Chapter IV: Part 4

[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.

But hold—

[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.

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

[Sidenote: The Chace. B. +ii.+]

The king of brutes
In broken roarings breathes his last, the bear
Grumbles in death; nor can his spotted skin,
Though sleek it shine, with varied beauties gay,
Save the proud pard from unrelenting fate!

[Sidenote: Xenophon de Venatione c. +i.+]

The most lively and striking picture of classic Venation, _in genere_, which I have met with in the Latin language, is contained in one of Seneca’s tragedies; which, let them be the productions of whom they may, contain much brilliant descriptive poetry. The whole arrangement of the field is admirably given in the Hippolytus. The duties of the δικτυαγωγὸς, ἰχνευτὴς, κυναγωγὸς, ἀρκυωρὸς, and λινόπτης, are successively detailed in the prologue, spoken by this rigid paragon of chastity himself, (σωφροσύνῃ καὶ ὁσιότητι μακαρισθεὶς,) in the character of Magister Venationis.

[Sidenote: Senecæ Hippolyt. Act. +i.+ sc. 1.]

“Ite umbrosas cingite sylvas,
Summaque montis juga Cecropii,
Celeri plantâ lustrate vagi
Quæ saxosa loca Parnethi
Subjecta jacent; et quæ Thriasiis
Vallibus amnis rapidâ currens
Verberat undâ: scandite colles
Semper canos nive Riphæâ.
Hàc hàc alii, quà nemus altâ
Texitur alno; quà prata jacent,
Quæ roriferâ mulcens aurâ
Zephyrus vernas evocat herbas,” &c.

says the son of Theseus to his attendant huntsmen—describing the local scenery of different parts of Attica, most abundant in game—and allotting them their respective stations and duties, with the _mute_ limehounds, (“canibus tacitis,”) the _noisy_ pack, and divers implements of the sylvan chase:[329]

dum lux dubia est;
Dum signa pedum roscida tellus
Impressa tenet, alius raras
Cervice gravi portare plagas,
Alius teretes properet laqueos.
Picta rubenti linea pinnâ
Vano cludat terrore feras,
Tibi libretur missile lethum.
Tu grave, dextrâ lævâque simul,
Robur lato dirige ferro.
Tu præcipites clamore feras
Subsessor ages: tu jam victor
Curvo solves viscera cultro.

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg L. +i.+ 367.]

So much for the furniture of the chase, its inventors, and practice, by way of introduction to our triple classification of the Canes Venatici of the classic ages. We will now proceed, οἶμον ἐπὶ σκυλάκων.

CLASS I.

In the first class of the triple division—_quibus est audacia præceps_, or _gravioribus aptæ morsibus_—are included all the canes _pugnaces_ or _bellicosi_—pugnacious dogs of war.

The Mede, Celt, Ser or Indian, Albanian, Iberian, Lycaonian or Arcadian, Hyrcanian, Locrian, Libyan, Egyptian, Pannonian, Magnesian, Molossian, Briton, Athamanian, Acarnanian, and a few others nearly allied.

CLASS II.

In the second class of Canes Venatici, under the title of _nare sagaces_, are placed all keen-nosed dogs of scent.

The Spartan, Cretan, Carian, Etolian or Calydonian, Metagon, Belgian, Gelonian, Umbrian, Tuscan, Armenian, Petronius, Agassæus or Briton, Segusian, and others of inferior note.

CLASS III.

In the third class, entitled _pedibus celeres_, those dogs alone are comprehended, which ran on sight of their game, as the Vertragus, and possibly the Sicamber: of the latter, however, I know nothing beyond the meagre allusion of Gratius to his speed, and the apparent distinction made between him and the Vertraha, in the Cynegeticon of this poet:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 201.]

Petronios (sic fama) canes, volucresque Sicambros,
Et pictam maculâ Vertraham delige falsâ.

[Sidenote: Strabo L. +vii.+]

Janus Vlitius considers the Sicambrian to be the Gallo-Belgic hound of more modern days, and identical with the Ovidian canis Gallicus: but the latter is more probably the Vertraha of Gratius, the οὐέρτραγος of the younger Xenophon. The Sicambrian people, strictly speaking, were Germans, and not Belgians; as they dwelt on the eastern, or Germanic side of the Rhine.

