Читать книгу The Theory and Practice of Archery - W. Butt - Страница 5

Table of Contents

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 Institution 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 asserted to be so simply because, after a full and fair trial of every other, the result of such investigation bore out that assertion. 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 classes—the self-bow and the backed bow; and, to save space 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 amusement, 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 prone 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.

Fig. 1.—A GOOD BOW UNSTRUNG.

Fig. 2.—A GOOD BOW WHEN STRUNG.

Fig. 3.—A BADLY REFLEXED BOW THAT BENDS IN THE HAND.

Fig. 4.—A GOOD SHAPE FOR A NEW BOW.

Fig. 5.—A BOW THAT FOLLOWS STRING: STRUNG AND UNSTRUNG.

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.)

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.

The length of the bow, which is calculated from nock to nock—and this length will vary a little from the actual length, according as it may be said to hold itself upright or stoop, i.e. follow the string—should be regulated by its strength and the length of the arrow to be used with it. It may be taken as a safe rule that the stronger the bow the greater its length should be; and so also the longer the arrow the longer should be the bow. For those who use arrows of the usual length of from 27 to 28 inches, with bows of the strength of from 45 lbs. to 55 lbs., a useful and safe length will be not less than 5 ft. 10 in. If this length of arrow or weight of bow be increased or diminished, the length of bow may be proportionally increased or diminished, taking as the two extremes 5 ft. 8 in. and 6 feet. No bow need be much outside either of these measurements. It may be admitted that a short bow will cast somewhat farther than a longer one of the same weight, but this extra cast can only be gained by a greater risk of breakage. As bows are usually weighed and marked by the bowmakers for a 28-inch arrow fully drawn up, a greater or less pull will take more or less out of them, and the archer's calculations must be made accordingly.

To increase or diminish the power of a bow, it is usual to shorten it in the former case, and to reduce the bulk in the latter; but to shorten a bow will probably shorten its life too, and mayhap spoil it, unless it be certain that it is superfluously long or sufficiently strong in the handle. On the other hand, to reduce a bow judiciously, if it need to be weaker, can do it no harm; but the reduction should not be carried quite up to the handle. It is a good plan to choose a bow by quality, regardless of strength, and have the best bow that can be procured reduced to the strength suitable. In all cases the horns should be well and truly set on, and the nocks should be of sufficient bulk to enclose safely the extremities of the limbs of the bow running up into them, and the edges of the nocks should be made most carefully smooth. If the edge of the nock be sharp and rough, the string must be frayed, and in consequence break sooner or later, and endanger the safety of the bow. The lower nock is not unfrequently put on or manufactured a trifle sideways as to its groove on the belly side. This is done with a view to compensate the irregularity of the loop: but this is a mistake, as it is quite unnecessary in the case of a loop, and must be liable to put the string out of position when there is a second eye to the string—and this second eye every archer who pays due regard to the preservation of his bows and strings should be most anxious to adopt as soon as possible.

From all that can be learned respecting the backed bow, it would appear that its use was not adopted in this country until archery was in its last stage of decline as a weapon of war, when, the bow degenerating into an instrument of amusement, the laws relating to the importation of yew staves from foreign countries were evaded, and the supply consequently ceased. It was then that the bowyers hit upon the plan of uniting a tough to an elastic wood, and so managed to make a very efficient weapon out of very inferior materials. This cannot fairly be claimed as an invention of the English bowyers, but is an adaptation of the plan which had long been in use amongst the Turks, Persians, Tartars, Chinese, and many other nations, including Laplanders, whose bows were made of two pieces of wood united with isinglass. As far as regards the English backed bow (this child of necessity), the end of the sixteenth century is given as the period of its introduction, and the Kensals of Manchester are named as the first makers—bows of whose make may be still in existence and use—and these were generally made of yew backed with hickory or wych-elm. At the time of the revival of archery—at the close of the last century, and again fifty years ago—all backed bows were held in great contempt by any that could afford self-yews, and were always slightingly spoken of as 'tea-caddy' bows; meaning that they were made of materials fit for nothing but ornamental joinery, Tunbridge ware, &c.

