THE MASTIFFS: THE BIG GAME HUNTERS
by   David Hancock

Chapter 2 - THE MASTIFF BREEDS IN BRITAIN

THE ENGLISH MASTIFF

"The probability is that he (i.e. the Mastiff) owes his origin to some very remote ancestor of alien strain. The Assyrian kings possessed a large dog of decided Mastiff type, and used it in the hunting of lions and for the capture of wild horses...The name Mastiff was applied to any massively built dog."

'The Complete Book of the Dog' by  Robert Leighton, 1922.

"The history of the breed is confusing. Apart from the somewhat unreliable claims of research workers, the numerous references in early works cannot be relied on, as the name ”molossus•, which is usually translated mastiff, was often applied to any large dog."

 'Dogs: their history and development' by Edward C. Ash (Benn), 1927.

This Mongrel Mastiff 

Those wishful thinkers seeking a long and pure ancestry for the Mastiff would be wise to ignore the absurd claims of English Victorian breed enthusiasts and accept that in previous centuries the Mastiff was, in modern terms, a very large mongrel. 'Idstone', writing in his 'The Dog' of 1871, states: "We cannot visit a fair or market in any provincial town without observing this mongrel Mastiff on guard amongst the travellers' carts, generally brindled, frequently blazed...and blended with the Greyhound." In his 'A General History of Quadrupeds' of 1790, Thomas Bewick records: "The Mastiff, in its pure and unmixed state, is now seldom to be met with. The generality of Dogs distinguished by that name, seem to be compounded of the Bull-Dog, Danish Mastiff, and the Ban-Dog."

Meaning of Mastiff

 The word 'mastiff' is believed by some (e.g. Cent. Dict., Murray) to come from the French 'metif', in old French 'mestif', in Middle English 'mastyf' or 'mestiv', meaning mixed breed or mongrel. Others (e.g. the New Oxford Dictionary of English, 1998) consider it comes from the Middle English, obscurely representing the Old French 'mastin', based on the Latin 'mansuetus' or tame. Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary states it is from "an assumed Old French 'mastif', probably a variant of Old French 'mastin' (French 'matin'). Others explain as Old French 'mestif' (French 'metif'), of mixed breed, mongrel, or Old French 'mestis' (metis), mongrel, or even as the above Old French 'mastin' (Fr. matin) all, through Low Latin forms, from Latin 'mixtus', 'mistus', 'miscere, to mix." In the 'Dictionary of Word Origins' by John Ayto, Columbia Marketing, 1994, it states that the word seems to have come into the language as an alteration of the Old French 'mastin'; mastin in time became 'matin', translated as a mastiff, a cur or a scoundrel, clearly no compliment. These original meanings should not be seen as demeaning to the breed of Mastiff today; pure breeding is a modern phenomenon.

Mixed Blood

 Famous names on early Mastiff breeding records indicate the remarkable mixture behind the breed. The esteemed 'Couchez' was in fact an Alpine Mastiff; Waterman's 'Tiger' was a Great Dane from Ireland. Lukey's 'Pluto' and 'Countess' were reportly 'of Thibet Mastiff' type. The Mastiff breeder HD Kingdon, writing in Webb's 'Dogs' of 1883, mentions "breeders who insist no mastiff has a pedigree of forty years' standing, and who have 'manufactured' for our shows a big cross-bred dog that...has been exhibited ”under the name of mastiff." James Watson, in his 'The Dog Book' of 1906, wrote, and I believe he is quite right, that: "The patent facts are that from a number of dogs of various types of English watchdogs and baiting dogs, running from 26" to "29" or perhaps 30" in height, crossed with continental dogs of Great Dane and of old fashioned St.Bernard type, the mastiff has been elevated through the efforts of English breeders to the dog he became about twenty years ago."

Ancestor Blood

 An acceptance of that view would allow Mastiff breeders to be more vigilant in watching out for the blood of an ancestor breed coming through too strongly. HD Kingdon wrote, again in Webb's 'Dogs' of 1883: "We do not believe in the purity of mastiffs over thirty inches..." I support that; the universal mastiff type is between 24" and 28" at the shoulder; the flock guarding breeds are bigger and I suspect it is their blood, i.e. that of the smooth St.Bernard and the Tibetan Mastiff, which have produced this size increase in the Mastiff. In his 'British Dogs' of 1888, Hugh Dalziel writes that "I do not care to consider whether they were manufactured twenty years ago or have an unspotted lineage from the Flood...although we may produce a fine dog by a mixture of breeds, we cannot have a Mastiff unless that blood is allowed to predominate..."

