276- Mr. E. W. Gudgev on the 



of the deep, and subdues the frantic rage of the universe — 

 and all this by no effort of its own, no act of resistance on 

 its part, no act at all, in fact, but that of adhering to the 

 bark 



"At the battle of Actimn, it is said, a fish of this kind 

 stopped the praetorian ship of Antonius in its course, at the 

 moment he was hastening from ship to ship to encourage 

 and exhort his men, and so compelled him to leave it and 

 go aboard another. Hence it was, that the fleet of Caesar 

 gained the advantage in the onset, and charged with re- 

 doubled impetuosity. In our own time too, one of these 

 fish arrested the ship of the Emperor Caius (Caligula) in its 

 course when he was returning from Astura to Antium : and 

 thus, as the resuit proved, did an insignificant fish give 

 presage of great events ; for no sooner had the emperor 

 returned to Rome than he was pierced by the weapons of 

 his own soldiers. Nor did this sudden stoppage of the ship 

 long remain a mystery ; the cause being perceived upon 

 finding that, out ot the whole fleet, the emperor's five-banked 

 galley was the only one that was making no way. The 

 moment this was discovered some of the sailors plunged 

 into the sea, and on making a search about the ship's sides, 

 they found an Echeneis adhering to the rudder. Upon its 

 being shown to the emperor, he strongly expressed his 

 indignation that such an obstacle as this should have im- 

 peded his progress, and have rendered powerless the hearty 

 endeavours of some four hundred men. One thing too, it is 

 well known, more particularly surprised him, how it was 

 possible that the fish, while adhering to the ship, should 

 arrest its progress, and yet have no such power when brought 

 on board " *. 



This full and circumstantial account by Pliny is of great 

 value, and the more so since everything leads one to believe 

 in Pliny's full credence in the wonderful power of the ship- 

 stayer. In the paragraph following the above, our old 

 Roman naturalist thus refers to its Latin name : " Some of 

 our own authors have given this fish the Latin name of 

 'mora' [delay]," another reading gives "remora." 



The next of the ancients to write of our fish is the famous 

 historian, Plutarch (46 a.d.). In his ' Symposiacs,' Book II. 



* Bostock and Riley say in a footnote, " And well might it surprise 

 him. If there way any foundation at ;ill for the story, there can be 

 little doubt that a trick was played for the purpose of imposing on 

 Caligula's superstitious credulity and the rowers as well as the diving 

 sailors were privy to it." Later it will be shown how entirely erroneous 

 is this conjectural explanation of Pliny's translators. 



