[2141] A Roman historian, who flourished in the reign of Augustus, and

died A.D. 21, in the seventieth year of his age. His great work was

called “Annales,” and extended to at least twenty-two books, and seems

to have contained much minute, though not always accurate, information

with regard to the internal affairs of the city; only a few fragments

remain, which bear reference to events subsequent to the Carthaginian

wars. He is also thought to have written a work called “Epitomæ.”

A treatise was published at Vienna, in 1510, in two Books, “On the

Priesthood and Magistracy of Rome,” under the name of Fenestella;

but it is in reality the composition of Andrea Domenico Fiocchi, a

Florentine jurist of the fourteenth century.

[2142] See end of B. vii.

[2143] See end of B. v.

[2144] L. Junius Moderatus Columella. He was a native of Gades, or

Cadiz, and was a contemporary of Celsus and Seneca. He is supposed to

have resided at Rome, and from his works it appears that he visited

Syria and Cilicia. It has been conjectured that he died at Tarentum.

His great work is a systematic treatise upon Agriculture, divided into

Twelve Books.

[2145] See end of B. vii.

[2146] See end of B. ii.

[2147] C. Lucilius, the first Roman satirical poet of any importance,

was born B.C. 148, and died B.C. 103. From Juvenal we learn that he was

born at Suessa of the Aurunci, and from Velleius Paterculus and Horace

other particulars respecting him. He is supposed to have been either

the maternal grand-uncle or maternal grandfather of Pompeius Magnus.

If not absolutely the inventor of Roman satire, he was the first to

mould it into that form which was afterwards fully developed by Horace,

Juvenal, and Perseus. He is spoken of in high terms as a writer by

Cicero, Horace, and Quintilian.

[2148] The father of Cornelia, the wife of Pompeius Magnus. After his

defeat by Cæsar at the battle of Thapsus, he stabbed himself, and

leaped into the sea. In what way he distinguished himself as an author,

does not appear.

[2149] See end of B. vii.

[2150] See end of B. vi.

[2151] He was one of the companions of L. Lucullus, proconsul in

Bætica, the province of Spain, B.C. 150. His work on Natural History is

several times referred to by Pliny.

[2152] See end of B. iii.

[2153] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned by Varro and Columella.

Nothing more seems to be known of him.

[2154] See end of B. v.

[2155] See end of B. iv.

[2156] See end of B. ii.

[2157] Of Tarsus, a Stoic philosopher, the disciple and successor of

Diogenes, and the teacher of Panætius, about B.C. 144. Of his personal

history but little is known. Mention is made of his History of Animals

by the Scholiast upon Apollonius Rhodius.

[2158] See end of B. ii.

[2159] There were several physicians of this name; one was a native of

Apamea in Bithynia, a follower of Herophilus, who flourished in the

third or second century B.C.; another lived about the same period, and

is by some supposed to have been the same as the last. No particulars

seem to be known of the individual here mentioned.

[2160] See end of B. ii.

[2161] See end of B. iii.

[2162] Of Miletus. He wrote on mythical subjects, and is mentioned as

an author by Diogenes Laertius; but nothing further seems to have been

known respecting him.

[2163] Some of the MSS. call him Acopas, or Copas. He was the author of

an account of the victors at the Olympic games, the work here referred

to by Pliny.

[2164] Hiero II., the king of Syracuse, and steady friend and ally of

the Romans. He died probably a little before the year B.C. 216, having

attained the age of ninety-two. Varro and Columella speak of a Treatise

on Agriculture written by him.

[2165] Attalus III., king of Pergamus, son of Eumenes II. and

Stratonice, daughter of Ariarathes, king of Cappadocia. In his will

he made the Roman people his heirs. Being struck with remorse for the

murders and other crimes of which he had previously been guilty, he

abandoned all public business, and devoted himself to the study of

physic, sculpture, and gardening, on which he wrote a work. He died

B.C. 133, of a fever, with which he was seized through exposing himself

to the sun’s rays, while engaged in erecting a monument to his mother.

[2166] See end of B. ii.

[2167] See end of B. vii.

[2168] An historian of Syracuse, one of the most celebrated of

antiquity, though, unfortunately, none of his works have come down to

us. He was born about B.C. 435, and died B.C. 356. He wrote histories

of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Phœnicia.

[2169] A Greek of Tarentum, famous as a philosopher, mathematician,

statesman, and general. The lives of him by Aristoxenus and Aristotle

are unfortunately lost. He lived probably about B.C. 400, and he is

said to have saved the life of Plato by his influence with the tyrant

Dionysius. He was finally drowned in the Adriatic. He attained great

skill as a practical mechanician; and his flying dove of wood was one

of the wonders of antiquity. The fragments and titles of works ascribed

to him are very numerous, but the genuineness of some is doubted.

[2170] See end of B. vii.

[2171] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

In B. xviii. c. 43, Pliny speaks of a work of his on lucerne clover and

cytisus.

[2172] Or Anaxipolis. He was a writer on Agricultural subjects, and

is mentioned by Varro and Columella; but nothing further is known

respecting him.

[2173] A writer on Agriculture. He is supposed to have lived before

the time of Aristotle, and is also mentioned by Varro. No further

particulars are known respecting him.

[2174] A writer on Agriculture; Varro calls him a native of Mallus, in

Cilicia.

[2175] A native of Cumæ or Cymæ, in Asia Minor, a Greek writer on

Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2176] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2177] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro, Columella,

Galen, and the Scholiast on Nicander.

[2178] The most famous among the soothsayers of Alexander the Great. He

probably wrote the work on Prodigies, which is referred to by Pliny in

B. xvii. c. 38, and elsewhere, as also by Lucian the satirist.

[2179] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2180] See end of B. vi.

[2181] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2182] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2183] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2184] See end of B. ii.

[2185] A writer on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro and Columella.

[2186] Or Euphonius, a writer on Agriculture, also mentioned by Varro

and Columella. Nothing further is known relative to him.

[2187] See end of B. vii.

[2188] Menander of Priene was a writer on Agriculture, mentioned

also by Varro and Columella. Menander of Heraclea was a writer on

Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro.

[2189] A poet who wrote on Agriculture, mentioned also by Varro. It

is not improbable that he is the same person with the Menecrates of

Smyrna, the author of two epigrams in the Greek Anthology.

[2190] A Greek writer on Agriculture, who wrote before the time of

Theophrastus, by whom he is mentioned, as also by Athenæus and Varro.

[2191] He is mentioned also by Varro, but nothing is known of him.

[2192] He is often referred to by Varro and Columella. He is also

supposed to have been the writer of a History of Thebes, mentioned by

the Scholiast and Apollonius Rhodius, B. iii.

[2193] Cassius Dionysius of Utica. He translated into Greek the

twenty-eight Books on Husbandry written by Mago the Carthaginian, in

the Punic language. Of Mago nothing further is known.

[2194] Diophanes of Bithynia made an epitome of the same work in Greek,

and dedicated it to King Deiotarus. Columella styles Mago the Father of

Agriculture.

[2195] Made king of Cappadocia by Antony, B.C. 34. He died at Rome, at

an advanced age, A.D. 17. Plutarch attributes to King Archelaus—if,

indeed, this was the same—a treatise on Minerals.

[2196] A native of Claros, near Colophon, in Ionia. It is not a matter

of certainty, but it is most probable, that he lived in the reign

of Ptolemy V., who died B.C. 181. He was a poet, grammarian, and

physician. His “Theriaca,” a poem on the wounds inflicted by venomous

animals, still exists, as also another called “Alexipharmia.”

[2197] He has already said, in B. ii. c. 3, that “the seeds of all

bodies fall down from the heavens, principally into the ocean, and

being mixed together, we find that a variety of monstrous forms are in

this way frequently produced.”

[2198] Hardouin has the following remark on this passage. “Rondelet

and Aldrovandus only waste their time and pains in making their minute

inquiries into the present names of these fish, which took their names

from grapes, the wood, the saw, and the cucumber; for by no other

writer do we find them mentioned even.” Cuvier, however, does not seem

to be of Hardouin’s opinion, that such investigations are a waste of

time, and has suggested that the eggs of the Sepia officinalis may be

alluded to, the eggs of which are in clusters of a dark colour, and

bearing a strong resemblance to black grapes. This resemblance to a

bunch of grapes is noticed by Pliny himself, in c. 74 of the present

Book.

[2199] He alludes, most probably, to what we call the “sword-fish,” the

“Xiphias gladius” of Linnæus.

[2200] Probably, in allusion to the “Squalus pristis” of Linnæus.

[2201] Cuvier suggests that he probably alludes to the “Holothuria

pentactes” of Linnæus, or the sea-priapus; and remarks, that when

the animal contracts itself, it bears a very strong resemblance to a

cucumber.

[2202] Cuvier says, that he most probably alludes to the “Syngnathus

hippocampus” of Linnæus. This little fish, he says, is also called

the sea-horse, and having the body armed with a hard coat, might very

easily have been taken for a shell-fish. Its head, in miniature, bears

a very strong resemblance to that of a horse.

[2203] It is not accurately known what fish was meant by the ancients,

under the name of “balæna.” According to some writers, it is considered

to be the same with what we call the “grampus.”

[2204] A space, as Hardouin remarks, greater than that occupied by

some towns, the “jugerum” being 240 feet long, and 120 broad. The vast

size of great fishes was a favourite subject with some of the ancient

writers, and their accounts were eagerly copied by some of the early

fathers. Bochart has collected these various accounts in his work on

Animals, B. i. c. 7. In the “Arabian Nights” also, we find accounts of

huge fishes in the eastern seas, so large as to be taken for islands.

The existence of the sea-serpent is still a question in dispute; and a

whale of large size, is a formidable obstacle in the way of a ship of

even the largest burthen.

[2205] As Hardouin remarks, we can learn neither from the works of

Pliny, nor yet of Ælian, what fish the pristis really was. From Nonius

Marcellus, c. 13, we find that it was a very long fish of large size,

but narrow body. Hardouin says that it was a fish of the cetaceous

kind, found in the Indian seas, which, in his time, was known by some

as the “vivella,” with a long bony muzzle serrated on either side,

evidently meaning the saw-fish. Pristis was a favourite name given by

the Romans to their ships. In the boat-race described by Virgil in the

Æneid, B. v., one of the boats is so called.

[2206] Cuvier remarks, that he himself had often seen the “langouste,”

or large lobster, as much as four feet in length, and the “homard,”

usually a smaller kind, of an equal size. The length, however, given

by Pliny would make six or eight feet, according to the length of the

cubit.

[2207] Cuvier says, that it is an exaggeration by travellers, which

there is nothing in nature at all to justify. Probably, however, some

animals of the genus boa, or python, or large water-snakes may have

given rise to the story.

[2208] On the southern coast of Arabia.

[2209] Ptolemy Philadelphus.

[2210] See B. vi. c. 23, 25. Strabo, in his fifteenth Book, tells the

same story of the Ichthyophagi, situate between the Carmani and the

Oritæ. Dalechamps suggests that the Gedrosi mentioned this in relation

to the Ichthyophagi, who were probably their neighbours.

[2211] Also called the Cophetes. See B. vi. c. 25. The commander of

Alexander’s fleet more especially alluded to, is probably Nearchus,

who wrote an account of his voyage, to which Pliny has previously made

allusion in B. vi. and which is followed by Strabo, in B. xv., and by

Arrian, in his “Indica.”

[2212] Hardouin remarks, that the Basques of his day were in the habit

of fencing their gardens with the ribs of the whale, which sometimes

exceeded twenty feet in length; and Cuvier says, that at the present

time, the jaw-bone of the whale is used in Norway for the purpose of

making beams or posts for buildings.

[2213] Onesicritus, quoted by Strabo, B. xv., says., that in the

vicinity of Taprobane, or Ceylon, there were animals which had an

amphibious life, some of which resembled oxen, some horses, and various

other land animals. Cuvier is of opinion, that not improbably the

“Trichecum manatum” and the “Trichecum dugong” of Linnæus are alluded

to, which are herbivorous animals, though nearly allied to the cetacea,

and which are in the habit of coming to pasture on the grass or

sea-weed they may chance to find on the shore.

[2214] It is remarked by Cuvier, that there is no resemblance whatever

between the domesticated animals and any of the cetacea; but that

the imagination of the vulgar has pictured to itself these supposed

resemblances, by the aid of a lively imagination.

[2215] From the Greek φυσητὴρ, “a blower,” probably one of the whale

species, so called from its blowing forth the water. Hardouin remarks,

that Pliny mentions the Gallic Ocean, in B. vi. c. 33, as ending at

the Pyrenees; and, probably, by this term he means the modern Bay of

Biscay. Rondeletius, B. xvi. c. 14, says, that this fish is the same

that is called by the Narbonnese peio mular, by the Italians capidolio,

and by the people of Saintonge, “sedenette.” Cuvier conjectures

also, that this was some kind of large whale; a fish which was not

unfrequently found, in former times, in the gulf of Aquitaine, the

inhabitants of the shores of which were skilled in its pursuit. Ajasson

states that Valmont de Bomare was of opinion that it was the porpoise;

but, as he justly remarks, the size of that animal does not at all

correspond with the magnitude of the “physeter,” as here mentioned.

[2216] Cuvier suggests that the idea of such an animal as the one here

mentioned, probably took its rise in the kind of sea star-fish, now

known as Medusa’s head, the Asterias of Linnæus; but that the enormous

size here attributed to it, has no foundation whatever in reality. He

remarks also, that the inhabitants of the north of Europe, have similar

stories relative to a huge polypus, which they call the “kraken.” We

may, however, be allowed to observe, that the “kraken,” or “korven,”

mentioned by good bishop Pontoppidan, bears a closer resemblance to the

so-called “sea-serpent,” than to anything of the polypus or sepia genus.

[2217] “Rotæ.” Cuvier suggests that this idea of the wheel was taken

from the class of zoophytes named “Medusæ,” by Linnæus, which have the

form of a disc, divided by radii, and dots which may have been taken

for eyes. But then, as he says, there are none of them of an excessive

size, as Pliny would seem to indicate by placing them in this Chapter,

and which Ælian has absolutely attributed to them in B. xiii. c. 20.

Of the largest rhizostoma, Cuvier says, that he had even seen, the

diameter of the disc did not exceed two feet.

[2218] Lisbon. See B. iv. c. 35.

