THE FIRST MENTION OF A FLY
The first mention of fishing with a fly occurs apparently in Martial’s
lines, “Namque quis nescit, | Avidum vorata decipi scarum _musca_?”
which have been translated:—
“Who has not seen the scarus rise,
Decoyed, and killed by fraudful flies?”[348]
These lines are of surpassing interest. In them we may possess the very
first mention of a fishing fly, whether natural or artificial, in all
the records written or depicted of the whole world.
If the reference be to an artificial fly, it certainly antedates by
some two centuries the passage of Ælian (XV. 1), which has hitherto
been universally acclaimed the first mention of such a fly. If on the
other hand the reference be to a natural fly, it antedates by the same
period of time the first mention of the natural fly, or rather winged
insect (κώνωψ), to be found also in Ælian (XIV. 22).
And here, pray, observe the cold calm of the classical commentator!
This passage, which, as I have said, may be the very first historical
document testifying to the use of the fly, the very first tiny
beginning of the immense literature consecrated to the fly, the very
first starting point in the fly fisher’s journey of sore travail to
farther knowledge, this passage so pregnant of possibilities and so
provocative of comment, has never, I believe, been suggested by any
editor as possibly the _locus classicus_ of fly fishing, far prior to
the generally adopted passage of Ælian.
Even if we make great allowance for the wrath of the literary angler
at the careless indifference with which these lines appear from his
standpoint to be treated, the comments by the editors of Martial must
be classed, in other respects also, as unsatisfactory and jejune.
Paley and Stone, for instance, confine themselves to telling us that
“scarus is some unknown but highly prized fish, which was caught by an
inferior one used as bait.” That is all! nothing more! Their “unknown”
stamps their indifference, or ichthyic ignorance.[349] Further, they
never even hint that in this passage commentators have suggested two
readings, _musco_—‘moss,’ and _musca_—‘fly.’ They simply adopt _musco_
without hinting at any difficulty arising from such adoption.
Friedländer adopts _musca_. His only note consists of, “Vorato—musco
wollte Brodæus lesen wegen der von Athenæus, VII., p. 319 f., aus
Aristoteles angeführten Stelle[350] ...”
The majority of editors[351] prefer, and probably rightly, the reading
_musca_ for many reasons, the chief being that all the manuscripts
of Martial without a single exception give _musca_. The upholders of
_musco_, in their endeavour to enforce that mere conjecture by quoting
from Athenæus, “The _Scarus_ flourishes on his food of seaweed,”[352]
and supporting it by Pliny,[353] “The _Scarus_ is said to be the
only fish that ruminates and is herbivorous” (and here note that
as Pliny—like Athenæus—was taking his information from Arist., _N.
H._, VIII. 2, he should have translated φυκίοις by _algis_, not by
_herbis_), make the mistake of translating φυκίον by _muscus_. They
ignore, moreover, Oppian, II. 649, φέρβονται δ’ ἢ χλωρὸν ἁλὸς μνίον,
κ.τ.λ. Φυκίον is, while _muscus_ is not and never has been, _algæ_ or
true seaweed; _muscus_ is ‘moss.’[354]
Nor do these Olympian editors, who sit beside their proof-sheets, and
whose notes are ever hurled far below them in the valley, condescend to
explain to us poor gropers after light how moss to a sea-fish like the
_Scarus_ can be of value as food.
Most fishermen will tell you that fresh-water fish do eat moss; that
they themselves have seen them in the act of eating such moss on the
Thames; that roach in especial are particularly fond of this moss,
which is used in summer months as a bait with great success; this moss
they call by various names, ‘silk weed,’ ‘flannel weed,’ ‘blanket
weed,’ and ‘crow-silk.’ Now all these so-called mosses are not mosses
at all, but belong to the family _Confervæ_, which are fresh-water
green _algæ_: so even in rivers we find that moss is not used as
bait.[355]
That not only the _Scari_ but other fish, _e.g._ the _Melanuri_, feed
on seaweed and that they are taken by baits composed of seaweed, many
writers besides Athenæus and Pliny duly record. Theocritus (_Id._, XXI.
