The Three Standards in the World today......
THE ANATOMICAL MODEL OF  A SAINT BERNARD
WHAT IS OUR STANDARD?
1967 - 1983
By Herm Peabody  
1983 Nov -Dec SBCA Fancier
pages 48 through 53
Submitted by Denis Smith grammatical errors corrected by submitter from original.
Here are some thoughts on understanding, interpreting and applying the Saint Bernard
Standard so that we may better evaluate our own dogs, plan our breeding programs,
and select our best show prospects and breeding stock for future use .

WHY DO WE NEED A STANDARD?

The question has been asked "How long would it take you to get home if you had no
home? " Or "What route would you take to get there? "

Sounds silly, doesn't it? But the breeder without a goal is like the party with no home to
go to, and the breeder without a thorough knowledge of the breed is like the person
who is lost, without a map to point out the proper route.

There can be no doubt that a thorough understanding of the breed standard is the first
and most important step toward the knowledge by which we may set for ourselves a
proper goal of breed improvement, and provides us with the map we need to seek out
the route to our goal.

WHAT IS THE STANDARD?

Just as a builder or mechanic who reads blueprints--and works from them--must
understand all the symbols and abbreviations he sees on the print, so does one who
sets out to breed animals need to understand exactly what each word, phrase and
statement our printed standard means. For the standard is the word picture (or
blueprint) of that more perfect animal, which is (or should be) our goal.

We might say. ..let's just read it and we will know all about it. Unfortunately it's not that
simple, because the proper understanding of this document requires much diligent
study and basic dog knowledge that is not quickly or easily come by.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM? WHO WROTE IT?

Most of us probably never pause to ponder much on the origin of the written standard.
Nor do we wonder too much why it does not exactly describe dear old Duke, or Jo-Jo,
or Tiger, or whatever happened to be the name of that wonderful first dog we owned
long years ago. One fact we must never lose sight of, however, is that the animal the
standard describes was developed by many, many generations of careful (and
prayerful) selection. ..by knowledge-able and dedicated breeders who had a positive
goal and made their own map as they traveled toward it.


The printed Standard we now have came to us--a priceless heritage-- from the breeders
who brought our noble breed to the state of development where they were able
physically and temperamentally to fulfill the wishes of their masters. It is simply a
description of this animal as they saw it and could best describe it in their native
tongue. And, I must add, it was written by folks who had sound and practical
knowledge of properly structured working dogs.

We breed to the original Swiss now commonly called the ( International ) standard. I
have heard folks say that our standard is ambiguous, hard to understand, etc. Some
even venture to guess that it has lost something in the interpretation.


Let me hasten to assure all that this is not the case. I have been privileged to study the
original Swiss (German) with a student of the language and am convinced that our
present document is extremely well interpreted.....without wasted words or meaningless
phrases.

Let us now take the standard apart--one phrase at a time--and see something of the
wealth of knowledge of dog terminology and of the structure of the animal in order to
get the correct meaning of some important phrases of the standard. So we shall digress
at times to explain some of these things to those who have not yet acquired this
background. Please have your dictionary handy when you study this standard with me.
You will need to refer to it from time to time.

Take, for example, the first positive statement we find in the standard. It is a series of
descriptive adjectives. .." Powerful, proportionately tall figure, strong and muscular in
every part, with powerful head and most intelligent expression." We have been hearing
a currently popular song (1967) "Happiness Is--different things to different people. "
This is certainly true. .. and so do most any of the descriptive adjectives used in the
aforementioned sentence mean different things to different people!

So, now let's take our dictionary and look up the true meanings of each of these
adjectives --one by one--starting with the first to appear which is "powerful. " We find
this term applied to the figure first and then to the head alone. Surely the meaning of the
adjective must not be quite the same when applied to the head alone as when
describing the whole animal.

The whole animal (general appearance) is thus described as strong physically, while
my dictionary also carries a descriptive phrase which seems much more to fit the
original intent of the standard's wording when 'powerful' is used to describe the head it
implies great natural or inherent power and dignity. "

The next three words--"proportionately tall figure. " This surely does not imply that the
Saint should be a long-legged or even a tall dog as we expect a Dane or a wolf hound to
be tall. But rather, here the key word is "proportionately" which means (I find in my
dictionary) "a proper relation between things and parts " or "symmetry--harmony and
agreement."