[2219] One of the Scholiasts on Homer says, that before the discovery

of the brazen trumpet by the Tyrrhenians, the conch-shell was in

general use for that purpose. Hardouin, with considerable credulity,

remarks here, that it is no fable, that the nereids and tritons had a

human face; and says that no less than fifteen instances, ancient and

modern, had been adduced, in proof that such was the fact. He says that

this was the belief of Scaliger, and quotes the book of Aldrovandus on

Monsters, p. 36. But, as Cuvier remarks, it is impossible to explain

these stories of nereids and tritons, on any other grounds than the

fraudulent pretences of those who have exhibited them, or asserted that

they have seen them. “It was only last year,” he says, “that all London

was resorting to see a wonderful sight in what is commonly called a

mermaid. I myself had the opportunity of examining a very similar

object: it was the body of a child, in the mouth of which they had

introduced the jaws of a sparus [probably our “gilt-head],” while for

the legs was substituted the body of a lizard. The body of the London

mermaid,” he says, “was that of an ape, and a fish attached to it

supplied the place of the hind legs.”

[2220] Primarily the nereids were sea-nymphs, the daughters of Nereus

and Doris. Dalechamps informs us, that Alexander ab Alexandro states

that he once saw a nereid that had been thrown ashore on the coasts of

the Peloponnesus, that Trapezuntius saw one as it was swimming, and

that Draconetus Bonifacius, the Neapolitan, saw a triton that had been

preserved in honey, and which many had seen when taken alive on the

coast of Epirus. We may here remark, that the triton is the same as our

“mer-man,” and the nereid is our “mermaid.”

[2221] Of Gallia Lugdunensis, namely. The legatus was also called

“rector,” and “proprætor.”

[2222] Or “mer-man,” as we call it. Dalechamps, in his note, with all

the credulity of his time, states that a similar sea-man had been

captured, it was said, in the preceding age in Norway, and that another

had been seen in Poland, dressed like a bishop, in the year 1531.

Juvenal, in his 14th Satire, makes mention of the “monsters of the

ocean, and the youths of the sea.”

[2223] See B. iv. c. 31, 32.

[2224] See B. iv. c. 33.

[2225] Dalechamps says that this elephant is the same as the “rosmarus”

of Olaus Magnus, B. xxxii. c. 11. It is remarked by Cuvier, that

cetaceous animals have at all times received the names of those

belonging to the land. The sea-ram, he thinks, may have been the great

dolphin, which is called the “bootskopf,” and which has above the eye a

white spot, curved in nearly a similar manner to the horn of a ram. The

“elephant,” again, he suggests, may have been the Trichechus rosmarus

of Linnæus, or the morse, which has large tusks projecting from its

mouth, similar to those of the elephant. This animal, however, as he

says, is confined to the northern seas, and does not appear ever to

have come so far south as our coasts. Juba and Pausanias, however,

speak of these horns of the sea-ram as being really teeth or tusks.

[2226] Judging from the account of it here given, and especially in

relation to the teeth, Cuvier is inclined to think that the cachelot

whale, the Physeter macrocephalus of Linnæus, is the animal here

alluded to.

[2227] Solinus, generally a faithful mimic of Pliny, makes the measure

only half a foot. Cuvier says that there can be little doubt that the

bones represented to have been those of the monster to which Andromeda

was exposed, were the bones, and more especially the lower jaws, of the

whale. Ajasson certainly appears to have mistaken the sense of this

passage. He says that it must not be supposed that Pliny means the

identical bones of the animal which was about to devour Andromeda, but

of one of the animals of that kind; and he exercises his wit at the

expense of those who would construe the passage differently, in saying

that these bones ought to have been sent to those who show in their

collections such articles as the knife with which Cain slew Abel. Now,

there can be no doubt that these bones were _not_ those of the monster

which the poets tell us was about to devour Andromeda; but the Romans

certainly supposed that they were, and Pliny evidently thought so too,

for in B. v. c. 14, he speaks of the chains by which she was fastened

to the rock, at Joppa, as still to be seen there. M. Æmilius Scaurus,

the younger, is here referred to.

[2228] As already mentioned, there is considerable doubt what fish of

the whale species is meant under this name. Cuvier says, that even at

the present day whales are occasionally found in the Mediterranean, and

says that there is the head of one in the Museum of Natural History,

that was thrown ashore at Martigues. He also observes, that in the year

1829, one had been cast upon the coasts of Languedoc. Ajasson suggests,

that not improbably whales once frequented the Mediterranean in great

numbers, but that as commerce increased, they gradually retreated to

the open ocean.

[2229] Rondelet, B. xvi. c. 13, says that this animal was called

“espaular” by the people of Saintonge. Cuvier is of opinion, also, that

it is the same animal, which is also known by the name of “bootskopf,”

the Delphinus orca of Linnæus. (See N. [2225].) This cetaceous animal,

he says, is a most dangerous enemy to the whale, which it boldly

attacks, devouring its tongue, which is of a tender quality and

enormous size. He thinks, however, that the orca taken at the port of

Ostia was no other than a cachelot.

[2230] The Liburna, or Liburnica, was usually a bireme, or two-oared

galley, with the mast in the middle, though sometimes of larger bulk.

From the description given of these by Varro, as quoted by Aulus

Gellius, B. xvii. c. 3, they seem, as it has been remarked, somewhat

similar to the light Indian massooliah boats, which are used to cross

the surf? in Madras roads. Pliny tells us, in B. xvi. c. 17, that the

material of which they were constructed was pine timber, as free from

resin as it could possibly be obtained. The beak of these vessels was

of great comparative weight, and its sharpness is evidently alluded to

in the present passage, as also in B. x. c. 32. The term “Liburna” was

adopted from the assistance rendered to Augustus by the Liburni at the

battle of Actium.

[2231] These works were completed by Nero the successor of Claudius,

and consisted of a new and more capacious harbour on the right arm of

the Tiber. It was afterwards enlarged and improved by Trajan. This

harbour was simply called “Portus Romanus,” or “Portus Augusti;” and

around it there sprang up a town known as “Portus,” the inhabitants of

which were called “Portuenses.”

[2232] “Naufragiis tergorum.” This may probably mean a shipwreck, in

which some hides had fallen into the sea.

[2233] It is remarked by Rezzonico, that Palermus, in the account of

this story given by him in B. i. c. 1, has mistaken Pliny’s meaning,

and evidently thinks that “unum” refers to the soldiers, and not the

boats engaged in the attack.

[2234] “Ora.” Cuvier remarks, that it is not the “mouth of the animal

but the nostrils, that are situate on the top of the head, and that

through these it sends forth vast columns of water.” Aristotle, in his

Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 3, has a similar passage, from which Pliny copied

this assertion of his.

[2235] Cuvier remarks, that these are the animals of the cetaceous

class, which resemble the quadrupeds in the formation of the viscera,

their respiration, and the mammæ; and which, in fact, only differ from

them in their general form, which more nearly resembles that of fishes.

[2236] Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 2.

[2237] “Doctrinæ indaginibus.” This certainly seems a better reading

than “doctrina indignis,” which has been adopted by Sillig, and which

would make complete nonsense of the passage.

[2238] Dalechamps states that Cælius Rhodiginus, B. iv. c. 15, has

entered very fully into this subject.

[2239] Cuvier remarks, on this passage, that the mollusca have, instead

of blood, a kind of azure or colourless liquid. He observes also,

that insects respire by means of tracheæ, or elastic tubes, which

penetrate into every part of the body; and that the gills of fish are

as essentially an organ of respiration as the lungs. All, he says,

that Pliny adds as to the introduction of air into water, is equally

conformable to truth; and that it is by means of the air mingled with

the water, or of the atmosphere which they inhale at the surface, that

fishes respire.

[2240] In the shape of vapour raised by the action of the sun. In

accordance with this opinion, Cicero says, De Nat. Deor. B. ii. s. 27,

“The air arises from the respiration of the waters, and must be looked

upon as a sort of vapour coming from them.”

[2241] But, as Hardouin remarks, this act on the part of the fish is

caused as much by the water as the air.

[2242] As Hardouin remarks, this is a somewhat singular notion that

sleep is produced by the action of the lungs.

[2243] Hardouin asks, what this has to do with the question about the

air which Pliny is here discussing? and then suggests that his meaning

may possibly be, that the moon has an influence on bodies through the

medium of the air, in accordance with the notion of the ancients that

the respiration was more free during the time of full moon. Littré

says, that Pliny’s meaning is, that since the influence of the moon

is able to penetrate the waters, the air and the vital breath can of

course penetrate them also.

[2244] See B. x. c. 89, where this subject is further discussed.

[2245] “Infectum aera.”

[2246] See Aristotle, De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 13, and Hist. Anim. B.

viii. c. 2.

[2247] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 5.

[2248] Cuvier remarks, that these nostrils, or vent-holes, are placed

somewhat further back on the head in the dolphin than in the whale; but

at the same time they cannot be said to be situate on the back of the

animal.

[2249] Or “seals.” They will be further mentioned in c. 15 of the

present Book.

[2250] Or “turtles,” which are more fully described in c. 21 of this

Book.

[2251] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 74.

[2252] Cuvier remarks, that in the present Chapter there is a confusion

of the peculiarities of two different animals, and refers the reader

to his Note on B. viii. c. 38, which, so far as it has not been set

forth, is to the following effect:—“I may here remark, that Pliny

speaks on several occasions of dolphins with spines or stings on the

back, although at other times he is found to give that name to the same

cetaceous animal which is so denominated by us. Thus, in his story in

B. ix. c. 8, of the friendship conceived by a dolphin in Lake Lucrinus

for a child at Baiæ, he takes care to remark that the dolphin, when

taking the child on his back, concealed his spines beneath his dorsal

fin. I am of opinion, however, that I have recognized the fish which

Seneca, Pliny, and even Aristotle have sometimes confounded with the

real dolphin, apparently because it had received that name from certain

fishermen, and these are my reasons for forming this conclusion. In

c. 7 of the Ninth Book, Pliny mingles with many facts that really do

belong to the real dolphin, one trait which is quite foreign to it. ‘It

is so swift,’ says he, ‘that were it not for the fact that its mouth is

situate much beneath its muzzle, almost, indeed, in the middle of its

belly, not a fish would be able to escape its pursuit: in consequence

of this, it can only seize its prey by turning on its back.’ This,

it must be observed, is not one of those mistakes which we are to

put down to Pliny’s own account, and of which he has so many; for we

find Aristotle as well, who has so perfectly known and described the

ordinary dolphin, attributing a mouth similarly situate to the dolphin

and the cartilaginous animals. This fact, which is totally false as

regards the real dolphin, is, in all probability, applicable to the

alleged dolphin, whose back is mentioned as being armed with spines.

These three characteristics, a mouth situate very far beneath the

nose, spines on the back, and power and swiftness sufficient to enable

it to fight the crocodile, are only to be found united in certain of

the genus ‘Squalus,’ such as the ‘Squalus centrina,’ and the ‘Squalus

spinax’ of Linnæus.”

[2253] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5. From this description

Hardouin is induced to think that Rondelet and Aldrovandus are wrong

in their conclusions that it is the sea-hog, or porpoise, that is

meant. Cuvier also says, that this description will not apply to

the real dolphin, though it is strictly applicable to the Squalus

acanthias, Squalus ricinus, and others; to the former of which also

the spines or stings mentioned by Pliny appropriately belong; all the

other characteristics, he says, which are here mentioned by Pliny,

are applicable to the real dolphin, though in modern times it has

never been brought to such a degree of tameness. Hence it is that some

writers have supposed that Pliny is here speaking of the Trichechus

manatus of Linnæus, by the French called “lamentin,” by us the

“sea-cow.” Cuvier says, that he should be inclined to be of the same

opinion, were it not for the fact that that animal does not frequent

the coasts of the Mediterranean.

[2254] Copied literally from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5, and

De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 13.

[2255] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 74.

[2256] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 48, says not the _sails_,

but the _masts_ of ships; and Pintianus remarks, that Pliny has been

deceived by the resemblance of the words, ἱστὸς and ἱστίον. Ælian,

Hist. Anim. B. xii. c. 12, has a similar statement also.

[2257] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 9. Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l.

660.

[2258] Fishermen having notched the tail of the animal when young, and

recognized it by these marks thirty years afterwards.

[2259] “Incertâ de causâ.” Pintianus, following the similar account

given by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 48, takes the words to mean

“temere,” “hap-hazard,” “without any motive whatever.” Ajasson says

that it is their eager pursuit of small fishes which sometimes betrays

them into leaping on shore, and occasionally, the pain caused by

attacks of parasitical sea-insects and other animals.

[2260] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 49, says that the dolphin makes

this noise when it comes to the air.

[2261] He would seem to imply that the dolphin knows that it is

“simus,” or “flat-nosed,” for which reason it is particularly fond

of being called “Simo,” or “flat-nose,” a piece of good taste and

intelligence remarkable even in a dolphin. Hardouin undertakes to

explain their remarkable liking for this name on other grounds, and

says that when a song was sung, they were charmed by the pronunciation

of the word “Simo” every now and then, the last syllable being drawn

out at great length. Ajasson suggests that the only reason for which

this name delighted them, was probably the sibilant or hissing sound

made when it is frequently repeated.

[2262] “Symphoniæ cantu.” Hardouin is of opinion that this means the

music of the “symphonia,” that being some kind of musical instrument.

But, as Ajasson remarks, the meaning is much more likely to be,

“singing in concert,” where there are several performers, and each

takes his own part in the symphony. It might, however, possibly mean

singing and music combined, similar to the performance of Arion,

mentioned at the end of the Chapter.

[2263] The organ was so called by the ancients, from the resemblance

borne by its pipes to “hydraula,” or water-pipes, and from the fact

of the bellows being acted on by the pressure of water. According to

an author quoted by Athenæus, B. iv. c. 75, the first organist was

Ctesibius of Alexandria, who lived about B.C. 200. It is not improbable

that Pliny refers to this invention in B. vii. c. 38. The pipes of

the organ of Ctesibius were partly of bronze and partly of reed, and

Tertullian describes it as a very complicated instrument.

[2264] Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 15, tells this story as well, and

Aulus Gellius, B. vii. c. 8, relates it from the fifth Book of the

Ægyptiaca of Apion, who stated that he himself had witnessed the fact.

[2265] The Lucrine Lake originally communicated with the sea, but

was afterwards separated from the Bay of Cumæ by a dyke eight stadia

in length. In the time of Augustus, however, Agrippa opened a

communication between the Lake and the Bay, for the purpose of forming

the Julian harbour. If the circumstance here mentioned by Pliny

happened before this period, “invectus” must mean “carried by human

agency;” but if after, it is possible that the fish may have been

carried into the lake by the tide. For an account of the lake, see B.

iii. c. 9.

[2266] See B. iii. c. 9.

[2267] “Pinnarum aculeas.” See the remarks of Cuvier on this passage,

and his conclusion as to the fish meant, in his Note in p. 369.

[2268] Oppian, in his Halieutica, B. v. l. 453, mentions this story

also, and of course Solinus does.

[2269] See B. v. c. 3.

[2270] The island and city of Caria. See B. v. c. 29.

[2271] Being alarmed by the pursuit of the fish while he was swimming.

[2272] Athenæus, B. xiii., tells this story more at large, and states

that the name of the child was Dionysius. Hardouin remarks, that

Solinus, the ape of Pliny, has absolutely read this passage as though

the child’s name had been Babylon; upon the strength of which, Saumaise

had proposed to alter the reading in Pliny, not remembering at the time

that the boy’s name had been given by Athenæus.

[2273] This story is also told by Plutarch, in his work on the

Instincts of Animals.

[2274] Aulus Gellius, B. vii. c. 8, mentions this story, borrowing it

probably from Theophrastus.

[2275] The people of the territory in which Amphilochian Argos was

situate, and lying to the south of Ambracia. See B. iv. c. 2.

[2276] The people of Tarentum. See B. iii. c. 16.

[2277] Ovid tells the story of Arion more fully, and in beautiful

language, in the Fasti, B. ii. l. 92, _et seq._

[2278] A promontory in the south of Laconia, now Cape Matapan. See B.

iv. c. 7. Solinus, c. 7, tells us that there was a temple of Arion of

Methymna, situate on this spot, in which there was a figure of him

seated on a dolphin’s back, and made of bronze; with an inscription

stating that this wonderful circumstance took place in the 29th

Olympiad, in which year Arion had been victorious in the Sicilian

games. Philostorgius, in B. i. of his Ecclesiastical History, tells

us also of a martyr who was saved by a dolphin, which bore him to

Helenopolis, a city of Nicomedia.

[2279] Now Nismes. See B. iii. c. 5.

[2280] Still known as the Lake of Lattes, in the department of

Narbonne. Cuvier says that the mullet-fishing is still carried on

in this lake, which is on the shores of Languedoc, and refers to

D’Astruc’s Memoirs on the Natural History of that province. The

dolphins, however, he says, no longer take part in the sport; and

he observes that the same story is told by Ælian, B. ii. c. 8, and

Albertus Magnus, De Anim. B. xxiv., with reference to other places.

Oppian, in his Halieutica, B. v., makes Eubœa the scene of these

adventures, while Albertus Magnus speaks of the shores of Italy.

Rondelet, in his Book on Fishes, says that it used to take place on

the coasts of Spain, near Palamos. Cuvier suggests, with Belon and

D’Astruc, that the story arose from the fact that the dolphins, while

pursuing the shoals of mullets, sometimes drove them into the creeks

and salt-water lakes on the coast; a fact which has been sometimes

found to cause the fish to be caught in greater abundance.

[2281] Dalechamps tells us that the people of Montpellier call this

outlet “La Crau,” and that it is in the vicinity of Mangueil.

[2282] Were it not for the word “nihilominus” here, it would look as

if the meaning were, that although the ends of the nets are hoisted

up, the fish are so active that they jump over the side, and thus get

enclosed. By the use of that word, however, it would seem to mean, that

although the sides are hoisted up, the fish are so nimble, that they

clear the nets altogether. If the latter is the meaning, Pliny probably

intends to speak only of what some of them are able to do: otherwise it

is hard to see of what utility the nets were in the operation.

[2283] “Quos interemere.” Pintianus suggests “æquo interim jure”—“with

equal rights,” instead of these words, and Pelicier does not disapprove

of the suggestion; for Ælian states, in B. ii. c. 8, Hist. Anim.,

that the dolphins used to share the fish equally with the fishermen

of Eubœa. But, as Hardouin says, the words “quos interemere” have

reference to the statement above, that “they content themselves for the

present with killing them only.” And besides, if the fishermen gave

them an equal share, it is not likely that they would give them still

more of the fish on the following day.

[2284] Ælian also mentions this, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 8.

[2285] The same is stated in Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 74, and

Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 6.

[2286] This is also mentioned by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 74.

[2287] Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. xii. c. 6.

[2288] Cuvier remarks, that there is some confusion here between an

animal of the dolphin kind, and another of the genus Squalus. He

suggests that the Delphinus tursio of Linnæus (our porpoise) is meant;

but then there would be no ground for comparing its teeth with those of

the dog-fish or shark. He remarks also, that Athenæus, B. vii. p. 310,

speaks of pieces of salted flesh from the dog-fish, as being called by

the name of tursio.

[2289] Under this name he probably means the shark as well as the

dog-fish. This passage is curiously rendered by Holland. “But

especially they are snouted like dogges, when they snarle, grin, and

are readie to do a shrewd turne.”

[2290] We may here remark, that Pliny throughout calls these

animals “testudines,”—“tortoises.” It has been thought better, in

the translation, in order to avoid confusion, to give them their

distinctive name of “turtle.”

[2291] This passage, down to the words “to the fishermen,” is found in

Agatharchides, as quoted by Photius.

[2292] See B. xxxii. c. 4.

[2293] Cuvier says that this is evidently a gross exaggeration on the

part of some traveller; and Ajasson remarks, that the very largest

turtle known does not exceed five feet in length, and four in breadth.

In such a case, the superficies of the calapash or shell would be only

from twenty to twenty-four feet, and this, be it remembered, in one of

the very largest size.

[2294] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 3, has a similar passage.

[2295] See B. v. c. 17.

[2296] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 3, states to a similar effect.

[2297] Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 522, has a passage to a somewhat

similar effect. Holland’s notion of the meaning of this passage is

singular in the extreme. “The female fleeth from the male, and will not

abide to engender, until such time as he pricke her behind, and sticke

somewhat in her taile for running away from him so fast.”

[2298] Cuvier remarks, that it is evident that the fore-feet were here

taken for horns, they being in the turtle long, narrow, and pointed.

[2299] From the Greek χέλυον, “tortoise-shell.” See B. vi. c. 34.

[2300] Or “turtle eaters.” See B. vi. c. 28.

[2301] From χερσιναὶ, “land turtles,” or “tortoises.”

[2302] “Repositorium” seems to have been the name for a large tray

upon which viands were brought to table; and probably for stands

similar to our sideboards, as well as cabinets or wardrobes. Carvilius

Pollio, a Roman eques, lived in the time of the Dictator Sylla, and

was celebrated for his luxury in ornamental furniture. He is again

mentioned by Pliny in B. xxx. c. 51.

[2303] The Latin is “cortex,” which probably means a “bark,” or “rind.”

Ajasson remarks upon the meagreness of the Latin language, in supplying

appropriate words for scientific purposes, and congratulates himself

upon adding the word, “carapax,” (signifying “callipash,” as we call

it) to the Latin vocabulary.

[2304] By us known as the “angel-fish,” the “Squalus squatina” of

Linnæus, a kind of shark. From this property of its skin, it was called

by the Greeks ῥίνη the “file.” See B. xxxii. c. 53.

[2305] Probably the Muræna helena of Linnæus. See more on it in c. 23

of the present Book.

[2306] Spoken of more fully in c. 23 of this Book.

[2307] Cuvier remarks, how very inappropriately Pliny places the

pristis (probably the saw-fish) and the balæna among the animals that

are covered with hair. Aristotle, he says, in his Hist. Anim. B. vi. c.

12, goes so far as to say that the pristis and the ox-fish (a kind of

ray or thorn-back, probably) bring forth their young like the balæna

and the dolphin, but does not go beyond that. Cuvier says also, that

what is here stated of the sea-calf is in general correct, except the

statements as to the properties of its skin and its right fin, the

stories relative to which are, of course, neither more nor less than

fabulous.

[2308] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 11, states to the like effect.

[2309] “Fremitu.” From their lowing noise, the French have also called

these animals “veaux de mer,” and we call them “sea-calves.” Ælian,

Hist. Anim. B. xii. c. 56, and Diodorus Siculus, B. iii., also speak of

training the sea-calf. Hardouin says that Lopez de Gomara, one of the

more recent writers on Mexico, in his day, had given an account of an

Indian sea-calf, or manati, as it was called by the natives, that had

become quite tame, and answered readily to its name; and that, although

not very large, it was able to bear ten men on its back. He also tells

us of a much more extraordinary one, which Aldrovandus says he himself

had seen at Bologna, which would give a cheer (vocem ederet) for the

Christian princes when asked, but would refuse to do so for the Turks;

just, Hardouin says, as we see dogs bark, and monkeys grin and jump, at

the mention of a particular name.

[2310] Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 408, mentions this fact, and Juvenal,

Sat. iii. l. 238, alludes to it: “Would break the slumbers of Drusus

and of sea-calves.”

[2311] This assertion, though untrue, no doubt, as to sympathy with

the tides, is in some degree supported by the statement of Rondelet,

B. xvi. c. 6, who says that he had often perceived changes in the wind

and weather prognosticated by the hide of this animal; for that when a

south wind was about to blow, the hair would stand erect, while when a

north wind was on the point of arising, it would lie so flat that you

would hardly know that there was any hair on the surface.

[2312] Hardouin remarks, that Pliny classes the viper probably among

the aquatic animals, either because it was said to couple with

the muræna, or else because it has a womb not unlike that of the

cartilaginous fishes.

[2313] Hardouin suggests that the proper reading here is probably

144, because in B. xxxii. c. 51, Pliny speaks of 174 different kinds

of fishes, and here he says that the crustacea are thirty in number.

Daubenton speaks of the species of fishes as being 866 in number,

while Lacèpede says that he had examined more than a thousand, but

that was far below the real number. Cuvier mentions specimens of about

6000 kinds of fishes, in the Cabinet du Roi. Ajasson remarks upon the

learned investigations of Cuvier on this subject, and his researches in

Sumatra, Java, Kamschatka, New Zealand, New Guinea, and elsewhere, for

the purpose of increasing the list of the known kinds of fishes.

[2314] B. xxx. c. 53.

[2315] About 1200 pounds. Cetti, in his “Natural History of Sardinia,”

vol. iii. p. 134, says that tunnies weighing a thousand pounds are far

from uncommon, and that they have been taken weighing as much as 1800

pounds.

[2316] The same as the Latin “dodrans,” or about nine inches. This

passage is taken almost verbatim from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. c. 34.

Cuvier says that this passage, although like the preceding one, taken

from Aristotle, is much more incredible, (though Lacèpede, by the

way, disputes Pliny’s statement as to the weight of the tunny). “A

distance,” Cuvier says, “of from seven to eight feet from one point of

the fork of the tail to the other, would denote a fish twenty-five feet

in length; and it must be observed, that most of the MSS. of Pliny say

_two_ cubits.” Aristotle, however, beyond a doubt says _five_.

[2317] Now universally recognized as the sly silurus, or sheat-fish,

called in the United States the horn-pout, the Silurus glanis of

Linnæus. On this formerly much-discussed question, Cuvier has an

interesting Note. “There can now be no longer any doubt as to the

silurus; it is evidently synonymous with the ‘glanis’ of Aristotle;

as we find Pliny, in c. 17 and 51, giving the same characteristics of

the silurus, as Aristotle does of the glanis, Hist. Anim. B. viii.

c. 20, and B. ix. c. 37; such, for instance, as the care it takes

of its young, and the effects produced upon it by the dog-fish and

the approach of storms. It is easy to prove also that it is not the

sturgeon, [as Hardouin thought it to be], but the fish that is still

called ‘silurus’ by the naturalists, the ‘wels’ or ‘schaid’ of the

Germans, the ‘saluth’ of the Swiss, &c.”

[2318] Cuvier remarks, that it is by no means clear what fish is meant

by this name, which is only found here and once in Hesychius, who

calls it κητώδης, “of the large kind.” Rondelet, in his account of

river fish, suggests that “exos” is the proper reading, and that under

this name is meant a species of sturgeon. Gesner asks if it might not

possibly have been the “brochet;” but, as Cuvier says, that fish was

well-known to the Romans under the name of “lucius” [our pike], and

it is not sufficiently large for Pliny to compare it to the wels or

the attilus, and for Hesychius to have enumerated it among the “large”

fishes. It is in accordance, however, with this suggestion of Gesner

that the pike genus bears the name of “esox” in modern Natural History.

[2319] Cuvier says that there are found in the river Padus, or Po,

several species of very large sturgeons, and that there is one of

these which still bears the name, according to Salvian and Rondelet,

of adello and adilo. Aldrovandus, he says, calls it adelo or ladano.

This Cuvier takes to be the attilus of Pliny. But, according to

Rezzonico, Paulus Jovius denies that the attilus or _adelus_ of the

people of Ferrara is of the sturgeon genus; but says that it is so

much larger than the sturgeon, and so different in shape, flavour,

value, and natural habits, that the names of these two fishes were used

proverbially by the people, when they were desirous to signify two

objects of totally different nature. Rezzonico remarks, that the name

given to it in Ferrara was properly “l’adano,” which became corrupted

into “ladano,” and expresses it as his opinion that it was the same

with the esox of the Rhine. He also states, that, from the exceeding

whiteness of the flesh, the ladano was called by the fishermen,

_sturione bianco_.

[2320] Rezzonico says that this may possibly have happened in Pliny’s

day, but that in modern times no attilus or ladano is found weighing

more than 500 pounds. He says that this fish may, in comparison with

the sturgeon, be aptly called an inert fish; for while the sturgeon

makes the greatest possible resistance to the fishermen, the other is

taken with the greatest ease.

[2321] Cuvier says, that this was probably the Petromyzon branchialis

of Linnæus, the lampillon, a little fish resembling a worm, which

adheres to the gills of other fish, and sucks the blood. The same name

was also given to the Clupea alosa of Linnæus, our “shad;” indeed

Linnæus gave this name to the whole herring and pilchard genus,

erroneously classing them with the shad.

[2322] The Main of the present day. But Dalechamps would read “Rheno;”

for, he says, this river was not known to the ancients by the name of

Mœnus.

[2323] According to Albertus Magnus, this fish, which so strongly

resembled the sea-pig, or porpoise, was the huso, a kind of sturgeon.

[2324] See B. iv. c. 26. Cuvier says, that the fish here alluded to, is

one of the large species of sturgeon, so common in the rivers that fall

into the Black Sea, the bones of which are cartilaginous, and the flesh

is generally excellent eating.

[2325] Cuvier says, that this is probably the dolphin of the Ganges; a

fish described by Dr. Roxburgh, in his “Account of Calcutta,” vol. vii.

This fish, he says, has the muzzle and the tail of the common dolphin;

but he declines to assert that it attains the length of sixteen cubits.

[2326] Solinus gives an account of these worms of the Ganges, also from

Sebosus, but not exactly to the same effect as Pliny. He says, that

they are of an azure colour, are _six_ cubits in length, and that they

have _two arms_. He gives the same account as to their extraordinary

strength.

