[Sidenote: Euripidis Hippolyt. v. 226.]
τί κυνηγεσίων καὶ σοὶ μελέτης;
or of Menedemus to Chremes—
[Sidenote: Terentii Heauton. act. +ii.+ sc. 1.]
Tantumne est ab re tuâ otii tibi
Aliena ut cures, eaque nihil quæ ad te attinent?
[Sidenote: Love of Fame, Sat. +i.+]
[Sidenote: Sir T. Elyot’s The Governour, B. +i.+ c. +xiii.+]
I would reply, that I do not consider these authors as affording
unsuitable mental recreation to any literary gentleman, be his
vocation what it may; nor as rendering him amenable to the charge of
Dr. Young of being “a polite apostate.”[25] Saint Chrysostom, the
most eloquent of the Greek fathers of the church, was so enamoured
of Aristophanes, notwithstanding the malignity of his satire, his
occasional obscenities, and licentious morals, as “to wake with him at
his studies, and to sleep with him under his pillow:” and it was never
“objected either to his piety or his preaching, even in those times
of pure zeal and primitive religion.” To close the ancient cynegetica
against the modern student, merely because the lowly quadruped, that
gives a name to such works, forms a part of their subject-matter,
pregnant in every page with innumerable other beauties, unconnected
with the poor tyke, but scattered around him, would be (in an
expressive simile of the author of “the Governour”) like “prohibiting
a man to come into a fayre gardein, lest in gadring good and holsome
herbes, he may happen to be stung with a netle”—“Semblaby yf a man doe
rede wanton matter, myxt with wysdom, he putteth the worst under fote,
and sorteth out the beste.”
But the “Scriptores Rei Venaticæ” are, of all others on the classic
file, most chaste and pure of sentiment. The character bestowed by
Price on Gratius in particular, is applicable to all collectively:
their style, their argument
Is pleasant, rev’rend, candid, innocent.
Their eminent beauties in poetry and prose, their fine moral
reflections and religious aspirations, will bear comparison with
the brightest productions of Greek and Roman literature, and can
only be lightly esteemed, because they are little known. If a candid
and susceptible reader, competent to enjoy their beauties, shall,
after a perusal, deem his hours of recreative study mispent, I
will acknowledge that I have lost a few days of my life. But he,
who pretends to decide their claims to attention, must have a mind
sensible of the beauties of nature, and of didactic poetry and prose,
devoted to the illustration of objects in rural life: and so far, I
think, from deeming it beneath the notice of man to mark the hand of
Providence among the inferior beings of Creation, and to contemplate
the fixed regulations under which they support the economy of the
animal world, he will allow that it is rather the entertainment of
a correctly-constituted mind to admire the originals in the natural
world, and the descriptions of their habits, and the modes of applying
them to the service and amusement of mankind in the works of learned
men. With such sketches of animal life the cynegetical writers abound:
and Oppian, more especially, with the poetic pen of a philosophic
naturalist, deduces from the habits of irrational creatures precepts
worthy of enrolment in the code of a moralist.
[Sidenote: Cowper’s Task, B. +vi.+]
For learn we might, if not too proud to stoop
To quadruped instructors, many a good
And useful quality, and virtue too,
Rarely exemplified among ourselves.
With such instructions, too, for rendering animal powers subservient to
the recreation and support of mankind, the works of Xenophon, Arrian,
and others De Re Venaticâ are plentifully stored.
[Sidenote: Aristot. de Part. Animal. L. +i.+ c. +v.+]
[Sidenote: Lucian. Hist. Veræ, L. +i.+]
Let us hear then no more of the unworthiness of these authors or their
subjects—διὸ δεῖ μὴ δυσχεραίνειν παιδικῶς τὴν περὶ τῶν ἀτιμωτέρων ζώων
ἐπίσκεψιν. I know the study of them to be eminently entertaining, and
believe it to be equally innocent and instructive. Our higher and more
grave studies are pleasantly diversified by such intermixture, and
the mind returns from its lighter to its more serious avocations with
renewed vigour.—τοῖς περὶ λόγους ἐσπουδακόσιν ἡγοῦμαι προσήκειν μετὰ
τὴν πολλὴν τῶν σπουδαιοτέρων ἀνάγνωσιν ἀνεῖναί τε τὴν διάνοιαν, καὶ
πρὸς τὸν ἔπειτα κάματον ἀκμαιοτέραν παρασκευάζειν.
[Sidenote: Beaumont and Fletcher’s The Elder Brother, act +ii.+ sc.
+i.+]
The amusement derived from the Cynegeticus of Arrian, its terse,
elegant language, and valuable information, has been my principal
inducement to present it to the patrons of the leash in an English
dress; that those who might never have read the original, and might
be unwilling, or, like Miramont in “the Elder Brother,” (who could
“speak no Greek,” and held “the sound sufficient to confirm an honest
man” without a knowledge of its sense) unable to peruse it, might have
an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the first author who had
treated systematically of coursing. For “those,” says Christopher Wase
in his preface to Gratius, “which are curious artisans, doe not content
themselves that they have attained to so great perfection in their art,
but are extremely pleased to look back and reflect upon the periods and
steps whereby that art hath made its graduall progresse; if perchance
by comparing the former with the latter, even the present state of it
may be advanced.”
It was my wish that the copy should read like an original: and if I
have failed in this respect, as I fear and feel I have, (for such
an object is attended with far greater difficulties of attainment
than the inexperienced may suppose,) the failure must be attributed
to a fearfulness of assuming too great a licence of translation,
and departing too far from the letter of the original—a fear of
paraphrasing instead of translating my author; whose lively and
spirited language indicates a power of description, and accurate
knowledge of his subject, to which no translation could do justice,
but by as faithful an adherence as the different idioms of different
languages would allow. Under this impression, I have spared no pains
in rendering the version with fidelity, deeming truth and perspicuity
more essential than embellishment of language. For it has been well
observed by Mr. Pope in his preface to the Iliad, that “it is the first
grand duty of an interpreter to give his author entire and unmaimed.”
And again, “it is certain no literal translation can be just to an
excellent original in a superior language: but it is a great mistake
to imagine (as many have done) that a rash paraphrase can make amends
for this general defect; which is no less in danger to lose the spirit
of an ancient, by deviating into the modern manners of expression. If
there be sometimes a darkness, there is often a light in antiquity,
which nothing better preserves than a version almost literal.”
If however this translation should be deemed too close and literal,
and greater freedom of language desired in a little coursing manual; I
am willing to plead guilty to the fault. Still if its style and manner
can neither be defended nor excused on the grounds stated, I trust they
will be pardoned, because they are acknowledged.
[Sidenote: Horat. de Arte Poeticâ, vs. 347.]
Sunt delicta tamen quibus ignovisse velimus.
I am fully sensible that what I have done, might have been done
by others far better. For though an occasional worshipper of the
classic Minerva—“parcus ... cultor et infrequens.” I know that there
are, under the tutelage of Diana, many disciples who have been more
richly endowed by the goddess of wisdom, and are better qualified
for this undertaking. If, however, I have the good fortune to direct
the attention of the more learned patrons of the leash to a manual
scarce known among them, and to excite the same degree of interest in
their minds, which its first perusal excited in my own; I shall rest
satisfied that the errors and deficiencies of this attempt will induce
them to devote superior knowledge of the Greek language, and greater
experience in coursing, to decorating the Athenian Sportsman with an
English dress, more becoming the antiquity of his claim to distinction.
[Sidenote: Ovid. Trist. +i.+ Eleg. +vi.+]
Et veniam pro laude peto: laudatus abundè,
Non fastiditus si tibi, lector, ero.