Thus we find a proportionately tall Saint Bernard is tall because he is large, all parts
being in harmony. Thus we have described a large, symmetrical, well-proportioned
animal. He is therefore powerful (strong), and because he is strong, he is muscular. And
since he is "proportionately" tall, he is therefore also (referring back to proportion)
symmetrical and harmonious in appearance, with a head which implies great natural or
inheritent power, dignity and intelligence. And in proper proportion to the body!

We have discovered all this in one, simple, profound and beautifully brief paragraph.
Next I shall take a few of the other statements we find in the standard and try to bring
out a few more facts which I hope will be helpful and informative.

We find elsewhere in the Standard that the dark shadings (mask) are favored, so we
might wonder if a stern e expression is also desired. So we go to the dictionary and find
stem described as severe, forbidding, rigorous and strict.

Now we all know that it would be impossible to apply all these objective to the kind,
loving sweet-dispositioned animal which the Saint should be (and generally is). Where,
then, is the discrepancy in this statement?

We look again to the place where we find that the dark mask is favored and find that we
missed the concept at the sentence, for it says "the favorite dark shadings on the head
(mask) and ears, " and we realize that what is really favored is dark shadings on these
parts, and my dictionary describes shadings as a special quality or degree of color --or
a light degree of difference.

We now realize that these dark shading should be achieved by a darkening of the
natural color of the animal by intermingling or substituting "airs of a darker color, and
not the jet black --or sometimes dead black face and ears --we often see.

So if we have sometimes wondered if our Standard really asked far a black-faced dog,
let me assure you it does not.

So we now come to what are undoubtedly the most important three words in the entire
Standard, and they are "never ill-natured." Again to the dictionary, and we find
"ill-natured" described as a condition where the personal character or disposition
--original or inborn-- or natural tendencies to be bad, harsh, threatening, cross or
unpleasant . So by this thesis, we find it is an absolute must for our dogs to be kind,
sweet-tempered, loving and mild in their natural in their natural inborn character.


We look again to the place where we find that the dark mask is favored and find that we
missed the concept at the sentence, for it says "the favorite dark shadings on the head
(mask) and ears", and we realize that what is really favored is dark shadings on these
parts, and my dictionary describes shadings as a special quality or degree of color -- or
a light degree of difference.

We now realize that these dark shading should be achieved by a darkening of the
natural color of the animal by intermingling or substituting "airs of a darker color, and
not the jet black --or sometimes dead black face and ears --we often see.


So if we have sometimes wondered if our Standard really asked far a black-faced dog,
let me assure you it does not.

So we now come to what are undoubtedly the most important three words in the entire
Standard, and they are "never ill-natured." Again to the diction~, and we find
"ill-natured" described as a condition where the personal character or disposition
--original or inborn-- or natural tendencies to be bad, harsh, threatening, cross or
unpleasant . So by this thesis, we find it is an absolute must for our dogs to be kind,
sweet-tempered, loving and mild in their natural in their natural inborn character.

It is my firm conviction after many years of observation and study that this proper
temperment is the result of careful breeding and not a lucky accident. I am equally
convinced that if we who call ourselves breeders of Saints would dedicate ourselves as
sternly to cutting out the sharp, untrustworthy or just plain ornery Saint Bernard from
our breedings as we do to the scrutiny of x-rays and other physical properties of the
animals, we would find the results would be most gratifying.

The next general heading is head. The first part of this is the phrase "powerful" and
"imposing". We find now the skull is massive, which is just another way of saying it is
imposing and impressive, but which also denotes it to be of proper size and bulk to be
in proportion or balance to the "very large and powerful body. "

It is described as wide, slightly arched and the sides slope in a gentle curve into the
very strongly developed high cheekbones. The occiput (the bony knob on the back of
the skull) is only moderately developed.

This series of statements is best understood by contrasts. We have a wide head (skull}
slightly arched with sloping, gentle curves. Picture your Saint with the comparatively
narrow head of a Doberman or the Collie or the skull structure of a Greyhound, and you
can appreciate the description of our Standard and what it really means.

