Not even the very evangelist, as he describes Lazarus as a passive, dumb character: no feelings or thoughts has Lazarus but hunger and his empty stomach. He is just the model of the poor ones we have also today next to us; we often do not know what they think or feel because they can not even type with a keyboard, as I’m doing now, and express themselves.
However, dogs do want him. Some believe that dogs come and compete against him for the crumbs. On the contrary, I think more positively on the base of the symbolic value of dogs in the ancient Mesopotamia and in the hellenistic world. For example: Professor Charpin tells us (in French), the dog was the typical pet of the goddess Gula, the doctor goddess. Please, look at the video from minute 6 on:
No problem if you cannot understand French. Professor Charpin shows a quite pretty parade of ancient art describing the association between dog licking and skin therapies. Yes, these cute pets were a natural medicament against some dermatological diseases. So, Lazarus could enjoy a dogs love at least.
What is quite clear from the Evangelist is the forename of the poor one. It is a key name meaning “God (in Semitic, El, from this term is derived the Arabic Allah ) has helped.” Following those rules on evolution for phonetic sounds -so well known by philologists- El ‘azar became L‘azar in Syriac and then Lazarus, in Latin.
Perhaps that is why the rich man from the other world asks -without any success- for help from Lazarus: because the name of the poor one implies “God’s help“.
So, what about looking after the poor without waiting for our underworld tour?