CARP.

So obscure is the ichthyology of the ancients, or so little care has

been taken to explain it, that the question whether our carp were known

to Aristotle, Pliny, and their contemporaries, cannot with any great

degree of probability be determined. Besides, that subject is attended

with much greater difficulties than the natural history of quadrupeds.

Among four-footed animals there is a greater variety in their bodily

conformation, which at any rate strikes the eye more, and can be more

easily described than that of fishes, which in general are so like in

shape, that an experienced systematic naturalist finds it sometimes

difficult to determine the characters of the genera and species. It is

not surprising therefore that the simple descriptions of the ancients,

or rather the short accounts which they give us of fish, do not afford

information sufficient to enable us to distinguish with accuracy the

different kinds. Quadrupeds may terrify us by their ferocity, or

endeavour to avoid us by shyness and craft; but it is still possible to

observe their sexes, their age, and their habits, and to remark many

things that are common to one or only a few species. Fishes, on the

other hand, live in an element in which we cannot approach them, and

which for the most part conceals them from our observation. The chase,

since the earliest periods, and in modern times more than formerly,

has been the employment of idle persons, who bestow upon it greater

attention the fewer those objects are which can attract their curiosity

or employ their minds: but fishing has almost always been the laborious

occupation of poor people, who have no time to make observations,

as they are obliged to follow it in order to find a subsistence;

and mankind in general seldom see fish except on their tables or in

collections of natural history. On this account those properties of

fish by which their species could be determined, were less known. The

descriptions of four-footed animals which have been handed down to us

from the time of the Greek and Roman writers, give us, at any rate,

some information; but from those of fishes, which are more uncommon,

we can scarcely derive any; unless one were as acute or easy of belief

as many collectors of petrefactions, who imagine that they can

distinguish each species of fish in the impressions which they see in

stones. More however might be done towards elucidating the ichthyology

of the ancients than has hitherto been attempted. It would be necessary

only to make a beginning by collecting the species and names which

can with certainty be determined, together with the authorities, and

separating them from the rest; and an abstract should be formed of what

is said in the ancients respecting the unknown species, or whatever

may in any measure serve to make us acquainted with them; but mere

conjectures ought never to be given as proofs, nor ought the opinions

of commentators, or the explanations of dictionaries to be adopted

without sufficient grounds. If these are to be believed without further

examination, the names _cyprini_ and _lepidoti_ must be considered as

those of carp; and the proposed question would be soon answered: but

that opinion has scarcely probability in its favour when one searches

after proofs.

I shall not here lay before the reader everything completely that the

ancients have said respecting the _cyprini_, and which is in part so

corrupted by transcribers, that no certain meaning can be drawn from

it. Were I to treat of the ichthyology of the ancients, it might be

necessary; but as that is not the case, I shall only quote such parts

of it as have been employed by Rondelet and others to prove that they

were our carp. Their principal grounds seem to be, that among all the

fish of the ancients no others occur which can with any probability be

considered as carp. If the _cyprini_ therefore were not carp, these

must not have been named by the ancients; and that undoubtedly will not

readily be admitted. It is well known what a high value the ancients,

particularly the Orientals, set upon fish, of which they had a great

variety; and it appears that they preferred them to all dishes prepared

from four-footed animals or fowls. Fish seem to have been the choicest

delicacies of voluptuaries, and in that respect they are oftener

mentioned by historians than fowls. Physicians also, to whom the most

sumptuous tables have in all ages been of the greatest benefit, speak

of fish oftener in their writings than of dishes made of the flesh of

other animals. In the ancient cookery, the number of dishes prepared

from fish is indeed great in comparison of those dressed from fowls.

_Turdi_ and _attagines_ are much praised; but had pheasants, snipes,

partridges, and others, been as much esteemed then as they are now,

these would not have been forgotten, or would have occurred oftener.

Fish at present form the principal food in Greece, as well as at

Constantinople, and a great abundance and variety of them may be found

there in the markets; but fowls which have been caught or shot are

seldom exposed for sale. When the Egyptian and Greek monks wished

to distinguish themselves by abstinence and temperance, they denied

themselves all kinds of fish, as the richest delicacies, in the same

manner as pretended devotees among the Europeans deny themselves flesh.

But though all this may be true, it does not prove that our carp must

occur in the writings of the ancients. The Roman voluptuaries, indeed,

left very little untried that was likely to gratify their appetite; but

it was impossible for them to make a trial of everything. There may

have been particular reasons which prevented them from meeting with

carp; and who will venture to affirm that all the knowledge of the

ancients must be contained in those few of their writings which have

been preserved to us by accidents?

If one, freed from these prejudices, should now ask why the _cyprinus_

must be our carp, the answer will be, because what we read of the

tongue and scales of the _cyprini_ cannot be applied with so much

propriety to any species of fish as to the _Cyprinus carpio_ of

Linnæus. Aristotle informs us that the _cyprini_ had properly no

tongue, but that their soft fleshy palate might very readily be taken

for one[112]. Athenæus affirms that they had a tongue, but that it

lay in the upper part of the mouth or palate; and in confirmation of

this he refers to Aristotle[113]. This assertion of Athenæus however

is very dubious; for these words are not to be found in the works of

Aristotle which have been preserved, though the same meaning might be

indeed forced, in case of necessity, from the passage first quoted. It

is possible that Athenæus, as Casaubon[114] has already conjectured,

may here, as well as in other parts, allude to some book of Aristotle

not now extant. Besides, he calls the fish of which he speaks, not

_cyprinus_, but _cyprianus_; and a question therefore arises, whether

he may not have meant some other kind. This much at any rate appears

certain from the passage of Aristotle, that the _cyprinus_ had a thick

fleshy palate; and that indeed is the case with our carp, so that the

head, on account of the delicacy and agreeable taste of the palate, is

reckoned the most relishing part. By that circumstance however nothing

is proved; as it is not peculiar to carp alone, but common to every

species of the same family, such as the bream, tench, &c. Fish of this

kind, says Bloch, have properly no tongue; that which appears to be

one is merely a cartilaginous substance which projects through those

band-like parts that enclose it on each side. This proof would have

more weight, did we find it related, that in the time of Aristotle,

the tongue was considered as an exquisite morsel: but that is not

mentioned; and H. Krunitz is mistaken, when he says that Heliogabalus,

to satisfy his luxurious appetite, was induced to try a fricassee of

the tongues of carp: it consisted only of the tongues of peacocks and

nightingales[115]. Had the ancients really used carp on their tables,

we must have ascribed to them the discovery of these delicious fish.

The other proof which is brought from the scales consists in what is

said by Dorion, in Athenæus[116], that the _cyprianus_ was called also

by some _lepidotus_, or scaly. As nearly all fish have scales, the

scales of this species must have been extremely large, as they got that

name by way of eminence; and it must be indeed allowed, that the above

epithet would suit our carp exceedingly well, as their scales are very

large. But this circumstance alone proves nothing, as the _Mullus_

and _Mugil_ have still larger scales; and to the first genus belonged

one of the fish most esteemed by the ancients[117]. Strabo mentions

the _lepidotus_ among the sacred fish of the Nile; but whether it be

the same as that of which Dorion speaks, cannot be determined. It is

certain that the Nile contains carp still; for Norden saw them caught

at the waterfall near Essuane, which is the ancient Syene. Did we know

that the modern Greeks at present call carp _cyprini_, this would prove

more; for it is an undoubted fact that the ancient names have for the

most part been retained in Greece. We are assured by Massarius[118],

that the Greeks still use the name _cyprinus_; but Gyllius says that

it is employed only by a few: and this is confirmed by Bellon, who

mentions all the names of carp which he heard in Greece, and which

are entirely different from the ancient[119]; but he adds, that carp

in Ætolia are still called _cyprini_. Both the before-mentioned

circumstances respecting the _cyprini_ agree extremely well with our

carp; but as they will suit other kinds equally well, they afford no

complete proof, but only a probability which amounts to this, that

among the large-scaled fish, carp in particular have a fleshy palate;

and it is readily admitted that the ancients were acquainted with all

kinds, and chose names for them with more foundation than is done at

present.

