ARCHERY
PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON
[Illustration: Your's truly
Horace A. Ford]
THE
THEORY AND PRACTICE
OF
ARCHERY
BY THE LATE
HORACE FORD
CHAMPION ARCHER OF ENGLAND FOR THE YEARS 1850 TO 1859 AND 1867
_NEW EDITION_
_THOROUGHLY REVISED AND RE-WRITTEN_
BY
W. BUTT, M.A.
FOR MANY YEARS HON. SECRETARY OF THE ROYAL TOXOPHILITE SOCIETY
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1887
_All rights reserved_
PREFACE.
No excuse need be offered to archers for presenting to them a new
edition of the late Mr. Horace A. Ford's work on the Theory and Practice
of Archery. It first appeared as a series of articles in the columns of
the 'Field,' which were republished in book form in 1856; a second
edition was published in 1859, which has been long out of print, and no
book on the subject has since appeared. Except, therefore, for a few
copies of this book, which from time to time may be obtained from the
secondhand booksellers, no guide is obtainable by which the young archer
can learn the principles of his art. On hearing that it was in
contemplation to reprint the second edition of Mr. Ford's book, it
seemed to me a pity that this should be done without revision, and
without bringing it up to the level of the knowledge of the present day.
I therefore purchased the copyright of the work from Mr. Ford's
representatives, and succeeded in inducing Mr. Butt, who was for many
years the secretary of the Royal Toxophilite Society, to undertake the
revision.
A difficulty occurred at the outset as to the form in which this
revision should be carried out. If it had been possible, there would
have been advantages in printing Mr. Ford's text untouched, and in
giving Mr. Butt's comments in the form of notes. This course would,
however, have involved printing much matter that has become entirely
obsolete, and, moreover, not only would the bulk of the book have been
increased to a greater extent even than has actually been found
necessary, but also Mr. Butt's portion of the work, which contains the
information of the latest date, and is therefore of highest practical
value to young archers, would have been relegated to a secondary and
somewhat inconvenient position. Mr. Butt has therefore rewritten the
book, and it would hardly perhaps be giving him too much credit to
describe the present work as a Treatise on the Theory and Practice of
Archery by him, based on the work of the late Horace A. Ford.
In writing his book, Mr. Ford committed to paper the principles by means
of which he secured his unrivalled position as an archer. After
displaying a clever trick, it is the practice of some conjurers to
pretend to take the spectators into their confidence, and to show them
'how it is done.' In such cases the audience, as a rule, is not much the
wiser; but a more satisfactory result has followed from Mr. Ford's
instructions.
Mr. Ford was the founder of modern scientific archery. First by example,
and then by precept, he changed what before was 'playing at bows and
arrows' into a scientific pastime. He held the Champion's medal for
eleven years in succession--from 1849 to 1859. He also won it again in
1867. After this time, although he was seen occasionally in the archery
field, his powers began to wane. He died in the year 1880. His best
scores, whether at public matches or in private practice, have never
been surpassed. But, although no one has risen who can claim that on him
has fallen the mantle of Mr. Ford, his work was not in vain. Thanks to
the more scientific and rational principles laid down by this great
archer, any active lad nowadays can, with a few months' practice, make
scores which would have been thought fabulous when George III. was king.
The Annual Grand National Archery Meetings were started in the year 1844
at York, and at the second meeting, in 1845, held also at York, when the
Double York Round was shot for the first time, Mr. Muir obtained the
championship, with 135 hits, and a score of 537. Several years elapsed
before the championship was won with a score of over 700. Nowadays, a
man who cannot make 700 is seldom in the first ten, and, moreover, the
general level both among ladies and gentlemen continues to rise. We have
not yet, however, found any individual archer capable of beating in
public the marvellous record of 245 hits and 1,251 score, made by Mr.
Ford at Cheltenham in 1857.
One chief cause of the improvement Mr. Ford effected was due to his
recognising the fallacy in the time-honoured saying that the archer
should draw to the ear. When drawn to the ear, part of the arrow must
necessarily lie outside the direct line of sight from the eye to the
gold. Consequently, if the arrow points apparently to the gold, it must
fly to the left of the target when loosed, and in order to hit the
target, the archer who draws to the ear must aim at some point to the
right. Mr. Ford laid down the principle that the arrow must be drawn
directly beneath the aiming eye, and lie in its whole length in the same
vertical plane as the line between the eye and the object aimed at.
