The aim is undoubtedly the most abstruse and scientific point connected with the practice of archery. It is at the same time the most difficult to teach and the most difficult to learn; and yet, of all points, it is the most necessary to be taught. Upon the acquisition of a correct method of aiming depends all permanently successful practice; yet respecting this important point the most sublime ignorance prevails amongst the uninitiated.

Unless the archer acquires a perfect understanding of the science of aiming, an almost impassable barrier is presented to his progressing a single step beyond the commonest mediocrity, whilst his interest in his practice is increased tenfold as soon as he has discovered that hitting or missing the object he aims at may be removed from the mysterious condition of an unaccountable sympathy between the hand and eye to the safer ground of positive knowledge.

It is perhaps quite natural that most beginners should assume that at any rate as regards the application of their eyes to the shooting of arrows they can have nothing to learn. Have they not had the full and constant use of their eyes from their earliest infancy? and have not these been with sufficient frequency applied in such a manner as must secure the necessary qualifications for such a simple task as aiming with bows and arrows? There cannot, surely, be any science wanted in the use of weapons that any child can not only use but even make? Was it ever necessary to take lessons in order to secure accuracy in throwing stones? or can any amount of abstract study of optics contribute the smallest improvement or finish to a bowler? So it is in this matter of aiming that beginners, and still more those who are more advanced in practice, seem most to resent interference and advice; partly because they object to being told that they are making a wrong or incomplete use of their own eyes—looking upon it as a direct accusation of folly—when they feel that they must surely know better than their adviser all about those useful members, which, though almost constantly in employ, have never given any trouble, and have never even seemed to require any training or education; and partly with the more advanced, who have met with considerable success in hitting with their purblind (as it may be called) method of aiming, because they fear to weaken their not wholly complete faith4 in their own system by admitting even the possibility of a better. Thus in this matter of aiming it will be better that the inexperienced archer should be referred to written instruction; and whilst on the subject of instruction it should be thoroughly well enforced that nothing is more unpleasant than the unsolicited interference and advice of the officious busybody, and—particularly at an archery meeting—no unasked advice or instruction should ever be offered.

It need now be no matter of surprise that before the first appearance of this work, in 1855, no writer on archery had been able to grapple intelligently with the subject of aiming. When firearms first took the place of bows and arrows as weapons of war and the chase, the firearms themselves were so inaccurate that chance went almost, if not quite, as far as science in the use of them. Their improvement was but slow and gradual; and for the firing of them the invention of percussion instead of flint and steel, which in its turn had displaced the original fuse, belongs to quite modern times. The neglected bows and arrows naturally gained no improvement; yet, until the invention of rifling firearms, bows and arrows, except for the greater inherent difficulty in the use of them, might have had a better chance to hold their own against Brown Bess and the bullet (it was commonly believed that it cost the expenditure of about a ton of lead to kill a single enemy in battle) had aiming with them been well understood. It cannot be doubted that many an archer (besides those who converted their knuckles into pincushions, and resorted to other dodges) must have hit upon an intelligent method of aiming for himself in early times; but such early experts must have resorted to the expedient of getting the arrow under the eye by pulling low, and would have to bear the withering scorn of all their brethren, who blindly upheld that the grand old English style of aiming from the ear was alone worthy of a man; and such despised experts would be most likely to keep their better knowledge to themselves for the same selfish but valid reason that Kentfield the inventor of the side-stroke in billiards, kept his own counsel as long as he could; and also because any crusade having as its object the deposition of the pull to the ear in favour of the pull to the breast must always have proved quixotic. So it came about that Mr. H. A. Ford was the first who, after five or six years of successful practice and many diligent and careful experiments conducted in combination with Mr. J. Bramhall, braved the danger of being anathematised as a heretic for daring to impugn the dear old legend of the 'pull to the ear,' and preached in favour of a style of shooting that brought the arrow as directly under the archer's eye as is the barrel of a rifle in the hands of a marksman, without resorting to the justly condemned style of pulling as low as the breast. Much about the same time great improvements were effected in firearms, which brought the accuracy of rifles much closer to perfection. The Volunteer movement, followed by the establishment of the annual Wimbledon rifle meeting, at which a Ross (then an illustrious name) was the first Queen's Prizeman in 1860, brought the scientific practice of aiming to a pitch of perfection that had never previously been dreamed of. Thus it will be seen that archery was not behind firearms in scientific advancement.

