CHAPTER II.
The term Hog is stated by Carpenter, to be derived from the Hebrew word חזיר, by which this animal was designated among the Hebrews, a word derived from חזר, to encompass or surround, suggested by the round figure, in his fat and most natural state. Bochart and Schultens, however are more inclined to refer the Hebrew noun to the Arabit sense of the verb, viz., to have narrow eyes, and there is much of the probability in their supposition. In some respects swine seem to form an intermediate link between the whole-footed and cloven-footed animals, and the others to occupy the same ground between the cloven-footed and the digitative; but look at them in what point of view we may, these animals present various peculiar characteristics, and are of vast importance as affording the means of sustenance to millions of human beings in all parts of the world. The hog is a perfect cosmopolite, adapting itself to almost every climate; increasing rapidly, being more prolific than any other domestic animal, with the exception of the rabbit; easily susceptible of improvement, and quickly attaining to maturity.
As far back as the records of history enable us to go, the hog appears to have been known, and his flesh made use of as food. 1491 years before Christ, Moses gave those laws to the Israelites which have occasioned so much discussion, and given rise to the many opinions which we shall presently have to speak of; and it is quite evident that had not pork then been the prevailing food of that nation, such stringent commandments and prohibitions would not have been necessary. The various allusions to this kind of meat, which occur again and again, in the writings of the old Greek authors, plainly testify the esteem in which it was held among this nation, and it appears that the Romans actually made the art of breeding, rearing, and fattening pigs a study, which they designated Proculatio. Every art was put in practice to impart a finer and more delicate flavor to the flesh; the poor animals were fed, and crammed, and tortured to death in various ways, many of them too horrible to be described, in order to gratify the epicurism and gluttony of this people. Pliny informs us that they fed swine on dried figs, and drenched them to repletion with honeyed wine, in order to produce a diseased and monstrous-sized liver. The Porcus Trojanus, so called in allusion to the Trojan horse, was a very celebrated dish, and one that eventually became so extravagantly expensive that a sumptuary law was passed respecting it. This dish consisted in a whole hog, with the entrails drawn out, and the inside stuffed with thrushes, larks, beccaficoes, oysters, nightingales, and delicacies of every kind, and the whole bathed in wine and rich gravies. Another great dish was a hog served whole, the one side roasted and the other boiled.
Varro states that the Gauls produced the largest and finest swine's flesh that was brought into Italy; and, according to Strabo, in the reign of Augustus, they supplied Rome and nearly all Italy with gammons, hog-puddings, hams, and sausages. This nation and the Spaniards appear to have kept immense droves of swine, but scarcely any other kind of live stock; and various authors mention swine as forming a part of the live stock of most Roman farms.
In fact the hog was held in very high esteem among the early nations of Europe, and some of the ancients have even paid it divine honors. In the island of Crete it was regarded as sacred. This animal was always sacrificed to Ceres at the beginning of harvest, and to Bacchus at the commencement of the vintage, by the Greeks; probably, it has been suggested, "because this animal is equally hostile to the growing corn and the ripening grape."
The Jews, the Egyptians, and the followers of Mohammed, alone appear to have abstained from it. To the former nation it is expressly forbidden by the laws of Moses. Leviticus xi. 7, says: "And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be cloven-footed, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean unto you." Mohammed probably founded his prohibition on this one, or was induced, by the prejudices of his followers, to make it. Numerous theories have been advanced by different authors to account for this remarkable prohibition uttered by Moses against a species of food generally so wholesome and nutritious as the flesh of the hog. Maimonides says: "The principal reason why the law prohibited the swine was, because of their extreme filthiness, and their eating so many impurities; for it is well known with what care and precision the law forbids all filthiness and dirt, even in the fields and in the camp, not to mention in the cities. Now, had swine been permitted, the public places, and streets, and houses, would have been made nuisances."
Tacitus states that the Jews abstained from it in consequence of a leprosy by which they had formerly severely suffered, and to which the hog is very subject. And several other writers concur in this view, stating that it was on account of the flesh being strong, oleaginous, difficult of digestion, and liable to produce cutaneous diseases, that it was forbidden. Michaelis observes, that throughout the whole climate under which Palestine is situated, leprosy is an endemic disease; and the Israelites being overrun with it at the period of their quitting Egypt, Moses found it necessary to enact a variety of laws respecting it, and the prohibiting the use of swine was one of these. Plutarch (de Iside) affirms that those who drank the milk of swine became blotchy and leprous.
