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.