The following observations, be it understood, are intended to apply to those distances only which are fairly within the cast of the bows in use at the present day, and at which accuracy in hitting can reasonably be expected. Beyond 120 or 130 yards, the necessary but excessive arch of the arrow, the unavoidable concealment of the target by the required elevation of the left hand and arm, and the vastly increased effect of wind and weather, all conspire to render hitting the mark a matter much more of chance and guess-work than of skill and scientific practice. Not but what in any case the good Archer will always be superior as against the bad one, even in chance shooting, as he still possesses the advantages that superior judgment and knowledge of his weapon will be sure to give him, and which, to a certain extent, will enable him to control the adverse influences that militate against the correctness and accuracy of his shooting; but the more chance enters into the elements of success, and the more the efforts of skill are baffled by matters out of the power of science to control, the less satisfactory will the pursuit become; and that this is the generally received opinion, as regards distance shooting amongst Archers of the present day, may be inferred from the fact, that all the numerous Archery societies now existing in the kingdom, with the exception of two or three, limit their distances to 100 yards, as does the Grand National Archery Society itself. I shall now proceed to the discussion of my immediate subject, namely, the method of aiming at what may be called the target distances.

The "aim" is undoubtedly the most abstruse and scientific point connected with the practice of Archery; the most difficult to teach, yet the most necessary to be taught; upon which all successful practice depends, yet respecting which the most sublime ignorance generally prevails; the want of a due understanding of which is all but universal, yet without which understanding an impassable barrier is presented to the progressing a single step beyond the commonest mediocrity. Ignorance of this fundamental principle it is that causes so many Archers endowed with every quality required to make great and accurate shots — health, strength, correctness of eye, &c. — to stand still, as it were, at a certain point, immoveable, and, if I may coin a word, unimproveable — year after year hammering away in the despairing pursuit of bulls' eyes, without any per­ceptible improvement or increase of skill, until at last, as I have known in some instances, the whole matter has been given up in sheer hopelessness and disgust at continued ill-success. As if to add to the difficulty of obtaining the command of this most necessary principle of aiming, many of the authors that have treated on Archery have (to judge from their silence) appeared to think such a principle unneeded; whilst others who have noticed it have combined to lead the unfortunate aspirant in the wrong direction. In vain will he search the standard works on the subject through, to find a common­sense or scientific principle laid down to assist him on this point. Ascham will tell him that, "to look at the shaft-head at the loose is the greatest help in keeping a length that can be, but that it hinders excellent shooting;" and afterwards, that, "to have the eye always on the mark is the only way to shoot straight." Now, as keeping a length and shooting straight at the same time, are just the two things necessary to hit the mark, and the best modus operandi for the one is, according to Ascham, the worst for the other, I do not think much practical benefit is here to be derived from him. He does not even hint at any principle that might by possibility combine the two requisites, neither does he give his readers any further practical assistance, as to getting the straight line and elevation, than is con­tained in the two above quotations. If he then turn to Roberts, (who, by-the-by, on practical points mostly confines himself to quoting Ascham) he will find from what can be gathered from his (Roberts's) own observations, that the eye is conceived to be an organ of such wonderful power as to be able to accomplish all the Archer may require in the way of elevation, &c. And he is indeed right so far; but whilst he asserts that as the eye is taught, so it will continue to exercise its functions, he totally omits to say how or in what manner it is to be trained so as to arrive at the required powers and capabilities. The author of "The Modern Book of Archery" asserts "that the best, and indeed the only, expedient for attaining perfection in shooting straight, is to shoot in the evening at lights;" and herein, indeed, as so many others have done, he but follows in the wake of Roger Ascham, but improves upon it in favour of the "town resident," by substituting the street gas-lamp opposite his sitting-room, for the paper lantern — policeman A 1, it is presumed, officiating as marker. Waring confines his instruction simply to observing that, "when taking aim, the arrow is to be brought up towards the ear, not to the eye, as many suppose," and that " the Archer must not look along the arrow, but direct at the mark ;" and that "the mark is to be visible a little to the left of the knuckles." There are other and smaller works, but they are either plagiarisms from those already named, or ignore instruction upon this part of shooting altogether.

