SECT. LXXXII.—ON ANIMALS; AND, FIRST, OF FOWLS.
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.)