[Sidenote: Cynographia Curiosa c. +ii.+ 12.]

On first comparing the different types of the Oppianic Canes Venatici with those of the Latin Cynegetica, I was misled by the authority of annotators to an admission that the type, so particularly described by the Greek poet in his first book, μηκεδανὸν κρατερὸν δέμας, κ. τ. λ. vs. 401. ad vs. 412. was of the sagacious hound, the Petronian or such-like. But this interpretation, in addition to the want of resemblance of the picture to the supposed original, implies, in a notorious copyist of his predecessors’ labours and a keen observer of natural history, the entire omission of the swiftest of the canine tribe, the canis Gallicus or Vertragus; which, if known by fame in the age of Gratius, alluded to by him in his Cynegeticon, accurately portrayed by Ovid as to his style of running, and subsequently, and more minutely, by the younger Xenophon, could not, under any balance of probabilities, have been lost to the sporting world, between the time of Arrian and that at which Nemesian flourished:—by the latter of whom the greyhound is most beautifully depicted, and the mode of initiating greyhound puppies in the hare-course detailed with the hand of a master. I am, therefore, on more mature reflection, inclined to consider the passage referred to descriptive of the greyhound type, the third class of ancient hounds, the family of _pedibus celeres_.[330] That Rittershusius makes no allusion to such a resemblance, does not surprise me; for, by pointing out a supposed defect of the picture, compared with a sketch of Gratius, this learned and laborious commentator proves that he was not aware of the variety of dog intended to be delineated by his author—perhaps himself unacquainted with its type in nature. The very feature of the δολίχοσκιος οὐρὴ, condemned by this editor as burthensome to Canes _cursores_, with a preference of the “cauda brevis” of Gratius, (suited to the Canes _bellicosi_ alone,) is so remarkable and useful an additament to the greyhound’s form, that, instead of burthening, it essentially assists him as a Canis _cursor_, (“ad conversiones in cursu reciproco regendas,”) and much strengthens the resemblance of the Oppianic picture to its Celtic prototype in Arrian.

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 413.]

[Sidenote: Ejusdem vs. 467.]

The conclusion of this sketch is followed by that of the Canis _pugnax_ or _bellicosus_ of the first class, hereafter cited, θοῦροι δ’ αὖθ’ ἕτεροι, κ. τ. λ.; and this again by the amusing and lively picture of the keen-scented beagle or hare-hound—σκυλάκων γένος ἄλκιμον ἰχνευτήρων, κ. τ. λ.—the representative of which is taken from Britain, and constitutes, according to my theory, Oppian’s specimen (rather a sorry one, it must be allowed) of the second class of Canes Venatici, termed _nare sagaces_. Are we not, then, allowed to conclude that the same tripartite distinction of Canes Venatici was acknowledged by the Cilician poet, as we have already traced in the more systematic authorities cited?[331] The latter did not escape the notice of the learned writer of the Venatio Novantiqua, himself an experienced and ardent sportsman; but he has not corroborated the earlier classification of others with the more recent evidence of the poet of Anazarbus—indeed, he seems to view the Oppianic hound (Cyn. +i.+ 401.) as _sagaci-celer_, and the Vertragus as unknown both to Pollux and Oppian.

The Cilician gives a decided preference to those canine tribes which are specifically pure in their breed—φῦλα μονόφυλα—and enumerates, without any attempt at classification, all the tribes known to him, under their geographical appellations:[332]

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 367.]

Παίονες, Αὐσόνιοι, Κᾶρες, Θρήϊκες, Ἴβηρες,
Ἀρκάδες, Ἀργεῖοι, Λακεδαιμόνιοι, Τεγεῆται,
Σαυρομάται, Κελτοὶ, Κρῆτες, Μάγνητες, Ἐπειοὶ,
ὅσσοι τ’ Αἰγύπτοιο πολυψαμάθοισιν ἐπ’ ὄχθαις
βουκολίων οὖροι, Λοκροὶ, χαροποί τε Μολοσσοί.

