Chapter V: Part 5

And the fame of his tribe, as spread over these countries at large, is celebrated by the chaste poet of Barga in his 5th Cynegeticon, with the same song, _decies repetita_, of leonine and elephantine quarry:

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

Quid! tibi si, quarum concursu exhorruit Argo,
Cœruleis sparsas adeam Symplegadas undis,
Cappadocumque oras, et inhospita Colchidos arva,
Atque iter ad duros contendam pergere Iberos:
Caspiaque Albanis quondam regnata tyrannis
Littora? et extremi prætervehar ostia Sarni:
O quales, quantosque canes, quàm fortia bello
Pectora, quàm certâ prolem virtute valentem
Inde legam? sola illa uros, sola illa leones
Invadit, sola aggreditur dignata elephantos.

[Sidenote: Vulgar Errors. B. +i.+]

[Sidenote: Scaliger.]

Opportunity offers, in introducing the dog of Arcadia to the reader’s notice, of speaking of the semiferous race of lupine dogs, the demi-wolves of the ancient Cynegetica.[344] The cross of the wolf and dog is of considerable antiquity; indeed the belief of its existence may be traced very generally through the popular works of the classic ages. Under the Spartan dog, in the second class, I shall again allude to hybrid dogs, and refer to Mr. Hunter’s paper on the subject in the Transactions of the Royal Society of London. At present, it may be stated that the cross of the wolf and domestic dog is an established one, and that the breed, so obtained, has been carried forward for many generations. Aristotle, I believe, first remarked the sexual intercourse of these congeners in Cyrene; and, from the fact as stated by him, Cardan (“a great inquirer after truth, but too greedy a receiver of it,” according to Sir Thomas Brown,) inferred the gradual degeneration of wolves into the canine type.[345] “Ut lupos et canes,” says Brodæus in Oppianum, “mutuò coire fatear, Diodori, Ovidii, (‘Deque lupo concepta Nape,’) ac complurium facit auctoritas.” As the mule is born from the horse and ass, remarks Galen, so a mixed breed may be generated from the wolf and dog.[346] The race of old reported to have been sprung from the latter connexion was that of Arcadia, the Lycaonian; thence called, peradventure, _Lycas_ by Simonides, and _Lycisca_ by Virgil and Ovid—“Mista lupo canis est signatâ voce _Lycisca_.”[347] That the Lycas of the canine epitaph was of lupine origin, we may conjecture from the name; but the Cean poet specifying other localities as the scenes of his hound’s exploits in life, and Pollux calling her Λυκάδα τὴν Θεττάλην, some other kennel may put forward a claim, instead of that of Arcadia, for the honour of the breed; or the name may be merely an appellative distinction, unconnected with lineage;—still the monumental elegy is deserving of citation:

[Sidenote: Simonides emendatus, ex Polluc. Onom. L. +v.+ 47.]

ἠ σεῦ καὶ φθιμένας, λεῦκ’ ὀστέα τῶδ’ ἐνι τύμβῳ
ἴσκω ἔτι τρομέειν θῆρας, ἄγρωσσα Λυκάς.
τὰν δ’ ἀρετὰν οἶδεν μέγα Πήλιον, ἅτ’ ἀρίδηλος
Ὄσσα Κιθαιρῶνος οἰονόμοι σκοπιαί.

Gratius contrasts the docility of Lycaonian dogs, the Τεγεῆται of Oppian, with the intractability of the Indian,

[Sidenote: Cyneg. vs. 160.]

At contrà faciles magnique Lycaones armis.

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +i.+ 198.]

[Sidenote: Vide Pausan. in Arcad. c. +ii.+]

The breed of the northern part of Peloponnesus, having been of great note, and the son of Pelasgus (“notus feritate Lycaon”) having been converted into a wolf—the first subject, it may be, of _lycanthropy_—the dogs indifferently called Arcadian and Lycaonian, were probably, says C. Wase, “heirs of his own body naturally begotten.” Many Arcadian hounds are found in the Ovidian pack, among the mistaken pursuers of the unfortunate son of Aristæus—

[Sidenote: Euripidis Bacchæ.]

(ὃν ὠμοσίτοι σκύλακες, ἃς ἐθρέψατο,
διεσπάσαντο κρείσσον’ ἐν κυνηγίαις,)

possessed of great speed and resolution:

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +iii.+ 209.]

Inde ruunt alii rapidâ velociùs aurâ,
Pamphagus, et Dorceus, et Oribasus, Arcades omnes,
Nebrophonosque valens, et trux cum Lælape Theron,
Et pedibus Pterelas, et naribus utilis Agre,
Hylæusque fero nuper percussus ab apro,
Deque lupo concepta Nape, pecudesque secuta
Pœmenis, et natis comitata Harpyia duobus,
Et substricta gerens Sicyonius ilia Ladon;
Et Dromas, et Canace, Sticteque, et Tigris, et Alce,
Et niveis Leucon, et villis Asbolus atris,
Prævalidusque Lacon, et cursu fortis Aëllo,
Et Thous, et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisca.

The poet elsewhere bestows on the hound of Arcadia the local epithet of Mænalian, from Mount Mænalus—

[Sidenote: Artis Amator. L. +i.+]

Mænalius lepori det sua terga canis.

Is it not probable that some of the hounds of chase, bestowed by the Arcadian God on the Goddess of hunting, were culled by his goatish majesty from the kennels of the country of Lycaon, where Pan himself gratified his sporting ardour?—the brace of pie-balled—the leash of long-eared—and the spotted hound?

[Sidenote: Callimach. H. in Dian. vs. 90.]

τὶν δ’ ὁ γενειήτης δύο μὲν κύνας ἥμισυ πηγοὺς,
τρεῖς δὲ πόρ’ οὐατίους, ἕνα δ’ αἰόλον· οἵ ῥα λέοντας
αὐτοὺς αὖ ἐρύοντες, ὅτε δράξαιντο δεράων,
εἷλκον ἔτι ζώοντας ἐπ’ αὐλίον.

The other seven which Pan contributed to Dian’s pack, being θάσσονες αὐράων, and destined for more timid quarry, are placed under the Spartan family, of which they were the fleetest members.

[Sidenote: Golding’s Ovid’s Metam. B. +iii.+]

Whether all the dogs “of Arcas kinde,” as sings Sir Arthur Golding in his “worke very pleasant and delectable,” were demi-wolves, and “gaunt as any grewnd,” I cannot take on myself to decide; but it is a fair inference, from the evidence adduced, that lupi-canine crosses predominated, in all their ferocity, in the kennels of Arcadia—not indeed to the exclusion of canine _indigenæ_ of pure blood, but enough to give a ferine character to the general type.[348]

The Hyrcanian, savage as he was, is reported to have increased his natural ferocity by engendering with the tiger:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 159.]

Sed non Hyrcanæ satis est vehementia genti
Tanta; suis petiêre ultrò fera semina sylvis.
Dat Venus accessus, et blando fœdere jungit.
Tunc et mansuetis tutò ferus errat adulter
In stabulis, ultròque gravis succedere tigrim
Ausa canis, majore tulit de sanguine fœtum.

And to the subsequent generations of this cross Bargæus gives speed in pursuit, and courage in attack:

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

Sic itaque immanes duxêre è tigride mores
Hyrcani, quibus exuti post deinde nepotes
Sive ursos, sive illi apros vidêre minaces,
Accurrunt celeres, et aperto marte lacessunt.

[Sidenote: The Governour. B. +i.+ c. +xi.+]

[Sidenote: Aristot. Hist. Animal. L. +viii.+ c. 28.]

[Sidenote: Deipnosoph. L. +v.+ c. 8.]

[Sidenote: Pollucis Onomast. L. +v.+ c. +v.+ 39.]

