SINGULAR KIND OF ALIMENTS OF VARIOUS NATIONS.

[6]An article of food which has lately been seriously recommended by Mr. Grey to Europeans as a most advantageous measure of political economy.

Besides the before-mentioned diversities of national and individual taste for different kinds of substances, used as aliments, there are other kinds of food which we at least think more singular. Some of the tribes ofArabs, Moors, the Californians, and Ethiopians, eat tad-poles, locusts, and spiders.

In some places the flesh of serpents, that of thecoluber natrixfor example, is eaten; and the viper is made into broth. Several other reptiles are used as food by the European settlers in America, such as therana bombinaandrana taurina, two species of toads.

In the East, thelacerta scincusis considered a great luxury, and also an approdisiac. Even the rattle snake has been eaten, and the head boiled along with the rest of the body of the animal.

The horse, ass, and camel, are eaten in several regions of the earth, and the seal, walruss, and Arctic bear, have often yielded a supply to sailors.

On the singular taste of epicures it is not necessary to speak. Mæcenas, theprime minister of Augustus, and refined patron of Horace, had young asses served upon his table when he treated his friends; and, according to Pliny,[7]the Romans delighted in the flavour of young and well fattened puppies. This strange practice subsists still in China, and among the Esquimaux. Plump, and well roasted bats, laid upon a bed of olives, are eaten in the Levant as a dainty.

[7]2 Book 29, c. 4.

The Roman luxury,garum, which bore so high a price, consisted of the putrid entrails of fishes, (first of thegarum,) stewed in wine, and a similar dish is still considered as a great luxury, in some parts of the East. Some modern epicures delight in the trail of the woodcock, and even collect with care the contents of the intestineswhich distill from it in the process of roasting.

“The Irishmanloves usquebah,The Scotloves ale called blue cap,The Welshman, he loves toasted cheese,And makes his mouth like a mouse trap.”

Apicius,[8]among other whimsical personages of ancient Rome, presented to his guests ragouts, exclusively composed of tongues of peacocks and nightingales. This celebrated epicure, who instituted a gormandizing academy at Rome, having heard that shrimps and prawns of a superior flavour were to be met with on the coasts of Africa than on the Italian shore, freighted a ship, and sailed in search of these farfamed marine insects. This person spent more than £.60,000 merely to vary the taste of culinary sauces.

[8]Three brothers of that name were celebrated at Rome, on account of their unparallelled love of good eating.

Vitellus was treated by his brother with a dinner, consisting of 2,000 dishes of fish, and 7,000 of poultry—surely this is not doing things by halves.

A Mr. Verditch de Bourbonne[9]is said to have bought 3,000 carps for the mere sake of their tongues, which were brought, well seasoned andlearnedlydressed, to his table, in one dish.

[9]Cours Gastronomique.

However extravagant and whimsical the rational pleasures of the table may appear to asoberand sensible mind, we must, in justice to epicures, cursorily observe, that there exists a material difference between agormandor epicure, and aglutton.[10]The first seeks for peculiar delicacy and distinct flavour in the various dishes presented to the judgment and enjoyment of his discerning palate; while the other lays aside nearly all that relates to the rational pleasuresof creating or stimulating an appetite of the cates, and looks merely to quantity; this, has his stomach in view, and tries how heavy it may be laden, without endangering his health.

[10]Tabella Cibaria, a latin poem, relating to the pleasures of Gastronomy, and the mysterious art of Cooking, page 15.

“Thegormandnever loses sight of the exquisite organs of taste, so admirably disposed by Providence in the crimson chamber, where sits the discriminating judge, the human tongue.

“Thegluttonis anathematised in the Scripture with those brutesquorum deus venter est. The other appears guilty of no other sin than of too great, and too minute, an attention to refinement in commercial sensuality.”

Our neighbours on the other side of the channel, so famous for indulging in the worship of Comus, consider the epicure again under two distinct views, namely:as agormand, or agourmet. The epicure orgormandis defined—a man having accidentally been able to study the different tastes of eatables, does accordingly select the best food and the most pleasing to his palate. His character is that of apractioner. Thegourmetspeculates more than he practises, and eminently prides himself in discerning the nicest degrees, and most evanescent shades of goodness and perfection in the different subjects proposed to him. He may be designated a man, who, by sipping a few drops out of the silver cup of the vintner, can instantly tell from what country the wine comes, and its age.

Thegluttonpractices without any regard to theory.

Thegormand, or epicure, unites theory with practice.

Thegourmetis merely theoretical.

As man differs from the inferior animals in the variety of articles he feeds upon, so he differs from them no less in the preparation of these substances. Some animals, besides man, prepare their food in a particular manner. The racoon (ursus lutor) is said to wash his roots before he eats them; and the beaver stores his green boughs under water that their bark and young twigs may remain juicy and palatable.

The action of fire, however, has never been applied to use by any animal except man; not even monkies, with all their knacks of imitation, and all their fondness for the comforts of a fire, have ever beenobserved to put on a single billet of wood to keep up the fuel.

Domesticated animals, indeed, are brought to eat, and even to relish, food which has been cooked by the action of heat.

The variety of productions introduced by our different modes of preparing and preserving food is almost endless; and it appears particularly so when we compare the usages, in this respect, of various countries.

The savage of New South Wales is scarcely more knowing in the preparation of food, by means of fire, than his neighbour, the kangaroo, if the anecdote told by Turnbull be true, that one of these savages plunged his hand into boiling water to take out a fish.