M. Sonnini states that in Egypt, Syria, and even the southern parts of Greece, swine's flesh, although white and delicate, is so flabby and surcharged with fat, as to disagree with the strongest stomachs, and this will account for its prohibition by the priests and legislators of hot climates, such an abstinence being absolutely necessary to health beneath the burning suns of Egypt and Arabia. "The Egyptians," he says, "were only allowed to eat pork once a year, on the feast-day of the moon, and then they sacrificed a number of these animals to that planet. If at any other time an Egyptian even touched a hog, he was obliged to plunge into the Nile, clothes and all, to purify himself, The swineherds formed an isolated race, outcasts from society, forbidden to enter a temple, or intermarry with other families." Hence it probably is, that, in the beautiful parable of the Prodigal Son, this unhappy young man is represented as being reduced to the office of a swineherd, that being considered as the lowest possible degradation.
Others are of opinion that this and many other of the prohibitions and ordinances established by Moses were solely for the purpose of distinguishing the Jews from other nations, and making them what they are to this day in all countries and under all climates, "a peculiar people." Others, again, assert that it was with a view to correct their gross and gluttonous habits that none but the simplest and mildest kinds of animal food were permitted to the Jews. And, lastly, another maintains that the swine was thus declared an abomination in the sight of God, as a lesson to the Jews to abstain from the sensual and disgusting habits to which this animal is given. The aversion to swine has descended to the Jews, Egyptians, and followers of Mohammed of modern times. The Copts rear no pigs, indeed this animal is scarcely known in most of the cities of Lower Egypt; and the poorest Jew would sooner starve than touch a morsel of this forbidden food, even though the presumed cause of prohibition has long ceased to exist, and he is removed to colder climes, where pork is both wholesome and nutritious.
By the precepts, warnings, and threatenings of the prophets, we read that, so great was the detestation excited in the minds of the Jewish nation against this animal, that they would not even pollute their lips by pronouncing its name, but always alluded to it as "that beast," "that thing;" and we read in the history of the Maccabees, that Eleazer, a principal scribe, being compelled by Antiochus Epiphanes to open his mouth and receive swine's flesh, spit it forth, and went of his accord to the torment, choosing rather to suffer death than break the divine law and offend his nation.
And yet it is well known that immense numbers of swine were reared in the country of the Jews, probably for the purpose of gain, and in order to supply strangers and the neighboring idolaters; and it has been supposed, that it was in order to punish this violation of the Divine commandments that our Saviour permitted the herd of swine to be affected with that sudden disorder which caused them to rush headlong into the lake of Genesareth.
Martin says—at what period the hog was reclaimed, and by what nation, we cannot tell. As far back as the records of history go, we find notices of this animal, and of the use of its flesh as food. By some nations it was held in abhorrence, and prohibited as food; while among others its flesh was accounted a great delicacy. By the Mosaic law, the Jews were forbidden to use the flesh of the swine as food—it was unclean; and the followers of Mohammed, borrowing their ritual from the institutions of Moses, hold the flesh of the hog in utter abhorrence. Paxton, in his Illustrations of Scripture, vol. i., says, "The hog was justly classed by the Jews among the vilest animals in the scale of animated nature; and it cannot be doubted that his keeper generally shared in the contempt and abhorrence which he had excited. The prodigal son in the parable had spent his all in riotous living, and was ready to perish through want, before he submitted to the humiliating employment of feeding swine."
We pass over Paxton's description of the hog as the "vilest of animals," because there is no sense in the expression, and its presumed meaning is unworthy notice. It cannot, however, be doubted, from the passage in Luke, (xv. 15,) and from others well known, that herds of swine were kept by the Jews, perhaps for sale and profit. Dr. J. Kitto says, "There does not appear to be any reason in the law of Moses why the hog should be held in such peculiar abomination. There seems nothing to have prevented the Jews, if they had been so inclined, to rear pigs for sale, or for the use of the lard. In the Talmud there are some indications that this was actually done; and it was probably for such purpose that the herds of swine, mentioned in the New Testament, were kept, although it is usual to consider that they were kept by the foreign settlers in the land. Indeed the story which accounts for the peculiar aversion of the Hebrews to the hog, assumes that it did not originate until about one hundred and thirty years before Christ, and that previously some Jews were in the habit of rearing hogs for the purposes indicated.