The breed of Hyrcania, having escaped the notice of Aristotle and his copyist Pliny, is of course omitted by Solinus, (whose work entitled _Polyhistor_, however “mervaylous delectable” in the opinion of Sir Thomas Elyot, is a mere breviary of the twice-told tales of the too credulous Roman naturalist,) but the same fabulous union with the tiger is recorded by them as the parent stock of the Indian dog. May not the Indian and Hyrcanian, though separated by Athenæus and Pollux, have been deemed identical by the Stagirite?[349]—To the tiger-cross of Irak, the compound epithet λεοντομιγεῖς is applied by the learned grammarian just cited, as if the “fera semina” of the first connexion were leonine. The ferocity of the breed, contrasted with the timidity of the stag, affords an argument to Lucretius against the Pythagorean doctrine of a promiscuous transmigration of souls:

[Sidenote: Lucretii L. +iii.+ 748.]

Quod si immortalis foret, et mutare soleret
Corpora, permistis animantes moribus essent:
Effugeret canis Hyrcano de semine sæpè
Cornigeri incursum cervi, &c.

By the archbishop of Thessalonica the Canes Hyrcani are mentioned amongst the ἐπίσημα κυνῶν γένη of his commentary on Homer (ad Iliad. ρʹ.) but they are not found in either of the poems; nor, indeed, do I remember in the Iliad or Odyssey any dogs distinctively marked by their geographical appellations.

The plaintive wailing of the old nurse, Carmé, over her daughter, the nymph Britomartis,

[Sidenote: H. in Dian. vs. 190.]

ἐλλοφόνον Βριτόμαρτιν, ἐΰσκοπον· ἧς ποτὲ Μίνως
πτοιηθεὶς ὑπ’ ἔρωτι κατέδραμεν οὔρεα Κρήτης,

in one of Virgil’s minor poems, amended by Heyne, refers very pathetically to the companionship of the Hyrcanian dog in the mountainous chase—

[Sidenote: Titus Andronicus Act +ii.+ sc. +ii.+]

to climb the highest promontory top—

though associates from a Cretan kennel would have been more in place—

[Sidenote: Ciris vs. 307.]

Nunquam ego te summo volitantem in vertice montis
Hyrcanos interque canes agmenque ferarum
Conspiciam, nec te redeuntem amplexa tenebo.

[Sidenote: De Venat. c. +x.+ 1.]

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 374.]

The Locrian dog, much esteemed by Grecian sportsmen, is particularly employed by Xenophon in the boar-chase; but I know not to which of the territories called Locris he should be appropriated, nor whether common to all. Nor do I find in him properties sufficiently characteristic of the family of _bellicosi_ to place him here with confidence—and yet I no where see him used in pursuit of timid fugacious quarry.[350] Oppian (no authority for classification) introduces him between the Egyptian and Molossian—here then let him stand—βουκολίων οὖροι, Λοκροὶ χαροποί τε Μολοσσοί. The following beautiful little epitaph of Anyta is admitted, merely because its subject, the fleetest of musical hounds, bears the name of Locris—

[Sidenote: Anyta Epidauria, apud Scriptores Græcos Minores. Oxford, 1829.]

ὤλεο δήποτε καὶ σὺ πολύῤῥιζον παρὰ θάμνον,
Λοκρὶ φιλοφθόγγων ὠκυτάτα σκυλάκων,
τοῖον ἐλαφρίζοντι τεῷ ἐγκάτθετο κώλῳ
ἴον ἀμείλικτον ποικιλόδειρος ἔχις.

for I am by no means convinced that the title is any thing more than an individual appellative (unconnected with locality) bestowed by a Grecian lady, perhaps, on a valued pet. Darcius of Venusium places the Locrian with the Arcadian, and others of the pugnacious class.

[Sidenote: Joan. Darcii Venusini Canes.]

Sunt et Locrenses catuli, sunt Arcades, atque
Cypria quos Salamis, quos dives Iberia pascit.

The Carthaginian poet alone has commemorated the “acres catuli” of Libya, his native country,

[Sidenote: Nemesian. Cyneg. vs. 128.]

Quinetiam siccæ Libyes in finibus acres
Gignuntur catuli, quorum non spreveris usum:

and from him probably, Fracastorius (a learned physician of Verona, who wrote a short poem of some merit, “de curâ canum,” eleven centuries later,) may have derived the Canes Libyci of his Alcon, recommended for the savage chase.

[Sidenote: H. Fracastorii Alcon.]

Nam rabidas si fortè feras te cura tenebit
Venari, et variis caput objectare perîclis;
Spartanâ de stirpe tibi, de stirpe Molossâ
Quære canes, Libycos illis, acresque Britannos
Pannoniosque truces, et amantes prælia Celtas
Adde, nec Hyrcanos, nec Seras sperne feroces.

[Sidenote: De Venatione L. +i.+]

[Sidenote: Ælian. de Nat. Animal. L. +vi.+ c. 53.]

[Sidenote: Polyhistor. c. +xv.+]

It cannot be granted to Conrad Gesner that the Libyan of the African poet is the Metagon of Gratius; nor is the resemblance between the former and the Egyptian of Oppian sufficiently clear to justify an inference of identity. Indeed our materials for forming a judgment are far too scanty. We know no more of the “Incola arundiferi Nili” of Natalis Comes than we cull from the credulous historians of the Egyptian dog, Ælian and Solinus, relative to his fear of crocodiles. The former naturalist reports οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι κύνες καὶ ἑλεῖν, καὶ ἀνιχνεῦσαι τὰ θηρία σοφοί· οἱ δὲ Αἰγύπτιοι φυγεῖν δεινότατοι, κ. τ. λ. “E Nilo nunquam nisi currentes lambitant, dum à crocodilis insidias cavent,” adds the author of the Polyhistor.

The Pannonian breed of Canes _bellicosi_, of high courage, were employed in actual war, as well as its mimicry the chase. Παίονες stand at the head of Oppian’s long catalogue, and, upon his principle of omnifarious commixture, are recommended to be crossed with sagacious Cretans—

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 395.]

ἐπιμίσγεο Παίοσι Κρῆτας.

The Veronese poet makes a twofold distinction of the dogs of Pannonia in his cynegetical effusion, entitled Alcon. In the first class, he places the Pannonii _truces_, as already cited, adapted for the chase of fierce prey; in the second, Pannonii _agiles_, for timid, innoxious quarry:

[Sidenote: H. Fracastorii Alcon.]

Si verò parvos lepores, capreasque fugaces
Malueris, timidosque sequi per devia cervos,
Delige Pannonios agiles, volucresque Sicambros.

The Pannonii _truces_ are noticed by Julius Pollux, and also their consimilars of Magnesia—both evidently of the Epirote breed. The former are also mentioned by Nemesian, Cyneg. v. 126.

[Sidenote: Ælian. Var. Hist. L. +xiv.+ c. 46.]

Ælian characterizes the Magnesian war-hounds as φοβεροί τε, καὶ ἄγριοι, καὶ ἐντυχεῖν ἀμείλικτοι; and states that the horsemen of Magnesia,[351] in the Ephesian war, were each accompanied to the field with a Canis Venaticus, the dogs collectively first assaulting the enemy, backed by the pedestrian soldiers, and lastly by the cavalry; who did not charge till the canine warriors προπηδῶντες ἐτάραττον τὴν παρεμβολήν. The Μάγνητες are merely named by the poet of Anazarbus, in his first Cynegetic, vs. 372.

Sidenote: Onomast. L. +v.+ 39.]

Of all the pugnacious dogs of the classic file, the most renowned were those bred on the continent of Epirus, and denominated, from one of its principal districts, Molossian: of which Aristotle records two varieties, the one for ordinary hunting, the other for guarding flocks, houses, and property. The fabled origin of the breed is consistent with its high repute in the kennels of antiquity. For, on the authority of Nicander, we are told by Julius Pollux, that the Epirote was descended from the brazen dog, which Vulcan wrought for Jupiter, and animated with all the functions of canine life—

καὶ ψυχὴν ἐνθεὶς δῶρον ἔδωκε Διΐ.

Of this Molossian prototype the fortunate proprietors were, successively, Europa, Minos, Procris, and Cephalus; and, somehow or other, as he passed from kennel to kennel, amidst heroines and heroes, or whilst in the temporary keeping of Diana, (who seemingly bestowed him on Procris,) he was metamorphosed into a wolf-greyhound, under the name and character of the Ovidian Lælaps. See Class +iii.+ Vertragus.

The prowess of the Canes Molossi rendered them most useful auxiliaries in the field of battle;[352] and they were equally prized in the contests of the circus and amphitheatre. Their war praises are sung by the classic muse of Darcius, in a style worthy the purest age of Roman literature, nor are their other merits forgotten by this accomplished poet:

[Sidenote: J. Darcii Venusini Canes.]

Diversâ veniunt præstantes dote Molossi
Diversi ingeniis, non omnibus omnia præstat
Natura, at vario ludit discrimine morum, &c.

But our citations must be made from writers of an earlier date, and the character of these dogs derived from coeval, or at least original, sources. The attachment and fidelity of Epirotes to their masters formed a remarkable feature of their tribe—so much so, that Statius tells us the soldiers of Molossia wept over their faithful canine companions, slain in war:

[Sidenote: In Epiced. Pileti Ursi.]

gemit inter bella peremptum
Parthus equum, fidosque canes flevêre Molossi;

—a manifestation of kindly and affectionate feeling, of which their congeners of an earlier date, on the authority of Tryphiodorus, were totally unworthy:

[Sidenote: Tryphiodori Ἰλίου Ἅλωσ. vs. 608.]

οἱ δ’ ὑλάοντες
ἀγρία κοπτομένοισιν ἐπ’ ἀνδράσιν ὠδύροντο
νηλέες, οὐδ’ ἀλέγιζον ἑοὺς ἐρύοντες ἄνακτας.

In the capacity of dogs of war, they do not fall under my plan; nor indeed as οἰκουροὶ, nor as fighters in the Venatio of the amphitheatre, do they strictly come within this arrangement. On these points of their character the reader will find illustrative anecdotes in Julius Pollux, Pliny, and Solinus.

[Sidenote: De Nat. Anim. L. +iii.+ c. +ii.+]

As dogs of the chase, their strength, size, and undaunted courage, enabled them to contend with the most terrific wild animals;[353] and we are assured that the lion himself has been mastered by the dog of Epirus—the tiger, pard, panther, and boar, have yielded to him. The epithets applied to the Canis Molossus all indicate his fire and resolution. Ælian calls him θυμικώτατος; Virgil, “acremque Molossum,” (Georg. +iii.+); and Seneca uses the same epithet, “teneant acres lora Molossos,” (Hippolyt. Act +i.+) But there is much difference of opinion whether he was an _open_ or _close_ hound, when employed in the field.[354] To the latter conclusion I am induced to accede from the following passage of Statius,

[Sidenote: Achill. L. +ii.+]

_muto_ legit arva Molosso
Venator, videat donec sub frondibus hostem.

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

On the trail of his game I believe him to have been a mute limier or limehound, (whence Savary’s term _echemythus_,) and never to have opened until the quarry had started from its lair—being even at that time less noisy in his bark than the purely sagacious breeds. His silence or _closeness_ is clearly indicated by Gratius, where he orders the yelping Etolian dam to be crossed with a Molossian sire,

[Sidenote: Cyneg. vs. 196.]

vanæ tantum Calydonia linguæ
Exibit vitium patre emendata Molosso.

Will not the praises of Lydia, of Martial’s well-known epitaph, place her among the savage inmates of a Molossian kennel?

[Sidenote: Martial. Epigr. L. +xi.+ Epigr. 70.]

Amphitheatrales inter nutrita magistros
Venatrix sylvis aspera, blanda domi:
Lydia dicebar domino fidissima dextra,
Qui non Erigones mallet habere canem,
Nec qui Dictæâ Cephalum de gente secutus
Luciferæ pariter venit ad astra Deæ.
Non me longa dies, nec inutilis abstulit ætas,
Qualia Dulichio fata fuêre cani:
Fulmineo spumantis apri sum dente perempta,
Quantus erat Calydon, aut, Erymanthe, tuus.
Nec queror infernas quamvis citò rapta sub umbras,
Non potui fato nobiliore mori.

—her education and her quarry will, at least, assign her to the muster-roll of our first class.

But of the Canis Molossus Venaticus, enough;—matchless as he was for stoutness, before Britain was discovered and its race of Canes _bellicosi_ brought into competition with those of Epirus, he at last was compelled to yield the palm of ferocious hardihood to the British bull-dog, and to succumb to his superior prowess:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 179.]

At magnum cum venit opus, promendaque virtus,
Et vocat extremo præceps discrimine Mavors,
Non tunc egregios tantum admirere Molossos.

[Sidenote: Luciani Fugitivi.]

[Sidenote: De Naturâ Deor. L. +ii.+ 63.]

[Sidenote: De Re Rust. L. +viii.+ c. 12.]

The second variety of the Epirote noticed by Aristotle, though out of the pale of this epitome, is worth recording from its classical associations, and because it possesses in an eminent degree the canine qualities lauded by Lucian, τὸ φυλακτικὸν, τὸ οἰκουρικὸν, καὶ τὸ φιλοδέσποτον—the “tam fida custodia, tamque amans dominorum adulatio, tantumque odium in externos” of Cicero. To this I give the name of Canis Molossus Villaticus, and include under the title the οἰκουρὸς, οἰκοφύλαξ, πυλαωρὸς, τραπεζεὺς, ostiarius, pastoralis, pecuarius, &c.; names derived from the different uses to which the dog was applied. Let the Villæ Custos of Columella be our type:—“amplissimi corporis, vasti latratûs canorique, ut prius auditu maleficum, deinde etiam aspectu terreat, et tamen nonnunquam, ne visus quidem, horribili fremitu suo fuget insidiantem,[355] &c.”—Here we place the sharp-toothed watch-dog of Hesiod’s agricultural injunctions;

[Sidenote: Opera et Dies. vs. 602.]

(καὶ κύνα καρχαρόδοντα κομεῖν· μὴ φείδεο σίτου·
μή ποτέ σ’ ἡμερόκοιτος ἀνὴρ ἀπὸ χρήματ’ ἕληται,)

[Sidenote: Metamorph. L. +viii.+ p. 553.]

—here, the “canes rabidos et immanes, et quibusvis lupis et ursis sæviores, quos ad tutelæ præsidia curiosè coloni fuerant alumnati,” of Apuleius;—here, the pastoral dogs of Varro (Geopon. L. +xix.+ c. +i.+) Fronto (Geopon. L. +xix.+ c. +ii.+) and Varro (De Re R. L. +ii.+ c. +ix.+);[356]—and here too those, in general, of the poet of Syracuse, the canine guards of flocks and herds, so prettily alluded to, in the instance of Lampurus, by the goat-herd boy of the eighth Idyllium,

[Sidenote: Theocrit. Idyll. +viii.+ 63.]

φείδευ τᾶν ἐρίφων, φείδευ, λύκε, τῶν τοκάδων μευ,
μηδ’ ἀδίκει μ’, ὅτι μικκὸς ἐὼν πολλαῖσιν ὁμαρτέω.
ὦ Λάμπουρε κύων, οὕτω βαθὺς ὕπνος ἔχει τύ;
οὐ χρὴ κοιμᾶσθαι βαθέως σὺν παιδὶ νέμοντα...

and the milk-fattened ban-dog of Claudian,

[Sidenote: Claudian. in Eutropium. L. +i.+]

sic pastor obesum
Lacte canem ferroque ligat, pascitque revinctum,
Dum validus servare gregem, vigilique rapaces
Latratu terrere lupos, &c.

The notices in Homer of these dogs are numerous; (see Iliad. κʹ. 183. μ′. 302. ρʹ. 109.) and their watchfulness, as nightly centinels, is sung in classic hexameters by the poet of Venusium:

[Sidenote: J. Darcii Venusini Canes.]

Uberior tamen est illis, et fortior inde
Laudis causa venit, molli quod tempora somno
Pauca terunt, seu flammigero det lumina curru
Phœbus, seu niveas agitat Latonia bigas,
Somnifero obliquum volvens jubar axe per orbem.
Sed vigili domino curâ, raroque cadente
Lumine prospiciunt, et herilia murmure circum
Claustra fremunt, ne sint nocturno pervia furi,
Neve lupo, tutâque greges statione quiescant.

