CHAPTER X

THE SCARUS—THE EARLIEST ACCLIMATISATION OF FISH—THE FIRST NOTICE “FISHING PROHIBITED”

From the wealth of copious yet conflicting accounts of this famous fish in Greek and Roman writers, a large monograph might be produced.[367] I restrict myself to a short notice of the acclimatisation of the fish, and of the controversies on its value, as (A) a Dainty, and (B) a Diet.

The original habitat of the _Scarus_ was in the seas off Asia Minor, especially in the Carpathian Sea. During the Augustan age it was rarely taken in Italian waters, and then only when driven thither by storms. Thus Horace complains that neither Lucrine oysters nor _Rhombi_ come his way,

“aut scari, Si quos Eois intonata fluctibus Hiems ad hoc vertat mare.” (_Ep._, II. 50 ff.)

Pliny (IX. 29), after attributing to the _Scarus_ the unique characteristic of being herbivorous and _never_ feeding on other fish and asserting that of its own accord it never passes from the Carpathian Sea beyond Cape Troas, goes on to tell us that in the time of Tiberius (or Octavius, according to Macrobius) vast quantities at the Emperor’s command were collected by an Admiral of the Fleet and planted along the Ostian and Campanian shores.

Careful protection by land and sea rendered poaching almost impossible. For the period of five years any _scarus_ caught in the nets had, under heavy penalties, to be returned straightway to the water. The enforcement of these wise regulations effected such mighty thriving of the fish, that “postea frequentes inveniuntur Italiæ in litore, non antea ibi capti; admovitque sibi gula sapores piscibus satis et novum incolam mari dedit.”

This operation commands our comment, not merely on account of its big success, but because it is the earliest and (as far as I can discover) the only instance in all ancient literature, certainly in Greek and Latin, of the acclimatisation of _fish_ (not eggs) in the sea, and on a large scale.

I do not include, though I do not forget, the large lucrative planting of oysters in the Lucrine lake by Sergius Orata centuries before.[368] Later on we shall read of the Romans carrying eggs, naturally fertilised, from one water to another, and of the Chinese[369] transporting vast quantities of similar eggs considerable distances.

But their methods and operations differed from the Emperor’s. Pliny expressly states that the Admiral planted fish, not eggs of fish, in the sea, not in fresh water, and in a new habitat hundreds of miles from the old.

To this planting or involuntary colonisation, Petronius—seemingly, despite controversy, the “Elegantiæ Arbiter,” or the not altogether Admirable Crichton, of Tacitus—probably alludes:

“ultimus ab oris Attractus scarus atque arata Syrtis Si quid naufragio dedit, probatur.”[370]

Poets and _gourmets_ have vied in singing the praises of the fish as the daintiest of dishes—“according to the Greeks to do 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 helluoni_![371]

Epicharmus the comedian in his _Hebe’s Wedding_ (_frag._ 54, Kaibel),

καὶ σκάους, τῶν οὐδὲ τὸ σκᾶρ θέμιτον ἐκβαλεῖν θεοῖς,[372]

“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[373] some centuries later is extorted,

“Quid scarus? præterii cerebrum Jovis pæne supremi: Nestoris ad patriam his capitur magnusque bonusque.”

Although Pliny (IX. 29) definitely asserts “Nunc scaro datur principatus,” we find Martial within a few years dismissing the fish as of poor flavour—its only redeeming point the trail, which is excellent,

“Hic scarus, æquoreis qui venit obesus ab undis, Visceribus bonus est, cetera vile sapit.” (XIII. 84).[374]

In the curious and rare _Ichtyophagia_ (the omission of the second ‘h’ of the theta may be a printer’s error) by the learned Doctor Ludovicus Nonnius, published at Antwerp in 1616—a treasure-house from which I quote much and take more—an attempt is made to explain these diametrically opposed estimates. Nonnius asserts that as among the common herd only those fish which have fat flesh find favour or yield good flavour, and as the _Scarus_ possesses a drier and more flaky flesh, “a plebis illis palatis spernebatur.”

This deals a nasty knock to poor Martial, who plumed himself on his taste as a gourmet, acquired (he fails to add) at the banquets and entertainments of his patrician friends or wealthy patrons.

