Systems Engineering Neural Networks

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING NEURAL NETWORKSA complete and authoritative

discussion of systems engineering and neural networks In Systems
Engineering Neural Networks, a team of distinguished researc

Author: Alessandro Migliaccio

ISBN: 9781119902010
Category: Electronics
File Fomat: PDF, EPUB, DOC...
File Details: 12.9 MB
Language: English
Publisher: Wiley
Website: https://www.kobo.com
Access the following link to download the entire book
https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=15
62891.3721710417938383323597284&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2Fw
ww.kobo.com%2Fus%2Fen%2Febook%2Fsystems-engineering-neural-
networks

Get promotional offers when downloading the document

Download Now
 Systems Engineering Neural Networks

Now available at https://www.kobo.com

( 4.5/5.0 Evaluate | 121 Downloads )
-- Click the link to download --

https://click.linksynergy.com/link?id=*C/UgjGtUZ8&offerid=1562891.37
21710417938383323597284&type=15&murl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kobo.com%2Fus
%2Fen%2Febook%2Fsystems-engineering-neural-networks
.
 And the fruit of this tree was no doubt very dear to the Hebrews, since
Rubshakeh, the general of the Assyrian army, thought to seduce them from
their obedience to Hezekiah, King of Judea, by saying to them: “Come out
to me, and then eat ye every man of his own vine, and every one of his fig
tree.”[XIII_46]
Thus the trade carried on with figs in Jerusalem had become so
considerable and active, that Esdras was obliged to interdict it on the
Sabbath day. It appears that figs were arranged in small masses, to which
they give the form of loaves or cakes, either round or square, which were
sold nearly in the same way as at the present day.[XIII_47]
From the East the fig tree passed into Greece, then into Italy, Gaul,
Spain, and throughout Europe.
The Athenians pretended that this tree was a native of their soil, and this
people never wanted mythologic facts to support their assertions; they
imagined, and would have others believe, that the grateful Ceres rewarded
the Athenian, Phytalus, for his hospitality by giving him a fig tree, which
served for all the plantations of Attica.[XIII_48]
Whatever may be the way it came to them, they received it with
transports of joy; it was planted with great pomp in the centre of the public
square at Athens: from that time this spot was sacred to them.[XIII_49]
Ere long the fame of the figs of Attica spread far and wide: they were the
best in Greece; and the magistrates strictly prohibited their exportation.
[XIII_50] This law was afterwards modified, that is, the exportation of figs
was allowed on payment of a very heavy duty.
They then appointed inspectors, whose duty it was to discover
contraventions, and report them: thence arose the name of Sycophant,
[XIII_51] taken by those informers—a vile and dispised set of men, whose
denunciations were often false, and with whom the infamous authors of a
base calumny were eventually assimilated.[XIII_52]
In Greece every one feasted on figs: it was a sort of regular gastronomic
furore, which knew no bounds, and the wise Plato himself ceased to be a
philosopher when presented with a basket of that fruit. As an aliment it was
considered so wholesome and strengthening, that on the first introduction of
them they constituted the food of the athletæ, whose patron, Hercules, had
also fed on them in his youth.
 The superiority of the Greek figs was so generally acknowledged that the
kings of Persia even had a predilection for them: dried ones were served on
the tables of these ostentatious princes.[XIII_53]
The Romans believed, according to an antique tradition, that their first
princes, Romulus and Remus, were found under a fig tree on the shore of
the Tiber; they therefore rendered signal honours to this tree when it was
brought into Italy: they planted it in the Forum; and it was under its shade
that a sacrifice was offered every year to the shepherdess who had suckled
their founder.[XIII_54]
It may, nevertheless, be affirmed, that no one before Cato had noticed
the fig tree,[XIII_55] which probably appeared in Rome at the same period as
the peach, apricot, and other trees of Asia. Sixty years afterwards Varro
speaks of it as a novelty from beyond sea, and points out to us that its
various species have retained the names of the countries whence they came.
[XIII_56]
Those varieties were so numerous, that Pliny counts no less than twenty-
nine of them,[XIII_57] and the designation of the greater part recalled to
mind the illustrious families who had taken them under their patronage.
The people of the north, especially the moderns, cannot well explain the
extraordinary infatuation of the ancient southern nations for the fruit of the
fig tree. Perhaps we ought to look for the reason in the nourishing, fresh,
and sweet qualities of its pulp, and in the numerous plantations of those
trees, which sometimes furnished an agreeable food to entire armies, when
other provisions failed.[XIII_58] That of Philip of Macedon owed its
preservation to the figs brought to it by the Magnesians.[XIII_59] A long
time before, David received with joy, from the hands of Abigail, two
hundred baskets of dried figs, for himself and his exhausted men.[XIII_60]
More than once the far-famed reputation of some beautiful plantations of
fig trees brought long and disastrous wars on an entire country, as steel
attracts lightning. Xerxes left Persia, and rushed on Attica, to take
possession of those delicious figs, whose renown only had crossed his
territory:[XIII_61] and it was partly to eat the figs of Rome that the Gauls
waged war against Italy:[XIII_62] thank Heaven we have now more respect
for our neighbours’ fig trees.
 The best things in the world have had their detractors, and the fig is not
an exception. Philotimus and Diphilus looked upon it as bad food;[XIII_63]
Galen was unwell after partaking of figs, and he recommends us to mix
almonds with them;[XIII_64] Hippocrates himself thought them indigestible,
and advised to drink plentifully after eating them.[XIII_65]
All these great men may have been right, but the Greeks, their
contemporaries, acted as if they were wrong: happily we are not called upon
to decide between them.
Figs were commonly served on aristocratic tables with salt, pepper,
vinegar, and some aromatics; they were eaten fresh, or dried in the oven, or
on hurdles in the sun.