Now, just let my readers imagine such desultory instruction upon aiming as the specimens quoted, given as regards rifle-shooting, for instance, and it will be instantly perceived how wanting it would be, and how utterly insufficient to enable a man to arrive at anything like excellence in this pursuit. Imagine a man, desirous of hitting a mark at 100 or 200 yards with this weapon, being told to keep his knuckles to the right of the bull's eye, or to keep his eye on it, and trust to his hand following it so accurately as to make his shot all right in the end, without further assistance of any kind. How different are the means actually employed to obtain accuracy here! to what a nicety is the sight regulated! How beautifully calculated to a hair's breadth. A small telescope is even sometimes fixed upon the barrel to insure greater certainty of aim; and even with all these concomitants, the rest is needed by many to make assurance doubly sure. No hand and eye, or lantern and gas-light theories are considered sufficient here. Yet for the bow — an infinitely more difficult weapon to shoot with — such things are gravely set forth as all that are needed, or, at any rate, all that there are to work upon. Hand and eye will do a good deal, no doubt — it will enable a man to throw a stone or bowl a cricket-ball a short distance with tolerable accuracy, or to bring down a partridge or pheasant with a projectile that spreads and covers a space of perhaps two feet in diameter. These and other things of the like nature it may do; but it is comparatively useless when depended on as the only means to enable the Archer to strike with anything like certainty, and with a projectile analogous to a small bullet, a mark much beyond his own nose. The powers of hand and eye are, as with the rifle shot, too limited for him. The truth of this observation may be corrobo­rated by the fact that so many curious devices have been originated by different Archers to obtain some surer means of acquiring certainty. Some will endeavour to find some object to the right or left, above or below the target, which they can apparently cover with the arrow, and which shall yet be about the spot to aim at, so as to cause the shaft to drop into the mark. One I knew of, for sixty yards shooting, used actually to fix a bit of stick into the ground for that purpose. A nice sort of system this to depend upon, on strange grounds and in matches, where no well-placed tree or happily-located stick may happen to be at hand just in the right place. Some have covered the glove of the bow hand with a series of lines of different colours, carrying the eye along one or the other, according as their notion of the line or elevation required, whilst others have improved upon this plan, by making a pincushion of their left hand, by inserting a number of pins in a piece of leather fastened thereon for the purpose, each individual pin serving as a guide for the particular line or elevation wanted at the time. Others, again, have contented themselves with making their left hand their guide, varying its position in conjunction with the mark according to circumstances, high or low, to the right or left hand, as the case might be.

Now these things, and all others like them, are "dodges" — or, as Ascham would call them, shifts — and will never lead to a successful result, or to certainty and accuracy of practice; they may, perhaps, occasionally prove of assistance to those who have no more scientific knowledge of shooting in quiet private practice, where the mind is unexcited and undisturbed, and no distracting influences are likely to arise; but woe to the Archer (in a target-hitting sense) who depends upon them on strange grounds or in matches, or upon any occasion where he may be more than usually desirous of shooting well, for fail him at his need they infallibly will. Strange it is that any such shifts and inventions should ever have been found necessary. Let a gun for the first time be put into a man's hands, and tell him to aim with it, and up it goes at once under the eye, and intuitively he looks at his mark and takes his sight along the barrel. Now the arrow represents precisely an analogous object to this latter; there it is, ready at hand, straight and true, and like as the rifle bullet flies accurately in the direction in which the barrel is held at the moment of discharge, so the arrow will equally, and with the same correctness, fly in the line in which its length lies, and in the direc­tion indicated by itself, when drawn up for the loose — taking for granted, of course, that the shot in all other respects be correctly delivered, that the arrow be a good one, and that no counteracting influence of side wind interfere. The object then to be attained is such a mode of aiming as shall enable the Archer not only to keep his eye upon the point of aim (for this is absolutely necessary for all successful shooting, whether with the gun or with the bow), but at the same time to have a sufficient vision of his mark, and of the length as well as the point of the arrow.

