menu_book Chapter 4

CHAPTER IV. Which gives a dog a bad name. We have already adverted to that foreign and slanderous tradition which lays all the grosser sins of vituperation at the Englishman's door. It has been seen how the damns and god-dams of a marauding soldiery, though scattered

upon the winds of many centuries ago, have continued to be held up in judgment against the English-speaking race. There remains to be noticed one other item of continental asperity that has enjoyed in its day a full measure of approbation owing to the delightful assumption that it savored of perfidious Britain.

Parisian caricaturists have always affected to believe that the inhabitants of these islands are usually accompanied in their travels abroad by some member of the canine species. The British bulldog has figured again and again in pictorial skits that are supposed to represent the idiosyncrasies of the travelling Englishman. But the notion may very well be of older date than this period of facile illustration.

Examples can be quoted of the occurrence of the word dog or doggo as a malediction similar to that of god damn and at a date nearly as distant. There can be little doubt as to the inspired origin of the phrase. So grateful is the demon of animosity for every new-shaped weapon of attack that in In course of time it came to be levelled in differently at any object, whether insular

or otherwise, that it happened to be the speaker's intention to abuse. The inoffensive word was the more readily adopted by the classes who had least notion of its signification. As Dr. Johnson, when he wished to get the better of a fishwife in a wordy encounter, would call her a parallelogram or a hypotenuse, so the Sen, Boatman, and the market women

of the HAL would denounce their antagonist as a dog. Je laisserai plutôt ma rupille à engage, exclaims one of the characters in the farce of Pierrot et Jeannin, que de te laisser payer mon quartier, la dog, tu ne me connais pas. What actual necessity can there have been for so invidiously employing an imported word when the French equivalent was already firmly established as a particle of abuse?

Although in our own vernacular the epithet dog is seldom to be met with outside the histories of Miss Porter or of Mr. James, elsewhere the Gallic chien has always been in brisk demand. Both before and since the composition of Pierrot and Jeannin, has it been customary among a numerous class to grind it in the teeth of persons who have been the cause of annoyance or affront?

In conjunction also with other substantives, it has served as a powerful degree of comparison and denotes a superlative expression of contempt. In the most polite language, quel chien de temps indicates whether of a most deplorable description, quel chien d'auteur, an author whose stupidity is exasperating. The oath of jarni chien passed for a term of the very darkest complexion, while in sacre

chien we have an expletive as forcible as any that a Frenchman can utter. The Romans of old are said to have played with two sorts of dice, the tali and the tesserae. The tali had four even surfaces, the tesserae six. On opposite faces of the four-sided figure were marked respectively the numbers one and six, the numbers three and four appearing respectively on the other surfaces.

The tessera or six-sided figure bore on its additional faces the numbers two and five. Both tali and tesserae were usually knuckle bones of an animal, frequently the gazelle, the uneven ends being plain smooth in the case of the tesserae, while for the tali they were left in their natural condition. The game admitted of various rules and of various degrees of skill, and it would seem

that the more ancient Greek sculptures represent the children and maidens of Athens manipulating the tesserae in much the same manner as schoolboys still play at the game of knuckle bones. But whatever element of dexterity may have originally pervaded the pastime, it was very rapidly dispelled, and both tali and tesserae became, as they have since remained, the instruments of wagering and gain.

The best throw, called the venus, only happened when each of the upturned surfaces presented different units. The worst throw was when the four pieces exposed the same number on each, and that number an ace. This single pip was technically known as the unio, the side of six as the senio, while

the name by which the throw of four aces was chiefly distinguished among the gamesters of antiquity was the canicula, or canis. Jure etenim itsumum quid dexter senio feret, sire erat in voto damnosa canicula quantum raderet, persius satires 3. The deduction has been drawn that the player, balked in his luck and turning angrily upon

the prone dice as they disclosed the four upturned aces, sought passing relief by hurling at them and insensate malediction. In this way, after a long interval and by a slow process of development, the damnosa canicula of the Roman gamester is said to have become, or more strictly to be represented by, the sacre chien of a nearer civilization.