[Sidenote: Hist. Animal L. +ix.+ c. +i.+]

But if the kennel-master acted on the principles laid down by this poet, and his Latin predecessor, Gratius, and crossed his pack with irreconcilable varieties out of different families, belonging to different countries, (and that he did so we have evidence in the irregular and ill-disciplined muster-roll of Ovid,) although the names on Oppian’s file might remain, the animals must have been so changed by the “superinduction of opposite qualities,” that a genuine breed of any one variety must have been most rare. To this general amalgamation of heterogeneous forms and qualities in the canine race, must be attributed the custom of applying the terms Molossian and Spartan to the Canes _bellicosi_ and Canes _sagaces_ respectively, _gregatim_—the dogs of Epirus and Sparta being held the best of their several classes.[333] And, for the same reason, a true Molossian or Spartan of pure blood must have fallen to the lot of few of Dian’s worshippers. Aristotle speaks with praise of the Spartan and Molossian cross,[334] but awards the highest price in the Spartan kennel to the purest blood: and Themistius, in his first oration, states it as an acknowledged rule in breeding, that the kennel be supplied from bitches of the purest and most unadulterated blood.

Even after the introduction of the Vertragus, and the commixture of his breed with the older varieties of sporting dogs—

[Sidenote: P. Angelii Bargæi L. +v.+]

et unà
Præcipites pedibus catulos habuêre sagaces,—

the names derived from Sparta and Molosse were still kept up, and prostituted in many instances on most degenerate brutes.

[Sidenote: Spelmanni Glossar. p. 113.]

With regard to the original geographical distribution of the three varieties of _bellicosi_, _sagaces_, and _celeres_, and of their respective chases,[335] the most prevalent opinion of continental writers, who have devoted their attention to the Cynegetica of Greece and Rome, is that the last mentioned originally came from Gaul, the sagacious from Greece, and the bellicose from Asia. War-dogs of pure blood are nearly extinct in the British islands, and are becoming more rare on the continent of Europe; being much crossed with the sagacious and swift-footed tribes. Vlitius, himself a Dutchman, naturally espouses the Belgic origin of the Belgic, or, more correctly speaking, the Celtic dog. Spelman, on the contrary, claims him for the honour of Britain; and, in addition, we have always deemed some sorts of _bellicosi_ and _sagaces_ indigenous of this country. Mr. Whitaker, in his History of Manchester, gives to the ancient Britons the old English hound, or talbot, as the parent stock of the celebrated sagacious hounds of our island: and it is found, by experience, that this dog degenerates in every other part of the world—a strong presumptive proof of his being indigenous of Britain. The earliest record of the greyhound allots him to Gallia; and we have no hesitation in considering him of Celtic origin, notwithstanding the offensive disclaimer of Savary of Caen—

[Sidenote: Venationis Cervinæ Leges. L. +i.+]

Gallos non hæc infamia tangit.

No exclusive national claim can be made for the pugnacious tribe, almost every nation of antiquity having had its particular variety; of which none surpassed the Britannus and Molossus, natives of regions remote from each other, unconnected, probably, in their lineage, and united alone in untameable ferocity of character.

[Sidenote: Certaine Illustrations of the Cynegeticall Poem, &c. p. 34.]

The translator of Gratius, after enumerating the various sorts of the British hound, greyhound, and mastiff, (which he calls “_indigena_, or native of England,”) observes:—“all these dogs have deserved to be famous in adjacent and remote countries, whither they are sent for great rarities, and ambitiously sought for by their lords and princes, although only the fighting dogs seem to have been known to the antient authors: and perhaps in that age hunting was not so much cultivated by our own countrymen.”

CANES VENATICI. +Class I.+

CANES BELLICOSI +or+ PUGNACES.

[Sidenote: Gratii Halieut. vs. 98.]

_Quibus est audacia præceps._

The type of this class is given by Gratius in the following lines, which must be taken as a general description, requiring some latitude in its application to individuals:[336]

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 269.]

