Читать книгу The Works of Sir Thomas Browne, Volume 2 - Browne Thomas - Страница 16

Concerning the common course of Diet, in making choice of some Animals, and abstaining from eating others.

Why we confine our food unto certain Animals, and totally reject some others; how these distinctions crept into several Nations; and whether this practice be built upon solid reason, or chiefly supported by custom or opinion; may admit consideration.

For first there is no absolute necessity to feed on any; and if we resist not the stream of Authority, and several diductions from holy Scripture: there was no Sarcophagie before the flood; Eating of Flesh. and without the eating of flesh, our fathers from vegetable aliments, preserved themselves unto longer lives, then their posterity by any other. For whereas it is plainly saidGen. 1. 29., I have given you every herb which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, to you it shall be for meat; The natural vertue of vegetables impaired by the deluge. presently after the deluge, when the same had destroyed or infirmed the nature of vegetables, by an expression of enlargement, it is again delivered: Gen. 9. 3. Every moving thing that liveth, shall be meat for you, even as the green herb, have I given you all things.

And therefore although it be said that Abel was a Shepherd, and it be not readily conceived, the first men would keep sheep, except they made food thereof: great Expositors will tell us, that it was partly for their skins, wherewith they were cloathed, partly for their milk, whereby they were sustained; and partly for Sacrifices, which they also offered.

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.

Certain dishes in great request with the Ancients, not so much esteemed now.

Moreover while we single out several dishes and reject others, the selection seems but arbitrary, or upon opinion; for many are commended and cryed up in one age, which are decryed and nauseated in another. Thus in the dayes of Mecenas, no flesh was preferred before young Asses; which notwithstanding became abominable unto succeeding appetites. At the table of Heliogabalus the combs of Cocks were an esteemed service; which country stomacks will not admit at ours. The Sumen or belly and dugs of swine with Pig, and sometimes beaten and bruised unto death: the womb of the same Animal, especially that was barren, or else had cast her young ones, though a tough and membranous part, was magnified by Roman Palats; whereunto nevertheless we cannot perswade our stomacks. How Alec, Muria, and Garum, would humour our gust I know not; but surely few there are that could delight in their Cyceon; that is, the common draught of Honey, Cheese, parcht Barley-flower, Oyl and Wine; which notwithstanding was commended mixture, and in high esteem among them. We mortifie our selves with the diet of fish, and think we fare coursly if we refrain from the flesh of other animals. But antiquity held another opinion hereof: When Pythagoras in prevention of luxury advised, not so much as to tast on fish. Since the Rhodians were wont to call them clowns that eat flesh: and since Plato to evidence the temperance of the noble Greeks before Troy, observed, that it was not found they fed on fish, though they lay so long near the Hellespont;Odyss. 4⁰. and was only observed in the companions of Menelaus, that being almost starved, betook themselves to fishing about Pharos.

Nor will (I fear) the attest or prescript of Philosophers and Physitians, be a sufficient ground to confirm or warrant common practice, as is deducible from ancient Writers, from Hippocrates, Galen, Simeon, Sethi: and the later tracts of Nonnus Non de re cibaria. and Castellanus.Cast. de esu carnium. So Aristotle and Albertus commend the flesh of young Hawks: GalenGal. Alim. fac. lib. 3. when they feed on Grapes: but condemneth Quails, and ranketh Geese but with Ostriches; which notwithstanding, present practice and every table extolleth. Men think they have fared hardly, if in times of extremity they have descended so low as Dogs: but Galen deliverethGal. Simpl. fac. lib. 3. were the food of many Nations: and HippocratesHip. de morbis de superfit. ranketh the flesh of Whelps with that of Birds: who also commends them against the Spleen, and to promote conception. The opinion in Galens time, which Pliny also followeth, deeply condemned Horse-flesh, and conceived the very blood thereof destructive; but no diet is more common among the Tartars, who also drink their blood. And though this may only seem an adventure of Northern stomacks, yet as Herodotus tells us, in the hotter clime of Persia, the same was a convivial dish, and solemnly eaten at the feasts of their nativities: whereat they dressed whole Horses, Camels and Asses; contemning the Poverty of Grecian feasts, as unfurnish’d of dishes sufficient to fill the bellies of their guests.

Again, While we confine our diet in several places, all things almost are eaten, if we take in the whole earth: for that which is refused in one country, is accepted in another, and in the collective judgment of the world, particular distinctions are overthrown. Thus were it not hard to shew, that Tigers, Elephants, Camels, Mice, Bats and others, are the food of several countries; and Lerius with others delivers, that some Americans eat of all kinds, not refraining Toads and Serpents: and some have run so high, as not to spare the flesh of man: a practise inexcusable, nor to be drawn into example, a diet beyond the rule and largest indulgence of God.

As for the objection against beasts and birds of prey, it acquitteth not our practice, who observe not this distinction in fishes: nor regard the same in our diet of Pikes, Perches and Eels; Nor are we excused herein, if we examine the stomacks of Mackerels, Cods, and Whitings. Nor is the foulness of food sufficient to justifie our choice; for (beside that their natural heat is able to convert the same into laudable aliment) we refuse not many whose diet is more impure then some which we reject; as may be considered in hogs, ducks, puets, and many more.

Thus we perceive the practice of diet doth hold no certain course, nor solid rule of selection or confinement; Some in an indistinct voracity eating almost any, others out of a timorous pre-opinion, refraining very many. Wherein indeed necessity, reason and Physick, are the best determinators. Surely many animals may be fed on, like many plants; though not in alimental, yet medical considerations: Whereas having raised Antipathies by prejudgement or education, we often nauseate proper meats, and abhor that diet which disease or temper requireth.

A problem.

Now whether it were not best to conform unto the simple diet of our fore-fathers; whether pure and simple waters were not more healthfull then fermented liquors; whether there be not an ample sufficiency without all flesh, in the food of honey, oyl, and the several parts of milk: in the variety of grains, pulses, and all sorts of fruits; since either bread or beverage may be made almost of all? whether nations have rightly confined unto several meats? or whether the common food of one countrey be not more agreeable unto another? how indistinctly all tempers apply unto the same, and how the diet of youth and old age is confounded: were considerations much concerning health, and might prolong our days, but must not this discourse.