[Sidenote: Pitisci Lexicon Antiquit.]

Pitiscus tells us, on the authority of Eustathius, that it was customary with the ancients to have porter-dogs[357]—“moris erat atriensibus fores servari à canibus,”—such were the πυλαώροι and τραπεζῆες of Homer, the attendants at the door of Telemachus, κύνες πόδας ἀργοὶ, (Odyss. υʹ. 144.)—the house-dogs of Patroclus, nine in number—of whom two were slain, and offered on his funeral pile, (Iliad. ψʹ. 173.) and the κύνες ὠμησταὶ of Priam—whose anticipated reckless laceration of his dead body—πολίον τε κάρη, πολιόν τε γένειον—by the πυλαώροι, is pleaded by the aged king to deter his ill-fated son from contending with Achilles. (Iliad. χʹ. 69.)—Such too were the gemini custodes of Evander, which followed their rustic king to the dormitory of his Trojan guest. (Æneid. L. +viii.+ 461.)[358]

As an attribute of the porter-dogs, speed was utterly unnecessary, though given to those of Telemachus, above cited: and that they generally possessed it not is implied, I think, in the question of Ulysses to Eumæus, as to the character of the “unhoused, neglected” Argus;

[Sidenote: Odyss. L. +xvii.+ 307.]

οὐ σάφα οἶδα
εἰ δὴ καὶ ταχὺς ἔσκε θέειν ἐπὶ εἴδεϊ τῷδε,
ἢ αὕτως οἷοί τε τραπεζῆες κύνες ἀνδρῶν
γίγνοντ’, ἀγλαΐης δ’ ἕνεκεν κομέουσιν ἄνακτες.

Ulysses Aldrovandus, Spelman, and Ducange, have left us the many titles of the watch-dogs of the classic and middle ages, in their respective works. See Aldrovand. de Quad. Digit. Vivip. L. +ii.+ Canis Epitheta; and the Glossaria of Spelman and Ducange. The title οἰκοφύλαξ, derived from the office of the animal,

[Sidenote: Aristoph. Vespæ.]

ὅτι σοῦ προμάχεται καὶ φυλάττει τὴν θύραν,

occurs in a pretty epigram of the Locrian poetess on the picture of a Grecian lady; but is there probably applied to a domestic pet,

[Sidenote: Nossis Locrissa. Apud Poetas Græcos Minores.]

σαίνοι κέν σ’ ἐσιδοῖσα καὶ οἱκοφύλαξ σκυλάκαινα
δέσποιναν μελάθρων οἰομένα ποθορῆν.

[Sidenote: Satir. L. +ii.+ S. +vi.+ vs. 114.]

To the “hylax in limine” of Virgil (Ecl. +viii.+)—the “vigilum canum tristes excubiæ” of Horace (L. +iii.+ Od. 16.)—I need not refer; nor indeed to the Catenarius of Seneca (de Irâ, L. +iii.+), nor the δέσμιος of Artemidorus (Oneirocrit. L. +ii.+ c. +xi.+) To say that all these passages afford instances of Molossian Canes _custodes_, would be going too far. They merely exemplify the use to which trusty, vigilant individuals of the pugnacious canine race were applied, and the functions they performed, in the rural and domestic economy of Greek and Roman households. Horace, however, particularly specifies Epirotes in the capacity of house-dogs—“domus alta Molossis Personuit canibus”—as if they were the usual _custodes_ of patrician houses. For much of the point of his pretty fable rests on the sumptuousness of the town-house, wherein dwelt the city-mouse, joint-tenant with a biped lord, “in locuplete domo,” the appointed place of rendezvous for the rustic friend.

To the same tribe, for want of a more appropriate one, (unless the reader would place them on a Libyan or Egyptian file,) I assign the “exquisitior custodia” of Massinissa, the canine guardians in whose protection he deemed himself more safe than in that of his fellow-men;

[Sidenote: J. Darcii Venusini Canes.]

Hos Maurusiacus sibi Massinissa paravit
Custodes, hominum fidei diffisus, et isto
Non sibi conducto sua sceptra satellite cinxit.

[Sidenote: L. +ix.+ c. 13.]

“Parum fidei in pectoribus hominum reponens,” says Valerius Maximus, “salutem suam custodiâ canum vallavit.”[359]

[Sidenote: De Quad. Digit. Vivip. L. +iii.+ c. +viii.+]

[Sidenote: Hist. Animal.]

But we are going beyond our prescribed bounds, and must return to our text-book, the Cynegeticon of the Faliscian; who next introduces to notice the Canes _bellicosi_ of the British isles, a parent stock of native growth. We have no information of any source from whence these could have been imported into Britain, and, as Strabo states that they were exported from thence into Gaul, it is inferred that they were _indigenæ_. Whether the _Canis bellicosus Anglicus_ of Aldrovandus, or the _Canis Mastivus, omnium maximus, animosus et pugnax_ of Ray, be alluded to in the following lines of Gratius, is doubtful. Possibly the poet may include _both_ breeds, as the animal combats of the Roman amphitheatre were supplied by the Procurator Cynegii with the finest specimens of our war-dogs, without reference to minute distinctions;

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 174.]

Quid freta si Morinûm, dubio refluentia ponto,
Veneris, atque ipsos libeat penetrare Britannos?
O quanta est merces, et quantum impendia supra!
Si non ad speciem, mentiturosque decores
Protinùs; (hæc una est catulis jactura Britannis.)
At magnum cum venit opus, promendaque virtus,
Et vocat extremo præceps certamine Mavors,
Non tunc egregios tantùm admirere Molossos!

Their hardihood in seizing the bull is celebrated by Claudian in the well-known verse,

[Sidenote: De Laudibus Stilic. L. +iii.+]

Magnaque taurorum fracturæ colla Britannæ.

In the early authentic record of the Canes Venatici of Britain by the royal sportsman, Edmund de Langley, three sub-varieties of our Canis _bellicosus_ are enrolled, in addition to the mastiff:

[Sidenote: =Mayster of Game.= c. +xvi.+ fol. 67.]

“Alaunt is a maner and natre of houndes and the good Alauntz ben the which men clepyn Alauntz gentil. Other there byn that men clepyn Alauntz ventreres. Other byn Alauntz of the bocherie.[360]

[Sidenote: =Mayster of Game.= c. +xvi.+ fol. 67^b.]

“Thei that ben gentile shuld be made and shape as a greyhounde evyñ of alle thinges sauf of the heved, the whiche shuld be greet and short,” &c. “Commonly Alauntz byn stordy of here owyn nature and have not so good witte as many other houndes have. For if a man prik an hors the Alaunt wil gladly renne and bite the hors. Also thei renne at oxen and at sheep at swyne and to alle othere beestis or to men or to othere houndes for men hav seyn Alauntz sle her maystir, and in alle maner wise Alauntz byn inly fell and evel undirstondyng and more foolish and more sturdy than eny other maner of houndes,” &c.

[Sidenote: fol. 68.]

“That other nature of Alauntz is clepid ventreres, almost thei bene shapon as a greyhounde of ful shap, thei hav grete hedes and greet lippes and greet eeris. And with such men helpeth hem at the baityng of a boole and atte huntynge of a wilde boor. Thei holde fast of here nature but thei byn hevy and foule and ben slayn with wilde boor or with the bulle and it is nat ful grete losse,” &c.

[Sidenote: fol. 68^b.]

“The Alauntz of the bocherie is soch as ye may alle day see in good tounes that byn called greet bochers houndis,” &c.—“Thei byn good for the baytyng of the bulle and huntyng of the wilde boore whedir it be w^t. greihoundis at the tryste or w^t. rennyng houndis at abbay with inne the coverte,” &c.

The first and second of the above sub-varieties appear to have had some commixture of Celtic blood in their veins—indeed the name of _Ventreres_ receives a ready solution in the Latin term _Ventraha_, by which the greyhound is designated, according to Barthius, in an ancient MS. of Gratius, where the more usual reading is _Vertraha_—(Veltracha.)

