Character of Dogs

By Robert Louis Stevenson

published in Memories and Portraits a collection of essays by Stevenson first published in 1887

Full Text

THE CHARACTER OF DOGS The civilisation, the manners, and the morals ¹ of dog-kind are to a great extent subordinated to those of his ancestral master, man. This animal, in many ways so superior, has accepted a position of inferiority, shares the domestic life, and humours the caprices of the tyrant. But the potentate², like the British in India, pays small regard to the character of his willing client, judges him with listless glances, and condemns him in a byword. Listless have been the looks of his admirers, who have exhausted idle terms of praise, and buried the poor soul below exaggerations. And yet more idle and, if possible, more unintelligent has been the attitude of his express detractors; those who are very fond of dogs “but in their proper place”; who say “poo’ fellow, poo’ fellow,” and are themselves far poorer; who whet the knife of the vivisectionist or heat his oven;³ who are not ashamed to admire “the creature’s instinct”; and flying far beyond folly, have dared to resuscitate the theory of animal machines. The “dog’s instinct” and the “automaton-dog,” in this age of psychology and science, sound like strange anachronisms. An automaton he certainly is; a machine working independently of his control, the heart like the mill-wheel, keeping all in motion, and the consciousness, like a person shut in the mill garret, enjoying the view out of the window and shaken by the thunder of the stones; an automaton in one corner of which a living spirit is confined: an automaton like man. Instinct again he certainly possesses. Inherited aptitudes are his, inherited frailties. Some things he at once views and understands, as though he were awakened from a sleep, as though he came “trailing clouds of glory.”⁴ But with him, as with man, the field of instinct is limited; its utterances are obscure and occasional; and about the far larger part of life both the dog and his master must conduct their steps by deduction and observation.

The leading distinction⁵ between dog and man, after and perhaps before the different duration of their lives, is that the one can speak and that the other cannot. The absence of the power of speech confines the dog in the development of his intellect. It hinders him from many speculations, for words are the beginning of metaphysic. At the same blow it saves him from many superstitions, and his silence has won for him a higher name for virtue than his conduct justifies. The faults of the dog⁶ are many.

He is vainer than man, singularly greedy of notice, singularly intolerant of ridicule, suspicious like the deaf, jealous to the degree of frenzy, and radically devoid of truth. The day of an intelligent small dog is passed in the manufacture and the laborious communication of falsehood; he lies with his tail, he lies with his eye, he lies with his protesting paw; and when he rattles his dish or scratches at the door his purpose is other than appears. But he has some apology to offer for the vice. Many of the signs which form his dialect have come to bear an arbitrary meaning, clearly understood both by his master and himself; yet when a new want arises he must either invent a new vehicle of meaning or wrest an old one to a different purpose; and this necessity frequently recurring must tend to lessen his idea of the sanctity of symbols. Meanwhile the dog is clear in his own conscience, and draws, with a human nicety, the distinction between formal and essential truth. Of his punning perversions, his legitimate dexterity with symbols, he is even vain; but when he has told and been detected in a lie, there is not a hair upon his body but confesses guilt. To a dog of gentlemanly feeling theft and falsehood are disgraceful vices. The canine, like the human, gentleman demands in his misdemeanours Montaigne’s “je ne sais quoi de genéréux.”⁷

He is never more than half ashamed of having barked or bitten; and for those faults into which he has been led by the desire to shine before a lady of his race, he retains, even under physical correction, a share of pride. But to be caught lying, if he understands it, instantly uncurls his fleece. Just as among dull observers he preserves a name for truth, the dog has been credited with modesty. It is amazing how the use of language blunts the faculties of man—-that because vainglory finds no vent in words, creatures supplied with eyes have been unable to detect a fault so gross and obvious. If a small spoiled dog were suddenly to be endowed with speech, he would prate interminably, and still about himself; when we had friends, we should be forced to lock him in a garret; and what with his whining jealousies and his foible for falsehood, in a year’s time he would have gone far to weary out our love. I was about to compare him to Sir Willoughby Patterne,⁸ but the Patternes have a manlier sense of their own merits; and the parallel, besides, is ready. Hans Christian Andersen,⁹ as we behold him in his startling memoirs, thrilling from top to toe with an excruciating vanity, and scouting even along the street for shadows of offence—here was the talking dog.