RASPBERRY TREE.
The ancients hardly mention the raspberry tree, which they placed on a
level with the bramble. The Latins called it “Bramble of Ida,” because it
was common on that mountain.[XIII_66] There can be no doubt, however,
that the Romans knew how to appreciate the raspberry tree, so much
esteemed in our days.

CURRANT TREE.
The moderns have attempted to ennoble our two kinds of currants by
decorating them with Latin names, which recall their antiquity.[XIII_67] Vain
effort! To all appearance the Greeks and people of Italy were not acquainted
with the currant tree,[XIII_68] although they well deserved to possess this
delicious fruit.

STRAWBERRY PLANT.
 Among the Greeks the name of the strawberry indicated its tenuity, this
fruit forming hardly a mouthful. With the Latins the name reminded one of
the delicious perfume of this plant. Both nations were equally fond of it,
and applied the same care to its cultivation. Virgil appears to place it in the
same rank with flowers,[XIII_69] and Ovid gives it a tender epithet,[XIII_70]
which delicate palates would not disavow. Neither does this luxurious poet
forget the wild strawberry,[XIII_71] which disappears beneath its modest
foliage, but whose presence the scented air reveals. Transported to the
tables of the Luculli, by the side of its more brilliant and more beautiful
sister, a flattering murmur often bore testimony to its merit, and nature
triumphed in the midst of ingenious guests, soliciting of art what they
repudiated in nature.

MULBERRY TREE.
The ancient mulberry tree was considered the wisest and most prudent of
trees, because it took care, they said, not to let the smallest of its buds come
to light before the cold had entirely disappeared, not to return. Then,
however, it hastened to repair lost time, and a single night was sufficient to
see it display its beautiful flowers, which the next morning brightly opened
at the rising of Aurora.[XIII_72]
The voluptuous Romans, reposing late on their soft couches the day after
the fatigues of a banquet worthy of Vitellius, did not trouble themselves
much about this interesting phenomenon, which occurred, if Pliny does not
mistake, in the gardens of their villas. But they knew that mulberries agree
with the stomach, that they afford hardly any nourishment, and easily
digest:[XIII_73] therefore, no sooner had they opened their heavy eyelids
than an Egyptian boy—attentive living bell—at a sign disappeared, and
quickly returned, bearing a small crystal vase, filled with mulberry juice
and wine reduced by boiling. This beneficent fruit preserved in this mixture
all its sweet flavour,[XIII_74] and enabled the rich patrician to await until
evening the hour for new excesses.
It is quite evident that this luscious fruit was a native of Canaan, for the
high road by which the tribes of Israel went up to the feasts at Jerusalem lay
through the valley of Baka, or Mulberry Tree;[XIII_75] and the whole tract
of country from Ekron to Gaza abounded in these trees.
 XIV.

SHELL FRUIT.

