APPENDIX.

In introducing to the reader’s notice the Canes Venatici of the following monograph—wherein the embellishment of fable is often admitted as the language of truth, and amusement is paramount to instruction—it must not be expected that I should carry back the history of the chase to the early period of the world’s annals, when

Cowper’s Task. B. vi.

and man’s subject creatures revolted from their revolted lord—

Phil. de Animal. Propriet. vs. 8.

Agrippa de Incert. et Van. Sc. et Art. c. lxxii.

De Invent. Rerum. L. iii. c. v.

Euseb. de Præp. Evang. L. i.

the probable date of its institution—(“cum peccato enim animalium noxa simul et persecutio et fuga subintravit, et artes venationum excogitatæ sunt,”)—nor to the later epoch of its Phenician origin, maintained by Polydore Vergil on the authority of Eusebius; nor its more fabulous Theban birth and distribution, the thrice-told tale of John of Salisbury:⁠[293] but rather consider hunting as an art of acquisition and self-defence of remote and undefined antiquity.

On Venation, as a pastime, too much has already been said in the preface to Arrian: and I will at present confine my remarks to a few classical anecdotes of its primitive furniture, its founders, and progressional improvement; premising, by the way, that when men were unacquainted with the blessings of civilization, and had no idea of pleasure beyond the gratification of their appetites—when, in short, they were in a state of nature—hunting was not the by-work of leisure hours, but the call of continual urgency—not the jocund diversion of a day, but the toilsome and perilous occupation of a life. In such early times, the nonage of a fallen world, commenced the war of men with beasts:

P. A. Bargæi de Aucupio L. i. p. 13.

The personal safety of himself and those dependent on his protection, and the daily cravings of hunger, dictated to man the necessity of animal slaughter; so that, in seeking his quotidian meal, he originated the art of hunting:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 7.

Tickell’s Miscellanies.

The first hostile efforts of the barbarian lords of creation against their biped and quadruped subjects, “joint-tenants of the shade” with themselves, were confined, we may suppose, to manifestations of physical strength and brute courage; by which, under the powerful incentives of self-interest, they procured the vital necessaries of food and clothing:

Gratii Cyneget. vs. 2.

And here at the head of rude pedestrian sportsmen we find the human inventor of the science of the chase, that legendary personage, the Gorgon-killing Ovid. Metam. L. iv. 699.Perseus⁠[295]—“Gorgonis anguicomæ Perseus superator”—(for I would not deprive Latona’s hunting-twins, Apollo and Diana, nor the worshipful raceXen. de Venat. c. i. of Centaurs, φῦλα θηρομιγῆ,⁠[296] of their priority of claim, and patent of precedency, in the apotheosis of the chase,) who,Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 5. when he had performed this redoubted act of courage, as we are told by the poet of Anazarbus:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 10.

Bedingfield’s Education of Achilles.

Callimach. H. in Dian. 105.

As men in general, however, did not possess the speed of Perseus and Achilles,⁠[297] “To sweep with winged feet along the level plain;” nor the power of catching at force, νόσφι κυνοδρομίης, the fleetest animals of chase, like the goddess Dian; it became necessary to add to their naked powers sundry inartificial implements, auxiliary to the subjugation of some, the destruction and expulsion of other beasts.

Lucretii L. v. 964.

Somerville’s Chace. B. i.

Acquiring knowledge by experience, man advanced in the mechanism and variety of his hunting gear, as in other articles of increasing civilization.

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 5.

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 100.

Finding, on patient trial, the χάος εὐρὺ περιστεφὲς of Oppian, with its rude accompaniment of fire, &c. insufficient for capturing the more wary creatures—

Lucretii L. v. 1249.

he had recourse to the various kinds of weapons, snares, and wily inventions of slaughter described by Xenophon, Gratius, Oppian, and Nemesian; and often alluded to by other writers, both sacred and profane:

Virgil. Georg. L. i. 139.

But “short of due perfection” were all the hunter’s wiles, till the dog was tutored to assist in the sylvan pursuit and massacre, and to contribute the acuteness of his senses, his speed and courage, to the service of mankind; who consummated their superiority over the animals of the forest, when they had directed to their chase the adapted powers of this faithful ally, and begun, in the words of the cited poet of theEjusdem 140. Georgics—“magnos canibus circumdare saltus,”—redeeming thereby their esculent crops and innocuous herds from the ferocious and depredatory aggression of quadruped felons.⁠[298]

Sophoclis Antigone, 350.

The “venandi mille viæ” of the Carthaginian poet have been superseded in the British islands by the superior attraction of the gun:

Adriani Cardinalis Venatio.

and of various eminent breeds of fleet and sagacious dogs, adapted to the chase at force. But as these methods were heretofore employed by our less civilized ancestry,⁠[300] are still in vogue in unreclaimed countries, and many of them yet practised on the continent of Europe—whateverCertaine Illustrations, &c. p. 25. be their “incongruity to our present factions,” as Wase expresses himself—a brief description of the “supellex venandi” will not be unacceptable to the modern reader, by way of introduction to the subject of classic hunting with the ancient varieties of the canine race.

With seeming accuracy Gratius has described the whole of the antique poaching gear;⁠[301] but it must be confessed that neither Xenophon’s, nor the Faliscian’s, nor the hunting technicalities of the other Cynegetical writers, can be fully explained to modern comprehension.

The deities and demi-deities of sylvan life are objects of invocation in the exordium of Gratius:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 21.

and then, under their tutelary aid, the poet begins to handle the “arma venandi;” which, as recorded in the Cynegetica generally, consisted of the linea or formido, nets of various mesh and size and shape, nooses, springes, and other traps—missile weapons, as darts, arrows, &c.; and those for standing-defence, as the halberd-like boar-spear, &c.: many of these, however, were not of very remote antiquity.⁠[302]

De Irâ L. ii. c. xii.

The feathered line or pinnatum was called, from its effect, metus, formido, and δείματα θηρῶν, (Oppian. Cyneg. iv. 389.) “Cum maximos ferarum greges,” says Seneca, “linea pennis distincta contineat, et in insidias agat; ab ipso effectu dicta formido.”

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 75.