Some writers have humorously designated man to be “a cooking animal,” andhe really is so. It is one of the leading distinctions which Providence has seen meet for wise purposes to establish, when it was said that he might eat of the fruit of every tree, and the flesh of every clean beast.

When we contemplate the aliments used by men in a civilized state of existence, we soon become convinced that only a small part of our daily food can be eaten in its natural state. Many of the substances used as aliments, are disagreeable, and some even poisonous until they have been cooked. Few of them are to be had at all seasons, although produced at others in greater abundance than can be consumed.

The importance of a proper and competent knowledge of the true and rational principles of cookery, must be obvious, when it is considered that there is scarcelyan individual, young or old, in any civilized country, who has not some time or other suffered severely from errors committed in the practice of this art.

“A skilful and well directed cookery abounds in chemical preparations highly salutary. There exists a salubrity of aliments suited to every age. Infancy, youth, maturity, and old age, each has its peculiar adapted food, and that not merely applicable to the powers in full vigour, but to stomachs feeble by nature, and to those debilitated by excess.”[11]

[11]Ude’s Cookery, p. 25.—Ibid, 23.

Without abetting the unnatural and injurious appetites of the epicure, or the blameable indulgences of the glutton, we shall not perhaps be far out in our reckoning, if we assert, that almost every person is an epicure in his own way.

There are amateurs in boiling potatoes, as particular in the details, as others in dressing beaf-stakes to the utmost nicety of a single turn. Lord Blainey, still more nice, informs us, that hams are not fit to be eaten unless boiled in Champaign.Helluosare not confined to salmon’s bellies, but are to be found among the rudest peasants who love porridge orfrumenty—

A salmon’s belly,Helluo, was thy fate;The doctor call’d, declares all help too late;“Mercy!” criesHelluo, “mercy, on my soul!Is there no hope?—Alas! then bring the jowl.”Pope’s Moral Essays.

A salmon’s belly,Helluo, was thy fate;The doctor call’d, declares all help too late;“Mercy!” criesHelluo, “mercy, on my soul!Is there no hope?—Alas! then bring the jowl.”

Pope’s Moral Essays.

Precision in mixing ingredients is as often and as closely laid down for the coarsest dish of the peasant as for the most guarded receipe of the Lady Bountiful of the village. The pleasures of the table have always been highly appreciated and sedulously cultivatedamong civilized people of every age and nation; and, in spite of the Stoic, it must be admitted, that they are the first which we enjoy, the last we abandon, and those of which we most frequently partake.

“Cookery is the soul of every pleasure, at all times and to all ages. How many marriages have been the consequence of a meeting at dinner; how much good fortune has been the result of a good supper, at what moment of our existence are we happier than at table? there hatred and animosity are lulled to sleep, and pleasure alone reigns.”

Pythagoras, in his golden verses, gives complete proof, that he was particularly nice in the choice of food, and carefully points out what will occasion indigestion and flatulency. He is precise in commanding his disciples to “abstain from beans.” Apicius, declares that he never knew a philosopher who refused to partake of a feast.

In later times, Dr. Johnson is well known to have been exceedingly fond of good dinners, considering them as the highest enjoyment of human life. The sentiments of our great moralist are a good answer to those who think the pleasures of the table incompatible with intellectual pursuits or mental superiority. “Some people,” says the Doctor, “have a foolish way of not minding, or pretending not to mind, what they eat; for my part, I mind my belly very studiously, and very carefully, and I look upon it that he who does not mind his belly will hardly mind any thing else.” Boswell, his biographer, says of him, “I never knew a man who relished good eating more than he did: and when at table, he was wholly absorbed in thebusiness of the moment.” It was one of the objects which displeased him so much in his Northern tour, that the Scots were rather ignorant of the more refined arts of cookery. A lady in the Isle of Mull, anxious to gratify him for once in a dinner, had an excellent plum-pudding prepared, at some expense, and with the utmost care; but, to her great mortification, the doctor would not taste it, because, he said, “it is totally impossible to make a plum-pudding at all fit to eat in the Isle of Mull.”

Another instance of this philosopher’s illiberal prejudice against Scotch cookery, may also be mentioned. A lady, at whose table the Doctor was dining, enquired how he liked their national dish, thehotch potch, of which he was then partaking. “Good enough for hogs,” said the surlyphilosopher. “Shall I helpyouto a little more of it?” retorted the lady. To Dr. Johnson we can add the names of two distinguished physicians, Darwin, and Beddoes, both of whom were most outrageous in their published works against the pleasures of good living; they followed however a very different practice, from what they prescribed to others, as none were more fond of good dinners than these guardians of health.

Cardinal Wolsey, we should have thought, would have had something else to mind than cooking and good eating. But no person was more anxious than he, even in the whirl of the immense public business which he had to transact, to have the most skilful cooks; for all Europe was ransacked, and no expense spared, to procure culinary operators, thoroughly acquainted with themultifarious operations of the spit, the stew-pan, and the rolling-pin.

Sir Walter Scott, has been most happy in the illustration of our ancient manners with respect to good eating, in the character of Athelstan, in the Romance of Ivanhoe.

