
fish, is harder than the others, friable, digestible, nutritive, sweet,
and free of fat.
* * * * *
COMMENTARY. Ancient authors make mention of whole nations of mankind
that subsisted entirely upon fish. For an account of the Ichthyophagi,
see Herodotus (iii, 20); Pliny (xi); Strabo (Geogr. xv); Diodorus
Siculus (iv, 15); Ptolemæus (Geogr. iv); Arrianus (in Indicis); Solinus
(Polyhistor, lxv); Philostratus (in Vita Apollonii, iii.) The description
given of them by Diodorus is the most circumstantial and interesting. He
says that the simplicity of their diet preserved them free from diseases,
but that they were short-lived. A very interesting, and seemingly a very
authentic account of the fish-eaters on the borders of the Red Sea is
also given by Agatharcides. (Ap. Photium.) Pliny states that fish was
used by his countrymen as food from the building of the city. (Hist. Nat.
xxxii, 10.) Eustathius says that, in the heroic ages, it was seldom used
but in cases of want. (Ad Iliad. v, 487.) It would appear that fish was
generally high priced in Greece. See Athen. (vi, 12, ed. Schweigh.) In
the luxurious days of the Romans, the rage for fishes esteemed as rare
was excessive. See Horace, Juvenal, and Martial (pluries.)
Hippocrates thus details the dietetical qualities of fish. Speaking
generally, then, he says fishes are light food, both when boiled and
roasted, by themselves or with other things. They differ from one another
as follows: Those which live in lakes, the fat, and river fishes, are
heavier; of sea fish, such as are found near the shore are lighter, and
those which are well boiled are lighter than such as are roasted. The
stronger kind, therefore, are to be given when our object is to recruit,
but the lighter when we wish to attenuate or reduce. (De Affect. 46.)
Celsus ranks fish among those things which hold an intermediate place
between articles of a strong and of a weak nature. He thus distinguishes
them from one another: “Levior piscis inter saxa editus, quam in arenâ,
levior in arenâ, quam in limo: quo fit ut ex stagno, vel lacu, vel
flumine eadem genera graviora sint: leviorque, qui in alto, quam qui in
vado vixit.”
Plutarch states that fish is much more easily digested than flesh.
(Sympos. iv.)
For a full, interesting, and judicious account of the qualities of fishes
as articles of food, see Athenæus (Deipnos. viii.) We can only afford
room to mention his opinion of their more general properties. He says,
then, upon the authority of the Siphnian Diphilus, that of sea fishes
those that live among rocks are of easy digestion, contain good juices,
are detergent, light, and afford little nourishment; and that those which
inhabit the depths of the sea are difficult to digest, very nutritious,
and of difficult assimilation.
Galen states that fishes which live in marshes, lakes, and muddy rivers,
are the worst as articles of food, because they are little exercised in
swimming, and have impure food. Such fishes as live in the depths of
the sea, he says, are almost free from fault as aliment, for they are
more wholesome and delicious than any of the others. He mentions, as
the characteristics of good fish, that they have no offensive taste or
smell, have little fat, and can be kept for a considerable time without
becoming putrid, especially if put in ice. He says that fish is the best
possible food to persons of indolent habits, old men, and invalids, but
that it does not answer so well with persons who take strong exercise.
Of fishes, as aliments, there is an excellent account in a Fragment
of Xenocrates, published a few years ago, with interesting notes, by
the learned Dr. Coray, of Paris. He says that roasted fishes are most
nutritious, but are of difficult evacuation; that the boiled are less
nutritious, but are readily evacuated; that sea fishes are savoury, agree
with the stomach, are of easy distribution, form proper blood, impart a
good colour, and clear the bowels. Such as live in rivers and lakes, he
adds, are bad for the stomach, form thick juices, and are of difficult
evacuation. The characters of the different fishes are afterwards stated
by him very fully. He says that the parts next to the tail, as being most
exercised, are most wholesome.
Oribasius’s account of fishes is mostly taken from Xenocrates. Aëtius is
full and correct on this subject. He says that the best fishes are those
which live in a sea of pure water, especially if it be agitated by winds,
and if its shores be sandy, and not clayey.
Actuarius says, that of fishes which live at the sea-shore, and among the
rocks, the larger supply much nourishment, of a thick nature; and the
smaller, little nourishment, of a pure nature. He says, further, that sea
fishes in general, being preferable to those which live in fresh waters,
differ however from one another in several respects; that such as live in
the open sea are more exercised, and enjoy purer food, than the others,
and hence their flesh is firmer and purer, and they are more nutritious,
and form thick blood; that such as live in canals and marshes are bad and
unwholesome; and that those which live among rocks in pure waters have
better flesh, and, being light and digestible, form thin and pure blood.
