Even if neither of these arguments carries weight, the objection brought forward by Gilbert appears to me to put the reading _musco_ out of court: “Suppose Martial knew what Athenæus and others state as regards this peculiar habit of the scarus, surely this was not the place, where the _Scarus_ is introduced only as a representative of all fish, to air his knowledge—least of all in words such as ‘quis nescit.’” In conclusion, if _musca_ be the right reading, we can, I think, definitely assert: A. That this passage contains the very earliest mention of a _fly_ being used for the taking of fish: B. That from Martial’s employment of it as an illustration, and from his not drawing attention to the novelty or oddness of such use, and especially from the words “quis nescit,” which imply a general knowledge, fly fishing had been long invented, and was a method common among anglers: C. That this solitary passage is inconclusive as to whether the fly was simply a natural one attached to a hook, and used perhaps as now in dapping,[364] or an artificial one. To my mind, however, the scale dips deeply in favour of the artificial fly for the following reasons. 1. The trend and purpose of the whole passage, especially when we note carefully the preceding verse and a half, “_Odi dolosas munerum et malas artes._ | _Imitantur hamos dona_,” is to inveigh against fraudful gifts, typical of which fraudful flies are singled out—in fact, against all presents which are not what they appear. Mr. A. B. Cook writes: “I quite agree with your view that the passage gains much, if all three lines are made to refer to an artificial fly with a hook concealed in it. Indeed, that is pretty obviously the meaning.” 2. The difficulty which the ancients would have experienced in impaling, etc., on one of their hooks a natural fly would have been greater than dressing an artificial one. The smallest hook in the Greek-Roman Collection at the British Museum (found at Amathus in Cyprus 1894) measures over ¼ in. breadth at the bend.[365] If we allow that owing to oxidation the metal may have coarsened and swollen, the task of impaling, and further of fastening a natural fly securely enough to withstand the buffets of even wavelets of the sea (for N.B. the _Scarus_ is marine) must verily have demanded τὸν δημιοεργόν, “a craftsman of the people, welcome over all the wide earth.”[366] For these reasons the _kudos_ of the first mention of an artificial fly belongs, in my opinion, to Martial rather than to Ælian. FOOTNOTES: [348] _Ep._, V. 18, 7 f. [349] See _infra_, p. 155, note 6. [350] See _infra_, p. 155, note 5. [351] 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 “vorat_a_ d. sc. musc_a_ cum libris Scrin. Schn. Glb.—vorat_o_ d. sc. musc_o_ Brodæus Schn.”