Count Rumford has not considered the pleasure of eating, and the means that may be employed for increasing it, as unworthy the attention of a philosopher, for he says, “the enjoyments which fall to the bulk of mankind, are not so numerous as to render an attempt to increase them superfluous. And even in regard to those who have it in their power to gratify their appetites to the utmost extent of their wishes, it is surely rendering them a very important service to shew them how they may increase their pleasures without destroying their health.”

In the olden time, every man of consequence had hismagister coquorum, ormaster cook, without whom he would not think of making a day’s journey; and it was often no easy matter to procuremaster cooksof talent.

By a passage of Cicero[12]we are led to understand, that among other miseries of life, which constantly attended this consular personage and eloquent orator, he laboured under the disappointment of not having an excellent cook of his own; for, he says, “coquus meus, præter jus fervens, nihil potest imitari.”Except hot broth, my cook can do nothing cleverly.

[12]Fam.ix. 20.

The salary of the Roman cooks was nearly £1000.[13]Mark Antony, hearingCleopatra, whom he had invited to a splendid supper, (and who was as great agormandas she was handsome,) loudly praise the elegance and delicacy of the dishes, sent for the cook, and presented him with the unexpected gift of a corporate town.—Municipium.

[13]Tabella Cibaria, ps. 19 and 20.

Even in our own times great skill in cookery is so highly praised by many, that a very skilful cook can often command, in this metropolis, a higher salary than a learned and pious curate.

His Majesty’s first and second cooks are esquires, by their office, from a period to which, in the lawyer’s phrase, the memory of man is not to the contrary. We are told by Dr. Pegge, that when Cardinal Otto, the Pope’s Legate, was at Oxford, in the year 1248, his brother officiated asmagister coquinæ, an office which has alwaysbeen held as a situation of high trust and confidence.

We might defend the art of cookery on another principle, namely—on the axiom recognized in the Malthusian Political Economy, that he who causes two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, is a benefactor to his country and to human nature. Whether or not Malthus is quite right in this, we are not competent to decide; we leave that to Say, Godwin, Ricardo, and[14]Drummond. But certainly it must in many cases be of the utmost consequence, for families in particular, when embarrassed in circumstances, to make food go twice as far as without the art and aid of rational cookery it could do. We would particularly press this remark, as it isfounded on numerous facts, and places the art of cookery in a more interesting point of view than any of the other circumstances which we have been considering.

[14]Principles of Currency, and Elements of Political Economy—1820.

Cookery has often drawn down on itself the animadversions of both moralists, physicians, and wits, who have made it a subject for their vituperations and their ridicule.

So early as the time of the patriarch Isaac, the sacred historian casts blame upon Esau for being epicurean enough to transfer his birth-right for a mess of pottage.

Jacob is blamed for making savoury meat with a kid for his father, with a view to rob Esau of the paternal blessing.

Diogenes, the Cynic, meeting a young man who was going to a feast, took him up in the street and carried him home to his friends, as one who was running into evidentdanger had he not prevented him. The whole tribe, indeed, of the Stoics and Cynics, laughed at cookery, pretending, in their vanity and pride, to be above the desire of eating niceties. Lucian, with his inexhaustible satire, most effectually and humourously exposed these their pretences.

In our own times, we have had writers of eminence who have attacked the use of a variety of food as a dreadful evil. “Should we not think a man mad,” says Addison, “who at one meal will devour fowl, flesh, and fish; swallow oil, and vinegar, salt, wines, and spices; throw down sallads of twenty different herbs, sauces of an hundred ingredients, confections, and fruits of numberless sweets and flavours? What unnatural effects must such a medley produce in the body? For my part, when I behold a table set out in all itsmagnificence, I fancy, that I see gouts and dropsies, fevers and lethargies, and other innumerable distempers, lying in ambuscade among the dishes.”

All this, and the like is, no doubt, very plausible, and very fine, and, like many other fine speeches of modern reformers, it is more fine than just. It is indeed as good a theory as may be, that cookery is the source of most, or all, of our distempers; but withal it isa mere theory, and only true in a very limited degree. The truth is, that it is not cookery which is to blame, if we surfeit ourselves with its good dishes; but our own sensual and insatiable appetite, and gluttony, which prompt us to seek their gratification at the expense even of our health.

Savages, whose cookery is in the rudest state, are more apt to over-eat themselvesthan the veriest glutton of a luxurious and refined people; a fact, which of itself, is sufficient to prove, that it is not cookery which is the cause of gluttony and surfeiting. The savage, indeed, suffers less from his gluttony than the sedentary and refined gormand; for, after sleeping, sometimes for a whole day, after gorging himself with food, hunger again drives him forth to the chace, in which he soon gets rid of the ill-effects of his overloaded stomach. Surely cookery is not to blame for the effects of gluttony, indolence, and sedentary occupations; yet it does appear, that all its ill effects are erroneously charged to the account of the refined art of cooking.

The defence of cookery, however, which we thus bring forward to repel misrepresentation, applies only to the art of preparing good, nutritious, and wholesome food.

We cannot say one word in defence of the wretched and injurious methods but too often practised, under the name of cookery, and the highly criminal practices of adulterating food with substances deleterious to health. On this subject we have spoken elsewhere.[15]

[15]A treatise on adulterations of food, and culinary poisons, exhibiting the fraudulent sophistications of bread, beer, wine, spirituous liquors, tea, coffee, cream, confectionary, vinegar, mustard, pepper, cheese, olive oil, pickles, and other articles employed in domestic economy, and methods of detecting them.—Third edition, 1821.

