Vol.

xliij

Illustrations of

Animal

Intelligence

123

VIII.

Some Stock

Illustrations of

Animal

Intelligence in

Greek Psychology
BY PROFESSOR

SHERWOOD OWEN DICKERMAN

\YILI.IAMS

COLLEGE

IT
of

phers and rhetoricians

instinct (<u<m).

a frequently recurring sentiment among the philosoof the Roman empire that the sagacity animals is due, not to reason (Xttyo?), but to a natural
is

The
it

distinguishing

marks

of

this

innate
it

sense are that

exists in all

comes untaught

(aSiSa/cros),

and that

members

Stoics were

of a given species in like manner. The the especial champions of the doctrine, which,

while generally accepted, called forth on occasion lively pro-

Among many illustrations used in its presentation, four animals appear with a regularity so great as to challenge attention the ant, the bee, the spider, the swallow (now and then the birds in general). Sometimes only two of the
test.

series meet us, frequently three, in one case all four, often as would be expected in the company of other typical illustrations, occasionally, too, with additions which seem due to individual originality. A passage from the introduction to Galen's treatise de Usu Partium Corp. Hum. I, 3, will serve as an example ravrrj fjLOi &orcel ra fjiev d\\a r&v ^ycov (frvaei
:

JJLCL\\OV

T)

Xo'yo> Te%V7)v
,

nva

SiaTrpaTrecrQai, ir\drreLV

JJLGV

at

Orjaavpovs oV
,

TLVCLS

vrjOew Be /cal

KOL \a(3vp(v6ovs vfyaiveiv al apd%vai.

Br^/jLLovpyelv ol
re/c/jLaipo/jLai

e TO)

a&Sa/rra).

In a similar fashion Galen in the Protrcpticns, I, i, brings forward the spider and the bee ; Maximus of Tyre, xvi, 5, the birds and the spider ; the Hermetic writer, quoted by Stobaeus, Eel. I, 41, 6 (W. i, p. 284), the ant and the birds ; Philo, de Proiidcntia, I, 51, the ant, the bee, and the sii'allo:c ; Plutarch, dc Vit. Aere Alien. 830 B, the swulloiv and the ant; Seneca, Epist. Mor. 121, 22, the bee and the spider ; Tertullian,

adv. Marc,

i,

14,

the

bee,

the ant, and the spider.

124

Sherwood Oiven Dickerman

D9 11

mention.

In these cases the animals are passed over with a brief There is, however, another group of passages in
series

becomes the subject of an best example is offered by length. Philo's dialogue de Animalibus, a treatise preserved in an Armenian translation, which was made accessible to ordinary scholarship through the Latin version of Johannes Aucher
which each one of the

encomium

of

some

The

(Phil. op. vin,

is

10 1, ed. Richter). The question of animal introduced intelligence by the reading of an oration, composed by Philo's nephew Alexander, who maintains with countless anecdotes and examples the existence of reason

among

the brutes.

The philosopher
oration

himself then demolishes

this rhetorical structure with the usual

arguments of Stoic

opens with an attempt to show philosophy. the animals instances of the Trpofopi/cbs Xctyos, the among
reason which finds utterance and expression. Then follows at considerable length the argument for their possession of the e^ia^ero? Xcfyo?, the inner reason conceived but not

The

by an account of the enthusiasm the orator dwells spider. on the matchless art with which the web is made. This
expressed.

This

is

illustrated

first

With a somewhat

florid

workman knows no
she forms
those
all

division of labor, unassisted

and alone

parts alike; neither does she need tools like

human craftsmen; and in pride in her work and anger with who harm it she equals artists among men. Next follows a
similar

eulogy on the

bee,

fashion the manufacture of

flowers, the

wax and honey from

describing in fanciful the dew of

intruders.
first

hive, and its protection from the orator goes on to the swallow, praising the form and construction of the nest and its position

arrangement of the

Then

near the dwellings of men, where there is shelter from the fiercer enemies, then the prudent rearing of the young. Somewhat later on at the close of a series of illustrations to
vindicate the cro^ta of the animal world comes the account of the ant her provision against the winter, particularly the

shrewdness with which she bites out the germ from the kerwheat and barley to prevent them from sprouting in the moist ground, and thus becoming useless as food.
nels of

Vol.

xlii]

Illustrations of

Animal

Intelligence

125

Descriptions of these same animals, similar in general character though varying more or less in detail, occur in the Plutarch in his diaother treatises on animal sagacity.

logue dc Sollertia Animalium, 966 D, discusses first the swallow, then the spider, later, after the introduction of some other material, the ant. Aelian, as would be expected in

view of his close relation to Plutarch's dialogue, gives substantially the same subject-matter, not, however, consecu1 tively but scattered in various parts of his compilation. Origen quotes from Celsus the argument on the bee, and immediately 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 considerable length, then quotes from Solomon, Prov. vi, 6, Wt,
77730?