Manifestations of Crosses

 The thicker coat of the Alpine Mastiff, the Great Dane cranium and the Tibetan Mastiff's upward-curving tail could all surface to the detriment of true Mastiff type. Breed type once lost takes decades of devoted breeding to restore. In his 'The Practical Dog Book' of 1931, the much respected Edward Ash recorded: "In 1867 we read that the Mastiff was being crossed with the Bulldog in order to get a shorter face, for the Mastiff head then was a longer head than was desired. Bloodhounds were also used. The heads became narrow, the eyes sunken and the haw exaggerated." In his 'The Dogs of the British Islands' of 1878, 'Stonehenge' wrote: "A much worse stain in the pedigree of the mastiff is the cross with the bloodhound..." But so many contemporary show ring Mastiffs resemble in outline the early importations of the smooth St. Bernard, only the solid fawn coat reveals the advertised breed. Is this really what the famed Mastiff of England should be like?

"Our Englishe men (to th'intent that theyr dogges might be the more fell and fearce) assist nature with arte, use, and custome, for they teach theyr dogges to baite the beare, to baite the Bull and other such like cruell and bloudy beastes (Appointing an overseer of the game) without any collar to defend theyr throtes, and oftentimes they traine them up in fighting and wrestling with a man having for the safegarde of his lyfe, eyther a Pikestaffe, a clubbe, or a sworde and by using them to such exercises as these, theyr dogges become more sturdy and strong."

  'A Short Treatise of English Dogges' by John Caius, 1565

  "This island of England breeds very valiant creatures;

   Their mastiffs are of unmatchable courage."

  'Henry V' by William Shakespeare    

Mistaken Mentions

 There is plenty of evidence to show that the Mastiff, the English breed of that name, has not always been enriched by the breeders who bred it or the breed historians who wrote about it. Flowery accounts have been composed on how it was brought to Britain by the Phoenicians, without a shred of evidence to back them up. Every mention of the word 'mastiff' in historical documents has been instantly interpreted as referring to the modern breed, whereas the word 'mastiff' itself, for several centuries, meant any large mongrel or huge formidable dog, regardless of coat colour, shape of skull or function.

More Precise Breed Title

 This confused background in no sense degrades the modern breed of Mastiff, it merely indicates a lack of wisdom in its fanciers. I would much prefer the breed to be called the English Mastiff, for that is what it is. The Pointer is similarly inadequately named; British breeders made it what it is and there are a dozen breeds in the world bred and trained to point unseen game. There are German, French, Spanish and Portuguese pointers - why can't we claim the fine breed, by name, which we created? Similarly with the Mastiff; there are a dozen mastiff breeds in the world. Why can't we claim ours? Was it Victorian arrogance which took the view that the only real pointers and mastiffs were here and decided that the noun was good enough by itself?

Misuse by Man

 Despite this unfortunate background, the Mastiff we have come to know as such, is a quite magnificent breed, a giant in stature and good qualities but one seemingly destined to be misused by man. A couple of years ago, I watched the mastiff of my country being exhibited by foreigners at a World Dog Show. I could have wept. The dogs were simply dreadful, sluggish, shambling, overweight specimens of a superb breed 'gone wrong'. Their movement was awful; their construction disastrous; their eyes sunken and sad; their flews exaggerated beyond comfort and their ultra-heavy bone a needless handicap. I was appalled. Any group of breed fanciers can lose their way, but when a dog of this size is ill-bred, indirect cruelty is involved. These dogs were heavier than any past function could ever justify; they appeared to be valued because of their extreme bulk.

Size before Soundness

 Writing in 'The Book of the Dog' of 1948, edited by Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald and published by Nicholson and Watson, Arthur Croxton Smith gave this view: "Breeders seem to have concentrated more and more upon getting immense size, and great bulk usually brings the evil of unsoundness in its train. I have seen plenty of perfectly sound mastiffs, such as could move well and were really active, but latterly the proportion of unsound ones has been alarmingly heavy, for it is extremely difficult for breeders to get soundness in alliance with bulk." No breed can lead a healthy life if its whole design is at the mercy of human whim. Any breed no longer bred for a function, even if that function has lapsed, has a doubtful future.

Broad-mouthed Heritage

 The Mastiff is a classic example of the broad-mouthed dogs, some would say the classic example, which were used by primitive hunters to pull down big game, such as auroch, bison, wild bull, stag, boar and even bear. They were heavy hounds. They are sometimes called 'holding' dogs, 'gripping' or 'pinning' dogs, as some foreign broad-mouthed breeds still are in their breed titles. The Perros de Presa of Spain, the Filas of Portugal and Brazil and the Canes de Presa of Italy exemplify this today. English hunting mastiffs were greatly prized on the Continent, being referred to in Central Europe as Englische Dogge, with the noun meaning hunting mastiff not just 'dog' in our sense.