Continuing with the portions of the Saint Bernard Standard dealing with the features of
the head, and considering them in order from this paint we find mast of the remaining
statements concerning the head to be so clear and easy to understand that little need
be said about. them. There are, however, a series of positive statements which deal with
the features of the head which are of utmost Importance but are so briefly stated their
importance is sometimes minimized or overlooked entirely.

Please keep this one fact in mind: when in our Standard the word "must" appears as
"must be" or "must not be", it means precisely that "it should be SO" with no deviation
permitted, or any deviation to be seriously faulted in evaluating the animal. We find here
some positive qualities we MUST find in our dogs if we are to meet the demands of our
Standard.

A. The vertical depth of the muzzle MUST BE greater than the length oft he muzzle.
B. The bridge of the muzzle MUST BE greater than the length of the muzzle.

C. The flews of the lower jaw MUST NOT BE deeply pendant.
D. The bite must be strong.
E. The nose, like the lips, always black. (This statement, so worded, amounts to a
("MUST BE.")

Faults of muzzle structure--lip depth and curvature, pendant flews and weak bite--are
most prevalent among our present day Saints and, unfortunately, because they have
been overlooked or not properly emphasized have been perpetuated by sincere
breeders who failed to recognize the fault. This seems usually to be a case of not
seeing the woods because the trees get in the way. We can live so closely with these
faults that we soon fail to recognize them as such.

On this subject I have long been concerned with these features, so here I would move
again to the present time to add some current concerns (1983). During the past 16 years
since this article was written many changes have evolved--mostly in the head structure
of our dogs. I am not pleased with the present trend toward going too far in developing
the too short muzzle and the too deeply curving lip, If we carefully measure the "ideal"
of the past (50 years) we might well examine the great international champion Rasko V
.D. Reppisch. I honestly feel this great dog could serve as the "ideal" even today--we
have certainly not improved on his type--Examine the head structure, here we find a
nicely turned lip covering a strong mouth, with proper length of muzzle with depth at
the base slightly more than double its length. Today I am seeing dogs winning in our
prestige shows with a lip or muzzle depth almost four times as deep as the too short
muzzle. I look at these pictures and ask myself "Where are we going, and what is
happening to proportion and balance?" Is this feature really correct for a functionally
sound working Saint? I think not.


As a personal observation, I might add at this point that I strongly feel that members of a
club should carefully evaluate their own breeding stock and plans, and seek help and
advice from more experienced breeders where they feel they can be helped. First of all,
learn to lay a side love and preference for you own dogs and honestly face up to their
faults (for all have some faults).

When you can do this you are ready to begin a program of breed improvement that may
astonish you. One more remark here seems to be in order. It is this: one or two lucky
litters never made an expert or an authority of anyone. .it takes many years of
observation and study to accomplish this. And you will find the folks who have this
experience are more than willing to help you if you sincerely want to learn.

To continue with the features of the head, we find the next paragraphs dealing with the
ears                                     (the eyes and the neck are clearly stated and easy to follow and
need little comment). There are some features of the eye, however, I would like to
emphasize as this, too, seems to be one of the most prevalent weaknesses of our
animals. Notice the Standard asks for medium size, dark brown eyes set moderately
deep. We have far too many Saints with overlarge "Bright" eyes which do not give the
intelligent, friendly expression the Standard describes. Also--and this may be a tender
spot to some--the true Saint Bernard eye, bred to the international standard, is not a
drooping lower lid showing a thick red haw!

The Standard clearly states that this is objectionable, and my personal observation
would be that this statement is too kind. Picture a dog with this eye facing a howling
blizzard up in the frozen mountain passes. He would be of as little help to the lost
traveler as the dog with weak hocks, and shoulders or displastic hips. (If you would
prove this point to yourself, pull down your lower eyelid so your eye cannot close
properly, and walk out for a few minutes in a cold or dusty wind. Be sure to have the
eyewash handy when you come in.)

From the point to which we have progressed in our study of the Saint Bernard Standard
to the conclusion, we find the wording so clear there seems little to explain. There are
few points, which it would be well to emphasize so that their importance will not be
minimized or overlooked.

