Burns boldly introduced the Kilmarnock Edition, the first published volume of his poetry, with a satirical poem entitled "The Twa Dogs." The poem is a "dialogue-piece" reporting the conversation between two dogs, Luath and Caesar. Burn's favorite dog, Luath, was killed the night before his own father died. What started as a simple rhyme to memorialize his own dog evolved into a revelation of the economic disparities between poor tenant farmers and the wealthy landowners they work for.
How does Burns accomplish all this through an imaginary conversation of two animals? How does he structure the poem? What techniques does he use? What does Burns reveal about the living conditions of the poor and those of the rich? Quote lines that illustrate your point(s).
14 comments:
I suppose I will be the first to dip my toe in the water. What strikes me most in this poem is that the life of the rich/English is negated by both dogs. Although Caesar talks about the lavish lifestyle, riches, and traveling done by his masters, it is not in a complimentary way. The “whore-hunting” and world travels of the “English” may be seen as a “lavish” lifestyle, but it takes little to see through the artifice. The gossiping English women who have no loyalty to their friends are also attacked. The tenor of this poem reminds me of Thomas Grey’s “Churchyard” in its tone of ‘it is the common man who truly leads the honest life who not only reaps the comforts of dedicated family, home, and hearth, but also, in the end, is the unsung moral hero.’ Probably only the PROF will know that I wrote a final paper on James Joyce’s use of dogs in Ulysses. These dogs are certainly more ‘transparent’ (to use a current political term) than Joyce’s dogs ever were!
Overall, Burns creates an argument that supports the honest lifestyle of the poor Scotsman. Caesar’s view reinforces Luath’s and adds to it, so the two dogs are not negating each other, but one is building on the other’s argument. For example, Luath, the honest poor Scot’s dog, believes rents go to “Britain’s Guid” in line 148, presumable because this is how his master sees it. Caesar makes it clear that the rent money is not contributing to Britain but “for her destruction! Wi’dissipation, feud an’ faction” (line 169-170). Caesar is educating Luath about what actually happens to the money (i.e. Traveling, purchasing pleasure, etc.) versus what the poor man is lead to believe. The dogs agree that the poor tenant farmer is richer in his lifestyle than the wealthy landowner because he takes pleasure in the small things, like a pint, has work to content him, and the true joy of an honest living and family. The rich landowner is lacking these things leading to his boredom, discontent, laziness, and eventually moral downfall. Burns is using Caesar’s repetition of Luath’s major points and Luath’s repetition of those same points to strengthen the argument.
The glimpses of women in this poem are especially fascinating. The rich men go outside Scotland to find women to “whore” with, the outside women married and brought home are discontent and continue to “whore” by gossiping about each other. There is also an interesting parallel between the dogs and the women. Both are property, the poor Scot’s dog is honest, loyal and true, the dog from abroad will piss with anyone—just like the whore from abroad will lay with or lie about anyone. The “property” with a spirit will follow the master’s example. Caesar is not described in detail as the true Scot’s dog, Luath, is—he is also an import, not Scottish, and therefore not deserving of a physical description. This comparison hints at what is truly Scottish and what is not. Importing women, dogs, and ideas may be transforming the true and honest Scotland as a nation.
Burns sets up this dichotomy without defining all of the gray areas. Caesar comments that “There’s some exception, man an’ woman; But this is Gentry’s life in common” and Luath gives that “For thae frank, rantan, ramblan billies, Fient haet o’ them’s ill-hearted fellows” but no examples of these exception to the black and white rules of how each of these two classes of people behave are given. Burns accepts that there are good gentry through one of Cesar’s comments and that most honest Scotsmen are friendly, but in regards to the dignity of women and property conveyed by his comments there is not a nod of recognition to his own life choices. Being a Scot familiar with the concept of poverty, and based on his own formula, Burns should have a faithful wife and a brood of children. He does not acknowledge in this particular poem that a poor man may also love many women instead of just being true, honest, and loyal to just one—or perhaps he wasn’t that far into his life yet and remains idyllic in this poem. Could this idealism be a theme throughout his poetry?
Clearly Luath and Caesar are the true humanitarians in Robert Burns's "The Twa Dogs." Caesar's observations in lines 87-90 show not only compassion but outrage: "But to see how ye're neglecket,/ How huff'd, an' cuff'd, an' disrespecket!/ Lord man, our gentry care as little/ For delvers, ditchers, an' sic cattle;"
Luath takes a more "hat in hand" approach in lines 139-148: "Still it's owre true that ye hae said/ Sic game is now owre aften play'd;/There's monie a creditable stock/ O' decent, honest, fawsont folk,/ Are riven out baith root an' branch,/ Some rascal's pridefu' greed to quench,/ Wha thinks to knit himsel the faster/ In favor wi' some gentle Master,/ Wha, aiblins thrang a parliamentin',/ For Britain's guid his saul indentin'--"
Through their conversation, it becomes apparent that idleness is the curse that corrupts the outward behavior and emotional health of the gentry, echoing the religious adage that idle hands are the devil's playground. (It would be interesting to know if any preacher dared to use this poem's points in a sermon to reinforce the virtues of honest work vs. moral decay).
Charlotte and Kaye both pointed to Burns's acknowledgement of the value of hard work and the pure, simple joys of the poor. I particularly enjoyed lines 123-136 in which Burns paints a vividly contented scene within a poor man's cottage. Although the bleak season is being ushered in, there is a gathering of old folks, and children running through a house filled with love. My favorite lines in "Twa Dogs" belong to Luath when he ends the stanza: My heart has been sae fain to see them,/ That I for joy hae barket wi' them."
Underlying their dog conversation, is the fact that the two animals are very companionable. Despite their diverse "social standings" through ownership, there seems to be a voice that longs for such sensibility amongst the human subjects.
As corrupt as the system was in Scotland, it served as a catalyst for mass emigration to America. There, through the values honored in "Twa Dogs", the poor of Scotland
flourished
What I found interesting was how he gave us a picture of society through the eyes of dogs. I believe that Burns chose this method to avoid outright condemnation of the wealthy landowners habits. Instead we have Caesar, who tells us that it's true the wealthy "need na starve or sweat,/Thro' Winter's cauld, or Simmer's heat;...For a' their Colledges an' Schools,/ That when nae real ills perplex them,/ They mak enow themsels to vex them" (11). This is a more subversive way of saying that the rich landowners are wasting their money and basically hurting themselves if not physically then morally. Having the dogs carry on this conversation is interesting because they don't seem to be judgmental, just telling it as they observe it.
I know the loose morality is connected to religion, but I cannot remember what exactly it was that Burns believed. Can anyone help me out?
This poem reminding me of a line from the Leonard Cohen song "Tower of Song" where he sings:
Now you can say that I've grown bitter but of this you may be sure
The rich have got their channels in the bedrooms of the poor
And there's a mighty judgement coming, but I may be wrong
Even though through the narration of the dogs Burns establishes the moral high ground for the poor, I can't help but sense a rage just below the surface that has to come to most people who work "their fingers to the bone" for wealthy people who don't use it on anything better than excess and debauchery. I wouldn't call the poem Marxist, but there is something like a pre-Marxist rage evident.
I found lines 175-78 particularly interesting. There is a clearly a sense that "courts" only degrade the wealthy more and that many of the individual land owners would not be so bad if they stayed away from them.
As far as the religious thing goes, Hermione, I am perpetually interested in the question about whether Calvinism dulls a sense of justice for the poor within a model of elected/unelected that at times virtually seems to resemble the caste systems that exists in some traditions of Hinduism. In other words, if the older Christian concept of justice is that the rich "have their good things in this life," and that it is "easier for a camel to enter the needle's eye than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" then to what degree would a Calvinist ethic actually subvert that notion to portray the wealthy as actually favored by the Deity?
The Twa Dogs: Dissin’ on Dogma
To respond to the post concerning his religious views, Burns was an adamant opponent of orthodox religion, and although this poem's criticism is more blatantly directed at the ruling class, I think there are obvious religious implications in this poem. After all, who comprised the aristocracy? Burns was what we would now call a “spiritual man”, I suppose, being devoted to the Bible in theory, regarding the more universal concepts of love and ethics over the strict tenants of morality enforced by the Presbyterians in power.
Like most other artists in the 18th century, he experienced the soul-sucking effects of the Churches regulations and views on art (which included but was not limited to poetry, theatre and music). Although we are aware of his immediate motivations for writing this poem, (don’t many great works stem from some extreme moment of sentimentality, and ascend to observations and ideas greater than the author or the moment?) through the “vehicle” of the conversation between two dogs, he was also able to express his perspective of the ruling classes while dancing just on the edge of blatant criticism.
We also know that Burns grew up on a farm under the same circumstances of poverty that Luath describes, and that his own life was testament of generosity born of a keen awareness of what it means to be oppressed and in need (as they go hand in hand). As an adult he was an “active” citizen (and, um… “contributed” many citizens of his own…) and because of his personality and his poetry, he was accepted in many social circles, which gave him a kind of authority to comment on the rift between the classes; as biased as the portrayals may be. “The Twa Dogs” presents his “humble” Scotsman as not only the workers of the earth, but the actual heart of Scotland. According to Burns here, they do all the real “living” and experience deep sentiments. At one point, Luath mentions the festival of All-Saints, and what he observes and experiences among the farmers.
They get the jovial, rantan Kirns,
When rural life, of ev’ry station,
Unite in common recreation;
Love blinks, Wit slaps, an’ social Mirth
Forgets there’s Care upo’ the earth.
…My heart has been sae fain to see them
That I for joy hae barket wi’ them.
Love, Wit, and Mirth are living breathing beings to the ploughman and to Burns, relating back to his views of universal principles of Love, etc. While the image is one of seemingly simple joys, Burns presents the reality of a working, poverty stricken class of complex people with heavy burdens presented not as a fragmented series of “cares”, but as Care, a powerful living force. At the same time, the workers are also capable of experiencing true contentment achieved not by the grace of their lords, but by the work of their own hands; true individual power. In addition, Luath’s line “I for joy hae barket wi’them” implies a visceral connection to nature, which in this sense, translates into a justified sense of national pride: the ploughman are literally part of the land of Scotland.
In contrast, Caesar mentions that among his aristocratic people, “there’s sic parade, sic pomp an’ art, The joy can scarcely reach the heart”. Not only does this paint a picture of a literally hollow people, it’s also a stab at the aristocratic (and/or religious) ceremony, the superficial “pomp an’ art” which is so thick that it cannot be penetrated by living human emotions.
Hm…I kind of went off track there and now I don’t know how to finish this…Perhaps I'll quote Steve Martin “…I can't overstress the importance of having a powerful closing sentence.”
This was an interesting commentary on the lives of the upper and lower class because it realistically portrays the misunderstandings that the upper and lower class had of each other. The lower class thinks that the wealthy class has it easy, but in reality, the lives of the upper class are not as easy as they look. When I read this, I kept thinking of the old saying, "Monday doesn't buy happiness."
Burns was obviously trying to show that he preferred the honest life he lead to that of the corrupt landowners. Luath and Caesar both find fault with the Scottish genrty flattering and increasing the wealth of English aristocrats (ll 145-148) at the expense of their tenants (ll. 93-100). Regardless, Luath makes clear that his master is doubtlessly the happier of the two. He does not concern himself with excessive wants. Rather, he finds joy in the health of his loving wife,children, and a "twalpennie worth o' nappy) (115). Whereas, Caesar's master drowns his unhappiness in gluttony and whores, while his mistress cheats and gossips with false friends. Also interesting is the descripyion of the two dogs: Caesar is elegant and well-bred and even his collar depicts his status (ll.9-10, 13-15), Luath is an everyday scottish dog--everybit like his master he enjoys carousing and his beauty lies in his strong robust form (24, 33-36). Burns use of the dogs reflects his admiration for the animals honest friendly nature. It is highly unlikely that the conversation could have/would have taken place between men of different stations.
I sense that rage too Cobra Commander. I think that Marxist ideas are hidden well because the dogs don't seem to making any judgements, just pointing out that both of their owners have a hard life.
Because of Burns' own loose morality, I see the religion issue as more of a stab at the poor. They are somewhat complacent and resigned to their difficult life because their greatest reward is supposed to come when they get to heaven. I don't know if Burns necessarily wants the poor to stand idly by while the rich squander everything that they have. Being that this opens the edition, I think he is trying to subversively call attention to both of the social classes' weaknesses.
The national origins of the two dogs in the poem make an interesting comment on their discussion and further substantiate the claim that this poem is endorsing a nobility-of-the-poor stance. Kaye mentioned this, but, to reiterate, Caesar is a Newfoundland and not natural to Scotland. Burns even writes “His hair, his size, is mouth, his lugs,/Shew’d he was nane o’ Scotland’s dogs.” Luath on the other hand is a collie, a breed of dog native to Scotland. Furthermore, Luath is the dog/character based on Burns’ own beloved murdered pet. Therefore it would seem that those viewpoints espoused by Luath are the more valuable ones, the ones most likely to be those of the author’s. Certainly, Caesar is depicted as a convivial fellow, but I suspect he was intended by Burns as a foil to Lauth more than an equal in commiserating the poor state of their respective masters.
Another aspect of the poem that undermines Caesar’s credibility is his betrayal of his master. Where Lauth discusses his master’s plight of a meager existence full of hard labor with sympathy and respect, Caesar is quick to sell-out his own with little mitigation. He tells Lauth of his master’s drinking, gambling, and whore-hunting. He even says ‘their life is past enduring.” This is traitorous. My dogs, Vera Lu and Shug Marie, know to keep my drinking, gambling, and whore-hunting on the DL. That’s what makes them good dogs, unlike Caesar.
Posted for Slainte
By means of alternating “voices,” the two dogs express Burns’s views about the landlords and farmers. The gentry spend their “racked rents” (51) on “Mortgaging, gambling, masquerading” (154) and in “Whore-hunting” and “bows[ing] drumlie German-water” (165) to treat “Love-gifts of Carnival Signioras” (169) in various European capitals (names capitalized for emphasis). The women of the gentry class waste their time in gossiping or playing at cards (the devil’s pictur’d beuks”, 226) where they wager “a farmer’s stackyard” (227) and are worse cheats than any “unhang’d blackguard” (228).
The peasants, in contrast, spend their time “baking, roasting, frying, boiling” (60) enormous amounts of rich food for the laird. The men work at “howckan in a sheugh,/
Wi’ dirty stanes biggan a dyke,/Bairan a quarry” (72-74) in order to provide for themselves and their wives and “wee duddie weans”(76). The peasants’ entertainments are few. At harvest and New Year celebrations, the “nappy” flows and pipes and snuff are shared among the company. There is so much joy in their celebrations that even Luath “for joy hae barket wi’ them” (138). For all the “pomp an’ art” (213) of the gentry’s entertainment, the rich are joyless, because they don’t work. At the end, Burns softens the vehemence somewhat by noting, “There’s some exceptions, man an’ woman” (229). In poem form, Burns’s views are clearly, but succinctly, illustrated and have more impact than they would in prose form.
Burns usage of a conversation between two animals was brilliant because it is less threatening than if he had come right out and declared his observations. It would have also been unrealistic to portray a conversation between two individuals of different classes because that simply didn't occur. By using two dogs, he enters in an "imaginary" mode, which allows him to speak more frankly about the situation.
Others have touched on this point as well, but what struck me the most was Burns's depiction of the lower class. Despite the fact that they are "constantly on poortith's brink"(104) and many "decent, honest, fawson folk,/Are riven out baith root an' branch"(142-143), they are portrayed much happier than the wealthy. In fact, in comparison with the "lounging, lank an' lazy" (207) wealthy, they seem to be the ones who are truly rich.
Great! Love it!
Post a Comment