Wednesday Animals, #5

[This is a satirical request written by G. W. Leibniz in early 1680 to his employer, the Duke of Hannover, ostensibly on behalf of the dogs residing at the royal court. Leibniz is responding to news of the invention, by Denis Papin, of the pressure cooker, which has been described as being capable of reducing even bones to a soft state in which they can be consumed by humans. For Papin's description of the machine, in the form of a report to the Royal Society of London, see A new digester or engine for softning bones containing the description of its make and use in these particulars: viz. cookery, voyages at sea, confectionary, making of drinks, chymistry, and dying: with an account of the price a good big engine will cost, and of the profit it will afford, by Denys Papin, London: Printed by J.M. for Henry Bonwicke, 1681. I've translated it from A I 3, N. 67]

*

Request of the Dogs, presented to Mr. ..., French Agent General of Cuisine, and Secretary of State of this body for foreign affairs, currently located in his professional capacity at the court of Hannover.

We, the undersigned Dogs, the bloodhounds, the greyhounds, the sleuth-hounds, the lapdogs, and other dogs, large and small, humbly beg your highness to hear, and to make to hear, our reasons for this important grievance.

Your Highness will no doubt recall, having read so widely and gained such fine knowledge, that the great Diogenes, called the Cynic or the 'canine' in view of the affection that he gave us, had the custom of declaring loudly that there was sometimes a greater difference from one dog to another, than there is between certain men and certain beasts. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this great diversity among dogs, which makes them seem almost of different species, the entire body [of dogs] is now united in order to defend one of the most glorious rights our nation has ever had, and which they now wish to steal from us in an undertaking that will have very dangerous consequences. For we have learned from our correspondents that a certain quidam [i.e., Papin] claims to be able to make bones soft and suitable for being eaten by men, without thereby spoling the flesh at all, and that said quidam wishes to send his cooking pots and his entire apparatus to the Court of Hannover so that they may be tried out there. To which we have deemed it necessary to voice our opposition in a timely fashion. For although we can hardly believe it, and we should take it all for so much fanciful dreaming, nevertheless some malign demon of the canine race or of the human race, wishing to distrub the good understanding that has existed for all time between dogs and men, might have given the idea of this secret to this man, just as another demon no doubt gave the idea of gunpowder to a monk. There is no room for wondering whether one might be able to call into question the right that we have to the bones that have been stripped of flesh, which have belonged to us since time immemorial without any man or beast undertaking to disturb us in our possession [of them]. Homer and the most ancient authors spoke in explicit terms, and the Scripture, when it says that one must not take bread away from children to give it to dogs, did not however say such a thing about the bones, which they well knew to belong to us since the flood, that is to say since men began to eat the flesh of animals. And although we have relinquished the marrow to men for love of peace, this was only in order to better preserve for ourselves our right to the bones themselves, which was moreover only strengthened by this arrangement. Good God, how far does the covetousness of men reach, who sometimes do not content themselves with eating all that they have, but also have no shame in devouring our portion. But this gluttony might be punished severely by the guardian gods of our species, and by the great Sirius, or the celestial dog, who merited a place among the stars, [and who] will no doubt plead our cause before Jupiter, if men refuse to do us right. But Sirius himself could avenge the injustice of men for us by intensifying the heat of the dog days, of which he is the master, as you know in view of the great knowledge you have of astronomy. What's more, this new dish could have ill effects among men, and could turn them all into cynics, seeing that they are already today inclined towards impudence. 