[2327] It is evident that there is some mistake in the MSS. either

of Solinus or Pliny, as they both copied from the same source. Pliny

speaks of “branchiæ,” or gills, while Solinus mentions “brachia,”

or arms; the former, however, appears to be the preferable reading.

Cuvier remarks that Ctesias, in his Indica, c. 27, has given a similar

account, but that the worm mentioned by him has two _teeth_, and not

_gills_, and that it only seizes oxen and camels, and not elephants.

He states also, that an oil was extracted from it, which set on fire

everything that it touched. Cuvier observes, that in most of the MSS.

of Pliny the worm is sixty cubits long, instead of six, as in some few,

a length which was quite necessary to enable it to devour an elephant;

and he suggests that some large conger or muræna may have originally

given rise to the story. It is by no means improbable that some

individuals of the boa or python tribe, in the vicinity of the river,

may have been taken for vast fish or river worms. Among the German

traditions, we find the name “worm” given to huge serpents, which are

said to have spread devastation far and wide; and in the north of

England legends about similar “worms,” are by no means uncommon: the

story about the “Laidly Worm,” in the county of Durham, for instance.

[2328] Although taken primarily from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c.

9, as Cuvier observes, this assertion is incorrect, as the male does

not in any way differ from the female in the conformation of the fins.

Pliny, however, has exaggerated the statement of Aristotle, who only

says, that the female differs from the male in having a little fin

under the belly, which the male has not; and not that the male has no

ventral fin whatever.

[2329] “Magno mari;” meaning, no doubt, the Mediterranean.

[2330] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 17.

[2331] Or “mud-fish,” either from being born in mud, as Festus says, or

from their concealing themselves in it.

[2332] “Clidio.” The “clidion,” or “clidium,” was the part of the fish

which extended, as Festus says, from the two shoulders (armos) to the

breast. The “claviculæ” were thus called by the Greek physicians.

[2333] The Greeks called the inner part, or black-coloured heart of the

oak, μέλαν δρυὸς, whence the present name. Athenæus, B. vi. speaks of

the choice parts cut from the orcyni, large tunnies, which were taken

in the straits of Gades.

[2334] “Faucibus.” Cuvier observes, that modern experience has

confirmed what Pliny says, as to the difference of flavour in these

various parts of the tunny. He refers to Cetti, _Ist. Nat. di

Sardegna_, vol. iii. p. 137.

[2335] “Exercitatissima.” “In greatest request, as being most stirred

and exercised,” is the translation given by Holland; while Littré

renders it “mieux nourries,” “best nourished.” According to the

general notion in this country, the part about the tail is reckoned

inferior, and anything but the “best nourished.” It is doubtful if

“exercitatissima” is the correct reading; and if it is, its precise

meaning has yet to be ascertained.

[2336] From the Greek ἀπόλεκτοι, “choice bits,” or, as we should say,

“tit-bits.”

[2337] From the Greek κύβια.

[2338] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.

[2339] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.

[2340] This fish does not seem to have been exactly identified till

recently; but was generally supposed to have been of the tunny genus.

Appian says, that it is rather smaller than the tunny. Rondelet,

B. viii., speaks of it as being, in his time, known by the name of

“byza.” Cuvier has the following remark. “The ‘amia’ of the ancients,

as Rondelet was well aware, was the same fish, to which, incorrectly,

upon nearly all the coasts of the Mediterranean, the name of ‘pelamis’

has been transferred. It is, in fact, the same as the ‘limosa’ of

Salvianus, the ‘pelamis’ of Belon, the ‘thynnus primus’ of Aldrovandus,

and the ‘scomber sarda’ of Bloch. The proof of all these being

synonymous, is the fact, that the ‘scomber sarda’ is the only species

of the tunny genus in the Mediterranean, which has strong, sharp,

cutting teeth, and is capable of attacking large fish, which Aristotle

relates respecting the amia, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 37. The same author

too, was well aware of the length of its gall-bladder, which is greater

than in most other fishes.”

[2341] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16.

[2342] Generally supposed, as Cuvier says, to have been the same as the

mackerel, or Scomber scombrus of Linnæus, and with very fair reason.

From the frequent remarks made on the subject by the Roman poets, we

find that it was a very common fish at Rome, of small size, and was in

little repute. It was wrapped in paper when exposed for sale, and bad

poets were threatened with the mackerel, as they are at the present

day with the grocer or butterman; or, as in the time of the Spectator,

with the trunk-maker. Thus Persius says, Sat. i. l. 43. “and to leave

writings worthy to be preserved in cedar, and verses that dread neither

mackerel nor frankincense.” Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 2,

enumerates this fish among those that are gregarious, and places it in

company with the tunny and the pelamis, but states that it is inferior

in strength, B. viii. c. 2. Cuvier says, that the mackerel still has

names in different parts that are derived from the word “scomber,”

they being called “sgombri” at Constantinople, scombri at Venice, and

scurmu, scrumiu, and scumbirro in Sicily.

[2343] Cetarias. These “cetariæ,” or “cetaria,” Papias says, were

pieces of standing salt water, in the vicinity of the sea-shore, in

which tunnies and other large fish were kept, and adjoining to which

were the salting-houses. In the middle ages these preserves were called

“tunnariæ,” or “tunneries.”

[2344] As in the Euxine. Tunnies were caught on the Spanish coasts, as

we learn from Athenæus, who, as quoted above, mentions the fisheries

off Gades, for the orcynus, or large tunny. See N. [2333], p. 385.

[2345] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, from whom Pliny has here

borrowed, makes a somewhat dissimilar statement. He says that “no

noxious animal enters the Euxine, except the _phocena_ [_or porpoise_],

and the dolphin and little dolphin.” Hardouin remarks, however, that

Pliny is right in his statement that seals are to be found in the

Euxine, and that Rondelet, B. xvi. c. 9, for that reason has suggested

that the reading ought to be altered in Aristotle, and not in Pliny.

[2346] Aristotle, B. viii. c. 6. Plutarch on the Instinct of Animals,

and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 42, say the same.

[2347] Called “chrysoceras,” in B. iv. c. 18, that being the Greek

name for “golden horn.” He means, that in consequence of the lucrative

nature of this fishery, it thence obtained the name of the “golden”

horn. Dalechamps is of opinion that some person has here substituted

the Latin “Aurei cornus,” for the Greek name Chrysoceras.

[2348] Hence, according to Strabo, Chalcedon obtained the name of the

“City of the Blind,” the people having neglected to choose the opposite

shore for the site of their city. Still, however, a kind of pelamis,

or young tunny, from this place, had the name of “Chalcedonia,” and is

spoken of as a most exquisite dainty by Aulus Gellius, B. vii c. 16.

[2349] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B.

ix.; and Plutarch, in his Treatise on the Instincts of Animals, state

to a similar effect.

[2350] Cuvier remarks that the “pompilos” of the ancients, which

accompanied ships and left them on nearing the land, was the pilot-fish

of the moderns, the Gasterosteus ductor of Linnæus. He thinks, however,

that the name may have also been given to other fish as well, of

similar habits.

[2351] Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.

[2352] Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.

[2353] The cuttle-fish. The Sepia officinalis of Linnæus.

[2354] The ink-fish. The Sepia loligo of Linnæus.

[2355] Cuvier suggests that the turdus, or sea-thrush, and the merula,

or sea-blackbird, were both fishes of the labrus tribe, usually known

as “breams.” Hippolytus Salvianus, in his book on the Water Animals,

states, that in his day—both these fish were extremely well known,

and that they still retained the names of tordo and merlo. Rondelet,

B. vi., says, that the fish anciently called turdus, was in his time

known by the name of “vielle,” among the French. The dictionaries give

“merling, or whiting,” as the synonyme of “merula.”

[2356] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, says, that on going into

the Euxine, the trichiæ are either taken or else devoured by the other

fishes, for that they are never seen to return.

[2357] The trichias, according to Cuvier, is a fish belonging to the

family of herrings. A scholiast on Aristophanes attributes the origin

of the name to the fine fish bones like hairs (θρὶξ), with which the

flesh is filled, which is a characteristic peculiar to the herring

kind. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 15, represents the membras,

the trichis, and the trichias, as different ages of the same fish.

The trichis was little, and very common. In Aristophanes, Knights, l.

662, we find an obol mentioned as the price of a hundred. From the

Acharnæ of the same author, we learn that it was salted as provision

for the fleets. Cuvier thinks that everything combines to point out

the sardine, the Clupea sprattus of Linnæus, as the trichis, or else

a similar kind of fish, the melette of the African coast, the Clupea

meletta of the naturalists. In this latter case the trichias, he

thinks, may have been the sardine, or, perhaps, the Clupea ficta of

Lacèpede, which is called the “sardine” in some places, and at Lake

Garda, in Lombardy, more especially.

[2358] The Danube. Cuvier says, that this passage probably bears

reference to the clupea ficta or finte, which, as well as the shad,

is in the habit of passing up streams. As for the story of the fish

finding their way to the Adriatic, it is utterly without foundation.

Cuvier adds, that the main difference between the finte and the clupea

alosa, or shad, is, that the former has very fine teeth, the latter

none at all.

[2359] Pliny has already remarked, B. iii. c. 18, in reference to the

supposed descent of the Argonauts from the Ister into the Adriatic,

that such a passage by water was totally impossible; hence, as Hardouin

says, he is obliged here to have recourse to subterraneous passages.

[2360] The Pleiades. See B. ii. c. 47. The rising of the Pleiades was

considered the beginning of summer, being the forty-eighth day after

the vernal equinox. See also B. xviii. c. 59.

[2361] The evening setting, namely. This took place on the fourth day

before the nones of November. See B. xviii. c. 74.

[2362] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16.

[2363] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 16. Hardouin remarks, that the

tunny which Pliny mentions in c. 17, as weighing so many hundreds of

pounds, must certainly have been older than this.

[2364] This is, as Cuvier has remarked, a crustaceous insect of the

parasitical class Lernæa, which are monoculous [and form the modern

class of the Epizoa]. Gmelin, he says, has called it “Pennatula

filosa,” though, in fact, it is not a pennatula [or polyp] at all. As

Dalechamps observes, its appearance is very different from that of a

scorpion. Penetrating the flesh of the tunny or sword-fish, it almost

drives the creature to a state of madness.

[2365] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19. Appian also, in his

Halieutics, B. ii., makes mention of this animal. Pintianus remarks,

that Athenæus, on reading this passage of Aristotle, read it not as

“arachnes,” but “drachmes;” not the size of a spider, but the weight of

a “drachma,” or Roman denarius.

[2366] Or the emperor fish, Cuvier says, the Xiphias gladius of Linnæus.

[2367] In confirmation of this, Suetonius says, “The day before

Augustus fought the sea-battle off Sicily, while he was walking on the

sea-shore, a fish leapt out of the sea and fell at his feet.”

[2368] Appian tells us, B. v., that Sextus Pompeius, on gaining some

successes against Augustus at sea, caused himself to be called the “Son

of Neptune,” as having been adopted by that divinity. There is also a

coin of Pompey extant, which attests that he adopted the surname of

“Neptunius.”

[2369] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 5. Cuvier remarks, that this is

true, and more especially during the spawning season.

[2370] Aristotle says the same, but with the expression of some doubt

as to the truth of the assertion. B. vi. c. 13.

[2371] The erythinus is supposed to be the roach, or rochet, of

the present day, and the channe, the ruff or perch. Ovid, in his

Halieuticon, l. 107, alludes to the same notion that is here mentioned:

“And the channe, that reproduces itself, deprived of two-fold parents.”

Cuvier remarks, that, wonderful as these assertions may be, they are

not devoid, to all appearance, of a certain foundation; for that

Cavolini has observed in the Perca cabrilla and Perca scriba of

Linnæus, a species of hermaphroditism; the ovary having always in the

interior a lobe, which, from its conformation, would appear to be for

the milt; and that he is strongly of opinion that in this species, and

some others of the same genus, all the fish produce eggs, and fecundate

them themselves.

[2372] Cuvier says, that the channe is the Perca cabrilla of Linnæus,

one of the serrans or trumpet-fish of the coasts of Provence. According

to Forskal, _Fauna Arabica_, and Sonnini, it still has the name among

the Turks and modern Greeks, of “chani,” or “channo,” and it was in

these that Cavolini observed the singular organization previously

mentioned. According to Athenæus, B. vii., Aristotle has described this

fish as of a red colour, variegated with black rays, which answers very

well to the Perca scriba of Linnæus, approaching most nearly to the

Perca cabrilla.

[2373] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 75.

[2374] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 7.

[2375] Aristotle makes the same remark, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 25.

[2376] Cuvier observes, that all fishes are found to have in the

membranous labyrinth of the ear, bodies like stone, enclosed in a

certain kind of gelatinous liquor. These bodies, however, he says,

are not equally large in all kinds of fish. He says that it is found

largest in the sciæna.

[2377] The Perca labrax of Linnæus. Called “loup,” or “wolf,” on the

Mediterranean coasts of France, and “bar” on the shores of the ocean.

[2378] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, attributes to the

chromis, Cuvier says, stones in the head, B. iv. c. 8, an acute

hearing, B. iv. c. 9, the power of making a sort of grunting noise,

and the habit of living gregariously, and depositing the eggs once

a year, B. iv. c. 9; all which characteristics, he says, are found

in the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the maigre of the French. In

addition to this, Epicharmus, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., says

that the chromis and the xiphias are, at the beginning of spring, the

very best of fish; a quality which must be admitted to belong to the

maigre, for its size and its excellent flavour. However, he says,

seeing that the glaucus, which Aristotle has distinguished from the

chromis, has a still stronger resemblance to the maigre, and that, as

Belon informs us, the ombrine, or Sciæna cirrhosa, is still sometimes

called at Marseilles the “chro,” or the “chrau,” and that, as Gyllius

says, on the coast of Genoa it has the name of “chro,” it would not

be improbable that this is really the chromis of the Greeks, as Belon

supposes.

[2379] From σκιὰ, the Greek for “shadow;” which name, as Cuvier says,

has been translated by the moderns by the word “ombre,” or “umbra.”

But this name has been given at the present day to so many fish of

various kinds, from the “ombra” of the Italians and the “maigre” of

the French, the Sciæna umbra of the naturalists, the ombrine or Sciæna

cirrhosa of Linnæus, to the ombre of Auvergne, the Salmo thymallus of

Linnæus, and the ombre chevalier, the Salmo umbra of Linnæus, that this

synonyme does not aid us in discovering its identity. Aristotle says

nothing relative to his sciæna, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 19, except

that it has stones in the head, a thing that is common to this with

many other fish. Pliny, in copying this passage, preserves the Greek

name; but Ovid, Columella, and Ausonius give it the name of “umbra;”

the one, however, described by the first two is a sea-fish, while that

of Ausonius is a fresh-water fish. Varro, who cites the name of umbra

among those given to fish, adds that the species which bears it owes

its name to its peculiar colour; and as Ovid calls it “liveus,” or

“livid,” it may be presumed to have been of a dark colour. It is very

possible, then, that it may have been the corvus marinus, or sea-crow,

the Sciæna nigra of Linnæus.

