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 enjoined 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 enjoined to eat the gods of Egypt in the food of sheep and oxen. Withal 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 fins and scales) the swine, cony, and hare, a dainty dish with the ancients; as is delivered by Galen, testified by Martial, 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 broth 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 like considerations. For in some the abstinence was symbolical: so Pythagoras enjoined abstinence from fish, that is, luxurious and dainty dishes; so, according to Herodotus, some Egyptians refrained swine's flesh, as an impure and sordid animal, which whoever but touched was fain to wash himself.

Some abstained superstitiously or upon religious considerations: so the Syrians refrained fish and pigeons; the

* Inter quadrupedes mattya prima lepus.

Egyptians of old, dogs, eels, 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 Čæsar reports,* unto the ancient Britains it was piaculous? to taste 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 sym

bolically, as an emblem of impurity, and not fear of the leprosy, as Tacitus would put upon them. The Cretians superstitiously, upon tradition that Jupiter was suckled into that country by a sow. Some Egyptians politically, because they supplied the labour of plowing by rooting up the ground. And upon like considerations, perhaps, the Pho nicians and Syrians fed not on this animal; and, as Solinus reports, the Arabians also and Indians. A great part of mankind refraining one of the best foods, and such as Pytha gorus himself would eat; who, as Aristoxenus records,t refused not to feed on pigs.

Moreover, while we single out several dishes, and reject others, the selection seems but arbitrary, or upon opinion; for many are commended and cried up in one age, which are decried and nauseated in another. Thus, in the days of Mæcenas, no flesh was preferred before young asses; which notwithstanding became abominable unto succeeding appe tites. At the table of Heliogabalus the combs of cocks were an esteemed service; which country stomachs 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 palates; whereunto + Aul. Gell. lib. iv.

* Lib. v. De Bello Gall.

2 piaculous.] Requiring expiation.

nevertheless, we cannot persuade our stomachs. 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, parched barleyflower, oil, and wine; which notwithstanding was a commended mixture, and in high esteem among them. We mortify ourselves with the diet of fish, and think we fare coarsely 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 taste of 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, and it was only observed in the companions of Menelaus,* that, being almost starved, they betook themselves to fishing about Pharos.

Nor will (I fear) the attest or prescript of philosophers and physicians be a sufficient ground to confirm or warrant common practice, as is deducible from ancient writers, from Hippocrates, Galen, Simeon, Sethi, and the latter tracts of Nonnust and Castellanus. So Aristotle and Albertus commend the flesh of young hawks; Galen § the flesh of foxes about autumn, 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 delivereth,|| that young, fat, and gelded, they were the food of many nations and Hippocrates ranketh the flesh of whelps with that of birds, who also commends them against the spleen, and to promote conception. The opinion in Galen's time, which Pliny also followeth, deeply condemneth 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 stomachs, yet as Herodotus tells us, in the hotter clime of Persia the same was a convivial dish, * Odyss. iv. Cast. De Esu Carnium. Gal. Simpl. fac. lib. iii.

Non. De Re Cibaria.
§ Gal. Alim. sac. lib. iii.

Hip. De Morbis de supersit.

and solemnly eaten at the feasts of their nativities; whereat they dressed whole horses, camels, and asses, contemning the poverty of Grecian feasts, as unfurnished 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;3 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 show, 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 practice 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 stomachs of mackerels, cods, and whitings. Nor is the foulness of food sufficient to justify 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 than some which we reject; as may be considered in hogs, ducks, puets, and many more.

for

3 all things almost are eaten, &c.] This chapter, which exhibits all the characteristic acuteness of our author, and has afforded opportunity the display of his extensive and very curious reading, reminds me of 3 passage in Burchell's Southern Africa, vol. ii. p. 33, to which I refer the

reader.

I remember an amusing illustration of the adage, that one man's food is another's poison, in an incident of which I was a witness. Some years ago, visiting France in company with a Scotch gentleman, we sat down to dinner, just after our landing, at a table d'hôte, at Dieppe. Among the dishes which had been provided to suit the nationality of British visitors, was some "ros bif;" a lean square lump of beef roasted to the consistence of mahogany, served up with thin sour gravy. My Scotch friend, after vainly endeavouring to feed on the French dishes, was introduced to the beef. Its toughness he might have endured; but the thin sour gravy was too much! He turned to me with a face of absolute despair, exclaiming, "I'll certainly be starved in this country." Milk and eggs were the only food I could prevail on him to taste.

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 physic, 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 pre-judgment or education, we often nauseate proper meats, and abhor that diet which disease or temper requireth.

Now, whether it were not best to conform unto the simple diet of our forefathers; whether pure and simple waters were not more healthful than fermented liquors; whether there be not an ample sufficiency without all flesh, in the food of honey, oil, 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 country 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 not this discourse.

CHAPTER XXVI.4

Of the Spermaceti Whale.

WHAT spermaceti is, men might justly doubt, since the learned Hofmannus, in his work of thirty years,* saith plainly, Nescio quid sit. And therefore need not wonder at the variety of opinions; while some conceived it to be flos maris; and many, a bituminous substance floating upon the

sea.

That it was not the spawn of the whale, according to vulgar conceit or nominal appellation, philosophers have always doubted, not easily conceiving the seminal humour of animals should be inflammable or of a floating nature.

*De Medicamentis Officin.

Chap. xxvi.] This chapter was first added in 3rd edition.

VOL. I.

2 A