| Abstract: | During the political crisis in the Salzburg archiepiscopacyat the end of the eighteenth century there was an increase inthe number of violent clashes between huntsmen and poachersin the forest areas. The huntsmen exacerbated the anger of therural communities by shooting dead any farm dogs they foundrunning free. The farmers, for their part, ignored the decreewhich had been in force since the sixteenth century that theyshould either chain their dogs up or restrict their freedomwith a Knüppel, a large piece of wood attached to the neckto hinder their chasing after game. These attacks by the huntsmenwere felt by the peasants to be an arbitrary abuse of politicalpower, and a threat to their farms. They were angered both thatthis limited the ability of the dogs to do their duty in guardingthe farms, and also by the way the dogs' natural guarding instinctswere being undermined. They thought of men and their animalsas different creatures, but they were forced to acknowledgethat the restriction of the dogs' freedom was also an attempton their own liberty. The Dog Wars crystallized a conflict aroundtraditional feudal symbols of subjugation. They show how theimages that the ruling and the ruled had of each other beganto crumble and give way to mutual mistrust. The Salzburg farmershad no need of revolutionary agitators to see that the archiepiscopalstate was moribund. They had their own yardsticks, first andforemost poaching, with which to measure the effective limitsset to their freedom by the state. They were not party to thecontemporary intellectual debates on human rights, but the violenceto their dogs was a clear sign to them of the revolutionaryspirit of the times. The notion of human rights did not enjoylinear growth, but itself progressed by way of conflict. Andthis notion should not be limited to the human condition only—itmust be extrapolated beyond the ideological fixations of thenineteenth and twentieth centuries. In the context of the historyof dogs—man's longest-standing companion, after all—‘human’rights take on a different hue, relativized and yet somehowmore clearly defined. |
