Category: Background: Dogs in War (1)
Forster, E. S. 1941. “Dogs in Ancient Warfare”. Greece & Rome. 10. 30: 114-17.
Forster includes a list of citations of historical moments in which dogs were used in warfare. This is a great source for framing dogs in the Ancient Greek world from a military perspective.
Category: Background: Dogs in Vases (3)
Oakely, John H. 2020. A Guide to Scenes of Daily Life on Athenian Vases. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 all either have pictures vases depicting canine interactions with Athenians, or else discussions on trends of such depictions, all of which will provides insight to the role of dogs in day-to-day-life for Athenians, which is a crucial piece of context for my work. I intend to include many of these pictures, if I am able to legally, in an appendix to my thesis so that they will not disrupt the flow of thought presented in the paper, although I will address them in footnotes.
Johnson, Helen M. 1919. “The Portrayal of the Dog on Greek Vases”. The Classical Weekly. 12. 27: 209-213.
This article does an excellent job of parsing out information from Greek vases, which is the next best thing for me other than being able to view all of the same vases myself. Oakley’s collection is a good start, but this will broaden my access to the knowledge obtained on dogs through vases.
Pevnick, Seth D. 2014. “16 Good Dog, Bad Dog: A Cup by the Triptolemos Painter and Aspects of Canine Behavior on Athenian Vases” in Athenian Potters and Painters III. Oakley, John H. (ed). Oxbow: 155-164.
Category: Background: Cynegetica (3)
Nemesianus. Cynegetica. 103-239.
Although this is a Roman source, it deals with real processes of rearing and training dogs, and is therefore a tangible cultural source for the role of hunting dogs.
Pseud-Oppian. Cynegetica.
This is another treatment of dog-hunting and will be a good source to compare to the Roman perspective provided by Nemesianus
Xenophon. Cynegeticus.
Perhaps the most well-established ancient book on dog-hunting, I would be shocked if this were not full of information on the role of dogs in hunting, as well as breeds and general Greek perceptions of dogs.
Category: Dogs in Narrative (7)
Frisch, Magnus. 2017. “ἦ μάλα θαῦμα κύων ὅδε κεῖτ᾽ ἐνὶ κόπρῳ: The Anagnorisis of Odysseus and His Dog Argos (Hom. Od. 17, 290–327)”. Literatūra. 59: 7-18.
This isn’t a very good paper from the perspective of intriguing original contributions, but it does an excellent job of joining together elements of scholarly discussion on dogs in the Odyssey, specifically the Argos episode, which makes it useful for connecting threads of scholarly work.
Faust, Manfred. 1970. “Die Künstlerische Verwendung von χύvn ‘Hund’ in den homerischen Epen”. Glotta. 48: 8-31.
This is cited a lot in related articles I am exploring and seems important, but it is only in German! I have to find a way to read it…
Köhnken, Adolf. 2003. “Perspektivisches Erzählen im homerischen Epos: Die Wiedererkennung Odysseus: Argos”. Hermes. 131. 4: 385-396.
This is cited a lot in related articles I am exploring and seems important, but it is only in German! I have to find a way to read it…
Beck, William. 1991. “Dogs, Dwellings, and Masters: Ensemble and Symbol in the Odyssey”. Hermes. 119: 158-167.
Beck argues that dogs are intimately tied to their masters in character and fate, and reflect their households. In particular, he places Argus as a reflection of Odysseus, his sickness linked to the suitors’ invasion and his death linked to their slaughter. The notion that Argus reflects Odysseus holds weight: Argus’ skill and speed mirror Odysseus’ and in leaving Argus behind to serve the household, Odysseus leaves a piece of himself as an extension and metaphorical anchor linking him to his home land.
Scodel, Ruth. 2005. “Odysseus’ Dog and the Productive Household”. Hermes. 133. 4: 401-408.
Scodel goes deep into the Argos episode, noting its initiation of the sequence of recognitions and the focus on how it affects Odysseus. Viewing this as the first recognition meshes interestingly with the perspective of Argos as a reflection of Odysseus, so that this becomes an episode about remembering what he left behind and the state it is in because he left it, especially when he could have returned years earlier. First, Eumaeus’ dogs set the focus on the threats awaiting Odysseus; then Argos sets the tone for the loss and destruction he is to find.
Murnaghan, Sheila. 1987. Disguise and Recognition in the Odyssey. Lexington Books.
I have not found a way to access this book without purchasing it, but it seems to be a good source for recognition scenes to arm me with the necessary understanding to analyze Scodel’s ideas of the Argos scene as the beginning of the recognition scenes.
Homer. Odyssey. 10.188-219, 10.229-243, 13.184-440, 14.31-38, 16.1-7, and other selections.
I will explore the dogs of Alcinous, the wolves in the Circe episode, Eumaeus’ dogs, the Argos episode, the dog brooch, canine insults, dogs in simile, and potentially other topics to be determined.
Category: Blame and Praise (6)
Homer, Iliad. Selections
I will explore dogs on the battlefield, dogs in simile, Priam’s dogs, Achilles’ peculiar relationship with dogs, dogs at Patroclus’ funeral, Helen’s self-proclaimed “bitch”-facedness, and potentially other topics to be determined.
Scott, John A. 1948. “Dogs in Homer”. The Classical Weekly. 41. 15: 226-228.
Concerned with the difference in canine depiction across Homeric epics, Scott makes two points: the environment of war is “little adapted to show the better side of dogs” and dogs in the Iliad are often praised as symbols of bravery and triumph. Scott’s claim that the environment holds explanatory power over any potential dichotomy between epics has the air of circumstantial apology and the inherent submission to the presence of such a dichotomy ultimately detracts from their argument, especially since Argus was not much better off than the war dogs. I believe this can be salvaged by noting that dogs in the Iliad are praised only when associated to mortals or gods, allowing a reading consistent with Beck’s ideas.
Hainsworth, J. B. 1961. “Odysseus and the Dogs”. Greece & Rome. 8. 2: 122-125.
Hainsworth is interested in the dogs in the swineherd scene, particularly in Odysseus sitting down. He gives some explanations for this method, citing both ancient and modern sources. This brought my attention to the idea of blame implied if the dogs had harmed Odysseus, which indicates a sense of responsibility in mortal-canine associations, to present a negative counterbalance to the presentation of praise teased out from Scott.
Semonides of Amorgos. 7.
This unflattering compilation of comparisons between women and animals feeds directly into the discussion of canine traits as a fault, particularly in women. Such associations seem to be consistent with the surface-level negative aspects of Helen’s self-characterization.
Hesiod. Work and Days. 67-68, 78-80, 703-705, and potentially others selections.
I will discuss the description of Pandora’s mind as κύνεον in her divine creation, and the implications of such associations to the character of Pandora, women more broadly, and dogs. It would be especially interesting to compare her to “bitch-faced” Helen.
Wolkow, B. M. 2007. “The Mind of a Bitch”. Hermes. 3: 247-262.
Wolkow discusses the description of Pandora’s mind as being κύνεον, rejecting the explanation of curiosity often postulated in connection to Psyche in Apuleius, and instead connecting it to thievery and deceit, drawing a particular association to the “bad wife” in lines 703-705. I am not entirely convinced that their analyses are necessarily disjoint from curiosity playing a role, and would like to see if there are other associations between dogs and curiosity.
This is not a complete list of sources that I have looked at, but it is near complete, and I will add the rest soon.
