If “the betrayer of his kind” was till malicious capture admittedly and of set purpose left _free in the sea_, how could it have been reduced into possession, how could any title in it have been acquired, and, lastly—granted some kind of possession—by what _actio_ or legal formula could such possession have been enforced? These points were to me a stumbling-block, till Professor Courtney Kenny of Cambridge kindly came to my aid. As the extension here of _Mansuefactio_ is apparently unique, and would possibly have been repudiated by jurists after Mucian’s time, we seem to be faced by a novel point, which on account of its intricacy and interest will appeal to people learned in the Roman Law. The Professor’s letter runs: “Ownership in the _Anthias_ must have been created by that form of Occupatio of a res nullius, which consists, not by the physical detention by angling, or by a piscina, but in mere mansuefactio. This form is familiar for birds (_Dig._, 41. 2. 3. 15: and for English Law, Bracton, 2. 1. 4): but for fishes I know of no other passage than the one cited by you. Perhaps jurists, not so early as Mucian, would have declined to admit that there had been a _true_ occupatio of this Anthias. The partner, who sold this fish, which was partnership property, would be called on to account for it, and pay over, in damages, his partner’s share of the price by the contractual action Pro Socio. He might, in addition, be made to pay a penalty for his wrong-doing in the delictual Actio Furti. For, though there was a legal _primâ-facie_ presumption (_Dig._, 17. 2. 51) in favour of the honesty of any partner in the sales of partnership-property, we are here expressly told that he acted ‘maleficii voluntate,’ _i.e._ his contrectatio of the fish was ‘fraudulosa,’ and therefore a Furtum. The defrauded partner might well have brought both actions at once (_Dig._, 17. 2. 45), but Pliny _speaks_ only of his having brought the last named one.” [Illustration: A GREEK ANGLER. From the Agathemeros Relief, _c._ 3rd century B.C.] CHAPTER XVII TACKLE—CURIOUS METHODS OF FISHING FOR THE SARGUS BY DRESSING IN A SHE-GOAT’S SKIN—FOR THE SKATE BY DANCING AND MUSIC—FOR THE SILURUS BY A YOKE OF OXEN—FOR THE EEL WITH THE GUTS OF A SHEEP. WHAT WAS THE SILURUS? WILD THEORIES AS TO THE PROPAGATION OF EELS “Unseen, Eurotas, southward steal, Unknown, Alpheus, westward glide, You never heard the ringing _Reel_, The music of the waterside.” (A. LANG.) The tackle, implements, and some curious modes of fishing apparently peculiar to, or handed down to us only from, Greek and Roman sources call for consideration and comment. Nets, we have seen, were of all sorts and kinds in shape, make, and size. Their number and nature as disclosed by Julius Pollux, Plutarch, and Ælian indicate that the art of netting was well nigh perfected. Oppian, after enumerating many varieties and telling how the enormous