The Judgment of Animals in Classical Greece: Animal Sculpture and ...

of Polynices shall not be buried, but left for birds and dogs to devour and savage (198-
206) [185]. 296 Further, in his account of Persian burial customs, Herodotus maintains that
the corpses of Persians were not buried before they had been mangled by birds or dogs
(1.140) [98]. That this type of behavior was recorded by both theatrical and prose writers
and noted with reference to different cultures implies widespread comprehension of the
wild and savage nature of the dog. In addition, the context of the epidemic in which
Thucydides places this behavior suggests that the danger of the dog reverting to it was
imminent only under certain circumstances, 297 or, to turn it around, that the animal had
the ability to adjust its behavior to emerging circumstances. 298 This evidence, further
suggests that even though the dog was enfolded into Classical Greek society, its feral
disposition continued to shape its collective perception.
296
For a discussion of the prominence of this idea in tragedy, see Lilja, Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry 53-
68.
297
Modern accounts of dogs feeding on human corpses feature in journalistic literature as shocking and
almost incredulous incidents, but always in association with extraordinary circumstances, such as
starvation. For an example of a pet dog feeding on the corpse of its owner, see CNN, 2002, 15 May.
Starving Dog Eats Its Owner. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/15/austria.dog/index.html.
For a similar account of dogs gnawing on human corpses, see O. S. Dewaw, “Army Mechanic is Acquitted
on Desertion Charge,” The New York Times (July 29, 2005) 15. What is interesting in these accounts is that
even though the wild nature of dogs is implied as a background, it is always the circumstances that bear
responsibility for dogs resorting to this behavior. Such a condition may stem from the fact that the idea of
dogs feeding on corpses contrasts sharply with the popular perception of the animal nowadays. As L. A.
Hart, “Dogs as Human Companions,” in Serpell, ed., The Domestic Dog 162, points out, the vast majority
of dogs residing in modern households are thought of as social companions. Similarly, R. Coppinger and
R. Schneider, “Evolution of Working Dogs,” in Serpell, ed., The Domestic Dog 22, maintain that “when we
think of dogs we tend to think of animals that were selected for behavior performed in the service of
people.” Both statements suggest that the modern conception of the dog is based primarily on selected and
preferred aspects of its behavior, and when disturbing aspects of its behavior emerge, they feature
prominently in journalistic literature.
298
According to D. W. McDonald and G. M. Carr, “Variation in Dog Society: Between Resource
Dispersion and Social Flux,” in Serpell, ed., The Domestic Dog 211, a study of free-living dogs in certain
areas of Italy (e.g., Altopiano) showed that these animals adjusted their social behavior to their local
circumstances. Thus, in villages, they adopted “a ‘fox-like’ existence in which individuals live in loose
social groups that defend a territory, but pursue a relatively solitary existence. In the countryside, sylvatic
dogs adopted a more wolf-like lifestyle, generally operating as a pack, although individuals sometimes
travel alone.”
192