[Sidenote: Churchill’s The Ghost. B. +iii.+]
whilst thus we play the fool,
In bold contempt of every rule—
Things of no consequence expressing,
Describing now, and now digressing—
To the discredit of our skill,
The main concern is standing still.
[Sidenote: Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. +iii.+ c. 2.]
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: and 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.
[Sidenote: Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. +iii.+ c. 2.]
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
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:”—
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 184.]
Sicut Acarnanes subierunt prælia furto;
Sic canis illa suos taciturna supervenit hostes:—
[Sidenote: 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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 194.]
Quondam inconsultis mater dabit Umbrica Gallis
Sensum agilem,[320] &c.
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:
[Sidenote: Gratii Halieut. 98.]
canum quibus est _audacia_ præceps,
Venandique _sagax virtus, viresque sequendi_.
“In cane _sagacitas_ prima est,” says Seneca in one of his Epistles,
“si investigare debet feras; _cursus_, si consequi; _audacia_, si
mordere et invadere.”
[Sidenote: Artemidori Oneirocrit. L. +ii.+ c. +xi.+]
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
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:
[Sidenote: Claudian. de Laud. Stilic. L. +iii.+]
variæ formis, et gente sequuntur,
Ingenioque canes: illæ _gravioribus aptæ
Morsibus_; hæ _pedibus celeres_; hæ _nare sagaces_;
and then inverting the order of sequence, names, apparently in
illustration of his classes, the Cretan, Spartan, and Briton:
Hirsutæque fremunt Cressæ, tenuesque Lacænæ,
Magnaque taurorum fracturæ colla Britannæ.
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_.
[Sidenote: 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]
[Sidenote: Xenophon. Memor. L. +iii.+ c. +xi.+]
[Sidenote: H. in Dianam.]
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
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 philosopher alludes—the θάσσονες
αὐράων κυνοσουρίδες of Callimachus.
[Sidenote: Vide Jani Vlitii Venat. Novantiq.]
In accordance with the distinctions pointed out in the classical
kennels is the threefold character of ancient hunting: but as coursing
properly so called, (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.
[Sidenote: 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.
[Sidenote: J. Vlitii Venat. Novant.]
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 of Venatio, named, for distinction’s sake, _Venatio
cursoria_, as the others are _V. bellica_, and _V. indagatoria_.
[Sidenote: Plin. Paneg. Trag. dict.]
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 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]
[Sidenote: Gratii Halieut. vs. 71.]
Cætera quæ densas habitant animalia sylvas,
Aut vani quatiunt semper lymphata timores,
Aut trahit in præceps non sana ferocia mentis.
Ipsa sequi natura monet, vel cominùs ire,
Impiger ipse leo venantum sternere pergit
Agmina, et adversis infert sua pectora telis:
Quòque venit, fidens magis, et sublatior ardet,
Concussitque toros, et viribus addidit iram,
Prodigus atque suo properat sibi robore lethum.
Fœdus Lucanis provolvitur ursus ab antris,
Quid nisi pondus iners, stolidæque ferocia mentis?
Actus aper setis iram denunciat hirtis,
Et ruit oppositi nitens in vulnera ferri,
Pressus, et emisso moritur per viscera telo.
Altera pars fidens pedibus, dat terga sequenti,
Ut pavidi lepores, et fulvo tergore damæ,
Et capto fugiens cervus sine fine timore.
Oppian’s distribution of them into classes is nearly similar:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 25.]
θηρῶν οἱ μὲν ἔασιν ἐπίφρονες, αἰολόβουλοι,
ἀλλὰ δέμας βαιοί· τοὶ δ’ ἔμπαλιν ἀλκήεντες,
βουλὴν δ’ ἐν στήθεσσιν ἀνάλκιδες· οἱ δ’ ἄρ’ ὁμαρτῆ
καὶ κραδίην δειλοὶ, καὶ γυῖα πέλουσ’ ἀμενηνοὶ,
ἀλλὰ πόδεσσι θοοί· τοῖσιν δὲ θεὸς πόρε πάντα,
βουλὴν κερδαλέην, κρατερὸν μένος, ὠκέα γοῦνα.
