“The little beast, cowardly and cross-grained, as pet-dogs usually are, looked up at him sharply, shrank away from his outstretched hand, whined, shivered, and hid itself under a sofa. It was scarcely possible that he could have been put out by such a trifle as a dog’s reception of him, but I observed, nevertheless, that he walked away towards the window very suddenly. Perhaps his temper is irritable at times. If so, I can sympathise with him. My temper is irritable at times too.” (133)
This passage stuck out to me as it is the second time this dog is mentioned, although both are just brief. I believe it is the companion of Miss Farlie, as earlier in the novel Hartwrite refers to it as “the pet companion of all her walks” (92). Dogs are often symbols of loyalty. This dog shows itself to be loyal to Miss Fairlie as not being friendly towards Sir Percival, a man whom Miss Farlie also does not show warmth to. Sir Percival reaches out to the dog as an extension of trust, but the dog does not reciprocate and instead follows this act by hiding. This dog is also characterized as scared and lesser than, while he is the only creature who is properly understanding Sir Percival’s intentions. While the reader already has a negative impression of him so far, this furthers the narrative that Sir Percival is going to be an antagonist in the story.
Gilmore also claims to be observant, yet seems to not realize the suspicious maneuver of Sir Percival to the windows, he instead thinks this must be due to irritability. This movement of his is also a slight slip of the facade that he has been putting on. He insists that he has nothing to hide and up until this point has exuded confidence. This slip, although it goes right over Gilmore’s head, alludes to the reader that he is hiding something despite no human being able to pick up on it yet. This theme furthers the “reading between the lines” narrative that the book is doing. Just as the reader can discern Sir Percival’s hidden intentions through small clues, this scene suggests that the characters themselves must learn to “read between the lines” to uncover hidden truths themselves.
Now that we have read further, your focus on this little dog is increasingly relevant. Dogs seem to keep coming up! Dogs are indeed commonly associated with loyalty, and this dog’s loyalty to Laura Fairlie suggests that Percival poses some sort of threat to the person the dog is most connected with. Dogs are also commonly associated in media I’ve seen with seeing through disguises, through life and afterlife, and other supernatural quirks—dogs in horror and thrillers know exactly what’s up most of the time. Out of curiosity, I looked up the historical precedent for this to see if it extended at all back to Victorian literature. I was unsure what I would find, considering that the Victorian period is when dogs really first started to be solidified in English society as companions and pets rather than tools (Queen Victoria loved dogs). The first thing I stumbled upon was an article discussing dogs as a reflection of Victorian society itself, especially discussing how certain breeds of dogs were held in higher regard than others and how this changed as Victorian class structures evolved. Using this lens, I suppose dogs in literature might closely reflect their owners, or be a part of their families (think Whym Chow Flame of Love). If Miss Fairlie’s dog reflected her directly, that makes it running away from Sir Percival Glyde even more prominent! This lens also reveals that the dog suggested to be connected to Anne Catherick later on, the injured one found by Marian Halcombe, might reflect the state of Anne’s life or mind.
Citation for the article:
Vincent, Sophia. “Blessings on Thee, Dog of Mine”: Dogs In Victorian Literature As A Reflection On Society, Journal of Student Research at Indiana University East.
The dog symbolism and use of the word represents how women are seen by men during this Era, and perhaps onward. Upon searching in Gutenberg, I used command F on the following terms: dog, companion, pet, and found promising results. The word dog appears 57 times, while ‘companion’ is used 37 times. Lastly, ‘pet’ is present 68 times throughout the story. I think this a far from a coincidence that companion appears less times than the other two words, that was definitely used in a derogatory way towards women, characterizing them in relation to men, but lower in status and control.