FLY, OR MOSS, AS LURE? 153 
literary angler at the careless indifference with which these 
lines appear from his standpoint to be treated, the comments 
by the editors of Martial must be classed, in other respects also, 
as unsatisfactory and jejune. 
Paley and Stone, for instance, confine themselves to telling 
us that “‘ scarus is some unknown but highly prized fish, which 
was caught by an inferior one used as bait.” That is all! 
nothing more! Their “ unknown” stamps their indifference, 
or ichthyic ignorance.! Further, they never even hint that in 
this passage commentators have suggested two readings, 
musco—‘ moss,’ and musca— fly.’ They simply adopt musco 
without hinting at any difficulty arising from such adoption. 
Friedlander adopts musca. His only note consists of, 
“ Vorato—musco wollte Brodzus lesen wegen der von Athe- 
neus, VII., p. 319 f., aus Aristoteles angefiihrten Stelle? . . .” 
The majority of editors 3 prefer, and probably rightly, the 
reading musca for many reasons, the chief being that all the 
manuscripts of Martial without a single exception give musca. 
The upholders of musco, in their endeavour to enforce that 
mere conjecture by quoting from Athenzus, ‘‘ The Scarus 
flourishes on his food of sea-weed,’’4 and supporting it by 
Pliny,® ‘“ The Scarus is said to be the only fish that ruminates 
and is herbivorous ”’ (and here note that as Pliny—like Athe- 
naus—was taking his information from Arist., N. H., VIII. 2, 
he should have translated guxiove by algis, not by herbis), make 
the mistake of translating guxiov by muscus. They ignore, 
1 See infra, p. 155, note 6. 
2 See infra, p. 155, note 5. 
3 Schneidewin, Ed. I., 1842, and Ed. II., 1852, reads musca, as does Lindsay, 
1903. Paley and Stone (1888) musco; W. Gilbert (Leipzig, 1886 and 1896) 
reads musca, and in his apparatus criticus remarks ‘‘ vorata d. sc. musca cum 
libris Scrin, Schn. Glb.—vorato d. sc. musco Brodzus Schn.” 
4 VII. 113. xalper d& (sc. d oxdpos) TH Tay uKlwy rpopf Bd Kal TodTos 
Onpederai, «.7.A. Athenzus mentions Aristotle as his source. 
The references by ichthyologists to the bait used for catching the Scarus 
seem infrequent: I at least have only come across the following. ‘‘ The 
fishing requires some experience: fishermen allege that there is necessary un 
individu vivant pour amorcer les autres, yet here we call to mind what Atlian 
and Oppian say as to the great number of fish attracted by following a female 
attached to the line.” See Cuvier and Valenciennes, H. N. des Poissons, 
vol. XIV., p. 150, Paris, 1839. 
5 IX. 29. Scarus solus piscium dicitur ruminare herbisque vesci, non 
aliis piscibus, See also Oppian, IT. 645-650. 