10) speaks of “baits of seaweed.” Oppian,[356] describing the manner
of catching the _salpæ_ by baiting a place with stones covered with
seaweed, states that when the fish have gathered round this in numbers,
“then prepares he (the fisher) the snare of the weel.” Ælian[357]
asserts that among the marine plants, on which he says fish feed, are
Βρύα ... καὶ φυκία ἄλλα, the difference between which seems according
to Aristotle merely one of size.
If a poll of writers on Fishing and of practical Pisciculturists were
taken to-day, a large majority would vote that sea-fish do not eat
seaweed, but feed on the _larvæ_, and other minute insects in or on
the various _algæ_ or seaweeds. But against this opinion is arrayed
the authority of Darwin and Wallace, who state that various species
of _Scarus_ do browse, and do graze on seaweed, and some of them
exclusively on coral.[358]
The _Skaros_ (according to Aristotle) was the only fish which seemed
to ruminate,[359] whose food was seaweed,[360] and teeth, set in deep
saw-edged jaws, were not sharp and interlocking, like those of all
other fish, but resembled those of a parrot, as its beak resembled that
of a parrot.[361]
From the _seeming_ to ruminate of Aristotle we reach in later writers
like Oppian, I. 134 ff., and Ovid, _Hal._, 119, the positive assertion
that the scarus _did_ ruminate.[362]
Is it not possible, if a mere angler may hazard a suggestion
on scientific points, that the belief of modern writers and
pisciculturists is not far out, and that while some of the _Scari_ do
browse and graze exclusively on coral, and some sometimes on seaweed,
they do this to obtain _as food_ only the minute _larvæ_, which their
so-called rumination helps them to separate from the seaweed or
coral?[363]
A second very practical argument against the reading _musco_ suggests
itself. Let us allow that some sea fish do eat not only _algæ_ but
moss: even then, why should our _Scarus_ “be deceived” by the small
amount possible of attachment to a little hook, of seaweed or moss or
their _larvæ_? This is infinitesimal when compared with the greater
masses, giving immeasurably ampler supply of _larvæ_, growing in the
sea.
Were it not for the incitement or excitement caused by the fly’s
movements or novelty, hardly a salmon, I venture to think, would
rise to a fly; but to our _scarus_, since _algæ_ and moss (_if_ the
latter exist in the sea of sufficient length) are familiar growths
and constantly set in motion by the action of the water, both these
incitements are surely lacking.
Even if neither of these arguments carries weight, the objection
brought forward by Gilbert appears to me to put the reading _musco_
out of court: “Suppose Martial knew what Athenæus and others state as
regards this peculiar habit of the scarus, surely this was not the
place, where the _Scarus_ is introduced only as a representative of all
fish, to air his knowledge—least of all in words such as ‘quis nescit.’”
In conclusion, if _musca_ be the right reading, we can, I think,
definitely assert:
A. That this passage contains the very earliest mention of a _fly_
being used for the taking of fish:
B. That from Martial’s employment of it as an illustration, and from
his not drawing attention to the novelty or oddness of such use,
and especially from the words “quis nescit,” which imply a general
knowledge, fly fishing had been long invented, and was a method common
among anglers:
C. That this solitary passage is inconclusive as to whether the fly was
simply a natural one attached to a hook, and used perhaps as now in
dapping,[364] or an artificial one.
To my mind, however, the scale dips deeply in favour of the artificial
fly for the following reasons.
1. The trend and purpose of the whole passage, especially when we note
carefully the preceding verse and a half, “_Odi dolosas munerum et
malas artes._ | _Imitantur hamos dona_,” is to inveigh against fraudful
gifts, typical of which fraudful flies are singled out—in fact, against
all presents which are not what they appear. Mr. A. B. Cook writes: “I
quite agree with your view that the passage gains much, if all three
lines are made to refer to an artificial fly with a hook concealed in
it. Indeed, that is pretty obviously the meaning.”
