The Theory and Practice of Archery Part 1

The Theory and Practice of Archery.

by Horace Ford and W. b.u.t.t.

PREFACE.

No excuse need be offered to archers for presenting to them a new edition of the late Mr. Horace A. Ford's work on the Theory and Practice of Archery. It first appeared as a series of articles in the columns of the 'Field,' which were republished in book form in 1856; a second edition was published in 1859, which has been long out of print, and no book on the subject has since appeared. Except, therefore, for a few copies of this book, which from time to time may be obtained from the secondhand booksellers, no guide is obtainable by which the young archer can learn the principles of his art. On hearing that it was in contemplation to reprint the second edition of Mr. Ford's book, it seemed to me a pity that this should be done without revision, and without bringing it up to the level of the knowledge of the present day.

I therefore purchased the copyright of the work from Mr. Ford's representatives, and succeeded in inducing Mr. b.u.t.t, who was for many years the secretary of the Royal Toxophilite Society, to undertake the revision.

A difficulty occurred at the outset as to the form in which this revision should be carried out. If it had been possible, there would have been advantages in printing Mr. Ford's text untouched, and in giving Mr. b.u.t.t's comments in the form of notes. This course would, however, have involved printing much matter that has become entirely obsolete, and, moreover, not only would the bulk of the book have been increased to a greater extent even than has actually been found necessary, but also Mr. b.u.t.t's portion of the work, which contains the information of the latest date, and is therefore of highest practical value to young archers, would have been relegated to a secondary and somewhat inconvenient position. Mr. b.u.t.t has therefore rewritten the book, and it would hardly perhaps be giving him too much credit to describe the present work as a Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Archery by him, based on the work of the late Horace A. Ford.

In writing his book, Mr. Ford committed to paper the principles by means of which he secured his unrivalled position as an archer. After displaying a clever trick, it is the practice of some conjurers to pretend to take the spectators into their confidence, and to show them 'how it is done.' In such cases the audience, as a rule, is not much the wiser; but a more satisfactory result has followed from Mr. Ford's instructions.

Mr. Ford was the founder of modern scientific archery. First by example, and then by precept, he changed what before was 'playing at bows and arrows' into a scientific pastime. He held the Champion's medal for eleven years in succession--from 1849 to 1859. He also won it again in 1867. After this time, although he was seen occasionally in the archery field, his powers began to wane. He died in the year 1880. His best scores, whether at public matches or in private practice, have never been surpa.s.sed. But, although no one has risen who can claim that on him has fallen the mantle of Mr. Ford, his work was not in vain. Thanks to the more scientific and rational principles laid down by this great archer, any active lad nowadays can, with a few months' practice, make scores which would have been thought fabulous when George III. was king.

The Annual Grand National Archery Meetings were started in the year 1844 at York, and at the second meeting, in 1845, held also at York, when the Double York Round was shot for the first time, Mr. Muir obtained the championship, with 135 hits, and a score of 537. Several years elapsed before the championship was won with a score of over 700. Nowadays, a man who cannot make 700 is seldom in the first ten, and, moreover, the general level both among ladies and gentlemen continues to rise. We have not yet, however, found any individual archer capable of beating in public the marvellous record of 245 hits and 1,251 score, made by Mr.

Ford at Cheltenham in 1857.

One chief cause of the improvement Mr. Ford effected was due to his recognising the fallacy in the time-honoured saying that the archer should draw to the ear. When drawn to the ear, part of the arrow must necessarily lie outside the direct line of sight from the eye to the gold. Consequently, if the arrow points apparently to the gold, it must fly to the left of the target when loosed, and in order to hit the target, the archer who draws to the ear must aim at some point to the right. Mr. Ford laid down the principle that the arrow must be drawn directly beneath the aiming eye, and lie in its whole length in the same vertical plane as the line between the eye and the object aimed at.

It is true that in many representations of ancient archers the arrow is depicted as being drawn beyond the eye, and consequently outside the line of sight. No doubt for war purposes it was a matter of importance to shoot a long heavy arrow, and if an arrow of a standard yard long or anything like it was used, it would be necessary for a man to draw it beyond his eye, unless he had very long arms indeed. But in war, the force of the blow was of more importance than accuracy of aim, and Mr.

Ford saw that in a pastime where accuracy of aim was the main object, this old rule no longer held good. This was only one of many improvements effected by Mr. Ford; but it is a fact that this discovery, which seems obvious enough now that it is stated, was the main cause of the marvellous improvement which has taken place in shooting.

The second chapter in Mr. Ford's book, ent.i.tled 'A Glance at the Career of the English Long-Bow,' has been omitted. It contained no original matter, being compiled chiefly from the well-known works of Roberts, Moseley, and Hansard. The scope of the present work is practical, not historical; and to deal with the history of the English long-bow in a satisfactory manner would require a bulky volume. An adequate history of the bow in all ages and in all countries has yet to be written.

