THE COMPLETE ANGLER. 23 



be wanting. And if you shall make that to appear which you 

 have undertaken ; first, that it is an art, and an art worth the 

 learning, 1 shall beg that I may attend you a day or two a-fish- 

 ing, and that I may become your scholar, and be instructed in 

 the art itself which you so much magnify. 



Pisc. O, Sir, doubt not but that angling is an art ; is it not an 

 art to deceive a trout with an artificial fly ? a trout ! that is more 

 sharp sighted than any hawk' you have named,* and more 

 watchful and timorous than your high mettled merlin is bold ? 

 and yet, I doubt not to catch a brace or two to-morrow, for a 

 friend's breakfast. Doubt not therefore. Sir, but that angling is 

 an art, and an art worth your learning : the question is rather, 

 whether you be capable of learning it ? for angling is somewhat 

 like poetry, men are to be born so : I mean with inclinations to 

 it, though both may be heightened by discourse and practice ; 

 but he that hopes to be a good angler, must not only bring an 

 inquiring, searching, observing wit ; but he must bring a large 

 measure of hope and patience, and a love and propensity to the 

 art itself; but having once got and practised it, then doubt not 

 but angling will prove to be so pleasant, that it will prove to be 

 like virtue, a reward to itself. 



Vex. Sir, I am now become so full of expectation, that I long 

 much to have you proceed ; and in the order that you propose. 



Pisc. Then first, for the antiquity of angling,f of which I shall 

 not say much, but only this ; some sayij: it is as ancient as Deu- 

 calion's flood : others, that Belus, who was the first inventor of 

 godly and virtuous recreations, was the first inventor of angling : 

 and some others say, for former times have had their disquisitions 

 about the antiquity of it, that Seth, one of the sons of Adam, 



J Variation. — In correcting the fifth edition, Walton forgot to ascribe 

 the remark about Hawks to the proper person, who was not Venator but 

 Auceps. The enlargement of the sentence led him into the error. — Am. 

 Ed. 



* The reader will find the vision of fish very ably, agreeably, and pisca- 

 torially discussed in Ronald's Fly Fisher's Entomology. {Art. Sight, p. 

 8.)— Am. Ed. 



t See Bib. Preface.— ./2m. Ed. 



X On the margin of the first edition there is a reference; J. Da., Jer. 

 Mer., which is explained in my Bib. Preface.— ^m. Ed. 