[2380] Or pagrus. This passage is from Aristotle, Hist. Nat. B. viii.

c. 19. Cuvier says that there are several names of fish, known in

the Mediterranean at the present day, as being from the φάγρος of

Aristotle, such as the pagri or pageau, the fragolino, &c. names of a

fish of a red silvery hue, the Sparus erythrinus of Linnæus, his Sparus

pagrus being another species. The modern Greeks also call it φάγρος,

the best proof of its identity with the phagros of Aristotle, or pager

or phagrus of Pliny. This phagrus, Cuvier says, was not improbably the

same as the modern pagre, as their characteristics quite agree, so far

as those of the ancient phagrus are described. It is of red colour, and

we find Ovid (Halieut. l. 108,) speaking of the “rutilus pagur,” and it

was, according to Aristotle, B. viii. c. 13, caught equally out at sea

and near the shore, and had stones in the head, B. viii. c. 19, or, in

other words, stony bodies of large size in the labyrinthine cavities of

the ear. Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 185, says that the channe forms a

delicate morsel for the pagrus, which shows that it was of considerable

size; and several authors quoted by Athenæus, B. vii., give it the

epithet of “great.” Hicesius says, in the same place, that it resembles

the erythrus, the chromis, the anthias, and other fish of very

different character among themselves; but it is only in relation to the

flesh that he makes these comparisons, so that we are unable to come

to any conclusion as to the form. But we find Numenius, also quoted

by Athenæus, speaking of the φάγρον λοφίην, the “crested phagrus,”

possibly in allusion to the height of the neck. The properties of its

flesh are, if possible, still less characteristic. Hicesius says that

it is of sweet flavour and nourishing, but rather astringent. Galen,

however, says that it is hard, and difficult of digestion, when old.

Archestratus looks upon its head as a delicacy, but thinks so little

of the other parts, that they are not, in his opinion, worth carrying

away. He was, however, well known to be much too refined in his notions

of epicurism.

[2381] Hardouin says that Aristotle, B. viii. c. 20, from whom this

account is taken, does not say this of all kinds of fish, but only of

those which have large heads.

[2382] In B. viii. c. 54 and 55, where he is speaking of bears and

other animals.

[2383] Cuvier states that Pliny takes this name from Aristotle, and

that Athenæus, B. vii., says that it is synonymous with the Greek

name, κορύφαινη. He also informs us, that modern naturalists have

applied these two names to the dorade of navigators, the lampuga of the

Spaniards and Sicilians, the Coryphæna hippurus of Linnæus, but that it

is not clear that it has been applied on sufficient grounds: as there

is no trace whatever of either of the two ancient names on the coasts

of the Mediterranean, and the ancient writers have given no sufficient

characteristics of the coryphæna or hippurus. It was, we learn, of

excellent flavour, and in the habit of springing out of the water, from

which, Athenæus says, it received the name of “arneutes,” from ἀρνὸς,

“a lamb.”

[2384] Cuvier remarks, that Rondelet and others of the moderns have

thought that this was synonymous with the crow-fish, the corb of the

French, the Sciæna nigra of Linnæus, but that his own researches on the

subject had led him to a different conclusion. Its name was derived,

he says, from the Greek κόραξ, “a crow,” on account of the blackness

of its colour, as Oppian says, Halieut. B. i. l. 133; but there were

white ones as well, which Athenæus, B. viii., says, were the best

eating, though the black ones were the most common. Aristophanes, as

quoted by Athenæus, B. viii., calls it also the fish with black gills,

μελανοπτέρυγον. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 10, says that it was a

small fish, and one of those that increase rapidly in growth. It was

little esteemed, and was much used, as we learn from Athenæus and the

Geoponica, for salting, and making garum or fish-sauce. It was also

used as a bait for the anthias or flower-fish. Strabo, B. xiii., also

speaks of a river-fish of this name, as being found in the Nile; the

flesh of which Athenæus mentions as being remarkably good eating, and

the best among the fishes of the Nile. Martial also, B. xiii. Ep. 85,

calls it “princeps Niliaci macelli,” the “prince of the produce of the

Nile.” That fish, however, Pliny says, B. xxxii. c. 5, was peculiar to

the Nile; and he states, B. v. c. 9, that in consequence of finding it

in a lake of Lower Mauritania, Juba pretended that the Nile took its

rise in that lake. Athenæus says, B. iii., that the dwellers on the

Nile called it πέλτη, “the buckler;” and in B. vii., that the people of

Alexandria called it πλάταξ, from its broad shape. Now, Cuvier remarks,

it is well known that the best fish of the Nile at the present day is

the bolty, the Labrus Niloticus of Linnæus, and the Chromis Nilotica of

his own system; and this he takes to be the Coracinus albus. It is flat

and compressed, and when held on the side, would appear almost circular

in shape. Its colour appears white in comparison with that of another

little fish of the same genus, the Sparus chromis of Linnæus, the

Chromis castanea of Cuvier, which is of a brownish colour, and is found

on the coast of France, where it has never been held in high esteem,

except for the purposes of salting or making bait for other fish. He

concludes, then, that this last was the sea coracinus, and the “bolty”

of the present day that of the Nile.

[2385] Cuvier says, that it has been doubted, upon the authority of

Paulus Jovius, whether by this name was signified the muræna of the

present day, the Muræna helena of Linnæus, or the Petromizon marinus of

Linnæus, the modern lamprey. These two fishes, he says, have in common

a long smooth body, and are devoid of the symmetrical fins, and the

flesh of both is of a delicate flavour. There are, however, several

other characteristics mentioned, he says, from which it can be easily

proved that in most of the passages of Pliny, Aristotle, and Ælian,

where the muræna is mentioned, it is the Muræna helena that is meant.

Ovid says, Halieut. ll. 114, 115, “the muræna burning with its spots

of gold”—but the lamprey has no yellow spots whatever: and in l. 27,

he speaks of it as “ferox,” or “fierce,” a characteristic which also

belongs to the muræna, but not to the lamprey. Ælian also states, B.

x. c. 40, that the muræna defends itself with its teeth, which form

a double row, and Aristotle says, B. viii. c. 2, that it lives upon

flesh; while Pliny says, in c. 88 of the present Book, that it bites

off the tail of the conger. It was the Muræna helena only, and not the

lamprey, that could have devoured the slaves whom Vedius Pollio ordered

to be thrown into their preserves, as is mentioned by our author in the

present Book, and by Seneca and Tertullian. Finally, a thing that he

considers quite decisive on the point, Aristotle says, B. ii. c. 13,

that the muræna has four gills on each side, like the eel; while the

fact is that the lamprey has only seven in all. Where we find Pliny

speaking of the seven spots upon the muræna found in Northern Gaul, it

appears most likely, Cuvier says, that he speaks after some traveller,

who had observed the seven branchial orifices on the lamprey, and had

taken them for spots.

[2386] This fish, Cuvier says, was of a reddish colour, had rough

scales, sharp teeth, large eyes, and a tough flesh. It lived a solitary

life in the sea, near rocks which were the resort of shell-fish, which

formed its principal nutriment. It passed the winter in the crevices of

rocks under water. Its growth was rapid, and the length of its life two

years; when cut in pieces, its muscles, were still seen to palpitate.

Rondelet, having gathered these characteristics, looks upon the orphus

as belonging to the genus Pagrus. Cuvier says, however, that it would

not be easy to prove that this is a warranted conclusion, and that it

is not justified by tradition, as the name has utterly disappeared

from the coasts of France and Italy; though, according to Gillius

and Belon, it is found among the modern Greeks, in the shape of the

“ropho.” Cuvier suggests that it may have been the Anthias sacer of

Bloch, the “barbier” of the French.—It is supposed by some that it is

our “gilt-head.”

[2387] The Muræna conger of Linnæus.

[2388] “Percæ.” Cuvier says that it is most probable that he is here

speaking of the fish generally known by the ancients as the sea-perch;

and that there is reason for thinking that it was similar to the

Perca scriba of Linnæus, having black lines running across the body.

Most naturalists are of this opinion, he says, and the serran [our

trumpet-fish] which bears this resemblance, is in many parts of Italy,

at the present day, called the “Percia marina.”

[2389] The Raia torpedo of Linnæus.

[2390] Cuvier states, that Athenæus, B. vii., says that the psetta

was the same as the rhombus of the Romans, the modern turbot,

the Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus. From a passage, however, of

Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 37, he feels convinced that it is the

Pleuronectes rhombus of Linnæus, the barbue of the French, and with

us the dab or sandling. Aristotle says in that passage, that it is in

the habit of concealing itself in the sand, while it moves to and fro

the filaments around the mouth, and so attracts the little fish. These

filaments, Cuvier says, are small radii of the anterior part of the

dorsal fin, which form a sort of fringe around the mouth, whence its

French name of barbue. The turbot has no such filaments.

[2391] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20. As Hardouin remarks,

Aristotle appears to assign the sixty days to the glaucus only.

[2392] Naturalists have generally supposed, following Rondelet, Cuvier

says, that the ancient glaucus was one of the class of centronotal

fishes, the Scomber amia, or the Scomber glaucus of Linnæus; but that

the incorrectness of this notion is easily proved. Aristotle says, that

in the glaucus the appendices to the pylorus are few in number, as in

the dorado (the Sparus aurata of Linnæus), while on the other hand the

centronoti have them in almost greater number than any other kind of

fish. Athenæus says, B. iii., that the glaucus was a large fish, and

Oppian, Hal. iii. l. 193, speaks of it as taken with mullet. Aristotle,

B. ii. c. 13, says, that it dwelt in deep water; but, according to

Oppian, Hal. i. 170, it sought its food among rocks and in the sand;

in addition to which characteristics, we find that it was a fish

highly esteemed as a delicacy, the head being the part more especially

preferred. From all these circumstances, Cuvier concludes that it was

more probably a maigre, the Sciæna aquila of Cuvier, than one of the

centronotal fishes.

[2393] Literally, the “little ass.” Cuvier says, that nearly all the

naturalists, following Rondelet, apply this name to the merlus, the

Gadus merluccius of Linnæus, or else the genus of the gadus, or cod,

in general. It is true, he says, that the “onos,” or “ass” of the

Greeks, the “asellus” of the Romans, was also known as the γαδὸς, by

the Greeks; but still this onos had very different characteristics

from those of the Gadus merluccius; and among all the gadi of Linnæus,

he finds the only one that presents any of them to be the Gadus

tricirrhatus, or sea-weasel, which he therefore thinks to represent the

ancient “asellus.”

[2394] Aurata, “golden-fish.” Cuvier observes, that by the Greeks this

was called χρύσοφρυς, “eye-brow of gold.” It is the French daurade of

the Mediterranean, the “Sparus aurata” of Linnæus, and is remarkable

for a golden line in form of a crescent over the eyes. Ajasson remarks,

that it was also called Ἰώνισκος, and suggests that it may have been

originally called so from being first found in the Ionian Sea. From

an epigram of Martial, B. xiii. Ep. 110, it would appear that this

fish was considered a very great dainty, and that it was fattened with

Lucrine oysters.

[2395] This fish has been already mentioned in c. 17 of the present

Book. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20, says this of the glanis.

[2396] Further mention is made of this fish in c. 74 of the present

Book. Aristotle mentions it in B. viii. c. 25, but says nothing about

it being a sea-fish; while Dorion, as quoted by Athenæus, B. vii.,

expressly mentions it among the lake and river fish. Hence Dalechamps

seems inclined to censure our author for this addition; but we find

Oppian, Halieut. B. i. ll. 101 and 592, speaking of the sea cyprinus;

and Athenæus speaks of the cyprinus of Aristotle as being a sea-fish.

[2397] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 20. This subject is also

treated of by Pliny in B. ii. c. 40, and is again mentioned in B.

xviii. c. 58.

[2398] Cuvier remarks, that it does not appear that the characteristics

of the mullet, here mentioned by Pliny, have been observed in modern

times.

[2399] The same story is told of the ostrich.

[2400] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 4, states to a similar effect.

[2401] Cuvier says, that the peculiarity in the scales here mentioned

is not found in any fish; but that the sturgeon genus has, in place of

scales, laminæ disposed in longitudinal lines in such a way, that the

one does not lap over the other, as is the case with fish in general.

It was this fact, misstated probably, that gave rise to the story; and

it is most likely this that has led Rondelet, and most of the modern

naturalists, to look upon the acipenser as the common sturgeon, and

to give that name to the sturgeon genus. Athenæus reckons it among

the cartilaginous fishes, and in the family of the squali; but Pliny

here speaks of it as very rare, and Martial and Cicero say the same,

which cannot be so accurately said of the sturgeon. Archestratus, in

Athenæus, speaks of it as small, having a sharp-pointed muzzle, and of

triangular shape, and tells us that a very inferior one was valued at

1000 Attic drachmæ. The sturgeon, on the other hand, is often ten or

twelve feet in length. The acipenser was not always in vogue with the

Romans, but when it was, it was most highly esteemed; and according to

Athenæus, B. vii., and Sammonicus Severus, as quoted by Macrobius, B.

ii. c. 12, it was brought to table by servants crowned with flowers

and preceded by a piper. All these circumstances lead Cuvier to be of

opinion that under this name is meant a kind of small sturgeon with a

sharp muzzle, greatly esteemed by the Russians, and by them known as

the sterlet, the Acipenser Ruthenus of Linnæus, the Acipenser Pygmæus

of Pallas. It is found in the Black Sea, and in the rivers that fall

into it; and has been carried with success to Lake Ladoga, as also

Lake Meler, in Sweden. This is the smallest and most delicate of the

sturgeon genus, and Professor Pallas says that they are sold at St.

Petersburgh at “insane prices,” when more than two feet in length. It

is not improbable that it was found in the rivers of Asia Minor, and

thence carried to Rome occasionally. Pliny, indeed, B. xxxiii. c. 11,

says that it is not a stranger to Italy; if so, it would seem to be

different from the “elops,” of which Ovid says, Halieut. l. 96, “and

the precious elops, unknown in our waters,” though he also says of

the “acipenser,” in l. 132, “and thou, acipenser, famed in distant

waters.” Still, however, Cuvier says, the use of names was not so

accurate among the ancients, but what that of “acipenser” may have

been given to the sturgeon in general; and this may have given rise to

the present assertions of Pliny. Oppian, in Athenæus, B. vii., says,

like Pliny, that the elops was the same as the acipenser, and we find

no characteristics given of the elops to make us conclude that the

two were not synonymous. Indeed, we find that Varro, De Re Rustica,

B. ii. c. 6, and Pliny in c. 54 of the present Book, speak of the

elops as being most excellent at Rhodes, while we find Archestratus in

Athenæus, B. vii., speaking of the same as being the locality of the

acipenser; and Columella, B. viii. c. 16, and Ælian, B. viii. c. 28,

place it in the Pamphylian Sea, which is not far distant from Rhodes.