Sint celsi vultus, sint hirtæ frontibus aures,
Os magnum, et patulis agitatos morsibus ignes
Spirent, adstricti succingant ilia ventres,
Cauda brevis, longumque latus, discretaque collo
Cæsaries, non pexa nimis, non frigoris illa
Impatiens: validis tum surgat pectus ab armis,
Quod magnos capiat motus, magnisque supersit.
Effuge, qui latâ pandit vestigia planlâ,
Mollis in officio, siccis ego dura lacertis
Crura velim, et solidos hæc in certamina calces.

By its side we may place its counterpart in Greek;—for, notwithstanding the Oppianic sketch has been appropriated by Bodinus to the Albanese, it certainly may be viewed in a broader light, as a picture in outline of the whole pugnacious family, without reference to individuals:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 413.]

θοῦροι δ’ αὖθ’ ἕτεροι, τοῖσιν μενεδήϊος ἀλκὴ,
ὅσσοι καὶ ταύροισιν ἐπέχραον ἠϋγενείοις,
καὶ σύας ὑβριστῆρας ἐπαΐξαντες ὄλεσσαν
ὅσσοι μηδὲ λέοντας ἑοὺς τρείουσιν ἄνακτας,
ζατρεφέες, πρώνεσσιν ἐοικότες ἀκρολόφοισι.
σιμότεροι μὲν ἔασι προσώπατα, δεινὰ δ’ ὕπερθε
νεύει ἐπισκυνίοισι μεσόφρυα, καὶ πυρόεντες
ὀφθαλμοὶ χαροπῇσιν ὑποστίλβοντες ὀπωπαῖς·
ῥινὸς ἅπας λάσιος, κρατερὸν δέμας, εὐρέα νῶτα·
κραιπνοὶ δ’ οὐ τελέθουσιν, ἀτὰρ μένος ἔνδοθι πολλὸν
καὶ σθένος ἄφραστον, κραδίη καὶ θυμὸς ἀναιδής.

The introduction of a third, more recent portrait, will be justified by the chaste Latinity of Peter Angelio, and the faithful accuracy of his pen:

[Sidenote: P. Angelii Bargæi Cyneg. L. +v.+]

Ille tibi ingentes tauros aggressus, et ursos
Sistat, et imposito fugientes vulnere tardet:
Cui summæ pendent aures, cui laxa supernè
Labra fluant, cui vultus atrox, cui maxima cervix,
Obtusumque caput, pressumque ante omnia rostrum:
Præterea magnique pedes, unguesque recurvi:
Molle solum, sublime femen, suppressior alvus:
Ipsaque rectorum longa internodia crurum:
Spina duplex, pingues lumbi, color helvus,[337] honestum
Pectus: et è patulis efflet qui naribus ignem,
Latratu quoties sylvas implevit, et amplo
Pectore conceptas subitus decurrit ad iras.
Tum verò splendent oculi, collumque tumescit,
Et caudam crebrò villosa in terga retorquet.

The quarry of these savage hounds consisted of animals more ferocious than their assailants—such as

[Sidenote: Gratii Halieut. vs. 73.]

Trahit in præceps non sana ferocia mentis.

Following the order of the poetical manual, to which we are indebted for our first-cited outline of the race, the Mede and Celt arrest our earliest attention, followed by the Ser, Lycaonian, Hyrcanian, Briton, Molossian, and others:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 155.]

——magna indocilis dat prælia Medus,
Magnaque diversos extollit gloria Celtas.[338]

The Persian appears to have been a connecting link between the pugnacious and sagacious classes, though his neighbours of Media and Hyrcania were a purely savage breed. The Persian was a mongrel variety—

[Sidenote: Ejusd. vs. 158.]

Perses in utroque paratus.

[Sidenote: De Naturâ Animal. L. +iii.+ c. +ii.+]

The character of the “indocilis Medus” we may infer from Ælian’s description, already cited, of the men and horses of the country—which at the conclusion he also extends to the dogs—ταῦτά τοι καὶ περὶ τῶν κυνῶν ἔπεισι νοεῖν μοι. The latter were fierce, impetuous, and of great size.