It is true that in many representations of ancient archers the arrow is
depicted as being drawn beyond the eye, and consequently outside the
line of sight. No doubt for war purposes it was a matter of importance
to shoot a long heavy arrow, and if an arrow of a standard yard long or
anything like it was used, it would be necessary for a man to draw it
beyond his eye, unless he had very long arms indeed. But in war, the
force of the blow was of more importance than accuracy of aim, and Mr.
Ford saw that in a pastime where accuracy of aim was the main object,
this old rule no longer held good. This was only one of many
improvements effected by Mr. Ford; but it is a fact that this discovery,
which seems obvious enough now that it is stated, was the main cause of
the marvellous improvement which has taken place in shooting.
The second chapter in Mr. Ford's book, entitled 'A Glance at the Career
of the English Long-Bow,' has been omitted. It contained no original
matter, being compiled chiefly from the well-known works of Roberts,
Moseley, and Hansard. The scope of the present work is practical, not
historical; and to deal with the history of the English long-bow in a
satisfactory manner would require a bulky volume. An adequate history of
the bow in all ages and in all countries has yet to be written.
In the chapters on the bow, the arrow, and the rest of the paraphernalia
of archery, much that Mr. Ford wrote, partly as the result of the
practice and experiments of himself and others, and partly as drawn from
the works of previous writers on the subject, still holds good; but
improvements have been effected since his time, and Mr. Butt has been
able to add a great deal of useful information gathered from the long
experience of himself and his contemporaries.
The chapters which deal with Ascham's well-known five points of
archery--standing, nocking, drawing, holding, and loosing--contain the
most valuable part of Mr. Ford's teaching, and Mr. Butt has endeavoured
to develope further the principles laid down by Mr. Ford. The chapters
on ancient and modern archery practice have been brought up to date, and
Mr. Butt has given in full the best scores made by ladies or gentlemen
at every public meeting which has been held since the establishment of
the Grand National Archery Society down to 1886.
The chapter on Robin Hood has been omitted for the same reasons which
determined the omission of the chapter on the career of the English
long-bow, and the rules for the formation of archery societies, which
are cumbrous and old-fashioned, have also been left out.
The portrait of Major C. H. Fisher, champion archer for the years
1871-2-3-4, is reproduced from a photograph taken by Mr. C. E. Nesham,
the present holder of the champion's medal.
In conclusion, it is hoped that the publication of this book may help to
increase the popularity of archery in this country. It is a pastime
which can never die out. The love of the bow and arrow seems almost
universally planted in the human heart. But its popularity fluctuates,
and though it is now more popular than at some periods, it is by no
means so universally practised as archers would desire. One of its
greatest charms is that it is an exercise which is not confined to men.
Ladies have attained a great and increasing amount of skill with the
bow, and there is no doubt that it is more suited to the fairer sex than
some of the more violent forms of athletics now popular. Archery has
perhaps suffered to some extent from comparison with the rifle. The
rifleman may claim for his weapon that its range is greater and that it
shoots more accurately than the bow. The first position may be granted
freely, the second only with reserve. Given, a well-made weapon of
Spanish or Italian yew, and arrows of the best modern make, and the
accuracy of the bow is measured only by the skill of the shooter. If he
can loose his arrow truly, it will hit the mark; more than that can be
said of no weapon. That a rifleman will shoot more accurately at ranges
well within the power of the bow than an archer of similar skill is
certain; but the reason is that the bow is the more difficult, and
perhaps to some minds on that account the more fascinating, weapon. The
reason why it is more difficult is obvious, and in stating it we see one
of the many charms of archery. The rifleman has but to aim straight and
to hold steady, and he will hit the bull's-eye. But the archer has also
to supply the motive force which propels his arrow. As he watches the
graceful flight of a well-shot shaft, he can feel a pride in its
swiftness and strength which a rifleman cannot share. And few pastimes
can furnish a more beautiful sight than an arrow speeding swiftly and
steadily from the bow, till with a rapturous thud it strikes the gold at
a hundred yards.
