Image credit: Walker Art Gallery
Note: this article was originally posted by John Howells, a founder member of Pawsitively Terriers and was lost. It is reposted here as a tribute to him
Anyone with some knowledge of the history of Jack Russell Terriers will have heard of Trump and her role in the origins of this famous breed of working terriers. Most will also have seen a representation of the painting of Trump which is, or was, displayed at Sandringham Palace.
It is not my aim to try and define what is or isn’t the “right” Jack Russell/Parson Terrier, to my mind they are all “right” if they satisfy what their owner expects of them, which is what they have always done in one way or another, which I think accounts for their continuing popularity. However, I do suspect that possibly too much has sometimes been inferred in terms of the standard for an “ideal” terrier from quoted descriptions of Trump and from the representation of the painting .This may be understandable as Russell himself seems to have regarded her as a paragon – but is the information about Trump on which some assumptions are made accurate?
If we start with the painting, it was painted by someone who had never seen the dog, more than 40 years after the dog had died. I have found no mention of the artist’s name as yet. Russell had described it as “a good likeness”, but as it was commissioned by the then Prince of Wales, who had befriended him in old age, he could hardly say it looked nothing like her. He described this dog, as we shall see later, as a prime physical specimen of a fox terrier, as they were all called in those days, but even to my untrained eye, the dog in the representations of the painting could hardly be described as that. From the images we see, it doesn’t seem a very accurate painting either, which is maybe why it’s difficult to find photos of the original. Possibly someone in the Royal Household in later years relegated it to an attic somewhere? If it still exists, I would like to see a decent photo of it. Maybe the reproductions don’t do the original justice.
In his biography of his friend Russell, "A Memoir of the Reverend John Russell and His Out-of-Door Life", E. W. Davies mentions Russell acquiring the dog as a young man during his time at Oxford. The date of his acquisition appears uncertain but it appears it was between 1815 and 1819. Davies writes in the florid style of the time, “But before he had reached Marston a milkman met him with a terrier - such an animal as Russell had as yet only seen in his dreams, he halted as Acteon might have done when he caught sight of Diana disporting in her bath....”Russell obviously had a good eye for a dog because he bought it without any knowledge of its hunting ability. Although this is an ability which can’t be judged only on appearance, things seemed to have turned out for the best.
This full quote by Davies, about the painting of Trump is interesting. I have put some key words in capital letters. “...a copy, executed by a fair and talented artist, is now in my possession, and was acknowledged by Russell to be not only an admirable likeness of the original, but equally good as a type of the race in general. I will try, however imperfectly, to describe THE PORTRAIT as it now lies before me.
In the first place, the colour is white with just a patch of dark tan over each eye and ear, while a similar dot, not larger than a penny piece, marks the root of the tail. The coat, which is thick, close and a trifle wiry, is as well calculated to protect the body from wet and cold, but has no affinity with the long, rough jacket of a Scotch terrier. The legs are straight as arrows, the feet perfect; the loin and the whole frame indicative of hardihood and endurance; while the SIZE AND HEIGHT of the animal may be compared to that of a FULL-GROWN VIXEN FOX.”
Now I think it is quite possible that this quote, often repeated by later writers and not always in full, has formed the basis of some Judgements about the “Ideal” Fox Terrier in Reverend Russell’s eyes.
It is maybe worth noting that these are Jones’ own words in describing a copy of a painting. He does not directly attribute them to Russell himself. The comment about the size of Trump being equivalent in height to a full-grown vixen fox, has I think, significantly influenced people’s perceptions, some have even based a standard for the dog on it. However, the anatomy of a fox is, I understand, different to that of a terrier and possibly most relevant is that the chest circumference of a fox is smaller than that of a dog of equivalent size.