The line of feathers of various hue, impregnated with artificial odour, “was drawn about the woods Wase’s Illustrations, &c. p. 7.(——ὀλίγον γαίης ἐφύπερθεν, Oppian. Cyneg. iv. 386.) in the intermitted spaces where the toyles were pitched, that so the deer (than which no creature is more timorous) might balk them, and be cast upon the net.” The linea thus flanked the δίκτυ or long net, where not extensive enough to enclose the covert; and filled the intervals, between the purse-nets and nooses, when the latter were set independent of the retia.

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 85.

The Cilician poet has left a graphic description of the formido, as employed in the Armenian bear-hunt—a picture so vividly sketched, Cyneg. iv. 380, that I regret its length prevents transcription. A part of it will be found hereafter under the Eastern “Canis Inductor”—the Armenian limehound. The fourth Halieutic, in an apposite and beautiful simile, describes the startling effect of the feathered line on timid animals of chase:

Oppian. Hal. L. iv. 586.

Many notices of this instrument will occur to the classical reader in the works of the Latin poets, but in none more copiously delineated than in the Cynegeticon of Nemesian; who enumerates the many sources whence the feathers of dissimilar tint are to be culled for decorating the “plumed line:”

Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 312.

If the reader be interested in the minutiæ of Grecian and Roman net-making, and the methods of fixing the ἄρκυες, δίκτυα, and ἐνόδια, the casses, retia, and plagæ, he is referred for the former to the Cynegeticus of the elder Xenophon, and that most extraordinary work of human research, the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux—for the latter, to the Venatio Novantiqua of Janus Vlitius, a scholar of deep erudition, and an experienced sportsman:—a summary view being all that can be rendered by the present writer, professedly epitomising the labours of more experienced workmen.

The ἄρκυες or casses were conical, purse or tunnel-like nets, ending in a point at one end, and having a running noose of entrance at the other, resembling somewhat a hooped calash, or cowl.

Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 300.

The δίκτυα or retia were long sean-like nets for open fields, and for encircling brakes and coverts;——“longoque meantia retia tractu.”

The ἐνόδια or plagæ were nets of much less length, to be placed across roads, game-tracks, paths, and narrow openings between bushes.

The ἄρκυες appear to have been sometimes placed independent of the δίκτυα, but more commonly in the course of the main nets; so that when the animals passed along the linear and reticular barrier, exploring a place of egress, terrified by the formido, (which flanked the hayes, and occasionally was drawn along above the net-rope to scare the game from overleaping,) and the meshes of the δίκτυα, (continuous except where the purse-nets were introduced with their slip-knot entrance), on attempting to pass out at the apparent opening of the ἄρκυς, they became by their struggles entangled therein⁠[305]—the purse either spontaneously, or by the agency of the men placed there to draw the necessary ropes, immediately closing at the mouth.

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 409.

The whole management of the nets and lines was vested in the watch αἰζηῶν πυλαωρῶν referred to, who were concealed under copse-wood, for the purpose, more particularly, of attending to the ἐπίδρομος and περίδρομος, the ropes (smooth and knotless) which governed the ἄρκυες, and passed through iron rings, along the course of the δίκτυα, up to the watchmen’s hiding-place:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 382.

The length of the δίκτυα or retia, properly so called, would astonish a modern disciple of Diana. So great was the extent of ground sometimes enclosed by these toils, that Plutarch mentions, in his life of Alexander, hunting-nets above twelve miles long. With such it was customary to encircle vast tracts of country, and then, by gradually contracting their ambit, to force the animals of the district into a narrower compass;—when at the will of the magister venationis, the work of slaughter commenced.⁠[306] This mode of hunting is very clearly described, with its usual auxiliaries of noise and flame, in a simile of the Achilleid:

Statii Achil. L. i. 459.

The Faliscian poet, in the early part of his Cynegeticon, specifies the best materials for the composition of nets, with particular instructions for their size and shape:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 25.

On the same subject the Carthaginian summarily touches, distinctly recognizing the three varieties of which we have been just speaking:

Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 299.

And an earlier poet, in his praise of the brumal pleasures of the countryman’s life, sunders plagæ and retia, applying them to such totally different purposes, that it is probable they sometimes differed as much in the structure of the mesh, its size, &c. as in the magnitude of the whole instrument:

Hor. Epod. L. ii. 29.

Whatever honour be attached to these reticular inventions, and that of the running-noose, the βρόχος or laqueus, is due to Hippolytus:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 24.

The βρόχος generally formed a rhomb-shaped entrance to the ἄρκυς, as probably did the laqueus to the cassis:—but as the tunnel was occasionally used separate from the sean-like toil (δίκτυ—rete) and from the road-net (ἐνόδιον—plagæ), so may these slip-knot nooses have been also set independent of the purses, their usual additaments, in narrow passes, or straits frequented by game:

P. A. Bargæi Cyneg. L. i.

The noose-ropes,⁠[307] being of much ruder manufacture, and more simple structure, than any variety of net with meshes, must have been of earlier institution.

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 89.

These laquei curraces,⁠[308] seemingly from this passage made of other materials than hemp before the days of Gratius, are yet in use, under the form of springes and wires, with deer and hare-poachers; who, I find in Hor. L. iii. Od. iv. vs. 70.Oppian, are indebted to the giant-hunter Orion—“integræ—tentator Orion Dianæ”—for the first establishment of their nocturnal depredations:

Cyneg. L. ii. 28.

Xen. de Venat. c. ix.

Poll. Onom. L. v. c. 32.

We are next introduced by Gratius to dentatæ pedicæ, spiked foot-traps or gins, resembling the ποδοστράβαι of Xenophon and Pollux; and formed, as the following lines indicate, of wood, concealed on the ground;

It being no small recommendation to them that one poacher might reap the fruits of another’s labours. Their invention is attributed to a virtuous and holy Arcadian, ycleped Dercylus,⁠[309] in high favour with the Sylvan goddess, and by her initiated in the mysteries of hunting, and the formation of sundry destructive implements of predation, which he first employed in the valleys of Mount Mænalus, and the Lacedæmonian Amyclæ:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 95.

