Content uploaded by Marcel Humar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marcel Humar on Oct 15, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Antike Naturwissenschaft
und ihre Rezeption
Band XXV
Jochen Althoff, Sabine Föllinger, Georg Wöhrle (Hg.)
Antike Naturwissenschaft
und ihre Rezeption
Band XXV
Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier
Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption. -
Trier : WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2015
ISSN 0942-0398; ISBN 978-3-86821-593-9
Band 25 (2015)
Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der
Karl und Gertrud Abel-Stiftung
Titelvignette: Sich in den Schwanz beißende Schlange aus dem
Codex Marcianus Graecus 299 (= 584), fol. 188v;
Bibliotheca Marciana, Venedig
© WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 2015
ISBN 978-3-86821-593-9
ISSN 0942-0398
Umschlaggestaltung: Brigitta Disseldorf
Alle Rechte vorbehalten
Nachdruck oder Vervielfältigung nur mit
ausdrücklicher Genehmigung des Verlags
WVT Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier
Bergstraße 27, 54295 Trier
Postfach 4005, 54230 Trier
Tel.: (0651) 41503 / 9943344, Fax: 41504
Internet: http://www.wvttrier.de
E-Mail: wvt@wvttrier.de
Inhalt
Vorwort 7
Gerhard Köhler (Berlin)
Zenon von Elea und sein sogenanntes ‚Argument des Orts‘ 9
Victor Gysembergh (Reims)
Zu den Kalendergöttern des Eudoxos von Knidos 37
Martin F. Meyer (Koblenz)
Aristoteles über die Lebensdauer der Tiere und Pflanzen 55
Giuseppe Squillace (Università della Calabria)
Menecrates of Syracuse: Reality and Fiction 79
Boris Dunsch (Marburg)
Verschriftete κυβερνητικαὶ τέχναι: Ein übersehenes Zeugnis
bei Philodem (rh. II, P.Herc. 1672, col. XXXIII, 27-33) 93
Fritz Krafft (Weimar, Lahn)
Horaz zwischen Kuhn und Copernicus 115
Dominik Berrens (Mainz)
Bienen und Literatur. Überlegungen zu Senecas 84. Lucilius-Brief 145
Gotthard Strohmaier (Berlin)
Astronomisches im neuen Galenkommentar zu Hippokrates,
De aere aquis locis 165
Jochen Walter (Mainz)
Der Philosoph im Pantherfell. Aelian, Natura animalium 5,54
vor dem Hintergrund antiker Prätexte und moderner Tierethologie 173
Marcel Humar (Berlin)
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys –
Studies in the Identification of the Ancient Echeneis 203
Peter Grunert (Mainz)
„Stereo-taxie“ sprachlich und historisch betrachtet 221
Marcel Humar (Berlin)
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys –
Studies in the Identification of the Ancient Echeneis
Introduction
The zoological works from antiquity, mainly the works of Aristotle, but also the
texts of Aelianus and the didactic poems by Oppian, contain plenty of descrip-
tions of species in respect to their anatomy as well as their behavior. Since the
Renaissance, a formidable effort has been made to identify the various animals
described in ancient texts. Every famous scientist of that period, e.g. the French
naturalists Guillaume Rondelet (1507-1566) and Pierre Belon (1517-1564), the
German zoologist Konrad Gesner (1516-1556) and the Swedish taxonomist Carl
Linnaeus (1707-1778), paid attention to the texts of Greek and Roman writers,
prose as well as poetry. But also modern philological commentaries are increas-
ingly focusing on an exact identification or classification of species named in
ancient texts.1 Animals mentioned in ancient technical texts, their description
and their nomenclature are examined even by modern biologists.2 Discussions
and corrections are the result of intensive research on animal nomenclature in
antiquity.3
The aim of the present paper is to provide strong evidence that suggest a
correction concerning the identification of a certain marine species. A correct
identification of animals in ancient texts is important inasmuch as certain quali-
ties are connected with certain species and without the correct identification of
them, neither research concerning their peculiarities or their use in cultural con-
texts4 (e.g. medicine) nor taxonomic studies are expedient.
Among the various fishes described by ancient natural philosophers, we
find a peculiar kind with an outstanding virtue: the echeneis (ἐχενηίς), which has
the ability to retard or stop the progress of ship. This virtue is also reflected by
its name (gr. echein “to hold”; gr. naus “ship”). This marvelous behavior of stop-
1 See e.g. the indices in Fajen (1999) and Aubert/Wimmer (1868).
2 For terminological approaches, see Bodson (2005) and Koutrakis et al. (2009); for taxo-
nomical studies, see Tipton (2006), Voultsiadou/Vafidis (2007) and Fürst von Lieven/
Humar (2008).
3 See e.g. Lunczer (2011).
4 For an example, see the study of Watson (2010) and the discussion on page 217.
204 Marcel Humar
ping ships from sailing is depicted in several texts. In the case of the echeneis
the identification seems much ascertained: In almost all texts it is commonly
identified with the Remora genus, more precisely the Echeneis remora L., the
common shipholder.5 This notable fish has a special disk-like structure on his
head (see Fig. 1) which allows it to berth to other marine animals, e.g. sharks or
dolphins. This sucking disk is formed by an expansion of the dorsal fin through
small changes while the fish is developing.6 There are eight species of sucking
fishes and they are the only fish with such a sucking disk.
Fig. 1: The remora or sucking fish, from: Johnston (1650)
Thompson remarks in his Glossary of Greek Fishes that the name echeneis is
applied to various species. According to Thompson, only Aristotle denotes a
blenny or goby (probably Gobius paganellus) with the word, and only in
Oppian’s Halieutica is the word echeneis applied to a kind of lamprey, probably
the marine lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), the only member of its group known
from our salt waters.7 However, the term commonly refers to the sucking-fish
(Echeneis or remora).8 Most of the commentators follow Thompson in identify-
ing the ancient echeneis with the Linnaean genus Remora.9
5 To avoid any confusion, I will use the minuscule spelling (echeneis) for the Greek term,
and the majuscule spelling (Echeneis, or the biological binomial: Echeneis remora L.)
for the species. The modern biological taxon is indicated by remora.
