TURBOT.
Rome and Italy were indebted to the prætor, Sempronius, or to Rufus Rutilius,[XXI_95] for the turbot, which they taught their countrymen to appreciate. This fish quickly obtained the success which it merited, and was compared to the pheasant, as soles were likened to partridges, lampreys to quails, and sturgeons to peacocks. Some preferred turbot from the Adriatic Sea, others that of Ravenna;[XXI_96] but all united in declaring that there was not a more delicious food, and that a feast loses all its charm when this delicacy is wanting.
In the reign of Domitian a monstrous turbot was taken; such a one had never been seen in the imperial kitchens.[XXI_97] The emperor convoked the senate, and deferred to them to decide in what dish it should be cooked, in order that it might be served whole. The deliberation was long and stormy; all Rome was in a state of expectancy; and the august assembly strove to prove itself worthy of the high confidence reposed in it by Cæsar. At length the illustrious old men were tolerably unanimous in their idea that the best way would be to make a dish expressly for the fish—since there was none large enough ready-made—and also that a stove should be constructed vast enough to allow the dish to be placed commodiously upon it.[XXI_98]
The emperor, the city, and the court applauded the profound wisdom of this decision; and “le turbot fut mis à la sauce piquante.”[XXI_99]
Aristotle does not mention this fish; but his compatriots esteemed highly the turbots of Attica.[XXI_100]