Toby Moody Clsx 577/Younger 14 October 2009

Protector, Companion, and Fighter: Dogs in Greek Art

INTRODUCTION Tending and raising dogs were characteristic male duties through virtually all of ancient

Greek history. Dogs were trained to be vicious and potent hunters, essential tools for the success

of a man’s hunt. In art and poetry, however, dogs are not treated merely as implements, but

rather as loyal protectors and companions. Among the most poignant scenes in the Odyssey is

the brief episode in which Odysseus and his ever-loyal dog Argos, just a young pup when

Odysseus sailed for Troy, recognize one another. Having seen his master home, the twenty-

years-old Argos lies down to die, secure in the knowledge that Odysseus is safe. Two selected

pieces of Greek art exemplify this deep bond between a man and his dog. The first (item A for

this paper) is a late eighth century bronze statuette from Samos, roughly contemporary with

Homer, and the second (item B for this paper) is an early fifth century stele from Athens. While

each is unique in its depiction of a particular aspect of the male-dog relationship, both clearly

convey nuanced facets of the same meaning. The famous “athlete base,” (item C for this paper)

however, marks a clear departure from the symbolism of the other two dog depictions. In one of

its scenes, four young men watch anxiously as they incite battle between a dog and another

animal, possibly a cat. This paper will focus on eliciting the specific aspect of the male-dog

relationship depicted in items A and B and then proffer a possible explanation for the obvious

deviation illustrated in item C.

ITEM A: DOG AS PROTECTOR AND PARTNER Item A belongs to a vast class of Greek artifacts known as statuettes. These small and

often crude works are not merely shrunken versions of large-scale sculpture, but instead they fill

a variety of roles specific to them (Richter 185). Some statuettes were given as offerings to the

gods and hung on display in sanctuaries, where they served almost exclusively as votives; very

few statuettes seem to depict the gods (Richter 185). As a votive, the art represent its patron,

either as an individually tailored piece or as a manufactured generalization of typical Greek life.

Because the statuettes were both portable and personal, they are also quite often found in

domestic contexts as little decorative trinkets placed around the house (Richter 186). Regardless

Moody 2

where they are placed, however, Richter argues in Handbook of Greek Art that all statuettes of

this period seek to achieve straightforward meaning (186).

Taking her suggestion to be true, we can construct a concise narrative and derive a clear

meaning from item A. The piece thrusts us in medias res during the big hunt. The brave Greek

man challenges the fierce lion, whose attention is directed fully at his human challenger. Just as

the lion lunges with gaping maw, the dependable partner hunting dog clamps down on the lion’s

left leg to hold back its charge and provide the Greek a chance to plunge his sword into the lion’s

chest. “Together, dog and master are invincible” is the overt message of the piece, as clearly no

person actually hunted lions, certainly not on eighth-century Samos. But if the lion is the symbol

of pure power and strength, then the dog and master represent wit and cunning. Careful

teamwork and a trusting relationship enable the duo to slay the fearsome beast, and the man

clearly relies upon his dog to offer help at just the right moment. Thus, item A gives dog and

master equal status; he is the man, of course, who wields the sword, but he can do so only with

the dependable aid of his well-trained and excellent dog. Each is the other’s protector, and

therefore they are equal partners.

ITEM B: THE NOBLE LIFE COMPANION OF THE GOOD MAN

Item B is also typical of a broad class of Greek art – the funerary stele depicting a

middle-age male, citizen staff in hand, and his companion dog. Item B in particular dates to

roughly 490 and comes from Orchomenos in Boeotia; the class is found in the late Archaic

period throughout Greece, however, and seems to have originated in the east (Boardman 164).

Because this piece has so many parallels, it must express a fairly generic meaning, a truism that

reflects how the Greek man lived. The dog is the lifelong friend of the man; the dog is not only

there at the hunts of his youth, but it stays by master’s side until the very end. Thus, the dog is a

loyal and true companion at any age and always reliably devoted to its master.

While the man certainly sees the funerary stele as a compliment to the dog that kept him

company through the years, the people who actually visit the cemetery – women – observe a

deeper symbolism, a depiction of a good man. A marriage was not romantic, but a partnership.

The man who spent time with his dog must have spent time hunting and providing for the family,

so the stele motif speaks to women of the goodness of a man while it speaks to a man of the

goodness of his dog. In item B, one can almost feel the dog and master locking eyes as the proud

Moody 3

citizen offers his dog a dried locust, roughly the ancient equivalent of a doggie biscuit, with a

fond countenance.

Whereas Argos seemingly exhaled the last bit of life-spirit from his body upon

recognizing Odysseus (Homer 155), in item B the table is symbolically turned. By choosing as

his enduring legacy a tender moment with his dog during old age, the man in the stele yearns for

eternal happiness in the company of his dog. Presumably the old men who chose these stelai

knew the story of Argos and Odysseus and thought to themselves, “At least in that my brave and

loyal dog was my constant companion, I am a little bit better off than the great hero Odysseus.”

The image of warm and unending companionship, between themselves and with the family in the

home that remembers them, is ultimately the meaning of item B and its numerous parallels.

ITEM C: THE RICH BOYS AND THEIR FIGHTING DOG TOYS

Item C is a late sixth century kouros base discovered in the Kerameikos outside Athens.

The base is famous in its depiction of Greek athletics on three of its sides. Furthermore,

Boardman generally agrees with the view that the base can be attributed to a known and prolific

artist, Endoios (82). The base has no visible signature, so Boardman’s attribution is based on

conjecture and stylistic comparisons to known pieces by Endoios, especially Akropolis reliefs

(82). If we can accept Boardman’s attribution, which he supports with a fairly extensive

bibliography, then we can safely say that the base and its kouros were commissioned by a

wealthy family to provide a magnificent grave marker for, presumably, a young man depicted

somewhere on the base. The use of a kouros as a grave marker was rare (Boardman 164), and,

according to Spivey, artists competed to refine and master the kouros throughout the second half

of the sixth century (133).

Since it is relatively rare to find a kouros as a grave marker, we can safely say in our

reconstruction that the family was wealthy and trying to symbolize its elite status through self-

promoting art. For Spivey, the kouros is a quintessential symbol of “Greekness” – the upright,

nude figure conveys calm deliberation and is perfectly content, indeed proud, to go without

clothes and display his full masculinity (Spivey 133). Item C, however, does not express this

traditional Greekness; instead, it depicts a life of luxury and sport. Although this young man

should have been reciting Homer and preparing for military service, none of the activities on the

base depict this.

Moody 4

Certainly the dog scene is the most troubling on the base. In it, four young men beam

with excitement as the dog reluctantly engages the cat-like animal in battle. It is disconcerting

that the dog is clearly reluctant to fight just for his master’s entertainment, evidenced by its tense,

frightened pose. The dog raises the front right paw almost limp in the air, a gesture that makes

me think of a new puppy about to walk on cold, stiff grass for the first time. The dog clearly is

doing what a good dog should; it hunches down right at the feet of his owner, even overlapping

him in the relief. The fellow with the cat, on the other hand, is almost leaping out of his chair as

he encourages, almost drags, the cat to battle. Clearly the dog does not want to do this, but his

young, aristocratic master wants some good entertainment and forces the dog to fight. For this

rich city boy, a fighting dog is as much fun as a horse; the dog is useless for hunting, just as a

horse is useless as transportation, and the young man is not in need of a loyal companion since

he has three friends with money by his side.

CONCLUSION: TYPICAL MALE-DOG RELATIONSHIP AND ITS CORRUPTION

Urging the dog to fight for sport represents an obvious break from the traditional male-

dog relationship in items A and B. The hunter in item A puts himself equally in harm’s way, and

the statuette celebrates their joint victory as equal partners. The old man in item B offers his dog

a little treat in loving recognition of years of companionship, perhaps with a hint of relief that the

perils of the hunt are over, with a treat in store. In item C, on the other hand, the master treats

the dog rather like Odysseus’s treacherous servants did, but, in fact, worse. The typical Greek

man (e.g. items A and B) would never put his dog in harm’s way unless he had to, and unless he

could be there to protect it. The bad servants, on the other hand, ignore the dog to fend for itself

(Homer 155). The rich boys in item C, contrarily, actively and willingly corrupt the male-dog

relationship. The master forces his dog into danger for the amusement of his friends. While the

sculptor and his commissioner certainly would not have seen any fault in dog fighting, I have to

imagine a woman coming to the cemetery to mourn at an “old man with cane and dog” stele (cf.

Item B) thinking to herself what a mean and unpleasant man that item C’s subject must have

been. While item C explicitly displays the family’s wealth, insomuch as they could afford to

play games and use a good dog for sport, the story behind the story, as it were, is a tale of a rich

boy who cannot reciprocate the loving devotion of his dog and, in that regard, is really less

“Greek” and certainly worse off than his more modest counterparts in items A and B.

Moody 5

Bibliography

1. Boardman, John. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period. Thames and Hudson: New

York, 1991.

2. Homer. Tr. Stanley Lombardo. The Essential Odyssey. Hackett: Indianapolis, 2007.

3. Richter, Gisela. Handbook of Greek Art. Ch. 4: “Statuettes and Small Reliefs.”

Phaidon: New York, 1969.

4. Spivey, Nigel. Greek Art. Phaidon: New York, 1997.

Images

Item A. Boardman, John. Greek Sculpture: The Archaic Period. Image 12, p. 31. Thames

and Hudson: New York, 1991.

Item B. Ibidem. Image 244, p. 227.

Item C. Ibidem. Image 242, p. 226.