Animals in Ancient Art

The dog has been a participating member of human history for longer than written record has been in existence.  The temple of Gobekli-Tepe in Turkey has been dated to 12,000BCE and contains archaeological evidence of domesticated dogs, which correlates to the findings at the Natufian Grave in Israel from the same era[1].  There is further evidence throughout history and different cultures that the dog has been honoured and respected.  This essay shall look at three specific examples of art objects, one each from the ancient cultures of Italy (Rome), Egypt, and Greece, and compare them to both the current living examples of dogs as well as to each other, in order to deduce the perception of the dog by these cultures.

                                                                                       

To begin, the first example will be a floor mosaic from Pompeii depicting a dog in a crouching position with the words ‘cave canem’ or ‘Beware of Dog’ incorporated into the mosaic.  A picture of the mosaic[2] can be seen at the end of this essay in the ‘Art Referenced’ section.  The dog as depicted is black, but there are areas of white tile used on its body.  This could be done to show that the particular dog the mosaic is modelled after was black with two white spots, one on its front right shoulder and one on its right flank just before the rear leg, or it could have been an attempt by the artist to show either a glossy coat for the dog or a semblance of depth so that the beginnings of the legs are easier seen.  There was a statement made on an Italian Greyhound website using this mosaic saying that the ‘Beware of Dog’ statement was intended to let the visitors know that there were tiny little greyhounds around and not to step on them[3].  Also, this site goes on to say that the dog in the mosaic is in a ‘playing’ position.

These ideas are hard to accept or believe as there is no documented evidence to support these claims; however there are many ancient documents that stipulate how the breed of the desired dogs from this time should look and act, which are contrary to this.  Some of these are Horace in his Episode VI[4], Varro and Cato in their respective writings on agriculture[5], and Columella[6] in his writings on agriculture as well.  All of these agree that the dogs should be large, either to protect the house from trespassers or to protect the flocks from wolves.  Varro gives a breed standard for the large dog called the Molosser, which was used for guarding.  Varro says that they should be “…of good size, …stubby jaw with two fangs projecting somewhat from left and right… covered by the lips, large head, large drooping ears, thick shoulders and neck, …large wide paws that spread when he walks, … tail think, with a deep bark…”[7].  This description matches the descriptors for the modern mastiff breeds of dog such as the Tibetan Mastiff, Cane Corso Italiano, Neapolitan Mastiff[8].  The dog depicted in the Pompeii mosaic very likely is one of the Molosser dogs that Varro was describing, however the artistry is a little lacking, most likely due to either the medium being used, or the skill level of the artist themselves, which is possible given the disjointed placing of the words. 

This serves to debunk the statement that the ‘Beware of the Dog’ inscription was to protect the ‘small dogs’ from being stepped on and more so to protect the visitors from the dogs.  This also shows that the dog depicted would not have been a small Italian Greyhound, but a larger mastiff-like Molosser breed.  Further support for this can be seen in the mosaic itself.  When inspected closely, the dog can be seen to be restrained with a heavy chain.  This coupled with the statements of Cato that ‘good guard dogs should be chained up during the day[9]’ show that the dog depicted in the mosaic was a household guard dog, and that ‘cave canem’ was used in ancient Rome the same as it is today. 

The second example of dogs in ancient art is from Alexandria in Egypt.  This floor mosaic was found during excavations under the new library of Alexandria, and can also be seen in the ‘Art Referenced’ section at the end of the essay[10].  This depiction of the dog is very well done.  The shaping of the head and body is proportionate to each other, with the exception of what appears to be a rather overly large neck.  The dog appears to be a tri-colour dog, with a body of white with some black patches, and a fawn coloured mask and inner ears.  The musculature of the dog is easy to observe, and it would appear that great care has been taken to depict a specific dog in this instance.  The look of the dog resembles that of a modern-day Basenji or a Pharaoh Hound breed, but the colouration and markings are termed ‘out of the norm’ by most breeders today[11].  This could be due to thousands of years worth of breeding which has changed the dog in appearance, if it is even the same breed.  The level of detail that is put into this mosaic, and that it was found in a royal court floor lends itself to the assumption that the dog was highly regarded, be it a specific dog or an entire breed. 

