Part 8

And an earlier poet, in his praise of the brumal pleasures of the countryman’s life, sunders plagæ and retia, applying them to such totally different purposes, that it is probable they sometimes differed as much in the structure of the mesh, its size, &c. as in the magnitude of the whole instrument:

[Sidenote: Hor. Epod. L. +ii.+ 29.]

At cum tonantis annus hybernus Jovis Imbres nivesque comparat: Aut trudit acres hinc et hinc multâ cane Apros in obstantes plagas; Aut amite levi rara tendit retia Turdis edacibus dolos, Pavidumve leporem, et advenam laqueo gruem, Jucunda captat præmia.

Whatever honour be attached to these reticular inventions, and that of the running-noose, the βρόχος or laqueus, is due to Hippolytus:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 24.]

ἄρκυας αὖτε βρόχους τε, καὶ ἀγκύλα δίκτυα πρῶτος Ἱππόλυτος μερόπεσσιν ἐπακτήρεσσιν ἔφηνε.

The βρόχος generally formed a rhomb-shaped entrance to the ἄρκυς, as probably did the laqueus to the cassis:—but as the tunnel was occasionally used separate from the sean-like toil (δίκτυ—rete) and from the road-net (ἐνόδιον—plagæ), so may these slip-knot nooses have been also set independent of the purses, their usual additaments, in narrow passes, or straits frequented by game:

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

Namque hos aut foveis, aut cæci in limine callis Occultant, &c.

The noose-ropes, being of much ruder manufacture, and more simple structure, than any variety of net with meshes, must have been of earlier institution.

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 89.]

Nam fuit et laqueis aliquis curracibus usus. Cervino jussêre magis contexere nervo; Fraus teget insidias, habitu mentita ferino.

[Sidenote: Hor. L. +iii.+ Od. +iv.+ vs. 70.]

These laquei curraces, seemingly from this passage made of other materials than hemp before the days of Gratius, are yet in use, under the form of springes and wires, with deer and hare-poachers; who, I find in Oppian, are indebted to the giant-hunter Orion—“integræ—tentator Orion Dianæ”—for the first establishment of their nocturnal depredations:

[Sidenote: Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 28.]

νυκτερίους δὲ λόχους, νυχίην πανεπίκλοπον ἄγρην Ὠρίων πρώτιστος ἐμήσατο κερδαλεόφρων.

[Sidenote: Xen. de Venat. c. +ix.+]

[Sidenote: Poll. Onom. L. +v.+ c. 32.]

We are next introduced by Gratius to dentatæ pedicæ, spiked foot-traps or gins, resembling the ποδοστράβαι of Xenophon and Pollux; and formed, as the following lines indicate, of wood, concealed on the ground;

Quid qui dentatas iligno robore clausit Venator pedicas? cum dissimulantibus armis Sæpè habet imprudens alieni lucra laboris?

It being no small recommendation to them that one poacher might reap the fruits of another’s labours. Their invention is attributed to a virtuous and holy Arcadian, ycleped Dercylus, in high favour with the Sylvan goddess, and by her initiated in the mysteries of hunting, and the formation of sundry destructive implements of predation, which he first employed in the valleys of Mount Mænalus, and the Lacedæmonian Amyclæ:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 95.]

O felix, tantis quem primum industria rebus Prodidit auctorem! Deus ille, an proxuma Divos Mens fuit, in cæcas aciem quæ magna tenebras Egit, et ignarum perfudit lumine vulgus?

And again:

Ergo illum primis nemorum Dea finxit in annis, Auctoremque operi dignata inscribere magno, Jussit adire suas et pandere gentibus artes.

[Sidenote: Plutarch. in Amatorio.]

But it must not be forgotten that a competitor for the glory of these, and other like discoveries, is mentioned by Plutarch, in Amatorio, and by Nonnus, in Dionysiacis, in the person of Aristæus—εὔχονται δ’ Ἀρισταίῳ δολοῦντες ὀρύγμασι καὶ βρόχοις λύκους καὶ ἄρκτους, ὃς πρῶτος θήρεσσιν ἔπηξε ποδάγρας:—indeed, if we may credit the Christian poet of Panopolis, the sire of the hapless Actæon is entitled to the invention of almost every article of hunting-gear, the dresses of sportsmen, initiation of hounds of chase, &c.—of many of which he has been deprived by less rightful claimants:

[Sidenote: Nonni in Dionys. L. +v.+]

κεῖνος ἀνὴρ πρώτιστος ὀρίδρομος ἅλματι ταρσῶν εὗρε φιλοσκοπέλοιο πόνον κεμαδοσσόον ἄγρης, πῶς νοερῷ μυκτῆρι παρὰ σφυρὰ φορβάδος ὕλης θηρὸς ἀσημάντοιο κύων μαντεύεται ὀδμὴν, ὄρθια ὀξυκέλευθον ἐπὶ δρόμον οὔατα τείνων καὶ δολίης δεδάηκε πολύπλοκα δίκτυα τέχνης, καὶ σταλίκων τύπον ὀρθόν. κ. τ. λ.

To the first-mentioned Arcadian worthy Gratius attributes the earliest fashioning of hunting-spears with moræ or guards. Virgil sings of “lato venabula ferro,” for close conflict; and Gratius more particularly adds, to the honour of Dercylus’s armoury, the introduction of bifid spears:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 108.]

Ille etiam valido primus venabula dente Induit: et proni moderatus vulneris iram Omne moris excepit onus. Tum stricta verutis Dentibus et geminas subiêre hastilia furcas.

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 22.]

But although the Arcadian formed the spear for pedestrian assault, and Meleager was conspicuous in the use of it,—ἐν σταδίοισιν ὀρειοτέροισι μόθοισιν,—a more celebrated hero first wielded it in distant jaculation on horseback:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 14.]

ἱππαλέην δ’ ἄγρην ὁ φαεσφόρος εὕρατο Κάστωρ, καὶ τοὺς μὲν κατέπεφνεν, ἐπὶ σκοπὸν ἰθὺς ἄκοντι βαλλόμενος, τοὺς δ’ αὖτε θοοῖς ἵπποισιν ἐλαύνων θῆρας ἕλε ξυλόχοισι μεσημβρινοῖο δρόμοιο.

[Sidenote: Cyneg. L. +i.+ vs. 91. seqq.]

—a style of hunting, which we may suppose to have been much practised in the Roman empire by persons of noble rank, as Montfaucon gives several representations of it from the sepulchre of the Nasoni:—in exact accordance with which, the ἱππελάτης of Oppian is decked out for the equestrian chase.

[Sidenote: Martial. de Amph. Cæsar. L. +xi.+]

The reader’s recollection will readily supply, from authors in every one’s hands, the use of bows and arrows, and small darts—“excussâ lancea torta manu,”—in the early annals of field-sports:

[Sidenote: Gratii Cyneg. vs. 122.]

Quocirca et jaculis habilem perpendimus usum: Neu leve vulnus eat, neu sit brevis impetus illi. Ipsa arcu Lyciâque suas Diana pharetrâ Armavit comites; ne tela relinquite Divæ, Magnum opus et volucres quondam fecêre sagittæ.

The far-famed female ally of Meleager in the attack on the Calydonian boar,

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

the paragone Of Lycey forest, Atalant, a goodly lady, one Of Schænyes daughters,

claims the merit of first employing archery; having been instructed both in κυνηλασίη and εὐστοχίη by Dian herself, (see Callim. H. in Dian. vs. 217.)

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +ii.+ 26.]

Σχοινῆος πρώτη δὲ κλυτὴ θυγάτηρ Ἀταλάντη θηρσὶ φόνον πτερόεντα συηβόλος εὕρατο κούρη.

We are unacquainted with the form and use of many of the weapons, with which Oppian accoutres his able-bodied rustics for the covert-side,

[Sidenote: Ejusdem L. +i.+ 148.]

καὶ μὴν τόσσα φέροιντο ποτὶ κνημοὺς ξυλόχους τε ἐργοπόνοι κρατεροὶ θήρης ἐρικυδέος ὅπλα, ἔντεά τ’ εὐθήροιο μέγα πνείοντα φόνοιο, κ. τ. λ.

[Sidenote: Nat. Com. de Venat. L. +iv.+]

[Sidenote: Hieron. Ruscell. Schol. Breviss. Illustr. Ald. F. Venet. +m.d.li.+]

and Natalis Comes, with his brief scholiast Ruscellius, throws no light on them, in the borrowed armoury of his first cynegetic. The Oppianic catalogue runs through eight lines, in which we recognize, in addition to the former implements of predatory hunting, others particularly devoted to the capture of the hare, the ἁρπάλαγον and λαγωοφόνος τρίαινα, the hare-pole, and three-pronged hare-fork—belonging probably to the class of murderous instruments mentioned by the poet of Barga:

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

Nec desint duræ sinuato vertice clavæ Quæ leporis cursum jactæ compescere possint.

Among the more simple modes of following wild animals for capture, I should have earlier mentioned that of tracking—from its simplicity, probably, coeval with the rudest species of pursuit. It is alluded to in the 32nd Epigram of Callimachus,

Ὠγρευτὴς, Ἐπικυδὲς, ἐν οὔρεσι πάντα λαγωὸν διφᾷ, καὶ πάσης ἴχνια δορκαλίδος, στίβῃ καὶ νιφετῷ κεχαρημένος—

in the 1st Georgic of Virgil vs. 308. and the 2nd Satire of the 1st book of Horace vs. 105. Oppian describes tracking as twofold, by men, and dogs,—the former of course being the more ancient, and more correctly termed tracking, the latter scenting:

[Sidenote: Oppian. Cyneg. L. +i.+ 450.]

εἴδεα δὲ στιβίης δυσδερκέος ἔπλετο δισσὰ, ἀνδρῶν, ἠδὲ κυνῶν μέροπες μὲν ἄρ’ αἰολόβουλοι ὄμμασι τεκμῄραντο, καὶ εὖ φράσσαντο κέλευθα μυξωτῆρσι κύνες δὲ πανίχνια σημήναντο.

Savary’s ejaculation on snow-tracking the hare is more amusing than poetical:

[Sidenote: Alb. Dianæ Leporicidæ L. +iii.+]

O nix! improba nix! generosæ invisa Dianæ, Pernicies leporum! venantum ignobile vulgus Quam votis petit assiduis, ut cæde cruentâ Depopuletur agros! &c.

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;)—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.

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, 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—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), 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, 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. 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, &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, 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: