Part 17

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:

αὐτίκα γὰρ σκύλακάς τε καὶ ἀνέρας ἀθρήσαντες πρὸς λόφον ἰθύουσιν, ἐπεὶ μάλα γινώσκουσιν ὅττι πάροιθεν ἔασιν ὀλιζότεροι πόδες αὐτοῖς. κ. τ. λ.

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.

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.

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; 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:

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!—

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!

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.

“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:

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.

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:

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

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.

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. 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.

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? 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: