Dickerman-Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence (TAPhA 42 [1911])

8/13/2019 Dickerman-Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence (TAPhA 42 [1911])

1/8

Vol. xliij Illustrations of Animal Intelligence 123

VIII. Some Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence inGreek Psychology

BY PROFESSOR SHERWOOD OWEN DICKERMAN\YILI.IAMS COLLEGE

IT is a frequently recurring sentiment among the philoso-phers and rhetoricians of the Roman empire that the sagacityof animals is due, not to reason (Xttyo?), but to a naturalinstinct (


2/8

124 Sherwood Oiven Dickerman D911In these cases the animals are passed over with a brief

mention. There is, however, another group of passages inwhich each one of the series becomes the subject of anencomium of some length. The best example is offered byPhilo's dialogue de Animalibus, a treatise preserved in anArmenian translation, which was made accessible to ordinaryscholarship through the Latin version of Johannes Aucher(Phil. op. vin, 10 1, ed. Richter). The question of animalintelligence is introduced by the reading of an oration, com-posed by Philo's nephew Alexander, who maintains withcountless anecdotes and examples the existence of reasonamong the brutes. The philosopher himself then demolishesthis rhetorical structure with the usual arguments of Stoicphilosophy. The oration opens with an attempt to showamong the animals instances of the Trpofopi/cbs Xctyos, thereason which finds utterance and expression. Then followsat considerable length the argument for their possession ofthe e^ia^ero? Xcfyo?, the inner reason conceived but notexpressed. This is illustrated first by an account of thespider. With a somewhat florid enthusiasm the orator dwellson the matchless art with which the web is made. Thisworkman knows no division of labor, unassisted and aloneshe forms all parts alike; neither does she need tools likehuman craftsmen; and in pride in her work and anger withthose who harm it she equals artists among men. Next fol-lows a similar eulogy on the bee, describing in fancifulfashion the manufacture of wax and honey from the dew offlowers, the arrangement of the hive, and its protection fromintruders. Then the orator goes on to the swallow, praisingfirst the form and construction of the nest and its positionnear the dwellings of men, where there is shelter from thefiercer enemies, then the prudent rearing of the young.Somewhat later on at the close of a series of illustrations tovindicate the cro^ta of the animal world comes the account ofthe ant her provision against the winter, particularly theshrewdness with which she bites out the germ from the ker-nels of wheat and barley to prevent them from sprouting inthe moist ground, and thus becoming useless as food.


3/8

Vol. xlii] Illustrations of Animal Intelligence 125Descriptions of these same animals, similar in general

character though varying more or less in detail, occur in theother treatises on animal sagacity. Plutarch in his dia-logue dc Sollertia Animalium, 966 D, discusses first theswallow, then the spider, later, after the introduction of someother material, the ant. Aelian, as would be expected inview of his close relation to Plutarch's dialogue, gives sub-stantially the same subject-matter, not, however, consecu-tively but scattered in various parts of his compilation. 1Origen quotes from Celsus the argument on the bee, andimmediately afterward that on the ant (adv. Cels. iv, 1155 B,Migne xi). Theodoretus in his treatise de Providentia, v(pp. 625-629, Migne LXXXIII), eulogizes first the bee at con-siderable length, then quotes from Solomon, Prov. vi, 6, Wt,77730? TOP fjivpfji^/ca, 3> otcvrjpe and Jeremiah viii, J, rpvyatv /calXe\tB(i>v aypov, arpovOia ev\aav Kaipovs elcrdbcov eavrcov,and thus side-tracked proceeds to treat of other animals men-tioned in Holy Writ. But at the end he returns to the oldseries with a conventional description of the spider. In theseventh century of our era George the Pisidian in hisHcxaemeron, vss. 1151 ff., describes first the bee, immediatelythereafter the swallow, then, after some lines devoted to theswan and the mosquito, the ant.These passages show how persistently the same illustra-

tions recur in authors of widely varied types and periodswhenever the question of animal intelligence comes into con-sideration. Definite conclusions as to their mutual relationscannot of course be drawn without a comprehensive study ofthe various treatises in which they appear.2 There is, how-ever, one contribution to the question of sources which may,I think, be made even now with reasonable safety. It has

1 On the ant see N.A. II, 25, vi, 43, 50; the bee, I, 59, v, 13 ; the spider, I,21, vi, 57 ; the swallow, i, 52, in, 24, 25.

2 On the sources of Plutarch de Soil. An., see M. Wellman, Alexander v.Myndos, Uerm. xxvi (1891), 481 ff., and R. Hirzel, Der Dialog (1895), JI J 78 ff -A. Dyroff in his studies Zur stoischen Tierpsychologie, Bayr. Bldtt. / Gym-nasialschulwesen, XXXIII (1897), 399 ff., XXXIV (1898), 425 ff., cites many paral-lel passages from the various writers on animal sagacity, and offers numerousstimulating suggestions as to their mutual relations.


4/8

126 Sherwood Owen Dickermanto do with a fifth illustration, this time from the vegetableworld, which in some cases is associated with the exampleswe have been observing. In the second part of Philo's dia-logue, 78, he attacks the claim for reason among thebrutes with that time-worn argument that their sagacity isinstinctive, not intelligent: Similiter et apes sine doctrinanaturaliter favum peragunt et araneae quasi per se edoctaesubtilem illam elaborationem textorum moliuntur. Si quisautem aliter putat, adeat arbores et perspiciens videbit cuius-que dotes clarissimas: quia etiam in istis multa sunt sine arteartificiosa. Thereupon follows a description of the vinewhich bears a resemblance to Cicero's words in Cato Maior,53, particularly striking in view of the vicissitudes throughwhich the text of Philo's treatise has been transmitted to us.

Philo, de Anim. Cicero, Cat. MaiorVitem non vides, dum diebus Itaque ineunte vere . . . ex-

vernalibus germen producit ? sistit tamquam ad articulos sar-Primum enim foliis illud operit, mentorum ea quae gemma dici-deinde more matris paullatim tur, a qua oriens uva se ostendit,nutrit et id augmentum ducit ; quae et suco terrae et calorepost modum remutans ex acido solis augescens primo est pera-uvam efficit, donee omnino ma- cerba gustatu, deinde maturataturet fructum. At instructane in dulcescit vestitaque pampinis neeiis fuit, cura adhibita ? Certe modico tepore caret et nimiosomnino per mirabilem operique solis defendit ardores. Qua quidpraesidentem naturam par fuit potest esse cum fructu laetius,non solum utilissimo fructui fe- turn aspectu pulchrius ? Cuiusrendo, verum etiam adornando quidem non utilitas me solum,trunco decore . . . ; conspectus ut ante dixi, sed etiam cultura eterat eius clarissimus et species natura ipsa delectat. . . .mirabilis.

Both passages, it will be noticed, begin with the mentionof the spring weather, then speak of the vine-bud, the bitter-ness of the young grape, and its gradual ripening. Bothtouch on the leafy covering, though there is here the differ-ence that Philo seems to regard it as a protection for thevine-bud, Cicero for the ripening fruit. Both finally praiseutility and beauty alike in the vine. Altogether the.resem-


5/8

Vol. xlii] Illustrations of Animal Intelligence 127blance is such as to warrant the conclusion that the two pas-sages are influenced by a common source.To follow the thread of inference farther it has often beennoted that the sentence with which Cicero introduces this

description of the vine is a repetition, employing identicalwords and phrases, of his words in the second book de Nat.Dear. 120, at the opening of the Stoic argument for a divineprovidence in the natural world.

Cat. Maior, 52 de Nat. Dear, n, 120Vitis quidem, quae natura ca- lam vero vites sic claviculis

duca est et nisi fulta est fertur ad adminicula tamquam manibus ad-terram, eadem lit se erigat clavi- prehendunt atque ita se eriguntcults suis quasi manibus quicquid ut animantes.est nacta complectitur.

Now since the first sentence of the description in Cato Maioragrees with the exposition of Stoic doctrine in de Nat. Deor.n, and since the following portion agrees with another exposi-tion of Stoic doctrine in Philo's dialogue, we may, I believe,reasonably draw two conclusions: i) that this description ofthe vine in Cato Maior depends on that same Stoic sourcewhich Cicero presents in an abridged form in de Nat. Deor.n, and 2) that Philo has followed the same or a closely relatedsource.

Confidence in this theory is considerably strengthenedwhen it is observed that the one additional fact about thevine noted by Cicero de Nat. Deor. n its peculiar antip-athy to the cabbage occurs also in Philo's dialogue, 95, 1that further a number of other illustrations are common toboth treatises,2 and particularly that the spider occupies aprominent place in Cicero's exposition, 123. If, therefore,we follow the general trend of opinion in ascribing the argu-ment of de Nat. Deor. n to Posidonius, we shall be inclined tosee his influence likewise in Philo's treatise.

1 This is noted by Theophrastus, Hist. PI. IV, 16, 6, Cans. PI. II, 18,4, who con-nects the observation with Androcydes.

- /'ina, Cic. 123 and Phil. 60 : platalea, Cic. 124 = patlotes, Phil. 31 : capraeCreticac, Cic. 126 and Phil. 38.


6/8

128 Sherwood Owen Dickerman [1911An additional indication that the vine had its place in the

same argument with the series of animals may be drawn fromthe Hexaemeron of George the Pisidian to which we havealready looked for accounts of bee, spider, and ant. Therefollows in due time, vs. 1610, the following description of thevine, whose resemblance to the passage in Cato Maior isobvious :

Ti's yap $ecopw (3oTpvv ov Ka.rf.irXa.yriTOV OOVTO. Oep/jLjjv vyporrjTa ra> uA.a>KOL 7TU>? TO. v\\a ras eroijuov? eis pucrtvpaya? Trepnr TVwoven, /xr/ (3po)(r)AoywS^? yXipv ;ao~a e/o />t 77 rov? OTTOVS e

For the ultimate source, however, we must go back of theStoics. This particular group of illustrations has an especialinterest because it can be definitely traced to an earlier worldof thought. Aristotle, in his exposition of the teleologicalelement in the natural world, Phys. n, 8, 199 a 22 says : . . .SiaTropovcri rives irorepov VCD r\ TIVI d\\a) epyd^ovrai Q[ r' apdy-vai /cal ol [jLvpfirj/ces /cal ra rotavra. /card /jLiKpov 8' oircoTrpoiovn KCII ev rot? (frvrois fyaiverai rd avfjifyepovr7T/30? TO reXo?, olov rd cf)v\\a TT)? rov /capTrov eve/cacoar el (pixrei re Troiel teal eveicd rov rf %e\iSa>v TTJV veomdv/cal 6 dpd%vii


7/8

Vol. xlii] Illustrations of Animal Intelligence 129Trpwpa of Empedocles. It seems not unlikely that the vinecame to his mind when he was seeking a parallel from thevegetable world, just because in the argument which he hadbeen epitomizing a moment before it had supplied the illus-tration to match the ant, spider, and swallow.1

Aristotle gives no indication as to the name of the thinkerto whom he refers. The general position of his predecessorscan, to be sure, be traced in some measure from the fragmentsthat have come down to us. Parmenides, 2 and Empedocles 2and Archelaus 3 and Democritus,2 we are told, attributedintelligence to the animal world. Of Empedocles and Anaxa-goras and Democritus 4 it is also stated that they saw mentalactivities in the plants as well. There is even evidence thatDemocritus made use of some of the animal illustrations inthis very series. Plutarch 5 quotes him as saying that wehave been the pupils of the spider in the art of weaving andmending, of the swallow in building, and of the swan andnightingale in singing. Reminiscences of this doctrine areto be found, as it seems, in the mention of the swallow byVitruvius, n, I, 2, and the birds by Lucretius, v, 1379, Per~haps also in the passage from Galen's Protrcpticus, i, I, citedabove. There are, however, two objections to finding inDemocritus the authority whom Aristotle mentions and onwhom the subsequent tradition depends: i) Democritus, sofar as can be judged from Plutarch's words, was treating ofthe origin of the arts. Aristotle and the later writers use theseries to illustrate the innate wisdom of the lower animalsand the divine providence therein displayed. Except in thepassage from the Protrepticus no emphasis is laid on man's

1 Professor W. A. Heidel has kindly called my attention to the words of Hip-pocrates on the spring season, ircpi diairrj^, in, 68 (vol. VI, 600 L.) : Set o&v, &


8/8

130 Sherwood Owen Dickerman [ I9 11imitation of them ; where it is mentioned, it is a subordinateidea. 2) Democritus believed the animals to be endowed withi>oO?. The writer, referred to by Aristotle, doubted whethertheir sagacity were not due to some other faculty.Nearer to our unknown thinker comes Alcmaeon of Cro-ton, who, says Theophrastus, 1 afyopi^ei TTJV Trpbs ra o>a Siacfro-pdv. dv0pci)7rov ydp (frijcn ra)v d\\wv 8La(f>epiv OTL {JLOVQV ^vviTjcn,,TO, 8' d\\a aldOdverai peis, ov vvir)(Ti 8e. . . . Somewhere, Itake it, in the same camp we are to look for this old psychol-ogist, who questioned whether, after all, the life of the bruteswas very different from that of the plants, and connected hisquery with a group of illustrations that was to do duty for afull thousand years.

1 De Sens. 25. Diels, Vorsokr. Alcm. A 5.

Dickerman-Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence (TAPhA 42 [1911])

Documents

Transcript of Dickerman-Stock Illustrations of Animal Intelligence (TAPhA 42 [1911])