Pliny, B. xxxii. c. 11, states, that the palm of fine flavour was by

many accorded to the elops; while Matron Parodus, in Athenæus, calls

it the “most noble of all fishes, food worthy of the gods.” From the

immense sums that were given for it, as we learn from Varro, quoted by

Nonius Marcellus, it was called the “multum munus,” or “multinummus,”

the “much-money fish.” Ælian says, B. viii. c. 28, that the fishermen

who were fortunate enough to take an elops, were in the habit of

crowning themselves and their vessel with garlands, and announcing it,

on entering harbour, by the sound of the trumpet. Professor Pallas,

in his work on the Russian Zoography, takes the elops to be a kind of

sturgeon, more spiny than the rest, which is represented by Marsigli

under the name of “Huso sextus.” He does not, however, give his reason

for fixing on this as the elops of the ancients. It has been also

suggested that the elops was the same as the sword-fish.

[2402] The wolf-fish. Generally supposed to be the basse, or lubin of

the French, much esteemed for their delicacy.

[2403] See N. [1966] above.

[2404] Cuvier remarks, that we find this name in Euthydemus, as quoted

by Athenæus, B. vii., used synonymously with that of “onos.” We also

find the names Callarias, Galerias, and Galerides; but none of the

characteristics are given, by which to distinguish them.

[2405] Cuvier says that this fish held, as Pliny here states, the

very highest place at the Roman tables, and was especially famous:

First, because it was supposed to ruminate; in allusion to which, Ovid

says, Halieut. l. 118, “But, on the other hand, some fishes extend

themselves on the sands covered with weeds, as the scarus, which

fish alone ruminates the food it has eaten.” Secondly, because, as

Aristotle, B. viii. c. 2, and Ælian, B. i. c. 2, inform us, it lived

solely on vegetables. Thirdly, because it had the faculty of producing

a sound, as we learn from Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 134, and Suidas.

Fourthly, for its salacious propensities, numbers being taken by means

of a female attached to a string. Oppian, Halieut. B. iv. l. 78, and

Ælian, B. i. c. 2. Fifthly, for its remarkable sagacity in affording

assistance to another, when taken in the net; relative to which Ovid

has the following curious passage, Halieut. l. 9, _et seq._ “The scarus

is caught by stratagem beneath the waves, and at length dreads the

bait fraught with treachery. It dares not strike the osiers with an

effort of its head; but, turning away, as it loosens the twigs with

frequent blows of its tail, it makes its passage, and escapes safely

into the deep. Moreover, if perchance any kind scarus, swimming behind,

sees it struggling within the osiers, he takes hold of its tail in his

mouth, as it is thus turned away, and so it makes its escape.” Oppian,

Halieut. B. iv. l. 40, and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 4, mention the

same circumstance. We find that it was highly esteemed by the Roman

epicures, even in early times, it being mentioned by Ennius and Horace.

It was salted with the intestines in it; and Martial, B. xiii. Ep. 84,

seems to speak of it as not being good to eat without them. It was

a high-coloured fish, so much so, that Marcellus Sidetes called it

“floridum,” while by Oppian it is called ποικίλον, or “variegated.”

Rondelet thinks that it was one of spari or the labri, while Belon

describes as such, a fish now unknown to zoologists, the tail of which,

he says, has projecting spines. Aldrovandus calls it by the name of

Scarus Cretensis, a species of the genus which at present goes by

the name of Scarus, and which is distinguished by osseous jaw-bones,

resembling in shape the beak of a parrot. Cuvier says, that on finding

from Belon that the name σκάρος was still in use in the Ægean Sea, he

ordered the various kinds of it to be brought to Paris; upon which he

found that they exactly resembled the Scarus Cretensis of Aldrovandus,

and he consequently has no doubt that it is essentially the same fish

as the scarus of the Greeks and Romans. From the resemblance above

stated, it is not uncommonly called the “parrot-fish;” while by some it

has been thought to have resembled our char.

[2406] See B. v. cc. 32, 41.

[2407] Or weasel-fish. Cuvier is of opinion that Hardouin is right in

his conjecture, that this is the Lote, or Gadus lota of Linnæus, which

is still called motelle in some of the provinces of France. Its liver,

he says, is one of the greatest delicacies that can be eaten.

[2408] The present Boden See, or Lake of Constance.

[2409] Instead of “marinis,” Sillig adopts the reading “murænis,”

making them to rival the muræna even. The other, however, seems to be

the preferable reading.

[2410] Cuvier says that this is the τρίγλα of the Greeks, the triglia

of modern Italy, the rouget of Provence, and the Mullus barbatus of

Linnæus.

[2411] The coasts of La Manche, Cuvier says, and the Gulf of Gascony

produce a kind of mullet of larger size than usual, varied with stripes

of a yellow colour. This, the Mullus surmuletus of Linnæus, is also to

be found in the Mediterranean, but much more rarely than the smaller

kind, which is red all over.

[2412] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ii.

c. 41; and Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 435.

[2413] Hardouin says that it is larger than the sea-mullet; and that it

dwells in muddy or slimy spots in the vicinity of the sea-shore.

[2414] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5.

[2415] Probably from the fact of its living in the mud. “Doctors

differ” on this point. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 16, says

that shore-fish are superior to those caught out at sea; while Seneca,

on the other hand, Nat. Quæst. B. iii. c. 18, says that rock-fish and

those caught out at sea are the best.

[2416] He would almost seem to imply by this that they feed upon

shell-fish: but Hardouin has a note to the effect, that Pliny does not

mean that they live on shell-fish, as it would be impossible for them

to break the shell to devour the fish within, but only that they have

the same flavour as shell-fish. But query as to this explanation.

[2417] On the other hand, Isidorus says that the mullet-coloured shoes

were so called from the colour of the fish, which, indeed, is most

probable. These shoes were made of a kind of red Parthian leather,

probably not unlike our morocco leather. Festus seems to say that

they were worn in general by all the patricians; but the passage of

Varro which he quotes, only shows that they were worn by the curule

magistrates, the consul, prætor, and curule ædile.

[2418] Hence their Greek name, τρίγλα, according to Oppian, Halieut. B.

i. l. 590.

[2419] Seneca has a passage on this subject, Quæst. Nat. B. iii. c. 18,

which strongly bespeaks the barbarous tastes of the Romans. He says: “A

mullet even, if just caught, is thought little of, unless it is allowed

to die in the hand of your guest. They are carried about enclosed in

globes of glass, and their colour is watched as they die, which is

changed by the struggles of death into various shades and hues.” And

again: “There is nothing, you say, more beautiful than the colours of

the dying mullet; as it struggles and breathes forth its life, it is

first purple, and then a paleness gradually comes over it; and then,

placed as it is between life and death, an uncertain hue comes over it.”

[2420] This anchovy, pickle, or fish-sauce, will be found more fully

spoken of in B. xxxi. c. 44.

[2421] Alecem. See B. xxxi. c. 44. Seneca speaks of this cruel custom

of pickling fish alive, Quæst. Nat. B. iii. c. 17. “Other fish, again,

they kill in sauces, and pickle them alive. There are some persons who

look upon it as quite incredible that a fish should be able to live

under-ground. How much more so would it appear to them, if they were

to hear of a fish swimming in sauce, and that the chief dish of the

banquet was killed at the banquet, feeding the eye before it does the

gullet?”

[2422] He may have been the son of C. Asinius Gallus, who was consul

B.C. 8; but he does not appear to have ever been consul himself.

[2423] The reign of the Emperor Caligula.

[2424] Juvenal, Sat. iv. l. 15, speaks of a mullet being bought for

6000 sesterces, a thousand for every pound, and Suetonius tells us that

in the reign of Tiberius three mullets were sold for 30,000 sesterces.

It is in allusion to this kind of extravagance that Juvenal says, in

the same Satire, that it is not unlikely that the fisherman could be

bought as a slave for a smaller sum than the fish itself. At the above

rate, each of these mullets sold for about £70 of our money.

[2425] Cuvier says that although the mullet of the Indian Seas is in

general larger than ours, it is never found at all approaching the

weight here mentioned.

[2426] The bolty of the modern Egyptians, as previously mentioned.

[2427] Or Jove-fish. Cuvier says that Gillius has “applied the name

of “faber” to the dory, or fish of Saint Peter, and has stated that

the Dalmatians, who call it the “forga,” pretend that they can find

in its bones all the instruments of a forge. After him, other modern

naturalists have called the same fish Zeus faber; but nothing, Cuvier

says, goes to prove that the dory is the fish so called by the

ancients. The epithet even of “rare,” given to it by Ovid, Halieut.

l. 112, is far from applicable to the dory, which is common enough

in the Mediterranean. If, indeed, the χαλκεὺς of the Greeks were the

same as the “faber,” as, indeed, we have reason to suppose, it would

be something in favour of the dory, as Athenæus, B. vii., says that

the χαλκεὺς is of a round shape: but then, on the other hand, Oppian,

Halieut. B. v. l. 135, ranks it among the rock-fish which feed near

rocks with herbage on them; while the dory is found only in the deep

sea.

[2428] Or “blacksmith.”

[2429] Cuvier says that this fish has still the same name in Italy;

that it is called the “saupe” in Provence, and the “vergadelle” in

Languedoc, being the Sparus salpa of Linnæus; and that it still answers

to all the ancient characteristics of the salpa, eating grass and

filling its stomach, and having numerous red lines upon the body. It is

common, and bad eating, but is no better at Ivica, the ancient Ebusus,

than anywhere else. M. De la Roche, when describing the fishes of that

island, says expressly that the flesh of the saupe is but very little

esteemed there. Ovid, Halieut. l. 122, speaks of it as “deservedly held

in little esteem.”

[2430] See B. iii. c. 11.

[2431] Neither at Ebusus nor anywhere else.

[2432] Hardouin remarks, that Pliny and Ausonius are the only Latin

writers that mention this fish; while not one among the Greeks speaks

of it. It was probably a native of regions too far to the north for

them to know much about it. In this country it holds the same rank that

the scarus and the mullet seem to have held at the Roman tables.

[2433] He must mean _single_ ones, on each side of the head. Cuvier

remarks, that the present passage is from a longer one in Aristotle,

Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 13, which, however, has come down to us in such a

corrupt and fragmentary state, that it is totally unintelligible, or,

at all events, does not correspond with modern experience. No fish,

he says, is known to us that has one or two gills only. The Lophii of

the system of Linnæus have three gills on each side, and the greater

number of fish four, with a half one attached to the opercule. Some

cartilaginous fish, again, have five or six, and the lampreys seven.

[2434] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iii. c. 10.

[2435] The modern Lago di Como, and Lago Maggiore. See B. iii. c. 23.

[2436] See c. 20, as to the Vergiliæ.

[2437] Cuvier says, that in various species of the cyprinus, and more

especially the rubellio, the Cyprinus rutilus of Linnæus, the roach,

the Cyprinus jeses of Linnæus, and the bream, the Cyprinus brama

of Linnæus, the male has, during the spawning season, little warts

adhering to the skin and scales. This appearance has been remarked in

especial on a species found in the lakes of Lombardy, known there as

the “pigo,” and similar to the roach of other countries. It is most

probable that it is to this appearance that Pliny alludes. Rondelet, in

his book on Fishes, gives a representation of it, and calls it “pigus,”

or “cyprinus clavatus;” but he wrongly, like Pliny, takes it to be a

peculiar genus of fish.

[2438] “Clavorum caligarium”—“nails for the caliga.” This was a

strong, heavy sandal, worn by the Roman soldiers. It was worn by the

centurions, but not by the superior officers; and from the use of it,

the common soldiers, including the centurions, were distinguished by

the name of “caligati.” The Emperor Caligula received that cognomen

when a boy, in consequence of wearing the “caliga,” and being inured

to the life of a common soldier. The hob-nails with which the “caliga”

was studded are mentioned again in B. xxii. c. 46, and B. xxxiv. c.

41. Josephus tells us of the death of a Roman centurion, which was

occasioned by these nails. As he was running over the marble pavement

of the temple of Jerusalem, his foot slipped, and he was unable to

rise, upon which he was overpowered by the Jews, and slain. After the

decline of the Roman empire, the caliga was no longer worn by the

soldiers, but was assumed by the monks and recluses.

[2439] Dalechamps says, that in a similar manner, in the lake known by

the name of Paladru, fish of most delicate flavour, called “umblæ,”

were to be taken in the month of December, and at no other part of

the year; so, too, the alausæ, which are found in the Rhine, near

Strasburg, in the month of May only, and at no other time.

[2440] Ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔξω κοιτᾶν “from its sleeping out of the water.” This

fish is also mentioned by Theophrastus, in his Fragment on the “Fish

that live on dry land;” by Clearchus the Peripatetic, as quoted by

Athenæus, B. viii.; Oppian, in his Halieutics, B. i. l. 158; and

Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 36. The fish, however, mentioned by all

these authorities, is a sea-fish, while that of Pliny, being found in

Arcadia, must, of necessity, be a river fish. The proper name of the

fish here mentioned by him was ποικιλίας, Hardouin says, so called from

the variety of its colours. Cuvier says, that the fish here mentioned

is not the Exocœtus of Linnæus, which is one of the flying fish, but is

clearly of opinion that it is one of the genus Blennius, or Gobio, that

is alluded to; for these small fish are often to be found left on the

shore when the waters retire, and have the property of being able to

remain alive for a considerable time without water.

[2441] In the river Aroanius, which falls into the Clitorius. Pausanias

mentions this story, but adds, that he never could hear the fish,

although he often went there to listen. Mnaseas of Patræ, an author

quoted by Athenæus, B. viii., also mentions these vocal fishes.

[2442] Cuvier understands this to mean only, that the openings of the

gills are remarkably small: for, as he says, there is no fish whatever

without gills. It is very possible, however, that Pliny may have

mistranslated a passage found in Athenæus, and quoted from Clearchus

the Peripatetic, in which he says that some fish have a voice, and yet

have no throat, βρόγχον; which may have, possibly, been mistaken by our

author for βράγχια, “gills.”

[2443] “Marini mures.” Cuvier says, that according to Oppian, Halieut.