And again:

But it must not be forgotten that a competitor for the glory of these, and other like discoveries, is mentioned by Plutarch, in Amatorio, and by Nonnus, in Dionysiacis, in the person of Plutarch. in Amatorio.Aristæus—εὔχονται δ’ Ἀρισταίῳ δολοῦντες ὀρύγμασι καὶ βρόχοις λύκους καὶ ἄρκτους, ὃς πρῶτος θήρεσσιν ἔπηξε ποδάγρας:—indeed, if we may credit the Christian poet of Panopolis, the sire of the hapless Actæon is entitled to the invention of almost every article of hunting-gear, the dresses of sportsmen, initiation of hounds of chase, &c.—of many of which he has been deprived by less rightful claimants:

Nonni in Dionys. L. v.

To the first-mentioned Arcadian worthy Gratius attributes the earliest fashioning of hunting-spears with moræ or guards. Virgil sings of “lato venabula ferro,” for close conflict; and Gratius more particularly adds, to the honour of Dercylus’s armoury, the introduction of bifid spears:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 108.

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 22.

But although the Arcadian formed the spear for pedestrian assault, and Meleager was conspicuous in the use of it,—ἐν σταδίοισιν ὀρειοτέροισι μόθοισιν,—a more celebrated hero first wielded it in distant jaculation on horseback:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 14.

Cyneg. L. i. vs. 91. seqq.

—a style of hunting, which we may suppose to have been much practised in the Roman empire by persons of noble rank, as Montfaucon gives several representations of it from the sepulchre of the Nasoni:—in exact accordance with which, the ἱππελάτης of Oppian is decked out for the equestrian chase.

Martial. de Amph. Cæsar. L. xi.

The reader’s recollection will readily supply, from authors in every one’s hands, the use of bows and arrows,⁠[310] and small darts—“excussâ lancea torta manu,”—in the early annals of field-sports:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 122.

The far-famed female ally of Meleager in the attack on the Calydonian boar,

Golding’s Ovid’s Metam. B. viii.

claims the merit of first employing archery; having been instructed⁠[311] both in κυνηλασίη and εὐστοχίη by Dian herself, (see Callim. H. in Dian. vs. 217.)

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 26.

We are unacquainted with the form and use of many of the weapons, with which Oppian accoutres his able-bodied rustics for the covert-side,

Ejusdem L. i. 148.

Nat. Com. de Venat. L. iv.

Hieron. Ruscell. Schol. Breviss. Illustr. Ald. F. Venet. m.d.li.

and Natalis Comes, with his brief scholiast Ruscellius, throws no light on them, in the borrowed armoury of his first cynegetic. The Oppianic catalogue runs through eight lines, in which we recognize, in addition to the former implements of predatory hunting, others particularly devoted to the capture of the hare, the ἁρπάλαγον and λαγωοφόνος τρίαινα, the hare-pole, and three-pronged hare-fork—belonging probably to the class of murderous instruments mentioned by the poet of Barga:

P. A. Bargæi Cyneg. L. i.

Among the more simple modes of following wild animals for capture, I should have earlier mentioned that of tracking—from its simplicity, probably, coeval with the rudest species of pursuit. It is alluded to in the 32nd Epigram of Callimachus,

in the 1st Georgic of Virgil vs. 308. and the 2nd Satire of the 1st book of Horace vs. 105. Oppian describes tracking as twofold, by men, and dogs,—the former of course being the more ancient, and more correctly termed tracking, the latter scenting:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. i. 450.

Savary’s ejaculation on snow-tracking the hare is more amusing than poetical:

Alb. Dianæ Leporicidæ L. iii.

The many wily inventions devised by man’s ingenuity of old for ensnaring noxious and timid animals, appear to us more like instruments of lawless poaching, than fair hunting, and fully justify the conclusion of Arrian’s 24th chapter de Venatione; wherein, with the spirit of a genuine courser, he exclaims, “there is as much difference between a fair trial of speed in a good run, and ensnaring a poor animal without an effort, as between the secret piratical assaults of robbers at sea, and the victorious naval engagements of the Athenians at Artemisium, at Salamis, at Psyttalia, and at Cyprus.”

Antiq. Expl. Tom. iii. l. iii. c. iv.

It has been erroneously stated by Montfaucon and others, that the use of nets and snares was not an exercise of pleasure to men of quality, but only to peasants, and persons of inferior grade;—the praise of a noble employment being, on this view, alone awarded to hunting with dogs, or being armed for the sport with venabula, hastilia, &c. either on foot or horseback. But this distinction, however plausible in theory, is not tenable in fact. Discreditable as the use of snares may be deemed, and irreconcilable to modern taste, the philosophic recluse of Scillus, the patrician Xenophon, and every other sportsman, whether high or low, of the classic ages, must plead guilty to their employment:

Manilii L. v.

I do not mean that the gentry had not the aid of servants in these as in other menial occupations—(for it is evident that Xenophon’s ἀρκυωρὸς was a servant; and on the huntsman’s tomb, recorded by Pausanias in Achaicis c. xxii., by the side of the principal is the οἰκέτης ἀκόντια ἔχων, καὶ ἄγων κύνας ἐπιτηδείας θηρεύουσιν ἀνθρώποις—The ostentation too of the Horatian Gargilius,

Hor. L. i. Epist. vi. 58.

is farther proof; and so likewise the “famuli, comitumque animosa juventus” of Nemesian, engaged in preparing the furniture of hunting;⁠[313])—but I mean that the gentry were practically engaged in this predatory venation, themselves directing and assisting in the distribution of the whole machinery of it. In defence, however, of Xenophon, the most accomplished of ancient sportsmen, and in contradistinction of his habits in the field to those of modern poachers, whom in some of his predatory tackling it must be allowed he resembled, we may observe that he orders all the apparatus to be taken away when the sport isXenophon de Venat. c. v. over—ἀναλύειν χρὴ τὰ περὶ κυνηγέσιον πάντα—a clear indication, that though he and his compeers used nets and dogs together, forestalling their prey, contrary to the custom of the more enlightened moderns, who hunt at force, κατὰ πόδας,—yet it was held illegal, or at least unsportsmanlike, to leave snares on the ground longer than the time of the actual chase.⁠[314]

But of “the abrogated styles of hunting in the ignorant non-age of the world,”—to use the language of Christopher Wase,—enough. The pit, the snare, and other supellex venandi, were employed, as already stated, long before the dog was tutored to the chase,⁠[315] and were continued after his initiation, and that of his valued associate and coadjutor the horse, (the joint-presents of the twin-sons of Leda,) who contributed their services in common to almost every variety of chase:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 43.

