Part 12

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.”

[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.

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

“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. 68b.]

“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 wt. greihoundis at the tryste or wt. 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. The mastiff surpasses his congener as much in size, as he is inferior to him in ferocity. 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; 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, Acyrusque, Pheræque, 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.

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. 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:

[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, 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 2do 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” of his translator? May not Hagnon’s pack,

[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: 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. 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, 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.