The same writer, in a note upon Luke viii. 32, enters at greater length into this subject. "We have already," he says, "intimated our belief that there was much error in supposing that the law which declared that certain kinds of animals were not to be used for food, should be understood as prohibiting them from rearing, for any other purpose, the animals interdicted as food. There was certainly nothing in the law to prevent them from rearing hogs, more than from rearing asses, if they saw fit to do so. It appears, in fact, that the Jews did rear pigs for sale to their heathen neighbors, till this was forbidden after the principle of refining upon the law had been introduced. This prohibition demonstrates the previous existence of the practice; and it did not take effect till about seventy years B.C., when it is alleged to have originated in a circumstance which occurred between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, the sons of King Alexander Janneus. Aristobulus was besieging Hyrcanus in Jerusalem; but not wishing to interrupt the services of the temple, he permitted an arrangement under which money was let down from the temple in a box, in return for which the lambs required for the daily sacrifices were sent up. It at last occurred to a mischievous old man, 'who understood the wisdom of the Greeks,' that there would be no overcoming the adverse party while they employed themselves in the service of God; and therefore one morning he put a hog in the box, instead of a lamb. When half way up, the pig reared himself up, and happened to rest his fore feet upon the temple wall, whereupon continues the story, Jerusalem and the land of Israel quaked. In consequence of this, two orders were issued by the Council: 'Cursed be he that breedeth hogs;' and 'Cursed be he who teacheth his son the learning of the Greeks.' Such is the origin of the order against rearing hogs, as related in the Babylonian Talmud. One of the enforcements of this prohibition is curious, as showing for what purposes besides sale, hogs had been reared by the Jews. 'It is forbidden to rear any hog, even though hogs should come to a man by inheritance, in order to obtain profit from its skin or from its fat, for anointing or for light.' From this it would seem that the Jews had been wont to make ointments with hog's lard, and that they did not exclusively use oil for lights, but fat also, which was probably done according to a method we have often seen in the East, by introducing a wick into a lump of grease, which is set in a lamp, or in a round hollow vessel, made for the purpose; the heat of the kindled wick, as in a candle, gradually melts as much of the fat as is required to feed the flame. The inconvenience of the deprivation of the useful lard of hogs for this and other purposes, seems to have given occasion to an explanation, that the prohibition was not to be understood to imply that the fat of hogs might not be obtained by purchase from the Gentiles. The prohibition of keeping hogs does not appear to have had complete effect, as regulations are made concerning towns in which hogs were kept; and the keepers of swine are mentioned as contemptible and infamous wretches, so that it was a favorite term of abuse to call a person a hog-breeder or a swineherd. Although, therefore, it may be likely that the herds of swine here mentioned were the property of the heathen, who certainly did live with the Jews in the towns of this neighborhood, (the country of the Gadarenes,) it is not impossible that they belonged to the Jews, who kept them in despite of the prohibitions we have mentioned."
Among the ancient Egyptians, although the figure of the hog occurs several times well drawn at Edfou, this animal was held in detestation. "Swine," says Herodotus, "are accounted such impure beasts by the Egyptians, that if a man touches one even by accident, he presently hastens to the river, and in all his clothes plunges himself into the water. For this reason, swineherds alone of the Egyptians are not suffered to enter any of their temples; neither will any man give his daughter in marriage to one of that profession, nor take a wife born of such parents, so that they are necessitated to intermarry among themselves. The Egyptians are forbidden to sacrifice swine to any other deities than to Bacchus and to the moon, when completely at full, at, which time they may eat of the flesh. When they offer this sacrifice to the moon, and have killed the victim, they put the end of the tail, with the spleen and fat, into a caul found in the belly of the animal, all which they burn on the sacred fire, and eat the rest of the flesh on the day of the full moon, though at any other time they would not taste it. Those who, on account of their poverty, cannot bear the expense of this sacrifice, mould a paste into the form of a hog, and make their offering. In the evening of the festival of Bacchus, though every one be obliged to kill a swine before the door of his house, yet he immediately restores the carcass to the swineherd who sold it."
This aversion towards the hog, among the ancient Egyptians and the Jews, (we need not here notice the Mohammedans or the Brahminical tribes of India,) is very remarkable. Among the Greeks and Romans the flesh of the swine was held in estimation, although the swineherd attracted little notice from the poet. Why, then, in Western Asia and Egypt should it have been forbidden? We attribute it entirely to mystical or religious motives, which we are not quite able to appreciate.
The following passage from Griffith's Cuvier is worthy our consideration, although it does not bring conviction to our mind; it is rather plausible than demonstrative:—"In hot climates the flesh of swine is not good. M. Sonnini remarks, that in Egypt, Syria, and even the southern parts of Greece, this meat, though very white and delicate, is so far from being firm, and is so overcharged with fat. that it disagrees with the strongest stomachs. It is therefore considered unwholesome, and this will account for its proscription by the legislators and priests of the East. Such an abstinence was doubtless indispensable to health, under the burning suns of Egypt and Arabia. The Egyptians were permitted to eat pork only once a year—on the feast day of the moon—and then they sacrificed a number of these animals to that planet. At other times, if any one even touched a hog, he was obliged immediately to plunge into the river Nile, with his clothes on, by way of purification. The swineherds formed an isolated class, the outcasts of society. They were interdicted from entering the temples, or intermarrying with any other families. This aversion for swine has been transmitted to the modern Egyptians. The Copts rear no pigs, any more than do the followers of Mohammed. The Jews, who borrowed from the Egyptians their horror of pigs, as well as many other peculiarities, continue their abstinence from them in colder climates, where they form one of the most useful articles of subsistence."