We know not at this period whether the different varieties of the canine tribe are to be classed under the same species—whether a specific identity exist in the wolf, the jackal, and the dog—nor whether, in the latter family, the peculiar adaptation of each variety for peculiar functions can be the accidental consequences of mere degeneration, excited to change by the climate of different countries, and the ingenuity of man.

Let the primeval stock be what it may, the race was first initiated in the pursuit of wild animals by that celebrated sportsman, the Amyclean Pollux;—for we must not despise fable where history is silent, and again quote the Greek poet of the chase:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. ii. 18.

The species being distributed over the habitable world, derived its various names from its geographical distribution⁠[316]—each country having its variety of the race, characterized by remarkable qualities, and distinguished by them in the Cynegetical works of Greece and Rome:—

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 151.

Where the descriptions of these mores or qualities are sufficiently full, in the works alluded to, for a satisfactory classification of the several varieties of the canine tribe, it is the object of the following trivial work to attempt it—

Tickell’s Miscellanies.

But it must not be expected that it will give an account of all the semi-fabulous dogs of classical antiquity, or attempt to reduce within the pale of a zoological arrangement the shape and properties of every mongrel, however memorable, that has puzzled the discriminative acumen of Conrad Gesner himself; or find archetypes in the kennels of Greece and Rome, forBen Jonson’s Sad Shepherd. Act ii. sc. 3. “all the barkand parishtikes” of the credulous Dr. Caius, and more recent writers of canine biography.

This little monograph being almost exclusively confined to the common Canes Venatici—

Oppian. Cyneg. L. i. 369.

it is not incumbent on me to inquire whether a Cerberus, or an Orthrus, Hesiod. Theog. vs. 308.(the κρατερόφρονα τέκνα of Typhaon and Echidna⁠[317]), ever existed in canine shape—whether Anubis was a biped or quadruped “latrator”—a genuine barker, or a dog-faced Virgil. Æn. L. viii. 768. Lucian. Jupiter Tragœdus.Mercury—Ἕρμης ὁ κυνοπρόσωπος—whether Euripides was torn to pieces by ferocious dogs or spiteful women—whether the beauty of the dog of Alcibiades, probably a Canis OstiariusPollucis Onomast. L. v. and not a Canis Venaticus, was impaired by the loss of his tail, or the act of decurtation conferred on the eccentric Athenian the notoriety he expected—nor on what variety of the race is to be charged the deaths of In Ibin.Thrasus, Actæon,⁠[318] and Linus, of Ovid’s well-known tetrastic. It is foreign to my purpose to inquire whether Plutarch. de Solert. Animal. &c.Plutarch’s dog, who threw stones into an oil-cruse till he had raised its contents sufficiently high in the neck of the vesselPollucis Onomast. L. v. to lap the oleaginous fluid, surpassed in sagacious ingenuity the cunning brutes of more modern dog-fanciers—whether the disciplined mimic, exhibited before Vespasian in the theatre of Marcellus, must yield to the discriminative feats of his congener before Justinian. All these non-descripts, from the janitor Orci to the theatrical pantomimi, are out of my beat. Amusing too as it might be to the reader to have an account of every faithful dog, recorded by the immortal German naturalist as the σύμμαχοι and σωματοφύλακες of man,—and the anecdotes of canine instinct and affection registered by Plutarch, Ælian, Pliny, Solinus, and Julius Pollux—versified by Johannes Tzetzes and Natalis Comes, and reprinted by the laborious Paullini in the Cynographia Curiosa, presented to his notice,—such a compilation would lead me into too wide a field. For the same reason, and without meaning any disrespect to the ladies of Greece and Rome, I am prevented from enrolling on my file their domestic pets—

Lucret. L. iv. 995.

the οἱ ἐπὶ τερπωλὴν, καὶ οἱ μελιταῖοι λεγόμενοι of the visionary Artemidorus.⁠[319] I cannot, however, deny the reader the gratification of perusing the following lines of Darcius, in which he celebrates these tiny creatures;—of whom Martial. L. i. Ep. 110.Martial’s Issa will be remembered as a classic exemplar—“Deliciæ catella Publî.”

J. Darcii Venusini Canes.

But hold—

Churchill’s The Ghost. B. iii.

It is a favourite notion of classic writers that the qualities and dispositions of the animals of each country are in accordance with those of the human inhabitants: and this opinion prevails more especially relative to domesticated animals, the reclaimed varieties of the dog and horse. Numerous instances might be adduced in corroboration of this hypothesis. Strabo remarks in the Iberian and Albanian people, and their dogs, the same fondness of hunting—θηρευτικοὶ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ κύνες αὐτῶν εἰς ὑπερβολήν: andÆlian. de Nat. Animal. L. iii. c. 2. Ælian, in the Medes and their horses—σοβαροὶ δὲ Μῆδοι καὶ ἁβροὶ, καὶ μέντοι καὶ οἱ ἐκείνων τοιοῦτοι ἵπποι· φαίης ἂν αὐτοὺς τρυφᾷν σὺν τοῖς δεσπόταις, καὶ τῷ μεγέθει τοῦ σώματος, καὶ τῷ κάλλει, κ. τ. λ. These, probably, he meant to contrast, as well as their proud riders, with the sorry-looking, unsightly horses of Libya, (active, however, and patient of fatigue), and the unsightly people of the country.

The naturalist then proceeds to say that such also are his opinions with regard to the dogs of each country; and specifies, as examples corroborative of his hypothesis, the Cretan, Molossian, and Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. iii. c. 2.Carmanian—κύων Κρῆσσα κούφη, καὶ ἁλτικὴ, καὶ ὀρειβασίαις σύντροφος· καὶ μέντοι καὶ αὐτοὶ Κρῆτες τοιούτους αὑτοὺς παραδεικνῦσι, καὶ ᾄδει ἡ φήμη. θυμικώτατος δὲ κυνῶν Μολοσσὸς, ἐπεὶ θυμωδέστατοι καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες. Ἀνὴρ δὲ Καρμάνιος καὶ κύων ἀμφότερα ἀγριώτατα καὶ μειλιχθῆναι ἄτεγκτα φύσιν. A farther example of this prevalent notion is found in the lines of Gratius on the crafty Acarnanian dog—“clandestinus Acarnan:”—

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 184.

