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
[Sidenote: Cowper’s Task. B. +vi.+]
harmony, and family accord,
Were driven from Paradise;
and man’s subject creatures revolted from their revolted lord—
[Sidenote: Phil. de Animal. Propriet. vs. 8.]
καὶ θῆρες αἰδοῦς ἀγνοήσαντες νόμους,
ὡς δυσμενῆ φεύγουσι τὸν πρὶν δεσπότην—
[Sidenote: Agrippa de Incert. et Van. Sc. et Art. c. +lxxii.+]
[Sidenote: De Invent. Rerum. L. +iii.+ c. +v.+]
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: P. A. Bargæi de Aucupio L. +i.+ p. 13.]
Cœpêre in pecudes avidi sævire ferasque,
Et nil tale priùs meritas captare volantes.
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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 7.]
ἐπιδόρπιον εὕρατο θήρην.
[Sidenote: Tickell’s Miscellanies.]
Rude arts at first, but witty want refined
The huntsman’s wiles, and famine form’d the mind.
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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneget. vs. 2.]
priùs omnis in armis[294]
Spes fuit, et nudâ silvas virtute movebant
Inconsulti homines.
[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +iv.+ 699.]
[Sidenote: Xen. de Venat. c. +i.+]
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 5.]
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 Perseus[295]—“Gorgonis anguicomæ Perseus superator”—(for
I would not deprive Latona’s hunting-twins, Apollo and Diana, nor the
worshipful race of Centaurs, φῦλα θηρομιγῆ,[296] of their priority of
claim, and patent of precedency, in the apotheosis of the chase,) who,
when he had performed this redoubted act of courage, as we are told by
the poet of Anazarbus:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 10.]
ποδῶν κραιπνοῖσιν ἀειρόμενος πτερύγεσσι
καὶ πτῶκας, καὶ θῶας ἐλάζυτο, καὶ γένος αἰγῶν
ἀγροτέρων, δόρκους τε θοοὺς, ὀρύγων τε γένεθλα,
ἠδ’ αὐτῶν ἐλάφων στικτῶν αἰπεινὰ κάρηνα.
[Sidenote: Bedingfield’s Education of Achilles.]
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Lucretii L. +v.+ 964.]
Et manuum mirâ freti virtute pedumque
Consectabantur sylvestria sæcla ferarum
Missilibus saxis, et magno pondere clavæ:
Multaque vincebant, vitabant pauca latebris.
[Sidenote: Somerville’s Chace. B. +i.+]
New and unpolish’d was the huntsman’s art;
No stated rule, his wanton will his guide.
With clubs and stones, rude implements of war,
He arm’d his savage bands, a multitude
Untrain’d; of twining osiers form’d, they pitch
Their artless toils, then range the desert hills,
And scow’r the plains below: the trembling herd
Start at th’ unusual sound, and clam’rous shout
Unheard before; surpriz’d, alas! to find
Man now their foe, whom erst they deem’d their lord,
But mild and gentle, and by whom as yet
Secure they graz’d.
Acquiring knowledge by experience, man advanced in the mechanism
and variety of his hunting gear, as in other articles of increasing
civilization.
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 5.]
Post aliâ propiore viâ, meliùsque profecti,
Te sociam, ratio, rebus sumpsêre gerendis.
Hinc omne auxilium vitæ, rectusque reluxit
Ordo: et continuas didicêre ex artibus artes
Proserere; hinc demens cecidit violentia retro.
[Sidenote: 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—
[Sidenote: Lucretii L. +v.+ 1249.]
Nam foveâ atque igni prius est venarier ortum
Quàm sepire plagis saltum, canibusque ciere;
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:
[Sidenote: Virgil. Georg. L. +i.+ 139.]
Tum laqueis captare feras, et fallere visco
Inventum.
[Sidenote: Ejusdem 140.]
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 the
Georgics—“magnos canibus circumdare saltus,”—redeeming thereby their
esculent crops and innocuous herds from the ferocious and depredatory
aggression of quadruped felons.[298]
[Sidenote: Sophoclis Antigone, 350.]
Κουφονέων τε φῦλον ὀρ-
νίθων ἀμφιβαλὼν ἄγει,
θηρίων τ’ ἀγρίων ἔθνη
πόντου τ’ εἰναλίαν φύσιν
σπείραισι δικτυοκλώστοις
περιφραδὴς ἀνήρ·
κρατεῖ δὲ μηχαναῖς ἀγραύλου
θηρὸς ὀρεσσιβάτα.[299]
The “venandi mille viæ” of the Carthaginian poet have been superseded
in the British islands by the superior attraction of the gun:
[Sidenote: Adriani Cardinalis Venatio.]
machinæ,
Mirandæ, horrificæ, minacis, atræ,
Qualem nec Steropes, nec ipse fertur
Pater Lemnius inferis cavernis
Informâsse Jovi, nec ulla in orbe
Per tot secula cogitavit ætas;
[Sidenote: Certaine Illustrations, &c. p. 25.]
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—whatever 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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 21.]
His ego præsidibus nostram defendere sortem
Contra mille feras, et non sine carmine, nisus
Carmine, et arma dabo venandi, et persequar artem
Armorum, cassesque, plagarumque ordiar astus.
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]
[Sidenote: 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_.”
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 75.]
Sunt quibus immundo decerptæ vulture plumæ
Instrumentum operis fuit, et non parva facultas.
Tantum inter nivei jungantur vellera cygni:
Et satis armorum est. Hæc clarâ luce coruscaut,
Terribiles species: ab vulture dirus avaro
Turbat odor silvas, meliusque alterna valet res.
[Sidenote: Wase’s Illustrations, &c. p. 7.]
The line of feathers of various hue, impregnated with artificial odour,
“was drawn about the woods (——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_.
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 85.]
Hic magis in cervos valuit metus.[303] Ast ubi lentæ
Interdum Libyco fucantur sandice pinnæ,
Lineaque extructis lucent anconibus arma:
Rarum si qua metus eludat bellua falsos.
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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Hal. L. +iv.+ 586.]
ὧδε καὶ ἐν ξυλόχοισιν ὀρέστεροι ἀγρευτῆρες
εἷλον ἀναλκείην ἐλάφων εὐαγρέϊ τέχνῃ,
μηρίνθῳ στέψαντες ἅπαν δρίος· ἀμφὶ δὲ κούφων
ὀρνίθων δήσαντο θοὰ πτερά· ταὶ δ’ ἐσορῶσαι
ἠλέματα πτώσσουσι κενὸν φόβον, οὐδὲ πελάσσαι
μαψιδίαις πτερύγεσσιν ἀτυζόμεναι μεμάασιν
εἰσόκε θηρητῆρες ἐπαΐξαντες ἕλωσι.
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:”
[Sidenote: Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 312.]
Dat tibi pinnarum terrentia millia vultur;
Dat Libye magnarum avium fœcunda creatrix,
Dantque grues, cygnique senes, et candidus anser;
Dant quæ fluminibus crassisque paludibus errant,
Pellitosque pedes stagnanti gurgite tingunt:
Hinc magè Puniceas nativo munere sumes:
Namque illic sine fine greges florentibus alis
Invenies avium, suavique rubescere luto,
Et sparsos passim tergo vernare colores.
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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 409.]
ἐπεὶ κελάδοντος ἀήτεω
ταινίαι τ’ ἐφύπερθε διηέριαι κραδάουσι,
κινύμεναι πτέρυγές τε λιγήϊα συρίζουσιν.
οὕνεκα παπταίνουσα κατ’ ἄρκυας ἀντίον ἕρπει·
ἐν δ’ ἔπεσεν λινέοισι λόχοις.
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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 382.]
ἐν δὲ δύω κλῖναν δοιαῖς ἑκάτερθε κεραιαῖς
ἀνέρας ἀκρολίνους ὑπὸ μειλινέοισι πάγοισιν.
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:
[Sidenote: Statii Achil. L. +i.+ 459.]
sic curva feras indago latentes
Claudit, et admotis paulatim cassibus arctat.
Illæ ignem sonitumque pavent, diffusaque linquunt
Avia, miranturque suum decrescere montem,
Donec in angustam ceciderunt undique vallem,
Inque vicem stupuêre greges, socioque timore
Mansuescunt. Simul hirtus aper, simul ursa, lupusque
Cogitur, et captos contemnit cerva leones.
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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 25.]
Prima jubent tenui nascentem jungere filo
Limbum, et quadruplici tormento adstringere limbos.
Illa operum patiens, illa usûs linea longi.
Tunc ipsum medio cassem qui nascitur ore,
Per senos circum usque sinus laqueabis, ut omnem
Concipiat tergo, si quisquam est plurimus, hostem.
Et bis vicenos, spatium prætendere passus
Rete velim, plenisque decem consurgere nodis.
On the same subject the Carthaginian summarily touches, distinctly
recognizing the three varieties of which we have been just speaking:
[Sidenote: Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 299.]
Necnon et casses iidem venatibus aptos,
Atque plagas, longoque meantia retia tractu
Addiscant raris semper contexere nodis,
Et servare modum maculis linoque tenaci.
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:
[Sidenote: Hor. Epod. L. +ii.+ 29.]
At cum tonantis annus hybernus Jovis
Imbres nivesque comparat:
Aut trudit acres hinc et hinc multâ cane
Apros in obstantes plagas;
Aut amite levi rara tendit retia
Turdis edacibus dolos,
Pavidumve leporem, et advenam laqueo gruem,
Jucunda captat præmia.
Whatever honour be attached to these reticular inventions, and that of
the running-noose, the βρόχος or _laqueus_, is due to Hippolytus:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 24.]
ἄρκυας αὖτε βρόχους τε, καὶ ἀγκύλα δίκτυα πρῶτος
Ἱππόλυτος μερόπεσσιν ἐπακτήρεσσιν ἔφηνε.
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:
[Sidenote: P. A. Bargæi Cyneg. L. +i.+]
Namque hos aut foveis, aut cæci in limine callis
Occultant, &c.
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.
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 89.]
Nam fuit et laqueis aliquis curracibus usus.
Cervino jussêre magis contexere nervo;
Fraus teget insidias, habitu mentita ferino.
[Sidenote: Hor. L. +iii.+ Od. +iv.+ vs. 70.]
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 Oppian, are indebted to the giant-hunter
Orion—“integræ—tentator Orion Dianæ”—for the first establishment of
their nocturnal depredations:
[Sidenote: Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 28.]
νυκτερίους δὲ λόχους, νυχίην πανεπίκλοπον ἄγρην
Ὠρίων πρώτιστος ἐμήσατο κερδαλεόφρων.
[Sidenote: Xen. de Venat. c. +ix.+]
[Sidenote: 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;
Quid qui dentatas iligno robore clausit
Venator pedicas? cum dissimulantibus armis
Sæpè habet imprudens alieni lucra laboris?
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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 95.]
O felix, tantis quem primum industria rebus
Prodidit auctorem! Deus ille, an proxuma Divos
Mens fuit, in cæcas aciem quæ magna tenebras
Egit, et ignarum perfudit lumine vulgus?
And again:
Ergo illum primis nemorum Dea finxit in annis,
Auctoremque operi dignata inscribere magno,
Jussit adire suas et pandere gentibus artes.
[Sidenote: Plutarch. in Amatorio.]
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 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:
[Sidenote: Nonni in Dionys. L. +v.+]
κεῖνος ἀνὴρ πρώτιστος ὀρίδρομος ἅλματι ταρσῶν
εὗρε φιλοσκοπέλοιο πόνον κεμαδοσσόον ἄγρης,
πῶς νοερῷ μυκτῆρι παρὰ σφυρὰ φορβάδος ὕλης
θηρὸς ἀσημάντοιο κύων μαντεύεται ὀδμὴν,
ὄρθια ὀξυκέλευθον ἐπὶ δρόμον οὔατα τείνων·
καὶ δολίης δεδάηκε πολύπλοκα δίκτυα τέχνης,
καὶ σταλίκων τύπον ὀρθόν. κ. τ. λ.
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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 108.]
Ille etiam valido primus venabula dente
Induit: et proni moderatus vulneris iram
Omne moris excepit onus. Tum stricta verutis
Dentibus et geminas subiêre hastilia furcas.
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 14.]
ἱππαλέην δ’ ἄγρην ὁ φαεσφόρος εὕρατο Κάστωρ,
καὶ τοὺς μὲν κατέπεφνεν, ἐπὶ σκοπὸν ἰθὺς ἄκοντι
βαλλόμενος, τοὺς δ’ αὖτε θοοῖς ἵπποισιν ἐλαύνων
θῆρας ἕλε ξυλόχοισι μεσημβρινοῖο δρόμοιο.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 122.]
Quocirca et jaculis habilem perpendimus usum:
Neu leve vulnus eat, neu sit brevis impetus illi.
Ipsa arcu Lyciâque suas Diana pharetrâ
Armavit comites; ne tela relinquite Divæ,
Magnum opus et volucres quondam fecêre sagittæ.
The far-famed female ally of Meleager in the attack on the Calydonian
boar,
[Sidenote: Golding’s Ovid’s Metam. B. +viii.+]
the paragone
Of Lycey forest, Atalant, a goodly lady, one
Of Schænyes daughters,
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.)
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 26.]
Σχοινῆος πρώτη δὲ κλυτὴ θυγάτηρ Ἀταλάντη
θηρσὶ φόνον πτερόεντα συηβόλος εὕρατο κούρη.
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,
[Sidenote: Ejusdem L. +i.+ 148.]
καὶ μὴν τόσσα φέροιντο ποτὶ κνημοὺς ξυλόχους τε
ἐργοπόνοι κρατεροὶ θήρης ἐρικυδέος ὅπλα,
ἔντεά τ’ εὐθήροιο μέγα πνείοντα φόνοιο, κ. τ. λ.
[Sidenote: Nat. Com. de Venat. L. +iv.+]
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: P. A. Bargæi Cyneg. L. +i.+]
Nec desint duræ sinuato vertice clavæ
Quæ leporis cursum jactæ compescere possint.[312]
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,
Ὠγρευτὴς, Ἐπικυδὲς, ἐν οὔρεσι πάντα λαγωὸν
διφᾷ, καὶ πάσης ἴχνια δορκαλίδος,
στίβῃ καὶ νιφετῷ κεχαρημένος—
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_:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 450.]