Medical controversy, rarely absent, as to wholesomeness for once hardly exists. Galen, Diphilus, Xenocrates all agree as to the _Scarus_, although the last warns us that it is “hard to pass off in perspiration!” (δυσδιαφόρητος).[375] Galen pronounces fish who haunt the rocks the most wholesome[376]: of these, the _Scarus_ is by far the best. Diphilus the Siphnian on the whole agrees, but condemns it as dangerous when fresh (!) because it hunts and feeds on the poisonous sea-hare and so frequently causes cholera morbus.[377]

But according to Ælian, IX. 51, the Mullet (τρίγλη) was held by the initiates of the Eleusinian Mysteries in the greatest honour, for one or other of two curious reasons: the first, because it brings forth its young thrice a year[378], and second, because it eats the sea-hare, who bears death to man.[379]

Nonnius (p. 81) informs us that the followers of Pythagoras were forbidden to eat the _Scarus_ because it was τρυγηφάγος, _i.e._ an eater of grain or grapes, whence or how obtained he vouchsafes not to inform us.[380] It is of interest to read in Faber (_op. cit._, p. 27) that the common seal (_Phoca vitulina_) is believed at the present time to go ashore in the Ombla Valley in quest of _grapes_ during the vintage, and is also said to commit great havoc in the vineyards of Sardinia and Sicily!

But for once Nonnius naps! Although, according to tradition, Pythagoras proscribed all fish, three kinds only are expressly and by name forbidden (in Symbols 18, 19, 60), _viz._ the _Melanurus_, the _Erythinius_, and the _Sepia_; nothing is said about the _Scarus_.

I presume that the error arose from Nonnius confusing a passage in Plutarch (_Symp._, VIII. 8, 3.) where _à propos_ of Pythagoras, τρυγηφάγος is associated with the _Scarus_, but in exactly the opposite sense, “for we can _not_ call the Mullet corn-destroying, or the _Scarus_ grape-eating,” etc.

Again our Nonnius! By a passage from Pliny, XXXII. 3, he attempts to clear the _Scarus_ and throw the blame for cholera on the Mullet.

But Pliny distinctly states that alone of all _animals_ the fish called the Mullet, when he can annex no other food, eats the sea-hare without fatal consequences, after which he “tenerescit tantum et ingratior[381] viliorque fit.” These Mullet, sold by fraudulent fishermen as _Scari_, caused the indictment of Diphilus. Rondolet bears witness that near Massilia similar sales took place “ab imperitis piscatoribus,” but surely “too skilled” would be the better epithet. It is but fair to add that Athen., VIII. 51, asserts that the _Scarus_ also eats the sea-hare.

For this long discursus, the repute of the _Scarus_, the disputes of epicures and of doctors whether it be a dainty, or a sound diet, and the exclusive properties attributed to it by Greek and Roman writers must be my excuse.

Summarising these last, we find that the _Scarus_, in addition to being the most passionate in his love[382], _alone of all fishes_,

(A) Is not a cannibal, but a vegetarian (Pliny, IX. 29). Oppian claims for the _mugil_—grey mullet—that it is the only non-carnivorous fish (II. 642-3). Couch gives as his considered opinion, “_Mugil capito_ is the _only_ fish of which I am able to express my belief that it usually selects for its food nothing that has life.” Modern authorities have established that the _scarus_ feeds on molluscs also.

(B) Seems to ruminate or does ruminate.[383]

(C) Belongs to,

“The only kind that dare To form shrill sounds, and strike the trembling air.”[384]

(D) Sleeps at night.[385]

“Scarus _alone_ their faded eyelids close In grateful intervals of soft repose.” (Oppian, II. 661 ff.)

But Aristotle (and, of course, Pliny) hold that most, perhaps all, fish do sleep, even if their eyelids are not closed: at any rate Tunnies and all flatfish do, while Pliny (X. 97) goes as far as asserting that “Dolphins and whales can be heard to snore!”

(E) Has plain, not sharp or jagged, teeth.[386]

(F) Never deserts his fellow fish. If he have swallowed a bait, his friends flock around him and liberate him by biting the line in two. If he be caught in trap or weel, they approaching very delicately give the prisoner the choice of (_a_) gripping with his teeth a tail “by which he is dragged through the mesh of twigs,” or (_b_) of pushing through his own tail, which they (outside) seize, and pull him through the weel _backwards_—thus avoiding damage from the twigs to the eyes of the captive.[387]

This devotion to his imprisoned fellow was turned to good account by fishermen. Fastening a hook in the jaw of and trailing a net behind a female _scarus_ (preferably alive) they secured large catches by dropping the lead, which reversed the net and enmeshed the would-be rescuers. With the seed of the coriander _Scari_ are taken “with a vengeance!”[388]

Ælian (I. 4) concludes a similar story, probably purloined from Oppian, for he was an adept in picking up unconsidered and unacknowledged trifles, with, “These things do they, as men do: but to do loving-kindness are _they_ born, not taught”; which demonstrates that the invaluable _Scarus_ provides men, not only with a menu, but also a moral!