It is just this rage for consideration that has betrayed the dog into his satellite position as the friend of man. The cat, an animal of franker appetites, preserves his independence. But the dog, with one eye ever on the audience, has been wheedled into slavery, and praised and patted into the renunciation of his nature. Once he ceased hunting¹⁰ and became man’s plate-licker, the Rubicon was crossed. Thenceforth he was a gentleman of leisure; and except the few whom we keep working, the whole race grew more and more self-conscious, mannered and affected. The number of things that a small dog does naturally is strangely small. Enjoying better spirits and not crushed under material cares, he is far more theatrical than average man. His whole life, if he be a dog of any pretension to gallantry, is spent in a vain show, and in the hot pursuit of admiration. Take out your puppy for a walk, and you will find the little ball of fur clumsy, stupid, bewildered, but natural. Let but a few months pass, and when you repeat the process you will find nature buried in convention. He will do nothing plainly; but the simplest processes of our material life will all be bent into the forms of an elaborate and mysterious etiquette. Instinct, says the fool, has awakened. But it is not so. Some dogs—some, at the very least—if they be kept separate from others, remain quite natural; and these, when at length they meet with a companion of experience, and have the game explained to them, distinguish themselves by the severity of their devotion to its rules.

I wish I were allowed to tell a story which would radiantly illuminate the point; but men, like dogs, have an elaborate and mysterious etiquette. It is their bond of sympathy that both are the children of convention.

The person, man or dog, who has a conscience is eternally condemned to some degree of humbug; the sense of the law in their members¹¹ fatally precipitates either towards a frozen and affected bearing. And the converse is true; and in the elaborate and conscious manners of the dog, moral opinions and the love of the ideal stand confessed. To follow for ten minutes in the street some swaggering, canine cavalier, is to receive a lesson in dramatic art and the cultured conduct of the body; in every act and gesture you see him true to a refined conception; and the dullest cur, beholding him, pricks up his ear and proceeds to imitate and parody that charming ease.

For to be a high-mannered and high-minded gentleman, careless, affable, and gay, is the inborn pretension of the dog. The large dog, so much lazier, so much more weighed upon with matter, so majestic in repose, so beautiful in effort, is born with the dramatic means to wholly represent the part. And it is more pathetic and perhaps more instructive to consider the small dog in his conscientious and imperfect efforts to outdo Sir Philip Sidney.¹² For the ideal of the dog is feudal and religious;¹³ the ever-present polytheism, the whip-bearing Olympus of mankind, rules them on the one hand; on the other, their singular difference of size and strength among themselves effectually prevents the appearance of the democratic notion.

Or we might more exactly compare their society to the curious spectacle presented by a school—ushers, monitors, and big and little boys—qualified by one circumstance, the introduction of the other sex. In each, we should observe a somewhat similar tension of manner, and somewhat similar points of honour. In each the larger animal keeps a contemptuous good humour; in each the smaller annoys him with wasp-like impudence, certain of practical immunity; in each we shall find a double life producing double characters, and an excursive and noisy heroism combined with a fair amount of practical timidity. I have known dogs, and I have known school heroes that, set aside the fur, could hardly have been told apart; and if we desire to understand the chivalry of old, we must turn to the school playfields or the dungheap where the dogs are trooping.

Woman, with the dog, has been long enfranchised. Incessant massacre of female innocents has changed the proportions of the sexes and perverted their relations. ¹⁴

Thus, when we regard the manners of the dog, we see a romantic and monogamous animal, once perhaps as delicate as the cat, at war with impossible conditions. Man has much to answer for; and the part he plays is yet more damnable and parlous¹⁵ than Corin’s in the eyes of Touchstone. But his intervention has at least created an imperial situation for the rare surviving ladies. In that society they reign without a rival: conscious queens; and in the only instance of a canine wife-beater that has ever fallen under my notice, the criminal was somewhat excused by the circumstances of his story. He is a little, very alert, well-bred, intelligent Skye, as black as a hat, with a wet bramble for a nose and two cairn-gorms¹⁶ for eyes.

To the human observer, he is decidedly well-looking; but to the ladies of his race he seems abhorrent. A thorough elaborate gentleman, of the plume and sword-knot order, he was born with the nice sense of gallantry to women. He took at their hands the most outrageous treatment; I have heard him bleating like a sheep, I have seen him streaming blood, and his ear tattered like a regimental banner; and yet he would scorn to make reprisals. Nay more, when a human lady upraised the contumelious whip against the very dame who had been so cruelly misusing him, my little great-heart gave but one hoarse cry and fell upon the tyrant tooth and nail. This is the tale of a soul’s tragedy.¹⁷ After three years of unavailing chivalry, he suddenly, in one hour, threw off the yoke of obligation; had he been Shakespeare he would then have written Troilus and Cressida¹⁸ to brand the offending sex; but being only a little dog, he began to bite them. The surprise of the ladies whom he attacked indicated the monstrosity of his offence; but he had fairly beaten off his better angel, fairly committed moral suicide; for almost in the same hour, throwing aside the last rags of decency, he proceeded to attack the aged also. The fact is worth remark, showing as it does, that ethical laws are common both to dogs and men; and that with both a single deliberate violation of the conscience loosens all.

“But while the lamp holds on to burn,” says the paraphrase, “the greatest sinner may return.”¹⁹ I have been cheered to see symptoms of effectual penitence in my sweet ruffian; and by the handling that he accepted uncomplainingly the other day from an indignant fair one, I begin to hope the period of Sturm und Drang²⁰ is closed.

All these little gentlemen are subtle casuists.²¹ The duty to the female dog is plain; but where competing duties rise, down they will sit and study them out like Jesuit confessors.²² I knew another little Skye, somewhat plain in manner and appearance, but a creature compact of amiability and solid wisdom. His family going abroad for a winter, he was received for that period by an uncle in the same city. The winter over, his own family home again, and his own house (of which he was very proud) reopened, he found himself in a dilemma between two conflicting duties of loyalty and gratitude. His old friends were not to be neglected, but it seemed hardly decent to desert the new. This was how he solved the problem. Every morning, as soon as the door was opened, off posted Coolin to his uncle’s, visited the children in the nursery, saluted the whole family, and was back at home in time for breakfast and his bit of fish.

Nor was this done without a sacrifice on his part, sharply felt; for he had to forego the particular honour and jewel of his day—his morning’s walk with my father. And perhaps, from this cause, he gradually wearied of and relaxed the practice, and at length returned entirely to his ancient habits. But the same decision served him in another and more distressing case of divided duty, which happened not long after. He was not at all a kitchen dog, but the cook had nursed him with unusual kindness during the distemper; and though he did not adore her as he adored my father—although (born snob) he was critically conscious of her position as “only a servant”—he still cherished for her a special gratitude. Well, the cook left, and retired some streets away to lodgings of her own; and there was Coolin in precisely the same situation with any young gentleman who has had the inestimable benefit of a faithful nurse.

The canine conscience did not solve the problem with a pound of tea at Christmas. No longer content to pay a flying visit, it was the whole forenoon that he dedicated to his solitary friend. And so, day by day, he continued to comfort her solitude until (for some reason which I could never understand and cannot approve) he was kept locked up to break him of the graceful habit. Here, it is not the similarity, it is the difference, that is worthy of remark; the clearly marked degrees of gratitude and the proportional duration of his visits. Anything further removed from instinct it were hard to fancy; and one is even stirred to a certain impatience with a character so destitute of spontaneity, so passionless in justice, and so priggishly obedient to the voice of reason.

There are not many dogs like this good Coolin. and not many people. But the type is one well marked, both in the human and the canine family. Gallantry was not his aim, but a solid and somewhat oppressive respectability. He was a sworn foe to the unusual and the conspicuous, a praiser of the golden mean, a kind of city uncle modified by Cheeryble.²³ And as he was precise and conscientious in all the steps of his own blameless course, he looked for the same precision and an even greater gravity in the bearing of his deity, my father. It was no sinecure to be Coolin’s idol; he was exacting like a rigid parent; and at every sign of levity in the man whom he respected, he announced loudly the death of virtue and the proximate fall of the pillars of the earth.