“A good dinner[16]is one of the greatest enjoyments of human life; but the practice of cookery is attended with not only so many disgusting and disagreeable circumstances, and even dangers, that we ought to have some regard for those who encounter them for our pleasure.”

[16]The Cook’s Oracle.—Preface, p. xxxv.

Almost every person who can afford it, eats more than is requisite for promoting the growth, and renewing the strength and waste of his body. It would be ridiculous to speak concerning the precise quantity of food necessary to support the body of different individuals. Such rules do not exist in nature. The particular state or condition of the individual, the variety of constitution, and other circumstances, must be taken into account. If, after dinner, we feel ourselves as cheerful as before, we may be assured that we have made a dietetical meal.

Much has been said of temperance. The fact is, that there is an absolute determined standard oftemperance, the point of whichmust be fixed by every man’s natural and unprovoked appetite, while he continuesin a state of health. As long as a person who pursues a right habit of life, eats and drinks no more than his stomach calls for and will bear, without occasioning uneasiness of any kind to himself, he may be said to live temperate. The stomach revolts against the reverse of it; indeed, the stomach is the grand organ of the human system, it is theconscienceof thebody, and like that, will become uneasy if all is not right within; it speaks pretty plainly to those who lead an intemperate life.

“We may compare,” says Doctor Kitchener, “the human frame to a watch, of which the heart is the mainspring, the stomach theregulator, and what we put into it, thekey, by which the machine is set a-going; according to the quantity,quality, and proper digestion of what we eat and drink will be the action of the system: and when a due proportion is preserved between the quantum of exercise and that of excitement, all goes well. If the machine be disordered, the same expedients are employed for its re-adjustment, as are used by the watch-maker; it must be carefully cleaned and then judiciously oiled. To affirm that such a thing is wholesome, or unwholesome, without considering the subject in all the circumstances to which it bears relation, and the unaccountable idiosyncrasies of particular constitutions is, with submission, talking nonsense. Every man must consult his stomach; whatever agrees with that perfectly well, is wholesome for him, whilst it continues to do so whenever natural appetite calls for food.”

Celsus spoke very right when he said that a healthy man ought not to tie himself up by strict rules, nor to abstain from any sort of food; that he ought sometimes to fast, and sometimes to feast. When applied to eating, nothing is more true than theproverb—

“Bonarum rerum consuetudo pessima est.—Syrus.“The too constant use, even of good things, is hurtful.”

“Bonarum rerum consuetudo pessima est.—Syrus.

“The too constant use, even of good things, is hurtful.”

It is certainly better to restrain ourselves, so as touse, but not toabuse, our enjoyments; and to this we may add the opinion of doctor Fothergil, which the experience of every individual confirms, namely, that “the food we fancy most, sits easiest on the stomach.”

What has been so far stated on the choice and quantity of food to be taken at a time, of course, relates only to persons in a stateof health; the diet of the delicate, the sickly, and the infirm, must be regulated by the physician, and even the aged require particular kinds of food.

“Experience[17]has fully convinced me, (says an eminent Physiologist), that the latter stages of human life, are often abridged by unsuitable diet.”

[17]Carlisle on the disorders of Old Age, ps. 2 and 27. This book exhibits an excellent view of the most suitable diet for aged, weak, and sickly people.

“The most numerous tribe of disorders incident to advanced life, spring from the failure or errors of the stomach, and its dependancies, and perhaps the first sources of all the infirmities of inability, may be traced to effects arising from imperfectly digested food.”

In some persons, an extraordinary great appetite seems to be constitutional.

Charles Domery, aged 21 years, when a prisoner of war, at Liverpool, consumed in one day

and five bottles of porter; and although allowed the daily rations of ten men, he was not satisfied.

Another extraordinary instance has been recorded by Baron Percy:—A soldier of thename ofTarare, who, at the age of 17, could devour in the course of 24 hours, a leg of beef weighing 24lbs. and thought nothing of swallowing the dinner dressed for fifteen German peasants. But those men were remarkable not only for the quantity of food they consumed, but also for its quality, giving a preference to raw meat, and even living flesh and blood.

Domery, in one year, eat 174 cats, dead and alive; andTararewas strongly suspected of having eaten an infant.

Man can sustain the privation of food for several days, more or fewer in number, according to circumstances—the old better than the young, and the fat better than the lean. The absolute want of drink can be suffered only a short time, they have been strikingly described by Mungo Park and Ali Bey, as experienced in their own persons.

The narratives of ship-wrecked mariners also prove, with how very little food life may be supported for a considerable length of time; and the history of those impostors who pretend to live altogether without food or drink, display this adaptation of the wants of the body to its means of supply in a still more striking manner; for, even after the deception, in such cases as that of Ann Moore, is exposed, it will be found that the quantity of aliment actually taken was incredibly small.

Captain Woodard has added to his interesting narrative many instances of the power of the human body to resist the effects of severe abstinence. He himself and his five companions rowed their boat for seven days without any sustenance but a bottle of brandy, and then wandered about the shores of Celebes six more, withoutany other food than a little water and a few berries. Robert Scotney lived seventy-five days alone in a boat with three pounds and a half of meat, three pounds of flour, two hogsheads of water, some whale oil, and a small quantity of salt. He also used an amazing quantity of tobacco. Six soldiers deserted from St. Helena in a boat, on the 10th of June 1799, with twenty-five pounds of bread and about thirteen gallons of water. On the 18th, they reduced their allowance to one ounce of bread and two mouthfuls of water, on which they subsisted till the 26th, when their store was expended. Captain Inglefield, with eleven others, after five days of scanty diet, were obliged to restrict it to a biscuit divided into twelve morsels for breakfast, and the same for dinner, with an ounce or two of water daily. In ten days,a very stout man died, unable to swallow, and delirious. Lieutenant Bligh and his crew lived forty-two days upon five day’s provisions.

