FIRST ACCLIMATISATION OF FISH 161 
justice to its flesh was not easy: to speak of its trail, as it 
deserved, was impossible, and to throw away even its excrement 
was a sin.’’ Confirmatory of Badham reads the pronouncement of 
magnus ille et subtilis helluo, ‘that great and exquisite gourmet”’ 
Archestratus, who from the grandiloquence and gravity of his 
Epic was evidently of opinion omne cum fidibus helluons ! } 
Epicharmus the comedian in his Hebe’s Wedding (frag. 54, 
Kaibel), 
kal oxdpoug, TOV ovdE TS cA Ouro eKareiv Devic,” 
“Not even their trail is it lawful for the gods to throw away,” 
summarises the wild infatuation of the Greeks for the scarus, 
while from Ennius 3 some centuries later is extorted, 
‘Quid scarus ? preterii cerebrum Jovis pene supremi: 
Nestoris ad patriam hic capitur magnusque bonusque.”’ 
1 Archestratus is constantly quoted and always praised by Athenzus as 
“excellent,” ‘‘ experienced,” etc. Archestratus the Syracusan in his work— 
variously termed ‘‘ Gastronomy,” “‘ Hedypathy,” ‘‘ Deipnology,” “‘ Cookery ”’ 
—begins his epic poem, ‘‘ Here to all Greece I open wisdom’s store ’’! (Yonge’s 
trans.). From delivering his precepts in the style and with the gravity of the 
old gnomic poets, Archestratus was dubbed ‘ the Hesiod or Theognis of 
opsophagists.”” The comic poets have many a gibe at him, e.g. Dionysius of 
Sinope sums up the author of Gastronomy, ra ToAAd B iyyvdne, eovds ev A€yer 
(Thesmophorus, frag. 1. 26, Meineke)! Before publishing this work, the author 
travelled far and wide to make himself master of every dish that could be 
served at table. Known to us almost entirely as a supreme bon vivant, and as 
the earliest (except Terpsion) and certainly greatest Mys. Glasse of the Greeks, 
his accuracy of description of the various fishes used for the table was so 
consistent, that we find even so high an authority as Aristotle making use 
of it in his Natural History. Archestratus in his travels concerned himself 
not at all as to the manners or morals of the countries visited, ‘‘as it is impossible 
to change these,’’ and held little or no intercourse with any but those, e.g. 
chefs, who could advance the pleasures of taste. Whatever the cause, whether 
too many sauces or too little nutritive food, he was so small and lean that the 
scales are supposed to have returned his weight as not even one obol! (Cf. 
Hayward, The Art of Dining). Hayward himself must have appreciated the 
limitation of guests, which Archestratus imposes for a proper dinner 
‘I write these precepts for immortal Greece, 
That round a table delicately spread, 
Or three, or four, may sit in choice repast 
Or five at most. Who otherwise shall dine, 
Are like a troop marauding for their prey.” 
(I. Disraeli’s trans.) 
The sentiment, if not the number, coincides with the Latin proverb— 
“ Septem convivium, novem convicium.” : 
2 I follow Wilamowitz in crap for ox@p, the usual reading, partly because 
Epicharmus being a Dorian would use the Doric form, partly because being 
a comedian he is probably playing on the words oxa@p and cxdpos. 
8 Hedyphagetica (frag. 529, Baehrens). Suidas state that the Persians 
termed an exquisite dish Auds éyxépadov. 
