The Deified Animal.

New Zealand Graphic, Volume XLII, Issue 1, 6 January 1909, Page 52

The Deified Animal.

WHITTEN BY

“ PIERROT ”

IN LONDON.

I am fond of animals. In fact, with the exception of a few select species, Much as the snake, the rat, the earth* ■worm, and the flea, there are few creatures for which 1 could not conceivably entertain either respect or affection. But there is moderation in all things—even in the devotion to a black and tan terrier or a Persian cat. And, unfortunately, that moderation is painfully missing in E»igla nd, where cat cemeteries, dogs’

hospitals, ambulances for horses (although there is 6ome humane wisdom in this), and monuments to pets tend increasingly to divert money from charities providing for the needs of mere human beings. It is a commonplace now that a dog is one’s 'best friend, that there is no man so faithful as a faithful cat, that for gratitude you must go to the kennels, and for honesty you must consult the eyes of the handsome creatures in your lordship's stables. If it is true, it is a shameful admission, hardly to be made with such confidence and bluster. If we have infra-animal weaknesses, we should mention the fact with all humility—.and not proclaim it volubly to the whole w’orld.

Out of eight or nine novels 1 have read (for business purposes) in the past two or three weeks, the authors of two have adopted the device of making their dogs talk—and one or two others have hinted by the importance allowed him that a good dog is little if at all inferior to his master. And day by day my train to Town takers me past a beautiful dogs’ cemetery, with its neat little marble stones, varied sometimes by a lofty monument to some rich person's dearly beloved canine companion. It’s all very pretty at first sight, but on maturer reflection one cannot help feeling some disgust at a mood of adoration for quadrupeds which so often implies or entails a hearthless 'neglect of the rights of ‘‘the featherless biped.” In shop-windows one sees perfect wardrobes for dogs; one hears preposterous stories of colossal fees paid to human specialists to rescue some poodle from an untimely end; and special hospitals, replete with ultra-human comforts, treat (‘very imaginable casualty, to these domestic treasures. And dogs trot abroad with all the immunities of their blest condition. They run amok among the legs of the unwary; they interrupt the rectilinear course of the philosopher; they commit sins of a most insanitary description, well away from the abode of their owner. In short, the animal-wor-shipper, outside of his relations with his particular deity, is an appalling egoist, little short «of a public pestPossibly it is better to think too much of animals than too little. But is there no happy medium tetween the new deification and a Bill discipline of brutal kirks. Then is the pampered animal any happier than the pampered child? —for it may be pointed out that the animal-worshipper is often among the first to proclaim the evils of spoiling children, for whom he or she has a much scantier sympathy. It is in the nature of a dog to chase cats, lie in wait for rats, and indulge in fruitless but thoi oughly enjoyable dashes at a sparrow ill flight. To lie on a cushion in front of a fire in a suit of clothes is not only non canine, but anti-canine; and every .self-indulgent dog inurst know it in his heart and regret it in his letter moments. I suppose the food consumed by pampered dogs in London at this moment would feed and feed well —five hundred hungry mon. Why does it never occur to our dainty dog-fanciers to "fancy'’ a human being for a change? He might with gentle persuasion, be even induced to wear a ribbon round his neck and to answer to his name. At least it might sometimes be better than suicide. And suicides, through destitution, are getting so common that the newspapers now allow three or four to accumulate, and then publish them in slabs, like motor accidents. Once 1 loved dogs; now lam got ting an unreasonable dislike for them. For once they ate the crumbs that fell from their master’s table; now they are, as if were, jumping on the table and stealing the meat that should go to the poor without their master’s gate Ind

if "mistress” is often truer than “master,” the fact is only the more lamentable. Perhaps the worst of it is that the whole thing is centred in a lie. I deny that any animal is better than any one human being in the world. And that is not to say that he is worse either. Beast-nature is beast-nature, and humannature is also itself, and not beast-nature; and both are admirable. Personally I prefer human nature, and I go so far as to say that it is ethically necessary that one should. If other people prefer beasts, I can hardly blame them for what they cannot help. And there is a minimum of bitterness in me when I remark gently that it is their misfortune that they were born into the human state—and occasionally ours too. The deification of animals in England -—and by all reports it is even worse in America—seems to be one more manifestation of the mania for unreasoning pleasure, without any thought of the ethical sanction. Indeed, when one sees the suffering in this country, one. almost questions the right of people to enjoy themselves in a purely egotistical way at all. And yet there is only one country in the world where, there is more selfish, meaningless luxury. Neither is there much hope for the next generation. I find the same tendency as in the colonies to educate children to conceive the Ego as a gigantic centre and the Altar as a point on the circumjacent horizon. And what is more satisfying to an exuberant Ego than the complete mastery of the still more gigantic Ego of a luxuriant cat? Scientific altruism —as urged in a hundred recent books—would, indeed, deprive us or every mere pet in the animal kingdom—such bearers of dire disease are these furry and fluffy friends of ours. But even if we cannot find it in our hearts to reconcile ourselves to such a slaughter of the innocents as this would imply, at least we can take it as a reminder that we are to be the master of the animals, and that no lady’s poodle in the world has the right to dictate terms to me. I am aware that the term, “The Anima] Kingdom,” has the best and most authoritative sanction. I merely hold that it is subject to our suzerainty: and that if any worshipper of the beasts finds himself faced bv the problem of choosing his supreme lord, lie is bound, having had the misfortune to be born a human being, to admit that Man has the prior claim on his allegiance.