food into the mouth with their hands; and when they had finished their meal, cleansed their fingers with the soft and fine part of the bread, which they called απομαγδαλιαι η this they afterwards threw to the dogs. To these, the woman of Canaan probably refers: "The dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table." "" t

Their voracious appetite reconciles them to the most impure species of food; in allusion to which, the wise man observes, "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool returns to his folly."" Even the matter of a running sore, is not disagreeable to their taste; for in the parable, the dogs came of their own accord, and licked the sores of the poor beggar. When they have received a wound, they lick the sore with their own tongue, and restore the injured part to its former soundness:

Τρωθέντες δε εχεσι την γλωσσαν φαρμακον.

Elian.

He has, observes an ancient writer, quoted by Bochart, the native aid of a powerful saliva :

66

Ipse habet auxilium validæ natale salivæ.”

Gratius."

When he drinks, he does not take in the water with a full draught, after the manner of some other animals, but by lapping, which the Arabians call drinking with the tongue. The orientals often imitated the dog in his manner of drinking; and among the ancient people of God, the practice seems to have been very common. By this custom, Jehovah tried the forces of Gideon: "And the Lord said unto Gideon, Every one that lappeth of the water with his tongue as a dog lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; likewise every one that boweth down up

* Mat. xv, 27. Bochart. Hieroz. lib. ii, cap. 55, p. 669.

" Prov. xxvi, 11.

w Hieroz. lib. ii, p. 672.

▾ De Nat. Animal. lib. viii, cap. 9.

on his knees to drink." The people who lapped as a dog, standing on their feet, and taking up the water from the river with their hand, evinced an alacrity and fortitude, which eminently fitted them for the approaching contest; while those who bowed down upon their knees, and inclined their whole body to drink, betrayed a lazy and slothful disposition, unbecoming the character of a warrior, and ill adapted to the nature of the service for which they were levied.

Many cities in Syria, and other parts of the east, are crowded with dogs, which belong to no particular person, and by consequence, have none to feed them, but get their food in the streets, and about the markets. Dogs also abound in all the Indian towns and villages, and are numerous, noisy, and troublesome, especially to travellers. Like those in Syria, they have no respective owner, ge. nerally subsist upon charity, and are never destroyed, They frequently hunt in large packs, like the jackalls, which they resemble in many other respects. These al lusions are clearly involved in the prayer of the royal Psalmist for deliverance from his enemies: "And at evening let them return; and let them make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city. Let them wander up and down for meat, and grudge if they be not satisfied."a

The vicious dispositions and habits of this animal, are not less numerous and important, than the valuable qua lities for which he has been so greatly celebrated. His insatiable voracity has been proverbial in all ages; so gross are his inclinations, that they will not bear to be described, but we may form some idea of them from his greedily de

* Judges vii, 5. y Russel's Hist. of Aleppo, vol. ii, p. 179. * Forbes's Orient. Mem. vol. iii, p. 67. a Psa. lix, 14, 15.

vouring his own vomit. So wrathful, and even truculent, is his disposition, that he often seizes upon a stranger without any provocation; so frequent and dangerous are his attacks, that the traveller is reduced to the necessity of arming himself with a staff in defence of his person. To this well known circumstance, Goliath indignantly refers in his invective to David: "Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves?" But if the dog is prompted by an irresistible propensity to attack the passing stranger, his forbearance toward the many thousands of Israel, when they took their departure from the land of Egypt, must be ascribed to the miraculous interposition of Divine providence, for on that memorable occasion, not a dog moved his tongue against any of that people.

b

His irritable disposition is the foundation of that beautiful proverb: "He that passeth by and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears," He wantonly exposes himself to immediate danger, which he can neither resist nor avoid. No animal, says the celebrated Scaliger, is more uncivil than the dog; for in the largest buildings, two of them can scarcely live peaceably together. Envious and inhospitable, he refuses to associate with those of his own species, or joins himself only to a few chosen companions. So great is his selfishness, that he desires to possess every thing himself, and never submits to share his booty with others but by force.

The shameless impudence of the dog in season, and when pinched with hunger, has been observed in every age, and among every people. A dog, and a person of unblushing impudence, were among the Greeks converb Prov. xxvi, 17.

tible terms. In support of this assertion, many proofs might be produced from their best writers; but the following passage from Homer, in which Achilles charges Agamemnon with having the impudence of a dog, joined to the timidity of a deer, must suffice:

Οινοβαρες, κυνος ομματ εχων, καρδιην τ' ελάφοιο. Il. lib. i, 1. 225.

These, it is probable, are the traits in the character of the dog, which, added to his fawning servility, have from time immemorial, drawn down upon him the unqualified contempt of mankind. The patriarch Job, clearly intimates the state of public feeling, in reference to this valuable animal, when he indignantly tells his persecutors: "But now they that are younger than I, have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." From these words, it clearly appears that in the remotest ages their services were necessary to guard the flocks from the attacks of wild beasts. In the lines of Homer the dog is always associated with the shepherd, in watching the fold. But his vigilance and courage and attachment could not save him from the contempt of his master, so unequivocally expressed by the patient sufferer. The contempt in which the dog was held in the times of David, is strongly expressed by Abner, in his reply to Ishbosheth: "Am I a dog's head," or as it is rendered in the Syriac, the head of the dogs, "that thou chargest me to-day with a fault concerning this woman ?" Although I am commander in chief of the armies of Israel, yet hast thou despised me as if I were only the conductor of dogs. Had not the dog been reckoned a very vile and contemptible animal, Abner could not have expressed himself in such terms. So vile in Soa Job xxx, 1.

See also Ælian de Nat. Animal. lib. vii, cap. 19.

e

184

Iliad, lib. x, 1. 183; lib. xii, 1. 302; and lib. xvii, 1. 109.

lomon's estimation was a living dog, that he places him in opposition to a dead lion. The son of Jesse, to express the low opinion he had of himself, and by consequence, the unreasonableness of his sovereign's conduct, addresses him in these words: "After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea." Mephibosheth, as a proof of his deep humility, thus addresses David: "What is thy servant, that thou shouldst look upon such a dead dog as I am?" When the prophet predicted to Hazael, the future king of Syria, the horrid cruelties which the people of Israel were to suffer from his hand, the astonished Syrian exclaimed: "But, what is thy servant a dog (the vilest of all animals), that he should do this great thing?" We know from the words which Homer puts into the mouth of Helen, that the same figure was common among the early Greeks:

Δαές, έπεισε μάλιςα πονος φρένας αμφιβέβηκεν

Εινεκ' εμείο κυνος

Il. lib. vi, 1. 356.

"O my brother, since extreme distress has invaded thy bosom on my account, who am but a dog."

The application of this term to Shimei, was the strongest mark of contempt which Abishai could imagine : Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king ?”i The father of Grecian poetry, puts it frequently in the mouth of his heroes, when with bitter invectives they provoked their enemies to battle, or triumphed over the fallen antagonist: Pisander calls the Trojans faithless truce breakers, and worthless dogs.