Viewing the “canes gravioribus aptæ morsibus” of Britain to contain only two principal indigenous sub-varieties, the bull-dog may be adduced as an animal of the most ferociously brutal aspect, and most invincible courage in the creation.[361] The mastiff surpasses his congener as much in size, as he is inferior to him in ferocity.[362] See Caius de Canibus Britannicis.

[Sidenote: Blount’s Ancient Tenures.]

To these truculent dogs, εὐφυεῖς πρὸς κυνηγεσίας, according to Strabo (L. +iv.+), as well as resolute in war, our rude ancestors were beholden for the destruction or expulsion of beasts of prey from these islands. The wolf and the wild boar yielded to their prowess;[363] and they are thence sometimes called Canes _luporarii_ in ancient tenures.

Having mentioned the _bellicosi_ of Molossia and Britain in verses already cited, Gratius compares others to them in the sequel;

[Sidenote: Cyneg. vs. 182.]

Comparat his versuta suas Athamania fraudes,[364]
Acyrusque,[365] Pheræque,[366] et clandestinus Acarnan.
Sicut Acarnanes subierunt prælia furto,
Sic canis illa suos taciturna supervenit hostes.

[Sidenote: J. Vlitii Venatio Novantiqua.]

[Sidenote: Wase’s Illustrations of Gratius.]

These were perhaps very cunning and savage varieties of the dog of Laconia, and classed in consequence by the poet with the family of _pugnaces_; though more properly belonging to that of _nare sagaces_. The words of Gratius are of doubtful signification, and the passage may be corrupt. He either means, as the British dogs excel in courage, so do the Athamanian in cunning—which is his usual antithetical mode of stating opposite qualities—or else, as the British dogs surpass the Molossian in stoutness, so they equal the Athamanian, Thessalian, and Epirote in subtlety. This interpretation accords with the known properties of the British bull-dog. It is singular that dogs of two districts, Acarnania and Etolia, adjoining each other, and only separated by the river Achelous, should have been of such opposite qualities—the former so _mute_, the latter, in the sportsman’s phrase, so _open_.

CANES VENATICI. +Class II.+

CANES SAGACES.

[Sidenote: Claudian. de Laud. Stilicon. L. +iii.+]

_Hæ nare sagaces._

The multitudinous varieties of this class have one common quality, by which they are united in the same family, and which Gratius terms “venandi sagax virtus,” diversified in its phenomena, and operative under great dissimilarity of external shape.[367]

Of the larger and more powerful varieties the type is given by Xenophon in the third and fourth chapters of his Cynegeticus, and by Julius Pollux in the fifth book of his Onomasticon:—that of the smaller and more nimble sorts will be found hereafter in the examples of the Canis Petronius of Gratius, and the Canis Agassæus of Oppian. The names of the hounds, principally derived from the countries of which they were supposed to be indigenous, have been already enumerated. Their mode of hunting is faithfully struck off by the Latin poet of the Halieutica, a fragment of disputed authorship, heretofore attributed to Ovid, but latterly to Gratius:

[Sidenote: Halieutic. vs. 100.]

Quæ nunc elatis rimantur naribus auras,
Et nunc demisso quærunt vestigia rostro,
Et produnt clamore feram, dominumque vocando
Increpitant. Quem si collatis effugit armis,
Insequitur tumulosque canis camposque per omnes.

In our descriptions of the pugnacious class, we followed, where able, the order of the Faliscian’s Cynegeticon,—filling up lacunæ, when apparent, from extraneous sources; but, in the present class, we have no such text-book by which to regulate our progress, and must be beholden to the Greek and Latin Cynegetica, collectively, for an arrangement of the individuals of this class in such sequence, as the scale of their importance in the kennels of antiquity may seem to justify. And first, and foremost, we place the well-known hound of Lacedæmon.

[Sidenote: Xenophon Cyneg. c. +iii.+]

[Sidenote: Pollucis Onomast. L. +v.+ c. +v.+ 39.]

The Spartan dog, in its two varieties of Castorian and Foxite, was employed by Xenophon for the common purposes of hunting.[368] The Καστόριαι were so called ὅτι Κάστωρ ἡσθεὶς τῷ ἔργῳ μάλιστα αὐτὰς διεφύλαξεν; or, in the words of the Onomasticon, because they were Κάστορος θρέμματα, Ἀπόλλωνος τὸ δῶρον.

[Sidenote: Nonni Dionysiac. L. +xvi.+]

ἄξομαι ἐκ Σπάρτης ἑτέρους κύνας, οὓς ἀτιτάλλει
ἠϊθέων ἐς ἔρωτα ἐμὸς κάρνειος Ἀπόλλων.

[Sidenote: Xen. Cyneg. c. +iii.+]

The ἀλωπεκίδες had their name διότι ἐκ κυνῶν καὶ ἀλωπέκων ἐγένοντο; Castor, according to Nicander, having united the dog to the fox, and produced a hybrid sort of sporting hound of great repute.

[Sidenote: Natalis Comes de Venat. L. +i.+]

Castorides venatori gratissima turba.

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

But as if Castor and Pollux, being twin brothers, born ὠδῖνι μιῇ, (Apollon. L. +i.+) possessed a common identity, the honour of having first initiated the canine race in the pursuit of game, is indifferently awarded to both. Oppian, we have already seen, bestows it on Pollux, and Xenophon on Castor—“ovo prognatus eodem.” Aristotle considers all the Canes Laconici to be of the sort called ἀλωπεκίδες—not that they were all sprung from the fox and dog, but were fox-like in appearance:—and on the same authority, we hold that the bitches of a Spartan kennel were superior to the dogs—Λάκαιναι κύνες αἱ θήλειαι εὐφυέστεραι τῶν ἀῤῥένων εἰσί.

[Sidenote: Oratio +xxvii.+]

Although the eloquent compiler of the Cynegeticus distinguishes his harriers, as above stated, into Castorian and Foxite hounds, he notes no characteristic peculiarities in either: but Themistius, the Paphlagonian philosopher, induces us to believe that each possessed the distinctive features of a particular family—ἕτερον μὲν κάλλος καστορίδων κύνων, ἕτερον δὲ ἀλωπεκίδων. Vlitius’s fanciful emendation of the text of the Onomasticon has led him into an error, and produced the monstrous birth of a third variety, which he ascribes to Julius Pollux, called ἀλωπεκικαστόρες; but which that learned man’s work will not admit.

Of the whole Spartan tribe the swiftest, perhaps, were the κυνοσουρίδες of Callimachus—deriving their name from Cynosura of Laconia—

[Sidenote: Statii Thebaid. L. +iv.+]

Dives et Orchomenos pecorum, et Cynosura ferarum.

They were the gift of the Arcadian God Pan to Diana, and possessed sagacity of nose equal to their speed of foot:[369]

[Sidenote: Callimach. H. in Dian. vs. 93.]

ἑπτὰ δ’ ἔδωκε
θάσσονας αὐράων κυνοσουρίδας, αἵ ῥα διῶξαι
ὤκισται νεβρούς τε καὶ οὐ μύοντα λαγωὸν,
καὶ κοίτην ἐλάφοιο, καὶ ὕστριχος ἔνθα καλιαὶ
σημῆναι, καὶ ζορκὸς ἐπ’ ἴχνιον ἡγήσασθαι....

—and near a-kin to them, we may suppose, if not of the same blood, were the brace presented by the worshipful Agrotera to her much-favoured Cyrene:

[Sidenote: Ejusd. vs. 207.]

—θηρητῆρε δύω κύνε, τοῖς ἔνι κούρη
Ὑψηῒς παρὰ τύμβον Ἰώλκιον ἔμμορ’ ἀέθλου.

[Sidenote: Xenophon de Venat. c. +x.+]

But of fable, enough—The Spartan’s shape, qualities, and style of hunting, singly and in pack, are fully described by Xenophon in the third, fourth, and sixth chapters of his Manual. The quarry is here that of which the Athenian was most enamoured, viz. the hare,—with which the woods and parks of his Scilluntian retreat abounded. But for the boar-chase the hound of Lacedæmon is also employed. To the Indian, Cretan, and Locrian dogs, the sportsman, who would successfully combat the savage boar, must add the choicest individuals of the Spartan kennel. And in this chase, he will find one of the latter hounds most useful as a _limier_,[370] to follow up the trail to the boar’s couch in silence, and then, with the rest of the pack, to bay the started quarry:

[Sidenote: Silii Italici de 2^{do} bello Punico L. +i.+]

Fulmineus seu Spartanis latratibus actus,
Cum sylvam occursu venantum perdidit, hirto
Horrescit sævus dorso, et postrema capessit
Prælia, candentem mandens aper ore cruorem:
Jamque gemens geminum contra venabula torquet.