B. v. c. 174, _et seq._, the sea-mice, small as they are, attack other

fish, and offer resistance even to man himself. Their skin, he says,

is very solid, and their teeth very strong. Theophrastus names them

along with seals and birds, as feeding both on land and at sea. Cuvier

is somewhat at a loss whether to pronounce them, with Dalechamps, to

be a kind of turtle. If so, he considers that this would be the little

turtle, Testudo coriacea of Linnæus, which is by no means uncommon in

the Mediterranean. He suggests, however, that there are equal grounds

for taking it to be the Flasco psaro, or Tetrodon lineatus of Linnæus.

[2444] The Sepia octopodia of Linnæus.

[2445] The Muræna helena of Linnæus. This animal, Cuvier says, like the

eel, is able to live out of water, in consequence of the minute size of

the branchial orifices, as Theophrastus very accurately explains. It is

a common opinion that they come out of the water in search of others of

their kind; but Spallanzani was informed by the fishermen of Comacchio,

that this hardly ever is the case, and that they will only leave the

water when compelled. The polypus also crawls very briskly on the shore

when it has been thrown up by the tide, and moves with considerable

swiftness.

[2446] This is also stated by the author of the treatise, De Mirab.

Auscult. c. 72; and Theophrastus, in his work on the “Fishes that can

live on land,” says, that these Indian fishes resemble the mullet.

Cuvier says, that these fish are those known as the various species of

the genus Ophicephalus of Bloch, which bear a strong resemblance to the

mullet in the head and body. Mr. Hamilton Buchanan, in his “History of

the Fishes of Bengal,” says, that these fish crawl on the grass to so

great a distance from their rivers, that the people absolutely believe

that they must have fallen from heaven.

[2447] Or the “Fishes.” As if, indeed, Hardouin says, the resemblance

of name given to the constellation could have any effect upon the fish!

[2448] The turbot, Pleuronectes maximus of Linnæus.

[2449] Pleuronectes solea of Linnæus.

[2450] “Passer.” Probably our “plaice”—the Pleuronectes platessa of

Linnæus.

[2451] The pleuronectes in general, Cuvier says, have the two eyes

situate on the same side of the body. The turbot has them on the left

side, and lies on the sand on the right side, while the plaice or the

flounder has the eyes on the right, and lies on the left side—the

reverse of what Pliny says.

[2452] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 6.

[2453] By this Pliny means, Cuvier says, only the symmetrical fins, or

pairs of fins, the pectoral namely, which are in place of arms, and the

ventral, which are instead of feet; of which, in fact, no fish has more

than two pairs. Pliny does not include in this statement the dorsal,

anal, and pectoral fins.

[2454] Eels and congers, for instance, which have but one pair.

[2455] Murænæ and lampreys.

[2456] See B. iii. c. 17.

[2457] Cuvier thinks that there can be no question that he is speaking

here of some mollusc or crustaceous animal.

[2458] Murænæ, like eels, have gills, but the orifice, Cuvier says, is

much smaller than in the eel, and the opercula, under the skin, are

so small as to be hardly perceptible; indeed, so much so, that modern

naturalists, Lacepède, for instance, have denied the fact of their

existence.

[2459] Aristotle, De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 13, and Hist. Anim. B. i. c.

6.

[2460] Or sting-ray. On the contrary, Cuvier says, the pastinaca, more

than any other ray, has large pectoral fins, horizontally placed; but

they adhere so closely to the body that they do not appear to be fins,

unless closely examined.

[2461] By this name, Cuvier says, he calls the tentacles or feelers,

which adhere to the head of the polypus, and which it uses equally for

the purpose of swimming or crawling.

[2462] Spallanzani, in his “Nat. Hist. of the Eel in the Lagunes of

Comacchio,” says, that immediately after their birth they retreat to

the Lagunes, and at the end of five years re-enter the river Po.

[2463] Eighty or a hundred hours at most, Spallanzani says.

[2464] Cold, or a foul state of the water, Cuvier says, is very

destructive to the eel.

[2465] Or Pleiades. See c. 20.

[2466] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 75, says the same, and

likewise that they feed _mostly_ at night. The reason for their not

floating when dead, he says, is their peculiar conformation; the belly

being so remarkably small that the water cannot find an entrance; added

to which they have no fat upon them.

[2467] See B. iii. c. 23.

[2468] See B. iii. c. 20.

[2469] The setting of the Pleiades or the rising of Arcturus. See B.

ii. c. 47.

[2470] Spallanzani informs us that the fishermen of the Lagunes of

Comacchio form with reeds small chambers, by means of which they take

the eels when endeavouring to re-enter the river Po; in these such vast

multitudes are collected, that they are absolutely to be seen above the

surface of the water.

[2471] Excipulis.

[2472] Hardouin says, that though this assertion is repeated by Pliny

in c. 74 of the present Book, it is a mistake; we learn, however, from

Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 11, and Athenæus, B. vii., that the

young of the muræna are remarkable for the quickness of their growth.

[2473] This vulgar belief is, however, followed by Oppian, Halieut. B.

i. c. 555; Athenæus, B. vii.; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 50, and B.

ix. c. 66; and Nicander, Theriac., who, however, adds, “if indeed it is

the truth.” It is also alluded to by Basil, in Hexaem. Homil. vii., and

Ambrose, Homil. v. c. 7.

[2474] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v. c. 11, only quotes this story as

he had heard it, and does not vouch for its truth. Doro, as quoted by

Athenæus, B. vii., makes the zmyrus and the muræna to be of totally

different genera. The zmyrus, he says, is without bone, the whole of it

is eatable, and it is remarkable for the tenderness of the flesh. There

are two kinds, of which the best, he says, are those which are black.

[2475] The common muræna, Cuvier says, is spotted with brown and

yellow, but there is a larger kind, with stronger teeth and brown all

over, the Muræna Christini, of Risso. This, he has no doubt, is the

zmyrus of the ancients. Modern naturalists, he says, have incorrectly

called Muræna zmyrus, a small kind of conger, which has yellow spots

upon the neck.

[2476] Cuvier has already made some remarks on this passage in one of

his Notes to c. 24 of the present Book. See p. 395.

[2477] The Seven Terriones, or plough oxen. The constellation of Ursa

Major was thus called by the Romans.

[2478] This wretched man was originally a freedman, and though he was

on one occasion punished by Augustus for his cruelty, he left him a

great part of his property. He died B.C. 15. He is supposed to be the

same person as the one against whom Augustus wrote some Fescennine

verses, mentioned by Macrobius, Sat. B. ii. c. 4.

[2479] Until the Roman youth assumed the toga virilis, they wore the

toga prætexta, or senatorial gown. The toga virilis was assumed at

the Liberalia, in the month of March; and though no age appears to

have been positively fixed for the ceremony, it probably took place,

as a general rule, on the feast which next followed the completion of

the fourteenth year; though it is not certain that the completion of

the fourteenth year was not always the time observed. So long as a

male wore the prætexta, he was considered “impubes,” and when he had

assumed the toga virilis, he was “pubes.” Hence the word “investis,” or

“prætextatus,” (here employed), was the same as impubes.

[2480] Thus the “impubes” paid, as Hardouin says, “not in money, but in

skin.” Isidorus, in his Glossary, says, “‘Anguilla’ is the name given

to the ordinary ‘scutica,’ or whip with which boys are chastised at

school.” The witty Rabelais says, B. ii. c. 30, “Whereupon his master

gave him such a sound lashing with an eel-skin, that his own would have

been worth nothing to make bag-pipe bags of.”

[2481] The ray.

[2482] The sting-ray; the Raia pastinaca of Linnæus.

[2483] The angel-fish; the Squalus squatina of Linnæus.

[2484] The Raia torpedo of Linnæus.

[2485] Galen, in his explanation of words used by Hippocrates, speaks

of the βοῦς θαλάσσιος, which is also described by Oppian, Halieut.

B. ii. l. 141, _et seq._ He speaks of it as growing to the length of

eleven or twelve cubits, and having small, weak teeth, which are not

easily seen, and compares it in appearance to the roof of a house.

Cuvier thinks, that although its horns are not mentioned, a species

of large horned ray is alluded to, which is known by the modern

naturalists by the name of Cephalopterus, and he thinks it very likely

these horns may have given it its Greek appellation. Indeed Pliny

himself, in another place, B. xxxii. c. 53, speaks of it under the name

of “cornuta,” the “horned-fish.”

[2486] A species of ray, most probably.

[2487] Cuvier suggests that this was the mylobates, the Raia aquila of

Linnæus, which probably obtained this name on account of the width of

the pectoral fins, and its peculiar shape.

[2488] Βάτραχος ἁλιεὺς, the sea-frog, the Lophius piscatorius of

Linnæus, and the baudroie of the French. Cuvier remarks, that though

there is little solidity or firmness in the bones of this animal, it is

not properly a cartilaginous fish.

[2489] This is borrowed from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. v., who,

however, says, καὶ πάντα τὰ γαλεώδη; from which Massarius, Turnebus,

and Hippolytus Salvianus are inclined to read “galei,” instead of

“squali.” Both terms, however, Hardouin says, are used to denote the

genus which the French call “chiens de mer,” “dog-fish.”

[2490] It is curious that Aristotle, though he was the inventor of this

name, has nowhere stated in what it originated. Galen, De Alim. Fac.

B. iii. c. 36, says that it is ἀπὸ τοῦ σέλας ἔχειν, from the fact of

their shining at night.

[2491] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 5, and De Part. Anim. B. iv.

c. 13.

[2492] In c. 7 of the present Book.

[2493] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 8.

[2494] Cuvier says that it is true that the sea-frog is oviparous; but

it is far from being the case that all the cartilaginous fishes but it

are viviparous. The rays, for instance, produce large eggs of a square

shape, and enveloped with a very hard horny shell. Aristotle, Hist.

Anim. B. viii. c. 5, and B. ii. c. 16, makes the same exception as to

the sea-frog or frog-fish.

[2495] This is also from Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17. Oppian

also mentions it, Halieut. B. i. l. 223, _et seq._, but he gives it all

the characteristics of the modern lamprey.

[2496] This is the Echeneis remora of Linnæus, Cuvier says. It has

upon the head an organ, by means of which it can attach itself to any

body. It is thus enabled to fasten to ships and larger fishes; but as

for staying a ship, it has not, as Cuvier remarks, the slightest power

over the very smallest boat. All the eloquence, therefore, which Pliny

expends upon it, in B. xxxii. c. 1, is entirely thrown away.

[2497] Ἀπὸ τοῦ ἔχειν νῆας. “From holding back ships.”

[2498] Used for the purpose of bringing back lost love, or preventing

inconstancy.

[2499] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17.

[2500] Hardouin says that it is very possible that Aristotle may have

written to this effect in some one of the fifty books of his that have

perished, but that such is not the case in his account given of this

fish in his Hist. Anim. B. ii. c. 17, for there he expressly says,

“There are some people that say this fish has feet, whereas it has none

at all; but they are deceived by the fins, which bear a resemblance to

feet.” Cuvier says he cannot see in what way the fins of the remora, or

sucking-fish, resemble feet, any more than those belonging to any other

fish.

[2501] Cuvier says, that the shell-fish to which Pliny here ascribes

a power similar to that of the remora, is, if we may judge from his

description of it, of the genus called Cypræa, and has very little

doubt that its peculiar form caused its consecration to Venus, fully as

much as its supposed miraculous powers. He also remarks that Hardouin,

in his Note upon this passage, supposes an impossibility, in suggesting

that the lips of this shell-fish can bite the sides of a ship; these

lips or edges being hard and immoveable. For some curious particulars

as to the peculiar form of some kinds of Cypræa, or cowry, and why they

more especially attracted attention, and were held sacred to Venus, see

the discussion on them, in the Defence made by Apuleius against the

charge of sorcery, which was brought against him.

[2502] Rondelet, B. xiii. c. 12, says that this kind of shell was

formerly used for the purpose of smoothing paper.

[2503] Herodotus tells us, B. iii. c. 48, that these were 300 boys of

noble families of the Corcyræans, and that they were being sent from

Periander of Corinth, to Alyattes, king of Sardes.

[2504] Venus was fabled to have emerged from the sea in a shell.

[2505] Rabelais refers to these wonderful stories about the echeneis

or remora, B. iv. c. 62: “And indeed, why should he have thought this

difficult, seeing that —— an echeneis or remora, a silly, weakly fish,

in spite of all the winds that blow from the thirty-two points of

the compass, will in the midst of a hurricane make you, the biggest

first-rate, remain stock still, as if she were becalmed, or the

blustering tribe had blown their last; nay, and with the flesh of that

fish, preserved with salt, you may fish gold out of the deepest well

that ever was sounded with a plummet; for it will certainly draw up the

precious metal.”

[2506] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 34; Ælian, Hist. Anim. B.

xii. c. 48. Rondelet is of opinion that this mæna was the fish still

called menola by the people of Liguria and Rome. It was a fish little

valued, and we find it called by Martial, “inutilis mæna,” B. xii.

Epigr. 30. Cuvier says, that if it does not change from white to black,

as Pliny states, its colours are much more lively in the spring.

It also has an offensive smell at certain times, as is noticed by

Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 30, and to which Martial alludes in

the above epigram. Ovid also mentions it as a fish of no value; held,

in all probability, in the same degree of estimation as a sprat with

us. It is, no doubt, the Sparus mæna of Linnæus.

[2507] We learn from Aristotle, B. viii. c. 30, that the phycis was a

whitish fish, which in the spring assumed a variegated colour. In an

Epigram of Apollonides it is called “red;” and Speusippus, as quoted in

Athenæus, B. v., says that it is similar to the perch and the channe.

Ovid speaks of it as frequenting the shore, and Oppian represents it as

dwelling among the sea-weed on the rocks. It also lived on shrimps, and

its flesh was light and wholesome; while its most singular property was

that of making its nest among the fucus or sea-weed, whence its name.

All these characteristics, Cuvier says, are to be found, from what

Olivi states, in the “_go_” of the Venetians, found in the Adriatic,

the Gobius of Linnæus; the male of which in the spring makes a nest of

the roots of the zostera in the mud, in which the female lays her eggs,

which are fecundated by itself, and then protected by it against the

attacks of enemies. This is probably the fish that is alluded to by

Ovid, Halieut. l. 121, “The fish that imitates, beneath the waves, the

pretty nests of the birds.”

[2508] This name, Cuvier observes, is still common on the coasts of

the Mediterranean, to two kinds of flying fish, the Dactylopterus, or

Trigla volitans of Linnæus, and the Exocœtus volitans of Linnæus. It

is to the first, he thinks, that the ancients more especially gave

the name of swallow, although Salvianus and Belon are of the contrary

opinion. Oppian, Halieut. B. ii. ll. 457-461, ranks the sea-swallow

with the scorpion, the dragon, and other fish the spines of which

produce mortal wounds, and Ælian, B. ii. c. 5, states to the same

effect. But the exocœtus has no spines, while the dactylopterus has

terrible ones on its præopercules. Speusippus also, as quoted in

Athenæus, B. vii., gives no less decisive testimony, in saying that the

sea-cuckoo, the trigla, and the sea-swallow, have a strong resemblance

to each other; the fact being that the dactylopterus is of the same

genus as the sea-cuckoo, the Trigla cuculus of Linnæus.

