THE GREAT DOG-SUPERSTITION 279 
mongoose are nearer to us than the dog, the cats 
above the mongoose, and the monkeys higher still. 
Why then was not the dog relegated to a lower 
place? Dr. Lauder Lindsay has given the reason: 
“The mental scale—the scale of intellectual and 
moral development—is not quite synonymous with 
the zoological scale. The most intellectual and 
moral animals are not necessarily those nearest to 
man in the classification commonly adopted by 
zoologists.” Furthermore it has been assumed that 
contact with man has had the effect of enlarging 
the dog’s mind, and making him, beyond all other 
animals, intellectual, moral, and even religious. 
It ought to be a great comfort to those who 
devote themselves to canine pets, and to cano- 
philists generally, to know that the philosophers 
are at one with them. To some others it will 
perhaps add a new terror to existence if students 
of dog-psychology generally should feel themselves 
tempted to imitate a recent illustrious example, 
and go about the country lecturing on the mar- 
vellous development of mind in their respective 
pets. Leibnitz once gave an account of a dog that 
talked; and quite recently a writer in a London 
journal related how, in a sheltered spot among the 
rocks on a lonely Scotch moor, he stumbled on an 
old shepherd playing whist with his collie. Nothing 
approaching to these cases in dramatic interest can 
be looked for in the apprehended discourses. The 
animal to be described will as a rule be of a quiet, 
thoughtful character proper in a_ philosopher’s 