ALMOND TREE.
This tree, whose fruit was called at one time “Greek Nut,” and, at
another, “Thasian Nut,”[XIV_1] is a native of Paphlagonia, according to
Hermippus.[XIV_2] The nations of the east thought much of almonds, and
Jacob found them worthy of appearing among the presents he designed for
Joseph.[XIV_3] The almond tree of Naxos supplied the markets of Athens.
[XIV_4] The Romans, in their turn, sought them, and believed, like the
physician spoken of by Plutarch, that it was only necessary to eat five or six
almonds to acquire the ability of drinking astonishingly.[XIV_5]
Besides, this fruit had not always so mean a destination: the disciples of
Apicius made of it one of the most delicate of dishes. Here it is, as taught to
them by their master:—
Take almonds that have been pounded in a mortar, and mix them with
honey, pepper, garum, milk, eggs, and a little oil; submit the whole to the
action of a slow fire.[XIV_6]
The ancients were acquainted with the oil of almonds,[XIV_7] of which
they made nearly the same use as we do ourselves; but they possessed, in
addition, an infallible means of augmenting the fertility of the almond tree.
It was very simple:—A hole was made in the tree, a stone was introduced
into it,[XIV_8] and, thanks to the virtue of this new manure, the branches
soon bent under the weight of almonds.
The good almonds come from Barbary and the south of France. When
young, they are preserved like green apricots. They are eaten at table, fresh
or dry; in comfits, pastry, &c.: they are also used to make orgeat and
refreshing emulsions. The oil extracted from almonds, even bitter ones, is
very sweet; it is best extracted cold, by pressure. The pulp is employed,
under the name of almond paste, for several purposes, one of which is to
render the skin soft and flexible.[XIV_9]

WALNUT TREE.
Asia, the cradle of most fruit trees, gave birth also to the walnut tree. It is
believed to be a native of Persia,[XIV_10] and its pleasing foliage already
adorned, in Biblical times, the orchards of the east. One of the most ancient
of the sacred books informs us that it was known to the Jews,[XIV_11] and it
may be inferred from a passage in the Song of Solomon that they possessed
numerous plantations of this tree.[XIV_12]
Among the Persians, walnuts were not lavished on the first comer, as
with us; the sovereign reserved them for his dessert, and the people were
obliged to abstain from them. But perhaps it may be said that, however fond
this prince may have been of walnuts, he could not eat all that were
produced in his states. The objection is embarrassing, we own, and
chroniclers are silent on this point. But let us suppose that this generous
potentate distributed to his favourites the walnuts from which his satiated
appetite was compelled to abstain; and, indeed, we find that a king of Persia
sent some to the Greeks, who called them “Royal Persian nuts,”[XIV_13] in
gratitude and remembrance of the august gift.
They did still better; the king of Olympus had a great liking for this fruit,
so they hastened to consecrate it to him,[XIV_14] and the “nuts of Jupiter”
were cultivated with honour in the whole of Greece.[XIV_15]
Italy received the walnut tree from Attica, and, by degrees, the
conquerors of the world introduced it to the different countries of Europe.
The Romans, imitators of the piety of the Greeks, placed this tree also
under the protection of the most powerful of their gods. One of their most
whimsical customs, perhaps, owed its origin to this consecration, which will
serve to explain it:—
After the wedding feast the bridegroom strewed in the nuptial chamber,
at night, several baskets of walnuts, which children hastened to pick up.
[XIV_16] This was, they said, a kind of offering to Jupiter, and thus he was
entreated to grant his supreme patronage to the husband, and to adorn the
wife with the virtues of Juno.[XIV_17] The god could not have failed to
smile at this part of the request of blind mortals, and it is asserted that, at
times, he condescended not to grant it.
Others have given a different interpretation. According to them, the
walnut, being covered with a double envelope when fresh, became a
presage of abundance and prosperity.[XIV_18]
It would be too tedious to relate all the singular opinions to which this
ceremony gave rise. The most reasonable appears to be that adopted by
certain commentators:—Walnuts, say they, served as playthings for
children, and, by throwing them on the ground the day of his wedding, the
bridegroom made it understood that he and his companion renounced the
frivolities of youth, henceforth to devote themselves to the serious
exigencies of a family.[XIV_19]
This fruit was considered astringent,[XIV_20] stomachic, and proper to
facilitate digestion.[XIV_21] It was made into preserve, and eaten in small
quantity, mixed with figs. In this manner paralysis of the tongue was
avoided—an effect to which it was believed those who partook of them to
excess were exposed.[XIV_22] Green walnuts were much esteemed; they
were served at dessert,[XIV_23] notwithstanding the opinion of Heraclides,
of Tarentum, who looked upon them as a stimulant to the appetite, and
advised a trial of them at the beginning of a repast.[XIV_24]
When Pompey had made himself master of the palace of Mithridates, he
had search made everywhere for the recipe of the famous antidote against
poison used by that king. At length it was found; it was very simple:
however, we offer it to the curious:—
Pound, with care, two walnuts, two dried figs, twenty leaves of rue, and
a grain of salt.[XIV_25] Swallow this mixture—precipitate it by the
assistance of a little wine, and you have nothing to fear from the most active
poison for the space of twenty-four hours.
 NUT TREE.
The Greeks gave hazel nuts the name of “Pontic Nuts,” and
Theophrastus calls them “Nuts of Heraclea,” because the territory of that
capital of the kingdom of Pontus produced the best.[XIV_26]
The Latins, at first, retained the same designation for this fruit, but
afterwards, the environs of Præneste and Avellinum supplying them with a
great quantity of excellent nuts, they gave them the name of those two
cities.[XIV_27] They employed also a diminitive[XIV_28] to indicate those
which came from the first of these localities. The French Aveline (filbert),
and Noisette (hazel nuts), are evidently borrowed from the Roman
vocabulary.
The inhabitants of Præneste raised the nut tree to a sort of religious
worship. This tree had preserved them from famine during the time
Hannibal besieged their city,[XIV_29] and since that memorable epoch it had
enriched them, for the ancients preferred hazel nuts to all other shell fruit,
as possessing most wholesome and nourishing qualities.[XIV_30]
It was the custom in France, some centuries ago, at the time of the
summer solstice (Midsummer eve), to take all the kitchen utensils and make
the most frightful clatter by knocking them one against another. The
simpletons of those times imagined that there were no better means of
preventing the rain, which, in their opinion, was detrimental to filberts and
hazel nuts.[XIV_31] Hospinian, who relates this ridiculous custom, does not
tell us what results they obtained by all their racket.

