SECT. XCI.—ON THE TESTACEA, OR SHELL-FISH.
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.)