Dangerous Role

 Such dogs were recklessly brave, many being killed by their quarry. Eventually there came a separation between the running mastiffs or alauntes gentil/veutreres, rather like today's Great Dane and the Dogo Argentino, and the 'killing' mastiffs or matins/mastini/alauntes of the butcheries. The former were par force hounds, used in the chase, the latter were used, rather like the infantry in warfare, to close with and kill the quarry. In France the word 'vautre' was eventually used exclusively for boarhounds. Cotgrave defines the 'vaultre' as "a mongrell betweene a hound and a mastiffe...fit for the chase or hunting of wild Beares and Boares." These dogs needed great courage, immense tenacity, massive determination and considerable agility - or they didn't live long enough to breed! They needed colossal muzzle strength, provided by wide jaws ”with abundant length•, as every depiction of them shows.

The Needs of a 'Holding Dog'

Untypical Muzzles

 When I see Bullmastiffs with the head structure of a Pug, I despair. No 'holding' dog could survive without length as well as breadth of muzzle. And when I hear that hoary old tale, used to justify muzzleless Bulldogs, of how this feature was necessary to enable the dog to go on breathing whilst gripping a bull, I laugh out loud. If this were so, firstly, why don't the old prints of bull-baiting contests show muzzle-less baiting dogs, and, secondly, why didn't the dog-fighting breeds of the world take advantage of such a feature? I do see Mastiffs with short muzzles in British show rings; it gives a coarse, ignoble look to a breed with a naturally lordly manner. In his 'British Dogs' of 1903, WD Drury recorded: "...this lack of interest in the breed is to some extent attributable to these dogs having of late years been bred with abnormally short muzzles, the result being that many of the characteristics of the breed have been changed. Faults, such as short bodies, short legs, straight hocks, and bad hindquarters have been far too common."

Conserving the Genuine Breed

 Mastiff breeders have to conduct very careful breeding programmes if the real breed characteristics are to be preserved. The breed was re-established after the Second World War with a relatively tiny gene-pool. It would be wise too to accept that the modern breed was actually re-created at the end of the last century, by including the blood of Alpine mastiffs (like smooth St.Bernards), Tibetan 'mastiffs' of uncertain breeding, Great Danes with dodgy pedigrees and the biggest Mastiffs to hand. In his 'The Dogs of the British Islands' of 1878, the celebrated 'Stonehenge' wrote: "Now the point to which I wish to draw attention is, that both Couchez and L'Ami came direct from the Convent of Mount St. Bernard. The mighty dogs which used to be kept at Chatsworth (and one of which stood 34" at the shoulder) were pure Alpine mastiffs, as also were the two magnificent animals I have mentioned as having seen at Bill George's kennel some sixteen years ago..."

Protecting Type

 These dogs were the foundation stock of the modern breed. When long coats crop up in the breed, it should be an automatic disqualification (although one Mastiff breeder at Crufts once told me she 'rather liked them'!) In Henry Webb's 'Dogs: their points, whims, instincts and peculiarities' of 1883, it's recorded that the distinguished animal painter Earl sought to paint the Lyme Hall Mastiff 'Barry' because this dog "so completely brought out, by comparison, the evidence of the impurity of many of the show dogs he had been painting, and, by contrast, so showed the bull and bloodhound crosses in most of them..." A Bloodhound head, with its giant ears and sunken eyes, or the Bulldoggy (brachycephalic) look, with its foreshortened muzzle and excessive wrinkle, should be avoided like the plague. Both, once accepted, take years of dedicated breeding to remove. In his 'The Conformation of the Dog' of 1957 (Popular Dogs), RH Smythe writes: "Once the brachycephalic strain is introduced it is seldom completely bred out again. Its existence is associated with a special endocrine (glandular) mechanism which influences temperament, eye placement and eye shape." In other words it brings in a very different type in both mental and physical forms.

Weakness of the Breed Standard

 I find appreciable conflict between the wording of the breed standard and the placings of judges at shows. The breed standard uses these key phrases: Gait/Movement - Powerful, easy extension. Ears - small. Muscles - sharply defined. Size a great desideratum, ”if combined with quality•. Hindquarters...with well developed second thighs. Lips - slightly pendulous. Eyes...showing no haw. Tail – Set-on high. There is nothing ambiguous in these words. How is it, then, that Mastiffs qualify for Crufts with: weak movement with limited extension, large ears, soft ill-defined muscles, size at the expense of soundness, no visible second thigh, extremely pendulous lips, sagging eye-lids and low set tails? Does the standard not apply to this breed?

