Dante and the Animal Kingdom. By Richard Thayer Holbrook, Ph.D.
(Macmillan and Co. 85. 61. net.)—This volume contains a very elaborate study of one particular region of Dante lore. This region is considerably larger than one would at first imagine. In fact it includes, in a way, the whole cosmos of man to begin with, the angels, the devils, the monsters of classical fables, with their mediaeval adaptations ; and then the animals, "lower," as they are commonly called, from the monkey to the bee. It is quite impossible for us to give any idea of the wealth of curious legend and fancy which Dr. Holbrook has gathered together to illustrate his subject. Let us take as an instance the dog, of which the Dante conception is as different as possible from our own:—" Dante, like our own Shakespeare, had small fondness for dogs." (He does not condescend to give us chapter and verse for this charge against Shakespeare.) He does not recog- nise its good qualities, but its bad. He thinks that a dog would behave like the ass in the logical dilemma, which, placed between two trusses of exactly equal attractions, would die rather, than make a choice which no logic would justify. Then we have some notice of the habits of mediaeval dogs, resembling, it would seem, the dogs of Eastern cities. Dante's dogs "fly some poor man to attack, who stops and begs for alms upon his path." (Was Dante, suggests our author, ever worried by dogs?) The damned, says the poet, strike off the flakes of fire, as dogs strike off flies or fleas in summer. The dog suggests an odious comparison. The people of Arezzo are " snarling curs who dwell on the Arno." Great as Dante was, he had a very keen recollection of personal grievances. trgolino gnaws the skull of his enemy as a dog gnaws a bone. Dogs are actually ministers of torment in hell, even as they are often the incarnations of hellish magic on earth. So we see that there is much to be said about the dog as Dante thought of him. A most curious book this, which every Dante scholar is bound to read.