εἴδεα δὲ στιβίης δυσδερκέος ἔπλετο δισσὰ,
ἀνδρῶν, ἠδὲ κυνῶν· μέροπες μὲν ἄρ’ αἰολόβουλοι
ὄμμασι τεκμῄραντο, καὶ εὖ φράσσαντο κέλευθα·
μυξωτῆρσι κύνες δὲ πανίχνια σημήναντο.
Savary’s ejaculation on snow-tracking the hare is more amusing than
poetical:
[Sidenote: Alb. Dianæ Leporicidæ L. +iii.+]
O nix! improba nix! generosæ invisa Dianæ,
Pernicies leporum! venantum ignobile vulgus
Quam votis petit assiduis, ut cæde cruentâ
Depopuletur agros! &c.
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.”
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: Manilii L. +v.+]
ducuntur et ipsi
Retibus, et claudunt campos formidine mortis,
Mendacesque parant foveas, laqueosque tenaces,
Currentesque feras pedicarum compede nectunt,
Aut canibus ferrove necant, prædasque reportant.
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,
[Sidenote: Hor. L. +i.+ Epist. +vi.+ 58.]
qui mane plagas, venabula, _servos_,
Differium transire forum populumque jubebat,—
[Sidenote: Xenophon de Venat. c. +v.+]
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 is 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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 43.]
ξυναὶ θηροσύναι τε λίνων, ξυναί τε ποδάγραι·
ξυνὰ δέ τ’ ἀνθρώποισι ποδωκέα πάντα γένεθλα
ἵπποις ἠδὲ κύνεσσι διωκέμεν.
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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 18.]
πρὸς δὲ μόθους θηρῶν κύνας ὥπλισε καρχαρόδοντας
διογενὴς πρῶτος Λακεδαιμόνιος Πολυδεύκης,
καὶ γὰρ πυγμαχίῃσι λυγροὺς ἐναρίξατο φῶτας,
καὶ σκυλάκεσσι θοαῖς βαλίους ἐδαμάσσατο θῆρας.
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:—
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 151.]
prima illa canum, non ulla per artes
Cura prior, sive indomitos vehementior hostes
Nudo marte premas, seu bellum ex arte ministres.
Mille canum patriæ, ductique ab origine mores
Cuique suâ.
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—
[Sidenote: Tickell’s Miscellanies.]
the various gifts to trace,
The minds and genius of the latrant race.
[Sidenote: Ben Jonson’s Sad Shepherd. Act +ii.+ sc. 3.]
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, for “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—
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 369.]
τόσσοι τ’ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κύνεσσιν
ἔξοχ’ ἀρίζηλοι μάλα τ’ ἀγρευτῆρσι μέλονται—
[Sidenote: Hesiod. Theog. vs. 308.]
[Sidenote: Virgil. Æn. L. +viii.+ 768. Lucian. Jupiter Tragœdus.]
[Sidenote: Pollucis Onomast. L. +v.+]
[Sidenote: In Ibin.]
[Sidenote: Plutarch. de Solert. Animal. &c.]
[Sidenote: Pollucis Onomast. L. +v.+]
it is not incumbent on me to inquire whether a Cerberus, or an Orthrus,
(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 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
Ostiarius 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 Thrasus, Actæon,[318] and Linus, of Ovid’s well-known
tetrastic. It is foreign to my purpose to inquire whether Plutarch’s
dog, who threw stones into an oil-cruse till he had raised its contents
sufficiently high in the neck of the vessel 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—
[Sidenote: Lucret. L. +iv.+ 995.]
consueta domi catulorum blanda propago
Degere—
[Sidenote: Martial. L. +i.+ Ep. 110.]
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’s Issa will be remembered as a
classic exemplar—“Deliciæ catella Publî.”
[Sidenote: J. Darcii Venusini Canes.]
Sunt humiles etiam Melitæâ ex gente catelli,
Quos gremio gestare solent Heroïdes, hique
Nec cursu celerem sectantur præpete cervum,
Nec lato pavidum leporem scrutantur in arvo:
Veste sedent fluxâ, et pedibus mylesia calcant
Serica, sub Tyrioque recumbunt molliter ostro:
Nunc caput exertant gremio, saliuntque decorum
Nobilis in vultum dominæ, lusuque fatigant
Labra corallino modicum suffusa rubore,
Vernantesque genas, et ebur superantia colla,
Smaragdoque graves digitos, et Perside gazâ.
Nunc tenui latrare sono, pictoque videbis
Lascivire toro, aut nitidâ juveniliter aulâ.