Health Problems

 If you then look at the health of the breed as summarised in an authoritative book such as 'Medical and Genetic Aspects of Purebred Dogs' by Clark and Stainer (1994), you can see some of the problems in the breed. It states: "Many bitches experience uterine inertia after whelping one or two puppies, probably resulting from the breed's characteristic lethargy...Obesity is the curse of the Mastiff breed...many owners continue to overfeed their dogs in the mistaken belief that the heavy feeding increases the dog's size. OFA has reported elbow dysplasia in this breed. Mastiffs have ectropian and persistent pupillary membranes. Vaginal hyperplasia is a problem in the breed. Bloat is a hazard at any age."

Undesirable Grossness

 Lethargy and obesity from overfeeding, are these not the consequences of breeding for great size without accompanying soundness or quality? I groan when I read a judge's critique praising 'great bone'; are we breeding cart horses or heavy hounds? The seeking of massive bone in any breed of dog is not a rational act. Strong flat bone is admired by every racehorse owner, because it is the strongest, and who in all honesty wants a dog with thick ankles? Of what use and value are they to the dog? Did our distant ancestors, who actually used these dogs in the field, ever value a dog purely for its bulk? This magnificent breed developed because of its athleticism not its size; now a veterinary author refers to "the breed's characteristic lethargy". It is dishonest to boast of a breed's historic feats and then breed an animal that simply could not accomplish such a task.

Function determined Type

 In my working life, my shire horses displayed better movement than many Mastiffs in today's show rings. And they were designed with hauling strength mainly in mind. Great size without soundness and weight for weight's sake are pointless achievements in a dog. The late Natalka Czartoryska had an Anatolian Shepherd Dog, over 30 inches at the shoulder, which moved simply effortlessly. When working in Germany, I have seen Great Danes with movement of such power that it took your breath away. I have seen Caucasian Owtcharkas, as big as any Mastiff, with such strength on the move that they simply devoured the ground. Huge dogs don't have to be ponderous.

Foreign Type

 In his 'The History of the Mastiff' of 1886, MB Wynn wrote: "The English mastiff has not been so much improved as some people ignorantly think, it has simply been resuscitated, and in some instances from very doubtful blood..." 'Doubtful blood' has a nasty habit of coming through, at some stage. Wynn was scathing about the often-praised Mastiff breeder Lukey, writing that: "It should be a significant warning to modern breeders that in crossing, he introduced a foreign and distinct type, and ignorantly made use of the male offspring arising therefrom, thereby losing his old type..." Today's breeders appear to have lost the 'old type' if depictions of the latter are at all accurate.

The Advent of 'Crown Prince'

 It is said by some that the advent of a Mastiff called 'Crown Prince' is responsible for many of the problems in the breed. He became a champion and a much sought after sire, even with his light eyes, Dudley-coloured foreface, straight hocks, short body, poor movement, very short muzzle, unattractive colour and huge out of proportion skull. In Hutchinson's Dog Encyclopaedia of 1934 he is described as 'the worst influence which ever operated on the breed.' The writer then went on to state that: "Another point on which breeders have been much deceived is the undue search for wrinkle." Do dog breeders learn from past mistakes?

'Dancing into the Ring'

 In his 'The Complete Book of the Dog' of 1922, Robert Leighton wrote: "It is to be deplored that ever since the era of Crown Prince there has been a perceptible diminution in the number of good examples of this fine old English breed...The difficulty of obtaining dogs of unblemished pedigree and superlative type may partly account for this decline..." In his 'Dogs since 1900' of 1950, Arthur Croxton Smith wrote of Colonel Walker's kennel: "He was a steadfast adherent of the older stamp of dog and did not approve of the short face that became fashionable in a few years. He guarded his strain zealously, rarely going outside for breeding stock and if that became necessary he examined minutely the pedigrees of any dogs or bitches that were brought in. Colonel Walker laid particular stress on soundness...I can remember some of his dogs dancing into the ring with a movement that was delightful." Oh, for a latterday Colonel Walker!

Restoring Essential Type   

 England's breed of Mastiff is famous throughout the world but no breed can live on past glories. It is the dogs of today that we must do our best for, they carry the genes to be used, or not to be used. We live in times when animal welfare rightly has a high profile. The Council of Europe threatens to legislate against the breeding of dogs to an unhealthy design, and in principle I have no quarrel with that. The pressure to win in the show ring should not influence true lovers of a breed; the future well-being of their breed is enough for the genuine breed fancier. But who is producing the immobile monsters, masquerading as Mastiffs, that I see at the World Dog Shows and, sadly, even in Britain's show rings too? This breed is principally the responsibility of UK breeders surely.

