Cruelty and Sentimentality: Greek Attitudes to Animals, 600-300 BC 9781407307831, 9781407337784

Citation preview

BAR S2225 2011

Studies in Classical Archaeology V

Cruelty and Sentimentality: Greek Attitudes to Animals, 600-300 BC

CALDER

Louise Calder

CRUELTY AND SENTIMENTALITY

B A R

BAR International Series 2225 2011

Studies in Classical Archaeology V

Cruelty and Sentimentality: Greek Attitudes to Animals, 600-300 BC Louise Calder

BAR International Series 2225 2011

ISBN 9781407307831 paperback ISBN 9781407337784 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407307831 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

Studies in Classical Archaeology

Gold ring showing a mouse, manacled to a column. Third century BC. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Dedicated to the memory of my mother



Preface

This work examines archaeological and literary evidence, between 600 and 300 BC, to discover how ancient Greeks regarded, interacted with, used, and treated tame and domestic animals, as well as some prominent wild species. Of primary interest are relationships between human and animal well-being. A prominent feature of the presently known surviving Greek literary and artistic evidence is its emphasis upon élite values and activities. The purpose of this study is to supplement the Greek social history of human-animal relationships, by including the more mundane social spheres, and species. Surviving evidence for understanding ordinary Greek relations with animals is usually indirect, as few domestic species were primary foci of literary or artistic works. Nevertheless, visual representations indirectly expose views and treatment of animals, and literary asides reveal attitudes to the more ‘humble’ animals, and their human interactions. Of particular importance to the discussion is figure-painted pottery. Its scenes that include animals relate to ancient Greek lives, customs, and values, from the earliest development of figure-painted vases to the fourth-century BC. Other items include animal remains, coins and seals, bronze and terracotta votive figurines and ornaments, reliefs, and sculpture-in-the-round. Athenian material dominates, but the study takes in evidence from mainland Greece, Magna Graecia, Ionia and the Aegean islands. The study samples areas of important or intensive human-animal interaction, and particularly attempts to address the low-status interactions, such as herding, that received least attention from ancient authors and craftsmen. The chapters are arranged as follows. First, the whereabouts of animals in relation to humans; second, sheep and goats as sources of milk, meat, fibres and skins; third, common burden animals such as asses; fourth, animals that occasionally endanger human well-being, such as mice, and animals that were used to counter these threats, such as cats; fourth, pet-keeping and companion animals; and fifth, Greek views on animal sentience, intelligence, rationality, and animal treatment. As a whole, the study emphasises the complexity of Greek human-animal relations. This work in no way attempts to supply a comprehensive survey, and it becomes clear within the text that a search for a cohesive set of ‘ancient attitudes’ would be in vain, when the breadth of human-animal interactions is considered. As such, the available evidence invites further investigation, in more narrowly-defined studies. This material was originally submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (D.Phil), at the University of Oxford. I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Donna Kurtz, Professor Ewen Bowie, and Dr Martin Francis, for their practical and academic support. Thanks must also go to Dr Neil SewellRutter, and Dr Alessandra Sulzer, and to Nicole Harris for her unstinting care in the preparation of the final proofs.

vii

Cruelty and sentimentality:

Greek attitudes to animals 600-300 BC Preface Contents

vii ix

Introduction

1 1 1 3 4 4 4 6 7 10 11

1. Animals in human space

13 14 15

2. Sheep and goats

19 20 20 21 22 22 25 28 28 29 29 30 32 34 34

3. Draught and burden animals

37 37 39 41 42 44 46 47



The scope The animals The themes The sources Ancient literature Ancient non-fiction writers Greek fiction The material evidence Domestic, tame, feral, wild… terminology Structure Living in town Patterns of farming

The importance of milk Human interaction with milk animals The importance of wool, hair and skins Human interaction with wool animals Husbandry in general Herders with their flocks Notable differences between sheep and goats Herding, frisking, and fighting Vocalisations Goats, stench, and lust Rams, virility, and restraint Divine associations Tragos Findings Oxen in ploughing and heavy transport Using oxen Thinking with bovines Bovines as agalmata The horse The mule and ass (or donkey) An asinine image The use-related status of asses and, the “more valuable type of animal” Post mortem Harsh treatment Findings

ix

50 55 56 57

4. Friend or foe? Pests and animal allies

59 59 59 60 61 62 66 67 69 73 74 75 75 76 77

5. Pet and Image

79 79 80 81 86 89 94 95 95 97

Insects Birds Rats Mice Mustelidae and Sylvestris libyca Large wild predators The wolf Dogs Fox (Vulpes vulpes) Hedgehogs Unwelcome ungulates Domestic swine Wild swine Findings

Pets fulfilling human social needs Survival Love and belonging - social integration Power Fun and pleasure Learning Cruelty Negative aspects and attitudes to pet-keeping Findings

6. Philosophy, ethics, morality, and the treatment of animals Rationality – philosopher’s views Killing animals, and using their bodies Vegetarianism Using live animals Justice between men and animals The responsibility of animals for their actions Kinship with animals Compassion Animals as morally and ethically superior to humans Findings

99 99 101 104 105 108 110 111 113 113 114

Conclusion

117

Abbreviations and bibliography Catalogue Plates Index

121 165 201 221

x

Introduction

This study examines Greek archaeological and literary evidence between 600 and 300 BC, to discover how ancient Greeks regarded, interacted with, used, and treated tame and domestic animals. Also included are some of the more frequently encountered wild pest species, selected on the basis of their appearance in art and literature. Of primary interest are relationships between human and animal well-being.

with humans and through Greek consideration of their similarities and differences, animals became essential in the process of defining literally and symbolically, what it meant, and means, to be human. Many species prominent in Greek life have similar roles in our present day. Thus there is a risk of assuming that we can predict ancient Greek attitudes in the light of modern values and assumptions. For this reason I have avoided beginning with any particular assertions, other than that some recovery of Greek views is possible, and have endeavoured to base my conclusions on what is observable in the ancient record. It will be seen that this reveals both differences and similarities between modern and Greek attitudes.

One of the significant problems in studying ancient Greece is that surviving literary and artistic evidence strongly emphasises élite values and activities, leaving the commonplace relatively untreated. The purpose of this work is to attempt recovery of ordinary, everyday human-animal relationships, to enhance our understanding of animals’ fundamental social and practical roles in ancient Greece. Thus the focus is not the depiction of animals as art, or narratives about them, but literary evidence, artefacts, and animal remains as historical records, revealing a Greek social history of human-animal relationships. Where animal species fulfil similar roles in our own society, modern studies are occasionally drawn upon. The full range of evidence is crucial. Athenian artefacts, particularly figure-painted pottery, and Athenian literature inevitably loom large, but the study takes in evidence from mainland Greece, Magna Graecia, Ionia and the Aegean islands.

The scope To discuss the entirety of human-animal interactions in the ancient Greek world would require numerous volumes. This is demonstrated by the already vast modern scholarship, especially regarding such prominent species as horses. Some limitation is necessary. This has been achieved by investigating only chosen themes, and by biological class and species exclusions. It is hoped that this will allow the presentation of an adequately representative analysis, taking into account a sufficient sample of creatures.

The dissertation addresses notions of difference between man and beast, and the ways in which animals were understood and valued. To ancient Greeks, animals were pests, threats, beasts of burden, prey, sources of materials, objects to be studied, to be read as omens and indicators, or to be treated as toys, companions, and more. By their complex relationships

The animals The primary focus of the study is upon land-living mammalian species, with birds included only when a particular chapter’s theme demands them. It is acknowledged that invertebrates, reptiles, and aquatic

1

fauna also figured significantly in the ancient Greeks’ awareness of the natural world, but here they are entirely excluded, for reasons explained below.

Galton’s conclusions may be expanded as follows: 1. Newly captured young must withstand removal from their mothers, new diets, and new conditions, including those of infection and new parasites. 2. The species must be naturally social and oriented to dominance-hierarchies, so that human leaders will be accepted, and the animals not dangerous. 3. The species must breed and feed even when kept at higher than natural densities. 4. The usefulness or desirability of a species should outweigh the inconveniences of housing, controlling, and feeding it. 5. The species must breed freely so as not to necessitate repeated capture and taming of its wild young. 6. The species must be placid, unfussy feeders, and gregarious enough to control by herding where desirable, and they must be easily confined.

Human responses to mammals are arguably the most complex of all human-animal interactions, and the most revealing. Among the millions of known species, only a handful have been successfully domesticated, and most of these are mammals. More than any other class of creature, the bodily functions of mammals, their physical attributes, requirements, and behaviours resemble our own. Importantly, most mammals are capable of some degree of facial expression. These similarities enable empathy, and set up expectations of further, less immediately obvious similarities, such as the ability to form personal attachments. Mammals’ looks, actions, and sounds often suggest to us familiar human emotions, moods, and responses. These perceptions are heightened by our own social and survival instincts, attuning us to observe and interpret emotions and reactions in each other, as well as our prey and potential predators. These sensitivities enable us to see, or think we see, happiness, pleasure, pain, and depression, as well as fear and anger, in other animals, particularly other mammals.

Clutton-Brock emphasises a vital criterion contained within Galton’s comments; that man must be able to communicate with the animal on some discernible level.2 It is this, across more than ten thousand years of association with humans as the dominant species,3 which has rendered mammals (and birds to a lesser extent) the most suitable for domestication and as companions of man. As Galton remarks:

Birds must occasionally be included. They were popular pets, and generally fascinated the Greeks, who were close observers of the natural world. Birds are frequently attractive, highly active, vocal, and intriguing. They can be tamed, and some even mimic human speech. What is more, most fly, which enables many to tolerate human observation with considerable impunity. However, many birds must be caged if they are to be kept, and only serve and interact with man in limited ways. Birds’ striking differences from humans mean that mammals usually have the advantage in terms of human empathy.

“A man irritates a dog by an ordinary laugh, he frightens him by an angry look, or he calms him by a kindly bearing… He has no natural power at all over many other creatures. Who for instance, ever succeeded in frowning away a mosquito…”4

If mammals were the most natural recipients of human empathy, they were also the most convenient as domestic servants and companions. For young animals to be successfully tamed, reared to adulthood, and bred in captivity, they require certain physiological and behavioural characteristics. These were first outlined by Galton’s criteria for domestication:

The exclusion of invertebrates, reptiles, and aquatic fauna from this study can now be more adequately explained. With reference to Galton’s social criteria most are, at best, indifferent to humans. Nor are the practical criteria often met. This is particularly so for aquatic fauna, which require suitable environments and food. Since their primary benefit to the Greeks was as food, or materials derived from their dead bodies, wild specimens usually sufficed.

“1, they should be hardy; 2, they should have an inborn liking for man; 3, they should be comfort-loving; 4, they should be found useful; 5, they should breed freely; 6, they should be gregarious.”1

Insects and other land invertebrates certainly interested the Greeks for their potential to damage crops and possessions, and as ingredients in various preparations, including medical. Ancient sources inform us of Greek Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 15-6. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 9. 4 Galton, “Steps” 133. 2 3

1

Galton, “Steps” 137.

2

apiculture,5 confirmed by widespread findings of terracotta hives,6 and several Greek epigrams refer to caged cicadas and crickets.7 However, humans cannot form individual relationships with bees. Captured wild,8 caged singing crickets and cicadas (despite sentimental epigrams) seem more likely to have been playthings and musical ornaments (albeit playthings of which the owners could become temporarily fond) than objects of genuine and lasting attachment. Many insects will have been difficult for the Greeks to confine and feed properly, so exploitation of wild specimens will usually have been more viable. Above all, the smallness of insects, their dissimilarities and their inability to communicate effectively with man, render them unlikely as objects of real empathy.

receive less attention than their literary and artistic prominence would seem to demand. An exception to this rule is the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus). This species is only occasionally depicted, but does not occupy any monster roles, and domesticates the most easily of the big cats. Cheetahs may have been imported via ports near their native lands in Africa and western Asia,12 and kept as pets. If so, they were no doubt few, but they stand in the chapter on pets both for themselves and for any other large exotic felid kept as a novelty. Horses, despite their centrality in Greek culture, are treated comparatively lightly: substantial modern literature has already discussed them, and they were not nearly as practically important to the majority of Greeks as were asses, mules, and oxen. This is explained in the chapter on burden animals.

In the case of reptiles, experiments show that they are generally poor at adapting to unfamiliar situations or learning from experience. These features render them less satisfactory as companions, and entirely unsuitable as controllable servants.9 It will be explained below that religious studies are not a primary focus of this work, and so snakes maintained in Greek cult settings, like the Athenian oikouros ophis (hearth-protecting serpent),10 and Pausanias’ Epidaurian snakes that were “tame with men,”11 are also excluded, despite their interest, as accessories of religious cults.

The themes The themes treated in this study sample areas of important or intensive human-animal interaction. The chapter topics are arranged as follows: 1, the whereabouts of animals in human space, 2, the roles of sheep and goats as sources of milk, meat, fibres and skins; 3, burden animals; 4, animals that occasionally endanger human well-being, and those animals that were used to counter such threats; 5, petkeeping and companion animals; 6, Greek views on animal sentience, intelligence, rationality, and animal treatment. Greek philosophical debate about the issues in this last chapter was complex and enduring, with widely different opinions. Thus exhaustive discussion is not possible within this work, which is more directly concerned with the practical issues of human-animal relationships that are revealed by philosophical debates.

Certain mammals prominent in Greek art are nevertheless excluded from this study too, or receive comparatively light treatment. Among these are fantastical composite beasts like centaurs, chimeras, and satyrs, though they are derived from real animals. These beasts were not real, so cannot have had real and individual relationships with humans. Their only place here is in conveying perceptions about animals that comprise their parts, as Scylla and Kerberos do for dogs.

Several major Greek social contexts in which animals featured prominently nevertheless fall largely outside of this study, or are touched upon only briefly. Religion is excluded because sacrificial animals are involved primarily as objects and props in ritual. Sacrifice is mentioned, however, where it illustrates attitudes towards particular species. Morality relating to sacrifice is discussed, mainly with regard to oxen. Mammals associated with deities are of interest for the characteristics that link them with the deities. With regard to sports, those involving horses, and to a lesser extent, mules, were prominent,13 but primarily reflect élite society. Successful animals may have become celebrities, but their owners more so. Since this study

Lions and pantherine big cats feature repeatedly in Greek art and literature, but often in the role of monster, or a predator that is ‘larger than life’. Panthera leo (or its conspecifics) certainly does appear to have been present in certain Greek areas during the study period, but the pantherines’ monster roles, and orientalising influences on art, are potentially misleading as to how many humans actually saw real lions. Therefore, they Arist., Hist. An. 5.22(554a1-2), 9.40(623b18-21). Pl., Leg. 8.842d. Anth. Pal. 9.226, 16.189. Plut., Vit. Sol. 23.8. 6 OCD3 237. 7 Anth. Pal. 7.190, 7.193, 7.197, 7.198. 8 Theoc., Id. 1.52. 9 Bellairs, Reptiles 339-40. 10 Garland, “Asklepios” 121-122. Hdt. 8.41.3. 11 Paus., 2.28.1 (Jones/Ormerod). 5

12 13

3

Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 199. Golden, Sport 40.

pursues more ‘common’ interactions with animals only mule racing is treated, for its revelations about mules in Greek thinking.

for generations between those for whom it was relevant.21 Contrastingly, surviving literature was mostly composed by and for the intellectual élite,22 with the result that farm labour and other ‘sordid’ tasks often associated with animals, especially those done by slaves,23 are largely excluded from the written record. Nevertheless, a few authors took considerable interest in animals as creatures in their own rights, and the most important are mentioned below.

Barringer14 demonstrates that hunting wild animals particularly exemplified élite Greek ideals. This is of less interest than common measures against dangerous and destructive animals, treated in the chapter on pests. Hunting assistants, like hounds15 and decoy pheasants,16 are acknowledged in the chapter on pets. Hunted animals, particularly hares, are of interest only when preserved alive in a social context, and are similarly discussed in the chapter on pets.

Ancient non-fiction writers Ancient scientific and philosophical writings contain Greek literature’s most acute observations of animals. These are not all straightforward for us now; single terms may describe more than one animal, as ‘γαλ±’ for both cat and weasel, provoking debate.24 Some animals named by Greek authors remain unidentified by us, for example the bird (or birds) ‘cataractes’,25 described by Aristotle,26 Dionysius,27 and Sophokles.28 The identity of one animal is clear however. The ancient Greeks knew that humans are animals, not some special class removed. Aristotle includes humans in his History of Animals, expects close similarities between animal and human physiology,29 allowed that men resembling particular animals may share their characters,30 and, most famously, stated that man is a political animal.31 Plato32 and Theophrastos33 view young children as similar to animals in emotions and rationality.34 In particular, Plutarch and the earlier Pythagoreans argued for the rationality of animals and the reasonableness of treating them well.35 Animals were seen to respond to alcohol as man does,36 to

The sources Animals’ prominence in ancient Greek society is strongly reflected in literature and art, where the animal representations indirectly expose views and treatment of live animals.17 In settings as diverse as recreation, weddings, and warfare, animals of one species or another seem to have been present, as ritual objects, resources supplying brute force, symbols of power and wealth, objects of beauty or companionship, to name a few. Surviving evidence for understanding ordinary Greek relations with animals is sparse, derived from different regions, and usually indirect, for animals are seldom primary foci. But as Lévi-Strauss observed, animals are often used by humans to convey ideas, because they are “good to think” with, permitting the embodiment of ideas conceived by speculative thought founded in observation.18 To ancient Greeks, living and working with their animals, animals were also good to think about,19 and these thoughts are reflected in literature and art.

Thomas, Oral Tradition 15-19, 30-32. Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop 31. Starr, Aristocratic Temper 54. 23 Xen., Mem. 1.5.2. 24 Benton, “Weasels”. 25 Anderson “Καταρράκτης” Thompson, BirdsNew 74-75. Arnott, Birds A-Z s.v. Kataraktēs. 26 Arist., Hist. An. 9.12(615a29.30). 27 Dionysius, Ixeuticon ii.3. 28 Sophocles, frags.377 and 714 (Radt). 29 Arist., Hist. An. 1.16(494b21-24). 30 Arist., Phgn.. 31 Arist., Pol. 1.9(1253a1-3). 32 Pl., Leg. 808d. 33 Theophr. Sens. 44-5, in Stratton, Greek Physiological Psychology 105. 34 Other ancient references to the irrationality of children placing them closer to animals are given by Renehan, “Anthropocentric View” 241. 35 Eg. Plut., De Soll. An. 959b-985c, Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 985d-992e. In general on the ancient arguments see Sorabji, Animal Minds. Osborne, Dumb Beasts looks at ancient arguments, and particularly explores concepts of rights with regard to animals. 36 Plin., HN 23.44. Arist., frag.107 (from Drunkenness by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 10.429d). Arist., Hist. An. 8.12 (597b1.27-29). 21

Ancient literature

22

The period under discussion runs from 600 BC, during the adult life of the fabulist Aesop (if he was indeed a living person),20 to 300 BC. Literary evidence from after 300 BC is cited however, especially when its authors used earlier sources. Greek culture included a strong oral tradition, but direct oral evidence is by definition not available to us now. Almost certainly, however, knowledge of animal husbandry reported by such as Aristotle was originally transmitted orally Barringer, Hunt. Xen., Cyn. 1.1-2. 16 Anth. Pal. 7.203. 17 Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 6. 18 Lévi-Strauss/Needham, Totemism 161-162. Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology 8, note 7. 19 Heath, Talking 1. 20 Lissarrague, “Aesop, Between Man and Beast” 132. 14 15

4

share some human diseases,37 and to be aided by the same remedies.

usefully details the use and (often brutal) treatment of animals in siege situations. Xenophon’s minor works are important, particularly Oeconomicus, which overviews the administration of household and property (including animals). His Cavalry Commander details the duties of that post. Selection, training, and riding of horses are dealt with in Horsemanship, where Xenophon parades his authority:

Aristotle is the most important surviving Greek scientific writer.38 Many of his works contain material relevant to this study, but his major zoological treatises are History of Animals, Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. Besides these are his shorter Movement of Animals and Progression of Animals. Aristotle emphasised39 and exemplified persistent zoological inquiry, including things heard and read, with his own observations - some from vivisection.40 Differentiating groups by their unique physical features he pursued patterns in animal life,41 and attempted to explain physiological and psychological differences and similarities.

“Inasmuch as we have had a long experience of cavalry, and consequently claim familiarity with the art of horsemanship...”45

The Cynegeticus discusses breeding, training, and hunting game with hounds, of which Xenophon also had first-hand experience.

Aristotle seems to have influenced his pupils towards serious scientific enquiry, and his pupil and successor, Theophrastos, took similarly rigorous approaches in his botanical treatises, and indeed, may be the author of the Historia Animalium widely attributed to Aristotle.42 If this is the case, it in no way lessens its value to this study.43 Diogenes Laertius44 catalogues some 225 works by Theophrastos. Only nine survive, and those missing include such zoological titles as Concerning Animals that Burrow, Concerning Animals, and Concerning Animals Reputed to be Spiteful. These are a sad loss, but much can be derived from Theophrastos’ ‘animal asides’ in the remaining works, particularly the Characters.

Certain later writers cited in this study include Plutarch,46 Pliny the Elder, and Aelian, who all drew on Aristotle, Theophrastos and other early sources, repeating the same stories and observations.47 With the exception of Plutarch, later authors were generally less investigative and more encyclopaedic. Such excerptors and compilers describe species and supply tales (often sensational) of peculiar abilities and conduct, but without systematisation or explanations. This can be useful, for the anecdotes often reveal underlying assumptions. Aelian’s tale of hungry wolves running in circles, until one collapses with dizziness and is consumed,48 reflects general expectations of rapacious treachery. Post-322 BC authors’ exploitation of their predecessors justifies and requires their inclusion here as sources. Anecdotes may have been chosen for their exceptionality, and have been elaborated since their first telling, but they still inform us on social contexts and common expectations. Since the uses and husbandry of domestic animals seems to have varied little in essentials, it seems unnecessarily rigorous to omit later authors whose advice and observations seem applicable to the earlier period.

Xenophon, and Aeneas Tacticus, composed practical handbooks. Aeneas’ How to Survive Under Siege Apollo’s plague on the Greek mules, dogs, and men in Hom., Il. 1.40-67. Thuc. 2.50 observes that birds and dogs died in the plague on Athens in 430 BC. 38 There is a large corpus of scholarship on Aristotle. For Aristotle and biology, see Lloyd, Aristotelian Explorations, which covers material between 1960 and 1996, and Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology, which includes scholarship on Aristotle in the extensive bibliography. Although older, see also Singer, Greek Biology, and Thompson, Aristotle as Biologist 39 Arist., Part. An. 1.5 (644b30). 40 Arist., IA 8(708b1-11). Arist., Gen. An. 4.6(774b30-34). Arist., De An. 2.2(413b20-24). Arist., Juv. 2(468a22-27, 468b14-15). Arist., Long. 23(479a3-7). 41 Balme, “Division and Differentiae” 80-89. 42 Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology 21. 43 Important contributions to Theophrastan scholarship include publications from The Theophrastos Project (Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J.), under the directorship of William.W. Fortenbaugh. Fortenbaugh, Theophrastus Sources is fundamental, also, the annual conference proceedings of the Project, published in the Studies in Classical Humanities Series (RUSCH). See also Modrak, “Theophrastus”. 44 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 5.42-50. Fortenbaugh, Theophrastus Sources vol.1, 2. 37

Like human cultures generally, ancient Greeks gave their own species top priority. Thus most information was gathered about animals whose utility was greatest. Even Aristotle’s Historia Animalium taxonomy is Xen., Eq. 1.1 (Marchant and Bowersock). Plut., De Soll. An. 959b-985c. Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 985d-992e. In general on these ancient arguments about animals and human use of them see Sorabji, Animal Minds, and Osborne, Dumb Beasts. 47 For example, Ael., NA 6.49, Arist., Hist. An. 6.24(577b29-578a1), Plin., HN 8.175, Plut., De Soll. An. 970a-b report the same story (with variations) about a retired Athenian draught-mule or ass that continued to trudge alongside its fellows during the building of the Parthenon. See index for cross references to retired animals. 48 Ael., NA 7.20. 45 46

5

hierarchical, placing man at the top,49 and he remarks on utilitarian features, like the palatability of camel milk and flesh.50 The most practical orientation however, is found in Roman authors, particularly Cato, Varro, and Columella.51 Their agricultural manuals emphasise anthropocentric utilitarian approaches, and those animals of economic significance. They each promote their own views, but often exploit and preserve more ancient Greek observations. These later Roman authors are made especially valuable by their Greek predecessor’s general silence on the actual work of the countryside. Aristotle52 may call for practical self-sufficiency, but he leaves out the mechanics, and exhorts citizens to prioritise politics over menial work.53 Hesiod’s Works and Days, and Xenophon’s Oikonomikos are the largest surviving archaic and classical Greek works on agriculture,54 but they both prioritise the moral virtues of farming over its processes, Hesiod55 epitomising human struggles and joys in the process of hewing a living from the land.56

in their own right, and predict their master’s doom. Other animals may symbolise chaos and destruction. Birds of prey are omens, and, with feral dogs, threaten to desecrate the fallen. Throughout, similar feelings and motives are common points of comparison between man and beast,60 and warriors in particular are likened to lions, boars, and wolves, while their victims may be likened to timorous prey, like deer. In the Odyssey, animals convey reality and peacetime activities. Dogs supplant horses as friends, defending herds and property, and accompanying civilised men. However the Iliad scavenger-dog images resonate throughout Greek literature, and ‘dog’ and ‘bitch’ are used as insults. This of course alludes to the truth in the similes that populate so much Greek literature: that though humans pride themselves on rising above bestial modes of behaviour, they frequently exhibit them more than they would like to admit. In theatre, animal references help to elaborate upon humans’ status, location, and activities. Sometimes a non-aristocratic human character will express his opinion about an animal, and this may be the closest we get to common Greeks’ thoughts. In tragedy, animals perform similar symbolic roles to those in epic, and may also help contextualise each play in the real world. In Euripides’ Ion, nest-building birds must be driven off the sanctuary, and in the Rhesus ascribed to Euripides, a hillside shepherd and his flocks are derided.61 Tragedy, concerned with the mutability and juxtaposition of human fortune, may see ‘noble’, valuable, and desirable animals feature proudly, and then turn into instruments of undoing. Hippolytos’ fine horses directly cause his death, fleeing the equally prestigious bull that symbolises Theseus’ sexual rage.62 Euripides’ Dolon, appropriately attired for his fatal spy mission as a wolf, falls victim to his greed for Akhilles’ horses.

Greek fiction For the most part, literary references to animals are brief, Greek authors tending to assume audience familiarity with animals, their uses, and reputations. The various perspectives of the different genres all contribute to our understanding of animals in Greek society, though none alone gives a complete picture. Animals feature in the earliest surviving Greek literature. In Homer and Hesiod, 71 different species are mentioned.57 The majority of the references occur in the Iliad and the Odyssey.58 Both works are popularly credited to Homer, but the species named, their roles, and attitudes to them vary between the two epics.59 In the Iliad, horses are pre-eminent. In most scenes, they glamorously advertise their owners’ power, but this can be turned on its head: The famous horses of Akhilles briefly become speaking characters

In comedy, metaphor and symbolism of human foibles calls forth the more humble species of animals. The horse may be central in tragedy, but in comedy, the ass replaces it.63 Rustic folk also feature, usually as the butt. Menander’s parodic farmer Knemon is unsociable and reclusive,64 and though his daughter is more refined, the point is made that this was not expected: “A country girl, yet there’s a kind of poise… ”65 The rustics and animals add rude colour, with their less pleasant features and behaviours and attributes,

Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology 56. Arist., Hist. An. 6.26(578a15-17). 51 Cato/Brehaut, Farming. Cato/Dalby, Farming. Varro/Storr-Best, Farming. Varro/Tilly, Farming. For Cato, Varro, and Columella, see White, Farming. For a comprehensive listing of works predating 1970 see White, Bibliography of Agriculture. 52 Arist., Pol. 7.5 (1326b28-1327a10). 53 Arist., Pol. 7.9 (1328b39-1329a2). 54 Fussell, “Farming Systems” 17. 55 Hes., Op. 90-91, 176-177. 56 Hes., Op. 119-120, 170-173, 230-237. 57 See Kirk (ed.), Iliad Commentary, and Heubeck, et al., Homer’s Odyssey1990 printing. 58 Voultsiadou/Tatolas, “Fauna” 1877. 59 Scott, “Dogs”. 49 50

Heath, Talking 43. [Euripides], Rhesus 264-274 62 Segal, “Tragedy of the Hippolytus” 145-146. 63 Arnott, “Theatre” 178. 64 Men., Dys. 6-12, 31-34. 65 Men., Dys. 201-202 (Arnott). 60 61

6

including excreta, smells, and sounds. The dog Labes, in Aristophanes’ Wasps, is a novel example, speaking his own lines; he is both Laches with paws, and an ordinary working dog.66 His character reflects Greek attitudes towards dogs, and their expectations of doggy ways and sentiments. Labes represents another prominent feature of animals in comedy: the ability to inconvenience or obstruct by their natural behaviours. For animals to be effective in comedy, the species must be familiar, or known by reputation, and the views associated with them commonly shared. For a picture of how the common Greek perceived the animals around him, comedy is invaluable.

reinforced with every successive generation’s hearing of the popular tales, some of which still have currency today. The material evidence Important as literary sources are, they cannot be treated in isolation from material evidence. Depiction of animals is as old as art itself. This is unsurprising, since animals have been intimately connected with man’s survival for as long as can be recorded, and their images are found in virtually every medium throughout the world’s image-producing cultures for at least the last thirty thousand years.75 Domesticated animals are naturally included, as well as wild game species. People have sculpted them, painted their pictures, and, since the 1840s, taken their photographs.76 Representations of animals resonate with meaning about human usage and attitudes, priorities and values, habits and customs. Thus the study of ancient art is very much a branch of the social history of human-animal relationships.

In poetry, victory odes occasionally commemorate victories of champion horses, but a greater variety of species, and sentiments, are found in epigrams. There are frequent animal similes, metaphors, and references, and some sentimental animal narratives.67 Common farmers may have empathised with the burdens of oxen that the epigrammatists describe, but are unlikely to have lightened them when there was still work to do.

As a general rule, animals that featured in myth, or could be related to élite values and activities, are strongly represented in Greek art. Equally, Greek art continues literature’s tendency to sideline ‘squalid’, mundane tasks, and agriculture and animal husbandry are seldom featured in their own right. Unless there was some religious or mythical association, Greeks appear to have been only occasionally interested in close literary and artistic depictions of these activities.77 However, they do appear, particularly on Attic pottery dating between 520 and 480 BC.78 Whatever the subject, vases can supply opportunities to fill out, validate, or contradict what literature supplies. For example, Porphyry reports the Delphic oracle permitting sacrifice of willing victims.79 Pausanias describes sacrificial oxen ‘volunteering’ by eating displayed grain.80 A stamnos [1] in Munich shows a sacrificial bull ‘nodding’ as it bends to drink from a bowl. Here the literature might be thought to help us to interpret the material remains. On the other hand, it might be leading us astray. Naiden81 points out that the animals were tested for vitality, and that the stamnos could just as easily show that the ox was fit by its

Domestic and wild animals of many varieties feature in ‘Aesopic’ fables.68 Originally intended as simple moral-didactic tales for adults,69 the stories were popular70 enough for ‘Aesop’ to have been represented by vase painters,71 and be alluded to by ancient writers.72 Of the animal stereotypes in the tales, Zafiropoulos73 points out that they are not absolutely consistent, but broadly, the animal characters seem idle, crass, dishonest, vain, morally upstanding and hardworking, and so on, in accordance with traditional images of each species. Distinctively, the animals are ‘humanised’ and routinely talk, but are otherwise close to real animals, experiencing each species’ tasks, environments, impediments and perils. They seem to illustrate Heath’s comment that the “non-human beast in antiquity derived much of its symbolic force from its ubiquitous and very real presence in daily life.”74 The animal stereotypes are likely to have been Ar., Vesp. 904, 954-959. Though, for the aristocratic writers, epigrams to dead crickets and cicadas are more likely to have been poetic exercises than genuine reflections of a bereaved owners’ grief. 68 On the term ‘Aesopic’, see Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop 10-12. 69 Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop 4, 6, 8-9, 13-14, 30-32. The functions are neatly summarised, with ancient references, by Van Dijk, Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi 73-76. 70 Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop 17-18. 71 Lissarrague, “Aesop, Between Man and Beast” 137-139. 72 Ar., Av. 470. Ar., Pax 129. Ar., Vesp. 1446, 566. Hdt. 2.134-135. 73 Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop 28-30 although, see his notes 99100. 74 Heath, Talking 4. 66 67

Balter/Morell, “Oldest Art” 920. Boardman, Ancient Art 18-20. Ruby, “Images” 141. 77 Osborne, Landscape 20. 78 Pipili, “Workmen” 153-154. 79 Porph., Abst. 2.9. Burkert/Bing, Necans 4, note 13. Burkert, Religion 56, note 8. 80 Paus., 1.24.4. On the idea that Porphyry’s account of this ritual (Porph., Abst. 2.29) may be taken from a lost work of Theophrastus, see Hyde, “Prosecution I” 152-154, note 3. 81 Naiden, “Willing Victim”. 75 76

7

enthusiasm for food and/or drink. He argues that the literary evidence for this view far outweighs that for pursuit of consent, and that the vase drawings cannot be taken as photographs or complete evidence.

man with a lyre is accompanied only by seeming mortals, then he is probably mortal too. A repeated problem is that vase drawings were not biological sketches, and difficulty in identifying animals occurs because of poor draftsmanship, or artists’ unfamiliarity with particular species. Often fragments are missing, leaving us to speculate over what might have appeared in the gaps. Sometimes animals appear to simply fill space, beneath furniture for example, or contribute to the balance and interest of a composition. The monotony of a row of men of equal height, for instance, may be relieved by the presence of a dog, drawing the viewer’s eye down. Although there is plenty to be discovered by examining images, especially in series, they are at all times constructs, and not photographs.84 An animal’s presence in a picture is not a guarantee that it was routinely present in the same way in real life.

Of particular importance is figure-painted pottery. Its scenes including animals relate to ancient Greek lives, customs, and values, from figure-vases’ earliest development through the fourth-century BC. Thousands of vases survive, and their production was consistently prolific during and on either side of this study period. Their wide export distribution suggests that the scenes were generally intelligible and liked. The considerable resources of the Beazley Archive82 have enabled me to survey photographs and bibliographic references for thousands of vases, and to search by such factors as subject of depiction, vase shape, and likely date. The large body of surviving figure-painted vases is certainly only a tiny percentage of what was ever made, and it is worth noting that survival processes import bias. In particular, much recovered material was protected by deposition in ancient graves, immediately favouring pottery that was thought suitable as gravegifts. More recent bias arose in the form of early archaeologists discarding less spectacular pottery. A letter from Thomas Burgon (1787-1858) to the Chevalier P. O. Bröndsted is clear on this point:

Numerous features aid the ‘reading’ of vase drawings. Particularly important in this study is the phenomenon of repeating and subtly changing imagery on vases. Steiner analyses repetition and abbreviation in scenes, and how they assist interpretation.85 An example of this at work is Lissarrague’s use of vase images and shapes, and depictions of vase shapes, in defining the symposion as a social phenomenon.86 Bérard surveys Greek social life through vase imagery, and in the process identifies certain conventionalised symbols.87 These may identify figures, or their contexts. Thus indoor household objects like mirrors, hanging apparently in mid-air, may suggest walls in interior domestic scenes, and columns indicate buildings. The countryman very often wears a rough wool or skin pilos.88 It is risky to assign animals’ presences to a deliberate iconographical code, but animals as accessories often suggest human status, location, and pursuits. Hounds routinely accompany respectable masters outdoors; lapdogs and felines can indicate more refined cultural settings. Horses are primarily indicators of high status, whilst the accompaniment of a human character by an ass can symbolise derision. A number of vase-painters added text to their scenes, and sometimes animals receive personal names.89 Very occasionally comic-strip-like remarks appear. Vases often feature two or more related scenes, which help to explain each other. Thus, on a Boeotian pelike

“… previous experience had induced the common belief among the excavators, that thick and large vases were always of ordinary red earth and coarse fabric. It was, therefore, usual to disregard them… … nineteen days before, I had found and thrown away (without washing) four amphorae … I was led to the mortifying conclusion that four Panathenaic prize-amphorae had been destroyed, owing partly to the incrusted condition in which they were found, but principally to the erroneous notion just explained.”83

Interpretation of scenes on surviving vases involves certain caveats. The drawings are primarily twodimensional, with simple overlapping to indicate space and only minor attempts at perspective and shading. The usually small, rounded surface of vases is ill suited to detailed panoramas, so scenes are generally abbreviated to essentials, and multiple stages of narrative may be collapsed into one scene. Motifs in drawings are important aids, but iconography can be ambiguous. The lyre, for instance, identifies Apollo, but the rest of the scene must be considered. If a young 82 83

Berard (ed.), Images 8. Steiner, Reading examines various forms of repetition and abbreviation in scenes, and how they assist interpretation. 86 Lissarrague, Greek Banquets. 87 The so-called ‘French School’ approach to interpretation is outlined by Berard/Durand, “Imagery”. 88 Pipili, “Workmen” 163-179. 89 See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 84 85

www.beazley.ox.ac.uk Corbett, “Burgon” 53-54.

8

in Munich [2], the roughly drawn matter atop a stand becomes more securely identifiable as meat in light of the butchery scene on the other side of the vase. Vase shapes may contribute meaning, especially those associated with particular rituals. For example, miniature choes, used by children, frequently show childhood play with animals that may reasonably be supposed to have been pets.

terracottas used as votive offerings in sanctuaries; these might take the form of the deity honoured or one of their attributes, something thought pleasing to the deity,92 or something important to the dedicator. For example, plough teams are not unusual among bronze [3, 4, 5, 6] and terracotta [7] votive figurines, and might reasonably be linked to dedicators with an interest in these activities. It should be stated, however, that there is such variety in dedications that it can be very difficult to be confident about which deity was being propitiated. Such uncertainties can then impede interpretation of the votive itself.93

During the period studied, figure-painted vases were widely exported from their manufacturing centres. Jongkees contends that the cost of vases dropped sharply after about 470 BC.90 The interpretation, and indeed, identification of price inscriptions on vases, upon which discussions are primarily based, is notoriously fraught, so it is difficult to make a strong argument out of this factor.91 However, even without the possible support of low prices, it follows that the scenes were attractive and intelligible to a wide variety of purchasers. The relative cheapness of vases compared to metal vessels may also have allowed for the production of humorous and ‘trivial’ scenes. Certainly vase-painters were ordinary workmen, apparently taking inspiration not only from myth but also from their own surroundings. As such their work at times reflects the lives and activities of other ordinary Greeks.

Terracotta architectural, wall, or furniture decorations, as well as reliefs and sculpture-in-the-round on gravestones and larger monuments regularly feature animals. Their inclusion in publicly displayed monuments of personal and civic importance bespeaks their importance or relevance as symbols. More discrete public display was achieved by use of coins and seals, both of which emphasise animals of importance to the seal-owner or the coins’ places of origin, whether directly or as emblems. Though small, many contain clear and detailed depictions of animals, and sometimes details of human activities with them. Animals are usually subordinated in Greek art to humans and their activities, but on coins and seals we may see them depicted in isolation, as delightful little studies.94

Other media in which animals are represented include numerous small terracotta models. These vary in quality and method of manufacture, some being modelled by hand, others mould-produced in quantity. Early fifthcentury Boeotian coroplasts showed particular interest in realistic, everyday scenes. The precise function of the statuettes is unknown. Most come from burial sites, so they may have been intended to serve the deceased after death, but other possibilities include treasured ornamental possessions, toys for children (some with wheels), and votive offerings. Frequently, pieces of different dates are found together in tombs, suggesting ownership by the deceased, rather than purchase for burial. Other tombs contained several figures from the same mould - perhaps funerary purchases. Regarding

Finally, there are the remains of the animals. These usually indicate a species’ live presence, and sometimes the nature and levels of animal-human contact. Domestication may be discernable from genetic changes wrought by selective breeding. For example, nearly all domestic species have reduced brain cavities in relation to their body size, compared with their wild progenitors. Human influence is revealed in changes to individual’s skeletons, teeth, horns and hooves, which can show the effects of harnessing, overwork, malnutrition, and even castration.95 Faunal remains have their problems. Even with clear species identifications, find contexts can be difficult to explain fully. For instance, several circumstances may explain the first-century BC deposition of around

Jongkees, Price Inscriptions 73. Particularly important are Lang’s major studies: Lang, “Numerical Notation” , and Lang, Graffiti and Dipinti. Lang, “Numerical Notation” analyses the broader classes of graffiti on vases, distinguishing between price, net weight, and capacity marks. Her remarks on prices are found on pages 13-16. Some discussions are heated: Amyx, in Lang, Graffiti and Dipinti 287307 briefly surveys important work until 1958, and, in the same article, spiritedly counters Jonkees’ criticisms in Jongkees, Price Inscriptions 261. Lawall’s more recent Lawall, “Graffiti” provides a helpful supplement by surveying more recent contributions to the debates. For some general remarks, see Sparkes, Greek Pottery 129-131. 90 91

Higgins, BM Terracottas 7-8. ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.316-318 (Boardman, Mannack, Wagner, Forsen, Parker, Vikela). 94 Robertson, Art 344. Robertson, Shorter Art 116, 129-130. 95 For genetic and individual change wrought by domestication and usage, see Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 33-38. Zeuner, Domesticated Animals 65-74. Hemmer, Domestication (brain size). Armitage/Clutton-Brock, “Horn Cores” (castration). 92 93

9

100 dog skulls in an Attic well.96 The prestige of owning exotic animals is usually associated with their novelty and rarity, so their remains are rare. Further, esteemed items like lions’ teeth might be relocated after an animal’s death. Modern excavation processes compound matters. Bones have often been gathered asystematically, and accumulated while excavating for other kinds of material.97 Historically, archaeologists were trained in the arts and classical literature, not zoological remains, and often collected in response to their financing institutions’ emphasis on artifactual display-objects, written records, sculptures and monuments.98

for “… in almost all species in which some members are tame, there are others that are wild.”107 Sometimes however, he distinguishes between wild and domestic, which is informative. For the purposes of some discussions, more subtle terms for human-animal relationships are available. Although some subtleties are still debated,108 the following definitions apply in this work. Wild animals are those living in a natural state, not under the control of humans. Though they are usually either very fierce or very shy and avoid human contact, this is not guaranteed. The Dodo of Mauritius, never having encountered humans before, was so unafraid that it was quickly obliterated.109

Today, archaeologists still overlook even large animal bones,99 which can resemble lumps of earth. Even if they are subsequently recovered by sifting spoil, their detailed contexts are lost.100 Not all archaeologists can identify species from remains, and particularly specialist knowledge is required to recognise the bones of sheep from those of goats.101 Thus bones might only be assigned to genera. An example is a small second-century AD mandible fragment from a Corinthian bone deposit. This was designated only as belonging to a “member of the weasel family”,102 several of which occur in Greece.103 Mustelids are very rare in Greek art,104 so such fragments could prove helpful, if fully analysed.

Feral animals belong to populations stemming from escaped domestic individuals, which continued to breed without man’s influence.110 Subject once again to natural selection, they usually revert to a physical form resembling the wild species.111 A tame or domesticated animal is an individual of the wild form of a species, which has become accustomed to and dependent on human company, staying close of its own free will. They may become docile and tractable, and most mammals can be tamed if taken from their mothers and reared by a human protector from a very young age. Whether they remain tame as adults depends to a great extent on their innate social behavioural patterns: that is, whether they are naturally social or solitary.112 They are objects of ownership, incorporated into human social structures,113 but their breeding has not involved human selection.114 An example is the Indian elephant that normally breeds in the wild, but is then captured, tamed, and trained as a beast of burden. Bökönyi defines domestication as “…the capture and taming by man of animals of a species with particular behavioural characteristics [i.e. those compatible with human society], their removal from their natural living area and breeding community, and their maintenance under controlled breeding conditions for mutual benefits.”115

Domestic, tame, feral, wild - terminology Ancient writers used their own methods and names for classifying animals. Some of these species are still unidentified in modern terms, or it is unclear which of more than one species is meant. In these cases I use the ancient common or generic name. Where precise identification of a known species is needed, I use its modern scientific name, assigned under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Terms describing animals’ relationships with man should also be mentioned. Illustrating diairesis (conceptual division) Plato suggests categorising animals as wild or tame,105 but Aristotle rejects this,106 Angel, “Skeletal” 311, 330. Day, “Dog Burials” 25, 31. Gallant, Risk 125-126. 97 Hesse/Wapnish, Bone Archaeology 58. 98 Reed, “Animal Domestication” 1629. 99 Payne, “Partial Recovery”. 100 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 28-32. 101 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 32-34. 102 Reese, “Bone” 258. 103 King, Weasels fig.2.5. 104 Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 76. 105 Pl., Plt. 263e. 106 Balme, “Division and Differentiae” 69-71. 96

Arist., Part. An. 1.3(643b2) (Ogle, in Barnes). Bökönyi, “Definitions” 22. 109 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 11-12. 110 Allaby (ed.), Zoology 178. 111 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 22. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 33. 112 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 12. 113 Clutton-Brock (ed.), Larder 7. 114 Van Gelder, Biology of Mammals 151-154. 115 Bökönyi, “Definitions” 22, 25. 107 108

10

Domestic animals are the offspring of domesticated parents. That is, products of a population that is isolated from the wild species. They are kept in captivity for the benefit of humans who entirely control their breeding, living spaces, and food supply.116 Thus domestic animals are subject to biological and cultural influences.117 Over successive generations, the wild temperament is bred out to prevent, for instance, defensive reactions to unfamiliar people, territory or experiences.118 Desired morphological changes are induced by selective breeding to satisfy economic, cultural, or aesthetic desires, and natural selection in response to the domestic environment brings about unplanned changes. Similar physical changes occur across widely different mammal groups.119 Some have already been mentioned in the discussion of animal remains.

approach of a stranger, but utilitarian functions are subordinate to the social and emotional benefits that humans derive from companion animals.124

Structure Greek views on animals are a vast and complex subject. The fragmented evidence is tremendously dispersed across spans of time, geography, ethnicity, and class. As Heath puts it: “…archaic and classical Greece had perhaps as many as 1,500 different city-states, a variety of ethnic enclaves, no idea of nationhood, little consensus in philosophical outlook, a variety of dialects, multifarious constitutions, and 400 years of rapid development between Homer and Plato ... clearly there is no single Greek view of anything.”125 In no way can this work be seen as an attempt to supply a comprehensive and cohesive set of ‘ancient attitudes’. To do so would be to risk adding fabrication to the necessity of generalisation.

A breed is on the same phylogenetic level as a subspecies, and is the result of artificial selection by man, resulting in a distinctive and inheritable uniformity of appearance among that subset of the species. The characteristics are not necessarily survival advantages, but those favoured by man for economic, aesthetic, ritual or status reasons.120

The discussions included here centre on an overall theme, which might be broadly termed human survival. The first chapter lays out where animals might be found in relation to humans, and is in the nature of an extension to the introduction. The following chapter discusses the use of animals as renewable resources, with particular emphasis on sheep and goats. The third chapter deals with the most-used burden animals. The fourth chapter surveys how animals commonly impeded human well-being, and the animals that were used to counter directly animal pests and human threats. The theme of human survival is continued more obliquely by the inclusion of pets, in the fifth chapter. A final chapter investigating various aspects of human moral codes and their application to animals immediately precedes the conclusion.

A pet animal is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “Any animal … kept as a favourite, or treated with indulgence and fondness.”121 However, the word ‘pet’ is often broadened to include all animals kept without practical or economic purpose, possibly to advertise status and prestige; as ornaments, and as playthings. Thus some animals in this broadened definition may be regarded as quasipersons and family members,122 while others may only be perceived as animate objects. The broadened definition of ‘pet’ is used in this work. That subgroup of pets that are kept particularly for the social and emotional rewards that their company affords are termed ‘companion animals’. This term is now used by many scholars to indicate the favourites originally meant by the OED2 definition.123 It is recognised that a lapdog may yap in warning on the

Artefacts mentioned (excluding inscriptions) appear in the catalogue in order of their occurrence in the text.

Clutton-Brock (ed.), Larder 7. Galton, “Steps” 131-138. 118 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 37. 119 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 33. 120 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 40. 121 OED2 s.v. Pet. 122 Beck/Katcher, “Human-Animal Bond” 80. 123 Eg. Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives. 116 117

124 125

11

Serpell, “Pet-keeping” 10-11. Heath, Talking 29.

1 Animals in human space

The overwhelming presence of domestic animals throughout the modern and ancient worlds is based on the benefits that humans gain from them. Domestic animals provide meat, and often milk; skins and hair are used for protection and warmth; and body parts have uses from medicine to ornament. Live animals may perform tasks, entertain and provide emotional comfort. To benefit from and defend their interests in domestic animals, humans normally keep them close by. By definition, most domestic animals are found in close proximity with people, in agricultural or residential settings.126

The majority involvement in primary seasonal food production gave it a power to influence other activities that is not seen in our modern world of intercontinental food supply chains. Hesiod’s Works and Days128 lays out seasons for agricultural tasks, which were worked around. Building projects used casual human labour and draught animals in agricultural slack periods. Thus, inscribed accounts for the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis129 show building activity peaking mid-July through mid-September, and high again in February. Lulls in building coincide with harvesting and threshing grain in June and early July, and vintaging, ploughing, and sowing, from September to November. Military invasions usually occurred in the late spring agricultural slack period just before harvest. This allowed invaders to return in time for their own harvests, having irretrievably devastated those of their enemies. Finally, the Isthmian games were held in late spring, and the other major athletics festivals after grain harvesting.130

The question becomes: “where were the people?” Ancient Greek reliance on the land, their identification with their own geographical origins, and even the inclusion of the land and its features in religious beliefs was such that Greeks might have been said to be ‘living’ in the countryside; whether their residences were in the town or not. Indeed, roughly eighty percent of ordinary Greeks and their slaves were involved in food production.127 Compared with now, this is a strikingly high percentage of the population that would therefore have had some contact with utilitarian animals. Perhaps expectations of general familiarity contributed to ancient writers’ and artisans’ disinclination to dwell upon the mechanics of ordinary farming and animal husbandry. It was sordid and commonplace, and for many, rural life must have represented drudgery rather than novelty.

The fifth- and fourth-centuries saw intensive exploitation of the Greek countryside.131 Greek citystates typically had a territory, or chora, bordering the urban centre, divided into plots for agricultural production. Chorai contained sanctuaries, roads and tracks. Graves accompanied buildings that functioned as work-sites, animal shelters and full or part-time residences. Fifth- and fourth-century structural bases for rural activities housed owners and/or employees Hes., Op. 384-618. IG ii2 1672 and 1673. Osborne, Landscape 14-16. Osborne, Demos 105-107. 130 Osborne, Landscape 13-16. 131 Snodgrass, “Rural Landscape” 53. 128 129

Van Gelder, Biology of Mammals 1-12. Lohmann, “Country Life” 29. See also Jameson, “Slavery” 124125. 126 127

13

for at least some of the year.132 Demosthenes133 makes clear that some rural buildings were residences for slaves, at least, and Xenophon134 indicates that slaves on isolated holdings, presumably living onsite, provided security for livestock, crops, produce and equipment. Thucydides135 describes how, even after the unification of Attica, most Athenians were born and bred in the country. Many poleis, from Chersonesos on the Black Sea,136 to sites in Magna Graecia,137 including Greek islands and sites in mainland Greece,138 show similar rural habitation.

A study covering twenty square kilometres, including the island of Gaidouronisi and the mainland nearest it, in southern Attica found the complete infrastructure of a fifth- and fourth-century post-Kleisthenic deme. The settlement pattern was almost completely dispersed, and the remains indicate at least semi-permanent residence and mixed farming. Remains include more than 30 well-built farmsteads, sanctuaries, roads, terraces, mule-tracks, wells, dams and a smelting-place. Many units had farmhouse towers, threshing floors, oil mills and oil presses.141 In the Koundoura valley in north-west Attica, roof tiles and graves also suggest permanent residence.142 The nucleated Attic deme of Halai Aixonides had extensive enclosed gardens associated with its often high-quality houses.143 At Palaia Kopraisia, a lavish estate, with painted stucco andron walls, nevertheless incorporated oil processing equipment, sheep pens, and two large threshing floors.144 Pseudo-Demosthenes gives two threshing floors as evidence of wealth and high productivity, with perhaps possession of two pairs of oxen.145 These examples allow space for livestock even near groups of refined houses. Snodgrass concludes that:

Metapontium has been particularly closely surveyed.139 Its earliest chora houses date from the early sixth-century. These are further from the urban centre than later rural houses, suggesting that early farmers were town dwelling unless their land was at a distance. By the mid-sixth century, productive and residential farmhouses occupied the valleys of the chora and the hillsides. By the mid fifth-century, all the available land was occupied, averaging fifteen farmhouses per square kilometre, half of which might have been occupied at any one time. Some, with central courtyards, adhered to house plans typical of mainland Greece.140 The final, fourth-century phase of a house, named ‘Fattoria Stefan’, was such, and had one room containing loom weights, suggesting sheep rearing, possibly in what appears to have been a covered animal-shed, attached to the house. Close proximity of animals to human residences suggests a high value was placed on their security, and the ability to tend them frequently. It also points to a tolerance of noise and smell, and freedom from snobbery around the idea of sharing one’s home with livestock. The emphasis on practicalities around food production seems to have outweighed visions of one’s home as a place of comfortable retreat. A second farmhouse, ‘Fattoria Fabrizio’, occupied a much less cultivatable hillside plot. Here was located a votive plaque to Artemis, goddess not only of fertility, but also of wild animals, which might attack flocks. Again, we have evidence of the house being used as a workplace, for there was cheesemaking equipment, pointing to the presence of sheep and/or goats.

“…The classical landscape of many Greek poleis was a populated landscape; that, in the course of the fifth- and fourth- centuries BC, many citizens built substantial structures on their rural land-holdings, from which they conducted their agricultural operations. For some of the time at least, they or their employees appear to have lived in these buildings.”146

Living in town Unlike the case of modern western towns, utility animals were not excluded from Greek town or village life. Theophrastos’ boor gapes at ‘ordinary sights’ in the street, like asses, cows, and goats.147 Farmers with town houses will have returned to town with their baggage animals at least. Hansen supplies literary and epigraphic evidence for the interpenetration of town and country activities.148 An early fourth-century decree for colonisation of Black Kérkyra stipulates that all settlers will have land inside, and outside, the walled town.149 This is also Plato’s150 ideal, though his promulgation suggests that it was not the rule. 141 Lohmann, “Country Life” 29. See Young, “Sounion” for analysis of the likely functions of towers. 142 Lohmann, “Country Life” 37-38. 143 Lohmann, “Country Life” 35. 144 Lohmann, “Country Life” 42. 145 Dem., Against Phaenippus 42.6. 146 Snodgrass, “Rural Landscape” 55-56. 147 Theophr., Char. 4.8. 148 Hansen, “Polis” 44-47. 149 DGE 147.3-7 (=Syll.3 147). 150 Pl., Leg. 745c-e.

Snodgrass, “Rural Landscape” 53-65. 133 Dem. 47.56. 134 Xen., Mem. 2.8. See index for cross references to slaves living on farms. 135 Thuc. 2.19. 136 Carter, “Agricultural Settlements” 364. 137 Carter, “Agricultural Settlements” 362. 138 Snodgrass, “Rural Landscape” 54-56. 139 Carter, “Agricultural Settlements”. 140 Nevett, “Space” 94. Westgate, “House and Society” 426. 132

14

Typical Greek houses seem, where possible, to include internal courtyards, and perhaps gardens, and were seldom lavishly appointed.151 This suggests that there was space for and tolerance of small numbers of animals. Pets were certainly present, but the birds and medium-to-small animals shown in cages or running free may also have been kept for meat, eggs, or milk, or as household pest killers. A figurine in Los Angeles shows a woman feeding a hen and six chicks in what must have been a domestic environment, to prevent escape, and predation [8]. Aristophanes mentions small wicker pens for fattening piglets on scraps, in the courtyards of Athenian houses.152 In Wasps, we hear of a household pig, which will be dedicated to Hestia when sacrificed.153 There is no hint of sentimentality about this pig, though it was an individual living alongside its owners.

from influential studies like those of Semple158 and Michell.159 However, a variety of models integrating arable and pastoral production is likely.160 Small, intensive mixed farming units were probably common,161 but ancient sources reveal little,162 so archaeological and anthropological studies are regularly cited. For instance, the Greek island of Amorgos shows the modern viability of small-scale mixed farming,163 as does Ripoll’s study of pastoral activities in modern Greek Thrace.164 Halstead advises caution with analogies like this, but asserts their importance.165 Hodkinson,166 and Hanson,167 point out that livestock and arable culture can be symbiotic, although Skydsgaard is cautious about the extent of this.168 Hanson rightly points out that large establishments used animals for grain threshing, but the main points in favour are that animals can consume post-harvest stubble, whilst manuring the fields. Various zoo-archaeological approaches have been attempted also, using skeletal remains that indicate age and sex-related killing patterns.169 For instance, Halstead’s analysis of flock age and sex compositions from prehistoric Greece matches small-scale mixed farming better than large-scale pastoralism,170 and MacKinnon’s171 analysis of Italian caprine remains highlights the importance of smaller, short-distance operations, alongside the large, long-distance transhumance that predominates in Latin texts. Labour and time-stress have also been considered,172 observing, for instance, that mixed farming requires herders to keep animals from crops, and to gather fodder for them when penned.173

Both fowl and pigs may have been reared on household waste. Dogs received scraps too, and provided security. Burden animals are useful in town as well as on farms, and are valuable, so must be guarded. Ault points out that there was scope for the stabling of burden animals and their vehicle in a house in House 7 at Halieis.154 Philokleon’s ass and dogs155 lived within his town house,156 and Xenophon157 reports that when Boeotians attacked the Mantineans during harvest, the threat was exacerbated because the workers and their animals were outside the city walls at the time. The implication is that many animals were housed safe behind city walls unless grazing or working. All this is a far cry from the modern segregation of animals into the countryside or unseen battery farms, and the concealment of everything that occurs between those places and the time when they appear as neat packages of flesh in the supermarket, where there is little suggestion of the animals that they once were.

Literary allusions to flocks seem to support mixed farming and animal proximity to residences. Laertes’ farm supports a variety of crops and livestock, and is truly a diversified farm.174 Xenophon’s Sokrates175

Patterns of farming

Semple, “Stock-raising”. Michell, Economics 59-60. 160 Halstead, “Pastoralism?” 21-24. Jameson, “Slavery” 125-133. 161 Halstead, “Traditional” 83. 162 Halstead, “Traditional” 87. Fussell, “Farming Systems” 16. 163 Halstead/Jones, “Agrarian”. 164 Ripoll, “Pastoral Greek Thrace”. 165 Halstead, “Traditional” 87. 166 Hodkinson, “Husbandry” 38-51. 167 Hanson, Other Greeks 74. 168 Skydsgaard, “Transhumance” 82-83. 169 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 157-162. 170 Halstead, “Pastoralism?” 33. 171 MacKinnon, “Caprines”. 172 Halstead/Jones, “Agrarian” 47-50. 173 Halstead, “Pastoralism?” 24. 174 Hanson, Other Greeks 47-89. Hom., Od. 23.139 (timber), 24.215 (swine), 24.246-247 (fruits), 24.340-341 (fruits), 24.364 (cattle, swine). 175 Xen., Mem. 2.9.2. 158 159

The idea that animals were heavily integrated into human communities is present again when we consider small-scale mixed farming. The Greek agricultural model of spring-to-autumn grazing on highland pastures, while cultivated fields alternated cereal crops with fallow, has been widely accepted

151 Robertson, Architecture 297. Mylonas, “Olynthian House” 395. Ferla, et al., Priene 180-195. 152 Ar., Lys. 1074. 153 Ar., Vesp. 844. 154 Ault, “Microcosm” 486. 155 Ar., Vesp. 835-841. 156 Ar., Vesp. 173-198. 157 Xen., Hell. 7.5.14f. Hansen, “Polis” 44.

15

assumes that the wealthy Kriton owns sheep among his holdings, and his Oikonomikos176 explicitly states that animal husbandry is linked with tillage. A law prohibiting the heaping of animal dung in the Hekatompedon on the Acropolis in Athens177 supports the presence of live animals in town, and that there was a tendency for manure dumping even around a major religious monument. That this should have seemed acceptable to enough people to require a law prohibiting it suggests high levels of tolerance of animal muck among many people. Dung did not go to waste however. Incorporation of animals allows development of farming ecosystems, and their dung was valuable fertilizer.178 Theophrastos179 remarks on the qualities of different animals’ dung as manure. Manured ground cropped every year consistently outperforms alternating fallow, and allows twice the cropping.180 Background scatters of pottery in arable areas are probably connected with manuring by hand on intensively farmed plots,181 but flocks grazing stubble will have manured larger areas. In farming ecosystems, waste products of oliculture were important sheep fodder.182 Grape-mash fed cattle,183 and Theophrastos184 recommends grazing of crops on good soils, to prevent them running to leaf.185 Daphnis gathers leaves for winter goat-fodder,186 and one of Sophokles’ Shepherds mentions his routine of “bringing newly plucked branches to the goats”.187 Aelian reports similar labour-intensive husbandry practices by third-century BC farmers on Keos:

Xenophon,189 and Columella190 emphasise the interdependence of cropping and animal husbandry. We hear from Aristophanes191 of goats, sheep, and bees, alongside figs, grapes, and olives. Even if not permitted among the crops at all times, penned animals might be fed on leaf and fruit waste.192 Specialized pastoralism is likely to have utilized marginal land. Milking is best done near to where milk will be processed, sold, or used, but meat and wool flocks may be grazed seasonally over distance. Hesiod claims to have begun by shepherding lambs in the foothills of Mount Helikon,193 and Aristotle194 describes pastoral people living by their flocks, robust and able to camp out. Elsewhere, Sophokles195 describes a Theban slave and a Corinthian hired shepherd pasturing their flocks on Mount Kithairon from spring to autumn. In support of this are Arkadian bronze shepherd figurines.196 One ca.550-530 figure carries a ram [9]. Another figure also carries a sheep, and an open-mouthed vessel, which might have been used for milking. On the base is inscribed “Aineas [dedicated me] to Pan” [10]. Yet another figure represents Hermes as the shepherd, carrying a lamb [11]. Hermes’ and the shepherds’ rusticity is clear from their clothing – a conical leather or felt hat, a short tunic, and boots. The figures are from a small manufacturing centre apparently supplying the votive needs of Arkadian upland shepherds. The figures may even have been intended to represent the donors themselves.197

“In his work on agriculture Aeschylides says that in Keos each of the farmers owns but few sheep, the reason being that the soil of Keos is exceedingly poor and has no pasture-land. So they throw kytisos [(tree-medick = Medicago arborea)] and fig-leaves and the fallen leaves of the olive to the flocks, also the husks of various kinds of pulse, and they even sow thistles among their crops, all of which afford excellent feeding for the sheep.” 188

Debates around patterns of pastoralism and agriculture are hampered by incomplete evidence and the complex variety of interlocking conditions.198 At present, the evidence for integrated agro-pastoralism seems to outweigh that for simple transhumance,199 Xen., Oec. 5.3. Columella, Rust. 6.praef.2. 191 Ar., Nub. 44-50. 192 Weaver, “Grape” 213. 193 Hes., Theog. 25-32. 194 Arist., Pol. 6.4 (1319a19-23). 195 Soph., OT 1132-1140. 196 Osborne, Landscape 20. 197 ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.287 (Boardman, Mannack, Wagner). ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.309 (Boardman, Mannack, Wagner). 198 Halstead, “Pastoralism?” 20-22. Gamble, “Animal Husbandry” 164. Cooper, “Farm” 162. Fussell, “Farming Systems” 16-26 gives an overview of farm elements. 199 Hodkinson, “Husbandry” 36. Halstead/Jones, “Agrarian” emphasises the integration of stock and arable farming in modern Amorgos, but advises caution in extrapolating too literally for ancient methods (p.53). Skydsgaard, “Transhumance”, lays out evidence for transhumance in ancient Greece, but points out its paucity. 189 190

Xen., Oec. 5.3. IG i3 4. Owens, “Koprologoi” 46. 178 Morgan/Coulton, “Polis” 99. Alcock, et al., “Landscape” 143157 discusses the use of kopros in detail. 179 Theophr., Hist. pl. 2.7.4. 180 Halstead, “Traditional” 81-82. Slicher van Bath, Agrarian 18 points out the crucial relationship between manure and production in Western Europe. 181 Halstead, “Traditional” 83. 182 Arist., Hist. An. 8.10 (596b25-26). 183 Columella, Rust. 6.3.4-5. 184 Theophr., Hist. pl. 8.7.4. 185 Theophr., Caus. pl. 5.9.13. Theophrastos calls excessive foliage growth in overfed vines the “he-goat”; which seems to reinforce the association of wasteful vigor that will be discussed below. 186 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 2.20 (Thornley). 187 Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Vol.3, frag.502. 188 Ael., NA 16.32 (Scholfield). 176

177

16

and on the assumption that not all things would fail in the same year, diversification seems to have been a survival technique. No matter where the animals

were, however, dedications,200 literature, and labourintensive practices reveal intense concern over their success.201

200 ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.279 (Parker). 201 Eg. Anth. Pal. 6.40.

17

2 Sheep and goats

From literature and archaeological evidence, sheep and goats appear to have been the Greeks’ most numerous livestock,202 and yet the care taken over them is particular and individual. This is fitting, given their importance to human subsistence,203 and there are good practical reasons for the prevalence of sheep and goats. They grow faster,204 and breed much younger than cattle. As one epigrammatist remarked, “one summer turns a kid into a shaggy he-goat”.205 The capacity of sheep and goats for bringing forth twins, after only five months’ gestation, was often remarked.206 Some breed twice a year.207 Smallholders were more likely to own sheep and goats than expensive cattle, their average fourth-century price being calculated at roughly 11 drachmas for a goat, and about 14 drachmas for a sheep (Menander mentions small sheep costing as little as ten drachmas).208 Alkiphron209 describes household consternation at a wolf’s killing a milking goat, but this would be less devastating to the viability of a farm than the death of a plough ox. In slaughtering, the lack of refrigeration is less problematic, given the smaller carcass. Sheep and goats’ small size and flocking tendencies make them

manageable. Animals owned by several people might be grouped under one (possibly professional) herder for grazing,210 multiple animals can be contained in simple folds near houses at night,211 and single animals can be tethered. Crucially, sheep and goats manage well in dry, steep environments. Goats in particular can subsist on low quality grazing, and demand less water. Eupolis212 may have thought goats picky, in that they nibble only the new vegetation, but the fact is that they nibble from a very wide variety of plants, and outperform other ungulates on very marginal ground, being able to digest plants that others cannot.213 Goats also have advantages over sheep in not being subject to casting214 and fly-strike.215 Sheep and goats are of special interest because, as live animals, they were primary renewable sources of wool, hair, and milk. In connection with this, there are three usual patterns of stock management, all of which may be indicated in bone surveys of a given area. In wool flocks, adult animals predominate, especially castrated males (wethers), which produce more, and often thicker, wool than ewes. Wethers are also large, hardy, long-lived, and easier to handle than

202 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 87. Prummel, “New Halos” 155-156. 203 Finley, Odysseus 60-61. Houston, et al., Western 117. 204 Dahl/Hjort, Having Herds 111. 205 Anth. Pal. 11.51 (Paton). 206 Anth. Pal. 6.99. Theoc., Id. 1.26, 5.84, 8.47. 207 Arist., Hist. An. 6.19(573b19-24). 208 Menander, frag.264.3 (Koerte/Thierfelder). Segrè, Circolazione Monetaria 168-169 tabulates fourth- and third-century livestock prices. Pritchett/Pippin, “Attic Stelai II” 255-260 surveys prices spanning the sixth- through the fourth-centuries. Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 91 gives late fifth- and early fourthcentury prices. 209 Alkiphron, Letters 2.18.

Tani, “Sheep Flock Leaders” 191. Lohmann, “Country Life” 39. 212 Eupolis, Aegis frag.13 (Kassel/Austin). Eupolis‘ nanny-goats list twenty-two plants that they eat, and which are generally unpalatable to others. Rothwell, Choruses 130-131. 213 Nastis, “Feeding” 39-40, 41-42. 214 When sheep cannot get up owing to the weight of their wool. They die very quickly in this condition. If not found soon enough, they lose circulation and are unable to maintain their balance even after being stood up. 215 Infestation of wool and skin by fly maggots. See Anth. Pal. 14.149. 210 211

19

rams.216 In milk herds, adult females predominate, male and surplus female offspring being culled very young. Meat production is characterised by slaughter of juvenile or sub-adult males, while a stable flock of breeding adults, mainly females, is maintained.217

animals were prized, and a Theokritean goatherd boasts that one of his nannies yields two pails of milk over and above what is needed for her twins.230 Payne remarks that Greek goats today give more than six times as many calories in milk as in meat.231 In 1948, points out Allbaugh,232 most Cretan families kept one or more goats near their homes for milking, which practice may have been familiar in ancient Greece.

Sheep and goats are in many respects very similar, so much so that their bones are very difficult to tell apart,218 yet there are important differences between them. Concentrating on the use and management of the living animals, treating the two species together, should tease out Greek attitudes towards each species.