C. J. LONGMAN.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. OF THE ENGLISH LONG-BOW 1
II. HOW TO CHOOSE A BOW, AND HOW TO USE AND PRESERVE
IT WHEN CHOSEN 17
III. OF THE ARROW 27
IV. OF THE STRING, BRACER, AND SHOOTING-GLOVE 44
V. OF THE GREASE-BOX, TASSEL, BELT, ETC. 67
VI. OF BRACING, OR STRINGING, AND NOCKING 78
VII. OF ASCHAM'S FIVE POINTS, POSITION STANDING, ETC. 83
VIII. DRAWING 94
IX. AIMING 107
X. OF HOLDING AND LOOSING 122
XI. OF DISTANCE SHOOTING, AND DIFFERENT ROUNDS 132
XII. ARCHERY SOCIETIES, 'RECORDS,' ETC. 140
XIII. THE PUBLIC ARCHERY MEETINGS AND THE DOUBLE
YORK AND OTHER ROUNDS 148
XIV. CLUB SHOOTING AND PRIVATE PRACTICE 279
_PLATES._
PORTRAIT OF MR. FORD _Frontispiece_
PORTRAIT OF MAJOR C. H. FISHER _To face p. 122_
ARCHERY
CHAPTER I.
_OF THE ENGLISH LONG-BOW_
Of the various implements of archery, the bow demands the first
consideration. It has at one period or another formed one of the chief
weapons of war and the chase in almost every nation, and is, indeed, at
the present day in use for both these purposes in various parts of the
world. It has differed as much in form as in material, having been made
curved, angular, and straight; of wood, metal, horn, cane, whalebone, of
wood and horn, or of wood and the entrails and sinews of animals and
fish combined: sometimes of the rudest workmanship, sometimes finished
with the highest perfection of art.
No work exists which aims at giving an exhaustive description of the
various forms of bows which have been used by different nations in
ancient and modern times, and such an undertaking would be far beyond
the scope of the present work. The only form of the bow with which we
are now concerned is the _English long-bow_, and especially with the
English long-bow as now used for target-shooting as opposed to the more
powerful weapon used by our forefathers for the purposes of war. The
cross-bow never took a very strong hold on the English nation as
compared with the long-bow, and, as it has never been much employed for
recreation, it need not be here described.
It is a matter of surprise and regret that so few genuine specimens of
the _old_ English long-bow should remain in existence at the present
day. One in the possession of the late Mr. Peter Muir of Edinburgh is
said to have been used in the battle of Flodden in 1513: it is of
self-yew, a single stave, apparently of English growth, and very roughly
made. Its strength has been supposed to be between 80 and 90 lbs.; but
as it could not be tested without great risk of breaking it, its actual
strength remains a matter of conjecture only. This bow was presented to
Mr. P. Muir by Colonel J. Ferguson, who obtained it from a border house
contiguous to Flodden Field, where it had remained for many generations,
with the reputation of having been used at that battle.
There are likewise in the Tower two bows that were taken out of the
'Mary Rose,' a vessel sunk in the reign of Henry VIII. They are
unfinished weapons, made out of single staves of magnificent yew,
probably of foreign growth, quite round from end to end, tapered from
the middle to each end, and without horns. It is difficult to estimate
their strength, but it probably does not exceed from 65 to 70 lbs.
Another weapon now in the Museum of the United Service Institution came
from the same vessel. Probably the oldest specimen extant of the English
long-bow is in the possession of Mr. C. J. Longman. It was dug out of
the peat near Cambridge, and is unfortunately in very bad condition. It
can never have been a very powerful weapon. Geologists say that it
cannot be more recent than the twelfth or thirteenth century, and may be
much more ancient. Indeed, from its appearance it is more probable that
it is a relic of the weaker archery of the Saxons than that it is a
weapon made after the Normans had introduced their more robust shooting
into this country.
Before the discussion of the practical points connected with the bow is
commenced, it must be borne in mind that these pages profess to give
the result of actual experience, and nothing that is advanced is mere
theory or opinion unsupported by proof, but the result only of long,
patient, and practical investigation and of constant and untiring
experiment. Whenever, therefore, one kind of wood, or one shape of bow,
or one mode or principle of shooting, &c., is spoken of as being better
than another, or the best of all, it is asserted to be so simply
because, after a full and fair trial of every other, the result of such
investigation bore out that assertion. No doubt some of the points
contended for were in Mr. Ford's time in opposition to the then
prevailing opinions and practice, and were considered innovations. The
value of theory, however, is just in proportion as it can be borne out
by practical results; and in appealing to the success of his own
practice as a proof of the correctness of the opinions and principles
upon which it was based, he professed to be moved by no feeling of
conceit or vanity, but wholly and solely by a desire to give as much
force as possible to the recommendations put forth, and to obtain a fair
and impartial trial of them.