In opposition to this probability it may be said that Oppian and Pliny

reckon the _cyprini_ among the sea-fish, to which kind our carp do not

belong. This reply however, which some have indeed made, is not of

great weight. In the first place, both these writers seem to have been

in an error; for what Pliny says of the _cyprini_ is evidently taken

from Aristotle, and the latter does not tell us that these fish live

in the sea, but rather the contrary. The Roman author, as Dalechamp

remarks, added the words _in mari_, if they were not added by some

transcriber. Oppian as a poet does not always adhere strictly to truth;

and he makes more of the freshwater fish of Aristotle to be inhabitants

of the sea. In the second place, I consider the distinction made

between sea-fish, freshwater fish and those kept in ponds, to be not

always very certain or well founded. Who knows whether the greater part

of the last may not have been originally sea-fish? This is the more

probable in regard to carp, as Professor Foster says that carp are

sometimes caught in the harbour at Dantzic[120].

In order to answer the question here proposed, another point may be

considered. As all nations at present give these fish the same name,

it is probable that it was brought with them from that country where

they were first found, and from which they were procured. Cassiodorus,

who lived in the sixth century, is the oldest author as yet known in

whom that name has been observed[121]. In a passage where he speaks

of the most delicate and costly fish, which at that time were sent

to the tables of princes, he says, “Among these is the _carpa_,

which is produced in the Danube.” In the earliest Latin translation

of Aristotle, the word _cyprinus_, as Camus says, is expressed by

_carpra_. In the thirteenth century this fish was called by Vincentius

de Beauvais[122] _carpera_, and by Cæsarius _carpo_; and it is highly

probable that both these names allude to our carp. By the above passage

of Cassiodorus, the opinion that these fish were the _cyprini_ of the

ancients obtains a new, but at the same time a very feeble proof;

for the _cyprinus_ was found also in the Danube, as we learn from

Ælian[123], who among the fish of the Ister, mentions black _cyprini_;

and these, according to the conjecture of Professor Schneider, were

the black fish of the Danube which Pliny considers as unhealthful or

poisonous, and like which there were some in Armenia. Our carp indeed

are not poisonous, but Pliny alludes to a particular variety, and what

he says was only report, to which something must have given rise,

as also to the idea of carp with a death’s head, and the head of a

pug-dog, as some have been represented by writers of the sixteenth

century. The _carpo_ of Cæsarius appears to have been our carp, because

its scales had a very great resemblance to those of the latter; for we

are told in the work already quoted, that the devil, once indulging

in a frolic, appeared in a coat of mail, and had scales like the fish

_carpo_. The _carpera_ of Vincent de Beauvais is still less doubtful,

as the same craft in avoiding rakes and nets is ascribed to that fish

as is known to be employed by our carp. Sometimes they thrust their

heads into the mud and suffer the net to pass over them; and sometimes

they join the head and tail together, and separating them suddenly,

throw themselves towards the surface of the water, and springing often

four or five feet above the net, make their escape.

But whence did this name arise? The origin assigned by Vincentius,

or the anonymous author of the lost books De Natura Rerum, like

another mentioned in ridicule by Gesner, is too silly to be repeated.

More learned at any rate is the derivation of Menage, who traces it

from _cyprinus_, which was afterwards transformed into _cuprinus_,

_cuprius_, _cuprus_, _cupra_, _curpa_, and lastly into _carpa_. For my

part, I am more inclined to derive it from a dialect which was spoken

on the banks of the Danube, and to believe that it was brought with the

fish from the southern part of Europe; but I am too little acquainted

with that dialect to be able to render my conjecture very probable;

and the etymologists I consulted, such as Wachter, Ihre, Johnson, &c.,

afforded me no assistance. Fulda gave me some hopes, as he allows the

word to be of German extraction; but I must confess that his derivation

is too far-fetched, and like the chemistry of the adepts, to me not

perfectly intelligible.