After much reflection, we leave it to your prudence to consider whether it should be safe and advantageous to forever cut off ties in such a way with the dogs. You know (you who have read so much history) that a certain king, chased from his land, was brought back in the escort of two hundred dogs, who laid waste to the rebels. [You know too] that dogs have saved the lives of their masters, and that other dogs have avenged their masters' deaths. Finally, there are today cities that are guarded by dogs that would in the future be abandoned along with many others, if we are deprived of the better part of our salary. Hunting dogs will no longer attack, and will not pursue any beast; the other dogs will abandon their homes to the thieves, and the sheep to the wolves. And we little lapdogs, we will abandon our mistresses to the lovers who pursue them, and we will no longer bark at whatsoever they might undertake. And finally, there will be much disorder in the kitchens, and all you messieurs les chefs, you will often be left wanting for so much as a morsel of lamb: in denying us the bones, you will lose them along with the meat. This is why it is up to you others above all, as much as it is up to the meat carvers, whose art would be useless, if one were able to cut through the meat without concern for the bone, as one cuts through butter. For these reasons, we beseech Your Highness, upon much reflection, to deliberate in the General Assembly upon a matter of such importnce, and to despatch far away this innovator with his whole apparatus, and to forbid him from entering into all kitchens. And as for you, Monsieur, in particular, you will be so kind as to prevent him from meddling in the kitchen at Hannover. We [ask], with all the respect of which dogs are capable,

the most humble prostrate dogs
of Your Highness:

for the hunting dogs, Lelaps

for the guard dogs, Mopse

for the lapdogs, Amarille

*

Reqveste des Chiens presentée au Sr. …

agent general de la Cuisinerie de France, et secretaire d’Estat
de ce corps pour les affaires étrangeres,
presentement se trouuant en fonction à la Cour d’Hanover.

Nous soubsignés Dogues, chiens de S. Hubert, leuuriers, limiers, mâtins, chiens de Boulogne et autres chiens grands et petits, prions humblement Vostre Grandeur de vouloir entendre et faire entendre nos raisons sur un grief d’importance.

Vre Gdeur se souuiendra sans doute ayant tant de lecture et de belles connoissances, que le grand Diogene surnommé le Cynique ou canin à cause de l’affection qu’il nous portoit, avoit coustume de dire hautement, qv’il y avoit plus de difference qvelqvesfois de chien à chien, qv’il y en a entre certains hommes et qvelqves bestes.  Neantmoins non obstant cette grande diversité des chiens, qvi les fait qvasi paroistre de differente espece; tout nostre corps se trouue maintenant uni pour soûtenir un des plus beaux droits qve nostre nation ait jamais eu, et qv’on luy veut ravir à present par une entreprise de tres dangereuse conseqvence.  Car nous avons appris par nos correspondans, qv’un certain quidam pretend de rendre les os mols et propres à estre mangés par les hommes; sans qve la chair en soit gastée en aucune façon: et qve même le dit qvidam veut envoyer ses pots de cuisine et tout son appareil à la Cour d’Hanover pour en faire faire l’essay.  A qvoy nous avons jugé necessaire de nous opposer de bonne heure.  Car qvoyqve nous ayons de la peine d’y adjouter foy et qve nous tenions tout cecy pour de belles reveries; neantmoins qvelqve demon ennemy du genre canin aussi bien qve du genre humain, voulant troubler la bonne intelligence qvi a esté de tout temps entre les chiens et les hommes, pourroit avoir inspiré ce secret à cet homme, comme un autre demon a sans doute inspiré à un moine le secret de la poudre à canon.  Il n’y a pas lieu de s’imaginer, qv’on puisse revoqver en doute le droit qve nous avons sur les os denués de chair, qvi nous ont appartenu de temps immemorial, sans qv’aucun homme ny beste ait entrepris de nous troubler dans nostre possession.  Homere et les plus anciens auteurs en ont parlé en termes exprés; et l’Écriture, lors qv’elle a dit qu’il ne falloit pas oster le pain aux enfans pour le donner aux chiens, n’en a pas dit autant des os qv’on scavoit bien nous appartenir dépuis le deluge, c’est à dire depuis qve les hommes ont commencé de manger de la chair des animaux.  Et qvoyqve nous ayons cedé la moëlle aux hommes pour l’amour de la paix, ce n’a esté qve pour nous conserver mieux nostre droit sur les os mêmes, qvi a esté d’autant plus affermi par cette composition.  Bon Dieu, qve la convoitise des hommes va bien loin, qvi ne se contentant pas de manger qvelqvesfois tout ce qu’ils ont, n’ont pas honte de nous vouloir ravir nostre portion.  Mais cette gourmandise pourroist estre punie severement par les Dieux tutelaires de nostre espece, et le grand Sirius, ou chien celeste, qvi a merité place parmy les astres, plaidera sans doute nostre cause devant Iupiter, si les hommes refusent de nous faire droit.  Mais Sirius luy même nous pourra vanger de l’injustice des hommes, redoublant les chaleurs des jours caniculaires, dont il est le maistre comme vous sçaués par la grande connoissance qve vous avés de l’Astronomie.  Outre que cette nouuelle mangeaille pourra faire de mechans effects parmy les hommes, et les rendre tous cyniqves, veu qu’ils sont déjas inclinés aujourdhuy à l’impudence.

