EARLY FISH PROTECTION AND BREEDING 291 
W. Yen dates the epoch as probably that of Tao Chu Kung, 
who lived in the fifth century B.c.! 
In Rome considerable trade was done in the sale of young 
fish for stocking waters. In China the commerce in fish eggs 
was on a vast scale and extremely lucrative. The Jesuit 
missionary Du Halde writes, “‘ Le gain va souvent au centuple 
de la dépense, car le Peuple se nourrit en partie de Poissons.”’? 
The method, however, of both the Chinese and the Romans 
was to gather eggs, already naturally fertilised, lying at the 
bottom of, or adhering to weeds in, the water. The Chinese 
went farther by employing special traps of hurdles and mats 
to bar the rivers and catch the eggs deposited on these. 
During the long interval between the Roman Empire and 
the eighteenth century, we note little or no progress in the 
rearing of fish, although preserves became numerous in Italy 
and France. Kings and nobles were zealous and jealous in 
making and maintaining artificial ponds. Charlemagne the 
Great personally ordered the repairing of old and digging of 
new ponds. By sales from their vivaria, and by heavy royalties 
from their fisheries the religious communities amassed large 
revenues. 
Towards the end of the Middle Ages new methods to 
counter the scarcity universally prevalent, despite the teaching 
in the thirteenth century of Peter of Vescenza, were eagerly 
sought. Dom Pinchon, a monk of the Abbey of Réome, 
seems the first to have conceived the idea of artificially 
fecundating the eggs of trout. He pressed out in turn the 
milt of a male and the eggs of a female into water, which he 
then agitated with his finger. He placed the resulting eggs 
in a wooden box, with a layer of fine sand on the bottom, 
and a willow grating above and at the two ends. The box 
till the moment of hatching was immersed in water flowing 
with a gentle stream. 
The process—described in a manuscript dated 1420, but 
not published till about 1850—naturally led to no practical 
results. Consequently Pinchon’s claim to be the father of 
1 Op. cit., 376, but see Chinese chapter. 
2 History of the Chinese Empire (Paris, 1735), vol. I. p. 36. 