Simeon copies freely from Galen and our author. Upon the whole, he says,
the blood which fishes form is thinner than that from land animals. Fish,
he says, is the most proper food of invalids and convalescents.
Alexander Aphrodisiensis discusses the question why rock fishes are
peculiarly excellent, and decides that it is because the water about
rocks is constantly in motion, which keeps the fishes there in perpetual
exercise. (Prob. ii, 82.) He would appear to have had in view Galen, (de
Facult. Alim. iii, 20.) Considering that rock fishes are particularly
commended by all the authorities on dietetics, both Greek and Arabian,
it has justly excited the wonder of Joannes Bruyerinus Campegius and
Ludovicus Nonnius, two very learned writers on the _Res Alimentaria_ of
the ancients, that Celsus should rank the “pisces saxatiles” among the
“res mali succi.” (ii. 21.) This appears the more remarkable, as he had
previously (18) classed “omnes sexatiles” among the “res leviores,” and
had said again of them, “levior piscis inter saxa editus, quam in arena.”
Taking all this into consideration, we cannot hesitate in coming to the
conclusion that in the passage first quoted the text must be in fault.
We beg to offer, as a conjectural emendation, “fluviatiles.” Galen,
Xenocrates, Psellus, Seth, and other authorities, agree in condemning
river fishes, with the exception of those that run up from the sea. We
may further mention, as tending to confirm this conjecture, that the same
character of river fishes is given by the great Italian authority on
dietetics, Domenico Romoli. (See Singulare Dottrina, &c. vii, 50.)
Rhases states that sea and river fishes are the best, especially such
as have rough scales, are not mucilaginous, and are naturally of a
white colour. Those, he adds, which are of a black or red colour should
be abstained from. He says that all fish remains long in the stomach
undigested. It is now generally admitted that it is less digestible than
the tender flesh of quadrupeds.
Avicenna delivers the general characters of fishes in the same terms as
Galen. He says that the best are those the flesh of which is neither too
hard and dry; nor, on the other hand, too mucilaginous; and which are
neither very large nor very small. Averrhoes repeats this account of
them. Haly Abbas, in like manner, abridges Galen. He says that fresh fish
is of a cold and humid nature, and engenders phlegm.
The ancients ate their fish either roasted, boiled, fried, or in soups.
Invalids were recommended to take them boiled. The fried were believed to
suit only with persons of a strong constitution.
We shall now offer a few remarks upon the fishes which were in most
request at the tables of the ancients.
The labrax, or lupus, has been taken for the pike. But Aristotle,
Oppian, and Cassidorus describe it as being a cunning fish, which does
not accord with the character of the pike. Bochart concludes that it is
the fish called λαύρακι, by the modern Greeks; _varolo_, by the Italians;
and _bar_, by the French. It seems indisputable that it was the bass, i.
e. _labrax lupus_ Cuvier. Icesius, as quoted by Athenæus, says of it,
that it contains good juices, but is not very nutritious, nor readily
evacuated, but is the most delicious of all fishes. Archestratus calls it
“the offspring of the gods.” All the authorities, in a word, speak highly
of it. Lupi caught in the Tiber were esteemed the best. See Horace (Sat.
ii, 2,) and Macrobius (Saturn. iii, 16.) There were two species, the
lanatus and the varius, of which the former was in most esteem.
The pike is unquestionably the “_lucius_” of Ausonius (_Mosella_); but it
seems doubtful whether it be noticed by the Greek writers. The _hepatus_
would seem to be a congener. Galen says its flesh is intermediate between
the soft and the hard.
The barb (_cyprinus barbus_ L.) is not described by the Greeks, but is
mentioned by the Latin poet Ausonius (l. c.) who says of it that it is
the only fish which is improved by age.
The rhombus was esteemed a remarkable delicacy. The classical reader will
recollect the ludicrous importance attached to the capture of one by the
flatterers of Domitian, as described in the 4th Satire of Juvenal. It is
frequently made honorable mention of by Horace and Martial. According to
Harduin and Nonnius, it was the turbot, yet not the common turbot of this
country (_pleuronectus maximus_), but the species called _carrelet_ in
French (_P. rhombus_ L.) Athenæus calls it sweet and nutritious. Celsus
ranks it among “res boni succi.” According to Athenæus, it is the same as
the ψήττα of Aristotle. It is, we suppose, the ψίσσα of Alexander (ii,
6.) It is the ψίσιον of Seth (V. Notæ Bogdani). He calls it wholesome and
of easy digestion.
