ÆLIAN—THE MACEDONIAN INVENTION, OR THE
FIRST MENTION OF AN ARTIFICIAL FLY
“They knew ’e stole; ’e knew they knowed;
They did not tell, or make a fuss,
But winked at Ælian down the road,
And ’e winked back—the same as us!”[426]
Ælian (170-230 A.D.), who, though born in Italy and brought up in
the Latin tongue, acquired so complete a command of Greek that he
could speak it as well as an Athenian gentleman (hence his sobriquet
μελίγλωττος), composed his works in Greek.
His _Natural History_[427] soon became a standard work on Zoology,
although in arrangement it is very defective: for instance, he skips
from elephants (XI. 15) to dragons in the very next chapter, and from
the livers of mice in II. 56 to the uses of oxen in II. 57. This
treatment of things, ποικίλα ποικίλως, is asserted by the author to be
intentional, so as to avoid boring the reader. For his part he avows
that he prefers observing the habits of animals and fish, listening to
the nightingale, or studying the migration of cranes, to heaping up
riches![428]
[Illustration: (_a_) FISHERMAN AND SON. (_b_) SON SALUTING WAYSIDE
HERMES.
From a Greek vase in Vienna. R. Schneider, _Arch. epig. Mitth._, iii.,
Pl. 3.]
Whether as a Naturalist Ælian possesses any value, whether his work
is “scrappy and gossiping, and largely collected from older and more
logical writers,”[429] or “from the industry displayed, despite
deficiency in arrangement, a valuable collection in Natural History,”
to us fishermen matters little, for unto him has been ascribed the
great glory of being the first author of all ages and of all countries
specifically to mention and roughly describe an Artificial Fly.
And not only is he the first, but also (with possibly one exception)
the only author during fourteen hundred years, who makes any reference
to any such fly.[430] From Ælian until the _Treatyse of Fysshynge with
an Angle_ we find no mention of, or allusion to, the Artificial Fly,
but that it was well known as a method of angling is easily deduced
from the authoress’s abrupt introduction of the subject, “There ben the
xij flies or dubbes with which ye shall angle.”[431]
The usually accurate _Bibliotheca Piscatoria_ of Westwood and Satchell
states under heading of ‘Ælian,’ that Stephen Oliver (Mr. Chatto), in
his _Scenes and Recollections of Fly Fishing_, _first_ pointed out this
remarkable passage. Now the first edition of Oliver’s book is dated
1834; so, if the _Bibliotheca Piscatoria_ be correct, Ælian’s statement
apparently remained unknown to Anglers for nearly eighteen centuries.
I purposely set out a translation of the whole passage in Ælian, XV.
1, because short extracts are usually given, and because these vary
greatly on a very important point. I adopt with some alterations the
translation by Mr. O. Lambert in his _Angling Literature in England_
(1881).
“I have heard of a Macedonian way of catching fish, and it is this:
between Bercea and Thessalonica runs a river called the Astræus, and in
it there are fish with speckled skins; what the natives of the country
call them you had better ask the Macedonians. These fish feed on a fly
peculiar to the country, which hovers on the river. It is not like
flies found elsewhere, nor does it resemble a wasp in appearance, nor
in shape would one justly describe it as a midge or a bee, yet it has
something of each of these. In boldness it is like a fly, in size you
might call it a midge, it imitates the colour of a wasp, and it hums
like a bee. The natives generally call it the _Hippouros_.
“These flies seek their food over the river, but do not escape the
observation of the fish swimming below. When then the fish observes
a fly on the surface, it swims quietly up, afraid to stir the water
above, lest it should scare away its prey; then coming up by its
shadow, it opens its mouth gently and gulps down the fly, like a
wolf carrying off a sheep from the fold or an eagle a goose from the
farmyard; having done this it goes below the rippling water.
“Now though the fishermen know of this, they do not use these flies at
all for bait for fish; for if a man’s hand touch them, they lose their
natural colour, their wings wither, and they become unfit food for the
fish. For this reason they have nothing to do with them, hating them
for their bad character; but they have planned a snare for the fish,
and get the better of them by their fisherman’s craft.
“They fasten red (crimson red) wool round a hook, and fix on to the
wool two feathers which grow under a cock’s wattles, and which in
colour are like wax. Their rod is six feet long, and their line is the
same length. Then they throw their snare, and the fish, attracted and
maddened by the colour, comes straight at it, thinking from the pretty
sight to get a dainty mouthful; when, however, it opens its jaws, it is
caught by the hook and enjoys a bitter repast, a captive.”
The lines which describe the making up of the fly—τῷ ἀγκίστρῳ
περιβάλλουσιν ἒριον φοινικοῦν, ἤρμοσταί τε τῷ ἐρίῳ δύο πτερὰ
ἀλεκτρυόνος ὑπὸ τοῖς καλλαίοις πεφυκότα καὶ κηρῷ τὴν χρόαν
προσεικασμένα[432]—are translated in Westwood and Satchell’s _Bibl.
Pisc._, and by Mr. Lambert quite differently.
In the _Bibl. Pisc._:
“Round the hook they twist scarlet wool, and two wings are secured on
this wool from the feathers which grow under the wattles of a cock,
brought up to the proper colour with wax.”
In Lambert:
“They fasten red wool round a hook and fit on the wool two feathers
which grow under a cock’s wattles, and which in colour are like wax.”
It is asserted in the _Bibl. Pisc._ that the whole passage is therein
“for the first time, accurately, translated,” but this proud boast
must take a back seat, for Mr. Lambert translates with far nearer
accuracy. One grave error springs from mistranslation in the former of
προσεικασμένα as “brought up to,” instead of “like,” a meaning very
common in Greek writers of the second and third century.
But, apart from the question which of the two be the better rendering,
no doubt whatever can exist which of the flies described would be found
the better, if not the only, killer. Application of wax to the hackles
of a cock would certainly cause the fibre to stick together, entirely
destroy their free play in the water, and render them useless as wings.
This passage, ever since its rediscovery by Oliver in 1834, has been
acclaimed by most writers on Fishing as (A) being the first instance
in literature, or for that matter in art, of the Artificial Fly, and
as (B) ascribing to the Macedonians the credit of a “new invention” in
Angling.
It is undoubtedly the first and only express mention of a specially
made-up Artificial Fly down to 500 A.D., and probably even down to
Dame Juliana’s Book (_c._ 1500). But I suggest and believe that this
passage is intended, not as a description of a “new invention,” or of a
striking departure from old methods of Angling. It merely instances the
Macedonian’s adaptability to his environment, and his imitative skill
in dressing from his wools and feathers a fly to resemble as closely
as possible the natural fly on which the fish were feeding, a practice
very common among anglers of the present day.
So far from the Artificial Fly being a “new invention,” it seems to me
to have been for a long time in more or less regular use. The materials
necessary or employed for dressing flies are set forth in two other
places by Ælian in this same work. The Macedonian fly is described at
length and in special detail, probably because it marked an advance in
making up a fly.
I have not been able so far to find the passages in Bk. III. 43, and
Bk. XV. 10, mentioned (except in Blümner’s general list of fishing
weapons under “_Fischfang_”[433]) or alluded to in connection with
fly-making, much less brought into the prominence which their special
pertinence of a surety deserves and demands.
This omission may be due to previous writers being content with the
authority and researches of Oliver and of Westwood and Satchell, and on
the line of least exertion not pursuing the subject any further even
in the pages of Ælian himself. If they had so pursued, they would have
discovered in the first passage in Bk. XII. 43, which is separated by
only three books, and in the second passage in Bk. XV. 10, which is
separated by only nine chapters from the _locus classicus_ in Bk. XV.
1, strong reasons for qualifying their statement as to the Macedonian
“invention.”
In Bk. XII. 43, Fishing is divided into four kinds—by Nets, Spears,
Weels, and Hooks; that by hooks (ἀγκιστρεία) is adjudged “the most
skilful, and the most becoming for free men,” that by Weels (κυρτεία)
the least so. In each class Ælian carefully enumerates the articles
necessary or generally used.