[Sidenote: Demetrii Constantinop. Hieracosophii +i.+]
Individuals possessed of great accuracy of knowledge in Greek
literature, or what Schneider calls “ἀκρίβεια Græcæ doctrinæ,” united
to extensive experience in field-sports, must necessarily be rare; and
till such shall undertake an improvement on the present version, it
may pass its ordeal of utility with the public. Moderate love of the
diversion, and moderate experience in the field or on the plain, I
conceive to be as indispensable as an acquaintance with the language
of the original text to the translator of a courser’s enchiridion, or
he will not work in it con amore, (πρόδηλον γὰρ εἰ μή τις ἔρως ἐπί
τινι παρακολουθήσει πράγματι, ἀμήχανον τοῦτο κατορθωθῆναι,) nor acquit
himself to the satisfaction of his readers.
To classic coursers I would particularly recommend the perusal and
reperusal of the Greek original; for I am confident that it is far more
worthy of their attention than the English version; which “is submitted
to the correction and amendment of those worthy and well-knowing
gentlemen,” under the hope that it may escape the severity of
acrimonious criticism, as the work of a retired countryman, with no
learned resources at hand, beyond a library moderately furnished with
classic authorities, and writings illustrative of some departments
of natural history. I wish I had been endowed with all the qualities
essential to a more perfect performance. But such as it is, “I crave,”
with an old Chronicler, “that it may be taken in good part. I wishe
I had bene furnished with so perfect instructions, and so many good
gifts, that I might have pleased all kindes of men, but that same being
so rare a thing in any one of the best, I beseech thee (gentle reader)
not to looke for it in me the meanest.”
Difficulty has occurred in rendering the ancient _technical_ terms
of a courser’s manual, with any degree of elegance, in a modern
tongue—“ornari res ipsa negat.” This has partly arisen—
[Sidenote: Lucret. L. +i.+ vs. 139.]
Propter egestatem linguæ, et rerum novitatem,
and partly from the corresponding English terms being debased into
vulgarity by an usage too familiar to be pleasant to polite ears.
Expressions of this kind in Arrian are occasioned by the accuracy which
he affects in the most minute particulars connected with the subject of
coursing, the shape of Celtic dogs, the discipline of the kennel and
field, the breeding of whelps, &c.
In relation to this and other defects, it is requested of all my
brethren of the leash, in behalf of the oldest courser who has written
on their manly diversion, that whatever may appear inelegant, dull, or
uninteresting in the following little work, may be laid to the account
of the translator: the errors of whose style and execution ought not
to affect the intrinsic merits of the Cynegeticus.
Many classical quotations have been introduced in the notes to
elucidate and enliven the text; some in their original language, others
in the English tongue. Where the former appeared more illustrative and
expressive, it has been retained. The latter has been occasionally
substituted, where the passages selected conveyed information
acceptable to an English courser, or a version of acknowledged merit
faithfully conveyed the sense of the original. And in a few instances
the original and translation have been introduced in juxta-position,
to enable the reader to judge of their respective excellencies. To
this too I have been “moved,” as Wase very nicely observes, by a wish
that the quotations from the dead languages “may be understood with
ease, and the delight of attending to the elegancies in them rather
doubled than intermitted, by adjoyning a translation in equal consort:”
“wherein,” as he adds, “I shall have pleased either those that have an
affection to see our language enriched with the wit of former ages; or
on the other side, even those men whose inclinations do rather move to
look upon the native beauties of every piece.”
[Sidenote: Plinii Præf. Vespas.]
The references to antiquity, which have imperceptibly increased to
some extent,—“nec dubitamus multa esse, quæ et nos præterierint,
homines enim sumus, et occupati officiis,”—have not been introduced
for the sake of ostentatious display of knowledge of Greek and Latin
literature, like those
[Sidenote: Young’s Love of Fame, Sat. +i.+]
Who, for renown, on scraps of learning dote,
And think they grow immortal as they quote.
but that the classical courser might be induced “antiquos exquirere
fontes,”
[Sidenote: Pitt’s Vida.]