The cephalus was a species of the mullet, as is stated by Harduin (ad
Plinii Hist. Nat. ix, 26); Schneider (ad Æliani Nat. Anim. i, 12); and
Ludovicus Nonnius. It is the _mugil cephalus_ L. Oppian describes the
fishing of it in the most striking manner. Galen remarks that the flesh
of it differs much in quality, according to the nature of the place in
which it is found. Athenæus ranks it among the fishes which are sweet
and nutritious. Simeon Seth and Aëtius say that the river mullet is
bad for the stomach, indigestible, and apt to form phlegm. It appears
from Anaxilas, as quoted by Athenæus, that its head was in most repute.
Archestratus says that it is best in the winter season.
The trigla, or mullus, as Nonnius, Harduin, Schneider, and Coray state,
was the surmullet, or _mullus barbatus_ L. It is mentioned as a rare
delicacy of great price by Horace (Sat. ii, 2); Juvenal (Sat. iv, 15);
Martial (Xenia, 74); and Macrobius (Saturnal. iii, 16.) Athenæus says of
it, “Diocles writes that the flesh of the mullus is hard.” (vii, 21.) Its
liver prepared with oil and wine is said by Galen to have been esteemed
as a peculiar delicacy.
We need not say how much the murene was sought after by all the lovers of
good eating in ancient Rome. Pliny, Martial, and Macrobius inform us that
those from Sicily were in most esteem; and Brydone takes notice of the
peculiar excellence of the Sicilian murenes at the time when he performed
his tour through that island. According to Icesius, it is as nutritious
as the eel. (Athen. vii.) He mentions that the murene was called “the
Helen of suppers;” and hence, no doubt, Linnæus has named the fish
_muræna Helena_. It was held in much esteem, he says, before spawning.
(Ibid.) Apicius gives various receipts for the dressing of it. Pepper,
wine, vinegar, and oil are ingredients in almost every one of them. The
murene which was served up at the supper of Nasidienus had a sauce or
soup formed of such things. (Horace, Sat. ii, 8.) It is related of Vedius
Pollio, that he fed his murenes with the bodies of condemned slaves.
(Plin. Hist. Nat. ix, 23, and Tertullian, De Pallio.) L. Crassus, the
orator, put on mourning clothes for the death of a murene. (Macrobius,
Sat. iii, 15.) The _muræna ophis_ is mentioned by Galen as having the
same character as its congener.
The ancients were acquainted with several species of mackerel (_scomber
scomber_), which Xenocrates represents as nutritious, but unpalatable and
flatulent.
The anguilla, or common eel, and the congrus, or conger-eel, were
despised by the Roman _gourmands_, but were greatly esteemed by the
Greeks. Icesius says that eels are the best of fishes. See Athen. (l. c.)
It is supposed, by most of the classical commentators, that the
accipenser was the sturgeon, but this is not quite agreed.—See this point
fully discussed by Rondelet, Gesner, and Willoughby. The celebrated
Artedi, and the writer of the article on Ichthyology in the ‘Encycl.
Method.’ are quite decided in the affirmative. We need have little
difficulty, then, in determining it to be the _accipenser sturio_. To
our minds there can be no doubt but that it is the fish described by
Constantine Porphyrogenita, under the name of βερζήτικον. (De Admin.
Imp. 42.) Both in the days of the Romans, and under the Greek empire,
the sturgeon was commonly procured from the Pontus or Black Sea. Its
popularity appears to have been great in the days of Horace, but it had
fallen into disrepute in the time of Pliny. It seems, however, to have
retrieved its character afterwards; for one of the authorities quoted by
Athenæus says that it was presented at the Roman banquets, crowned with
garlands, and accompanied with the playing of pipes. See also Macrobius
(Sat. iii, 16.) Martial speaks of it as a much-esteemed delicacy at the
imperial table. The elops and the galeus rhodius were fishes nearly
allied to the sturgeon. See Pliny and Athenæus.
The isinglass fish (_accipenser huso_), although described by Herodotus
(Hist. iv, 53), Strabo (Geogr.), and Ælian (xiv, 23), is not noticed
by the dietetical writers, unless we suppose it the fish alluded to by
Athenæus (vii, 21), where see the notes of Coray and Schweighäuser.
Martial mentions the gobius, or gudgeon, as being the first of the viands
presented at the banquets of the Venetians. (Xenia, Ep. 83.) Juvenal
speaks of it as being a fish of little value, or, at least, low priced.
(Sat. xi, 37.) It is, in fact, as Galen states, a very small fish; but he
represents it as being delicious, digestible, and wholesome, especially
when caught on a stony or rocky shore. Seth gives the same account of it.
Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, says, that when its flesh is white the
gudgeon is tender, wholesome, and digestible.
The perch, according to the same authority, bears a close resemblance to
the gudgeon. Ausonius calls it the _deliciæ mensarum_. Galen calls it a
delicious fish, which is not only of easy digestion but most wholesome.