The list of those necessary for fishing with hooks, or Angling,
recounts “natural horse-hair, white, and black, and flame-coloured, and
half-grey; but of the dyed hair, they select only those that are grey,
or of true sea-purple, for the rest, they say, are pretty poor. They
use, too, the straight bristles of swine, and thread, and much copper
and lead, and cords.” Now follow the important words—“and feathers,
chiefly white, or black, or various. They use two wools, red and
blue.”[434]
Further requirements are “corks, and wood, and iron, and of things
they need, are reeds well-grown, and nets, and soaked rushes, a shaved
wand, and a dog-wood Rod, and the horns and hide of a she-goat.” The
equipment is as ample as amazing. What use, in the name of every
fishing Deity, unless the author is referring to Oppian’s method, did
the _Angler_ make of the “horns and hide of a she-goat”?
Ælian concludes with ἄλλος δὲ ἄλλῳ τούτων ἰχθὺς αἱρεῖται, which
antedates the tale of the millionaire, who, reproached with having
brought a thousand times too many flies, ejaculated, “with some of
these, if I can’t get a salmon, maybe I’ll strike a sucker”!
In XV. 10, which deals with the capture of pelamyde or young tunny
fish, one of the crew sitting at the stern lets down on either side of
the ship lines with hooks. On each hook he ties a bait (perhaps not a
bait in our modern technical sense, but rather a lure) wrapped in wool
of Laconian red, and to each hook attaches the feather of a seamew.[435]
Let us set aside, because of Ælian’s haphazard method of arrangement,
any argument which might otherwise fairly be adduced from the following
facts. (A) He expressly sets forth in XII. 43 (three books before he
mentions the Macedonian device) _red and other wools and feathers_ as
part of the _ordinary tackle_ of an Angler—most probably in river or
lake, for here, unlike XV. 10, where the prey is a sea-fish, we have no
mention of a ship, oars, etc. (B) When he does mention the Macedonian
device, he does not announce it in any way as a new invention or a
striking departure from the old methods of fishing, but quite simply,
in the words: “I have heard of the Macedonian way of fishing, and it is
this.”
Setting aside, I repeat, any arguments thus to be deduced, we are face
to face with the hard and curious fact, that in all three passages the
materials, out of which the lures are constructed, _are the same_; they
are wools of various colours, and feathers taken from birds, in XV. 1,
from a cock, in XV. 10, from a seamew.
Any assertion or suggestion that these wools and feathers were
used, and are specially stated to have been used for tying only the
Macedonian fly, and that this special statement of such uses is meant
expressly to differentiate the Macedonian from all other ways of
fishing, and thus constitutes the first mention of an Artificial Fly, I
counter by a couple of queries.
Why in XII. 43, and XV. 10, are these self-same wools and feathers
set out among the necessary ordinary requisite tackle of a fisherman,
if they were not used for dressing a fly, perhaps more primitive but
still Artificial? And, if they were not so used, to what other fishing
purpose can they be fairly applied?
Again, let us for a moment grant that the Macedonian device was the
absolutely new invention or the striking departure from all preceding
angling methods, which, had artificial flies not previously been
well known, it most certainly would have been. In this case, surely
Ælian, meticulous in his examination and classification of the tackle,
etc., needed for each of the four stated kinds of fishing, would have
employed, when about to tell of this invention, words calling more
instant attention to and far worthier of this great revolution than the
simple, “I have heard of the Macedonian way of fishing, and it is this”!
As supporting my contention, a further point must be noted. In the list
of tackle in XII. 43, wools and feathers are mentioned in a general
manner, but in XV. 1, their use is particularised and elaborated.
Similarly in the first passage the making and material of Rods are
given, but in the second (and here only) the particular length of rod
is stated.
It is on these passages (XII. 43, and XV. 10) and on their natural
implication, that I chiefly found my conclusion that (A) the practice
of making up and fishing with some kind of artificial fly had been in
more or less general use for a long time previous to the Macedonian
device, and (B) that the device is quoted merely as an instance of a
special, local, and improved adaptation of such usage—in a word as _le
dernier cri_ in flies![436]
If in Martial (_Ep._, V. 18. 8) _musco_, not _musca_, should be read,
then to Ælian would belong the credit of being the first to mention not
only the use of the artificial fly, but also the use of the natural fly.