Now it is interesting to compare Jones’ description to a quote directly attribute to Reverend Russell by David Hancock, authority on terriers in his book “Sporting Terriers: Their Form, Their Function, Their Future”. Again I have put the key word in capitals:-
“ Her colour was white, with just a patch of dark tan over each ear and a similar dot not larger than a penny piece over the root of her tail. The coat which was thick, close and a trifle wiry was well calculated to protect the body from the wet and cold. The legs were straight, SHORT AND THICK, and the feet perfect, while the size was equal to that of a full-grown vixen fox, THAT IS TO SAY, HER WEIGHT WAS ABOUT 12 POUNDS. HER WHOLE APPEARANCE GAVE INDICATIONS OF COURAGE, ENDURANCE AND HARDIHOOD.”
It is worth noting that Reverend Russell qualifies his description using weight, not height or conformation. We don’t know what he meant exactly by the legs being “ short and thick” but it wouldn’t seem consistent with the conformation of a fox. Russell also doesn’t mention tan patches over the eyes, which must raise some doubts about the accuracy of Davies’ description. I think myself he might have written these words after Russell’s death, otherwise surely he would have quoted Russell directly rather than describe a copy of a painting in his own words?
So what does this tell us? It seems in reality we know very little about Trump other than that Russell had a very high regard for the dog. I think it also tells us that we have to be wary about some of the things which have been written about his terriers and drawing conclusions from these. Accurate contemporary evidence seems hard to come by. It seems few records survive, if they ever existed and I haven’t come across a single photograph of his terriers or their proven descendents.
I have found one reference for example to another famous dog said to have been used and owned by Russell and on the same page of text, the date of the dog’s whelping given as being after Russell’s death. If you look, you will find quite a few such inconsistencies, which may not be deliberate attempts to mislead, but based on genuine mistakes and errors passed on down through the generations without challenge and of course quite a few people are keen to be associated with the famous name.
I’ve tried to study this as an interested amateur for a few years now and I couldn’t say what Russell’s terriers looked like. Reverend Russell bred and kept terriers, although not continuously, for around 60 years. Many, many, dogs of different sizes and conformation must have passed through his hands during this time. He never wrote a breed standard because he wasn’t interested in creating a breed and as can be seen with Trump, he appears to have been quite casual in his purchase of dogs. Maybe he favoured a certain type to suit local conditions and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if, like all of us, he had different views at different times in his long life.
I think myself trying to define a Jack Russell Terrier in historic terms is like trying to catch the wind unless new definitive evidence becomes available. This quote from a blog “Terrierman’s Daily Dose” is fair comment in my view:-
“the Jack Russell is a working dog and because the standard is the work, there's a huge variety in the size of the dog, depending on what is being hunted and where. A working Jack Russell Terrier may stand anywhere from 10" to 15" tall.”
Rawdon Lee, “Modern Dogs” 1893.
"There appears a semblance of strangeness that the wire-haired terriers from Devonshire have not been more used for show bench purposes, and by all accounts some of them were as good in looks as they had on many occasions proved in deeds. Those owned by the Rev. John Russell acquired a world-wide reputation, yet we look in vain for many remnants of the strain in the Stud Books, and the county of broad acres [the north] has once again distanced the southern one in the race for money. But, although the generous clerical sportsman occasionally consented to judge terriers at some of the local shows in the West, he was not much of a believer in such exhibitions. So far as dogs, and horses too, were concerned, with him it was 'handsome is that handsome does,' and so long as it did its work properly, one short leg and three long ones was no eye-sore in any terrier by the late Rev. John Russell."
Or, as I put it myself:-
Handsome is ...
"Handsome is, as handsome does" was the Reverend Russell's creed,
a faithful friend to catch the fox, over every other deed.
The hunting skill he valued and from this he sowed his seed,
no ribbon did he treasure, no blueprint did he need.
Diverse has our clan become, though we still bear his name,
in truth from many roots we've sprung, to play a varied game.
Different roles for man we've filled, depending on his need,
more fitted to his tasks we are, than any other breed.
Fitting to your purpose, gave us great variety,
in hunting field, or by your hearth, if you'll learn our history.
No standard can be written down, to value every part,
but none can claim, that proud name, without a loyal Jack Russell heart.
By John Howells © 2013
Article John Howells © 2015.
Attached Files