In the chapters on the bow, the arrow, and the rest of the paraphernalia of archery, much that Mr. Ford wrote, partly as the result of the practice and experiments of himself and others, and partly as drawn from the works of previous writers on the subject, still holds good; but improvements have been effected since his time, and Mr. b.u.t.t has been able to add a great deal of useful information gathered from the long experience of himself and his contemporaries.

The chapters which deal with Ascham's well-known five points of archery--standing, nocking, drawing, holding, and loosing--contain the most valuable part of Mr. Ford's teaching, and Mr. b.u.t.t has endeavoured to develope further the principles laid down by Mr. Ford. The chapters on ancient and modern archery practice have been brought up to date, and Mr. b.u.t.t has given in full the best scores made by ladies or gentlemen at every public meeting which has been held since the establishment of the Grand National Archery Society down to 1886.

The chapter on Robin Hood has been omitted for the same reasons which determined the omission of the chapter on the career of the English long-bow, and the rules for the formation of archery societies, which are c.u.mbrous and old-fashioned, have also been left out.

The portrait of Major C. H. Fisher, champion archer for the years 1871-2-3-4, is reproduced from a photograph taken by Mr. C. E. Nesham, the present holder of the champion's medal.

In conclusion, it is hoped that the publication of this book may help to increase the popularity of archery in this country. It is a pastime which can never die out. The love of the bow and arrow seems almost universally planted in the human heart. But its popularity fluctuates, and though it is now more popular than at some periods, it is by no means so universally practised as archers would desire. One of its greatest charms is that it is an exercise which is not confined to men.

Ladies have attained a great and increasing amount of skill with the bow, and there is no doubt that it is more suited to the fairer s.e.x than some of the more violent forms of athletics now popular. Archery has perhaps suffered to some extent from comparison with the rifle. The rifleman may claim for his weapon that its range is greater and that it shoots more accurately than the bow. The first position may be granted freely, the second only with reserve. Given, a well-made weapon of Spanish or Italian yew, and arrows of the best modern make, and the accuracy of the bow is measured only by the skill of the shooter. If he can loose his arrow truly, it will hit the mark; more than that can be said of no weapon. That a rifleman will shoot more accurately at ranges well within the power of the bow than an archer of similar skill is certain; but the reason is that the bow is the more difficult, and perhaps to some minds on that account the more fascinating, weapon. The reason why it is more difficult is obvious, and in stating it we see one of the many charms of archery. The rifleman has but to aim straight and to hold steady, and he will hit the bull's-eye. But the archer has also to supply the motive force which propels his arrow. As he watches the graceful flight of a well-shot shaft, he can feel a pride in its swiftness and strength which a rifleman cannot share. And few pastimes can furnish a more beautiful sight than an arrow speeding swiftly and steadily from the bow, till with a rapturous thud it strikes the gold at a hundred yards.

C. J. LONGMAN.

CHAPTER I.

_OF THE ENGLISH LONG-BOW_

Of the various implements of archery, the bow demands the first consideration. It has at one period or another formed one of the chief weapons of war and the chase in almost every nation, and is, indeed, at the present day in use for both these purposes in various parts of the world. It has differed as much in form as in material, having been made curved, angular, and straight; of wood, metal, horn, cane, whalebone, of wood and horn, or of wood and the entrails and sinews of animals and fish combined: sometimes of the rudest workmanship, sometimes finished with the highest perfection of art.

No work exists which aims at giving an exhaustive description of the various forms of bows which have been used by different nations in ancient and modern times, and such an undertaking would be far beyond the scope of the present work. The only form of the bow with which we are now concerned is the _English long-bow_, and especially with the English long-bow as now used for target-shooting as opposed to the more powerful weapon used by our forefathers for the purposes of war. The cross-bow never took a very strong hold on the English nation as compared with the long-bow, and, as it has never been much employed for recreation, it need not be here described.

It is a matter of surprise and regret that so few genuine specimens of the _old_ English long-bow should remain in existence at the present day. One in the possession of the late Mr. Peter Muir of Edinburgh is said to have been used in the battle of Flodden in 1513: it is of self-yew, a single stave, apparently of English growth, and very roughly made. Its strength has been supposed to be between 80 and 90 lbs.; but as it could not be tested without great risk of breaking it, its actual strength remains a matter of conjecture only. This bow was presented to Mr. P. Muir by Colonel J. Ferguson, who obtained it from a border house contiguous to Flodden Field, where it had remained for many generations, with the reputation of having been used at that battle.

There are likewise in the Tower two bows that were taken out of the 'Mary Rose,' a vessel sunk in the reign of Henry VIII. They are unfinished weapons, made out of single staves of magnificent yew, probably of foreign growth, quite round from end to end, tapered from the middle to each end, and without horns. It is difficult to estimate their strength, but it probably does not exceed from 65 to 70 lbs.