6 This explanation is given for the first time in Voigt’s System der Natur und ihre Ge-
schichte (1823) 482.
7 The term lamprey (Fr. lamproie) is also an etymological name (gr. lampto “to lick”; gr.
petra “rock”). Also the German term, Neunauge (“nine eyes”), is etymological: Because
of the seven gill slits on each side, the pair of eyes and the central olfactory organ, this
marine animal seems to have nine eyes on each side.
8 See Thompson (1947) 67. Before him Keller (1913) also identified the Greek echeneis
with the Linnaean shipholder. Keller only refers to Oppian for the description (Keller
(1913) 378) and gives a summary of the shipholder’s ability and his role in the battle of
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 205
The present paper questions the confident identification of echeneis with
the Echeneis remora L. by examining sources from Aristotle (fourth century
BCE) to Nonnos (fifth century CE). First, it will be argued that not a single de-
scription in the texts assessed by Thompson reliably refers to the Echeneis rem-
ora; it seems more plausible to assume that all the passages refer to the marine
lamprey. In the second part, I will address the question of whether the remora
was known to the ancient naturalists and provide some textual evidence to an-
swer this question. Finally, I will sketch some queries for further research on the
history of the echeneis.
The Ancient Sources
The Greek philosopher and naturalist Aristotle (384-322 BCE), the zoological
authority for centuries to come, provides the earliest extant literary reference to
the echeneis in his major zoological work Historia animalium (HA):
Ἔστι δ’ ἰχθύδιόν τι τῶν πετραίων, ὃ καλοῦσί τινες ἐχενηΐδα, καὶ χρῶνταί τινες αὐτῷ
πρὸς δίκας καὶ φίλτρα· ἔστι δ’ ἄβρωτον· τοῦτο δ’ ἔνιοί φασιν ἔχειν πόδας οὐκ ἔχον,
ἀλλὰ φαίνεται διὰ τὸ τὰς πτέρυγας ὁμοίας ἔχειν ποσίν.
Of the fishes staying at the rocks, there is a small one, which some call the Echeneis,
and which some people use for matters concerning law and love; the fish is unfit for eat-
ing. Some people say that it has feet, although it does not, but it appears to be furnished
with feet by its fins which resemble those organs.10 HA II 14, 505 b18-20
Aristotle describes this little fish (ἰχθύδιον) as inhabiting rocky parts of the sea,
and as having fins somewhat similar to feet. It has correctly been observed that
the Echeneis remora never dwells on rocks, but prefers the open water;11 lam-
preys do adhere to rocks, but cannot be described as having feet (as well as the
Remora genus). Thompson solved this problem by identifying in this single ac-
count the echeneis with a goby or blenny (presumably Gobius paganellus),12 a
genus the species of which use their fins like feet for locomotion along the sur-
faces of stones; equally, Cresswell previously remarked that the remora was un-
Actium (Pliny Hist. nat. 32, 2; on this, see below). Although there is no mention of the
sucking disk in Oppian, as well as in all the other authors, Keller (379) writes: “Das
Tatsächliche beschränkt sich darauf, daß sich der Fisch mit seiner flachen Haftscheibe
auf dem Scheitel äußerst fest am Schiffskiel ansaugt, gerade wie das Neunauge mit dem
Munde.”
9 See recently Zierlein (2013) 495.
10 Translations are mine unless noted.
11 See Zierlein (2013) 495.
12 See Thompson (1947) 67-68.
206 Marcel Humar
known to the ancients – which is not correct13 – and that echeneis here refers to
a kind of goby.14 An explanation for this unique attribution is not discussed in
the commentaries.15 Hence, I want to suggest two possible explanations for the
assumed misattribution, one textual and the other historical. First, it is possible
that the misleading description of the echeneis as having feet is a later interpola-
tion. In her study on the transmission of the HA, Friederike Berger emphasizes
that all books of the HA show later editing.16 The fact that the oldest manuscript
of Aristotle’s Historia animalium is dated to the ninth century and therefore the
text is more than thousand years away from its author, makes the assumption of
later corrections or adaptations possible; however, the critical apparatus of the
text does not display an alternative.17
A second consideration concerns linguistic aspects: Aristotle clearly dis-
tances himself from the ascription by explicitly referring to external sources
(‘some call’, καλοῦσί τινες). Considering the circumstances of his research, i.e.
that he also instructed a lot of people to collect data and descriptions of animals
far away,18 it is plausible that Aristotle refers to a simple report from a second
source, as he often does in his zoological writings, and this description, or nam-
ing, is not very reliable.19
The second source of a description of the echeneis is found in Oppian’s di-
dactic poem Halieutica, a poem dealing with several fishes, their anatomy and
behavior, as well as strategies to catch them.
Oppian writes in his Halieutica:
13 See the discussion below.
14 See Cresswell (1862) 310.
15 Even the recent commentary on HA by Zierlein (2013) does not address this peculiar
problem sufficiently.
16 See Berger (2005) 9.
17 See Berger (2005) 2.
18 The account in Pliny Hist. nat. 8, 19 on Alexander the Great who inflamed with the de-
sire to discover the nature of animals assigned Aristotle to pursue this aim and placed
therefore under his command some thousands of men in order that no creature might es-
cape his notice, is certainly exaggerated. But it is very likely that Aristotle writing his
History of Animals collected a lot of data from external sources without having exam-
ined all the details.
19 As external source Aristotle refers among others to huntsmen, bee-keepers and fisher-
men. See e.g. HA VI 9, 564b3-5, VI 12, 566b26 (for further instances in Aristotle, see
Lloyd (1983) 148). To what extent Aristotle relies on pre-existing folk-taxonomies (in
the sense of Berlin (1992)) with their terminology is an interesting question. For a dis-
cussion, see Lennox (1990) and Fürst von Lieven/Humar (2008) 245-247.
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 207
Καὶ μὲν δὴ πελάγεσσιν ὁμῶς ἐχενηῒς ἑταίρη
ἡ δ’ ἦτοι ταναὴ μὲν ἰδεῖν, μῆκος δ’ ἰσόπηχυς,
χροιὴ δ’ αἰθαλόεσσα, φυὴ δέ οἱ ἐγχελύεσσιν
εἴδεται, ὀξὺ δέ οἱ κεφαλῆς στόμα νέρθε νένευκε
καμπύλον, ἀγκίστρου περιηγέος εἴκελον αἰχμῇ.
A companion of the open seas likewise is the echeneis.
It is slender of aspect, in length a cubit, its colour dusky,
its nature like that of the eel; under its head its mouth slopes
sharp and crooked, like the barb of a curved hook. Hal. 212-224
Without any doubt, this account does not describe the Echeneis remora, but re-
fers to the lamprey (probably the marine lamprey, Petromyzon marinus, see Fig.
220).21 Lampreys are eel-like in appearance and lack paired fins, so they appear
slender. The length is about two to four feet (70-140 cm). Small specimens are,
as many marine fishes, white below and uniformly colored above. The color is
usually described as lead, and more or less silvery; large specimens are usually
olive brown or sometimes nearly black. Their mouth is placed under their head
and resembles a longitudinal slit when closed. But when opened it forms a disk
at the tip of the mouth with several rows of sharp, pointy teeth and a hard rasp-
ing tongue in the center (see Fig. 3). The jawless lampreys use this specialized
mouth to stick to the side of several fishes; with their tongue they scrape a hole
through the skin and scales of their victim and begin sucking the fish’s blood
and bodily fluids. But also to ships these little agnathans adhere.
Fig. 2 The marine lamprey (Petromyzon marinus L.), from: Johnston (1650)
20 Other names that are sometimes used to describe the sea lamprey are eel sucker, lam-
prey eel, nine eyes, shad lamprey, as well as sucker.
21 This is also remarked by several interpreters; see Thompson (1947) 68; Günther (1860)
388. Fajen (1999) translates correctly: “Der hohen See jedoch in gleicher Weise Gefähr-
te ist das Neunauge. Es ist schlank von Gestalt, eine Elle lang, die Farbe rußigdunkel,
seine Natur der von Aalen gleich; unter seinem Kopf aber biegt sich ein scharfes, ge-
krümmtes Maul hervor, gleich der Spitze eines gebogenen Hakens.”
208 Marcel Humar
Fig. 3 The lamprey’s mouth with several rows of hooked teeth,
from: Bigelow & Schroeder (1988)
Neither Thompson (1947) nor other interpreters like Fajen (1999) explain, why
only Oppian recognizes the echeneis as being a lamprey. The analysis of several
other sources will shed some light on Oppians passage.
The Roman writer Aelianus (second century CE) also takes account of the
marvelous echeneis. In his work On the Nature of Animals, a curious collection
of brief – sometimes astonishing – stories of natural history, he describes the
same powerful fish. Aelianus’ anecdotes on animals presumably do not depend
on direct observation; rather they are taken from various written sources, mainly
Aristotle and Pliny the Elder. But nevertheless, we find in his report on the
echeneis an important remark, which is considered to contain a description of
the Remora genus;22 the passage runs as follows:
πελάγιος ἰχθὺς τὴν λῆξιν, τὴν ὄψιν μέλας, τὸ μῆκος κατὰ μεμετρημένην ἔγχελυν, λαβὼν
ἐξ ὧν δρᾷ τὸ ὄνομα, θεούσῃ νηὶ καὶ μάλα γε ἐξ οὐρίας προσφθαρεὶς καὶ τῆς πρύμνης τὸ
ἄκρον ἐνδακών […]
There is a fish whose territory is the open sea, black in appearance, in his length like an
eel of moderate size, and deriving its name from what it does: with evil purpose it meets
a vessel running at full speed before the wind, and fastening its teeth into the front of
the prow […] De nat. an. 2, 17
22 See Scholfield (1958) 117.
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 209
This passage is interesting in two points: First, though Aelianus does only com-
pare the size of his echeneis with an eel, it, nevertheless, seems that he had an
eel-like fish in mind writing this passage. Why should he otherwise have chosen
an eel for comparison, if he was thinking of a fish like the Echeneis remora? It
seems plausible that his fish was also eel-like in shape. More important is the
note that the fish seizes with the teeth (ἐνδακών) the stern of the ship. While the
echeneis utilizes his sucking disk to adhere to ships, the lamprey uses its jawless
mouth. A word like ἐνδακών, the syllable δακ- means ‘to bite’, can only be ap-
plied to an animal adhering with its mouth and teeth, but not with a disk on his
head.23 Therefore, it seems rather plausible to identify Aelianus’ echeneis with
the marine lamprey than with a species from the Remora genus. However that
might be, the description fits still less a remora.
The next passage under discussion comes from Plutarch; in his Moralia 2,
7 (titled Concerning the Echeneis) the author reports a debate about antipathy
and attraction. His remarks are introduced by the following anecdote:
Χαιρημονιανὸς ὁ Τραλλιανός, ἰχθυδίων ποτὲ παντοδαπῶν παρατεθέντων, ἓν ἐπιδείξας
ἡμῖν ὀξὺ τῷ κεφαλίῳ καὶ πρόμηκες ἔλεγε τούτῳ προσεοικέναι τὴν ἐχενηίδα·
Once, when small fish of all sorts were served to us, Chaeremonianus of Tralles pointed
out one with a sharp, elongated head and said the echeneïs resembled it […] Moralia 2,
7 (641b) (translation after Babbitt 1969)
What follows is a description of the power of the echeneis regarding its ability to
stop ships. This passage is more difficult to evaluate than the text in Aelianus or
Oppianus’ poem, because the passage quoted above does not contain any ana-
tomical specification of the echeneis, but a description of a similar species; so
we are dealing with an indirect account. Though Plutarch was no naturalist and
the zoological material in his writings is borrowed from various sources, we can
assume that he is giving a roughly correct description. Nevertheless, two aspects
might indicate that Plutarch’s echeneis was not a remora. First, the genus of the
remora is an isolated group with only eight species eminently resembling each
other; hence, it might be difficult to find a fish resembling the remora without
being one, meaning: there cannot be a fish similar to a remora.
The second argument against the identification of Plutarch’s echeneis as
remora is the wording ὀξὺ τῷ κεφαλίῳ καὶ πρόμηκες. Following Babbitt’s trans-
lation, this fish has a sharp elongated head. But the translation is misleading
here: It is not the sharp and elongated head; rather the two neuter forms ὀξύ and
23 Of course, it is also possible that because of the shape of the jaws, the appearance of the
sucker, and the coloration of the remora (dark blue or black on top and white on the
belly), people mistook the fishes belly as its back as it was swimming upside down.
210 Marcel Humar
πρόμηκες refer to the diminutive τὸ ἰχθύδιον while ὀξύ is specified by the
dativus respectus τῷ κεφαλίῳ. Thus, it is the little fish, elongated, and sharp in
regard to the head. And this description fits the lamprey, this eel-like fish with
sharp teeth, very well. Hence, another question arises: If Plutarch’s fish resem-
bles a lamprey, what species can be meant? The answer is quick: There is a fish,
long in shape and equipped with a very sharp head, namely the moray (Murena
helena L.).24 Both fishes have a similar appearance and are quite common in Ita-
ly, Greece and other south-eastern countries in Europe. Further, the lamprey and
the moray have an interesting history in later eras because of their similarity:
Already in late antiquity and in the medieval times the Latin word murena de-
scribes two distinct species: the common moray on one hand, and the lamprey
on the other. Until the sixteenth century scientific language used the word
murena to denote two different elongated fishes while the tertium comparationis
might be their eel-like shape. This circumstance is confirmed by Anglo-Norman
glosses from the 13th century, which explain murena often with murena id est
lamproie, lampreye etc.25
The next Greek account of the echeneis is found in late antiquity. In his
Dionysiaca, an epic tale of the god Dionysus, the byzantine poet Nonnos who
lived at the end of the fourth or early fifth century presents two descriptions of
the echeneis and its ability to hold ships firm, embedded in poetic similes. The
first can be found in book 21: In the beginning of this book Lycurg, son of Ares
and ruler of Arabia, tries to besiege the bacchante Ambrosia. She, after invocat-
ing the goddess Gaia, is turned into a vine branch and entangles and captivates
Lycurg instead; now superior to him, Ambrosia compares herself to the eche-
neis:
ἔκλυες εἰναλίην ἐχενηίδα, πῶς ἐνὶ πόντῳ
ἰχθὺς βαιὸς ἄναλκις ἐπέχραε πολλάκι ναύταις
ἂψ ἀνασειράζων, ὀλίγῳ δ’ ὑπὸ χάσματι λαιμοῦ
μηκεδανὴν ἀνέκοψε κατάσχετον ὁλκάδα δεσμῷ;
δέξο με χερσαίην ἐχενηίδα, δέξο πετήλων
αὐτοπέδην ἀσίδηρον ἐρισταφύλοιο κυδοιμοῦ.
Have you heard of the seafish called holdtheship, how in the sea
a little weak creature has often attacked a crew,
pulls back their vessels, and with a small
gaping mouth holds up a long freightship firm and fast?
Here I am, your holdtheship on land!
Dionysiaca, 21, 45-50 (translation after Rouse 1940)
24 On the similarity of lamprey and moray, see below.
25 See Wille (2009).
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 211
The most important information here is that the shipholder is supposed to have a
small gaping mouth (ὑπὸ χάσματι λαιμοῦ). The word χάσμα refers always to a
bipartite structure (e.g. jaws in animals) or a single structure breaking into two
pieces (e.g. the yawning earth). The disk of an Echeneis remora can hardly be
described as gaping, because there are no jaws or any structure that allows an
opening or closing of the disk. Hence, the use of the wording ὑπὸ χάσματι
λαιμοῦ (with a gaping or yawning mouth) cannot be attributed to the Echeneis
remora without problems, but rather fits the lamprey with its opening and clos-
ing mouth. In her commentary to this passage Gisèle Chrétien doubts that
Nonnos would have had the lamprey in mind, because the two adjectives βαιός
and ἄναλκις (little and weak) can hardly be applied to the lamprey, which, ac-
cording to Chrétien, can reach a length of nine meters: “Mais la lamproie de mer
mesure jusqu’à 9 métres de long, ce qui ne correspond guère au βαιὸς ἄναλκις
de Nonnos (v. 46) ni à l’accent mis par d’autres auters sur sa petite taille.”26 The
source of Chrétien’s information concerning the length of the lamprey is not
given, but it is a fact that lampreys hardly exceed a length of 110 cm.27 The
analysis of the passage is complicated by the fact that the description of the
echeneis is provided in the context of an epic comparison. Nonnos uses the at-
tributes βαιός and ἄναλκις to compare the little weak bacchante, now gaining
strength, with the fish, also small and weak in appearance but endowed with ex-
traordinary strength. Hence, for reasons of comparability, he has to attribute the
same qualities to the fish.
Nevertheless, another passage in the Dionysiaca might complement the fact
that Nonnos might have had the lamprey in mind when writing about the
echeneis. In book 36, Nonnos again uses this little but strong fish as a model of
comparison: The king Deriades gets ready to arm his wagon against the god
Dionysos. The god induces the growing of a tendril as a helper; this twine en-
chains the wagon and prohibits any movement. In this moment, Dionysos com-
pares the wagon with a ship in the grip of an echeneis:
καὶ οὐ τόσον ὁλκάδα πόντου
θηκτὰ περιπλεκέων ἐχενηίδος ἄκρα γενείων
δεσμῷ καρχαρόδοντι διεστήριξε θαλάσσῃ·
τοῖον ἔην μίμημα. μάτην δ’ ἐλέφαντας ἐπείγων
ἡνίοχος βαρύδουπον ἑὴν ἐλέλιζεν ἱμάσθλην,
κέντροις ὀξυτέροισιν ἀπειθέα νῶτα χαράσσων.
26 See Chrètien (1994: Chants XX-XXIV) 208 ad v. 45-48.
27 See Werner (2004) 49.
212 Marcel Humar
Not so firmly is the seagoing barge held fast
on the main by the toothed bond of a holdtheship,
when she fastens her sharp fangs on the timbers.
Yes, it was just like that! In vain the driver whipt
up his elephants and swung his cracking lash, tearing
the obstinate hide with sharper prickles.
Dionysiaca, 36, 367-372 (translation after Rouse 1940)
Also this passage addresses the ship-retarding qualities of the echeneis. The poet
refers to the fish using his ‘sharp-toothed ligature’ (δεσμῷ καρχαρόδοντι). The
adjective καρχαρόδων has, since Hesiodus, described the teeth of carnivorous
animals; in Aristotle it is applied to the crooked teeth of predatory mammals,
e.g. the lion.28 This description also fits the lamprey, but not the Echeneis remo-
ra.29
Both passages in Nonnos should be handled with caution, because they re-
present, in contrast to the zoological writings of Aristotle, high artificial poetry
and cannot be treated as reliable sources of zoological description. However, the
evidence supports the thesis that the echeneis is a lamprey, and not the remora.
The first Latin source of the echeneis is the probably spurious poem
Halieutica30 by the Roman poet Ovidius. In the Halieutica, the poet only gives a
short note on the echeneis: Parva echeneis adest, mirum, mora puppibus ingens
(“There is the little echeneis, marvelous, an enormous delay for the ships”, Hal.
99). According to Thompson the story of the shipholder is not told before
Ovidius.31 This single verse does not contain any anatomical description. How-
ever, Pliny the Elder (CE 23-79), a scientific encyclopaedist, who wrote exten-
sively on various topics like astronomy, meteorology, geography, mineralogy,
zoology and botany, mentions the echeneis in his famous work Historia
naturalis, a collection of the scientific knowledge of his times. In book nine of
his compiled work, he deals with the fishes, their anatomy and their peculiari-
ties. In book nine we gain some information about the echeneis:
Est parvus admodum piscis adsuetus petris, echeneis appellatus. hoc carinis adhaerente
naves tardius ire creduntur, inde nomine inposito. quam ob causam amatoriis quoque
veneficiis infamis est et iudiciorum ac litium mora, quae crimina una laude pensat
fluxus gravidarum utero sistens partusque continens ad puerperium. in cibos tamen non
admittitur. pedes eum habere arbitrantur, Aristoteles ... it apposita pinnarum similitu-
dine.
28 See Hesiod, Works and Days 604.
29 The echeneis in Nonnos is discussed in Zoroddu (1997).
30 Although Ovidius’ authorship of the Halieutica seems secured by Plin. Hist. nat. 32, 11
and 32, 152 the poem is considered as spurious; see Knox (2009).
31 See Thompson (1947) 68.
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 213
There is a very small fish commonly living among the rocks, named the echeneis. Peo-
ple believe that, when this [fish] attaches itself to the keel of a ship, the ship’s progress
is decelerated, therein it gets its name. For this reason, also, it is of bad repute, as being
employed in love philters, and for the purpose of retarding judgments and legal pro-
ceedings; these evil properties can only be compensated by a single merit that it pos-
sesses: it is good for staying fluxes of the womb in pregnant women, and preserves the
fetus up to birth: it is, however, not edible. Aristotle is of the opinion that this fish has
feet, so strong is the resemblance, by reason of the form and position of the fins. Hist.
nat. 9, 43
Pliny, after an extensive passage on the ship-retarding power of the fish, draws
an interesting parallel between the echeneis and a snail: Qui tunc posteaque
videre eum, limaci magnae similem esse dicunt. („The persons who have seen it
say that it [the echeneis] bears a strong resemblance to a large slug.“)32 This
comparison is striking. Considering the external anatomy, only an eel-like fish
can be compared with a limax, a slug of the family Limacidae which are charac-
terized by a reduced and internal shell, so they appear “naked”. These slugs in-
deed highly resemble the lamprey.
Pliny’s account is the most important for an analysis of the identification of
the echeneis with the Remora genus. Isidor of Seville (560-636 CE), archbishop
and the last scholar of the ancient world, in his Etymologiae, an encyclopaedic
work (20 volumes) which contains extracts of many books from classical anti-
quity, gives no anatomical account. He simply refers to the length of the fish
(“parvus et semipedalis”) and gives an explanation of its etymological name.33
Before moving to the next paragraph, I give a short summary of the results
so far: The self-evident identification of the ancient echeneis with the Echeneis
remora is based on an insufficient description in Greek texts; moreover, the ana-
tomical description in almost every single case discussed above should lead to
another conclusion: the identification of the ancient echeneis with the marine
lamprey. Also the Latin sources, on linguistic and analogical grounds, suggest
that the echeneis is a lamprey. The fact that Aristotle did not mention the suck-
ing disk in his description of the echeneis in HA34 – which leads to the assump-
tion that it might not be from the Remora genus – also applies to all the other
authors discussed in this paper. In my opinion, it is another striking argument
32 Hist. nat. 32, 1. Pliny writes that at the battle of Actium (31 BCE), the ship of Antonius
was stopped by the echeneis, whereupon he lost the battle; see Hist. nat. 32, 1.
33 I will also not discuss the brief passage in Lucans Bellum civile, 6, 674-5, because Lu-
can does not provide any anatomical description.
34 On this, see Gudger (1916) 318.
214 Marcel Humar
against the identification of echeneis with the Remora genus, that no author
mentions the most envisaging structure of the fish: his remarkable sucking-disk.
Is there an Ancient Remora?