[2509] Ovid, Halieut. l. 96, speaks of this fish as having a black

back. Cuvier therefore suggests that it may possibly be the perlon, the

Trigla hirundo of Linuæus, the back of which is of a dark brown, and

the great size of the pectoral fins of which may have given rise to the

notion of its being able to fly. It is also very possible, he says,

that it may have been the exocœtus, the back of which is of a blue

colour.

[2510] Lucerna. Probably, as Cuvier says, one of those numerous

molluscs, or zoophytes, which give out a brilliant light, and perhaps

the Pyrosoma of Péron. No period being found in the MSS. after the

word “milvus”—“kite,” it was long thought that this passage applied to

the sea-kite; and it is owing to this circumstance that we find the

ichthyologists enumerating a Trigla lucerna. The correction, however,

is approved of by Cuvier, who says that he has found none of the genus

triglæ to give forth a light; except, indeed, when, like other fish, it

begins to be putrid.

[2511] Probably the “cornuta,” mentioned in the Note on the sea-ox in

c. 40; see p. 411. Cuvier says that it was long supposed that the fish

here alluded to might be the Malarmat of the Mediterranean, the Trigla

cataphracta of Linnæus, the muzzle of which is divided into two horns;

but then they are only half an inch long, instead of a foot and a half.

He is of opinion, therefore, that it is the great horned ray, now known

as the cephalopterus, which, being often fifteen feet and more in

diameter, answers much better to the description of its size implied

by Pliny from the length of its horns. It is also mentioned under the

name of cornuta in B. xxxii. c. 53, in company with the saw-fish, the

sword-fish, the dog-fish, and other large fishes.

[2512] Cuvier is of opinion, that Rondelet is correct in his suggestion

that this is the sea-spider, called the “vive” in France, the viver

or weever with us, and the Trachinus draco of Linnæus, which fish is

still called δράκαινα by the modern Greeks. Pliny, in c. 48 of the

present Book, charges the sea-spider with doing much mischief, by means

of the spines or stickles on its back. Now Ælian, B. ii. c. 50, and

Oppian, Halieut. l. 458, say the same of the sea-dragon; and this is a

well-known property of the modern vive, the Trachinus draco of Linnæus.

Pliny speaks more especially, in B. xxxii. c. 53, of the wounds which

it makes with the spines or stickles of its opercules, which the vive

is also able to inflict; and in addition to this, it has the power of

burrowing into the sand in a most incredibly short space of time.

[2513] Cuvier remarks, that this division of the bloodless fish by

Aristotle into the mollusca, testacea, and crustacea, has been followed

by naturalists almost down to the present day.

[2514] The Sæpia loligo of Linnæus; the calmar of the French, or

ink-fish.

[2515] The Sæpia officinalis of Linnæus; the seche of the French; our

cuttle-fish.

[2516] The Sæpia octopodia of Linnæus, or eight-footed cuttle-fish.

[2517] Cuvier remarks, that this account of the arms or feelers of the

sæpia and loligo is very exact.

[2518] “Quibus venantur.” Hardouin suggests that the proper reading

would be “quibus natant”—“by means of which they swim;” for Aristotle

says, in the corresponding passage, “with the fins that surround the

body they swim.”

[2519] Plautus has a line in his Rudens, which shows that when the

sæpia was cooked for table, it was customary to take the eyes out. “Bid

them knock out his eyes, just as the cooks do with the sæpia.”

[2520] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, states to a similar effect,

as also Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. i. c. 34; Oppian, Halieut. B. iii. l. 156.

[2521] This so-called ink, Cuvier says, is neither their blood nor

their bile, but a liquid that is secreted in a bag peculiar to the

animal. It is said, that it is from the juices of certain polypi of

the Eastern seas, that the genuine Indian or Chinese ink is made; but

M. Abel Remusat assures us that he has found nothing in the Chinese

writers to confirm this conjecture.

[2522] This, as Hardouin says, is the polypus which is found on the

sea-shore, and which more frequently comes on dry land than the other

kinds.

[2523] The arms of the polypus have numerous names with the Latin

authors. Ovid calls them “flagella,”—“whips;” others again,

“cirri”—“curls;” “pedes”—“feet;” “crura”—“legs;” and “crines”—“hair.”

[2524] This, Cuvier says, is quite unintelligible; for all the polypi

have an oval body, of the shape of a bag, and there is nothing in them

that bears any resemblance to a tail, forked or otherwise.

[2525] This channel, Cuvier says, is in form of a funnel reversed,

by means of which the animal draws in and ejects the water that is

requisite for its respiration, and discharges the ink and other

excretions. It is in the fore-part of the body, and at the orifice of

the bag, and not on the back, as Pliny says; but, as Cuvier remarks,

it was very easy for a person to be deceived in this matter, as the

head, being in form of a cylinder, and fringed with the so-called feet,

cannot be said to be distinguished into an upper and lower side.

[2526] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, says that the animal is

obliged to do so, on account of the situation of the eyes.

[2527] But Aristotle says, καθάπερ ἐμπεφυσημένην, “_as though_ it were

puffed out with air.”

[2528] “Acetabulis.” The acetabulum was properly a vinegar cruet, in

shape resembling an inverted cone; from a supposed similarity in the

appearance, it is here applied to the suckers of the polypus. The Greek

name is κοτυληδὼν.

[2529] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 59.

[2530] Cuvier says, that the changes of colour of the skin of the

polypus are continual, and succeed each other with an extreme rapidity;

but that it has not been observed, any more than the chameleon, to take

the colour of objects in its vicinity.

[2531] This notion is mentioned by Athenæus, Pherecrates, Alcæus,

Hesiod, Oppian, and Ælian.

[2532] Cuvier says, that Pliny states, in B. xxix. c. 28, that the

colotis, or colotes of the Greeks, is the same as their ascalabotes,

the “stellio” of the Latins. This stellio is the same as the “gecko”

of the moderns, and the species known in Italy and Greece is the same

as the “wall gecko” of the French, or the tarente of the Provencals.

From what Pliny says here about its tail, it would appear to have been

a lizard; but its identity with the stellio, Cuvier says, is very

doubtful. It will be mentioned more at length in B. xi. c. 31.

[2533] It is very true, Cuvier says, that the tail of the gecko and

lizard will grow again after it has been cut off, but without vertebræ.

As to the arms of the polypus, he says, it is very possible, seeing

that the horns of the snail, which belongs to the same family, will

grow again.

[2534] This account of the nautilus, Cuvier says, the Argonauta argo of

Linnæus, wonderful as it may appear, has been often confirmed by modern

observation.

[2535] This, Cuvier says, is not a membrane between the two feet or

tentacles, but a distinct membranous delatation of the extremity of

each of those two organs.

[2536] These vessels have been already remarked upon in Note 33 to c. 5

of the present Book.

[2537] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 61.

[2538] From ὄζω, “to emit an odour.” This was a small kind of polypus.

[2539] Cuvier remarks that, in this Chapter, there are many details

relative to the polypus, that have not been observed by modern

naturalists; but they may have been observed by the Greeks, upon whose

shores and islands the animal was much more frequently to be found than

in the west of Europe.

[2540] Oppian, Halieut. B. ii. l. 260, describes the battles of these

animals with the polypus. He also says, B. iii. c. 198, that they are

attracted by the smell of the flesh of the polypus, and so are easily

taken.

[2541] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 59.

[2542] Oppian, Halieut. B. i. l. 551, says, that they hardly live a

year; and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 28, states to a similar effect.

[2543] Basil attributes a similar craftiness to the crab; Hexaem.

Homil. vii.

[2544] The fishermen at the present day, upon the coast of Normandy,

say that the polypus, which they call the _chatrou_, is a most

formidable enemy to swimmers and divers; for when it has embraced any

of the limbs with its tentacles, it adheres with such tenacity, that it

is quite impossible for a person to disengage himself, or to move any

of his limbs.

[2545] In Spain; see B. iii. c. 3. Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. vi. c. 13,

tells a similar story about a polypus at Puteoli.

[2546] “Lacus;” large tubs used in the process of pickling. This story,

Cuvier observes, is only surpassed by those told by the Norwegians

relative to the “kraken” of their seas, which, according to some

versions of the fable, is a polypus of such vast size, that sailors

have sometimes mistaken it for an island.

[2547] “Nassis.” The “nassa” was a contrivance for catching fish by the

junction of osier or willow rods. It was probably made in the shape of

a large bottle with a narrow mouth, and placed with the mouth facing

the current. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 8, states, that the

fishermen, when they were desirous of bringing the fish out of their

holes, were in the habit of rubbing the mouth of the holes with salted

flesh.

[2548] Oppian, Halieut. B. i. c. 310, tells a story of a polypus,

of the ozæna species, that was in the habit of climbing trees, and

plundering the fruit.

[2549] “Afflatu terribili.” This, as Hardouin says, may either mean its

bad smell, or stinking water, ejected from its canal.

[2550] Its arms or feelers. The amphora, as a measure of capacity, held

about nine English gallons.

[2551] “Caliculis;” literally, “little glasses.” Its “acetabula,” or

suckers, are so called from their peculiar shape.

[2552] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, says the same; but, as

Hardouin observes, he must mean the Ionian sea.

[2553] Cuvier says, that this is only a reproduction, under another

name, and with other details, of the story of the nautilus or

argonauta; but under the impression that the polyp is not the animal

which owns the shell, but is only its associate. It has also been

asserted in modern times, he says, that the polyp has seized this shell

by force from some other animal, in order to convert it into its boat;

but the opinion has not been adopted, as the shell of the nautilus has

been never found in the possession of any other animal.

[2554] Probably borrowed from the Greeks, who called it ἄκατος. It is

supposed to have been a small boat, similar to the Roman “scapha;” like

our “skiff” probably.

[2555] The “rostrum” of the ancient ships of war.

[2556] “Palmulis.” This word also means the blade or broad part of an

oar; in which sense it may, perhaps, be here taken.

[2557] “Locusta;” literally, the “locust” of the sea. By this name is

meant, Cuvier says, the “langouste” of the French (our cray-fish),

which has no large forcipes, and has a thorax covered with spines; the

Palinurus quadricornis of the naturalists. This is clearly the κάραβος

of Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 23; for we generally find it thus

translated by Pliny, when he borrows anything from that philosopher.

We know that the body of this animal was spiny, from the fact that

Tiberius, as we learn from Suetonius, cruelly caused the face of a

fisherman who had offended him, to be rubbed with a locusta.

[2558] Aristotle, and Theophrastus, in his “Treatise on Animals which

conceal themselves,” state to a similar effect.

[2559] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. viii. c. 4, states to a similar effect.

[2560] Aristotle, _loc. cit._, and Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. ix. c. 25,

state to the same effect.

[2561] Hardouin says, that this must be only understood of the kind of

crab known as the “astacus;” that being the one mentioned by Aristotle,

in the passage from which Pliny has borrowed.

[2562] He mentions, in B. ii. c. 41, the effect which the rays of the

moon have upon the growth of shell-fish.

[2563] Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 2, has a somewhat similar

passage. “The kinds of crabs are numerous, and not easily to be

enumerated. First, there are those known as maiæ, then the paguri,

which are also called ‘heracleotici;’ and, after them, the river crabs.

There are others, again, of a smaller size, and which, for the most

part, are known by no name in particular.”

[2564] This is, no doubt, the cray-fish, the same animal that has been

called the “locusta” in the preceding Chapter. Aristotle states, B.

iv. c. 8, that the carabus has the thorax rough and spiny. It is most

probable, that it is from this name that our word “crab” is derived.

[2565] Cuvier says, that the astacus, which is very accurately

described by Aristotle, Hist. Anim. B. iv. c. 8, is indisputably

the homard of the French (the common lobster of the English); the

Cancer gammarius of Linnæus. Pliny, in another place, B. xxx. c. ii.,

describes it himself under the name of elephantus.

[2566] Cuvier remarks, that according to Aristotle, B. iv. c. 2, the

maiæ are in the number of the καρκίνοι, or crabs that have a short

tail concealed beneath the body, being those of the largest kind. The

same philosopher, De Part. Anim. B. iv. c. 8, adds, that these have

also short feet and a hard shell. Cuvier says, that many writers have

applied this name to the crabs at the present day belonging to the

genus inachus, and more especially the Cancer maia of Linnæus. He is

more inclined, however, to think that the maia was the common French

crab, known as poupart or tourtue, the Cancer pagurus of Linnæus.

[2567] Hardouin says, that these are the same that the Venetians

were in the habit of calling “cancro poro,” the last word being a

corruption, as he thinks, of pagurus. Aristotle says, _loc. cit._, that

they were crabs of middling size.

[2568] Or Heracleotic crabs. Aristotle says, De Partib. Anim. B. iv.

c. 8, that these crabs had shorter feet and thinner than those of the

maiæ. Cuvier suggests, that these may be the commonest kind of crab,

the Cancer mænas of Linnæus, or a species very similar.

[2569] “Leones.” This name is not found in Aristotle’s account, but it

is found in Athenæus, B. iii. c. 106; and in Ælian, Hist. Anim. B. xiv.

c. 9. According to Diphilus, as quoted by Athenæus, it was of larger

size than the astacus. Ælian describes it as more slender in shape

than the cray-fish, and partly of a bluish colour, and with very large

forcipes, in which it resembles, Cuvier says, the homard of the French.

It is possible, however, he adds, that it may have been only a second

name given to the astacus already mentioned; as both Pliny and Ælian,

who were not critical observers, are very liable to make errors in

names.

[2570] Aristotle, Cuvier observes, states the carcini, or crabs, have

no tail, the fact being that the tail is extremely small, and is

concealed, as it were, in a furrow in the under part of the body. The

cray-fish, on the other hand, has a large and broad tail.

[2571] Ἱπποὶ. The more common reading is ἱππεῖς, “horsemen.” Cuvier

thinks, that in all probability, these are a kind of crab with very

long legs, vulgarly known as the sea-spider; the Macropodia and the

Leptopodia of Linnæus.

[2572] Hardouin remarks, that Aristotle says this only of the carabi,

or cray-fish, and not of the crabs in general; and that, on the

contrary, in B. v. c. 7, he says, that in the crab the male does not

differ in conformation from the female, except in the opercule. There

seems, in reality, to be no foundation for the statement here made by

Pliny.