122 The Poets and Nature. 



even when the Lawgiver is enumerating the things which 

 the Hebrews might and might not eat, he is careful to dis- 

 tinguish by their names the creatures in fur and feathers, 

 but the fish are merely divided into " those with scales and 

 fins " and " those without." Still more remarkable is it 

 that Peter and his comrades, themselves professional fisher- 

 men, should have omitted to identify the actual species with 

 which the Saviour worked His miracles. In fish history, 

 therefore, there is a very considerable gap, and it is not until 

 we go to Pagan mythology that we find the things of the 

 water identified into species. 



Poets divide them broadly, according to poetic suscepti- 

 bilities, into the tyrant and the victim, the eater and the 

 eaten ; reserving always, among the latter, their tenderest 

 sympathies for those species that are the best eating. 

 Nothing exasperates a poet against the otter so much as 

 that the "goose-footed prowler" should dare to eat trout. 

 If it only ate roach, their indignation would be mitigated. If 

 it devoured sticklebacks exclusively they would be indifferent 

 to its poaching. When it consumes the pike they applaud it. 



"Where rages not oppression? where, alas, 

 Is innocence secure? Rapine and spoil 

 Haunt e'en the lowest deeps ; 

 Seas have their sharks, 

 Rivers and ponds enclose the rav'nous pike ; 

 He in his turn becomes a prey, on him 

 Th' amphibious otter feasts. Just is his fate deserved." 



But the otter has the presumption to prefer the best fish 

 to have, in fact, the same tastes as man himself; and so, 

 just as they abuse the wolf for eating their mutton (they do 

 not really sympathise a bit with the sheep), and the fox for 

 stealing the hens that lay the eggs for their breakfast, so 

 they, the poets, pelt the otter with every name they can 

 think of, because it kills and eats the finer fish, salmon and 

 trout. 