In the tenth volume of Hufland’sJournal, is related a very remarkable, and well-authenticated case of voluntary starvation. A recruit, to avoid serving, had cut off the fore-finger of his right hand. When in hospital for the cure of the wound, dreading the punishment which awaited him, he resolved to starve himself; and on the 2nd of August began obstinately to refuse all food or drink, and persisted in this resolution to the 24th of August. During these twenty-two days he had absolutely taken neither food, drink, nor medicine, and had no evacuation from his bowels. He had now become very much emaciated, his belly somewhat distended, he had a violent painin his loins, his thirst was excessive, and his febrile heat burning. His behaviour had also become timid. Having been promised his discharge, unpunished, he was prevailed upon to take some sustenance, but could not, at first, bear even weak soup and luke-warm drinks. Under proper treatment, he continued to mend for eight days, and his strength was returning, when, on the 1st of September, he again refused food and got a wild look. He took a little barley-water every four or five days to the 8th; from that day to the 11th, he took a little biscuit with wine; but again from the 11th September to the 9th October, a period of twenty-eight days, he neither took food, drink, nor had any natural evacuation. From the 9th to the 11th he again took a little nourishment, and began to recruit; but, on the 11th, he finally renewed his resolution tostarve himself, and persevered until his death, which took place on the 21st November, after a total abstinence of 42 days.

We are told, that in the first ages of the world, men lived upon acorns, berries, and such fruits as the earth spontaneously produced, and that in the Shepherd state of society, milk, obtained from flocks and herds, came into use. Soon afterwards the flesh of wild animals was added to the food, and the juice of grape to the drink of the human species. Hogs were the first animals, of the domestic kind, that were eaten by men, for they held it ungrateful to eat the animals that assisted them in their labour. “We are happy to find, (says the author ofan elegant poem[18]) that it was not on account of the solidity, wholesomeness, delicacy, and other excellent qualities of his flesh, that the ox was worshipped on the banks of the Nile, and in the gorgeous temples of Memphis; for, although professedly friends to gastronomy, moderated by a decided aversion to any thing like sensuality, we are of opinion that man is less fit to feed uponcarnalthan vegetable substance.”

[18]Tabella Cibaria, p. 33.

“The noble horse, fierce and unsubdued, was still roaming with all the roughness and intractability of original freedom, in his native groves, who already domesticated, the honest steer had willingly lent the strength of his powerful shoulders to the laborious strife of the plough. This had not only raised altars to him under thename ofApis, but even placed him among the first constellations of the Zodiac above the watchful eyes of the Chaldeans. In the reign of Erichtonius, fourth king of Athens, Diomus was offering to Jupiter the first fruits of the earth. Whilst the priests were busied apart in preparing some necessaries to the solemnity, an ox, passing by, browsed of all that had been gathered on the altar for the sacrifice. Diomus, in his disappointment and passion, slew him on the spot. The Gods, instead of countenancing his religious zeal, sent forth immediately all the horrors of a pestilence upon the Athenians, which did not cease until they had instituted a festival called “The Death of the Ox.”[19]

[19]Nonius de re Cibaria.

“Porphyrius traces the custom of eatingmeat toPygmalion, king of Tyre, in Phœnicia. Although the Jews were allowed to eat the flesh of the immolated beasts, in the golden age, man had not found courage and appetite enough to eat the flesh of an innocent animal; but soon after, this cruelty extended to nearly all quadrupeds, except those who were carnivorous. Tradition states, thatPrometheuswas the first who killed a bullock,Ceresa pig, andBacchusa goat, for the uses of their tables. It is obvious that pigs, by turning up the new-sown fields for the sake of the grain, and goats browzing the tender sprouts of the vine-tree, were respectively inimical toCeresandBacchus. As for the killing of the first bullock byPrometheus, we leave to other commentators to explain.”

Animal food alone is ill adapted to form the whole of our aliment. The inquiries of physiologists have determined, that animal food is highly stimulant, and like all other stimulants, after the excitement has been brought to its acmé, debility must by necessity succeed. This, however, is not so much the case where fresh meat is used as when the meat is salted; but this may be, because our examples, with regard to fresh meat, are less marked than in the case of salted provision. For few instances occur in which fresh meat forms the whole food, exclusive altogether of fruits or other vegetable aliment. Saltedmeat often constitutes a great proportion of the food in long sea voyages, in the long dreary winters in Lapland, and amongst the inhabitants of besieged towns.

When this practice is continued for any length of time, oppression and langour begin to be felt, indigestion is brought on, and hurried breathing and a quick pulse on taking the slightest exercise, the gums become soft and spongy, the breath becomes fœtid, and the limbs swoln. Such are the dreadful effects produced by salted provisions, when a proper proportion of vegetable food is not used along with them.