It is stated in 'Scloppetaria'—a scarce book on the rifle, published by Colonel Beaufoy in 1812—that 'as the deflection from the original line of flight was an inconvenience from which arrows were not found so liable as bodies projected from firearms, it naturally led to an inquiry how that could arise. The prominent feature of an arrow's flight is to spin with considerable velocity all the time of its flight, and therefore attention was directed towards attaining the same advantage for firearms'; and it is not without interest to notice that the modern rifle is thus directly derived from the clothyard shaft.

The improvement of the conical bullet is a later offspring of the same ancient missile.

An archer holds an intermediate position between a sportsman, who, in his attacks upon moving game, must waste no time in taking aim, and a rifleman, who, even in a standing position, can use the utmost deliberation. If he be as quick as the sportsman he will increase the difficulty of reproducing with each discharge exactly the same accuracy of pull and position. He must not be too hesitatingly slow, or he will spoil his bows and involve himself in unnecessary toil. Further, the rifleman has plenty of leisure to close the eye with which he does not aim; and such closing assists, and in no way hinders, his taking his aim, by bringing the bead at the end of his weapon and the mechanical sight by which the 'length' (distance from the target) is compassed to bear upon the centre of the target, or such other point at some trifling distance from it as the conditions of wind or weather may command; whilst the sportsman, whose weapon cannot be sighted for all the different distances at which the game he fires at may be from himself, must keep both eyes open, so that he may be better able to calculate distances and attend to such other surrounding circumstances as with the then more perfect indirect vision he will be able to do, taking in a much wider field than can be obtained when one eye only is open.

In the cases of the comparatively few archers who have but one eye, or where, from the natural but not unfrequent difference in the two eyes, one only is habitually used in aiming, the following considerations of binocular vision can have but an abstract interest. The binocular difficulties, moreover, will not occur to those archers who have acquired the habit of closing one eye whilst aiming. But the habitual closing of the non-aiming eye is not recommended, for the reason that any archer in full use of both eyes can much more readily and clearly watch the flight of his arrow towards the mark with both eyes open. There is as much enjoyment to be obtained by following the course of a well-shot arrow as there is necessity for watching the errors of those that fly amiss that the causes of such errors may if possible be avoided.

But before the demonstration of the true and only scientific mode of aiming can be proceeded with, a few words must be said on the subject of direct and indirect vision.

When both eyes are directed upon the observation of any single object—say the centre of the gold of the target at 100 yards—the axes of the eyes meet at that point, and all parts of the eyes having perfect correspondence as regards that point, the sensation of perfect vision is given, i.e. the best and most accurate image that can be obtained on the retinÆ of the point to which the entire attention of both eyes is directed. But at the same time there are images formed on the retinÆ, of other objects nearer (those more distant need not be considered) than this point, and to the right and left of it, as well as above and below it; and all such objects are included within the attention of indirect vision. The exact correspondence of the images formed on the two retinÆ applies only to the point of direct vision, and the images of all other objects—i.e. the objects of indirect vision—are differently portrayed on each retina. Any object embraced in this indirect vision will be seen less or more distinctly according to its remoteness or otherwise from one or other of the axes in any part of its 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 an arrow, to arrive at anything like certainty, it is necessary to have in view three things, namely, the mark to be hit (the gold of the target); the arrow, as far as possible in its whole line and length (otherwise its real future course cannot be appreciated); and the point of aim.