If we cannot absolutely claim for Martial the first mention of the jointed Fishing Rod and the natural or artificial Fly, we are safe in acclaiming him the author of the first notice, “Fishing strictly prohibited,” or “Chasse défendue,” in his

“Baiano procul a lacu recede, Piscator: fuge, ne nocens recedas.” (IV. 30.)

This epigram furnishes Bunsmann with one of the only three acts of _Impietas_ which he can allege against the blameless race of fishermen. Martial here solemnly warns a fellow craftsman against fishing in the lake of Baiæ, because (1) the fish there are sacred to the Emperor Domitian, (2) a previous intruder was smitten blind in the very act of landing his fish, so that—and here comes a touch of the true angler—“he could not _see_ his spoil.”

The pretty compliment, veiled in the words “sacred fish,” ranks Domitian as a god, because, as at many temples of the gods fish were held sacred, so at his Baian abode the fish had been shown by divine action to be sacred. But the fulsome bluntness of “than whom in the whole world there is none mightier” mars the effect. Lest, however, his friend might think that “Not twice in this world shall the Gods do thus,” or deem the superhuman sanction played out, Martial adjures him to throw to the fish some plain hookless food, and “dum potes, innocens recede.”

These Baian fish were evidently not as sophisticated or as discriminating as their neighbours, the _Melanuri_, which greedily snatch food thrown into the sea, but to any bit whatsoever containing a hook they approach neither delicately, nor at all.[389]

In case some reader, fired by the fame of Theocritus or Martial, imagine an easy affluence by writing Fisher Eclogues or Fisher Epigrams, I refer him to Martial’s other warning, where he states that a written copy of one of his books could be bought for about fourpence halfpenny (considerably cheaper than a printed one now) and that with a profit to the bookseller![390]

The seeming _naïveté_ of Martial’s appeal to a buyer and of his recommendation that the book, which describes presents, would be for a man like himself not too flush of coin, an admirable present to send at the Saturnalia, incites me to give the whole, if fishless, passage.

The hint of how to get rid of their surplus stock or “remainders” at Christmas may avail our present poetasters in these days of economy and war taxes. “The whole collection of _Xenia_” (distichs describing certain kinds of viands so-called) “in this thin book will cost you four sesterces to buy. Is four too much? You _may_ get it (in a cheaper form) for two, and even that will leave a profit to the bookseller. This book itself, which describes presents, may be sent as a present at the Saturnalia, if you have not much money to spare, like myself.”

Manuscript books at Rome cost even less than printed books do now. This seeming inconsistency was effected by a large number of slaves writing rapidly at the dictation of one person, and so multiplying copies very cheaply and easily.

By such means, no doubt, was published _Acta Diurna_, the fly sheet or daily newspaper of Rome. Composed originally of the reports of lawsuits, births, deaths, marriages, and the almost equally numerous divorces, it came to contain in the time of Julius Cæsar the debates and _Acta_ of the Senate, and later the news collected and conveyed by constant couriers from all parts of the Empire.[391]

FOOTNOTES:

[367] “Il est peu de poissons et même d’animaux qui aient été, pour les premiers peuples civilisés de l’Europe, l’objet de plus de recherches, d’attention, et d’éloges que le Scare” (Lacépède). On the family of the _Labridæ_ (of which the _Scarus_ forms a genus) the same author asserts that Nature has not conferred either strength or power, but they have received as their share of her favours, agreeable proportions, great activity of fin, and adornment with all the colours of the rainbow. Of the two cousins of the _Scarus_, the _Turdus_ and the _Julis_, his eulogy can not be omitted: “Le feu du diamant, du rubis, de la topaz, de l’émeraude, du saphir, de l’améthyste, du grenat scintille sur leures écailles polies: et brille sur leure surface en gouttes, en croissants, en raies, en bandes, en anneaux, en ceintures, en zones, en ondes; il se mêle à l’éclat de l’or et d’argent qui y resplendit sur de grandes places, les teintes obscures, les aires pâles, et pour ainsi dire décolorées.” Nicander of Thyatira (_cp._ Athen. 7, 113) states that there were two kinds of _Scarus_, one αἰόλος of many diverse colours, the other ὀνίας of a dull grey tint.

[368] Pliny, IX. 79.

[369] See J. B. Du Halde, _Description géographique ... de l’Empire de la Chine_.... (Paris, 1735), vol. i. p. 36.

[370] Petron., _Sat._, 93, 2.

[371] Archestratus is constantly quoted and always praised by Athenæus 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_, τὰ πολλὰ δ’ ἠγνόηκε, κοὐδὲ ἒν λέγει (_Thesmophorus_, _frag._ I. 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 _Mrs. 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.”

[372] I follow Wilamowitz in σκᾶρ for σκῶρ, 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 σκᾶρ and σκάρος.

[373] _Hedyphagetica_ (_frag._ 529, Baehrens). Suidas states that the Persians termed an exquisite dish Διὸς ἐγκέφαλον.

[374] Another reading is _adesus_. Cf. Xenocrates, _de Alimento ex Aquatilibus_, c. 14, of the _scarus_, which was fresh-caught and not _vivarium_-kept, being πολλοῖς ἐγκάτοις εὔστομος.

[375] See Liddell and Scott.

[376] VI. 718 (Kühn).

[377] Athen., VIII. 51.

[378] Cf. Oppian, I. 590.

[379] Ælian, XVI. 19, writes that these sea-hares were so poisonous, that if a man touched one thrown up on the shore with his hand, he shortly died, unless medicine was at once administered. So poisonous indeed are they, that “if you touch them with but your walking stick, there is the same danger which contact with a lizard evokes,” which in II. 5 is described τέθνηκεν ὁ κύριος τῆς λύγου! Nero, to “mak siccar” (like Kirkpatrick with the Red Comyn), employed the sea-hare as a dainty for friends whose deaths he earnestly desired. Cf. Philostratus, _Life of Apollonius of Tyana_, VI. 32.

[380] Nonnius, always the alert defender of his favourite fish, ingeniously suggests that the _scarus_ of Pythagoras was not our famous _scarus_, because as this fish, even during the Augustan period, was extremely rare in Italian waters, there seems little necessity for its being banned by the “Hyperborean Apollo of the Crotoniates” in B.C. 540-510. Numa, apparently influenced by Pythagorean precepts, forbade (according to Cassius Hemina, Pliny, XXXII. 10) all scaleless fish being offered to the gods. Festus, p. 253, a. 20, however, states that in such offerings it was allowable to present all fish with scales, except the _Scarus_, which was sacrificiable, and most acceptable to the god of the peasants, Hercules, whose “swinish gluttony | Crams and blasphemes his feeder.” For _squaram_, Müller suggests _scarum_, while Lindsay prints _squatum_, the skate.

[381] Mayhoff would read _inertior_.

[382] Ælian, I. 2.

[383] Aristotle and Pliny, _supra_; Oppian, I. 135-7; Ælian, II. 54.

[384] Aristotle (according to Athen., VIII. 3) states that the _scarus_ and sea-hog are the only fishes that have any kind of voice, but in reality he (IV. 9) mentions five others, among which is the cuckoo-fish, who “whistle and grunt” (see Pliny, XI. 112; Oppian, I. 134-5). Athenæus errs, for Aristotle (_N. H._, IV. 9, 8) asserts that the Dolphin when out of the water “groans and cries”; while Pliny (IX. 7) says of the Dolphin, “Pro voce gemitus humano similis.” Aristotle expressly differentiates between the five mentioned fish and the Dolphin—for the former possess no lungs, windpipe, or pharynx, and so can produce no voice, only “sound,” while “the dolphin has a _voice_ and therefore utters vocal and vowel sounds, for it is furnished with a lung and a windpipe.”

[385] Someone may throw at me the sentence of Seleucus of Tarsus, who in the only English translation of Athenæus (by C. D. Yonge) is made to say (VII. 113), “The Scarus is the only fish which _never_ sleeps.” If Yonge had been faithful to the text (Schweighäuser’s) which he expressly states he had adopted, he would have omitted the οὐ, because it is in brackets and the editor expressly puts against it the note “Deest vulgo negativa particula,” and his accompanying Latin translation is “unum hunc ex omnibus piscibus dormire.” Kaibel (Leipzig, 1887) also brackets the οὐ, while Dindorf (1827) has no οὐ, bracketed or other.

[386] Aristotle, _N. H._, II. 13; Pliny, XI. 61. Another instance of the carelessness of Athenæus—induced perhaps by his omnivorous reading—is to be found in the first line of VII. 113, “The Scarus, Aristotle says, has sharp or jagged teeth,” whereas a reference to _N. H._, II. 13, discloses that all fish _except_ the _scarus_ have sharp or jagged teeth, a statement which is confirmed by Rondolet.

[387] Cf. Opp., IV. 40-64; Pliny, XXXII. 5; and Ovid, _Hal._, 9 ff.

[388] Ælian, _N. H._, 12, 42.

[389] Pliny, XXXII. 8.

[390] _Ep._, 3, 13.

[391] Cf. Suetonius, _Augustus_, c. 83.