The English bows now in use may be divided primarily into two
classes--the _self-bow_ and the _backed bow_; and, to save space and
confusion, the attention must first be confined to the self-bow,
reserving what has to be said respecting the backed bow. Much, however,
that is said of the one applies equally to the other.
The self-bow of a single stave is the real old English weapon--the one
with which the mighty deeds that rendered this country renowned in
bygone times were performed; for until the decline and disappearance of
archery in war, as a consequence of the superiority of firearms, and the
consequent cessation of the importation of bow-staves, backed bows were
unknown. Ascham, who wrote in the sixteenth century, when archery had
already degenerated into little else than an amusement, mentions none
other than self-bows; and it may therefore be concluded that such only
existed in his day. Of the woods for self-bows, yew beyond all question
carries off the palm. Other woods have been, and still are, in use, such
as lance, cocus, Washaba, rose, snake, laburnum, and others; but they
may be summarily dismissed (with the exception of lance, of which more
hereafter) with the remark that self-bows made of these woods are all so
radically bad, heavy in hand, apt to jar, dull in cast, liable to
chrysal, and otherwise prone to break, that no archer should use them so
long as a self-yew or a good backed bow is within reach.
The only wood, then, for self-bows is yew, and the best yew is of
foreign growth (Spanish or Italian), though occasionally staves of
English wood are met with which almost rival those of foreign growth.
This, however, is the exception; as a rule, the foreign wood is the
best: it is straighter, and finer in grain, freer from pins, stiffer and
denser in quality, and requires less bulk in proportion to the strength
of the bow.
The great bane of yew is its liability to knots and _pins_, and rare
indeed it is to find a six-feet stave without one or more of these
undesirable companions. Where, however, a pin occurs, it may easily be
rendered comparatively harmless by the simple plan of raising it--i.e.
by leaving a little more wood than elsewhere round the pin in the belly
and back of the bow. This strengthens the particular point, and
diminishes the danger of a chrysal or splinter. A pin resembles a small
piece of wire, is very hard and troublesome to the bowmaker's tools,
runs right through the bow-stave from belly to back, and is very
frequently the point at which a chrysal starts. This chrysal (also
called by old writers a 'pinch') is a sort of disease which attacks the
belly of a bow. At first it nearly resembles a scratch or crack in the
varnish. Its direction is always diagonal to the line of the bow, and it
gradually eats deeply into the bow and makes it appear as if it had been
attacked with a chopper. If many small chrysals appear, much danger need
not be feared, though their progress should be watched; but if one
chrysal becomes deeply rooted, the bow should be sent to the bowmaker
for a new belly. A chrysal usually occurs in new bows, and mostly arises
from the wood being imperfectly seasoned; but it occasionally will occur
in a well-seasoned bow that has been lent to a friend who uses a longer
draw and dwells longer on the point of aim, thus using the weapon beyond
its wont. Another danger to the life of a bow arises from splinters in
the back. These mostly occur in wet weather, when the damp, through
failure of the varnish, has been able to get into the wood. Directly the
rising of a splinter is observed, that part of the bow should be
effectually glued and wrapped before it is again used. After this
treatment the bow will be none the worse, except in appearance. Yew and
hickory only should be used for the backs of bows. Canadian elm, which
is occasionally used for backs, is particularly liable to splinter. It
is obvious whenever a bow is broken the commencement of the fracture has
been in a splinter or a chrysal, according as the first failure was in
the back or the belly; therefore in the diagnosis of these disorders
archers have to be thankful for small mercies. The grain of the wood
should be as even and fine as possible, with the feathers running quite
straight, and as nearly as possible consecutively from the handle to the
horn in each limb, and without curls; also, care should be taken, in the
manufacture of a bow, that the sap or back be of even depth, and not in
some places reduced to the level of the belly. The feathering of a yew
bow means the gradual disappearance of some of the grain as the
substance of the bow is reduced between the handle and horn. A curl is
caused by a sudden turn in the grain of the wood, so that this
feathering is abruptly interrupted and reversed before it reappears.
This is a great source of weakness in a bow, both in belly and back.
There should be nothing of the nature of feathering in the back of a
bow, and it is believed that the best back is that in which nothing but
the bark has been removed from the stave. Any interruption of the grain
of the back is a source of weakness and a hotbed of splinters. A bow
that follows the string should never be straightened, for the same
reason that anything of the nature of a carriage-spring should on no
account be reversed in application. The wood should be thoroughly well
seasoned and of a good sound hard quality. The finest and closest dark
grain is undoubtedly the most beautiful and uncommon; but the open or
less close-grained wood, and wood of paler complexion, are nearly, if
not quite, as good for use.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.--A GOOD BOW UNSTRUNG.]
[Illustration: FIG. 2.--A GOOD BOW WHEN STRUNG.]
[Illustration: FIG. 3.--A BADLY REFLEXED BOW THAT BENDS IN THE HAND.]
[Illustration: FIG. 4.--A GOOD SHAPE FOR A NEW BOW.]
[Illustration: FIG. 5.--A BOW THAT FOLLOWS STRING: STRUNG AND UNSTRUNG.]
[Illustration: FIG. 6.--A REFLEX BOW: STRUNG AND UNSTRUNG.
(Figs. 5 and 6 show the different distances which the limbs of
well-shaped and of reflex bows have to go to their rest when unstrung.)]
[Illustration: FIG. 7.
_Doublefish_ _Singlefish_]
The self-yew bow may be a single-stave--that is to say, made of a
single piece of wood, or may be made of two pieces dovetailed or united
in the handle by what is called a fish. In a single-stave bow the
quality of the wood will not be quite the same in the two limbs, the
wood of the lower growth being denser than that of the upper; whilst in
the grafted bow, made of the same piece of wood, cut or split apart, and
re-united in the handle, the two limbs will be exactly of the same
nature. The joint, or _fishing_ (fig. 7), should be double, not single.
The difference, however, between these two sorts of self-yew bows is so
slight as to be immaterial. In any unusually damp or variable climate
single staves should be prepared; and in the grafted bows care should be
taken in ascertaining that they be firmly put together in the middle. A
single-stave bow has usually a somewhat shorter handle, as it becomes
unnecessary to cover so much of the centre of the bow when the covering
is not used as a cover to the joint, but for the purpose of holding the
bow only.
In shape all bows should be full and inflexible in the centre, tapering
gradually to each horn. They should never bend in the handle, as bows of
this shape (i.e. a continuous curve from horn to horn) always jar most
disagreeably in the hand. A perfectly graduated bend, from a stiff
unbending centre of at least nine inches, towards each horn is the best.
Some self-yew bows are naturally reflexed, others are straight, and some
follow the string more or less. The slightly reflexed bows are perhaps
more pleasing to the eye, as one cannot quite shake off the belief that
the shape of Cupid's bow is agreeable. Bows which follow the string
somewhat are perhaps the most pleasant to use.
The handle of the bow, which in size should be regulated to the grasp of
each archer, should be in such a position that the upper part of it may
be from an inch to an inch and a quarter above the _true centre_ of the
bow, or the point in the handle whereon the bow will balance. If this
centre be lower down in the handle, as is usual in bows of Scotch
manufacture, the cast of the bow may be somewhat improved, but at the
cost of a tendency to that unpleasant feeling of kicking and jarring in
the hand. Again, if the true centre be higher, or, as is the case in the
old unaltered Flemish bows, at the point where the arrow lies on the
hand, the cast will be found to suffer disadvantageously. If the handle
be properly grasped (inattention to which will endanger the bow's being
pulled out of shape), the fulcrum, in drawing, will be about the true
balancing centre, and the root of the thumb will be placed thereon.
Considering a bow to consist of three members--a handle and two
limbs--the upper limb, being somewhat longer, must of necessity bend a
trifle more, and this it should do. The most usual covering for the
handle is plush; but woollen binding-cloth, leather, and india-rubber
are also in constant use.
The piece of mother-of-pearl, ivory, or other hard substance usually
inserted in the handle of the bow, at the point where the arrow lies, is
intended to prevent the wearing away of the bow by the friction of the
arrow; but this precaution overreaches itself, as in the course of an
unusually long life the most hard-working bow will scarcely lose as much
by this friction as must, to start with, be cut away for this insertion.
The length of the bow, which is calculated from nock to nock--and this
length will vary a little from the actual length, according as it may be
said to hold itself upright or stoop, i.e. follow the string--should be
regulated by its strength and the length of the arrow to be used with
it. It may be taken as a safe rule that the stronger the bow the greater
its length should be; and so also the longer the arrow the longer should
be the bow. For those who use arrows of the usual length of from 27 to
28 inches, with bows of the strength of from 45 lbs. to 55 lbs., a
useful and safe length will be not less than 5 ft. 10 in. If this length
of arrow or weight of bow be increased or diminished, the length of bow
may be proportionally increased or diminished, taking as the two
extremes 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 feet. No bow need be much outside either of
these measurements. It may be admitted that a short bow will cast
somewhat farther than a longer one of the same weight, but this extra
cast can only be gained by a greater risk of breakage. As bows are
usually weighed and marked by the bowmakers for a 28-inch arrow fully
drawn up, a greater or less pull will take more or less out of them, and
the archer's calculations must be made accordingly.
To increase or diminish the power of a bow, it is usual to shorten it in
the former case, and to reduce the bulk in the latter; but to shorten a
bow will probably shorten its life too, and mayhap spoil it, unless it
be certain that it is superfluously long or sufficiently strong in the
handle. On the other hand, to reduce a bow judiciously, if it need to be
weaker, can do it no harm; but the reduction should not be carried quite
up to the handle. It is a good plan to choose a bow by quality,
regardless of strength, and have the best bow that can be procured
reduced to the strength suitable. In all cases the horns should be well
and truly set on, and the nocks should be of sufficient bulk to enclose
safely the extremities of the limbs of the bow running up into them, and
the edges of the nocks should be made most carefully smooth. If the edge
of the nock be sharp and rough, the string must be frayed, and in
consequence break sooner or later, and endanger the safety of the bow.
The lower nock is not unfrequently put on or manufactured a trifle
sideways as to its groove on the belly side. This is done with a view to
compensate the irregularity of the loop: but this is a mistake, as it is
quite unnecessary in the case of a loop, and must be liable to put the
string out of position when there is a second eye to the string--and
this second eye every archer who pays due regard to the preservation of
his bows and strings should be most anxious to adopt as soon as
possible.
From all that can be learned respecting the backed bow, it would appear
that its use was not adopted in this country until archery was in its
last stage of decline as a weapon of war, when, the bow degenerating
into an instrument of amusement, the laws relating to the importation of
yew staves from foreign countries were evaded, and the supply
consequently ceased. It was then that the bowyers hit upon the plan of
uniting a tough to an elastic wood, and so managed to make a very
efficient weapon out of very inferior materials. This cannot fairly be
claimed as an invention of the English bowyers, but is an adaptation of
the plan which had long been in use amongst the Turks, Persians,
Tartars, Chinese, and many other nations, including Laplanders, whose
bows were made of two pieces of wood united with isinglass. As far as
regards the English backed bow (this child of necessity), the end of the
sixteenth century is given as the period of its introduction, and the
Kensals of Manchester are named as the first makers--bows of whose make
may be still in existence and use--and these were generally made of yew
backed with hickory or wych-elm. At the time of the revival of
archery--at the close of the last century, and again fifty years
ago--all backed bows were held in great contempt by any that could
afford self-yews, and were always slightingly spoken of as 'tea-caddy'
bows; meaning that they were made of materials fit for nothing but
ornamental joinery, Tunbridge ware, &c.