The fact is, that nations, whose food is entirely vegetable, are less active and energetic than those whose diet is more nutritive. The inhabitants of Ireland, in the most humble walks of life, for example, who live almost exclusively on potatoes, aresaid to be more indolent and sluggish, when compared with their neighbours in England, who would think such diet to be no better than a prison allowance of bread and water.

In the East, where rice forms the great article of food with some tribes, the people are far from being robust or able to undergo much fatigue in labour or in war. The striking fact, that the English soldiers and sailors surpass all those of other nations in bravery and hardihood, is sufficient, we think, to demonstrate the effect of a considerable proportion of animal food.—For, though it be said, that a great number of our soldiers are Irishmen, yet our argument holds good, since, all these when in the army, or navy, live exactly in the same manner as the English themselves. The change of diet, indeed, is in these brave menvery obvious; for the Irish and Scots soldiers are often more hardy than the English; not as it is supposed because they have been innured to greater hardships in their youth, but because their diet being more generous than it was at that period, its effects become more obvious than in those who have always had animal food.

When we examine the structure of the digestive organs of the inferior animals which live wholly on vegetable food, we find that they are very differently constituted from man, and much more so from the animals of prey. If the organs for digestion of the ruminant animals are more complicated, it should seem to follow, that vegetable aliment is more difficult to digest; otherwise, nature, who never works in vain, would not have provided for them such a series of stomachs.Hence we infer, that since man has not this apparatus peculiar to ruminant animals, it must be plain that nature did not intend him to live exclusively on vegetables. If we consider the human teeth, we shall be led to the same conclusion, for they are not either like the teeth of ruminant animals or those of beasts of prey, but intermediate between the two. We haveincisorteeth like animals of the order glires: such as the hare, the rabbit, and the guinea-pig;caninteeth like those of the order feræ: such as the dog, the tiger, and the lion; andgrinders, like herbivorous quadrupeds: such as the horse, the sheep, and the cow.

Food, then, composed of animal and vegetable substances, seems to be the best adapted for our organs of mastication and digestion, though it would not be easy to say precisely what proportions of these aremost agreeable to the intentions of nature. We may safely conclude, however, that the vegetable food ought to exceed the animal in quantity. The direction given by Dr. Fothergill is the most judicious we have met with. “I have only” says he “one short caution to give. Those who think it necessary to pay any attention to their health at table, should take care that the quantity of bread, of meat, of pudding, and of greens, should not compose each of them a meal, as if some were only thrown in to make weight; but they should carefully observe, that the sum of all together do not exceed due bounds, or encroach upon the first feeling of satiety.”

Of the different classes of animals used for food, quadrupeds compose the greatest proportion, and there is no part of their bodies which does not contain nutritive parts, and that has not been used as food in some way or other. Even bones affords an alimentary jelly fit for human food.

The largest portion of our aliment, however, is derived from the voluntary muscles of animals, or what is more strictly called, the flesh, consisting of all the red fibrous substance which covers the bones. It should seem that this is both the most nourishing and the most easily digested ofanimal substances. The red colour arises from the blood of minute vessels which run in every direction among the fibres; but whether this is the cause of the red muscle being more nutritious is not well ascertained. Thence the flesh of quadrupeds is more largely consumed than of any other class of animals; and, indeed, those in common use in most parts of Europe possesses all the alimentary properties in the highest perfection. All animal flesh seems more or less stimulating; and, in general, the more so the darker its colour is—but it does not absolutely follow that it is also more nutritious.

There is a considerable difference in the qualities of muscular flesh, according to the size of the animal, and also according to its activity. The small mountain sheep, for example, which has to encounterfatigue to procure its food, has flesh of a different quality and flavour from the large and lazy creature, which feeds luxuriously and fattens rapidly, in the rich pastures of the plain country. The beef of the western islands also, is more esteemed, on account of the same circumstance, than that of the fat and brawny oxen which we see in the London market. It is for this reason, we have no doubt, that the flesh of the horse, the rhinocerus, and elephant, is not used as food except in cases when other food is not to be procured. In the circumstance of activity altering the qualities of flesh, we may be allowed to instance the superiority of venison to beef, in flavour and tenderness, and easiness of digestion.

The age of animals is another circumstance which has great influence on the qualities of their flesh. The flesh of younganimals is composed of less rigid fibres, and has fewer vessels which carry red blood running through it, and besides, it has less of the peculiar flavour of its particular species than the flesh of older animals. Gelatine is more abundant in the young, and fibrin in the old; hence the former is more bland and tender. Veal and lamb, for example, are more tender and gelatinous than beef or mutton; sucking pigs, chickens, and ducklings, are also much more delicate than the grown animals. The beef of an old cow, however well fed, is quite tough and unpalatable, while that of a very young heifer is much relished. Although, however, very young animals be so much more tender, yet they are insipid and flabby.

In the case of pork, age is not required, as in other sorts of butcher meat, to mellow the fibre. It is an aliment containing muchnourishment; but to some palates its flavour is disagreeable, though by most people it is relished. It was much used by the ancient athletæ, as half raw beef steaks are now by our men of the fancy.

Sucking pigs are killed when three weeks old; and for pork, pigs are killed from six to twelve months old. It requires them to be older for making brawn. The flesh of young venison is not so good as when four years old or more; though that of the fawn is very tender and succulent.

But even in the fœtal state, the flesh of animals, if recently taken from a healthy mother, may be used. In the London market the fœtus of the cow is regularly sold to the pastry-cooks for the purpose of making mock turtle soup, of which it often forms the principal portion.

Veal, however, is reckoned not so goodwhen killed before it be eight or ten weeks old. The most remarkable quality of flesh of this kind is, its almost wholly dissolving in boiling water, forming in the warm state a bland and gelatinous soup, and when cold, concreting into a tremulous transparent jelly. It is less animalized, or more properly speaking, contains less animal fibre than almost any other flesh; hence its tendency to become ascescent when made into broth and jelly, which is not the case with beef or mutton broth. The parts of older animals, which contain a larger portion of gelatine, are in this respect similar to young flesh. Cow-heel and sheep’s-head are well known instances. It may be remarked that such food is less nutritious, and unless very much boiled, is less digestible than muscular flesh; but as it is also more light and less stimulating, it is frequentlygiven to delicate people who cannot take any thing stronger.

Tripe is intermediate between what we have just described and the muscular flesh of grown animals, insomuch as there is in the stomach of ruminant animals a considerable proportion of vessels, transmitting red blood, and of muscular fibres, and accordingly it is to be inferred that tripe is more nutritive; it is certain it is more palatable and savory.

As to other parts of animals, which are abundantly furnished with red blood, though destitute of muscle, we cannot speak so decidedly. Some of the glands are coarse and rank flavoured, from the peculiar secretions which they produce, and are only used by poor persons; others are esteemed as delicacies, and seem not to be unwholesome. As examples of the latter,we may mentionsweet breadorpancreas, one of the glands belonging to the digestive organs; and the liver of some species of birds, and of young quadrupeds.

The liver of the goose reckoned a great delicacy in Sicily, and they have there a a method of enlarging this organ while the bird is alive, but it is so cruel, that Brydon, who mentions it, declines giving the particulars, lest our epicures in England should have the inhumanity to give it a trial. The spleen is an instance of the former case, being strongly ill flavoured.

Another circumstance which produces difference of quality in flesh, is the sex of the animal, the genital organs having in this respect a very remarkable influence, as appears from the effect of destroying these by castration. This renders the flesh of the male similar, and in some cases, asin mutton, superior to that of the female, which is always more tender, and of finer fibre than that of the uncastrated male. By destroying also the ovaries of the females, their flesh is rendered more delicate, though this operation is not often practised. The sow is the animal which is most usually operated upon with this view; the flesh of the uncastrated boar is very coarse and bad. Even in calves the difference is observable, and veal is greatly improved by castrating the males. The same practice greatly improves fowl, as in capons. Venison is rank, tough, lean, and ill flavoured, and not fit to be eaten when killed during the rutting season, in September and October; and salmon, when about to spawn, are also bad, and prohibited, we believe, by our laws, to be caught or sold.

The mode of feeding animals, designed for the table, has also great influence on the quality of the flesh, so much so, that nice judges can distinguish whether mutton, if from the same breed of sheep, has been fed on grass or on turnips; and can tell, still more accurately, on tasting the fat of pork, whether the pigs have been fed on sour skimmed milk, brewers grains, or pease flour. It was the practice sometime ago, but now almost laid aside, to feed calves and oxen on oil cake. This did certainly fatten them, but the fat was rather rancid in most cases, and never of good flavour. The truth seems to be, that, though generally, the lean of fat animals is the most tender and palatable, yet that this is not so much the case when the fat is rapidly produced by artificial management in the feeding.

Sheep become very rapidly fat in the first stage of the rot, in consequence, perhaps, of their desire for food being greatly increased by the disease; and, taking advantage of this, it is said that some butchers are in the practice of producing rot artificially, which is certainly very blameable. Some amateurs of mutton are fond of such as has died of a sort of colic, called in the Northbraxy, that produces a very peculiar flavour in the meat, which is always, however, roasted, and never stewed or boiled. Such tastes are, to say the least of them, surely unnatural.

It is, perhaps, owing to the different quality and quantity of food, as much as any thing, that the season of the year has an effect upon the flesh of animals; the heat or cold of the weather, and in some cases, the periodical return of sexualattachment, must also be taken int to be out of seasono account. In the instances of veal and lamb, the words,in season, and out of season, refer, perhaps, more to plenty and scarceness than to any quality in the meat; for as soon as any thing is so plentiful in the market as to cause a fall in the price, and bring it within reach of the poor, then the wealthy classes pronounce it to beout of season.

This is the case with some sorts of birds which migrate at certain times of the year, the woodcock for example, and are on that account to be valued when they can be procured. Such as breed here, the solan goose for example, can be procured in the young state before they take their flight to their unknown retreat.

It has been roundly asserted, that there is no bird, and no part of any birds, whichmay not be safely used as food. Many species, however, are very oily, tough, or bad flavoured, and it is not at least very desirable to eat any animal which feeds on prey or carrion; even though this did not, as it does, taint their flesh. The qualities of the flesh of birds differ very much, both in the several species, and in particular parts of the same bird.

The flesh of birds which live on grain, is for the most part preferred to those which feed on insects or fish.

The pheasant, the turkey, as well as partridge, and moor game, are more esteemed than goose, duck, or woodcock.

Many of the water birds, however, are preferred, though from the nature of their food, they are apt to taste strongly of fish, and to become too fat and oily: to remedy these defects, skilful cooks sometimes burythem under ground for some days, and carefully remove all the skin, and as much as possible of the fat and oil from the inside, before dressing them.

