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:

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

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.”

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:

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,

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

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

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:

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:—

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—

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

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

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

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

But hold—

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

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

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:

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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