Bread, vegetables, and fruit for a long time provided man with a sufficient and easy alimentation.[XV_1] Wandering with his flocks in search of cool pasture, he only exacted their wool wherewith to make the clothing requisite for his migratory life;[XV_2] their services to assist him in hollowing a difficult furrow;[XV_3] and their first-born as a most agreeable offering to the all-powerful master of heaven and earth.[XV_4] We may also suppose that, in the pastoral ages, the wandering tribes of Asia added to their vegetable food the milk of their ewes, goats, or cows, although it is not mentioned in the Book of Genesis[XV_5] at a very early period, it is true, but which forms a nourishment nature seems to point out as proper to infancy and old age;[XV_6] mankind, therefore, abstained from animal food during many centuries.[XV_7] Ecclesiastical and profane writers seem to agree on this point.[XV_8] Habit had not yet produced disgust, and curiosity, the fatal mother of experience and sensuality. To eat was for them the most natural and simple action of life. The art of cookery tries, makes choice, and improves: that art did not exist.

The frightful cataclysm which overthrew the world, and of which the history of every nation gives proofs more or less confused, came to modify this state of things. “Men were obliged to be fed with more substantial food,”[XV_9] and our forefathers were allowed to add to vegetables and the herbs of the country, “animated beings, and all that which had life and motion.”[XV_10]

The magiric science, therefore, began in the year of the world 1656.

From that period, indeed, the cooking of meat, however little complicated it may have been, required an attention, care, and study, which prepared the development of that marvellous faculty to which no possible limit can be assigned—the last to disappear, and to which, in fact, are related nearly all the actions of human life—the sense of taste.

Heathen authors, guided by the lights of reason, some gleams of tradition, and perhaps not absolutely strangers to the writings of Moses, agree pretty well on the diet of the Golden Age;[XV_11] that age of innocence, acorns, and happiness,[XV_12] when everywhere were seen streams of milk, and nectar, and honey, flowing from the hollow oaks and other trees of the forests.[XV_13]

But when the question is to point out the time at which the use of animal food was introduced, ideas become clouded, and highly intelligent minds, bewildered by the obscurity which envelops the subject, have frequently appealed to absurd legends and ridiculous fables, invoking the aid of their false and contested authority.

Xenocrates pretends that Triptolemus forbad the Athenians to eat animals.[XV_14] Man must, then, have been still frugivorous for four centuries after the Deluge.

This opinion found contradictors, who maintained that man contented himself with fruit only because fire was wanting to cook meat; but Prometheus came, and taught him how to draw the useful element from the flint which concealed it, and was the first to venture on the sacrifice of an ox.[XV_15] This happened in the year of the world 2412.[XV_16]

All this is a mistake, say other and very sensible writers; here is the truth on this difficult point: The goddess Ceres had sown a field, and the wheat came up as desired, when a pig entered, tumbled about, and caused considerable damage, which so irritated the lady that she punished him with death. Now, as a pig is good for nothing except to eat, this one was eaten; and from that day, so fatal to the swinish race, mankind learnt to appreciate the flesh of animals.[XV_17]

At the same time, Bacchus killed a goat he found nibbling at the tendrils of his darling vines;[XV_18] and Hyberbius, son of Mars, and a slasher, like his father, amused himself by killing another, in order to become familiar thus early with scenes of combat.[XV_19] These goats were roasted; and as experience had as yet furnished no rule of comparison, and formed no taste—that exquisite sentiment of the beautiful in the plastic arts, and of the good in the culinary science—it was decided that this dish was very tolerable.

Hitherto the bovine race had only lost one individual: its sad destiny began in the year 1506, before our era, under the reign of the fourth king of Athens, Erichtonius, on a day of great solemnity, when an ox, pressed probably by hunger, came near the altar, and devoured one of the sacred cakes which heathen piety had dedicated to Jupiter. The zealous Diomus rushed forward, and pierced the heart of the sacrilegious quadruped.

It might be supposed that the anger of the god was immediately appeased; but no! the terrible Jupiter knitted his brows; Olympus was in great agitation; and pestilence came, and spread its ravages amongst the Athenians.

“All did not die, but all were struck;”[XV_20] and, to propitiate the implacable scourge, they thought of nothing better than to institute the Buphonic Feast, which happily re-established their health, and which they continued to celebrate every year. They sacrificed an ox,[XV_21] offered a piece to Jupiter, and the faithful divided the rest among themselves.

At Tyre, in Phoenicia, meat was consumed on the altar, but the gods had the profit of it, and nobody else. Some fruit and a few vegetables were sufficient for the frugality of people enjoying innocent and primitive customs. But it happened, in the time of Pygmalion,[XV_22] that a young sacrificer having perceived that a piece of the victim had fallen, hastened to pick it up and replace it carefully on the fire of the altar. In the performance of this operation he burned his fingers, and instantly put them into his mouth, to lessen the pain. As he could not help tasting the fat with which they were covered, the greedy young man experienced a new sensation, which tempted him to swallow a mouthful—then a second—a portion of the victim was eaten; he put another piece under his cloak, and, with his wife, made the finest supper in his life. All went on very well until the prince, being informed of this profanation, loaded them with reproaches, and condemned both to the punishment of death.

Gluttony, however, is rash: other sacrificers ate—at first in secret—of this forbidden food; then they were imitated; and, at last, by degrees meat passed from the altar of the gods, who did not taste it, to the tables of mortals, who feasted upon it.[XV_23] People may or may not believe this anecdote, which informs us in so satisfactory a manner of the epoch at which man, from being frugivorous, became carnivorous; but one thing is certain, that in the time of Homer (there is only eighty years between him and Pygmalion), the flesh of animals was then much in fashion, for we read of his giving to his heroes, as their principal food, a whole hog, three years old, and oxen roasted—not even jointed.[XV_24]

Some ideologists and dreamers have risen against the use of meat; their declamations, often very eloquent, have been read; but, from Pythagoras, a sublime and honest enthusiast, down to the whimsical J. J. Rousseau—who, by-the-by, was very fond of mutton chops and boeuf À la mode, although he exclaimed against the cruelty of mankind, whose hands were stained with the blood of animals—no nation has yet determined to adopt the patriarchal diet of the first ages of the world.

Plutarch was a vegetarian; and we possess one of his treatises, in which he endeavours to prove that flesh is not the natural food of man.[XV_25] As a conclusive answer—meat was eaten. So, when an ancient philosopher one day denied the movement of matter, a person reduced him to silence by walking.

But, if animal diet has, from time to time, met with a small number of detractors, what an immense crowd of apologists and adepts has it not also found! It would signify nothing to name individuals; let us point out whole nations. Who is not acquainted with the delicacy and luxury of the Assyrians and Persians? Who is not aware that the genius of the Greeks improved the culinary art, and that their cooks were famous in history? What of the Syracusans, whose dainty and curious ideas passed as a proverb; and of the Athenians, who were so passionately fond of the pleasures of the table; or of Naples, Tarentum, and Sybaris, so celebrated for their good cheer? The Romans surpassed even these refinements and sumptuous repasts: theirs is the honour of the pontiffs’ feasts, the excesses of CapreÆ, the profusions of Vitellius, of Galba, Nero, and Caligula. They have the honour of the banquet of Geta, which lasted three days, and ended by exhausting the alphabetic list of all the dishes that the universe could supply.

May heaven preserve us from imitating such prodigies of intemperance and gluttonous folly; but let us, at least, be allowed to use with moderation the good that Providence has granted us, and which it has not forbidden us to make agreeable and savoury. The inhabitants of the air, earth, and water, entered within our domains, as well as the fruits of the fields, on the day when the Creator condescended to say to his creature:

“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”[XV_26]

REARING OF CATTLE.

All ancient legislators have bestowed the most serious attention to the rearing and preservation of cattle. The Mosaic law, in this respect, enters into details which reveal the most profound wisdom, a delicate and minute research which cannot be too much admired.

More attentive to propagate useful animals than to flatter the sensuality of nations, this law forbids their being mutilated;[XV_27] it requires the Hebrews to treat with generosity the companions of their labour;[XV_28] that they shall interest themselves in the preservation of their brother’s, and even of their enemies’ oxen;[XV_29] that different species of unequal strength shall not be yoked together to the plough;[XV_30] and, in order that the cattle may not suffer from an excess of hard and constant labour, Moses assures to them at least one day of rest in a week.[XV_31]

It is well known with what care the patriarchs surrounded their flocks; for them they wandered from region to region, and only stopped where pasture was abundant.[XV_32] In imitation of those fathers of nations, the princes of the East, and the Grecian chiefs, were at first shepherds;[XV_33] and were, perhaps, indebted to the innocent occupations of the fields for the sweet and sacred title of pastors of man.[XV_34]

The founder of Rome did not forget the flocks and herds, in those famous laws which were to assure the prosperity of his rising city;[XV_35] one of them allowed the possessor of an estate to take up the acorns which might fall into his field from his neighbour’s property,[XV_36] and to divide them among the cattle he is rearing.