Nous laissons considerer meurement à vostre prudence, s’il sera tousjours seur et avantageux aux hommes, de rompre tellement avec les chiens.  Vous sçavés (vous qvi avés tant lû l’histoire) qu’un certain Roy chassé de son pays y fut ramené par l’escorte de deux cent chiens, qvi defirent les rebelles.  Qve des chiens ont sauué la vie à leurs maistres, et qve d’autres ont vangé leur mort.  Enfin il y a encor aujourdhuy des villes gardées par des chiens: qvi seront doresnavant abandonées avec beaucoup d’autres, si on nous oste la meilleure partie de nostre salaire.  Les chiens de chasse n’attaqveront et ne svivront plus aucune beste, les autres chiens abandonneront les maisons aux larrons, et les brebis aux loups.  Et nous petits chiens de Boulogne nous abandonnerons nos maistresses aux amans qvi les poursvivent, et nous n’abboyerons plus qvelqve chose qu’ils puissent entreprendre.  Enfin il y aura bien du desordre dans les cuisines et vous autres Messieurs les Cuisiniers vous serés souuent en peine de qvelqve éclanche de mouton, et nous refusant les os, vous les perdrés avec la viande.  C’est pourqvoy il appartient surtoutà vous autres d’y pourvoir aussi bien qv’aux Écuyers tranchans, dont l’art sera desormais inutile, si l’on peut couper la viande non obstant les os, comme à travers du beurre.  A ces causes Vostre Grandeur est suppliée de faire deliberer meurement dans vostre Assemblée Generale sur une affaire de cette importance, et de faire envoyer bien loin ce novateur avec tout son appareil, et luy defendre l’entrée dans toutes les cuisines.  Et pour vous Monsieur, en vostre particulier, vous aurés la bonté d’empecher qv’il ne s’aille point fourrer dans celle d’Hannover.  Nous sommes avec tout le respect dont les chiens sont capables

de Vostre Grandeur
les tres humbles chiens couchans

pour les chiens de chasse Lelaps
pour les mâtins Mopse
pour les chiens de Boulogne Amarille

Comments

[John Collins]

My first tutor in philosophy was the brilliant, infuriating, curmudgeonly, and outrageously funny David Stove (author of, among other works, The Plato Cult). I have a vivid memory of Stove, leaning back in the chair in his office, his hands clasped behind his head and his feet propped up on a large cardboard carton on Toohey's Old, telling us, his class of first-year undergraduates, that the real secret to understanding the History of Western Philosophy was that all philosophers could be divided into two groups: those who were nice to dogs, and those who weren't.

Descartes, clearly, comes out pretty poorly on this canine reading. In many other cases, however, it requires considerable hermeneutic subtlety to limn a long-dead author's views: good for the dogs, or bad for the dogs?

Leibniz's position is now established. Justin, in translating this piece you have done a service to the Stovian reading of intellectual history.