Another weapon now in the Museum of the United Service Inst.i.tution came from the same vessel. Probably the oldest specimen extant of the English long-bow is in the possession of Mr. C. J. Longman. It was dug out of the peat near Cambridge, and is unfortunately in very bad condition. It can never have been a very powerful weapon. Geologists say that it cannot be more recent than the twelfth or thirteenth century, and may be much more ancient. Indeed, from its appearance it is more probable that it is a relic of the weaker archery of the Saxons than that it is a weapon made after the Normans had introduced their more robust shooting into this country.

Before the discussion of the practical points connected with the bow is commenced, it must be borne in mind that these pages profess to give the result of actual experience, and nothing that is advanced is mere theory or opinion unsupported by proof, but the result only of long, patient, and practical investigation and of constant and untiring experiment. Whenever, therefore, one kind of wood, or one shape of bow, or one mode or principle of shooting, &c., is spoken of as being better than another, or the best of all, it is a.s.serted to be so simply because, after a full and fair trial of every other, the result of such investigation bore out that a.s.sertion. No doubt some of the points contended for were in Mr. Ford's time in opposition to the then prevailing opinions and practice, and were considered innovations. The value of theory, however, is just in proportion as it can be borne out by practical results; and in appealing to the success of his own practice as a proof of the correctness of the opinions and principles upon which it was based, he professed to be moved by no feeling of conceit or vanity, but wholly and solely by a desire to give as much force as possible to the recommendations put forth, and to obtain a fair and impartial trial of them.

The English bows now in use may be divided primarily into two cla.s.ses--the _self-bow_ and the _backed bow_; and, to save s.p.a.ce and confusion, the attention must first be confined to the self-bow, reserving what has to be said respecting the backed bow. Much, however, that is said of the one applies equally to the other.

The self-bow of a single stave is the real old English weapon--the one with which the mighty deeds that rendered this country renowned in bygone times were performed; for until the decline and disappearance of archery in war, as a consequence of the superiority of firearms, and the consequent cessation of the importation of bow-staves, backed bows were unknown. Ascham, who wrote in the sixteenth century, when archery had already degenerated into little else than an amus.e.m.e.nt, mentions none other than self-bows; and it may therefore be concluded that such only existed in his day. Of the woods for self-bows, yew beyond all question carries off the palm. Other woods have been, and still are, in use, such as lance, cocus, Washaba, rose, snake, laburnum, and others; but they may be summarily dismissed (with the exception of lance, of which more hereafter) with the remark that self-bows made of these woods are all so radically bad, heavy in hand, apt to jar, dull in cast, liable to chrysal, and otherwise p.r.o.ne to break, that no archer should use them so long as a self-yew or a good backed bow is within reach.

The only wood, then, for self-bows is yew, and the best yew is of foreign growth (Spanish or Italian), though occasionally staves of English wood are met with which almost rival those of foreign growth.

This, however, is the exception; as a rule, the foreign wood is the best: it is straighter, and finer in grain, freer from pins, stiffer and denser in quality, and requires less bulk in proportion to the strength of the bow.

The great bane of yew is its liability to knots and _pins_, and rare indeed it is to find a six-feet stave without one or more of these undesirable companions. Where, however, a pin occurs, it may easily be rendered comparatively harmless by the simple plan of raising it--i.e.

by leaving a little more wood than elsewhere round the pin in the belly and back of the bow. This strengthens the particular point, and diminishes the danger of a chrysal or splinter. A pin resembles a small piece of wire, is very hard and troublesome to the bowmaker's tools, runs right through the bow-stave from belly to back, and is very frequently the point at which a chrysal starts. This chrysal (also called by old writers a 'pinch') is a sort of disease which attacks the belly of a bow. At first it nearly resembles a scratch or crack in the varnish. Its direction is always diagonal to the line of the bow, and it gradually eats deeply into the bow and makes it appear as if it had been attacked with a chopper. If many small chrysals appear, much danger need not be feared, though their progress should be watched; but if one chrysal becomes deeply rooted, the bow should be sent to the bowmaker for a new belly. A chrysal usually occurs in new bows, and mostly arises from the wood being imperfectly seasoned; but it occasionally will occur in a well-seasoned bow that has been lent to a friend who uses a longer draw and dwells longer on the point of aim, thus using the weapon beyond its wont. Another danger to the life of a bow arises from splinters in the back. These mostly occur in wet weather, when the damp, through failure of the varnish, has been able to get into the wood. Directly the rising of a splinter is observed, that part of the bow should be effectually glued and wrapped before it is again used. After this treatment the bow will be none the worse, except in appearance. Yew and hickory only should be used for the backs of bows. Canadian elm, which is occasionally used for backs, is particularly liable to splinter. It is obvious whenever a bow is broken the commencement of the fracture has been in a splinter or a chrysal, according as the first failure was in the back or the belly; therefore in the diagnosis of these disorders archers have to be thankful for small mercies. The grain of the wood should be as even and fine as possible, with the feathers running quite straight, and as nearly as possible consecutively from the handle to the horn in each limb, and without curls; also, care should be taken, in the manufacture of a bow, that the sap or back be of even depth, and not in some places reduced to the level of the belly. The feathering of a yew bow means the gradual disappearance of some of the grain as the substance of the bow is reduced between the handle and horn. A curl is caused by a sudden turn in the grain of the wood, so that this feathering is abruptly interrupted and reversed before it reappears.

This is a great source of weakness in a bow, both in belly and back.

There should be nothing of the nature of feathering in the back of a bow, and it is believed that the best back is that in which nothing but the bark has been removed from the stave. Any interruption of the grain of the back is a source of weakness and a hotbed of splinters. A bow that follows the string should never be straightened, for the same reason that anything of the nature of a carriage-spring should on no account be reversed in application. The wood should be thoroughly well seasoned and of a good sound hard quality. The finest and closest dark grain is undoubtedly the most beautiful and uncommon; but the open or less close-grained wood, and wood of paler complexion, are nearly, if not quite, as good for use.

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 1.--A GOOD BOW UNSTRUNG.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 2.--A GOOD BOW WHEN STRUNG.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 3.--A BADLY REFLEXED BOW THAT BENDS IN THE HAND.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 4.--A GOOD SHAPE FOR A NEW BOW.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 5.--A BOW THAT FOLLOWS STRING: STRUNG AND UNSTRUNG.]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 6.--A REFLEX BOW: STRUNG AND UNSTRUNG.

(Figs. 5 and 6 show the different distances which the limbs of well-shaped and of reflex bows have to go to their rest when unstrung.)]

[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 7.

_Doublefish_ _Singlefish_]

The self-yew bow may be a single-stave--that is to say, made of a single piece of wood, or may be made of two pieces dovetailed or united in the handle by what is called a fish. In a single-stave bow the quality of the wood will not be quite the same in the two limbs, the wood of the lower growth being denser than that of the upper; whilst in the grafted bow, made of the same piece of wood, cut or split apart, and re-united in the handle, the two limbs will be exactly of the same nature. The joint, or _fishing_ (fig. 7), should be double, not single.

The difference, however, between these two sorts of self-yew bows is so slight as to be immaterial. In any unusually damp or variable climate single staves should be prepared; and in the grafted bows care should be taken in ascertaining that they be firmly put together in the middle. A single-stave bow has usually a somewhat shorter handle, as it becomes unnecessary to cover so much of the centre of the bow when the covering is not used as a cover to the joint, but for the purpose of holding the bow only.

In shape all bows should be full and inflexible in the centre, tapering gradually to each horn. They should never bend in the handle, as bows of this shape (i.e. a continuous curve from horn to horn) always jar most disagreeably in the hand. A perfectly graduated bend, from a stiff unbending centre of at least nine inches, towards each horn is the best.

Some self-yew bows are naturally reflexed, others are straight, and some follow the string more or less. The slightly reflexed bows are perhaps more pleasing to the eye, as one cannot quite shake off the belief that the shape of Cupid's bow is agreeable. Bows which follow the string somewhat are perhaps the most pleasant to use.

The handle of the bow, which in size should be regulated to the grasp of each archer, should be in such a position that the upper part of it may be from an inch to an inch and a quarter above the _true centre_ of the bow, or the point in the handle whereon the bow will balance. If this centre be lower down in the handle, as is usual in bows of Scotch manufacture, the cast of the bow may be somewhat improved, but at the cost of a tendency to that unpleasant feeling of kicking and jarring in the hand. Again, if the true centre be higher, or, as is the case in the old unaltered Flemish bows, at the point where the arrow lies on the hand, the cast will be found to suffer disadvantageously. If the handle be properly grasped (inattention to which will endanger the bow's being pulled out of shape), the fulcrum, in drawing, will be about the true balancing centre, and the root of the thumb will be placed thereon.

Considering a bow to consist of three members--a handle and two limbs--the upper limb, being somewhat longer, must of necessity bend a trifle more, and this it should do. The most usual covering for the handle is plush; but woollen binding-cloth, leather, and india-rubber are also in constant use.

The piece of mother-of-pearl, ivory, or other hard substance usually inserted in the handle of the bow, at the point where the arrow lies, is intended to prevent the wearing away of the bow by the friction of the arrow; but this precaution overreaches itself, as in the course of an unusually long life the most hard-working bow will scarcely lose as much by this friction as must, to start with, be cut away for this insertion.