There is evidently no connexion between the Celtæ of Gratius and κύνες Κελτικαὶ of Arrian, though deriving their name from the same source, and seemingly of the same country. The former were originally perhaps the only varieties of the canine species inmates of the kennels of Gaul,

[Sidenote: Savary Venat. Cervin. Leges. L. +i.+]

Gallia cùm pridem coleret devota Dianam,

the sagacious and swift-footed hounds being subsequently admitted therein;—but not until the older mode of hunting ferocious animals with savage dogs had fallen into disrepute, from the superior attraction of the improved style; or into disuse, from the gradual extirpation of beasts of prey. As the latter disappeared, or were driven into remote fastnesses, we may suppose the more timid and fugacious creatures supplied their place; and, multiplying in the ratio of the others’ diminution, afforded abundant quarry to the Vertragus, and the archetype of the _chien courant_ of modern France.

How beautifully are the more innoxious sports of sylvan life, and superior claims of the hare and deer hunt, touched by Ovid in the fable of Venus and Adonis. The goddess of love turns huntress:

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +x.+ 537.]

Per juga, per sylvas, dumosaque saxa vagatur
Nuda genu, vestem ritu succincta Dianæ:
Hortaturque canes; tutæque animalia prædæ,
Aut pronos lepores, aut celsum in cornua cervum,
Aut agitat damas; à fortibus abstinet apris.
Raptoresque lupos, armatosque unguibus ursos
Vitat, et armenti saturatos cæde leones.
Te quoque, ut hos timeas (si quid prodesse monendo
Possit) Adoni, monet. ‘Fortisque fugacibus esto,’
Inquit; ‘in audaces non est audacia tuta.
Parce meo, juvenis, temerarius esse perîclo.
Neve feras, quibus arma dedit natura, lacesse;
Stet mihi ne magno tua gloria. Non movet ætas,
Nec facies, nec quæ Venerem movêre, leones
Setigerosque sues, oculosque animosque ferarum.
Fulmen habent acres in aduncis dentibus apri;
Impetus est fulvis et vasta leonibus ira.’

No wonder that the Celtic people by degrees discontinued the warlike chase, fraught with innumerable perils, and substituted the harmless pursuit of fugacious quarry, with keen-scented and swift-footed hounds, according to the injunctions of the meretricious queen to her disobedient “sweete boy;”

[Sidenote: Sir A. Golding Ovid’s Metam. B. 10.]

Pursuing game of hurtlesse sort, as hares made lowe before,
Or stagges with lofty heades, or buckes;—

which, in the days of Arrian, constituted their principal field sport.

[Sidenote: Strabo L. +iv.+ p. 138.]

[Sidenote: L. +viii.+ c. 40. ex Vlitii Emend.]

Julius Pollux, in his Onomasticon, mentions the Celtic war-dogs, and Oppian also includes Κελτοὶ in the muster-roll of his first cynegetic.[339] It is probable that they were a-kin to those of ancient Britain; for we are told by Strabo, who lived soon after Gratius, that the exports from this island to Gaul consisted of δέρματα, καὶ ἀνδράποδα, καὶ κύνες εὐφυεῖς πρὸς τὰς κυνηγεσίας. Κελτοὶ δὲ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς πολέμους χρῶνται, καὶ τούτοις, καὶ τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις. Whence it appears that the Celts had native Canes Venatici which they employed in war,[340] as well as those imported from Britain.[341] In this adaptation of canine ferocity the Celtæ were not peculiar; but as dogs, thus applied, can scarce be considered in their sporting character, it is unnecessary to multiply citations. Let the few instances hereafter adduced suffice on this head. Whether these Celtic dogs are the Gallic hybrids of the natural historian I cannot say: “hoc idem,” says Pliny, “è lupis Galli, quorum greges suum quisque ductorem è canibus et Lyciscam habent. Illum in venatu comitantur, illi parent. Namque inter se exercent etiam magisteria.” There were whole packs of these dogs in every chase or forest, “that had for their leader some particular demi-wolf, which the rest accompanied in hunting, obeyed, and were directed by; keeping an order among themselves of government and mastership.”

