sympathy with dogs, and a
sensitiveness to their mental attitudes, finer and more true than
anything in Stevenson's essay. The misery of Riquet {226} over the
_demenagement_ of his master, M. Bergeret, is admirably drawn. Riquet
begins by barking fiercely when "des hommes inconnus, mal vetus,
injurieux et farouches" invade his beloved house, and ends in being
lifted in silent misery and shut up in a portmanteau. Riquet soon
becomes too human, but he does at least show his adoration of M.
Bergeret, in mourning over the desecration and removal of "ton fauteuil
profond--le fauteuil ou nous reposions tous les soirs, et bien souvent le
matin, a cote l'un de l'autre."

No. XII. of the _Pensees de Riquet_ does not bear on the love that
subsists between dog and man; it goes deeper however, for it shows that
men as well as dogs are dominated by instinctive night fears which unite
them by a most ancient and enduring bond. Riquet says: "A la tombee de
la nuit des puissances malfaisantes rodent autour de la maison," a fact
obvious to all children. There is (No. XII.)an admirable comic prayer to
his master beginning, "O mon maitre Bergeret, dieu de carnage, je
t'adore." But it seems to me to miss the true flavour of doggishness.

Professor A. C. Bradley {227} strives to show that Shakespeare "did not
care for dogs." His opinion is worthy of respect, and all the more that
he seems to be a dog lover himself. At least, so I interpret what he
says of Shakespeare: "To all that he loved most in men he was blind in
dogs, and then we call him universal!" "What is significant," he says,
"is the absence of sympathic allusion to the characteristic virtues of
dogs, and the abundance of allusions of an insulting kind."

I had always imagined that the description of the hounds in "A
Midsummer's Night's Dream" was written by one who liked dogs as
individuals, not merely as a picturesque piece of hunting apparatus. But
Professor Bradley's contrary opinion is probably the sounder. In the
same way I think that the passage in "Lear," "Tray, Blanche, and
Sweetheart," etc., could only have been written by one who understood the
shock which the little dogs' behaviour gave the King. On the other hand,
I agree that Shakespeare does not sympathise with the admirable conduct
of Launce, who sat in the stocks to save his dog from execution for
theft.

Scott was a genuine dog lover. It is on record that he excused himself
for not keeping an eng