364 
The Animal-Lore of ShaJcspeare’s Time. 
error cost some no less than their lives, others for some time their senses; 
in shape it was not unlike a tench, hut more black and deformedly 
spotted.” 
“ The Barbell, than which fish a braver doth not swim, 
Barbel. Nor greater for the ford within my spacious brim [Trent] 
Nor, newly taken, more the curious taste doth please.” 
(Drayton, Polyolbion , song xxvi.) 
The barbel was considered of sufficient value in Eliza¬ 
beth’s time to be protected by statute, but modern epi¬ 
cures have nothing to say in support of Drayton’s opinion 
of its gastronomic merits. “ The barbell is an evil fysshe 
to take, for he is so strongly enarmyd in the mouth that 
there may no weak karnesse hold him,” writes Dame 
Juliana. When caught he makes a brave resistance, 
and, according to Du Bartas (p. 40), strives vigorously to 
rid himself of the hook :— 
“ But timorous barbies will not taste the bit, 
Till with their tails they have unhooked it: 
And all the baits the fisher can devise 
Cannot beguile their wary jealousies.” 
Izaak Walton quotes from Plutarch’s Be Industria 
Animalium the statement that the barbel attempts to re¬ 
lease himself by striking off the line with his tail. This 
assertion is repeated by a modern authority, Mr. Frank 
Buckland, and called in question by Mr. Manley, who 
writes:— 
“ I hope I may be pardoned when I say ‘ J doubt this.’ How can 
Mr. Buckland tell what the barbel does when he is hooked, unless he 
has encased himself in a diver’s dress, and lain in barbel swim, or ob¬ 
served this phenomenon through a glass window on a river’s bank ? ” 
{ Notes on Fish and Fishing , 1877, p. 267.) 
According to Chester, this fish was remarkable for 
fecundity:— 
“ The barbell that three times in every yeare, 
Her natural young ones to the waves doth beare.” 
( Love’s Martyr , p. 99.) 
