Did William Shakespeare Like Dogs?

If his plays are any indication, William Shakespeare really did not like dogs. The inquiry, Did William Shakespeare Like Dogs, leads to intriguing discussions about his views on animals.

Crab’s presence in “The Two Gentlemen of Verona” adds a layer of absurdity to the play, highlighting the contrast between human folly and animal instincts. Launce’s interactions with Crab serve as a comedic foil to the more serious romantic entanglements of the other characters. The humor not only entertains but also prompts the audience to reflect on the nature of loyalty and affection. In a world where love can be fickle, Crab represents a steadfast yet ridiculous attachment. Ultimately, Shakespeare uses Crab to explore themes of devotion, even if it manifests in the most ludicrous ways.

While it’s impossible to ask the man himself, literary scholars and historians have analyzed his extensive body of work, and the consensus is pretty grim. The word “dog” appears nearly 200 times across his plays, alongside words like cur, hound, mongrel, and bitch—and in almost every single instance, they are used as harsh insults or symbols of something foul.

In the context of these discussions, the question remains: Did William Shakespeare Like Dogs? This focus on dogs within his works reveals much about the societal norms of his time.

How Dogs Formed the Ultimate Elizabethan Insult

To Shakespeare, comparing a person to a dog was the ultimate takedown. His characters frequently lob terms like “whoreson dog,” “cut-throat dog,” and “egregious dog.” When characters in his plays describe what dogs actually do, the actions are rarely endearing:

• Fawning and Flattery: Shakespeare seemed to despise what he saw as the subservient, fake nature of dogs. In King Lear, when the king realizes his daughters have betrayed him, he laments, “They flatter’d me like a dog.”
• Cowardice and Cruelty: His dogs are frequently described as animals that bark loudly but run away, or beasts easily set upon innocent sheep (Coriolanus).
• The Ultimate Villain Label: When the villainous Richard III is finally killed at the end of the play, the victorious Richmond announces his death, declaring, “The bloody dog is dead.”

Did William Shakespeare Like Dogs – The Exception to the Rule

The closest Shakespeare ever got to showing appreciation for dogs was through hunting hounds. In A Midsummer Night’s Dream, characters vividly describe the impressive breeding, deep bays, and musical barking of a pack of hounds. However, historians note that these descriptions lack personal affection; the dogs are treated more like high-quality, utilitarian sporting gear rather than companions.

The One Stage Dog: Crab

Only one Shakespearean play features an actual dog on stage: The Two Gentlemen of Verona. The dog is named Crab, and he belongs to a comic servant named Launce.

Launce is utterly devoted to Crab—even taking a whipping on the dog’s behalf after Crab sneaks under a duke’s banquet table and, uh, relieves himself. However, Shakespeare didn’t write this to show the beauty of pet ownership. The entire joke of the scene relies on the fact that Launce is an idiot for being so fiercely loyal to a smelly, ungrateful animal that doesn’t care about him.

Context Matters: It is worth noting that the concept of a “pet” did not really exist in Elizabethan England in the familiar modern sense of an animal kept primarily for companionship, affection, and emotional comfort. In the 16th and 17th centuries, animals were usually valued for practical purposes: horses for transport, cats for controlling vermin, and dogs for guarding property, herding livestock, hunting, or performing other useful tasks. While some wealthy households, especially among the aristocracy, did keep small lapdogs or favored hunting dogs, this was not the everyday experience of most people living in crowded urban areas.

For a city dweller in London like Shakespeare, dogs were often associated less with loyalty and domestic affection than with noise, danger, filth, and disorder. Street dogs were frequently stray, poorly fed, dirty, and uncontrolled, roaming through markets, alleys, and public spaces where waste and disease were already common problems. They could bite, scavenge, fight, spread fleas, and, in some cases, carry terrifying illnesses such as rabies. In a densely populated city with limited sanitation, such animals were generally viewed as a public nuisance rather than as “man’s best friend.”

This social context helps explain why references to dogs in Elizabethan literature, including Shakespeare’s plays, are often insulting, comic, or threatening rather than sentimental. To call someone a “dog” was usually to degrade them, suggesting baseness, aggression, servility, or uncleanliness.

Understanding this difference between modern pet culture and early modern attitudes toward animals is important, because it prevents us from reading present-day assumptions about dogs back into Shakespeare’s world.

Did William Shakespeare Like Dogs? What do you think?