Under the republic, it was severely forbidden to ill-use beasts of burthen and others. By the Licinian law, each farmer was required to proportion the number of his sheep and oxen to the extent of his land;[XV_37] the Thorian law contains very wise regulations relative to the quality and keeping up of pasture.[XV_38] Moreover, it is to be remarked, that the Romans never fixed the limits of a rural property, nor formed a new colony, without giving their first care to the spots appointed to feed their flocks,[XV_39] the quiet possession of which was assured by the Emperors. Adrian, among others, did not encourage thieves. This prince ordered that whoever carried away cattle grazing in meadows should be condemned to work in the mines; that those who should have been convicted of robbery several times should be beheaded; and that thieves found with arms in their hands should become the prey of wild beasts.[XV_40]

Illustrious families by birth often added to their name a sort of epithet, originating either from bulls, goats, or sheep, which were brought up on the land of their villas. This singular custom proves the extraordinary attachment which the Romans had for their flocks. One of these enthusiasts, Tremellius Scrofa,[XV_41] had written a treatise on the art of assorting and feeding cattle.[XV_42] Greek and Latin geoponics have also transmitted to us some details full of interest, and which often contain most useful information upon the various species of animals which the ancients preferred, and the particular care they took in the preservation and development of various breeds.[XV_43] Pagan theology reckoned among its thirty thousand gods[XV_44] some few protective divinities of flocks. The shepherds invoked Pales[XV_45] and Anna Perenna;[XV_46] dealers of oxen offered sacrifices to Bubona,[XV_47] whose special care it was to see that they were fat and healthy.

The animals chosen to be fattened were put under the protection of this deity, and were fed in the following manner:

The first day they had given to them cabbages, soaked in vinegar; then, for five days, straw, mixed with wheat bran; from the seventh day they had nothing but bruised barley, which was gradually and judiciously increased till the twelfth day. These oxen were fed at midnight, at break of day, at twelve o’clock, and at three in the afternoon. They were allowed to drink only twice—that is, after the third and fourth meal.[XV_48] On the thirteenth day they were led to market.

MARKETS.

The Hebrews held their cattle market at the gates of their cities; and from this circumstance, perhaps, is derived those expressions so frequent in the sacred writings: “The gates of the flocks,” “The sheep’s gate,” &c.,[XV_49] which no doubt designated the different quarters of Jerusalem where shepherds and cattle dealers were accustomed to congregate.

Among the Greeks, vast, airy, public places, used to receive, under the orders, and with the authorisation of the Epimeletes, or curators, the animals and meat necessary for the subsistence of the citizens.

At Rome, the horned cattle market was situated in the eighth region, behind the Capitoline Mount.[XV_50] It was a magnificent place, surrounded with beautiful galleries, in the midst of which stood on its pedestal, a gigantic brazen bull, at a little distance from the temple of Hercules—a round, mean edifice[XV_51]—where dealers and their customers went to adore this god, the patron of butchers.

The way to reach the pig market was by going round the Quirinal Mount, near the bronze horses of Tyridates, in the seventh region of the town.[XV_52] This market was the most important of all, on account of the immense consumption of pork by the Romans.

As soon as the officer of the Roman prÆfect appeared, the principal butchers gathered round him; he examined the cattle, regulated the sale, and fixed a price on the meat, from which they were not allowed to deviate,[XV_53] and then only was the market open.

BUTCHERS.

Nothing among the Greeks indicates that they had butchers in the heroic ages. The warriors of Homer had no want of them, so great was their skill in cutting up the enormous pieces placed before them.[XV_54] Ulysses acquired a reputation by his dexterity in this art; and it is more than probable that his martial companions also distinguished themselves by this kind of merit.

As soon as luxury had introduced into Greece that effeminate kind of existence which only permits certain men to be engaged in the painful or repulsive details of every-day life, bouthutes, or bullock slaughterers, became indispensable; and of them the meat was bought by the pound—weighed in the scale as now.[XV_55]

The Romans had, at first, butchers who dealt in the same way, and who continued to do so for a long time; but they afterwards employed the following most extravagant method. The buyer shut one of his hands; the seller did the same; each of them suddenly opened the whole or a few of his fingers. If the fingers were even on each side, the seller had the price he pleased; if they were odd, the buyer gave his own price. This was called micare.[XV_56] The mication was suppressed in the year 360, by a decree of Apronianus, which is worth quoting, because it points out in a clear and precise manner the attributions of the Roman butcher, and the system of sale since followed:—