If the hog in warm climates is so unwholesome as food, how happens it that the Chinese rear this animal in such numbers for the table? and how happens it that the hare (if indeed this animal be intended) was forbidden by the Mosaic laws as food? Surely the same objection could not apply to this latter animal as to the hog. Whatever the motive might have been, both among the Egyptians and the Jews, which led them to forbid the use of swine's flesh on the table, a regard to the health of the people was not one. Locusts were permitted by the latter, but creeping things in general denied, as were also fishes destitute of apparent scales. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans, the flesh of the pig was held in great estimation. The art of rearing, breeding, or fattening these animals, was made a complete study; and the dishes prepared from the meat were dressed with epicurean refinement, and in many modes. One dish consisted of a young pig whole, stuffed with beccaficoes and other small birds, together with oysters, and served in wine and rich gravy. This dish was termed Porcus Trojanus, in allusion to the wooden horse, filled with men, which the Trojans introduced into their city—an unpleasant allusion, one would think, seeng that the Romans boasted their Trojan descent. However, such was the name of this celebrated and most expensive dish, so costly, indeed, that sumptuary regulations were passed respecting it.
Esteemed, however, as the flesh of the hog was by the Greeks and Romans, commonly as the animal was kept, and carefully and even curiously as it was fed, in order to gratify the appetites of the wealthy and luxurious, yet the swineherd, as may be inferred from the silence of the classic writers, and especially of the poets who painted rural life, was not held in much estimation. No gods or heroes are described as keeping swine. Theocritus never introduces the swineherd into his idyls, nor does Virgil admit him into his eclogues, among his tuneful shepherds. Homer indeed honors Eumæus, the swineherd of Ulysses, with many commendations; but he is a remarkable exception. Perhaps a general feeling prevailed, and still in some measure prevails, that the feeders of the gluttonous and wallowing swine became assimilated in habits and manners to the animals under their charge; or, it may be, that the prejudices of the Egyptians relative to this useful class of men, extended to Greece or Italy, giving a bias to popular opinion.
From the earliest times in our own island, the hog has been regarded as a very important animal, and vast herds were tended by swineherds, who watched over their safety in the woods, and collected them under shelter at night. Its flesh was the staple article of consumption in every household, and much of the wealth of the rich and free portion of the community consisted in these animals. Hence bequests of swine, with land for their support, were often made; rights and privileges connected with their feeding, and the extent of woodland to be occupied by a given number, were granted according to established rules. In an ancient Saxon grant, quoted by Sharon Turner in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, we find the right of pasturage for swine conveyed by deed:—"I give food for seventy swine in that woody allotment which the countrymen call Wolferdinlegh." The locality of the swine's pasturage, as here described, has a somewhat ominous title, referring as it does to the haunt of an animal, from incursions of which, on flocks of sheep and herds of swine, during the Saxon period of our history, both the shepherd and the swineherd had to preserve their respective charges. The men employed in the duties—generally thralls, or borne slaves of the soil—were assisted by powerful dogs, capable of contending with a wolf, at least until the swineherd came with his heavy quarter-staff or spear to the rescue. In Sir Walter Scott's novel of Ivanhoe, the character of Gurth is a true, but of course somewhat overcolored picture of an Anglo-Saxon swineherd, as is that of his master of a large landed proprietor, a great proportion of whose property consisted in swine, and whose rude but hospitable board, was liberally supplied with the flesh.
Long after the close of the Saxon dynasty, the practice of feeding swine upon the mast and acorns of the forest was continued, till our forests were cut down and the land laid open for the plough; even yet, in some districts, as the New Forest of Hampshire, the custom is not discontinued, and in various parts of the country, where branching oaks in the hedgerow overshadow the rural and secluded lanes, the cottagers turn out their pig or pigs, under the care of some boy, to pick up the fallen acorns in autumn. Pigs turned out upon stubble fields after harvest, often find in oak copses, in October and November, a welcome addition to their fare.
The large forests of England were formerly royal property; nevertheless the inhabitants of the adjacent towns, villages, and farms enjoyed both before and long after the Conquest, under certain conditions of a feudal nature, and probably varying according to circumstances, and the tenures by which lands were held, the right of fattening their swine in these woodlands. The lawful period for depasturing swine in the royal forests extended from fifteen days before Michaelmas, to forty days afterwards, and this was termed the pawnage month. This term was not, however, very strictly adhered to; many herds were suffered to remain in the forest during the whole year, the consequence of which was that numbers became feral, and were not collected by their owners without difficulty. Little damage would be done in the woods by these swine, but, no doubt, like their wild progenitors, they would take every opportunity of invading the cultivated grounds, and of rioting in the fields of green or ripening corn.