He adds that it, and other fishes of the same description, form blood
of a middling consistence, that is to say, neither very watery nor too
thick. Both the _perca fluviatilis_ and the _P. marina_ are described by
Aristotle, Galen, Athenæus, and the other writers on dietetics.
The umber (_sciæna umbra_), a fish resembling the perch, but of great
size, was in much esteem as a pickle, which was called _saperda_, and
brought from Pontus. See Athen. (iii, 31), and Persius (Sat.)
The merle (_labrus merula_) is mentioned among the rock fishes by Galen.
Diocles in Athenæus says it is of easy digestion and highly nutritive.
The iülis, called _donzella_ by the Italians, a fish of the same genus,
is mentioned by Galen and Xenocrates as having soft flesh.
The fish called _serran_ in French (_serranus anthius_ Cuv.), and its
congener the _labrus hepatus_ L. are briefly noticed by the dietetical
authorities as wholesome fishes.
On the _salmon_ the Greek authors are entirely silent. It is briefly
noticed by Pliny (H. N. ix, 32); but the first and only satisfactory
account of it which is to be found in any Latin classic is contained in
the Mosella of Ausonius. We shall give an extract from the lines in which
it is first described:
“Teque inter species geminas, neutrumque et utrumque,
Qui necdum Salmo, nec jam Salar, ambiguusque
Amborum medio Fario intercepte sub ævo.”
Here we find marked the three progressive stages in the growth of the
fish. The salar is the sea-trout, the fario is what in the north of
Scotland is called the grilse, and the salmo is the full-grown salmon. Of
the salmon he says:
“Tu loricato squamosus pectore, frontem
Lubricus, et dubiæ facturus fercula cænæ,
Tempora longarum fers incorrupte morarum,
Præsignis maculis capitis: cui prodiga nutat
Alvus, opimatoque fluens abdomine venter.”
The sea-trout is well described in the following line:
“Purpureisque Salar stellatus tergora guttis.”
Nonnius considers the salmon to be the _anchorago_ of Cassiodorus. (De
Esu Piscium, 31.) Gesner holds the same opinion. (De Aquat.)
Ludovicus Nonnius confesses his inability to determine what the scarus
was. It would seem to have been the fish now called _labrus scarus_ L.,
a small fish, according to Bellonius, being seldom more than a fathom
long. Xenocrates praises it as being very savoury and of easy digestion,
but of difficult distribution and evacuation. For a curious account of
it, see Macrobius (Sat. iii, 16.) The sargus nearly resembles the scarus,
but is more astringent and nutritious. It is the _sparus sargus_ L., and,
according to Rondelet, is called _sargo_ by the Italians. The melanurus
(_sparus m._) is very like to it in shape and qualities.
The aurata, called by Bruyer and Nonnius in French _brame de mer_; and by
Ainsworth and Artedi, gilt-head in English, (namely, the _sparus aurata_
L.) is said by Celsus and Mnesitheus as quoted by Athenæus, to be a fish
of difficult digestion but very nutritious. Xenocrates says that its
flesh is firm, white, of easy distribution, and nutritious.
The passer, called platessa by Ausonius, is supposed by Artedi and
Nonnius to have been the plaice (_pleuronectes platessa_.) It is
mentioned by Horace among the delicacies at the supper of Nasidienus. The
solea or sole, called lingualaca by Festus and Varro, was nearly allied
to it. It is the _P. solea_. Diphilus says that both are very savoury and
nutritious.
The lamprey (_petromyzon lampetra_ L.) is the mustella of Ausonius, the
exormiston of Cassiodorus, the γαλάξιας of Galen, the ἐχένηις of Oppian,
and the βδέλλα of Strabo. See Bruyer, Nonnius, and Rondelet. It was
reckoned unwholesome.
The capros, or carp, is called by Archestratus “The flower of nectar.”
(Athenæus Deipnos. vii.) It is the _cyprinus carpio_ L.
The hake (_gadus merluccius_) is generally supposed to be the _gadus_ of
Athenæus (vii); the _asellus_ of Ovid, Varro, and Pliny; and _oniscus_ of
Marcellus Sideta. It was reckoned wholesome. The ancients do not appear
to have been acquainted with the _gadus eglofinus_, or haddock.
According to Willoughby, the Latin poet Ausonius is the only ancient
author who has noticed the tench or _cyprinus tinca_. We are inclined,
however, to think that it is the ψύλων of Aristotle (H. A. vi, 14), and
the γναφεὺς of Athenæus (vii.) See Casaubon (l. c.), and Rondelet (de
Piscibus.)
We may mention here, although somewhat out of place, that neither the
Greeks nor Romans would appear to have used the _frog_ as an article of
food.