I have called him a snob; but all dogs are so, though in varying degrees. It is hard to follow their snobbery among themselves; for though I think we can perceive distinctions of rank, we cannot grasp what is the criterion. Thus in Edinburgh, in a good part of the town, there were several distinct societies or clubs that met in the morning to—the phrase is technical—to “rake the backets”²⁴ in a troop. A friend of mine, the master of three dogs, was one day surprised to observe that they had left one club and joined another; but whether it was a rise or a fall, and the result of an invitation or an expulsion, was more than he could guess. And this illustrates pointedly our ignorance of the real life of dogs, their social ambitions and their social hierarchies. At least, in their dealings with men they are not only conscious of sex, but of the difference of station. And that in the most snobbish manner; for the poor man’s dog is not offended by the notice of the rich, and keeps all his ugly feeling for those poorer or more ragged than his master. And again, for every station they have an ideal of behaviour, to which the master, under pain of derogation, will do wisely to conform. How often has not a cold glance of an eye informed me that my dog was disappointed; and how much more gladly would he not have taken a beating than to be thus wounded in the seat of piety!

I knew one disrespectable dog. He was far liker a cat; cared little or nothing for men, with whom he merely coexisted as we do with cattle, and was entirely devoted to the art of poaching. A house would not hold him, and to live in a town was what he refused. He led, I believe, a life of troubled but genuine pleasure, and perished beyond all question in a trap. But this was an exception, a marked reversion to the ancestral type; like the hairy human infant. The true dog of the nineteenth century, to judge by the remainder of my fairly large acquaintance, is in love with respectability. A street-dog was once adopted by a lady. While still an Arab, he had done as Arabs do, gambolling in the mud, charging into butchers’ stalls, a cat-hunter, a sturdy beggar, a common rogue and vagabond; but with his rise into society he laid aside these inconsistent pleasures. He stole no more, he hunted no more cats; and conscious of his collar he ignored his old companions. Yet the canine upper class was never brought to recognize the upstart, and from that hour, except for human countenance, he was alone. Friendless, shorn of his sports and the habits of a lifetime, he still lived in a glory of happiness, content with his acquired respectability, and with no care but to support it solemnly. Are we to condemn or praise this self-made dog! We praise his human brother. And thus to conquer vicious habits is as rare with dogs as with men. With the more part, for all their scruple-mongering and moral thought, the vices that are born with them remain invincible throughout; and they live all their years, glorying in their virtues, but still the slaves of their defects. Thus the sage Coolin was a thief to the last; among a thousand peccadilloes, a whole goose and a whole cold leg of mutton lay upon his conscience; but Woggs,²⁵ whose soul’s shipwreck in the matter of gallantry I have recounted above, has only twice been known to steal, and has often nobly conquered the temptation. The eighth is his favourite commandment. There is something painfully human in these unequal virtues and mortal frailties of the best. Still more painful is the bearing of those “stammering professors”²⁶ in the house of sickness and under the terror of death. It is beyond a doubt to me that, somehow or other, the dog connects together, or confounds, the uneasiness of sickness and the consciousness of guilt. To the pains of the body he often adds the tortures of the conscience; and at these times his haggard protestations form, in regard to the human deathbed, a dreadful parody or parallel.

I once supposed that I had found an inverse relation between the double etiquette which dogs obey; and that those who were most addicted to the showy street life among other dogs were less careful in the practice of home virtues for the tyrant man. But the female dog, that mass of carneying²⁷ affectations, shines equally in either sphere; rules her rough posse of attendant swains with unwearying tact and gusto; and with her master and mistress pushes the arts of insinuation to their crowning point. The attention of man and the regard of other dogs flatter (it would thus appear) the same sensibility; but perhaps, if we could read the canine heart, they would be found to flatter it in very marked degrees.

Dogs live with man as courtiers round a monarch, steeped in the flattery of his notice and enriched with sinecures. To push their favour in this world of pickings and caresses is, perhaps, the business of their lives; and their joys may lie outside. I am in despair at our persistent ignorance. I read in the lives of our companions the same processes of reason, the same antique and fatal conflicts of the right against the wrong, and of unbitted nature with too rigid custom; I see them with our weaknesses, vain, false, inconstant against appetite, and with our one stalk of virtue, devoted to the dream of an ideal; and yet, as they hurry by me on the street with tail in air, or come singly to solicit my regard, I must own the secret purport of their lives is still inscrutable to man.

Is man the friend, or is he the patron only? Have they indeed forgotten nature’s voice? or are those moments snatched from courtiership when they touch noses with the tinker’s mongrel, the brief reward and pleasure of their artificial lives?