It may perhaps not be superfluous here to observe that one must not

confound _carpa_ and _carpo_, or our carp, with _carpio_. The latter

belongs to the genus of the salmon and trout; and in the Linnæan system

is called _Salmo carpio_. It is found chiefly in the Lago di Garda, the

ancient Lacus Benacus, on the confines of Tyrol. The oldest account of

this fish is to be found in works of the sixteenth century, such as

the poems of Pierius Valerianus, and in Jovius de Piscibus. According

to Linnæus, it is found in the rivers of England; but that is false.

This celebrated naturalist suffered himself to be misled by Artedi,

who gives the char or chare, mentioned by Camden in his description of

Lancashire, as the _Salmo carpio_. Pennant however, by whom it is not

mentioned among the English fish, says expressly that the char is not

the _carpio_ of the Lago di Garda, but rather a variety of the _Salmo

alpinus_[124].

That our carp were first found in the southern parts of Europe, and

conveyed thence to other countries, is undoubtedly certain. Even at

present they do not thrive in the northern regions, and the further

north they are carried the smaller they become[125]. Some accounts of

their transportation are still to be found. If it be true that the

Latin poem on the expedition of Attila is as old as the fifth or sixth

century, and if the fish which Walther gave to the boatman who ferried

him over the Rhine, and which the latter carried to the kitchen of

Gunther king of the Franks, were carp, this circumstance is a proof

that these fish had not been before known in that part of France

which bordered on the Rhine[126]. The examination of this conjecture

I shall however leave to others. D’Aussy quotes a book never printed,

of the thirteenth century, entitled Proverbes, and in which is given

an account of the best articles produced at that time by the different

parts of the kingdom, and assures us that a great many kinds of fish

were mentioned in it, but no carp, though at present they are common

all over France.

It appears also that there were no carp in England in the eleventh

century, at least they do not occur in the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary

of Ælfric, who in 1051 died archbishop of York[127]. We are assured

likewise that they were first brought into the kingdom in the fifth

year of the reign of Henry VIII., or in 1514, by Leonard Mascal of

Plumsted in Sussex[128]. What we read in the Linnæan System, that these

fish were first brought to England about the year 1600, is certainly

erroneous. Where that celebrated naturalist, under whom I had the

pleasure of studying, acquired this information, I do not know.

Denmark is indebted for these fish to that celebrated statesman Peter

Oxe, who introduced them into the kingdom as well as cray-fish, and

other objects for the table. He died in the year 1575.

We are told that these fish were brought from Italy to Prussia, where

they are at present very abundant, by a nobleman whose name is not

mentioned. This service however may be ascribed with more probability

to the upper burg-grave, Caspar von Nostiz, who died in 1588, and who

in the middle of the sixteenth century first sent carp to Prussia from

his estate in Silesia, and caused them to be put into the large pond at

Arensberg not far from Creuzburg. As a memorial of this circumstance,

the figure of a carp, cut in stone, was shown formerly over a door at

the castle of Arensberg. This colony must have been very numerous in

the year 1535, for at that period carp were sent from Königsberg to

Wilda, where the archduke Albert then resided. At present (1798) a

great many carp are transported from Dantzic and Königsberg to Russia,

Sweden, and Denmark. It appears to me probable that these fish after

that period became everywhere known and esteemed, as eating fish in

Lent and on fast-days was among Christians considered to be a religious

duty, and that on this account they endeavoured to have ponds stocked

with them in every country, because no species can be so easily bred in

these reservoirs.

I shall observe in the last place, that the _Spiegel-carpen_,

mirror-carp, distinguished by yellow scales, which are much larger,

though fewer in number, and which do not cover the whole body, are

not mentioned but by modern writers. Bloch says that they were first

described by Johnston under the name of royal carp. The passage where

he does so I cannot find; but in plate xxix. there is a bad engraving,

with the title _Spiegel-karpen_, which however have scales all over

their bodies, and cannot be the kind alluded to. On the other hand, the

_Spiegel-karpen_ are mentioned by Gesner, who, as it appears, never

saw them. In my opinion, Balbinus, who wrote in the middle of the

sixteenth century, was the first person who gave a true and complete

description of them; and according to his account, they seem to have

come originally from Bohemia. The first correct figure of them is to be

found in Marsigli.