Gratius mentions, in the next place, the Ser, the Lycaonian or Arcadian, the Hyrcanian, and the union of the latter with the tiger.

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 159.]

Sunt qui Seras alant, genus intractabilis iræ;
At contrà faciles, magnique Lycaones armis.

The Seræ were a nation of Æthiopia near the origin of the Nile, and also of India between the Indus and Hydaspes: but “the famous Seræ were a people of Asia, the farthest to the east beyond China towards Scythia without Imaus,” according to Wase’s geography of Gratius. As the poet does not record the fame of the Canes Indici under their usual denomination, we may consider the Seric dog as the redoubted Indian—“genus intractabilis iræ.”

[Sidenote: Xenophon, de Venat. c. +ix.+]

[Sidenote: Ælian. de Natur. Animal. L. +viii.+ c. 1.]

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +iii.+ 140.]

[Sidenote: Polluc. Onom. L. +v.+ c. +v.+ 39.]

[Sidenote: Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. +iv.+ c. 19.]

[Sidenote: Plutarch. p. 1787. Ed. Steph.]

[Sidenote: Brodæi Annot. in Oppian. p. 43.]

The Indian dog is noticed by Herodotus, Aristotle, Xenophon, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Plutarch, Pollux, Ælian, Athenaeus, Themistius, and Phile, among the Greeks; and by Pliny, Solinus, and Quintus Curtius, among the Latins. The size, strength, speed, and courage of this dog induced Xenophon to recommend him for boar and deer hunting—εἰσὶ γὰρ ἰσχυραὶ, μεγάλαι, ποδώκεις, οὐκ ἄψυχοι, says this experienced sportsman; and Ælian adds to his good qualities keenness of sight or scent in tracking—εὐγενεῖς καὶ ἴχνη καταγνῶναι θηρίων ἀγαθαὶ, κ. τ. λ. J. Pollux, on the authority of Nicander, derives the Canes Indici from Actæon’s pack; who, when they had recovered from their madness, “satiatæ sanguine herili,” passed the Euphrates, and wandered into India. He particularly distinguishes them from the Hyrcanian, with which they have been by some historians confounded. Both the last-mentioned authors, and also Plutarch, would have us believe that the lion was the only antagonist with whom this courageous dog would willingly contend:—τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ζώων ὑπερφρονοῦντα πάντων, says Plutarch; and Ælian affirms his victory over the lion; but Themistius adds the pard to his chosen antagonists, to the exclusion of inferior combatants, as wolves and foxes. Fable however and history are so closely blended in the records of canine biography, that we are compelled occasionally to doubt. And did we not relieve ourselves by incredulity, the marvellous tale of patient courage narrated by Ælian, as manifested by this fierce animal, would make us shudder at the bare recital. It is found in detail in the first chapter of his eighth book de Naturâ Animalium,[342] and succinctly copied by Pollux in the fifth chapter of the fifth book of his Onomasticon.

[Sidenote: Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. +viii.+ c. 1.]

The cruel experiment, transmitted to us by Dr. Goldsmith, as having been practised on the British Molossus, is quite eclipsed by this more barbarous exhibition of the innate fortitude of the dog of India. For in the latter case, the commencement of the inhuman test of patient courage was the amputation of the tail, and the conclusion decollation. The legs of the poor brute were successively cut off, one by one, without his quitting his hold of the lion, his chosen antagonist:—and when at last the neck was severed from the body, the teeth still adhered with the trunkless, but still mordacious head, (_credat Judæus_,) suspended to the wound. But let the credulous story-teller speak for himself:—καὶ τελευτῶντες τῆς κεφαλῆς τὸ λοιπὸν σῶμα ἀφεῖλον· ὀδόντες δὲ ἐκείνῃ ἤρτηντο τῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀντιλαβῆς, καὶ ἡ κεφαλὴ ἠωρεῖτο μετέωρος ἐκ τοῦ λέοντος, αὐτοῦ μέντοι τοῦ δακόντος ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ ἔτι ὄντος. The dog like the British bull-dog was memorable for never quitting his hold—a feature in his ferocious character remarked by Phile in his iambic versification of Ælian’s marvellous tale.

