41 
Are Bogs snobbish ? 
Lear asks of Gloucester — 
“ Lear . Thou hast seen a farmer’s dog bark at a beggar ? 
Glou. Ay, sir. 
Lear. And the creature run from the cur? There thou might’st 
behold the great image of authority : a dog’s obeyed in office.” 
{King Lear , iv. 6, 158.) 
Professor Huxley, sad to say, in his recent work on 
Hume, endorses Shakspeare’s opinion as to the total 
depravity of dog nature. He writes :— 
“One of the most curious peculiarities of the dog mind is its 
inherent snobbishness, shown by the regard paid to external respecta¬ 
bility. The dog who harks furiously at a beggar willlet a well-dressed 
man pass him without opposition. Has he not then a 4 generic idea ’ 
of rags and dirt associated with the idea of aversion, and that of sleek 
broadcloth associated with the idea of liking ? ” (. Hume , 1879, p. 106.) 
May not this distinction of persons be due to snobbish¬ 
ness on the part of the owners of dogs, to education, 
rather than to any natural tendency ? A lady, who was 
in the habit of giving food to all who asked, saw her dog 
go to the open bread-pan, take out half a loaf, and give it 
to a beggar. What had become of this dog’s “ inherent 
snobbishness ” ? 
The beautiful description of Argus in the Iliad, so 
pathetic in its simplicity, shows that appreciation of the 
good qualities of the dog is not entirely of modern origin. 
Chester, a writer contemporary with Shakspeare, pays 
the following tribute to the attachment of the animal to 
its master 
“ The dogge, a naturall, kind, and loving thing, 
As witnesseth our histories of old : 
Their master dead, the poore foole with lamenting 
Doth kill himself before accounted bold .* 
And would defend his maister if he might, 
When cruelly his foe begins to fight.” 
{Love’s Martyr , ed. New Shak. Soc., 
1878, p. 110.) 
Doubtless some of the evil report attaching to dogs 
