Bloodhound History

VIII   The Origin of the Word ‘Bloodhound’

Nothing in the History of the Bloodhound is more remarkable than the way in which it has become accepted that the derivation of the word ‘Bloodhound’ is from the meaning ‘pure-bred hound’.  This idea seems to have been first put forward in the 19th Century, by Le Couteulx de Canteleu, quite without any etymological justification, in support of his idea that the Bloodhound was the St Hubert Hound kept pure in Britain.  Etymology, however, is not a matter of guesswork: it requires evidence like any other study, and all the relevant linguistic and historical facts need to be sifted through.  If this is done, it becomes totally clear that the original meaning is ‘blood-seeking hound’.

Quite clearly, what we need to consider is the earliest evidence, the evidence as close to the date of the word's first use as we can, and this evidence can be both linguistic and cultural.

‘Bloodhound’ is a compound word, made up of two nouns ‘blood’ and ‘hound’.  With this kind of word the semantic (meaning) relationship between the two parts is not obvious; we are expected to know it from our experience.  ‘Bloodhound’ means ‘hound associated (in some way) with blood’, but what ‘blood’ could mean to the speaker of Middle English demands historical investigation. 

‘Blood’ could and did refer to good breeding in the Middle Ages, but seems to have been limited to human beings.  Referring to bred animals it is first recorded at the very beginning of the nineteenth century.  There are many compounds earlier and contemporary with ‘Bloodhound’ in which ‘blood’ refers to the liquid in the veins (or shed from them) ‘blood-iron’ (an instrument for letting blood), ‘blood-wort’ (a plant supposed to suck blood), ‘blood-wite’ (a penalty for bloodshed) - in fact they could be formed quite freely.  However, ‘blood-horse’, put forward as the model for the formation of ‘Bloodhound’ by Le Couteulx, did not appear until the nineteenth century, as did ‘blood-relation’.

If we are going to look for evidence of what 'Bloodhound' originally conveyed we need to look at how the earliest users regarded the word, revealed in the way they used it.  In a Poem Morte Arthur from about 1400 or before, King Arthur describes his enemies as ‘Bloodhounds’, ‘tykes’ (ill-bred dogs, curs) and ‘harlotes’ (rogues), all in the space of four lines.  It would be totally inappropriate for Arthur to describe his enemies as ill-bred dogs and nobly bred dogs in the same breath.  In 1559, Coverdale describes someone as ‘a very bloodhound and a tyrant’.  Clearly, it conveys the idea of a blood-seeker.  You can't use the expression ‘well-bred dog’ to insult someone.  It lacks force!

The earliest person actually to consider how the word was derived is Caius (1576).  To him, Bloodhounds derive the name from their ability to follow blood-trails.  In the absence of any earlier discussion, or any contradictory evidence, there is no reason to doubt Caius.

Throughout the entire Medieval and Renaissance period, in an aristocratic society, good breeding, of human beings, animals, plants even, was regarded as hugely important.  Caius distinguishes two kinds of dog: a ‘gentle’ (ie. well-bred) kind, and a ‘currish’ kind.  All dogs used for hunting were carefully bred, not just Bloodhounds, and in fact the greyhound was regarded by Caius as the ‘gentlest’ (ie. most nobly bred) of all hounds.  Perhaps, if they had wanted a word for a hound of especially noble breeding they might have called it a ‘gentlehound’ on the analogy of ‘gentleman’!  Anyhow, the point is that if the word ‘Bloodhound’ had originally meant ‘well-bred hound’, there is no way that anyone in the Medieval/Renaissance period, with their mind-set, would ever have forgotten the fact.  Though the writer of Morte Arthur knew Bloodhounds themselves were well-bred, the fact that the word 'Bloodhound' implied 'blood-seeking hound' makes it appropriate to use with ‘tykes’

To believe that ‘Bloodhound’ derives from the meaning ‘nobly or pure bred hound’ is to prefer an explanation for which there is no evidence whatsoever, over one for which there is considerable and convincing evidence of several kinds.