1248

DEFINING BEAUTY
By David Hancock

Writing in the eighteenth century, the Scottish philosopher David Hume gave the view that: "Beauty is no quality in things themselves. It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them." These words could have been written about purebred dogs, and the exhibition of them to set criteria based entirely on appearance. Many members of the public view dog-shows as bizarre, a view reinforced by the TV coverage of Crufts, unwittingly highlighting every excess rather than the intended purpose. Unlike game fairs and country shows, most dog shows do not permit un-entered dogs access. This results in less public interest and therefore less understanding of dog breeding and exhibiting. The bigger game fairs can feature a parade of sporting dogs accompanied by a commentary on their breed origins and field use. If the dog-owning, but not dog-showing, public do not feel welcome at conformation dog shows then their understanding of canine matters is not developed. If dog shows are viewed merely as canine beauty contests, how can the merit of the breeding stock on display there ever be respected? Is the prettiest dog the healthiest? Can the pursuit of beauty truly justify every breed configuration? But soundness and health issues apart, have show-breeders actually made their various breeds more beautiful?

The Gundog Group can lay claim to containing the most handsome collection of dogs of any group. The setters especially have a natural grace, beauty of form and absence of exaggeration which make them pleasing to the eye. Beauty of movement however doesn't always accompany such handsomeness. It is so disappointing to see and be ready to admire a startlingly good-looking setter only to groan when it starts to move. For me beauty of movement is inseparable from any judgement of handsomeness of appearance. It may well be that show ring gundogs are better looking than specimens of say two hundred years ago, but often only until they start to move. Spaniels too are bred more uniformly and prettier, but I do wish that Clumbers had to be presented in the show ring without the permittance in its breed standard of eyes which are 'slightly sunk' with 'some haw showing'. This happens in Basset Hounds too, but not in those that hunt! Red-raw eyes are never pretty.

Many shooting men complain about excessive coat on a number of gundog breeds and I can see why. But in some pastoral breeds the sheer weight of coat now detracts from the beauty of the breed. The handsome Rough Collie is required to have a coat which fits the outline of its body and is very abundant in the frill and mane, with profuse feathering above the hocks and a very profuse tail. I suspect that within my lifetime the Rough Collie's coat has doubled in length, which to me spoils the appearance of a distinctly good-looking breed. The coat no longer fits the outline of the body, it drowns it. No dog could work with such a coat in the pastures. No shepherd would wish to own a dog with such a coat. For me this is a beautiful breed being slowly but surely ruined by its sheer weight of coat. No longer does the coat fit the outline of the body, as demanded by the breed blueprint; the physical beauty of this breed is in peril.

We have made the Pomeranian into a tiny dog. The production of a much tinier version is a matter of choice; my concern is the not the preference for the dwarf variety but the loss of the very beautiful larger one in so doing. The introduction of the Volpino from Italy and the Japanese Spitz has to some extent filled this gap. But we cannot claim that the show ring is producing more beautiful dogs when the bigger Pomeranian is just allowed to disappear. In his Dogs since 1900 (Dakers 1950) Arthur Croxton Smith writes: "My own impression...is that they lost favour with the public as the dogs of medium size, such as people like for companions, were ousted by the tinies, which seem more in place in the show pen than anywhere." Perhaps the re-emergence of the bigger Pom would reinvigorate public interest in them as companion dogs. It was the larger Pom which attracted the interest of Queen Victoria and led to the breed being favoured in Britain. By withdrawing challenge certificates for dogs over 7lbs the Kennel Club robbed us of a beautiful dog, and not for the first time.

Bertrand de Guesclin, a 14th century French soldier, who fought for Charles V against the English during the One Hundred Years War and one of the finest leaders in battle of his time, was so respected by his English opponents that they called him 'The Black Mastiff'. This was an indication too of the regard for Mastiffs at that time. In his Henry V, Shakespeare wrote 'This island of England breeds very valiant creatures, Their mastiffs are of unmatchable courage'. Sadly, today, our Mastiff breed is prized mainly because of its size and weight. And in the Kennel Club's rings you will never see a black one. This is not historically correct. The modern breed, according to its KC standard, can only be apricot-fawn, silver-fawn, fawn, brindle or 'non-standard', whatever that means. But Bewick, Towne and Gilpin depicted Mastiffs two centuries ago that were black and white or mainly white. Foreign mastiff breeds like the Broholmer, the Neapolitan, the Fila Brasileiro, the Tosa, the Cane Corso and the Great Dane can feature a black coat. But now, a Welsh enthusiast, Gareth Williams of Bishopston, Swansea, with his wife Claire, is promoting his line of black Mastiff, which he considers is a descendant of the Welsh holding dog or gafaelgi, used by butchers to seize wayward bulls and before that to pull down big game. Douglas Oliff in his The Mastiff and Bullmastiff Handbook of 1988, mentions two fifteenth century references which translate from Welsh as, 'what good are greyhounds, two hundred of them, without a gafaelgi' and 'the gafaelgi takes fierce hold of the stag's throat, and is black in colour'. Note the coat colour.

When I look at depictions of Bull Terriers by Loder, Clifton, Towne, Ferneley senior and William Weekes and then compare those dogs with the egg-headed specimens of today, there is no doubt in my mind that we have substituted an ugly dog for a much more attractive one. Similarly, if you look at Bulldog paintings by say Wright Barker in 1893, Arthur Heyer in 1890 and prints of around 1850 a far more appealing animal is revealed. Ben Herring's Mastiff portrayal of 1855 and Edwin Douglas's Collie of twenty years later show much more alluring specimens than we see today. Contemporary fanciers may well disagree, but I wonder if this isn't because they are just conforming with modern fashion (and desiring to win with the altered breed type) rather than consciously favouring it.

It is time for the kennel clubs of the world to define what is meant by their declared mandate of improving dogs. Improving means producing something better. The Crufts catchphrase of 'the best of the very best' is questionable without a definition of what the dogs exhibited are best at. I have no argument at all with the desire to produce handsome dogs but for me a beautiful dog has to have beauty of movement too. In a new century already dominated by animal welfare concerns, the word soundness should feature more prominently. 'Soundness before beauty' is a worthier claim; 'the soundest of the sound' is a more admirable slogan. A championship dog show has to be so much more than just a beauty contest; it is a livestock show where future breeding stock is assessed. Writing three centuries ago, Alexander Pope penned these prescient, perceptive words: "Beauties in vain their pretty eyes may roll; Charms strike the sight, but merit wins the soul."

Beauty does appeal to the eye and please the mind. But merit, that quality which justifies reward, does more, it lifts the spirit, satisfies the quest for high standards, truly 'wins the soul'. Beauty alone can never be enough, even at a dog show where physical perfection is aimed at, however impossible the task. When a handsome dog displays ugly movement it immediately ceases to be a beautiful dog to me. When a stunningly handsome dog reveals serious anatomical faults, on closer inspection, the charms which struck the sight soon trouble the mind. When you know that a strikingly good-looking dog carries hereditary flaws which will be passed on to its offspring, the mind should rebel and the soul take control. The beauty of a show exhibit, stacked for the judge's admiration, can be very temporary. Its genes and their accompanying faults and flaws are permanent. If dog shows are viewed merely as canine beauty contests, how can the merit of the breeding stock on display there ever be respected? The pursuit of beauty ahead of soundness in subject living creatures tells you much more about human vanity than human wisdom.

At times a fad colour develops in the marketplace or within breeds to the loss of genetic variation if that preference results in the less usual colours being undesired. In gundogs and some sighthounds unusual colours crop up and these are either regarded as unsightly and not furthered or overbred from, as fanciers decide that an unusual coat colour is ‘beautiful’. The rare occurrence of the ‘hailstone’ coat has manifested itself in Pointers, Labradors and Greyhounds – as the coursing Greyhound ace Master M’Grath once illustrated. Harlequin or merle in Great Danes can offend those favouring solid-coloured dogs or delight those seeking ‘something different’. Breeding merles is a task for knowledgeable breeders not puppy-farmers. We should all be striving for the soundest dog and leave coat-colour to chance alone.

Shakespeare wrote that "Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye..." And beauty should appeal to the eye and please the mind. Wallace Stevens wrote that "Beauty is momentary in the mind..." Dogs should merit lasting admiration. But merit, that quality which justifies reward, does more, it lifts the spirit, satisfies the quest for high standards, truly 'wins the soul'. Beauty alone can never be enough, even at a dog show where physical perfection is aimed at, however impossible the task. When a handsome dog displays ugly movement it immediately ceases to be a beautiful dog to me. When a stunningly handsome dog reveals serious anatomical faults, on closer inspection, the charms which struck the sight soon trouble the mind. A comparison between modern and old-type St Bernards illustrates this point. As Bacon wrote: "There is no excellent beauty that hath not some strangeness in the proportion..." The pursuit of beauty rather than soundness in subject living creatures tells you much more about human indulgence than human wisdom. Surely we have a duty to the breeds we favour and exhibit ahead of temporary and flawed fashions, often fads pursued by a monied clique, blind to breed history and, far worse, never swayed by the health or comfort of their dogs. Shame on them! Breeding for looks ahead of heritage and health can ruin any breed of purebred dog - and has already spoiled far too many.