The backed bows of the present day are made of two or more strips of the
same or different woods securely glued, and compressed together as
firmly as possible, in frames fitted with powerful screws, which frames
are capable of being set to any shape. Various woods are used, most of
which, though of different quality, make serviceable bows. For the backs
we have the sap of yew, hickory, American, Canadian, or wych-elm,
hornbeam, &c.; and for the bellies, yew, lance, fustic, snake, Washaba,
and letter-wood, which is the straight grained part of snake, and some
others. Of all these combinations Mr. Ford gave the strongest preference
to bows of yew backed with yew. These he considered the only possible
rivals of the self-yew. Next in rank he classed bows of yew backed with
hickory. Bows made of lance backed with hickory, when the woods used are
well seasoned and of choice quality, are very steady and trustworthy,
but not silky and pleasant in drawing like bows made of yew. One
advantage of this combination of bow is that both these woods can be had
of sufficient length to avoid the trouble in making and insecurity in
use of the joint in the handle. Of bows into which more than two woods
are introduced, the combination of yew for the belly, fustic or other
good hard wood for the centre, and hickory for the back cannot well be
improved upon, and such bows have been credited with excellent scores.
There is also a three-wooded modification of the lance and hickory bow.
In this a tapering strip of hard wood is introduced between the back and
belly; this strip passes through the handle and disappears at about a
foot from the horn in each limb. The lancewood bows are the cheapest,
and next to these follow the lance-and-hickory bows, and then those of
the description last mentioned. On this account beginners who do not
wish to go to much expense whilst they are, as it were, testing their
capacity for the successful prosecution of this sport, would do well to
make a start with a bow of one or other of these descriptions. It will
often be useful to lend to another beginner, or to a friend, to whom it
might not be wise to lend a more valuable bow; or it may even be of use
to the owner at a pinch. Bows have often been made of many more than
three pieces; but nothing is gained by further complications, unless it
be necessary in the way of repair.
Next in importance to the consideration of the material of which backed
bows should be made comes the treatment of their shape. Judging from
such specimens of backed bows, made by Waring and others, before the
publication of Mr. H. A. Ford's articles on archery in the 'Field,' as
have survived to the present day, and whose survival may be chiefly
attributed to the fact that they were so utterly harsh and disagreeable
in use that it was but little use they ever got, the author was
probably right in saying that they all bent in the handle more or less
when drawn, and were too much reflexed. There is but little doubt
that--as the joint in the handle, necessitating extra bulk and strength,
could be dispensed with in these bows--the makers considered it an
excellent opportunity to give their goods what (however erroneously) was
then considered the best shape (when drawn), namely, the perfect arc;
and this harmonious shape they obtained most successfully by making the
bows comparatively weak in the handle and unnecessarily strong towards
the horns; with the result that these 'tea-caddy bows' met the
contemptuous fate they well deserved. Modern archers have to be thankful
to Mr. Ford for the vast improvement in backed bows (even more than in
the case of self-bows), which are now perfectly steady in hand, and
taper gradually, and as much as is compatible with the safety of the
limbs, and this in spite of their being still made somewhat more reflex
when new than appears necessary in the manufacture of self-yew bows. Yet
Mr. Ford was perfectly right to condemn all reflexity that does not
result in a bow becoming either straight or somewhat to follow the
string after it has been in use sufficiently long for its necessary
training to its owner's style. The first quality of a bow is steadiness.
Now this quality is put in peril either by a want of exact balance
between the two limbs--when the recoil of one limb is quicker than that
of the other--or by undue reflexity. These causes of unsteadiness occur
in self-bows as well as in backed bows, and are felt in the shape of a
jar or kick in the hand when loosed. This unsteadiness from want of
balance in the limbs may be cured by a visit of the bow to the maker for
such fresh tillering (as it is called) as will correct the fault of one
or other limb. If the unsteadiness arise from excessive reflexity, which
cannot be reduced by use, a further tapering of the limbs must be
adopted. No bow of any sort that cannot be completely cured of kicking
should be kept, as no steady shooting can be expected from such a bow.
A bow that is much reflexed will be more liable to chrysals and
splinters, as the belly has to be more compressed and the back more
strained than in a bow of proper shape; also, such a bow is much more
destructive to strings, as a greater strain is put upon the strings by
the recoil of the limbs than is the case with a bow that follows the
string or bends inwards naturally. It is the uneven or excessive strain
upon the string after the discharge of the arrow that causes the kicking
of the bow.