Of the several sorts of birds, those of larger size are coarser and more tough than the smaller sorts; bustards, and larks, and ortolans, for example, than swans, or turkeys, and geese. This difference is also rendered greater in proportion to their age.

With regard to the particular parts of the same birds, the flesh of the wing, and the part of the breast nearest the wing, consisting of the muscles exerted in flying, are more dry, tender, and of a whiter colour than the muscles of the leg. This, however, is not the case with black game, in which the more superficial of these muscles are dark-coloured, while those deeper seated are pale; and the same is sometimes seenin other birds. The belly and the muscles of the thigh, when young enough, or when long kept and properly cooked, are both palatable, juicy, and sufficiently tender. The tendons of these muscles, however, are very tough, and at a certain age become cartilaginous and even bony.

Birds in a domestic state do not readily become fat, if allowed to go at large; for this purpose, they should be confined in coops, and supplied with as much wholesome food as they can eat. Poulterers even cram them with food. Domestic water fowls, must, while fattening, be kept from the water, otherwise they will acquire a strong fishy taste, and besides, will always remain lean. In general, over fatness may be considered as a sort of oleagenous dropsy, and seldom or never is met with in a state of nature.

All the soft parts of fish contain gelatine and fibrous substance, and are, consequently, in the edible sorts, nutritious. The fibrous portions are not, except in a few species, red, like the muscular flesh of land animals, but white and opake when dressed. If cooked fish looks bluish and semi-transparent, it is not in season. It is fortunate for us, that few if any poisonous fish are found in our seas, being chiefly confined to the tropics.

The roe of the greater number of fishes is eaten: caviar is the roe of the sturgeon.

Cods sounds, or the swim bladder of the larger cod, are reckoned a great delicacy when properly preserved. It is not usual for the skin of any animal to be eaten, though the skin of some sorts of fish which are pulpy and gelatinous are relished—as the skin of calves head is used for mockturtle soup. The flavour of fish depends greatly on their food, which, it is supposed, is the main cause of the difference between fresh and salt water fish, and between the same sorts of fish taken in different lakes and rivers, and on different parts of the coast.

Some shell fish, such as muscles and cockles, are occasionally found to disagree with some particular constitutions, but it is not true that this arises from their feeding on copper banks; some say, that it is from the persons eating the beard or fibres, by which the muscles attach themselves to the rocks, which is not, we think, probable.

The limpet (Patella vulgata), the periwinkle (turbo littoreus) and whilk (murex antiquus), are used as food, boiled by the common people in various districts of this country.

The crustaceous shellfish of sufficientsize, are very generally esculent. These chiefly belong to the family ofCancer. Hence, several species of crabs, both short and long tailed, are eaten. The lobster, the crawfish, the shrimp, and the prawn belong to this class.

The vegetable substances used for food are, if we include fruits, much more numerous than those derived from the animal kingdom. The chief of these, however, are the different sorts of grain and pulse, thefarinaor flour of which, contains a large proportion of starch, gluten, and mucilage, and but little woody fibre, and is consequently highly nutritious, and easilydigested. To this class of plants we are also indebted for the food of the animals whose flesh is most generally used. In pulse, as well as in rye and oats, there is, besides the principles just mentioned, a considerable portion of sugar, which adds to their nutritive qualities.

We would class the different sorts of nuts, next to grain and pulse, in the proportion of nutriment which they afford; starch and mucilage are their chief elements, but these are combined with a kind of oil which is not of easy digestion, and makes them disagree with most people when too liberally used. Almonds, filberts, walnuts, and cocoa, are the nuts in most request. Chocolate is a preparation of this kind, which is very nutritious to those with whom it agrees.

Next to grain, pulse, and nuts, we mayplace the farinaceous roots, potatoes, carrots, parsnips, and Jerusalem artichokes. Of these, the first, contains the most nourishment, which depends on the great proportion of starch with which it abounds. Other pot-herbs possess little nourishment. Cabbage and greens, for example, are chiefly composed of fibre, mucilage, and water, and the same is true of onions, leeks, celery, lettuce, and broccoli.

Of fruits, those which are most farinaceous and mucilaginous, and which are sweet from the sugar contained in them, are the most nutritious. The pear should seem to answer this description the nearest, but experience proves that this fruit is of less easy digestion than the apple, whose greater acidity corrects the heavy quality of the saccharine matter with which the pear abounds.

Few of the substances which we use for food are consumed in the state in which they are originally produced by nature. With the exception of some fruits and salads, all of them undergo some preparation. In most cases, indeed, this is indispensable; for, otherwise, they would not only be less wholesome and nutritive, but less digestible. The preceding observations, therefore, are only applicable to the materials when cooked, and not to the crude vegetables and raw flesh in the undressed state.

The general processes of cookery resolve themselves into the various modes of applying heat under different circumstances. They are the following—roasting, frying,broiling, baking, stewing, and boiling. These operations not only soften the raw materials, and render them alimentary, but the chemical constitution of the cooked substance suffers also such alterations, that its constituent parts can often no longer be recognised.

Appears to be the most ancient process of rendering animal food eatable by means of the action of heat.

Spits were used very anciently in all parts of the world, and perhaps, before the plain practice of hanging the meat to a string before the fire. Ere the iron age had taught men the use of metals, these roasting instruments were made of wood;and as we find it in Virgil,[20]slender branches of the hazel tree were particularlychosen—

Back to Index Next