Human interaction with milk animals No matter what the species, frequent milking and transport and storage issues recommend that milk animals be kept nearer human habitations than is necessary for wool or meat animals. Folds for keeping young kids and lambs while their mothers graze (making them easy to herd home) and for all the animals at night, are mentioned,233 and archaeological remains of folds around houses are noted above. In a modern analogy, farmers on Melos keep flocks close to home, allowing them to be tended briefly but often.234 Homer’s Melanthios implies that corralled animals must be fed and attended:

The importance of milk Aristotle,219 Plutarch,220 and Aelian,221 mention that sheep and goats were the primary milk-providing animals, and Jameson’s analysis suggests that milk and wool production were primary objectives of owners,222 with very young and aged animals being culled. Milk production tends to be more efficient in protein and energy yield than primarily meat production systems,223 which agrees with the generally accepted view that the average Greek diet was cereals-based, with small quantities of meat protein.224 The need to confront the practical problems of trading unpreserved liquid milk are reduced by the fact that cheese is less perishable, more portable, and more valuable,225 and often more digestible, at least by modern Greeks.226 The bestyielding breeds and conditions were monitored with an eye to cheese making.227

“Give him [the disguised Odysseus] to me, to look after the folds, to muck out the pens and carry fodder to the kids…”235

Milking involves intimate contact, so is facilitated by tameness. Aristotle describes some harsh treatment with nettles to stimulate milk flow,236 but localises this to Mount Oeta. In general, herders will have benefited from being gentle where possible, for stressed animals let down less milk, and may struggle. The consequences can be upset milk containers, and the need for extra help or restraints. Some techniques to enforce cooperation were needed however. Columella237 mentions shackles for milk-goats that fidget, while Chrysippus interprets the proverb “Nanny-goat of Skyros”238 as referring to people who upset their own good deeds. Kardulias describes a modern Greek farmer on Dokos milking goats by catching each in turn and holding a hind leg fast.239 It is difficult to imagine him successfully milking a succession of violently struggling goats with only one hand, so the animals seem to have been calm enough once caught. One attractive sardonyx

Goats were of greater value than sheep for milk.228 Milk goats can be productive whilst eating what sheep cannot, and their milk yield, relative to body weight, averages four times that of sheep.229 High yielding Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 25 (size and manageability). Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 89-90. Payne, “Zooarchaeology” 229. 218 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 32-34. 219 Arist., Hist. An. 3.20(522a26-28). 220 Plut., De Soll. An. 964f-965a. 221 Ael., NA 16.31. 222 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 103. Payne, “Zooarchaeology” analyses the value and complexities of analysing animal remains for such studies. See also Burford, Land and Labour 144-159, esp.146. 223 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 155. 224 OCD3 603. Wilkins/Hill, Food 112-139, 142-143, 147. Rotroff/ Oakley, Debris 47-48. 225 Columella, Rust. 7.8. 226 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 156. 227 Arist., Hist. An. 3.20-3.21(521b17-523a12). 228 Anth. Pal. 6.99, 9.224, 9.318. Hes., Op. 590. Theoc., Id. 1.26, 5.58-59. 229 White, Farming 315. 216 217

Theoc., Id. 1.26-28. Payne, “Zoo-archaeology” 226. 232 Allbaugh, Crete 279. 233 For example, Anth. Pal. 6.99, 9.101-102. Hes., Op. 788. Eur., Cyc.. 234 Wagstaff/Augustson, “Land Use” 122. 235 Hom., Od. 17.222-224 (Rieu). 236 Arist., Hist. An. 3.20(522a8-12). 237 Columella, Rust. 7.8.6. 238 Zenob. 2.18 (= Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Alcaeus frag.435). 239 Kardulias, “Dokos” 40. 230 231

20

shows a herder milking a goat (unrestrained), under a tree [12]. However, if this is intended as a pleasant pastoral scene, suggestions of force are inadmissible. A more forceful approach is shown on a gold ring bezel [13] where a boy milks a ewe from behind (the usual approach shown on gems), while it is pinned between the legs of a man wearing a countryman’s rough wool pilos.

weave is brought forward again when Lysistrata herself gives a model of city administration using wool processing as an analogy.248 This demonstrates Aristophanes’ expectation of its prominence in her thinking. The Amasis Painter illustrates Lysistrata’s detailed description on a lekythos [14]. Other vases also associate wool with women, and kalathoi (woolbaskets), appear repeatedly in domestic scenes. The indications are that wool-working at home was basic to respectable household self-sufficiency.

Placidity in milking animals is likely to have been reinforced by breeding, with sale or slaughter of flighty animals. Sheep and goats may be viable milkers up to seven years of age.240 This suggests longterm relationships with the animals, and personalities and hierarchies within flocks are noticeable during milking.241 For example, Polyphemos, a careful husbandman, milks his animals in order of their self-ranking within the flock.242 No doubt favourites were established on the basis of cooperativeness, and intimate knowledge of individuals allowed the best handling and management decisions.

The production of milk, hair, and wool is influenced by conditions, and by genetics.249 Herodotos250 mentions the peculiar Arabian fat-tailed sheep,251 and other selective breeding apparently took place to enhance animals’ usefulness. Indeed, inbreeding is a prerequisite for thick, spinnable fleece, which does not occur in wild sheep.252 The sheep of Greek art fit Varro and Columella’s253 ideals: fleecy, with curling horns, undocked tails, and tall, broad, muscular physiques. Fuller fleece is depicted, [15, 16] but a more common convention is to show what appear to be recently shorn sheep, with regrowing fleece indicted by dots and other markings [17, 18, 13]. As a refinement to fleecy sheep breeds, Milesian fleeces became particularly noted for luxurious softness.254 To protect fleece from brambles and to preserve colour, some sheep, in Megara, Attica, Taranto, and Epiros, received leather jackets.255 The value must have justified the expense and individual trouble taken.

The importance of wool, hair and skins Like milk, wool was an essential product. Much clothing was woollen, and its manufacture was an important indoor occupation of women. The ideal respectable woman was also an accomplished spinner and weaver. Penelope herself weaves, and trains her slaves,243 and Ischomachos’ wife must superintend the weaving of woollen cloaks.244 This interest in home handcrafts was no hobby, like embroidery among Victorian ladies, but an important aspect of household economics. Dryades’ daughter will disgrace her parents if she is not skilled when she marries.245 In Lysistrata, a woman is concerned about moths eating her Milesian fleeces,246 and Myrrhine’s husband tries to tempt her home with concern that the hens will pull her wool apart.247 It is an interesting question, for presumably the wool was indoors, or at least within the courtyard of the house, yet the hens could still reach it. This suggests an extent to which the indoors was continuous with the outdoors and that householders saw fewer problems with unhousetrained animals wandering into human-occupied areas than we ourselves might today. The widespread acceptance that women will

Goat hair can be woven, but makes scratchy clothing. Kallisthenes of Olynthos remarks that Lycian256 goats were shorn like sheep for their long fleece, which was used for ropes on ships. The frequent epithet “shaggy”257 suggests that Greek goats were commonly longhaired, as seen on the vases of Makron [19], and a fragment in Malibu [20]. If goat-hair clothing was probably disdained for roughness, goatskins appear to have been stigmatised by the smell of he-goats (discussed below), and left to be worn by peasants, herders, and slaves. On a hoof-cup in New York, a young herder wears a piebald skin cap, and a goatskin with the legs dangling [21]. Alkiphron258 informs us Ar., Lys. 565-587. Jaubert, “Goat Milk” 71. 250 Hdt. 3.113. 251 Zeuner, Domesticated Animals 72. 252 Barber, Women’s Work 97-98. 253 Columella, Rust. 7.3.3 254 Ar., Ran. 542. Eubulus frag.89.2-3K-A. Theoc., Id. 15.125-127. 255 Diog. Laert., Philosophers Diogenes 6.41. Hor., Carm. 2.6.10. Varro, On Agriculture 2.2.18-20. Hodkinson, “Husbandry” 47, 50. 256 Cited in Ael., NA 16.30. 257 LSJ s.v. λάσιος. 258 Alkiphron, Letters 2.23. 248 249

Davis, Archaeology of Animals 158. Collias, “Socialization” 237-238. 242 Hom., Od. 9.245, 9.309, 9.342. 243 Hom., Od. 2.93-110, 22.421-423. 244 Xen., Oec. 7.36. 245 Alkiphron, Letters 2.39. 246 Ar., Lys. 729-730. 247 Ar., Lys. 897. 240 241

21

of a slave stealing another slave’s goatskin cloak, and Theokritos’ Lykidas is identified as a goatherd by his goatskin and general appearance.

Hesiod recommends training sheep to the touch of the hand,269 and this would pay dividends when removing fly strike, crutching, hoof trimming, checking for mastitis, shearing, and assistance in lambing. Sheep wearing leather jackets would need checking for entanglement and chafing. Hesiod’s ‘training’ would require such positive interactions as are applicable to sheep and goats. These include non-threatening, quiet speech, slow and steady movements, giving food and water, and scratching and petting.270 Being given salt, as recommended by Theophrastos,271 and observed by Aristotle272 and Plutarch,273 would certainly have assisted the matter. In the whole process, handlers would learn more about their animals as individuals. Such refinement of attention is not usually possible on modern, large, fenced farms, where sheeps’ tails are docked, and sometimes the crutch area is skinned (or ‘mulsed’) to reduce fly strike in sizeable flocks that are left to themselves for considerable periods, and where ‘cast’ sheep, accidents, or lambing problems are often found too late.

“On his shoulders he wore the tawny skin of a thick-haired shaggy goat reeking of fresh rennet...”.259

The chorus of satyrs serving Euripides’260 uncouth Cyclops wear “wretched” goatskins,261 and Leonidas’262 epigram, cataloguing the undesirable possessions of the impoverished Sochares, includes a hard untanned goatskin. As far as Hesiod is concerned, the pelts of young kids are for raincoats.263 On the other hand, plenty of people wore goatskins, so they must have valued them, as suggested by Callimachus’ character’s great annoyance at having his goatskin cloak nibbled by mice.264 The problem is that we have no authentic comment from actual wearers to counter the generally negative remarks of élite writers. The question of whether it was right to take animals’ milk and fleece did arise, and is posed directly by a sheep in one fable.265 The response is consistently put in terms of exchange: the animals give their products, and, in return receive care, shelter, and protection. Indeed, as Odysseus observes of Polyphemos’ ram,266 the burden of wool could become such that it seemed a service to remove it, and it will have been noticed that animals that are milked late often complain at the pressure in their udders.

Husbandry in general Particularly in the absence of secure fences or walls, herders need to protect and supervise sheep and goats when at pasture. Animals might be attacked, stolen, lost, injured, fall ill, or eat crops and incur the wrath of farmers. When flocks converge, they must eventually be separated in a controlled and calm manner. CluttonBrock points out that sheep and goats, being naturally socialised to dominance hierarchies, are relatively easy for accepted dominant humans to herd.274 This is not to say that herding was simple. Witness the difficulties of Menander’s city cook, who has trouble herding one sheep.275 Homer’s Eumaeus accuses Melanthios of letting incompetent herders ruin his herds,276 alluding to the skill and judgement required. Homer277 compares the Greek chiefs to skilled herders, sorting their men as easily as goatherds draught flocks that mix while feeding. Hesiod278 and Aristotle279 rightly observe that goats suffer in bad weather, far more than sheep. In one fable, a goatherd’s flock dies when he prioritises newly captured wild goats in the cave where he had intended to shelter his domestic

Human interaction with wool animals Levels of human contact are correspondingly higher in the case of small flocks, and some flocks were small indeed. Aristides only has one sheep,267 and in an Aesopic fable, a poor woman has only one, which she attempts to shear herself.268 Complaining at being cut, the sheep suggests the woman hire a professional shearer. The existence of professional shearers makes perfect sense. Larger flocks could be processed quickly, and shearers would be skilled in removing valuable fleeces without harming the fleece or the struggling animals. Even so, handling is needed between shearing. Theoc., Id. 7.15-16 (Gow). Eur., Cyc. 75. 261 Seaford, “Euripides’ Cyclops” 195-196. See also Rothwell, Choruses 130. 262 Anth. Pal. 6.298. 263 Hes., Op. 542-544. 264 Callim., Aet. frag.177.22 (Trypanis). 265 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 128. 266 Hom., Od. 9.441-442. 267 Anth. Pal. 9.149, 9.150, 9.255. See index for cross references to Aristides. 268 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 51. 259

Hes., Op. 795-798. Appleby/Hughes (eds.), Welfare 209. 271 Theophr., Caus. pl. 6.4.6. 272 Arist., Hist. An. 8.10 (596a18). 273 Plut., Mor. 912d-f. 274 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 55. 275 Men., Dys. 393-399. 276 Hom., Od. 17.244-247. 277 Hom., Il. 2.560-562. 278 Hes., Op. 516-519. 279 Arist., Hist. An. 9.4(610b32-34).

260

269 270

22

flock.280 Theokritos281 and Longus282 are also clear that observant, industrious herders are concerned for their herds’ prosperity, feeding and watering,283 health,284 and numbers.285

animals, they must be in close proximity. On a Roman gem in London [22], a clearly depicted crook has been put to one side while the shepherd fondles his dog. We also hear of such devices as Daphnis’ goat-hook,295 and these suggest that the animals would prefer not to be handled closely at all times. Despite this, some flocks appear to have been relaxed enough to need prompting along. The shepherd walking behind his sheep on a gem in St Petersburg carries a stick [23], and the herder pursued by Pan on the Pan Painter’s name vase [24] has a whip. On a kyathos in Paris [25], a goatherd waves a whip at his goats as they dally. The simple fact of bothering to carry a stick indicates that herders could get near enough to the animals for an extended arm with a rod to be effective as a guide or goad.

Sickness and injury are inevitable. Aristotle remarks, “…according to experts, the horse and the sheep have pretty well as many ailments as the human species.”286 This might suggest that some owners were prepared to pay ‘specialists’. Similarly, Varro separates cattle ailments needing specialists from those that might be tackled by husbandmen.287 Nevertheless, Varro makes it clear that the first medical attention would be by the herder,288 and much of Aristotle’s289 veterinary information seems to have been obtained directly from farmers and herders. Theophrastos’290 and Pliny’s291 remedies suggest that first recourse was to traditional techniques and local ingredients. Aristotle, Theophrastos, Plutarch, and Aelian remark the use of plants as remedies by animals,292 and since they must have reported it, herders seem to have respected such natural ‘wisdom’. As for the effectiveness of ‘specialists’, Majno’s experiments and analysis of ancient human medicine show that many physicians’ treatments could be effective indeed, but often they were accompanied by dangerous and counterproductive methods.293

Emphasising the stupidity of sheep,296 Aristotle remarks their need for guidance, and that shepherds trained flocks to cluster at a clap of their hands.297 Sheep instinctively cluster when startled so this need have been no more than manipulating natural responses, but Aristotle also mentions males trained from an early age to lead the rest of the flock when called by name.298 The collared sheep on the Bremen cup [26] might well be one of these ‘lead’ sheep. Goats group themselves in herds, but sheep make herding especially easy by flocking close, and following each other.299 Nominated lead sheep are still used in different parts of the world, and so in this, the Greeks were taking advantage of a widespread method of control. However, although ewes lead flock movement perfectly well, to the Greeks, rams were natural leaders, and in this they seem to have expected a replication of their own societal norms. In the Iliad, Priam likens Odysseus to a bellwether,300 steadily patrolling among his flock of men. Aineas leads his captains as a ram leads the flock, and then becomes the leader of the leaders, the shepherd who is pleased with the ram.301 The satyrs herding the Cyclops’ sheep call the horned ram to lead the flock home,302 and Crinagoras refers to sheep answering the bleats of the leading rams.303 With such perceptions at work, males were the likeliest to be selected for training, so the Greek perception becomes self-fulfilling. However,

As mentioned above, handling flocks is greatly enabled by reduced fear among the animals. We see signs on vases that herd animals accepted human company. On a cup in Bremen [26], the sheep nearest the herder wears a collar and lead, grasped in the youth’s hand. Even without the lead, the collar will have identified the animal, and, in combination with the sticks and crooks that are sometimes mentioned,294 been helpful in directing it. Of course, a vase has only a small surface area, so to depict the shepherd with his Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 45. Theoc., Id. 3.1-5, 5.128-131, 8.15-16, 8.60-68. 282 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.8, 1.22, 2.16, 2.20, 3.3, 3.29, 4.14, 4.38 (Thornley). 283 Theoc., Id. 3.1-3, 5.28-31, 8.34-48, 9.71-72, 9.217. 284 Theoc., Id. 10.1-4. 285 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 3.29, 4.14 (Thornley). 286 Arist., Hist. An. 8.24(604b26-27) (Thompson, in Barnes). 287 Varro, On Agriculture 2.1.21-23. 288 Varro, On Agriculture 2.2.20 (sheep), 2.3.8 (goats). 289 Arist., Hist. An. 8.21-26(603a28-605b5). 290 Theophr., Hist. pl. 9.8-9.20. 291 Plin., HN books 20-27. 292 Arist., Hist. An. 9.6(912a31-32) (dogs), 9.6(912.a3-5) (goats). Theophr., Caus. pl. 6.4.7. Plut., Mor. 918b-c. Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 991e (pigs). Plut., De Soll. An. 974b (dogs). Ael., VH 1.10. See also Anth. Pal. 9.123. 293 Majno, Healing Hand 141-206. 294 Anth. Pal. 6.73. 280 281

Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 4.26 (Thornley). Arist., Hist. An. 9.3(610b22-28). 297 Arist., Hist. An. 9.3(610b35-611a2). This also appears in Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.22 (Thornley). 298 See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 299 Tani, “Sheep Flock Leaders” 185. 300 Hom., Il. 3.196. 301 Hom., Il. 13.492-5. See also Thompson “Κτιλοσ” 53, and Kirk (ed.), Iliad Commentary Vol.4, 109-110. 302 Eur., Cyc. 49-54. 303 Anth. Pal. 7.636. 295 296

23

rams become distracted and less tractable in the mating season. Hesiod304 mentions gelding of lambs and kids, and since castrates are generally strong, large, and manageable,305 it is probable that at least some flock leaders were castrated. Aristotle points out that lead males live much longer than other sheep,306 and longevity is characteristic of castrates.307 To make a eunuch out of a leader who is perceived to derive his authority from his masculinity seems odd, and is perhaps demonstrates a gulf in understanding between the élite writers, and those actually working with the animals.

goats.312 However, Theokritos has a white-patched dog tending a flock of goats,313 and his epigram on a picture of wolf-perpetrated chaos in a goat herd mentions dogs that bay too late.314 Yet another Theokritean goatherd is ambivalent towards dogs, and contrasts himself with an ungrateful shepherd, by identifying dogs (which the shepherd has praised) with rapacious wolves.315 Theokritos may be letting slip some dislike of dogs when a shepherd claims that it would be better to milk a “filthy bitch” than a goat.316 In general, Theokritos seems little interested in dogs, especially given the opportunities that his idylls present. He only explicitly praises a sheep-guarding dog once,317 and the shepherd Menalkas would seem to have no dog at all, until:

Modern Mediterranean practices may provide analogies for how Greek use of bellwethers might have worked in practice. Herders in the Abruzzi castrate male lambs, and teach them to walk on leads and accept physical handling. Later, directional commands are taught – ‘stop’, ‘come’. Each stage is accompanied by patting, soft speech and food treats. The young wethers bond with their handlers, receive personal names,308 and become valuable assets. Reciprocal bonding seems inevitable in the process. Similar practices occur among the Sarakatchani shepherds of Epiros and Thessaly, who hand-raise their leaders, bottle-feeding, carrying, and housing them indoors like pets. The animals bond closely, and willingly follow their handlers. On Crete, the wethers, or goats that are sometimes used, are simply driven in the desired direction with stones or shouting. Even so, lead animals are highly valued. The shepherds of Dobrogea often sleep using their chosen lambs for pillows, to foster familiarity.309 In these systems, the lead animal is supported by the herder, and, by obedience to the shepherd, mediates between herder and flock.310 If any flock-members are to become objects of human bonding, it is these. We see an ancient example in Polyphemos’ treasured ram. Polyphemos speaks lovingly to it, expects sympathy from it, and notices the oddity of its leaving the cave last.311

“Spare my kids, O wolf, and spare my mother-goats, nor harm me for that I am so little to tend so large a flock. Lampurus,318 my dog, dost sleep so sound? Sound sleep is not for him who herds with a boy.”319

Theokritos’ countryside is very much a separate and self-contained environment, and little is mentioned that is not directly relevant to each scene. As such, the Idylls are not genuinely representative, so perhaps Theokritos’ limited deployment of dogs is simply disinterest or ambivalence on his part, rather than reflecting an absence of dogs around goats. Certainly several dogs are used against wild beasts to defend goats, as well as sheep, in the Aesopic fables,320 and the Greek Anthology.321 Dogs also appear in the few herding scenes that survive on vases. On a kyathos in Paris [25], two dogs accompany an unusually realistic goat-herding scene. Dogs clearly assisted herders, at least as guards. Thus it is reasonable to expect that herders valued their dogs highly, a matter complained of by the sheep in one fable.322 As will be discussed in the chapter on pets, dogs are eminently suited as companions of humans,323 so when dogs were present, they may well have become primary objects of herders’ affections, as appears to be the case on a gem in London, where a shepherd fondles his flock-dog [22]. Perhaps this is why Longus has no

There is little suggestion that dogs were used as actively trained herding animals, but they feature prominently as guards against predators and thieves. Keller emphasises that dogs were indispensable for guarding sheep, but makes no mention of them among

Keller, Tierwelt 114. Theoc., Id. 8.26-27 (Gow). 314 Anth. Pal. 9.432. 315 Theoc., Id. 5.34-37. Lilja, Dogs 91-94. 316 Theoc., Id. 5.27 (Gow). 317 Theoc., Id. 5.106-7. 318 Lampurus, translated by Edmonds as ‘White-tail’, seems to be a proper name. See Lilja, Dogs 94. 319 Theoc., Id. 8.63-66 (Gow). 320 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 128, Appendix 705. 321 Anth. Pal. 6.262, 9.558. 322 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 129. 323 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 312 313

Hes., Op. 787. Tani, “Sheep Flock Leaders” 197-8. 306 Arist., Hist. An. 6.19(573b26-29). 307 Waters, et al., “Testis” 75. 308 See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 309 Tani, “Sheep Flock Leaders” 188-192. 310 Tani, “Sheep Flock Leaders” 187. 311 Hom., Od. 9.444-452. 304 305

24

herd dogs helping Daphnis and Chloe, whose animal relationships have to be closest to their surrogate mothers’ species.

goatherd insultingly imply that the shepherd, Lakon, is a slave. Lakon takes great offence, and vigorously denies the slur.336

Herders with their flocks

As for appearances, Pipili identifies ungainly postures337 and rough clothing, especially coarse piloi and animal skins, as attributes of workmen and countrymen on painted vases.338 Flock numbers might be cited to signify owners’ status and wealth,339 but in depictions where humans are modestly attired, especially in goat-skins, and accompanied by sheep or goats, it seems reasonable to conclude that they are herdsmen, and then the animals may symbolise rural simplicity and sometimes poverty.340 On a neckamphora in Taranto an elegant youth contrasts directly with a goatskin and pilos-clad peasant who squats, snaring birds [27]. The goatherd on a sixth-century Louvre kyathos [25] wears a fur cap and a short chiton, whilst the long chiton was customary for welldressed men at the time of this vase’s manufacture.341 Two similarly rough-clad individuals feature on the gold ring described above. An epigrammatist remarks: “Goatherd, thou bearest thy wallet on thy back, the basket in thy hand, the goat on thy shoulders, all the tokens of thy lands.”342 The emphasis is on herders’ rough appearances.

The lives and activities of flocks and herders are intertwined, and attitudes to animals might be transferred to their carers. Thus it is worth investigating attitudes towards herders. Ancient authors mention women herding,324 and children undoubtedly took part also.325 This is given little prominence however, and women tending animals is even a dividing characteristic between ‘civilized’ Greek society and barbarians. Plato contrasts house-based Athenian women with Thracians and other barbarian women who tend animals.326 Demosthenes complained of degradation when free Athenians, including women, were compelled by poverty to hire themselves out as farm workers.327 Surviving representations emphasise men and boys herding, in a rough and slavish occupation fit only for uncivilised individuals. Odysseus’ goatherd, Melanthios,328 is typically uncouth and insolent. Says Longus, of Daphnis and Chloe, “their beauty appeared too excellent to suit with rustic or derive at all from clowns.”329 The shepherd in the Rhesus attributed to Euripides confesses his rusticity plainly when derided,330 and Euripides’ farmer in Electra, to whom Electra was given as wife – a horrifying transition from urbanity to rusticity – is remarked as a gentleman, with great surprise.331

Consistent with the image of herders as uncivilised individuals is that peasant simplicity and élite sophistication are contrasted in rags-to-riches tales of exposed aristocratic infants, raised by herders, and eventually restored to ‘proper’ society. The foundlings’ youthful companions, born to herding and not of élite parents, are emphasised as base by the very naturalness of their counterparts’ nobility, despite these being brought up in the same peasant surroundings. Menander points out the common thread of such plays.343 The most extreme transitions usually have foundlings nursed by herd animals, like Longus’ Daphnis and Chloe. Emphasising their uncultured lifestyles, herder and flock are closely identified in pastoral literature, but Daphnis’ integration into his goats’ world is so thorough that Epstein344 justifiably calls him one of the herd, and the adoptive she-goat is honoured with a garden burial.345 Lowly though

Many herders appear to have been slaves. Sophokles’332 Theban herd slave has been mentioned, and Isaeus says that Philoctemon sold some goats with their herder for thirteen minas.333 Slaves as herders fit the evidence for slaves living on farms, cited above.334 Nevertheless, it would seem that the appearance and work of slave and freeman herders was virtually indistinguishable,335 for Theokritos is able to have a Scheidel, “Silent Women II” 3. Arist., Pol. 6.9(1323a4-5). Scheidel, “Silent Women I”. Scheidel, “Silent Women II” 3-4. Fitton-Brown, “Contribution of Women”. 326 Pl., Leg. 805d-e. Scheidel, “Silent Women II” 6-7. 327 Dem., 57.45. See also Jameson, “Slavery” 124, 137-138. 328 Hom., Od. 17.212-269, 20.173. 329 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.7 (Thornley). 330 Eur., Rhes. 266, 271. 331 Eur., El. 357-400. 332 Soph., OT 1132-1140. 333 Isae., Philoctemon 33. 334 See index for cross references to slaves living on farms. 335 Pseudo-Xenophon, Ath. Pol. 1.11 tendentiously makes a similar observation of urban slaves. 324 325

Theoc., Id. 5.70-75. Pipili, “Workmen” 165, note 51. 338 Pipili, “Workmen” 163-179. Caskey/Beazley, Boston III, 56. Blatter, “Rüstungsszene” 49. 339 Anth. Pal. 7.740. Hom., Od. 14.72. 340 Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 277 note 2. 341 Geddes, “Rags” 307-309, note 7. 342 Anth. Pal. 14.104 (Paton). 343 Men., Epit. 325-334. 344 Epstein, “Daphnis” 25-26. 345 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe (Thornley). 336 337

25

the animals may have been, the prodigious nature of animal fostering seems to have prevented any ambivalence about the foster-animals from rubbing off onto the infants. Daphnis and Chloe love their herds dearly,346 express no embarrassment, and receive no derision. They are in good company, for a goat, called Almathea, suckled even Zeus.347

Makron’s delightful gathering notwithstanding, and regardless of whether mythical or mortal herders are involved, the presence of flocks is usually implied rather than depicted. Given the option of abbreviating their subject, and so their labour, and often constrained by an object’s small surface area, it is not surprising that artisans chose only to represent one goat or sheep. Further, the squalid ubiquity and apparent uniformity of sheep and goats may have made them relatively uninteresting.

Paris, an exposed royal infant raised as a herder,348 was still herding when he judged the beauty of the Goddesses.349 The judgement of Paris seems to have been a favourite scene,350 with Paris often richly clothed in Asiatic dress befitting his true status.351 Only from about 520 BC is he regularly attired as a simple shepherd,352 usually seated on a rock. Regardless of dress, he often attempts to escape the epiphany, reflecting his present reclusive rusticity. Other heroic mortals are usually less perturbable,353 and Paris’ reclusiveness is especially emphasised.354

The challenges of husbandry seem to have been invisible to popular perception, the care of ‘compliant and docile’ sheep and goats apparently straightforward. That the realities of hoof trimming, and picking off maggots, were not given much notice by those not involved with them plays into fantasies of a pleasant outdoor life. A young herdsman is called ‘kalos’ on the cup in Bremen [26]. To call a herding youth ‘kalos’ echoes the unspoiled beauty of the mythical goatherd, Daphnis,356 and hints that the grubbiness of herding might be overlooked when herders are eroticised or represent an idealised golden age,357 or life of ease. The perceived simplicity of the herding lifestyle penetrates Theokritos’ Idylls, though his herders remain bumpkins, and numerous epigrams feature the delights of herders creating music in the countryside.358 Meleager incorporates pipes into his praise of spring in the country.359 Herders on vases are often seated at musical leisure [18, 30], and the informal pleasure of country life features on a pelike in the Louvre, with two bumpkins playing pipes, one riding a goat and one a sheep.

Even after 520 BC, Paris’ herds seldom appear, and his most frequent companion is a burly dog. It is doubtless intended as a guard, and besides its convenient artistic brevity, may have been thought more dignified than unruly flocks. In the fifth-century, just one individual usually represents the ungulates.355 A hydria in London [17] has Paris simply dressed, accompanied by one freshly shorn sheep. He is pictured with a ram and a dog on a pyxis lid in Copenhagen [28]. On a fragmentary bell-krater in Sarajevo, Paris is dressed as an eastern prince, and accompanied by what might have been meant for his favourite bull, and a large dog [29]. An actual flock does appear on a cup in Berlin, attributed to the painter Makron. Paris is accompanied by five well-observed sprightly goats, in varied alert postures, with charmingly inquisitive, cheerful facial expressions that convey a normal goat’s interestedness in its environment [19]. Indeed, the drawing confers as much character upon the goats as has been given to Paris himself.

346

In keeping with the tradition of musical shepherds, Paris often has a lyre in red-figure [19]. Lyres,360 however, are the instruments of heroes and the urbane,361 and Paris’ origins may again be receiving emphasis. Above all, herders must be practical. Two distinct types of pipes were well known: the syrinx, a collection of simple reed pipes, joined as a raft, and stoppered to varying depths to enable different notes to be blown from each; and the aulos a pipe or often a pair of pipes connected to a section containing a vibrating reed. The alternative notes are achieved by plugging finger-holes on the body of the pipe or pipes. Crude auloi could be manufactured in the field,

Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.8, 4.38 (Thornley).

Callim., Hymn 1.49. Philoxenus of Leucas frag.836(e). Quoted in Ath., 14.642a-b. 348 Hyg., Fab. 91. Apollod., Bibl. 3.12.5. 347

Stinton, Euripides and Paris 49-56. Eur., IA 182-4, 573-85. Burn, Meidias 65-68. Burn, “Red and White” 121. Sparkes, Red and Black 125-130. LIMC VII, s.v. Paridis Iudicium, 176188, nos.1-63, pls.105-121 (Kossatz-Deissmann). Clairmont, Parisurteil, and Raab, Parisurteils catalogue and analyse the theme in vase painting. 351 Richter, “Pyxis” 154. 352 Pipili, “Workmen” 173. 353 Stinton, Euripides and Paris 11-12. 354 Stinton, Euripides and Paris 16-17. 355 Harrison, “Judgment” 207-209. 349 350

356 LIMC III, s.v. Daphnis, 348-352 (Berger-Doer). Meleager 12.128. Theoc., Id. 1.66-142. 357 Griffin, “Theocritus, Iliad” 200. Reinholdt, “Oder Vita Humana?” 163. 358 Anth. Pal. 7.174, 7.657, 9.136, 9.234, 9.240, 9.363, 9.586. 359 Anth. Pal. 9.363. 360 Stinton, Euripides and Paris 28-29. 361 Griffin, “Theocritus, Iliad” 199.

26

but the syrinx is particularly simple to make to a reasonable standard, in itself this would have provided amusement in the field. A syrinx was therefore cheap, easily obtained, and had the advantages of being easily transportable, and fairly impervious to water. Given these advantages, and despite the tendency of figured pottery to depict shepherds, Pan, Hermes, and Dionysiac entourage with either kind of pipe, it would be unsuprising if the syrinx was the usual herder’s instrument,362 though this is difficult to prove. The syrinx may even have complemented perceptions of herders’ primitivism. Athena’s rejection of her newly invented aulos, for distorting her face as she played, adds weight to this idea, since the syrinx is also likely to have involved puffing out of the player’s cheeks.363

Herders no doubt interacted with their animals for amusement. This need have been no more than picking dirt from their coats, or running excitedly with kids. As on the in Paris pelike [30], there may have been attempts to ride or harness. Carolyn Eddy has trained goats to carry large packs.368 Rex Summerfield also trains pack goats, which may be ridden by children.369 Such amusements with goats are explored further in the chapter on pets.370 Physical contact is a simple, yet satisfying and bonding way to pass time with animals. That goats nestled close to herders sleeping with them, for warmth, was pleasant for the herders as well.371 For the lonely or frustrated, however, the animals may have been sexually tempting. However repugnant or illegal societies declare bestiality to be, it regularly occurs,372 and Phaedrus373 and Plutarch374 both allude to the danger of unmarried herdsmen resorting to sex with animals. It is not clear whether their concern is for the well-being of the animals or the men, but Meleager’s remark that he leaves the ‘squeeze of a hairy arse to herdsmen who mount their goats’375 reinforces the conclusion that the practice was repugnant, and that herdsmen were considered the sort of people who might do such things. On vases, bestiality is generally left to satyrs.376 These concentrate especially on asses and mules,377 and sometimes the goats [32] that so often appear with them, but seldom sheep. The absence of sheep with satyrs might suggest perceptions of greater permissiveness among goats, and might also be a reflection of the goat’s feral nature, only slightly removed from that of the wild goats in Greece, and comparable to the position of Pan among the other gods.378 Physical attributes may also have contributed to ideas of permissiveness. The upright posture of goats’ short tails, and the lack of hair around their ano-

Theokritos builds several narratives around competitive piping by herdsmen, and Longus thought that there were herding implications. He has Daphnis exploit the goats’ responsiveness to his music, to prove his worth as a goatherd.364 The impression that goats like music was common, it seems, and they had this in common with satyrs, which themselves manage to straddle the divide between culture and wild nature.365 A bronze ring in Malibu shows a squatting satyr playing a syrinx, while a goat dances before him [31], and Alkiphron describes goats gathering around, fascinated and charmed by a herder’s piping.366 It is true that sheep, and goats in particular, can be stimulated by music, but it is difficult to categorically state that they are ‘delighted’. In goats, anything367 new or exciting may prompt rearing, a natural behaviour when playing or fighting, and some goats will leap about energetically, apparently ‘dancing’ erect on their hind legs in response to music. I have observed this, when playing a flute among my own goats. Aged fourteen, I was delighted that some kind of connection had been made. Certainly piping kept herders amused, but if it also elicited positive responses from their animals, then this may well have been gratifying, and uniting, by virtue of apparent flattery. The recognition of a more complex creature than might otherwise have been acknowledged is also likely.

www.goattracksmagazine.com. Personal communication, January 4th, 2007. 369 Personal communication, January 4th, 2007. Rex Summerfield at www.northwestpackgoats.com. Northwest Pack Goats & Supplies, Weippe, Idaho. www.northwestpackgoats.com/whats_a_packgoat. htm for a picture of humans riding goats. 370 See index for cross references to goats and human play. 371 Arist., Hist. An. 9.3(610b32-34). 372 Earls/Lalumiere, “Bestiality”. Wilcox, et al., “Zoosexual”. Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behaviour ch.12. See also the BBC news item: “Sudan Man Forced to ‘Marry’ Goat” in which a Sudanese man is reported to have been forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal. http://news.bbc. co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/africa/4748292.stm 373 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus 3.3. 374 Plut., Mor. 149c-d. 375 Anth. Pal. 12.41. 376 Dover, Homosexuality 97. 377 See the chapter on draught animals. 378 Borgeaud, Pan 65. 368

Smith, “Pipes” 509. Apollod., Bibl. 1.4.2. Hyg., Fab. 165. 364 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 4.15 (Thornley). 365 Rothwell, Choruses 92-96. 366 Alkiphron, Letters 2.9. 367 Personal communication, January 4th, 2007. Rex Summerfield at www.northwestpackgoats.com. Northwest Pack Goats & Supplies, Weippe, Idaho. www.northwestpackgoats.com/whats_a_packgoat. htm for a picture of humans riding goats. 362 363

27

genital region, mean that she-goats present a much more conspicuous and ‘naked’ view of their sexual anatomy than ‘modest’ ewes.

practice, even for humans.388 This hints that names like ‘White-tail’ do not necessarily ignore an animal’s individuality, and surviving names given to sheep and goats suggest not only that herders interacted with them verbally, but also that they acknowledged their individuality.

Perhaps goats were not always thought willing participants. On the Pan Painter’s name-vase bellkrater [24], a priapic goat-legged Pan pursues a herdsman (the mythical Daphnis?).379 Perhaps the tables of stereotype are being turned on the goatherd. Regarding the other side of the krater, Osborne suggests that the victim, Aktaion, is less than innocent in his own conduct towards animals, and is appropriately paired with the pursued goatherd.380 Strengthening the connection, Pan seems to have shared the powers of Lyssa, enabling him to madden domestic animals.381 If these connections hold true, the Pan Painter’s wry ‘serves you right’ might even express mild defence of violated flock animals.

Notable differences between sheep and goats There are many similarities between sheep and goats, but important differences in herding, grazing, vocalisations, mating, and fighting, clearly affected Greek attitudes towards each species. Herding, frisking, and fighting Aristotle remarks that goats are “not of a stable nature but frisky, and apt to ramble.”389 Indeed, goats take considerably more watching than sheep,390 since they range widely in browsing, preferring to climb to elevated areas,391 rather than grouping to graze steadily, like sheep.392 Goats are inquisitive, agile, and physical in their interactions, and this impression is relayed in depictions. In Makron’s little herd on the cup in Berlin [19], the goats all look about, and one begins to climb onto Paris’ rock. On the Louvre kyathos, similar independence exasperates the goatherd.393 On a chous [33], a goat is in descent from a characteristic rearing posture, about to butt the children playing around it.394 The shape of rearing goats meeting head-on lent itself well to sculpted grave stele finials [34, 35], and their use in this setting suggests that goats were more accepted and evocative of divine approval, and even admired, than literature might otherwise lead us to believe. Elsewhere goats are regularly depicted on their hind legs browsing high branches [36].

One of Sophokles’ shepherds says of his flock, “… though we are their masters, we are slaves to them, and we must listen to them even though they do not speak”.382 This is a reflection of herders’ awareness that the animals in their care are themselves interacting with their environment, and have their own requirements and expectations. The flocks’ lack of speech did not prevent herders addressing them directly, and the content of herders’ speech to their animals is further confirmation of their awareness that the animals have wills and idiosyncrasies of their own. Theokritos’383 herders admonish their animals, Daphnis calls his goats by name,384 and Aristotle mentions sheep called by name.385 Verbal communication is so innate to humans that it would be surprising to find herders who never spoke to their charges. When animals appear to respond, especially to their names, the gulf of understanding can seem reduced. Naming distinguishes flock members in speech, and names frequently specify physical appearance.386 Alkiphron’s387 Chione (Snow White), a milking goat, seems named for her colour. Naming with an eye to physical attributes seems to have been common Greek

Lively, nibbling and fighting goats are remarked for mischievousness395 much more than sheep. Particular mischiefs include crop-invasion, and inappropriate tree and shrub browsing. Grape-vines curse nibbling

Caskey/Beazley, Boston vol.2, 50. Osborne, “Relations” 28-29, figs.5A-C. 381 Borgeaud, Pan 58, 110. See Cohen, “Killers” 117 for madness disrupting normal relationships between man and beast. 382 Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Vol.3, frag.505. 383 Theoc., Id. 4.45-50, 5.100-103. 384 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 4.26, 4.38 (Thornley). See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 385 Arist., Hist. An. 6.19(573b25-29). 386 Jeschonnek, Nominibus 57. Theoc., Id. 3.5 for the tawny Libyan billy-goat, 4.46 for Cymaetha, the white heifer, and others, at 1.151, 4.45, 4.46, 5.103. 387 Alkiphron, Letters 2.18. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 379 380

388 Levin, “Concepts of Naming” 48. Notopoulos, “Name of Plato” 137-138. 389 Arist., Hist. An. 6.19(574a11-14) (Thompson, in Barnes). 390 Ripoll, “Pastoral Greek Thrace” 293. 391 Geist, “Feral Goats” 39. See index for cross references to goats causing mischief. 392 Arist., Hist. An. 8.10(596a14-16). 393 See index for cross references to goats causing mischief. 394 See index for cross references to goats and human play. 395 Eg. Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 2.13 (Thornley). See index for cross references to goats causing mischief, and goats damaging crops.

28

in Paris [39]. Further, the fighting of sheep is less conspicuous than goats’, for they rear less.408 At the other end of the spectrum, goats often spar for fun, adding to impressions of troublesomeness.

goats,396 and other damage is reported.397 Crop or garden damage may be what prompted Plautus’ Lysimachus398 to threaten mutilation of one goat. Plato, however, acknowledges that goats vandalise crops if unsupervised or if their herder is negligent.399 Whether sheep or goat or cattle, Theokritean herders call or threaten their animals when they deviate from permitted pasture.400

Vocalisations Goats have a variety of calls, but the most characteristic is a high-pitched, querulous bleat.409 It carries well, and keeps them in touch as they explore and forage out of sight of each other. Goats vocalise when excited, which generally requires little provocation, and are much more vocal than domestic sheep, which usually have lower-pitched, less startling tones. Aristotle comments that a “soft, languid voice means gentleness, as in sheep: a shrill, shrieking voice, lewdness, as in goats.”410 Longus continues the comparison, and has the experienced herdsman, Philetas, play soft, sweet tones to please sheep, and sharp, shrill tones for goats.411 Aristotle points out that a deep voice is indicative of courage,412 and in this sheep outdo the goats again, even though their soft,413 woolly coats414 put them into the group of timid animals. The propensity to make a lot of highpitched noise reduced goats’ dignity in comparison to the quieter, baritone sheep. Next to sheep, goats may well have appeared womanly.415

Herders often appear exasperated by wilful goats. On a kyathos in Paris [25], a goatherd waves a whip at his cavalcade. The goats look about them, putting their heads up and down, and one he-goat attempts to go back, or butt his neighbour’s flank. Unusually, the work-a-day scene dominates this Attic vase, and the layout may be owed to Etruscan inspiration.401 One fable has an annoyed herder break the horn of a goat by throwing a stone, then fear punishment by his master.402 Another goatherd tells his goats to stop butting and prancing, and to get on with eating.403 This may have been to do with making sure that grazing was accomplished before the goats were taken home, or reflect awareness that rutting billies lose condition rapidly, neglecting food while pursuing, mounting, and fighting.404 Rival male goats, and sheep, fight. Sometimes injury and even death results, and herders must prevent such disasters. Columella notes the violence of rams,405 and on a Greek gem, rams butt heads.406 Rams will charge humans, like the one chasing a youth on a skyphos once in Munich [37]. The human and ram each appear on their own sides of the vase, but the idea that the ram is chasing the youth is supported by the fact that the youth is looking back as he runs. Beazley agrees with the running order, and compare the modern photograph of a youth pursued by a ram. Nevertheless, fierce and persistent fighting among rams is usually confined to rutting, or when food is scarce,407 reasons easily comprehended by herders. In representations, most sheep are conveyed as sedate and orderly [38], with rams only occasionally depicted in strenuous activity. One quietly frisks on a Little Master lip-cup

Goats, stench, and lust One of the most prominent literary differences between sheep and goats is their odour. Male goats have scent glands under their tails, and, for two to three weeks before, and during, rutting, they urinate on themselves copiously. They cover their chests, necks and beards, and even urinate in their mouths. Billy-goat smell is overpowering to human nostrils, and strengthens as animals age.416 Theophrastos points out the rankness of goats, especially when rutting, and that even dead goatskins will come into rut.417 Callimachus418 remarks flies swarming around goatherds, and the stench of hegoats features in the Greek Anthology.419 Collias, “Socialization” 238. To hear the bleating of goats, compared with that of sheep, go to www.goats4h.com/GoatSounds.html (last accessed by me on 23 June 2009). 410 Arist., Phgn. 2(813b3-5) (Loveday and Forster, in Barnes). 411 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 2.35 (Thornley). 412 Arist., Phgn. 2(806b27-28, 807a17-25). 413 Arist., Phgn. 2(806b6-14). 414 Arist., Phgn. 2(812b30). 415 Blok, “Rams” 430-431. 416 Personal observation. Coblentz, “Scent-Urination” 554. 417 Theophr., Odours 8. 418 Callim., Ia. 1.26-27. 419 Anth. Pal. 9.368, 11.240. 9.368. 408

Anth. Pal. 9.75, 9.99. 397 Anth. Pal. 11.365. 398 Plautus, Mercator 2.2.1. 399 Pl., Leg. 1.639a. 400 Theoc., Id. 4.44-49 (cattle), 5.100-103 (sheep and goats). 401 Tosto, Nicosthenesepoiesen 99. 402 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 3, Perotti’s Appendix 24. 403 Anth. Pal. 9.217. 404 Coblentz, “Scent-Urination” 552. Keller, Tierwelt vol.1, 308. 405 Columella, Rust. 7.3.4-6. 406 Spier, Getty Gems 16-17. 407 Collias, “Socialization” 237-238.

409

396

29

Surprisingly, given the prominence of goats in Daphnis and Chloe, Longus mentions their smell only twice. This becomes intelligible, however, if the attractiveness of Daphnis, as the central male character, and keeper and sometimes peer of his goats, would be reduced if goat-smell was mentioned too often. Conclusively, the people who mention goat-smell are disparaging Daphnis himself.420 Longus may well draw his perceptions from Theokritos, whose neatherds and shepherds insult goatherds for smelling like goats,421 and the matter is not overlooked by Athenaeus.422 In a letter probably derived from Philoxenos’ poem about Odysseus and Polyphemos, Synesius has Odysseus remark that the goat-stink of the Cyclops’ blankets may offend a girl with clean habits.423 Dionysius of Syracuse reputedly threw Philoxenos into the quarries,424 and Athenaeus425 reports that he there wrote his Cyclops, insulting Dionysius as the Cyclops. The play does not survive, but Aristophanes parodies it, and includes the lines “…raise up cry on cry with the song of bleating sheep and of stinking goats and follow me cocks skinned (άπεψωλημένος);426 you’ll have a billy-goat’s breakfast!”427 The translation “follow me like lascivious goats with their tools out”428 is also proposed.

taking up to three inches of extended penis into the mouth, drawing the mouth back along the extended penis, which throbs visibly, as in ejaculation, and then lifting up their heads with their lips drawn back in a ‘flehmen’.432 It is inconceivable that the Greeks had not noticed this. The verb ‘άκρατίζομαι’ derives from the verb for, and can also mean, to drink unmixed liquids, especially wine.433 The lines may refer to goats’ urine drinking. The whole passage resonates with scatological references, including auto-fellatio, which Sommerstein points out was repugnant to the Greek way of thinking. Overall, he-goats seem to have been stereotyped as both smelly and sexually obsessed. Most reproduction in sheep and goats is seasonal, but some breeding activity can be seen among goats in any month.434 The sexual excitement of he-goats is repeatedly observed,435 and portrayed as urgently opportunistic. Aristotle bluntly accused goats of lasciviousness: “Goatish eyes mean lustfulness, as in goats…”436, and “Hairy legs mean lasciviousness, as in goats.”437 Theokritos even has his annoyed herders wish to quell the frantically mating goats.438 Longus’ sexual coming-of-age of Daphnis and Chloe is heavily reliant upon their observance of the goats’ activities,439 including fighting for mates.440 Indeed, that Longus has Daphnis nursed by a goat, and Chloe by a sheep, could be related to Daphnis, as the male, needing to be intrepid and energetic, while Chloe is docile and passive, matching her obedient sheep.

The remarks about the goats’ smell are clear, but to “breakfast like billy-goats” seems a little cryptic. Surely the he-goats and the she-goats had the same things for breakfast. If there is a link to Aristophanes’ derision of Philoxenos’ herb-consuming Cyclops,429 then this is not obvious, and there is another option. Sommerstein’s stage note is that Carion raises his phallus to his lips after speaking these lines,430 and the scholia explain that male goats lick their genitals after mating.431 In addition to the post-coital action, hegoats’ self-anointment with urine includes urinating in their mouths, as mentioned above. This is a frequent action, and involves the conspicuous act of

Rams, virility, and restraint That rams were not labelled lascivious does not mean that their sexual drive and aggression were overlooked. However, they do not urinate on themselves, and rams seem to have been commended for their virility, and dignified and appropriately proprietary self-assertiveness regarding their mates.441 Mitten comments that rams were noted for “sturdy belligerence and steadfast resistance”.442 This is

Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.16 (Dorco to Chloe), 4.17 (Astylus to Gnatho) (Thornley). 421 Theoc., Id. 5.50-58, 7.16. 422 Ath., 13.585e. 423 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Philoxenus of Cythera frag. 818. 424 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Philoxenus of Cythera 3, 4, frags. 816, 819 note 2. 425 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Philoxenus of Cythera frag.816. 426 LSJ s.v. Ðπόψωλέω. 427 Ar., Plut. 292-295 (Sommerstein). Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Philoxenus of Cythera frag. 819. The scholia on Wealth to which Sommerstein refers in his footnote discussion say that here Aristophanes is drawing ideas & words from Philoxenus. 428 Oates/O’Neill (eds.), Greek Drama Aristophanes, Peace 295. 429 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Philoxenus of Cythera frag. 820 note 2. 430 Ar., Plut. 157 (Sommerstein). 431 Chantry (ed.), Scholia 66 on line 292a. 420

432 Personal observation. See also Coblentz, “Scent-Urination” 550. 433 LSJ s.v. άκρατίζομαι. 434 Geist, “Feral Goats” 37. Nowak, Mammals 1485. 435 For instance, Anth. Pal. 9.317. 436 Arist., Phgn. 2(812b6-7) (Loveday and Forster, in Barnes). 437 Arist., Phgn. 2(812b14) (Loveday and Forster, in Barnes). 438 Theoc., Id. 1.150-152, 5.141-150. 439 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 3.13 (Thornley). 440 Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 1.12 (Thornley). 441 Blok, “Rams” 428-429. See index for cross references to rams as models of masculinity. 442 Mitten, “Animals” 81.

30

Karlsruhe [41, 42, 43]. Symposiastic shapes generally lean towards masculine-themed decoration, including warriors, satyrs, eroticism, and komasts, in addition to the animals. Hunting also features and, on a neckamphora in Brussels, men invade a frieze to attack a deer [44]. Here we seem to see a playful streak in the painter, bucking the formality of the style and deriving humour from violating the formal separation of animal frieze from human narrative.

apparently consistent,443 and appears in black-figure friezes, a seventh-century feature of Corinthian and Attic pottery,444 where sheep, and goats, may be juxtaposed with predatory animals, often panthers. Although full contact has not been made between the animals in these friezes, they appear to be an extension of the feline-prey motif borrowed from Syro-Phoenician art,445 and exhibit elements of the raised-paw motif that was likewise imported.446 The friezes seem not to have had particular symbolic447 or narrative448 meaning, but frequent tension between parade members indicates that they are sharing their own space and time. The carnivores and prey are characterised by heraldic appearances of virility, strength, and courage. A stand fragment in Athens shows a ram butting the rear end of a feline [38], and on a dinos in Brussels [40], three panthers molest three rams, which respond assertively. The rams look placed to give as good as they get. The same applies to the only goat, with his head lowered towards his tormentor, but his behaviour is less remarkable, since it fits usual patterns of goat representation. Whether the animals interact or not, if the carnivores were intended as fearsome, there was little point in opposing them to feeble opponents.

One particular vase shape, the animal-head rhyton, appears to have originated from the Persian Empire,453 been adopted in Thrace around the end of the fifthcentury, and spread from there, with modification by Greek craftsmen.454 Such rhyta became prominent attributes of heroic feasting,455 and, as elaborate drinking vessels, seem to have provided a new expression of status in a masculine setting.456 Among surviving Greek rhyta generally, sheep-heads are numerically prominent.457 Among the eighty-eight fourth-century Tarentine sheep- and ram-head rhyta catalogued by Hoffman,458 at least fifty appear to represent ewes, or at least immature individuals. However, none of the surviving, earlier Attic rhyta represent ewes..459 By Theophrastos’ time, Italian rhyta production had outlasted the Attic, and Theophrastos remarks they were grave gifts only, specifically for those of heroic stature.460 Hoffmann claims that Tarentine goat, ewe, and ram rhyta represented sacrificial animals in funerary and Dionysiac settings (goats especially),461 but that the animals of Attic rhyta were chosen simply for decorative and sculptural advantages.462 Rams’ horns certainly have ornamental value, but the possibility of non-aesthetic reasons for their selection should be considered.463 It is plausible that Attic ramrhyta emblematised aristocratic masculine values, similar to the emphasis on hunting suggested by fifthcentury hound-rhyta and boar-rhyta.464 There is also the ram’s role as the primary sacrificial animal in hero

Portrayal of strength and masculinity, particularly with respect to rams, continues on sixth-century vases. Billies and rams appear on their own, and in friezes, especially on symposiastic shapes. Real flocks typically contain many ewes to each ram, so the fact that male animals predominate on the vases suggests a preference for depicting them, and not gender balances. It seems likely that male animals were more relatable to the male-oriented human society, and, being few and dominant in flocks, were respected more as individuals. Note that of all his sheep, Polyphemos identifies with and loves his biggest and strongest ram most dearly.449 It is relevant also that Odysseus chooses the ram to carry him out of the cave - the lead ram for the Greek leader, and strong enough to carry him by itself.450 This was a popular moment among late sixth-century black-figure painters,451 and other craftsmen.452 A lekythos in Oslo shows the event, as do a lekythos in Paris and a column-krater in

Hoffmann, “Persian”. Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 46, 263. Ebbinghaus, “Rhyta in Thrace” 421. 455 Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 267. 456 Miller, Athens and Persia 150-152, 218-242, 253-258. Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 234. 457 Hoffmann, Attic Rhyta 56. 458 Hoffmann, Tarentine 30-42. 459 Hoffmann, Tarentine 40. 460 Ath., 11.461b, 497e. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery 206. Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 233. Hoffmann, Tarentine 111. Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 134, 137. 461 Hoffmann, Tarentine 112. 462 Hoffmann, Tarentine 111. Hoffmann retracts this view in Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 131. 463 Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 45. 464 Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 266. 453 454

Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy 184. Müller, Mischwesen 84-90, 107. 445 Hofsten, Feline-prey Theme 36-45. 446 Childs, “Early Greek Bronze Plaques in Princeton” 54. 447 Edlund, “Meaningless?” 31. 448 Karouzou, Anagyrountos 108. 449 Hom., Od. 9.447. 450 Hom., Od. 9.432-435. 451 CVA Norway 1 30. Harrison, “Monuments” 250. 452 LIMC VI, s.v. Odysseus, 945, nos.100-129, pls.628-631 (Touchefeu-Meynier). 443 444

31

cult to consider,465 and theories about the rhyton’s use as symbolic victim have been connected with pourholes in the nose, found in Persian, and late fifthcentury Attic rhyta.466

was often matched to the nature of the god. As such, the animals could indirectly amplify the nature of the deity. The animals were not worshipped,472 but gods might share their attributes, wear parts of their bodies, or be accompanied by them. As emblems, says Gilhus:

Some ram-rhyta are dimidiated with ass heads. These could simply derive from a quirky innovation, or possibly could contain serious or humorous meaning. As will be discussed in the chapter on burden animals, the ass was thought far from dignified, and was strongly associated with Dionysos.467 It may have seemed appropriate to compare ass and ram in drinking sessions, where the dignified human ram may become an ass with adequate alcohol. The example from New York is typical [45]. Viewed from either side, each animal retains its own grace and character, but the frontal view reveals the drunkenly lopsided effect of the two mismatched faces on each other. Interestingly, ass-head rhyta gave way to those featuring other Dionysiac animals, including the scurrilous goat, from the mid-fifth-century.468

“…animals add new dimension to the divine or stress certain characteristics… When animals are used in the characterization of gods, the point is not that a divinity is like an animal but that the animal gives added meaning to the divine.”473

Jan Bremmer observes that “most gods… received cattle, sheep and goats, whereas inedible or very cheap animals were offered to those divinities who were connected with impurity and, or, situated at the margin of the social order… Evidently, the choice of sacrificial victims reflected and helped to reinforce the divine pecking order”.474 Since they were numerous, ‘middling’ victims, sheep and goats seem to have been the basic currency for sacrifice for many gods. More goats, and even more sheep, were sacrificed than other animals,475 and the term hiereion, ‘sacrificial victim’, when unqualified, refers in at least one instance to sheep.476

Blok compares perceptions of goat and ram masculinity, and connects the derisive term for a cuckolded husband, cornuto, with the sexual behaviour of goats. Blok argues that the name is derived from the cuckolded husband being equated with he-goats, which tolerate other males in their herds, whereas rams will not accept rivals where there is a shortage of ewes.469 This adds to what has already been seen; that the ram symbolised honour and power, the goat representing shameful and unrestrained behaviour.470 Statistical comparisons may be made between ram and billy virility as well. Keller notes that two he-goats are needed to cover a herd of fifty goats, whereas one ram can serve at least this number of ewes.471

Sheep seem to have been preferred to goats as victims. Pausanias reports that the Lakedaimonians were the only Greeks to offer goats to Hera, because Herakles sacrificed a goat to her in the absence of any better victim.477 However, some deities, like Artemis Agrotera, particularly received goats.478 Given the wide acceptability of either species, a survey of the instances in which they might be sacrificed is not as helpful as consideration of a few deities that were closely linked with sheep and goats by their own activities.

Divine associations

Apollo, Hermes, and his son Pan, 479 all protected flocks, were all working herders at some point, and all received sheep and goats.480 However, they appear to form a descending gradient of respectability, and an ascending gradient of closeness to their flocks. Apollo’s civilized and urbane persona, high rank in Olympus, and delegation of herding responsibilities

The importance of animals and agriculture seems to have underpinned Greek willingness to connect certain animals with particular gods. A god might be associated with more than one species, or the same species might be an attribute of several gods. A god might have a special interest in a species or share its habitat or habits. The common perception of a species

Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 106. Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 112-113. 474 Bremmer, Greek Religion 40. 475 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 89-103. Prummel, “New Halos” 155-156. Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy” 204. 476 IG i3 1039. 477 Paus., 3.15.9. 478 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 92. Xen., Hell. 4.2.20. Xen., Lac. 13.8. Xen., An. 3.2.12. Plut., Mor. 862b-c. 479 Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.34-47. 480 Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 106. 472 473

Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 277-278. Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 141-142,157-163. Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery 205. 467 Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 271. 468 Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 266. 469 Blok, “Rams” 428. 470 Blok, “Rams” 429, 431, note 5. See index for cross references to rams as models of masculinity. 471 Keller, Tierwelt vol.1, 309, 319, 322. 465 466

32

to Hermes,481 suggest that his personal links with flock animals are not deep. His stint as a herder for Laomedon is described as duties imposed, rather than fulfilment of any professional calling.482 Hermes, a subordinate in the Olympian hierarchy,483 is often represented with sheep and goats, and wearing country dress. This is the case on a rare vase painting of him in his full role as Nomios, with an entire flock of sheep rather than one or two [46]. The benign Hermes frequently acts as guide, to gods and humans,484 living and dead, which matches his shepherd role.485 Zeus decreed Hermes responsible for all herds and flocks, especially sheep, and wild predators (which might attack flocks and herders),486 and Hesiod487 and Homer488 have it that Hermes will increase flocks. Predation seems to have been a primary fear of herders,489 and flock increase was a high priority. Hermes Nomios is solicited, along with Pan and the Nymphs, to ensure flock and herd prosperity and safety.490 Votives and epigrams offer Hermes symbolic sheep and goats. One epigram by Leonidas of Tarento commemorates a bronze goat dedicated by two goatherds to Hermes, giver of cheeses and milk.491 ‘Kriophoros’ (carrying a ram), was a common epithet for Hermes.492 Hermes is credited with saving the city of Tanagra from plague, by carrying a ram around its walls, so showing him as Kriophoros had particular relevance there.493 Pausanias494 reports sculptures of him as Kriophoros, and a Spartan sixth-century bronze statuette of Hermes Kriophoros, in Boston [47], as well as one in New York [11], is typical of the votives.

is particularly connected with sheep. Pan is far closer to his animals, and is concerned primarily with goats and only sometimes with sheep. Pan and goats share reputations for lasciviousness,496 shaggy appearances and noisy, boisterous ways.497 In literature, Pan is described as bearded, horned, goatfooted and goat-shanked.498 In representations, varying combinations of goatish head, face, ears, horns, legs, hooves, and tail identify him [24]. The greater appeal of sheep to the Greeks is reflected in a story that Virgil reports, of how Pan seduced Selene by disguising his hairy black goatishness with white fleeces, enticing Selene to ride on his back, and then raping her.499 As a human-goat cross, Pan presents sometimesuncomfortable observations on human debauchery. Pan frequently seems to be related as peer to his goats. Even more than Hermes,500 he was associated with mountaintops, thickets, and caves,501 sharing the preferences with goats, which prefer high places, and shelter in rock overhangs at night and in bad weather. Sexually, he is referred to as “Goat-Mounter”,502 and the motif of Pan butting heads with a goat is popular on Roman classicizing gems.503 In his role as herder,504 Pan often sits like a mortal herdsman, playing his syrinx.505 Pan’s own animals appear on a bell-krater in Wurzburg [49], and Pausanias describes rocks called “Pan’s goats” near a cave near Marathon that was sacred to Pan.506 As protector and increaser of flocks,507 he was appealed to in the same ways as Hermes. Philippus of Thessalonica has a goatherd dedicate an effigy of Pan and sacrifice an old he-goat and the first milk of a she-goat, hoping for his goats all to bear twins and escape predation by wolves.508

On a cup in Bologna, Hermes and Pan cut up a sacrificed goat [48]. This uncommon scene emphasises them as husbandmen, getting to grips with earthy tasks, recipient deities, and father and son. But of the pair (his thieving notwithstanding),495 Hermes is the full Olympian, generally portrayed as the more respectable. He is associated with cattle, and

On figure-vases, Pan is most often pictured with Hermes, maenads, satyrs, Aphrodite, and Dionysos (who is said to have been particularly delighted

Hymn. Hom. Merc. 495-499. Hom., Il. 21.441-457. 483 Chittenden, “Master of Animals” 90, 96. 484 Note his solicitude for the safety of Priam, in Hom., Il. 24. Chittenden, “Master of Animals” 90-91. 485 Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.26-34. 486 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 568a-571. 487 Hes., Theog. 443-447. 488 Hom., Il. 14.490. 489 Chittenden, “Master of Animals” 93, 101-102. 490 Anth. Pal. 6.334. Hom., Od. 14.434-435. Ar., Thesm. 977-978. See also Parker, Polytheism 418-419, note 10. 491 Anth. Pal. 9.744. 492 Chittenden, “Master of Animals” 92-93. 493 Bevan, Representations 247. 494 Paus., 9.22.1, 5.27.8. 495 Hymn. Hom. Merc. esp.13-17.

Borgeaud, Pan 55, 74-87. Longus, Daphnis and Chloe 2.39 (Thornley). LIMC VIII, s.v. Pan, 923-941, nos.1-287, pls.611-635, (Boardman). Lucian, Dionysus 2. Ov., Met. 1.694-1.712. 497 Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.1-14, 35-37. Eur., Rhes. 36. 498 Anth. Pal. 16.258. Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.2. 499 Verg., G. 3.391. Borgeaud, Pan 115, notes 150-153. 500 Chittenden, “Master of Animals” 97. Hymn. Hom. Merc. 4.5-16. 501 Eur., Ion 501. Ov., Met. 14.515. Especially in Arcadia: Allen, et al. (eds.), Homeric Hymns 405. Soph., Aj. 695. Eur., El. 699-705. Paus., 1.28.4, 8.24.4, 8.26.2, 8.36.8, 8.38.5, 8.54.7. 502 Anth. Pal. 12.128, 15.21 (Paton). 503 Spier, Getty Gems 111. 504 Borgeaud, Pan 47-73, esp 52-53, 62-63. 505 Anth. Pal. 15.21. Ov., Met. 1.694-1.712. Theoc., Id. 1.3. 506 Boardman, Nostalgia 108. Paus., 1.34.4 (Jones/Ormerod). 507 Paus., 8.38.11. Ov., Fasti 2.271, 277. 508 Anth. Pal. 6.99.

481

496

482

33

with him).509 These characters may in turn be linked in various ways to goats and goatish behaviours. Aphrodite riding a goat seems to have been popular in Attic art from at least the mid-fourth-century [50, 51]. Dionysos, another cave-dwelling thicket-wanderer,510 and his cohort are shown proportionally far more often with goats511 than Pan himself. Sacrifices were at times offered to Pan and Dionysos together,512 and several epigrams mention goats for Dionysos.513 One of his Boeotian epithets is aigobolos (goat-striker)514 and, less flatteringly, Dionysos is said to smell of the he-goat.515 Finally, Dionysos is associated with irrationality, and effeminacy.516 The themes that may be connected with Pan’s companions involve promiscuity, passion, wildness and sexuality, and unrestrained behaviour. Goats shared these characteristics, in Greek eyes, and their apparent relish of life and lasciviousness517 in turn made them appropriate for sacrifice to the gods that shared such interests.

preventing Boeotian raiders from stealing sheep,526 and the urges of adolescents being like those of billygoats.527 Other suggestions include the chorus being dressed in goatskins to resemble satyrs, as depicted on a calyx-krater in London [52], or that goats were prizes for the singers or playwrights.528 Harrison pointed out difficulties with such explanations, particularly that satyrs are more often represented with horsey tails and ears. She suggested that goats were never part of the etymology, pointed out that a beverage made from grain was drunk at the festival, and therefore proposed ‘beer-song’.529 No satisfactory conclusions have yet been derived, but the conjectures support the tendency of modern scholars to see a predominant Greek view of goats in which the goats are lewd and subject to their urges.

Findings Sheep and goats were very common, and appear to have been thought comparatively mundane. Those not directly concerned with them on a routine basis were generally indifferent to them. Their herd and flock management and exploitation lacked élite associations, and were aligned much more strongly with the lower strata of the rural population. Thus, of the categories of animals included in this study, they are the least varied in their depicted activities and human-animal interactions. This has required that a greater emphasis be placed upon literary evidence for this chapter.

Tragos One perceived connection between goats and Dionysos has caused considerable debate: the City Dionysia in Athens included song and dance called ‘τραγzδία’ (tragôidia).518 Tragos519 is a Greek word for he-goat, and aeidein is ‘to sing’, so tragoidoi is generally accepted as meaning “billy-goat song”.520 Burkert521 proposes that tragoidoi derived their name from festival goat sacrifices to Dionysos, though there is little evidence for this.522 Winkler523 rejects the antipathy between browsing goats and Dionysos’ grapevines,524 and suggests equations between bleating goats and the breaking voices of the ephebic singers;525 the notoriety of goats and goatherds being jokingly tagged to the pubescent ephebes, who otherwise patrolled the lonely Attic borders,

Sheep and goats were kept for their meat, but aside from their role in sacrifice their wool and milk would appear to have been the more important products. Their usefulness, coupled with the animals’ ability to thrive in arid, hilly areas, allowed them to become commonplace. As such, sheep and goats receive comparatively little attention from ancient writers, where an impression is given that relationships were wholly utilitarian, and the keeping of the animals perceived as relatively simple. In depictions too, there are signs that the natural activities of sheep and goats were not thought especially interesting. By itself, the pictorial evidence is less obviously fruitful for Greek relations with sheep and goats than it is for animals such as dogs and horses, with more sophisticated relations with humans. Flock husbandry does not generally feature, and there is a tendency to abbreviate

Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.45-46. Lucian, Double Indictment 9. Hymn. Hom. Pan. 26.3-9. 511 See Burkert, “Greek Tragedy” 98-99, esp. note 25 for a list of black-figure vases featuring goats in Dionysos’ retinue, and the observation that some vase painters may have equated goats and satyrs. 512 Paus., 2.24.6. Anth. Pal. 6.154. 513 Anth. Pal. 6.134, 9.745, 9.403. 514 Paus., 9.8.1. 515 Anth. Pal. 9.368. 516 Zeitlin, “Playing the Other” 63-65. Eur., Bac. 451-459. 517 Epstein, “Daphnis” 27-28. 518 Winkler, “Ephebes‘ Song” 49-50. LSJ s.v. τραγzδός. 519 LSJ s.v. τράγος. 520 Winkler, “Ephebes‘ Song” 37 note 50, 42, 58. 521 Burkert, “Greek Tragedy” 93-98. 522 Vernant/Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy 184-185. 523 Winkler, “Ephebes’ Song” 58-62. 524 See Anth. Pal. 9.75, 9.99. Ov., Met. 15.60. 525 Eyben, “Puberty” 688-691 also mentions the onset of body hair, sexual interests, and smell as equating the ephebes with goats. 509 510

Winkler, “Ephebes‘ Song” 34. Xen., Mem. 3.5.25-28. Xen., Mem. 3.6.9-11. 527 Winkler, “Ephebes’ Song” 60-62. Plut., Mor. 139b. See Plut., Mor. 290a for the lasciviousness of goats and the thinness of their voices. 528 LSJ s.v. τραγzδάριον. 529 Harrison, “Goat-Song?”. 526

34

flocks down to token individuals. Representations are most often related to sacrifice, usually with the animal behaving passively. However, thorough investigation of the evidence, together with anthropological comparison, allow a picture to emerge wherein herders interacted on a variety of levels with their animals, including husbandry, petting, play, addressing by name, and fondness for favourites.

The stereotyped Greek attitudes towards sheep and goats seem to have been derived partly from observation of the animals’ behaviour, which was then interpreted in the light of human codes of behaviour, and partly from constructs built around comparisons between the two similar species. Filtering observations through human codes and expectations allowed rams to symbolise honour and power, ewes, gentle complicity in the good of the oikos, and the goat, shameful licentiousness. It should be mentioned that the attitude to goats was by no means wholly negative, but the well-worn stereotypes of each species and its genders, including castrates, seem to have had great strength, deriving not only from actual characteristics, but also from comparison. Indeed, sheep might not have been thought so dignified without the counterpoint provided by goats, nor goats so lewd. As models of good and bad social behaviour, sheep and goats became the anti-type of each other in Greek thought, an achievement facilitated by their basic similarities.

Herders came to be strongly associated with their animals, and envied by some, for the apparent simplicity of their lifestyles. The complexity and judgement involved in dealing with the animals is seldom acknowledged, and the herder was considered a generally honest but lowly, rustic type, indistinguishable from the slaves who also herded their owners’ animals, and worthy of little attention. Their rustic and isolated commonness allowed a spell as a herder in the lives of several mythical characters to provides a sharp contrast between that and their aristocratic lives.

35

3 Draught and burden animals

With some of the primary providers of raw materials essential to human survival established, it is time to move to a second, nearly as crucial category of animal use – motive power. Greek literary sources and archaeological evidence repeatedly convey human concern and entreaties to gods about the welfare of work animals.530 Livestock may weaken and die, predators and thieves might attack, and disaster ensue for the livelihoods of those concerned. The importance of burden animals is emphasised by the fact that daily and unremitting labour could physically destroy men and beasts. The stress of hewing a living from the land might turn men into farm-bound recluses, or break them emotionally. In the Greek Anthology, Aristides had only one ewe and one cow. On one day, a wolf killed the sheep, the cow died in calving - and Aristides hanged himself in despair.531 This is an extreme example, but in Xenophon’s Oikonomikos,532 when Socrates praises agriculture, he is answered with a description of the losses that husbandmen suffer from hail, frost, drought, and animal diseases. Philippus533 describes a farmer crippled by ploughing. Columella comments that someone on a farm would be injured by the end of any day,534 and draught animals routinely develop osteoarthritis and other disorders.535 Here is the truth that belies aristocratic poets’ pastoral visions of the countryside. Nature is harsh, not idyllic, and in harnessing it, man has often needed to be equally

brutal. Human labour, plough, wagon, and beasts, as Hesiod insisted, were all tools for survival on the land. What follows investigates burden animals’ roles, and attitudes towards them.

