The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2

by Sir Thomas Browne

And though it may seem improbable, that they offered flesh, yet eat not thereof; and Abel can hardly be said to offer the firstlings of his flock, and the fat or acceptable part, if men used not to tast the same, whereby to raise such distinctions: some will confine the eating of flesh unto the line of Cain, who extended their luxury, and confined not unto the rule of God. That if at any time the line of Seth eat flesh, it was extraordinary, and only at their sacrifices; or else (as Grotius hinteth) if any such practice there were, it was not from the beginning; but from that time when the waies of men were corrupted, and whereof it is said, that the wickedness of mans heart was great; the more righteous part of mankind probably conforming unto the diet prescribed in Paradise, and the state of innocency. Eating of Flesh (probably) not so common before the flood. And yet however the practice of men conformed, this was the injunction of God, and might be therefore sufficient, without the food of flesh.

That they fed not on flesh, at least the faithful party before the flood, may become more probable, because they refrained the same for some time after. For so was it generally delivered of the golden age and reign of Saturn; which is conceived the time of Noah, before the building of Babel. And he that considereth how agreeable this is unto the traditions of the Gentiles; that that age was of one tongue: that Saturn devoured all his sons but three; that he was the son of Oceanus and Thetis; that a Ship was his Symbole; that he taught the culture of vineyards, and the art of husbandry, and was therefore described with a sickle, may well conceive, these traditions had their original in Noah. Nor did this practice terminate in him, but was continued at least in many after: as (beside the Pythagoreans of old, Bannyans now in India, who upon single opinions refrain the food of flesh) ancient records do hint or plainly deliver. Although we descend not so low, as that of Æsclepiades delivered by Porphyrius, περὶ ἀποχῆς. that men began to feed on flesh in the raign of Pygmaleon brother of Dido, who invented several torments, to punish the eaters of flesh.

Nor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first, but as some will have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very grave conjecturers, carnivorous animals now, were not flesh devourers then, according to the expression of the divine provision for them. Gen. 1. 36. To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, I have given every green herb for meat, and it was so. As is also collected from the store laid up in the Ark; wherein there seems to have been no fleshly provision for carnivorous Animals. For of every kind of unclean beast there went but two into the Ark: and therefore no stock of flesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.

But when ever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet how they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with rejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and salveth not our practice. For no Animal is naturally unclean, or hath this character in nature; and therefore whether in this distinction there were not some mystical intention: How Moses might distinguish beasts into clean and unclean before the flood. whether Moses after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these so before the flood by anticipation: whether this distinction before the flood, were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after was in regard of food: (for many were clean for food, which were unclean for sacrifice) or whether the denomination were but comparative, and of beasts less commodious for food, although not simply bad, is not yet resolved.

And as for the same distinction in the time of Moses, long after the flood, from thence we hold no restriction, as being no rule unto Nations beside the Jews in dietetical consideration, or natural choice of diet, they being enjoyned or prohibited certain foods upon remote and secret intentions. Especially thereby to avoid community with the Gentiles upon promiscuous commensality: or to divert them from the Idolatry of Egypt whence they came, they were enjoyned to eat the Gods of Egypt in the food of Sheep and Oxen. Withall in this distinction of Animals the consideration was hieroglyphical; in the bosom and inward sense implying an abstinence from certain vices symbolically intimated from the nature of those animals; as may be well made out in the prohibited meat of Swine, Cony, Owl, and many more.

At least the intention was not medical, or such as might oblige unto conformity or imitation; For some we refrain which that Law alloweth, as Locusts and many others; and some it prohibiteth, which are accounted good meat in strict and Medical censure: as (beside many fishes which have not finns and scales,) the Swine, Cony and Hare, a dainty dish with the Ancients; as is delivered by Galen, testified by Martial, Inter quadrupedes mattya prima Lepus. as the popular opinion implied, that men grew fair by the flesh thereof: by the diet of Cato, that is Hare and Cabbage; and the Jus nigrum, or Black broath of the Spartans, which was made with the blood and bowels of an Hare.

And if we take a view of other Nations, we shall discover that they refrained many meats upon the like considerations. For in some the abstinence was symbolical; so Pythagoras enjoyned abstinence from fish: that is, luxurious and dainty dishes; So according to Herodotus, some Egyptians refrained swines flesh, as an impure and sordid animal: which whoever but touched, was fain to wash himself.

Some abstained superstitiously or upon religious consideration: So the Syrians refrained Fish and Pigeons; the Egyptians of old, Dogs, Eeles and Crocodiles; though Leo Africanus delivers, that many of late, do eat them with good gust: and Herodotus also affirmeth, that the Egyptians of Elephantina (unto whom they were not sacred,) did eat thereof in elder times: and Writers testify, that they are eaten at this day in India and America. And so, as Cæsar reports, Lib. 3. de bello Gall. unto the ancient Britains it was piaculous to tast a Goose, which dish at present no table is without.

Unto some Nations the abstinence was political and for some civil advantage: So the Thessalians refrained Storks, because they destroyed their Serpents; and the like in sundry animals is observable in other Nations.

And under all these considerations were some animals refrained: so the Jews abstained from swine at first symbolically, as an Emblem of impurity; and not for fear of the Leprosie, as Tacitus would put upon them. The Cretians superstitiously, upon tradition that Jupiter was suckled in that countrey by a Sow. Some Egyptians politically, because they supplyed the labour of plowing by rooting up the ground. And upon like considerations perhaps the Phœnicians and Syrians fed not on this Animal: and as Solinus reports, the Arabians also and Indians. Aul. Gell. lib. 4.A great part of mankind refraining one of the best foods, and such as Pythagoras himself would eat; who, as Aristoxenus records, refused not to feed on Pigs.