I subjoin a list of the nine fish which found most favour in Greece and Rome. This, although necessarily rough and tentative, can (I believe), be justified by an examination of our authors.[624] To anyone who on the strength of one author may be dissatisfied with the place allotted to a particular fish, I would point out that since the oracles of taste vary with the ages, it is essential to hold in mind the exact date at which a passage was written. Then, again, the Greek saw not eye to eye, or ate not tooth to tooth, with the Roman. The verdict of the opsophagists or, as these often differed, of the plain people of one century not infrequently reversed that of the last. As with us at the present day it is hardly feasible to adjudge definitely to what fish belongs the primacy of palate, so was it with the ancients. In the case of the Greeks the task is impossible. Every one of our nine can boast at least half a dozen champions. Then, again, as regards the epoch of individual supremacy we are without any guiding statement, such as Pliny’s that in his time the _Scarus_ was reckoned the king of fish.[625] [Illustration: Palæmon Mullus.... Torpedo ocellata Mugil.... Labrus.... Octopus vulgaris Palinurus vulgaris.... Balanus ut videtur.... Coris julis Scyllium canicula.... Chrysophrys Mullus Chrysophrys Scorpæna Scyllium Catulus ....Lolligo vulgaris Murex ....Serranus scriba Murena belena ....Engraulis encrasicholus Labrax lupus ....Tritonium ....Serranus FISH ON A POMPEIAN MOSAIC IN THE NAPLES MUSEUM. From O. Keller, _Die Antike Tierwelt_, Fig. 124.] For these reasons, discount as we may the personal predilections of an author like Ennius, of a _gourmet_ like Apicius, of a _bon vivant_ like Vitellius, any list is perforce approximate, not absolute. It must be governed by the dictum of the great Greek epicure, χαίρει γὰρ ὁ μὲν τούτοις, ὁ δ’ ἐκείνοις. But if our opsophagists disagreed as to which was _the_ best fish, they were fairly unanimous as to which part of a fish was best. Setting aside the peculiar partiality of the Greeks for the head of the Conger, the part near the tail afforded the most savour, and found the most favour with ancient (and modern) _gourmets_. Three reasons for this preference have been suggested: (A) That from Xenocrates. After laying down that fish roasted are more nutritious than fish boiled, that sea fish are easy of digestion and by their formation of blood impart a good colour to the skin, that fish from lakes and rivers are generally bad for the stomach, form thick juices, and are difficult of evacuation, this great physician affirms emphatically that the part near the tail of _all_ kinds of fish (Nonnius excepts the Tunny) are the most wholesome, on account of it being most frequently exercised.[626]