The testacea in general form a saltish and crude chyme; but of them
the oysters have the softest flesh, and are most laxative. The chemæ,
purpuræ, solenes, spondyli, buccinæ, cochleæ, and such like, are hard.
And those covered with a soft shell (_crustacea_) such as the astaci,
paguri, crabs, common lobsters, and those called squillæ, are of
difficult digestion, nutritious, and bind the belly when often boiled in
sweet water. The juices of all the testacea are laxative, and therefore
from the land snails, although their flesh be hard, indigestible,
nutritious, and contains bad juices, some make a sauce, with oil and
pickle, which they use for opening the belly. The sea urchins (_echini_)
are moderately cooling, contain little nourishment, and are diuretic.
* * * * *
COMMENTARY. Coray correctly states in his ‘Notes on the Fragment of
Xenocrates,’ that, in the ancient classification of animals, the
ὀστρακώδη or ὀστρακόδερμα, were divided into the σκληρόστρακα, or
testacea, comprehending oysters, muscles, &c.; and the μαλακόστρακα,
or crustacea, comprehending the crabs, paguri, &c. But, as he remarks
afterwards, the σκληρόστρακα were often called by the generic term,
ὀστρακόδερμα. The ancient division of the lower classes of animals
is derived from Aristotle’s ‘History of Animals’ (iv), and with some
slight modifications it is the same as the classification adopted by
Baron Cuvier. Pliny thus distinguishes the mollusca, crustacea, and
testacea: “Piscium quidam sanguine carent, de quibus dicemus. Sunt autem
tria genera: in primis quæ mollia appellantur (_mollusca?_): deinde
contecta crustis tenuibus (_crustacea?_): postremo testis conclusa
duris (_testacea?_). Mollia sunt, loligo, sepia, polypus, et cetera
ejus generis,” &c. In another place, however, he introduces confusion
by applying the term mollia to the crustacea. This mistake probably
originated in the resemblance between the Greek terms μαλάκια and
μαλακόστρακα. (Hist. Nat. ix.)
We may mention further, that, in Oppian’s delightful poem on ‘Fishing,’
the crustacea are described at book i, l. 259, the testacea at l. 283,
and the mollusca at l. 638. On the terms used by Ælian, see ‘De Nat.
Animal.’ (ix, 6, ed. Schneider.) Athenæus gives a long disquisition on
these animals in the third book of the ‘Deipnosophistæ.’
Of the testacea described by the ancient writers on dietetics, we are
inclined to refer the chema to the genus _chema_ of modern naturalists,
comprehending several species of the cockle: the purpura to the _helix
ianthina_ or purple fish, in particular: the solen to the genus _solen_
or bag-fish: the spondylus to the genus _spondylus_ or prickly oyster:
the buccina to the _buccinum harpa_: the cochlea to the _helix pomatia_
or edible snail: the astacus to the _astacus fluviatilis_ or crawfish:
the pagurus to the _cancer pagurus_ or common crab: and the cancer to
some variety of the same: the _locusta_ to more than one species of the
_locusta_ or lobster; the squilla to the _crangon vulgaris_ Cuv. or
shrimp: and the leo marinus indefinitely to the genus _cancer_. We think
it but right, however, to confess that our own acquaintance with this
department of natural history is not so extensive as to warrant us in
speaking authoritatively on these matters.
We shall now briefly notice the ancient opinions on their dietetical
qualities. From Athenæus, we can only find room for the following
extract: “Regarding the testacea (ὀστρακόδερμα) the Siphnian Diphilus
writes thus: ‘Of the testacea, the squilla, astacus, locusta aquatica,
cancer, and leo marinus, are of the same genus, but differ from one
another: the leo is larger than the astacus; the locusta is more fleshy
than the cancer; and the cancer, or crab, is heavy and indigestible.’
Mnesitheus, the Athenian, in his work on ‘Dietetics,’ says, that the
locusta, cancer, squilla, and the like, are all of difficult digestion,
and yet they are much easier digested than other fishes.”
Galen’s account of them is interesting, and our author’s is abridged
from it. In general, he remarks, those which have hard flesh are most
nutritious, but indigestible. They all contain saltish juices which are
of a laxative nature. He says of the crustacea that they have all firm
flesh, and are, therefore, difficult to digest, but nutritious. Aëtius
and Oribasius copy from him without the slightest alteration of any
consequence.
Frequent mention of the squilla occurs in the works of Horace, Juvenal,
and Martial, as a favorite article of food. A poet in Athenæus says it
should be prepared with fig leaves.
According to Dioscorides and Alexander, the echinus is stomachic and
diuretic. Ælian, in like manner, calls it a restorative to a weak
stomach. (N. A. xiii.)
Actuarius says that the crustacea hold an intermediate place between the
fishes and mollusca; that they are, therefore, not so digestible as the
mollusca, and form purer and thinner blood; that the testacea, as they
get no exercise, are less proper; and that all form a thin and watery
blood.
We need scarcely remark, that the Romans esteemed the cochlea, i. e.
limaçon, or white snail, as an exquisite delicacy.
Simeon Seth’s account is entirely borrowed from Galen.
The receipts of Apicius for dressing the locusta and carabus contain
pepper, cumin, rue, mint, vinegar, wine, and oil.
It appears from the following lines of Juvenal that British oysters were
greatly esteemed by the Roman gourmands:
“Circæis nata forent, an
Lucrinum ad saxum, Rutupinove edita fundo
Ostrea callebat primo deprendere morsu.”
(Sat. iv.)
Rochester is supposed to be the ancient Rutupinum. Seneca represents them
as whetters and not food. “Ostrea non cibi, sed oblectamenta sunt, ad
edendum saturos cogentia.” The poet Matron, as quoted by Athenæus, calls
them “the truffles of the sea.” Athenæus says that oysters caught in the
sea adjacent to a lake or river are the best. Xenocrates remarks that sea
oysters are small and saltish.
It does not appear that the ancients often used the sea tortoise or
turtle fish as an article of food, and yet it is clear from Athenæus
(viii, 17), that it was sometimes eaten. See Schweigh. (l. c.) Zenobius
says that the flesh of the tortoise, if eaten in small quantities, is apt
to produce tormina, and that if eaten largely, it purges. (Cent. iv, 32.)
See also Actuarius (iv.) It is to be kept in view that the Mediterranean
turtle is generally unwholesome, and the ancients in general could have
little acquaintance with any other species. Ælian, however, makes mention
of the Indian turtle. (N. A. xvi, 14.) See further Gesner (de Aquat.
1141.) The chelonopliagi, or turtle-eaters, are noticed by Strabo (xvi);
Solinus (xvii); and Pliny (Hist. Nat. vii, 28.)