PISTACHIO TREE.
This tree, esteemed by the Romans,[XIV_32] is a native of India.[XIV_33]
Lucius Vitellius brought some plants of it from Syria to Rome, under the
reign of Tiberius; a little time subsequently, a knight, named Flaccus
Pompeius, introduced it also into Spain.[XIV_34]
Galen doubted whether pistachio nuts were good for the stomach.
[XIV_35] Avicenna proved the contrary;[XIV_36] and several centuries before
the Arabian physician, Roman epicures had courageously demonstrated that
this fruit never does harm in whatever form it may be presented, whether
raw or roasted, alone or accompanied with garum and salt.

CHESNUT TREE.
According to some writers the chesnut tree owes its name to the city of
Castana, in Thessaly, where they maintained it originated. On the contrary,
it comes from Sardis, in Lydia, if we are to believe the physician, Diphilus,
who calls chesnuts, acorns of Sardis, and says they are nourishing, but
indigestible.[XIV_37]
Amaryllis was fond of this fruit;[XIV_38] but Amaryllis was only a
shepherdess, and her beauty did not prevent her from having rather rustic
tastes. The Roman ladies abandoned the chesnut to that low class of citizens
whose palates, incapable of improvement, remain always stationary in the
midst of the incessant progress of cookery; sad example of invincible
frugality, which the most exciting fumets fail to arouse.
Nevertheless, there was a soft and tender species of chesnut, Castaneæ
molles,[XIV_39] which were allowed on some of the tables of the higher
class of citizens, and recommended themselves by their delicate pulp to the
attention of the guests;[XIV_40] perhaps oil of chesnuts was obtained from
this particular kind.[XIV_41]
To render the chesnuts more agreeable and wholesome they must be
pealed of their skins, which is very tough; put into boiling water, it
penetrates and softens the bitter pellicle (the tan) covering them, and
facilitates its removal from the floury substance. When the chesnuts can be
easily stripped of this pellicle by the pressure of the fingers, take the jar
from the fire; shake them well on all sides. The tan will soon detach itself
from their surface, and be altogether removed; then take them out, and after
they have been shaken in a sieve made purposely, they are washed in cold
water, to take away, with what remains of the tan, the bitter water they may
have preserved; they are then cooked without water, in a well-covered
vessel, and upon a moderate fire.
“To eat chesnuts green all the year, boil them in water for fifteen or
twenty minutes; put them afterwards in a common oven, one hour after the
bread has been taken out. By this double operation the chesnuts acquire a
degree of cooking and desiccation, by which they can be preserved a very
long time, provided they are kept in a dry place. They can be used
afterwards by putting them to warm in a bain-marie.”—Dutour.

