Part 40

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.

The trigla, or mullus, as Nonnius, Harduin, Schneider, and Coray state, was the surmullet, or mullus barbatus L. It is mentioned as a rare delicacy of great price by Horace (Sat. ii, 2); Juvenal (Sat. iv, 15); Martial (Xenia, 74); and Macrobius (Saturnal. iii, 16.) Athenæus says of it, “Diocles writes that the flesh of the mullus is hard.” (vii, 21.) Its liver prepared with oil and wine is said by Galen to have been esteemed as a peculiar delicacy.

We need not say how much the murene was sought after by all the lovers of good eating in ancient Rome. Pliny, Martial, and Macrobius inform us that those from Sicily were in most esteem; and Brydone takes notice of the peculiar excellence of the Sicilian murenes at the time when he performed his tour through that island. According to Icesius, it is as nutritious as the eel. (Athen. vii.) He mentions that the murene was called “the Helen of suppers;” and hence, no doubt, Linnæus has named the fish muræna Helena. It was held in much esteem, he says, before spawning. (Ibid.) Apicius gives various receipts for the dressing of it. Pepper, wine, vinegar, and oil are ingredients in almost every one of them. The murene which was served up at the supper of Nasidienus had a sauce or soup formed of such things. (Horace, Sat. ii, 8.) It is related of Vedius Pollio, that he fed his murenes with the bodies of condemned slaves. (Plin. Hist. Nat. ix, 23, and Tertullian, De Pallio.) L. Crassus, the orator, put on mourning clothes for the death of a murene. (Macrobius, Sat. iii, 15.) The muræna ophis is mentioned by Galen as having the same character as its congener.

The ancients were acquainted with several species of mackerel (scomber scomber), which Xenocrates represents as nutritious, but unpalatable and flatulent.

The anguilla, or common eel, and the congrus, or conger-eel, were despised by the Roman gourmands, but were greatly esteemed by the Greeks. Icesius says that eels are the best of fishes. See Athen. (l. c.)

It is supposed, by most of the classical commentators, that the accipenser was the sturgeon, but this is not quite agreed.—See this point fully discussed by Rondelet, Gesner, and Willoughby. The celebrated Artedi, and the writer of the article on Ichthyology in the ‘Encycl. Method.’ are quite decided in the affirmative. We need have little difficulty, then, in determining it to be the accipenser sturio. To our minds there can be no doubt but that it is the fish described by Constantine Porphyrogenita, under the name of βερζήτικον. (De Admin. Imp. 42.) Both in the days of the Romans, and under the Greek empire, the sturgeon was commonly procured from the Pontus or Black Sea. Its popularity appears to have been great in the days of Horace, but it had fallen into disrepute in the time of Pliny. It seems, however, to have retrieved its character afterwards; for one of the authorities quoted by Athenæus says that it was presented at the Roman banquets, crowned with garlands, and accompanied with the playing of pipes. See also Macrobius (Sat. iii, 16.) Martial speaks of it as a much-esteemed delicacy at the imperial table. The elops and the galeus rhodius were fishes nearly allied to the sturgeon. See Pliny and Athenæus.

The isinglass fish (accipenser huso), although described by Herodotus (Hist. iv, 53), Strabo (Geogr.), and Ælian (xiv, 23), is not noticed by the dietetical writers, unless we suppose it the fish alluded to by Athenæus (vii, 21), where see the notes of Coray and Schweighäuser.

Martial mentions the gobius, or gudgeon, as being the first of the viands presented at the banquets of the Venetians. (Xenia, Ep. 83.) Juvenal speaks of it as being a fish of little value, or, at least, low priced. (Sat. xi, 37.) It is, in fact, as Galen states, a very small fish; but he represents it as being delicious, digestible, and wholesome, especially when caught on a stony or rocky shore. Seth gives the same account of it. Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, says, that when its flesh is white the gudgeon is tender, wholesome, and digestible.

The perch, according to the same authority, bears a close resemblance to the gudgeon. Ausonius calls it the deliciæ mensarum. Galen calls it a delicious fish, which is not only of easy digestion but most wholesome. He adds that it, and other fishes of the same description, form blood of a middling consistence, that is to say, neither very watery nor too thick. Both the perca fluviatilis and the P. marina are described by Aristotle, Galen, Athenæus, and the other writers on dietetics.

The umber (sciæna umbra), a fish resembling the perch, but of great size, was in much esteem as a pickle, which was called saperda, and brought from Pontus. See Athen. (iii, 31), and Persius (Sat.)

The merle (labrus merula) is mentioned among the rock fishes by Galen. Diocles in Athenæus says it is of easy digestion and highly nutritive. The iülis, called donzella by the Italians, a fish of the same genus, is mentioned by Galen and Xenocrates as having soft flesh.

The fish called serran in French (serranus anthius Cuv.), and its congener the labrus hepatus L. are briefly noticed by the dietetical authorities as wholesome fishes.

On the salmon the Greek authors are entirely silent. It is briefly noticed by Pliny (H. N. ix, 32); but the first and only satisfactory account of it which is to be found in any Latin classic is contained in the Mosella of Ausonius. We shall give an extract from the lines in which it is first described:

“Teque inter species geminas, neutrumque et utrumque, Qui necdum Salmo, nec jam Salar, ambiguusque Amborum medio Fario intercepte sub ævo.”

Here we find marked the three progressive stages in the growth of the fish. The salar is the sea-trout, the fario is what in the north of Scotland is called the grilse, and the salmo is the full-grown salmon. Of the salmon he says:

“Tu loricato squamosus pectore, frontem Lubricus, et dubiæ facturus fercula cænæ, Tempora longarum fers incorrupte morarum, Præsignis maculis capitis: cui prodiga nutat Alvus, opimatoque fluens abdomine venter.”

The sea-trout is well described in the following line:

“Purpureisque Salar stellatus tergora guttis.”

Nonnius considers the salmon to be the anchorago of Cassiodorus. (De Esu Piscium, 31.) Gesner holds the same opinion. (De Aquat.)