[Sidenote: Onomastic. L. +v.+ 37.]

[Sidenote: Propert. L. +ii.+ 13.]

Julius Pollux, on the authority of Nicander, has transmitted to us subordinate varieties of the Spartan, entitled _Menelaides_ from Menelaus, _Harmodii_ from Harmodius, and others from other persons, and places of inferior note. Virgil applies the epithets _Taygetan_ to the race, from the “juga longa Taygeti” which traverse Laconia, a favourite resort of the Sylvan Goddess:

[Sidenote: Virgil. Georg. L. +iii.+ 43.]

vocat ingenti clamore Cithæron,
Taygetique canes:

and _Amyclean_, from the birth-place of Castor and Pollux:

[Sidenote: Ejusdem vs. 343.]

omnia secum
Armentarius Afer agit, tectumque laremque,
Armaque Amyclæumque canem, Cressamque pharetram;

a local epithet also found in a supposed fragment of Pindar, cited by Plutarch, Quæst. Conviv. +ix.+ 15. 748. and admitted amongst the Fragmenta ex Hyporchematibus. Vol. +ii.+ of Heyne’s edition. (Oxon. 1807.)

But a few words, before we proceed farther, on the lineage of the ἀλωπεκίδες.

[Sidenote: Bulletin Universel.]

Modern naturalists, with the exception of Mons. Desmoulins, are pretty generally agreed that the Canis _aureus_ is the real origin of the domestic dog. And if so, being a native of Asia Minor, and of a dirty fulvous colour, may we not suppose him to have been the cross, from which the foxite hounds of Xenophon were bred? The latter had more or less of a ferine aspect, and fulvous colour, softened down by the admixture of hair of a different hue about the muzzle. Still tawny was the predominant colour—“_fulvus_ Lacon,” (Hor.)

[Sidenote: Philosoph. Transact. Vol. 77. p. 24.]

Mr. Hunter denies the existence of a genuine foxite, as the dog and fox are of different species, and will not produce together. Guldenstadt allows the jackal may be the Thos of Aristotle. May he not also be the Thos of Gratius, and “_Cat o’ mountaine_”[371] of his translator? May not Hagnon’s pack,[372]

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 250.]

Hagnon magne, tibi Divôm concessa favore,

derived from a Thoan cross, and other such semiferous commixtures, be founded in fact?

[Sidenote: Ejusdem vs. 253.]

Hic et semiferam Thoum de sanguine prolem
Finxit. Non alio major sua pectore virtus,
Seu nôrit voces, seu nudi ad pignora Martis.
Thoës commissos (clarissima fama) leones
Et subiêre astu, et parvis domuêre lacertis.
Nam genus exiguum, et pudeat quàm informe fateri
Vulpinâ specie, &c.

[Sidenote: Pennant’s Quadrupeds.]

[Sidenote: Daniel’s Field-Sports. Vol. +i.+ p. 12.]

May not these possible tales have given currency and belief to the supposed, impossible, fictitious, engendering of the fox and dog, and the breed of semi-wild ἀλωπεκίδες?—Aristotle says roundly, when animals resemble each other in size, outward character, and time of gestation, they may breed together; and that it positively happens with the dog, fox, and wolf—οἱ δὲ θῶες, says the Stagirite also, ὁμοίως κυΐσκονται τοῖς κυσὶ, καὶ τίκτουσι τυφλὰ, κ. τ. λ.—and therefore, by his own canons, may engender with dogs. Galen, Hesychius, and Gesner, seem to allow the possibility of vulpi-canine issue: Caius accounts for such a birth by the “pruriens libido” of the parties concerned:[373] even Blumenbach and Desmoulins, on the authority of others, have given credency to it. Pennant reports a case of prolific engendering of the fox and dog, on the word of an Oxfordshire woodman; and Daniel cites a second in London. Hunter, who assumed nothing in natural history of doubtful character as fact, till he had put it to the test, denies this cross, _à priori_, not from actual experiment; for he did not live to make the trial. The former crosses he fully established: see Phil. Trans. Vol. 77.

May not Ovid be supposed to allude to the cross of the Thos and dog, and to exemplify it in the individual of Actæon’s pack whom he calls Thous?

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +iii.+ 220.]

Et Thous, et Cyprio velox cum fratre Lycisca.

[Sidenote: Cyneg. L. +iii.+ vs. 336.]

The fanciful origin of Oppian’s Thos from the wolf and panther, ὅθεν κρατερόφρονα φῦλα, baffles all elucidation.

[Sidenote: Philosoph. Transactions. Vol. 77.]

Let the ἀλωπεκίδες, then, be considered as possible hybrids, the produce of authenticated crosses.[374] The wolf, jackal, and dog, all differ but little. “The dog himself,” says Mr. Hunter, “may be the wolf tamed, and the jackal may probably be the dog returned to his wild state.”

All animals having been originally wild, the more a specific class may differ from its prototype in appearance, the further it is removed in consequence of variation arising from cultivation. Where dogs have been least cultivated, they still retain most of their original character, or similarity to the wolf, or jackal, both in shape and disposition. Thus the shepherd’s dog, all over the world, has strongly the character of these wild animals—and so I have no doubt had the dog of Laconia.

The wild dogs of modern travellers, as found in Congo, Lower Æthiopia, and towards the Cape of Good Hope, somewhat resemble the Spartan type. They are stated to be “greyhound-like in shape, red-haired, with upright ears, rough tails, and extremely fierce.” The Dingo of Australasia, and Dhole of the East Indies, look very like ἀλωπεκίδες. The North and South-American half-reclaimed varieties have the elongated jaws of the semi-barbarous breeds, and tend to prove from their general shape, their character of countenance, their quick manner, and pricked and erect ears, identity of species in the dog, wolf, and jackal.

But on this subject enough:—let us now return within the pale of the kennel of Lacedæmon. The true Spartan dogs of the olden time were strong, swift, and courageous; and barked on scent of their game. We know that they were strong, on the authority of Ovid’s “prævalidusque Lacon;” and swift, from Virgil calling them “Veloces Spartæ catulos,” and Pindar alluding to the same excellence in the fragment beginning

[Sidenote: Apud Athenæi Deipnosoph. Epist. L. +i.+ c. 21.]

ἀπὸ Ταϋγέτου μὲν Λάκαιναν
ἐπὶ θηρσὶ κύνα τρέχειν πυκινώτατον ἑρπετόν.

Still their speed, like that of the Etolian of Gratius, was of a qualified character, and very much below the Vertragus.

Their strength and courage recommended them to shepherds and herdsmen, as guardians of their flocks—the goatherd Lacon’s dog, from his venatico-pastoral cast, being probably, of this variety.

[Sidenote: Theocriti Idyll. v. 106.]

χ’ ἁμῖν ἐντὶ κύων φιλοποίμνιος, ὃς λύκος ἄγχει·
ὃν τῷ παιδὶ δίδωμι τὰ θηρία πάντα διώκεν.

Virgil enjoins feeding the Spartan and Molossian on fattening whey, for the safe custody of cattle;

[Sidenote: Virgil. Georg. L. +iii.+ 404.]

Veloces Spartæ catulos, acremque Molossum
Pasce sero pingui: nunquam custodibus illis
Nocturnum stabulis furem, incursusque luporum,
Aut impacatos à tergo horrebis Iberos....

and briefly runs through the ordinary chases in which the canine tribe generally are used;

[Sidenote: Ejusdem vs. 409.]

Sæpè etiam cursu timidos agitabis onagros;
Et canibus leporem, canibus venabere damas.
Sæpè volutabris pulsos sylvestribus apros
Latratu turbabis agens: montesque per altos
Ingentem clamore premes in retia cervum.