Thucyd. B. P. L. iii. 107.

alluding to a passage of the history of Thucydides, where he relates that Demosthenes placed 400 Acarnanians in ambuscade, in a hollow way near Olpæ; whence they issued forth in the heat of the subsequent engagement, and by their sudden assault on the rear of the Peloponnesians, completely routed them. A similar reference to national character is evident in the passage of Gratius, on crossing defective breeds of dogs with others in which opposite excellencies exist:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 194.

But to descend from these general remarks on the supposed assimilation of men and animals, cohabitants of the same soil, to the particular kennel-rolls of Greece and Rome. There appears to have been a threefold distinction of Canes Venatici, acknowledged by classic authors, during the imperial government of Rome. I do not mean that this classification is accurately observed by all the cynegetical and popular authorities; but it may be traced, more or less clearly, in the writings of Gratius,⁠[321] Seneca, Artemidorus, Oppian, Claudian, and Julius Firmicus.

The Faliscian notes a triple division in the fragment of his Halieutic poem:

Gratii Halieut. 98.

“In cane sagacitas prima est,” says Seneca in one of his Epistles, “si investigare debet feras; cursus, si consequi; audacia, si mordere et invadere.”

We find nearly a similar arrangement in the Oneirocritica of Artemidorus, a strange visionary of Ephesus, who spent his whole life in endeavouring to solve the mysteries, hidden, as he conceived, in Artemidori Oneirocrit. L. ii. c. xi.dreams—τῶν κυνῶν οἱ μὲν ἐπὶ θήραν τρέφονται, καὶ τούτων οἱ μέν εἰσιν ἰχνευταὶ, οἱ δὲ ὁμόσε τοῖς θηρίοις χωροῦσιν· οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῶν κτημάτων, οὓς οἰκουροὺς καὶ δεσμίους λέγομεν, κ. τ. λ.

Claudian, in his third book De Laudibus Stiliconis, describing the active co-operation of Diana and her nymphs in advancing the honour of his hero, “Consulis in plausum,” distinctly specifies a triple division:

Claudian. de Laud. Stilic. L. iii.

and then inverting the order of sequence, names, apparently in illustration of his classes, the Cretan, Spartan, and Briton:

The first we must acknowledge to be nare sagaces; the second pedibus celeres, the slenderest and speediest hounds, probably, known to the poet, in the absence of the Vertragus,—whom alone we consider swift of foot, and entitled to rank under the class so denominated. The Britannæ justly exemplify the dogs of combat—gravioribus aptæ morsibus.

Jul. Firmici L. v. c. viii.

Julius Firmicus comprehends the whole genus under the triple distinction of “Molossi, Vertragi, et qui sunt ad venationes accomodati,”—meaning to include in the latter periphrasis the whole class of sagacious hounds, as he does the pugnacious under the title of Molossi.

Of Oppian’s tripartite arrangement, exemplified in the portraits which he has drawn of the individuals representative of each class, and of his farther distinction, founded on purity and commixture of blood, I shall hereafter speak; assuming at present, on the authority of the cited passages, that all the more celebrated varieties of the canine race, mentioned in the Cynegetica of Greece and Rome, of the date referred to, may be classified under the triple division of pugnaces, sagaces, and celeres.⁠[322]

In Xenophon, and the earlier Greek writers, we do not trace more than a twofold division into pugnaces and sagaces; the varieties of the latter class differing, perhaps, amongst themselves in degrees of swiftness. Indeed, that they did so is evident from what Socrates remarks of the sagacity and speed of different individuals of the race, in the well-known interview with the beautiful, meretricious Xenophon. Memor. L. iii. c. xi.Theodota:—ὅτι δὲ μεθ’ ἡμέραν ἀποδιδράσκουσιν οἱ λαγὼς ἄλλας κτῶνται κύνας, αἵτινες, ᾗ ἂν ἐκ τῆς νομῆς εἰς τὴν εὐνὴν ἀπέλθωσι, τῇ ὀσμῇ αἰσθανόμεναι, εὑρίσκουσιν αὐτούς· ὅτι δὲ ποδώκεις εἰσὶν, ὥστε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ τρέχοντες ἀποφεύγειν, ἄλλας αὖ κύνας ταχείας παρασκευάζονται, ἵνα κατὰ πόδας ἁλίσκωνται. The swift-footed of this passage must not be interpreted as the celeres of our third class, which will be found to contain only the Vertragus of Arrian;—on whose authority it is affirmed that the greyhound was unknown in Greece in the days of the Socratic Xenophon. Probably, they were the most speedy of the Canes Laconici, to which the philosopherH. in Dianam. alludes—the θάσσονες αὐράων κυνοσουρίδες of Callimachus.

In accordance with the distinctions pointed out in the classical kennels is the threefold character of ancient hunting: but as coursing properly so called, Vide Jani Vlitii Venat. Novantiq.(the third variety of chase peculiar to the Vertragus), was of late introduction in comparison with hunting, the two grand divisions of the sports of the field may be considered as primarily founded on the twofold distinction of canes pugnaces or bellicosi, and canes sagaces; and by Gratius, under the terms arma and artes, both are vividly depicted.

Certaine Illustrations of the Cyneg. Poem of Gratius. p. 17.

“The one,” says Christopher Wase, “is a desperate and gladiator-like entering the lists with beasts, and assaulting them by violence; which was the school of cruelty and ignorant course of ancient Nimrods: the other a crafty circumventing them by wiles, which is the child of ingenious invention, much assisting man to reestablish him in his empire over the beasts of the field, that hath been so much empayred.” Then, again, he observes, “the magnum opus is bold and hazardous hunting of great beasts, and leve opus is hard-riding and pursuit of little fugacious quarry.”

