[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.+]