The trailing quality of the Spartan, and keenness of scent,[375] Plato refers to, in his Parmenides—ὥσπεργε αἱ Λάκαιναι σκύλακες μεταθεὶς καὶ ἰχνεύεις τὰ λεχθέντα, (Zeno Socrati)—and Sophocles in the prologue of the Ajax Flagellifer, where the wily son of Laertes, tracking the murderous maniac, Αἴαντι τῷ σακεσφόρῳ, is likened to a sharp-nosed Spartan hound,

[Sidenote: Sophoclis Ajac. Flagell. vs. 7.]

εὖ δέ σ’ ἐκφέρει
κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥστις εὔρινος βάσις.

Homer’s kindly and vivid description of the hunting excellencies of the faithful Argus, his keenness of sight and smell, and speed of foot, would lead us to place him amongst the swiftest of the sagacious class: and where can we assign him a more honourable station than in a Spartan kennel?—I am aware some ancient Greek writer (to whom I have lost my clue of reference) considers this far-famed hound an isolated variety of no particular family—ὅμως ἡ φύσις καὶ ἐν ἄλλοις καὶ ἅπασι τόποις διασπείρει κύνας ἀγαθοὺς, ὁποῖός τις καὶ ὁ Ἄργος—not reducible within the pale of a general classification founded on geographical distribution; but he has evidently all the characteristic qualities of a genuine Spartan, and I never heard of any breed peculiar to Ithaca.

[Sidenote: Odyss. L. +xvii.+ 292.]

Ἄργος Ὀδυσσῆος ταλασίφρονος, ὅν ῥά ποτ’ αὐτὸς
θρέψε μὲν, οὐδ’ ἀπόνητο· πάρος δ’ εἰς Ἴλιον ἱρὴν
ᾤχετο· τὸν δὲ πάροιθεν ἀγίνεσκον νέοι ἄνδρες
αἶγας ἐπ’ ἀγροτέρας, ἠδὲ πρόκας, ἠδὲ λαγωούς.

[Sidenote: Pope’s Odyssey. B. +xvii.+ 348.]

Bred by Ulysses, nourish’d at his board,
But ah! not fated long to please his lord!
To him his swiftness and his strength were vain;
The voice of glory call’d him o’er the main.
Till then in every sylvan chase renown’d,
With Argus, Argus, rung the woods around;
With him the youth pursued the goat or fawn,
Or traced the mazy lev’ret o’er the lawn.

The answer of Eumæus, in which he fondly dilates on the prowess of the old dog in the better days of his youth, throws farther light on his supposed connexion with a Spartan kennel:

[Sidenote: Odyss. L. +xvii.+ 316.]

οὐ μὲν γάρ τι φύγεσκε βαθείης βένθεσιν ὕλης
κνώδαλον ὅττι ἴδοιτο· καὶ ἴχνεσι γὰρ περιῄδη....

—evidently showing that he ran on _sight_ of his game as well as _scent_: for the common reading ἴδοιτο is preferable to the δίοιτο of Eustathius, and is followed by Pope in his inimitable translation:

[Sidenote: Pope’s Odyssey. B. +xvii.+ 380.]

Oh! had you seen him, vig’rous, bold and young,
Swift as a stag, and as a lion strong;
Him no fell savage on the plain withstood,
None ’scaped him, bosom’d in the gloomy wood;
His eye how piercing, and his scent how true,
To wind the vapour in the tainted dew!

[Sidenote: See Scott’s “Maida:” a Scene at Abbotsford.]

A Spartan huntsman might value such omnifarious qualifications; but we cannot allow such a hound, εἰ δὴ καὶ ταχὺς ἔσκε θέειν, within the precincts of a coursing kennel, where speed and keen-sightedness are essential properties, according to the modern canons of the leash; but to stoop to “the tainted green” with the sagacity of a harrier, or even of a Caledonian deer-hound, of which Argus has been deemed a prototype, invalidates the claim to εὐγένεια in the breed.[376]

Diana having been particularly worshipped in Crete,[377]

[Sidenote: Ovid. Fast. L. +iii.+]

Pallada Cecropiæ, Minoïa Creta Dianam,
Vulcanum tellus Hypsipilæa, colit,...

we naturally look for a race of dogs deriving a local name from her favourite isle. And, accordingly, connected with the last-mentioned tribe of Canes Venatici, we have the Cretan and Carian, powerful, quick-scented, nimble hounds; whom it would be wrong unnaturally to dissever, as having no marked physical peculiarities. Indeed from their parity of character, and supposed identity of origin, the hounds of Crete, and its neighbouring continent of Caria, have generally been united in one family.

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

[Sidenote: De Venat. c. +iii.+]

Ælian describes the κύων Κρῆσσα κούφη, καὶ ἁλτικὴ, καὶ ὀρειβασίαις σύντροφος. By Seneca the Cretans are called pugnacious—“pugnaces Cressæ;” and by Claudian, wire-haired—“Hirsutæque fremunt Cressæ.” Arrian, when speaking of the Segusian hounds of Celtica, their unsightly aspect, their noisy howl, and extraordinary sagacity of nose, indirectly proves the speed and keen-scentedness of the Carian and Cretan. Oppian enjoins the hound of Crete to be crossed with that of Pannonia, and the Carian, as if different, with the Thracian,

[Sidenote: Cyneg. L. +i.+ vs. 394.]

ἐπιμίσγεο Παίοσι Κρῆτας,
Κᾶρας Θρηϊκίοις....

but, it is probable, the Pannonian and Thracian resembled each other as much as the Cretan and Carian.

[Sidenote: Pollucis Onomast. L. +v.+ c. +v.+]

Two sub-varieties are recorded by Julius Pollux under the titles of διάπονοι and πάριπποι:—the former so called from their bustling, indefatigable character—τὰς νύκτας ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐν ταῖς πρὸς τὰ θηρία μάχαις ἐπιλαμβάνειν, καὶ πολλάκις παρευνασθέντας τοῖς θηρίοις μεθ’ ἡμέραν ἄρχεσθαι τῆς μάχης; the latter, from their running at the horse’s side—τοῖς ἵπποις συνθέουσιν οὔτε προθέοντες οὔτε μὴν ἀπολειπόμενοι.

[Sidenote: Natalis Comes de Venat. L. +i.+]

Cecropius catulus est quem dixêre parippum.

[Sidenote: Arriani de Venat. c. +iii.+]

[Sidenote: Ejusdem c. +ii.+]

To these the courser of Nicomedia adds a third sub-variety, seemingly produced by the union of the former two—αἱ διάπονοι ἀπὸ τοῦ φιλοπονεῖν, καὶ αἱ ἰταμαὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀξέως, καὶ αἱ μικταὶ ἀπ’ ἀμφοῖν; the ἰταμαὶ probably answering to the πάριπποι of the philologist. On the authority of Arrian, we conclude the Cretan and Carian modes of hunting to have been the same as generally practised in Greece—such as are described at large by the elder Xenophon in his Cynegeticus. See Meursii Opera, Tom. +iii.+ c. +vii.+ _Creta._

Though not used by the elder Xenophon in the common hare-chase, the Cretans are recommended for boar-hunting, and were sometimes employed in pursuit of deer.

[Sidenote: Incert. Auctor apud Stephani Schediasm. L. +v.+ sch. +xvii.+]

Κρῆσσα κύων ἐλάφοιο κατ’ ἴχνιον ἔδραμε γόργως—

[Sidenote: Hor. Lib. +i.+ Od. +vi.+]

How beautifully is their style of hunting described by the poet Varius, “Mæonii carminis ales,” in the fragment preserved by Macrobius!

Varius apud Macrob. L. +vi.+ c. +ii.+

Seu canis umbrosam lustrans Gortynia vallem,
Si veteris poterit cervæ comprendere lustra,
Sævit in absentem, et circum vestigia latrans
Aëra per nitidum tenues sectatur odores:
Non amnes illam medii, non ardua tardant,
Perdita nec seræ meminit decedere nocti.