It was left to the courser of Nicomedia, the Bithynian Xenophon, to place on record in his supplementary Cynegeticus, and to illustrate from his personal experience, the third variety of chase with dogs peculiar to Celtica;—which we have designated as forming a class of themselves, under the title of pedibus celeres, of the greatest speed of foot and least sagacity of nose of the whole genus, running entirely on sight of their game. The Celtic or Gallic hound does not appear to have been introduced generally into the more southern parts of Europe, till after the dissolution of the commonwealth of Rome. He is first mentioned by Ovid; and his style of coursing the hare so exquisitely described, that it must have been derived from actual experience in the field rather than hearsay; which latter alone seems to have given him admission into the Cynegeticon of Gratius, Ovid’s contemporary.

The earliest systematic account of the two first varieties of Venatio, will be found in the Cynegeticus of the elder Xenophon; who describes in the 6th chapter the style of hunting the hare in the mountainous, woodland regions of Greece, with all its poaching-gear: and in the 9th, 10th, and 11th chapters, the chase of deer, boars, lions, pards, lynxes, panthers, and bears. The Greeks were entirely unacquainted with the third species ofJ. Vlitii Venat. Novant. Venatio, named, for distinction’s sake, Venatio cursoria, as the others are V. bellica, and V. indagatoria.

The animals obnoxious to the chase were suitable to its different varieties, and coped with by classic hunters according to the prowess of each game. Some creatures being timid and fugacious, others of great strength and ferocity, and a third class wily and artful,—the hunters were wont, in the words of Plin. Paneg. Trag. dict.Pliny’s panegyric, “certare cum fugacibus feris cursu, cum audacibus robore, cum callidis astu;”—thereby acquiring, in Diana’s school of mimic war, the necessary experimental knowledge for following the flying foe, or contending with the daring, or the subtle, in the field of real battle.⁠[323]

Gratius has elegantly sketched the beasts of Venery in his Halieutic fragment:⁠[324]

Gratii Halieut. vs. 71.

Oppian’s distribution of them into classes is nearly similar:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 25.

And in Claudian we recognise a summary classification of the same distinctive characters, adapted to the threefold varieties of the dog already noticed in his poem:

Claudian. de Laud. Stilic. L. iii.

A minute description of each particular chase would exceed the limits of a compendium,⁠[325] and lead me into too extensive a field.

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 10.

Let a few brief sketches of the more celebrated suffice—beginning with the hare-chase of the keenest and most accomplished sportsman of the classic ages.

After the snares and nets are duly set, and a man placed to watch them, the first-fruits of the sport being vowed to Apollo and De Venatione c. vi. 13.Diana Ἀγροτέρα, Xenophon slips one of his most keen-nosed dogs, σοφωτάτη ἰχνεύειν, the rest of the pack being held singly at the covert. If this finder hit on a scent, a second dog is immediately slipped, and a third, and so on till the whole pack are in full cry after the started hare. The huntsman follows with his pole, and chlamys wrapped about his hand, Sic apud Dindorfii Annot. in loco, pro κακάς.cheering the dogs, Ἰῶ κύνες, ἰῶ κύνες, σαφῶς γε ὦ κύνες, καλῶς γε ὦ κύνες,—taking care not to head the game—μὴ ὑπαντᾷν· ἄπορον γὰρ—for nobody but a bungler and no-sportsman is guilty of this. It is then customary to shout to the watchman at the nets, Αὐτῷ παῖς, αὐτῷ παῖς, παῖ δὴ, παῖ δὴ—To her, boy! to her, boy! now, boy! now, boy!—the latter replying whether the hare be taken or not. If she be captured, the hounds are called off, and begin to draw for a second; but if not, and they again hit off the scent, the halloo should be Εὖγε, εὖγε ὦ κύνες, ἕπεσθε ὦ κύνες. If the dogs are got very forward, so that the huntsman cannot keep up, but is thrown out—neither seeing them, nor hearing their cry—he should keep running on, calling to every one he happens to come near, and inquiring for the pack—ἦ κατεῖδες ὠῆ τὰς κύνας;

When he finds them, if still on scent, he should cheer, and call every dog by name as often as possible, varying the intonations of his voice. If the hare has made for the mountains, he should encourage them withSic apud C. Gesner. vox bacchantium in mountibus! Εὖα κύνες, εὖα ὦ κύνες: but if they have over-shot the scent, he should call them back—Hark back, dogs! hark back!—οὐ πάλιν, οὐ πάλιν ὦ κύνες: when brought back to the scent, he should draw around, making many casts,Vide Savary Alb. Dianæ Leporicidæ. (κύκλους,⁠[326]) even up to the line of the nets, encouraging the dogs till they again pick up the Xen. de Venat. c. vi. 23.scent—αἱ δὲ διαῤῥιπτοῦσαι τὰς οὐρὰς, καὶ ἑαυταῖς ἐμπίπτουσαι, καὶ πολλὰ ὑπερπηδῶσαι, καὶ ἐπανακλαγγάνουσαι, ἐπαναίρουσαι τὰς κεφαλὰς, εἰσβλέπουσαι εἰς τὸν κυνηγέτην, ἐπιγνωρίζουσαι ἀληθῆ εἶναι ἤδη ταῦτα, ὑφ’ αὑτῶν ἀναστήσουσι τὸν λαγὼ, καὶ ἐπιᾶσι κεκλαγγυῖαι—starting off again at full cry.

The watchman at the nets gives a particular shout, significant of the hare’s capture in the ἄρκυς, or her escape by going beyond, or stopping short. If she be taken, they try for another; if not, they continue the pursuit of the same. Weary at length with their day’s work, the huntsman must himself, towards evening, assist the pack in searching out the poor tired hare at her quat, Xenophon de Venatione. c. vi.(κατακλίνεται γὰρ ἐν μικρῷ τὸ θηρίον, καὶ οὐκ ἀνίσταται ὑπὸ κόπου καὶ φόβου,) and bring them forward with encouragement; “cheering the meek dogs much, the eager ones little, the intermediate moderately,” till they kill her κατὰ πόδας, at force, or drive her into the nets: and thus at last will the huntsman become master of theJ. Sarisberiensis Policrat. L. i. c. iv. hare—“infelicem bestiolam lepusculum timidum tanto fortassè prædabitur apparatu.”

Oppian’s instructions on hare-hunting, contained in a few verses at the latter end of his fourth Cynegetic, are of little interest. Hares should never be chased up hill, as their shape is particularly adapted for it, and they avail themselves of the advantage whenever they can get to a rising ground:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 428.