Oxen in ploughing and heavy transport Theophrastus emphasises that the conditioning of soil by cultivation is essential.536 Cultivation allows penetration of valuable water, impedes its evaporation, controls weeds, and integrates manure. Certain soils and terrains required spade and mattock,537 and in Menander’s Dyskolos all tillage is by hand, but Hesiod538 and Aristotle539 agree that ploughing with oxen (castrated bulls at least four years old540) was the ideal. However, though cattle are otherwise prolific in Greek art, there was little interest in portraying farming tasks, and only rarely does painted pottery feature ploughing with oxen, and even more rarely is ploughing shown for its own sake [53]. More often the ploughing represented has religious significance. A Siana cup in London [54] is analysed by Ashmole541 as representing agricultural fertility rites associated with Demeter. Included in the depiction is a liknon or winnowing fan, an attribute linking grain and the deity.542 Elsewhere, ploughing on a bell-krater in 536 Theophr., Caus. pl. 3.20.1-3.20.4, 3.20.6-3.20.8. Theophr., Hist. pl. 8.7.7. 537 Theophr., Caus. pl. 3.20.1. 538 Hes., Op. 405, 451. 539 Arist., Pol. 1.2 (1252b12). 540 Watts, Oxen 3. 541 Ashmole, “Kalligeneia” 9. 542 ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.2 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.306 (Boardman, Mannack, Wagner).

Anth. Pal. 6.40. Anth. Pal. 9.149, 9.150, 9.255. See index for cross references to Aristides. 532 Xen., Oec. 5.18. 533 Anth. Pal. 6.104. 534 Columella, Rust. 11.1.18. 535 Davis, Archaeology of Animals 162, 178. Baker/Brothwell, Animal Diseases 114-122. Baker “Animal Diseases” 254-255. 530 531

37

Harvard [55] seems to be associated with the Bouzygia, an annual sacred ploughing at the foot of the Athenian Acropolis.543 Ploughing with oxen does feature as the subject of votive figurines and prayers however.544 Macedonius545 describes a farmer dedicating two ox figurines to Demeter, with the plea that his live oxen should live and work well in his cornfields. Terracotta [7] votive plough teams have been found, and several seventh-century bronze statuettes [3, 4, 5, 6] from Cyprus show plough teams in the pivotal and difficult moment of turning at the end of a row. Selection of this moment is artistically more interesting than the modelling of oxen simply pulling forward, but also reflects concern about the skill, strength, and training that was in need of divine attention. Present success in ploughing, and optimism for future success may have motivated the dedication of these votives.546 The immense importance of plough oxen in ancient civilisations is further revealed by Aelian’s547 statement that among the Phrygians slaughter of a plough ox was punishable with death. For the Greeks, Hesiod548 rates oxen above wives in farmers’ priorities, and the Roman Pliny549 recalls that a man was tried and exiled for killing a plough-ox as if he had murdered his farmlabourer.

to make them much less fecund, and they also require extra food and water if lactating. It was clearly tried, for the detrimental effects of extra work on cows are remarked by Philippus: “The young cow, obeying the goad that pricks her thighs, cuts the recurring furrows of the field, and again, after her ploughing-labour under the yoke, suffers fresh pain in suckling her newly-born calf. Do not drive her hard, husbandman. This little calf of hers, if you spare the mother, will grow up for you and become a steer.”552

The high status of ox-ownership is supported by the need for economies of scale by their owners. For instance, Theophrastus observes that ploughing resulted in lower yields than hand cultivation.553 Taking all things into account, White estimates that a household needed approximately five hectares under cultivation before the use of draught oxen was economically feasible.554 Thus big floors for ox-drawn threshing sledges have so far only been found on large estates like that at Palaia Kopraisia, near Legraina,555 although some ox-owning smallholders may have taken their corn to neighbours for threshing. For those farmers, hiring out their plough teams at slack agricultural periods may have made ox ownership more feasible.

When Aristotle quotes Hesiod and remarks that “the ox is the poor man’s slave”,550 “poor” is a relative term. Callimachus has Charidas report ironically from Hades the only good news he can think of – that large oxen are cheap.551 This could be regarded as a doubleedged sword for those whose wealth is derived from oxen. In the living world, however, the initial purchase of a pair of oxen could cost two or three times the corn needed annually to feed a four-person family. Purchase and maintenance costs meant that ownership of oxen expressed high social status.

Away from the plough, oxen featured prominently in heavy transport, but as with agricultural labour, haulage scenes are rare. In literature however, Philippus of Thessalonica556 has oxen draw fishingseines, and Leonidas of Alexandria557 has them tow ships from the sea. Vitruvius558 mentions a Greek sixthcentury ox-drawn frame for moving heavy blocks. Most useful are the inscribed financial accounts for the sanctuary of Demeter at Eleusis,559 which show that up to thirty-nine yoke of oxen were needed to bring a single column drum from Pendele to Eleusis. Another inscription records that Eudemus of Plataea was decreed Athens’ highest honours in 330 BC for donating 4000 drachmas, and 1000 yoke of oxen to transport material for the theatre of Dionysos and the Panathenaic stadium in Athens.560 It is very unlikely that there were 2000 individual oxen involved, and Eudemus probably funded a few score local oxen

The castration necessary to produce a powerful but docile ox is yet another impediment to ownership by small-farmers, for such an animal cannot be used in breeding. In the absence of oxen, bulls may be used for ploughing, but can present management problems. Cows may also be harnessed, but the extra work tends Giannisi, “Cows” 126. Durand, Sacrifice 179. Eg. Anth. Pal. 9.237. 545 Anth. Pal. 6.40. 546 ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.279280 (Parker). ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.308-310 (Parker). 547 Ael., NA 12.34. 548 Hes., Op. 11.405, 435, and 689. 549 Plin., HN 8.180. 550 Arist., Pol. 1.2(1252b11-12) (Jowett, in Barnes). 551 Anth. Pal. 7.524. See index for cross references to the expense of oxen. 543 544

Anth. Pal. 9.274 (Paton). Theophr., Caus. pl. 3.20.8. 554 White, Farming 336. 555 Lohmann, “Country Life” 42, 48, note 47. 556 Anth. Pal. 9.299. 557 Anth. Pal. 9.344. 558 Vitr., De arch. 10.2.11-12. 559 IG 22, 1672, 1673. Osborne, Demos 105-107. 560 IG ii2 351. Burford, “Transport” 11. 552 553

38

working in rotation, amounting to 1000 yoke-days,561 an opportunity for farmers to supplement their incomes.

best work is obtained from a team trained by its usual driver, and if the animals are hand-reared, so much the better. Oxen become very attached to their yokemates (working pairs will often graze side-by-side),567 their position in a team, and particular handlers. Thus, changes in these arrangements can cause trouble, and Martell has seen beasts ignore known commands issued in an unfamiliar voice. Supporting the desirability of a harmonious relationship between man and beasts, Columella recommends training animals to respond to a light touch and commands.568 Copper observes the need for constant vocal encouragement, and says that though the goad should be carried, it is seldom needed in earnest once oxen are aware of its potential.569 Goads therefore could be used for simple guidance.570 Goads and whips are usual in carting and ploughing scenes, such as that on a Little Master band-cup in Paris [56], and they are repeatedly mentioned or used as metaphor in the Greek Anthology.571 However, from these, and Copper’s remarks, it is clear that goads were not intended as instruments of unnecessary or excessive pain.

Given the well-documented hippomania of the ancient Greeks, it must be asked why they preferred oxen for heavy haulage and ploughing. The answers are multiple, and practical. Compared with equids, oxen are slower, but stronger, more enduring, and cheaper to feed. More docile and steady, they stand to face threats rather than bolt. Effective harnessing is simpler, and so cheaper, since a simple yoke, even without any breast strap and harness to hold it in place, can be sufficient. Equids, with no ridge of backbone and muscle for the yoke to rest against, can suffer difficulties when harnessed with a yoke, if it slips back and drags any throat-straps onto the windpipe.562

Using oxen Draught oxen were valuable, but needed partnering with skilled men to be effective. It is unlikely that Odysseus would have chosen an easy job for a hypothetical agon, so his proud boast to Eurýmakhos,563 that he would plough the straighter furrow with a powerful yoke of oxen, strongly suggests the human strength and skill required. Indeed, ox teams can need two people to handle them, one to operate or manage equipment, and another walking alongside the animals.564 However, Philippus565 mentions “traces attached to their legs [the oxens’ legs] that make them turn”, so a single ploughman with well-trained oxen seems an equally likely common arrangement. That only one man appears in the surviving figurines of teams turning at the ends of rows could be artistic expediency, or further support the single ploughman idea.

For vocal commands to be effective in a team, each ox must know when he is being addressed. This requires naming for the animals.572 Animals that have been given names tend to be recognised them more strongly as individuals, with their own personalities. At the same time, this encourages closer relationships and empathies to develop. The sheer proximity of the animals to humans may well have contributed positively to this. Detienne thought “the working ox, in particular, is traditionally a part of the farming unit and the family, a member of the oikos. It dwells under the same roof as the farmer and is his most faithful working companion.”573 Given such high levels of interaction indicated for Greek ox-drivers with their beasts, bonds of affection become almost inevitable where a team is being well managed.

If only one handler is present, the docility and cooperation required of the animals is correspondingly higher. Therefore, the number of men needed to handle a given pair of oxen is directly relevant to how well the animals were treated and trained, as well as the innate natures of the beasts, and their state of health. With draught animals, good working relationships are based on affection and trust as much as the whip, and the natures of the cattle must be understood to get the best out of them. Mr Charles Martell,566 Britain’s foremost trainer of draught oxen in the present day, says the

Very little ancient Greek evidence is available as to the training of oxen. For horse training, Xenophon describes both positive and negative reinforcement techniques, emphasising a gentle, reassuring approach.574 Xenophon suggests however that horseowners could generally afford professional trainers (one horse-trainer’s epitaph appears in the Greek Watts, Oxen 23. Columella, Rust. 2.2.26. 569 Copper, Every Season 96. 570 Crouwel, Chariots 51. 571 Eg. Anth. Pal. 6.41, 6.95, 9.274. 572 See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 573 Detienne, Spices 54. 574 Xen., Eq. 2.3-5. 567 568

Burford, “Transport” 16-17. Burford, “Transport” 10. Spruytte, Early Harness 10. 563 Hom., Od. 18.370-18.374. 564 Watts, Oxen 17. 565 Anth. Pal. 6.104 (Paton). 566 Martell, personal communication, 12th April 2005. 561 562

39

Anthology).575 Ox training is easier than training equids, says Martell, but Columella still gives considerable space to their patient treatment.576 Appropriately, Columella and Pliny577 favour yoking young oxen with experienced partners, and in a fable, a young ox that injured its handlers was yoked with an older, steadier animal.578 Whether supplied with such good advice or not, many farmers probably made do with their own training techniques and trial and error. That this occurred, and that it could go wrong, is supported by Columella’s censure of “goads, fire or other forms of torture”579 to correct ox behaviour. The process must have been deeply exasperating for many. One fable580 has a farmer try to subdue a rebellious, angry ox by cutting off its horns and yoking him to a heavy plough - where he still wrecked havoc. Arkhilokhos complains that he has an ox “… that is haughty, knowing his work but unwilling to plough”.581 Under such circumstances it it easy to imagine frustrated men hurting or frightening the animals, and Sophokles’582 advice against putting vicious slaves in charge of stock would be well-founded.

At times human and draft-animal needs can come into conflict. As such, the choices made can be good indicators of attitudes. Time- and season-dependent tasks can cause peaks in ox-reliant tasks, and this implies at least periodic danger of overwork or poorly compensating nutrition. Bone, tooth, and horn can indicate pathologies related to this. For example, continuous heavy work in draught animals can impair mobility by fusion and deformation of bones, eburnation (rubbing and compacting after the cartilage is worn away), ossified outgrowths, and pitting.585 However, most of these can have other causes,586 and since few animals needed to be kept in any one place, there is a relative scarcity of draught ox bones. This hampers any survey of their work-related injuries. Further, oxen were almost certainly dismembered after death, and though isolated bones might indicate labour-related damage, an entire skeleton can seldom be assessed. Nevertheless, arthritis and strain on joints from hauling unnatural burdens is observed in present day traction animals, and is discernable in ancient remains. The deformations on cattle metapodia and phalanges from Sagalassos can be interpreted as being at least partly inflicted by heavy labour.587

As has been seen, good relationships were important in training and handling. However, it can still go wrong, and a beast that has worked with a man for years can turn savage just long enough to kill its handler. In the Greek Anthology for instance, a herdsman is charged by his own straying bull.583 Some cattle are routinely irritable, but even simple clumsiness or mild annoyance can occasion significant injuries. Against this, animals that refused to be brought under control will have ultimately been deselected from teams, whilst experience gained by humans and oxen alike could be handed down with good effect by the overlapping of older teams with new. The indications are that many oxen worked harmoniously with their handlers. This is perhaps supported by those infrequent depictions of harness, for even allowing for artistic abbreviation, trust and rapport between driver and oxen seems demonstrated by the absence of restraining devices. There appear to have been no brakes, blinkers, bridle, bit, and no reins - just a simple yoke, traces, goad, and the driver. Such harmonious images tally with modern-day experiences with well-trained oxen.584

There is clear evidence of treatment being given to sick or injured draught animals. Columella prescribes a number of remedies for ailments.588 Some, like the bathing of wounds with honey-mixtures or urine, will have been genuinely useful. Others, like burning the forehead to the bone then slashing the ears for indigestion would have been counterproductive. In either case, the risk of misadventure, and the expense of ingredients – one potion contains cinnamon, myrrh, frankincense, and turtle blood589 - testifies to the importance of some of these animals and their owners’ willingness to treat them. Owners were understandably protective of their oxen. Apart from wine every day, Columella’s prescriptions for care contain much good sense, including rubbing down, easing of harness during rests, and care in ploughing to prevent injury.590 Columella advises resting oxen at the end of every ridge, saying that they will exert themselves more in anticipation, and that a longer stretch than 120 feet was excessive.591 In the idealised ploughing scene on Akhilles’ shield, a break

Anth. Pal. 7.332. Columella, Rust. 6.2. 577 Plin., HN 8.180. 578 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Perotti’s Appendix 12. 579 Columella, Rust. 6.2.11 (Ash, Forster, and Heffner). 580 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 582. 581 Archil. frag.39 (West). 582 Xen., Mem. 1.5.2. 583 Anth. Pal. 6.255. 584 Watts, Oxen 18-19. 575 576

De Cupere, Sagalassos 104, 106. Baker, “Animal Diseases” 253. 587 De Cupere, Sagalassos 104-117. 588 Columella, Rust. 6.4.1-6.19.3. 589 Columella, Rust. 6.5.3. 590 Columella, Rust. 2.2.22-2.3.2. 591 Columella, Rust. 2.2.27. 585 586

40

was being given at the end of each furrow.592 Pliny593 says that a fair day’s work was to break up one halfacre or replough one acre, or, on light soil, to break up one acre or replough one and half-acres, all to a depth of nine inches. Martell calls this unrealistic for one yoke, but reasonable for larger teams,594 and a similar daily target applied in Britain from the tenth- to the nineteenth-century.595

considered a ‘walking larder’. In short, the working ox was cared for most solicitously, but must work hard in return. When worn out, the end for most will have been utilitarian. Thinking with bovines The importance of cattle can be measured in its impact on Greek thinking, and there are plenty of examples. ‘Boustrophedon’ (ox-turning)602 was the name given to the style of writing in which subsequent lines ran in opposite directions, starting from the end of the preceding line – like ploughing.603 The third of Solon’s four class divisions was the zeugite class,604 and zeugos is generally taken to mean ‘a yoke of oxen’, whose ownership implied substantial land-holding.605 The monetary talent may have equated to the value of an ox, just as the Latin pecunia is derived from pecus meaning ‘cattle’.606 In Homer, horses are valued as glamorous gifts and prizes,607 but the basic measure of wealth and value is primarily sheep and (especially) oxen.608

Even without prompting by ailments or obvious exhaustion, Greek epigrams suggest empathy for the burdens of cattle. Created in the late fifth-century, Myron’s bronze heifer, of all his famous sculptures, was the one that aroused the most excitement,596 for its realism. That it was a sculpture of a cow that excited his audience is in itself interesting, and epigrammatists who eulogised it, leaving a total of thirty-one epigrams,597 often interpreted it in the light of the work that a real animal might do. One comments that “The cow has just returned from ploughing, and owing to that is lazy and will not advance.”598 Another says “Take from my neck, husbandman, the collar, and free me from the iron furrow-cutter…”.599 We also remember Philippus’600 advice to a driver to be easy on the cow with a calf. Touching as these sentiments may be, it is important to recall that these epigrams were written by aristocrats. The harshness of living from the land tends to reduce sentimentality, and though rustics may have appreciated the ox’s burden, they may have been helpless to reduce it in many cases.

This need not be entirely fantasy. Animals so important effectively become one of the family, and gratitude and sentiment might grant retirement or very light duties. The caveat is that a retired ox can still be

The importance of cattle was sometimes exhibited by state iconography. For example, Euboea has fertile plains, and rejoiced in its excellent pastures, and its name can be taken to mean ‘good for oxen’.609 As such, numerous Euboean coins feature bovine emblems. For example, a 411 BC stater [57] shows a cow licking its flank, and a ca.525-515 tetradrachm [58] has a cow licking a raised hind-leg. The sympathetically rendered animals seem idyllically relaxed, and the well-observed, naturalistic poses fit nicely within the fields of the dies. Other areas suited to cattle-raising also boasted this via their coinage. A ca.320 BC stater, of Gortyn [59], features a bull licking its flank; a Macedonian octadrachm [60] from Edoni, of ca.500-480, shows a herdsman carrying two goads beside two oxen; and a ca.520-500 Macedonian dodecadrachm [61] from Derrones has Hermes conduct two oxen drawing a cart. Personal seal-stones use similarly prosperous motifs. A late fifth-century gem shows a cow eating leaves from a tree [62], and a cow suckles its calf on a cornelian scaraboid [63] in Boston.

Hom., Il. 18.541-549. Plin., HN 18.178. 594 Martell, personal communication, 19th April 2005. 595 Copper, Every Season 97. 596 Plin., HN 34.57. 597 Anth. Pal. 713-742. 598 Anth. Pal. 721A (Paton). 599 Anth. Pal. 742 (Paton). 600 Anth. Pal. 9.274. 601 Anth. Pal. 6.228 (Paton). See index for cross references to retired animals.

602 LSJ s.v.βουστροvηδόν. Jeffery, Local Scripts 49-50. Hicks/Hill, Inscriptions xxxii. 603 Paus., 5.17.6. 604 Plut., Vit. Sol. 18.2. 605 Burford, “Transport” 8. LSJ s.v. Zeugos. See index for cross references to the expense of oxen. 606 Columella, Rust. 6.4. 607 Hom., Od. 4.589-590, 22.57. Hom., Il. 23.265-266. 608 Burford, “Transport” 8. Hom., Od. 1.431-432, 11.288-289, 12.127-130, 14.96-104. 609 LSJ s.v. ΕÕβοσία and ΕÕβοτ-Èομαι.

Regardless of their care, all animals eventually weaken, and owners must decide what arrangements are the most suitable for their own convenience. Addaeus of Macedon indicates the usual end for aged beasts: “Alcon did not lead to the bloody axe his labouring ox worn out by the furrows and old age, for he reverenced it for its service; and now somewhere in the deep meadow grass it lows rejoicing in its release from the plough.”601

592 593

41

Literature is full of ox metaphors: a woman was ‘yoked’ when she married,610 and in Aeschylus’ Persians611 the enemies of Hellas swear to cast the yoke of slavery upon her. Cattle-goads, associated with the yoke, are ever the implements of unpleasant prompting;612 Alpheius of Mytilene likens Argos in its ruined state to the stalls of lowing cattle;613 Antiphilus of Byzantium614 calls a Thasian ferryman a “skilled ploughman of the sea”; Anyte615 wonders at the size of a cauldron “large enough to hold an ox”.

those for gods,623 embody value and possess inner social power. Using Apollo’s exchange of cattle for Hermes’ lyre,624 Giannisi explores the links between cattle and music and poetry as significant agalmata,625 and notes Pindar’s626 equation of ploughing with choral procession.627 Oxen votive figures,628 substituting for real animals, and references to their nobility as sacrifices, indicate their pre-eminence among animal agalmata. Cattle are even linked to architectural agalmata by their haulage of the heaviest materials in their construction.

In myth and poetry, to tackle a deviant ox is bravery to be celebrated,616 but it was not only in literature that the strength of cattle became a symbol, and a benchmark against which men were tested. Philippus617 lyricises Thessalian bull baiting, the Taurokathapsia, in which mounted men pursued bulls to exhaustion, and then broke their necks.618 Herakles fights the Cretan bull on a metope from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia [64], and on vases [eg. 65]. Theseus fights his Marathonian bull on a red-figure column-krater in New York [66]. On a Panathenaic amphora in London [67], Athena’s shield-device is a bull protome. Indeed, and possibly reflecting frequent depiction on real shields, the bull is one of the commonest shield-devices on Greek pottery.619 In a search of the Beazley Archive database in March 2005, no less than 280 vases had bulls as shield-devices, and in Chase’s catalogue620 the bull device is one of the most numerous. Many animal shield-devices probably had religious significance,621 but they could also represent the warrior’s strength, and any other aspects he might want to advertise, such as cunning, speed, or ferocity. Depicting a bull on a shield may have been an indication of the strength and quality of the shield, itself made from layers of cattle hide. This could be to impress the prospective owner and his friends, as much as the enemy.

Durand629 shows that oxen act as agent and agalma in the Athenian Bouphonia and Bouzygia festivals. Here they link sacrifice and ploughing, and at the same time by their use unite Àγρòς (field), χώρα (territory), and πόλις (city). In the Bouphonia, the ox may be ‘resurrected’ when its skin is stuffed and yoked to a plough.630 In the Bouzygia, the Bouzyges performed a sacred ploughing below the Acropolis with oxen, penetrating the land to sow seed, appropriating the land as territory and inviting fertility, whilst cursing those who withheld water, fire, or directions from anyone in need,631 as alluded to in Menander’s Dyskolos.632 Thus the rite reinforces moral codes of reciprocal hospitality. Nor was Athens the only venue for sacred ploughing observed by the Athenians. Plutarch mentions those at Scirum and Raria.633 The selection of sacrificial victims, and the disposal of their flesh, skins, and other parts were carefully defined.634 Ritual prescribed the animals’ gender, age, markings, and condition.635 However, the sacrifice of such valuable animals as bovines, albeit in solicitation of divine favour, could constitute a conflict with Burkert, Religion 65, 91, 94. West, Homeric Hymns Hymn to Hermes 496-502 . 625 Giannisi, “Cows”. 626 Pind., Pyth. 6 1-9. 627 ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.3, no.3 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 628 Burkert, Religion 93. 629 Durand, Sacrifice 176-193. 630 Porph., Abst. 2.29-30. Mikalson, Religion 64. Burkert/Bing, Necans 140. 631 Paroemiogr. I. 388. Williams, “Curses” 396-398. 632 Men., Dys. 505-517, 639-665. 633 Plut., Praecepta Coniugalia 144b. Harrison/Verrall, Monuments 166-8. 634 ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.95-101 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). Jameson, “Theoxenia”. 635 Anth. Pal. (heifers to Hera) 6.243, (hornless heifer to Demeter) 6.258, (calf to Aphrodite) 6.317. Burkert/Bing, Necans (newborn calf to Dionysus Anthroporrhaistes) 183. Cook, Zeus (ox/bull for Zeus) vol.3(i) 563-655. SEG. XXXIII 147 line 33 (a varety of ‘choice’ animals, each to a specific deity, including a tawny or black goat, lacking its age-marking teeth, for Dionysos, in Anthesterion.) 623 624

Bovines as agalmata Gernet622 remarks that ‘value’ relates to objects of respect, even of reverential fear, and to sources of attachment and pride. Agalmata, gifts, particularly Anth. Pal. 9.245. Aesch., Pers. 48-49. 612 Thgn., Elegies 847-850. 613 Anth. Pal. 9.104. 614 Anth. Pal. 9.242 (Paton). 615 Anth. Pal. 6.153 (Paton). 616 Anth. Pal. 6.255, 9.300. 617 Anth. Pal. 9.543. 618 Farnell, Cults 4.25. 619 Chase, “Shield Devices” 81. 620 Chase, “Shield Devices” 98-100. 621 Chase, “Shield Devices” 85-86. 622 Gernet, Anthropology 73-77. 610 611

42

immediate, practical human interests. This thought is reinforced by indications that sacrificants looked to their own requirements. Working oxen were generally exempt.636 Xenophon, for instance, only sacrificed a draught ox when there was no other appropriate animal available.637 Philippus of Thessalonica638 writes (perhaps fictitiously) of a pregnant heifer selected for sacrifice to Aphrodite, then released when she went into labour. The poet attributes the decision to pity by the goddess, but an early third-century BC inscription from Kos639 offers another perspective. There are substantial restorations to the left of the text, and little remains on the stone, but Sokolowski, Dr Philomen Probert,640 and Mr Mathieu Carbon,641 agree that the text must approximate to the following:

have been undesirable owing to bad temperament, or even such factors as difficulties for the victim’s mother in calving, suggesting that her offspring should not be bred from. As long as Athena got her virginal heifer, careful selection might take account of other priorities.645 As mentioned, images of cattle were frequent dedications and ornaments that might allude to actual sacrifices or honour and invoke gods. Theodorus646 describes twelve bronze cows, worked by Phradmon from the spoil of the Illyrians, for Itonian Athena in Thessaly, and Myron’s bronze heifer has already been mentioned. Ox epithets might flatter gods. Hera is called “ox-eyed” in compliment to her placid gaze,647 and Poseidon is often represented as a bull.648 Zeus abducts Europa as a beautiful bull, on the Berlin Painter’s hydria [68], and on the ca.570-550 Delphic Sikyonian Treasury [69].649 The bull was the sacrificial animal of Zeus, and the Taurokathapsia became consecrated to him.650 As a way of soliciting divine aid, the bull shield-devices mentioned above may have invoked gods in battle.651

“If the sacrificial victim provided either for a public or for a private sacrifice to the gods or goddess to whom a pregnant victim must be sacrificed purely and duly is not found to be pregnant, then (the priestess) is not to receive a perquisite from it [(usually a portion of the meat, and/or the skin)] or to recover the purchase price for it.”

If, for the sake of argument, the Koan rules were applied to Philippus’ heifer, and the deity on that occasion had required a pregnant victim,642 the heifer could no longer qualify as pregnant if she was actually calving. This would immediately disadvantage the officiating priestess. On the other hand, sparing the victim allows her to rear the calf, and both would be available at a later date.

Bulls could represent the power of divine rivers as well as of other gods.652 Man-faced bulls represent river gods on sixth- and fifth-century coins [70], especially those of Sicily and South Italy. After the mid-fifth-century river gods became more human, but retained bulls’ horns and ears. A ca.415 BC Catanian drachma [71] shows the river god Amenanos this way, and the river Acheloos appears as a man-faced bull on coins and vases [72].653

Other sacrificial rules can be interpreted in the light of human interest. At one point, Nestor promises Athena an unbroken yearling heifer,643 which he emphasises is pure and free from defects. Unstated, is that young beasts are better to eat than old, and a yearling is too young to breed from, under good management,644 so if the other option was a successfully breeding cow, that would be preserved. The loss of an unbroken heifer wastes little training. Some beasts’ retention might

From the praises heaped upon Myron’s heifer, and the genuine efforts to portray typical actions of real cattle mentioned in the coins described above, it is clear that realistic representations were admired,654 and healthy, well-proportioned cattle seem themselves to be thought beautiful.655 On the Berlin Painter’s hydria [68], the Zeus-bull’s tail-tassel is carefully braided. His proud gait, soft-eyed yet alert expression, small neat hoofs, insignificant horns, elegant ruff and well-fleshed yet

Ael., VH 5.14. Xen., An. 6.4.25. 638 Anth. Pal. 9.22. 639 Originally published in Herzog, no.8. More recently, in Sokolowski, LSCG 154B 39-40. Scullion, “Chthonian” 86, 103. See index for cross references to the Koan inscription. 640 Wolfson College, Oxford. Personal communication, 15 November 2005. 641 Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Personal communication, 23 May 2006. 642 Demeter is one to whom pregnant victims were acceptable. Scullion, “Chthonian” 89, 103 n.77, 105, 107 n.94. Sorabji, Animal Minds 170. Furley, “Motivation” 120. See index for cross references to the Koan inscription. 643 Hom., Od. 3.381-383. 644 Columella, Rust. 6.21. 636 637

645 See also the chapter on Morality for more examples of pragmatism in animal sacrifice. 646 Anth. Pal. 9.743. 647 Hom., Il. 1.551 (Murray). Kirk (ed.), Iliad Commentary Vol.1, 110-111. 648 Burford, “Transport” 8. 649 See immediately below. 650 Farnell, Cults 4.25. 651 Chase, “Shield Devices” 85-86. 652 Rothwell, Choruses 49-52. 653 Gais, “River-God” 356. 654 Klingender, Animals 67. 655 Xen., Banquet 4.3.

43

cleanly defined musculature make him nothing short of magnificent. On the Delphic Sikyonian Treasury, the Zeus-bull [69] conveys a strong feeling for bovine anatomy, marking out the shoulder and powerful hindquarters. Cattle ornamented jewellery, furniture and utensils, and a 550-500 BC bronze calf-head in New York [73] is probably from a piece of furniture. From the early fifth-century, portrayals become increasingly well-observed, expressive of grace and power, and sympathetic with the animals’ natural movements and activities.

objects as early as eighth-century geometric burial craters [74] and amphorae.666 Literature provides numerous examples of Greek hippomania. In a particularly well-known example, the events in Aristophanes’ Clouds are set in motion by the ruinous expense of a young man’s passion for horses. There is another, particular form of horse-reverence in literature. Horses are distinguished, even more than hounds, by being the most likely animals to receive publicly proclaimed personal names.667 These named horses occur particularly in association with heroes, as characters themselves in their master’s myths.668

The horse If oxen were valuable, honest hard-workers, horses, far less useful, represented the height of glamour. For this reason, they figure prominently in Greek art and literature, and consequently modern authors have extensively discussed the Greek horse. To name but a few: Clutton-Brock656 gives a helpful overview of its place in society. Anderson,657 in a similar vein, goes deeper. Sallares discusses the horse as the Athenians’ prestige animal par excellence.658 Spence659 updates Anderson’s660 identification of the expense of purchasing, maintaining and equipping horses. Relevant to this is Kroll’s presentation of lead tablets and symbola from the Athenian Agora, recording financial details of the Athenian cavalry.661 Markman662 remains an important source of information on horses in Greek art. Eaverly663 and Moore664 complement and expand on Markman. In ancient times too, horses were among the animals most likely to be written about: Xenophon wrote a treatise on horsemanship and one on the cavalry commander. The horses mentioned in this chapter are mostly those of lowly status, but a brief review of horses’ general high standing is necessary.

Writing on Attic vases is not literature, but frequently refers to the same traditions. Here horses are the most frequently named animals, and Immerwahr identifies named horses in his survey of Attic vase inscriptions.669 The names of these, including those given to the two named mules that uniquely feature on one of Exekias’ funerary plaques [75, 76],670 seem consistent enough in style to be representative [77, 78, 79, 80, 81]. Moore is also interested in horse names, and advances from Jeschonnek’s671 list of named horses in literature and art, citing thirty horse names found on Attic, Corinthian, and Chalcidian vases. Some of the names occur repeatedly, and some more often. Commonest is ‘Xanthos’, the name of one of Akhilles’ horses. Moore identified this as the only horse name known to repeat on all three fabrics [82-94].672 Next most common are variant spellings of ‘Kalliphoras’.673 It is possible that these were also the names of some famous real horses of the time. Coldstream, Geometric 61, 76, 113-115, 119, 122, 210. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 668 Jeschonnek, Nominibus 1. 669 Immerwahr, Script 31, 32, 75, nos.118, 128, 129, 132, 140. ‘…gora’, or ‘…goras’ and ‘Hokn…s’ or ‘Aokn...s’ (ΑΟΚΝΟΣ (Fearless) would be very suitable) on Berlin, Staatliche Museen 1732. ‘Kallikome’, ‘Pyrrhikome’, ‘Semos’ and ‘Kalliphoras’ on Paris, Musée du Louvre, F53. ‘Kalliphoras’ and ‘Pyrichos’ on Toledo 1980.1022. ‘Phalios’ and ‘Kalliphoras’ on Berlin Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen F1720. ‘Semos’ and ‘Kalliphoras’ on Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen F1820A-B. 670 Berlin, Antikensammlung, Staatliche Museen F1814, F1823. Immerwahr, Script ‘...is and ‘Phalios’ 140. 671 Jeschonnek, Nominibus 31-49, cited in Moore, BF Horses 382. 672 For ‘Kalliphoras’, in addition to those cited by Immerwahr, Moore, BF Horses 382-387 gives Copenhagen, National Museum 112. For ‘Xanthos’, she cites Munich, Antikensammlungen J130, 1694. Wurzburg, Universitat, Martin von Wagner Mus. L319, 319. Athens, National Museum CC620. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 27.116. Paris, Musée du Louvre E638. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 48.2032. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen 1657 (now lost). Paris, Musée du Louvre E642. Taranto, Museo Nazionale 52846. Paris, Musée du Louvre E648. Berlin Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen 508. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 203. 673 Beazley, “Inscriptions V” 315, no.6. 666 667

The horse is one of the most frequently depicted animals in Greek art, featuring proudly on objects of daily use, through to important public and private monuments. For instance, if the 192 horsemen of the Panathenaic frieze represent the Athenian infantry killed at Marathon,665 then their being mounted seems certainly intended to heighten their honour. On private monuments, horses had appeared in pride of place on Clutton-Brock, Horse Power. Anderson, Horsemanship. 658 Sallares, Ecology 311-13, 383. 659 Spence, Cavalry 183, 272-86. 660 Anderson, Horsemanship 136-9. 661 Kroll, “Athenian Cavalry”. 662 Markman, Horse. 663 Eaverly, Equestrian Sculpture. 664 Moore, BF Horses. 665 Boardman, “Parthenon Frieze” 210. 656 657

44

What might the names chosen for horses signify about attitudes towards them? Kalliphora can be taken to mean ‘A horse with a beautiful mane and tail’, Phalios as ‘Dazzling white’ or ‘Having a white forehead’, Semos as ‘A horse who is distinguished’.674 Such descriptive names reflect owners’ pride, and the public use of an animal’s name declares its importance to the owner, and expectations that others will agree about its merits. The naming of horses and the names given also emulates heroic practice. Praise for a hero’s horses and horsemanship is repeatedly used to indicate and enhance his standing. Of particular note are the immortal horses of Akhilles, emphasising his divine parentage.675

Prestigious though they might be in general, horses were far from equal. Aristotle682 and Xenophon683 say that the condition and training of Athenian horses were routinely assessed regarding the animals’ suitability for military service, and fourth- and third-century lead tablets and symbola unearthed in the north-west corner of the Athenian Agora684 officially record monetary valuations of cavalry horses. Perceptions of a horse’s value had a direct impact on its fate. Certainly a character in Menander observes that first-rate horses get the better care.685 Columella divides horses into three classes; the noble, then those horses used for breeding mules (the offspring might be worth as much as a noble horse), and finally the common.686 ‘Common’ horses might be used as lesser men’s steeds and/or for quite unglamorous labour. In the Greek Anthology, an ass resents being made to compete among the threshing horses.687 In the fourthcentury AD Palladas688 complains about his tattered remnant of a (common) horse.

As further confirmation of the relative status of horses, Solon’s second economic class (one up from the zeugitai) was called the hippeis.676 The fact that complimentary names might be given to horses partners well with the fact that élite children could receive equestrian names, such as Hippodamos.677 Heroes also might be complimented with horsey epithets, such as Hector, “tamer of horses”, likewise treasured lands like Argos, “where horses graze”.678

A particular horse might begin well, but change class, and aging horses seem to have moved down the ranks. A few might receive honours, like Alexander the Great’s Bucephalus,689 but many appear to have effectively become asses. In the fables, one proud horse, finely tricked out, disdains an ass, but ends up by carrying loads of manure.690 Pragmatism might have been the routine order of the day, but even so, the vision of the demoted horse apparently carried considerable pathos. We hear of ‘Eagle’, an old racehorse put to the millstone,691 as well as ‘Pegasus’692 and another, unnamed racehorse.693 A stolen steed meets a similar fate.694

The success of a man’s horses could emphasise his own competence and thereby boost his political persuasiveness. This success could be prolonged and commemorated for posterity in specially commissioned victory odes.679 Enormous investment might be indulged in equestrian pursuits by the politically ambitious, and Alkibiades himself boasted680 of entering more horses and chariots at Olympia than any previous private individual. Herodotos remarks the phenomenon of horse-related fame by narrating that Peisistratos recalled Cimon, son of Stesagoras, from exile because he waived his second victory with a team of mares in favour of Peisistratos’ team. But Cimon’s mares brought him such prominence that after his third victory Peisistratos’ sons murdered him, and disposed of his mares. In a final remark underlining the interconnectedness of horses with Greek influence, Cimon and his horses were said to be buried near each other.681

Mismanagement might cause horses to be demoted. A cavalryman, not subsidised by the state in peace and unable to maintain his horse, set it carrying burdens on low-grade feed, rendering it useless for war.695 Another highly regarded horse suffers in the tale of a groom

Arist., [Ath. Pol.] 49.1. Xen., Eq. mag. 3.1, 3.9. 684 Kroll, “Athenian Cavalry” 84-86. 685 Menander, Theophoroumenē frag.1 (= frag.223 Kock). 686 Columella, Rust. 6.27.1. 687 Anth. Pal. 9.301. 688 Anth. Pal. 11.293. 689 See the chapter on pets. 690 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 565. 691 Anth. Pal. 9.19. 692 Anth. Pal. 9.21. 693 Anth. Pal. 9.20. 694 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Perotti’s Appendix 21. 695 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 76. 682 683

674 Jeschonnek, Nominibus Kalliphora 36, Phalios 40, Semos 49, cited in Moore, “Horses by Exekias” 358. 675 Eg. Hom., Il. 10.390-404, 16.380-384, 16.865-866. 676 Plut., Vit. Sol. 18.2. Andrewes, “Athenian State” 385. 677 LGPN vol.1, s.v. Ίππόδᾰμος. Pape/Benseler, Griechischen Eigennamen s.v. Ίππόδᾰμος. 678 Hom., Od. 3.263-264 (Rieu). 679 Eg. Pind., Ol. 1 15. 680 Thuc. 6.16.2. 681 Hdt. 6.103.

45

selling its barley for drink.696 Xenophon emphasises that nothing fattens a horse like the master’s eye,697 and so the tale seems to have some basis.

Mules are stronger than horses, and asses and mules are more placid and enduring, more resistant to heat and disease, longer-lived, hardier of hoof, and surer-footed. Present-day lifespans of 30 to 50 years are common for asses. Horses average 2025 years. Thanks to their hybrid vigour, mules and hinnies may live 30 to 40 years (sometimes up to 50), with proportionally longer working lives than horses. Asses and mules are calmer and less prone to bolt than horses, and will perform routine tasks, like following a familiar route with regular stops, completely without guidance.702 An Aesopic fable has an old farmer rely entirely on his asses knowing the way to town.703

Images exalting horses belonged to élite contexts. Acknowledging a looseness of about 15 years in the dating of some vases, Barringer698 points out that equestrian hunting scenes became particularly prolific on Attic pottery in 560-550, the years during the first tyranny of Pisistratos and his subsequent exile, uncertain circumstances that caused the élite families to jockey for position among themselves. Although the tyranny of Peisistratos himself was generally benign, self-assertive images of élite freedom seem likely to have been popular.699 For whatever reason, equestrian hunting image production seems to have become less prominent after 550 BC. Barringer is able to point out a second surge in élite hunting scenes approximately between 520-470 BC. Horses are less prominent this time, but a similar context of élite insecurity is present. Kleisthenes’ return to Athens in 511/10 BC marked the beginning of the sequence of events that would see greater political power for the masses. The aristocracy had increasing cause to feel threatened by the changing political order, and its pronounced rejection of élite claims to ascendancy.700 Barringer’s hypothesis of the projection of élite insecurity by increased demand for hunt scenes is very appealing. To the working man, however, the horse would have been highly strung, high-maintenance, and expensive. Its chief unique talent lay in looking impressive whilst drawing light loads very fast, so to the lower classes of men the main practical value of a horse was as a dam for the steadier and more versatile mule, fathered by an ass.

Most visual evidence for the roles of asses and mules comes from Attic pottery, coins, and gems, but though Greek artists often depicted distinguishing features of tails, manes, ears, and markings, these artifacts do not offer biological sketches, and characterising features of horses, asses and mules may be conflated into the same animal in a representation. Some artists nevertheless differentiate the animals with great care, as demonstrated by vases showing horses and mules and or asses. The ‘François Vase’ shows numerous horses, and two scenes of Hephaistos, once riding a mule, once riding an ass [95]. A similar comparison is available on an amphora in Munich [96]. Characterising differences between mules, asses, and horses may be summarised as follow. The head of a mule is proportionally larger than the head of a horse. Asses’ heads are even larger. Mules’ ears are the same shape but longer than those of a horse, but smaller and less bristly than those of an ass. Asses’ eyes are larger than those of mules and horses. Asses and mules have heavier eye sockets, set farther out on the side of the head, creating heavy brow ridges. Mules, and asses especially, have proportionally larger penises and scrotums than horses.

The mule and ass (or donkey) In order to understand and interpret ancient evidence about mules and asses, it is important to first recognise their distinguishing features and behaviours. A mule is a hybrid from the mating of a male ass (jack) and a female horse (mare).701 A hinny is a hybrid from a male horse (stallion) and a female ass (jennet). Hinnies are generally similar to mules, but uncommon, because jennets are less fertile in crossbreeding than mares, so the conception rate is about 25%, compared with 6065% for mares carrying mule foals.

Asses and mules have straighter, less arched necks than horses. Their rumps, especially those of asses, tend to lack the horse’s pronounced upward curve from the back to the haunch, and the hindquarters of the ass are much less muscular. The flatter rump and the lack of true withers give a straighter appearance to ass and mule backs. Asses range in height from 36 to 48 inches at the shoulder, while mules are usually as large as or larger than their horse dams. Hinnies stand between the two.

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 83. Xen., Oec. 7.20. 698 Barringer, Hunt 15-18. 699 Andrewes, “Pisistratus” 405-407. 700 Ostwald, “Cleisthenes” 303-307, 321-322. 701 The following is particularly indebted to Helmig/Sewell (eds.), Donkey and Mule. 696 697

702 703

46

Leighton, “Mule” 51. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 381.

Asses’ hooves are more elastic, tougher, smaller, rounder, and more upright compared to horses’ hooves. Mules inherit these characteristics to a lesser degree. The mane of the ass is stiff, usually upright, and there is no true forelock. The tail is covered in short body hair except for a tassel at the end. The mule has a thin forelock, coarse mane, and a horse’s tail, though this may thin towards the top, and the hinny’s tail can even be more like that of an ass. Asses’ coats are longer and coarser than a horse’s, and the hair extending below the jaw line can give asses’ heads an even bulkier and coarser appearance.

in answering accusations of violent bullying, claims that he would have been more unrestrained than the asses if it were true, and that their wantonness made them indefatigable.705 Xenophon may also have been referring to the violence of asses. They, and mules, kick swiftly, and without warning. Unlike cattle and horses, their aim is often precise, and extends sideways. Two fables706 feature this danger. The ass has a raspy, loud bray, and jacks seem to enjoy braying. This is linked with their territorial behaviour. Mules and hinnies make distinctive but gentler sounds somewhere between the ass’s bray and the horse’s whinny. In this, as in the mule’s other characteristics, both parents may be recognised to some degree. This had implications for the way that mules were regarded, in that their status stood sometimes closer to that of a horse, sometimes to that of an ass.

Most asses have a dorsal stripe from the top of the head to the end of the tail, and a line crossing both shoulders, visible in a profile view. Normal are light ‘points’ - white muzzle and eye rings, white belly and inner leg, and leg barring is common. Mules usually have brown or tan-coloured points. Mules may have crosses and leg bars as well, but they are generally less distinct. The shoulder stripe is usually very wide, or faded.

An asinine image Now that asses, mules, and horses have been distinguished, clarification of the reputation of the ass should help to contextualise the mule, whose status stood between the two, sometimes closer to the horse, sometimes to the ass.

Unlike horses and mules, jack asses are territorial, and a consequent unwillingness to leave the home range can look like stubbornness. They may also chase dogs and other potential ‘threats’ on their territory. An uncertain ass will not bolt in panic like a horse, but stops – again seeming stubborn or lazy. Beating, effective in moving horses, simply causes asses to freeze. Mules, and especially asses, are more self-preserving than horses, prompting further complaints of laziness. The jennet in Aristophanes’ Wasps stops and brays loudly in complaint at overburdening.704 In this peculiar incident Philocleon tries to escape the house, where she is stabled, by hanging beneath her, Odysseus-style. As part of their self-preservation, asses and mules are slow to show pain and discomfort. In an evolutionary sense this has the advantage of concealing weakness from predators, but for handlers it can lead to problems identifying illness or injury. Equids generally seek companionship, but this is particularly pronounced in mules and asses. Having accepted a human, asses will follow of their own accord, a characteristic that probably endeared individuals to their regular drivers, but may have made difficulties for the new.

Asses’ instincts for self-preservation mean that hungry, sick, or overworked beasts will snatch opportunities to eat or rest, so it is no surprise that the paradigmatic ass was gluttonous, lazy, stubborn, and complaining. Several proverbs hinged upon this reputation,707 and Apostolius gives us “A hungry ass pays no heed to the club”.708 In Aristophanes Birds, Manes is “slow as a donkey”709 and must be hit to hurry him. Palladas complained rather sympathetically: “Someone gave me a long-suffering donkey that moves backwards as much as forward, their journey’s haven to those who ride on it; a donkey, the son of slowness, a labour, a delay, a dream”710

In fables the ass is often a complaining malingerer. For failed work-shy cunning, there is the fable of the ass carrying a heavy load of salt. When the ass fell into water and found himself lightened, he repeated the stunt until the salt was replaced with sponges.711 Foolish envy features in the fable of the ass that

Modern veterinary advice is that male mules be gelded, since they can be very sexually active, despite their sterility. This can lead to disruptive behaviour, and an aggressive uncastrated male can be dangerous. However, it was the asses that had a particular reputation for lasciviousness. Xenophon, 704

Xen., An. 5.8.3. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 638, Babrius 122. 707 Freeman, “Vincent” 35. 708 Apostolius, Paroemiae 12.75a. 709 Ar., Av. 1327-1328 (Sommerstein). 710 Anth. Pal. 11.317 (Paton). 711 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 111. 705 706

Ar., Vesp. 176-184.

47

covets a lapdog’s superior lifestyle, but is beaten when he breaks the furniture and threatens his owner in imitating the dog’s capering.712 In a ball game, the unskillful thrower “stands there like a donkey,”713 and in the Iliad, Ajax’s grudging retreat is like:

woman to an ass among apes,720 and in Apuleius’ metamorphosis of Lucius into an ass, Lucius’ revulsion and humiliation are plain.721 Comic ugliness may be the point of pairing asses with the ‘unsightly’ ape.722 A ca.350 BC Corinthian terracotta figurine from Tanagra [98] shows an ape flailing ridiculously as it rides a small ass. The ass in question has suitably out-sized head, lips, and large nostrils (these features justify my differing identification from that of Higgins,723 who calls it a mule). A hole in the ape’s groin signifies that it once had an obvious penis. This is one of a series of comic ass figurines, which seem to have been regularly produced in Corinth between 400 and 330 BC [99, 100].

“…some lazy ass that has had many a cudgel broken about his back, when he into a field begins eating the grain - boys beat him but he is too many for them, and though they lay about with their sticks they cannot hurt him; still when he has had his fill they at last drive him from the field.” 714

Asses suffer accusations of gluttony in art as well as in literature. Polygnotus’ painting of Hades, at Delphi,715 had an ass devouring rope as as fast as it was made, eternally rendering the rope-maker’s labour fruitless. A red-figure chous [97] in Hamburg shows a man with a pestle and an ass on a threshing-floor. The man’s inscribed remark offers violence to the beast for snatching at the grain.

The bray of an ass was thought a frightful sound. Herodotos724 says the Persian asses terrified the Scythian cavalry with their violent braying, and that during Darius’ retreat, braying asses were left tethered at night to deceive the Scythians into thinking that the Persians were still present.725 In myth, Dionysos’ braying asses frighten the giants,726 and an ass’s bray terrifies predatory animals in a fable.727 Asses’ enthusiasm for braying helps Aristophanes to pun on κλητ±ρος, meaning ‘brayer’, and ‘one who serves, or one who assists to serve, a summons’.728

The commonest derision of asses centred on their physique. A relaxed male equid will allow its penis to hang extended, and this was likely to have drawn attention. Outsized or erect penises in humans were a subject of ridicule,716 and mules’, and especially asses’, large penises are routinely erect on vases. They are also mentioned in literature. For instance, a crudeminded ass in a fable extends his penis, to insult a boar with the likeness between that and the boar’s snout.717 There were double-standards in play however, for ithyphallic horses do not seem to have appeared on vases at all, despite Aristotle’s “after human beings, the horse, both sexes, is the most salacious of all animals”.718

In addition to the harshness of their bray, asses’ loquacity appears to have diminished their respectability. Heath demonstrates how, in Homer, the ability to restrain one’s speech is an indicator of one’s self-control and authority.729 It is suggestive that of all the equids the ass is the one most often depicted with open mouth.

In addition to large penises, outsized human lips were also thought offensive, and here again asses were ridiculed. Socrates likens the supreme ugliness of his own mouth with that of the ass.719 The mule was often sufficiently like a horse to excuse it from derisory comparisons, but the ass, with its small stature, huge erection, oversized head and lips, bristly mane and ears, epitomised ugliness, and for some, the lips and penis combination may even have evoked thoughts of potential autofellatio. Menander likened a repulsive

The braying ass features particularly in a class of figure-vases, the animal-head rhyta. To the Greeks, the rhyton seems to have signified the drinking of unmixed wine, and we see rhyta in use in unrestrained drinking. For instance, on an Attic red-figure kalyx krater [101] a youth lies on a couch, squirting a jet of liquid from an ass or goat or stag rhyton into his mouth. Near him, someone else plays kottabos. Menander, frag.402.8 (Kock). Apul., Met. 3.24. 722 Apes will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on pets. 723 Higgins, Tanagra 115, fig.138. 724 Hdt. 4.129. 725 Hdt. 4.134-136. 726 Freeman, “Vincent” 38. 727 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus 1.11. 728 Ar., Vesp. 189, and note 168(Sommerstein). LSJ s.v. κλητÈος. 729 Heath, Talking 64-68. 720 721

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 167, Appendix 91. Anth. Pal. 14.62 (Paton). 714 Hom., Il. 11.558-563 (Butler). 715 Paus., 10.28.1-10.31.12. 716 Dover, Homosexuality 127-128. 717 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus, 1. 29. 718 Arist., Hist. An. 6.22(575b31-32) (Thompson, in Barnes). 719 Xen., Banquet 5.7. 712 713

48

put as “to descend from horses to asses”,736 and to rise in life was the converse.737 There is of course the likelihood that the average ass-driver was himself impoverished and uneducated. This then might lend substance to the remark by the cynic, Crates of Thebes,738 that one should pursue philosophy until generals seemed to be ass-drivers. Another direct slight on ass-drivers occurs in Menander’s Sikyonios,739 when the parasite Theron is left behind in lowly company befitting his status – the foreign slaves and the ass-drivers.

In a survey of animal-rhyta on the Beazley database in March 2005, rams totalled thirty-nine, and asses/mules thirty, which makes these species the commonest by far. Typically, the equid has its mouth open, and the ram is silent. Of the five known dimidiated rhyta, four combine the longitudinally split head of an ass with that of a ram [102, 103, 104, 105]. Even on these, where it might have been neater to mould the ass side of the vase with its mouth closed, like that of the ram, the ass brays. The ram, revered for its patriarchal and dignified virility,730 may have represented the sober side of a man’s character, or the ‘Apollonine side of Dionysos’, with the ass representing the unleashed and debauched aspects of humanity.

According to Herodotos, association with asses could be used as a political slur. Kleisthenes, the tyrant of Sikyon, to elevate the standing of his own tribe, renamed the other tribes with names derived from ‘donkey’, ‘pig’, and ‘swine’, with only the endings changed. Herodotos was not impressed, and calls the new names “invidious” and “designed to make fools of the Sicyonians”.740

It can be argued that the contrast between the demeanours of the rams and the asses forming the dimidiated rhyta was not particularly planned. The moulds for the two halves were not originally made for each other, and making a new mould to match its opposite was probably more trouble than the adjustments that Hill731 describes. Nevertheless, braying goes naturally with sexual excitement. Consider the braying, tumescent ass in pursuit of the jennet on a red-figure askos in London [106]. Further, the scenes on the necks of ass/mule-head drinking rhyta are usually Dionysiac or comic with satyrs, often with a sexual element. The assassociated displays of sexual excitement, compared with the absence of ithyphallic horses, illustrates the different demeanors and social classes represented by the two species. Aristotle remarks that “if an ass cover a mare after the mare has been covered by a stallion, the ass will destroy the previously formed embryo”.732 On this account, if the ass was equated with lower class humans, and the stallion with upper classes, one might well conjecture élite anxiety about the relative potency of lower class versus upper class seed.

Despite their lowliness, and indeed because of it, asses often appear in Dionysiac scenes. These, and scenes with the return of the lame Hephaistos [107, 108] amid Dionysos’ entourage, are the commonest vase scenes showing asses and mules actually being ridden. Asses, like satyrs, seem to have been metonymic for ecstatic incontinence concerning sex and drink, and for unpredictable behaviour. A scene on an ass/ram rhyton in Switzerland [102] shows an excited ass behaving unmanageably with coercing satyrs. One reaches to it from behind, while the other tempts it with wine. As Carpenter points out, the animals in the Dionysiac scenes are nearly always ithyphallic,741 befitting drunken revelry, and satyrs often express sexual interest in them [109].742 These raucous elements fade from popularity during the fifth-century, and the Hephaistos myth disappears from Attic vasepainting after about 420 BC.743 The episode seems to have been abbreviated until it is Dionysos who rides alone, the ass becoming associated particularly with him.744 Mende, famous for its wine, paired the ass with the Dionysos on its coins. One type, with Dionysos reclining on an ass’s back and holding a wine-cup, ran from ca.460 to around 425 BC [110]. On certain vases [111] asses appear as shield-devices, perhaps

In common parlance, ‘to argue over an asses’ shadow’ became a proverbial expression of trouble over the very trivial. Aristophanes’ refers to the proverb in his Wasps,733 as does Plato in the Phaedrus.734 The general lowliness of the ass was shared by its handlers.735 A reduction in circumstances might be

Apostolius, Paroemiae 4.53. Apostolius, Paroemiae 6.51. 738 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 6.92. 739 Men., Sikyonios 392-394. 740 Hdt. 5.68 (De Sélincourt). 741 Carpenter, Folk Tale 17-18. 742 Beazley/Payne, “Naucratis” 269. 743 Carpenter, Myth 16. 744 Carpenter, Myth 14-15. 736 737

730 Blok, “Rams” 28-31. See index for cross references to rams as models of masculinity. 731 Hill, “Rhyton” 2. 732 Arist., Hist. An. 6.22(577a15-16) (Thompson, in Barnes). 733 Ar., Vesp. 191. 734 Pl., Phdr. 260c. 735 Padgett, “Stable Hands” 59-62.

49

The use-related status of asses and, the “more valuable type of animal”754

invoking uneasy aspects of Dionysos.745 In literature, Xanthias, Dionysos’ servant, rides an ass to Hades in Aristophanes’ Frogs,746 and a legend explaining the two asses in the constellation of the Crab says they were ridden by Dionysos and his satyrs against the Giants.747 Satyrs and maenads ride the animals as well. A ca.525 black-figure amphora has a maenad riding a mule between satyrs [112], and Dionysos and a satyr ride clearly identifiable asses on a red-figure cup [113].

The relative statuses of mules and asses are significantly revealed in their employment, and the frequency and contexts of their depiction at work. Spruytte, having reconstructed ancient Greek harness, dismisses Lefebvre des Noëttes’ theories about inefficient equid-harness systems as based on faulty observation,755 and Lorimer, analysing depictions of ancient carts, comments that the “farm-cart must do duty on all the great occasions of rustic life”.756 If Spruytte is right, there is reason to expect a wide varety of haulage, as well as packing and riding, and indeed mules and asses are both depicted drawing carts in varied settings. The images are supported by Homeric poems and later Greek texts, which consistently refer to the cart-drawing equid as hemionos, or oureus.757 An investigation of Lorimer’s “great occasions” in Greek life may prove valuable in establishing equids’ relative statuses and roles.

The lowliness and usefulness of asses generally excluded them from sacrificial rites, although asses were reputedly sacrificed to Priapus in Lampsakos. According to Ovid, Priapus was willing to have asses sacrificed to him out of hatred, because his rape of the nymph Lotis was thwarted by an ass which brayed at a critical moment, causing him to lose his erection and Lotis to awake.748 An alternative explanation is that Dionysos gave the power of speech to an ass, which then argued with Priapus about the size of their genitals. Priapus loses the argument, and beats the ass to death.749 Either way, the pairing of ass and Priapus seems apt because of their anatomy and reputations for lasciviousness.

Fast, powerful, challenging steeds conferred glamour and imaged freedom, just as asses imaged servitude. Therefore, suggests Griffith, men modelled themselves upon horses,758 and ached to possess the animals exemplified by the immortal and notoriously difficult horses of Akhilles.759 Conversely, the more domitable an equid was, the less it was respected.

Asses might be sacrificed to the winds, in Tarento.750 In Pindar’s tenth Pythian Ode,751 a hecatomb of asses is offered to Apollo by the mythical Hyperboreans. Hoffmann752 discusses this and the god’s joy at the asses’ rampant lewdness, explaining that of the brothers Apollo and Dionysos, one represented order and the other anarchy. As such they could coexist as complementary, not exclusive opposites. Hoffman also discusses the ass when he links sacrifices and the choice of animals represented as rhyta before 450 BC. He proposes that the flesh of asses, “too tough (potent, tabooized)” for men, was at times acceptable to gods and heroes, and that ram/ass dimidiating rhyta might symbolise the opposition between the world of mortals and that of gods and heroes, by creating a mid-way half-breed victim.753

Mules might be more tractable than horses, but they are immensely strong, and there is substantial evidence of their being valued and respectable draught animals in human conveyance. Excellent examples of draftanimal choice influenced by practicality and image is provided by wedding-related evidence. Wedding-themed vases particularly feature processions, from the old to the new home of the bride. In black-figure, the bridal vehicle is usually splendidly drawn by horses, frequently in association with mythical persons.760 Only seldom do asses or mules perfom this task, and the few black-figure vases with asses or mules seem to have been exceptions.761 Vase painters commonly elevated the bride and groom

Metzler/Otto, et al. (eds.), Antidoron 71 note 68. Padgett, “Stable Hands” 55 note 40. 746 Ar., Ran. 22-32. 747 Freeman, “Vincent” 38. 748 Ov., Fasti 1.393-440. 749 Grant/Hazel, Classical Myth. s.v. Priapus. Hyg., Poet. astr. 2.23. 750 Hesychius. s.v. ÐνεμÖtαr, cited in Burkert, Necans 235 note 69. Freeman, “Vincent” 38. 751 Pind., Pyth. 10 30-36. 752 Hoffmann, Immortality 61-68. 753 Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 142-3. 745

Columella, Rust. 7.1.3 (Ash, Forster, and Heffner). Spruytte, Early Harness (breast strap) 99, (inefficiency) 11. 756 Lorimer, “Country Cart” 136. 757 LSJ Ùμίνος and οÕρεύς/Ôρεύς. (The mule is nowhere called a ‘half-horse’ instead of a ‘half-ass’.) Wiesner, Reiten F10-11. 758 Mark Griffith, Gaisford Lecture at St John’s, Oxford, 8th June 2006: “Horse-power and Donkey Work: Mules and Other Equids in the Ancient Greek Imagination”. 759 Hom., Il. 10.391-394, 10.401-404, and cf. note 14. 760 Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 29. 761 Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 44. 754 755

50

to divine or heroic settings,762 where horses become the obvious choice. However, literature makes clear that if a procession was not on foot, as seen in much early red-figure,763 then the usual conveyance for a mortal bride was a cart drawn by mules.764 This puts mules in a rather different light, for if the alternative is to walk, then a mule-cart becomes comparatively grand. Supporting this, a black-figure kylix in London [114] shows a festive procession, which Van Straten argues represents a peculiarly Boeotian procession to Athena.765 Smith, however, calls it a wedding procession,766 with the bridal car drawn by mules. If Smith is correct, this is no impoverished wedding, for the large entourage includes not only a goat, but a sacrificial bull.

black-figure, and the absence of mythical figures,770 Bothmer and Pedley suggest that the lekythos shows an actual, contemporary, humble or country wedding.771 A parodic wedding procession on a large Kabeiric skyphos [116] emphasises the greater appropriateness of mules or horses at weddings, by suggesting that asses could replace mules and horses for the purpose of ridicule. In this case, two ithyphallic, wreathed asses in raucous full gallop draw the cart. This style of vase, from the santuary of the Kabeiri near Thebes, is notable for its use of grotesque and humourous caricature.772 On this skyphos, the ass epitomises the opposite of the ideal of restraint, nobility, and beauty that the Greeks called sophrosyne, making asses into foils for the ‘noble’ horse.773

Wedding procession participants often seem to have been segregated by age and sex.767 This allows groups to be conveyed in modes befitting their categories. A fragmentary description of the wedding of Hector and Andromache, by Sappho, suggests that mules might routinely be used for women, while men travelled in chariots drawn by horses:

An Attic wedding procession on the Amasis Painter’s black-figure lekythos in New York [115] seems particularly informative. It clearly shows youths riding in a cart drawn by mules, behind a bridal cart drawn by asses. The asses are differentiated by their much thinner tails, white muzzles and, as Griffith769 points out, heads held lower than the more upright mules. Perhaps this is a stepped-down version of the differentiation suggested by Sappho’s fragment, placing the mule as the next best thing to convey the men if a horse was not available. There is no sign of divine or heroic presence. Given that mules (let alone asses) drawing bridal vehicles are unusual in Attic

Compared with asses, mules were not so conspicuously ‘other’ to the horse, but there is a further possible reason to favour mules for wedding carts. By custom, onlookers seem to have been free to shower passing wedding processions with tokens of joy and fertility. Stesichorus describes the flowers and quinces thrown at the chariot of Helen and Menelaos.774 Chariton tells of flowers and wreaths showered upon the happy Callirhoe and Chaereas,775 when they find each other again; an encounter that Chariton refers to as a wedding. Less desirable things than flowers may have been thrown at some celebrations, for in Chios776 and Samos777 processions also seem to have involved some drunken rough-housing and revelry, even violence, enough to panic many horses. As Winkler778 points out, the importance of the wedding procession, and its public nature, made it a potentially vulnerable point in the two families’ image making and political status. Any mishap might present an opportunity for opponents to elevate their own images by comparison. All risk to the bride must therefore be eliminated. Plutarch and Pollux describe protective entourages for brides, and the relative steadiness of mules, which do not ‘freeze’, like asses under threat, will have had safety advantages.

Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 44. Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 45. 764 Poll., Onom. 3.40. Hyperides, Lycophron 1.5. Homer, Epigrams 15.6-9. 765 Van Straten, Hiera Kala 22, 212, no.V107, fig.14. ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.12, no.65 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 766 Smith, “Marriage” 207. 767 Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 27. 768 Sappho, frag.44 (Voigt). 769 Mark Griffith, Gaisford Lecture at St John’s, Oxford, 8th June 2006: “Horse-power and Donkey Work: Mules and Other Equids in the Ancient Greek Imagination”.

Bothmer, Amasis 182. Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 44. Bothmer, Amasis 182. Pedley, “Architecture” 70. 772 Walsh, Distorted Ideals 14-15. Mitchell, Comic Pictures 158190, pls.46-58. See also Walters, “Odysseus and Kirke” 78, and Cook, GPP3 97-98. 773 Padgett, “Stable Hands” esp. 49-59 gives a thorough analysis of this. 774 Stesichorus, frag.187 (Page, PMG). 775 Chariton, Callirhoe 8.1.12 (Goold). 776 Plut., De Mul. Virt. 244e. 777 Polemon, De Physiognomonia Liber 69, cited by Winkler, Desire 71. 778 Winkler, Desire 74, 76.

“Straightway the men of Ilium yoked mules / to smooth-rolling carriages, and the whole crowd / of women and … maidens climbed in; / But the daughters of Priam … separately / and men yoked horses to chariots, / … young men … and greatly / … charioteers …”768

762

770

763

771

51

Mules appear to have held the middle ground between horses and asses at another important Greek family event. Funerary vases often show horses, but as far as I know, no asses at funerals. However, a small number of vases admit mules. On a black-figure kantharos, a man’s corpse is conveyed on a well-presented mulecart (the mule has a head-plume) amid mourners [117], but it is a set of Exekian black-figure funerary plaque fragments in Berlin that give the most information [75, 76]. There, the larger ears of the mules, their reduced forelocks, and their slightly thinner tails779 distinguish them from horses in the same plaque series. Not only have the mules found employment in this significant procession, but they have been named. One, with a white star on his forehead, is certainly called Phalios, a name used by Exekias for horses on other vases.780 Of the other mule’s name only the final “…is” survives. This is Immerwahr’s781 and Mommsen’s782 assessment, disagreeing with Beazley,783 who calls one mule Phalios, the other Mulios. Mommsen argues that “Mulios” is really the slave that is present, because there are otherwise too many names on that part of the plaque. She disregards Beazley’s suggestion that the olive branches near the mules’ withers might be held by another woman, arguing instead for an entire tree. The most important observation is agreed however both mules are named. Not only this, but as Mommsen points out, the mules’ distinguishing anatomy and facial features have been rendered with a delicacy of care and attention that is striking. True to Moore’s784 observation, that Exekias strove to introduce new details and realism in his equids, he has thought carefully about the rendering of the mules, resulting in great naturalism and expression. By contrast, the impressive horses in the series seem slightly formulaic. Exekias makes great play, for example, with minor detail lines on the mules’ supple wrinkling lips, but uses simpler outlines for the horses’ mouths [118].785 It seems that Exekias was at pains to distinguish the mules, and there can be no argument that these are just oddly rendered horses. It is also interesting that, as at weddings, the horses throughout Exekias’ plaque series are transporting men, but, discounting the presence of the misshapen diminutive male slave, whom Beazley suggests is removing a support prop from under the mules’ heavy yokes, the mule-cart is occupied and driven by a woman.

The use of mules to transport corpses also occurs in epic. Priam, to convey the ransom for Hector’s body, and to bring his dead son home, uses draught mules that had been “a splendid gift” from the Mysians,786 but his herald, Idaios, drives the wagon, while Priam himself drives a horse-drawn chariot. Though this is also a pragmatic arrangement that would allow a quicker getaway for the king, it is not presented as the reason for the arrangement. Rather, since Priam’s mission is practically suicidal, his choice of conveyances seems calculated to say more about status, custom, and appropriateness with regard to what needs to be conveyed. Homer gives other signs of Greek regard for mules. Second prize in the chariot race at the funeral games of Patroklos is a mare, pregnant with a mule foal.787 Noemon is interested enough in his twelve mule foals in Elis that he intends to travel there from Ithaka to train one himself,788 and Iphitos’ twelve mares with mulefoals at foot were worth his venturing in their recovery to Mysia, and then his murder by Herakles.789 The mule reached the height of its prestige between the 70th and 84th Olympiads (500-444 BC), when the Olympic games included mule-cart racing.790 Pindar celebrates two victories,791 and Semonides one.792 The racing mule-cart appears on fifth-century coins of Messana [119] and Rhegium [120] in celebration of their tyrants’ victories. We also see what appears to be a racing mule-cart on a Cypriot ring of ca.500 [121]. In keeping with the dignity of the events, all these mules’ penises are retracted. The mule-cart race may be commemorated at the Panathenaic games by two ca.480 BC Panathenaic amphorae in London. These both seem to be by the same painter. Beazley is certain that the animals on B131 [122] are mules. He is more cautious about B132 [123], because of the restorations, but B132’s animals do have thinnish tails and short manes. Further, each vase shows a racing-mule cart, where the driver sits rather than stands.793 Writing of the earlier ‘Burgon Vase’ [124], which has a similar scene, Beazley points out that the wheels are cart-wheels, and the animals’ collar is like the mule’s collar on the plaque by Exekias [75]. Further, Beazley points out

Crouwel, Chariots 25. Beazley, Dev2 66, and cf. notes 10-13 for the earlier discussion of names. 781 Immerwahr, Script 34, no.140. 782 Mommsen, Exekias 49. 783 Beazley, Dev2 66, pl.74.4. 784 Moore, “Horses by Exekias” 368. 785 Mommsen, Exekias 49, 65, pls.14-14a.

Hom., Il. 24.275-278 (Murray). Hom., Il. 23.265-266. 788 Hom., Od. 4.630-637. 789 Hom., Od. 21.20-30. 790 Paus., 5.9.1. Golden, Sport 40-43. Lorimer, “Country Cart” 143. 791 Pind., Ol. 6. Pind., Ol. 5. 792 Arist., Rh. 3.2 (1405b24-1405b.28). 793 Lorimer, “Country Cart” 143.

779

786

780

787

52

the similarities between the harness and cart on this vase and another attributed to the so-called Burgon Group [125]. This last vase clearly shows mules, with characterising large ears. It might seem odd that the painter did not bestow large ears on the Burgon Vase animals, but the extremities of those particular animals are generally miniaturised, so large ears might have seemed excessively ungainly on an animal that was being honoured.

mule cart transport the captive Andromache,800 and the indignity is revealed by contrast with the entrance of the ‘blessed’ Clytemnestra and Iphigeneia,801 and Rhesos802 in glorious state, in horse-drawn chariots. After all this, it can still not be said that mules usually occupied celebrated positions. On a Little Master band cup in Paris [56], two mules draw a cart laden with two huge amphorae. The driver seems to call to them, and leans forward to goad them with his whip. Here the mules are involved in the sordid kind of work that was apparently so unappealing to vase-painters’ clients.

Not everybody admired racing mules. According to Aristotle: “Semonides, when the victor in the mule-race offered him a small fee, refused to write him an ode, because he said, it was so unpleasant to write odes to half-asses; but on receiving an adequate fee, he wrote “Hail to you, daughters of stormfooted steeds,” though of course they were daughters of asses too.” 794

As draught animals, mules seem to have been in a middling class, well exceeding asses in status. Theognis remarks “how much stronger is a mule than an ass”,803 and Columella calls asses cheap and common,804 declining to treat them fully since he has already discussed mules, or “the more valuable type of animal”.805 We get an idea of the cost of mules when Isaeus says that Philoctemon sold one pair of mules for 800 drachmas, and another for 550 drachmas.806 Pliny also observes that the breeding of hinnies was very lucrative.807

Semonides could hardly have got away with his argument if it were invalid. The mule-cart race was finally ousted from Olympia as unsuited to the dignity of the games.795 Tyrants from western Greece had been enthusiastic about this event, and its demise was within a generation of their expulsion and the democratisation of Sicily. These events may have been connected.796

Useful and valuable or not, some cultures considered the hybridity of mules inappropriate and unnatural. The Israelites808 outlawed mule breeding, as did the Eleans. However, the mule’s worth remained adequate motivation for certain Eleans to journey to their border to have mares impregnated.809 Nor was this a simple matter. In production of hinnies, to socialise jennets to mate with horses, Pliny810 recommends switching them as foals to be reared by mares, and modern practice concurs. Likewise, jack asses must be socialised to mate with mares. This implies the breeding and selection of stud asses, income from stud fees, and increased status of the ass concerned. Xenophon emphasises the importance of high quality parents, and in the Satyricon, Trimalchio’s mules are claimed to be fathered by wild asses to improve their vigour.811 An ass was still an ass however, and claiming that mares otherwise reject asses out of pride,

Leaving the great occasions behind, there is abundant other evidence that the standing of mules outstripped that of asses. They were apparently respectable taxis, and Aeschines describes that Demosthenes: “… gave a dinner to the ambassadors of Philip; and how when they set out for home he hired for them some teams of mules, and escorted them on horseback. For he did not hide in the dark, as certain others do, but made an exhibition of his fawning conduct.”797

Returning in part to the issue of women and mules, we see a finely tricked-out pair on a lekythos by the Gela Painter [126], drawing a cart with two apparently respectable women, who are greeted by a man on foot. In the Odyssey,798 Nausicaa drives a team of handsome mules when she goes to do her washing – they were not beneath the dignity of a princess, and are rewarded with epithets like ‘sturdy’, and ‘strong-hoofed’.799 It is not all straightforward however. Euripides has a

Eur., Tro. 568-577. Eur., IA 589-620. 802 Eur., Rhes. 370-387. 803 Thgn., Elegies 996. 804 Columella, Rust. 7.1.1. 805 Columella, Rust. 7.1.3 (Ash, Forster, and Heffner). 806 Isae., Philoctemon 33. 807 Plin., HN 8.169-170. 808 Bible Leviticus 19.19. 809 Hdt. 4.30. 810 Plin., HN 8.171. 811 Petron., Sat. 38. 800 801

Arist., Rh. 3.2 (1405b24-1405b.28) (Roberts, in Barnes). Paus., 5.9.1-2. 796 Golden, Sport 40-41. 797 Aeschin., Embassy 2.111 (Adams). 798 Hom., Od. 6.70-80. 799 Hom., Od. 6.253, 7.2. 794 795

53

Xenophon812 recommends humiliation by shearing the horse’s crowning glory – her mane. Sophocles’ Tyro813 links her shame at her own shorn locks with that of the mare treated thus. Her bewailment of their shared fates – loss of their crowning glories, supports Mark Griffiths’ idea of horse empathy and emulation,814 and Gilhus’ remark that when human categories were imposed on animals, the animals were brought symbolically into the human sphere.815

chores in Greek art, such as that shown by some mid-fourth-century Corinthian terracotta figurines [99, 100]. Much Greek terrain is rough and dry, steep and ravined, so asses’ and mules’ hardiness of foot will have made them valuable as pack animals, able to use routes unavailable to wheeled vehicles.819 For instance, Pseudo-Demosthenes says that six asses carried wood all year round on the estate of Phaenippos.820 Presumably this wood was gathered from dispersed points, so a pack animal is the obvious choice. Aesopic fables have both asses821 and mules822 carrying all kinds of goods. Some of these loads must have been substantial. Xenophon823 comments on how a pack-ass will arch its back under heavy packs, and the chorus of old men in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata824 ache for asses to carry their heavy loads.

The foregoing highlights the significant human deliberation and intervention to bring about mule breeding, including the overcoming of taboos and inconveniences. It seems that unless the mare concerned was particularly prized, the breeding of mules was often more lucrative and necessary than breeding horses. Even so, it seems mules were not especially good to think with. When Semonides of Amorgos likened the different types of women to animals, he characterised mares as luxury loving, expensive and proud, and asses as obstinate, unwilling to work, and gluttonous.816 The mule, somewhere between the two, was not mentioned, and its absence is in itself a comment. Though the mule seems to have been been given less representative meaning by the Greeks, it is particularly illustrative of Greek attitudes to its parents, and mules could be placed nearer either parent’s class as suited. The complex family relationships are pointed out particularly in the fable of the mule who cavorts in pride over his horse mother, until remembering his ass father.817

In art, the riding of asses could particularly convey messages about class, setting, and respectability. That the ass was the least dignified mount, except perhaps for Dionysos, is particularly suggested by one Attic red-figure oinochoe [127]. An oriental warrior rides an ass side-saddle, using a woodenframed packsaddle. The unempowered riding style might imply weakness through injury, but there is no sign of this, and effeminacy seems more likely.825 The point is carefully made that the mount is an ass, by painstaking depiction of its tail, ears, shoulder cross and leg barring; and the animal seems undersized for his rider. There are no reins or other means for the rider to control the beast, and though he is armed he is taken along like so much baggage, by his walking companion. This oinochoe can be related by its near identical shape (Beazley’s shape 7)826 to the ‘Eurymedon’, or ‘Bend Over’ oinochoe, on which a Persian offers himself for buggery by a Greek youth [128]. The ‘Bend Over’ oinochoe is cited as a rare instance of political comment on an Attic vase.827 Given the explicit depiction of the ass and that several surviving vases of this particular shape are decorated with anti-Persian themes,828 it seems reasonable to suggest that the London oinochoe is using the ass to enhance its political meaning.

It appears that mules occupied their own middling class, representing no extreme, and at times confusing the Greeks’ neat polar system of horse as aristocrat, ass as workman. Indeed, the reduced symbolism given to mules may also be subconsciously relatable to Greek anxiety about hybridity and racial mixing. In modern societies, the ass’s small size, ease of handling, and lower status can make it more ‘gender neutral’ than other burden animal species. Draft oxen for instance are primarily handled by men, but asses may be used by women and children.818 This tractability diminished their status. Further, asses are often seen performing the more sordid baggage

Copper, Every Season 21. Dem., Against Phaenippus 43.7. de Ste Croix, “Phaenippos” 112. 821 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus 1.15, Appendix 263. 822 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus, 2.7, Appendix 263. 823 Xen., Cyr. 7.5.11. 824 Ar., Lys. 290. 825 Crouwel, Chariots 101-2. Anderson, Horsemanship 112-113. 826 ARV2 xlix-l. 827 Smith, “Eurymedon” 128. 828 See list in Smith, “Eurymedon” note 2. 819 820

Xen., Eq. 5.8. Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Vol.3, frag.659. 814 Mark Griffith, Gaisford Lecture at St John’s, Oxford, 8th June 2006: “Horse-power and Donkey Work: Mules and Other Equids in the Ancient Greek Imagination”. 815 Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 5. 816 Semonides, (horse) frag.7.57-70, (ass) frag.7.43-49. 817 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 62. 818 Starkey, “Trends” 11. 812 813

54

The association of asses with Persians can be seen elsewhere. The fragments of a cup in Oxford [129] show a Persian with an ass-rhyton. Ebbinghaus points out that the drinking horn shape was associated with Persians when portrayed in Attic vase painting, and here, “instead of the imperial lion, the Persian is associated with an ass.”829

dizziness)838 and turn the millstone, and now must thresh.839 The rotating mill (the upper part of which came to be called an ‘ass’840) was not in common use until the second-century BC,841 but threshing with animals was routine before this, and on the chous in Hamburg [97], mentioned above, the ass is present as a thresher.

The ledge and construction of the structure worn by the ass riden by the Persian on the London oinochoe suggests a frame for strapping loads to, like those used in Africa today.830 A pack saddle worn by a she-ass on a cup in Boston [130] is very similar. It is a most unusual choice of subject for a drinking cup. Not only is the ass rendered with great care, but also the load and its method of attachment, including the padding beneath the frame. An Athenian late-sixth-century red-figure figure-kantharos [131] from Agrigento takes the shape of a mule with baggage. There is no pack-frame this time, only straps holding the load to the animal’s body.

Post mortem After death, burden animals continued to be useful. The skinning of the ass that died, in one fable,842 the drum made by the priests of Cybele in another,843 and the wind-catchers erected in Akragas on the advice of Empedokles844 suggest that the skins of asses had some value. Nevertheless, it is ox-hides that are cited for honourable purposes like shield making.845 Excavated auloi are usually made from sheep or deer bones,846 but Pliny recalls ass-bone pipes in his time.847 If a carcass were being butchered for one reason, it seems logical to use the rest of the body, unless, as with the ass that died and was skinned mid-journey, only the most valuable part could be salvaged.848 This wastenot, want-not outlook fits very well with Aristotle’s849 ideal of self-sufficiency, and no doubts assisted Laertes to live apart from the town and Odysseus’ palace;850 and Menander’s Knemon to be so unsociable and reclusive.851

Mules or asses may be used in ploughing. Homer even claims that mules exceed oxen at this,831 and Hesiod praises the effectiveness of mules yoked to ploughs.832 Given this, it is intriguing that the ox remained the stereotype plough animal, when a mule could be more versatile. Pliny remarks that the ass is also useful in ploughing,833 but more so for breeding mules, which have exceptional strength for agricultural operations.834 Nevertheless, an Aesopic fable has a man yoke an ass together with an ox in a “poor man’s shift”.835 Ploughing with an ass in ox-harness is likely to have strained the animal, especially when forced to work alongside the much stronger ox. The resultant unevenness of the motive forces is very likely to have caused injury to the weaker animal, as Columella warns,836 and trouble to the ploughman also. Impoverished modern settings show home-made harnesses to be routinely ill-designed, and similar make-shift measures were probably common in Greek settings.837

Asses might even be eaten. Xenophon,852 forced by hunger to eat baggage asses on campaign, claimed that ass-flesh was tenderer than venison, and Herodotos specifically mentions that wealthy Persians ate roasted ass on their birthdays.853 Pollux854 remarks on a special ass-flesh market in Athens, called ‘memnoneia’. This can be translated as ‘wait for ass-things’, or ‘place of the unbudgeables’. ‘Unbudgeable’ was one ass epithet, and callous humour probably appreciated that dead asses would certainly not be moving Jasny, “Daily Bread” 240. Anth. Pal. 9.301. 840 Freeman, “Vincent” 39. 841 Jasny, “Daily Bread” 238, note 18. 842 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius p.13. 843 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 141, Phaedrus 4.2. 844 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.60. 845 Hom., Il. 7.220. 846 Landels, “Auloi” 298. 847 Plin., HN 19.172. 848 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 7. 849 Arist., Pol. 7.5 (1326b26-1326b29). Arist., Eth. Nic. 1.7 (1097.7-1097.11). 850 Hom., Od. 24.205-24-215, 24.340-24.344. 851 Men., Dys. 6-12, 31-34. 852 Xen., An. 1.5.2, 2.1.6. Xen., Cyr. 2.4.20. 853 Hdt. 1.133. 854 Poll, Onom. 9.48. 838 839

In the Greek Anthology an ass complains that he already has had to wear a blindfold (to prevent

Ebbinghaus, Rhyta 271-272. Pearson/Simalenga, et al. (eds.), Harnessing 12-13. 831 Hom., Il. 10.352. 832 Hes., Op. 46-47. 833 Plin., HN 8.167. 834 Plin., HN 8.171. 835 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 55. 836 Columella, Rust. 6.2.13. 837 Pearson/Simalenga, et al. (eds.), Harnessing 5, 23, 31, fig.35. 829 830

55

again. Nevertheless, the contexts of Herodotos’ and Xenophon’s comments show that ass-flesh was not socially desirable food for the Greeks. This is of course assuming that a range of options was available. Meat was undeniably precious, as revealed by Pithetaerus’ remark in Aristophanes’ Birds:

Zeus, but Zeus considers their relief impossible,860 reflecting their indispensibility. In another fable, Zeus answers a complaining ass’s prayers by providing worse and worse owners, until it is sold to a tanner, with the implication that its work will continue even after death.861 In Apuleius’ tale of Lucius’ career as an ass, hard work, underfeeding, and beatings are routine. Columella emphasises asses’ tolerance of blows, hunger, and neglect.862 Uncomplaining when ill, the ass could be driven to exhaustion and death, as in the fable of the ass employed by the priests of Cybele, who then made a drum of its skin, and joked that it now got even more blows.863 In yet another fable, an accompanying, unladen horse is only loaded when the ass dies from exhaustion.864

“…they grate on cheese, oil, silphium, vinegar, and they mix another dressing, a sweet and oily one, and then sprinkle it over you hot, just as if you were carrion meat!” 855

This, and Aristophanes’ remark, that he doesn’t eat κενέβρειον, and would prefer to be invited when his hosts have actually sacrificed something856 imply that some Greeks would eat carrion; meat that had died from natural causes, and which might therefore be somewhat less than fresh and wholesome. In this light, the persistence of Aristophanes’ Sausage-seller gibing about asses’ and dogs’-meat sausages seems to bring ass and dog flesh very low in the pecking order.857

The sympathy underlying the fables mentioned here is articulated clearly by Menander,865 who points out that, unlike man, the ass is at least not responsible for his hard fate. Tyrtaeus also points out the usefulness and misery of the ass by likening it to the Messenians under the Spartans – “worn out like asses, carrying great loads…”.866

Aristotle remarks that the food which enters a household should be distributed in descending order of quality; first to the free men, next to the slaves, and finally to the domestic animals.858 Clearly the better cuts were given out first, and if an animal died of suspect causes or was too old, or was discovered too late to appeal to human palettes, it could still make dog-food. Several gems [132, 133] and vases [134, 135] show dogs gnawing waste ends of butchered animal legs, and a red-figure askos [136] in Oxford has a fox caught in a trap baited with a cloven hoof and fetlock. Certainly Hermes, who burns to nothing the hooves and heads of the cows he killed from Apollo’s herd, considered them rubbish.859 Dismembering for use makes sense from a waste disposal point of view. Rotting carcases smell particularly unpleasant, and to bury or drag away an entire ass is a nuisance. This, and the fact that articulated ass and mule skeletons are rare indicates that their bodies were not wasted.

Tyrtaeus seems to have meant generally and spiritually ‘worn out’, but the term may also refer to wounds in asses’ skins, caused by chafing loads. Chafing can cause ulceration, infection, and infestation with maggots.867 Continuous work may have prevented healing, and sores may have been long standing. In one fable a crow torments an ass by stabbing at an open wound, while the driver looks on and laughs.868 The suggestion is that working men were hardened to poor condition in their beasts. Underfeeding may have compounded the ass’s woes. Arkhilokhos869 likens the hilly skyline of Thasos to the spine of the ass. The skyline is craggy in places, and the asses of Arkhilokhos’ acquaintance might well have been underweight. The ass on a gem in Boston [137] is clearly malnourished and emaciated. It also has sores, and this is detail is not only fitting, for poorly fleshed animals are even more prone to pack and harness injuries, but also suggestive that starving

Harsh treatment The ass’s lot was generally recognised as severe. Of the 47 Aesopic fables about asses, 22 involve overburdening and mistreatment. Contrastingly, mule mistreatment and burdening fables number only two, and horses just four. In one fable, grieved by their constant burdens and hardships, the asses petition

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 185. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 179. 862 Columella, Rust. 7.1.2. 863 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 141. 864 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 7. 865 Menander, ap. Stob., Flor. 4.34.7. Menander, frag.620 (Koerte/ Thierfelder). 866 Tyrtaeus, frag. 6.1-2 (West (ed.) Iambi). 867 Allpress, “Transport” 35. Pearson/Simalenga, et al. (eds.), Harnessing 32-34. 868 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 190. 869 Archil. frag.19 (West). 860 861

Ar., Av. 531-538 (Sommerstein). Ar., frag.693 (Kock). LSJ s.v. κενέβρεια. 857 Ar., Eq. 1395. 858 Arist., Gen. An. 2.6(744b15-20). 859 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 136-137. 855 856

56

asses were common enough. A sick and miserable ass is an unusual subject for careful depiction as the central feature of a costly personal object, especially one used to represent its owner as an identifying mark. This ass is too pitiful to be regarded positively, and it is difficult to imagine what was meant. It is tempting to suspect some manifestation of the seal-maker’s sense of humour, or perhaps that of a commissioning client.

Asses as a source or means of wealth may have been the reasoning behind a late archaic cornelian scarab showing a rolling ass [138],878 and a steatite scaraboid of similar date [139]. Boardman describes both animals as horses, and gems with rolling horses also survive from this time [140],879 but the outsized heads and ears, and tasselled tails, are distinctly asinine. The motif of the rolling equid seems to have been popular ca.500 BC, and Boardman points out that the poses are rather similar to those of fallen chariot horses on sixth-century black-figure vases, and that the gems might possibly derive from these. More convincing is his thought that the animals are merely amusing or cleaning themselves.880 Equids very obviously enjoy rolling, and present jolly and comical scenes when they do. It is entirely possible that the motif was liked for its humour and pleasant air of relaxation.

That the ass symbolised drudgery tends to conceal the fact that many were well regarded. Asses worked, and might even be housed, as in Aristophanes’ Wasps,870 side-by-side with humans, and it is inevitable that relationships formed, especially given asses’ capacity for showing affection towards humans. Certainly these burden beasts were not all entirely mistreated, but there is usually an ‘edge’ in fables of prospering asses. There is the ass that feigned illness871 enjoyed good feeding and rest, like the pig nearby, but returned to work on realising the pig was to be slaughtered. A wild ass congratulates a tame one on his physical condition, until he sees him flogged.872 In another fable, a driver notices that his ass is flagging and lightens his load, though at the expense of the accompanying mule, who ends up doubly burdened.873 Aristotle describes an ass that was allowed to retire on account of being thought 80 years old. Unharnessed, it continued to plod alongside the draught-beasts working on the Parthenon, and they were thought to be encouraged. In recognition, a public decree prevented corn merchants from refusing it feed.874 The ability to have a decree like this passed and accepted indicates an underlying sympathy for burden beasts. This particular animal had become Athens’ gesture of gratitude to its race, and in effect, a community pet, though the corn merchants may not have loved it.

Findings It is an intriguing aspect of ancient Greek attitudes to domestic animals that there was a tendency to denigrate unattractive, but utilitarian animals, and exalt the prestigious. This is particularly exemplified by attitudes to the ass, mule, and horse. That these species are related makes the comparison more interesting, and complex. Familiarity bred contempt, and social desirability, not usefulness, dictated which animals were portrayed most. Literature and art downplay the mundane tasks and physical toil. But for man and beast alike, work was often heavy and long, fraught with difficulties and risks. Therefore the task-appropriateness of each animal was carefully considered. Ass and mule were favoured for carting and pack-work, oxen for slow and heavy haulage. In terms of prestige and custom, horses were for men, not for women. Women might use mules as an appropriate and acceptable alternative. If no horse was available, then a mule was always preferable to an ass. But choice was not always possible, and one species, however ill-suited, could be called upon to attempt the work of another. What is more, individual animals’ use, value, and allotted tasks changed through their lifespans as they altered in temperament, reproductive ability, strength and condition.

Not all asses were equal. Theognis875 comments that men seek asses of noble stock for breeding, and Varro praises the asses of Arcadia. He tells of an ass fetching 60,000 sesterces, and of a team of four sold for 400,000 in Rome.876 Pliny877 records Varro saying that the senator Quintus Axius bought a single breeding ass for 400,000 sesterces – a phenomenal price. Ar., Vesp. 169-182. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 600. 872 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 183. 873 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 263. 874 Arist., Hist. An. 6.24 (577b39-578a4). See index for cross references to retired animals. 875 Thgn., Elegies 183-185. 876 Varro, On Agriculture 2.1.14. 877 Plin., HN 8.167. 870

Human necessity and attitudes frequently conflicted with the wellbeing of working animals, which required

871

Boardman, Gems2 186, pl.404. For a horse that is just kneeling to roll, ears forward in pleasant anticipation, see [141]. 880 Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems 147. 878 879

57

appropriate harness and pack equipment, rest, good feed, and ran greater risks of injury than other stock. Owners always needed their animals to be well, and for the more valuable ox, horse and mule, great pains were taken to ensure that this was so. But even with the best of intentions, medical treatments could be brutal and counterproductive, and osteological remains show animals commonly suffered from arthritis and chronic strain. Animals depicted in Greek art generally look well, but such art involves a representation of what ought to be, not what was. Unhealthy beasts are unattractive, and remind men of their own failings and vulnerability, so extreme gritty realism was generally avoided.

problematic. It might be placed nearer either parent’s class as suited. The ambivalence may in part be owed to discomfort with mules’ hybrid status, neither horse nor ass, muddling the neat polar system of horse as aristocrat, ass as workman. Practicality, and the prominence and status of species seem to have been inversely related in the equids. Horses, flighty and high maintenance, were comparatively useless to the farmer, but symbolically important to the élite. Mules were highly desirable possessions, manageable and versatile, but politically neutral. Lowliest, worst off, but cheap and most enduring and available of all, asses were essential, and of very little interest unless they were being manipulated to produce mules. In a class of their own, oxen represented financial success, but also hard work, which, outside of ritual, was beneath the notice of those not directly involved.

Humans and animals working together have inevitable struggles of will, and mutual accommodation of quirks, likes and dislikes. Drivers often attributed human thought processes, vices, and virtues to animals, and lack of understanding could result in unkind and impatient treatment. Slaves might for their own reasons mistreat their master’s animals. On the other hand, understanding and sympathetic men might develop close relationships with working beasts, appreciating them as companions in their labour, and sometimes even allowing them to retire.881

Many burden animals were well cared for, and all were desired to prosper, but, though epigram and fable may be fictions, they allude to larger truths – necessity forced most animals to work hard at whatever level their capabilities and necessity permitted, throughout their lives. Men acknowledged suffering, but were forced to view animals with harsh pragmatism. However, if sentiment was a luxury, and owners did not entirely understand their animals, a good deal of empathy is often to be found. The evidence is primarily aristocratic in origin, but we can almost certainly say that both sentiment and indifference will have had their roles in the thought and actions of the common man.

As metaphor and symbol, the ox was of paramount importance. The horse and the ass, its polar opposite, were equally indispensible. The mule, however, even after 56 years in history as an athlete, is relatively little mentioned despite its high value and versatile utility. Its hybridity, and occupation of the middle ground between asses and horses rendered it symbolically

Anth. Pal. 6.228. See index for cross references to retired animals.

881

58

4 Friend or foe? Pests and animal allies

Hunger and fear of physical harm are among the strongest motivational forces on humans and other animals. Where animals have threatened food supplies and safety, man’s preoccupation has often given rise to anger, fear, hatred, and attribution of evil. But an animal that is perceived as helpful in other ways might be forgiven even major transgressions.882 This chapter is concerned with animal threats to ancient Greek interests, particularly human safety and food sources, and with the animal allies that they used to counter such threats.

and Theophrastus886 says that birds eat grain as it is sown. Aristophanes’ Birds particularly emphasises the feathered peril - hovering over Athenian grain, olives, and grapes.887 Much thought and expense was dedicated to alleviating the avian menace. Aelian relates that the Veneti distracted jackdaws with honey cakes,888 and indicated crop boundaries to the birds with scarlet thongs, which may have worked as birdscarers. Hesiod advises that slaves follow seed-sowers, covering seed with earth.889 Aristophanes mentions birdliming (shown on a black-figure amphora in New York) [142], snares, nets and missiles.890 Alcimenes uses a sling to keep starlings and the Bistonian crane from crops.891 In fables, one angry farmer uses stones and a slingshot against cranes,892 which gather in large flocks, another nets seed-raiding cranes and kills them.893 This second fable features a stork, harmless to grain but nevertheless convicted by association with the cranes, the farmer not being knowledgeable enough to take the chance. Herons also resemble cranes, though they are solitary feeders and do not eat grain, and despite farmers’ closeness to the wildlife around them, their fears for their crops make a lack of discrimination between similar birds understandable. Aelius Dionysius noted the possibility of confusion between species:

Insects Theophrastus describes locusts, mites, worms, grasshoppers, beetles and the like as a constant menace.883 Insects fall outside the scope of this study, but their sometimes-devastating destructive tendencies must be acknowledged. This is especially so, given that depredation of crops by insects worsens the impact of other pests, and, importantly, transforms creatures that might otherwise have been neutral, or even enemies, into allies.

Birds Aelian relates that the Thessalians, Illyrians, and Lemnians fed jackdaws at public expense, thinking to keep them present to counter locusts.884 Birds were a mixed blessing however. Some persistently stole flesh from altars, as Pausanias885 remarks,

“… there are thousands of types … some have no lock on Theophr., Hist. pl. 8.6.1. Ar., Av. 227-245, 1119-1125. 888 Ael., NA 17.16. 889 Hes., Op. 469-471. 890 Ar., Av. 524-529. 891 Anth. Pal. 7.172. 892 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 26. 893 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 13. 886 887

Naughton-Treves, “Forest” 35. Theophr., Caus. pl. 4.14.1-5. Theophr., Hist. pl. 8.10.1-3. 884 Ael., NA 3.12. 885 Paus., 5.14.1. 882 883

59

the head, on others some sort of crest rises up.”894

“But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white. On its top it had spikes with sharp points, to prevent any pollution of it by birds sitting upon it.”901

This is not to say that care in distinction was always lacking. In some bird scenes, craftsmen have striven to depict particular species clearly, and hence Pollard can claim that a Lakonian hydria in London depicts demoiselle cranes [143].895 Regarding the live birds, it is probable that concern about livelihoods could make farmers take a ‘better safe than sorry’ approach.

Returning to the Acropolis korai and kouroi with meniskoi, Maxmin points out that since these were buried shortly after the Persian sack of Athens, and Birds was first presented in 414 BC, there must have been enough other statues with meniskoi for the audience to understand Aristophanes’ joke. Even if meniskoi were not actually created as a response to bird mess, the joke itself suggests Greek aggravation at bird soiling, and if the meniskoi were a measure against birds, then they show that the annoyance was enough to justify the expense and aesthetic interference of routine protection. This would be understandable given the care that went into the finishing and presentation of sculptures, with colours, polishing, and sometimes gilding.902 Ideas of Greek offence at such mess are supported by literary references to bird fouling and nesting on architecture and statues. Euripides’ Ion promises to use his bow to chase off the flocks of birds that foul the sacred offerings,903 perhaps including those that steal flesh from altars. A later passage shows that fouling and nesting are also exasperating him:

Uncertainty between species in art can confound scene interpretation. On one gem, a dog worries a large bird. The trailing crest-feathers, long beak and long legs of the bird undermine Berry’s identification of it as a goose [144],896 and it is either a heron or a crane. The dog may be appropriately driving off a pest, or a nuisance harassing one of the pet herons frequently portrayed in domestic settings on gems and vases of the fifth-century.897 This dilemma over the dog’s merits and shortcomings will be examined later on. The mess made by bird droppings on clothing, goods, and statues is less imperilling than crop depredation, but bird fouling and nesting on sacred objects seems to have genuinely irritated the Greeks. Aristophanes has a chorus threaten potentially uncooperative judges: “…But if you don’t vote for us, then make yourselves metal crescents to wear over you, like the statues have; because anyone among you who doesn’t have a crescent – well, when you’re wearing your best white clothes, that’s just when we’ll use them to punish you as all the birds cover you with their droppings.”898

“… what is this new bird that approaches; you will not place under the cornice a straw-built nest for your children, will you? My singing bow will keep you off… Go and bring up your offspring by the eddies of Alpheus, or go to the Isthmian grove, so that the offerings, and the temple of Phoebus, are not harmed. . . . and yet I am ashamed to kill you, for to mortals you bear the messages of the gods; but I will be subject to Phoebus in my appointed tasks, and I will never cease my service to those who nourish me.904

This mention of metal covers is intriguing, and not yet satisfactorily explained. Many of the kouroi and korai discovered buried on the Athenian Acropolis had metal rods protruding from their heads, or holes that once held rods. Maxmin899 supports the idea that these may have held Aristophanes’ bird-repelling meniskoi, as a sort of umbrella against bird droppings. Ridgway900 however, argues that metal attachments to sculpted heads were for decorative purposes, and that the meniskos as an umbrella was an Aristophanic joke. She does however concede that spikes of some sort of may have been used to prevent birds nesting in architectural sculpture, as mentioned by Josephus:

The remark about the birds carrying divine messages adds a further dimension to the meniskos debate, since they could be argued to represent a sort of compromise measure, requiring less harm to the birds.

Rats The prominence of rats as urban vermin today invites questions as to whether they had any impact in ancient Greece. Rats were certainly known in Italy,905

Dionysius, Avibus 2.18, cited in Thompson, BirdsNew 102. Pollard, Birds fig.11. 896 Berry, Gems 14, no.23. 897 For examples, and comment on the commonness and identification of these birds in art, see Beazley, Lewes 49-51. 898 Ar., Av. 1114-1117 (Sommerstein). 899 Maxmin, “Meniskoi”. 900 Ridgway, “Meniskoi” esp.611-612. 894 895

Joseph., BJ 5.224 (Whiston). Palagia, “Techniques” 260-262. Durnan, “Stone Sculpture”. 903 Eur., Ion 106-107. 904 Eur., Ion 170-183 (Potter). 905 MacArthur, “Rat in Early Europe” 209-210. 901 902

60

and skeletal remains place rats in early Palestine and Egypt under the Pharaohs. Rats could have migrated to Greece along with grain shipments.906 However, there seems to have been no Greek word for ‘rat’ between 600 and 320 BC. Further, Aristotle makes no specific mention of ‘large mice’ among his “many breeds”, despite singling out the jerboa.907 A buried pithos-trap in Nichoria, of ca.1050-975 BC, contained a numerous variety of small mammals, but no rats.908 Possibly rats were present in Greece between 600 and 320 BC, but died out, as in Britain in the early Middle Ages.909 The black rat (Rattus rattus) appears not to have become endemic in the Mediterranean region until the first-century BC, and the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus), not until ca.1600 AD. Nevertheless, the following discussion of mice grants the possibility that rats may sometimes have been present.

at his pauper’s rags, the goats’ hair cloak and the wallet. He prepared for them a double killer, a mousetrap…”912

Zeus and Athena’s exchange shows that mouse-trouble occurred in temples as well: “Daughter, are you going to go to defend the mice? They are always skipping about your temple, enjoying the savour of the sacrificial meat and the eatables of every sort.” … but Athena answered him: “Father, I would never go to aid the mice in their distress; they have done me much harm, damaging my garlands and my lamps on account of the oil. And I was particularly stung by this that they did: they chewed up my robe that I wove with much effort from a fine woof, and I had spun a long warp for it, and they made holes…”913

Mice caused problems outdoors too. Most Metapontine coins depict barley on their reverses. Often an animal, bird, or insect is engraved alongside, and some [145] incorporate a mouse into the barley design, suggesting a close association. The mouse may simply be an engraver’s mark, reflecting not necessarily antagonism, but a simple awareness and acknowledgement of the natural world. However, the meaning of the mouse is possibly illuminated when we consider that they are well outnumbered by locusts in the same position [146, 147]. Locust plagues often truly devastate crops, as might plagues of mice in periodic population explosions.914 Perhaps these dangerous creatures’ appearance alongside barley on the coins is a symbolic acknowledgement of fickle gods’ power over human affairs. There is even the possibility of trying to invoke some sympathetic magic to protect the crops. Aristotle remarks that mice can destroy entire crops overnight. Men might fumigate, he says, hunt, dig up burrows, and turn out swine to uproot the holes, but nothing dispelled attacks except rain.915 Aelian tells of mouseplagues devastating Aeolian and Trojan crops,916 and thought sparrows and mice damaged grain as much as drought and frost.917 Mice are uncommon on gems and rings, but two objects illustrate human resentments. One mid-fifth to mid-fourth-century, grey chalcedony scaraboid shows what appears to be six very fat mice menacing an ear of corn [148]. A third-century gold bezel from Alexandria has a woebegone mouse standing erect on his hind legs with his back against a column, to which his front paws are tied. The apparent punishment seems connected with the two ears of corn that hang from his mouth [149].

Mice The term ‘mouse’ will be used generically, since the Greeks acknowledged many kinds of ‘mouse’, and ancient Greece had at least 19 species of mouse and vole.910 The Battle of the Frogs and Mice may date no earlier than the second-century BC,911 but it is probably representative of earlier times. Two mice, Troglodytes “Creephole”, and Knaison “Scratchaway”, seem named for their habits in human houses, but the rest, like Filchcrumbe, Hamchamper, and Graingobble, are named as food thieves. Damage to other materials was also problematic, and Herodotos reports that swarms of mice detroyed the arms of the Assyrians when they invaded Egypt. It is true that mice will feed even on leather, paste, soap, and glue. A man in Callimachos’ Aetia takes action against such destructiveness: ““Tiresome neighbours, why did you come again to ravage our house? For certainly you bring nothing.” Saying this he put down the work he was doing, for he was preparing a secret to trick the mice. And in the two traps he placed a fatal bait … Often they [the mice] drew the fat oil from the lamp with their tails, and licked it when the lid was not in place … they drove away sleep from his eyes. But this was the most shameless deed, and the one for which he was most angry, that the thieves achieved within a short night. The rogues gnawed

Callim., Aet. frag.177.22 (Trypanis). Frogs and Mice 174-196 (West). 914 Nowak, Mammals 861. 915 Arist., Hist. An. 6.37(580b.14-29). 916 Ael., NA 12.5. 917 Ael., NA 17.41.

MacArthur, “The Athenian Plague: a Medical Note” 171. Arist., Hist. An. 6.37(581a3-6) (Thompson, in Barnes). 908 Armitage, “Unwelcome Companions”. 909 Davis, “Scarcity of Rats” 458. 910 Based on a survey of Nowak, Mammals. 911 West, Homeric Hymns 232. 906

912

907

913

61

Aristotle claims that a pregnant mouse produced 120 young in isolation in a jar of millet.918 The lifeembracing procreative abilities of mice seem to have connected them with healing powers, and the mouse appears repeatedly in Pliny, as medicine.919 This had even more ancient precedent apparently, for recently consumed mice were found in the desiccated bodies of children from Naga ed Dêr in Upper Egypt, dated to around 3400 BC.920

archaeological digs. Some are occasionally recorded however, and a small mandible fragment from a “member of the weasel family” was unearthed in a second-century AD bone assemblage in Corinth.927 There are more recorded remains of cats, but these are still very few.928 This is all before taking into account the possibility of confusing either cats or mustelids with the common genet (Genetta genetta), which is widespread in Greece. It is similar in size, habits, and shape to martens, and has stripes and spots similar to many cats. Further, as shown by their increasing popularity as house pets in current times, they are housetrainable and perfectly domesticable. In what follows, the genet cannot be ruled out, but for reasons of economy, I shall deal with cats and mustelids, taking mustelids first.

The mouse was linked with Apollo Smintheus.921 This may be owed partly to supposed medicinal qualities, but destructive powers seem primary. Apollo Smintheus prevented mice from totally consuming the crops of the Aeolians and Trojans.922 A mouse appears with an effigy of Apollo on the coins of Alexandria Troas [150],923 and on coins of Argos, Lesbos, and Aeolis it features as his representative. Apollo as agent of sudden destruction is prominent in the Iliad, and as an agricultural deity, Apollo may have been seen as working through and answerable for the mice, hence their propitiation in his name. Aelian tells that at Hamaxitus tame mice were kept and fed at public expense in the temple of Smintheus, that white mice nested beneath the altar there, and that there was an image of a mouse near the cult tripod.924

Today, ‘weasel’ can mean any one of between thirteen and sixteen species in the genus Mustela,929 several still occurring in Greece.930 This generic use of the term seems to have applied in Greek literature as well, so analysis of modern fauna is used here to indicate which species might have been meant. Since Greek climatic conditions today resemble those of the period in question,931 the current resident species of mustelids may well have been resident then too.932 They include the least weasel (Mustela nivalis nivalis) and common weasel (Mustela nivalis vulgaris). These however, are very small, and Pliny’s larger, ‘wild’ weasel, a term that may imply the existence of ‘tame’ mustelids, may well be the beech marten (Martes foina).933 Widespread throughout the Mediterranean basin,934 beech martens favour rocky open areas, but often enter modern towns, even occupying buildings,935 and, in modern-day settings, boldly vandalising car engines.936

From their depredations and fouling of stored food, and their assaults upon personal and sacred possessions, it seems that mice were a genuine peril to the well-being of ancient Greeks. Fortunately for the Greeks, there were other animals that were ready and available to kill them.

Mustelidae and Sylvestris libyca Mustelids and cats both kill mice, but both are rare in art and literature,925 and the sparseness of surviving evidence makes ascertaining their roles around human habitations difficult. Confusion between the meanings of γαλ± and αãλουρος, vagueness in ancient authors,926 and imprecise representations often confuse modern scholars as to whether mustelids or cats are meant. A further difficulty is that the bones of small animals usually go undetected or unreported in

Assessing the ancient pictorial evidence first requires some clarification of the physical differences in the profiles of cats and ‘weasels’. Briefly, martens and weasels are proportionately longer and slenderer in Reese, “Bone” 258. Engels, Classical Cats 177-180. 929 King, Weasels 7-15. 930 King, Weasels fig.2.5. 931 Osborne, Landscape 29-30. 932 The following descriptions are primarily based upon King, Weasels. 933 Plin., HN 29.16. 934 Masseti, “Stone Marten” 73. 935 Nowak, Mammals 1116. Birks, “Car Crime” 42. 936 Birks, “Car Crime” 42. Preliminary Results on the Use of AntiMarten Dispensers “Marder-Stunk” in Motor Cars in Brandenburg, Germany: http://www.trifolio-m.de/andere_produkte/marderstunk/ erfahrung_ms/MarderStunk-Poster.pdf. 927 928

Arist., Hist. An. 6.37(580b.10-13) Eg. Plin., HN 29.29, 29.34, 30.14, 30.23, 30.42, 30.47. 920 Dawson, Bridle of Pegasus 103. 921 Bernheim/Zener, “Sminthian Apollo” 12 922 Ael., NA 12.5. 923 Wroth, BM Coins: Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos 9, nos.1-3, pl.3.6. 924 Ael., NA 12.5. 925 Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 76 926 For discussion of the meaning of γαλ± and αίλουρος, see Benton, “Weasels” and Borthwick, “Beetle, Bell, Goldfinch, and Weasel”. 918 919

62

neck and body, and much shorter legged than cats. Their craniums are flatter, their ears shorter and rounded. Weasels’ tails are short in relation to their bodies, and that of the marten is very bushy.

The willingness of mustelids to kill snakes was also widely acknowledged.945 As mouse and snake killers, one might expect a positive view of mustelids. Indeed, Aelian reports mustelid worship in Thebes, in association with assistance by Galanthis, or a real mustelid, at the birth of Herakles.946 But there are negative views too. Ovid reports that the form of a weasel was forced on Galanthis because of her deceitfulness,947 and some versions of the story are linked with witchcraft and malign aspects of Hecate.948 Perceptions of perfidy are indicated in a fable of a trapped mustelid that pleads its case as a beneficial mouse-killer. It is drowned anyway; for killing poultry, and stealing what the mice would have had.949 That mustelids posed a threat to poultry is represented by Pliny’s suggestion of mixing the ashes of a weasel with fowls’ feed to repel attacks.950

Among the rare possible ancient Greek representations of mustelids is a pelike fragment [151], showing a small animal with the approximate profile and proportions of a marten, reaching for a titbit from a youth. On a black-figure skyphos in St. Petersburg [152], a snarling dog faces a defensively arched, bristling animal, with long hairs incised on its body and outline. It has taken to high ground on large rock, and apart from its thin tail, strongly resembles a marten. The attendant youth has a club, but stands in a relaxed stance, which does not suggest a strenuous hunting scene, but rather one with an element of animal baiting. Reasonably convincing as a marten is an animal on a cup attributed to Douris [153].937 When Douris draws animals, they are well observed,938 and this ‘marten’ is set apart from his foxes [154] and dogs by its short legs, long, thin body, and exceptionally long and bushy tail. The contrast between it and the dog on this vase is marked. The mustelid looks up at a courting couple, and might be a love-gift. The choice of species is unusual, but novelty is characteristic of Douris.939 No dispute surrounds a small bronze mustelid in Cambridge [155], the tail-length of which suggests a stoat, and a very nicely observed fourth- or third-century silver mustelid which until recently was owned by the late Leo Mildenberg [156].

Aristotle groups weasels with creatures that betray their cowardice by their spitefulness,951 and Semonides likens some women to mustelids: “… repulsive and miserable. There is nothing beautiful or desirable about her, nothing enjoyable or attractive. She is wild about love-making, but sickens her husband whenever he comes near. By stealing she does her neighbours great harm and often she gobbles up the unburnt sacrifices.”952

Mustelids were surrounded by negative superstition.953 Aelian reports a story that the first weasel was created from a sexually incontinent sorcerer, transformed as punishment. He does not credit the story, but still calls mustelids evil and malicious. He then claims that the testicles of a marten will prevent conception and intercourse in women who wear them, while the innards drunk with wine break friendships.954 In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, a weasel in one’s path was bad luck,955 and Theophrastus’ Superstitious Man must counter unexpected glimpses of weasels on the road by throwing three stones, or waiting for someone else to collect the curse.956 These passages make clear

Moving to the idea of mustelids as domestic mousers, and the regard in which they were held, Aristotle remarks on the particular voracity of ‘wild’ mustelids for mice. Like Pliny, he seems to imply the existence of some tame individuals.940 In the Battle of the Weasel and the Mice,941 one mustelid takes on an entire mouse army, and five fables have mustelids as mouse exterminators.942 Aelian says that mice are terrified by the squeak of a weasel,943 and since mustelids do ‘chirp’ loudly, and cats do not, this suggests that mustelids were meant. Aristotle suggests sprinkling the ashes of a mustelid to keep mice from sown seed.944

Ael., NA 14.4. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 197. Plin., HN 8.33, 29.16. Arist., Hist. An. 9.1(609b.29-30). 946 Ael., NA 12.5. 947 Ov., Met. 9.306. 948 Borthwick, “Seeing Weasels” 202-203. 949 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 27, Phaedrus 1.22. 950 Plin., HN 30.50. 951 Arist., Part. An. 3.4(667a.20-22). 952 Semonides, frag.7.50-56 (Lloyd-Jones). 953 Borthwick, “Seeing Weasels”. 954 Ael., NA 15.11. 955 Ar., Eccl. 791-793. 956 Theophr., Char. 16.3 945

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.193. ARV2 1698.1567. Caskey/Beazley, Boston 3, pl.71. 938 Buitron-Oliver, Douris 24. 939 Buitron-Oliver, Douris 24. 940 Arist., Hist. An. 6.37(580b.26-27). 941 West, Homeric Hymns 259-263. 942 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 27, 32, Phaedrus 1.22, 4.2, Appendix 197. 943 Ael., NA 15.11. 944 Plin., HN 18.45. 937

63

that the superstitions were thought ridiculous, but that they had survived, nonetheless.

Benton963 disagrees with Borthwick and Keller, and asserts that cats, not weasels, were the primary house-mousers in fifth-century Athens. Cats can be very sociable with humans. They also outperform mustelids in that they do not run away if left loose, are housetrainable, less destructive, and not gifted with a strong odour. Further, depictions of cats being accepted into human company and domestic settings radically outnumber those of mustelids. There are, however, several barriers to identification of domestic cats in ancient Greek art. Firstly, the few agreed depictions of so-called ‘big cats’, meaning lions, cheetahs, and leopards vastly outnumber surviving depictions of domestic cats. This has often caused scholars to default to calling animals ‘felines’ or ‘panthers’ when they are at all unsure, a process that seems selfreinforcing. In addition, taking αãλουρος for cat, and γαλ± for weasel, there is no surviving literary mention of cats in the Greek mainland. Even if γαλ± is taken to include cats, then mentions of cats in everyday Greek life remain very sparse.964 There is also the longstanding modern rumour that the Greeks disliked cats. These obstacles make the surviving representations all the more important, and even raise the question as to whether some others have been overlooked. Taking the available depictions that have been generally agreed to show domestic cats, there is only a little to do with them as mousers, and more to do with cats being occasional pests themselves. There is a strong propensity for them to be involved in somewhat comic misdemeanour.965 Several scenes exploit cats’ tendencies to climb up high on inappropriate objects or furnishings, to transgress human boundaries, to torment other domestic animals, and their generally quiet air of furtiveness and stealth. This is so frequent among the surviving objects, and so significant in their scenes, that it cannot be ignored. Further attention is also rewarded by the fact that the depictions often express a certain sense of humour.

Amid ambivalence, mustelids appear to have been accepted, or at least tolerated, in and around houses. In the house of Praxinoa, Eunoa is sharply instructed to pick up the spinning wool, with the warning that ‘γαλÈαι’ like to lie on soft beds. 957 Praxinoa may have been calling Eunoa indolent, or she may have meant a feline rather than a mustelid, given that by 270 BC cats may have become much more common in Sicily, where Theophrastus lived and wrote.958 However, it is still possible that there was a tame mustelid about. In either case, an animal’s potential to cause damage would warrant tidying up the wool, and there must have been some domestic cats or mustelids in the local society for the observation to make any sense. Aristophanes certainly assumes general familiarity with mustelids among his audience, and taking γαλ± for weasel, makes 14 references to them. Two refer to the severe pungency of a weasel’s ‘farts’,959 three to stealing meat.960 In Aristophanes’ Ecclesiazusae, an old woman abuses a younger woman for lying in wait and furtively peeping out “… like a ferret…”961 Mustelids do rest and hunt in holes and crevices. Impressions of furtive, skulking treachery are suggested by Dolon’s donning of a wolf-skin and a marten cap for his spy mission on behalf of the Trojans.962 Mustelids are not always thought very sociable by human standards. They have a musky odour, and their anal scent glands produce pungent liquid in fright or excitement. Even tame individuals can bite suddenly and hard, are difficult to house-train, and cannot be trained to leave other household animals alone. Indoors, they can be destructive, and will steal meat, fruit, bread, and hoard even inedible objects. If wild beech martens and the two nivalis species were among those mustelids that Pliny says prowled about houses, it would have been difficult effectively to deter them from hunting any domestic animals. However, Greek houses seem to have been far more open to animals than our own, and there is no reason to dismiss mustelids from the mouse-killing cohort. Pest eradicating local mustelids venturing into homes in search of prey may not necessarily have been loved, but they may well have been tolerated.

A scene suggesting Greek expectations that cats eradicate mice indoors appears on a pyxis lid in Berlin [157]. In what appears to be a domestic pantry scene are two large bowls of what must be food, another bowl with a cover, a large woven bag, and something else hanging with it. Two tall food-stands complete the setting. The scene portrays comic domestic mayhem. Two very small animals, with long tails, rounded ears, and long snouts have invaded. Keller thought that these

Theoc., Id. 15.28 (Gow). Sillar/Meyler, Cats 21. See index for cross references to cats and misdemeanour. 959 Ar., Ach. 254-256. Ar., Plut. 693. 960 Ar., Vesp. 362-364. Ar., Thesm. 558. Ar., Pax 1151. 961 Ar., Eccl. 924 (Sommerstein). 962 Hom., Il. 10.335 957 958

Benton, “Weasels”. See index for cross references to the scarcity of cats in Greek literature. 965 See index for cross references to cats and misdemeanour. 963 964

64

might be weasels,966 but weasels have very short tails, and cats do not usually hunt them, their scent glands and ferocity being effective deterrents. Mitchell first suggests cats, then ferrets,967 but neither has such long pointed snouts, and the depicted animals are intended as very small. The drawing on this vase is clumsy, so the animal’s thick tails and rather long back legs can be discounted: enough to allow their most obvious interpretation: as mice. Their size, activities, head and ear shape agree. One ‘mouse’ begins to climb the stand supporting a dish, the other clings to the stand that has been sent flying, perhaps by the youth brandishing a stick at the animal. The other youth threatens one of a pair of larger creatures, each eating from a separate bowl rather than pursuing the rodents. Though roughly drawn, their sleek bodies, and proportions, especially their long tails, suggest cats. Their faces are buried in the bowls, but their short ears can be seen folded back in the manner of real cats eating from highsided vessels. One cat has lithely climbed to hunch over its bowl with the characterising flexible spine bowed upwards. Mitchell968 calls these animals foxes, because of their thickish tails. Aside from the features already noticed, however, the tails are too long and not at all brush-like, and both tails have spots that suggest ringed tails, similar to the tail of a cat devouring a chicken, on a lobster-claw askos in London [158].969 Mitchell points to a fox with a spotted tail on another askos [159] in London, but this does not dispel the other evidence, and real European foxes do not have ringed tails in the way that real cats often do.

woman, slumped in her chair with closed eyes and facing the viewer. Unnoticed, a small cat puts its front paws on the base of the food-stand, and considers the meat above with apparent intent. Continuing the theme of misdemeanour, but far less obvious, is the body language on a chous in Palermo [160]. Hoorn calls the feline shown here a panther, and it does turn its face to the viewer in the manner of traditional frieze panthers. The collar it wears argues neither way, because several vases display captive big cats with collars, but instead of the panther’s heavy muzzle and limbs, this slender animal has the proportions of an adult domestic cat, including the low-slung belly. Further, it has no distinct markings, so we may take this to be a domestic cat. The drawing has it beginning a leap towards a statue on a plinth. The woman in the scene presumably has some business in visiting the statue, but is not looking at it. Her entire body language is focussed upon the expectation that the cat might need restraining. Nevertheless, the collar, and the fact that it has got this far, suggest that the cat is otherwise welcome in her company, and discipline appears to have been left to the last minute. Left arm akimbo she steps forward and looks down at the cat. Scowling, with the corner of her mouth turned down, she raises her right arm, ready to slap the cat away.

This is a view that is repeated on a Boeotian pelike in Munich [2]. One side of the vase shows a butchery scene, and on the other, a tall food stand very similar to those on the pyxis lid. It has what appears to be meat lying on it, perhaps to dry. Beside this sleeps a

The need physically to correct cat behaviour continues on a pelike in Malibu [161]. Sandals often feature as implements of corporal punishment on vases,971 and what may well be a transgressing feline, perched atop a lamp stand, is about to receive a smack with a sandal. Although the vase is broken, enough remains to identify the cat by its perching behaviour and hunched back, and the long tail that it has wrapped around itself. Fables characterise cats and weasels as treacherous, and liable to attack domestic birds.972 On a lobster-claw askos in London [158],973 a cat stoops to devour a chicken that it has apparently just killed. The bird’s one visible eye is closed, and its clawed feet curl, no longer attempting to hold the ground. Beazley described the predator as a fox, but on inspection, although its head is missing, the slender animal has vertical body stripes and a long, thin, tabby-ringed tail as well as very dainty legs and paws. There is a default to the high, dog-style waist that will also be noted in the chapter on pets, but this works well with the supple feline arching of the back as the cat stoops, and with

Keller, Tierwelt i. 168-170, fig.60. Benton, “Weasels”. Mitchell, Comic Pictures 86-87. 968 Mitchell, Comic Pictures 85-86. 969 See index for cross references to this vase. 970 Benton, “Weasels” 261 cites Furtwängler, Neugebauer, and Beazley as agreeing on this.

Padgett, “Syleus Sequence” 222, note 101. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 16, 594, Babrius 17, 121. 973 See index for cross references to this vase. See index for cross references to cats and misdemeanour.

The poor rendering of the animals on the pyxis lid admits debate, but simplicity of reading, and the fullest complexity of humour, comes from interpreting this as a scene in which two cats shirk their duties, and raid the larder that they should be protecting, while two frustrated youths at once remonstrate with the cats, and chase the miscreant mice themselves.970 The conclusion is that cats were at least one type of household mouser. However, the cats are being portrayed as self-interestedly lazy, disrespectful of human boundaries, and greedy.

966 967

971 972

65

its jutting shoulder blades that protrude above the cat’s spine as it lowers its head to its victim. The domestic carnage takes on a potential for humour when we look at the other side of the vase. A hound is drawn very small beneath the handle, presumably to avoid conflict with the spines of the lobster claw shape. It appears to sniff the ground and its posture suggests running. Perhaps this is a guard that has neglected its duties (while the dog’s away, the cat will play). Perhaps, in keeping with Hoffman’s theses about the theme of pursuit on Attic red-figure askoi,974 it is about to send the cat, which could even be a member of its own household, seriously packing.

but the lynx’s stubby tail, long dark ear tufts, and very long cheek fur would probably distinguish it in even vague attempts at realistic depiction. Lynxes live at low densities and generally avoid humans. As such, they seem not to have featured prominently as a threat to ancient Greek livelihoods. This probably explains why they seem hardly to have been depicted at all, and are mentioned far less than the wolves that were also present, in greater numbers. More formidable than lynxes, lions also seem to have been present, at least in Northern Greece. Xenophon982 mentions them along with leopards, lynxes, and bears, as inhabiting mountains including Mount Pangaion and Mount Pindos, where they were hunted by poisoning, trapping, and on horseback. Herodotos983 says that lions abounded in his time between the rivers Acheloos and Nestos. He describes the chaos they inflicted on Xerxes’ camel train, and is astonished that only the camels were attacked. Aristotle984 confirms Herodotos’ remarks, but adds that in his own time lions were rare, and occurred nowhere else in Europe.

As mentioned above, some play is made out of cats’ tendencies to climb up high. A unique late fifth-century stele from Salamis [162] reinforces this feature in iconography. The feline here has also been described as a panther, but though it is muscular, the posture and physique are more like those of a small domestic cat. It is shown crouching on a pillar just below a birdcage. The cat may have been attracted to its perch by the bird. Sadly the head is missing, so we do not know the angle of its gaze, but the proximal harassment of a fellow domestic creature fits with the theme of feline mischief in the other scenes. If these observations are realistic, then cats seem have been welcome both as pets and as mouse-catchers, but could also be thought a nuisance.

Bones from the Pleistocene era, of both Panthera leo and Panthera pardus, have been found in central and northern Greece.985 These mainly pre-date 800 BC, and finds dating between 600 and 300 BC are exceedingly rare.986 A lion’s tooth was recovered at Tegea from a fifth or fourth-century level,987 and a bone was found in an early sixth-century deposit at Delphi, in the earliest peribolos wall of the temple of Apollo.988 These might have been brought after the deaths of the animals elsewhere, so should not be regarded as proof of the presence of the living animals.989 That these two remains were found at Delphi and at Tegea suggests that there might have been some sacral association of the lion with Apollo and with Athena Alea.990

Large wild predators Despite their known presence,975 bears are not remarked in Greek literature as major killers of humans or stock. Big cats are more often cited as troublemakers. Eurasian lynxes (Lynx lynx) still exist in parts of Greece. Described by Euripides as misshapen - “a ravening brute ill-conceived”,976 the lynx was thought a threat to sheep, and goats in particular.977 Pan agreed on this point.978 He sometimes wears a spotted979 lynx pelt, and eliminates lynxes as a threat to herds.980 Lynxes weigh 18-35kg, and have body lengths of 80-130cm. They hunt prey 3-4 times their own size, so their threat to livestock is quite real. Meleager reiterates this danger,981 but otherwise, lynxes are seldom mentioned. Their profuse spots might risk their being confused with leopards in art,

Lion numbers in the Balkan Peninsula appear to have been diminished by a combination of forestation, human hunters, and the reduction of large game, and they were eliminated soon after 300 BC,991 or at Xen., Cyn. 11.1. Hdt. 7.125, 126. 984 Arist., Hist. An. 6.31(579b5-7), 8.28(606b14-16). 985 Tsoukala, Pleistocene Fauna, and Guest-Papamanoli, “Prehistoric Crete”. Both cited in Voultsiadou/Tatolas, “Fauna” 1880. See also Yannouli, “Non-domestic Carnivores” 186-190. Voultsiadou/ Tatolas, “Fauna” 1880. 986 Hofsten, Feline-prey Theme 31-32, 45. Hofsten gives a useful list of lion remains from Greece. 987 French, “Archaeology, 1992-93” 21. 988 French, “Archaeology, 1991-92” 32. 989 Dickinson, Aegean Bronze Age 28. 990 Hofsten, Feline-prey Theme 32, 53-55. 991 Nowak, Mammals 1216-1218. 982 983

Hoffmann, Pursuit 1. Yannouli, “Non-domestic Carnivores” 178, 180, 183-184. 976 TrGF 5.2, Euripides frag.863. 977 Anth. Pal. 5.178. 978 Borgeaud, Pan 63, note 178. 979 Hymn. Hom. Pan. 19.24-25. 980 Callim., Aet. 3.87-97. 981 Anth. Pal. 5.179. 974 975

66

latest by the first century BC.992 It seems likely that the leopards Xenophon mentions were affected by hunting too. As for Aristotle, he did not know of any wild populations in Europe, but said there were plenty in Asia Minor.993

attack on stock, feral dogs, wolves, and jackals may sometimes have been conflated, especially if only fleetingly sighted. Dogs can become highly capable sheep-killers, while golden jackals (Canis aureus) still take lambs and kids in Greece with ease, and have been known to kill small children.1001 Consequently, where λύκος1002 occurs in ancient literature, the possibility should be considered that other canids might have been involved. Nevertheless, the wolf seems to have been the most dangerous canid in Greek minds, so it will take prominence here.

Regardless of whether lions had been exterminated in Greece, Aristotle had detailed knowledge of the appearance of lions, and to some extent of leopards. This suggests that he may have examined dead ones at least.994 He is nearly right in claiming that lionesses have only two teats995 (four is the usual number),996 and that lions are retromingent, but thought that they mated rearwards.997 Most telling is his detailed description of the subtleties of the lion’s head.998 Aristotle however is a special case, taking great pains to observe nature at first hand. Greek artisans seem to have been much less familiar with their subjects.999 For example, a sculptural lioness devouring a bull, from the Athenian Acropolis, has teats along the full length of her body [163]. Full dugs along the entire abdomen are a handy way of identifying a female carnivore, and might have been imposed anyway, but this lioness also has the remains of a once considerable mane.

In Greece, the wolf (Canis lupus) appears to have been the most significant wild predator to affect men. Individually an adult wolf is large enough to seriously wound or kill a human,1003 and by working communally wolves can kill much bigger animals, and more often. Solon is said to have imposed a bounty of five drachmas on wolves,1004 and literature paints them as skulking predators of all livestock.1005 Artefacts convey similar views. There was a long tradition in bronze and terracotta figurines of wolves snatching lambs. In Paris, a Boeotian terracotta of ca.520-470 may allude to wolf packs, and shows two wolves holding the same lamb [166]. A late eighth-century bronze in Baltimore [167] exemplifies a commonly dedicated type that might have been intended to elicit divine flock-protection.1006 In literature, Homer describes the Trojan spy, Dolon (the Trickster), as ugly, treacherous and rapacious. Symbolising this, and the liminality of his mission, Dolon dons a wolf-skin cloak for his greed-supplied spying expedition.1007 When caught, Dolon betrays his mission and countrymen in supplicating Diomedes for his life. On a red-figure cup in the Hermitage [168], Dolon is entirely dressed as a wolf, and a ca.480 red-figure lekythos in Paris [169]1008 goes further, putting him on all fours, as Eurpides would later describe in his Rhesos.1009

There can be no doubt that lions were held in awe. But in Greece they were nearly extinct, and their significance to ordinary Greeks was not so much as a threat, but a symbol of power. In real life, lions paled into insignificance alongside fear of the wolf.

The wolf Greeks distinguished clearly between domestic dogs1000 and wolves in literature and in representations. Representations of dogs on vases frequently have high, curled tails – which depictions of wolves generally lack. Wolves are further distinguished from dogs by large erect ears, full coats, bristling manes and ruffs, snarling jaws, fierce expressions, and aggressive postures. Examples are the wolf’s-head shield-device on a rhyton in Boston [164], and a fragmentary oinochoe in Leiden where a wolf, with thick ruff and hackles picked out in red glaze, menaces two goats [165]. However, in the distress and flurry of an

In literature, the wolf generally embodied treachery, dishonesty, violence and cowardly rapaciousness. The tricky Odysseus’ inherited duplicity came from his Nowak, Mammals 1067-1068. LSJ s.v. λύκος. 1003 Nowak, Mammals 1071. 1004 Plut., Vit. Sol. 23.4. 1005 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 89, 105, Phaedrus 1.1. Callim., Ia. 12.70 ( = frag.202 (Trypanis). Anth. Pal. 9.432. Arist., Hist. An. 8.10(596b9-10), 9.6(612b1-2). 1006 Hill, “Other Geometric Objects in Baltimore” 35. 1007 Hom., Il. 10.335. 1008 For similar representations see LIMC III, s.v. Dolon, 660-664, numbers 7, 9, 10-13, 15, 18-20, 22 (Williams). 1009 Eur., Rhes. 208-215. The origin and ritual meaning of dressing in wolf skins is discussed with reference to Dolon in Gernet, Anthropology 126-139. 1001 1002

Hughes, “Consumer of Exotic Biodiversity” 26. Arist., Hist. An. 6.31(579b5-7), 8.28(606b14-16). 994 Arist., Phgn. 5(809b15-810a8). 995 Arist., Hist. An. 2.1(500a.29). 996 Adamson, Pippa’s Challenge 171. 997 Arist., Hist. An. 6.31(579a33-35). 998 Arist., Phgn. 5(809b15-809b25). 999 Richter, Animals 3, 8. Boardman, Archaic Sculpture 167-168. 1000 For modern discussion of major Greek hunting and guarding breeds, see Hull, Hounds 20-38. Keller, “Hunderassen” 246-269. Reilly, “Hunting Frieze”. 992 993

67

grandfather Autolykos (the wolf himself),1010 infamous for his cunning.1011 Greek Anthology shepherds pray for flocks’ safety from wolfish jaws,1012 and a wolf is partly blamed for Aristides’ suicide on the death of his livestock.1013 Aristophanes has wolves symbolise the snatching of property,1014 and the men of Laconia “…can no more be trusted than a ravening wolf!”1015 Xenophon seems to voice a consensus:

as a first priority in developing communities. The residential site LE17 at Palaia Kopraisia included a masonry courtyard wall and sheep-pens for animals confined at night.1026 Day grazing was supervised by herders, often with dogs, the need for which may be exemplified by the scene on a mid-fifth-century cow’shoof figure-vase [21] in New York. Shape and scene are complementary, and a seated cowherd supervises his grazing herd. The smiling lad seems relaxed and apparently unaware that on the other side of the vase a large canine is standing at the mouth of an ivy-covered cave (itself a dark and liminal place, often considered the gateway to the supernatural).1027 It could be a dog on guard, but is gaunt, with ribs and hipbones showing. The cows too are thin, but not so much as the predator, which is snarling conspicuously in the direction of the nearest cow. A black-figure kyathos [25] in Paris has a rare and less ambiguous scene - a goatherd with a club watches his goats in the company of a cooperative dog.

“Wolves will prey on anything unprotected and steal things lying in holes and corners; and if a dog pursues and overtakes the wolf will attack, unless it is weaker than the dog, in which case it will run off. Moreover when a pack of wolves feels no fear of a convoy, they arrange themselves so that some shall drive off the convoy, and others seize the plunder.”1016

Wolves normally avoid men,1017 but are capable of killing. Hence a man prefers to leap into the Nile to avoid a wolf pack,1018 and Aelian remarks a wolf that does not kill, with some surprise.1019 Antipater of Macedonia and Leonidas of Alexandria relate the story of a shipwreck survivor, slain by a wolf on reaching land.1020 Aristotle claims that the solitary wolf is more likely to attack man than those running in a pack.1021 More often, however, Greeks pursued wolves preemptively. The trap holding a fox on an askos [136] in Oxford might just as easily have been set for a wolf, and in a fable, a fox evades a trap, but a wolf is caught.1022 Some Greek Anthology wolf-hunters made a point of thanking deities for their successes, by dedicating skins.1023 Aristophanes’ Birds casts men as wolves and then describes the prevailing view:

In literature, Aristophanes’ Bdelycleon praises his dog “… he is brave, and he chases away the wolves”, and, “capable of taking charge of a large flock of sheep”.1028 In the Greek Anthology, Thyrsis groans over the loss of a kid,1029 while the dogs bay too late. A he-goat becomes restive when he smells a wolf, but the dogs awake and chase it off.1030 Glaucus the shepherd is advised to feed his dogs at the gate, where they may hear the approach of both beasts and human thieves.1031 Despite the initial clarity from these cases, the dogversus-wolf theme has some singular twists. In fables, a shepherd loses his flock to wolf cubs he reared as guard dogs,1032 and a goatherd compels a nanny to suckle a wolf cub.1033 The plan may have been to ‘fight wolves with wolves’, but without selective breeding it is a risky stratagem. Aristotle1034 would agree, claiming that the wolf remains wild, retaining its “natural tendencies for wildness and treachery.”1035 He does observe that wolves and bitches inter-breed in Kyrene,1036 but he is clear that Molossians and their derivatives were the sheep dogs of choice for their size

“Should we show any more mercy to these men than we would to wolves? Or what other beings are there who are even more our enemies than these, whom we could take revenge on?”1024

Primary wolf-counter-measures feature walling flocks into folds, and dogs. Plato envisions “ringfences of rubble and walls to ward off wild beasts”1025 LGPN vol.1, s.v. ΑÕτόλυκος. Hom., Od. 19.399. 1012 Anth. Pal. 6.73, 6.99, 16.190. 1013 Anth. Pal. 9.255. See index for cross references to Aristides. 1014 Ar., Nub. 351-352. 1015 Ar., Lys. 629-630 (Sommerstein). 1016 Xen., Eq. mag. 4.18-4.19 (Marchant and Bowersock). 1017 Caras, Dangerous 41. Nowak, Mammals 1075. 1018 Anth. Pal. 9.252. 1019 Ael., NA 13.1. 1020 Anth. Pal. 7.298, 7.550. 1021 Arist., Hist. An. 8.5(594a30). 1022 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 130. 1023 Anth. Pal. 6.35, 6.106. 1024 Ar., Av. 369-370 (Sommerstein). 1025 Pl., Leg. 3.681a (Bury). 1010 1011

Lohmann, “Country Life” 42. Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece 378, fig.14.1. 1027 Gräslund, “Dogs in Graves” 172. 1028 Ar., Vesp. 953-955 (Sommerstein). 1029 Anth. Pal. 9.432. 1030 Anth. Pal. 9.558. 1031 Homer, Epigrams 11. 1032 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 209. 1033 Anth. Pal. 9.47. 1034 Arist., Hist. An. 1.1(488a26-27). 1035 Arist., Hist. An. 1.1(488b16) (Thompson, in Barnes). 1036 Arist., Hist. An. 8.28(607a2-8). 1026

68

and courage.1037 Indeed, the Molossian is honoured by appearing on an early-fourth-century silver halfdrachma of Epirus [170].

identifiable wolves were not common shield-devices, and dogs took precedence. A genuine threat to herder’s livelihood, the wolf personified mercilessness, a persistent and terrifying bogey-beast. It appears to have been excluded from élite hunting, and instead traps and poison, scowled upon by Plato as less sporting,1045 were commonly laid against it. Despite their similarities, the wolf was the ignoble anti-type to the domestic dog.

The wolf was revered in association with Apollo. We hear from Aelian1038 that it was honoured in Delphi, and Plutarch mentions that decrees regulating the consultation of the oracle were inscribed on a bronze wolf in the sanctuary. Pausanias describes a sanctuary to Apollo Lykios in Argos,1039 and another at Sikyon. However, even the origin of these was poisonous towards the wolf:

Dogs Dogs defended owners, stock, and possessions from human and animal attackers, but caused problems all their own. Food theft by dogs is one of the commonest irritations alluded to. For instance, sometimes dogs hover hopefully around scenes of meat butchery, like that on an olpe [178] in Heidelberg. A comic scene on an amphora [179] in Basel takes the matter further, and shows a pack of dogs raiding an altar behind the sacrificers’ backs. In Aristophanes’ Clouds we encounter another impression of undiscriminating canine rapaciousness:

“… a sanctuary of Apollo Lycius, now fallen into ruins and not worth any attention. For wolves once so preyed upon their flocks that there was no longer any profit therefrom, and the god, mentioning a certain place where lay a dry log, gave an oracle that the bark of this log mixed with meat was to be set out for the beasts to eat. As soon as they tasted it the bark killed them, and that log lay in my time in the sanctuary of the Wolf-god …” 1040

The Argives consistently used wolves to advertise their strength and links to Apollo.1041 A crouching wolf is the only figure decoration on a ca.485 hemidrachm from Argos [171]. Another [172], ca.450, features a snarling wolf protome with large erect ears and shoulder-ruff. Another [173], dating to the period of Argive expansion which began ca.468, has an equally fearsome protome; and an Argive didrachm, issued in the decade following the humbling of Sparta in 371 BC, has two dolphins encircling an aggressively posed snarling wolf [174]. Even without Apollo the wolf could inspire awe, it seems. Statius tells that Chiron fed the infant Akhilles on “she-wolf’s marrow”1042 to make him strong and courageous, and a mid-seventh-century neck amphora [175] has Chiron bringing a lion cub, a young boar, and a fox or wolf-whelp towards Peleus and the infant.1043 Sympathetic magic like this, terrifying savagery, and evocation of Apollo may all explain wolf shielddevices.1044 An Amazon on a figure vase in Boston [164] carries a wolf device on her shield, and on a red-figure column-krater, an unidentified woman with a sword sports a wolf’s-head shield-device [176]. Athena’s device on a Panathenaic amphora in Berlin is a wolf [177]. Nevertheless, among what survives,

Socrates: “…whenever I throw out a piece of learning … snap it up at once.” Strepsiades: “Eh? Am I going to have to eat my learning like a dog?”1046

Aristophanes apparently enjoyed the image of the dog that wolfs down everything it sees, and it must have had some currency to be effective. We have another instance in Knights: “Son of Erechtheus, beware of the dog Cerberus, the kidnapper, who when thou dinest will wag his tail ingratiatingly, watch his opportunity, and eat up thy main dish, whilst thou perchance starest open-mouthed in another direction; and he will go frequently to thy kitchen, and dog-fashion, without thy being aware, will by night lick the plates and the islands clean.”1047

A prominent canine food-theft incident appears in Aristophanes’ Wasps, when the dog Labes (‘Snatcher’) steals a cheese from his owner’s house.1048 The ordinariness of the incident is emphasised by the prosecuting dog, who points out that he himself is a food thief, when he tells Philokleon that he cannot keep two thieves in one house.1049 The litigation in

Arist., Hist. An. 9.1(608a26-29). Ael., NA 12.40. 1039 Paus., 2.19.3-4. 1040 Paus., 2.9.7 (Jones/Ormerod) on Sikyon. 1041 Gardner, BM Peloponnesus Excluding Corinth 136-147. 1042 Statius, Achilleid 2.99-100. 1043 Robertson, “The Food of Achilles” 177-178. 1044 Chase, “Shield Devices” 86. 1037 1038

Pl., Leg. 7.824a. Ar., Nub. 489-491 (Sommerstein). 1047 Ar., Eq. 1030-34 (Sommerstein). 1048 Ar., Vesp. 910-926. 1049 Ar., Vesp. 928-929. 1045 1046

69

Wasps is rather unusual, compared with the more usual response that Anaxandrides’ Demos describes to an Egyptian: “You worship your dog, mine I always beat when he’s caught stealing.”1050 Other property damage includes severe gnawing of fixtures1051 and leather,1052 and food and property interference combine when a dog chews through a honey-smeared rope, causing his master to fall to his death.1053

to by Callimachus, might echo the killing of children by dogs in real life.1062 The most famous instance of predatory aggression is Aktaion’s death at the jaws of his own hounds, notably depicted by the Pan Painter [24]. Aktaion is still in human form on the vase, as is the case in most depictions, although after ca.440,1063 he has often sprouted antlers.1064 Lilja1065 suggests that the story might have been inspired by rabid dogs, and indeed, we see Lyssa (madness personified) urging on Aktaion’s hounds on a red-figure bell-krater in Boston, where her connection with the dogs is emphasised by the small head of a dog rising from the top of her head [180]. Merlen1066 argues that the incident commemorates actual human deaths. Though often characterised as servile thieves, dogs are repeatedly praised in literature for their fidelity, and the horror of Aktaion’s destruction is intensified by the attack being perpetrated by his own dogs. Despite the naturalness of excited predators following their instincts, canine predation on humans was invariably condemned as ‘cruel’. The consequences for the dogs generally go unmentioned, but there was no doubt retribution, and this will be explored more generally in the final chapter.