The evidence from the texts is clear: Not a single passage provides a sufficient
description for the alleged identification of the echeneis with the remora. Thus,
the following question arises: Is the remora known to the ancient world? This
question can be addressed by examining two further passages, in Aristotle and in
Aelianus. Aristotle, in his History of Animals, describes a fish with an interest-
ing interrelationship to dolphins:
Ἐν δὲ τῇ θαλάττῃ τῇ ἀπὸ Κυρήνης πρὸς Αἴγυπτον ἔστι περὶ τὸν δελφῖνα ἰχθὺς ὃν
καλοῦσι φθεῖρα· ὃς γίνεται πάντων πιότατος διὰ τὸ ἀπολαύειν τροφῆς ἀφθόνου
θηρεύοντος τοῦ δελφῖνος.
In the sea between Cyrene and Egypt there is a fish called “louse” which dogs the dol-
phin; this fish gets extremely fat owing to the bountiful supplies of food available for its
benefit when the dolphin is out hunting. HA V 31, 557 a29-31 (Translation after Peck
1970)
The last comment is very important; like the lamprey, the louse (φθείρ) attaches
itself to the other species, but it does not feed on them. The louse feeds on the
prey of larger fishes and on malignant parasites on their skin. Peck (1970, 212),
following Günther (1860), remarks that this Aristotelian louse is the sucking-
fish Echeneis remora or E. naucrates.
Aelian, undoubtedly influenced by the work of Aristotle, gives a similar
account on this ‘louse’ in his work On the Nature of Animals:
Παράσιτοι δὲ ἄρα καὶ ἐν ἰχθύων γένει ἦσαν. ὁ γοῦν φθεὶρ οὕτω λεγόμενος παρατρώγει
τῶν τοῦ δελφῖνος θηραμάτων· ὃ δὲ ἥδεται αὐτῷ καὶ ἑκὼν μεταδίδωσιν.
Within the genus of fish there are also parasitic species. The so called louse feasts on
the dolphin’s prey. The dolphin, however, takes pleasure in him and shares deliberately.
De nat. an. 9, 7
These two passages give insight into the relationships between the remora and its
companion. The remoras attach themselves to the dolphin (also remoras can stick
to other organisms such as whales, other big fish and maybe also tortoises35) and
eat the leftover food remains that they can find. This would fall into a commensal
35 In some cultures many native people take advantage of the Remora’s powerful sucking-
disk by using it as a fishing ally: They fasten a line to the fish’s tail and throw it over-
board. Immediately, the remora swims straight to a larger animal (often a turtle); at-
tached to a larger marine animal’s back, the fishermen then pull both, remora and prey,
back to the boat by the line. On this special use of the Remora, see Gudger (1919).
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 215
symbiotic relationship, because the remora is getting its food, while the other fish
gets no benefit. There are, however, studies that suggest that the remora cleans
parasites from its companion’s teeth and, perhaps, skin. If this is true, then it is a
mutual symbiotic relationship. Thompson, following Günther (1860) and Gudger
(1916), comes to the conclusion that the ancient φθείρ is either the Echeneis rem-
ora or E. naucrates.36 The Linnaean student Peter Forsskål (1732-1763) reports in
his Descriptiones animalium (1775)37 that in the Arabian world a sucker fish is
called Chamel el Ferrhun (louse of the terrifying one) or Kamel el Kersh (the
shark’s louse).38 All commentators on the passages in Aristotle and Aelianus are
confident: The dolphin’s louse must be identified with the remora.
Discussion
If not Echeneis, what is the Name of the Lamprey?
The common identification of the echeneis with the Echeneis remora and not
with the lamprey, leads to another interesting question related to the subject
question: If not echeneis, what is the lamprey’s name in antiquity? Since this
inhabitant of the sea is well known to the ancient world, there must be a term for
it. In Thompson’s Glossary three words are discussed denoting the lamprey.
First, the βδέλλα, literally meaning leech, is described in a singular account by
Strabo 17, 3, 4 as a fish in a Libyan river, seven ells long and equipped with per-
forated gill-openings (κατατετρημένα τὰ βράγχια).39 Thompson suggests that
Strabo is giving an exaggerated account here of a large lamprey, but the descrip-
tion in this single account of the βδέλλα is not sufficient enough. Another term
probably referring to a lamprey is γαλαξίας, rather describing the milky way.40
The Greek physician Galen in his De alimentorum facultatibus (6, 727, 7-16 ed.
Kühn) supplies information concerning this fish: It is said that this fish belongs
to the genus of sharks (ἐκ τοῦ τῶν γαλεῶν ἐστι γένους) and that it seems it is not
‘generated’ in the Hellenic sea (οὐδὲ γεννᾶσθαι δοκεῖ κατὰ τὴν Ἑλληνικὴν
θάλατταν). However, there is insufficient anatomical description here. Thus, the
evidences and description of both, the βδέλλα and the γαλαξίας are too sparse to
draw any conclusion regarding their identification.
36 See Thompson (1947) 68.
37 Post mortem edited by Carsten Niebuhr.
38 See Descpriptiones animalium, pisces, β), 7. Echeneis. See also Oefele (1916).
39 See Thompson (1947) 29.
40 E.g. in Diodorus Siculus hist. 5, 23, Lucian Varae Historia 1, 16.
216 Marcel Humar
But, as noted above, there is one other term discussed as a possible expres-
sion for the lamprey: According to Thompson the word μύραινα, in numerous
cases referring specifically to the common moray or moray eel (Muraena Hele-
na L.), can also denote a lamprey.41 One of the sources discussed in this context
is Pliny the Elder; in Hist. nat. 9, 73 and 76 he speaks of the muraena as having
no fins and no gills. Already the French naturalist and taxonomist George Cuvi-
er in his commentary on Pliny’s Historia naturalis remarks that it has been
doubted, upon the authority of Paulus Jovius, whether by the name muraena was
signified the moray of the present day, or the modern lamprey. These fishes,
admittedly, have a few characteristics in common, like a long smooth body, the
lack of paired fins, as Cuvier remarks. However, several other characteristics
mentioned in most of the passages of Pliny, Aristotle and Aelian, indicate that
where the muraena is mentioned, it is the Muraena helena L. that is meant.42
The moray was very popular in roman antiquity, which is proved by several
stories.43 One story is also interesting concerning the problem at hand: Pliny the
Elder reports the story of a Roman, Vedius Pollio, who threw a careless slave
into a basin named after Caesar (Caesaris piscinis) to be devoured by his
muraena. Thompson remarks that it is unlikely that a moray would attack and
kill a living man; in his opinion these fishes attacking the slave were “almost
certainly lampreys”.44 But the contrary is the case; lampreys very seldom attach
to humans (e.g. scuba divers), but morays, in any case thought of as particularly
vicious animals,45 attack humans and, in the case of a disruption of a moray’s
burrow, react strongly.46 But there is a further anatomical peculiarity which
makes the moray more dangerous for humans: While the lamprey, attached to
41 See Opp. Hal. 1, 142; 1, 515; 2, 274; 3, 117-120; Aelian 1, 33. See Thompson (1947)
162-164.
42 Cuvier (1828) 66-67.
43 In Pliny we read of C. Hirrus who was the first person who formed reserves especially
for the murena and who lent six thousand of these fishes for the triumphal banquets of
Caesar the Dictator. On this occasion he had them weighed, as he declined to receive
the value of them in money. His villa, actually of very humble character, was sold for
four million sesterces, in consequence of the valuable nature of the fishponds there. See
Pliny Hist. nat. 9, 81.
44 Thompson (1947) 165.
45 Ovid in his Halieutics 1, 27 speaks of it as fierce (ferox).
46 Also the French naturalist Georges Cuvier concludes his discussion of this confusion in
his commentary to Pliny’s Natural History as follows: “Muraenae quoque solae, non
petromyzontes poterant servos vorare, quos in piscinam iubebat Vedius Pollio abiici.”
(Only the morays, and not the lampreys, were able to devour the slaves thrown in the
fish-pond by command of Vedius Pollio), see Cuvier (1828) 66-67.
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 217
the human body, could be shaken off, the moray’s hooked teeth and peculiar bite
mechanism result in more severe bites, since, like a mechanical vice, the moray
cannot release its grip.
The fact that the lamprey must have been known in the ancient world, and
that no other name than echeneis can be found denoting this little marine animal,
support the thesis of a confusion of the Echeneis remora with the marine lam-
prey.
Aristotle’s echeneis and Erotic Magic
Aristotle, and later Pliny the Elder, mention the less-noticed feature of the fish:
its use in erotic magic. According to both authors the echeneis is used for po-
tions (φίλτρα). Lindsay Watson recently provided a study investigating what
magical rationales have governed the use of this fish in amatory enchantment.47
Watson also analyzes the different Greek sources in regard to the “magical” lan-
guage expressing the fish’s retarding effects, but the crucial problem of identifi-
cation is not addressed. This is a problem not to be underestimated and the fol-
lowing question is necessary: If at least three fishes are discussed as being an
echeneis, do all of them possess magical power? Or, which is more likely, the
amatory potion could only be obtained from one species. There is hardly a way
to answer the question of whether the remora or the lamprey could have been
used for producing an erotic potion, but, nevertheless, I want to give interesting
information about the lamprey in this context: Sea lamprey produces at least two
types of chemoattractants, sexual and migratory. A unique sea lamprey bile acid,
the etymological petromyzonol sulfate (PS), and its two precursors were found
to exert highly specific olfactory effects on the sea lamprey. Previous studies
have indicated that both male and female sea lampreys release pheromones to
attract individuals of the opposite sex.48 The exact role and the effect of these
pheromones have yet to be determined. I explicitly do not estimate this fact as
an evidence for the identification of the echeneis with the lamprey, though we
have reports of blood extracted from fishes and its use in magical potions, but
the studies dealing with the biochemistry of the lamprey are at least notewor-
thy.49
47 Watson (2010).
48 See Teeter (1980).
49 On the use of blood from the womb of a silurus (kind of catfish) in combination with an
erotic fetching spell, see Watson (2010) 640.
218 Marcel Humar
Summary and Perspectives
Two evidences strongly support the identification of the echeneis with the ma-
rine lamprey and reveal the common identification of echeneis with the remora
as implausible. First, every single source conveys to be a description of a lam-
prey, rather than a remora. Second, the lamprey, definitely known to the an-
cients, has no name, if not echeneis. The results imply a re-examination of Wat-
sons study (2010) as well as a re-evaluation of the texts naming the echeneis be-
ing a lamprey, not a shipholder.
The story of the shipholder and its marvelous ability is retold and com-
mented on by many medieval and later writers, such as Albert the Great and the
naturalists mentioned in the introduction above. Facing all the various descrip-
tions and discussions of ancient texts in their writings, the following question
arouses: At what time is the Greek term echeneis clearly applied to the Remora
genus? Here, further research is required. A little glance at the works of the
modern biologist assure: there are still notable gaps in the history of the echeneis
to be filled.50
References
Aubert, H./Wimmer, F., Aristoteles Thierkunde. Deutsche Übersetzung, sachliche und
sprachliche Erklärungen und vollständiger Index, Leipzig 1868.
Berger, F., Die Textgeschichte der Historia Animalium des Aristoteles, Wiesbaden
2005.
Berlin, B., Ethnobiological Classification. Principles of Categorization of Plants and
Animals in Traditional Societies, Princeton 1992.
50 The comment of the French naturalist Guillaume Rondelet (1507-1566) on the confu-
sion of the various descriptions of the Remora is striking: Cur autem parum notus sit, in
causa fuerunt diversae a diversis scriptoribus tradite, huius piscis descriptiones, ut si
omnes vera scribant, necesse sit pluribus piscibus navium retinendarum vim inesse, id
quod non animadvertentes plurimi, quum remorae notas ab Aristotele, Plinio, Oppiano
traditas confundunt, perinde ac si omnes, de eodem pisce loquerentur, evenit, ut neque
Aristotelis, neque Plinii, neque Oppiani, echeneida internoscant. (Guillaume Rondelet,
De piscibus marinis, Lyon 1554, Book 15, Chap. 18, De remora). Translation: Concern-
ing the question why it [sc. the echeneis] is insufficiently described there were different
traditions from various authors and their descriptions of this fish, so if all authors were
correct in their description, it would be consequent that the might over ships, which
must be retained by it, inheres multiple fishes; as most of them did not notice it, while
confounding the transmitted reports of the remora by Aristotle, Pliny, and Oppianus, it
finally happens that, even when all [authors] would describe the same fish, they did not
distinguish the echeneis either of Aristotle, nor Pliny, nor Oppianus.
The Shipholder, the Remora, and the Lampreys 219
Bigelow, H. B./Schroeder, W., Fishes of the Western North Atlantic: 2. Cyclostomes.
Memoir, in: Sears Foundation for Marine Research 1, 1988, 29-58.
Bodson, L., Naming the Exotic Animals in Ancient Greek and Latin, in: Minelli,
A./Ortalli, G./Sanga, G. (Eds.), Animal Names, Venice 2005, 453-480.
Cresswell, R., Aristotle’s History of Animals in Ten Books, London 1862.
Cuvier, G., Caii Plinii Secundi, Historiae naturalis, Libri XXXVII, Pars tertia con-
tinens zoologiam, Georgii Cuvier notis et cursibus illustratam, Paris 1828.
Fajen, F., Oppianus Halieutica: Einführung, Text, Übersetzung in deutscher Sprache,
ausführliche Kataloge der Meeresfauna, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1999.
Forsskål, P., Descriptiones animalium: avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum,
vermium, post mortem auctoris edidit Carsten Niebuhr, Kopenhagen 1775.
Fürst von Lieven, A./Humar, M., A Cladistic Analysis of Aristotle’s Animal Groups in
the Historia animalium, in: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences (HPLS) 30
(2), 2008, 227-262.
Gudger, E. W., Aristotle’s Echeneis not a Sucking-Fish, in: Science 44 (1131), 1916,
316-318.
Gudger, E. W., On the Use of the Sucking-Fish for Catching Fish and Turtles: Studies
in Echeneis or Remora, II, in: The American Naturalist 53 (628), 1919, 446-467.
Günther, A., On the History of Echeneis, in: Annals and Magazine of Natural History
3 (5), 1860, 386-402.
Isidore de Séville, Étymologies, Vol. 12: Des animaux, texte établi, trad. et comm. par
Jacques André, Paris 1986.
Jonston, J., Historiae Naturalis De Piscibus et Cetis Libri V, Frankfurt/Main 1650.
Keller, O., Die antike Tierwelt, Vol. 2: Vögel, Reptilien, Fische etc., Leipzig 1913.
Knox, P., Lost and Spurious Works, in: A Companion to Ovid, ed. by Peter E. Knox,
Oxford 2009, 207-216.
Koutrakis, E. T./Machino, Y./Mylona, D./Perdikaris, C., Crayfish Terminology in An-
cient Greek, Latin and Related Languages, in: Crustaceana 82 (12), 2009, 1535-
1546.
Lloyd, G. E. R., Science, Folklore and Ideology – Studies in the Life Sciences in An-
cient Greece, Cambridge 1983.
Lunczer, C., Tracking down the Charadrios, in: Althoff, J./Föllinger, S./Wöhrle, G.
(Eds.) Antike Naturwissenschaft und ihre Rezeption 21, 2011, 55-68.
Nonnos de Panopolis, Les Dionysiaques, Texte établi et trad. par Gisèle Chrétien, 19
Vol., Paris 1976-2002.
Nonnos Panopolitanus, Dionysiaca: in three Volumes, Rose, H. J./Lind, L. R. (Eds.)
with an English translation by W. H. D. Rouse, Cambridge 1940.
220 Marcel Humar
Oefele, F. von, Assyrian ‘kalmat’, Arabic ‘kaemlet’, in: Journal of the American Ori-
ental Society 36, 1916, 416.
Peck, A. L., Aristotle. History of Animals. Books I-III (English Translation, Introduc-
tion and Comments), Cambridge (MA) 1965.
Peck, A. L., Aristotle. History of Animals Books IV-VI (English Translation, Intro-
duction and Comments), Cambridge (MA) 1970.
Plutarch, Moralia, in sixteen Volumes with an English Translation by Frank Cole Bab-
bitt, Cambridge (MA) 1969.
Teeter, J., Pheromone Communication in Sea Lampreys (Petromyzon marinus): Impli-
cations for Population Management, in: Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua-
tic Sciences 37, 1980, 2123-2132.
Thompson, D. W., A Glossary of Greek Birds, London 1936.
Thompson, D. W., A Glossary of Greek Fishes, London 1947.
Tipton, J. A., Aristotle’s Study of the Animal World. The Case of the kobios and
phucis, in: Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 49, 2006, 369-383.
Voigt, F. S., System der Natur und ihre Geschichte, Jena 1823.
Voultsiadou, E./Vafidis, D., Marine Invertebrate Diversity in Aristotle’s Zoology, in:
Contributions to Zoology 76 (2), 2007, 103-120.
Watson, L. C., The Echeneis and Erotic Magic, in: Classical Quarterly 60 (2), 2010,
639-646.
Werner, R. G., Freshwater Fishes of the Northeastern United States: A Field Guide,
Syracuse 2004.
Wille, C., Der Reiher, das Neunauge und der Igel. Tiernamen im romanischen Mittel-
alter, in: Obermaier, S. (Ed.), Tiere und Fabelwesen im Mittelalter, Berlin 2009,
79-104.
Zierlein, S., Historia animalium, Buch I und II, übersetzt, eingeleitet und kommentiert
von Stephan Zierlein, Berlin 2013.
Zoroddu, D., Un pesce di nome Echeneis: storia di un prestito eschileo in Nonno di
Panopoli e altre esperienze intertestuali, in: Discentibus obvius: Omaggio degli al-
lievi a Domenico Magnino, Como 1997, 127-142.