Our 'Leal and Trusty Mastiff'

 Lloyd George once made reference to our 'leal and trusty mastiff'; leal being an old Middle English word meaning loyal and honest, trusty means reliable and faithful. Is it right to expect the breed to be loyal, honest, reliable and faithful when its breeders are not? Is it honest or loyal to breed a dog so heavy that it cannot walk with ease and enjoyment? Is it reliable and faithful to make use of a successful but wholly unsatisfactory sire like 'Crown Prince'? At what stage do a group of enlightened breeders say 'Enough is enough, our dogs are not true to their distinguished heritage?'

Ugly Brutes

 Concern about the wisdom of breeding Mastiffs to a flawed design is hardly new. Writing on the Mastiff in 'The American Book of the Dog' of 1891, William Wade made these remarks about the breed standard cast by M B Wynn: "If you interpret this standard and scale of points with strictness in every particular, and breed to it faithfully, you will get dogs that will be, bodily at least, all you want, and it may be mentally; but if because the scale allots forty points in a hundred to head properties, you magnify that forty to ninety nine, and condone weak loins, straight hocks, too short bodies, weak joints, and frightfully undershot muzzles, as weighing nothing against 'that grand head', you will probably get waddling, ugly brutes that will never rise above the position of prizewinners under 'fancy' judges." Prophetic words!

'Sorry Protectors'

 Can you imagine the King of Poland sending for the Mastiff of today to hunt boar and bear, as Nicholas Cox in his 'The Gentleman's Recreation' of 1674 relates that he once did? In his 'Modern Dogs' of 1894, Rawdon Lee wrote: "Some of our modern mastiffs of the Crown Prince strain would, I am afraid, have made but sorry protectors for an English warrior who lay grievously wounded on the field of Agincourt." Would his words not, sadly, be fair once again today? Surely there are patriotic Englishmen out there both willing to and capable of restoring the king of our native breeds to its historically correct, more athletic form?

Recognising the Heavy Hounds

 The heavy hounds, as a group, are not recognised as such by any kennel club in the world. Even the Great Dane, a German hunting mastiff and one-time boarhound, wastes away in the Working Group in our country. If the mastiff breeds were to be recognised as heavy hounds and then judged by experienced hound judges, their activity, mobility and muscularity would quickly improve. From that base a healthier breed of Mastiff would emerge and England could be proud of it once more. But if all we want is a vast, cumbersome, inactive yard dog, then we are going about it the right way.

Unfit for Role

 In his masterly 'British Dogs' of 1888, the esteemed Hugh Dalziel wrote: "In recent years, a desire for immense bulk seems to have led exhibitors of Mastiffs to obtain this by fleshiness rather than increase of frame. This is done at a loss of symmetry and activity of action; and so over-fat are some Mastiffs when exhibited that, far from suggesting that they are a race of dogs of war, their appearance shows they would be of use only to the commissariat department of an army when besieged." Has anything changed in one hundred years? Breeders with courage, vision, skill and dedication to a breed and its heritage are now urgently needed if the next one hundred years are to see this magnificent breed restored to its former glory and hard-earned fame. What a superb challenge for any breed devotee! Sic vos non vobis!              

 "...I know of no dog that stands confinement so well as the mastiff, and it is probably owing to the unfair advantage taken of this peculiarity that we see so many mastiffs deficient in legs and feet, as the result of want of exercise."

'The Dogs of the British Islands' by 'Stonehenge' of 1878.

 "Although the Mastiff is not so active as some other breeds of large dogs, being much heavier built, yet he should be sufficiently so to be able to accompany his owner on a walk without showing fatigue; it is doubtful whether many of the Mastiffs exhibited of late years would be able to do this."

'British Dogs' by WD Drury, 1903.

 "In Anglo-Saxon times every two villeins were required to maintain one of these dogs for the purpose of reducing the number of wolves and other wild animals. This would indicate that the Mastiff was recognised as a capable hunting dog..."

'The Complete Book of the Dog' by Robert Leighton (Cassell) 1922.

"...when the present rage for heads of immense girth, and exaggerated truncated muzzles in Mastiffs subsides, the well-knit, strong, yet active Great Dane may be used to correct the extravagantly massive and unwieldy frame that is so popular. Such a cross may give us once more a Mastiff that can gallop and take a fence with more ease than many of them now 'wobble'."

British Dogs Vol III, Hugh Dalziel, Upcott Gill, 1897.