THE PIKE IN IRELAND : A (NECESSARY) REVIEW

In 1957 Arthur E.J. Went wrote "The Pike in Ireland". It was published in The Irish Naturalists’ Journal. I can recommend the reading of these journals to anyone with an interest in the history of Irish nature and wildlife. A winter’s evening by the open fire, fueled with a glass of your favorite drink becomes a real treat when reading through these Journals.

Went was a noted historian who wrote several articles about Irish fish. In the above mentioned publication Went came to the conclusion that "…it would certainly appear that it (the pike that is) is not a native fish." To come to this belief Went sums up a number of references and it has been extremely interesting to look into these in detail. It is important to point out that Went’s work is still the main foundation of the pike’s introduction theory held on to by the Irish Fisheries.

Part of his introduction theory relies on the absence of an old Irish name for pike. Went also writes that " the more modern name for pike is gailliasc, which literally means strange or foreign fish." In the first article we have shown that both conclusions are incorrect.

It is of extreme importance to note that Went did not investigate the Irish word Liús (meaning pike and presumably dating from somewhere between the 13^th and 15^th century.). The word Liús appeared several times in articles published in The Irish Naturalists’ Journal written by other contributors. It seems highly unlikely that Went did not read these, as he had articles himself in some of these Journals. Did Went ignore "Liús"? If so, why?

We come to the heart of Went’s introduction theory when he brings up his key witness Giraldus Cambrensis. Giraldus Cambrensis was a Welsh archdeacon who visited Ireland on two occasions at the end of the twelfth century. He wrote the "Topography of Ireland". Went quotes Cambrensis in his article as follows :

Now let’s have a look at the original translation of Cambrensis’ writing. I quote from the same passage.

The underlined part of the latter quotation was omitted by Went in his article. I have to stress on the extreme importance of this "mistake" in Went’s work. We know that Cambrensis was in parts of the Southeast of the country and he might have travelled inland. When Cambrensis wrote "…found in other regions…", did he mean there was pike etc. in other parts of the country? Why did Went omit this vital passage?

This patent misquotation by Went is the point of discussion here. However, Cambrensis’ work should not be given more credit than it deserves. Indeed, some academics have their doubts about the value of Cambrensis’ work. One of the reasons being the way in which he described Ireland :

"On the whole the land is low-lying on all sides and along the coast; but towards the centre it rises up very high to many hills and even high mountains.

" We all know that it is just the other way around. Mountains around the coastline (Wicklow-Kerry-Connemara…) and flat in the Midlands. This mistake of his is sufficient to conclude that he did not see great parts of the country. Cambrensis also gave accounts of "a fish with three gold teeth" and "a man that was half an ox". Up to today Giraldus Cambrensis is still regarded as a reliable witness by the Irish Fisheries.

Reading on in Went’s article we come across the following passage :

Let’s quote from A.K. Longfield’s ‘Anglo-Irish trade’direct now :

At the end of the fifteenth century and beginning of the sixteenth, however, they (this is the pike) appear as coming regularly from Youghal, Dungarvan, Cork and Kinsale to the Cornish ports…"

Three important observations can be made here. Firstly, why did Went question the origin of these Irish pike, exported to England? Whereas it says clearly, in the book where he refers to, that they came from several named Irish towns.

Secondly, Longfield mentions the export of pike to England from Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century. Further in the same book we even find a detailed reference of export of pike from Ireland to England in 1492. Why does Went ignore these pre-sixteenth century references to pike?

Thirdly, if there was a thriving trade of pike in Ireland at the end of the fifteenth century they must have been pretty widespread by then and could hardly have been introduced recently. (If introduced at all!)

Went’s article "The Pike in Ireland" contains more references to support his introduction theory. Some of them relate to personal notes of individuals which therefore cannot be looked into. Others still need verification. Yet, it is clear that his work contains serious shortcomings.

And there is something else. Which is, again, of major importance. Arthur E.J. Went worked for the Fisheries Branch of the Department of Agriculture and was a founding trustee of the Salmon Research Trust. People who knew him testify that he was a very dedicated game angler who had no great regards for the fish species called pike. I am told that the latter statement is a very attenuated expression of his feelings towards pike. This gives rise to a serious conflict of interest. With this knowledge in mind, how could (and still can) this study of the Irish pike be the main foundation of the Irish Fisheries’ policy towards pike?

Considering the evidence of shortcomings in his work and the obvious conflict of interests should we regard Dr. Went as a reliable source?

In the next article we will loosen some more bricks in the "introduction-wall" the Irish Fisheries have built over the last century as we will make the single most important revelation in our series on the history of pike so far…

Text : Frank Barbé and Shane Garrett