The force of association has so indelibly connected dimension of this animal with whatever is inferior or contemptuous that there is at first no room for surprise at finding it used in its present application. So imperceptibly has this turn of thought entered into our habits of mind that without further inquiry such an application would appear perfectly natural and proportionable.

But upon the very slightest reflection a sense of inappropriateness cannot fail to be forced upon us. Essentially the nomenclature of the animal world is sufficiently varied as to admit of the dishonor done to it being more equally divided. One would expect to find the members of the canine family at the least no more than sharers

in the distinction in common with other creatures of the world. But no such equal distribution would appear to prevail. The question therefore that remains is, how is it that the name of the most sagacious of animals should be universally identified in the vernacular tongue with whatever is the most ennoble and despicable of its kind?

The wild rose is called the dog rose, the scentless violet the dog violet, bad Latin is termed dog Latin, and in Ovid we have verba canina as denoting abusive conversation. Although the author of Gallus goes the length of saying that among the ancients the names of the lower animals were seldom heard as particles of abuse, the appropriate application of the name of the dog will be found to be most classical.

The use made of the word in the conversation of ancient Greece should be an easy recollection, bringing down as it did upon the Athenian people the accusation of being their popular oath of asseveration. Socrates, we are to believe, rarely used in his swearing any other form of expression. By the dog, Paulus, he is made to exclaim in Plato's Gorgias, I am really in doubt

each time you speak whether you are stating your own views or are asking my opinion. When therefore we find in the twelfth century an archbishop of Juwavia interdicting his countrymen from ratifying their treaties with an oath taken by the dog, we gain some insight into the portents of the canine oath of Thebes and Athens. The superstition and mysticism attaching to this animal are brought still closer home

by a passage from De Jouinville which mentions the sacrificing of a living dog as a Byzantine method of confirming an obligation. Moreover on the coins of Syracuse the dog as the emblem of constancy is represented in company with the goddess Diana. That a sacrificial ceremony, barbarous at once and ineffectual, should have received

any countenance among a people of culture is only in accordance with the view expressed at an earlier part of these pages that the progress of true civilization may be clearly traced by comparing the relative values of the veracity. The cities of Greece were full of straw shoes, men who distinguished their calling by a straw at their feet and who were ready at the bit of a suitor to give the lightest evidence

for the heaviest fee. Confidence had little place among a nation far too volatile and specious to be able to rely upon any system of reciprocal good faith. From this circumstance it was that the Greeks earned for themselves the repute of being the least trustworthy of all the untruthful nations of antiquity.

In such a community the fragile safeguard of an oath is from sheer helplessness the more rigorously demanded. The Hellenic people may be said to have been eminently a swearing people. The character had so persistently clung to them and was descended from so remote an antiquity that juvenile in the sixth satire can only refer their immunity from swearing to the

period when innocence was said to have prevailed upon earth and before Jupiter had begun to let his beard grow. But while Greek and Roman riveted oath upon oath and laid ceremony upon ceremony to accomplish that simple understanding which should be affected by the mere parole of right thinking men there is no evidence to show that swearing was carried to the precise point to which

it has been brought among ourselves. That at the lightest stir of the emotions they were ready to apostrophize the ruling divinities as well as the shapes of field and flood of earth and air must pass as uncontradicted. But never do they appear as in the modern world to have forged their poetic oaths into weapons of malevolence and hurt.

There would seem to have been no actual counterpart in these languages to the vituperative swearing of modern days. The difference in this respect is somewhat singular but it may readily be accounted for. With the ancients oaths were employed in guarding as efficiently as they could the public conscience and the public security.

With the moderns they have been for the most part released from this unstable duty and accordingly with untrammeled energy and ungovernable vigor they have entered upon a system of privateering upon their own account. Not only had the ancient mythology to struggle against the constant infraction of the sanctity of the deliberative oath but the minds of heathen votaries must have been strongly biased

by an acquaintance with instances of light swearing in the gods themselves. To render the practice the less capricious and incontinent a notion of an individual property or trademark in oaths came to be perceptively encouraged. The specific appropriation of some distinctive oath raised the presumption that it implied an unequivocal pledge of sincerity.

In this way Zeno the founder of the Stoics swore continually by the caper. Pythagoras we are told was accustomed to swear by the number four, Greek matentetrakton. This numeral came to be regarded in consequence as symbolical of the divinity and the Pythagorean school gravely inculcated it as a point of morals to abstain from intruding upon so illustrious an example.

Besides the oath of Socrates by the dog he is reported to have sworn variously by the goose and by the plane tree. Those who argue in favor of the piety of the philosopher explain that the habit was assumed as a foil to the irreverent mention of the gods that was then so universal. Lucian attaches an intelligible meaning to these flippant expletives and represents Socrates

as justifying their use. Are you not aware, he is presumed to reason, that the dog is the Anubis of Egypt, the Sirius of the skies and in hell is the keeper Cerberus? And Plutarch is also found to comment on the oath. Those that worship the dog have a certain sacred meaning that must not be revealed.

In the more remote and ancient times the dog had the highest honors paid to him in Egypt. In the copiousness of the ancient swearing, the notion of an oath accommodated itself to all the varieties of monstrous gods. The divinities Isis and Osiris were invoked in witness of a sacred pledge no less than the garlic, the leek and the onion and indeed every other deity which, as was said by the

Roman satirist, grew and flourished in the market gardens of Alexandria. We are admitted to a just appreciation of the levity of Athenian swearing through the medium of one of the most remarkable performances ever placed upon the stage, whether of the modern or the ancient world. When returning from an expedition, Socrates repaired to the theater to witness Aristophanes'

comedy The Clouds, he found himself portrayed upon the scene as the central figure of the drama. He was even represented swung up in a basket in his own thinking shop and giving utterance to innumerable heresies and follies. When Strepsiades offers to swear by the gods, he is at once interrupted by Socrates in the

basket who reminds him that the gods are not current coin in his system of philosophy. By what then do you swear? asks Strepsiades. By the iron money as they do at Byzantium? Unhappily the query remained unanswered. The result, however, of the Socratic influence is intended to be shown by the circumstance of Strepsiades subsequently swearing by the mist and reproaching his son for taking oaths

in the name of a deity of the outside world. Presently, on being importioned by a creditor for the return of twelve mine lent for the purchase of a dapple-grey horse, he is ready to swear any number of oaths by the gods that he is innocent of the debt. His opinions have in the course of this short dialogue undergone alteration. He feels justified in ridding himself of his obligation to repay the loan by making use of declarations which the philosopher

has argued are no longer of any consequence. And will you be willing to deny it upon oath of the gods? screams the creditor. What gods? asks Strepsiades. Jupiter, Mercury, and Neptune. Yes, by Jupiter rejoins Strepsiades and would pay down, too, a three-obel piece besides to swear by them. It must have been a sorry spectacle to have beheld Socrates in the midst

of an Athenian audience solemnly witnessing this masterpiece of buffoonery and a still-sadder one to those whose feeling was still enlisted upon the side of the moribund system of oath-taking. One singular instance of whimsicality in the ancient practice of swearing must not be allowed to pass unnoticed. The Levantine merchants trading with the port of Rhodes had familiarized Athenian households with a most excellent description of cabbage. The herb was only

to be found in its highest perfection upon the southern coasts of the Mediterranean. This Rhodian cabbage had a mellower flavor than that indigenous to the Trood and was, moreover, prized by all Athenian toppers as the surest antidote to the effects of drink. No supper table would have been perfect without some preparation of this delicacy, and the gay revelers knew, or in any case imagined, that with this nostrum close at hand, the

choicest Xi'an or lesbian vintages might safely be defied. Hence it was that the very name of so precious a vegetable came to be held in estimation until it was customary to say, that if it were permitted to blaspheme without offending the gods, it would be by mention of the Rhodian cabbage. The lover in a fragment of the lost poet Ananias invokes it solemnly in evidence of his attachment,

and there is found a suggestion in the iambics of Hipponax of the vegetable having even entered into the mythology. He, falling down, worshipped the seven-leaved cabbage, to which, before she drank the poisoned draught, Pandora brought a cake at Thargelia. This oath by the cabbage became in time the favorite expletive of Ionia, and having winged its way westwards, still lingers in the shape of the exclamation Cavolo as a popular phrase

of modern Italy. Specific forms of swearing were in a great measure localized in the ancient world. As the Thebans swore by Osiris, the Ionians by the cabbage and the colward, so also in Athens Minerva formed the staple of the national oaths. No Roman citizen was heard to swear by Castor. Why there should have been this denial upon the part of those who swore freely

by Pollux is not easily explained. But while the Roman women were loud in the use of me Castor, the affix me being supplied to adapt the name to swearing purposes, the men abjured that oath as scrupulously as the women in their turn ignored the expression me Hercules. Hercules himself, so the story went, was known to swear but one oath in the whole course of his life. In recognition of

such singular forbearance, the Roman children were instructed never to make light use of his sacred name. The prohibition, however, extended no further than the four walls and curtilage of the dwelling, and they were free to make what use they liked of it out of doors. An instance of oaths being subjected to the like whimsical conditions is noticeable in the domestic manners of old Germany. We gather from the popular medieval satire The Ship

of Fools that a code of rules had been formulated regulating the propriety of swearing. Society, in this case, would seem to have formed its precedence of oath-taking, and to have withheld its sanction from any others than its own. There was a time in Germany, it appears, when a man adopted an oath as deliberately as he might take to a trade, it being only necessary to bring it within the licensed pale, that it should be derived from the symbols of his

own or his father's occupation. The particular merit of this system was that while it partook of all the abandonment and conferred all the enjoyment of swearing, it was practically no swearing at all. When, in an outburst of passion, the grazier called out upon his beaves, or the smith invoked his anvil or his sledge, all the advantages of swearing, whatever they may be held to be, had been accomplished, and that without prudery being ruffled or

innocence shocked. In fact, the needs of society had invented a kind of stocking horse for blasphemy, and the bob-acrecies and captain absolutes of that day must have found themselves cruelly hoodwinked by the inanimate effigy of swearing. But while northern nations were conspicuous for the substantial and ponderous nature of their oaths, the Roman yielded to none in the multi-form versatility of his adjurations.

Caligula owned a horse that he not only treated as a fellow being and brought to meals at his table, but whose name served him wherewith to pronounce his accustomed oaths. The same emperor is reported to have put to death a Roman citizen who refused to swear by his imperial genius. Another of the oaths prescribed by command of Caligula was Pernumen Drusillae. This wretched woman he constrained his subjects to worship as a divinity. To explain this

partiality for the use of these absurd, if not impious, oaths, it would seem that a tradition had been circulated, ascribing the duration of his own lifetime to the period during which the oath should pass current. Any attack of illness that happened to the emperor was directly attributed to the waning popularity of the oath, nor was the doctrine strange to many of the nationalities over which the Roman sway extended. We have it distinctly occurring

among the Scythians, and it has more recently been noticed by travellers as existing among half-barbarous tribes. The oath itself was probably a development of the affirmation that has been used more than any other in the history of the world. The life, or the head, of the ruler, of the chief tribesman, or of the spiritual prophet has invariably furnished the true standard of affirmation. But even as a mere domestic oath, the head

of the goodman of the house seems to have been permitted a degree of solemnity. Per Caput, Hots Juro, per Quod Pater, ante Solebat. Virgil and Aide, 9.300. Thank you.