In XIV. 22, we read of the _Thymalus_ (a kind of grayling), which alone
of all fishes gives out after capture no fishy smell, but rather so
fragrant an odour that one would almost swear that in his hand he held
a freshly gathered bunch of thyme (“that herb so beloved by bees”),
instead of a fish. Ælian then lays down that, while it is easy to catch
this fish in nets, it is impossible to do so with a hook baited with
_anything_ except the κώνωψ, _i.e._ the gnat, or more probably from
the vivid description by one who has evidently suffered, the mosquito,
“that horrid insect, a foe to man, both day and night, alike with his
bite and his buzz.”[437]
Here then, in XIV. 22, we get, if the conjecture _musco_ should be held
to deprive Martial of his priority, the first mention of angling with a
_natural_ fly.
The difficulty, obvious at once to the practical angler, of how the
ancients (or even the moderns with all the elaborate perfections of
Redditch) could manufacture a hook little enough to impale a mosquito
did not escape Aldrovandi.[438] But the κώνωψ, said to spring from
the σκώληκες, _i.e._, _larvæ_ found in the sediment of vinegar, was
apparently even smaller than his brother mosquito, the ἐμπίς.[439]
As only with great care, and even then only on very fine wire, can the
smallest modern hook, No. 000, be coaxed to impale a big gnat, the
problem before the Ancients of impaling with a hook one, and this not
even the largest, of the mosquito tribe seems insoluble. But perhaps
Ælian’s κώνωψ (as probably also his ἵππουρος) was far larger than its
descendant of the present day, or perhaps our author has substituted by
mistake the mosquito for some larger but similar gnat.
FOOTNOTES:
[426] After Kipling.
[427] Περὶ Ζώων ἰδιότητος.
[428] See Smith’s _Dict. Gk. and Rom. Biog. and Myth._, _s.v._ ‘Ælian.’
[429] Perizonius has proved that Ælian transferred large portions of
the _Deipnosophistæ_ of Athenæus to his _Varia Historia_, a robbery
which must have been committed almost in the lifetime of the pillaged
author: that Ælian extended such transference to his _Natural History_
also, his story of the _Pinna_, and others would seemingly demonstrate.
Sir J. E. Sandys, _A History of Classical Scholarship_, ed. 2
(Cambridge, 1906), i. 336, goes so far as to say: “He is the author of
seventeen books _On Animals_, mainly borrowed from Alexander of Myndos
(first century A.D.).”
[430] Dr. W. J. Turrell, _op. cit._, XI., states that a Latin poem
written by Richard de Fournival, about the thirteenth century, alludes
incidentally to fishing, and from this it appears that the _fly_ and
the worm were among the lures then used by anglers, but does not state
expressly whether Fournival’s fly was natural or artificial.
[431] Cf. H. Mayer, _Sport with Rod and Line_, Barnet and Phillips, New
York.
[432] Jacobs adopts κηρῷ, instead of Gesner’s χρυσῷ, chiefly because it
is written thus quite clearly in the Codex Augustanus. It also seems to
fit the context better.
[433] _Die römischen Privataltertümer_ (Munich, 1911), pp. 529-30.
[434] Καὶ πτεροῖς, μάλιστα μὲν λευκοῖς καὶ μέλασιν καὶ ποικίλοις.
Χρῶνταί γε μὴν oἱ ἁλιεῖς καὶ φοινικοῖς ἐρίοις καὶ ἁλουργέσι, κ.τ.λ.
[435] καὶ πτερὸν λάρου ἑκάστῳ ἀγκίστρῳ προσήρτηται.
[436] If Sandys (_antea_, 185, note 4) be right about Ælian’s work
being “mainly borrowed from Alexander of Myndos,” first century A.D.,
the artificial fly was probably well known in Martial’s time.
[437] πονηρῷ μὲν ζῴῳ καὶ μεθ’ ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτωρ ἀνθρώποις ἐχθρῷ καὶ
δακεῖν καὶ βοῆσαι.
[438] For size of hooks, see _antea_, p. 157 and note 1.
[439] Cf. Arist., _N. H._, V. 19. The σκώληξ of Aristotle is an
immature product of generation which grows and finally becomes a pupa,
or (so Aristotle believed) an egg giving birth to the perfect animal.