Part 8

The many wily inventions devised by man’s ingenuity of old for ensnaring noxious and timid animals, appear to us more like instruments of lawless poaching, than fair hunting, and fully justify the conclusion of Arrian’s 24th chapter de Venatione; wherein, with the spirit of a genuine courser, he exclaims, “there is as much difference between a fair trial of speed in a _good run_, and ensnaring a poor animal without an effort, as between the secret piratical assaults of robbers at sea, and the victorious naval engagements of the Athenians at Artemisium, at Salamis, at Psyttalia, and at Cyprus.”

[Sidenote: Antiq. Expl. Tom. +iii.+ l. +iii.+ c. +iv.+]

It has been erroneously stated by Montfaucon and others, that the use of nets and snares was not an exercise of pleasure to men of quality, but only to peasants, and persons of inferior grade;—the praise of a noble employment being, on this view, alone awarded to hunting with dogs, or being armed for the sport with _venabula_, _hastilia_, &c. either on foot or horseback. But this distinction, however plausible in theory, is not tenable in fact. Discreditable as the use of snares may be deemed, and irreconcilable to modern taste, the philosophic recluse of Scillus, the patrician Xenophon, and every other sportsman, whether high or low, of the classic ages, must plead guilty to their employment:

[Sidenote: Manilii L. +v.+]

ducuntur et ipsi Retibus, et claudunt campos formidine mortis, Mendacesque parant foveas, laqueosque tenaces, Currentesque feras pedicarum compede nectunt, Aut canibus ferrove necant, prædasque reportant.

I do not mean that the gentry had not the aid of servants in these as in other menial occupations—(for it is evident that Xenophon’s ἀρκυωρὸς was a servant; and on the huntsman’s tomb, recorded by Pausanias in Achaicis c. +xxii.+, by the side of the principal is the οἰκέτης ἀκόντια ἔχων, καὶ ἄγων κύνας ἐπιτηδείας θηρεύουσιν ἀνθρώποις—The ostentation too of the Horatian Gargilius,

[Sidenote: Hor. L. +i.+ Epist. +vi.+ 58.]

qui mane plagas, venabula, _servos_, Differium transire forum populumque jubebat,—

[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.]