T’ examine all, and bring from all away
Their various treasures as a lawful prey;
to compare the beauties and defects of the several authors who have
treated on the same favourite subject; and that the issue of the
comparison might be the illustration of the Nicomedian courser.
[Sidenote: Ausonius Symmacho. Griphus.]
To the classic reader (“cui nihil neque non lectum est, neque non
intellectum”) no apology is necessary for the number of the extracts
made from writers who must ever be prized, while pure and correct taste
prevails: and to the courser, who with his academic gown has laid on
the shelves of his library the authors of Greece and Rome, to be no
more disturbed, like “the rude forefathers” of the rustic cemetery,
Each in his narrow cell for ever laid;
[Sidenote: Ben Jonson’s Epicœne, act +ii.+ sc. 3.]
[Sidenote: Churchill “The Author.”]
and who “wonders” with Sir John Daw in “The Silent Woman,” that “those
fellows have such credit with gentlemen;” there is a summary power
vested in himself, of reducing the number to the measure of his own
taste and capacity. Such, however, not having been the fate of “the
crabbed authors” with myself, I confess that I have found it difficult
to check my pen in transcribing apposite and explanatory quotations
from these early friends. For in the language of old Gervase, “the
minde being preoccupied and busied with a vertuous search, is ever
ready to catch hold of whatsoever can adorne or illustrate the
excellencie of the thing in which it is imployed.”
This, I trust, will be received as an apology; and that the practical
notes interspersed with the classical, will redeem my character as a
moderate amateur of the sport, and give admission to this translation
on the courser’s table.
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ vs. 16.]
αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω τά τ’ ἐμοῖς ἴδον ὀφθαλμοῖσι,
θήρην ἀγλαόδωρον ἐπιστείχων ξυλόχοισιν
ὅσσα τ’ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων ἐδάην, τοῖσιν τὰ μέμηλε,
αἰόλα παντοίης ἐρατῆς μυστήρια τέχνης.
[Sidenote: Specimens of English Poets, Vol. +i.+ p. 11.]
With the exception of Somerville, “who has shown,” as Dr. Johnson
observes, “by the subjects which his poetry has adorned, that it is
practicable to be at once a skilful sportsman and a man of letters,” I
have extracted very little from writers of the last century: but the
natural historians, poetic and prosaic authors of the olden time, whose
works are not of very common occurrence in our libraries, have afforded
much information confirmatory of Arrian’s opinions. These selections,
as well as those from ancient English authors, incorporated with
this preface, have been left in their original spelling, so happily
expressed by Mr. Ellis as “that fortuitous combination of letters,
which the original transcribers or printers had assigned to them.”
[Sidenote: Plin. in Præfat. Vespas.]
A knowledge of what others have written on a subject on which we
ourselves are about to write appears indispensable. “Although I were
very much experienced,” says the translator of Gratius, “in any art,
and were apt to conceive a good opinion of my own ability therein, yet
being to publish a discourse concerning it, I was obliged to inform
myself of what others had formerly proposed in the same matter, as far
as may conveniently be attained. There are some who esteem it glory to
be thought to have declined any other helps but their own wit, which I
should charge upon myself as negligence.” Far be such self-sufficiency
from me! I am ever glad to avail myself of the opinions and sentiments
of others; and in so doing, to give the merit of originality to its
rightful owner, and not to a modern plagiarist. “Est enim benignum ut
arbitror, et plenum ingenui pudoris, fateri per quos profeceris, non ut
plerique ex iis, quos attigi, fecerunt. Scito enim conferentem autores
me deprehendisse à juratissimis et proximis veteres transcriptos ad
verbum, neque nominatos,” &c.
[Sidenote: Chaucer, Assembl. of Fowls.]
For out of the old fieldis, as men saith,
Cometh all this new corn from year to year;
And out of olde bookis, in good faith,
Cometh all this new science that men lere.
[Sidenote: Ausonius Symmacho. Griphus.]
Few will think me sparing of citation: but if there be such a one,
and well disposed to a brother courser, “si bonus est, quæ omisi, non
oblita mihi, sed præterita existimet. Dehinc qualiscunque est, cogitet
secum, quàm multa de his non reperisset, si ipse quæsisset. Sciat enim
me non omnibus erutis usum;” I hope he will not add with Ausonius, “et
quibusdam oblatis abusum.”
[Sidenote: On Gardening Miscell. Pt. +ii.+]
Should curiosity induce any one to inquire who is the translator of
this treatise, let it suffice, that he is an humble individual of
retired habits, too utterly unknown to the world to expect that any
additional interest will be imparted to his labours by the publication
of the name of their author:—that he is in the enjoyment of the ease
and freedom of a private scene, where, in the felicitous language of
Sir W. Temple, “a man may go his own way and his own pace:”—that his
pursuits at home and abroad are rationally diversified. “For honest
pleasures,” like Brathwait’s gentleman, “he is neither so Stoicall as
wholly to contemne them, nor so Epicureall as too sensually to affect
them.” “There is no delight on mountaine, vale, coppice, or river,
whereof he makes not an usefull and contemplative pleasure;”
[Sidenote: Darcius Venusinus.]
At sylvæ gelidique specus, cava lustra ferarum,
Ruraque, et arcanâ labentia flumina valle
Sunt animo!
[Sidenote: Plin. Panegyr. Trajan. 81.]
But his “hour-beguiling pastime,” when not occupied in any of the
more important duties of life, “si quandò cum influentibus negotiis
paria fecit, instar refectionis,” is that of a theoretical and
practical courser—desirous of acquiring, in the sedentary retirement
of his library, the science of active enjoyment in the field; and of
elucidating the mysteries of the leash, and the pertinent anecdotes
of animal biography, by collecting in one point of view the scattered
glimmerings of classical antiquity, and the illustrations of more
modern days, relative to an elegant and manly diversion:—directing the
whole under the guidance of experience, and the name of the father of
the leash, to the advancement of human recreation.
[Sidenote: Terent. Andr. act. +i.+ sc. +i.+ 28.]
Quod plerique omnes faciunt adolescentuli,
Ut animum ad aliquod studium adjungant, aut equos
Alere, aut canes ad venandum, aut ad philosophos:
Horum ille nihil egregiè præter cætera
Studebat, et tamen omnia hæc mediocriter.
The translator has his hack, his greyhound, and his slipper,
(κυναγωγὸς,) participating of the unimportant character of their
master, and equally devoid of interest in the eyes of the public. All,
therefore, are consigned to the same fate, and merged in one common
namelessness; spite of the example of Hippamon of old, in the metrical
commemoration of his sporting establishment:
[Sidenote: Apud Pollucis Onomasticon.]
Ἀνδρὶ μὲν Ἱππάμων ὄνομ’ ἦν, ἵππῳ δὲ Πόδαργος,
καὶ κυνὶ Λήθαργος, καὶ θεράποντι Βάβης.
With regard to the Appendix,
Si quis tamen hæc quoque, si quis
Captus amore leget,
I have only a few remarks to make. To many, though mere sciolists
in natural history, it must have appeared, during their progress in
classical reading, that much ignorance of the varieties of the canine
race is shown by annotators. With the gentlemen _è societate Jesu_, and
others who have favoured us with their expositions of the ancients,
there is too great an inclination to generalize both as to the names
and properties of the canine tribe. The “veloces Spartæ catuli”[26]
are all “lévriers,” though there was not, according to Arrian, (and
he is supported by Blumenbach,) a greyhound in the whole of ancient
Greece: and certainly as “the babbling echo mocked them” in their
quick-scented pursuit of the Laconian quarry, they could be no more
entitled to the appellation, than any sharp-nosed mongrel, bred in
modern days, between a sagacious yelping hound, and a prick-eared
shepherd’s cur. Upon the same principle of generalization, all
truculent Molossi, C. Custodes, Pecuarii, &c. are by these worthies
at once dismissed as Gallicè “dogues,” Anglicè “mastiffs,” without an
attempt to particularize their respective attributes in warfare, or the
chase, or the economy of rural life.
[Sidenote: Macbeth, act +iii.+ sc. +i.+]
Hounds, and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs,
Shoughs, water-rugs, and demi-wolves, are cleped
All by the name of dogs; the valued file
Distinguishes the swift, the slow, the subtle,
The housekeeper, the hunter, every one
According to the gift which bounteous nature
Hath in him closed; whereby he does receive
Particular addition, from the bill
That writes them all alike.
This confusion of nomenclature might pass at school, but not longer.
Subsequent experience, and the reflection of maturer years would direct
the attention of many literary ruralists to the occasional correction
of errors in the canine vocabulary. Such at least has been the case
with the writer of these pages; and he conceives that errors, apparent
to him, must have been manifest to others. Nor is a misapprehension of
some of the names and qualities of the individuals of this multifarious
genus
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. 154.]
(Mille canum patriæ, ductique ab origine mores
Cuique suâ)
[Sidenote: A New Discourse of a Stale Subject, &c.]
to be wondered at in scholiasts and commentators; when we consider
their monkish habits of indolent seclusion, and how unfit and unwilling
they were to ascertain by actual experiment, whether Pliny was correct
in affirming that Minerva was as fond of traversing the hills as
Diana. “These bookish fellowes,” in the words of Sir John Harrington,
“could judge of no sports, but within the verge of the fair fields of
Helicon, Pindus, and Parnassus.” Their practice in the field was not
commensurate with their scholastic knowledge. Very few carried their
note-books, like the learned and indefatigable Vlitius to the covert
side, and examined the difficulties of rural poetry, and obscure
allusions to canine instinct in the field of experience. And unless
they did so, they had little chance of becoming acquainted with the
sylvan goddess, who tells us in her petition to her sire, that she
rarely descends from her mountain haunts into the cities of men;
[Sidenote: Callimach. H. in Dian.]
————σπαρνὸν γὰρ ὅτ’ Ἄρτεμις ἄστυ κάτεισιν.
οὔρεσιν οἰκήσω.
Wherever the different sporting dogs of antiquity are alluded to,
or mentioned by name in the Cynegeticus of Arrian, or the classical
works to which I have had occasion to refer in illustration of it,
I have endeavoured to clear up some of the obscurity, in which they
were enveloped; by classifying varieties, and in a few cases even
individuals, and comparing ancient types with modern representatives.
This I have attempted more especially in relation to the ancient
British dogs, and the Celtic greyhound (the subject of Arrian’s
Treatise), as being of paramount interest to the British courser.
[Sidenote: Theocriti Idyll. +xxv.+ vs. 78.]
ὦ πόποι, οἷον τοῦτο θεοὶ ποίησαν ἄνακτες
θηρίον ἀνθρώποισι μετέμμεναι· ὡς ἐπιμηθές.
The observations and extracts on these points, more trite probably
than recondite, have been thrown together in an appendix, which I hope
may be found amusing to any literary sportsman who may condescend to
peruse them.
[Illustration: LA CHAUSSE.]
[Illustration: BEGER.]
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL
AND
BIOGRAPHICAL
NOTICES.
[Illustration: LA CHAUSSE.]
[Illustration: ORLEANS.]
[Illustration: ΚΥΘΝΙΩΝ]
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE
OF THE
CYNEGETICUS,
OR
WORK ON COURSING.
The Cynegeticus was originally written by Arrian, in imitation of
Xenophon’s Treatise de Venatione, to supply the lacunæ of that work in
the particular department of Coursing.
The manuscript seems to have been neglected in the Vatican library for
several years after it had been first discovered, in consequence of
its bearing the name of Xenophon: for the persons who accidentally met
with it, not being aware of Arrian’s assumption of that title, took
no pains to examine it, under an impression that it was the edited
Cynegeticus of the elder Xenophon, and not a new and unknown treatise
on a different branch of the same subject, by an author of the same
assumed name, a pseudo-Xenophon.