Doubtless, when man shares with his dog the toils of a profession and the pleasures of an art, as with the shepherd or the poacher, the affection warms and strengthens till it fills the soul. But doubtless, also, the masters are, in many cases, the object of a merely interested cultus, sitting aloft like Louis Quatorze,²⁸ giving and receiving flattery and favour; and the dogs, like the majority of men, have but forgotten their true existence and become the dupes of their ambition.

---

This article originally appeared in The English Illustrated Magazine for May 1883, Vol. I, pp. 300-305. It was accompanied with illustrations by Randolph Caldecott. The essay was later included in the volume Memories and Portraits (1887).

The astonishing fidelity and devotion of the dog to his master have certainly been in part repaid by men of letters in all times. A valuable essay might be written on the Dog’s Place in Literature; in the poetry of the East, hundreds of years before Christ, the dog’s faithfulness was more than once celebrated. One of the most marvellous passages in Homer’s Odyssey is the recognition of the ragged Ulysses by the noble old dog, who dies of joy. In recent years, since the publication of Dr. John Brown’s Rab and his Friends (1858), the dog has approached an apotheosis. Among innumerable sketches and stories with canine heroes may be mentioned Bret Harte’s extraordinary portrait of Boonder: M. Maeterlinck’s essay on dogs: Richard Harding Davis’s The Bar Sinister: Jack London’s The Call of the Wild: and best of all, Alfred Ollivant’s splendid story Bob, Son of Battle (1898) which has every indication of becoming an English classic. It is a pity that dogs cannot read.

---

Summary

The essay explores the nature, behavior and relationship of dogs with humans. Stevenson argues that dogs are not mere instinctive machines, but intelligent and emotional beings who have adapted to human civilization and culture. He praises dogs for their loyalty, courage, affection and sense of humor, but also acknowledges their flaws such as vanity, jealousy, greed and dishonesty. He compares dogs with different breeds, countries and historical periods, and illustrates his points with anecdotes and observations. He concludes by expressing his admiration and love for dogs, and his hope that they will be treated with kindness and respect by their masters.

Important Lines

This animal, in many ways so superior, has accepted a position of inferiority, shares the domestic life, and humours the caprices of the tyrant

But the potentate, like the British in India, pays small regard to the character of his willing client, judges him with listless glances, and condemns him in a byword

The leading distinction between dog and man, after and perhaps before the different duration of their lives, is that the one can speak and that the other cannot.

The absence of the power of speech confines the dog in the development of his intellect. It hinders him from many speculations, for words are the beginning of metaphysic. saves them from superstitions and their silence has earned more praise for their virtues than justified

“faults of dogs” - He is vainer than man, singularly greedy of notice, singularly intolerant of ridicule, suspicious like the deaf, jealous to the degree of frenzy, and radically devoid of truth

Many of the signs which form his dialect have come to bear an arbitrary meaning, clearly understood both by his master and himself; yet when a new want arises he must either invent a new vehicle of meaning or rest an old one to a different purpose; and this necessity frequently recurring must tend to lessen his idea of the sanctity of symbols.

It is amazing how the use of language blunts the faculties of man—-that because vainglory finds no vent in words, creatures supplied with eyes have been unable to detect a fault so gross and obvious.

If a small spoiled dog were suddenly to be endowed with speech, he would prate interminably, and still about himself; when we had friends, we should be forced to lock him in a garret; and what with his whining jealousies and his foible for falsehood, in a year’s time he would have gone far to weary out our love. ²⁹

I was about to compare him to Sir Willoughby Patterne, but the Patternes have a manlier sense of their own merits; and the parallel, besides, is ready. Hans Christian Andersen, as we behold him in his startling memoirs, thrilling from top to toe with an excruciating vanity, and scouting even along the street for shadows of offence—here was the talking dog.

The cat, an animal of franker appetites, preserves his independence. But the dog, with one eye ever on the audience, has been wheedled into slavery, and praised and patted into the renunciation of his nature.

Once he ceased hunting and became man’s plate-licker, the Rubicon was crossed.

His whole life, if he be a dog of any pretension to gallantry, is spent in a vain show, and in the hot pursuit of admiration.

And it is more pathetic and perhaps more instructive to consider the small dog in his conscientious and imperfect efforts to outdo Sir Philip Sidney

For the ideal of the dog is feudal and religious; the ever-present polytheism, the whip-bearing Olympus of mankind, rules them on the one hand; on the other, their singular difference of size and strength among themselves effectually prevents the appearance of the democratic notion.

