it seems as if nature had given the dog to man for his defence and pleasure; it is of all animals the most faithful; it is the best possible friend of man.
it appears that there are several species absolutely different. how can we believe that a greyhound comes originally from a spaniel? it has neither its hair, legs, shape, ears, voice, scent, nor instinct. a man who has never seen any dogs but barbets or spaniels, and who saw a greyhound for the first time, would take it rather for a dwarf horse than for an animal of the spaniel race. it is very likely that each race was always what it now is, with the exception of the mixture of a small number of them.
it is astonishing that, in the jewish law, the dog was considered unclean, as well as the griffin, the hare, the pig, and the eel; there must have been some moral or physical reason for it, which we have not yet discovered.
that which is related of the sagacity, obedience, friendship, and courage of dogs, is as extraordinary as true. the military philosopher, ulloa, assures us that in peru the spanish dogs recognize the men of the indian race, pursue them, and tear them to pieces; and that the peruvian dogs do the same with the spaniards. this would seem to prove that each species of dogs still retained the hatred which was inspired in it at the time of the discovery, and that each race always fought for its master with the same valor and attachment.
why, then, has the word “dog” become an injurious term? we say, for tenderness, my sparrow, my dove, my chicken; we even say my kitten, though this animal is famed for treachery; and, when we are angry, we call people dogs! the turks, when not even angry, speak with horror and contempt of the christian dogs. the english populace, when they see a man who, by his manner or dress, has the appearance of having been born on the banks of the seine or of the loire, commonly call him a french dog — a figure of rhetoric which is neither just to the dog nor polite to the man.
the delicate homer introduces the divine achilles telling the divine agamemnon that he is as impudent as a dog — a classical justification of the english populace.
the most zealous friends of the dog must, however, confess that this animal carries audacity in its eyes; that some are morose; that they often bite strangers whom they take for their master’s enemies, as sentinels assail passengers who approach too near the counterscarp. these are probably the reasons which have rendered the epithet “dog” insulting; but we dare not decide.
why was the dog adored and revered — as has been seen — by the egyptians? because the dog protects man. plutarch tells us that after cambyses had killed their bull apis, and had had it roasted, no animal except the dog dared to eat the remains of the feast, so profound was the respect for apis; the dog, not so scrupulous, swallowed the god without hesitation. the egyptians, as may be imagined, were exceedingly scandalized at this want of reverence, and anubis lost much of his credit.
the dog, however, still bears the honor of being always in the heavens, under the names of the great and little dog. we regularly record the dog-days.
but of all dogs, cerberus has had the greatest reputation; he had three heads. we have remarked that, anciently, all went by threes — isis, osiris, and orus, the three first egyptian divinities; the three brother gods of the greek world — jupiter, neptune, and pluto; the three fates, the three furies, the three graces, the three judges of hell, and the three heads of this infernal dog.
we perceive here with grief that we have omitted the article on “cats”; but we console ourselves by referring to their history. we will only remark that there are no cats in the heavens, as there are goats, crabs, bulls, rams, eagles, lions, fishes, hares, and dogs; but, in recompense, the cat has been consecrated, or revered, or adored, as partaking of divinity or saintship in several towns, and as altogether divine by no small number of women.