We are told by Mausacus that Rigaltius intended to have edited it with
the Scriptores de Re Accipitrariâ et de Curâ Canum, (the first edition
of which he published in 1612, with a forged epistle in Castilian
and Latin from Aquila Symmachus and Theodotion to a Ptolemy, King
of Egypt,) but the printers refused their consent, unless he added
a Latin translation; a desideratum which was afterwards supplied by
Holstein in the first edition. Henry Stephens, however, had previously
perused the unpublished treatise, and given to the world, in his
Schediasmata, some observations on different passages.
Holstein, the first editor, was a celebrated scholar of his day, and is
commemorated in the Sept. Illustr. Vir. Poemata as—
[Sidenote: Poem. Ferdin. Lib. Baron de Furstenberg.]
Graiæ Latiæque Minervæ
Artibus, Eois notus et Hesperiis.
His edition issued from the Paris press of Sebastian and Gabriel
Cramoisy in the year 1644. The Greek text, and version attached to
it, were amended by Blancard in his Amsterdam edition of 1683; which
contains also the minor works of Arrian, and the pertinent schediasmata
of Henry Stephens above mentioned. My library affords no editions but
the above two, and the accurate reprint of Schneider by the University
of Oxford in 1817. The last is certainly the best edition of the
Cynegeticus of Arrian which I have seen. The Clarendon press also
published in the same volume the Cynegeticus of the elder Xenophon, and
his Opuscula Politica; the same collection of the minor works as Zeune
comprehended in one volume, printed at Leipsic, 1778.
M. Gail is reported to have published a French translation of the
work, with critical notes and dissertations, at Paris, in 1801: but,
notwithstanding repeated applications to the Parisian booksellers, I
have not been able to procure a copy. Equally unsuccessful have been my
endeavours to obtain from the same source Defermat’s version, published
by Hortemels of Paris, in 1690. The latter, however, in consequence
of the literary character given of its author by Belin de Ballu, in
his prolegomena to Oppian, I do not much regret. It accompanied a
French version of the two last books of the Cynegetics of the Cilician
poet, which are stated to abound in errors of translation, and to be
performed in a tedious and barbarous style by Defermat, eminent as a
mathematician, but of moderate attainment in Greek literature.
The present version was completed before I was aware of any prior
attempt to translate the Cynegeticus into English: the first notice
of which, in the partial labours of Mr. Blane, was derived from
Schneider’s annotations. I do not believe any other to exist in the
English language, with the exception of such fragments of the treatise
as may have been occasionally made to speak English, on the emergency
of a periodical publication needing an article on Coursing; or a
literary sportsman wishing to enliven his communications by a reference
to the manual, and quoting it in his vernacular tongue.
Mr. Blane’s attempt did not extend apparently to the whole treatise.
It is in parts inaccurately executed, and omits numerous sentences,
where he professes to translate; and whole chapters in sequence, where
we can see no reason for omission. The fourth, and ten following
chapters to the fourteenth inclusive, and the twenty-third and twelve
following chapters to the thirty-fifth inclusive, are entirely omitted
by this capricious translator. Since, then, in a work consisting
of only thirty-five chapters, he has, without assigning any cause,
passed over twenty-four unnoticed, nearly all of them important to
practical coursers, some evincing the kindly feelings of their author,
(as for instance, the one containing the affectionate history of his
beloved dog Hormé,) and others most honourable to his humanity, and
confirmative of the purity of his religious faith, operative in a
heathen breast, (as the two closing chapters, showing, amidst much
fabulous allusion, his unreserved acknowledgment of human dependence on
divine aid, and the certainty of evil and misfortune being consequent
on irreligion and moral transgression,) I hope a complete translation
of this ancient courser’s enchiridion will not be considered an useless
undertaking.
[Illustration: ΚΥΘΝΙΩΝ]