The backed bows of the present day are made of two or more strips of the same or different woods securely glued, and compressed together as firmly as possible, in frames fitted with powerful screws, which frames are capable of being set to any shape. Various woods are used, most of which, though of different quality, make serviceable bows. For the backs we have the sap of yew, hickory, American, Canadian, or wych-elm, hornbeam, &c.; and for the bellies, yew, lance, fustic, snake, Washaba, and letter-wood, which is the straight grained part of snake, and some others. Of all these combinations Mr. Ford gave the strongest preference to bows of yew backed with yew. These he considered the only possible rivals of the self-yew. Next in rank he classed bows of yew backed with hickory. Bows made of lance backed with hickory, when the woods used are well seasoned and of choice quality, are very steady and trustworthy, but not silky and pleasant in drawing like bows made of yew. One advantage of this combination of bow is that both these woods can be had of sufficient length to avoid the trouble in making and insecurity in use of the joint in the handle. Of bows into which more than two woods are introduced, the combination of yew for the belly, fustic or other good hard wood for the centre, and hickory for the back cannot well be improved upon, and such bows have been credited with excellent scores. There is also a three-wooded modification of the lance and hickory bow. In this a tapering strip of hard wood is introduced between the back and belly; this strip passes through the handle and disappears at about a foot from the horn in each limb. The lancewood bows are the cheapest, and next to these follow the lance-and-hickory bows, and then those of the description last mentioned. On this account beginners who do not wish to go to much expense whilst they are, as it were, testing their capacity for the successful prosecution of this sport, would do well to make a start with a bow of one or other of these descriptions. It will often be useful to lend to another beginner, or to a friend, to whom it might not be wise to lend a more valuable bow; or it may even be of use to the owner at a pinch. Bows have often been made of many more than three pieces; but nothing is gained by further complications, unless it be necessary in the way of repair.

Next in importance to the consideration of the material of which backed bows should be made comes the treatment of their shape. Judging from such specimens of backed bows, made by Waring and others, before the publication of Mr. H. A. Ford's articles on archery in the 'Field,' as have survived to the present day, and whose survival may be chiefly attributed to the fact that they were so utterly harsh and disagreeable in use that it was but little use they ever got, the author was probably right in saying that they all bent in the handle more or less when drawn, and were too much reflexed. There is but little doubt that—as the joint in the handle, necessitating extra bulk and strength, could be dispensed with in these bows—the makers considered it an excellent opportunity to give their goods what (however erroneously) was then considered the best shape (when drawn), namely, the perfect arc; and this harmonious shape they obtained most successfully by making the bows comparatively weak in the handle and unnecessarily strong towards the horns; with the result that these 'tea-caddy bows' met the contemptuous fate they well deserved. Modern archers have to be thankful to Mr. Ford for the vast improvement in backed bows (even more than in the case of self-bows), which are now perfectly steady in hand, and taper gradually, and as much as is compatible with the safety of the limbs, and this in spite of their being still made somewhat more reflex when new than appears necessary in the manufacture of self-yew bows. Yet Mr. Ford was perfectly right to condemn all reflexity that does not result in a bow becoming either straight or somewhat to follow the string after it has been in use sufficiently long for its necessary training to its owner's style. The first quality of a bow is steadiness. Now this quality is put in peril either by a want of exact balance between the two limbs—when the recoil of one limb is quicker than that of the other—or by undue reflexity. These causes of unsteadiness occur in self-bows as well as in backed bows, and are felt in the shape of a jar or kick in the hand when loosed. This unsteadiness from want of balance in the limbs may be cured by a visit of the bow to the maker for such fresh tillering (as it is called) as will correct the fault of one or other limb. If the unsteadiness arise from excessive reflexity, which cannot be reduced by use, a further tapering of the limbs must be adopted. No bow of any sort that cannot be completely cured of kicking should be kept, as no steady shooting can be expected from such a bow. A bow that is much reflexed will be more liable to chrysals and splinters, as the belly has to be more compressed and the back more strained than in a bow of proper shape; also, such a bow is much more destructive to strings, as a greater strain is put upon the strings by the recoil of the limbs than is the case with a bow that follows the string or bends inwards naturally. It is the uneven or excessive strain upon the string after the discharge of the arrow that causes the kicking of the bow.