For instance, notice how simply and thoroughly the shoulders are described: "sloping
and broad, very muscular and powerful". As every experienced dog breeder knows, the
importance of a proper shoulder angulation in the structure of the animal cannot be
over- emphasized. Study the skeletal structure of the dog, and you learn an angle of 45
degrees from the horizontal is ideal for the shoulder blade. This can best be
appreciated if you realize that in moving at a fast trot, the front leg extends to a point in
line with the angle of this bone--this is the reach of the dog. Thus, a dog with a steep
shoulder placing often moves poorly because he cannot "reach out" for the ground
ahead of him properly. Sometimes this also causes the sidewise gait we so often see
and a jerky movement of the rear, which cannot drive because the front cannot accept
the challenge.

We should comment here also on the importance of an adequate rib cage. Both as to
depth of chest, adequate fore chest and well-sprung ribs, the working Saint Bernard
breathes a great amount of air and needs room for a good pair of lungs.

Note the quiet stress on top-line in the same paragraph which reads, "back--very broad,
perfectly straight as far as the haunches, from there gently sloping to the rump and
merging imperceptibly into the root of the tail." The key word here is gently--gently
sloping to the rump. The word "gently" describes a very slight slope, perhaps even a
sloping curve which fits with the grace and power of a properly built animal. Notice the
Saint with the back line dropping off in a "ski jump" slope from the haunches to the tail--
watch this dog swing his legs forward ungracefully and awkwardly, and you realize
how very important this back and hip structure is to the animal.

The legs are covered completely in two excellently constructed sentences--nothing we
could say here would add to the meaning; powerful, muscular, straight, strong. If your
Saint's legs shape up like this, be grateful. . The only comment we should make here is
on the angulation of the hocks. Our Standard asks for moderate angulation, which
simply means our dog is built for the power he needs. He should not have the long
hock or the extreme angulation of the "sprint" type animal, for he would lack power and
stamina were he so built.

We will now pass over the next few sentences till we come to the feet and we cannot
here stress too strongly the importance of good feet in the Saint. This is partly true
because so many don't have very good feet-in fact many are very bad. The Saint -- were
he to be called into the service of his forbearers- would need the broad, strong-toes,
high-knuckled feet the Standard calls for. Soft, squashy, spread-toed or flat feet would
not hold up long under stress.

One would wonder why our standard denotes so much space (8 lines) to the tail--using
such adjectives as broad--powerful--long--heavy, and with emphasis on the tail carriage
in action. The answer is simple dynamic balance, when the dog is in motion and the
center animal to move easily with minimum tiring side motion .If the tail is curled over
the back, the reverse is true and thus it becomes a detriment to proper movement. A
ring-tailed Saint does not move properly!

Now carefully study the descriptions of the coat and be surprised. Note that the Saint
coat should not be long but of medium length, never rolled or curly and not shaggy
either. It sometimes is a bit of a shock after admiring a beautiful, long, flowing, standoff
coat to realize it should be on another breed of dog for its faulty on the Saint.

It should be noted that the Standard is written to describe the short haired Saint with
the notation that the long haired variety is completely similar except for the coat--which
is of medium length- never rolled or curly and not shaggy either--a flag tail is faulty.

It is not really necessary to dwell on the topic of faults--the Standard is clear and
concise on this topic. We have too much fault judging already, lets stress the
positives.....wrong interpretations or opinions from a lack of understanding of the intent
of statements in our standard.

I should explain that when the original article was written I had been actively breeding
Saints for more than twenty years, and approved to judge 15 years (since 1952).  Most
of you oldtimers will remember  "Brownhelm Saints".

This article was never intended as a complete treatise on the Saint Standard, but rather
to cover some of the questions and errors of the newcomer to to the fancy who had
gotten some wrong interpretations of opinions from a lack of understanding of the
intent of statements in our standard.
Don't forget to click on  
yellow and  underlined
text....
Please note! Insertions and click items below
added by Denis Smith and not part of Mr.
Peabody's article. 3/31/2007
Study the past if
you would define
the future
Confucius
(551 BC - 479 BC)
Here are some sites we know you will enjoy following click on the logo: