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 "goddams" 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 savoured 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 bull-dog 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 _dogue_, as a malediction similar to that of "goddam," and at a date
nearly as distant.[15] 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 course of time it came to be
levelled indifferently 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
hypothenuse, so the Seine boatmen and the market-women of the Halles
would denounce their antagonist as a "_dogue_." "Je laisserais plutot ma
roupille en gage," exclaims one of the characters in the farce of
'Piarot et Janin,'[16] "que de te laisser payer mon quartier. La dogue!
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 'Piarot and
Janin,' 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 weather of
a most deplorable description; _quel chien d'auteur_, an author whose
stupidity is exasperating. The oath of _Jarnichien!_ 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 planed 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 school-boys 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 id summum quid dexter senio ferret
Scire erat in voto, damnosa canicula quantum
Raderet." _Persius, Sat._ iii.
The deduction has been drawn that the player, baulked in his luck, and
turning angrily upon the prone dice as they disclosed the four upturned
aces, sought passing relief by hurling at them an 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
civilisation.
The force of association has so indelibly connected the mention 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. Surely the nomenclature of the animal world is sufficiently varied
as to admit of the dishonour 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 brute world. But no such equal distribution would appear to prevail.
The question therefore that remains is, how it is that the name of the
most sagacious of animals should be universally identified in the
vernacular tongue with whatever is the most ignoble 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 opprobrious 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 in 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! Polus," 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."[17]
When, therefore, we find in the twelfth century an archbishop of Juvavia
interdicting his countrymen from ratifying their treaties with an oath
taken by the dog, we gain some insight into the portent 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
Joinville, 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 civilisation 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 bid 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
Juvenal, 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
effected 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 apostrophise the ruling divinities as well as the
shapes of field and flood, of earth and air, must pass as
uncontradicted,[18] 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 untrammelled energy and ungovernable vigour, 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 biassed 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 trade-mark in oaths came to be perceptibly 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: ma ten
tetrakton]. 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 favour
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 honours 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 theatre 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 importuned by a creditor for the
return of twelve minae 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-obol 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 flavour than that
indigenous to the Troad, and was, moreover, prized by all Athenian
topers 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 revellers knew, or in any case imagined, that with this nostrum
close at hand the choicest Chian 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.[19] The lover in a fragment of the lost
poet Ananius 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 favourite 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 localised in the
ancient world. As the Thebans swore by Osiris, the Ionians by the
cabbage and the colewort, 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 "Mecastor"--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 "Mehercule."[20]
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 farther 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 mediaeval 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 precedents 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 beeves, 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 stalking-horse for blasphemy, and the Bob Acreses 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
multiform 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 "per numen 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,[21] 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 hoc juro, per quod pater ante solebat."
_Virgil_, AEn. ix. 300.