Beaten roads should be avoided by huntsmen, and ploughed lands preferred for sport. De Naturâ Animal. L. xiii. c. 14.Ælian has left us an animated description of the hare’s shifts and prowess in avoiding her pursuers, and the contempt with which she looks down, οἷον ἀπὸ σκοπιᾶς, on their fruitless efforts to overtake her.

De Venatione c. ix.

The stag-hunt is treated of by Xenophon, in his ninth chapter, with snares, traps, &c. Indian dogs are here preferred, for their size, strength, speed, and courage. But as his name-sake has written on the same variety of chase with Celtic hounds and Scythian horses, I pass on to the boar-hunt, in which the former is diffuse—tooEjusdem c. x. diffuse for more than a bare reference. Indian and Locrian hounds are selected from the pugnacious class, and Cretan and Spartan from the sagacious, to assist the sportsman in his attack of the wild boar. The latter hound appears to be employed, on this occasion, as a lime-dog, or inductor, to find out the lair of the beast. Purse-nets, javelins, προβόλια, and ποδοστράβαι, are in request. “Jamque apud frondosum tumulum,” says Apuleii Met. L. viii. p. 512.Apuleius, in a vivid, but somewhat wordy sketch, “ramorumque densis tegminibus umbrosum, prospectu vestigatorum obseptis campis, canes venationis indagini generosæ, mandato, cubili residentes invaderent bestias, immittuntur: statimque solertis disciplinæ memores partitæ totos præcingunt aditus: tacitâque priùs servatâ mussitatione, signo sibi repentino reddito, latratibus fervidis dissonisque miscent omnia”—“aper immanis atque invisitatus exsurgit,” &c.

Ovid. Metam. L. viii.

Ovid’s Calydonian boar-hunt, with the “lecta manus juvenum” of Meleager’s confederacy, will occur to the classical reader, and farther illustrate this perilous species of chase;⁠[327] which, with others yet more dangerous, described by Xenophon in the 11th chapter of his Manual, and by Oppian in his fourth Cynegetic, constitute examples of the Horat. Od. L. ii. i. 6.bellica Venatio, “periculosæ plenum opus aleæ,” so emblematic of actual war.

The Athenian is very brief on the subject of lion, pard, lynx, panther, and bear-hunting. These ferocious brutes are commonly etaken by stratagem; rarely, if ever, at force. Oppian is more diffuse, amplifying the lion-chase with the Libyan, Indian, and Æthiopian practices for capturing the king of beasts.

As a splendid specimen of poetical talent in this too much neglected author, (for he richly deserves the character bestowed on his works by J. C. Scaliger, C. Barthius, and other eminent scholars,) I select, from the latter part of the same book, the following extract—a description of an Armenian bear-hunt. The bear is found with the limehound of the country, the nets, snares, and μήρινθος ἐΰστροφος are set, and the din of pursuit commences:

Oppian. Cyneg. L. iv. 398.

But farewell the detail of these savage chases!⁠[328]—

The Chace. B. ii.

The most lively and striking picture of classic Venation, in genere, which I have met with in the Latin language, is contained in one of Seneca’s tragedies; which, let them be the productions of whom they may, contain much brilliant descriptive poetry. The whole arrangement of the field is admirably given in the Hippolytus. The duties of the δικτυαγωγὸς, ἰχνευτὴς, κυναγωγὸς, ἀρκυωρὸς, and λινόπτης, are successively detailed in the prologue, spoken by this rigid paragon of chastity himself, Xenophon de Venatione c. i.(σωφροσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι μακαρισθεὶς,) in the character of Magister Venationis.

Senecæ Hippolyt. Act. i. sc. 1.

says the son of Theseus to his attendant huntsmen—describing the local scenery of different parts of Attica, most abundant in game—and allotting them their respective stations and duties, with the mute limehounds, (“canibus tacitis,”) the noisy pack, and divers implements of the sylvan chase:⁠[329]

So much for the furniture of the chase, its inventors, and practice, by way of introduction to our triple classification of the Canes Venatici of the classic ages. Oppian. Cyneg L. i. 367.We will now proceed, οἶμον ἐπὶ σκυλάκων.

CLASS I.

In the first class of the triple division—quibus est audacia præceps, or gravioribus aptæ morsibus—are included all the canes pugnaces or bellicosi—pugnacious dogs of war.

The Mede, Celt, Ser or Indian, Albanian, Iberian, Lycaonian or Arcadian, Hyrcanian, Locrian, Libyan, Egyptian, Pannonian, Magnesian, Molossian, Briton, Athamanian, Acarnanian, and a few others nearly allied.

CLASS II.

In the second class of Canes Venatici, under the title of nare sagaces, are placed all keen-nosed dogs of scent.

The Spartan, Cretan, Carian, Etolian or Calydonian, Metagon, Belgian, Gelonian, Umbrian, Tuscan, Armenian, Petronius, Agassæus or Briton, Segusian, and others of inferior note.

CLASS III.

In the third class, entitled pedibus celeres, those dogs alone are comprehended, which ran on sight of their game, as the Vertragus, and possibly the Sicamber: of the latter, however, I know nothing beyond the meagre allusion of Gratius to his speed, and the apparent distinction made between him and the Vertraha, in the Cynegeticon of this poet:

Gratii Cyneg. vs. 201.

Janus Vlitius considers the Sicambrian to be the Gallo-Belgic hound of more modern days, and identical with the Ovidian canis Gallicus: but the latter is more probably the Vertraha of Gratius, the οὐέρτραγος of the younger Xenophon. The Sicambrian people, strictly speaking, were Strabo L. vii.Germans, and not Belgians; as they dwelt on the eastern, or Germanic side of the Rhine.

