A Curious History of Cats by Madeleine Swan

As the title indicates, A Curious History of Cats looks at cats and their relationship with humankind throughout history – starting in Ancient Egypt, Rome, Greece and Persia and moving through the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Romantic, Victorian and Modern periods. It also particularly looks at cats and their relationships with writers: which writers were cat lovers, cats in literature, etc.

A Curious History of Cats is a short book, so I wasn’t expecting a comprehensive history. What I expected (and got) was a charming and satisfying collection of information about cats in art and in lore, cat and cat-owner anecdotes, and fun facts – as well as some not so fun ones. I was maybe a little happier before knowing the exact origin of the expression “raining cats and dogs”, or about the existence of such a thing as a “cat organ”, or about the habit of shutting a cat inside the walls of a new building “for luck” (a cat skeleton was found inside the walls of Westminster Abbey, as well as several other London buildings).

But hey, that’s history for you. Not all of it is going to be pretty. Some of the book was upsetting, but I like learning about things. Cats were prosecuted for centuries, and they were the target of horrible cruelty. But you know, despite knowing that animal cruelty is by no means gone, the fact that it’s no longer as socially acceptable does give me some hope.

In addition to all the information, this book has really nice illustrations. Not only lovely pencil drawings, but several full-page illustrations of cats in art from several different periods in history.

Like I said, I found A Curious History of Cats a very satisfying book, and I would definitely recommend it to cat lovers. However, there are two things I have to vent about. First, the book is in need of more careful editing. There were a few strange sentences (“the cat seems to have been just as great a favourite with men than with women”), and a couple of misplaced commas of the “John, went for a walk” type. I really have no idea where the notion that if the subject is longer than one word then it’s okay to separate it from the verb with a comma comes from. Fortunately, there weren’t enough of them to really annoy me, and I’m actually quite easy to annoy with commas. (And yes, I know I'm the last person who should be complaining about grammar, but this is where I reach for my not-a-native-speaker badge.)

Secondly, I'm afraid I have to call shenanigans on this, which strikes me as a bit of a ridiculous thing to say:

There are many examples of a natural affinity between writers and cats. Writers tend to be self-contained, rather solitary people, who find it difficult to share their emotions readily, or even to be the recipient of the boisterous love that a dog may display. Cats suit the personality of the writer better.

Yes, I know she says “tend”, but it’s still an absurd generalization, and I very much doubt there’s such a thing as a special “personality of the writer”. I’m sceptical about the whole idea of “artistic temperament” and of writers being almost like an alien species. I’m sorry, Byron and company; I know that’s what you wanted us all to think. But I don’t buy it. Fortunately, this was the only annoying generalization in the book.