POMEGRANATE.
Ceres, disconsolate on account of the loss of her daughter, to whom
Pluto destined the sceptre of Hell, implored the ruler of Olympus to restore
Proserpine. Jupiter promised that the favour should be granted, provided
that she had not partaken of anything in the infernal regions. Now, she had
eaten some grains of a pomegranate; very few indeed; some serious authors
have said three; others, quite as respectable, say nine. The fact is, however,
Proserpine had broken her fast; therefore she might think herself fortunate
in being allowed to pass six months on earth and six months in the abode of
darkness.[XIV_42]
This little mythologic story informs us that the pomegranate tree was
known to antiquity, and that the garden of the Elysian fields contained most
excellent fruit for the use of its melancholy inhabitants.
The pomegranate, whose acidulated flavour is so pleasing to the
inhabitants of hot climates, was first cultivated in the east, then in Africa,
but especially in the environs of Carthage, from whence the Romans
brought it into Italy, where it was commonly called the Carthaginian apple;
[XIV_43] it was also named Granatum, on account of the number of its
seeds.[XIV_44]
Pliny distinguishes five different species of promegranate;[XIV_45]
Columella teaches the way to rear this tree;[XIV_46] and Apicius treats of
the preservation of its fruit, to do which it is only necessary to plunge it in
boiling water, take it out immediately, and suspend it from the ceiling.
[XIV_47]
The Greeks were very fond of pomegranates. The finest came from
Attica, so celebrated by the genius of its inhabitants; and from Bœotia,
[XIV_48] that privileged soil, where agriculture and stupidity flourished
together.[XIV_49]
 XV.

ANIMAL FOOD.
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 Phœnicia, 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 bœuf 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
 DESCRIPTION OF PLATE No. VIII.
Scales and Weights.—The ancients had several species of scales. No. 1. A common
scale, with two basins, and a movable weight, which is made in the form of a head, covered
with the pileus, because Mercury had the weights and measures under his superintendence.
This ornamented scale is engraved on a stone in the gallery of Florence.
No. 2. The Roman scale, beautifully made, with one tray, several hooks, and the
movable weight, in the shape of a shell.
No. 3. Common heavy weight.
No. 4. The Roman weights had the form of a sphere, partly cut above and below; the
greatest number of those which still subsist are of basalt. The number of ounces, or of
pounds, is commonly engraved on the top, or inlaid with silver. All round it are inscriptions
with the name of the temple where they were preserved after they had been stamped,
together with the name of the prince, or the præfect before whom the standard mark was
made.
On No. 4, is “D. N. Honori. Aug. Domini nostri Honorii Augusti;” and on No. 5,
“Temp. Opis. Aug.,” or the temple of Opis Augusta.

Pl. 8.
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]
 XVI.

ANIMALS.