TOP fjivpfji^/ca,

3>

otcvrjpe

and Jeremiah

viii, J,

rpvyatv

/cal

Xe\tB(i>v aypov, arpovOia e<f>v\aav Kaipovs elcrdbcov eavrcov, and thus side-tracked proceeds to treat of other animals mentioned in

Holy Writ.

But

at the

end he returns

to the old

series with a conventional description of the spider.

In the

seventh century of our era George the Pisidian in his Hcxaemeron, vss. 1151 ff., describes first the bee, immediately thereafter the swallow, then, after some lines devoted to the

swan and the mosquito, the ant. These passages show how persistently the same illustrations recur in authors of widely varied types and periods whenever the question of animal intelligence comes into conDefinite conclusions as to their mutual relations sideration. cannot of course be drawn without a comprehensive study of the various treatises in which they appear. 2 There is, however, one contribution to the question of sources which may,
I

think, be
1

made even now with reasonable

II,

safety.
;

It

has
I,

On
On

the ant see N.A.

;

25, vi, 43, 50; the bee,

I,

59, v, 13

the spider,

21, vi, 57
2

the swallow,

i,

52, in, 24, 25.

Soil.

Alexander v. An., see M. Wellman, J ff., and R. Hirzel, Der Dialog (1895), JI 7 8 ff A. Dyroff in his studies " Zur stoischen Tierpsychologie," Bayr. Bldtt. / Gymnasialschulwesen, XXXIII (1897), 399 ff., XXXIV (1898), 425 ff., cites many parallel passages from the various writers on animal sagacity, and offers numerous
the sources of Plutarch de

"

Myndos," Uerm. xxvi (1891), 481

stimulating suggestions as to their mutual relations.

126
to

Sherwood Owen Dickerman

do with a fifth illustration, this time from the vegetable world, which in some cases is associated with the examples we have been observing. In the second part of Philo's dia78, he attacks the claim for reason among the logue, brutes with that time-worn argument that their sagacity is
instinctive, not

intelligent:

Similiter
et

et

apes sine doctrina

naturaliter

araneae quasi per se edoctae subtilem illam elaborationem textorum moliuntur. Si quis

favum peragunt

autem

aliter putat,

que dotes clarissimas: quia etiam

artificiosa.

adeat arbores et perspiciens videbit cuiusin istis multa sunt sine arte

which bears a resemblance

53, particularly striking in

Thereupon follows a description of the vine to Cicero's words in Cato Maior,

treatise has

which the text of Philo's

Philo, de

view of the vicissitudes through been transmitted to us.

Cicero, Cat.

Anim.

Maior
.
. .

Vitem non
vernalibus

vides,

dum

diebus

Itaque ineunte vere

sistit

ex-

germen producit ? Primum enim foliis illud operit, deinde more matris paullatim
nutrit
et

tamquam ad articulos sarmentorum ea quae gemma dicitur,

id

augmentum

ducit

a qua oriens uva se ostendit, quae et suco terrae et calore

solis

post
turet
iis

modum
efficit,

remutans ex acido

uvam

donee omnino mafructum. At instructane in

cura adhibita
?

augescens primo est peracerba gustatu, deinde maturata

dulcescit vestitaque pampinis nee modico tepore caret et nimios
solis

fuit,

Certe

omnino per mirabilem operique praesidentem naturam par fuit non solum utilissimo fructui ferendo, verum etiam adornando
trunco decore
erat
.
.
.

defendit ardores.
esse

Qua

quid

potest
turn

cum

fructu laetius,

aspectu pulchrius ?
utilitas

Cuius
solum,

quidem non

me
. .
.

conspectus

ut ante dixi, sed etiam cultura et

eius clarissimus et

species

natura ipsa delectat.

mirabilis.

Both passages,

it

will

be noticed, begin with the mention

of the spring weather, then speak of the vine-bud, the bitterness of the young grape, and its gradual ripening. Both

touch on the leafy covering, though there is here the difference that Philo seems to regard it as a protection for the Both finally praise vine-bud, Cicero for the ripening fruit.
utility

and beauty

alike in the vine.

Altogether the.resem-

Vol.

xlii]

Illustrations of

Animal

Intelligence

127

blance

is

such as to warrant the conclusion that the two pasit

sages are influenced by a common source. To follow the thread of inference farther
description of the vine

has often been

noted that the sentence with which Cicero introduces this

is a repetition, employing identical words and phrases, of his words in the second book de Nat. Dear. 120, at the opening of the Stoic argument for a divine

providence in the natural world.

Cat. Maior, 52
Vitis

de Nat. Dear, n, 120

quidem, quae natura ca-

lam

vero vites sic claviculis

duca

est et nisi fulta est fertur

ad

adminicula

tamquam manibus
ita se

ad-

terram,

eadem

lit

se erigat clavi-

prehendunt atque
ut animantes.

erigunt

cults suis

quasi manibus quicquid

est nacta complectitur.

Now

since the

first

sentence of the description in Cato Maior

agrees with the exposition of Stoic doctrine in de Nat. Deor. n, and since the following portion agrees with another exposition of Stoic doctrine in Philo's dialogue,

we may,

believe,

reasonably draw two conclusions: i) that this description of the vine in Cato Maior depends on that same Stoic source

which Cicero presents in an abridged form in de Nat. Deor. n, and 2) that Philo has followed the same or a closely related
source.

Confidence in this theory is considerably strengthened it is observed that the one additional fact about the noted vine its peculiar antipby Cicero de Nat. Deor. n

when

athy to the cabbage

that further a

number

1 occurs also in Philo's dialogue, 95, of other illustrations are common to

both treatises, 2 and particularly that the spider occupies a prominent 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 to see 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

Creticac, Cic. 126

and Phil. 60 and Phil. 38.

platalea, Cic. 124

= patlotes,

Phil. 31

caprae

128

Sherwood Owen Dickerman

[1911

An additional indication that the vine had its place in the same argument with the series of animals may be drawn from the Hexaemeron of George the Pisidian to which we have There already looked for accounts of bee, spider, and ant.
follows in due time, vs. 1610, the following description of the vine, whose resemblance to the passage in Cato Maior is

obvious

Ti's

yap $ecopw (3oTpvv ov

Oep/jLjjv
7TU>? TO.

Ka.rf.irXa.yri
uA.a>

TOV OOVTO.
KOL

vyporrjTa ra>

<f>v\\a ras eroijuov?

eis pucrtv

paya? Trepnr TV woven, /xr/ (3po)(r)<; Tr\TJr) TO XOLVVOV rj ^>AoywS^? yXi

<t>pv!;ao~a
e/o
/>t 77

rov? OTTOVS

Stoics.

For the ultimate source, however, we must go back of the This particular group of illustrations has an especial
it

interest because

can be definitely traced to an earlier world

the teleological
: .

of thought.

Aristotle, in his exposition of

element
vai
/cal

in the natural world,

SiaTropovcri rives irorepov VCD

ol [jLvpfirj/ces /cal

Phys. n, 8, 199 a 22 says TIVI d\\a) epyd^ovrai Q[ r' apdyr\ ra rotavra. /card /jLiKpov 8' oirco
.
.

Trpoiovn KCII ev rot? (frvrois fyaiverai rd avfjifyepovr 7T/30? TO reXo?, olov rd cf)v\\a TT)? rov /capTrov eve/ca
coar
/cal 6
el (pixrei

re Troiel teal eveicd rov

rf

%e\iSa>v
TCL

TTJV

veomdv
evefca
rpo^>/}?,
/cal

dpd%vii<$ TO

dpd%viov,
alria
77

real

rd (frvrd

<f)v\\a
T^?

ra)V /caprrcov /cal ra? pi^as OVK dvco

d\\d

/cdrco eveica
(fcvo-ei

fyavepbv
ovcriv.

on

<TTIV

77

roLavrrj ev rot?

^ivo^evoi^

Evidently then the swallow's nest, the spider's web, and the ant played a part in some discussion of instinct versus

mind

in the pre-Aristotelian period,

and

their course

upon

the stage of Stoic philosophy was merely a second entrance, not a first appearance. The accompanying instance from the
plant world
fruit

the leaves produced for the protection of the

recalls likewise the

words of

Philo, Cicero,

and George
the original

the

Pisidian.

The

question arises

whether

in

the reference

may

not have been to the vine in particular.

Perhaps some corroboration to this view may be found in the words d/ji7re\oyevr} eXaiOTrpwpa, which Aristotle coins a little

farther on, 199 b 12, to correspond to the ffovyevrj dvbpo-

Vol.

xlii]

Illustrations of
It

Animal

Intelligence

129

seems not unlikely that the vine came to his mind when he was seeking a parallel from the vegetable world, just because in the argument which he had been epitomizing a moment before it had supplied the illus1 tration to match the ant, spider, and swallow. Aristotle gives no indication as to the name of the thinker
Trpwpa of Empedocles.
to

whom

he

refers.

The

be sure, be traced that have come down to

can, to

in

general position of his predecessors some measure from the fragments

and

Archelaus

intelligence to

2 2 Parmenides, and Empedocles 2 we are attributed Democritus, told, the animal world. Of Empedocles and Anaxa-

us.

and

4 goras and Democritus it is also stated that they saw mental There is even evidence that activities in the plants as well.

Democritus made use of some of the animal

this
series.

illustrations in

quotes him as saying that we very have been the pupils of the spider in the art of weaving and mending, of the swallow in building, and of the swan and
Plutarch
5

nightingale in singing.
to be found, as
it

Reminiscences of

this doctrine are

mention of the swallow by and the birds Vitruvius, n, I, 2, by Lucretius, v, 1379, P er~ haps also in the passage from Galen's Protrcpticus, i, I, cited above. There are, however, two objections to finding in Democritus the authority whom Aristotle mentions and on
seems, in the

whom

far as can be judged the origin of the arts.

the subsequent tradition depends: i) Democritus, so from Plutarch's words, was treating of Aristotle and the later writers use the

series to illustrate the innate

wisdom

of the lower animals

and the divine providence therein displayed. Except in the passage from the Protrepticus no emphasis is laid on man's
1

Professor

W.

A. Heidel has kindly called

ircpi diairrj^, in,

my
68

attention to the words of Hip:

pocrates on the spring season,

KO.I

TO.

6tpo<i,

600 L.) Set o&v, &<rirep 5tv8pea irapaffKevd^erat tv ravrr) rr/ wpg avra cuJrottriv li^eXe/Tji/ ^s TO OVK UXOVTO. yvufjiTjj/, atij-rjo'ii' re /ecu ffKirjv, OVTW icai rbv Hvdpuirov . . ,
(vol. VI,
.

which are obviously

similar.

Here the reference

is

to trees in general.
i,

Aristotle

repeats the illustration from leaves and roots, de Anima,u, 2 Aetius, iv. 5. 5. Diels, Vorsokr. Farm. A 45.
8

412 b

I.

4 6

Hippol. Kefut. I, 9. (Arist.) de riant. \.

Diels, Vorsokr.
I.
I

ArcheL

4.

Si 5 a 15,
Jlfls.

16.

Diels, I'orsokr.

Emped.

70.

De

Soil.

An. 974 A.

I'orsokr.

Dtmocr.

154

a.

130
imitation of
idea.

Sherwood Owen Dickerman

them
;

[ I 9 11

where

it is

mentioned,

it is

a subordinate

be endowed with i>oO?. The writer, referred to by Aristotle, doubted whether their sagacity were not due to some other faculty. Nearer to our unknown thinker comes Alcmaeon of Cro1 ton, who, says Theophrastus, afyopi^ei TTJV Trpbs ra o>a Siacfro2) Democritus believed the animals
to

pdv.

dv0pci)7rov ydp (frijcn ra)v d\\wv 8La(f>epiv d\\a aldOdverai peis, ov vvir)(Ti 8e. take it, in the same camp we are to look for
TO, 8'
. .

OTL {JLOVQV ^vviTjcn,,

.

Somewhere,

this old psychollife

ogist,

who questioned whether,

different

after

all,

the

of the brutes

was very
full

from that of the

query with a group of illustrations thousand years.

1

plants, and connected his that was to do duty for a

De

Sens. 25.

Diels, Vorsokr.

Alcm.

5.