THE GREAT DOG-SUPERSTITION 279 



mongoose are nearer to us than the dog, the eats 

 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 