The cause of the great difficulty experienced by the generality of Archers in attaining a satisfactory system of aiming, and the consequent singular devices in vogue for that purpose already men­tioned, have appeared to me to arise from a too rigid and mistaken adherence to the supposed old English style of shooting — "pulling to the ear." This may have been the method adopted by our fore­fathers, in the days when great strength and force of shooting was the one thing most sought after, as this method enables: the Archer undoubtedly to pull a longer arrow; and thus, the string having a longer distance to act upon the shaft, a quicker and' stronger flight is obtained thereby; but I question very much if by this means greater actual power is obtained, but only that the same amount of power is applied in a different manner. This prolonged action of the string, then, upon the arrow, is the whole and sole advantage gained by pulling to the ear; but, in carrying out this method, all scientific principles of aiming must at once be cast aside, because it is impossible when the arrow is once drawn past, "and consequently on one side of the eyes, that its true direction can be any longer accurately seen; since, pulled in this way when to the eye it ap­pears to be pointing to the mark, it is in reality held in a direction far away to the left of it. Hence the reason why some who have written upon the subject of the aim in Archery (assuming at once that pulling to the ear can be the only correct method) direct the learner to keep his bow-hand to the right of the mark; and so many Archers aim with one or other of their knuckles, or a particular pin out of their pincushion! I fear I shall be at once anathematised as a heretic for daring to impugn the dear old dogmatic legend of the "pull to the ear;" but I must nevertheless maintain that, with the exception of the advantage above-named, it possesses no recom­mendation; and if Robin Hood himself adopted this method, and trusted to his hand and eye only, or dodged about with knuckles or pins to obtain an aim, I for one cannot bring myself to believe in his skill, whatever the force of his shot may have been — it may be safely depended on that very few willow wands are to be split in this way. Imagine a man being expected to hit accurately with a rifle with a trigger at his ear, and his eye looking sideways at the barrel: its absurdity at once becomes evident. Yet this is exactly a similar case. I will now, however, proceed to demonstrate what appears to me to be the only true and scientific mode of aiming, and for this purpose it will be necessary, in the first place, to say a few words on those laws of optics which apply to the point in question.

When both eyes are directed to any single object, say the gold of the target, their axes meet at it, and all other parts of the eyes, having perfect correspondence as regards that object, give the sen­sation of direct vision; but images at the same time are formed of other objects nearer or farther to the right or the left, as the case may be, which may be called the indirect vision; and any object embraced by this indirect vision will be seen more or less distinctly, according to its remoteness or otherwise from either of the axes in any part of their length; and it will be, or at any rate naturally should be, clearest to the indirect vision of that eye to the axis of which it most approximates.

Now, in aiming with the bow, to arrive at anything like cer­tainty, it is necessary to obtain a view of three things, namely, the mark to be hit (which is the gold of the target), the arrow in its whole line and length, (otherwise its real course cannot be appre­ciated), and the point of aim.

It may, perhaps, be as well to explain here, that by the point of aim is meant the spot apparently covered by the point of the arrow. This, with the bow, is never identical with the gold, except­ing at one particular distance to each individual Archer, because the arrow has no adjusting sights to make it always so, as is the case with the rifle. As an example, let us suppose an Archer shooting in a side wind, say at eighty yards, and that this distance is, to him, that particular one where, in calm weather, the point of his arrow and the gold are identical. It is clear if he now makes them so, the effect of the wind will carry his arrow to the right or the left, accord­ing to the side from which it blows. He is, therefore, obliged to aim to one side of his mark, and the point of his arrow, conse­quently, covers a spot other than that of the gold. And this spot, in this instance, would be to him his point of aim. Under the parallel circumstances of a long range and a side wind, the rifle even would be subject to the same rule.

Now I shall be understood when I repeat, that it is necessary for the Archer to embrace within his vision the gold, the point of the aim, and the true line in which the arrow is directed.

Direct vision, however, can only be applied to one object at a time, and as that object must never in any case be the arrow, I will first proceed to show in what way this must be held, in order to enable the Archer, by means of his indirect vision, clearly to appreciate the true line in which it points at the time of aiming, leaving for after discussion the question as to whether the gold or the point of aim should be directly looked at.