2. The difficulty which the ancients would have experienced in
impaling, etc., on one of their hooks a natural fly would have been
greater than dressing an artificial one. The smallest hook in the
Greek-Roman Collection at the British Museum (found at Amathus in
Cyprus 1894) measures over ¼ in. breadth at the bend.[365] If we allow
that owing to oxidation the metal may have coarsened and swollen, the
task of impaling, and further of fastening a natural fly securely
enough to withstand the buffets of even wavelets of the sea (for N.B.
the _Scarus_ is marine) must verily have demanded τὸν δημιοεργόν, “a
craftsman of the people, welcome over all the wide earth.”[366]
For these reasons the _kudos_ of the first mention of an artificial fly
belongs, in my opinion, to Martial rather than to Ælian.
FOOTNOTES:
[348] _Ep._, V. 18, 7 f.
[349] See _infra_, p. 155, note 6.
[350] See _infra_, p. 155, note 5.
[351] Schneidewin, Ed. I., 1842, and Ed. II., 1852, reads _musca_,
as does Lindsay, 1903. Paley and Stone (1888) _musco_; W. Gilbert
(Leipzig, 1886 and 1896) reads _musca_, and in his _apparatus criticus_
remarks “vorat_a_ d. sc. musc_a_ cum libris Scrin. Schn. Glb.—vorat_o_
d. sc. musc_o_ Brodæus Schn.”
[352] VII. 113. χαίρει δὲ (_sc._ ὁ σκάρος) τῇ τῶν φυκίων τροφῇ διὸ καὶ
τούτοις θηρεύεται, κ.τ.λ. Athenæus mentions Aristotle as his source.
The references by ichthyologists to the bait used for catching the
_Scarus_ seem infrequent: I at least have only come across the
following. “The fishing requires some experience: fishermen allege
that there is necessary _un individu vivant pour amorcer les autres_,
yet here we call to mind what Ælian and Oppian say as to the great
number of fish attracted by following a female attached to the line.”
See Cuvier and Valenciennes, _H. N. des Poissons_, vol. XIV., p. 150,
Paris, 1839.
[353] IX. 29. Scarus solus piscium dicitur ruminare herbisque vesci,
non aliis piscibus. See also Oppian, II. 645-650.
[354] _The Oxford Dict._ gives, “_Alga_, a seaweed: in plural, one of
the great divisions of the Cryptogamic plants including seaweeds, and
kindred fresh-water plants, and a few ærial species,” and “_Moss_, any
of the small herbaceous Cryptogamous plants constituting the class
Musci, some of which form the characteristic vegetation of bogs, while
others grow in crowded masses covering the surface of the ground,
stones, trees, etc.” As “applied to seaweed rare”, I might venture to
add either poetical, as in Tennyson’s _Mermaid_, “in hueless moss under
the sea,” or loose and unscientific.
[355] Compare J. Britten and R. Holland, _Dict. of English Plant
Names_ (London, 1884), III. 576. Wright in his _Dialect Dictionary_,
“Crow-silk, Confervæ, and other Algæ, especially _C. rivularis_.”
[356] Oppian, III. 421. Τῆμος ὲπεντύνει κύυρτου δόλον. These were traps
of wickerwork, resembling our lobster pots or weels, in which the fish
were caught as they flocked to suck at the seaweed, with which the
stones (placed inside the traps to sink them) were covered. Cf. Ælian,
XII. 43, who states that for this sort of fishing fishermen made use of
φύκους θαλασσίου.
[357] _N. H._, XIII., 3. Cf. also _ibid._, I, 2.