More serious than minor theft is dog aggression. Today dog bites are a major medical problem, though most go unreported.1054 Serious and fatal attacks have involved the most loved of pets, with children being among the most frequent victims.1055 Nevertheless, when ordered to destroy dangerous dogs, owners often fight to save them, waging legal battles or hiding the dogs. It seems inevitable that ancient Greek disputes will have arisen over dog aggression towards humans and stock, but we hear practically nothing of such disputes. Eumaeus does say that he would have been heavily reproached had he not called off his dogs, suggesting that Odysseus or others might have made trouble had he been injured.1056 Elsewhere, the dogs, and not the owners, seem to be held responsible. On the day of the Lamb-festival, any dog seen was supposed to be killed in propitiation of Apollo, whose son Linus was killed by dogs.1057 It seems certain that valued dogs were kept indoors on such days, leaving strays to take their chances. On a more domestic level, one habitual biter in a fable is forced to wear a bell.1058 Nothing is clear-cut however, and among the broad categories of canine aggression – predatory, dominance, territorial, maternal, fear and illness1059 – some instances were condemned, others apparently accepted.

‘Dominance aggression’ is typically directed at members of a dog’s own household, so is particularly infamous. In Aristophanes’ Knights, Paphlagon casts himself in the role of Demos’ fierce watchdog. The Sausage-Seller warns that this ‘dog’ is untrustworthy, and will bite even his own master. The accusation leveled at the Cydathenian dog, in Wasps, seems explicit:

Normally docile dogs have been incited to fatal predatory behaviour by running and screaming figures,1060 and in the Greek Anthology a fleeing bride is killed at night by her own family’s ‘cruel’ watchdogs.1061 The stature, smell, movement and highpitched voices of children particularly triggers some dogs’ hunting instincts, and the story of Linus, referred

“… look what he is: a mere watchdog. He stays right here, and whatever’s brought home he demands a share of, and if he doesn’t get it, he bites.”1067

Territorial aggression is a subset of dominance aggression. It may be this that caused the dogfight seen on an oil-shop-themed pelike [181] in Florence. Here two hounds rear up against each other, demonstrating perfectly the inconveniences than can be caused by unruly animals. Two lekythoi have already been sent flying, and the expostulating oil merchant, who C. Guarnieri suggests is crying, “Dog, break me!”1068

Anaxandrides, Cities frag. 39 (Edmonds (ed.), Attic Comedy). Mainoldi, L’image du Loup 154. 1051 Ar., Eq. 1025-7. 1052 Herod., Mimae 7.62-63. 1053 Anth. Pal. 7.622. 1054 Borchelt, “Dog Attack” 219. 1055 O’Farrell, Canine 87-89. Borchelt, “Dog Attack” 220-223. 1056 Hom., Od. 14.37-38. 1057 Callim., Aet. Book 1 frags.26-28 and notes (Trypanis). Ael., NA 12.34. 1058 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 104. 1059 This list is based on O’Farrell, Canine 77-91. 1060 O’Farrell, Canine 78. Borchelt, “Dog Attack” 220. 1061 Anth. Pal. 9.245. 1050

Callim., Aet. 1.26-28. Schlam, “Actaeon” 91. 1064 LIMC I, s.v. Aktaion, 458, nos.33a-43, pls.352-353 (Guimond). 1065 Lilja, Dogs 20-21. 1066 Merlen, Canibus 35. 1067 Ar., Vesp. 970-973 (Henderson). 1068 In Razeto, Archaeological Museum, Florence, cited in Mitchell, Comic Pictures 89, note 103. 1062 1063

70

kidney-fat to delude the watchdogs.1078

attempts to intervene. Territorial aggression may also cause problems when dogs take possession of belongings or a portion of a property. This occurs in a disapprobative epigram, and a fable of a dog resting in a manger.1069 The dog cannot eat the fodder, but prevents other animals approaching.

Dogs’ territorial aggression seems to have been deployed at times for military purposes. Aeneas Tacticus recommends that dogs be stationed at night against enemy spies or deserters.1079 Nikokles had dog patrols around his garrison,1080 and Aratos’ infiltration of a Sicyonian post took careful account of “… a certain gardener’s dogs, which were little beasts, but extraordinarily fierce and savage”. Additionally, Aratus just evaded discovery when a dog in a watchtower raised the alarm.1081 After capturing Akrokorinthos, Aratos uses fifty dogs (and as many keepers) to guard it.1082 A post-265 BC inscription honors one Epikares for expanding a guard and its associated dogs.1083 In each situation it appears that there was one handler per dog, enabling maximum effectiveness and control.

Hostility within households is generally unacceptable, but aggression towards outsiders was vital to household security. Theophrastus’ boor greets visitors by introducing his dog as the guardian of his property and household,1070 and Hesiod advised the householder: “And look after the dog with jagged teeth; do not grudge him his food, or some time the Day-sleeper may take your stuff.”1071

Some victims of guard dogs were probably thought the source of their own misfortune. The invitation in Aristophanes’ Lysistrata, that all may come for wheat, is issued as a mocking challenge to the rash - who ought to beware of his dog.1072 Nevertheless, close control of potentially savage dogs was clearly vital. Eumaeus asserts his authority by dispersing his dogs during their apprehension of Odysseus.1073 Later, these savage would-be renders of human flesh greet the familiar Telémakhos with fawning affection.1074 Eumaeus is pleased with his dogs’ vigilance, but only in the light of their subsequent gentleness, and he warningly emphasises to Odysseus that they would have torn him apart but for his intervention.1075

The dog on a black-figure neck-amphora in Munich [183] stands assertively with raised tail. He is among departing warriors and faces the same way, his whole attitude is of readiness and of being ‘with’ the warriors. The implication seems to be that the dog will accompany them when they leave. By way of comparison, many canine attendants at departure scenes lack the sense of purpose that the Munich dog has, and seem just as likely to be remaining at home. Scenes in which only dogs and warriors appear [184] and are progressing together, may represent military guard dogs, but it is a difficult point, for these could simply be abbreviated departure scenes in which the dog is intended to stay at home.

Strangers calming savage dogs must appear nonthreatening in their approach. This is beautifully demonstrated by Herakles on an amphora in Paris, where the painter also captures Kerberos’ uncertainty [182].1076 When Eumaeus’ dogs arrest Odysseus, he understands how to prevent a serious attack by sitting down and dropping his stick.1077 Knowledge of dog behaviour was a matter of importance, but not all approaches were rooted in behavioural science. Hence Greek Anthology robbers grease themselves with

R.M. Cook dismisses the idea of Greek dogs fighting in regular battles, holding that dogs in East Greek paintings and reliefs of the mid-sixth to the early fifthcentury are motifs.1084 Dogs in pitched battles would very likely create disorder if unable to distinguish between opposing sides. If a handler were killed, the dog would be unsupervised. Aelian does tell of an Athenian dog that excelled at Marathon, and was later included in the painting in the Stoa Poikile.1085 But Aelian’s emphasis might suggest an exception, and he mentions no other dogs. If dogs were commonly used in battle, then it is surprising not to find them in other Greek art and literature.

Anth. Pal. 12.236. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 702. 1070 Theophr., Char. 4.12. 1071 Hes., Op. 604-5 (Evelyn-White). 1072 Ar., Lys. 1203-1215. 1073 Hom., Od. 14.35-36. 1074 Hom., Od. 16.4-10. 1075 Hom., Od. 14.37-38. 1076 For similar representations see LIMC V, s.v. Herakles, 87-88, nos.2555-8, 2560, pl.93 (Smallwood). 1077 Hom., Od. 14.29-38. Hainsworth, “Odysseus and the Dogs” 122-123. Lutz, “Footnote to “Dogs in Homer””. 1069

Anth. Pal. 9.516. Aen. Tact., Siegecraft 22.14. 1080 Aen. Tact., Siegecraft 22.20. 1081 Plut., Vit. Arat. 4.3-8.3 (Perrin). 1082 Plut., Vit. Arat. 24.1. 1083 SEG 24, no.154. Russell, Information Gathering 29, note 84. 1084 Cook, “Dogs in Battle” 38-39. 1085 Ael., NA 7.38. 1078 1079

71

In war, dogs’ territorial and pack-defence aggression could indirectly endanger their owners. Aeneas Tacticus emphasises that guards, communicating by whistling at night, need to prevent the dogs from barking,1086 and that dogs must be chained during military preparations, lest they attack preparing warriors as unfamiliar.1087 Aeneas’ suggestion that dogs’ mouths be cauterised for silence during nighttime sorties against besiegers1088 seems extreme. Whether it was ever practiced is unknown, but some action was clearly thought necessary. The combined surviving evidence suggests that dogs in warfare were considered risky – just as likely to give the game away as to save the day.

fear as motivation for the bite it gives its rescuer.1092 Rabies was the most dangerous canine illness that could be transmitted to man, and is associated with savage outbursts. The rabies virus is transmitted in infected animals’ saliva when they bite. Symptoms often include violent, uncontrollable raging, during which bystanders might be bitten and infected, and fear of drinking, despite terrible thirst. Paralytic rabies lacks convulsions, but the jaw often hangs open with the tongue lolling, and heavy drooling. Without modern treatment, the virus is always fatal.1093 Aristotle denies that rabies affects man,1094 but it is possible that he encountered slow-incubation cases. Regardless, infected dogs could be extremely dangerous. Pliny1095 offers preventative treatments, including chicken-dung in dogs’ food when Sirius (the Dog Star) is visible. Columella1096 thought dogs immune if their tails were docked in a certain way. Neither is an effective treatment, but the imaginativeness of the attempts reflects the danger perceived in the disease.

Views of canine maternal aggression seem divided. The bitch could symbolise maternal love in her bravery for her offspring, and the intensity of her emotion was thought fit to describe the anger of Odysseus’ at his perfidious maids: “His heart growled within him as a bitch growls standing guard over her helpless pups, ready to fight when she sees a stranger. In the same way he growled inside himself in outrage at their wickedness.”1089

That rabies metaphors abound suggests consistent awareness, and incorporation of mad dogs into the systems of thinking around animals. Apollonius Rhodius compares the extreme thirst of his Argonauts, with the rabid dog’s mania concerning water.1097 Aristophanes compares smoke in the eyes to the bite of a rabid bitch,1098 and Antipater of Thessalonica, imitating Tymnes,1099 calls a cruel Spartan mother a rabid bitch, specifically mentioning her foaming mouth.1100 The monster Skylla is pictured on a coin from Akragas, with the foreparts of two ravening dogs protruding from her loins [185], and Euripides characterises the Erinyes as raving hounds.1101 Aeschylus’ Io displays rabid symptoms in her madness:

Elsewhere, an epigram to a virtuous housewife instructs: “Do not wonder at seeing on Myro’s tomb a whip, an owl, a bow, a grey goose and a swift bitch. The bow proclaims that I was the strict well-strung directress of my house, the bitch that I took true care of my children…”1090

Maternal aggression was admired - until it inconvenienced the householder. Semonides has lost patience with the bitch that he compares to one of his unpleasant types of women:

“Once again convulsive pain and frenzy, striking my brain … My heart knocks at my ribs in terror; my eyeballs roll wildly round and round. I am carried out of my course by a fierce blast of madness; I’ve lost all mastery over my tongue, and a stream of turbid words beats recklessly against the billows of dark destruction.”1102

“… she will not tolerate being looked at or approached, but rants and raves terribly, like a dog with her pups, implacable and disagreeable equally to enemies and friends.”1091

Trapped, sick, or wounded animals may bite even would-be helpers from fear. When taken as ingratitude, this doubtless made victims angry. Even so, some understanding prevailed. In the fable of the dog trapped in a well, the writer explains the animal’s

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 120. Caras, Dangerous 333-334. 1094 Arist., Hist. An. 8.22(604a5-13). 1095 Plin., HN 8.63. 1096 Columella, Rust., 7.12.14. 1097 Ap. Rhod., Argon. 4.1393-4. 1098 Ar., Lys. 298-301. 1099 Anth. Pal. 7.433. 1100 Anth. Pal. 7.531. 1101 Eur., Or. 260. 1102 Aesch., PV 877-886. Page (OCT)

1092

1093

Aen. Tact., Siegecraft 24.18. Aen. Tact., Siegecraft 38.2-3. 1088 Aen. Tact., Siegecraft 23.2. 1089 Hom., Od. 20.14-16 (Rieu). 1090 Anth. Pal. 7.425 (Paton). 1091 Semonides, frag.7.27-42 (Lloyd-Jones). 1086 1087

72

Fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Tied to impressions of dogs’ rapaciousness and savagery is the oft-repeated idea of dogs worrying corpses, which features at the very opening of the Iliad.1103 Dogs naturally eat carrion, but domestic dogs were not likely to be allowed access to human bodies. It was probably feral dogs that perpetrated any battleground corpse eating. Either way, the idea conveys powerfully the degradation and horror of lying unburied, in the Greek mind.1104 Dogs had a further connection with death in Greek imagination, where their liminality is emphasised. In the process of dying, the mythical dogs of Hecate might guide a soul to Hades, to be contained eternally by the hound Kerberos.1105

Alexander the Great amused himself fox-hunting,1110 and foxes appear repeatedly on vases, as aristocratic trophies, and as love-gifts. The worthiness of the fox as aristocratic game seems at least partly related to its reputation for cunning. Arkhilokhos appears to have interested himself with the wily fox, and in a tale in which an ape is made the dupe,1111 seems to identify himself with the fox. Aristophanes’ Tereus calls his human visitor “… sharpest of foxes, all ingenuity, a dead-shot, an old hand, the sieved meal of subtlety.”1112 In Lysistrata,1113 “May we be rid of all wily foxes” refers to war-mongering politicians, chasing their own ambitions. In Knights, Paphlagon is called “fox-dog”,1114 for his voracity and slyness. In Clouds, Strepsiades wishes to give his creditors the slip, declaring his wish to be:

Some nuisances associated with dogs are nonbehavioural. Characteristic of many human-dog relations is their physical closeness, conducive to transmission of parasites. Aristotle noticed that “when bitches get worms they eat the standing cereal in the fields”.1106 Fleas abound in literature, and the neglected Argos is observed to be infested with ticks.1107 ‘Mange’, caused by mites, causes intense itching, rash, hair loss, sores, and lymph node swelling. Highly contagious, it infects humans as well as dogs. The extent to which dogs’ afflictions were understood to be communicable to humans was probably misunderstood, but the sharing of external parasites will have been difficult to miss.

“… a fox, a needle’s eye, a supple rogue, a dissembler, a sticky customer, a fraud, a whipping-post, a villain, a twister, a pest, a greedy feeder on quibbles.”1115

Lysander’s rejection of Spartan ways, when he took up luxurious habits in Ionia, prompted the Attic courtesan, Lamia, to remark: “The lions of Greece turn into foxes at Ephesus.”1116 This may be an adaptation of a proverb, for it is said of faulty commanders in Peace: that they act “like lions at home, but like foxes in battle!”1117 Semonides equated crafty, two-faced, bad-tempered women with vixens:

Dogs helped, and hindered. Each could represent good and evil, the natural world and culture. Unsurprisingly, attitudes to them as species are ambivalent. Augeas’ ploughman reflects to himself that his dogs’ openness, sincerity, and close companionship are undermined by their indescriminate ferocity. If this were moderated by human judgement, says he, the dog would be without peer as man’s companion.1108 Dogs were loyal, but perfidious; savage, but servile; the pride of their owners, but lowly in themselves; worthy companions,1109 who would nevertheless eat human corpses and dung. The race of dogs was negatively stereotyped, while individuals could win respect and affection. Regarding dogs, Greeks contradicted themselves, but, understanding the complexities of the relationship, simply lived with the contradictions.

“… a woman clever at everything. Nothing good or ill escapes her notice; for she often speaks evil of the good and good of the evil. Sometimes she is angry in one way, sometimes another.”1118

Aristotle joins in, listing foxes as crafty and mischievous.1119 In comparison, dogs are spirited, affectionate and fawning, and the wolf wild and treacherous. More than forty fables have foxes as central characters, most emphasising cunning and callous duplicity. With the fox as a byword for cunning, successful foxhunts proved aristocratic Plut., Vit. Alex. 23.3. West (ed.), Iambi 1 71 frags.185-187, see also frags.172-181. See index for cross references to Arkhilokhos and foxes. See index for cross references to apes as dupes. 1112 Ar., Av. 430 (Sommerstein). 1113 Ar., Lys. 1270 (Sommerstein). 1114 Ar., Eq. 1067-77 (Sommerstein). 1115 Ar., Nub. 449-453 (Sommerstein). 1116 Ael., NA 13.8-9 (Scholfield). 1117 Ar., Pax 1189-1190 (Sommerstein). 1118 Semonides, frag.7.7-11 (Lloyd-Jones). 1119 Arist., Hist. An. 1.1(488b20). 1110 1111

For instance, Hom., Il. 1.4. Comprehensive discussion of the idea of dogs eating corpses is found in Lilja, Dogs. 1105 Gräslund, “Dogs in Graves” 171. 1106 Arist., Hist. An. 9.6(612a31-34) (Thompson, in Barnes). 1107 Hom., Od. 17.300. 1108 Theoc., Epigr. 25.68-83. 1109 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1103 1104

73

superiority in cunning and fitness. A more practical point to foxhunting revolved around pest eradication.

originally a cross between a fox and a dog.1130 On another angle, foxes appear so often as trophies and objects of pursuit that they may have supplemented the Greek table. Indeed, a fragment of Ananius tells that autumn is the time to eat whelps, hares, and foxes,1131 and Aristophanes has his Boeotian selling fox carcasses among his wares. 1132 The Boeotian may have been hawking foxes for their flesh and skins, or even as potential medicinal ingredients, since Pliny cites medicinal uses for foxes’ fat.1133

Foxes frequently carry mange and rabies, putting domestic animals at risk. They also competed directly with humans for hares, says Xenophon,1120 and killed domestic fowls.1121 The commonest complaint, though, is of fruit stealing. Foxes do eat fruit, and Alkiphron’s ‘farmer’ vehemently curses grape-devouring foxes.1122 Among the fables, a man catches a garden-raiding fox, and sets light to its tail in furious retribution.1123 Aristophanes compares soldiers to young foxes, who eat the grapes in the fields.1124 A fox is shown climbing a grape vine on a fourth-century ring [186], and a scaraboid in Oxford [187] has a fox climbing a vine towards a cluster of grapes. A shield-device on a redfigure cup fragment [188] shows a fox that has already obtained his grapes, and bends to eat them.

Hedgehogs The European hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus) hunts insects and other small creatures, but also eats roots and fruit. It cohabits easily alongside man, and seems to have been well known and intriguing. Ionian and Corinthian potters imitated the Egyptian trend for creating hedgehog figure-vases [193] that spread from Naukratis, and hedgehogs appear clearly on vases in human settings. For example, a black-figured one-handled kantharos has one beside a tomb [117]. The hedgehog’s prickly physique1134 and defence of rolling into a ball clearly impressed the Greeks. It was presumably this talent that prompted Arkhilokhos to observe that:

Fox deaths were not necessarily sporting events, for mechanical traps appear on several vases [189, 190, 191]. Alkiphron describes the accidental death of a Melitaean dog in a trap baited for a grape-raiding fox,1125 and an oversized trap holds a fox on the Oxford askos mentioned earlier [136]. A satyr also features on the askos, and a terracotta figurine from mid-fifthcentury Aegina has a satyr holding a fox [192]. The pairings possibly relate to their shared wild habitats and lawlessness.1126 Continuing the fox’s association with unreliable companions, Aristotle says that it and the snake are friends.1127 Epictetus emphasises vulpine antisocial characteristics:

“The fox knows lots of tricks, the hedgehog only one – but it’s a winner.”1135

Arkhilokhos may not have been referring only to hedgehogs. Many of his poems involve seductive dialogue, and he also characterised himself as a fox.1136 This fragment may be alluding to his own thwarted exploits, with the hedgehog as a metaphorical reluctant lover. As such, it is a neat use of both of the real animals and the Greek’s views of them.

“… some of us … become like wolves, faithless, and crafty, and mischievous; others, like lions, wild and savage and untamed; but most of us foxes, and disgraceful even among brutes. For what else is a slanderous and ill-natured man but a fox?”1128

One reputed ‘trick’ brought hedgehogs into disfavour. One epigram calls a hedgehog is “grape gatherer, the spoiler of the sweet vineyards”.1137 Accused of rolling on the grapes, it is hung up alive for Dionysus. Another version has a hedgehog stealing grapes by impaling

This reputation for a foul temper is possibly attributable to the vixen’s eerie shrieking, and the noise of foxes in disputes, which can be considerable. In their favour, foxes kill mice.1129 Further, Aristotle claimed that the popular Lakonian hound was

Arist., Hist. An. 8.28(607a3). This is highly unlikely. Canidae all have 78 chromosomes, but foxes only 34. Also, fox DNA sequencing diverges 8% from that of dogs (the sequence difference between humans and orangutans is only 2.4%). 1131 Ananius., frag.5.5 (Rusten). 1132 Ar., Ach. 879. 1133 Plin., HN 28.48, 28.77. 1134 Eg. Ar., Pax 1086. 1135 Archil. frag.201 (West, 1993). See index for cross references to Arkhilokhos and foxes. 1136 Corrêa, “Justice” 108. 1137 Anth. Pal. 6.45 (Paton). 1130

Xen., Cyr. 5.24. 1121 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 611. 1122 Alciphron, Letters 2.19, perhaps drawing on Theoc., Id. 1.4851. 1123 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 11. 1124 Ar., Eq. 1075-1078. 1125 Alciphron, Letters 2.19. 1126 Padgett, “Stable Hands”. 1127 Arist., Hist. An. 9.1(610a11-12). 1128 Epictetus, Discourses 1.3. 1129 Arist., Hist. An. 6.37(580b25). 1120

74

them on its spines.1138 Hedgehogs have been observed rolling on fruit and then carrying it off,1139 but it is unclear as to how intentional this is. Nevertheless, the stunt seems to have been widely known of, and thought deliberate – not that the lack of a motive will have mattered to the farmer losing fruit. Pliny reports it,1140 as does Plutarch,1141 claiming to have seen the trick at first hand. A ceramic hedgehog-shaped rattle found in a well on the north slope of the Areopagos has knobs on its spines that Thompson suggests represent figs.1142

Goats are particularly incriminated in damaging crops.1147 They are more difficult than sheep to keep together when grazing, experiment with a wider range of food, and will jump and climb over obstacles. In the Greek Anthology, a grape vine curses the goat that nibbles it,1148 and it is predicted that the harvest will be good if (among all the other hazards) no goat eats the corn.1149 Domestic swine Domestic swine appear to have been an even greater threat to crops than goats, which primarily nibble at shoots. Swine were apparently notorious for grazing and uprooting crops. The vigour of swine could even inconvenience households. Witness the sow in a fragment by Aeschylus:

Appearance, behaviour, rumour, and the hedgehog’s nocturnal habits may have conspired to make it a creature of ill omen.1143 It turns up with a snake, lizards, and a scorpion to the departure of the doomed Amphiaraos, on an early sixth-century Corinthian krater [194], an Attic black-figure lekanis lid [195], at a funeral on a kantharos [117]. On a red-figure amphora in the Vatican, it rides with a scorpion and octopus on a rock hurled by Poseidon [196]. The animals may have signified the magnitude of Poseidon’s missile as encompassing land and shore, but the inclusion of the hedgehog may be connected to the damage about to be done.

“I have sacrificed this pig, from the same sow that has done me much mischief in the house by romping about and turning things pêle-mêle up and down.”1150

Clearly swine needed to be kept where they might be guarded and restrained from causing damage. However, containing swine requires that they be fed, or taken to forage under supervision. Circe kept hers in sties,1151 throwing food to them.1152 Mention of garments ‘tented’ over the erect penises of the Spartans in Lysistrata1153 appears to allude to wicker pigpens in the courtyards of Athenian houses. Where possible, herding swine seems to have been a most successful strategy for feeding them. Aelian describes a sow responding to a swineherd’s call when it has wandered,1154 and an unusual Hellenistic gem of the early first-century BC in Oxford shows a swineherd with a stick, driving four sows [197]. On Ithaka, Eumaeus and his hands drive Odysseus’ pigs into the woods to eat acorns.1155 When they return, the swine are shut up again, and Eumaeus’ night-time arrangements prevent wandering, as well as theft and predation:

There are a few points in the hedgehog’s favour, the rattle mentioned above hints at apotropaic qualities. Aristotle says that hedgehogs warn of changes in the weather, since those kept in domestication move from one wall to the other when the wind is shifting.1144 Hedgehogs’ consumption of garden pests may explain why some people kept them, and they may have been attractive as novel pets.

Unwelcome ungulates However useful they were otherwise, when they wandered, stock and their feral counterparts all caused great annoyance by raiding crops. Homer describes an ass invading corn, but it escapes with a beating.1145 Aelian says that the Armenians killed animals that invaded crops – wild pigs, gazelles, deer, bears, wild asses, and wild goats - by grinding up a poisonous fish and mixing it with figs as bait.1146

“[The courtyard was] of quarried stone with a hedge of wild pear on top. Outside he had fenced the whole length on both sides with a closely set stockade made of split oak which he had taken from the dark heart of the logs. Inside the yard, to

Anth. Pal. 6.169. Burton, Hedgehog 92-95. 1140 Plin., HN 8.56. 1141 Plut., Mor. 971f. 1142 Thompson, “Hellenistic Terracottas” 72. 1143 Thompson, “Hellenistic Terracottas” 79. Edlund, “Meaningless?”. 1144 Arist., Hist. An. 9.6(612b5-9). Sider/Brunschön (eds.), Theophrastus on Weather Signs 38-39. 1145 Hom., Il. 11.558-563. See page 156. 1146 Ael., NA 17.31. 1138

See index for cross references to swine damage to crops, and goats damaging crops. 1148 Anth. Pal. 9.75, 9.99. 1149 Anth. Pal. 11.365. 1150 Aeschylus, frag.309, ap. Athenaeus 375d-f (Gulick). 1151 Hom., Od. 10.282-283. 1152 Hom., Od. 10.241-243. 1153 Ar., Lys. 1074. 1154 Ael., NA 8.19 1155 Hom., Od. 13.407-409, 14.24-26.

1139

1147

75

fertility, because they damage crops.1162 Even then, the origin of Demeter’s association with swine appears to have been vague. In one tradition, it is derived from the myth of Persephone’s abduction, in which Persephone sinks into the earth, and the pigs of the swineherd Eubouleus are swallowed up with her.1163 Swine might also be linked with the fertility aspects of Demeter for their fecundity, for sows produce large litters. One of Alkiphron’s fictitious farmers actually gives piglets away when he has too many.1164 Multiple births mean that piglets were conveniently cheap and accessible, and this is another good reason for nominating piglets as the favourite sacrifice at the Mysteries. Literature asserts that each initiand at the rites of Demeter must bring their own piglet.1165 Socrates, in the Republic, says that those most deeply involved in the mysteries should sacrifice not a mere pig, but a larger, more expensive animal.1166 Van Straten notes that young pigs are very common in private worship scenes, and directly connects this with the inexpensiveness of piglets.1167

house the pigs at night, he had made twelve sties, all near to one another, in each of which fifty brood sows were penned, and slept on the ground. The boars slept outside the yard; and of these there were far fewer … They were guarded every night by four dogs, as savage as wild beasts, trained by the master swineherd.”1156

Pens and supervision notwithstanding, some pigs still invaded crops. This was taken most seriously, and Aelian1157 cites a Cyprian law entitling farmers to pull out the teeth of pigs that they caught trespassing in crops.1158 This law is alluded to in the Odyssey,1159 when Irus threatens to smash all the teeth from Odysseus’ jaws, “like a sow caught eating the crops.”1160 That a Cyprian law should stem from an obscure threat made elsewhere would be surprising, unless the practice was actually widespread. Other punishments might also be meted out. In a fable, a pig repeatedly devoured a farmer’s corn, trampled his fields, and grubbed up the soil. Caught twice, its ears were cut off. Undeterred, it returned and was caught a third time, whereupon the farmer killed it. Perhaps to make an embarrassingly public point, viz. that the pig had eaten so much of his crop that it could now be legitimately regarded as the produce of his own farm, he then presented the carcass at a banquet hosted by its actual owner.1161 Such vengeance taking against other men’s animals clearly expresses the urgency and anger with which farmers defend their livelihoods. The mutilation of this pig’s ears may have been intended to motivate the owner to contain it, as well as encouraging the pig to stay away of its own accord. In the same way, fear that their animals’ teeth would be pulled was probably intended to ensure owners prevented straying. Some farmers may well have regarded this as a pig’s just punishment for devouring forbidden crops, but this implies expectations of rationality and understanding of property and human boundaries on the part of the pig. In general, pigs were not attributed such subtlety, but such thinking is typical of frustration and anger at depredation of life-supporting food supplies. The idea of an animal’s individual responsibility and liability for its crimes will be examined in the final chapter.

Whatever the original reasons, substantial numbers of pig bones, votive pigs, and terracottas of the goddess holding a piglet are found in Demeter sanctuaries at Thasos and Naxos,1168 Knidos,1169 Knossos,1170 and throughout Greece. Eleusis was the only Attic deme permitted to issue its own coinage (from 350 to 327 BC).1171 Some bear pigs on their reverses, and may have been so marked because of the Eleusinian cult of Demeter.1172 Wild swine Wild swine very likely intruded on crops, like their domestic counterparts, but in their case the human perceptions focussed upon their potential for violence. Wild swine prefer to pass humans unnoticed, but can be ferocious when roused. Homer calls them the fiercest and most dauntless of all creatures.1173 General awe Ael., NA 10.16. See index for cross references to punitive sacrifices. 1163 Scholiast on Lucian 275.24ff (Rabe). However, I know of no representations in support of this tradition. 1164 Alciphron, Letters 2.29. 1165 Burkert, “Cults” 265. 1166 Pl., Resp. 2.378a. 1167 Palagia, “Akropolis 581” 496. Van Straten, “Sacrificial Representations” 161-167. 1168 Rolley, “Dieux Patrôoi” figs.30-31. 1169 Newton, Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidæ 2 (votives) 385, (bones) 390-392. Smith, BM Sculpture 2, nos.1303-1307. 1170 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 92. Jarman, “Bones”. 1171 Harrison, Prolegomena 153. 1172 Head, BM: Attica, Megaris, Aegina lx, 23, no.248-252, pl.vi, nos.14-16. 1173 Hom., Il. 17.20-22 1162

As above, there is no firm attribution of porcine rationality when Aelian remarks the justice of sacrificing pigs to Demeter, goddess of corn and Hom., Od. 14.10-22 (Rieu). Ael., NA 5.45. 1158 See index for cross references to swine damage to crops, and removal of their teeth. 1159 Heubeck, Homer’s Odyssey1988 printing 3, 48. 1160 Hom., Od. 18.28 (Rieu). 1161 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 583. 1156 1157

76

of their reputation seems to have led to exaggeration, both Aelian and Homer claiming that premeditative wild boars whet their tusks before attacking men,1174 needing no leader’s exhortation.1175

desperate about keeping their crops and animals safe. Agonistic ideals had no part in this, and any method that might work was tried. Some animals were merely nuisances - to be dealt with as part of a day’s work, but others, especially where individuals could be identified, provoked animosity, and feelings of personal vendetta. At times, anger incited considerable violence, with farmers taking vengeance against the animals, and their owners if the animals were domestic.

Lions particularly have been favoured as zoological inspirations for the fearsome gorgoneion,1176 but gorgoneia tend to be composite of many animals’ features, many of them distorted or exaggerated.1177 Howe points out that the animals drawn from tend to be beasts of prey that were feared,1178 but boar and indeed sows can be very dangerous, and gorgoneia predating ca.4751179 routinely feature boar’s tusks. Apollodorus mentions this,1180 and tusked Gorgons appear on numerous vases. A Little Master band cup in Geneva clearly shows the curved tusks of upper and lower jaws crossing each other in a porcine manner [198].

Fear and tension around survival matters like safety and food naturally exaggerates perceived threats. Negativity towards some species may well therefore have been disproportionate to the overall harm they usually caused. Then as now,1185 farmers tended to complain significantly more about larger, more visible animals, which they would have a better chance of identifying individually, even when they did less overall damage than normal populations of the smaller species.

Boar were worthy opponents for heroes, and Apollodorus has Meleager, Peleus, Kastor and Pollux and numerous other nobles hunt the Kalydonian boar, to end its ravaging of land, oxen and people.1181 The episode is illustrated, with names of men and dogs inscribed, on the upper neck frieze of the François Vase [95]. That was a supernatural boar, sent by Artemis, but it is a mere mortal beast that imperils Odysseus as a boy,1182 and Pelias places ordinary boar alongside lions in strength and ferocity, when he promises his daughter to the man who yokes a lion and a boar.1183 Chiron acknowledges the strength of boar when he feeds the infant Akhilles on the innards of lions, wild swine, and bears’ marrow.1184

Wolves receive particular attention. They were perhaps the most numerous large predator, and were certainly the most feared. Yet there are strong hints of admiration, and each wolf was perceived as a direct threat. Wolf predation on stock reduced farmers’ ability to increase by breeding, as well as being expensive on a case-by-case basis. Instinctively and culturally, Greek thinking demonised wolves into monsters. The wolf was characterised as anti-man, and anti-dog, and wolves and dogs were perceived as playing inverse roles in relation to humans. The Greeks had close and complex relationships with the dog. Surprisingly, across the wide variety of contexts and different situations that could arise, dogs constituted a more persistent nuisance than all the other canids put together. This was offset by their usefulness however, and so their thieving in particular could even be seen as humorous, when being experienced by someone else. Also in dogs’ favour is their sociability. Nocturnal, solitary species (like cats and mustelids) were often considered furtive and suspicious, and were attributed anthropomorphising evil motives, foul tempers, and treacherous natures. Ultimately even these species were of value as good and bad examples, and held a valuable place in the language of animal metaphor.

Findings The definition of hostile and nuisance animal activities varies with the species, circumstances, and location. Where there is a problem however, there is a tendency for it to be repeated, and pests often adapt to countermeasures. Farmers therefore needed to make complex and constant decisions about coping strategies. Small-farmers’ reduced capacities for coping with losses meant that they could become Ael., NA 5.45. Ael., NA 6.1. 1176 Boardman, Overseas 79. Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems 3739. 1177 Howe, “Gorgon-Head” 209, 212. 1178 Howe, “Gorgon-Head” 212-213 1179 Cook, Zeus 3, 848-849. 1180 Apollod., Bibl. 2.4.2. 1181 Apollod., Bibl. 1.8.2. 1182 Hom., Od. 19.464-466. 1183 Apollod., Bibl. 1.9.15. 1184 Apollod., Bibl. 3.13.6. 1174 1175

On a practical level, certain species might be reviled as pests, and yet individuals of these same species, so long as they did not make nuisances of themselves, could actually cohabit in human homes as pets. It is these animals that will be studied in the next chapter. 1185

77

Naughton-Treves, “Forest” 35-36.

5 Pet and Image

This chapter investigates the importance of pets to Greek owners. The term ‘pet’refers to animals with little practical or economic purpose, sometimes functioning to advertise status and prestige, as ornaments, or playthings. ‘Pets’ also include ‘companion animals’ favourites indulged as family members.

poverty or affluence, or the economic importance of an animal, accurately predict its treatment. The valuing of pets is often independent of the economic circumstances of their owners, and may even be enhanced by other hardships.1190 Human beings share innate talents for empathising and seeking affirmation: we need to be nurtured, and to nurture others.1191 Archaeology reveals that this has long been extended to animals. The earliest known domestic dog remains date to a ca.10,000 BC Natufian site in Israel, where a 4-5 month-old puppy was found buried intact with a human skeleton.1192 From the positioning of the human hand upon it, the puppy seems to have been a pet, and some Greek dog interments suggest similar relationships.1193

Up until fairly recent modern times, the animals most prominent in literature and art have generally been those linked with human economic and practical wellbeing, and non-working pets have been trivialised.1186 This seems relevant to ancient Greece as well, though surviving depictions and ancient literature suggest that pet-keeping was commonplace. Among these, pets that symbolised high status were emphasised. Archaeological and literary evidence reveal the universality of pet-keeping in history.1187 Cultural variations occur,1188 but the evidence is that pet-keeping is rooted in man’s innate psychosocial makeup. The direct transposition of modern attitudes to ancient Greece would be inappropriate, but the consistency of the pet-keeping urge in humans allows modern day studies to support theories about attitudes to pets in ancient Greece.

Pets fulfilling human social needs Human-pet relationships and human attitudes to pets are complex, and revolve around a wide variety of human needs. Glasser’s Choice Theory, a biological theory of human behaviour,1194 describes all human actions as ultimately explainable by reference to innate desires or needs. Glasser recognizes five basic requirements:

Pet-keeping is often taken for a particularly western practice, reflecting affluence sufficient to support non-utilitarian animals, and comfort levels allowing sentimental indulgence.1189 However, pet-keeping is not solely a western phenomenon, nor does human

1. Survival: encompassing air, food, water, bodily functions, shelter, warmth, health, Singer, “Pygmies” 270. Serpell, “Pet-keeping” 11-14. Trevarthen, “Sense” 161. 1192 Davis/Valla, “Natufian”. 1193 Day, “Dog Burials”. Dogs will be mentioned frequently throughout this chapter, but those seeking a detailed exploration of dog breeds in antiquity should refer to Keller, “Hunderassen”. 1194 Palmatier, Crisis 21-22. 1190 1191

Fogel, “How?” xxiv. Serpell, “Pet-keeping” 11-14. 1188 Fisher, “Pigs”. 1189 Serpell, “Pet-keeping” 11. 1186 1187

79

2.

3.

4. 5.

exercise, sex. Love and belonging: encompassing friendship, cooperation, involvement, caring, relationships, connectedness with a social group, companionship, intimacy, collaboration. Power: encompassing importance, competition, recognition, achievement, competence, attention, respect, skills, being heard, impact, pride, and significance. Freedom: encompassing choices, independence, liberty, autonomy. Fun: encompassing interest, enjoyment, pleasure, learning, relaxation, laughter.1195

different slave,1205 for the hygiene and socialisation of the hounds. The slaves in turn probably benefited from the warmth and companionship, if not the fleas.1206 Arrian says that these hounds become very fond of their bedmates, and it is likely that this was reciprocated, especially if these same slaves assisted in the massage1207 and four daily runs1208 that Arrian prescribes. Physical contact is recognised as an important determinant of human physiological and psychological health,1209 and that animals can improve human wellbeing by allowing humans to hold and caress them has been conclusively shown.1210 Recorded health benefits of pet-keeping, such as reduced blood pressure and stress, cannot be measured in ancient Greek pet owners, but we see caressing and holding depicted. On a ca.460-450 BC marble grave stele in New York, a subdued and sorrowful-looking young girl lovingly holds two pigeons close [199]. On an Apulian red-figure stamnos in Paris [200], a gloomy Aktaion caresses a hound, and there is every reason to think that this was routine. On the tondo of a redfigure cup, a hare has been removed from its cage and is fondled on a reflective-looking youth’s lap [201]. There are numerous depictions of caressing, but they seem to have been in the minority compared with scenes showing more vigorous direct human-animal interaction.

Most of Glasser’s basic needs require participation from at least one other being. What follows explores how Greeks used pets to fulfil them. Survival Some pets perform tasks, and thus assist human survival. For example, cats and mustelids protected food stores by destroying rodents. Among the contributions made by dogs are their help in hunting and guarding. Apollo is so confident in his four fierce hounds to guard his cows, that he leaves them otherwise unattended.1196 Even very small contributions could be valued highly. Cockerels are essential in poultry breeding, but also functioned as alarm clocks, becoming personalities and part of a household’s rhythm. Anyte laments her alarm cock, killed by an unspecified predator.1197 Hunting decoy partridges could become pets,1198 favoured for their voices.1199 Porphyry’s partridge became so tame that it played with him, answered him, and kept quiet when he was observing silence.1200 Several epigrams of the Greek Anthology mention other favourite partridges.1201 As Fisher1202 observed, certain societies eat pet animals, and in one Aesopic fable, a fowler, lacking any other meal, starts to kill a speckled partridge he has tamed.1203

The Greeks understood the importance of exercise,1211 which pet ownership can encourage.1212 This is not to suggest that people specifically walked their dogs, for instance, but that the activity might revolve around use of an animal, or that a stroll might be made more pleasant by the companionship. Plato points out that boys and men, carrying their birds long distances to fights, tone their own bodies as well as those of the birds’.1213 Odysseus, as king of Ithaca, scarcely needed to hunt for food, yet delighted in breeding and training his own hounds, as his relationship with Argos reflects.1214 Dogs accompanied their owners widely in Greek art, to the extent that it was appropriate to picture the deceased with a dog

Some pets aid owner survival with bodily warmth. Meggitt suggests dingoes may have been vital to Australian aborigines as ‘living blankets’.1204 Arrian recommends that hunting hounds each sleep with a

Arr., Cyn. 9. Columella, Rust. 7.13.2 and Varro, On Agriculture 2.9.14 prescribe various treatments for fleas on dogs. See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1207 Arr., Cyn. 10. 1208 Arr., Cyn. 11-12. 1209 Montagu, Touching2 79, 318, 321-322. 1210 Savishinsky, “Pet” 119. Montagu, Touching2 277-279. 1211 Xen., Oec. 11.12-18. 1212 Messent, “Dogs” 45. 1213 Pl., Leg. 7.789b. 1214 Hom., Od. 291-292. 1205

Skeen, “Happiness”. 1196 Hymn. Hom. Merc. 190-199. 1197 Anth. Pal. 7.202. 1198 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 124. Anth. Pal. 7.203-206. 1199 Ath., 9.390a. 1200 Porph., Abst. 3.4. 1201 Anth. Pal. 7.203-206. 1202 Fisher, “Pigs” 137. 1203 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 124. 1204 Meggitt, “Dingoes” 15, note 7. 1195

1206

80

on tombstones.1215 Often a sense of comfortable companionship is conveyed, as on a type exampled by the Boeotian ‘Alxenor’s stele’, where a man stoops slightly on his staff to offer his eager hound a locust [202]. The relaxed atmosphere, the staff, and the insect contextualise the pair as strolling outdoors. A late fourth-century Ilissos grave relief shows a hound, centrally placed, emerging closely from behind the deceased youth [203]. “Even the dog expresses sadness,” says Bieber,1216 while Beazley and Ashmole call it “distressed”.1217 The suggestion is that this was a companion in daily activities, and the same familiarity between man and dog is seen in other media,1218 like the dog walking with his aged master on a gold finger ring in Tarento [204], and a man with a staff walking with a dog on a red-figure cup, from Italy [205]. The point is particularly made on a red-figure cup in New York we see caricatures of an elderly oriental man and his equally grizzled old dog, walking together [206].

especially suggesting that the tongue and brain were valued for consumption,1222 but Angel observes that there are no signs of interference on the skulls, which are well preserved. He does not record the presence of other skeletal dog remains, and perhaps Gallant is correct to suppose that decapitated dogs’ bodies went to feed the surviving human population in a crisis. It is unlikely that the humans who owned these dogs started out with the idea of making them into a walking larder, but dog flesh was certainly eaten in ancient Greece,1223 and the consumption of one’s pets is certainly an extreme instance of human survival assisted by the phenomenon of pet-keeping, as is the elimination of domestic animals who might compete with the humans for food, or even regard humans as potential meals. Love and belonging - social integration Companion animals may or may not love their owners, but owners often imagine that they do,1224 and may anthropomorphise them,1225 even crediting advice to them.1226 Companion animals often become especially important to those lacking satisfactory human companionship. Plutarch observes that men who are peevish with humans may breed and grow fond even of savage dogs, horses, lynxes and cats, monkeys and lions.1227 Pets may serve as confidants,1228 surrogate children, siblings, parents, or replace a spouse.1229 Animals’ thoughts cannot be known in detail, but certain species, particularly dogs,1230 display clear affection for human companions. A human’s normal response is to return the affection. This, combined with animals’ inability to articulate advice, judgement or anything beyond the most basic criticism, can seem like unquestioning friendship and acceptance. This naturally promotes feelings of involvement, acceptance, and inclusion, while providing outlets for affection, sadness, or anger, with little risk of rejection.1231 Arrian’s loving description of his favourite hound, kept as a pet when too old to hunt, could be that of any Greek, or indeed modern, dogowner.1232

Among young children, the presence of almost any animal can stimulate movement and engagement. Many late fifth- and early fourth-century red-figure choes depict childhood play involving animals. In Harvard, a child holds up grapes, or meat, tempting (Hoorn says training) a small fluffy dog of the Melitaean breed to stand on its hind legs [207]. A chous in London shows small boys playing with a rearing goat [33]. One apparent case of brutal pragmatism is evidenced by Athenian Agora well 97/362, with over 100 dog skulls, deposited simultaneously with complete skeletons of about 175 human babies (mostly newborns).1219 Angel suggests the remains might date to Sulla’s siege of Athens in 84 BC, and perhaps represent disposal of pets and infant dependents in response to starvation. Certainly the situation was desperate, and Appian reports that the Romans found human flesh prepared for food in many Athenian houses.1220 The dogs’ remains are puzzling. Butchered dog skulls from other Greek sites show cut-marks,1221 1215 Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog2”. Zlotogorska, Hunden catalogues nearly 350 examples. See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1216 Bieber, Hellenistic Sculpture 29, fig.69. 1217 Beazley, Painting 63, fig.138. 1218 Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog2” 62. Thompson, “Gravestone” 376377, notes 16-18. 1219 Angel, “Skeletal” 311, 330. Day, “Dog Burials” 25, 31. Gallant, Risk 125-126. 1220 Appian, Bell. Mith. 38. Garnsey, Famine 4, 28-29 on cannibalism, and 63-68 on exposure of unwanted children in response to food stress. 1221 Reese, “Bone” 262-263.

Snyder/Klippel, “Lerna to Kastro” 223-226. Roy, “Dog-Meat”. 1224 Hart, “Dogs” 169. 1225 Veevers, “Social” 19-26. 1226 Halls, Confidential 175. 1227 Plut., Mor. 482c. 1228 Robin/Bensel, et al., “Pets” 438-439. 1229 Beck, Companionship 59-77. Veevers, “Social” 21-24. 1230 Hart, “Dogs” 162, 164. See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1231 Hart, “Dogs” 163-164. Robin/Bensel, et al., “Pets” 438-439. 1232 Arr., Cyn. 5. 1222 1223

81

As a result of sharing their lives with animals, and getting to know them well, humans may come to attribute motives to animals, and human understanding. Thus the anthropomorphism that benefits and allows some animals to be doted upon may disadvantage others, since some natural animal behaviours may be seen by some as ‘wicked’ and deliberately problematic,1233 and so deserving of punishment. The cat that killed the partridge in the epigrams of Agathias Scholasticus and his pupil, Damocharis the Grammarian1234 is a victim of this kind of thinking. Another case has anthropomorphism used cleverly and consciously. This is in Aristophanes’ Wasps, where a cheese-stealing dog is tried in a litigious response to an ordinary animal transgression.1235 The pointed ridiculousness of the trial is itself an acknowledgement that dogs stealing food is no more than natural behaviour.

dogs’ loyalty to their households, regardless of human treatment.1238 Such faithfulness could inspire human loyalty and affection in return. A fourth-century claylined pit, behind the Stoa of Attalos in the Athenian Agora, contained a single dog. Near its head lay a large beef bone.1239 Alexander the Great named a city for his much-loved hound, Peritas,1240 and in Homer’s Odyssey we have the most powerful expression of a dog’s loyalty. Argos, Odysseus’ old and neglected sporting hound, having waited twenty years, dies content on Odysseus’ return.1241 Not only this, but Argos is the only member of Odysseus’ household to require no scars, no proof of intimate knowledge, and no explanations from Odysseus before he recognises and acknowledges him with delight.1242 The pathos is heightened by Argos being the only dog to receive a proper name in the Odyssey.1243 Odysseus’ secret tear1244 expresses his appreciation of Argos’ loyalty, and compassion for his once beautiful and capable hound. The audience was expected to sympathise with this, rather than see it as mawkishly sentimental. Other heroic personalities were thought to have given their pet dogs honoured burials, for Pollux lists the tombs of dogs, including Atalanta’s dog’s burial at Kalydon.1245

Pet dogs will mimic the facial expressions of their owners, and ‘smiling’ dogs occur in families where the humans smile a lot.1236 It is difficult to imagine that the Greeks, being such acute observers of animals, failed to notice or enjoy this phenomenon, by virtue of its similarity to our own smiles. Giving animals human-like expressions in depictions makes them easier to understand, and this is done on several vases. In particular, we see a smiling, rosette-painted leopard cub on a hydria, where there is also a most unhappy looking hound which looks about to howl [208]. The painter has added an upper lip to its mouth at a distance from the lower, and may have intended that the howling be a response to the youth playing auloi directly behind it. If this interpretation is correct, then there is certainly some humour intended, and it has at its heart an interest and familiarity with dogs that comes only of spending time in their company. Elsewhere, we see a dog on a pelike that looks exceedingly disconcerted when leapt at by a cheetah [209], and a butting goat on a chous that wears a fatuous and delighted expression as it charges a boy [33]. Great care has been taken with the expressiveness of the eyebrows (goats do not have eyebrows, these are a humanising addition), eyes, cheeks, and mouth of the goat. This makes the total omission of its ears rather surprising, unless the focus really was intended to be upon the humanising facial expression, from which the ears might distract.

In the Argos episode, Odysseus asks Eumaeus whether Argos was a hunter, or a fashionable indoor tabledog;1246 presumably of the type that appear in later symposion scenes on vases and reliefs. A late fifthcentury Attic relief shows a hound gnawing a bone beneath a couch [210], and on a ca.600 Corinthian column-crater, a hound is tethered beneath every couch [211]. Aristocrats even took these hounds on campaign; hence Akhilles can slaughter two of Patroklos’ nine dogs for his pyre.1247 Odysseus’s’ concern seems to have been that Argos had had his own version of an heroic life, and was not turned into a fashionable plaything. In a reverse of recognition, Argos’ degradation is also one of the many methods by which the suitors displayed their disregard for Odysseus, to abuse even his pets. Plutarch points out that elderly persons may feel similarly disregarded when Pl., Resp. 2.16. Thompson, “Agora 1950” 52, pl.26a. 1240 Plut., Vit. Alex. 61. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 1241 Hom., Od. 17.290-328. 1242 Gainsford, “Recognition Scenes” 57. 1243 Seymour, Homeric 358. 1244 Hom., Od. 17.304-305. 1245 Boardman, Nostalgia 115 and note 537. Poll., Onom. 5.45. 1246 Hom., Od. 17.308-310. 1247 Hom., Od. 23.173-174. 1238 1239

Dogs’ pack orientation enables remarkable success as guardians and companions to humans.1237 Plato remarks Serpell, “Attitudes” 254-255. Anth. Pal. 7.204-206. 1235 Ar., Vesp. 894-996. 1236 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 50-51, fig.4.3. 1237 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1233 1234

82

younger members of a household neglect care of a dog or horse (presumably also old) that they are fond of.1248

It is the strongly established view of dogs’ reciprocation of affection and loyalty that makes the break in camaraderie and Aktaion’s death, in the jaws of his own hunting pack deeply shocking, even to the hounds themselves.1253 On an Apulian red-figure stamnos in Paris [200], Aktaion is still friendly with his killers. He companionably pats a dog, which looks affectionately up and raises a paw to attract his attention more closely, even as Aktaion’s sprouting antlers foreshadow his end. Scenes of Aktaion’s destruction were popular;1254 featuring on reliefs [213] and a number of vases [24], and this may be owed in part to the subconscious ability of the audience to comprehend deeply the relationship with the hounds and its subsequent betrayal.

Sometimes myth is presented as part of an historical text. A faithful dog from political myth-making appears in Plutarch’s account of the evacuation of Athens. Xanthippos’ dog swam after him to Salamis, and then died. His grave spot was still called ‘The Dog’s Grave’ in Plutarch’s time.1249 Canine fidelity is not in question, but it is interesting that this dog, belonging to the father of Perikles, was not swept away, nor drowned, and so was available for honorific burial, providing an aition for the name of Dog’s Mound, and evidence that the family of Perikles was capable of inspiring great loyalty. Perhaps the dog did attempt to follow its master, but it is possible that the story was invented or embellished by adherents.

Unambiguous in its lap-dog and companion role1255 was the little Melitaean, so named on a ca.500 Attic amphora - the oldest known certain representation of the breed, now lost [214]. Melitaeans were very small, and some representations [215] show them standing no higher than the knee of an adult, including the upraised tail. Aristotle compares the smaller variety of Melitaean to martens in size.1256 Such proportions mean that Melitaeans were unlikely to have hunted more than rats or mice, though their loyalty was prized, and by barking, they could raise an alarm if necessary.

Preston Day’s survey of dog remains shows that dogs were sacrificed at funerals up to the end of the eighth-century, possibly to accompany their deceased masters.1250 The hound on the Ilissos stele may represent a companion for the hereafter, or one left behind, but it and its brothers in variants of the motif do something more. Harrison1251 sees on the Ilissos stele [203] an ‘unbridged gulf’, but by standing in close contact alongside (‘with’) the deceased, and sniffing at the feet of the bereaved, the dogs bridge worlds, helping to retain something of the deceased in the land of the living. The continued presence of the deceased’s real pets may have brought comfort to surviving family members, who could imagine that their loss was shared and understood, and empathise in return.

Melitaeans seem to have facilitated public displays of consumption, blithe enjoyment, and indulgence in pets with such success that they could be satirised along with their fashionable owners. On the lost amphora [214], the dog and the youth with it pose smartly with an air of fashionable young people about town, beneath the inscribed word, the vocative Lekitaie. The other side of the amphora shows a bearded man leaning casually on a staff, talking to his own dog, which is utilitarian-looking. Above this couple is inscribed ‘oi vqouqoi’, ‘the guardians’. It seems as if a contrast between the couples is being pointed out. Leitch quotes Arthur Bernard Cook, who thought the Melitaean’s words were the first half of a hexameter line, and said: “I do not doubt that they are a popular tag spoken by the worthy citizen when he sees the young swell pass down the street. We might complete the sense thus: ‘Folk on guard, master Maltese puppy, have something better to do.’” 1257

Regarding Argos and the other named dogs, it is notable that dogs and horses are the only animals whose names have survived in any number. On a neck amphora in Oxford we see a horse and a dog, both named [212]. Only a scant handful of other creatures received personal names that were recorded in ways that allowed them to survive to this day.1252 It is generally accepted that the Greeks held horses in great regard, and the naming of dogs likewise suggests a higher level of regard and personal interest than for other animals. Plut., Mor. 480b. Plut., Vit. Them. 10. 1250 Scott, “Dogs” 228. Day, “Dog Burials” 21. See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1251 Harrison, “Ilissos” 208. 1252 Jeschonnek, Nominibus 1. See index for cross references to personal names for animals.

Apollod., Bibl. 3.4.4. Schlam, “Actaeon” 83-86, notes 4-6. See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1254 Beazley, Pan 1. LIMC I, s.v. Aktaion, 454-469, nos.1-140, pls.346-363 (Guimond). Schlam, “Actaeon” 87-95. 1255 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1256 Arist., Hist. An. 9.6.(612b10). 1257 Arthur Bernard Cook, in Leitch, Maltese 10.

1248

1253

1249

83

Melitaeans enjoyed a great following in Italy and Greece, becoming increasingly prominent in art from 480 BC.1258 One even appears clearly as a warrior’s shield-device, on a cup, displacing the hound that might seem more appropriate to a battle setting [216]. The breed became the object of much Greek doting. Sometimes they are ornamented, with bells (possibly apotropaic)1259 on their necks [217], and it was probably a pet dog that wore a crudely inscribed late Hellenistic ‘name-tag’ scarab documented by Gardner [218].

and Ionia.1268 On many of the stelai, the dogs reach up to their masters, or are tempted with morsels or small birds. There is a continuous theme of interaction, and on one charming and unusual stele, possibly Ionian work under Attic influence, a tiny Melitaean in a classic play-bow1269 attacks the end of a youth’s staff. The youth holds on with both hands, equally absorbed in the game [220]. Busuttil surveyed ancient literary references to the Melitaean and its popularity as a pet, and argues for its originating on the island of Malta,1270 or, as Leitch1271 suggests, its being traded through there. Its details and proportions link it with spitz breeds, which originate from northern Europe. The Japanese spitz is a good approximation, as can be seen in a particularly wellpreserved ca.325 terracotta model of a Melitaean, which seems to have the remains of a white slip [221], and a dog on a red-figure askos, both from the collection of the late Leo Mildenberg [222].

Gardner says that the name on the scarab, ‘Lailapss’ (‘Laelaps’), has only been found applied to dogs – the most ancient being one of Aktaion’s hounds.1260 The terminal c on the tag might give the impression that the object dates to an earlier period, but the lettering overall appears to be Hellenistic. Gardner suggests that its presence is owed to lack of knowledge by a craftsman.1261 The best companion animal is one that openly displays affection, and Melitaeans were said to be particularly devoted to their masters. This affection was well received, and returned. A small, ca.525, Attic terracotta figure [219] from Boeotia shows Cybele with a Melitaean on her lap, and Aesop says seafarers often took them along.1262 Another fable compares the conditions and roles of a hard-worked hunting hound and a pampered housedog,1263 and Babrius describes an ass disastrously imitating a Melitaean’s frolics, to try and ingratiate himself with his master.1264 Aelian claims that a Melitaean enthusiastically greeted Epaminondas on his return from Sparta,1265 and the Melitaean of Theodorus, the musician, was so devoted that it flung itself into his coffin, and was buried with him.1266

Surviving depictions and literary references almost suggest that every small pet dog was a Melitaean. This is inconceivable, or Theophrastus’ man of petty ambition would be wasting his time in emphasising his dog’s pedigree.1272 Most people enjoy images with positive associations, as modern family photograph albums illustrate,1273 and therefore the portrayal of Melitaeans was probably a selling point. Mongrel breeds were doubtless numerous and acceptable pets, but it seems that the Melitaean’s prestige value and distinctiveness made it the pet dogs’ ambassador in art. Children frequently develop important relationships with animal playmates, from a very young age. In Munich [223], a boy stoops towards a hare. Hoorn claims that the boy is shouting, to frighten the animal for fun, but though the child’s gaze is intent on the hare, his opened mouth is not wide, but smiling. His attentive hands-on-bent-knees posture (unlike the arms-spread erectness of children chasing pigeons today) suggests the earnest and confiding conversations that youngsters often have with their pets, or at least close interest.

The story of Theodorus’ Melitaean is reminiscent of items in Day’s survey of dog inhumations,1267 and the collective evidence hints that pets were wanted just as much in Hades as in life. In keeping with this and their significance in life, Ridgway points out that Melitaeans are the dominant breed on Attic stelai after 450, though Lakonians continued to dominate elsewhere in Greece Boardman, Gems2 194. Pease, “Bells” 35-36. 1260 Ov., Met. 3.211. 1261 Gardner, “Scarab”. 1262 Perry, Aesopica 349-350, fable 73. Cited in Busuttil, “Maltese” 205. 1263 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 92. 1264 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 129. 1265 Ael., VH 13.42. 1266 Ael., NA 7.40. 1267 Day, “Dog Burials”. 1258

As children became young adults, their pets continued to accompany them. On two hydriai in the British Museum, animals attend music lessons. On the first

1259

Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog2” 47, note 5. O’Farrell, Canine 31, fig.1. 1270 Busuttil, “Maltese”. 1271 Leitch, Maltese 15. 1272 Theophr., Char. 21.9. 1273 Ruby, “Images” 141-147. 1268 1269

84

[224], a dog and a cheetah (more of which later). On the second hydria is a dog about to howl (discussed above). A rarer pet features in the same scene, an alert and perkily smiling rosetted leopard cub, standing on a stool, receives food from a smiling kitharode [208]. Dogs seem to have been the most popular pets.1274 Excluding animal friezes, in the Beazley Archive database appearances of birds on vases outnumber dogs. However, the birds often cannot be clearly identified as familiars, rather than decorative motifs, while most of the dogs can. Nevertheless, other animals than dogs inspired great affection. Babrius tells of a partridge indulged with the run of the house, despite the noise it made, and presumably mess.1275 Meleager expresses Phanion’s sadness at the death of her pet leveret:

public appearance.1285 This pass-time of leisured youths made the quail symbolic, and on a white lekythos in Athens [225], a mourner brings a caged quail to the tomb, holding it forward as if in tribute to the deceased. This is not the only bird to be brought to a tomb, and there is a wide variety, but as Oakley points out, many are generic, with little indication of species. Cockerels (Gallus gallinaceus) were the fighting birds par excellence. Themistocles’ cock-fight raised the spirit of his troops on the eve of the battle of Salamis, and afterwards the Athenians decreed that there should be state-organised cock-fighting in the theatre one day every year.1286 No doubt this further popularised the bird as a duelling pet. On a marble relief from the base of a ca.510 BC statue in Athens, youths in the palaistra set a dog against a cat [226]. Possible feline baiting, but more likely accidental confrontations between pets taken out socially, occurs on an Attic red-figure cup. The first shows a dog pausing face-to-face with a cat, an ordinary domestic shorthair confined by a leash, on a stool, which begins to arch its back in alarm [227]. The two flanking humans are pointing at the cat and the dog. One seems to warn the dog to stay still. Though fragmentary and simply drawn, this cat is well observed in posture and outline, especially with regard to its head, where the muzzle and ears are appropriately placed and in proportion, and there is a distinct ‘break’ in angle between the small muzzle and the high, domed forehead. Dörig suggests that cats were rare in Attica in the mid fifth-century, and that this must be a valuable gift to the boy holding its lead. Certainly the other depictions on the vase show boys with animal love-gifts, but the rarity of cats may have been exaggerated,1287 and the accuracy of this depiction suggests that the artist may have been able to observe cats in person. As for the possibility of this being intended as a panther, as is often suggested for felines on vases, the surviving portions of the animal are coloured with a dilute glaze, and there are no body markings whatsoever. This is undoubtedly a domestic cat. Vadim Malik1288 offers a second interpretation offered for the human hand gestures. It is that there may be an aspect of bidding for the boy’s approval, based on the comparative value of the cat and the dog as competing gifts.

“I was a swift-footed long-eared leveret, torn from my mother’s breast while yet a baby, and sweet Phanion cherished and reared me in her bosom, feeding me on flowers of spring. No longer did I pine for my mother, but I died of surfeiting, fattened by too many banquets. Close to her couch she buried me so that ever in her dreams she might see my grave beside her bed.”1276

This epigram shows that young wild animals were captured for pets, and expected to adjust. Indeed, few were not potential pets. Aristotle refers to domesticated hedgehogs,1277 and an anonymous epigram1278 tells of a nanny goat compelled to nurse a wolf cub, presumably desired as a pet and guard. The fox that reputedly bit a Spartan boy to death under his cloak was another taming attempt.1279 Shared interest in activities with animals can facilitate human socialising.1280 Plutarch mentions youthful interest and squabbles over cock and quail fighting,1281 and Plato says that young men carried quails under their cloaks, ready to face challenges.1282 In ‘quailphillipping’ a quail would be placed within a ring, and struck on the head by a professional ‘phillipper’. The blows were quite hard,1283 and if the bird retreated, the owner lost his bet.1284 Plutarch claims that Alkibiades carried a favourite quail under his cloak at his first Lazenby, “Pets” 245. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 135. 1276 Anth. Pal. 7.207 (Paton). 1277 Arist., Hist. An. 9.6(612b5-9). 1278 Anth. Pal. 9.47. 1279 Plut., Vit. Lyc. 18. 1280 Hart, “Dogs” 166. Messent, “Dogs” 37, 45. 1281 Plut., Mor. 487e. 1282 Pl., Leg. 7.789b. 1283 Ar., Av. 1290. 1284 Gosling, “Pets” 11. 1274 1275

Plut., Vit. Alc. 10. Ael., VH 2.28. 1287 See index for cross references to the scarcity of cats in Greek literature. 1288 Personal communication 13 December 2008. 1285 1286

85

On a second cup, the accidental nature of the confrontation between the rosetted leopard and the large snarling dog is strongly suggested by the probable value of the exotic feline, the fact that the leopard has been displayed on a stool, the several alarmed human gestures and postures, and the worried facial expression of the only man whose head has survived [201]. The leopard is identifiable by its substantial build, rosettes, closely spaced dorsal markings, and the rounded ears set to the side of its broad forehead. Its face expresses defensive fear in typical feline style. The ears are wrinkled, the muscles in the forehead are clenched as it snarls, furrowing its muzzle and squinting its eyes. Unlike real leopards, which tend to be short-legged and low-slung, this has long legs and a high, tucked-up waist. These features were conventional for hounds, which were drawn much more often on vases. This leopard’s body and legs are very like those of the confronting dog, and it would seem that the painter followed familiar habits when compiling this creature. In contrast to the leopard, the tiny, leashed cat on the other side of the same vase seems rather inadequate, though it too has a small group of onlookers.

replace depictions of cocks as protagonists during the fifth century, but this is no indication of a fall in the popularity of cock-fighting.1296 Live animal gifts serve as reminders and proof of esteem, and while the animal lives and must be attended the recipient is obliged to give attention by proxy to the giver. The creatures’ species also carry message potential. Animal hunts and stages of taming could be used to symbolise stages of courtship,1297 and the presentation of a captured animal demonstrated and symbolised suitors’ resources and prowess, particularly in relation to the animal given.1298 Barringer1299 usefully surveys animal love-gifts, with thoughts on meanings underlying species choice. She particularly points out that “virility, combativeness, courage, and cunning are all associated with the animals given in pederastic courtship paintings”.1300 A suggestion of this kind of competitive comparison between man and animal is made on the tondo of a red-figure cup where a hare seems to set the standard for athletic speed. Williams calls the scene “A youth coursing a hare”, and the hare’s red collar supports the idea that it was released for the game of pursuit and recapture [234]. The running youth wears a band around his left ankle, of the same size and colour at the collar on the hare. It might be that the hare is tethered to the leg of the running youth to prevent its escape, but this would seem a certain ‘trip-hazard’.

On Attic vases, we see gifts from men to youths of hares and cocks, occasionally deer [228], and apparently, felines [209, 227].1289 Aristophanes’ Birds1290 mentions quails, coots, and geese as desirable love gifts, while his Wealth1291 specifies horses and dogs.1292 Animal gifts are almost always alive,1293 and the hares tense as they hang suspended by their ears [229, 230]. Scenes with caged hares show that they were intended as pets [231]. One, in the tondo of the cup with the snarling leopard, has been removed from its cage and is tethered on a long cord, to be fondled on a youth’s lap [201]. The length of the cord (tethered to the border of the tondo) suggests that the hare might even be allowed to wander around the room at times.

Power Regarding Glasser’s ‘power’ category, owning certain animals can fuel a sense of importance, competence, individuality and recognition. Exceptional, expensive, ‘useless’, and potentially dangerous animals can be used to embellish wealth and status. Theophrastus’ man of petty ambition set up a tomb for his Melitaean, engraved ‘Branch of Melite’.1301 This parades his well-bred lap-dog, of a breed which Clement of Alexandria suggests was expensive,1302 and the cost of its memorial is also a conspicuous expenditure. Theophrastus ignores the very likely genuine grief, and expects agreement that such monuments are excessive, but they must have impressed enough onlookers for Theophrastus to comment.

In Aeschylus’ Eumenides, cockerels symbolise courage,1294 and cock-fights are a popular motif on Attic vases [232]. In addition, a good cockerel is essential to poultry-keeping, and an excellent alarm clock.1295 All this made them worthy love gifts, and on a bell-crater in Paris, a gift-cock delights Ganymede, beloved of Zeus [233]. Cocks as love-gifts generally

Keller, Tierwelt 2, 138. Barringer, Hunt 85. von Reden, Exchange 201. Berard (ed.), Images 81-87. 1298 Bremmer, “Adolescents” 142. 1299 Barringer, Hunt 89-101, and notes. 1300 Barringer, Hunt 89. 1301 Theophr., Char. 21.9. 1302 Clemens, Paedagogus 3.4. 1296

Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe 105-115. 1290 Ar., Av. 707. 1291 Ar., Plut. 157. 1292 Dover, Homosexuality 92. 1293 Barringer, Hunt 83. 1294 Aesch., Eum. 863-864. 1295 Anth. Pal. 7.202. Ar., Nub. 3. 1289

1297

86

Controlling powerful animals can help define owners’ identities. Alexander the Great’s taming of Bucephalus1303 made Alexander’s cleverness, horsemanship and daring legend. A bronze statuette of a heroically naked Alexander calming and controlling the rearing colt commemorates the event [235]. Alexander clearly valued Bucephalus in his image-making. Stories circulated about them,1304 and Alexander had famous artists depict him and his horse. Apelles strained for realism when painting them,1305 and Lysippus sculpted them both.1306 A bronze statuette of a mounted Alexander in Naples [236] may copy a group by Lysippus. The most famous surviving representation of the pair is the Alexander Mosaic [237], thought to copy a late fourth-century painting.1307 The fact that Bucephalus was not actually ridden in the battle did not affect the desirability of having him pictured there. Before dying, aged around 30 years, either from wounds or exhaustion,1308 Bucephalus will have slowed significantly. The horse killed under Alexander at the battle of the Granicus was not Bucephalus,1309 and perhaps Alexander had taken to preferring a younger and fitter horse for battle. When Bucephalus died, it is said that Alexander was deeply upset, and named the city he built on the Hydaspes Bucephalia. The same honour was accorded his dog, Peritas.1310 If indeed Bucephalus was showing signs of aging toward the end of Alexander’s long and difficult campaign, his maintenance expresses not only fondness, but also Alexander’s own royal prerogative, as does the extravagance of naming cities after both his animals.

how closely craftsmen were able to examine the beasts however. Some representations are quite confused. One cheetah for example resembles a spotted dog [238]. Others though, capture particularly distinguishing features and lifelike postures [224, 209, 239]. Crucially, the legs are long and slender, the waist comparatively small and tucked up. The jaws are more delicate than those of other big cats, the muzzles shorter, and the light, lean physique makes the neck appear long. The spots are simple dots, not rosettes as on leopards. We nowhere see the characterising black tear-lines, running from the inner corner of each eye, around the whisker zone, to the corner of the mouth, but these can become less conspicuous in profile views, which is what the vases generally offer. Young captured lions and leopards might occasionally have been kept in captivity, but the practical reasons for preferring cheetahs are strong. Cheetahs domesticate much more easily than other big cats,1313 and Clutton-Brock comments that but for their exceptionally poor reproduction in captivity, then they might be very popular domestic animals today.1314 They have a negligible record of unprovoked harm to man,1315 especially given their nearness in size to the considerably more dangerous leopard.1316 As display animals, they can look fearsome even at just a year old, are strong enough to injure handlers should they wish to,1317 and chase strangers and dogs enthusiastically.1318 This does necessitate some control mechanisms, and as is usual with big cats joining young men in urbane settings, the cheetah at the music lesson on the London hydria is on a leash [224]. Out walking, a leash-restrained cheetah on a red-figure pelike [209] lunges towards a disconcerted dog, demonstrating that it is still a large predator, capable of taking on a dog. The tame cheetah appears to have had just the right amount of danger-potential to make it exciting and impressive.

If dogs and horses enhanced their owners’ images, they were nonetheless well known species. Expression of importance through novelty, flamboyance, and conspicuous consumption might explain certain early fifth-century Attic vases, where young men hold wellobserved elegant spotted big cats on leashes. Brown, and Ashmead survey these vases, and identify the cats as cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus).1311 Cheetahs breed notoriously poorly in captivity,1312 so there may have been only a very valuable few in Athens. Nevertheless, such novelties can capture artists’ imaginations, and be more frequently depicted as a result. It is uncertain

There are further practical factors in favour of identifying the spotted cats as cheetahs. Of all the big cats, they would be the easiest to take young from, since the young must be left unguarded while the mother hunts, even if the abduction were observed by a returning mother, the adult’s fragile build puts it at a disadvantage. Once captured, trade links with ports near their native lands in Africa and western Asia1319 could have facilitated the young animals’ arrival in

Plut., Vit. Alex. 6. Arr., Anab. 5.19. Anderson, “Bucephalas”. 1305 Ael., VH 2.3. 1306 Anderson, “Bucephalas” 12. 1307 Cohen, Alexander 51-82. 1308 Arr., Anab. 5.19.4. Plut., Vit. Alex. 61. 1309 Plut., Vit. Alex. 16.7. 1310 Plut., Vit. Alex. 61. 1311 Ashmead, “Cats”. Brown, Lion 172-3. 1312 Adamson, Spotted 32. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 199. Cohn, “Cheetah Genetics” 360-361. 1303 1304

Adamson, Spotted 63-64. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 199. 1315 Caras, Dangerous 23. 1316 Caras, Dangerous 9-10. 1317 Adamson, Spotted 30. 1318 Adamson, Spotted 12. 1319 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 199. 1313 1314

87

Greece. Homer1320 describes Phoenicians trading between Greece, Egypt, and Libya, and Phoenician trade-goods appear in Greece from the ninth century onwards.1321 Ionians and Carians settled in Egypt under the protection of Psammetichus I (664-610 BC),1322 and from ca.620 Naukratis was a major trading city for Greek merchants.1323 Of all the possible departure points, Kyrene was the closest North African Greek trading post to Mainland Greece, and geographically the best placed to export African animals – the shorter the journey, the lower the mortality and trouble. Its export role, particularly of silphium, made Kyrene one of the richest Greek cities.1324 On a black-figure Lakonian cup of the mid sixth-century [240], King Arkesilas II of Kyrene (ca.569-550 BC) supervises what is thought to be the weighing and loading of silphium or wool on shipboard.1325 Beneath his throne crouches a mottled, collared1326 feline, which Ashmead follows Brown in calling it the earliest representation of the cheetah in vase-painting.1327 The identification is debatable on purely physiological grounds however, and the motif of a tame animal under a chair, and the presence of other local animals on the cup, may derive from Egyptian and broader eastern influence.1328 Nevertheless, whatever its species, the feline could potentially represent minor cargo accompanying the silphium.

It would seem that the glamour of a potentially dangerous, expensive, and rare pet must have been the cheetah’s primary attraction. The collective evidence suggests that cheetahs, and perhaps other big cats until they became unmanageable, might have been kept by certain fashionable and wealthy youths in Athens in the early fifth-century.1333 Such animals advertise wealth, vigour, leadership in style, and tastes for the exotic and dangerous – all expressions of personal power and influence. Even if cheetahs and the like were never kept as pets, the portrayal of them on leads with young men is a fantasy that has its roots in the same taste for impressing others by association with an exotic and potentially dangerous animal. Although not dangerous, peacocks were the ultimate in status pets. They were not widely available however, and their rarity was part of the point. Most importantly, peacocks were customary gifts from the Persian King to ambassadors.1334 They therefore had considerable prestige value. Miller suggests that nobility kept exotic birds such as parrots and peacocks, and trade in the birds and their eggs must have been very profitable,1335 since in the late fifth-century a breeding pair of peacocks was valued at 1000 drachmae. One ambassadorial recipient, Pyrilampes,1336 had been in the habit of setting aside the first of each month for viewing by visitors, who came from as far as Sparta and Thessaly. His peacocks come to our notice because Alkiphron acted on behalf of Erasistratus or Demus, son of Pyrilampes, in a court case between the pair.1337 The exact nature of the charge cannot be determined from what remains, but it was in direct connection with the value and status of the peacocks in Demus’ possession. One feasible suggestion is that Demus was accused of profiting (possibly magnificently) from the sale of the birds’ offspring, and that these really belonged to the demos, because they had been acquired by Pyrilampes in his official capacity as ambassador.

Assuming that there were indeed some captive cheetahs in Athens, it is worth exploring whether they had any roles other than the ornamental. Pet cheetahs1329 are more aloof than dogs, even with close human associates, and generally do not house-train.1330 Those seeking a loyal and deeply affectionate pet will have done better with a dog. However, cheetahs can be used in hunting,1331 as practised by the ancient Egyptians and Assyrians,1332 and suggested by a cup in Würzburg [241], on which a large spotted feline assists a youth in bringing down a deer. For the hunt however dogs are far more controllable, further, cheetahs are adapted for short sprints across open flat plains instead of long runs over rocky, steep hillsides.

The peacock’s rarity is paralleled by its infrequency of representation in Greek art, the best example being a single Graeco-Persian gem of the early fourth-century. Boardman calls this the earliest Greek representation of a peacock, and the bird is unmistakeable [242]. There appears to be a contradiction between the frequency of depiction of peacocks and cheetahs. Perhaps this is

Hom., Il. 23.740-5. Braun, “Greeks in Near East” 6. 1322 Braun, “Greeks in Egypt” 32. Hdt. 2.154. 1323 Möller, Naukratis 215. 1324 Graham, “Colonial Expansion” 137. 1325 Elderkin, “Archaeological Studies” 406. 1326 Brown, Lion 172. 1327 Ashmead, “Cats” 45. 1328 Smith, “Harpies” 107. 1329 Adamson, Spotted 11-38. 1330 Adamson, Spotted 92. 1331 Keller, Thiere 155. 1332 Clutton-Brock, Domesticated 178. Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 199. 1320 1321

Ashmead, “Cats” 47. Brown, Lion 172. Ar., Ach. 61-63. 1335 Miller, “Peacocks” 1-10. 1336 Pl., Chrm. 158a. 1337 Ath., 397c. Maidment, Orators 302-305, Antiphon, frag.B.12 (fragment 57). Cartledge, “Fowl Play”. Dover, “Chronology of Antiphon” 55. Badian, “Callias” 14, and note 26. 1333 1334

88

explainable by the fact that the cats could be taken out on leads in public, and so used as accessories.

dissociated from themselves. As McDermott remarks, apes offered “even the most degraded of men a feeling of superiority”.1344 Plutarch says they were useless for anything but laughter,1345 and Athenaeus says Anacharsis was delighted at the mere appearance of an ape at a symposium, other entertainments having failed to amuse.1346 Apes’ liking for wine is attested in modern1347 and ancient literature,1348 and since parrots were fed wine to liven them up,1349 it seems inevitable that some symposiasts made apes drunk in such settings, thus providing another opportunity for the humans to rejoice in their sense of superiority. Apes appealed to young and old, it seems. A late fifthcentury child’s grave in the east cemetery of Olynthos contained an ape figurine [244], and this and the figurines mentioned just below may well have been toys. Although this was not his main point, Pindar comments that apes are always beautiful to children.1350 Aesop mentions a seafarer’s pet ape, taken aboard for amusement,1351 and Theophrastus mocks the man of petty ambition who keeps one.1352

Expressions of power over an animal can extend to maiming, hitting, or shouting, variously punishing it, and depriving it of food. In a notorious example, Alkibiades redirected public criticism by cutting off the tail of his much-admired dog, for which he had paid 70 minae. The Athenians disapproved and gossiped, but Alkibiades remarked that he preferred them to talk about this than his other activities.1338 Abuse of this dog obliquely expressed Alkibiades’ prominence and influence among men, and his indifference to the monetary value of his dog. More ordinary expressions of power over animals feature pets reaching for objects held up to tempt them. Dogs in particular are tempted with food, small birds, and insects, and on a red-figure chous [243], a girl experiments with power over her pets, dangling a finely drawn tortoise by a string around its leg, towards an equally well-represented small dog that resembles a Melitaean. Freedom

Dressing apes in clothing seems to have been as popular in ancient times as in modern. The clothing is sometimes oriental, adding to the amusement by satirising the Persians and other barbarians. An apefigurine from Tanagra wears a Phrygian cap [245], as does the smaller ape in a figure group in the Louvre [246]. A sixth-century ape-figurine from Rhitsona wears a red jacket and a yellow cap, and rides a horse [247]. Riding apes seem to have been popular grave offerings, either related to the status of the dead, or the chthonic character of the horse. More obviously humorous terracotta apes are frequent, some riding other animals (though not horses). Perhaps a toy, a once-phallic ape rides a mule in an ungainly fashion on a terracotta figurine from Corinth [98].

Pet-keeping can enhance a person’s experience of his own freedom of choice and individual expression. This may heighten his sense of control over his destiny, and increase self-esteem.1339 For an ancient Greek to choose to keep any sizeable animal, it was necessary to be free, and not a slave.1340 Pet-keeping may even have aided conscious expression of freedom and individuality by those who were previously constrained. Although the example falls outside the scope of this study, Petronius’ Trimalchio demonstrates his affluence, freedom, and individuality when insisting that his tomb should depict himself with his dog at his feet, and Fortunata with a dove and a little dog with a waistband.1341 Fun and pleasure

Apes in literature are sometimes sage,1353 but more often greedy, sycophantic, clowning, deceitful and ugly. The seafarer’s ape, mentioned above, was first rescued from a shipwreck by a dolphin, and then drowned for its lies.1354 In Plato’s Republic,1355

Beautiful and tuneful animals pleased and entertained. But ancient humour often depended upon the grotesque, the unusual and the cruel.1342 The imperfect similarity of apes to humans, in behaviour and appearance, allowed Greeks to align them with satyrs,1343 and though some may have found the similarities disquieting, the general populace could still laugh at the worst in humanity, safely disempowered and

McDermott, Ape 109. Plut., Mor. 64e. 1346 Ath., 14.613d. 1347 Yerkes, Apes 229. 1348 Plin., HN 23.44. Arist., frag.107 (from Drunkenness by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 10.429d). 1349 Arist., Hist. An. 8.12 (597b1.27-29). 1350 Pind., Pyth. 2 72-73. 1351 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 73. 1352 Theophr., Char. 21. 1353 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Phaedrus 1.10. 1354 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 73. 1355 Pl., Resp. 9.590b. 1344 1345

Plut., Vit. Alc. 9. See also page 357. Mill, Liberty 80. 1340 For the idea that slaves may not choose how to live, see Arist., Pol. 3.9(1280a33-34). 1341 Petron., Sat. 71. 1342 McDermott, Ape 118. 1343 Hoffmann, Pursuit 6. 1338 1339

89

Socrates likens those who accept degradation for money to apes. The soul of Thersites, a base and ugly buffoon of the Iliad,1356 assumes ape form for his next life.1357 Menander calls an ugly wife surrounded by ugly maids as ‘an ass among apes.1358 Aristophanes’ Dicaeopolis compares an informer to “an ape full of spite”.1359 Arkhilokhos portrays the ape as gullible,1360 and a number of Aesopic fables feature clowning or meddling apes as dupes. Above all, apes imitate humans - in ways that suggest actual observation and that make the ape seem even closer to humans whilst still remaining ‘other’.1361 This mimicry is emphasised in fables. In one, a shopkeeper’s ape covers its eyes to imitate a thief, who then escapes with some goods.1362 Interestingly, this suggests that the animal might have been expected to deter thieves or otherwise guard the shop in the manner of an intelligent dog. Another ape watches fishermen casting nets, tries the trick itself, and gets tangled.1363

bird’, or parrot, being said to have a man’s tongue and to be especially impudent after drinking wine.1367 He reports only what he has heard, but clearly the birds were kept. Supporting this, two parrots, and a basket or cage, appear on an early fourth-century GrecoPersian gem [250]. Another gem, from the second half of the fifth-century, shows a bird, which Richter first identified as a falcon, but then settled upon as a parrot [251]. Parrots remained novel for some time. Ctesias’ wonderment at talking Indian parrots suggests they were little known in late fifth-century Greece.1368 Arrian dismissively reports Nearchus’ amazement at them in the late fourth-century,1369 and Callixeinus numbers them among rarities paraded by Ptolemy Philadelphus in Alexandria, in the 270s BC.1370 Bigwood proposes species identifications, and discusses the rarity of Greek acquaintance with parrots.1371 Parrots were not the only birds that might be taught to speak. Pliny tells that Nero and Britannicus played as boys with a starling and nightingales that pronounced Greek and Latin words and even sentences,1372 and Clement of Alexandria criticised women for spending time teaching nightingales to speak.1373 Pliny thought magpies the best imitators of the human voice,1374 and says that crows,1375 ravens,1376 and thrushes1377 could also learn. Petronius’ Trimalchio had a talking magpie, ostentatiously displayed in a golden cage.1378 All these birds occur naturally in Greece, and contended for depiction on vases, though many drawings are too generic to risk identifications [252].

Aristotle reveals that apes were caught wild,1364 so they were obviously worth the trouble of procuring for sale as pets and sideshow attractions. We see one such on a gem depicting a travelling circus [248]. Prevention of escapes and apes’ mischievous tendencies made containment necessary. The ‘fishing ape’ mentioned above was not restrained, and thus could meddle freely, but the shopkeeper’s ape may have been tethered to prevent stock damage. Several depictions show apes with leads. In Toronto, a late seventhcentury Corinthian alabastron [249],1365 shaped like a squatting ape, has its forepaws to the chain around its neck. It is easy to imagine amusing little figure-vases like this appealing as children’s playthings as well as being functional.1366

Birds need not speak to bring pleasure. The wellinformed remarks in Aristophanes’ Birds would be lost on an unknowledgable audience, showing that wild birds were observed with interest. This links to their frequent use as omens, but also suggests some casual bird watching, as illustrated on a pelike in St Petersburg [253], where a man, a youth, and a boy point out a painstakingly identifiable swallow. “Look, here is a swallow”, says the youth. “Spring has come”, replies the man. Such interest, the sounds of their voices, their attractiveness and lively habits seem to

Talking and singing birds are unambiguous as entertainers, and are evidence of considerable attention on the part of an owner, seeking a pet that might impress other people. Aristotle observes that nearly all flat-tongued birds are disposed to mimicry, the ‘Indian Hom., Il. 2.212. Pl., Resp. 10.620c. 1358 Menander, Plocium (Kock) 115, no.402, quoted by Gellius, 2.23.9. 1359 Ar., Ach. 904-907 (Henderson). 1360 West (ed.), Iambi 1 71, frags.185-187. See index for cross references to apes as dupes. 1361 McDermott, Ape 111. 1362 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 643. 1363 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 203. 1364 Arist., frag.107 (from Drunkenness by Athenaeus, Deipnosophists 10.429d). 1365 Robinson, Ontario 1, 41 lists similar figure vases. 1366 Robinson, “Ointment” 420. For small vases as toys, Walters, “Black-figured Vases” 300. For animal figures as toys, Elderkin, “Dolls” 455-456. Rouse, Votive 250, 285 note 7. 1356 1357

Arist., Hist. An. 8.12 (597b1.27-29). Ctesias, Indica, in FGrHist 688 F45.8. 1369 Arr., Indica 15.8. 1370 Ath., 5.201b, 9.387d. 1371 Bigwood, “Parrot”. 1372 Plin., HN 10.59. 1373 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.4. 1374 Plin., HN 10.59.118. 1375 Plin., HN 10.60.124. 1376 Plin., HN 10.60.121-123. 1377 Plin., HN 10.59.120. 1378 Petron., Sat. 28. 1367 1368

90

in the bird-seller scene on Williams’ Brygan cup may support this, and hints that the boy involved himself in birding, and the cross-bar section is repeated as wallhung objects in the school-room scene on the exterior of the cup. Similar objects can be seen in use, on two crater fragments in London [257, 258]. There they are set amid shrubbery and have been perched upon by flapping birds. This seems to suggest that they are rods coated in bird-lime, on which birds became stuck. It must be admitted however that these crossbar-topped rods represent a fine example of the problems in interpreting vase pictures, for on some Apulian vases [259] similar-looking crossed objects, occasionally ablaze, are used as elaborate torches.

have rendered birds desirable as pets. Simias,1379 and Agathias Scholasticus and his pupil lament the loss of partridges.1380 The poet of one of the Anacreontea praises his dove, which ate from his hand and drank from his cup.1381 Theophrastus has his man of petty ambition provide a little ladder and bronze shield for his jackdaw.1382 Beazley connects vase-paintings of birds so armed with Theophrastus’ remark.1383 He points out a squat lekythos with a bird that Dugas identifies as a lark, wearing a crested helmet, shield and spear [254], and an owl with spear, shield and helmet appears on a red-figure mug [255] in the Louvre. The owl is very likely to be “an epiphany of Athena or metamorphosis of the warrior”,1384 but we have no particular explanation for the other birds. It would be a sad thing for the captive birds to be so encumbered, but this is not a reason to deny the implication that some owners diverted themselves with provision of toys and costumes for caged birds.

Although birds were certainly liked, not all of those depicted with humans are necessarily pets. Birds in Greek art seem to have been pleasant, easily drawn, space-filling motifs, and it is not always exactly clear where real birds were likely to have been present in real life. For example, cockerels appear in numerous vase scenes, and occasionally on stelai [260]. On some vases they seem welcome indoors [261], and a relief [262] of the late sixth-century shows a banquet with a cock under a table. It could simply be filling the available rectangular space. However, it seems pigeons might live indoors, free to settle upon the hearth with the goose,1392 so why not the cockerel, especially if it were less likely to be stolen from indoors. With such acceptance indoors, birds could feasibly get to most parts of a house.

Pet birds might be bred in captivity or caught wild.1385 The owner himself might capture them, as in one Aesopic fable, where a shepherd caught a jackdaw molesting sheep, clipped its wings, and took it home to his children.1386 They might also be bought from bird-sellers. Aristophanes’ Euelpides purchased a jackdaw for one obol in the market, and a crow for three.1387 Euelpides’ birds are inclined to bite, but Aelian implies that jackdaws tame easily.1388 Live birds are also purveyed on a Brygan cup noticed on the London market by Williams:

Birds’ being home pets is relevant. Acceptability indoors is apparent in depictions of domestic interactions between women and waterfowl. Herons appear especially often, suggesting that women were well-disposed towards them as household pets. Artists may have found them attractive to include in their scenes, and it may be that the grace and apparent gentleness of the birds made them symbolically appropriate as the woman’s companion, much as it was suitable for men to be pictured with their boisterous hounds. White-ground lekythoi of the second quarter of the fifth-century frequently show feminine domestic scenes1393 that include herons, geese [263, 264], ducks [265, 266] and swans, though it can be difficult to tell what species is intended and whether the bird is a pet or a filling motif. On vases and engraved gems of the later fifth- and fourth centuries, herons seem to visit women’s quarters. On a red-figure hydria, we see several women feeding two eager herons [267]. From their frequency, these birds’ could have been

“…bird-selling, apparently in the palaistra: there are two birds in a large net bag, over which is bent a youth holding a third bird, while a fourth flies away.”1389

On the tondo of a schoolroom-themed cup in London, a boy sits with a caged bird in his lap [256]. The bird’s shape and markings suggest a male rock partridge (Alectoris Graeca) or a quail (Coturnix coturnix). Suspended above the boy is what Walters suggests is a bird-clapper, used to scare birds from cover,1390 as in Virgil.1391 The likeness of this object to an implement Anth. Pal. 7.203. Anth. Pal. 7.204-206. 1381 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric (Loeb) Anacreontea, 15. 1382 Theophr., Char. 21.6. 1383 Beazley, “Characters” 42. 1384 Berard (ed.), Images 43-44, fig.60. 1385 Pl., Euthydemus 290d. Pollard, Birds. 1386 Handford, Aesop fable 69. 1387 Ar., Av. 18-19. 1388 Ael., NA 1.6. 1389 CVA British Museum 9 30. 1390 Walters, “Recent BM Vases” 125-126, fig.6. 1391 Verg., G. 1.156. 1379 1380

1392 1393

91

Plut., Mor. 959e. Beazley, AWL 8-9.

pets in the homes of artists and viewers alike.1394 For women, customarily secluded inside the house,1395 such animals may have been pleasing amusement and appropriate animal companions. Penelope, the paragon of wifely virtue, mourns in a dream the loss of her geese, watching which previously gave her much pleasure,1396 and Hercyna is said to have played with a goose in Boeotia.1397 The image collectively conjured is one of domestic stability.

and willingness on the part of the birds, illustrating the variety of their play. Pliny recalls that Boethos sculpted a “boy strangling a goose by hugging it,”1404 and several copies identified with this work survive. The one in Munich is particularly fine [273]. The boy may not be specifically intending to throttle, but merely to restrain the bird, but the gaping beak, bulging eyes, and awkwardly raised wing indicate distress. Painted vases show similar interactions, and two young boys feed and play with a swan or a goose, on a late fifth-century red-figure chous in Athens [274]. Their intentions appear kindly, but the bird is being restrained firmly by one leg.

As mentioned above, it is often uncertain whether a duck, goose, swan, or even a heron is meant. A case in point is a lekythos in Philadelphia [268]. The body and head of the bird shown could be those of a swan, but the legs are absurdly long, and it is probably meant for a heron. Beazley rightly points out the difficulties of distinguishing herons from cranes, let alone identifying their many sub-species,1398 despite more realistic animal depiction in the late fifth-century.1399 However, the broader principle is undiminished. The bird caressed by a reclining naked woman on a chalcedony scaraboid in London [269], could be a crane or a heron, but it is definitely being treated as a pet in a domestic setting. Another heron appears on a red-figure chous with a seated woman and a youth reading a scroll [270]. Fowl might even accompany their owners when washing, as on a red-figure hydria in London [271]. Mitchell1400 interprets this as a scene with humorous intent, with the bird having occupied the laver before the women can use it, but this does not invalidate the idea of birds indoors. On another red-figure hydria, in Oxford, a woman feeds a goose in a domestic setting [272]. Modern domestic geese happily invade human habitations, especially if there is the possibility of food, and their sociable herding tendencies are well known. Aelian mentions a goose belonging to the peripatetic philosopher, Lakydes, which would not leave him, and received a funeral befitting a son or brother.1401

Pets are strongly represented in idealising scenes of childhood play on red-figure choes from the later fifth- and early fourth-centuries.1405 Commonest are dogs; numbering 55 out of 138 in a survey of choes with human-animal play in the Beazley Archive database.1406 Typical are a chous in Boston [275], with a boy crawling towards a dog, and a chous in Copenhagen where a small dog bounds toward a boy [276]. On a chous in New York, children play at “revellers” as their pet dog leaps about with them, “as excited as they are”, says Richter1407 [277]. The dog acts exactly as a confident companion dog would today. Some play is more sophisticated, and on a charming chous in London, a dog jumps through a hoop [278]. By far the commonest breed on the choes is the Melitaean,1408 and as a house-dog it would be a natural companion of the toddler.1409 Other vaseshapes sometimes show childhood play, and on a cup in Munich, an older boy runs with a hoop and is accompanied by a running Melitaean [279]. Dogs are not the only animal playmates on choes. In the Beazley Archive database, birds total 40 out of 138, and the bones of birds interred in childrens’ graves might suggest that some were treasured pets.1410 On a ca.420 chous in Boston [280], a small boy in a conversational pose holds out bread toward on a pet bird (Klein suggests a raven), perched on a table. The small cart behind the boy signals play. Another Boston chous [281] shows a boy apparently conversing with a pet bird.

Women cared for infants; so reasonably, ducks, geese, and swans were depicted among the playmates of the very young.1402 Gardner1403 has classified over 50 statues of children interacting with waterfowl, particularly geese, into varying stages of amicability

In addition to dogs and birds, choes feature hares [282, 283, 284], deer, goats and other animals. A hare leaps

Boardman, Gems2 195. Beazley, Lewes 50-51. Gould, “Custom” 40, 46-49. Xen., Oec. 30-36. 1396 Hom., Od. 19.536-537. 1397 Paus., 9.39.2. 1398 Beazley, Lewes 49-51. 1399 Boardman, Gems2 198. 1400 Mitchell, Comic Pictures 94-96. 1401 Ael., NA 7.41. 1402 Richards, “Acropolis” 195. 1403 Gardner, “Goose”. 1394 1395

Plin., HN 34.84 (Rackham). Golden, Children 42-43. 1406 In February 2005. 1407 Richter/Hall, Metropolitan no.164, pls.161, 177. 1408 Hoorn, Choes 47. 1409 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1410 Brückner, “Friedhof” 175. 1404 1405

92

towards a little boy bending towards it on a chous [285], and on a fragment in Graz, two paint-strokes descending to the neck and right foreleg of a hare might represent leads [286]. Children, and children as silens or erotes, ride deer [287], or have them draw carts [288, 289]. Pausanias, saying that the priestess of Artemis Laphria rode in a deer-car, mentions deer in harness.1411 A more commonplace scene has a fawn wearing a halter, approached by a boy on a ca.420 chous in Boston [290]. Occasionally children ride sheep.1412 A boy, piping happily, rides a ram on one side of a red-figure pelike in Paris, and a goat on the other [30].1413 Goats are the more common, and livelier, playmates. One pulls a cart on a chous in Copenhagen [291], and five boys cavort and dodge around a large male that rears to butt, on a chous in London [33]. Other vase shapes, and literary evidence, reveal goats in human play. Anyte encapsulates the idea behind such playful scenes in an epigram:

cats taking priority in representation.1419 The Greek domestic cat probably resembled Felis sylvestris libyca, its probable ancestor, which usually has mottled broken stripes and spots on a yellowish background. The relative scarcity of domestic cat scenes may be due in part to artists tending to turn the animals into spotted cheetahs or leopard cubs, suggesting that domestic cats became common enough to be thought less interesting. Brown1420 remarks the difficulty of discerning between leopards, cheetahs, domestic cats, and mustelids, and this seems to have contributed to modern scholars’ wariness about identifying domestic cats, and thus amplified their rarity. Even obvious cats have been debated, as described by Clairmont regarding the stele from Salamis, and he forcefully asserts that the animal is a domestic cat, not a panther (another term for a leopard, usually meaning one that is entirely black, although among classical archaeologists the term has also come to mean a big cat shown with frontal face, and used to generically describe a feline over whose specific identity there is doubt) [162]. An example is the small, slender feline wearing a collar, on a chous [160]. Hoorn calls it a panther, but this animal has the proportions of an adult domestic cat, not the panther’s heavy muzzle and limbs. The leopard’s characterising rosettes or definite spots are missing, and instead this animal has indistinct, almost non-existent markings. Other features that can be used to distinguish a domestic from a ‘big’ cat include vertically pointed ears set high on the head, with the effect of narrowing the brow, a distinct ‘break’ between the domed forehead and the muzzle, small size in relation to surrounding elements, and a low-slung short-legged appearance. There is also the propensity for domestic cats to climb up high, with sometimes-humorous effect.

“The children, billy-goat, have put purple reins on you and a muzzle on your bearded face, and they train you to race like a horse round the god’s temple that he may look on their childish joy.”1414

Among the less commonly depicted animals, a crawling girl in Copenhagen leans on a tortoise [292], and there is the tortoise dangled by a string, mentioned above [243]. Clear depictions of cats, and occasional remains,1415 some from island locations only possible with human intervention, show that humans kept cats in mainland and island Greece from at least 1600 BC.1416 Feral cats in modern Greece manage very well, and once present, it is difficult to imagine that they did not breed freely. As discussed in the preceding chapter,1417 there are no certain literary mentions of domestic cats in Greek lands, and debate surrounds whether literature refers to cats or mustelids like polecats, martens, and weasels.1418

Some likely cats have at times been proposed to be mustelids. A red-figure lekythos [293] shows a small, cat-like animal climbing a staff to reach the meat offered by the man with it. Ashmead1421 cites Bothmer describing it to her as a weasel. When writing however, Bothmer calls it a cat,1422 but remarks its resemblance to what Caskey calls a weasel or marten1423 on a pelike [151] fragment in Rome. The animal on the lekythos however, is long-legged, and has a long slim tail, not bushy like a marten’s. Its style of walking up the staff is unlikely for any mammal, so provides no clue. The profile and proportions of the animal fed by the

Artistic representations of cats in domestic settings do occur, but are very infrequent compared with those of dogs, birds, and ungulates. Bothmer says that domestic cats are rare in Greek art, with spotted big Paus., 7.18.12. Klein, Child Life 12, note 153. 1413 See index for cross references to goats and human play. 1414 Anth. Pal. 6.312 (Paton). 1415 Lentacker, “Cat”. Engels, Classical Cats 176. 1416 Engels, Classical Cats 48-53. 1417 See index for cross references to the scarcity of cats in Greek literature. 1418 Benton, “Weasels”. 1411

1412

Bothmer, Bastis 283. Brown, Lion 170-176. 1421 Ashmead, “Cats” 39. 1422 Bothmer, Bastis 283. 1423 Caskey/Beazley, Boston II, 1-2. III, 29-30 and note 4. 1419 1420

93

youth on the pelike fragment in Rome are much more marten-like.1424

and Toynbee suggests that engravers may have studied such pets at close quarters.1429 The designs themselves are a public endorsement of pet-keeping.

The pet-status of these rare depicted cats is supported by a handful of representations. A unique late fifthcentury stele from Salamis [162] shows a youth holding a small bird in his left hand, reaching up to a bird-cage with his right. Directly below the cage, a cat crouches, confident and seemingly unrestrained, on a pillar. The head is missing, but the posture and physique are unmistakeable, and so seem to have been well known to the artist. The motif of a cat perched on a high platform is repeated on a pelike in Malibu [161]. The vase is fragmentary, but the back half of what seems to be a feline form can still be seen sitting on top of a lamp stand. On a red-figure Attic chous, a badly rendered cat (it has spots, so is not a mustelid) balances on a boy’s arm [294]. The Attic chous featuring a cat wearing a collar [160] has indications of pet-status from the tolerance of the accompanying woman, who raises her hand to deter it from leaping onto a statue. The postures and expressions that give this pair meaning have been discussed in the preceding chapter.1425 A companionable scene on a Boeotian chous shows a well-drawn cat sitting on a small stool, looking up at a boy playing a lyre [295].

Learning Intentional or not, pets often fulfil educational and socialising roles, and “can make a substantial contribution to an individual’s healthy progression into adulthood”,1430 with influence varying on the owner’s needs, age and gender.1431 It is thought that children reared with companion animals are advantaged in their development of social skills; particularly those linked with empathy and responsibility for others, and can exhibit improved self-esteem.1432 As has been mentioned above, animals as foci of mutual interest can facilitate human socialisation.1433 Plutarch mentions squabbles over birds,1434 which themselves will have had a developmental function. Even in death, pets provide important instruction by being many a child’s first meaningful bereavement. Many young Greek children appear to have learned to tend animals, and participate in their care, as on a chous in Athens [301], where boys feed chickens. Scenes where children play with animals, such as the boy riding a goat on the red-figure pelike in Paris [30], may depict play within the context of animal care and supervision. Slave children, and indeed free children and youths of some slave-owning families may well have performed these chores. Aristotle points out that “many apparently menial offices are an honour to the free youth”,1435 while Plato comments that children’s games have a direct impact on their characters and skills as adults.1436 Games of flight and pursuit have obvious value in communities that went to war on foot and fought hand-to-hand, and animal-fights might inure boys to bloodshed. Choes mostly show boys, but girls appear in scenes with tortoises, which were associated with the home,1437 woodworking,1438 and love of children.1439 Girls may well have been encouraged to prefer the less vigorous animals as playmates, and if so, this would form part of their social education.

A few South Italian vases clearly show domestic cats. The tabby eyeing a youth’s pet bird from over his shoulder on a skyphos is marked as a pet by the human tolerance of its close proximity [296]. The cat poised on the arm of a youth on a squat-lekythos seems actively encouraged [297],1426 as is the one reaching for an apparently live dove offered by its mistress on a lekane [298]. This cat displays obvious excitement by protruding its tongue and rearing up towards the bird, and the lady and her companion hold balls of wool ready as additional toys. The ball on the seated lady’s lap has a strand that runs up to the hand that holds the dove, and it might be that the bird is secured by it. Though still few, depictions of pet cats in Apulian vase-scenes of well-to-do leisure might suggest that that cats were particularly acceptable in Magna Graecia, even precious, as suggested by Lenormant.1427 Particular approval seems apparent in that Tarento and Rhegion show domestic cats on mid-fifth-century coinage [299, 300].1428 The evocatively depicted animals on these coins engage in typical feline play,

Toynbee, Roman Animals 87. Davis/McCreary Juhasz, “Pet Bond” 91. 1431 Davis/McCreary Juhasz, “Pet Bond” 90. 1432 Davis/McCreary Juhasz, “Pet Bond” 85, 89-90. 1433 Messent, “Dogs” 45-46. 1434 Plut., Mor. 487e. 1435 Arist., Pol. 7.1333a8 (Jowett, in Barnes). 1436 Pl., Leg. 7.798c. 1437 Plut., Mor. 381e, 142d. Plin., HN 9.12.37. 1438 Pomeroy, “Erinna” 19. Golden, Children 74. 1439 Plut., Mor. 982b. 1429 1430

For distinguishing between cats and mustelids, see the chapter on “Pests”. 1425 See index for cross references to cats and misdemeanour. 1426 For two very similar Apulian examples, see Engelmann, “Katzen” 136-7, figs.1-2 and Lenormant, Grande-Grèce 100. 1427 Lenormant, Grande-Grèce I, 99-100. 1428 Lenormant, Grande-Grèce I, 100. 1424

94

Cruelty

addition to the pain of being dangled, this would induce struggling, and risk of injury. In the case of Phanion’s pet leveret, there is a good chance that it died less from “overeating”, and more from premature removal from its mother and stress-related illness. Pliny remarks that hares are seldom really tamed,1446 and Morgan points out that modern wild-born hares are difficult to tame unless taken at under a week old. In addition, hares browse a wide variety of vegetation, and in captivity may miss vital nutrients. Exposure to new diseases in captivity, stress from capture and inadequate housing (particularly alongside predators) can rapidly lead to death.1447 It is clear that human desires for certain animals as pets overcame whatever observable disadvantages arose for the individual animals.

Intentionally or not, sometimes play is cruel. The boy strangling a goose, the tortoise suspended by a string, and animal-baiting have been mentioned, but there are other examples. An Aesopic fable’s captured jackdaw has a restraining string tied to its leg, before being given to a little boy to play with.1440 One can imagine the scenes of fright, struggle, and injury that ensued. Constraining animals with string seems to have been common, and in an interesting diversion Maxmin1441 offers one explanation for the curious arrangement of the hands on the so-called Apollo Sauroktonos, by Praxiteles. She suggests that the left hand once held a bronze wire constraining the lizard that is the focus of Apollo’s attention. Maxmin equates the conjectured wire with the string that was used on the island of Delos in her day,1442 for recreationally snaring lizards. This explanation is appealing, though we hear from Pliny that the lizard’s days were definitely numbered, whether tethered or not: “He [Praxiteles] made a youthful Apollo called the Sauroktonos [Lizardslayer],” waiting in ambush for a creeping lizard, close at hand, with an arrow.”1443 Martial1444 reports that Roman copies of Praxiteles’ original were made, and one in the Louvre [302] shows how it probably looked. This lizard seems intended not as a pet, but more as a very short-lived toy in a human game of testing speed and agility against smaller creatures.

Negative aspects and attitudes to petkeeping In modern times, inconvenience, expense, unmanageability, age, illness, messiness, savagery, or simple loss of novelty can cause a pet to be rejected. Such conflicts with human interests surely affected Greek pets as well. In literature, cats and mustelids incite mostly negative comments.1448 Mustelids were criticised particularly for their smell, while they and cats were accused of predation on other animals, thefts of food, and general furtiveness. The nuisance-aspects of domestic cats were discussed earlier.1449 From the array presented there, a Boeotian pelike in Munich is a good example. It shows a scene of meat butchery on one side. On the other is an unusual scene with a cat considering meat on a stand beside a sleeping woman [2]. This is not to say that dogs did not filch food, and we see a dog accused in Aristophanes’ Wasps,1450 and an Aesopic dog steals meat from a butcher.1451 But, it seems that neither cats nor mustelids balanced their indiscretions with service or companionship to the extent that dogs do, in ancient authors’ eyes.1452

Gems, vases, and sculptures repeatedly show small birds offered to dogs, children, and sometimes cats. Some of the birds might have been intended as pets, particularly those offered to children. If some caged birds were indeed adorned with little bronze shields, as mentioned by Theophrastus,1445 this would probably cause distress, as indeed would restriction in a toosmall or inappropriately placed cage, and perhaps inadequate or unsuitable food and water. The game of quail-phillipping, consisting of hitting the quail on the head, has its point in testing the pugnacity of the quail, not being unkind, but unkind it is.

In Theocritus’ fifteenth Idyll, cats, or mustelids, are likened to lazy slaves with the remark that ‘γαλέαι’

Ignorance can turn nurture itself into cruelty, especially when dealing with captured wild animals. Hares are prime examples. They are very prone to spinal injury, but are shown suspended painfully by their ears. In

Plin., HN 8.56. Morgan, “Hares”. 1448 Theoc., Id. 15.28. Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 16, 594, Babrius 17, 121, Phaedrus 2.4. See also the chapter on ‘Pests’. 1449 See index for cross references to cats and misdemeanour. 1450 Ar., Vesp. 894-996. 1451 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 254. 1452 See index for cross references to dogs as companions. 1446 1447

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 131. Maxmin, “Sauroktonos”. 1442 Stewart, Greek Sculpture 179 reports that the practice was still current in 1990. 1443 Plin., HN 34.69-70 (Rackham). 1444 Mart., Epigrams 14.172. 1445 Theophr., Char. 21. 1440 1441

95

“like soft beds,”1453 and they must be prevented from mussing up the spun wool. Without flea-treatments, animals tend to drop parasites, and parasites’ eggs and excreta, especially where they rest. None of these will have been welcome, and it is presumably in this connection as well as for the dogs’ welfare that Aelian mentions that fleas need to be picked off dogs.

Pets could inconvenience and irritate, but overall, there are fewer complaints than might be expected. This seems surprising, given that unhousetrainable large birds were apparently allowed into human living quarters. Perhaps bird-mess on a laver was beneath mention, or not a concern to authors who could afford servants. We simply do not hear from the people who were most likely to be doing the cleaning-up, like women and slaves. Alternatively, there may have been a willingness to accept such irritations in exchange for the benefits of pet-keeping.

Animal violence towards humans and other animals is inevitable. Fables characterise cats and weasels as treacherous, and liable to attack domestic birds.1454 This is implied by an early fifth-century ring in Boston, where a cat lifts a forepaw towards a cock [303], and blatant on a lobster-claw askos in London [158],1455 where a cat stoops to devour a chicken that it appears to have killed – presumably in a courtyard setting.

Some Greeks openly criticised others’ enthusiasm for animals that had no practical purpose. Theophrastus, criticising men of petty ambition and obsequiousness,1461 implies that their animal indulgences and interactions are ridiculous. Eubulus felt similarly: “How much better, for a human being to bring up a human being, than a splashing, quacking goose, or a sparrow, or a monkey, always plotting mischief!”1462 Aristophanes anticipates this irritable view of the ape’s mischief.1463 The story of Lakydes, and the lavish funeral he gave his to goose, may well have been malicious gossip, says Scholfield.1464 If so, this does not invalidate the story as evidence for great fondness in pet-keeping, and reveals disdain for high funerary honours to animals.

The dog on the other side of the lobster-claw may see off the cat momentarily. This would probably be thought useful, but such behaviour was not always welcome. An Aesopic fable tells of a dog that must wear a bell to warn of its tendency to bite.1456 We also see a dog menacing a heron, or, more likely, a crane (though not a goose, as thought by Berry) on a late fifth-century chalcedony scaraboid gem [304]. Goats may butt savagely, as on a London chous [33], where one boy, facing a large goat, raises his hands and braces his legs, body bent forward in a defensive posture. Even moderate sized birds may make their feelings clear with physical attacks, and the jackdaw and crow in Aristophanes’ Birds bite their new owners.1457

Perhaps it is not surprising to find Greek criticism of other cultures’ pet-keeping. The Greeks may have liked pets, but they seem to have thought themselves subdued and pragmatic in their pleasure-taking, and so entitled to point at others as being excessive. Anaxandrides points out the contrasts between Greek and Egyptian attitudes:

Cocks1458 and pheasants1459 are particularly mentioned for their loudness, and depictions of tethered dogs remind us that bored dogs may bark annoyingly. Apes are well equipped for accessing and damaging property if not tethered: one has stolen a woman’s purse on a neck-amphora in London [305]. Failing mischief, apes may simply escape and necessitate a chase. Herodas’ badly behaved young boy is equated with a monkey when he sits on the roof out of reach after wrongdoing.1460 Even hares can damage property, and their cages very likely suffered from gnawing, essential to control the length of hares’ continually growing teeth.

“You don’t eat pork; it’s quite my favourite meat; / You worship your dog, mine I always beat / when he’s caught stealing; priests stay whole with us, / with you they’re gelded eunuchs; if poor puss / appears in pain you weep, I kill and skin her; / to me the mouse is nought, you see ‘power’ in her.”1465

Herodotos, and Diodorus Siculus,1466 writing of domestic cats in Egypt, are intrigued but disdainful, and it is even possible that Egyptian enthusiasm for cats prevented some Greeks expressing open enthusiasm to some degree. Athenaeus remarks the luxury of the

Theoc., Id. 15.28, and commentary (Gow). Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 16, 594, Babrius 17, 121. 1455 See index for cross references to this vase. 1456 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 104. 1457 Ar., Av. 19-20. 1458 Anth. Pal. 202. 1459 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 135. 1460 Herod., Mimae 3.40-41. 1453 1454

Theophr., Char. 21 and 5. Ath., 12.519a (Gulick). 1463 Ar., Ach. 904-907. 1464 Ael., NA 7.41, note a. 1465 Anaxandrides, Cities frag. 39 (Edmonds (ed.), Attic Comedy). 1466 Hdt. 2.66, 67. Diod. Sic., History 1.83-84. See index for cross references to the scarcity of cats in Greek literature. 1461 1462

96

Sybarites, pointing out their Melitaean lap-dogs, and approvingly relates Massinissa’s challenge to their desire for pet monkeys, “…don’t the women bear babies?”1467 Diodorus Siculus comments on the late fifth-century Akragantines’ extravagant monuments, which included sculptures of the pet birds kept by girls and boys in their homes.1468

follow pack leaders, seem to have been least favoured. Most liked were animals that participated willingly in human activities, and freely displayed devotion to their owners. For this, dogs were loved most of all. It is impossible to measure the degree to which any given pet was a status symbol, a child-substitute, or any of the other possibilities, but one aspect of the depictions is that animals are consistently presented as companions to humans. As such, the animals are not only subjects around which social activities might be based and subliminal messages sent to other humans, but are also active participants in a continual dialogue that the owner is having with himself.

Findings Greek pet-keeping had social complexities beyond those of the human-animal relationship. The Greeks certainly kept some animals strictly as pets, but to say that they were of no practical value would be too simple. As well as providing very real companionship and comfort, pets functioned to communicate with other humans as ornaments and playthings, advertising owners’ status, wealth, and prestige. The animal itself might be expensive and novel, highly trained, ornamented by its owner, or publicly memorialised. As pointed out in the chapter on working animals, sometimes working animals changed status as a reward for service that also reflected well on their owners.

Given the prevalence of animals in the Greeks’ preindustrial culture, and perhaps because of it, it appears there was a high degree of tolerance for the routine inconveniences associated with pet-keeping, such as damage, droppings indoors, noise and parasites. Even so, and despite often deep empathy and regard for an animal, there existed a ‘hard edge’ to pet-keeping, and human need might render a pet’s life expendable. With small animals, there seems to have been an almost ‘throwaway’ mentality, permitting some very rough treatment. Many pets lived tough, probably short, and stressful lives. Nurture might be misguided, or treatment mischievously cruel, unfeeling, or indifferent to the consequences. Many people may have committed cruelties; particularly those exploiting natural pugnacity, or arising from ignorance of wild animals’ requirements that they little recognised or thought of.

Humans generally desire companionship and an outlet for nurturing, and many Greeks seem to have delighted in pet-keeping, the desire for which seems to have been fuelled by curiosity, and often the pleasure of close contact with living creatures. The pet-keeping phenomenon involved Greeks of all ages, and it was not sneered upon for adult men to indulge in them modestly. From infancy, humans involved animals in their activities, some receiving appropriate facial expressions. Thus pets appear frequently in art, and the habit of depicting them reinforced them as agents of status-expression. Animals that served as accessories and symbols of childish freedom, wifely virtue, youthful beauty, and manly aretê were emphasised, and the giving and display of such pets also enhanced owner’s opportunities of obtaining human company amid shared interests.

There is little evidence for serious contemplation of pet-keeping, its varied roles, or its social importance. Passing comments do begin to recognise these, but ironically, it is the negative comments on excessive love of pets, when honours and indulgences encroached on those befitting humans, that are the strongest form of recognition. In the main however, despite their importance, pet animals were nowhere near being given what we might call rights, and most were subordinated to changing human requirements.

Certain birds’ beauty, interactivity, and acceptance of human company popularised them. Animals of gentle disposition and beauty were easily admitted indoors, and attempts were made to transform interesting or beautiful, but more difficult, animals into pets and companions. Exotic pets were experimented with, and attempts made at taming captured wild animals. Aloof and solitary animals like cats, which choose their own times for play and sociability, and are not oriented to 1467 1468

Not every animal represented can be securely identified as a pet. Artistic fantasy, the desire to fill a space and enliven or vary a scene, and the importation of motifs from elsewhere must all be acknowledged. Nevertheless, there is substantial evidence for Greek pets playing significant roles in human private lives.

Ath., 12.518f (Gulick). Diod. Sic., History 13.82.6.

97

6 Philosophy, ethics, morality, and the treatment of animals

We have now looked at Greek interactions with and attitudes towards their flock animals, pets, and working animals, and towards their animal enemies and the animals that humans called as allies against them. What has yet to be addressed is how animals were thought of in the abstract, and whether this affected human treatment of them.

being standard approaches in Greek thinking,1471 it is not surprising that philosophers attempted to define and explain humanity by similarities with, and exclusion of ‘others’, particularly animals and gods.1472 The specific distinction between man and other animals eventually came to be identified as human capacity for intellectual activity, especially as expressed in speech,1473 and philosophical schools universally dubbed man a ‘rational animal’.1474 Denial or acceptance of animals’ rationality became central in determining their ethical treatment. Even so, the human/animal divide could be tenuous, as pointed out by Plato1475 and Theophrastus,1476 who group young children with animals for their lesser rationality.1477 Other philosophers maintained that animals were rational and deliberative, able to distinguish good and

The distinctions and similarities between man and animals have fuelled debate on animals’ status and acceptable treatment. This sometimes heated discussion has persisted, at least, from Pythagoras in the sixth-century at least, to the present day. Considerable literary evidence of those debates survives. However, the distinctiveness of Greek communities, and individual persons’ practical, economic, and cultural circumstances, prohibit simplistic treatment and summation. With due respect for this, the present chapter examines some of the evidence for how Greeks rationalised their use and treatment of animals, and dealt with dilemmas within that.

Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy is seminal. Arist., Metaph. 1.5(986a22-64) lists some Pythagorean opposites. 1472 Katz, “Buphonia” 156. Cohen (ed.), Ideal 6-12 gives a recent survey of otherness studies. For a discussion of defining Greek culture in opposition to and relation to nature, see Vidal-Naquet (1986) The Black Hunter 1-12. 1473 Heath, Talking 5-9. Heath points out that the rationality distinction was closely connected with, and preceded by, the observation that animals do not speak. Pelliccia, Mind, Body, and Speech 27-30, 5557, 62-79, 103-8 is adamant that this was the general Greek view. Buxton, Persuasion 52-62 explores the humanity-defining power of persuasive speech for the Greeks. Sorabji, Animal Minds 80-86 discusses the point, and surveys the ancient arguments on whether animals had speech. 1474 Renehan, “Anthropocentric View” 241-242 discusses this, and gives examples illustrating how widespread the use of the term was. 1475 Pl., Leg. 808d. 1476 Theophr., Sens. 44-5, in Stratton, Greek Physiological Psychology 105. 1477 Ancient references to the irrationality of children, placing them closer to animals, are given by Renehan, “Anthropocentric View” 241. 1471

Rationality – philosopher’s views Among the surviving literature of the ancient Greeks, it is primarily the philosophers who have left behind their views on human relationships with animals.1469 The Greeks, as a people, investigated themselves with extraordinary thoroughness, delving into what they were not, as part of understanding what and who they were.1470 Polarity and analogy

Analysis of Greek philosophers’ attitudes to animals can be found in Sorabji, Animal Minds. 1470 Heath, Talking 21. 1469

99

bad, just and unjust,1478 and therefore responsible for their own actions. Buxton’s ideas about Greek capacity and tolerance for self-doubt should be emphasised.1479 Opinions wavered, were subtly nuanced, and varied widely. The following sample illustrates their diversity.1480

because they are akin to humans and can reason.1490 Theophrastus admits that reasoning is dramatically diminished in animals, but attributes this to their either breathing moister air from closer association with the ground, or to having very firm, impermeable flesh, or metabolic processes that take up all the air that they breathe. The implication, says Stratton, is that if these impediments were adequately alleviated, then Theophrastus’ animals might reason as well as man.1491

In the sixth-century, Pythagoras is said to have asserted that all animals have intelligence (i.e. powers of perception and knowledge) and passion, but that only man is fully rational.1481 His pupil, Alkmaeon, claimed that man ‘understood’, but that other animals only perceived.1482 In the fifth-century, though, Empedokles asserted that:

The Greeks had a great deal invested in establishing the nature of animals as opposed to humans. Categorising animals as ‘other’ appears to have relieved many from guilt about their use and sacrifice. The search for clear understanding and definition, and perhaps the inconvenience of suggestions that animals should be treated better on the basis of other similarities to man, seems to have motivated citation of a wide variety of human uniqueness.1492 These included laughing aloud,1493 the ability to learn grammar,1494 awareness of gods,1495 speech, and justice. Aristotle is particularly interesting on these last two:

“…by the will of Fortune all things possess thought.”1483

Anaxagoras ascribed intellect to all animals, distinguishing men for their mastery of animals through expertise and technical knowledge. His contemporary, Diogenes of Apollonia agreed that man was not the only thinking being.1484 Plato, since he was unable to question dumb animals,1485 appears to have remained undecided. In relating humans to other animals he proposes that animals are reincarnated from men who did not exercise their reason.1486 Aristotle, in his turn, expressly denied reincarnation theories,1487 and that animals might be rational.1488 He does, however, appear to admit that animals could be intelligent, and that by accumulating memories they approach rationality. This somewhat weakens his refutation of animal rationality.1489 Aristotle’s successor, Theophrastus, is reputed to have claimed that animals are entitled to be treated well

“... nature, as we say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal who possesses speech. The voice, to be sure, signifies pain and pleasure and therefore is found in other animals, but speech is for expressing the useful and the harmful, and therefore also the just and the unjust. For this is the peculiar characteristic of man in contrast to the other animals, that he alone has perception of good and evil, and just and unjust and the other such qualities, and participation in these things makes a household and a city-state”.1496

Each differentiation had supporters and detractors. The complexity of the arguments was increased by each species having different capacities and behaviours. Understanding and recognition of these was dependent upon human familiarity. In Greek zoological writings, the less understood attributes and behaviours of various ceatures are described with a wonderment that suggests willingness to admit the possibility of further capacities. Even among well-known animals, many

Aelian records Eudemus’ stories of lions leaving unharmed a woodcutter whom they entreated to avenge the killing of their cubs by a bear, the killing and desecration, by a foal, of a groom who sexually assaulted its mother, and a lion who punished a bear for the killing of his friend, a dog. N.A. 3.21, 4.8, 4.45 respectively. Sorabji, Animal Minds 119-121, 162-166 discusses ‘animal justice’, and gives further ancient examples. 1479 Buxton, Imaginary Greece 32-34. See also Pelling, Literary Texts 188 on the Greek capacity for self-criticism. 1480 Sorabji, Animal Minds extensively surveys Greek philosophical views on animal rationality. 1481 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.30. 1482 Alkmaeon frag.1, ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.83. 1483 Empedokles frag. 110. Empedokles, frag.103, ap. Simplicius, In Phys. Bk.2 331.12. 1484 Diogenes of Apollonia, frag.4 (Diels/Kranz). 1485 Pl., Plt. 272b-d. 1486 Pl., Ti. 42b-d, 91d-92c. 1487 Arist., De An. 1.3(407b21-26). 1488 See Arist., De An. 1.2(404b4-6), 2.3(414b18-19), 3.3(428a2024), 3.10(433a12). Arist., Part. An. 1.1( 641b7). Arist., Eth. Eud. 2.8(1224a25-29. Arist., Metaph. 1.1(980b26-27. 1489 Osborne, Dumb Beasts 63-97 discusses this in depth. 1478

Theophr. ap. Porph., Abst. 3.25. Theophr. Sens. 44-5, in Stratton, Greek Physiological Psychology 105, 186. 1492 An extensive list of sources appears in Sorabji, Animal Minds 91-2. 1493 Arist., Part. An. 3.10(673a4-8, 28). 1494 Arist., Top. 1.5(102a18-22). 1495 Xen., Mem. 1.4.13. Pl., Prt. 322a. Plut., De Soll. An. 972b. N.A. 4.10, 7.44. 1496 Arist., Pol. 1.2(1253a9-18) (Jowett, in Barnes). Isokrates, Nikokles 3.5-6 makes a similar statement. For discussion of the Greek belief that speech differentiates humans from animals, see Heath, Talking. 1490 1491

100

points of difference and similarity to humans were unable to be measured in degree. As Sorabji points out, it is easy to identify what animals absolutely cannot do, but very difficult to find exact human/ animal divides in such matters as deliberation.1497

and, that most people enjoyed meat when they could get it.1506 Among the evidence are the not infrequent depictions of meat and burning offerings on figurepainted pottery, and literary remarks, which include the emphatically impious Polyphemos boasting that he sacrifices not to the gods, but only to his gut.1507 Elsewhere, Isocrates grumbles that the Athenians adopt foreign festivals to justify additional banqueting on meat,1508 and the complaining cook in Menander’s Aspis relies primarily on sacrifices for his work:

Opinions were diverse on the treatment that animals merited. However, habit, custom, and necessity saw animals fully exploited in mainstream society. Greeks who had any doubts about common practices had to find methods of resolving their discomfiture.

“If ever I do get a job, either someone has died … or one of the girls has given birth after a secret pregnancy and all of a sudden they’re no longer sacrificing …”1509

Killing animals, and using their bodies Among the most dramatic and defining differences between treatment of animals and humans is how they are treated after death. Little of an animal’s carcass appears to have been wasted, and few species were exempted from uses that varied between food and clothing, medicine1498 and music,1499 and even minor architecture.1500 These denied animals the seemly burial that was so important for humans.1501 Enjoying and subsuming another’s tissues into oneself is arguably the ultimate act in defeating and dishonouring.1502 Did this worry the Greeks? What measures did they use to mitigate any concerns?

A view that most flesh was consumed after sacrifice does not exclude non-ritual consumption. However, sacrifices clearly supplied a great deal of the flesh that was openly consumed. Thus, animal sacrifice, religious security, social cohesion, and the pleasure of meat-eating were inextricably linked in publicly acceptable carnivory. Was sacrifice really guilt-free? Animals were sentient, but they worshipped no gods. They were considered non-rational (generally), whilst man was definitely rational, like the gods. In other ways too, animals theoretically had less connection to the gods than humans. At the same time, their slaughter could be used to express man’s assumed position, standing between animals and gods,1510 whilst sharing a kill effectively brought gods to the Greeks’ tables.

The most conspicuous instance of using an animal’s body is that of sacrificial rites. Killing animals in religious rituals was central to Greek society, and enjoying eating them, and sharing with the gods, was generally part of the ritual.1503 The surviving evidence suggests that most consumption of domestic animals was in connection with sacrifice,1504 that there was little domestic animal meat eaten of which some small portion was not first offered to the gods,1505

Appeasing gods and feeding oneself are good things. But some anxiety seems to have motivated a degree of insurance-taking, against the risk of blood-guilt, and of divine disapproval if rituals were transgressed.1511 Burkert suggests that dedicating hunted animal

Sorabji, Animal Minds 93. Eg. Cockerel, Plin., HN 29.33. Fox fat, in Plin., HN 28.48, 28.77. Hedgehog, in N.A. 14.4. Mice, in Plin., HN 29.29, 29.34, 30.14, 30.23, 30.42, 30.47. Ostriches, in N.A. 14.7. Sheep Plin., HN 29.27. Stone-curlew, N.A. 17.13. Brains of a swallow, Plin., HN 29.38. Weasel genitalia, in Plin., HN 11.109. Weasel, in Plin., HN 29.16, 29.27, 30.12-13. 1499 Landels, “Fragments of Auloi”. Tortoise shell lyres in music, see Hymn. Hom. Merc. 40-62 and Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Vol.3, frag.314, 310-328. 1500 An altar built of goat horns on Delos, in Plut., Thes. 21, and Anth. Pal. 15.25. 1501 Tarbell, “Effect of Burial” surveys the literature. 1502 Wilkins, Boastful Chef 24-25. 1503 ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.2, 3 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.64-65 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). 1504 Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 87. Stengel, Kultusaltertümer 105-6. ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.64-65 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). 1505 Durand, “Edible” 87. 1497 1498

Arist., Pol. 3.9(1280b37). Porphyry preserves much of Theophrastus’ treatise On Piety, which emphasises the connection between meat-eating and sacrifice. Preoccupation with the pleasure of meat consumption repeatedly features in comedy. Eg. Ar., Eq. 340-497, and Teleklides, Amphictyons, ap. Ath., 268b-d. The pleasure taken in particular portions is discussed in Wilkins, Boastful Chef 17-21. 1507 Eur., Cyc. 334-335. 1508 Isokrates, 7.29. 1509 Men., Aspis 216-220. 1510 Vernant, Myth and Society 148-149. Vidal-Naquet, “Beasts”. Thalmann, Conventions 78-81. See Wilkins, Boastful Chef 21-24 for perversion of this in comedy. 1511 An epigram, sentimentalising the liberation of a sacrificial cow when it goes into labour, shows observance of sacrificial requirements as well as the poet’s capacity for empathy: Anth. Pal. 9.22. 1506

101

remains,1512 and monumentalising sacrificial remains, for instance, by hanging up the skull of an ox, as seen in some vase-paintings [306], may not only have provided permanent evidence of the act of consecration,1513 but also a symbolic resurrection and restitution of victims.1514

of innocence’, as Meuli called it,1523 ‘assent’ could be supplied by an animal nodding. The ‘comedy of innocence’ lies in the trickery that might be used to produce this. Water might be sprinkled to make the animal shake and move its head, or water or food offered to make it bow [1].1524 Victims might also assent by consumption of ritual grain, placed within reach of temptation.1525 Some accounts have victims pressing themselves forward with great insistence.1526 Despite victims’ ‘willingness’ the sacrificial knife might be kept hidden until the last moment,1527 in a self-aware act of deceit.

The ritualising of slaughter [307, 308]1515 could relieve sacrificants of individual moral responsibility. The rules for sacrificial rituals could be very explicit,1516 and the existence of a complex of regulations and requirements tends to negate individual responsibility, as well as promoting conservatism against innovation. The killings could sometimes even be justified and explained by sacrifice-foundation myths,1517 and were implicitly sanctioned by deities receiving portions of kills.1518

Guilt was clearly present, even if only in a formalised sense, but there is a danger in overemphasising it. In reassessing Meuli’s ‘comedy of innocence’, Naiden1528 proposes that the sprinkling of water, and so on, are methods to test victims’ fitness for sacrifice. The logic is that if a victim was so unresponsive that it would not even shake water off itself, it could be rejected as infirm.

Guilt mitigation is reported even to have been part of some sacrifice rituals. Pausanias describes annual sacrifices to Zeus Polieus concluding with a trial of the killing-axe, sacrificants, and knife;1519 commemorating the first ox-sacrifice to Zeus Polieus.1520 Aelian reports that, on Tenedos, participants stoned the slaughterer after the sacrifice to Dionysos Anthroporrhaistes.1521 Ritual punishments of executioners strongly imply conflict between pleasure at eating and guilt at killing.

Naiden’s argument is persuasive for another reason. Subtle deceits are entirely dispensed with on many vases and votive reliefs, admitting a more brutal truth. On a Boeotian black-figure lekanis [114], a bull is roped on three legs. This is not unusual. Nor is the undignified hauling of piglets to the altar, dangling upside down by a hind leg [317, 318]. Even in the sacrificial procession on Parthenon frieze [319],1529 a cow must be restrained. Adding to this evidence for compulsion are the large iron rings found attached to many altars.1530 Their use – shown in several reliefs from Asia Minor – was to have a neck-rope pulled through them to force large animals to their knees.1531 This is one way of forcing an animal to bow in assent, but crucially, it also restrains it firmly at a convenient height for a falling axe. It would seem that though complicity was required among attendants at

Minimisation of sacrificial guilt could require that victims die calmly, preferably voluntarily. Porphyry cites a Delphic oracle to this effect,1522 and depictions often convey an air of serenity [306]. In a ‘comedy

ThesCRA I.2d, s.v. Dedications: Greek Dedications, p.279 (Parker). 1513 Rouse, Votive 298-301 gives a varied list of figurines from sanctuaries, which may have performed similar functions. Burkert/ Bing, Necans 6. Burkert, Religion 92-93, 372 note 93. Theophr., Char. 21.7. Plut., Vit. Thes. 21. 1514 Burkert/Bing, Necans 16, 38, 140-1, 232. 1515 Durand, “Edible” 87-92. The rituals of killing, cooking, and eating meat in religious contexts are illustrated in vase painting. For meat distribution, see [312]. For cooking of meat on splanchnopts at an altar, see [313]. Inscriptions set out the rules of meat distribution at particular sacrifices: eg. IG 12. Suppl.414. 1516 ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.95-103 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). Lupu, NGSL 55-65. 1517 Such as described by Paus., 1.28.10. Aetiological myths are discussed in Kirk, Myth 16-18. 1518 For the division of victims between gods and men, Hesiod, Theogony 535-612. 1519 Paus., 1.24.4. 1520 Paus., 1.28.10. For discussion of the relationship of the sacrifice and the trial, see Katz, “Buphonia” esp. 171-178. 1521 N.A. 12.34. 1522 Theophr. ap. Porph., Abst. 2.9. 1512

Meuli, “Opferbräuche” 224-252. Burkert/Bing, Necans 4. 1525 Paus., 1.24.4. Burkert/Bing, Necans 4. ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.2 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 1526 Porph., Abst. 1.25 Burkert/Bing, Necans 3-4, note 10. 1527 Burkert, Religion 56. Burkert/Bing, Necans 5. ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.2 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 1528 Naiden, “Willing Victim”. 1529 ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.9, 13, no.72 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 1530 Thompson, “Agora 1951” 96, pl.21d. 1531 Van Straten, Hiera Kala 101-102, note 307 for an extensive list of reliefs. Eg. Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures 3, no.854. For a photograph of the same, see Robert, Hellenica 10, 126, pl.19.3. For a relief showing the ring clearly, see Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures 3, no.836. 1523 1524

102

a sacrifice, the victim’s consent was not an abiding concern for the majority.

the inscription from Kos, cited above.1541 Attic vases showing youths running with portions of uncooked meat [311, 312] may refer to ritual ‘stealing’ from Delphic sacrifices,1542 or to similar rituals. Analysis of household debris at New Halos suggests that fleshed portions of sacrificial animals were brought to the home.1543

Further undermining the idea of the willing victim is that even when performing predetermined rituals, a Greek sense of pragmatic selection was present. Victims were usually required to be ‘perfect’, but Jameson’s analysis of Attic sacrifice calendars suggests a tendency to cull older animals and surplus young from ovocaprid flocks, favouring the primary objective of yielding milk and wool.1532 Then there is the matter of how a kill was divided. The gods received the less desirable fat and bone, the flesh being reserved for human consumption. Hesiod1533 reports a foundation myth for this practice, and some Attic vases show tails curling as they burn on altars [309].1534 Outside Attica, Aelian1535 remarks that the Eretrians sacrifice maimed animals to Artemis at Amarynthus, and a dialogue ascribed to Plato1536 points out a frugal Spartan practice of sacrificing lame animals.

Lest desire to consume sacrificial victims appear to overcome the sacral nature of the kills, it should be said that certain victims were not eaten at all.1544 Examples include ‘oath sacrifices’,1545 in which some victims’ bodies were totally destroyed. There were also sacrifices on battlefields before engagements, when victims were slaughtered in sight of the enemy and entrails read,1546 and at purificatory,1547 funerary,1548 and honorific sacrifices.1549 What other clues might indicate whether the Greeks felt conflicted about killing, and the subsequent enjoyment of flesh? Herman points out that there was a certain revulsion at gore in Attic culture.1550 Yet figure-decorated vases show little squeamishness, representing gutting, butchering, and altars splashed with blood [313, 178, 314].1551 Remarkably, perhaps, surviving scenes comparatively rarely show the actual moment of killing.1552 One that does is on a ca.500475 red-figure kylix that shows a warrior slitting the throat of a sheep [315] in what seems to be a prebattle sacrifice, however, for which display of the actual death may have been fitting, and allude to the coming human carnage. Another uncommon scene is the slaying of Polyxena as a funerary and propitiatory sacrifice over the tomb of Akhilles,1553 on a midsixth-century neck-amphora [316] in London.1554 Human, she is being treated like a sacrificial animal. Depiction of the moment of death makes her role clear

Practical attitudes about eating flesh could become the blatantly primary reason for a sacrifice. Homeric and other heroes often kill or sacrifice for no other apparent reason than the provision of flesh.1537 In particular, we have Eumaeus’ sacrifice of a pig, where the ritual is abbreviated, and the emphasis is on getting a meal.1538 On a black-figure amphora in Boston [310], Herakles drives an ox to sacrifice, but directs it with the bundled spits on which he will cook the flesh and entrails. This could be a compression of ritual events, in this case the customary procession before the sacrifice and meat preparation, as this did occur in depictions,1539 but it could also appear that Herakles’ primary thoughts are on the meal to come, and his haste connects this drawing and the story of his transgressive theft and sacrificial slaughter of a harnessed ox, when he was determined to eat.1540 Note, however, that even Herakles does not omit the expected ritual.

For further examples, see Isenberg, “Sale” 271-272. See index for cross references to the Koan inscription. 1542 Burkert/Bing, Necans 118. 1543 Prummel, “New Halos” 156-158. 1544 Parker, Miasma 283 note 11. 1545 SEG 147. Sokolowski, LSCG 13.28. Lupu, NGSL 131. Paus., 5.24.9-11, citing Hom., Il. 19.266-268. Burkert, Religion 250-254. 1546 The Lakedaemonians customarily sacrificed a goat: Xen., Lac. 13.8. Xen., Hell. 4.2.20. Plut., Vit. Lyc. 22.2. 1547 ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.103-104 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). 1548 Hom., Il. 23.29-34. 1549 Hom., Od. 23.166-176. 1550 Herman, Morality 289-294. 1551 Durand, “Edible” 99. 1552 Van Straten, Hiera Kala 103, 106-7. Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy” 203. Herman, Morality 290-291. ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.20 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 1553 Eur. Hec. 518-540. 1554 Durand, “Edible” 91. 1541

In further accommodation of human needs, inscribed rules show that priests could sell much sacrificial flesh for consumption elsewhere. One example is Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 102-103. Hes., Theog. 535-561. 1534 For archaeological support for the burning of caudal bones at sacrifice, see Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy” 211-212. 1535 Ael., NA 12.34. 1536 Pl., Alc.2.149a-e. 1537 Hom., Il. 2.399-433, 24.123. 1538 Hom., Od. 14.419-436. Jameson, “Theoxenia” 38. 1539 ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.2-3 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam). 1540 Apollod., Bibl. 2.5.11. 1532 1533

103

to the viewer, and that her sacrifice is aberrant,1555 is emphasised by spurting blood. In both cases there is a point to be made by showing the violence that causes the death.

been highly esteemed as food.1561 Vegetarianism The ingrained nature of sacrifice and meat-eating did not prevent debate on its appropriateness. Greek utopian ideas frequently include vegetarianism,1562 and Empedokles extols the vegetarianism of primitive man while criticising use of oxen for food and sacrifice.1563 For Hesiod’s ‘Golden Race’, food spontaneously generated itself (guilt free) from the earth.1564 The poets of Old Comedy satirised this fantasy,1565 with culinary utopias of bountiful flesh, confirming that meat was craved by ordinary folk.1566

The foregoing stress on sacrifice could threaten to obscure the frequency with which animals were regarded primarily as ‘walking larders’. In Aristophanes’ Acharnians, an example used by Rothwell because it does NOT have an animal chorus, more than half of the ninety-nine references to animals (encompassing twenty-eight species) describe them primarily as potential food. A further twenty-three of the ninety-nine references mention animals primarily as commodities.1556

Abstention from eating flesh was supported by a variety of arguments and beliefs. Primarily, these included belief in a vegetarian Golden Age of man; concern for the spiritual or physical health of human diners; faith in the transmigration of souls, which made animals kin; and a genuine concern for the animals themselves.1567 It should also be noted that animals with genuine Greek-speaking abilities (which were therefore rational) tend to feature in utopian thinking.1568 Certain Greeks claimed that vegetarianism improved virtue, health, and reason.1569 However, meat could be made more acceptable by preparation methods. The

Literature and visual representations emphasise sacrifice and ritual consumption of sheep, goats, cattle and pigs. However, remains from ritual contexts show that horses, dogs and various wild species (foxes, hares, weasels, fish, birds) were eaten within the vicinity of sacrifices, suggesting that they supplemented the meat supply.1557 Cut-marks on bone, and the absence of the heavy charring to hindquarters that characterises the gods’ immolated portions, indicate that these other animals were not sacrificed at the altar in the full thysia-manner (θυσία).1558 Berthiaume shows that meat not killed sacrificially was regarded as inferior to sacrificial meat,1559 but animals were certainly cooked and eaten outside ritual contexts. At the very least, away from sanctuary and sacrifice settings, injured, weak, sick and old animals were undoubtedly consumed privately, along with whatever wild animal could be caught.1560 Few species seem to have been totally excluded from Greek menus: those not given prominence might simply not have

Dogs, especially puppies, were sacrificed to Hecate, on which see the comments and references supplied by Greenewalt, Ritual Dinners 43. Greenewalt (31, note 1) lists references to dogs as food in Greek literature, while Snyder/Klippel, “Lerna to Kastro”, and Roy, “Dog-Meat” explore archaeological evidence. Porphyry, De Abstinentia 1.14, denies the consumption of horses, dogs, and asses, but the Hippocratic writer of On Regimen (2.46) includes asses, horses, dogs, foxes, and hedgehogs in his list of animals that were eaten. Parker, Miasma 357, note 3, shows that though most of these were not preferred food, there is literary evidence in support of their consumption. A survey of animals eaten in classical Greece is given by Dalby, Siren Feasts 57-66. See also Ar., Ach. 879 and Ar., Av. 1079-1084. 1562 Eg. Pl., Leg. 6.782c-d. On Plato’s Golden Age, see also VidalNaquet, “Beasts”. A discussion of the role of the Golden Age in philosophical vegetarianism can be found in Dombrowski, Vegetarianism 19-34. Ceccarelli, “Among the Savages” 455. 1563 Empedokles, frags.128 and 130. 1564 Hes., Op. 116-120, 173. 1565 The theme appears in Cratinus’ Plutuses, Telekleides’ Amphictyons, Pherekrates’ Miners and Persians, and in the ThurioPersians of Metagenes, all ap. Ath., 6.267e-270a. 1566 Although tension is revealed by the animal chorus in Crates, Beasts, ap. Ath., 6.267e-f, which allows only fish-eating. Ruffell, “World Upside Down” 473-477, 481-3 notes the satire, but argues that utopias in comedy can also express popular idealism. On ideals reflected in Aristophanic comic utopias, see Konstan, Comedy and Ideology 15-90, and Ruffell, “World Upside Down”. 1567 Dombrowski, Vegetarianism 4. 1568 Heath, Talking 12-13. Dillon, “Plato and the Golden Age” 2930, 35 note 17 suggests that animal speech was a traditional feature of golden-age theorising. 1569 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 3.13, 16.68. 1561

ThesCRA I.2a, s.v. Sacrifices: Les Sacrifices Dans le Monde Grec, p.129-132 (Hermary, Leguilloux, Chankowski, Petropoulou). 1556 Rothwell, Choruses 84, 123. 1557 Snyder, “Well G5:3” 284. 1558 Gunnel Ekroth, “Bare Bones” at the conference on Violent Commensality: Animal Sacrifice and its Discourses in the Ancient World (Classics Dept., University of Reading, Friday, 11 May 2007). G. Ekroth, personal communication, 30th May 2007. Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy” 217-219. Hägg, “Osteology” 52-55. Bergquist, “Feasting?” 60-61. The fox, lion, mouse, weasel and other wild animal bones found at the Artemision of Ephesus are not certainly sacrifice remains: see Bammer, “Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesos” 38-40, 45. For the ambiguity of the archaeological material, see Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” 115, note 5. 1559 Berthiaume, Rôles du Mágeiros 88-91.  1560 Arist., Pol. 1.8 (1256b16-22) (Jowett, in Barnes). 1555

104

Platonist Heraklides, or his excerpter Clodius, argues that cooked meat is acceptable, but not raw.1570 These views are not concerned with animal welfare.

established shared religious and social customs,1585 and risking marginalisation.1586 Persistent ancient interest in the diets of Pythagoreans among Aristotle, Aristoxenus, Diogenes Laertius, and Iamblichus, shows that vegetarianism raised comment. Plutarch points out that vegetarians risked ridicule,1587 and Empedoclean and Pythagorean vegetarianism was lampooned in comedy.1588 The texts that come down to us generally deride vegetarianism. 1589

Some philosophers do seem to take animals into account when considering the rights and wrongs of carnivory. Starting with Timaeus,1571 there is a strong tradition that Pythagoras rejected all meat and blood sacrifice, claiming that it was unjust to kill animals that shared the lives of men.1572 Plutarch also pointed out that the majority of the animals that were eaten were domestic, and therefore ‘friendly’ to humans.1573 It is unlikely that he was the first to see this inconsistency. The vegetarian Pythagoreans, Orphics, and Empedokles promoted belief in the transmigration of souls between species.1574 This effectively declared all animals kin,1575 implicating meat-eating as cannibalism.1576 Theophrastus specifically condemns meat-eating as unnatural,1577 and sacrifice as inappropriate1578 and unholy,1579 for robbing animals, kin with humans,1580 of life.1581 He also associates the first sacrifices with guilt and divine disapproval.1582

Perhaps then it is not surprising that some reports of Pythagoras’ dietary rules suggest either hypocrisy or compromise with social norms. Iamblichus reports that there were two classes of Pythagorean; the akousmatikoi, who were permitted some meats, and the mathematikoi, advanced students, who abstained from all flesh.1590 One pragmatic Pythagorean rule allowed flesh from animals that might lawfully be sacrificed,1591 which suggests that some animals might not. Aristoxenus claims that Pythagoras and his followers ate all meat except that of sheep, working oxen in particular, and except all wombs and hearts.1592 Subtle distinctions allowed further sanctioning of the eating of flesh. For instance, goats and swine were permitted because they damaged vines and corn.1593 Pythagoras also permitted flesh on the basis of social roles. He is said to have been the first to diet athletes on meat,1594 and only to deny flesh to those aspiring to philosophy and politics.1595

In opposition to those promoting vegetarianism, Clodius, or Heraklides,1583 claims that killing harmful animals is just. Aristotle’s view seems to have been mainstream. He said “… animals exist for the sake of man, the tame for use and food, the wild, if not all, at least the greater part of them for food, and for the provision of clothing and various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing incomplete, and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made all animals for the sake of man.”1584

Using live animals The use of live animals as labourers, and sources of wool and milk, as detailed in earlier chapters, was conceivably more important than slaughter for flesh.1596 Naturally, philosophers were drawn to debate the ethics of exploiting live animals, and the discussion

Given this, and the centrality of blood sacrifice in Greek culture, those who eschewed meat had to be able to afford to be selective about their menus, and very firm in their convictions, for they were defying

Bremmer, “Marginality” 210. Cohen (ed.), Ideal 4. 1587 Plut., De Esu Carnium 997e-f. 1588 Ruffell, “World Upside Down” 482. Ceccarelli, “Among the Savages” 455-456, and note 10-11. 1589 Eur., Hipp. 952-954. Ar., Ran. 1032. Pl., Resp. 364e. 1590 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 18, 24.109. 1591 Burkert, Pythagoreanism 175--192. 1592 Aristoxenus, ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.20. =FGrH 566 F147. 1593 Detienne, et al., Cuisine 5-6. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.20. See index for cross references to swine damage to crops, goats damaging crops, and punitive sacrifice. 1594 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.12. Porph., Abst. 1.26. 1595 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 24.108. 1596 Foxhall/Forbes, “Sitometreia” 74 tentatively suggest that the Greeks probably got 70-75% of their caloric requirements from grain. The calories derived from hunted wild land-living animals are likely not to have met more than the caloric cost of obtaining them: see Gallant, Risk 119-120. Rotroff/Oakley, Debris 48-49. 1585 1586

Porph., Abst. 1.13. FGrHist 566 F147. 1572 Arist., Rh. 1.13(1373b14-15). 1573 Plut., De Esu Carnium 994b. 1574 Empedokles, frag.117, ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.77. Parker, “Orphism” 498, 501-504. 1575 Arist., Rh. 1.13(1373b6-17). Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists 1.127-129. 1576 Plut., De Esu Carnium 997e. 1577 Porph., Abst. 2.9, 2.12, 2.27, 2.29. 1578 Porph., Abst. 2.24. 1579 Porph., Abst. 2.28. 1580 Porph., Abst. 2.22. 1581 Porph., Abst. 2.12. 1582 Porph., Abst. 2.9-10, 2.29. 1583 Porph., Abst. 1.14. 1584 Arist., Pol. 1.8 (1256b16-22) (Jowett, in Barnes). 1570 1571

105

came to centre around the idea of ‘fair dealing’, versus ‘theft’.

be thought of as a farmer and as one who shared man’s labours.”1608

Fair dealing seems a generous compromise from the human point of view, for there can be no doubt of domestic animals’ de facto enslavement. What they eat, where they go, how their energies are expended, their reproductive choices, and what happens to their offspring, are all decided for them. Putting it bluntly, Aristotle styled the plough-ox as the poor man’s slave,1597 a living tool and possession.1598

There is repeated emphasis on use of animals, and the economics of their maintenance. That is hardly surprising, and such an outlook, coupled with the potential value of an animal’s carcass, suggests that gratitude and concepts of exchange probably applied only during a beast’s useful life. Even Plutarch, who says that a good man will care for his worn-out horse or dog, affirms that law and justice are for men, and describes kindness to animals as benevolence and good practice in humanity rather than justice.1609 Pythagoras likewise exhorted his followers to consider animals as friends and familiars, to improve human socialisation.1610 There is no attribution of ‘rights’, as such, in these statements. Pythagoras did go further in promoting good treatment of animals for their own sakes, but his views were comparatively liberal.

What constituted fair dealing? Porphyry quotes Clodius’ suggestion that taking honey, milk, eggs and wool is theft, but remarks that tame animals would perish without human protection and care.1599 Pythagoras permits his followers milk, honey, wool and draught-animal labour,1600 presumably as fair compensation for protection and feeding, as Aristotle rationalises.1601 Theophrastus likewise justifies sharing bees’ honey,1602 and endorses shearing and milking.1603 Plutarch asserts the justice of taming animals that lend themselves to domestication, since they do well when kept by man, and therefore shearing, milking and harnessing are all fair dealing.1604 Epicurus and Porphyry go further and suggest that animals desire the security of domestication, allowing themselves to be used in exchange.1605

That the Greeks appreciated the hardships of animals’ labour is evident, but the stark reality is especially reflected in fables and epigrams. Broken-down animals were sold or moved to slower and less public yet, relative to their strength, no less onerous duties,1611 and some were worked to death.1612 The exceptions are celebrated. Recall the epigram commemorating the happy retirement of an ox,1613 and the Athenian ass that retired as a public favourite.1614

Fair dealing involved protecting and providing for the animals whose produce was to be harvested. This is part of good husbandry, however, so need not take account of notions of exchange. As Porphyry emphasised, maintaining useful animals was a matter of economic importance.1606 What is important is that it was felt necessary, by some, to frame it in these terms.

The rewards of generous treatment went not only to the animals concerned. Kind owners benefitted from self-satisfaction, gratified sentimentality, and potential divine goodwill. Those whose behaviour was known to others might also profit from heightened social standing. Kindness to working animals demonstrates gratitude, empathy, and kinship with fellow-labourers, reverence for age,1615 and care for dependents and inferiors.1616 It also demonstrates generosity, and the ability to afford a retired animal’s keep. The generosity of rich men enhanced and enabled communities, so was encouraged1617 and indeed compelled.1618 In return, their influence grew, and when they found themselves criticised defendants expected their

Indeed, the enslavement of animals was far from sanctioning neglect or cruelty. Pythagoras’ point, that helpful beasts are due a debt of protection, seems accepted in principle,1607 and Aelian describes an Athenian code: “A working ox … was not sacrificed, because it too could

Ael., VH 5.14 (Wilson). Plut., Vit. Cat. Mai. 5.1-6. 1610 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 24.108, 30.168-169. 1611 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 29, Appendix 565. 1612 Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Babrius 7, 141. 1613 Anth. Pal. 6.228. See index for cross references to retired animals. 1614 Arist., Hist. An. 6.24 (577b39-578a4). 1615 Aeschin., In Tim. 1.24 1616 Expressed by Arist., Pol. 6.5(1320a32-1320b11). 1617 Dover, Greek Popular Morality 162. 1618 Veyne, Bread and Circuses 71-72. Xen., Oec. 2.5-6. 1608

Arist., Pol. 1.2(1252b13). 1598 Arist., Pol. 1.4(1253b28-1254a17). 1599 Porph., Abst. 3.12-13. 1600 Ov., Met. 15.92-3, 15.146-160. 1601 Arist., Pol. 1.5(1254b10-13). 1602 Porph., Abst. 2.13. 1603 Porph., Abst. 3.26. 1604 Plut., De Soll. An. 964e-965b. 1605 Porph., Abst. 3.12. Lucretius, De Rerum Natura 5.855-77. 1606 Porph., Abst. 4.22. 1607 Ov., Met. 15.146-184. Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 24.108, 30.168-169. 1597

1609

106

prior philanthropic services to be considered in their defence.1619 The ‘freeing’ of an aged working ox might be comparatively inexpensive, but in spirit it can be seen to emulate the ideal behaviour of the wealthy, and could be used as a way of playing that out. Without ceding rights, or recognising any formal idea of justice towards animals, it is a subtly extravagant proclamation of willingness to reward service and accept a loss for the sake of justice. The idea that owners would want their acts to be noticed is suggested by behaviour towards loyal slaves. Proclamation of human manumission was a necessary formality, but it got the master positive attention from onlookers and grateful slaves, and public acts of kindness by a person can inspire currying of favour with them by others in hope of benefits. Aeschines points out men’s determination to have such acts admired:

captive often die from stress.1625 On one red-figure cup [231] we see a hare crouching uncomfortably in its suspended cage, being harassed by a jumping dog while the animals’ owners ignore them. The hares and small birds may have been thought adequately compensated for their captivity by their protection from natural predators. The phillipped quails ceased to be hit when they withdrew themselves, and the other baited animals might have been expected to fight one another naturally. However, although they may have been fed and housed, it is difficult to see a quid pro quo for tethered decoy owls, violently mobbed by prey species for hunters’ convenience,1626 or for the turtledoves who were blinded to make tractable decoys.1627 It seems that some animals were thought more worthy of fair dealing than others, and that these tended to be the ones that have earned it by producing valuable by-products.

“…men by the voice of the herald manumitted their household slaves, and made all Hellas their witness.”1620

In some instances of direct and deliberate harm, the ideas of exchange and ‘fair dealing’ seem not to apply. Aristotle implies that there was a general repugnance towards investigation of internal organs,1628 and Pliny1629 points out that inspection of human entrails was morally unacceptable.1630 For scientific investigation of humanity, this presented a problem. Aristotle’s solution pointed to vivisection and dissection of other species:

The foregoing has presumed that conditions are favourable to the humans in control of the animals in question. In the chapter on pests it became clear that emergency conditions could have a very detrimental effect on domestic animals’ fortunes. A clear example is that at Megara, where pigs were set alight to frighten invading Macedonian elephants.1621 Was this ‘fair dealing’? It might be argued that they gave their lives in the same way as human warriors, except that humans at least had a hope of survival, and an element of choice. Extreme situations are not the most reliable indicators of attitudes. Animals were harmed gratuitously even in prosperous times. Alkibiades’ assault on his dog’s tail has already been noted,1622 a case in which the crowd was most offended by the assault on the dog’s aesthetic appeal. Cock-fighting,1623 quail-phillipping,1624 and other types of animal-baiting have been revealed, such as that indicated by the cat and dog scene on a statue base in Athens [226], and the Taurokathapsia.

“…the inner parts of man are to a very great extent unknown, and the consequence is that we must have recourse to an examination of the inner parts of other animals whose nature in any way resembles that of man.”1631

Aristotle recommended that animals first be starved to emaciation and then strangled, if one is to really observe the circulatory system,1632 and his criticisms of his predecessors’ observations on circulatory systems1633 suggest that internal anatomical investigations routinely used dead animals. However, he reports the belief that snakes’ and swallows’ eyes,

Less obvious examples of harm include hares dangled by their ears on vases, or, like birds [320], confined in tiny cages. It should be noted that wild hares taken

Morgan, “Hares”. Arist., Hist. An. 9.1(609a14-16). 1627 Arist., Hist. An. 9.7(613a23). 1628 Arist., Part. An. 2.5(645a27-30). 1629 Plin., HN 28.5. 1630 Herophilus’ and Erasistratus’ vivisection of human criminals was exceptional, and permitted only by the absolute rule of Ptolemy II and possibly Seleucus I. For discussion of this point and ancient references, see Fraser, Erasistratus 530-533. von Staden, Herophilus 26, 29-30, 139, 141-158, 187-190. See also Nutton, Ancient Medicine 119, 360 note 15. 1631 Arist., Hist. An. 1.16(494b21-24) (Thompson, in Barnes). 1632 Arist., Hist. An. 3.3(513a12-15). 1633 Arist., Hist. An. 3.2(511b13-22). 1625 1626

Eg. Lysias 21.1-5, 11-12, 25.12-13. Dem., 19.282. Aeschin., In Ctes. 3.41 (Adams). 1621 N.A. 16.36. See also Polyaenus 4.5.3. 1622 Plut., Vit. Alc. 9. See also page 298. 1623 Ael., VH 2.28. Scholiast on a postulated earlier version of Aristophanes’ Clouds 889, with Dover/Aristophanes, Clouds xcxciv. 1624 Plut., Mor. 487e. 1619 1620

107

and lizards’ and snakes’ tails, will regrow if excised or amputated,1634 and these creatures must be alive. Aristotle’s own vivisections mainly consisted of maiming vital functions, and observing the effects.1635 His descriptions include nothing suggestive of his own reaction to these acts. Some subjects may have been injured naturally, but the frequency of the references suggests human intervention.1636

like to be treated. We have seen that one major idea legitimising Greek exploitation of animals was that they were commonly thought not to exercise justice of any kind. How did this idea influence human behaviour, given that natural justice was still able to be exercised towards animals? Plutarch claims that natural justice favours good treatment of animals,1642 but has Soclarus candidly state that it would be grossly inconvenient if animals were owed the consideration due reasoning beings.1643 The prioritisation of human desires certainly inhibited justice to animals, but it was seldom stated so bluntly. More often other reasons were presented.

A distinction is available: between callousness – the willingness to accept suffering in another as a byproduct of meeting some objective - and cruelty - enjoyment of the suffering inflicted by deliberate unkindness. The acts cited above, even the animal baiting, fall into the first category, where an animal’s pain is not the actual objective. Direct and deliberate cruelty seems to have been reviled, if only on the principle that it habituated humans to mistreat each other – the inverse of the principle credited to Pythagoras.1637

Aristotle divides justice into distributive, reciprocal and rectifying.1644 In natural justice, these divisions may be applied to animals. Examples include fair sharing of work and food, due comfort in working beasts’ old age, and appropriate punishments.1645 However, to Aristotelians there was no such thing as wronging those who were incapable of exercising reciprocal justice towards humans.1646 Aristotle himself claimed that animals and humans have nothing in common,1647 and that animals exhibit no justice themselves. Further, he asserts that animals were created for man’s sake, so may be disposed of with no question of right or wrong.1648 When Aristotle calls hunting “a just war” on animals, this is not to say that justice is being exercised, but that hunting is appropriate because nature has provided animals for human use.1649

What constituted cruelty to animals appears to have been determined at least in part by convention. Xenokrates recorded that the Athenians punished a man for flaying a live ram, as a gratuitous, uncustomary act.1638 Note the emphasis on ‘uncustomary’. Following this report, Pliny points out that men are “more observant of acts contrary to convention than of those that are contrary to nature”.1639 When it comes to animals being treated well or otherwise, the fact is that it is seldom possible to divine the exact and relative proportions of desire for continued usefulness, necessity, gratitude, custom, sentiment and other emotions in the mix of motivations.

Myth was used justify exploitation of animals, particularly their roles in ritual. On ancient myths in general, Kirk points out their value in establishing the “natural and social order as products of inevitability and divine mastery”.1650 Myths can make the crucial points of a dilemma much less clear, taking the problem to a lower level of urgency, and can even provide authority or justification for actions.1651 Prometheus, for example, angered Zeus by short-changing the gods’ portion of meat from sacrifices, in order to ensure that mortals would eat better. The subsequent reactions: Zeus’s denial of fire to men, its retrieval by Prometheus, and

Justice between men and animals Without speech or literacy, animals are unable to negotiate or agree to contracts.1640 They are therefore excluded from ‘legal justice’.1641 ‘Natural justice’, however, requires no contract. It operates on the principle that a person of good intent should not be harmed, and one should treat others as one would Arist., Hist. An. 2.17(508b4-7). Eg. Arist., IA 8(708b1-11). Arist., Gen. An. 4.6(774b30-34). Arist., De An. 2.2(413b20-24) in which he asserts that bisected insects feel pain. Arist., Juv. 2(468a22-27) for bisection of animals other than insects, 23(479a3-7) for hearts removed from living sanguineous animals. 1636 Lloyd, “Alcmaeon” 179. 1637 Plut., De Soll. An. 959f. Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 30.168-169. 1638 Plut., De Esu Carnium 996a. 1639 Plut., De Esu Carnium 996a-b (Cherniss and Helmbold). 1640 For in-depth treatment of this issue, see Sorabji, Animal Minds 107-121. 1641 Porph., Abst. 1.12, citing Hermarchus on Epicurean arguments. 1634 1635

Plut., De Soll. An. 996b. Plut., De Soll. An. 964a-b. 1644 Arist., Eth. Nic. 5.2(1130b30)-5.5(1134a15). 1645 Sorabji, Animal Minds 116-117. 1646 Plut., De Soll. An. 964b-c. 1647 Arist., Eth. Nic. (1161b2-3). 1648 Arist., Pol. 1.8 (1256b16-22). 1649 Arist., Pol. 1.8(1256b15-26) (Jowett, in Barnes). Sorabji, Animal Minds 118. 1650 Kirk, Myth 253. 1651 Kirk, Myth 256-259. 1642 1643

108

and 322 BC, there is no known explicit statement acknowledging animals’ pain and terror as reasons for just treatment.1664 Later, Plutarch vehemently asserts that animals feel pain and other sensations, but, in citing Strato’s theory that it is impossible to have sensation without intelligence, his argument still revolves around rationality.1665

Zeus’s retribution in bestowing disease and women upon mortals,1652 all seem to have been taken as quid pro quo, by which man retained not only the authority to consume flesh, but the right to eat the better portion from sacrifices. Myth can also reinforce thoughts that can be related to them. Hesiod, for example, claims that Zeus gave justice only to men.1653 We hear the same thing from Plato, who asserts that it was given to protect men from each other while communally defending themselves against animals.1654 However, Plato elsewhere implies that animals do have a sense of justice.1655 Despite the myths and theories, men’s proximity to animals enabled close observation, and outside of rituals, human intuition acted on what was seen, as much as what was ‘known’.

Some instances can look like concern for justice and animal welfare. Pythagoras, in the sixth-century BC, stopped someone beating a dog, explaining that he has recognised its voice as that of a reincarnated friend.1666 What might have mattered more than the dog was that the friend inside the dog be treated with respect. It is not at all clear that Pythagoras would have defended a dog whose voice was previously unknown to him. Our problem is that we have no way to be sure of how Pythagoras thought human souls inhabited animal bodies. Was the body a shell, or were the two fully integrated?1667 Elsewhere, Xenocrates, head of Plato’s Academy from 339 to 314 BC, is said to have protected a sparrow fleeing an eagle – because it came to him as a ‘suppliant’,1668 and there is the story of the flayed-alive ram.1669 The concern for animal suffering is explicit in neither of these accounts. There is room to argue that other concerns such as obedience to custom and ritual, and a desire to appear high-minded, may have been uppermost.1670

Real and fictitious examples fuelled argument in favour of animals sensing and exhibiting justice and injustice between themselves and towards humans.1656 Reciprocity appears in repeated accounts of birds nurturing their aged parents,1657 though within a few lines of this claim in Aristophanes’ Birds, they are also accused of habitual parricide,1658 to emphasise the flighty inconsistency of both birds and the Athenian Demos. Plato implies that a dog can sense wrong, when he compares the indignant spirit of a wronged man with that of a shepherds’ dog.1659 Sometimes the concept of justice between man and animals was used to emphasise a point. We have Sophokles’ Philoktetes, who contemplates his own predicted consumption by wild beasts as just reward for his own success in slaying animals.1660 Some writers circled back into the rationality argument, citing instances of animal ‘justice’ as evidence for rationality.1661 For some, the idea that animals make no contracts was undermined by these observations.1662 That animals suffer, as Aristotle admits,1663 might be expected to weigh in favour of extending justice to animals without need of rationality, even if it is not reciprocated. But, as Sorabji highlights, between 600

Animals occasionally appear to be acknowledged as having a right to life, but analysis of the claimant’s motives can weaken this assertion. It can be argued that Pythagoras and Empedokles both were protecting themselves against the error of eating a reincarnated relative, and that if they could be certain that a given animal was in no way connected with them, they might well eat it.1671 Aristotle is careful to stand apart from Empedokles’ injunction when he cites Empedokles in his discussion of natural law,1672 and elsewhere asserts man’s ‘natural right’ to domesticate, hunt and kill animals.1673 The expedience of Aristotle’s argument had already won out, and the Greeks appear not to have accorded animals rights which might be thought to be inherently theirs, external to any human deliberations of justice. The closest they seem to come is when their

Hes., Theog. 535-612. Hes., Op. 47-89. Hes., Op. 277-9. 1654 Pl., Prt. 320C-322d. 1655 Pl., Resp. 440c-d. Pl., Plt. 263d. 1656 Eg. Eudemus ap. N.A. 3.21, 4.8, 4.45. Porph., Abst. 3.11-13, 22. Soph., El. 1058-62. 1657 Soph., El. 1058-62. Arist., Hist. An. 9.13(615b24-27). Pl., Plt. 263d. 1658 Ar., Av. 1347-58. 1659 Pl., Resp 440c-d. 1660 Soph., Phil. 954-958. 1661 Plut., De Soll. An. 966b. Sextus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1.6777. Porph., Abst. 3.11. 1662 Plut., De Soll. An. 967d-f. Porph., Abst. 3.11. Ael., N.A. 6.50 on Cleanthes of Assos 1663 Arist., De An. 2.13(414b3-6). 1652 1653

Sorabji, Animal Minds 208. Plut., De Soll. An. 961a-f. 1666 Xenophanes ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.36. 1667 Osborne, Dumb Beasts 46-50. 1668 Diog. Laert., Philosophers 4.10. 1669 Plut., De Esu Carnium 996a. 1670 Sorabji, Animal Minds 209. 1671 Osborne, Dumb Beasts 50-54. 1672 Arist., Rh. 1.13(1373b4-17). 1673 Arist., Pol. 1.5(1254b10-26, 1.8(1256b15-25) 1664 1665

109

belonging with humans as kin is emphasised. The rest of the time, animal ‘rights’ are little greater than those of the inanimate.1674

killers of harmless animals. This might mean divine intervention on behalf of wronged wild species, but domestic animals were likely to have some human protector, willing to exact punishment or demand compensation. Democritus implies that all animals exercise free will, but Epicurus distinguishes between wild and tame animals’ by observing that wild beasts are exonerated when they do wrong, because their actions derive from a combination of acquired reactions and innate constitution, but that tame animals are admonished.1682 Epicurus might have been suggesting that tame animals have reason, as opposed to the wild,1683 but more likely, he expected tame animals to be loyal to their human protectors, or at least to respond to commands and training. Apparently becoming ‘civilised’ by association exposed domestic animals to expectations of ‘knowing better’. This is an idea that more deeply integrates animals as household members, yet exposes them more severely to censure when they disappoint.

The responsibility of animals for their actions Particularly relevant to the treatment of animals is the question of whether they are responsible for their actions.1675 Pythagoras seems to have thought they were: “…rather corrected and instructed savage animals through words and deeds, than injured them through punishment.”1676

One expects that those who denied them reason would not apportion responsibility, but Aristotle holds that animals can act voluntarily and knowingly,1677 making them liable to justified praise or blame for actions that they have a real choice in.1678 He sidesteps the doublestandard by saying that human choices are distinct from animals’ merely voluntary acts, by being arrived at by deliberation.1679

If an animal harmed its owner’s interests, the response was most likely left to the owner to determine. For other injured parties, there seem in some places to have been some regulations to draw upon. One that we know of permitted punishment, or ensuring that the animal was incapable of a repeat offense, by knocking out the teeth of crop-invading swine.1684 This in turn injures their owners. Redress through lawsuits is likely to have been available, but this involves time, costs, and evidence.1685 Summary punishment of the animal had the benefit of reducing the immediate problem, penalising the irresponsible owner, and apparently transgressing no laws in the process. The evidence does not clearly indicate that animals were expected to understand cause and consequence.

Clodius insists that animals’ capacity for voluntary action makes man’s war on them just.1680 Likewise Democritus: “This is how it is with the killing or not killing of certain animals. He who kills the ones that do wrong and are willing to do wrong pays no penalty. Doing this contributes more than not doing it … he who does this will in every social organisation have a greater share of contentment and justice and courage and property. As has been written about enemies in the form of foxes and reptiles…”1681

In sentencing whole species that are “willing to do wrong”, Democritus apparently meant wild animals. His remark can also be taken to mean that good animals are to be protected, and the comment about penalties suggests potential consequences for

Animals causing human death were likely to be subject to public processes. In Athens, and certain other Greek states,1686 inanimate objects like falling tiles were tried and exiled for murder, as were animals.1687

Sorabji, Animal Minds 156. Sorabji, Animal Minds 107-116 discusses alternate Greek views on animals’ capacity for voluntary action. 1676 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 24.108 (Taylor). 1677 Arist., Eth. Nic. 3.1(1111a25-6), 3.2(1111b7-10). Arist., De Motu An. 11(703b2). 1678 Arist., Eth. Nic. 3.1(1109b30-4, 1135a19-23). Arist., Eth. Eud. 2.9 (1223a11). 1679 Arist., Eth. Nic. 3.2(1111b7-10). Arist., Eth. Eud. 2.9(1225a367), 2.10(1226b30-36). 1680 Porph., Abst. 1.14. 1681 Democritus, frr. 257-9, (Diels/Kranz), ap. Stobaeus, Eclogae 2.4.15-17. Procope, “Democritus on Politics and Soul” 311-13 argues that Democritus is in favour of prudentially eradicating all of a potentially undesirable species where possible. Sorabji, Animal Minds 107, note 1 disagrees, and sees Democritus as merely morally sanctioning the killing of animals which do harm. 1674 1675

Epicurus, On Nature 34.25.21-34 (Arrighetti). Sorabji, Animal Minds 115. 1683 Huby, “The Epicureans, Animals, and Freewill” 18. 1684 Heubeck, Homer’s Odyssey1988 printing 3, 48. For other pigpunishment, see Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 583. See index for cross references to swine damage to crops, and removal of their teeth. 1685 This is particularly likely in the case of savage dogs, as illustrated by legal cases in which owners defend their dogs. See http://www. doglaw.com/, a website owned by a New York lawyer, specialising in defence of dogs accused of dangerous behaviour. 1686 Isoc., Paneg. 40. Paus., 6.11.2-9. 1687 Dem., 23.76. Poll., Onom. 8.120. Hyde, “Prosecution I” 171. 1682

110

animal it might expect to be ‘let off’ for lesser injuries. For example, Aesop’s dog-owner, bitten as he rescues his dog from a well, puts the act down to the dog’s terror.1699

The inscription from Kos1688 mentioned above also stipulates the burning up of branches or beams from which a human has hanged himself. Aristotle mentions the trials of animals and inanimate objects as though they were the same procedure,1689 and Plato specifies the killing and posthumous exile of animals by a similar process.1690 Even here it is difficult to tell if moral responsibility is imputed to animals, since the process seems to have become a legalistic ritual to supply official accounts of human deaths, and prevent recurrences.1691

Kinship with animals Plato advised that animals be treasured for their their similarities to man, and their belonging in the world alongside gods and man.1700 Pythagoras and Empedokles spoke of a kinship, based on humans and animals comprising the same elements,1701 and sharing a single spirit, which pervades the whole universe,1702 admitting the possibility of reincarnation as different species,1703 Empedokles stating:

Retributive, representative, and preventative punishments1692 provide revenge,1693 remove harmful agents, incite revulsion at killings,1694 warn wouldbe offenders, assuage fears of lawlessness, and relate to beliefs about pollution or miasma. The expiation and dissolution of blood-guilt may have been seen to appease divinities and avenging furies, and avert community catastrophe.1695

“For already have I once been a boy and a girl, a fish and a bird and a dumb sea fish.”1704

Theophrastus contradicted Aristotle’s denial of commonality, friendship and justice towards animals,1705 and felt that a relation of belonging united men with animals, not least because they have emotions, reasoning, and similar senses. In fact, humans bond with animals for many reasons, including gratitude, admiration, fellowship and trust, even pity and a sense of obligation.1706 This bonding can come about quite in opposition to human intentions, and the slaughterer of a personally known beast may struggle with unexpected guilt, no matter how practical his intentions, or efficient the despatch.

To charge animals with crimes, and to take them to court implies that animals could be expected to comprehend guilt and punishment in similar ways to humans. However, the sentences were invariably death. This emphasises differences between animal guilt and human guilt.1696 Not only was an animal more lightly expendable, the procedure took care of any chance that an animal did not understand that it had committed a crime, and might yet repeat it. For some animals, culpability could be affected by circumstance. Plato exempts animals from murder prosecutions if they cause human deaths in the process of public competitions,1697 and bitches were understood to be savage in defence of their puppies. Likewise, punishments might be reduced. Humans who caused injuries without malicious intent were thought to merit forgiveness (natural justice at work).1698 Where there was a pre-existing positive perception of a given

That oikeiôsis (kinship/belonging) was a basis for bonding is supported by Epicurus’ particular censure of tame animals’ transgressions, and by attachment to pets. Witness Penelope’s grief at the imagined death of her geese,1707 and the close friendship felt by Polyphemos towards his ram, a member of his oikos as it were, whom Polyphemos wishes could express sorrow and anger at his master’s lost sight.1708 Whether Polyphemos’ ram sympathised or not, species is only a partial barrier to empathy. Empathy fuels supposition about animals’ emotional states, and as animals seldom contradict, humans can come to feel

Sokolowski, LSCG 154B 34-36. See index for cross references to the Koan inscription. 1689 Arist., [Ath. Pol.] 57.4. 1690 Pl., Leg. 873e. 1691 MacDowell, Homicide Law 89. Hyde, “Prosecution II” 288. 1692 Plut., Vit. Sol. 24. Solon legislated concerning human injuries by animals, including that a dog that bit humans be impounded and fitted with a wooden clog on a collar to impede its repeating the offence. Xen., Hell. 2.4.41 mentions this too. 1693 Emphasised as righteous in Dem. 59.15. Hyde, “Prosecution II” 296-297. 1694 Hyde, “Prosecution II” 295. 1695 Hyde, “Prosecution I” 172, 175, 175 note 4. Hyde, “Prosecution II” 293-294. These ideas underlie Aesch., Cho. 374-403. 1696 Katz, “Buphonia” 176-77. 1697 Pl., Leg. 873e. 1698 Dover, Greek Popular Morality 195. 1688

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Appendix 120. Pl., Lysis 221e-222d. 1701 Iamb., Vit. Pyth. 24.108, 30.168-169. 1702 Sextus Empiricus, Against the Physicists 1.127. 1703 Xenophanes, ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.36. Plut., De Esu Carnium 997e. See also earlier discussion, under ‘Vegetarianism’. 1704 Empedokles, frag.117, ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 8.77 (Hicks). 1705 Arist., Eth. Nic. 8.11(1161a32-b3). 1706 Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter 30. 1707 Hom., Od. 19.535-543. 1708 Hom., Od. 9.447-460. 1699 1700

111

even closer to the animals that they share their lives with. This is particularly reflected in the care given to some pet and human burials.

just been given a pet will usually be asked “what will you call him/her?” by way of encouraging bonding and interest, and the child that names a family pet can exhibit stronger interest than his siblings.

Of particular interest is the link between dogs and certain human burials. A sixth-century Thessalian grave contained a man with the bones of a dog at his feet. The positioning suggests a closer relationship between the deceased and the animal than simply that of a funeral sacrifice.1709 This might have been a valued pet or hunting dog, dispatched with his master as companion, servant and guardian. The guardian idea is directly related to the dog’s place in the oikos, and is seen in the use of dog statues as grave markers, which became common from the late sixth-century.1710

As Jeschonnek emphasises,1713 there is no shortage of surviving horse and dog names. This reflects their social status, their long lives, and relative fewness in households, and the directness of their humananimal relationships. Jeschonnek’s1714 survey reveals that these names regularly emphasise strength, speed, spirit, and beauty, or describe colour and markings. Thinking of the practical need for clarity when calling a dog, Xenophon recommends short, twosyllable names for hunting-hounds, such as ‘Chara’ (joy), and ‘Laelaps’ (whirlwind). These names do not confer quasi-human status, however.1715 Pet dogs’ names seldom survive, though the ironic naming of a Melitaean ‘Bull’1716 suggests that among pets also the trend was still against using human names, with otherness formally preserved.

As mentioned in earlier chapters, reliefs of family groups on fifth-century east and island Greek, and late-fifth and fourth-century Attic grave stelai include birds [199, 260, 262],1711 dogs [202, 203, 250, 321], hares [322] and horses. Even one cat [162] survives on a stele. Five of Clairmont’s fourteen hares on stelai are clearly hunt victims, for example, the hare hanging by its ears from the hand of a youth who also has a lagobolon, on a stele divided between Basle and Brauron. However, several stelai, such as one in Houston [322], show hares being held gently or caressed. Many of the small birds also appear to be prey, but they are often being offered to larger pets. Positive interaction is frequently shown, with the animals placed centrally with the humans. In many cases the proximities and gestures link them all in an apparently familial bond.

Of the domestic creatures, horses and dogs were the most written about, so numbers of their names have been preserved. Far fewer personal names of other creatures survive. Even so, the small numbers and economic importance of working animals, along with their individuality, permanence, and the intimacy of working and living close with the humans, might lead us to expect naming as a matter of routine. Athenaeus gives us an ass called Epeius because he carried water,1717 as did the hero Epeius in Stesichorus.1718 Callimachus1719 and Theocritus1720 each mention oxen named Lepargus (white), and the illustrious bull, Phaethon, is named for his conspicuous shining whiteness.1721 Chione (Snow White) the milking goat, who had unavoidably close contact with her milker, is also named for her colour.1722 Arranged either side of one handle on a black-figure hydria [323] appear four named chickens. A pair of cocks, Chaitos and Pelkos, are opposed. Another cock and a hen, Chaitos and Sphekis, stand peacefully on the other side of the handle. The chickens flank the main scene, of Theseus fighting the Minotaur, without appearing to have anything to do with it. Instead, they seem to

It has been noted in previous chapters that the social positions of animals, human impressions and expectations, and recognition of their individuality can be suggested by the personal names humans give them.1712 Naming psychologically links name-givers to the animals, and the name chosen often has appealing associations for the name giver. The child who has This burial is included in a catalogue of dog burials in Day, “Dog Burials” 24. Also listed are burials with dog-sacrifice remains, and dogs carefully laid out in their own graves, some with grave goods. 1710 Day, “Dog Burials” 29. Kurtz/Boardman, GBC 135-6. For stelai with men and dogs, see Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog1” 60-79. Vermeule, “Funerary Animals” 57. 1711 For a list of Attic stelai including birds, see Clairmont, Tombstones 6, Indexes, 81-84. This list exceeds in length Clairmont’s list of dogs on stelai Clairmont, Tombstones 6, Indexes, 100-101. Many of the small birds are being used as food or playthings for dogs, but the larger birds in particular are often held or regarded with care. See especially the Parian stele with a girl caressing two doves in New York [199]. Richter, Sculptors4. 1712 Lévi-Strauss, Savage 191-216. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 1709

Jeschonnek, Nominibus 1, 55. Jeschonnek, Nominibus. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 1715 Lonsdale, “Attitudes” 149-150. 1716 Anth. Pal. 7.211. 1717 Ath., 10.457. 1718 Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric vol. 3, Stesichorus, frag.200. 1719 Callim., Aet. 1.24 and note (Trypanis). 1720 Theoc., Id. 4.45. 1721 Theoc., Id. 25.139. 1722 Alciphron, Letters 2.18. 1713 1714

112

form their own tableau, of antagonists and audience. An alternative interpretation is that the cock, Chaitos, is depicted twice, once opposing Pelkos, and once with Sphekis as concubine. Jeschonnek’s analysis is that Chaitos and Pelkos are famous fighting cocks’ names, and, because the Greeks enjoyed cock-fights, that it was not unusual to name them.1723 Another named cockerel was Centaurus, who reputedly fell in love with the cup-bearer of King Nicomedes of Bithynia.1724 Certainly Centaurus is likely to have been an illustrious bird, but there is a hint here that the naming of fighting birds was not unusual, for the name itself seems to have raised no comment.

labour. The rites probably did not permit the sacrifice of a calving cow, but the important point is that the incident was acceptably dressed up as compassion.1731 The Greek Anthology rings with calls to pity working animals,1732 which were part of the extended oikos. Plutarch said that old animals should be kept if for no other reason than for the sake of kindness and practice in humanity to others,1733 but in other remarks he supports kindness to animals for their own sakes.1734 Elsewhere, in the ultimate ancient Greek account of the human-animal bond, listeners are fully expected to understand and be moved by Odysseus’ grief for his old dog Argos.1735 What is more, the image of the hero would have been seriously undermined if his sentiments were considered childish or mawkish.

Names describing physical appearance have a practical function. They distinguish between individuals in speech, as can be seen from Theocritus’ Idylls.1725 It seems likely that Greek householders named at least some of their animals that were not horses and dogs.

Animals as morally and ethically superior to humans An animal being ‘other’ was sometimes actually to its advantage. Part of animals’ otherness included being appreciated and admired for their differences, and their potential, unknown abilities. Plato, for instance, envisions intelligent cranes giving names and classing men with other beasts, below themselves.1736 He may have been jesting, but certain authors argued that animals were morally and ethically superior to humans.

Familiarity can be accompanied by increased tolerance and compassion, and reciprocal kindness and mutual toleration were expected within households,1726 of which animals were part. Exemplifying the tolerance expected, lawsuits between close family members were thought shameful.1727 This idea, and the status of the dog as a household member, collude in the topsy-turvey picture of extreme litigiousness in Aristophanes’ Wasps, where the absurdity of Philokleon’s determination to convict the dog Labes is heightened by Labes being a member of his own household, serving him.1728 Were it another man’s dog who stole Philokleon’s cheese, then the prosecution might have seemed more rational, since not even the benefit of feeding one’s own animal would have been achieved, and there might be the possibility of recompense from the owner.

The Greeks generally admired humans whose pride and sense of honour or principles gave them the power to resist their sexual urges, and regarded as unreliable, potential lawbreakers those who excessively prioritised sexual satisfaction.1737 These social standards for human sexual behaviour were often applied to animals. Time and again the sexual continence and constancy of some species is held praiseworthy, while those deemed lascivious are scorned. This was particularly emphasised in the chapter on sheep and goats – related species, used similarly by humans, yet morally opposed as models in Greek thought.1738 At other times, animals’ behaviours were judged as was appropriate to the species, for instance, in the vegetarian debate Plutarch1739 excuses carnivores, as

Compassion Compassion is expressed towards a wide variety of creatures. Sophokles thought “…even a pitiless man would be moved to pity by the shorn mare.”1729 There are the stories of the retired ox and ass.1730 We have the cow that was spared from a sacrifice when she went into

Anth. Pal. 9.22. See the chapter on working animals. 1733 Plut., Vit. Cat. Mai. 5.1-6. 1734 Plut., De Soll. An. 959f. 1735 Hom., Od. 17.304-305. 1736 Pl., Plt. 263d. 1737 Dover, Greek Popular Morality 208-9. Eg. Xen., Ages. 5.4. For an exploration of Greek expectations around human sexual behaviour, see Dover, “Sexual Behaviour”. 1738 Blok, “Rams” 428-429. See index for cross references to rams as models of masculinity. 1739 Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 991d. 1731

Jeschonnek, Nominibus 56. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 1724 Ath., 13.606a. Ael., NA 12.37. 1725 Theoc., Id. 3.5 for the tawny Libyan billy-goat, 4.46 for Cymaetha, the white heifer. See index for cross references to personal names for animals. 1726 Dover, Greek Popular Morality 187. Dem., 25.87-89. 1727 Dem., 48.3, 8. 1728 Ar., Vesp. 950-956. 1729 Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Vol.3, frag.659. 1730 See index for cross references to retired animals. 1723

1732

113

having no choice about eating meat.

what remains is fraught with contradictions, like the denial of rationality simultaneous with the crediting of human sensitivities. At any time, assertions could state the accepted view, a plea for change, or a return to an older view. The only thing that seems clear is that philosophical and general opinions about desirable and actual treatment of animals varied widely at any given time.

Conservatism was a respected value, observed by the Greeks in certain animals. Plato called dogs lovers of knowledge, for distrusting the unknown,1740 and centuries later Sextus Empiricus claimed that dogs, by rendering favour and disapproval as due, dispense justice better than many humans.1741 Diogenes and other cynics insisted that animals were superior in their conduct to humans, and cited the example of animals in defence of his abstemious lifestyle.1742 Avian piety is held up as an example in regard to care and feeding of aged parents by the Chorus in Sophokles’ Electra.1743 Aristotle tells that this is a commonly repeated story about storks, and that some also claim that bee-eaters feed their parents when they are young as well as old.1744

Domestic, ‘utility’ animals often lived and interacted very closely with their custodians, and it seems that human-animal likenesses and sympathies could foster subconscious anxiety about animal exploitation. Animal sacrifice was a vastly important aspect of Greek communities. It was sometimes devout, sometimes self-serving, and the social and dietary centrality of animal sacrifice made the dilemmas urgent. Partly in response to this, certain recorded rituals can resemble elaborate subterfuge, ritual restitution, or retribution against a species that might have offended a god.1749

Other arguments for animal superiority are put forth by Plutarch’s Gryllos, one of Odysseus’ crew, transformed into a pig, and preferring to remain so. Gryllos cites the uncompelled bravery of animals, the equal strength and courage of males and females,1745 the innateness of animal skills,1746 their abstinence from sexual perversion,1747 and the absence of gluttony and avarice.1748 Throughout Gryllos’ discussion with Odysseus, however, it is clear that Odysseus is not taking Gryllos’ claims very seriously, and though animals may be pointed out as examples of good conduct, Greeks never seemed to express a genuine wish to become animals themselves.

At the extreme, and sometimes to their disadvantage, animals might be treated as morally responsible, quasi-members of the human community. Anthropomorphism allowed many Greeks to extend censures and courtesies appropriate to humans, to their reception of animal behaviours. Bearing these factors, and the evidence, in mind, it cannot be convincingly be said that Greeks accorded animals no reasonable expectation of fair treatment. Indeed, there is strong evidence for sympathetic attitudes towards them.

Findings

An aspect of human-animal bonds is revealed in human verbal communication. Animals that were individually commanded or summoned often received personal names, which emulated heroic or mythical practice as well as being practical.1750 Naming, especially when an animal responds positively, tends to have a bonding influence now, and the potential is fully there for the same to have occurred in Greece. Moreover, choices of name can reveal human attitudes. For instance, publicly stated names for horses and dogs were often proud statements of the animals’ qualities. Surviving names were at the very least descriptive, and this appears to have been a comfortable convention, not intruding upon the names given to humans alone.

In diverse modes and degrees, Greeks thoroughly observed and investigated the similarities, differences, and relationships between themselves and animals. This included consideration of the rights and wrongs of exploiting animals, but despite the energy they expended on observing and investigating animals, there is little evidence to suggest that Greeks often analysed their thinking about their views of animals, or the inconsistencies within them. Surviving evidence does not permit clear delineation of each new development in attitudes to animals, and Pl., Resp. 2.376b. Sextus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism 1.62-1.72. 1742 Dio Chrysostom, Oration 6.13-33. Theophr. ap. Diog. Laert., Philosophers 6.22. 1743 Soph., El. 1058-62. 1744 Arist., Hist. An. 9.13(615b24-615b28). 1745 Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 987c-988d. 1746 Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 991d-992c. 1747 Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 990f-991a. 1748 Plut., Bruta Animalia Ratione Uti 989c-f, 991a-d. 1740

Throughout, the option remained available to consider any member of any species as being akin or distant – and to treat it accordingly. Nobody was obliged to adopt any particular moral stance. Nor would this have been practical, given the variety of human circumstances

1741

1749 1750

114

See index for cross references to punitive sacrifices. See index for cross references to personal names for animals.

and the need for pragmatism. Individuals dealt with animals in ways that best suited their own interests, for labour, meat, milk, wool, entertainment, and companionship.

it competed with human needs and desires. The same broad conclusion seems to have been common; that animals and humans were physically and emotionally akin to some degree, sharing the same metaphysical world.1751 At the same time, as species, and individuals, they were also fundamentally ‘other’. Fair treatment was ideal, but could not be expected in return and so was not obligatory. Yet, to some, animals appeared to have better ethics than humans, were pleasanter companions, and more honest workmates. Treatment and attitudes to animals were riddled with contradictions, which most simply accepted. Berger illustrated this point nicely, when he wrote:

Amid the wide array of daily, yet complex, humananimal interactions, humane treatment appears to have depended less on the idea of animals having rights of their own, than on their relationships to the humans around them. Economic freedom or imperatives, social roles and standing, personal experience, ignorance, perceptions of belonging and kinship, anthropomorphising, and philosophical notions such as the possibility of reincarnated relatives – all contributed to individual Greeks’ outlooks. This said, ancient Greeks needed to be pragmatic, and kinder sensitivities were often forced aside by necessitydriven indifference. Deliberate cruelty was reviled, but incidental suffering was largely disregarded when

“A peasant becomes fond of his pig and is glad to salt away its pork. What is significant … is that the two statements in that sentence are connected by an and and not by a but.”1752

1751 1752

115

Thomas, Natural World 75. Berger, “Animals as metaphor” 504.

Conclusion

The practical usefulness of an animal species was crucial in determining its place in society. Milk, flesh, hides, fleece, and labour were essential, and the animals best suited to meet these were widespread. The resulting general uniformity in the animals kept across Greek states, and consistency in the animals’ natural behaviours and human needs meant that many attitudes to particular species were widely shared, particularly those derived from conflicts and agreements between human wishes and animals’ natural behaviours. Human concerns were strongly reflected in the categorisation of animals, so that human categories became inhabited by animal species as well.1753 The character sets that are negative are normally the most remarked. However, the attributes of species that connected with human aspirations, such as courage, grace, and strength, also informed the Greeks’ received views.

Despite long-lasting uniformity in the core species that were most useful to Greek survival, a species could hold very different levels of prominence depending on the locality. Variance in geographical and climatic conditions determined human survival problems and opportunities in each place, and the animals that figured within them. Thus a state might favour or despise given species as prompted by its local strengths and vulnerabilities. Of course the impact of a species locally influenced its importance in local beliefs, practices, rituals, and symbols. An example of this is the prominence of wolves on the coins of Argos. Moreover, the consistency in stereotypes and consequent attitudes observable even on an inter-state level is by no means replicated in individual Greek’s personal views. When we examine the human-animal interactions of individual ancient Greeks, we find a rich variety nested between the stereotypes, such that any notion of a collective ‘Greek view’ of animals must begin to be deconstructed. The species and temperament of each animal made differences in every case, as did the experiences and social status of the humans interacting with it, and their circumstances at any given time. The uniting aspect of this is that individuals’ freedom to regard animals as each wished was widespread.

Shared views, or stereotypes, of species formed the basis of what appears to have been a self-reinforcing system of widely intelligible metaphors in language and art. There was a tendency to stereotype similar species as opposites. Thus, for instance, wolves were compared with dogs, each serving to define the personality of the other. Such stereotypes were powerful enough to form the basis of symbols and state emblems. Lloyd remarks that early Greeks appear to have held that animals not only symbolised certain characteristics, but permanently manifested them.1754 The portrayals vary,1755 but in representing human traits there is an enduring consistency.

In dealings with their animals both rich and poor were influenced by innate and cultural tendencies towards competitive display (especially strong in some areas of Greek society). The social orders were equally likely to seek from animals fulfilment of human social needs or urges not completely met elsewhere,

Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans 5. Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology 184-185. 1755 Kirk (ed.), Iliad Commentary Vol.6, 33. 1753 1754

117

and to exploit their shared abilities to empathise and, in varying degrees, anthropomorphise. However, while the wealthy could afford sentimental views and indulgent actions, the less well-off had to adopt more pragmatic approaches. As a result of human priorities or indigence animals might suffer excessive burdening, insufficient or inappropriate food, and other privations, even though this was ultimately counterproductive. Greeks’ hardening of feelings towards their animals’ suffering was far from wilful cruelty. Rather, it seems that practical indifference was part of a farmer’s toolkit. Poets suggest that many who were in straightened circumstances regretted this, and that pragmatism did not preclude working men from feeling gratitude to and anxiety for their animals.

In chapter three, the Greeks’ dependence on burden animals stands out clearly. Paradoxically, the heavy duty haulage for which burden animals were essential is very little emphasised in art. Images of highstatus horse-drawn chariots were socially much more desirable. In either case, the physical work was accomplished in partnership between man and animal, such that the effectiveness of their working relationships could strongly influence their progress. The personal experience of a beast as a partner in labour was very much the preserve of the common man; crucially distinguishing him from a member of the élite. In broader perceptions, the usefulness of an animal had only as much influence on the level of its esteem as was permitted by the absence of more glamorous competitors in its class. Thus the eminently useful and versatile mule is sidelined by ambivalence about its hybridity, so that the ox takes the prominent role in heavy-duty traction. That the ass was universally appreciated as useful, cooperative, and inexpensive did little for its evaluation in comparison with the flighty, costly, and comparatively less useful horse. As a pair, the stereotypes of the horse and ass worked well, with each occupying the extreme pole of equine respectability. These two species receive a lot of attention, at the expense of the ‘neither here nor there’ hybrid mule.

Deliberate cruelty to animals certainly occurred, and was remarked by onlookers. However, it is difficult to be certain when objections were raised on the grounds that an animal was being hurt and should not be, and when they were more general objections to perverse and unusual behaviour on the part of the human. As such there seems to have been no established code of expected behaviour to define cruelty to animals, and the pressure of warfare could sanction brutality that would otherwise not be contemplated. At other times animals suffered from human ignorance of their needs and tolerances, and this was a particular problem for animals kept as pets, both traditional and nontraditional species.

In chapter four, ambivalence became prominent. Certain species such as dogs, widespread and indispensable, constituted nevertheless considerable hazards to individual humans. Birds might sometimes be the messengers of the gods, but they might also be a source of irritation or even fury to those with statues and temples to protect. Paradoxically, among those animals that presented threats to human livelihoods it was the larger beasts like wolves that seem to have borne the greater burden of human anxiety, and so received greater prominence in art and literature, even though their impact might not be as far-reaching or persistent as that of smaller creatures like mice. Some actions taken against a transgressing animal, such as a grain-trampling pig, might appear to be intended as punishment of that creature and suggest expectation of rationality in the animal, but this must be weighed against the idea of penalising negligent owners by the most obvious course. The idea of using natural predators against pests was of course exploited. Both in this matter and in relation to the general use of domestic animals there seems to have been acceptance that sometimes the animal cure for a problem could become a curse.

The likelihood of animal species and particular human groups being represented or commented on is related to their social place and attitudes towards them. This affects the evidence itself, which has the result of skewing animals’ representation, so the evidence cannot be approached in a uniform way. In chapter two, it became apparent that even very important animals like sheep could be presented so uninformatively as to require considerable extrapolation from more modern settings, and working ‘backwards’ from attitudes to handlers. Indeed, the striking sameness in depictions of sheep was an aspect that was unique to that species. Contrastingly, the evidence for attitudes towards goats is voluminous and diverse. Each species plays an important part in defining the other, for their basic biological similarities allow species-specific behaviours to be separated, and contrasted morally. Thus, sheep and goats could be worked into parodies and models of good and bad human behaviour.

118

In chapter five, several species identified as pests in chapter four reappear in the role of pets, with humans attempting to use them to fulfil social needs. A spectrum of direct benefits from animal companionship is explored. The dividing line between human and animal was again seen to be elastic, with children being especially closely associated with animals in their activities, and interacting with them as playmates. Among older humans, pets stood out in interhuman social communication and status reinforcement. At times negative attitudes were deployed, and apes were emphasised for their mixture of strong similarities and radical differences from humans. These made them useful as a parody of humanity, and reinforced feelings of human superiority.

Instead powerfully held divergent opinions were often in simultaneous operation. Regarding the status of animals as sentient individuals, there seems to have been no collective agreement. This involved living with certain contradictions. For instance, animals otherwise regarded as non-rational might be held responsible for transgressing human boundaries in the course of their natural behaviour, and punished in ways that they were expected to connect with their wrong-doing, though the events were separated in time. Whether regarded as rational or not, animals were consciously perceived as essential to civilised life as most Greeks knew it, and seldom was an animal viewed neutrally by those operating in close connection with it. Animals were not attributed stated rights, rather they were treated as befitted the good of the human community. That is, the degree to which punishments were meted out, and care and gratitude were acted upon were strongly pinned to imperatives of human survival. This overrode nearly all philosophical considerations. Philosophers may have sought to define acceptable attitudes to animals, but average human beings did not need to adopt any moral stance. They only needed to be guided by pragmatism, and of course pragmatic actions are defined by circumstances.

The animals given most attention in literature and art, as preserved, have been those linked with the status, or economic wellbeing of humans. For this reason, pets appear frequently in the Greek material. However, there is very little scientific interest in human-animal bonds, suggesting that despite their prominence, pets were perceived as having little economic or practical importance. Indeed, numerous literary asides suggest that they were viewed as trivial.1756 In chapter six, a variety of the issues that had already appeared were investigated further; in particular, the evidence for the Greeks’ contemplation of animals’ practical and theoretical placement in society, as well as human responsibilities towards animals, and viceversa. The significance of naming was considered, along with the idea of animals’ integration into the oikos, and human awareness of consequences for animals, arising out of their close associations.

The present study reveals that, although inconsistent with regard to species, there is indeed considerable archaeological evidence with which to glimpse details of the Greeks’ personal interactions with animals, evidence which significantly complements that in literary and epigraphic texts. What makes this result more important is its uniqueness to ancient Greece. No other culture of the period between 600 and 300 BC has produced so many surviving images of ordinary life and its humananimal interactions. That most of this evidence is indirect or incidental lends it a communal validity surpassing that of the conscious pronouncements of individuals.

Animals were the object of biological and philosophical studies and debates, and what becomes clear is that the Greeks neither thought about nor represented animals neutrally. There was at no time a consensus view of how animals should be treated or regarded.

1756 Fogel, “How?” xxiv.

119

Abbreviations and bibliography

ADII

Ancient sources have not been listed unless a particular translation is cited. A list of abbreviations used for ancient sources may be found in Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (Oxford, 1996).

Deutsches Archaõlogisches Institut, Antike Denkmaeler II (Berlin, 1887).

LIMC, and ThesCRA references have not been abbreviated, and are given in full in the text.

Adam, Sculpture Adam, S.A., The Technique of Greek Sculpture in the Archaic and Classical Periods (London, 1966).

•

LIMC citations. The format is LIMC, followed by roman numerals for the volume, arabic for any subdivision, title of the entry preceded by s.v., thereafter page numbers, item number in text, plate numbers, then author(s), in brackets. Eg. LIMC III, s.v. Dodekatheoi, p.649, no.5, pls.508-509 (Berger-Doer).

Adams

ThesCRA citations. The format is ThesCRA, followed by roman numerals for the volume, arabic for any subdivision, title of the entry preceded by s.v., thereafter page numbers, item number in text, plate numbers, then author(s), in brackets. Eg. ThesCRA I.1, s.v. Processions: Greek Processions, p.3, no.3 (True, Daehner, Grossman, Lapatin, Nam).

Adamson, Spotted Adamson, J., The Spotted Sphinx (London, 1969).

Abh.Berl.(Akad.) Abhandlungen der Deutschen (Königlichen until 1918, Preussischen until 1945) Akademie der Wissenschaften. (Berlin).

Addenda2 Carpenter, T.H., Beazley, J.D., Burn, L., Mannack, T., and Mendonça, M., Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena (Oxford, 1989).

•

ABV

Aeschines, and Adams, C.D., The Speeches of Aeschines (London, 1919).

Adamson, Pippa’s Challenge Adamson, J., Pippa’s Challenge (London, 1972).

Addenda Burn, L., Glynn, R., Beazley, J.D. and British Academy., Beazley Addenda: Additional References to ABV, ARV2 and Paralipomena (Oxford, 1982).

Beazley, J.D., Attic Black-figure Vasepainters (Oxford, 1956).

Ahlberg-Cornell, Myth and Epos Ahlberg-Cornell, G., Myth and Epos in Early

121

Greek Art: Representation and Interpretation (Jonsered, 1992).

Anderson, Horsemanship Anderson, J.K., Ancient Greek Horsemanship (Berkeley, 1961).

Albizzati, Vaticano Albizzati, C., Vasi Antichi Dipinti del Vaticano (Roma, 1922).

Anderson, Hunting Anderson, J.K., Hunting in the Ancient World (Berkeley, 1985).

Alcock, et al., “Landscape” Alcock, S.E., Cherry, J.F., and Davis, J.L., “Intensive Survey, Agricultural Practice and the Classical Landscape of Greece” in Classical Greece, edited by Ian Morris (Cambridge, 1994) 137-170.

Anderson, “Καταρράκτης” Anderson, J.K., “Θρᾷξ, Δυτῖνος, Καταρράκτης”, JHS 92 (1972) 171-172. Andrewes, “Athenian State” Andrewes, A., “The Growth of the Athenian State” in Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 (Cambridge, 1982) 360-391.

Alfieri, Spina Alfieri, N., Spina: Guida al Museo Archeologico in Ferrara (Firenze, 1961). Allaby (ed.), Zoology Allaby, M., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Zoology (Oxford, 1991).

Andrewes, “Pisistratus” Andrewes, A., “The Tyranny of Pisistratus” in Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 (Cambridge, 1982) 392-416.

Allbaugh, Crete Allbaugh, L.G., Crete: a Case Study of an Underdeveloped Area (Princeton, 1953).

Angel, “Skeletal” Angel, J.L., “Skeletal Material from Attica”, Hesperia 14, no. 4 (1945) 279-363.

Allen, “Pottery” Allen, G., “Pottery”, Hesperia Art Bulletin 14 (1960) 1-8.

Antike Kunstwerke 4 Antike Kunstwerke aus dem Nachlass eines bekannten Archäologen: Kunstwerke des Hellenismus, Gemmen und Kameen, Antiken für angehende Sammler, (Basel, 1992).

Allen, et al. (eds.) Homeric Hymns Allen, T.W., Halliday, W.R., and Sikes, E.E., The Homeric Hymns. 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1936).

Appleby/Hughes (eds.), Welfare Appleby, M.C., and Hughes, B.O. (eds.), Animal Welfare (Wallingford, 1997).

Allpress, “Transport” Allpress, R.G., “Transport Animals: Health Constraints” in Hall (ed.), Traction (Potters Bar, 1997) 35-41.

Arias/Hirmer, et al., GVP Arias, P.E., Hirmer, M. and Shefton, B.B., A History of Greek Vase Painting (London, 1962).

Amasis Papers J. Paul Getty Museum, Papers on the Amasis Painter and his World (Malibu, Calif., 1987).

Armitage, “Unwelcome Companions” Armitage, P.L., “Unwelcome Companions: Ancient Rats Reviewed”, Antiquity 68 (1994) 231-240.

Amouretti, Le Pain Amouretti, M.-C., Le Pain et l’Huile dans la Grèce Antique: de l’Araire au Moulin (Paris, 1986).

Armitage/Clutton-Brock,“Horn Cores” Armitage, P.L., and Clutton-Brock, J., “A System for Classification and Description of the Horn Cores of Cattle from Archaeological Sites”, Journal of Archaeological Science 3, no. 4 (1976) 329-348.

Anderson, “Bucephalas” Anderson, A.R., “Bucephalas and His Legend”, American Journal of Philology 51, no. 1 (1930) 1-21.

122

Arnott, Birds A-Z Arnott, W.G., Birds in the Ancient World from A-Z (London, 2007).

Baker/Brothwell, Animal Diseases Baker, J.R. and Brothwell, D., Animal Diseases in Archaeology (London, 1980).

Arnott, “Theatre” Arnott, P.D., “Animals in the Greek Theatre”, Greece & Rome. Second series 6, no. 2 (1959) 177-179.

Balme, “Division and Differentiae” Balme, D.M., “Aristotle’s Use of Division and Differentiae” in Philosophical Issues in Aristotle’s Biology, edited by Allan Gotthelf and James G. Lennox (Cambridge, 1987) 6989.

Arrighetti Arrighetti, G. (ed.), Epicuro Opere, 2nd ed. (Turin, 1973). ARV2

Balter/Morell, “Oldest Art” Balter, M., and Morell, V., “New Light on the Oldest Art”, Science. New Series 283, no. 5405 (1999) 920-922.

Beazley, J.D., Attic Red-figure Vase-painters. 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1963).

Bammer, A., “Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesos” Bammer, A., “Sanctuaries in the Artemision of Ephesos” in Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993, edited by Robin Hägg (Stockholm, 1998) 27-47.

Ash, Forster, and Heffner Ash, H.B., Forster, E.F. and Heffner, E.H. (eds.), Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella on Agriculture, with a Recension of the Text and an English Translation, edited and translated by H.B. Ash, E.S. Forster, and E.H. Heffner. (London 1941-1955). Ashmead, “Cats” Ashmead, A., “Greek Cats: Exotic Pets Kept by Rich Youths in Fifth-century B.C. Athens, as Portrayed on Greek Vases”, Expedition 20, no. 3 (1978) 38-47.

Barber, Women’s Work Barber, E.J.W., Women’s Work: the First 20,000 Years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times (New York, 1994).

Ashmole, Architect Ashmole, B., Architect and Sculptor in Classical Greece (London, 1972).

Barnes

Ashmole, “Kalligeneia” Ashmole, B., “Kalligeneia and Hieros Arotos”, JHS 66 (1946) 8-10.

Aristotle, ed. by Barnes, J., The Complete Works of Aristotle: the Revised Oxford Translation (Princeton, 1984).

Barringer, Hunt Barringer, J.M., The Hunt in Ancient Greece (Baltimore, MD., 2001).

Ault, “Microcosm” Ault, B.A., “Living in the Classical Polis: The Greek House as Microcosm”, Classical World 93, no. 5 (2000) 483-496.

Baur, Yale Baur, P.V.C., Catalogue of the Rebecca Darlington Stoddard Collection of Greek and Italian Vases in Yale University (New Haven, 1922).

Badian, “Callias” Badian, E., “The Peace of Callias” in JHS 107 (1987) 1-39.

Bazant, Citoyens Bazant, J., Les Citoyens sur les Vases Athéniens du 6e au 4e Siècle av. J.-C (Praha, 1985).

Baker, “Animal Diseases” Baker, J.R., “The Study of Animal Diseases with Regard to Agricultural Practices and Man’s Attitude to his Animals” in Grigson/ Clutton-Brock (eds.), Husbandry (Oxford, 1984) 253-257.

Beazley, AWL Beazley, J.D., Attic White Lekythoi (Oxford, 1938).

123

Beazley, Berlin Beazley, J.D., The Berlin Painter Rev. ed. (Mainz, 1974).

(1943) 441-465. Beazley/Payne, “Naucratis” Beazley, J.D., and Payne, H., “Attic BlackFigured Fragments from Naucratis”, JHS 49, no. 2 (1929) 253-272.

Beazley, “Brygos” Beazley, J.D., “The Brygos Tomb at Capua”, AJA 49, no. 2 (1945) 153-158.

Beck, Album Beck, F.A.G., Album of Greek Education: the Greeks at School and at Play (Sydney, 1975).

Beazley, “Characters” Beazley, J.D., “Theophrastus, Characters, 21.6”, The Classical Review 63, no. 2 (1949) 42-43.

Beck, Companionship Beck, A.M., Between Pets and People: the Importance of Animal Companionship (New York, 1983).

Beazley, Dev2 Beazley, J.D., The Development of Attic Black-figure Rev. & ed. by D. von Bothmer and M.B. Moore (Berkeley, 1986). Beazley, Gifts Beazley, J.D., Select Exhibition of Sir John and Lady Beazley’s Gifts to the Ashmolean Museum, 1912-1966 (London, 1967).

Beck/Katcher, “Human-Animal Bond” Beck, A.M., and Katcher, A.H., “Future Directions in Human- Animal Bond Research”, American Behavioral Scientist 47 (2003) 79-93.

Beazley, “Inscriptions V” Beazley, J.D., “Some Inscriptions on Vases: V”, AJA 54, no. 4 (1950) 310-322.

Bellairs, Reptiles Bellairs, A., The Life of Reptiles (London, 1969).

Beazley, Lectures Beazley, J.D., Greek Vases: Lectures. Edited by D.C. Kurtz (Oxford, 1989).

Belson, Gorgoneion Belson, J.D., The Gorgoneion in Greek Architecture. Thesis (Ph.D.), Bryn Mawr College, 1981 (Ann Arbor, 1981).

Beazley, Lewes Beazley, J.D., The Lewes House Collection of Ancient Gems (Oxford, 1920).

Benndorf/Niemann, Heroon Benndorf, O., and Niemann, G., Das Heroon von Gjölbaschi-Trysa (Wien, 1889).

Beazley, “Master” Beazley, J.D., “The Master of the Berlin Amphora”, JHS 31 (1911) 276-295.

Benson, “Three Maidens” Benson, J.L., “The Three Maidens Group”, AJA 73, no. 2 (1969) 109-122.

Beazley, “Membra” Beazley, J.D., “Disjecta Membra”, JHS 51, no. 1 (1931) 39-56.

Benton, “Weasels” Benton, S., “Pet Weasels: Theocritus XV.28”, The Classical Review 19 (1969) 260-263.

Beazley, Painting Beazley, J.D., Greek Sculpture and Painting to the End of the Hellenistic Period (Cambridge, 1966).

Berard (ed.), Images Berard, C. (ed.), A City of Images: Iconography and Society in Ancient Greece (Princeton, 1989).

Beazley, Pan Beazley, J.D., The Pan Painter Rev. 1944 and 1947. (Mainz, 1974).

Berard/Durand, “Imagery” Berard, C., and Durand, J.-L., “Entering the Imagery” in Berard (ed.), Images (Princeton, 1989).

Beazley, “Panathenaica” Beazley, J.D., “Panathenaica”, AJA 47, no. 4

124

Museum.” Archaeologia 31, (1846) 257264.

Berger, “Animals as Metaphor” Berger, J., “Animals as Metaphor”, New Society 39 (1977) 504-505.

Birks, “Car Crime” Birks, J., “Car Crime”, BBC Wildlife 24, no. 6 (2006) 42.

Bergquist, “Feasting?” Bergquist, B., “Feasting of Worshippers or Temple and Sacrifice? The Case of Herakleion on Thasos” in Hägg (ed.), Cult Practice (Stockholm, 1998) 57-72.

Blatter, “Rüstungsszene” Blatter, R., “Rüstungsszene auf einer Attischen Schale”, Antike Kunst 7 (1964) 4850.