Now it is at once asserted, as an incontrovertible axiom in Archery, that this true line can never be correctly appreciated by the shooter, excepting when the arrow lies in its whole length directly beneath the axis of the aiming eye. (The indirect vision of both eyes can never be used here, as, if it were, according to the law of optics, two arrows would he seen; but this is never the case with the habitual shooter, though both eyes be open, habit and the wonderful adapting power of the eye preventing such an untoward effect equally as well as if the second eye were closed — which, in­deed, with many Archers is the case.)

I have said, then, that the arrow, in its whole length, must be directly beneath the axis of the aiming eye (see diagram 1, plate 6,) (which I shall here assume to be the right one, as in ninety-nine instances out of one hundred is the case,) and it must do so, because otherwise, the shooter will be deceived as to its true line; for so long as the point intersects the axis of the aiming eye, the arrow will appear to that eye to be pointing in a straight line with the object looked at, though in reality directed far away to the right or the left of it. (See diagram 2, plate 6, where the arrow C, though held in the directions C. E., appear to the shooter to be aimed at the object D.)

For instance, suppose the Archer to be shooting at that distance where his point of aim is identical with the gold. He of course brings the point of his arrow to bear upon it, the same as the rifle­man would his sights; that is, the point intersects the axis of the aiming eye, but if the arrow itself be inclined, say to the right of the axis (as in pulling to the ear it would be), it will fly away far to the left of the object looked at — and the converse of this is true also, for if it incline to the left of the axis, it will then fly off to the right. (See diagram 2, plate 6.)

I will produce an example within my own personal knowledge — a curious, though perfect illustration of all that has been said — and I do so, as it is possible that cases of the like nature may exist, and therefore the description of this one and of its solution may be useful.

An Archer had shot for many years, but always found that if ever his arrow pointed (to him) in a straight line with the gold, it invariably flew off far to the left of it-five or six yards even at the short distances — (vide diagram 4, plate 6, where the arrow C, though pointing in the direction B. E., appeared to the shooter to be aimed at the object D.) he was therefore obliged to make this allowance and point his arrow (as it appeared to him) that number of yards to the right (vide diagram 3, plate 6, where the arrow C, though pointing straight to the object D, appeared to the shooter to be pointing in the direction A. E). During several years he had in vain sought a solution of this anomaly; all could tell him there was something faulty somewhere, but, as everything in his style and mode of action appeared correct, what that something was remained a mystery. Becoming acquainted with him some short time back, he applied to me to solve the riddle, but as I found that the arrow was held perfectly as it should be — directly beneath the axis of the right eye — and that the other important points of the Archer were correct also, I was for a time as much puzzled as any one else could have been. To cut a long story short, suffice it to say, that I ulti­mately discovered, that though the arrow was held close to, and directly beneath, the axis of the right eye, (this being open too,) this Archer actually used his left eye to aim with. If the previous observations be considered, it will now at once be seen why the dis­crepancy between his aim and the flight of his arrow existed; the fact being, that the arrow did not appear to the shooter to be point­ing straight till the point intersected the axis of his lei eye, and consequently until its course was in reality in a direction far away to the left of the mark. (See diagram 4, plate 6.) On closing the left eye, the line of flight and the aim became at once identical, because the eye, under whose axis the arrow was held, became the one with which the aim was taken.

The diagrams illustrating the foregoing observations do not profess to be drawn to scale, but are simply intended to illustrate their principle.

Now, as to whether the direct vision should be applied to the mark or the point of aim, the argument is all in favour of the latter. For the point of aim must, necessarily, be in relation to the mark, either in a perpendicular line with it or outside that line: if outside, then the direct vision must certainly be upon the point of aim, other­wise the arrow cannot be directly beneath the line of the axis of the eye, which has already been shown to be necessary; therefore, the only remaining question to be decided is, when the point of aim falls in a perpendicular line with the mark, which of the two should be directly looked at? Here again an argument can be adduced to determine the choice in favour of the former; for when the point of aim is above the mark, the latter will be concealed from the right, or aiming eye, by the necessary raising of the bow-hand (as may be proved by the experiment of shutting the left eye); therefore, the direct vision cannot be here applied to the mark, though it may be to the point of aim. There remains then but one other case, namely, when the point of aim falls in the perpendicular line below the mark; and here (though either of them may in this case be viewed with the direct vision), as no reasoning or argument can be put forward for violating rule shown to be necessary in the other cases, and as it is easier to view the point of aim directly, and the mark indirectly, than the contrary, and as uniformity of practice is highly desirable, I strongly recommend that in all cases the direct vision be upon the point of aim, This is contrary to the usual received opinion, which is that the eye should always be intently fixed upon the mark to be hit; but I am very much inclined to think that even those Archers that imagine they do so, will find, as I have done, upon careful experiment, that the point of aim is directly looked at, and not the mark, this being only seen indirectly, except as before stated, when the aim is point-blank; and this is exactly analagous to that part of rifle-shooting where allowance must be made for a strong side wind, at a long range.

My readers must bear in mind that all these remarks, as before stated, are intended to apply only to the target distances, or any lengths within them.

As regards aiming at lengths much beyond these distances, since the mark and the point of aim are too far apart to be sufficiently seen in conjunction, I do not see that any scientific principle can here be laid down for the guidance of the Archer. Practice alone will give him a knowledge of the power of his bow, and the angle of elevation required to throw the arrow up to the mark. If the distance to be shot be a known and fixed one, for instance, two hundred yards, the calculation is more or less attainable; but the great distance renders the aim so uncertain as to prevent anything approaching to the accuracy attainable at the targets. If the mark be a varying and uncertain one, as in roving, the Archer is entirely dependent upon his judgment of distances. This sort of shooting, though very interesting, must be attended with a great amount of uncertainty; but, as in every other case, the more the practice, the greater will be the success.

No rules can be laid down for fixing where the point of aim ought to be at any distance, as this is dependent upon so great a variety of circumstances — the strength of the bow, a sharp or dull loose, heavy or light arrows, and the varying force of different winds. This is a matter entirely for the judgment of each individual Archer, and can only be decided by his own practical experience. Indeed, as different winds have such different effects upon the flight of the shaft, it is not until the Archer has arrived upon the field, and actually shot one or two arrows, that even he can be in a position to judge his point of aim for himself. Here the words of Ascham may, with propriety, be quoted: — "The best property of a good shooter is to know the nature of the winds, with him and against him, that thereby he may shoot near to his mark."

Some few Archers are in the habit of shutting one eye when aiming. Now, as it would be anything but interesting or instructive to. enter into the discussion of the one and two-eyed theories — a vexata quæstio for centuries, and about which volumes might, and I believe have been written, and no one a whit the wiser in con­sequence — I shall confine myself to the remarks, that in Archery it is objectionable, whenever the point of aim is above the mark; as in this case, without the use of both eyes, the latter is concealed from the sight altogether by the bow-hand and arm — an instant's experi­ment will prove the truth of this. Another reason against it is, that though apparently seeming to concentrate the aim, it nevertheless contracts the vision, and, moreover, distorts the face, and interferes with that gracefulness which ought to be one of the attributes of Archery. The fair sex especially will, therefore, be cautious before they adopt so inelegant a system of aiming. There may perhaps be cases, however, where it is almost unavoidable — witness that one of which a detail was given some page or two back. In such instances there is apparently no help for it.

Finally, upon this point of aiming, it should be remarked that, as from the position necessarily assumed by the Archer in shooting, the right eye is the one that comes naturally nearest to the arrow; it is beneath the axis of this one that the shaft should lie. It would hardly have been considered necessary to mention so very obvious a matter, had not a few Archers contracted a habit of actually putting the arrow to the left side of their nose, and so under the left eye. Now, as this can serve no useful purpose, has a very awkward ap­pearance, and materially increases the difficulty of keeping the string, when loosed, from striking the left arm (before demonstrated to be fatal to success), the sooner such a habit is got rid of the better. In the exceptional case of the left-handed shooter, of course the contrary of Chapter XII.