THE NOBLE SCIENCE. 229 



But to come to the question of body scent — Mr. Smith 

 says, that a fox " will lay" {lie, I suppose the printer 

 means, unless he thinks the fox is laying again in a 

 mare's nest,) till hounds " almost tread on him," ''which 

 is one proof, that the scent does not come from the body 

 or breath of the animal, but from the touch ; and, by his 

 laying quiet in his kennel, the scent does not exude from 

 under him, that is, from the ground he lays upon, &c," 

 Why — ^leave a ferret, a pole-cat, or any other fumiferous 

 animal, in a state of quiescence, he emits no scent ; 

 excite him, but for an instant, it is then " fion redolet 

 sed olet," then that his smell may be designated by a 

 harsher term. It is precisely the same with a fox re- 

 posing in unconfined space. The air around him is 

 then not impregnated with the effluvia from his body, 

 which betray the proximity of some luckless captive, 

 doomed in chains to waste his sweetness on an out- 

 house. It is not till he is roused, that his fuming 

 vapours rise, 



" And with the ambient air entangling mix." 



Now, as to "the most convincing and satisfactory 

 proof" of this most extraordinary doctrine, I must have 

 recourse to the Diary itself, page 192 :— " But the most 

 convincing and satisfactory proof that the scent does 

 come from the touch of the animal, is, that when the 

 ground carries, after a frost, and there is even a burn- 

 ing scent on turf, and sound hard ground, until the 