On first comparing the different types of the Oppianic Canes Venatici with those of the Latin Cynegetica, I was misled by the authority of annotators to an admission that the type, so particularly described by the Greek poet in his first book, μηκεδανὸν κρατερὸν δέμας, κ. τ. λ. vs. 401. ad vs. 412. was of the sagacious hound, the Petronian or such-like. But this interpretation, in addition to the want of resemblance of the picture to the supposed original, implies, in a notorious copyist of his predecessors’ labours and a keen observer of natural history, the entire omission of the swiftest of the canine tribe, the canis Gallicus or Vertragus; which, if known by fame in the age of Gratius, alluded to by him in his Cynegeticon, accurately portrayed by Ovid as to his style of running, and subsequently, and more minutely, by the younger Xenophon, could not, under any balance of probabilities, have been lost to the sporting world, between the time of Arrian and that at which Nemesian flourished:—by the latter of whom the greyhound is most beautifully depicted, and the mode of initiating greyhound puppies in the hare-course detailed with the hand of a master. I am, therefore, on more mature reflection, inclined to consider the passage referred to descriptive of the greyhound type, the third class of ancient hounds, the family of pedibus celeres.⁠[330] That Rittershusius makes no allusion to such a resemblance, does not surprise me; for, by pointing out a supposed defect of the picture, compared with a sketch of Gratius, this learned and laborious commentator proves that he was not aware of the variety of dog intended to be delineated by his author—perhaps himself unacquainted with its type in nature. The very feature of the δολίχοσκιος οὐρὴ, condemned by this editor as burthensome to Canes cursores, with a preference of the “cauda brevis” of Gratius, (suited to the Canes bellicosi alone,) is so remarkable and useful an additament to the greyhound’s form, that, instead of burthening, it essentially assists him as a Cynographia Curiosa c. ii. 12.Canis cursor, (“ad conversiones in cursu reciproco regendas,”) and much strengthens the resemblance of the Oppianic picture to its Celtic prototype in Arrian.

The conclusion of this sketch is followed by that of the Canis pugnax or bellicosus of the first class, hereafter cited,Oppian. Cyneg. L. i. 413. θοῦροι δ’ αὖθ’ ἕτεροι, κ. τ. λ.; and this again by the amusing and lively picture of the keen-scented beagle orEjusdem vs. 467. hare-hound—σκυλάκων γένος ἄλκιμον ἰχνευτήρων, κ. τ. λ.—the representative of which is taken from Britain, and constitutes, according to my theory, Oppian’s specimen (rather a sorry one, it must be allowed) of the second class of Canes Venatici, termed nare sagaces. Are we not, then, allowed to conclude that the same tripartite distinction of Canes Venatici was acknowledged by the Cilician poet, as we have already traced in the more systematic authorities cited?⁠[331] The latter did not escape the notice of the learned writer of the Venatio Novantiqua, himself an experienced and ardent sportsman; but he has not corroborated the earlier classification of others with the more recent evidence of the poet of Anazarbus—indeed, he seems to view the Oppianic hound (Cyn. i. 401.) as sagaci-celer, and the Vertragus as unknown both to Pollux and Oppian.

The Cilician gives a decided preference to those canine tribes which are specifically pure in their breed—φῦλα μονόφυλα—and enumerates, without any attempt at classification, all the tribes known to him, under their geographical appellations:⁠[332]

Oppian. Cyneg. L. i. 367.

But if the kennel-master acted on the principles laid down by this poet, and his Latin predecessor, Gratius, and crossed his pack with irreconcilable varieties out of different families, belonging to different countries, (and that he did so we have evidence in the irregular and ill-disciplined muster-roll of Ovid,) although the names on Oppian’s file might remain, the animals must have been so changed by the “superinduction of opposite qualities,” that a genuine breed of any one variety must have been most rare. To this general amalgamation of heterogeneous forms and qualities in the canine race, must be attributed the custom of applying the terms Molossian and Spartan to the Canes bellicosi and Canes sagaces respectively, gregatim—the dogs of Epirus and Sparta being held the best of their several classes.⁠[333] And, for the same reason, a true Molossian or Spartan of pure blood must have fallen to the lot of few of Hist. Animal L. ix. c. i.Dian’s worshippers. Aristotle speaks with praise of the Spartan and Molossian cross,⁠[334] but awards the highest price in the Spartan kennel to the purest blood: and Themistius, in his first oration, states it as an acknowledged rule in breeding, that the kennel be supplied from bitches of the purest and most unadulterated blood.

Even after the introduction of the Vertragus, and the commixture of his breed with the older varieties of sporting dogs—

P. Angelii Bargæi L. v.

the names derived from Sparta and Molosse were still kept up, and prostituted in many instances on most degenerate brutes.

With regard to the original geographical distribution of the three varieties of bellicosi, sagaces, and celeres, and of their respective chases,⁠[335] the most prevalent opinion of continental writers, who have devoted their attention to the Cynegetica of Greece and Rome, is that the last mentioned originally came from Gaul, the sagacious from Greece, and the bellicose from Asia. War-dogs of pure blood are nearly extinct in the British islands, and are becoming more rare on the continent of Europe; being much crossed with the sagacious and swift-footed tribes. Vlitius, himself a Dutchman, naturally espouses the Belgic origin of the Belgic, or, more correctly speaking, the Celtic dog. Spelmanni Glossar. p. 113.Spelman, on the contrary, claims him for the honour of Britain; and, in addition, we have always deemed some sorts of bellicosi and sagaces indigenous of this country. Mr. Whitaker, in his History of Manchester, gives to the ancient Britons the old English hound, or talbot, as the parent stock of the celebrated sagacious hounds of our island: and it is found, by experience, that this dog degenerates in every other part of the world—a strong presumptive proof of his being indigenous of Britain. The earliest record of the greyhound allots him to Gallia; and we have no hesitation in considering him of Celtic origin, notwithstanding the offensive disclaimer of Savary of Caen—

Venationis Cervinæ Leges. L. i.

No exclusive national claim can be made for the pugnacious tribe, almost every nation of antiquity having had its particular variety; of which none surpassed the Britannus and Molossus, natives of regions remote from each other, unconnected, probably, in their lineage, and united alone in untameable ferocity of character.

The translator of Gratius, after enumerating the various sorts of the British hound, greyhound, and mastiff, (which he calls “indigena, or native of England,”) Certaine Illustrations of the Cynegeticall Poem, &c. p. 34.observes:—“all these dogs have deserved to be famous in adjacent and remote countries, whither they are sent for great rarities, and ambitiously sought for by their lords and princes, although only the fighting dogs seem to have been known to the antient authors: and perhaps in that age hunting was not so much cultivated by our own countrymen.”