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

The literary evidence contained in the Hippocratic treatises reveals that dog flesh
was part of the human diet in Classical Greece and valued for its curative effect on the
human body. The distinction drawn between the two kinds of adult and puppy flesh and
the specific qualities attached to them indicates that age was a determining factor in the
value of the dog as medicinal food. The prevalence of puppy meat as a curative for a
wide variety of medical conditions suggests its elevated status when compared to that of
the flesh of an adult dog. Also the use of canine milk and entrails in prescriptions further
suggests that not only the flesh, but also other bodily parts and substances of the animal
were thought to hold curative powers. The evidence, however, of the overall high
curative value of dog flesh contrasts with the evidence from comedy that dog flesh was
considered food of the lowest kind, and therefore, eaten only by the poor. In light of this
distinction, it seems reasonable to conclude that two different contexts existed—one
medical, the other social—which sustained two completely different views of the practice
of eating dogs within Classical Greek society.
Conclusion
Taken together, the references of tragic, comic, and prose writers show that
Classical Greek culture maintained an ambivalent attitude towards the dog. The animal
was an integral part of daily life, language, and thought, but did not escape unsympathetic
views and treatment. Its primary role in daily domestic life was that of the guardian of
the house, the family, and its possessions. It shared the same space with the human
occupants of the house, and was provided with food, but it was not considered a member
of the family. Molossian dogs were a famous breed of guard, hunting, and shepherding
215