“Un perro ha muerto” by Pablo Neruda (Translation: “A dog has died” by Alfred Yankauer)

·         “A Dog has died” is one of Neruda’s two last poems written upon his return from his exile to be published on his 74^th birthday in July 1974 but unfortunately he died in late September in 1973. Both “A dog has died” and the other poem “Millennium” deal with mourning, albeit in different ways

·         The original Spanish version of “A dog has died” appears in the posthumously published  Jardin del invierno  in 1974. Jardin del invierno was later  translated as "Winter Garden". “The dog has died” - the original as well as the translation by Yankauer – is in free verse. One might call the poem an elegy – but I would like to think of it as a celebration of a remarkable friendship. Neruda tries to create a sense of objectivity as befits a man of his age and stature with the phrasing of the title – he calls his dog that had died “a dog” – but he shoots that thought in the foot in the very first line of the body of the poem, when he says “My dog has died”. The use of the possessive pronoun “my” in relation to the dog reveals a wealth of emotions. It is also interesting that he never names the dog, not even once in the long poem. One wonders whether this is a form of denial.

·         It is also interesting that he chooses to use the present perfect tense to make the announcement of death in the first line: “My dog has died,” he says. Grammatically speaking, it is the form used to give new information, but at the same time the particular verb form packs a punch by creating a sense of immediacy and thereby marking the freshness of the poet’s grief.

·         Throughout the poem the dead dog is referred to with pronouns usually used to refer to a man thereby giving the dog human status. – incidentally, Neruda does not consider that elevation particularly flattering. However, this elevation alludes to a sense of equality in the relationship between the poet and the dog. They were true companions. 

·         The first four lines of the poem make a statement on the impermanence of all things – the dog, the machine and the man – they all grow old and die.   

·         In the second stanza, Neruda airs a view I too condone heartily – if there is such a thing called heaven, then it’s a place where dogs go after death.The poet believes that he and the entire human race has no place in heaven should there be such a place. Therefore, the image of the poet’s faithful dog who sees no evil in him in the typical dog-fashion waiting for his friend fruitlessly in heaven generates a profound sense of pathos.

·         From the third stanza on wards, we get to see what the dog was to Neruda as well as what Neruda was to the dog. The dog is an old man’s old dog, a companion in exile: 

“… we walked together on the shores of the sea

in the lonely winter of Isla Negra”

·         Their relationship is described in relation to porcupines and stars, signaling physical distance:

“His friendship for me, like that of a porcupine

withholding its authority,

was the friendship of a star, aloof,

with no more intimacy than was called for,

with no exaggerations:

he never climbed all over my clothes

filling me full of his hair or his mange,

he never rubbed up against my knee

like other dogs obsessed with sex.”

·         It is the dog’s independent spirit and the minimum demand he makes on the poet together with the sense of “you are important to me - I’m here for you” he radiates around the poet which Neruda treasures. But the poet’s memories of a pet mongooses he had a few years earlier while he was living  in Sri Lanka reveals more touchy-feely relationship – Could the desire for a more aloof relationship with his new companion be a result of old age, ill-health and exile? The most beloved feature of his dog for the poet is his tail. Anyone who had been fortunate enough see the mad wagging of a tail of a dog at seeing her/him would know the reason why, I believe.

·         In the next stanza, the poet is refreshingly frank in revealing his narcissistic enjoyment of the attention the dog lavishes on him:

“my dog used to gaze at me,

paying me the attention I need,”

·  The absolute purity and selflessness of his dog’s devotion had invited the poet to confront and acknowledge one of his own sins – vanity.  Neruda says that His dog had given him:

“the attention required

to make a vain person like me understand

that, being a dog, he was wasting time,

but, with those eyes so much purer than mine,

he'd keep on gazing at me

with a look that reserved for me alone

all his sweet and shaggy life,

always near me, never troubling me,

and asking nothing.”

·         Recalling the days he walked on the beach with his dog in exile, the poet celebrates his dog’s ability to enjoy the moment and express what he felt freely.

·         Finally, the poet arrives at the secret of his dog’s happiness – he calls it “their shameless spirit” – with which he takes a customary jab at the restrictive social norms that can be found in any society. Human beings, unlike dogs, are hampered by rules and regulations as well as norms and values that dictate how we experience life. The poet seems to feel that humans lose a great deal as a result of these restrictions that make human beings ashamed of expressing what they feel and doing what that would undoubtedly bring them joy. The repetition of the word “joyful” points to the vicarious pleasure the elderly poet derives by watching his dog enjoying his life.

·         The penultimate stanza is rather enigmatic:

“There are no good-byes for my dog who has died,

and we don't now and never did lie to each other.”

·   Does he mean those two lines to be a statement on his continued relationship with his dog that transcended death? Or that he did not believe in goodbyes?

·         In the last stanza the poet comes a full circle and with the last line  - “and that's all there is to it” – I feel that he is making a desperate bid to shake off the sense of utter sadness that clings to him.