■73 



?Eels. 



' ^ rriHERE are few animals," says a celebrated French naturalist, "whose image one must 



-L retrace with as much pleasure as the Common Eel We have seen superior instinct 



in the enormous and terrible shark, but then it was the minister of an unsatiable voracity, 

 a sanguinary cruelty, a devastating strength ; we have found in electrical fish, a power which 

 we may almost call magical, but beauty did not fall to their share. We have had to repre- 

 sent remarkable forms, but nearly always their colours were dull and dark. Glittering shades 

 have struck our view; rarely have they been united with pleasing proportions, more rarely 

 still have they served to adorn a creature of elevated instinct. And this kind of intelligence, 

 this mixture of the glitter of metals, of the colours of the rainbow, this rare conformation of 

 all the parts which form one whole joined in happy agreement, when have we seen all these 

 bestowed where the habits are, so to speak, social, the affections gentle, and the enjoyments 

 in some sort sentimental ? It is this interesting union, however, which we are going to show 

 in the Common Eel ; and when we shall have comprised into one point of view its slender 

 form, its delicate proportions, its elegant colours, its gracious flexions, its easy gyrations, its 

 rapid springs, its superior swimming, its serpent-like movements, its industry, its instinct, its 

 affection for its mate, its sociability, and the advantages which man is ever deriving from it, 

 we shall not be surprised to find that some of the Greek and Roman ladies most famous for 

 their charms have given its form to one of their most rccherchk ornaments."* While allowing 

 that the language "verges on the poetical," I must confess a partiality for Eels, and own 

 that there is a great deal of truth in what the French naturalist has said. But then we must 

 think of the Eel as a free and unmolested inhabitant of the water, and not as a writhing 

 victim on the fishing-line of some disciple of Walton, when he certainly is a troublesome 

 fellow, and when we may fairly say of him, "Nihil tetigit quod non /adav if.'' The Eel, how- 

 ever, has long enjoyed, and still deservedly enjoys, a wide celebrity. " It is agreed," says 

 honest Izaak Walton, " that the Eel is a most dainty dish ; the Romans have esteemed her 

 the Helena of their feasts, and some the queen of palate pleasure." There are a few exceptions, 

 however, to this general rule. The Jews — excellent cooks and judges of what is good — refuse 

 to eat the Eel at this very day, though they are perfectly aware that it has scales, f Amongst 



* CEuvres du Comte de Lacepedc, vi. p. 457. 



f It is an error to suppose that the Jews are unacquainted with the fact that Eels have scales. According: to 

 the popular belief, the celebrated Leuwenhoek was the first to record the existence of scales in the integument of 

 the Eel. To this observant naturalist probably belongs the merit of having first published the fact to the scientific 

 world of modern Europe ; but that the Jews were long before aware of it is evident from a certain narrative in the 

 Talmud {Abada Sara, fol. 39, a.), which relates that when Rabbi Aschi came to Tamdoria, some one placed before 

 him an Eel-like fish (tselopekha, which Rashi explains by "anguille"); and that on his holding it to the light, 

 he noticed some very fine scales, and thereupon did not scruple to partake of its flesh. That the Hebrew word 

 denotes an Eel is further evident from the following quotation from the old work Aruch — "tselobekha, a fish 