“Reason and experience have proved to us, that it is of public utility to suppress the practice of mication for the sale of cattle, and that it is more advisable to sell by weight than to trust to a game with the fingers. We, therefore, ordain that, after the weight of the animal is ascertained, the head, feet, and tallow, shall belong to the butcher who has killed, prepared, and cut it up: this shall be his wages. The skin, flesh, and entrails, shall belong to the master-butcher who is to retail it. In this manner, the buyer and seller will know the weight of the meat on sale, and each will find this method to his advantage. * * * We will and decree that this ordinance be executed for ever, under pain of death.”[XV_57]

There were at first, in Rome, two corporations or colleges of butchers: one had to take care that the city was always sufficiently supplied with oxen, calves, and sheep:[XV_58] the other was to provide that immense capital with the quantity of hogs necessary;[XV_59] and it would be difficult to form an idea of the number consumed by the Romans. Every day a distribution was made to the people, by Valentinian’s order, of 24,086 pounds and eight ounces of pork; to this amount, already considerable, must be added the truly prodigious daily sale; for the entire population, from the highest to the lowest, were all passionately fond of this kind of food.[XV_60]

The obligations and privileges of these two corporate bodies were nearly the same as those of the bakers.[XV_61] The children could not, under any pretext whatsoever, abandon the trade of their fathers, without

incurring the entire loss of their share in the common benefit allowed by the college. And, be it remembered, this trade was very lucrative, so much so that those who followed it in Rome always enjoyed a degree of opulence which sometimes caused the people to murmur. They elected from among themselves a chief, who judged their differences; he was, however, subordinate to the prÆfect of Rome.[XV_62]

The members of the two corporations cut, weighed, and retailed the meat; they had under them working butchers, who killed, skinned, and trimmed the animals, and then brought them each one to the shop of his master.[XV_63]

In the sequel, the two colleges met, and formed one. Subsequently, under the reign of Nero, which seemed at the beginning to promise the most brilliant prospect, the principal market for butchers became an edifice equal in magnificence to the Baths, the Circus, and Amphitheatres.[XV_64] Eventually it was found necessary to erect two new buildings, on account of the increasing extent of the city and its inhabitants.[XV_65] The Roman butchers sold both fresh and salt meat, like our own of the present day. It is not necessary to enter into any explanation respecting the first; as to the second, their method of preparation was somewhat different from the way we manage it now:—The animals they intended to salt were kept from drinking anything on the eve of the day they were to be killed. They boned the meat, and sprinkled it lightly with pounded salt; then, after having well dried off all dampness, they again sprinkled some more salt, and placed the pieces, so as not to touch each other, in vessels which had been used for oil or vinegar. They poured sweet wine over, covered the whole with straw, and strewed snow all round, in order to make the meat better and more tender.[XV_66]

When the cook wanted to extract the salt, he first boiled the meat well in milk, and afterwards in soft water.[XV_67]

The flesh of various animals was also well preserved without salt. The only thing necessary was to cover each piece with honey, and to place it in a vessel hermetically closed, hung in a cool place. This operation was usually performed in winter, and succeeded equally well with meat, either cooked or raw.[XV_68]

The following are some of the statutes of the pork butchers in France, during the middle ages:—

No one was to cook pork if it was not “sufficient, or had not good marrow.”

No one could make “sausages of anything but pork.”

No one could sell “black puddings, for it is a perilous viand.”[XV_69]

The French word charcutier (pork butcher) is derived from caro cocta, chair cuite (cooked meat).

The numerous regulations concerning the butchers in France during the 14th century rendered it difficult to carry on the trade:—

Prohibition to buy cattle except in the markets.

Prohibition to buy pigs fed by barbers or oil dealers.

Prohibition to kill cattle not a fortnight old.

Prohibition to kill cattle on the eve of fast days.

Prohibition to sell stale meat.

Prohibition to keep meat more than two days in winter, or more than one day and a-half in summer.

Prohibition to sell meat by lamp light or candle light.

The regulations respecting the cleanliness of the slaughter houses and the shambles were very long and very severe.[XV_70]

A butcher in Paris kept but one single kind of meat, in the 14th century. Pork was sold only at Sainte-GeneviÈve, mutton at Saint-Marceau, veal at Saint-Germain, and beef at the market of the ChÂtelet.[XV_71]

Philip Augustus gave statutes to the butchers of Paris in the year 1182. He enjoined them to observe the Sabbath, and permitted them to work on the other days, with the exception of the great festivals.[XV_72]

The regulations imposed upon them in the 17th century are to the effect, that they shall not keep the fat from one week to another; that they shall not mix the different kinds of suet; and, lastly, that they shall not have more than three shops, and shall not allow the blood to run in the streets.[XV_73]