This section is from the book "Toy Dogs And Their Ancestors", by Neville Lytton. Also available from Amazon: Toy Dogs And Their Ancestors: Including The History And Management Of Toy Spaniels, Pekingese, Japanese, And Pomeranians.
A dog fancier can easily be told from the professional dealer or amateur, as no respect of persons will ever induce the real fancier to express admiration for a dog he does not like, even at the cost of making lifelong enemies. It seems to me that the knowledge of a good connoisseur should be far too great to allow him to let his judgment be discredited by awarding a prize to a bad dog, or pretending he does not see his bad points, whereas many of the modern so-called fanciers try to please everybody (an impossible task, by the way), admire bad dogs without a blush just to please their friends, run down a good dog just to vex their enemies, revoke five or six times quite gaily, and behave generally as though self-respect was an unknown quality. A serious judge should feel that his honour is at stake, that his reputation for knowing the points of a dog would be ruined if he made an award that might look like ignorance. But modern fanciers do not seem to care if they are thought fools or not, and they really seem to imagine, that by repeated prizes, glowing reports in the newspaper and constant praise, they can make a bad dog forcibly into a good one, and, on a sort of Christian Science principle of suggestion, hypnotise their friends into disbelieving their own eyes.
The general public is, of course, hoodwinked, but no fancier of intelligence could be possibly taken in.
My parting exhortation to reporters is, "Speak the truth and shame the devil," write your own reports, and don't try to pat every dog on the back, and always sign your name in full.
I have occasionally written official reports myself. I know that it is very difficult to be strictly impartial. An acquaintance, possibly someone who is going to judge your own dogs shortly, comes up and says, "You won't mention Jacky's defect of action, will you? Give me a good report and I shan't forget it." To harden one's heart and say firmly that Jacky is not sound requires considerable determination, and sometimes entails a V. H. C. card instead of a championship for one's most valued dog at his next public appearance. These, however, are the natural risks of reporting. Reporters should make up their minds whether they can bear the onus before accepting their official responsibilities, but to be coaxed or bullied into betraying the trust is unpardonable. I notice that whenever a judge has made more than the usual hash of his classes and the exhibitors are angry enough to lynch him, the reporter always mentions in print that "the awards gave general satisfaction." This is so invariable that I generally can tell how the awards have gone before I look at the list, and it has always appeared to me an absurd farce.
Again, if every report of a dog for a series of shows speaks of it as specially sound, you may be pretty sure it has something wrong.
To judges I would say, before accepting the position, make up your mind decidedly that you do not care what your friends say of you. If you cannot do this, refuse the appointment
On starting for the show leave spite, jealousy, good nature, weak-mindedness, and all questions of personal advantage behind you. The judging ring is not the proper place for good nature or social amenities nor for the settling of old grudges. If your friends enter under you, make them clearly understand that they do so at their own risk, and that if they show dogs you have just sold to them (which is in the very worst taste) they must not expect any favouring. If you make this clear from the very first they will put up with your judgments with comparative cheerfulness, but if once you begin showing weakness or indecision, they will feel insulted if you do not favour them. With few exceptions, each exhibitor truly thinks his dog the best, and it is the judge's business to decide on the matter and not to be influenced by the desire of his friends to secure first place.
There are many people who "good-naturedly" favour friends by giving them undeserved prizes, yet these same people would no more dream of taking £5 belonging to a stranger and bestowing it on a friend than of robbing a mail coach or burgling some one's plate chest. This is, however, exactly what it comes to. Often people say, "Oh, I gave first to B (a poor man) because A (a rich man) can afford to lose." Now this kind of generosity with other people's money is robbery, pure and simple, though they do not realise it in the least. After one show, where my dogs were put back, I asked the judge afterwards to tell me why, and she replied, "Well, you see, you have got such very good dogs that you can afford to lose, as they will always go up again," which was perhaps the oddest explanation that it has ever been my lot to hear. Do not imitate the professional dealers, who do not care about the breed, but only for the amount of money they can help each other to make. Your friends may be disappointed and angry at first, but they will soon learn to respect you and value your opinion.
The greatest compliment a judge can have is to get it said that it is waste of time trying to make up to him, because he never takes a hint.
Exhibitors hate inconsistency, and if a man favours one type of dog in one class and another in the next class they get furious, whereas, if he knows what he wants and sticks to some standard of points which can be perceived as consistent, they may be cross, but will not accuse him of unfairness, and will try and enter under him next time the kind of animal to which he is evidently partial. This is the kind of judging that is required, and I want everyone who reads this to resolve henceforth not to be weak-minded as to friends or biased as to enemies, but to look at the dogs only. A good judge should hardly so much as see the face of a single exhibitor. His eyes are fixed on the dogs so that he can scarcely ever tell who has led them into the ring, and it stands to reason that the judge, who is always nervously glancing at the exhibitors, cannot but lose sight of the dogs and so miss many important points. I was once, as an exhibitor, standing in the ring with my dog and the judge hesitated hopelessly between my dog and that of a lady next me. I knew that the least sign on my part would decide it in my favour, but I put on a blank expression of passive stolidity.
Presently the judge whispered to me, "Which do you think the best? " This certainly was a compliment to my integrity at a critical moment, but I thought it hardly fair on poor human nature. I replied with an irrepressible smile, "Surely, it is not my place to tell you? "The smile did it! The prize went to the other lady. I have been immensely astonished at the extraordinary pugnacity of exhibitors. Some, not content with glaring at each other in the show with concentrated ferocity, will, during the judging of special prizes, make impossible claims and create a scene in the show just on the chance of bewildering the judge into giving them some prize for which they are not eligible. Feeling runs higher in dog shows than it does even over elections, and it is only the shadow of the Kennel Club which apparently prevents the hooligan sections of exhibitors from assaulting each other with dead cats or rotten eggs. Only, I am afraid it would be dead dogs in these cases!
 
Continue to: