I am a veterinarian with a special interest in the social history of pets. In 2024 modern practice is hugely sophisticated, which is a plus, but expensive as a result, which is a big minus. But what about 150 years ago? What could the pet-owning public expect from a trip to the vet in 1874? An anonymous dog owner from 1874 does indeed describe the experience of someone seeking medical attention for his dog ‘Dingo’. The caring owner asked around and learned that a Dr Jolliver came highly recommended by: “…coachmen, grooms, cabmen, omnibus conductors, even butcher’s boys and stable helpers all join in giving the same advice…Dr Jolliver at The Dogs’ Hospital.”
The Dogs’ Hospital
So far so good, recommendation by word of mouth is a good sign. However, arriving at the said veterinarian’s premises, things take a Dickensian turn. The waiting area is described as: “a low dark room…very smoky, the walls and ceiling discolored. A couple of stuffed dog skins hang from the ceiling…a rickety sofa on which an enormous white woolly Pomeranian lies like a prize sheep.” Not only that, but sick patients rest in the same area. “Toy terriers with bones staring through their skin, little English terriers subdued and listless, pugs sneezing and streaming at the eyes.” Let’s hope none of their conditions are infectious…
Our intrepid client is ushered in to see the vet, who is a man that: “…finishes your sentences and anticipates the conclusion of your description.” A personal pet hate of mine…
Having reached a diagnosis without setting hands on the patient, the vet: “…calls on you to hold the dog, if you don’t mind. But for some inexplicable reason, you do mind. And with good reason. “The wretched Dingo is held up by the paws and the medicine thrust down his throttle in an athletic and uncompromising way.”
If you are shuddering reading this account and think things can’t get any worse, it turns out they can. Remember the patients sharing the waiting room….well the pugs have distemper. But is the vet concerned? Maybe…maybe not when he offers some parting advice, “Now when Dingo gets distemper… bring him to me at once.”
Once outside The Dog’s Hospital, the indominatable Dingo “…shot out into the lane and by a vigorous and sustained attack upon an unoffending butcher’s boy, testifies his delight at escaping from The Dog’s Hospital.”
Pet Dogs and Rabies
Of course, then as now, dog bites were no laughing matter, but in 1874 there was the added concern of rabies. In England, outbreaks of rabies had occurred since Georgian times, In the public consciousness the disease was linked to stray dogs, rather than the animal slumbering by the hearth. But in the 1860s and 70s, the idea gained ground that pet dogs could also pose a risk.
In May 1874 an article expands on the thoughts of Dr Burden-Sanderson MD FRS. He is keen to educate the public to protect them from the mistaken belief that their pets pose no danger. He was not unaware of the effect his warning may have: “Possession of requisite knowledge is highly desirable even at risk of exciting alarm in the minds of a few sensitive persons.”
Indeed, at the Black Institution, vets Mr Duguid and Mr Hunting had become specialists in the disease. They suggest two methods of infection; the escaped dog at large and the master caressing his dog. They expounded that pet dogs pose a risk because the initial signs of infection are subtle, such as moping, apprehension, and withdrawal. But when more severe symptoms develop, pet dogs “continue to recognise their master and manifest pleasure when spoken to kindly”, hence placing the owner in the path of harm.
Pure-bred Dogs Immune from Rabies
A number of common myths about mad-dogs did not help. Of these, the most dangerous was that purebred dogs were resistant to rabies, as illustrated by the belief that a genuine Skye Terrier “never goes mad.”
The article describes the chances of a person encountering a rabid or mad-dog in the home are: “A question of chances: infinitesimal for people who do not keep dogs, a trifle greater for those who have dogs of purebred, still more for those that surround themselves with mongrels.”
According to the author: “On no account should mongrels be allowed in households, especially those with children.” But he does go on to make one salient observation: “…each man to believe that his neighbour’s dog may go mad, but never his own.”
They say love is blind…as true in 2024 as back in 1874!