THE PIG.
If intelligence, strength, or graceful beauty of form were to decide what
rank this numerous class of animals—which has contributed its quota to the
triumphs of the culinary art—should occupy on our tables, the pig, with its
vile and stupid ugliness, its depraved habits, and its waddling obesity,
would be banished for ever from the farm-yard and larder in every civilised
nation of the world.
But, in refusing to it brilliant external qualities, Nature, by a wise
compensation, has conferred on it others much more solid; and this
quadruped, so despised during its life-time, does not fail after its death to
conciliate the constant favour of rich and poor—of the man indifferent to
the attractions of good cheer, and of the Sybarite, ever attentive to enlarge
its domain.
Pliny, the naturalist, places the pig one degree below the scale of beings.
Apicius, the cook, gives it a marked preference over all meats which passed
through his skilful hands. From this, it will easily be understood that the pig
presents itself first in this survey of the animal diet of those nations who
have transmitted to us an account of their gastrophagic exertions.
History shows us this animal variously appreciated by different
countries. Certain people consecrated it, when living, to their divinities
most in vogue; others honoured its image—a symbol, they thought, of the
quiet happiness of states; a small number abhorred it, and the greater part
found it excellent eating.
The inhabitants of Cyprus abstained from it, in order to offer it to Venus.
[XVI_1] The Cretans loaded it with acorns and all the comforts of life,
because Jupiter was first suckled by a sow in their island.[XVI_2] The
Egyptian priests never allowed a ham to grace their feasts; they fled at the
sight of pigs, unclean beings, whose presence alone defiled them,[XVI_3]
although respected by the whole nation on account of the services they
rendered in turning up the earth, and covering the seeds thrown upon it.
[XVI_4]
The law of Moses forbad the Jews to eat this quadruped, or to touch it
after its death,[XVI_5] and more than once they exposed themselves to the
most frightful torments rather than be defiled by this proscribed viand.
[XVI_6]
Tradition, again, strengthened their religious dread, by interdicting the
faithful from even pronouncing the name of this animal, from looking at it,
or selling it to foreign nations.[XVI_7]
The fear of the frightful malady to which the pig was subject in Palestine
was, perhaps, the cause of this prohibition. Has not a Jewish doctor
observed, that if ten measures of leprosy were to fall in the world, this
unhappy animal would take nine parts for his share.[XVI_8] However, some
theologians of that nation believe that the Messiah whom they expect will
allow them the use of this now odious food.[XVI_9]
Like the Jews, the Phœnicians[XVI_10] and Indians[XVI_11] did not eat
pork. The followers of Islamism also abstained from it, in consequence of a
law of the Koran, which Mahomet borrowed from Moses.[XVI_12]
The Greeks and Romans had very different ideas. They knew that their
gods showed a particular predilection for those altars on which bacon or
swine’s flesh smoked;[XVI_13] they therefore offered this meat in sacrifice
to the Earth, the Lares, to Ceres;[XVI_14] and many a time a medal struck at
Rome perpetuated the remembrance of this solemnity, in honour of the
goddess of harvest.[XVI_15]
The pig, emblem of fecundity with these two nations,[XVI_16] became,
on the banners of Italy, a sign of pardon and peace.[XVI_17] Kings and
princes immolated two on their wedding-day;[XVI_18] and nations subdued
by the Roman arms prostrated themselves before the standard, whose image
promised them the clemency of their conquerors.[XVI_19]
The re-establishment of the succulent quadruped would have been
complete, if the cynical carelessness of its rather inelegant habits had not
caused it to become a symbol of debauchery and profligacy of manners.
[XVI_20]
Hitherto the pig has only figured in a point of view purely historical; we
have not sought to weaken its faults, nor have we made mention of the
qualities attributed to it—for example, that of discovering truffles.
Nevertheless, we ought not to lose sight of the fact, that this animal has not
passed entirely without renown through the centuries which divide us from
the earliest ages of the world. We shall now speak of its flesh, its exquisite
flavour, and the place it occupied in feasts: there it reigned with honour;
there we must follow it, with all that antiquity has possessed of celebrated
men in the science of degustation and good living.
Nature has created the pig for man’s palate; he is good only to be eaten;
and life appears to have been given to him merely as a sort of salt to prevent
his corrupting.[XVI_21] It is true that he possesses only a vulgar and purely
animal substance; but how good is this substance, and how high does it
deserve to be placed on account of its delicacy and flavour?[XVI_22]
Such is the praise of which a physician and two philosophers have
thought it worthy.
The pig furnishes a strong and somewhat heavy kind of food;[XVI_23]
wherefore wrestlers were recommended to eat much of it, and Galen
advised it to persons who worked hard, or used violent exercise.[XVI_24]
But it was not necessary to recommend to the Greeks a meat of which
they were so fond. Look over the long work of Athenæus—he everywhere
extols it, everywhere speaks of it with fresh complacency, and in pompous
terms.[XVI_25]
An Athenian, renowned as a man of taste and for the refined elegance of
his table, would have thought his reputation lost had he not offered to his
guests fat andouilles, sausages, pigs’ feet, and pork cutlets; above all, he
was careful not to forget salted and smoked hams—the honour of the
banquet, and the delight of the human race.[XVI_26]
The Macedonian, Caranus, invited twenty of his best friends to his
wedding, and gave them a feast, of which gastrophagic annals have
preserved the remembrance. Each guest received from his munificence a
flagon and crown of silver, a crown of gold, and vases of the same precious
metal. What shall we say of the dishes displayed at this meeting of learned