DIGNITY AND IMPUDENCE
Any one with a sense of humor must
often be struck by the resemblance between the ways
of dogs and the ways of men. The dignified dog,
the vulgar dog, the nervous dog, the lazy dog, the
impudent dog, are all types of which there are many
human counterparts. The dog, indeed, seems at
times almost to mimic the manners of men. So in
our picture of Dignity and Impudence we are at once
reminded of a corresponding situation in human life.
The hound Grafton, posing as Dignity,
lies at the entrance of his kennel, his paws overhanging
the edge. His handsome head is held erect as
he surveys an approaching visitor with the air of an
elderly statesman receiving a political candidate.
There can be no doubt that his opinions are decidedly
conservative.
A small Scotch terrier has been playing
about him, having no awe of his big host, but making
himself quite at home in his cosy quarters. He
is like a frolicsome child, playing about the statesman’s
chair, while the old gentleman pursues his train of
thought quite undisturbed. Now at the sound of
approaching footsteps the impertinent creature peeps
forth, with the curiosity of his kind, to see who
the newcomer is. His tongue is thrust halfway
out at one side like that of a saucy street boy making
faces at the passers by. Though Dignity apparently
ignores the presence of Impudence, we may be sure
that the little fellow’s antics afford him a
quiet amusement. Plainly the two dogs are the
best of friends.
There is the greatest possible contrast
between them, both in character and appearance.
The bloodhound is of a ponderous nature which does
not act without deliberation. Thoroughly aroused
he may become quite terrible, but he is not hasty
in his judgments. The terrier is a nervous creature,
full of activity. We can see from the tense position
of his head in the picture that his whole body is
quivering with motion.
The bloodhound seems large even for
his breed, which averages about twenty-seven inches
in height. One of his huge paws is almost as large
as the terrier’s head and could easily crush
the little creature. But in spite of his reputation
for fierceness his expression here is not at all savage.
It is rather grave and judicial, as if carefully summing
up the character of his visitor. While the terrier
saucily asks “Who are you?” the bloodhound
is steadily gazing at the intruder, as if to read
his secret thoughts. A modern authority on dogs
quaintly says of the bloodhound’s discrimination,
“If he puts you down as a bad character, or
one who cannot be thoroughly trusted, there must be
something radically wrong about you, indeed.”
Perhaps something of the gravity of
the hound’s countenance is due to the looseness
of the skin about the head, making folds which suggest
the wrinkles in an old man’s face. The eyes,
too, are rather deep set and impress one with the
unfathomable depths of the dog’s intelligence.
How unlike are the shining round orbs of the little
terrier. The hound’s sleek short-haired
coat comports well with his dignity, while the long
tangled hair of the terrier suits his impudent character.
With the long overhanging ears of the larger dog are
amusingly contrasted the small sharp points standing
upright on his companion’s head. Finally,
were the two dogs to lift up their voices to greet
the new arrival, an odd duet would be produced by the
deep baying of one, broken by the short sharp yelps
of the other. Dignity and Impudence would each
find perfect vocal expression.
Our picture illustrates admirably
Landseer’s genial gift of humor and shows us
how varied was his power. As we have occasion
to see elsewhere in our book, some of his works deal
with pathetic, even tragic, subjects. Like other
men of poetic imagination the painter seemed equally
ready to call forth smiles or tears. While no
one can look at Dignity and Impudence without smiling
at the contrast, the fun is without irony. Pomposity
and impertinence are amusing qualities alike in dogs
and men, but are altogether harmless.
The painter has here kept strictly
within the proper limits of his art. A few slight
changes would entirely transform the character of
the picture. By exaggerating only a little the
human quality of expression in the dogs’ faces
and suggesting a resemblance to some particular individuals,
the picture would become a caricature. Cartoonists
have not scrupled to borrow the design and adapt it
to such purposes. Landseer himself, however,
had no aim but to produce a humorous effect of contrast
between the two dogs.