Dogs

Opprobrious terms for dogs form the largest category of insults derived from animal terms. Considering the long history of the dog as a domesticated and loyal animal, it is curious that, for example, cur and its female equivalent bitch should have become terms of such powerful vituperation. Bitch, son of a bitch and its variants, mongrel, cur , even dog itself, have been terms of insult for over five hundred years. Among stereotypical notions drawn on are treachery, cowardice, fawning, and promiscuity, leading to the generation of mongrels. Undoubtedly the class-conscious prestige of purebred stock is a factor. Most of the terms are of British provenance. In modern times only bitch has retained some force in a word field of steadily diminishing power.

Bitch has the longest history in the field as a term of abuse, extending from the fourteenth century up to the present. During this long period it has been applied variously to a promiscuous, sensual, mean, or difficult woman, as well as to a man or thing. Its tone ranges from extremely offensive to mildly critical. Cur was originally (from the thirteenth century) a general term for a dog, before becoming a deprecatory word. In Middle English the term could be used of a good, vicious, or cowardly dog, and there was even a curious tautological form curdogge , meaning “the Devil.” The Book of St. Albans (ca. 1486), that rich compilation of ingenious collective nouns, includes “a cowardness of curris.” However, the significant semantic extension of the word to what the Oxford English Dictionary calls “a surly, ill-bred or cowardly fellow” is first recorded in Shakespeare, whose references to dogs are surprisingly extensive, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (1590). In his works it is a term of withering scorn, most memorably in Coriolanus (1608), when the hero castigates the Roman plebs as “You common cry of curs!” meaning “You pack of mongrels!” (III iii 118). Cur continued to be used as a term of invective through to the nineteenth century. Dr. Johnson comprehensively defined the adjective currish (also first used by Shakespeare) as “having the qualities of a degenerate dog; brutal; sour; quarrelsome; malignant; churlish; uncivil; untractable.” Since that time the term’s currency, unlike that of bitch , has steadily declined, and it is now obsolete.

Hound , originally the basic term for a dog in the Germanic languages, was also the first to be applied opprobriously to a man: the Anglo-Saxon religious poem Judith (ca. 1000), refers to “Done haetenan hund,” that is, “the heathen dog.” The application was common in the Middle Ages, the last memorable quotation also being from Coriolanus (1608) when the hero, infuriated by being called a “boy,” replies to the taunt: “Boy! False hound!” (V vi 113). Mongrel , also first recorded in the Book of St. Albans (ca. 1486), appears in strange canine company, together with “a Grehownd, a Bastard, a Mengrell, a Mastyfe,” thus including breeds now regarded as pure. The original spelling indicates the root meng , meaning “to mix.” Sir Thomas Overbury, author of some insightful characterizations of men, commented in 1613: “Like a true mongrell, he neither bites nor barks, but when your back is towards him.” Interestingly, the first application to a person as a term of abuse occurs in a Scottish flyting-match in 1585, when Montgomerie refers to his opponent Polwart, among other things, as an “auld mangrell.” The human application died out in the course of the eighteenth century. Tyke , meaning a low-bred cur or mongrel, also carries considerable contempt. Interestingly, the first instance in the OED (ca. 1400) has a human application: “Thou false heathen hound, [thou] hast stolen away like a tyke” ( Melayne , l. 1325). In similar vein the comic boaster Pistol in Shakespeare’s Henry V (1599) demands “Base tyke, callst thou me Host?” (II i 31). The term is no longer generally applied to people.

Spaniel provides an interesting case. Noted originally for its gentleness, keen scent, and hunting skill, the breed started to gain a reputation for duplicity and sycophancy as the political rivalry and religious antagonism between England and Spain developed. Shakespeare seems to have had a special fixation with this aspect, since there are many contemptuous references to the breed in his work. In Julius Caesar (1601), Caesar dismisses flattery as “base spaniel fawning” (III i 42-43), adding arrogantly: “I spurn thee like a cur out of my way” (III i 46). The rare verbal sense spanielled is also found in Antony and Cleopatra (IV xii 21).

Poodle is a similar example, becoming a term of contempt, predominantly British in currency, meaning a lackey or sidekick, with overtones of French effeteness. David Lloyd George, the prime minister and noted orator, is credited with the first use in a speech to the House of Commons in 1907. Very recently (from about 2002) the term has been widely used in Britain to criticize the subservience of Prime Minister Tony Blair in his political relationship with President George W. Bush. Poodle-faker was previously used in services slang for “a man, usually a socialite or newly commissioned officer, who cultivates female society, especially for professional advancement.”

The most powerful term from the global varieties of English is the Australian dingo , “applied figuratively to a person who displays characteristics popularly attributed to the dingo, especially cowardice, treachery” ( The Australian National Dictionary ). This source records uses from 1869, illustrated by two quotations from 1978: “All politicians are dingos” and “He’s not a dinkum [genuine] man, he’s just a yellow, gutless dingo cur.” Curiously, the term has also had a limited currency in the United States, originally as a tramp or beggar, subsequently as a foolish or crazy person.

It is notable that the field has developed from dogs posing some sort of threat by being violent or treacherous, to those that are harmless and largely ornamental. The major modern exception is rottweiler , which is starting to acquire an ugly figurative sense of a thug.