When the question arises, 'Which is the best sort of bow?' it is found that the solution has only been rendered more complicated since 1859 by the great improvement in the manufacture of various sorts of backed bows: as the following remarks, then applied to the comparison between the self-yew and the yew-backed yew only, must now be extended to all the best specimens of backed bows of different sorts. The advocates of the self-yew affirm that good specimens of their pet weapon are the sweetest in use, the steadiest in hand, the most certain in cast, and the most beautiful to the eye; and in all these points, with the exception of certainty of cast, they are borne out by the fact. This being the state of the case, how is it, then, that a doubt can still remain as to which it is most profitable for an archer to use? Here are three out of four points (two of which are most important) in which it is admitted that the self-yew is superior; and yet, after much practical and experimental testing of all sorts, it must be left to the taste and judgment of each man to decide for himself. The fact undoubtedly is, that the self-yew is the most perfect weapon. But it is equally an undoubted fact that it requires more delicate handling; since, its cast lying very much in the last three or four inches of its pull, any variation in this respect, or difference in quickness or otherwise of loose, varies the elevation of the arrow to a much greater extent than the same variation of pull or loose in the others, whose cast is more uniform throughout. Now, were a man perfect in his physical powers, or always in first-rate shooting condition, there would be no doubt as to which bow he should use, as he would in this case be able to attain to the difficult nicety required in the management of the self-yew; but as this constant perfection never can be maintained, the superior merits of this bow are partially counteracted by the extreme difficulty of doing justice to them; and the degree of harshness of pull and unsteadiness in hand of the others being but trifling, the greater certainty with which they accomplish the elevation counterbalances, upon average results, their inferiority in other respects. Another advantage the self-yew possesses is, that it is not so liable to injury from damp as are the backed bows; but then the latter are much less costly, and, with common care, need cause no fear of harm from damp, as an inch of lapping at either end covering the junction with the horns will preserve them from this danger. As regards chrysals, and breakage from other causes than damp, bows of all sorts of wood are about equally liable to failure. The main results of the comparison, then, resolve themselves into these two prominent features: namely, that the self-yew bow, from its steadiness, sweetness, and absence of vibration, ensures the straightness of the shot better than backed bows; whilst the latter, owing to the regularity of their cast not being confined quite to a hair's breadth of pull, carry off the palm for greater certainty in the elevation of the shot.

It is almost unnecessary to say that there are bad bows of all sorts, many being made of materials that are fit for nothing but firewood; and yet the bowmakers seem to be almost justified in making up such materials by the fact that occasionally the most ungainly bow will prove itself almost invaluable in use, while a perfect beauty in appearance may turn out a useless slug.

Though it may be no easy matter to decide which particular sort of bow an individual archer should adopt, yet, when that individual has once ascertained the description of bow that appears to suit him best, he will be wise to confine his attention to that same sort in his future acquisition of bows. An archer who shoots much will find his bowmaker's account a serious annual matter if he keep none but the best self-yew bows; and therefore any who find it necessary to count the cost of this sport should do their best to adapt themselves to the cheaper though not much inferior backed bows. This also may be further said of the difference between self-yews and backed bows—namely, that there appears to be a sort of individuality attached to each self-yew bow, apart from the peculiarities of its class, which makes it difficult (not regarding the cost) to remedy the loss of a favourite self-yew bow. It is very much easier to replace any specimen of the other sorts of bows, as there is much less variation of character in each class.

The 'carriage bow' is made to divide into two pieces by means of a metal socket in the handle, after the fashion of the joint of a fishing-rod. The object of this make of bow is to render it more convenient as a travelling-companion; but, as the result is a bow heavy in hand and unpleasant in use, the remedy appears to be worse than the disease.

It is often asserted that the best bows should be made of steel, as superior in elasticity to wood; but this is not borne out by the results of experiment. The late Hon. R. Hely-Hutchinson, a member of the R. Tox. Soc., took a great deal of pains to have long-bows manufactured of steel both in England and in Belgium. The best of these, weighing about 50 lbs. for the 28-inch draw, with the aim and elevation which with a good wooden bow would carry an arrow 100 yards, scarcely carried its shaft as far as 60 yards, so deadly slow appeared the recoil; and besides this, the actual weight in the hand of the implement was so considerable that it would be a most serious addition to the toil of the day, on account of its being so frequently held out at arm's length, to say nothing of its having to be carried about all day.