Alexander Aphrodisiensis discusses the question why rock fishes are peculiarly excellent, and decides that it is because the water about rocks is constantly in motion, which keeps the fishes there in perpetual exercise. (Prob. ii, 82.) He would appear to have had in view Galen, (de Facult. Alim. iii, 20.) Considering that rock fishes are particularly commended by all the authorities on dietetics, both Greek and Arabian, it has justly excited the wonder of Joannes Bruyerinus Campegius and Ludovicus Nonnius, two very learned writers on the Res Alimentaria of the ancients, that Celsus should rank the “pisces saxatiles” among the “res mali succi.” (ii. 21.) This appears the more remarkable, as he had previously (18) classed “omnes sexatiles” among the “res leviores,” and had said again of them, “levior piscis inter saxa editus, quam in arena.” Taking all this into consideration, we cannot hesitate in coming to the conclusion that in the passage first quoted the text must be in fault. We beg to offer, as a conjectural emendation, “fluviatiles.” Galen, Xenocrates, Psellus, Seth, and other authorities, agree in condemning river fishes, with the exception of those that run up from the sea. We may further mention, as tending to confirm this conjecture, that the same character of river fishes is given by the great Italian authority on dietetics, Domenico Romoli. (See Singulare Dottrina, &c. vii, 50.)
Rhases states that sea and river fishes are the best, especially such as have rough scales, are not mucilaginous, and are naturally of a white colour. Those, he adds, which are of a black or red colour should be abstained from. He says that all fish remains long in the stomach undigested. It is now generally admitted that it is less digestible than the tender flesh of quadrupeds.
Avicenna delivers the general characters of fishes in the same terms as Galen. He says that the best are those the flesh of which is neither too hard and dry; nor, on the other hand, too mucilaginous; and which are neither very large nor very small. Averrhoes repeats this account of them. Haly Abbas, in like manner, abridges Galen. He says that fresh fish is of a cold and humid nature, and engenders phlegm.
The ancients ate their fish either roasted, boiled, fried, or in soups. Invalids were recommended to take them boiled. The fried were believed to suit only with persons of a strong constitution.
We shall now offer a few remarks upon the fishes which were in most request at the tables of the ancients.
The labrax, or lupus, has been taken for the pike. But Aristotle, Oppian, and Cassidorus describe it as being a cunning fish, which does not accord with the character of the pike. Bochart concludes that it is the fish called λαύρακι, by the modern Greeks; varolo, by the Italians; and bar, by the French. It seems indisputable that it was the bass, i. e. labrax lupus Cuvier. Icesius, as quoted by Athenæus, says of it, that it contains good juices, but is not very nutritious, nor readily evacuated, but is the most delicious of all fishes. Archestratus calls it “the offspring of the gods.” All the authorities, in a word, speak highly of it. Lupi caught in the Tiber were esteemed the best. See Horace (Sat. ii, 2,) and Macrobius (Saturn. iii, 16.) There were two species, the lanatus and the varius, of which the former was in most esteem.
The pike is unquestionably the “lucius” of Ausonius (Mosella); but it seems doubtful whether it be noticed by the Greek writers. The hepatus would seem to be a congener. Galen says its flesh is intermediate between the soft and the hard.
The barb (cyprinus barbus L.) is not described by the Greeks, but is mentioned by the Latin poet Ausonius (l. c.) who says of it that it is the only fish which is improved by age.
The rhombus was esteemed a remarkable delicacy. The classical reader will recollect the ludicrous importance attached to the capture of one by the flatterers of Domitian, as described in the 4th Satire of Juvenal. It is frequently made honorable mention of by Horace and Martial. According to Harduin and Nonnius, it was the turbot, yet not the common turbot of this country (pleuronectus maximus), but the species called carrelet in French (P. rhombus L.) Athenæus calls it sweet and nutritious. Celsus ranks it among “res boni succi.” According to Athenæus, it is the same as the ψήττα of Aristotle. It is, we suppose, the ψίσσα of Alexander (ii, 6.) It is the ψίσιον of Seth (V. Notæ Bogdani). He calls it wholesome and of easy digestion.
The cephalus was a species of the mullet, as is stated by Harduin (ad Plinii Hist. Nat. ix, 26); Schneider (ad Æliani Nat. Anim. i, 12); and Ludovicus Nonnius. It is the mugil cephalus L. Oppian describes the fishing of it in the most striking manner. Galen remarks that the flesh of it differs much in quality, according to the nature of the place in which it is found. Athenæus ranks it among the fishes which are sweet and nutritious. Simeon Seth and Aëtius say that the river mullet is bad for the stomach, indigestible, and apt to form phlegm. It appears from Anaxilas, as quoted by Athenæus, that its head was in most repute. Archestratus says that it is best in the winter season.