With respect to raw beef being nauseous, it may, in the first place, be observed, that "de gustibus non est disputandum,"[26] and, consequently, we can only say it would be nauseous to us. In fact, even Salt, who was by no means an unprejudiced man, after having eaten raw beef in Abyssinia, says, "I am satisfied it is merely prejudice which deters us from this food." But, admitting it to be nauseous, that forms no proof that it is not likely to be the food of man, for it is well known that there are few animals that feed more grossly than he sometimes does. Captain Parry, for instance, thus describes the appetites of the human beings it became his fortune to visit:
"It is impossible to describe the horribly disgusting manner in which they sat down, as soon as they felt hungry, to eat their raw blubber, and to suck the oil remaining on the skins we had just emptied. I found that Pootooalook had been successful in bringing in a seal, over which two elderly women were standing, armed with large knives, their hands and faces besmeared with blood, and delight and exultation depicted on their countenances. All the loose scraps were put into the pot for immediate use, except such as the two butchers now and then crammed into their mouths, or distributed to the numerous and eager by-standers for still more immediate consumption. Of these morsels the children came in for no small share, every little urchin that could find its way to the slaughter-house running eagerly in, and between the legs of the men and women presenting its mouth for a large lump of raw flesh, just as an English child of the same age might do for a piece of sugar-candy."... "As soon as this dirty operation was at an end, during which the numerous by-standers amused themselves in chewing the intestines of the seal," ... "they dropped their canoes astern to the whale's tail, from which they cut off enormous lumps of flesh, and ravenously devoured it."[27]
A hundred other examples might be given of the nauseous food upon which men in different countries have been found to subsist; but the above extracts are sufficient to refute the first argument against Bruce's statement, while they also afford a very remarkable exemplification of the effect which the criticism of the day may have on the credulity or incredulity of the public: for it is surely more difficult to believe that human beings should eat raw fish-blubber than that they should eat raw beef, the former being so much more nauseous than the latter; and yet the first statement has never for a moment been doubted, while the other is scarcely yet credited; the fact being that the ruling critics of Bruce's time were opposed to his African discoveries, whereas those of the present day have eagerly supported the Northern discoveries, and whatever relates to them. Parry and Bruce, therefore, although equally honourable men, and equally anxious to contribute to our knowledge of the earth, met with very different fates. The one was justly rewarded, the other most unjustly neglected and condemned.
In reply to the second argument against Bruce's account, namely, its cruelty, we may refer, first of all, to the slave-trade, which exists over such a vast portion of the globe, and which indisputably proves that man is cruel even to his fellow-creatures, and, consequently, that it is only to be expected he should be cruel to the beasts of the field; and that it is so, is sufficiently shown by the bullfights of Spain, where animals are subjected to the most horrid torture, merely for the amusement of men, women, and children. In one of Johnson's beautiful allegories, an old eagle is represented as exhorting her brood, whenever they see men assembling together, and fire flashing along the ground, to hurry to the spot, because "the food of eagles is at hand." One of the eaglets, exclaiming against the cruelty of men thus fighting against each other, observes, "I could never kill what I could not eat." But man is less merciful than the young eagle; he will both torture and kill animals merely for amusement; why not suppose him capable, then, of inflicting pain on an animal, by taking a portion of its flesh, when alive, to satisfy his hunger?
Having made these general remarks, we now offer the testimony of different individuals to substantiate the truth of Bruce's account.
It is well known that the celebrated traveller, Dr. Clarke, publicly examined at Cairo an Abyssinian dean respecting such of Bruce's statements as were at that time disbelieved. Dr. Clarke says, vol. iii., p. 61, "Our next inquiry related to the long-disputed fact of a practice among the Abyssinians of cutting from a live animal slices of its flesh as an article of food, without putting it to death. This Bruce affirms that he witnessed in his journey from Masuah to Axum. The Abyssinian, answering, informed us that the soldiers of the country, during their marauding incursions, sometimes maim cows after this manner, taking slices from their bodies, as a favourite article of food, without putting them to death at the time; and that, during the banquets of the Abyssinians, raw meat, esteemed delicious through the country, is frequently taken from an ox or a cow in such a state that the fibres are in motion, and that the attendants continue to cut slices till the animal dies. This answer exactly corresponds with Bruce's narrative: he expressly states that the persons whom he saw were soldiers, and the animal a cow." "Jerome Lobo, who visited Abyssinia a hundred and fifty years before Bruce, page 51, says, 'When they feast a friend, they kill an ox, and set immediately a quarter of him raw upon the table.' Raw beef is their nicest dish, and is eaten by them with the same appetite and pleasure that we eat the best partridges."
Captain Rudland, of the royal navy, who accompanied Salt, says: "The skin was only partly taken off, and a favourite slice of the flesh was brought immediately to table, the muscles of which continued to quiver till the whole was devoured."
Salt himself, in the journal which, in 1810, he writes for Pearce, the English sailor, says, page 295, "A soldier attached to the party proposed cutting out the shulade from one of the cows they were driving before them, to satisfy the cravings of their hunger. This term Mr. Pearce did not at first understand, but he was not long left in doubt upon the subject; for the others having assented, they laid hold of the animal by the horns, threw it down, and proceeded, without farther ceremony, to the operation. This consisted of cutting out two pieces of flesh from the haunch, near the tail, which together, Mr. Pearce supposed, might weigh about a pound. As soon as they had taken these away, they sewed up the wounds, plastered them over with cow-dung, and drove the animal forward, while they divided among their party the still reeking steaks."
(It is very singular that, in 1810, Salt could write these words without offering any apology for having, in his travels with Lord Valentia in 1805, deliberately stated that "his (Bruce's) account of the flesh cut out of living animals was repeatedly inquired into by our party; and all to whom we spoke denied its ever being done.")
Mr. Coffin, Lord Valentia's valet, who was left by him in Abyssinia, and who is now in England, has declared to us that he has not only seen the operation which Bruce described performed, but that he has even performed it himself; and that he did so at Cairo, in presence of an English nobleman of high character, whose name he referred to.[28]