[Sidenote: De Animal. Proprietate. De cane Indico. p. 148.]

παντὸς κυνὸς μέγιστος, Ἰνδὸς πᾶς κύων.
ὃς οὐδὲ τὸν λέοντα παρόντα τρέμει,
ἀνθίσταται δὲ, καὶ σφριγᾷ πρὸς τὴν μάχην,
καὶ τοῖς βρυχηθμοῖς ἀνθυλακτεῖ συντόμως,
ἐγκείμενον δὲ καρτερεῖ τὸν αὐθάδη.
καὶ δάκνεται μὲν, ἀντιδάκνει δὲ πλέον.
τέλος δὲ τοῦ τένοντος αὐτὸν ἁρπάσας,
ῥίπτει κατὰ γῆς, καὶ σπαράττει, καὶ θλίβει.
κἄν τις ἐπελθὼν ἀποκόψῃ τὸ σκέλος
τῷ τὸν μέγαν ἄγχοντι, καὶ πρὶν γεννάδαν,
μόλις ὁ νεκρὸς ὑπανήσει τὸ στόμα.

[Sidenote: Venationes Ferarum, &c. pl. +iv.+]

In the scarce plates of Stradan, engraven by Galle, there is a picture of the Canis Indicus, as I conceive, fighting with the elephant and lion. The annexed quatrain, by Kilian Dufflæus, sufficiently explains it, but is not worthy of citation. The following poetical portrait, however, by a far better scholar, will be read with pleasure, whether viewed as delineating the Indian, or his congener, the Albanian:

[Sidenote: Hercul. Strozæ Caesar. Borgiæ Ducis Epiced.]

—si aliqua è sylvis sese fera nobilis altis
Offeret, et campo bellum committit aperto,
(Degeneris neque enim lætatur sanguine prædæ)
Vim canis egregiam, atque acres mirabere pugnas.
Vidimus assuetos inter deserta ferarum
Nequicquam immanes irasci in cornua tauros.
Sternere ludus apros, nec totam excandet in iram,
Si rigidis pugnent informes unguibus ursi.
Gaudet atrox magni fremitum si fortè leonis
Audiat, et celeri rapitur per devia cursu,
Ac formidando metuendus obambulat hosti,
Villosæ donec cervici adnisus inhæret,
Sanguineâque feram morientem extendit arenâ.
Acriùs exultans vastos in prælia barros
Provocat, et tantam (dictu mirabile) molem
Sternit; at ingentem procumbens ille ruinam
Per dumosa trahit, garritu tesqua sonoro
Dissultant, gliscitque gravis venantibus horror.

Bodin supposes Oppian to allude to the Canis Indicus in his 1st Cynegetic, vs. 413.; but as the poet does not mention any name, and particularly specifies a want of speed in the dogs he describes, I should rather refer his sketch to the Molossian or true Epirote, (if it must have a particular application,) than to the Indian or Albanian. I have no doubt, however, that it is, as already stated, a general description of the pugnacious type, and therefore includes both Indian and Molossian.

[Sidenote: Hist. Natur. L. +viii.+ c. +xl.+]

[Sidenote: Strabo L. +xv.+]

[Sidenote: C. J. Solini Polyhistor. c. +xv.+]

[Sidenote: Vide Bodini Comment. in Oppian. p. 63.]

[Sidenote: Strabo L. +xi.+]

