and flocks of sheep, both of which required protection from the wolves and
other ferocious animals that infested the woods and coverts, and must
frequently have rendered hunting an act of absolute necessity.--_Strutt._

Why is hunting considered more ancient than hawking?

Because, in the earliest ages of the world, hunting was a necessary labour
of self-defence, or the first law of nature, rather than a pastime; while
hawking could never have been adopted from necessity, or in
self-protection.

Why was hunting originally considered a royal and noble sport?

Because, as early as the ninth century, it formed an essential part of the
education of a young nobleman. Alfred the Great was an expert and
successful hunter before he was twelve years of age. Among the tributes
imposed by Athelstan, upon a victory over Constantine, King of Wales, were
"hawks and sharp-scented dogs, fit for hunting of wild beasts." Edward the
Confessor "took the greatest delight to follow a pack of swift hounds in
pursuit of game, and to cheer them with his voice."--_Malmesbury._ Harold,
his successor, rarely travelled without his hawk and hounds. William the
Norman, and his immediate successors, restricted hunting to themselves and
their favourites. King John was particularly attached to field sports, and
even treated the animals worse than his subjects. In the reign of Edward
II. hunting was reduced to a perfect science, and rules established for
its practice; these were afterwards extended by the _master of the game_
belonging to Henry IV., and drawn up for the use of his son, Henry Prince
of Wales, in two tracts, which are extant. Edward III., according to
Froissart, while at war with France, and resident there, had with him
sixty couple of stag-hounds, and as many hare-hounds, and every day hunted