γιγνώσκουσι δ’ ἕκαστος ἑῆς φύσιος κλυτὰ δῶρα,
ἔνθ’ ὀλιγοδρανέες τε καὶ ἔνθα πέλουσι δαφοινοί. κ. τ. λ.
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:
[Sidenote: Claudian. de Laud. Stilic. L. +iii.+]
capitur decus omne timorque
Silvarum. Non cauta latent: non mole resistunt
Fortia: non volucri fugiunt pernicia cursu.
A minute description of each particular chase would exceed the limits
of a compendium,[325] and lead me into too extensive a field.
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 10.]
εἴδεα πολλὰ πέλει κλειτῆς πολυεργέος ἄγρης,
ἄρμενα καὶ θήρεσσι καὶ ἔθνεσιν ἠδὲ χαράδραις,
μυρία· τίς κεν ἅπαντα μιῇ φρενὶ χωρήσειεν,
εἰπέμεναι κατὰ μοῖραν;
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.
[Sidenote: De Venatione c. +vi.+ 13.]
[Sidenote: Sic apud Dindorfii Annot. in loco, pro κακάς.]
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 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,
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;
[Sidenote: Sic apud C. Gesner. vox bacchantium in mountibus!]
[Sidenote: Vide Savary Alb. Dianæ Leporicidæ.]
[Sidenote: Xen. de Venat. c. +vi.+ 23.]
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 with 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, (κύκλους,[326]) even up to the
line of the nets, encouraging the dogs till they again pick up the
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.
[Sidenote: Xenophon de Venatione. c. +vi.+]
[Sidenote: J. Sarisberiensis Policrat. L. +i.+ c. +iv.+]
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, (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 the 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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 428.]
αὐτίκα γὰρ σκύλακάς τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἀθρήσαντες
πρὸς λόφον ἰθύουσιν, ἐπεὶ μάλα γινώσκουσιν
ὅττι πάροιθεν ἔασιν ὀλιζότεροι πόδες αὐτοῖς. κ. τ. λ.
[Sidenote: De Naturâ Animal. L. +xiii.+ c. 14.]
Beaten roads should be avoided by huntsmen, and ploughed lands
preferred for sport. 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.
[Sidenote: De Venatione c. +ix.+]
[Sidenote: Ejusdem c. +x.+]
[Sidenote: Apuleii Met. L. +viii.+ p. 512.]
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—too 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
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.
[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +viii.+]
[Sidenote: Horat. Od. L. +ii.+ +i.+ 6.]
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 _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:
[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +iv.+ 398.]
σάλπιγξ μὲν κελάδησε πελώριον· ἡ δέ τε λόχμης
ὀξὺ λέληκε θοροῦσα, καὶ ὀξὺ δέδορκε λακοῦσα.
αἰζηοὶ δ’ ἐπόρουσαν ἀολλέες, ἐκ δ’ ἑκάτερθεν
ἀντία θηρὸς ἰᾶσι φαλαγγηδὸν κλονέοντες.
ἡ δ’ ὅμαδον προλιποῦσα καὶ ἀνέρας, ἰθὺς ὀρούει
γυμνὸν ὅπου λεύσσει πεδίον πολύ· κεῖθεν ἔπειτα
ἑξείης κατὰ νῶτον ἐγειρόμενος λόχος ἀνδρῶν
κλαγγηδὸν παταγεῦσιν, ἐπ’ ὀφρύα μηρίνθοιο
σευόμενοι καὶ δεῖμα πολύχροον· ἡ δέ τ’ ἀνιγρὴ
ἀμφίβολος μάλα πάμπαν ἀτυζομένη πεφόρηται.
πάντα δ’ ὁμοῦ δείδοικε, λόχον, κτύπον, αὐλὸν, ἀϋτὴν,
δειμαλέην μήρινθον, ἐπεὶ κελάδοντος ἀήτεω
ταινίαι τ’ ἐφύπερθε διηέριαι κραδάουσι,
κινύμεναι πτέρυγές τε λιγήϊα συρίζουσιν
οὕνεκα παπταίνουσα κατ’ ἄρκυας ἀντίον ἕρπει·
ἐν δ’ ἔπεσεν λινέοισι λόχοις. κ. τ. λ.