[358] _Voyage of the Beagle_, ch. 20: “Two species of fish of the genus
scarus, which are common here (Keeling Island), exclusively feed on
coral.” Sir R. Owen, “The anterior teeth are soldered together and
adapted to the habits and exigences of a tribe of fishes which browse
on the lithophytes, that clothe the bottom of the sea, just as ruminant
quadrupeds crop the herbage of the dry land.”
[359] _N. H._, II. 17: μόνος ἰχθὺς δοκεῖ μηρυκάζειν. Cf., however, _N.
H._, IX. 50.
[360] VIII. 2, 13.
[361] Arist., _N. H._, II. 13. Pliny, XI. 61. “Piscium omnibus (dentes)
serrati, præter scarum: huic uni aquatilium plani.”
[362] In VII. 113, we again find Athenæus misrepresenting Aristotle.
[363] “This idea of rumination,” according to Mr. Lones, _op. cit._,
p. 237, “by the parrot wrasse (Scarus cretensis), which is clearly the
Skaros of the Ancients, probably arose from its grazing or cropping
off marine plants, and grinding them down, assisted by its having a
strongly walled stomach” (cf. the functions of the gizzard of a fowl)
with which, out of the myriads of fishes, the _scarus_ and his tribe
alone are endowed. On p. 162, “The stomach of a skaros is without a
cæcum, and appears to be of far simpler form than that of most fishes.”
A trout often appears to ruminate, working its jaws quietly for a
considerable time—perhaps this is merely to settle its last mouthful
comfortably and to its liking. According to Banfield, in Dunk and
other islands off Northern Australia, a fish, very similar to only
even more brilliant in hues than the _Pseudoscarus rivulatus_, is able
by the strength of its teeth (some sixty or seventy, set incisorlike)
to pull from the rocks limpets (its chief food), which when steadfast
can resist a pulling force of nearly 2000 times their own weight! It
swallows molluscs and cockles whole, and by its wonderful gizzard
grinds them fine. See _Confessions of a Beachcomber_ (London, 1913), p.
156.
[364] “Dapping,” to which I miss allusion even in Dr. Turrell’s
excellent _Ancient Angling Authors_, is so often regarded as a more
or less modern method that, even at the risk of a portentous note,
I must record my reasons for differing _in toto_ from this view.
Walton certainly employed it in the seventeenth century. Pursuing the
device further back, it is distinctly enjoined in the earliest fishing
treatise in English, the earlier version of _The Boke of St. Albans_
(_i.e._ a MS. of about 1450 printed from a MS. in the possession of A.
Denison, Esq., with Preface and Glossary by T. Satchell, London, 1883),
and seems, although not clearly described, surely specified as follows:
In “How many maner of Anglynges that ther bene ... The IIIIth with a
mener for the troute with owte plumbe or floote the same maner of Roche
and Darse with a lyne of I or II herys batyd with a flye. The Vth is
with a dubbed hooke for the troute and graylyng....” This passage draws
a decided distinction between baiting with a fly and a dubbed hook, or
artificial fly. But no lead (plumbe) or float was to be used, therefore
the method intended seems without doubt “dapping,” which warrants, to
my mind, the assumption that this device is as old as the earliest
instructions in English. This older form of the Treatise seems, it is
true, to have differed slightly from the version used for _The Boke
of St. Albans_ in 1496. T. Satchell held that they both had a common
origin in the “bokes of credence,” which are mentioned in the latter,
and may, he suggests, have been French, but of this I am doubtful,
principally because the French and English traditions appear to me to
have marked points of difference.
[365] The two smallest perfect hooks scale about No. 10 and No. 11
respectively in the old, and 5 and 4 in the new numbering. They are
considerably smaller than the Kahun (XII Dynasty) hook, which Petrie
believes to be the smallest known in ancient Egypt. Cf. his _Tools and
Weapons_ (London, 1917), p. 37 f. But the Kahun hooks scale Nos. 9 and
6 respectively.
[366] _Od._, XVII. 383 and 386.