He means that dogs have a worldview that is based on hierarchy and obedience. He compares humans to a group of gods who have absolute power and authority over dogs, and who can reward or punish them at will. He says that dogs are faithful and devoted to their human masters, and that they accept their position of inferiority and dependence. He also says that dogs have no sense of equality or democracy among themselves, because they vary so much in size and strength. He implies that dogs are ruled by fear and respect, and that they do not challenge or question the established order.

Compares dogs to boys in school in each we shall find a double life producing double characters, and an excursive and noisy heroism combined with a fair amount of practical timidity. I have known dogs, and I have known school heroes that, set aside the fur, could hardly have been told apart; and if we desire to understand the chivalry of old, we must turn to the school playfields or the dungheap where the dogs are trooping.

The fact is worth remark, showing as it does, that ethical laws are common both to dogs and men; and that with both a single deliberate violation of the conscience loosens all.

All these little gentlemen are subtle casuists. The duty to the female dog is plain; but where competing duties rise, down they will sit and study them out like Jesuit confessors

*Stevenson calls dogs casuists in this essay because they are subtle reasoners who try to justify their actions and resolve moral dilemmas. He gives examples of how dogs balance their loyalty and gratitude to different human friends, or how they distinguish between formal and essential truth when they lie or deceive. He implies that dogs have a conscience and a sense of honor, but also a flexible morality that adapts to circumstances.

dogs are (born snob)

And that in the most snobbish manner; for the poor man’s dog is not offended by the notice of the rich, and keeps all his ugly feeling for those poorer or more ragged than his master.

He suggests that dogs are influenced by human society and culture, and that they adopt its values and prejudices.

Important Points

• Stevenson explores the similarities and differences between dogs and humans, especially in their moral and social qualities.
• He argues that dogs are influenced by their relationship with humans, who have made them into slaves and companions, but also by their own natural instincts and preferences.
• He describes various types of dogs, such as the small dog who is vain and deceitful, the large dog who is majestic and dignified, the snobbish dog who cares for respectability, and the disrespectable dog who lives as a poacher.
• He admires the dog’s sense of loyalty, gratitude, and chivalry, but also criticizes his vices of vanity, greediness, jealousy, and falsehood.
• He compares the dog’s society to that of a school or a feudal system, where there are ranks, clubs, codes of honour, and ideals of behaviour.
• He concludes that dogs are not mere machines or instinctive animals, but complex and intelligent creatures who have a conscience and a character.
• He is talking about how the relationship between dogs and humans varies depending on their occupation and lifestyle. He says that when a man and his dog work together and share a common interest, such as a shepherd or a poacher, their bond becomes stronger and deeper. They become true friends and partners, who understand and appreciate each other. But he also says that in many cases, the masters are like kings who demand and give loyalty and praise, and the dogs are like subjects who have lost their true identity and become slaves to their ambition. They worship their masters for their power and status, but they do not have a genuine connection or respect. He implies that this is a sad and false situation, where both the dogs and the humans are deceived by their vanity and pride.

He is a little black Skye terrier who was once kidnapped and tortured by some boys. He managed to escape and return to his owners, but he became very nervous and irritable. He would often snap at his female partner, a gentle and beautiful Skye terrier, and sometimes even bite her. Stevenson says that he was somewhat excused by the circumstances of his story, but he also says that he was ashamed of his behavior and would try to make up for it by being more affectionate and attentive to his partner.

Woggs Woggs, who was very polite and chivalrous to female dogs. He says that Woggs was a gentleman who wore a feather and a ribbon on his collar, and he had a high sense of honour and respect for women. He says that Woggs would endure any abuse or injury from female dogs without fighting back or complaining. He gives an example of how Woggs was once attacked by a female dog who bit his ear and made him bleed. But when a human woman tried to whip the female dog for her bad behavior, Woggs defended her and attacked the woman instead. He says that this is the story of a soul’s tragedy, meaning that Woggs was a noble and loyal dog who suffered because of his love and devotion to female dogs

Dogs He Mentions

1. Woggs Stevenson’s blue skye terrier; even mentioned in The Life of Robert Louis Stevenson by Sir Graham Balfour canine wife-beater
2. Coolin
3. Arab dog that rose to “upper dog class” but was ignored by fellow upper class dogs (??) this left him lonely. we celebrate self made men but what about dogs?

Footnotes

1. The morals of dog-kind. Stevenson discusses this subject again in his essay Pulvis et Umbra (1888). ↩

2. a monarch or ruler, especially an autocratic one. ↩

3. Who whet the knife of the vivisectionist or heat his oven. Stevenson was so sympathetic by nature that once, seeing a man beating a dog, he interfered, crying, “It’s not your dog, it’s God’s dog.” On the subject of vivisection, however his biographer says: “It must be laid to the credit of his reason and the firm balance of his judgment that although vivisection was a subject he could not endure even to have mentioned, yet, with all his imagination and sensibility, he never ranged himself among the opponents of this method of inquiry, provided, of course, it was limited, as in England, with the utmost rigour possible.”—Balfour’s Life, II, 217. The two most powerful opponents of vivisection among Stevenson’s contemporaries were Ruskin and Browning. The former resigned the Professorship of Poetry at Oxford because vivisection was permitted at the University: and the latter in two poems Tray and Arcades Ambo treated the vivisectionists with contempt, implying that they were cowards. In Bernard Shaw’s clever novel Cashel Byron’s Profession, The prize-fighter maintains that his profession is more honorable than that of a man who bakes dogs in an oven. This novel, by the way, which he read in the winter of 1887-88, made an extraordinary impression on Stevenson; he recognised its author’s originality and cleverness immediately, and was filled with curiosity as to what kind of person this Shaw might be. “Tell me more of the inimitable author,” he cried. It is a pity that Stevenson did not live to see the vogue of Shaw as a dramatist, for the latter’s early novels produced practically no impression on the public. See Stevenson’s highly entertaining letter to William Archer, Letters, II, 107. ↩

4. “Trailing clouds of glory.” Trailing with him clouds of glory. This passage, from Wordsworth’s Ode on the Intimations of Immortality (1807), was a favorite one with Stevenson, and he quotes it several times in various essays. ↩

5. The leading distinction. Those who know dogs will fully agree with Stevenson here. ↩

6. The faults of the dog. All lovers of dogs will by no means agree with Stevenson in his enumeration of canine sins.] ↩

7. Montaigne’s “je ne sais quoi de généreux.” A bit of generosity. Montaigne’s Essays (1580) had an enormous influence on Stevenson, as they have had on nearly all literary men for three hundred years. See his article in this volume, Books Which Save Influenced Me, and the discussion of the “personal essay” in our general Introduction.] ↩

8. Sir Willoughby Patterne. Again a character in Meredith’s Egoist. See our Note 47 of Chapter IV above.] ↩

9. Hans Christian Andersen. A Danish writer of prodigious popularity: born 1805, died 1875. His books were translated into many languages. The “memoirs” Stevenson refers to, were called The Story of My Life, in which the author brought the narrative only so far as 1847: it was, however, finished by another hand. He is well known to juvenile readers by his Stories for Children. ↩

10. Once he ceased hunting and became man’s plate-licker, the Rubicon was crossed. For a reversion to type, where the plate-licker goes back to hunting, see Mr. London’s powerful story, The Call of the Wild. … The “Rubicon” was a small stream separating Cisalpine Gaul from Italy. Caesar crossed it in 49 B. C, thus taking a decisive step in deliberately advancing into Italy. “Plutarch, in his life of Caesar, makes quite a dramatic scene out of the crossing of the Rubicon. Caesar does not even mention it.”—B. Perrin’s ed. of Caesar’s Civil War, p. 142 ↩

11. The law in their members. Romans, VII, 23. “But I see another law in my members.“] ↩

12. Sir Philip Sidney. The stainless Knight of Elizabeth’s Court, born 1554, died 1586. The pages of history afford no better illustration of the “gentleman and the scholar.” Poet, romancer, critic, courtier, soldier, his beautiful life was crowned by a noble death.] ↩

13. The ideal of the dog is feudal and religious. Maeterlinck says the dog is the only being who has found and is absolutely sure of his God.] ↩

14. He is talking about how humans have interfered with the natural balance of the dog population by killing many female dogs for various reasons. He says that this has made the female dogs very rare and valuable in the dog society, where they are treated like queens by the male dogs. He compares this situation to the human society, where women have been oppressed and exploited by men for a long time. He also mentions a literary reference to Shakespeare’s play “As You Like It”, where Corin is a simple shepherd who does not understand the sophisticated manners of Touchstone, a court jester. He implies that humans are like Touchstone, who mocks and criticizes Corin for his ignorance and simplicity. He says that humans have a worse and more dangerous role than Corin, because they have harmed and corrupted the dog’s nature. He also gives an example of a rare case of a dog who abused his female partner, but he says that there was some justification for his behavior because of his past history. ↩

15. Damnable and parlous than Corin’s in the eyes of Touchstone. See As You Like It, Act III, Sc. 2. “Sin is damnation: Thou art in a parlous state, shepherd.” ↩

16. Cairn-gorms. Brown or yellow quartz, found in the mountain of Cairngorm, Scotland, over 4000 feet high. Stevenson’s own dog, “Woggs” or “Bogue,” was a black Skye terrier, whom the author seems here to have in mind. See Note 20 of this Chapter, below, “Woggs.“] ↩

17. A Soul’s Tragedy. The title of a tragedy by Browning, published in 1846.] ↩

18. Troilus and Cressida. One of the most bitter and cynical plays ever written; practically never seen on the English stage, it was successfully revived at Berlin, in September 1904.] ↩

19. “While the lamp holds on to burn … the greatest sinner may return.” From a hymn by Isaac Watts (1674-1748), beginning “Life is the time to serve the Lord, The time to insure the great reward; And while the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest sinner may return.” Although this stanza has no remarkable merit, many of Watts’s hymns are genuine poetry.] ↩

20. Sturm und Drang. This German expression has been well translated “Storm and Stress.” It was applied to the literature in Germany (and in Europe) the latter part of the XVIIIth century, which was characterised by emotional excess of all kinds. A typical book of the period was Goethe’s Sorrows of Werther (Die Leiden des jungen Werthers, 1774). The expression is also often applied to the period of adolescence in the life of the individual.] ↩

21. • person who uses clever but unsound reasoning
    ↩

22. Jesuit confessors. The Jesuits, or Society of Jesus, one of the most famous religious orders of the Roman Catholic Church, was founded in 1534 by Ignatius of Loyola and a few others.] ↩

23. Modified by Cheeryble. The Cheeryble Brothers are characters in Dickens’s Nicholas Nickleby (1838-9). Dickens said in his Preface, “Those who take an interest in this tale, will be glad to learn that the BROTHERS CHEERYBLE live: that their liberal charity, their singleness of heart, their noble nature … are no creations of the Author’s brain.“] ↩

24. “Rake the backets.” The “backet” is a small, square, wooden trough generally used for ashes and waste.] ↩

25. : Woggs (_and Note: Walter, Watty, Woggy, Woggs, Wog, and lastly Bogue; under which last name he fell in battle some twelve months ago. Glory was his aim and he attained it; for his icon, by the hand of Caldecott, now lies among the treasures of the nation.) Stevenson’s well-beloved black Skye terrier. See Balfour’s Life, I, 212, 223. Stevenson was so deeply affected by Woggs’s death that he could not bear ever to own another dog. A Latin inscription was placed on his tombstone…. This Note was added in 1887, when the essay appeared in Memories and Portraits. “Icon” means image (cf. iconoclast); the word has lately become familiar through the religious use of icons by the Russians in the war with Japan. Randolph Caldecott (1846-1886) was a well-known artist and prominent contributor of sketches to illustrated magazines.] ↩

26. “Stammering Professors.” A “professor” here means simply a professing Christian. Stevenson alludes to the fact that dogs howl fearfully if some one in the house is dying.] ↩

27. “Carneying.” This means coaxing, wheedling.] ↩

28. Louis Quatorze. Louis XIV of France, who died in 1715, after a reign of 72 years, the longest reign of any monarch in history. His absolutism and complete disregard of the people unconsciously prepared the way for the French Revolution in 1789.] ↩

29. Stevenson means that humans are often blind to the vanity and selfishness of dogs, because dogs cannot express their thoughts and feelings in words. He thinks that if dogs could talk, they would reveal their true nature, which is full of pride, envy, and lies. He imagines that a spoiled dog who could talk would annoy and bore his human friends with his endless chatter about himself, and that they would soon lose their affection for him. He implies that dogs are better off being silent, because their silence makes them more lovable and respectable. ↩