When the question arises, 'Which is the best sort of bow?' it is found
that the solution has only been rendered more complicated since 1859 by
the great improvement in the manufacture of various sorts of backed
bows: as the following remarks, then applied to the comparison between
the self-yew and the yew-backed yew only, must now be extended to all
the best specimens of backed bows of different sorts. The advocates of
the self-yew affirm that good specimens of their pet weapon are the
sweetest in use, the steadiest in hand, the most certain in cast, and
the most beautiful to the eye; and in all these points, with the
exception of certainty of cast, they are borne out by the fact. This
being the state of the case, how is it, then, that a doubt can still
remain as to which it is most profitable for an archer to use? Here are
three out of four points (two of which are most important) in which it
is admitted that the self-yew is superior; and yet, after much practical
and experimental testing of all sorts, it must be left to the taste and
judgment of each man to decide for himself. The fact undoubtedly is,
that the self-yew is the most perfect weapon. But it is equally an
undoubted fact that it requires more delicate handling; since, its cast
lying very much in the last three or four inches of its pull, any
variation in this respect, or difference in quickness or otherwise of
loose, varies the elevation of the arrow to a much greater extent than
the same variation of pull or loose in the others, whose cast is more
uniform throughout. Now, were a man perfect in his physical powers, or
always in first-rate shooting condition, there would be no doubt as to
which bow he should use, as he would in this case be able to attain to
the difficult nicety required in the management of the self-yew; but as
this constant perfection never can be maintained, the superior merits of
this bow are partially counteracted by the extreme difficulty of doing
justice to them; and the degree of harshness of pull and unsteadiness in
hand of the others being but trifling, the greater certainty with which
they accomplish the elevation counterbalances, upon average results,
their inferiority in other respects. Another advantage the self-yew
possesses is, that it is not so liable to injury from damp as are the
backed bows; but then the latter are much less costly, and, with common
care, need cause no fear of harm from damp, as an inch of lapping at
either end covering the junction with the horns will preserve them from
this danger. As regards chrysals, and breakage from other causes than
damp, bows of all sorts of wood are about equally liable to failure. The
main results of the comparison, then, resolve themselves into these two
prominent features: namely, that the self-yew bow, from its steadiness,
sweetness, and absence of vibration, ensures the straightness of the
shot better than backed bows; whilst the latter, owing to the regularity
of their cast not being confined quite to a hair's breadth of pull,
carry off the palm for greater certainty in the elevation of the shot.
It is almost unnecessary to say that there are bad bows of all sorts,
many being made of materials that are fit for nothing but firewood; and
yet the bowmakers seem to be almost justified in making up such
materials by the fact that occasionally the most ungainly bow will prove
itself almost invaluable in use, while a perfect beauty in appearance
may turn out a useless slug.
Though it may be no easy matter to decide which particular sort of bow
an individual archer should adopt, yet, when that individual has once
ascertained the description of bow that appears to suit him best, he
will be wise to confine his attention to that same sort in his future
acquisition of bows. An archer who shoots much will find his bowmaker's
account a serious annual matter if he keep none but the best self-yew
bows; and therefore any who find it necessary to count the cost of this
sport should do their best to adapt themselves to the cheaper though not
much inferior backed bows. This also may be further said of the
difference between self-yews and backed bows--namely, that there appears
to be a sort of individuality attached to each self-yew bow, apart from
the peculiarities of its class, which makes it difficult (not regarding
the cost) to remedy the loss of a favourite self-yew bow. It is very
much easier to replace any specimen of the other sorts of bows, as there
is much less variation of character in each class.
The 'carriage bow' is made to divide into two pieces by means of a metal
socket in the handle, after the fashion of the joint of a fishing-rod.
The object of this make of bow is to render it more convenient as a
travelling-companion; but, as the result is a bow heavy in hand and
unpleasant in use, the remedy appears to be worse than the disease.
It is often asserted that the best bows should be made of steel, as
superior in elasticity to wood; but this is not borne out by the results
of experiment. The late Hon. R. Hely-Hutchinson, a member of the R. Tox.
Soc., took a great deal of pains to have long-bows manufactured of steel
both in England and in Belgium. The best of these, weighing about 50
lbs. for the 28-inch draw, with the aim and elevation which with a good
wooden bow would carry an arrow 100 yards, scarcely carried its shaft as
far as 60 yards, so deadly slow appeared the recoil; and besides this,
the actual weight in the hand of the implement was so considerable that
it would be a most serious addition to the toil of the day, on account
of its being so frequently held out at arm's length, to say nothing of
its having to be carried about all day.