The last example is found on an ancient Greek vase in the Louvre depicting Hercules with Cerberus, the three-headed dog that stood guard in the Greek Underworld[12].  While the mythology around Cerberus has altered it from a real dog[13], the general artistic depictions of Cerberus are not that different to the description of the Molosser dog breed mentioned earlier.  Comparing the depiction on the vase, Cerberus has the black coat, powerful straight and tilted in hind legs, the large head and thick neck, and the shortened powerful jaw that Varro said is desirable in a guard dog[14].  Since ancient Rome and ancient Greece share a common mythology, background, and similar geographic location, it is a logical assumption that the mythical guard dog of the Underworld would be an empowered and legendary version of the Molosser guard dog that they already knew and respected. 

In conclusion, it can be demonstrated that both the Pompeii mosaic and the vase depicting Cerberus are possibly drawing their inspiration from the same dog, most likely one of the mastiff-type guard dogs such as the Molosser that was common at that time.  The Egyptian mosaic, however, is of a different dog altogether, but also is of a much higher quality of craftsmanship.  While the artistry skill level and style between these three ancient pieces of art differ, it is evident that the ancient peoples of Rome, Greece, and Egypt loved, respected, and even to an extent deified their dogs. 

Bibliography

Alderton, D.  (2008).  Encyclopedia of Dogs.  Parragon Books.  Bath, UK.

Ancient History Encyclopedia.  ‘Dogs in the Ancient World’.  Mark, J. (1970) http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/184/ (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011)

Bibliotheca Alexandria.  The New Library of Alexandria and Museum.   http://www.bibalex.org/Museums/Antiquities_en.aspx  and  http://www.bibalex.org/imagegallery/BA_Gallery_EN.aspx?ID=21&Name=Antiquities%20Museum  (Accessed on Dec 28 2011)

Cerberus.  Tufts University. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/cerberus.html  (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011)

Columella, On Agriculture.  (Translated by Harrison 1941).  Cambridge Harvard University Press.   http://www.archive.org/details/onagriculturewit01coluuoft  (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011) 

‘Dogs in Ancient Rome and Greece’.  University of Chicago. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011)

Horace.  (1995).  The Complete Odes and Episodes. (Translated by Shepherd).  Penguin Books.

Italian Greyhounds.  Sighthounds in the Ancient World.  http://www.italiangreyhounds.org/Art%20History/arthistory.htm (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011)

Varro.  De Re Rustica.  (Translated by Hooper & Ash).  University of Chicago.  http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Varro/de_Re_Rustica/home.html & http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Varro/de_Re_Rustica/2*.html (Accessed on 28 Dec 2011)

Art Referenced

Floor Mosaic from Pompeii - http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html

Floor Mosaic from Alexandria - http://www.bibalex.org/imagegallery/BA_Gallery_EN.aspx?ID=21&Name=Antiquities%20Museum

Vase in the Louvre Museum – Hercules and Cerberus - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/cerberus.html

---

[1] http://www.ancient.eu.com/article/184/

[2] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html 

[3] http://www.italiangreyhounds.org/Art%20History/arthistory.htm

[4] Horace, The Complete Odes and Episodes, Episode VI

[5] Varro, De Re Rustica, p 397-407

[6] http://www.archive.org/details/onagriculturewit01coluuoft

[7] Varro, De Re Rustica, p 397-407

[8] Alderton, Encyclopaedia of Dogs, pg. 329, 350, & 369.

[9] http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/canes/canes.html

[10] http://www.bibalex.org/Museums/Antiquities_en.aspx

[11] Alderton, Encyclopaedia of Dogs, pg. 172, 212.

[12] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/Herakles/cerberus.html

[13] i.e. three heads and sometimes a serpent tail.

[14] Varro, De Re Rustica, p 397-407

Animals in Ancient Texts

It has been argued by some ancient philosophers that animals are fundamentally different from humans, while others believed that we share important attributes.  This essay shall review the opinions of six of these ancient philosophers, three on each side of the debate, and the criteria used to form those opinions as reproduced in the sourcebook Animals in Greek and Roman Thought by Stephen T. Newmyer.

Animals Were Fundamentally Different than Humans

Alcmaeon of Croton is held to be the first of the Great Greek thinkers that created clear delineations between the intellectual capacities of man and those of animals.[1]  Springing from these delineations that Alcmaeon created also began a belief that man is the only creature on Earth that is rational, and this subsequently became the fundamental base for the classical speculation on animals which was to follow.[2]  Using the reason that animals lacked a spoken language and had no cultural advancements, he decided that animals lacked rationality.  Newmyer believes that it is Alcmaeon’s research on human sensory organs (such as the eye) that influenced his conclusions on the state of animal mentality.  Theophrastus in his treatise On the Senses quotes Alcmaeon as saying, “…man differs from the other creatures in that he alone has understanding (xuniesi), while the other creatures have perception (aisthanetai), but do not have understanding.”[3] 

Plato also shared the opinion that animals lacked reason and other certain mental faculties that humans possess.  Through Plato’s comparisons of humanity to the animal kingdom, it is evidenced that he had an interest in animals more from a metaphysician standpoint rather than that of a biologist.[4];[5]  His comparisons were used as a metaphor to express his opinion of what kind of a person someone was, such as an uneducated person being no better than the lowest of the savage beasts.[6]  While this clearly uses the animal kingdom as a means of derision, Plato also held some animals in a higher regard such as the bee and the ant.  These animals, he believed, were good examples of how humans should structure their world in direct juxtaposition to lions and wolves, whose conduct he found to be undesirable in civilisation.[7] 

When discussing metempsychosis[8], Plato believed that humans could assume the form of other animals.    However, depending on which of Plato’s works are consulted, the views on which animal forms could be taken differ.[9]  Also in The Republic, Plato discusses that animals (such as swans) are able to take the forms of other animals as well as humans.[10]  This duality of conflicting viewpoints in Plato has perplexed scholars from antiquity until now.[11]  It remains unclear what Plato’s actual position on the intellect of animals in comparison to that of humans actually was.  It appears that while Plato denied animals rationality, he would on some instances attribute to them a portion of intellect.  This can be interpreted as Plato making a distinction between intellect and rationality, and coupled with his views on animal intellect as compared to mans, shows that he believes animals are not similar to humans.

As a student of Plato’s, it is not surprising to find that Aristotle also had a few self-contradictions in his opinions on the rationality and relationship of animals to man.  Aristotle was a more prolific writer concerning the life sciences than any other philosopher of the ancient times.[12]  He wrote a very long treatise called Historia Animalium (History of Animals) which spans 10 books and in them he focused on classification, reproduction, and movement of different animal species.  He also developed an idea called sunecheia, which is a biological graduation from one type of animal to another, similar to that of evolution, but differing by believing in the permanence of genera and species.[13]  Aristotle also believed that nature allowed for a difference between humans and animals as far as reason goes by denying animals reason fully, but only allowing them “traces” of some human characteristics and “resemblances” of intelligence.[14]

Aristotle appears to have been very concerned with the life sciences and to have spent a great deal of time researching animals and making observations of their behaviour and attributes as a background to his theories.   He wrote another treatise called De partibus animalium (Parts of Animals) in which he discussed his views as to why each animal is the way that it is, according to how he depicted them in the Historia.  While Aristotle believed that animals had a consciousness, he denied that they had any reason, reserving that attribute for humans alone.  He also did not believe that the soul was a spiritual entity that could migrate to a different body upon death, but that it was biologically connected to the body that it dwelt in.[15]  Even though Aristotle seemed to be a contradiction between whether or not he believed animals were like humans, he maintained assertions that because humans have so little in common with animals, they can stand in no relation of justice with them and that animals were intended for use by man.[16]  Further, Aristotle also said that “Some [animals] are knavish and mischievous …others are gentle and readily tamed… But only man is deliberative.”[17] While Aristotle’s arguments are strong, they are based in preconceived ideas carried over from Plato that animals are not rational, and as such seem to lack open-minded objectivity.

Animals were Fundamentally the Same as Humans

Not much is revealed about Alexander in the Newmyer text, other than that he was the nephew of Philo of Alexandria, and that he gave lectures.[18]  One of Philo’s works, called On Animals, was the record of a lecture given by Alexander and the subsequent rebuttal by Philo himself.  In it, Alexander maintains that animals must have a degree of reason like unto humans in order to be able to make the choices and decisions that they do.  Alexander maintains the stance that animals contain to a degree both the logos endiathetos (inner reason) and the logos prophorikos (uttered reason).[19]  Alexander refuted the Stoic[20] doctrine of animals being without the hegemonikon[21] with his claims that animals have both types of reason to some degree.  Continuing to refute these beliefs, Alexander used the examples of ants, bees, and birds to show that animals have to have reason, as otherwise they would not be able to build the houses that they do.[22] 

Alexander continued to show that animals have reason and are like humans by displaying the fact that they have vices, the same as humans.  “It is obvious that not only men but also various other animals have inherited the faculty of reason.  Furthermore it is believed that they possess both virtues and vices.”[23]  Alexander felt that this line of reasoning should be self-evident to anyone that had some amount of education or ever looked at animals in a contemplative way.  

Plutarch was a very prolific writer and covered a vast array of topics.  While not always staying true to the Platonic manner of true argument, he usually set his writings in the form of lengthy discourses and speeches.[24]  He covered topics from religion to interpersonal relationships.  Three of his works dealt with the human-animal relationship, one of which is called On the Cleverness of Animals and is a defence of the position that all animals possess some degree of reason.  There are other intellectual attributes other than rationality and reason that Plutarch ascribed to animals, and he said that these allowed them to cope successfully with their lives and entitled them to respectful treatment from human beings.[25]  This was significant because possession of reason was considered to be a prerequisite for human moral concern, and was frequently demanded in ancient philosophical discussion of human-animal relations.[26]

Some of the arguments that Plutarch used in the defence of the rationality and intellectual attributes of animals could be referred to as common sense.  Examples would be: why hunters would pit themselves against certain animals if they did not find the animals to be worthy adversaries that possessed intellectual endowments which made them a true test of wits to hunt; or, how would animals know how to build nests or spin webs or choose one path as opposed to another if they did not possess sufficient enough reason to carry out a decision?[27]  Most of these arguments are argued against the Stoic line of thinking, which denies reason and intellectual properties to animals.  Plutarch even used some of the Stoic’s own theories against them in this argument, by arguing that in nature everything has its opposite, the rational and the irrational, those possessing a soul and the soulless.  According to the Stoics things that have souls have rationality, and they also attribute souls to animals, yet they say that they have no rationality.[28]  This is a contradiction, and therefore Plutarch clearly used the Stoic’s own beliefs against them to show that animals have reason.  This was also stated by Soclarus who said, “[T]here is plenty of the irrational in all things that do not have a share of soul, and we need no other counterpart to the rational; but everything that is soulless, insofar as it is without reason and understanding, is opposite to that which has reason and thought, along with a soul.”[29]

Lastly, Porphyry’s treatise On Abstinence from Animal Flesh is a large defence to the anti-Stoic position that animals and humans share rationality and have a kinship to each other.  He chastised the Stoics and their doctrine that animals have a portion of rationality but are still denied any kinship with humans.[30]  He also mentioned the Epicurean[31] theory that animals cannot be rational because they do not form contracts with people.  He further refuted this line of thinking by arguing that even though not all people make contracts; this does not mean that those people are not rational.[32]  Porphyry also stated, as did Alexander previously, that animals are also able to have vices, which proves that they are rational as the definition of vice is a failure to heed reason, and they must possess rationality so that they can choose to ignore reason. 

Bibliography

Newmyer, S.  (2011).  Animals in Greek and Roman Thought: A Sourcebook.  Routledge, New York.

---

[1] Newmyer, Animals in Greek and Roman Thought: A Sourcebook, (2011:3)

[2] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:3)

[3] Theophrastus, Alcmaeon, DK 1a (trans.) Newmyer (2011:3)

[4] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)

[5] Plato’s constantly varying classification system for animals also contributes to him not being regarded as one of the great Greek biologists. 

[6] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)

[7] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:4)

[8] The belief that the soul of a person or animal can migrate at death into the form of another person or animal dependant upon what type of manner of life they previously lead.

[9] See Phaedrus, Republic, Phaedo, and Timaeus

[10] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:5)

[11] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:5)

[12] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:6)

[13] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:7)

[14] Aristotle, History of Animals, 588b4-12 & 588a20 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:7)

[15] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:8)

[16] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1161a30-1162b2 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:8)

[17] Aristotle, History of Animals, 488a20-26 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:9)

[18] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:11)

[19] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:11)

[20] (Στωικισμός) – a philosophical movement during the Hellenistic period which believed in emotional reservations that bordered on detatchment.

[21] The part of the soul according to Stoic belief that becomes rational in humans and not in animals

[22] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:12)

[23] Philo, On Animals, 85 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:14)

[24] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:15)

[25] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:15)

[26] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:16)

[27] Plutarch, On the Cleverness of Animals, 966A & 966E, 969B-C (trans.) Newmyer (2011:16-17)

[28] Chrysippus, On Opposites, SVF 2.281 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:3-4)

[29] Plutarch, On the Cleverness of Animals, 960C (trans.) Newmyer (2011:18)

[30] Newmyer, Animals, (2011:33)

[31] School of philosophy started by Epicurus.  Newmyer, Animals, (2011:28-29)

[32] Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Flesh III, 13. 1-3 (trans.) Newmyer (2011:34)