It may be well to explain here that by the point of aim is meant the spot which the point of the arrow appears to cover. This spot, with the bow, is seldom identical with the centre of the gold, or if it be so with any individual archer at one particular distance, it will not be so at other distances, because the arrow has no adjusting sights such as are provided to assist the aim with a rifle. As an example, let it be supposed that an archer is shooting in a side-wind, say at 80 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 for the purposes of aiming. It is clear that, if he now treat them so, the effect of the wind will carry his arrow to the right or left of the mark according to the side from which it blows. He is therefore obliged to aim on one side of his mark, and the point of his arrow consequently covers a spot other than the target's centre. And this other spot in this instance is to him his point of aim. Under the parallel circumstances of a long range and a side-wind the rifle will be found subject to the same rule.

Now it will be understood that it is necessary for the archer to embrace within his vision the gold, the point of aim, and the true line in which the arrow is directed.

Direct vision can only be applied to one object at a time, and as direct vision should be applied as little as possible to the arrow during the aim, it has to be shown in what way the arrow must be held in order that the archer may, by means of his indirect vision, clearly appreciate the true line in which it points at the time of aiming. The discussion as to whether the gold or the point of aim shall be the object of direct vision may be postponed for the present.

Now it may be positively asserted as an incontrovertible axiom in archery that this true line cannot be correctly appreciated by the shooter unless the arrow lie, in its whole length, directly beneath the axis of the aiming eye. This is most confidently maintained, in spite of the fact that the strongest, the most deliberate, and the most successful archer of the present day systematically keeps his arrow a trifle outside his right eye. It must be remembered that Ascham ordains that 'good mennes faultes are not to be followed.'

The indirect vision of both eyes can never be used here, for if it were, according to the law of optics, two arrows would be seen; but this is never the case with the habitual shooter—though both his eyes be open, habit, and the wonderful adapting power of the eye, preventing such an untoward effect equally well as (nay, better than) if the second eye be closed. To state this more correctly: an expert archer with both eyes open is in the same condition with two similar eyes as a person who, with imperfect sight, habitually wears a spy-glass to improve the sight of the one eye, with which improved eye alone he sees, to the complete neglect of all that is taken in by the other eye, though constantly open. Those who have shot both right- and left-handed—and there are not a few such—can answer for it that, though a different indirect vision of the arrow is observed with each eye, either can at will be used without any inconvenience arising from the unnecessary presence of the other. Another unusual exception may here be mentioned of a style of aiming which, though eminently successful through a good many years in the case of a Championess, cannot be recommended for imitation.

She kept her direct vision only on the point of her arrow, thus seeing the nock end of the arrow gradually diverging from its point towards each eye by indirect vision, and also by indirect vision seeing two targets, or two sets of targets, from which she had to select the correct one to secure the right direction for the loose. Many archers close the non-aiming eye, and it will be well for all beginners to do so to avoid a very possible trouble, in the case of an archer whose non-aiming eye is the best and most used of the two, of this better eye officiously interfering to do wrong what its neighbour only can do right.

But to return to the statement that the arrow in its whole length must lie directly beneath the axis of the aiming eye, which is now assumed to be the right eye, as it is so in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. From fig. 40 it will appear that it must be so, because otherwise the shooter will be deceived as to the true line it has to take; for so long as the point of the arrow touches the axis of the aiming eye, the arrow may appear to that eye to be pointing in a straight line to the object looked at, though really directed far away to the right or left of it, as shown in fig. 41; where the arrow CB, though really pointing in the directions bCE, may, through touching the axis of the eye from B to D at C, falsely appear to the archer to be aimed at the object D.

(In figs. 40 to 43 the distances between A and B are supposed to represent the possible two inches or so between the two eyes, and the distances between A and D and B and D to be not less than fifty yards.)

For instance: suppose the archer to be shooting at such a distance that his point of aim is included in the gold; he of course will bring the point of his arrow to bear upon it, just as a rifleman would his sights; that is, the point will touch the axis of the aiming eye. But if the arrow itself be inclined, say to the right of the axis (as in the pull to the ear it would be), it will fly away some distance to the left of the object looked at. And the converse of this will be true also; for if it incline to the left of the axis it will then fly off to the right; the archer in these cases being in the position of a marksman who instead of keeping his foresight in a line with his backsight has deliberately adjusted the aperture of his backsight to the right or left of the bead at the muzzle of his weapon with reference to the object aimed at.

An example that came within Mr. Ford's personal knowledge will afford a perfect illustration, and will be useful for the possible solution of similar cases. An archer had shot for many years, but invariably found that if ever his arrow pointed (as it seemed to him) in a straight line with the centre of the target it persistently flew off to the left of it five or six yards, even at the short distances (see fig. 43, where the arrow BC, though pointing in the direction BE, appeared to the shooter to be aimed at D). He was therefore obliged to make an allowance and to point his arrow that much to the right (see fig. 42, where the arrow BC, though pointed straight to D, appeared to the archer to be pointing in the direction AE). In vain he sought a solution of this anomaly. All could tell him that there was something faulty; but, as everything in his style and mode of action appeared correct, that something remained a mystery, until it was ultimately discovered that, though the arrow was held directly beneath the axis of the right eye (this being also open), this archer actually used his left eye to aim with. It will be readily seen why the discrepancy existed between his aim and the flight of his arrow, the fact being that the arrow did not appear to the shooter to be pointing towards the object at D until it touched the axis of his left eye, and consequently not until its direction pointed far away to the left of the mark (see fig. 43). On closing the left eye the direction of the arrow's flight and the aim coincided, because the eye beneath whose axis the arrow lay became the eye with which the aim was taken.

As to whether the direct vision should be applied to the mark to be hit or to the point of aim, the argument is all in favour of the latter. For the point of aim must of necessity be in relation to the mark—either in the same vertical 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 lie directly beneath the axis of the aiming eye, which has already been shown to be necessary. Therefore the only question remaining to be decided is, When the mark falls in the same vertical line with the point of aim, which of the two should be directly looked at? Here again an argument can be adduced to determine the choice in favour of the latter; for when the point of aim is above the mark the latter will be hidden from the right or aiming eye by the necessary raising of the left or bow hand, as may be easily proved by the closing of the left eye; therefore the direct vision cannot be applied to the mark, though it may be applied to the point of aim. There now remains but one case, namely, when the point of aim falls below the mark, but in the same vertical line with it; and here (though either of them may in this case be regarded with the direct vision) as no reasoning or argument can be adduced for violating or departing from the 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, because the point of aim will necessarily lie between the mark and the arrow's axis; and as uniformity of practice is highly desirable, the application of direct vision to the point of aim in every case is most strongly recommended. This teaching was quite contrary to that taught by all the old-fashioned writers, who maintained that the eye, or eyes, should be kept always intently fixed upon the mark to be hit. It is probable that even those archers who imagine that they regard directly the mark only, do so only in the case when the mark and the point of aim coincide (which with each archer may be called his point-blank5 range); and this is analogous to all rifle practice, where from any cause allowance must be made.

It must be borne in mind that all these remarks apply only to target lengths. As regards aiming at very long distances, when the mark and the point of aim are too far apart to be sufficiently seen in conjunction, no scientific principle can be laid down for the guidance of an archer. Practice alone will give him a knowledge of the power of his bow, and the angle of elevation required to throw up the arrow as far as the mark. If the distance to be shot be a known and a fixed one-for instance, two hundred yards—the necessary calculations are more or less attainable; but the great distance renders the result so uncertain as to prevent anything approaching to the accuracy of aim attainable at the customary target distances. 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 judicious practice be applied the greater will be the success.

No hard-and-fast rules can be laid down for deciding where the point of aim ought to be at any particular distance, as this is dependent upon a great variety of circumstances—as strength of bows, and the sharpness and dulness of their cast, heavy or light arrows, a quick or sluggish loose, and the varying force of different winds. One archer will find his point-blank range at 120 yards, whilst another can get a point-blank aim on the target, at 60 yards even, by raising his loosing hand so high that the angle between the axis of his aiming eye and the axis of the arrow is very small. It is now many years ago since two toxophilites, using bows of about fifty pounds in weight, with five-shilling arrows of the old-fashioned manner of feathering, and employing the same position (about three inches below the chin) of the right hand for the loose at each of the three usual distances of 100, 80, and 60 yards, found that the point of aim at 100 yards was about the target's diameter (4 feet) above the target, whilst the point of aim at 80 yards was about the same measure below the target, and the point of aim at 60 yards was at a spot about fifteen paces from the shooter.

It would have been highly interesting if Mr. H. A. Ford, who was always most faithful to his own dogma that the loosing hand must be brought to the same position at the loose, had published some account of his own points of aim, which must have had a very wide range of variation from those of his best period, when he was using 56 lb. bows, and arrows 29 inches in length, up to the time of his last appearance as Champion, in 1867 at Brighton, when, with weak bows and light arrows, his score was 1,037, with 215 hits.

The late ingenious Mr. James Spedding, who always touched some button on his coat-collar with his loosing hand, contrived a 'sight' upon his bow, which obviated the necessity of a point of aim. This was a bright metal bead such as is at the muzzle of a gun. This at the upper end of a slight metal rod (in fact, a bright-headed pin), and fitted into a groove added to the back of the bow (in which it could at will be lowered or raised), gave him a point of aim on the centre of the target at distances where his natural (may it be called?) point of aim would have been beneath the target. With this contrivance, the slightest variation in the slope of the bow distorted the aim.

The American contrivance of the peep-sight is a very minute instrument, with a still smaller aperture. This is shifted up and down the bowstring, and, when correctly adjusted, the aiming eye should just catch sight of the centre of the target through the aperture. This instrument is confessedly useless except for very weak bows, and the smallest trembling even would put it off the aim, and blind, as it were, the aiming eye.

An Irish shot, the late Captain Whitla, succeeded in getting his aim on the target at all the three distances by varying the strength and cast of his bows, using his best and strongest at 100 yards, then one that was slower and weaker at 80 yards, and trusting himself to a slug like a broomstick at 60 yards.

Another archer (with the same bow at all distances) got his aim upon the target when shooting at 100 yards by touching with the thumb of his right hand about the position of the right collar-bone. When shooting at 80 yards he got his aim again on the target by raising his hand so high that his thumb, now coiled up and close to the root of the first finger, with its top joint touched beneath the chin. And at 60 yards he still obtained an aim on the target by raising the loosing hand higher, so that the same point of the thumb touched the right corner of his mouth. It is believed that in this case the gradual contraction of the angle between the axis of the eye and of the arrow led to a shorter draw at the nearer distances.

One class of archers, though implied in previous discussions, should also be treated separately, as they may be more in number than is generally supposed, namely, those who, because the left eye is the best of the two, or, from constant and incurable habit, aim with the left eye, though shooting, as it is called, right-handed, i.e. holding the bow in the left hand. Such archers should, if the peculiarity be detected in time, be recommended to shoot with the bow in the right hand. Possibly more than one most promising archer has been kept on the top rung but one of the ladder of fame by trying to force his weaker right eye to do the work that might have been much better done by the left one. It has also been already explained that, where physical peculiarities admit it, this right-handed shooting with the left eye gives the archer a slight mechanical advantage, as the divergence from the line of force may be thus contracted.

To conclude the subject of aiming, it is not pretended that shutting one eye and aiming with the other is wrong, but that it is better, though occasionally closing one eye for experiments, to use the other eye for aiming with, the one being diligently trained to keep in the background, attending solely to its own subordinate functions.