—affording the Cilician copyist one of a profusion of highly poetical similes, with which he depicts the polypus, or preke, searching for its beloved olive-tree:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Halieut. L. +iv.+ vs. 272.]

ἔνθα γὰρ ἀγλαόκαρπος ἁλὸς σχεδόν ἐστιν ἐλαίη
γείτοσιν ἐν γουνοῖσιν ἐπακταίη τεθαλυῖα,
κεῖθι δὲ πουλύποδος νόος ἕλκεται, ἠΰτ’ ἐπ’ ἴχνος
Κνωσσίου εὐρίνοιο κυνὸς μένος, ὅστ’ ἐν ὄρεσσι
θηρὸς ἀνιχνεύει σκολιὴν βάσιν ἐξερεείνων
ῥινὸς ὑπ’ ἀγγελίῃ νημερτέϊ, καί τέ μιν ὦκα
μάρψε, καὶ οὐκ ἐμάτησεν, ἑὸν δ’ ἐπέλασσεν ἄνακτα·
ὣς καὶ τηλεθόωσαν ἄφαρ μάθεν ἐγγὺς ἐλαίην
πούλυπος, ἐκδύνει δὲ βυθῶν, καὶ γαῖαν ἀνέρπει
καγχαλόων, πρέμνοισι δ’ Ἀθηναίης ἐπέλασσεν.

[Sidenote: See Wernsdorf in loco.]

In connexion with the kindred Spartans, the Cretans are briefly mentioned by Gratius,—an allusion being, probably, intended to an intermixture of the two allied breeds in order to produce the Metagon,[378] whose praises are subsequently sung:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 211.]

At vestrum non vile genus, non patria vulgò,
Sparta suos et Creta suos promittit alumnos.

[Sidenote: Wase’s Illustrations. c. 5. p. 38.]

To your high breed countries of dogs not base,
Sparta and Creta do conferre their race.

Ovid specifies them by name in Actæon’s blood-thirsty pack,

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. L. +iii.+ 206.]

primusque Melampus
Ichnobatesque sagax latratu signa dedêre;
Gnossius Ichnobates, Spartanâ gente Melampus;

and subsequently a litter,

[Sidenote: Golding’s Ovid’s Metam. B. +iii.+]

that had a sire of Crete
And dam of Sparta,

as sings Sir Arthur Golding:

[Sidenote: Ovid. Metam. vs. 223.]

Et patre Dictæo, sed matre Laconide nati,
Labros et Agriodos, et acutæ vocis Hylactor.

Indeed almost all the Ovidian pack were of Cretan, Spartan, and Arcadian blood, well chosen by the poet for the fabled chase of the son of Autonoë,[379] “falsi sub imagine cervi”—[380]

[Sidenote: Nonni Dionysiac. L. +v.+]

εὖτε τανυπρέμνοιο καθήμενος ὑψόθι φηγοῦ,
λουομένης ἐνόησεν ὅλον δέμας ἰοχεαίρης·
θηητὴρ δ’ ἀκόρητος ἀθηήτοιο θεαίνης
ἁγνὸν ἀνυμφεύτοιο δέμας διεμέτρεε κούρης
ἀγχιφανὴς, κ. τ. λ.

The whole of the Spartan family, inclusive of the Cretan and Carian, appear to have barked, as I have already observed, on scent of their game[381]—a quality reprobated by Gratius (malignum officium!) when shown before the quarry was started from his lair.

The noisy bark of the Etolian breed Gratius contrasts with the mute cunning of its neighbour of Acarnania, already considered in the first class:[382]

[Sidenote: Cyneg. vs. 186.]

At clangore citat, quos nondum conspicit, apros
Ætolâ quæcunque canis de stirpe (malignum
Officium) sive illa metus convicia rupit,
Seu frustra nimius properat furor. Et tamen illud
Ne vanum totas genus aspernere per artes,
Mirum quàm celeres, et quantum nare merentur:
Tum non est victi cui concessêre labori.

Too much addicted to _gladdening_, when near the lair of his game, the Etolian is not admitted into the class of Canes Bellicosi, whose general character was closeness till the game was started; at which time a _cry_, however loud, was not objected to by classic huntsmen,—but the dog, that roused the game by giving tongue beforehand, was strongly reprobated. Such was the faulty dog of Calydon, who needed all his other better qualities to counterbalance this latrant propensity. That he had some valuable properties Gratius allows, and recommends them to be turned to account by judicious commixture with the mute Molossian’s blood:

[Sidenote: Cynegeticus vs. 106.]

vanæ tantum Calydonia linguæ
Exibit vitium patre emendata Molosso.[383]

In consequence of the common Canes Venatici giving tongue or _opening_, before the game was roused, it was customary with classic sportsmen to employ Inductores, mute finders, “canes tacitæ,” (Senecæ Hippolyt.,) to search out the quarry by the trail;[384]

[Sidenote: Sir W. Davenant, Cant. +ii.+ stanza 30.]

Dogs such whose cold secrecy was meant
By nature for surprise—
Wise temperate limehounds, that proclaim no scent,
Nor harb’ring will their mouths in boasting spend.

[Sidenote: Wase, p. 79.]

These are the Metagontes of the Faliscian poet—so called from “drawing after their game”—μετάγοντες:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 207.]

maturo pressantes gaudia lusu
Dissimulare feras tacitique accedere possent.

Steadiness and a _close_ mouth are essential attributes of the limehound tribe.[385] Gratius, Lucan, Seneca, Ælian, and others, insist on silence. And Oppian, seemingly forgetful of this negative quality in the Armenian bear-hound, (whom I consider a limehound,) inculcates _closeness_ in sagacious dogs, generally, from their very puppyhood;

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 448.]

μηδ’ ὑλάειν ἐθέλοιεν, ἐπεὶ μάλα θηρευτῆρσι
σιγὴ τέθμιός ἐστι, πανέξοχα δ’ ἰχνευτῆρσιν.

They are to be taught it with their names, and other matters of kennel discipline.

The _limiers_ of classical antiquity, more numerous perhaps than the reader may suppose, are found widely distributed. We gather traces of them in Homer, Lucretius, Virgil, Pliny, Gratius, Ælian, Seneca, Nemesian, Oppian, Silius Italicus, and others. The Belgic hound of the poet of the Second Punic War is certainly an _inductor_ or _limier_:

[Sidenote: Silii Italici de 2^{do} B. P. L. +x.+ vs. 77.]

Ut canis ocultos agitat quum Belgicus apros,
Erroresque feræ sollers per devia mersâ
Nare legit, _tacitoque_ premens vestigia _rostro_
Lustrat inaccessos venantum indagine saltus:
Nec sistit, nisi conceptum sectatus odorem,
Deprendit spissis arcana cubilia dumis.

And it strikes me, that the Gelonian and Umbrian of Gratius, the Tuscan of Nemesian, and the Armenian bear-hound of Oppian, are all varieties of limehound. Of the Metagon, already mentioned, there can be no doubt—he is clearly of the class described by the Greek poet of the Halieutics:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Hal. L. +i.+ 18.]

σκύλακες δὲ συνέμποροι ἡγεμονῆες
κνώδαλα σημαίνουσι, καὶ ἰθύνουσιν ἄνακτας
εὐνὴν εἰς αὐτὴν—

The Homeric inductors occur in the boar-hunt of Mount Parnassus, in the van of which Ulysses, οὐτάμεναι μεμαὼς, distinguishes himself, with the sons of Autolycus:

[Sidenote: Odyss. L. +xix.+ 435.]

οἱ δ’ ἐς βῆσσαν ἵκανον ἐπακτῆρες· πρὸ δ’ ἄρ’ αὐτῶν
ἴχνη ἐρευνῶντες κύνες ἤϊσαν,[386] κ. τ. λ.

and the abstract phraseology of Lucretius affords a second early notice of them:

[Sidenote: De Rerum Naturâ L. +iv.+ 684.]

tum fissa ferarum
Ungula quo tulerit gressum, præmissa canum vis
Ducit.

The first limehound in the annals of sporting was Glympicus, tutored in the art of _harbouring_ by the Bœotian Hagnon, a huntsman immortalized by Gratius:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 213.]