Many of the anecdotes of the Indian dog are promiscuously told of the Albanian, Iberian, and Hyrcanian; and it certainly is difficult to point out any distinctive characters between them. Of the latter I shall presently speak, in the rotation in which he is recorded by Gratius. The Albanian and Iberian are undoubtedly consimilars, strongly impregnated with the Molossian cast—natives of the Asiatic district indifferently called Iberia and Albania. They are celebrated by modern travellers as much as by classic historical and cynegetical writers. Pliny does not name the country of the dog “inusitatæ magnitudinis” given to Alexander by a king of Albania;[343] though it would be a fair conclusion that the dog was of the same country as the king. Yet Strabo, notwithstanding he commemorates the prowess of the Albanian race of dogs, particularly notes that those presented to the king of Macedonia were Indian; and he is supported by Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and Julius Pollux, differing somewhat in the historical detail. Solinus, for the most part a copyist of Pliny and Strabo, is, on this occasion, it may be, mistaken in assigning to them an Albanian origin. Speaking of the Albanese, he says: “Apud hos populos nati canes feris anteponuntur, frangunt tauros, leones premunt, detinent quid-quid objectum: quibus ex causis meruerunt etiam annalibus tradi. Legimus petenti Indiam Alexandro, à rege Albaniæ dono duos missos,” &c.—and again, “Hoc genus canes crescunt ad formam amplissimam, terrificis latratibus ultra rugitus insonantes.” May we not reconcile these statements by considering the Albanese dogs of the Latin historians—Pliny, Solinus, and Curtius—the Indians of the Greek authors—Strabo, Plutarch, Diodorus, Ælian, and Pollux—and the Albania of the former, the India of the latter? The inhabitants of Albania and India were both excessively addicted to hunting—θηρευτικοί τε καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ κύνες αὐτῶν εἰς ὑπερβολήν.

The Iberian dog is mentioned by Julius Pollux, Oppian, and Nemesian—the latter poet merely saying the breed is not to be despised by sportsmen;

[Sidenote: Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 126.]

Nec tibi Pannonicæ stirpis temnatur origo,
Nec quorum proles de sanguine manat Ibero;

and the former recommending it to be crossed with Sarmatian blood,

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 397.]

Σαρματικόν τε πόσιν φορέοις πρὸς Ἰβηρίδα νύμφην.

Darcius records the strength, courage, and velocity of the Albanian breed;

[Sidenote: Darcii Venusini Canes.]

Adde etiam Albanos, qui quantum viribus apris
Occursare valent, fulvosque æquare leones,
Et vasto indomitos certamine frangere tauros,
Aligeras tantum cursu prævertere damas;

[Sidenote: Brodæi Annotationes in Oppian.]

[Sidenote: Jones’s Oppian’s Halieutics.]

and two lines below mentions the dogs, “quos dives Iberia pascit,” as if distinct from the Albanese—which, if Asiatic, they certainly resembled. It is, however, possible, that Darcius may allude to European Iberia, or Spain. Indeed, the geographical appropriation of Oppian’s Iberian dogs is doubtful in the opinion of commentators. Brodæus assigns the Iberian horse of Oppian (Cyn. +i.+ vs. 284.) to Asia; but the people mentioned by the poet under the same name, in connexion with the Celts, in the episode at the conclusion of his second Halieutic, are evidently inhabitants of Western Europe. And again—his description of the tunnies “rushing from th’ Atlantic deep,” into the Mediterranean, and of their subsequent capture along its shores, places the Iberians a second time in the West:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Halieut. L. +iii.+ 623.]

τούσδ’ ἤτοι πρῶτον μὲν Ἰβηρίδος ἔνδοθεν ἄλμης
ἀνέρες ἀγρώσσουσι βίῃ κομόωντες Ἴβηρες.
δεύτερα δὲ Ῥοδανοῖο παρὰ στόμα θηρητῆρες
Κελτοὶ, κ. τ. λ.

however, whether Asiatic or European, it is sufficient for our classification that the dogs were of the pugnacious class.

The modern representative of the classical Albanese occupies a more extensive district than his ferocious prototype, who was confined to the region between Colchos and Armenia; whereas his descendant is found in Macedonia, Illyria, Chaonia, and Epirus.

Of the classical Albanian, in his character of a dog of war, Valerius Flaccus has left us the following very animated description:

[Sidenote: Valerii Flacci Argonaut. L. +vi.+ 107.]

Insequitur Drangæa phalanx, claustrisque profusi
Caspiadæ; queîs turba canum non segnius acres
Exilit ad lituos, pugnasque capessit heriles:
Inde etiam par mortis honos; tumulisque recepti
Inter avos, positusque virûm: nam pectora ferro
Terribilesque innexa jubas ruit agmine nigro
Latratuque cohors: quanto sonat horrida Ditis
Janua, vel superas Hecates comitatus ad auras.