Bernheim/Zener, “Sminthian Apollo” Bernheim, F., and Zener, A.A., “The Sminthian Apollo and the Epidemic among the Achaeans at Troy”, Transactions of the American Philological Association, no. 108 (1978) 11-14.

Blok, “Rams” Blok, A., “Rams and Billy-goats: a Key to the Mediterranean Code of Honour”, Man 16, no. 3 (1981) 427-440.

Berry, Gems Berry, B.Y., Ancient Gems from the Collection of Burton Y. Berry (Bloomington, 1968).

Boardman, Ancient Art Boardman, J., The World of Ancient Art (London, 2006).

Berthiaume, Rôles du Mágeiros Berthiaume, G., Les Rôles du Mágeiros: Étude sur la Boucherie, la Cuisine et le Sacrifice Dans la Grèce Ancienne (Leiden, 1982).

Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems Boardman, J., Archaic Greek Gems: Schools and Artists in the Sixth and Early Fifth Centuries BC (London, 1968). Boardman, Archaic Sculpture Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: the Archaic Period: a Handbook (London, 1978).

Besques, Figurines Besques, S., Catalogue Raisonné des Figurines et Reliefs en Terre-cuite Grecs, Étrusques et Romains (Paris, 1954).

Boardman, ARFV Archaic Boardman, J., Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Archaic Period: a Handbook (London, 1975).

Bevan, Representations Bevan, E., Representations of Animals in Sanctuaries of Artemis and Other Olympian Deities. Part 1 (Oxford, 1986).

Boardman, ARFV Classical1 Boardman, J., Athenian Red Figure Vases, the Classical Period: a Handbook (New York, N.Y., 1989).

Bieber, Alexander Bieber, M., Alexander the Great in Greek and Roman Art (Chicago, 1964).

Boardman, CAH2 Plates Boardman, J., (ed.) The Cambridge Ancient History2: Plates to Volumes V and VI. The Fifth and Fourth Centuries B.C. (Cambridge, 1994).

Bieber, Hellenistic Sculpture Bieber, M., The Sculpture of the Hellenistic Age Rev. ed (New York, 1961). Bigwood, “Parrot” Bigwood, J.M., “Ctesias’ Parrot”, Classical Quarterly. New Series 43, no. 1 (1993) 321327.

Boardman, EGVP Boardman, J., Early Greek Vase Painting: 11th-6th Centuries BC: a Handbook (New York, 1998).

Birch, “Anacreon” Birch, S., “Observations on the Figures of Anacreon and his Dog, as Represented upon some Greek Fictile Vases in the British

Boardman, et al. (eds.), CAH2 Vol.4 Boardman, J., et al. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History2. Volume 4, Persia, Greece

125

and the Western Mediterranean c. 525479 B.C., edited by John Boardman, et al. (Cambridge, 1988).

Bodson, L. (ed.), Animaux Introduits Bodson, L. (ed.), Des Animaux Introduits par L’homme dans la Faune de L’Europe (Liège, 1994).

Boardman, Engraved Gems Boardman, J., Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Finger Rings. 1. Greek and Etruscan (Oxford, 1978).

Bökönyi, S., “Definitions” Bökönyi, S., “Definitions of Animal Domestication” in Clutton-Brock (ed.), Larder (London, 1989).

Boardman, Gems2 Boardman, J., Greek Gems and Finger Rings2: Early Bronze Age to Late Classical (London, 2001).

Borchelt, “Dog Attack Borchelt, P.L., Lockwood, R., Beck, A.M., and Voith, V.L., “Dog Attack Involving Predation on Humans” in New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals, edited by Aaron Honori Katcher and Alan M. Beck (Philadelphia, 1983) 219-231.

Boardman, GSLCP Boardman, J., Greek Sculpture: the Late Classical Period and Sculpture in Colonies and Overseas: a Handbook (London, 1995).

Borgeaud, Pan Borgeaud, P., The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (Chicago, 1988).

Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 Boardman, J. and Hammond, N.G.L., (eds.) The Cambridge Ancient History2. Volume 3. Part 3, The Expansion of the Greek World, Eighth to Sixth Centuries B.C. (Cambridge, 1982).

Borthwick, “Beetle, Bell, Goldfinch, and Weasel” Borthwick, E.K., “Beetle, Bell, Goldfinch, and Weasel in Aristophanes’ Peace”, The Classical Review 18 (1968) 134-139.

Boardman, Nostalgia Boardman, J., The Archaeology of Nostalgia: How the Greeks Re-created their Mythical Past (London, 2002).

Borthwick, “Seeing Weasels” Borthwick, E.K., “Seeing Weasels: the Superstitious Background of the Empousa Scene in the Frogs”, Classical Quarterly 18 (1968) 200-206.

Boardman, Overseas Boardman, J., The Greeks Overseas4: Their Early Colonies and Trade (London, 1999).

Bothmer, Amasis Bothmer, D.v., The Amasis Painter and his World: Vase-painting in Sixth-century BC Athens (Malibu, Calif., 1985).

Boardman, Ox. Hist. Classical Art Boardman, J., The Oxford History of Classical Art (Oxford, 1993).

Bothmer, Baker Collection Exhib. Bothmer, D.v., Greek, Etruscan, and Roman Antiquities: an Exhibition from the Collection of Walter Cummings Baker Esq. (New York, 1950).

Boardman, Pan Boardman, J., The Great God Pan: the Survival of an Image (London, 1997). Boardman, “Parthenon Frieze” Boardman, J., “The Parthenon Frieze” in Parthenon-Kongress Basel: Referate und Berichte, 4. bis 8. April 1982, edited by Ernst Berger (Mainz, 1984) 210-215.

Bothmer, Bastis Bothmer, D.v., Antiquities from the Collection of Christos G. Bastis (New York, 1987).

Boardman, Vases Boardman, J., The History of Greek Vases: Potters, Painters, and Pictures (New York (N.Y.), 2001).

Bothmer, Glories Bothmer, D.v., Glories of the Past: Ancient Art from the Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (New York, 1990).

126

Bothmer, NY Private Collections Bothmer, D.v., Ancient Art from New York Private Collections: Catalogue of an Exhibition Held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, December 17, 1959-February 28, 1960 (New York, 1961).

Bruneau, “Deliaca” Bruneau, P., “Deliaca”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 99 (1975) 267311. Bucci, Ruvo Bucci, C., Ruvo di Puglia: Museo Jatta in Obiettivo: Appunti e Immagini per Ricordare Una Visita (Ruvo (Italy), 1986).

Boulter, Archaic into Classical Boulter, C.G. (ed.), Greek Art, Archaic into Classical: a Symposium Held at the University of Cincinnati April 2-3, 1982 (Leiden, 1985).

Buitron-Oliver, Douris Buitron-Oliver, D., Douris: a Master-painter of Athenian Red-figure Vases (Mainz, 1993).

Braun, “Greeks in Egypt” Braun, T.F.R.G., “The Greeks in Egypt” in Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 (Cambridge, 1982) 32-56.

Buitron-Oliver, New Perspectives Buitron-Oliver, D. (ed.) New Perspectives in Early Greek Art (Washington, 1991). Burford, Land and Labor Burford, A., Land and Labor in the Greek World (London, 1993).

Braun, “Greeks in Near East” Braun, T.F.R.G., “The Greeks in the Near East” in Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 (Cambridge, 1982) 1-31.

Burford, “Transport” Burford, A., “Heavy Transport in Classical Antiquity”, Economic History Review 13, no. 1 (1960) 1-18.

Bremmer, “Adolescents” Bremmer, J.N., “Adolescents, Symposion, and Pederasty” in Murray (ed.), Sympotica (Oxford, 1990) 135-148.

Burkert, “Cults” Burkert, W., “Athenian Cults and Festivals” in CAH2 (Cambridge, 1992) 245-267.

Bremmer, Greek Religion Bremmer, J.N., Greek Religion (Oxford, 1994).

Burkert, “Greek Tragedy” Burkert, W., “Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual”, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 7 (1966) 87-121.

Bremmer, Interpretations Bremmer, J.N., Interpretations of Greek Mythology (London, 1987).

Burkert, Pythagoreanism Burkert, W., and Minar, E.L., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, Mass, 1972).

Bremmer, “Marginality” Bremmer, J.N., “Symbols of Marginality from Early Pythagoreans to Late Antique Monks”, Greece & Rome. Second series 39, no. 2 (1992) 205-214.

Burkert, Religion Burkert, W., Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical (Oxford, 1987).

Brommer, Satyrspiele Brommer, F., Satyrspiele: Bilder Griechischer Vasen (Berlin, 1944). Brown, Lion Brown, W.L., The Etruscan Lion (Oxford, 1960).

Burkert/Bing, Necans Burkert, W., Homo Necans: the Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth, transl. by P. Bing (London, 1983).

Brückner, “Friedhof” Brückner, A., “Ein Attischer Friedhof”, AM 18 (1893) 73-191.

Burn, Meidias Burn, L., The Meidias Painter (Oxford, 1987).

127

Carpenter, Dionysian Imagery Carpenter, T.H., Dionysian Imagery in Archaic Greek Art: its Development in Blackfigure Vase Painting (Oxford, 1986).

Burn, “Red and White” Burn, L., “Red Figure and White Ground of the Later Fifth Century” in Rasmussen/ Spivey (eds.), Looking (Cambridge, 1991) 118-130.

Carpenter, Folk Tale Carpenter, R., Folk Tale, Fiction and Saga in the Homeric Epics (Berkeley, 1946).

Burow, Antimenesmaler Burow, J., Der Antimenesmaler (Mainz/ Rhein, 1989).

Carpenter, Myth Carpenter, T.H., Art and Myth in Ancient Greece: a Handbook (London, 1991).

Burton, Hedgehog Burton, M., The Hedgehog (London, 1969). Busuttil, “Maltese” Busuttil, J., “The Maltese Dog”, Greece and Rome 16, no. 2 (1969) 205-8. Butler

Carter, “Agricultural Settlements” Carter, J.C., “Agricultural Settlements” in Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), The Western Greeks (London, 1996) 361-368.

Butler, S. (ed.), The Iliad of Homer: Rendered into English Prose for the Use of Those Who Cannot Read the Original, edited and translated by S. Butler (London, 1898).

Cartledge, “Fowl Play” Cartledge, P., “Fowl Play: a Curious Lawsuit in Classical Athens (Antiphon XVI, frr. 57-9 Thalheim)” in Nomos. Essays in Athenian Law, Politics and Society, edited by P. Cartledge, P. Millett and S. Todd (Cambridge, 1990) 41-61.

Buxton, Imaginary Greece Buxton, R.G.A., Imaginary Greece: the Contexts of Mythology (Cambridge, 1994).

Cartledge/Millett, et al. (eds.), Kosmos Cartledge, P., Millett, P. and von Reden, S. (eds.), Kosmos: Essays in Order, Conflict and Community in Classical Athens, (Cambridge, 1998).

Buxton, Persuasion Buxton, R.G.A., Persuasion in Greek Tragedy: a Study of Peitho (Cambridge, 1982).

Caskey, “Recent Additions” Caskey, L.D., “Recent Additions to the Classical Collections”, Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin 9, no. 54 (1911) 51-54.

Buxton, “Wolves” Buxton, R., “Wolves and Werewolves in Greek Thought” in Bremmer, Interpretations (London, 1987) 60-79.

Caskey/Beazley, Boston Caskey, L.D., and Beazley, J.D., Attic Vase Paintings in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. 3 vols (London, 1931-1963).

Callipolitis-Feytmans, Plats Callipolitis-Feytmans, D., Les Plats Attiques à Figures Noires (Paris, 1974). Cameron, Women Cameron, A. and Kuhrt, A., Images of Women in Antiquity Rev. ed. (London, 1993).

Cato/Brehaut, Farming Cato, Cato, the Censor, on Farming: with Translation and Commentary, translated by by Ernest Brehaut (New York, 1933).

Campbell (ed.), Greek Lyric Campbell, D.A., Greek Lyric (Loeb) (London, 1982-1993).

Cato/Dalby, Farming Cato, On Farming: de Agricultura: a modern translation with commentary, translated by Andrew Dalby (Totnes, 1998).

Caras, Dangerous Caras, R.A., Dangerous to Man: the Definitive Story of Wildlife’s Reputed Dangers. Rev. ed (London, 1976).

Ceccarelli, P., “Among the Savages Ceccarelli, P., “Life Among the Savages

128

and Escape from the City” in The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, edited by F. D. Harvey, John Wilkins, Kenneth James Dover and Myfanwy Tristram (London, 2000) 453471.

Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram Clairmont, C.W., Gravestone and Epigram: Greek Memorials from the Archaic and Classical Period (Mainz on Rhine, 1970). Clairmont, Parisurteil Clairmont, C.W., Das Parisurteil in der Antiken Kunst (Zürich, 1951).

Chantry (ed.), Scholia Chantry, M. (ed.) Scholia Vetera in Aristophanis Plutum, Vol.III 4a (Groningen, 1999).

Clairmont, Tombstones Clairmont, C.W., Classical Attic Tombstones (Kilchberg, 1993).

Chase, “Shield Devices” Chase, G.H., “The Shield Devices of the Greeks”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 13 (1902) 61-127.

Clinton, Eleusinian Mysteries Clinton, K., Myth and Cult: the Iconography of the Eleusinian Mysteries: the Martin P. Nilsson Lectures on Greek Religion, Delivered 19-21 November 1990 at the Swedish Institute at Athens (Stockholm, 1992).

Cherniss and Helmbold Plutarch, ed. By Cherniss, H.F., and Helmbold, W.C., Plutarch’s Moralia 920a 999b (London, 1959).

Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Clutton-Brock, J., Domesticated Animals from Early Times (London, 1981).

Chesterman, Terracotta Figures Chesterman, J., Classical Terracotta Figures (London, 1974).

Clutton-Brock, Domesticated Mammals2 Clutton-Brock, J., A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals2 (Cambridge, 1999).

Childs, “Early Greek Bronze Plaques in Princeton” Childs, W.A.P., “Early Greek Bronze Plaques in Princeton”, Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University 60 (2001) 31-63.

Clutton-Brock, Horse Power Clutton-Brock, J., Horse Power: a History of the Horse and the Donkey in Human Societies (London, 1992).

Chittenden, “Master of Animals” Chittenden, J., “The Master of Animals”, Hesperia 16, no. 2 (1947) 89-114.

Clutton-Brock (ed.), Larder Clutton-Brock, J. (ed.), The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation (London, 1989).

Chittenden/Seltman, Burlington Chittenden, J., and Seltman, C.T., Greek Art: a Commemorative Catalogue of an Exhibition held in 1946 at the Royal Academy, Burlington House, London (London, 1947).

Coblentz, “Scent-Urination” Coblentz, B.E., “Functions of Scent-Urination in Ungulates with Special Reference to Feral Goats (Capra hircus L.)”, American Naturalist 110, no. 974 (1976) 549-557.

Christiansen/Melander (eds.), 3rd Symposium Christiansen, J., and Melander, T., Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Ancient Greek and Related Pottery: Copenhagen, August 31-September 4, 1987 (Copenhagen, 1988).

Cohen, Alexander Cohen, A., The Alexander Mosaic: Stories of Victory and Defeat (Cambridge, 1996). Cohen, Bilingual Vases Cohen, B., Attic Bilingual Vases and Their Painters (New York, 1978).

Christie’s, Kingdom Christie’s, A Peaceable Kingdom: the Leo Mildenberg Collection of Ancient Animals, Tuesday 26 and Wednesday 27 October 2004 (London, 2004).

Cohen (ed.), Ideal Cohen, B. (ed.), Not the Classical Ideal:

129

Athens and the Construction of the Other in Greek Art (Leiden, 2000).

Greece”, Classical Journal 73, no.2 (1977) 162-175.

Cohen, “Killers” Cohen, B., “Man-killers and Their Victims: Inversions of the Heroic Ideal in Classical Art.” in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 98-131.

Copper, Every Season Copper, B., A Song for Every Season: A Hundred Years of a Sussex Farming Family (London, 1971). Corbett, “Burgon” Corbett, P.E., “The Burgon and Blacas Tombs”, JHS 80 (1960) 52-60.

Cohen, “Literate Potter” Cohen, B., “The Literate Potter: a Tradition of Incised Signatures on Attic Vases”, Metropolitan Museum Journal 26 (1991) 4995.

Corrêa, “Justice” Corrêa, P.d.C., “A Human Fable and the Justice of Beasts” in Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M.L. West on His Seventieth Birthday, edited by P.J. Finglass, C. Collard, and N.J. Richardson (Oxford, 2007) 101-117.

Cohn, “Cheetah Genetics” Cohn, J.P., “Surprising Cheetah Genetics”, BioScience 36, no. 6 (1986) 358-362. Coldstream, Geometric Coldstream, J.N., Geometric Greece: 900700 B.C. (London, 2003).

Crouwel, Chariots Crouwel, J.H., Chariots and Other Wheeled Vehicles in Iron Age Greece (Amsterdam, 1992).

Collias, “Socialization” Collias, N.E., “The Analysis of Socialization in Sheep and Goats”, Ecology 37, no. 2 (1956) 228-239.

CVA Ashmolean 1 Beazley, J.D., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 3. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1 (Oxford, 1927).

Collins (ed.), Ancient Near East Collins, B.J. (ed.), A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East (Leiden, 2002).

CVA Ashmolean 2 Beazley, J.D., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 9. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 2 (Oxford, 1931).

Conze, Grabreliefs Conze, A., Die Attischen Grabreliefs (Berlin, 1893).

CVA Ashmolean 3 Beazley, J.D., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 14. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 3 (Oxford, 1975).

Cook, “Dogs in Battle” Cook, R.M., “Dogs in Battle” in Festschrift Andreas Rumpf: zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht von Freunden und Schülern, Köln, im Dezember 1950, edited by Tobias Dohrn and Andreas Rumpf (Krefeld, 1952) 38-42.

CVA Berlin Antiquarium 1 Eilmann, R., and Gebauer, K., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 2. Berlin, Antiquarium 1 (Berlin, 1938).

Cook, GPP3 Cook, R.M., Greek Painted Pottery3 (London, 1997).

CVA Berlin Antiquarium 2 Greifenhagen, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 21. Berlin, Antiquarium 2 (Berlin, 1962).

Cook, Zeus Cook, A.B., Zeus: a Study in Ancient Religion (Cambridge, 1914).

CVA Berlin Antiquarium 3 Greifenhagen, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 22. Berlin, Antiquarium 3 (Berlin, 1962).

Cooper, “Farm” Cooper, A.B., “The Family Farm in

130

CVA Bibliothèque Nationale 2 Lambrino, S., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 10. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 2 (Paris, 1931).

France 7. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale (Cabinet des Médailles) 1 (Paris, 1928). CVA Castle Ashby Boardman, J., and Robertson, M., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 15. Castle Ashby, Northampton (Oxford, 1979).

CVA Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1 Greifenhagen, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 1. Bonn, Akademisches Kunstmuseum 1 (München, 1938).

CVA Cleveland 1 Boulter, Cedric G., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 15. Cleveland Museum of Art 1 (Cleveland, 1971).

CVA British Museum 1 Smith, A.H., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 1. British Museum 1 (London, 1925).

CVA Copenhague 3 Blinkenberg, C., and Johansen, K.F., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Danemark 3. Copenhague, Musée National 3 (Paris, 1924).

CVA British Museum 2 Smith, A.H., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 2. British Museum 2 (London, 1926).

CVA Copenhague 4 Blinkenberg, C., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Danemark 4. Copenhague, Musée National 4 (Paris, 1924).

CVA British Museum 3 Walters, H.B., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 4. British Museum 3 (London, 1927).

CVA Firenze 3 Magi, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Italy 30. Firenze, Museo Archeologico 3 (Florence, 1959).

CVA British Museum 5 Walters, H.B., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 7. British Museum 5 (London, 1930).

CVA Fitzwilliam 1 Lamb, W., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 6. Fitzwilliam Museum 1 (Oxford, 1930).

CVA British Museum 6 Walters, H.B., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 8. British Museum 6 (London, 1931).

CVA Fogg and Gallatin Chase, G.H. and Pease, M.Z., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 8. Fogg Museum and Gallatin Collections (Cambridge (MA), 1942).

CVA British Museum 9 Williams, D., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 17. British Museum 9 (London, 1993).

CVA Geneva 2 Dunant, C., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Suisse 3. Genève, Musée d’art et d’histoire 2 (Berne, 1980).

CVA Brussels Royaux 1 Mayence, F., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Belgique 1. Brussels, Musées Royaux du Cinquantenaire 9 (Paris, 1926).

CVA Giessen 1 Sipsie-Eschbach, M., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 70. Giessen, Antikensammlung der Justus-LiebigUniversität 1 (Giessen, 1998).

CVA Bucarest 1 Dimitriu, S., and Alexandrescu, P., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Roumanie 1. Bucarest, Institut D’Archéologie Musée National Des Antiquités 1 (Bucarest, 1965).

CVA Glasgow Moignard, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Great Britain 18. The Glasgow Collections (Oxford, 1997).

CVA Cab. Med. 1 Champion, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.

131

CVA Gotha, Schlossmuseum 1 Rohde, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 24. Gotha, Schlossmuseum 1 (Berlin, 1964).

Deutschland 20. München, Museum Antiker Kleinkunst 5 (München, 1961). CVA Musée de Laon 1 Genière, J.d.L., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 20. Musée de Laon 1 (Paris, 1933).

CVA Heidelberg 1 Schauenburg, K., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 10. Heidelberg 1 (München, 1954).

CVA München Antiker Kleinkunst 8 Kunze-Götte, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 37. München, Antikensammlungen Ehemals Museum Antiker Kleinkunst 8. (München, 1873).

CVA Hoppin and Gallatin Hoppin, J.C., and Gallatin, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 1. Hoppin and Gallatin Collections (Paris, 1926).

CVA New Zealand 1 Green, J.R., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. New Zealand 1 (Oxford, 1979).

CVA Karlsruhe 1 Hafner, G., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum 1 (Karlsruhe, 1951).

CVA Norway 1 Marstrander, S., and Seeberg, A., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Norway. Public and Private Collections 1 (Oslo, 1964).

CVA Leiden 1 Jongkees-Vos, M.F., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Netherlands 3. Leiden, Rijksmuseum Van Oudheden 1. (Leiden, 1972).

CVA Rhode Island School of Design 1 Luce, S.B., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 2. Providence: Museum of the Rhode Island School of Design 1 (Cambridge (MA), 1933).

CVA Louvre 2 Pottier, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 2. Paris, Louvre 2 (Paris, 1923).

CVA Robinson Collection 2 Robinson, D.M., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 6. Baltimore, Robinson Collection 2 (Cambridge (M.A.), 1937).

CVA Louvre 3 Pottier, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 4. Paris, Louvre 3 (Paris, 1925). CVA Louvre 8 Pottier, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 12. Paris, Louvre 8 (Paris, 1923).

CVA Sarajevo Parovic-Pešikan, M., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Yougoslavie 4. Sarajevo Musée National de la Republique Socialiste de Bosnie-Herzegovine (Belgrade, 1975).

CVA Louvre 9 Plaoutine, N., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. France 14. Paris, Louvre 9 (Paris, 1938).

CVA Schloss Fasanerie 2 Brommer, F., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 16. Schloss Fasanerie 2 (München, 1959).

CVA Mainz, Universität 2 Böhr, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 63. Mainz, Universität 2 (München, 1993).

CVA Staatliches Lindenau 2 Bielefeld, E., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 18. Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau-Museum 2 (Berlin, 1959).

CVA München, Antikensammlungen 11 Fellmann, B., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. Deutschland 57. München, Antikensammlungen 11 (München, 1989).

CVA Toledo 2 Boulter, C.G., and Luckner, K.T., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 20. Toledo, Toledo Museum of Art 2 (Toledo, 1984).

CVA München, Antiker Kleinkunst 5 Lullies, R., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum.

132

Ago in the Natufian of Israel”, Nature, no. 276 (1978) 608-610.

CVA Walters Art Gallery 1 Oakley, J.H., Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum. USA 28. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 1 (Baltimore, 1992).

Dawson, Bridle of Pegasus Dawson, W.R., The Bridle of Pegasus: Studies in Magic, Mythology and Folklore (London, 1930).

Dahl/Hjort, Having Herds Dahl, G., and Hjort, A., Having Herds: Pastoral Herd Growth and Household Economy (Stockholm, 1976).

Day, “Dog Burials” Day, L.P., “Dog Burials in the Greek World”, AJA 88, no. (1984) 21-32.

Dalby, Siren Feasts Dalby, A., Siren Feasts: a History of Food and Gastronomy in Greece (London, 1996).

De Cupere, Sagalassos De Cupere, B., Animals at Ancient Sagalassos: Evidence of the Faunal Remains (Turnhout, 2001).

D’Amicis, et al., Catalogo di Taranto D’Amicis, A., Dell’Aglio, A., Guzzo, P.G., Lippolis, E., Masiello, L., Maruggi, G.A., and Giboni, G., Catalogo del Museo Nazionale Archeologico di Taranto. I.3, Atleti e Guerrieri, Tradizioni aristocratiche a Taranto tra VI E V Sec. A.C. Catalogo della mostra Taranto, Museo Nazionale Archeologico, 9 Aprile 1994 (Taranto, 1994).

De Sélincourt Herodotus, ed. by Marincola, J., and De Sélincourt, A., Herodotus: the Histories. New ed. (London, 1996). De Ste Croix, “Phaenippos” De Ste Croix, G.E.M., “The Estate of Phaenippos (Ps.-Dem., xlii)” in Ehrenberg (ed.), 75th Birthday (Oxford, 1966) 109114.

Dasen, Dwarfs Dasen, V., Dwarfs in Ancient Egypt and Greece (Oxford, 1993).

De Waele, “Vente de L’Huile” De Waele, F.J.M., “La Représentation de la Vente de L’Huile a Athènes”, Revue Archéologique 23 (1926) 282-295.

Daumas, Cabiriaca Daumas, M., Cabiriaca: Recherches sur l’Iconographie du Culte des Cabires (Paris, 1998).

Detienne, et al., Cuisine Detienne, M., Vernant, J.-P., and Wissing, P., The Cuisine of Sacrifice Among the Greeks (Chicago, 1989).

Davis, Archaeology of Animals Davis, S.J.M., The Archaeology of Animals (London, 1987).

Detienne, Spices Detienne, M., The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology (Princeton, 1994).

Davis/McCreary Juhasz, “Pet Bond” Davis, J.H. and McCreary Juhasz, A., “The Preadolescent/Pet Bond and Psychosocial Development” in Sussman (ed.), Pets (New York, 1985) 79-94.

Deubner, Feste Deubner, L., Attische Feste (Berlin, 1932). Deubner/Deubner(eds.), Schriften Deubner, L. and Deubner, O. (eds.), Kleine Schriften zur Klassischen Altertumskunde (Königstein/Ts, 1982).

Davis, “Scarcity of Rats” Davis, D.E., “The Scarcity of Rats and the Black Death: An Ecological History”, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 16, no. 3 (1986) 455-470.

Deubner, “Spiele” Deubner, L., “Spiele und Spielzeug der Griechen” in Deubner/Deubner (eds.), Schriften (Königstein/Ts, 1982) 360-375.

Davis/Valla, “Natufian” Davis, S.J.M. and Valla, F.R., “Evidence for the Domestication of the Dog 12,000 Years

133

DGE

Dover, Greek Popular Morality Dover, K.J., Greek Popular Morality in the Time of Plato and Aristotle (Oxford, 1975).

Schwyzer, E., Dialectorum Graecorum Exempla Epigraphica Potiora (Leipzig, 1923).

Dickins/Casson, et al. Acropolis Museum Dickins, G., Casson, S., and Nicholson, D., Catalogue of the Acropolis Museum (Cambridge, 1912-1921).

Dover, Homosexuality Dover, K.J., Greek Homosexuality (London, 1978).

Dickinson, Aegean Bronze Age Dickinson, O.T.P.K., The Aegean Bronze Age (Cambridge, 1994).

Dover, “Sexual Behaviour” Dover, K.J., “Classical Greek Attitudes to Sexual Behaviour”, Arethusa 6, no. 1 (1973) 59-73.

Diels/Kranz Diels, H. and Kranz, W. (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, by Hermann Diels and Walther Kranz (Berlin, 1952).

Dugas, “Lécythe” Dugas, C., “Lécythe Aryballisque Athénien”, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 70 (1946) 172-178.

Dierauer, Tier Dierauer, U., Tier und Mensch im Denken der Antike: Studien zur Tierpsychologie, Anthropologie und Ethik (Amsterdam, 1977).

Durand, “Edible” Durand, J.-L., “Greek Animals: Toward a Topology of Edible Bodies” in Detienne, et al., Cuisine (Chicago, 1989) 87-118. Durand, Sacrifice Durand, J.-L., Sacrifice et Labour en Grèce Ancienne: Essai d’Anthropologie Religieuse (Paris, 1986).

Dillon “Plato and the Golden Age” Dillon, J., “Plato and the Golden Age”, Hermathena 153 (1992) 21-36. Dombrowski, Vegetarianism Dombrowski, D.A., The Philosophy of Vegetarianism (Amherst, 1984).

Durnan, “Stone Sculpture” Durnan, N., “Stone Sculpture” in Making Classical Art: Process and Practice, edited by Roger Ling (Stroud, 2000) 18-36.

Dörig, Suisse Dörig, J., Art Antique: Collections Privées de Suisse Romande (Genève Mayence, 1975).

Earls/Lalumiere, “Bestiality” Earls, C.M., and Lalumiere, M.L., “A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality (Zoophilia)”, Sexual Abuse: a Journal of Research and Treatment 14, no. 1 (2002) 83-88.

Döttinger, Onomastics Döttinger, I.J., Personal Names in Elis 800 BC to 300 AD: Forms and Functions of Elean Names in the Context of Greek Onomastics (Oxford, 2005).

Eaverly, Equestrian Sculpture Eaverly, M.A., Archaic Greek Equestrian Sculpture (Ann Arbor, 1995).

Dover/Aristophanes, Clouds Dover, K.J., Aristophanes, Aristophanes Clouds: edited with Introduction and Commentary (Oxford, 1968).

Ebbinghaus, Rhyta Ebbinghaus, S., Rhyta with Animal Foreparts in the Achaemenid Empire and Their Reception in the West, 1998).

Dover, “Chronology of Antiphon” Dover, K.J., “The Chronology of Antiphon’s Speeches”, Classical Quarterly 44, no. 1/2 (1950) 44-60.

Ebbinghaus, “Rhyta in Thrace” Ebbinghaus, S., “Between Greece and Persia: Rhyta in Thrace from the Late 5th to the Early 3rd Centuries B.C.” in Ancient

134

Greeks East and West, edited by Gocha R. Tsetskhaladze (Brill, 1999) 385-426.

Esposito/De Tommaso (eds.), Vasi Attici Esposito, A., and De Tommaso, G., Museo Archeologico Nazionale di Firenze: Vasi Attici (Firenze, 1993).

Edlund, “Meaningless?” Edlund, I.E.M., “Meaningful or Meaningless? Animal Symbolism in Greek Vase-Painting”, Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome 42 (1980) 31-35.

Evans, Prosecution Evans, E.P., The Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals (London, 1987).

Edmonds Edmonds, J.M., The Greek Bucolic Poets. Rev. and repr. ed. (London, 1928).

Evelyn-White Hesiod, ed. by Evelyn-White, H.G., Hesiod: the Homeric Hymns and Homerica: with an English Translation by Hugh G. EvelynWhite [New and rev.] ed. (London, 1936).

Edmonds (ed.), Attic Comedy Edmonds, J.M. (ed.) The Fragments of Attic Comedy After Meineke, Bergk and Kock: Augmented, Newly Edited With Their Contexts, Annotated, and Completely Translated Into English Verse. Vol.II (Leiden, 1959).

Eyben, “Puberty” Eyben, E., “Antiquity’s View of Puberty”, Latomus 31 (1972) 678-697. Farnell, Cults Farnell, L.R., The Cults of the Greek States (Oxford, 1896).

Edwards, “Aphrodite” Edwards, C.M., “Aphrodite on a Ladder”, Hesperia 53, no. 1 (1984) 59-72.

Felten, Thanatos Felten, F., Thanatos- und Kleophonmaler: Weissgrundige und Rotfigurige Vasenmalerei der Parthenonzeit (München, 1971).

Ehrenberg (ed.), 75th Birthday Ehrenberg, V. (ed.), Ancient Society and Institutions: Studies Presented to Victor Ehrenberg on his 75th Birthday (Oxford, 1966).

Ferla, et al., Priene Ferla, K., Graf, F., and Sideris, A., Priene. 2nd ed (Athens, 2005).

Elderkin, “Archaeological Studies” Elderkin, G.W., “Archaeological Studies”, AJA 21, no. 4 (1917) 397-408.

FGrHist Jacoby, F. (ed.), Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker, (Leiden, 1923- )

Elderkin, “Dolls” Elderkin, K.M., “Jointed Dolls in Antiquity”, AJA 34, no. 4 (1930) 455-479.

Finglass, et al., Hesperos Finglass, P.J., Collard, C., and Richardson, N.J. (eds.), Hesperos: Studies in Ancient Greek Poetry Presented to M.L. West on His Seventieth Birthday (Oxford, 2007).

Engelmann, “Katzen” Engelmann, R., “Katzen im Altertum”, Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts 14 (1899) 136143.

Finley, Odysseus Finley, M.I., The World of Odysseus. Revised, reissued (with revisions) (Harmondsworth, 1972).

Engels, Classical Cats Engels, D., Classical Cats: the Rise and Fall of the Sacred Cat (London, 1999).

Fisher, “Pigs” Fisher, M.P., “Of Pigs and Dogs: Pets as Produce in Three Societies” in Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) 132-137.

Epstein, “Daphnis” Epstein, S., “The Education of Daphnis: Goats, Gods, the Birds and the Bees”, Phoenix 56, no. 1/2 (2002) 25-39.

135

Fitton-Brown, “Contribution of Women” Fitton-Brown, A.D., “The Contribution of Women to Ancient Greek Agriculture”, Liverpool Classical Monthly 9, no. 5 (1984) 71-74.

Furley, “Motivation” Furley, W.D., “Motivation in the Parados of Aeschylus‘ Agamemnon”, Classical Philology 81, no. 2 (1986) 109-121. Furtwängler, Beschreibung Furtwängler, A., Beschreibung der Glyptothek König Ludwigs I. zu München (München, 1900).

Fogel, “How?” Fogel, B., “How did we find our way here?” in Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) xxiii-xxv. Forstenpointner, “Promethean Legacy” Forstenpointner, G., “Promethean Legacy: Investigations in the Ritual Procedure of ‘Olympian’ Sacrifice” in Kotjabopoulou (ed.), Zooarchaeology (London, 2003) 203-213.

Furtwängler, et al., Vasenmalerei Furtwängler, A., Reichhold, K., Hauser, F., Buschor, E., Watzinger, C., and Zahn, R., Griechische Vasenmalerei: Auswahl Hervorragender Vasenbilder (München, 1904).

Fortenbaugh, Theophrastus Sources Fortenbaugh, W.W., Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought, and Influence (Leiden, 1992).

Fussell, “Farming Systems” Fussell, G.E., “Farming Systems of the Classical Era”, Technology and Culture 8, no. 1 (1967) 16-44.

Fortenbaugh/Sharples, Theophrastean Studies Fortenbaugh, W.W., and Sharples, R.W., Theophrastean Studies on Natural Science, Physics and Metaphysics, Ethics, Religion and Rhetoric (Oxford, 1988).

Gainsford, “Recognition Scenes” Gainsford, P., “Formal Analysis of Recognition Scenes in the “Odyssey””, JHS 123 (2003) 41-59. Gais, “River-God” Gais, R.M., “Some Problems of River-God Iconography”, AJA 82, no. 3 (1978) 355-370.

Foxhall/Forbes, “Sitometreia” Foxhall, L., and Forbes, H.A., “Sitometreia: the Role of Grain as a Staple Food in Classical Antiquity”, Chiron 12 (1982) 41-90.

Gallant, Risk Gallant, T.W., Risk and Survival in Ancient Greece: Reconstructing the Rural Domestic Economy (Cambridge, 1991).

Franke/Hirmer, Münze Franke, P.R., and Hirmer, M., Die griechische Münze (München, 1964).

Galton, “Steps” Galton, F., “The First Steps Towards the Domestication of Animals”, Transactions of the Ethnological Society of London. New Series 3 (1865) 122-138.

Fraser, The Career of Erasistratus Fraser, P.M., The Career of Erasistratus of Ceos (Milano, 1969). Freeman, “Vincent” Freeman, K., “Vincent, or the Donkey”, Greece & Rome 14, no. 41/42 (1945) 33-41.

Gamble, “Animal Husbandry” Gamble, C., “Animal Husbandry, Population and Urbanisation” in Renfrew/Wagstaff (eds.) Island (Cambridge, 1982) 161-171.

French, “Archaeology, 1991-92” French, E.B., “Archaeology in Greece, 1991-92”,Archaeological Reports 38 (19911992) 3-70.

Gardner, “Ashmolean” Gardner, P., “Vases Added to the Ashmolean Museum (Continued)”, JHS 25 (1905) 6585.

French, “Archaeology, 1992-93” French, E.B., “Archaeology in Greece, 199293”, Archaeological Reports 39 (1992-1993) 3-81.

Gardner, BM Peloponnesus Excluding Corinth Gardner, P., and Poole, R.S., Catalogue

136

of Greek Coins: Peloponnesus: Excluding Corinth (London, 1887).

Vasenbilder: Hauptsächlich etruskischen Fundorts (Berlin, 1840).

Gardner, “Goose” Gardner, E.A., “A Statuette Representing a Boy and a Goose”, JHS 6 (1885) 1-15.

Gernet, Anthropology Gernet, L., The Anthropology of Ancient Greece (Baltimore, 1981).

Gardner, “Greek House” Gardner, E.A., “The Greek House”, JHS 21 (1901) 293-305.

Getty 4

Gardner, “Scarab” Gardner, E.A., “An Inscribed Scarab”, JHS 19, no. 2 (1899) 341.

Giannisi, “Cows” Giannisi, P., “The Cows and the Poet in Ancient Greece” in Santillo Frizell (ed.), Pecus (Rome, 2004) 125-129.

Gardiner, “Lecythi” Gardiner, E.M., “A Pair of Black-Figured Lecythi in the Worcester Museum”, AJA 15, no. 3 (1911) 302-309.

Giglioli, Etrusca Giglioli, G.Q., L’arte Etrusca (Milano, 1935). Gilhus, Animals, Gods and Humans Gilhus, I.S., Animals, Gods and Humans: Changing Attitudes to Animals in Greek, Roman, and Early Christian Thought (London, 2006).

Garland, “Asklepios” Garland, R., “Asklepios and His Sacred Snake” in Garland, New Gods (London, 1991) 116-135. Garland, New Gods Garland, R., Introducing New Gods: the Politics of Athenian Religion (London, 1991).

Gjødesen, “Greek Bronzes” Gjødesen, M., “Greek Bronzes: a Review Article”, AJA 67, no. 4 (1963) 333-351.

Garnsey, Famine Garnsey, P., Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World: Responses to Risk and Crisis (Cambridge, 1988).

Golden, Children Golden, M., Children and Childhood in Classical Athens (London, 1990). Golden, Sport Golden, M., Sport and Society in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 1998).

Geddes, “Rags” Geddes, A.G., “Rags and Riches: the Costume of Athenian Men in the Fifth Century”, Classical Quarterly. New Series 37, no. 2 (1987) 307-331.

Goold

Geist, “Feral Goats” Geist, V., “Feral Goats in British Columbia”, Murrelet 41, no. 3 (1960) 34-40.

Auserlesene

Goold, G.P. (ed.) and Chariton, Callirhoe, edited and translated by G.P. Goold (London, 1995).

Gorbunova/Saverkina, Hermitage Gorbunova, K.S. and Saverkina, I.I., Greek and Roman Antiquities in the Hermitage (Leningrad, 1975).

Gerhard, “Canino” Gerhard, O., “Sur Plusiers Monumens des Fouilles de Canino. Lettre de S.E. le Prince de Canino a Mr Gerhard”, Bulletino Degli Annali Dell’ Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica, no. 12 (1829) 177-193. Gerhard, Vasenbilder Gerhard, E.,

J. Paul Getty Museum, Greek Vases in the J. Paul Getty Museum 4 (Malibu, Calif, 1989).

Gosling, “Pets” Gosling, W.F., “Pets in Classical Times”, Greece & Rome 4, no. 11 (1935) 109-113. Gosudarstvenny*i/Neverov, Intaglios Gosudarstvenny*i *Ermitazh, and Neverov,

griechische

137

O., Antique Intaglios in the Hermitage Collection (Leningrad, 1976).

Trapping in Prehistoric Crete: a Proposal for Ethnoarchaeological Research” in Pleistocene and Holocene Fauna of Crete and its First Settlers, edited by D.S. Reese (Madison, WI., 1996) 337-349.

Gould, “Custom” Gould, J., “Law, Custom and Myth: Aspects of the Social Position of Women in Classical Athens”, JHS 100 (1980) 38-59. Gow

Gulick

Gow, A.S.F. (ed.) Theocritus: edited with a Translation and Commentary. 2nd ed. (London, 1952).

Athenaeus, ed. by Gulick, C.B., The Deipnosophists (London, 1927).

Hägg (ed.), Cult Practice Hägg, Robin (ed.)., Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Archaeological Evidence: Proceedings of the Fourth International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organized by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 October 1993 (Stockholm, 1998).

Gow, “Plough” Gow, A.S.F., “The Ancient Plough”, JHS 34 (1914) 249-275. Graham, “Colonial Expansion” Graham, A.J., “The Colonial Expansion of Greece” in Boardman/Hammond (eds.), CAH2 Vol.3.3 83-162.

Hägg, “Osteology” Hägg, R., “Osteology and Greek Sacrificial Practice” in Hägg (ed.), Cult Practice (Stockholm, 1998) 49-56.

Grant/Hazel, Classical Myth. Grant, M., and Hazel, J., Who’s Who in Classical Mythology (London, 2002).

Hainsworth, “Odysseus and the Dogs” Hainsworth, J.B., “Odysseus and the Dogs”, Greece & Rome. Second series 8, no. 2 (1961) 122-125.

Gräslund, A., “Dogs in Graves” Gräslund, A., “Dogs in Graves - a Question of Symbolism?” in Pecus. Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002., edited by Barbro Santillo Frizell (Rome, 2004) 167-176.

Hall (ed.), Traction Hall, S.J.G. (ed.), Traction Animal Health and Technology: Proceedings of a Symposium (Potters Bar, 1997). Halls, Confidential Halls, V., Cat Confidential (London, 2004).

Greenewalt, Ritual Dinners Greenewalt, C.H., Ritual Dinners in Early Historic Sardis (Berkeley, 1978).

Halstead, “Pastoralism?” Halstead, P., “Pastoralism or Household Herding? Problems of Scale and Specialization in Early Greek Animal Husbandry”, World Archaeology 28, no. 1 (1996).

Griffin, “Theocritus, Iliad” Griffin, J., “Theocritus, the Iliad, and the East”, American Journal of Philology 113, no. 2 (1992) 189-211. Griffo, Agrigento Griffo, P., Breve Guida del Museo Civico di Agrigento (Agrigento, 1954).

Halstead, “Traditional” Halstead, P., “Traditional and Ancient Rural Economy in Mediterranean Europe: Plus ça Change?”, JHS 107 (1987) 77-87.

Grigson/Clutton-Brock (eds.), Husbandry Grigson, C. and Clutton-Brock, J. (eds.), Animals and Archaeology. 4: Husbandry in Europe (Oxford, 1984).

Halstead/Jones, “Agrarian” Halstead, P., and Jones, G., “Agrarian Ecology in the Greek Islands: Time Stress, Scale and Risk”, JHS 109 (1989) 41-55.

Guest-Papamanoli “Prehistoric Crete” Guest-Papamanoli, A., “Hunting

Hampe, Spiegel Hampe, R. and Simon, E., Griechisches

and

138

Leben im Spiegel der Kunst (Mainz, 1959).

Harrison/Verrall, Monuments Harrison, J.E., and Verrall, M.M.d.G., Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens: Being a Translation of a Portion of the ‘Attica’ of Pausanias (London, 1890).

Handford, Aesop Handford, S.A. (ed.), Fables of Aesop New ed. (London, 1964). Hansen, “Urban” Hansen, M.H., “The Polis as an Urban Centre: the Literary and Epigraphical Evidence” in, Hansen (ed.), Polis (Copenhagen, 1997) 9-86.

Hart, “Dogs” Hart, L.A., “Dogs as Human Companions: a Review of the Relationship” in Serpell (ed.), Dog (Cambridge, 1995) 161-178. Harvey, et al. (eds.), Rivals of Aristophanes Harvey, F. D., Wilkins, J., Dover, K.J. and Myfanwy Tristram (eds.), The Rivals of Aristophanes: Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, (London, 2000) 473-506.

Hansen (ed.), Polis Hansen, M.H. (ed.), The Polis as an Urban Centre and as a Political Community: Symposium, August, 29-31 1996 (Copenhagen, 1997).

Hasluck, Personal Names Hasluck, M.M.H., The Significance of Greek Personal Names (London, 1923).

Hanson, Other Greeks Hanson, V.D., The Other Greeks: the Family Farm and the Agrarian Roots of Western Civilization (New York, 1995).

Haspels, Lekythoi Haspels, C.H.E., Attic Black-figured Lekythoi (Paris, 1936).

Harris, Sport Harris, H.A., Sport in Greece and Rome (London, 1972).

Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” Haynes, D.E.L., “A Group of East Greek Bronzes”, JHS 72 (1952) 74-80.

Harrison, “Dress” Harrison, E.B., “The Dress of the Archaic Greek Korai” in New Perspectives in Early Greek Art, edited by Diana Buitron-Oliver (Washington, 1991) 216-239.

Head, BM: Attica, Megaris, Aegina Head, B.V., and Poole, R.S., Catalogue of Greek Coins: Attica, Megaris, Aegina (London, 1888).

Harrison, “Ilissos” Harrison, E.B., “Studien zum Ilissos-Relief (review) ”, AJA 63, no. 2 (1959) 208-209.

Head, PCG Head, B.V., and British Museum. Dept. of Coins and Medals, A Guide to the Principal Coins of the Greeks, from circ.700 BC to 270 (London, 1932). 

Harrison, “Goat-Song?” Harrison, J.E., “Is Tragedy the Goat-Song?”, Classical Review 16, no. 6 (1902) 331-332.

Heath, Talking Heath, J., The Talking Greeks: Speech, Animals, and the Other in Homer, Aeschylus, and Plato (Cambridge, 2005).

Harrison, “Judgment” Harrison, J.E., “The Judgment of Paris: Two Unpublished Vases in the Graeco-Etruscan Museum at Florence”, JHS 7 (1886) 196-219.

Hedreen, “Silens” Hedreen, G., “Silens, Nymphs, Maenads”, JHS 114 (1994) 47-69.

Harrison, “Monuments” Harrison, J.E., “Monuments Relating to the Odyssey”, JHS 4 (1883) 248-265.

and

Heinemann, Polygnot Heinemann, M., Landschaftliche Elemente in der Griechischen Kunst bis Polygnot (Bonn, 1910).

Harrison, Prolegomena Harrison, J.E., Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1903).

139

Helmig/Sewell (eds.), Donkey and Mule Helmig, M., and Sewell, S.E. (eds.), The Canadian Donkey and Mule Handbook (Toronto, 1995).

Higgins, Tanagra Higgins, R.A., Tanagra and the Figurines (London, 1986). Higgins, Terracottas Higgins, R.A., Greek Terracottas (London, 1967).

Hemmer, Domestication Hemmer, H., Domestication: the Decline of Environmental Appreciation, translated by Neil Beckhaus (Cambridge, 1990).

Hill, “Corinth” Hill, D.K., “Pottery of Ancient Corinth”, Bulletin of the Walters Art Gallery 17, no. 6 (1965) 1-3.

Henderson Henderson, J. (ed.), Aristophanes edited and translated by Jeffrey Henderson. (London, 1998-2007).

Hill, “Rhyton” Hill, D.K., “A Rhyton From Athens”, Bulletin of the Walters Art Gallery 4, no. 8 (1952) 1-2.

Herman, Morality Herman, G., Morality and Behaviour in Democratic Athens: a Social History (Cambridge, 2006). Herzog

Hill, “Other Geometric Objects in Baltimore” Hill, D.K., “Other Geometric Objects in Baltimore”, AJA 60, no. 1 (1956) 35-42.

Herzog, R. (ed.), “Heilige Gesetze van Kos” in Abh.Berl.(Akad.) VI (1928) no.8.

Hill, Select Coins Hill, G.F., Select Greek Coins (Paris, 1927).

Hesse/Wapnish, Bone Archeology Hesse, B., and Wapnish, P., Animal Bone Archeology: from Objectives to Analysis (Washington, 1985).

Himmelmann, Hirten-Genre Himmelmann, N., Über Hirten-Genre in der Antiken Kunst (Opladen, 1980).

Heubeck, et al., Homer’s Odyssey 1988 printing Heubeck, A., West, S., Hainsworth, J.B., Russo, J.A., and Fernández-Galiano, M., A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford, 1988).

Hirschmann, Hirschmann Hirschmann, C.W., Greek Vases from the Hirschmann Collection (Zürich, 1982). Hodkinson, “Husbandry” Hodkinson, S., “Animal Husbandry in the Greek Polis” in Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral (Cambridge, 1988) 35-74.

Heubeck, et al., Homer’s Odyssey 1990 printing Heubeck, A., West, S., Hainsworth, J.B., Hoekstra, A., Russo, J., and FernándezGaliano, M., A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey (Oxford, 1990). Hicks

Hoffmann, Attic Rhyta Hoffmann, H., Attic Red-figured Rhyta (Mainz, 1962).

Diogenes, L., ed. by Hicks, R.D., Lives of Eminent Philosophers. Rev. ed. (London, 1931).

Hoffmann, Immortality Hoffmann, H., Sotades: Symbols of Immortality on Greek Vases (Oxford, 1997).

Hicks/Hill, Inscriptions Hicks, E.L., and Hill, G.F., A Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions (Oxford, 1901).

Hoffmann, “Persian” Hoffmann, H., “The Persian Origin of Attic Rhyta”, Antike Kunst 4 (1961) 21-26.

Higgins, BM Terracottas Higgins, R.A., Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1954).

Hoffmann, Pursuit Hoffmann, H., Sexual and Asexual Pursuit: a Structuralist Approach to Greek Vase Painting ([London], 1977).

140

Hull, Hounds Hull, D.B., Hounds and Hunting in Ancient Greece (Chicago, 1964).

Hoffmann, “Rhyta Addendum” Hoffmann, H., “Attick and Tarentine Rhyta: Addendum” in Trendall/Cambitoglou (eds.), Studies (Sydney, 1979) 93-95.

Hurwit, “Beautiful Evil” Hurwit, J.M., “Beautiful Evil: Pandora and the Athena Parthenos”, AJA 99 (1995) 171186.

Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” Hoffmann, H., “Rhyta and Kantharoi in Greek Ritual” in Getty 4 (Malibu, Calif., 1989) 131-166.

Hyde, “Prosecution I” Hyde, W.W., “The Prosecution of Lifeless Things and Animals in Greek Law: Part I”, American Journal of Philology 38 (1917) 152-175.

Hoffmann, Tarentine Hoffmann, H., Tarentine Rhyta (Mainz, 1966). Hofsten, Feline-prey Theme Hofsten, S.v., The Feline-prey Theme in Archaic Greek Art: Classification Distribution - Origin - Iconographical Context (Stockholm, 2007).

Hyde, “Prosecution II” Hyde, W.W., “The Prosecution of Lifeless Things and Animals in Greek Law: Part II”, American Journal of Philology 38 (1917) 285-303.

Holliday, “Hydria” Holliday, P.J., “Red-figure Hydria: a Theme in Greek Vase Painting”, Bulletin: The Museum of Fine Arts, Houston 8, no. 3 (1984) 2-7.

Immerwahr, Script Immerwahr, H.R., Attic Script: a Survey (Oxford, 1990).

Hoorn, Choes Hoorn, G.v., Choes and Anthesteria (Leiden, 1951).

IG

Inscriptiones Graecae (Berolini, 1873- ).

Isenberg, “Sale” Isenberg, M., “The Sale of Sacrificial Victims”, Classical Philology 70 (1975) 271-273.

Hornblower/Spawforth (eds.), Classical Civilization Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A. (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Classical Civilization (Oxford, 1998).

Jameson, “Sacrifice and Husbandry” Jameson, M.H., “Sacrifice and Animal Husbandry in Classical Greece” in Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral (Cambridge, 1988) 87-119.

Houston, et al., Western Houston, J.M., Roglic, J., and Clarke, J.I., The Western Mediterranean World: an Introduction to its Regional Landscapes (London, 1964).

Jameson, “Slavery” Jameson, M.H., “Agriculture and Slavery in Classical Athens”, 73 2 (1977) 122-145.

Howe, “Gorgon-Head” Howe, T.P., “The Origin and Function of the Gorgon-Head”, AJA 58, no. 3 (1954) 209221.

Jameson, “Theoxenia” Jameson, M.H., “Theoxenia” in Ancient Greek Cult Practice from the Epigraphical Evidence: Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Ancient Greek Cult, organised by the Swedish Institute at Athens, 22-24 November 1991, edited by Robin Hägg (Stockholm, 1994) 35-57.

Huby, “The Epicureans, Animals, and Freewill” Huby, P.M., “The Epicureans, Animals, and Freewill”, Apeiron 3, no. 1 (1969) 1719. Hughes, “Consumer of Exotic Biodiversity” Hughes, J.D., “Europe as Consumer of Exotic Biodiversity: Greek and Roman Times”, Landscape Research 28, no. 1 (2003) 21-31.

Jarman, “Bones” Jarman, M.R., “Preliminary Report on the Animal Bones” in Knossos: the Sanctuary

141

of Demeter, edited by J. N. Coldstream (London, 1973) 177-179.

Kassel/Austin Kassel, R. and Austin, C. (eds.), Poetae Comici Graeci (Berlin, 1983-).

Jasny, “Daily Bread” Jasny, N., “The Daily Bread of the Ancient Greeks and Romans”, Osiris 9 (1950) 227253.

Kastriotes, Katalogos Kastriotes, P., Katalogos tou Mouseiou tes Akropoleos (Athens, 1895). Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives Katcher, A.H., and Beck, A.M. (eds.), New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals (Philadelphia, 1983).

Jaubert, “Goat Milk” Jaubert, G., “Biochemical Characteristics and Quality of Goat Milk” in Recent Advances in Goat Research, edited by P. Morand-Fehr (Zaragoza, 1997) 71-74. Jeffery, Local Scripts Jeffery, L.H., The Local Scripts of Archaic Greece: a Study of the Origin of the Greek Alphabet and its Development from the Eighth to the Fifth Centuries B.C. (Oxford, 1961).

Katz, “Buphonia” Katz, M.A., “Buphonia and Goring Ox: Homicide, Animals Sacrifice and Judicial Process” in Nomodeiktes: Greek Studies in Honor of Martin Ostwald, edited by Martin Ostwald, Ralph Mark Rosen and Joseph Farrell (Ann Arbor, 1993) 155-178.

Jeschonnek, Nominibus Jeschonnek, F., De Nominibus quae Graeci Pecudibus Domesticis Indiderunt (Konigsberg, 1885).

Kekulé, Berliner Museum Kekulé, R., Aus dem Berliner Museum: Reinhard Kekule von Stradonitz zum 6 (Berlin, 1909).

Jones, “Houses” Jones, J.E., “Town and Country Houses of Attica in Classical Times” in Thorikos and the Laurion in Archaic and Classical times: Papers and Contributions of the Colloquium Held in March, 1973, at the State University of Ghent, edited by H. Mussche, Paule Paule Spitaels and F. Goemaere-De Poerck (Ghent, 1975).

Keller, “Hunderassen” Keller, O., “Hunderassen im Altertum”, Jahreshefte des Osterreichischen Archaologischen Institutes in Wien 8 (1905) 242-269. Keller, “Katze” Keller, “Zur Geschichte der Katze im Altertum”, Romische Mitteilungen 23 (1908) 40-70.

Jongkees, Price Inscriptions Jongkees, J.H., On Price Inscriptions on Greek Vases (Leiden, 1951).

Keller, Thiere Keller, O., Thiere des Classischen Alterthums in Culturgeschichtlicher Beziehung (Innsbruck, 1887).

Kaltsas, Sculpture Kaltsas, N., Sculpture in the National Archaeological Museum, Athens (Los Angeles, 2002).

Keller, Tierwelt Keller, O., Die Antike Tierwelt (Leipzig, 1909).

Kardulias, “Dokos” Kardulias, P.N., “The Ethnoarchaeology of Adaptation on Arid Islands: a Study of Herders on Dokos, Greece”, Near Eastern Archaeology 63, no. 1 (2000) 35-44.

Kerényi, Dionysos Kerényi, K., Dionysos: Archetypal Image of the Indestructible Life R. Manheim (London, 1976).

Karouzou, Anagyrountos Karouzou, S., Angeia tou Anagyrountos (Athens, 1963).

Keuls, Phallus Keuls, E.C., The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (London, 1993).

142

King, Weasels King, C.M., The Natural History of Weasels and Stoats (London, 1989).

Toward a Perspective on the Ethnography of Greece, edited by Muriel Dimen and Ernestine Friedl (New York, 1976) 275-285.

Kinsey, et al., Sexual Behavior Kinsey, A.C., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia, 1953).

Kotjabopoulou (ed.), Zooarchaeology Kotjabopoulou, E. (ed.) Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, (London, 2003).

Kirk (ed.), Iliad Commentary Kirk, G.S. (ed.), The Iliad: a Commentary (Cambridge, 1985).

Kozloff (ed.), Animals Kozloff, A.P. (ed.), Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection, (Cleveland, 1981).

Kirk, Myth Kirk, G.S., Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Cambridge, 1970).

Kozloff, Mildenberg Kozloff, A.P., More Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg Collection (Mainz am Rhein, 1986).

Klein, Child Life Klein, A.E., Child Life in Greek Art (New York, 1932).

Kraay, A and C Greek Coins Kraay, C.M., Archaic and Classical Greek Coins (London, 1976).

Kleinbauer, “Dionysios” Kleinbauer, W.E., “The Dionysios Painter and the “Corinthio-Attic” Problem”, AJA 68, no. 4 (1964) 355-370.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins Kraay, C.M., and Hirmer, M., Greek Coins (London, 1966).

Klingender, Animals Klingender, F.D., Animals in Art and Thought: to the End of the Middle Ages (London, 1971).

Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften Kretschmer, P., Die Griechischen Vaseninschriften ihrer Sprache nach Untersucht (Gütersloh, 1894).

Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe Koch-Harnack, G., Knabenliebe und Tiergeschenke: ihre Bedeutung im Päderastischen Erziehungssystem Athens (Berlin, 1983).

Kroll, “Athenian Cavalry” Kroll, J.H., “An Archive of the Athenian Cavalry”, Hesperia 46 (1977) 83-140.

Kock

Kunisch, Makron Kunisch, N., Makron (Mainz/Rhein, 1997).

Kock, T. (ed.), Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta (Lipsiae, 1880-).

Kunstwerke Kunstwerke der Antike: Skulpturen, Terrakoten, Bronzen, Keramik, Goldschmuck (Basel, 1961).

Koerte/Thierfelder Koerte, A. and Thierfelder A. (eds.), Menandrea (Leipzig, 1959).

Kurtz, White Lekythoi Kurtz, D.C., Athenian White Lekythoi: Patterns and Painters (Oxford, 1975).

Konstan, Comedy and Ideology Konstan, D., Greek Comedy and Ideology (Oxford, 1995).

Kurtz/Beazley, Berlin Kurtz, D.C., and Beazley, J.D., The Berlin Painter (Oxford, 1983).

Koster/Koster, “Competition or Symbiosis?” Koster, A.A., and Koster, J.B., “Competition or Symbiosis?: Pastoral Adaptive Strategies in the Southern Argolid, Greece” in Regional Variation in Modern Greece and Cyprus:

Kurtz/Boardman, GBC Kurtz, D.C., and Boardman, J., Greek Burial Customs (London, 1971).

143

Invention”, Technology and Culture 8, no. 1 (1967) 45-52.

Lacy, “Aktaion” Lacy, L.R., “Aktaion and a Lost Bath of Artemis”, JHS 110 (1990) 26-42.

Leitch, Maltese Leitch, V.T., The Maltese Dog (Riverdale, MD., 1953).

Lamb, “Statuettes” Lamb, W., “Arcadian Bronze Statuettes”, BSA 27 (1925/1926) 133-48.

Lenormant/Witte, Elite Lenormant, C. and Witte, J.d., Élite des Monuments Céramographiques: Matériaux pour l’Histoire des Religions et des Moeurs de l’Antiquité (Paris, 1844).

Landels, “Auloi” Landels, J.G., “The Reconstruction of Ancient Greek Auloi”, World Archaeology 12, no. 3 (1981) 298-302.

Lenormant, Grande-Grèce Lenormant, F., La Grande-Grèce: Paysages et Histoire (Paris, 1881).

Landels, “Fragments of Auloi” Landels, J.G., “Fragments of Auloi Found in the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia 33, no. 4 (1964) 392-400. Lane Fox, Travelling Heroes Lane Fox, R., Travelling Heroes: Greeks and Their Myths in the Epic Age of Homer (London, 2008).

Lentacker, “Cat”  Lentacker, A., “Domestication of the Cat and Reflections on the Scarcity of Finds in Archaeological Contexts” in Bodson, L. (ed.), Animaux Introduits (Liège, 1994) 69-78.

Lang, Graffiti and Dipinti Lang, M.L., Graffiti and Dipinti, edited by J. Quigley (Princeton, 1976).

Lévi-Strauss, Savage Lévi-Strauss, C., The Savage Mind: (La pensée sauvage) (Chicago, 1966).

Lang, “Numerical Notation” Lang, M.L., “Numerical Notation on Greek Vases”, Hesperia 25, no. 1 (1956) 1-24.

Lévi-Strauss/Needham, Totemism Lévi-Strauss, C., and Needham, R., Totemism (Harmondsworth, 1969).

Lawall, “Graffiti” Lawall, M.L., “Graffiti, Wine Selling, and the Reuse of Amphoras in the Athenian Agora, ca.430 to 400 B.C.”, Hesperia 69, no. 1 (2000) 3-90.

Levin “Concepts of Naming” Levin, S.B., “Concepts of Naming: Three Forms of Appropriateness in Plato and the Literary Tradition”, Classical Philology 92, no. 1 (1997) 46-57.

Lawrence, Architecture Lawrence, A.W., Greek Architecture. 5th ed. rev. by R. A. Tomlinson (New Haven, 1996).

Lezzi-Hafter/Zindel, Dionysos Lezzi-Hafter, A., and Zindel, C., Dionysos: Mythes et Mystères: Vases de Spina = Mythos und Mysterien: Vasen aus Spina (Kilchberg, 1991).

Lazenby, “Pets” Lazenby, F.D., “Greek and Roman Household Pets”, The Classical Journal 44 (1949) 24552, 299-307.

Lezzi-Hafter, Eretria Lezzi-Hafter, A., Der Eretria-Maler: Werke und Weggefährten (Mainz, 1988).

Leeds/Vayda (eds.), Man, Culture, and Animals Leeds, A. and Vayda, A.P. (eds.), Man, Culture, and Animals: the Role of Animals in Human Ecological Adjustments (Washington, 1965).

Lezzi-Hafter, Schuwalow-Maler Lezzi-Hafter, A., Der Schuwalow-Maler: eine Kannenwerkstatt der Parthenonzeit (Mainz/Rhein, 1976). LGPN

Leighton, “Mule” Leighton, A.C., “The Mule as a Cultural

144

Fraser, P.M, Matthews, E., Osborne, M.J.,

Byrne (eds.), A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (Oxford, 1987-2005).

Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy Lloyd, G.E.R., Polarity and Analogy: Two Types of Argumentation in Early Greek Thought (Cambridge, 1966).

Licht, Sittengeschichte Licht, H., Sittengeschichte Griechenlands: in Zwei Bänden und Einem Ergänzungsband (Dresden, 1925).

Lloyd, Science, Folklore and Ideology Lloyd, G.E.R., Science, Folklore and Ideology: Studies in the Life Sciences in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 1983).

Lilja, Dogs Lilja, S., Dogs in Ancient Greek Poetry (Helsinki, 1976). LIMC

Lexicon Iconographicum Classicae (Zürich, 1981-).

Lo Porto, “Anfora Attica” Lo Porto, F.G., “Anfora Attica a Figure Nere con Scenea di Aucupio Dalla Necropoli di Taranto”, Bollettino d’Arte 48 (1963) 18-22.

Mythologiae

Lo Porto, “Taranto” Lo Porto, F., “Ceramica Arcaica dala Necropoli di Taranto”, Annuario Della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e Delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 21-22 (19591960) 7-230.

Lioutas, Lekanai Lioutas, A., Attische Schwarzfigurige Lekanai und Lekanides (Würzburg, 1987). Lissarrague, “Aesop, Between Man and Beast” Lissarrague, F., “Aesop, Between Man and Beast: Ancient Portraits and Illustrations”in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 132-149.

Lohmann, “Country Life” Lohmann, H., “Agriculture and Country Life in Classical Attica” in Wells (ed.), Agriculture Symposium (Stockholm, 1992) 29-57.

Lissarrague, Greek Banquets Lissarrague, F., The Aesthetics of the Greek Banquet: Images of Wine and Ritual (Un flot d’images), translated by A. Szegedy Maszak (Princeton, 1990).

Lonsdale, “Attitudes” Lonsdale, S.H., “Attitudes Towards Animals in Ancient Greece”, Greece & Rome. Second series 26, no. 2 (1979) 146-159.

Lissarrague, Guerrier Lissarrague, F., L’autre Guerrier: Archers, Peltastes, Cavaliers dans l’Imagerie Attique (Paris, 1990).

Lorimer, “Country Cart” Lorimer, H.L., “The Country Cart of Ancient Greece”, JHS 23 (1903) 132-151.

Lloyd “Alcmaeon” Lloyd, G.E.R, “Alcmaeon and the Early History of Dissection”, Sudhoff’s Archiv fur die Geschichte der Medizin 59, no.2 (1975) 113-147.

LSJ

Lloyd, Aristotelian Explorations Lloyd, G.E.R., Aristotelian Explorations (Cambridge, 1996).

Luce, “Heracles” Luce, S.B., “Heracles and the Old Man of the Sea”, AJA 26, no.2 (1922), 174-192.

Lloyd-Jones/Sophokles, Sophocles: Fragments Sophokles, ed. by Lloyd-Jones, H. (ed.), Sophocles: Fragments. Vol. III (London, 1996).

Lullies, “Vasenmalerei” Lullies, R., “Zur boiotisch rotfigurigen Vasenmalerei”, Athenische Mitteilungen 65 (1940) 1-35.

Lloyd/Lloyd, Lloyd Collection Lloyd, A. and Lloyd, M., The Lloyd Collection (London, 1933).

Lund/Rasmussen, Antiquities Lund, J. and Rasmussen, B.B., The Collection of Near Eastern and Classical Antiquities:

145

Liddell, H.G., and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed., rev. by H. Stuart Jones (1925-40); Suppl. by E.A. Barber, et al. (Oxford, 1996).

Greeks, Etruscans, Romans Rev. ed. of ‘Grækere, Etruskere, Romere’ (Copenhagen, 1995).

Ephemeris Archaiologike 127 (1988) 96-134. Mannack, Mannerists Mannack, T., The Late Mannerists in Athenian Vase-painting (Oxford, 2001).

Lupu, NGSL Lupu, E., Greek Sacred Law: a Collection of New Documents (NGSL) (Leiden, 2005).

Marchant and Bowersock Xenophon, ed. by Bowersock, G.W., and Marchant, E.C., Scripta Minora. Repr. and suppl. (London, 1968).

Lutz, “Footnote to “Dogs in Homer”” Lutz, C.E., “Footnote to Professor Scott’s “Dogs in Homer””, The Classical Weekly 43, no. 6 (1950) 89-90.

Marconi, “Muletto” Marconi, P., “Il Muletto di Dioniso: un Vaso Plastico da Agrigento”, Bollettino d’Arte 25 (series 3) (1931) 64-70.

MacArthur, “The Athenian Plague: a Medical Note” MacArthur, W.P., “The Athenian Plague: a Medical Note”, CQ 4, no. 3/4 (1954) 171-174.

Markman, Horse Markman, S.D., The Horse in Greek Art (Baltimore, 1943).

MacArthur, “Rat in Early Europe” MacArthur, W.P., “The Occurrence of the Rat in Early Europe: the Plague of the Philistines (1 Sam., S, 6)”, Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, no. 46 (1952) 209-212.

Marks, Burrell Collection Marks, R., and Glasgow Museums and Art Galleries., The Burrell Collection (London, 1983).

MacDowell Homicide Law MacDowell, D.M., Athenian Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators (Manchester, 1963).

Marquardt, Pan Marquardt, N., Pan in der Hellenistischen und Kaiserzeitlichen Plastik (Bonn, 1995). Marshall, LondonR Marshall, F.H., and Smith, C.H., Catalogue of the Finger Rings, Greek, Etruscan, and Roman, in the Departments of Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1907).

MacKinnon, “Caprines” MacKinnon, M., “The Role of Caprines in Roman Italy: Idealized and Realistic Reconstructions Using Ancient Textual and Zooarchaeological Data” in Santillo Frizell (ed.), Pecus (Rome, 2004) 54-60.

Martens, Transgression Martens, D., Une Esthétique de la Transgression: le Vase Grec de la Fin de l’époque Géométrique au Début de l’époque Classique (Bruxelles, 1992).

Maidment, Orators Maidment, K.J., Minor Attic Orators (London, 1960). Mainoldi, L’image du Loup Mainoldi, C., L’image du Loup et du Chien dans la Grèce Ancienne: d’Homère à Platon (Paris, 1984).

Masseti, “Stone Marten” Masseti, M., “Presence and Distribution of the Stone Marten, Martes foina Erxleben, 1777, on the Island of Crete (Greece)”, Hystrix 7, no. 1-2 (1995) 73-78.

Majno, Healing Hand Majno, G., The Healing Hand : Man and Wound in the Ancient World (London, 1975).

Matheson, Polygnotos Matheson, S.B., Polygnotos and Vase Painting in Classical Athens (Madison, 1995).

Malagardis, “Rural Attique” Malagardis, N., “Images du Monde Rural Attique à l’Epoque Archaique: travail et Société: L’Outil et le Geste sur les Vases”,

Mattusch, Classical Bronzes Mattusch, C.C., Classical Bronzes: the Art

146

and Craft of Greek and Roman Statuary (Ithaca, 1996).

Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) 37-46.

Maxmin, “Meniskoi” Maxmin, J., “Meniskoi and the Birds”, JHS 95 (1975) 175-180.

Metzger, Céramique Attique Metzger, H., Les Représentations dans la Céramique Attique du IVe Siècle (Paris, 1951).

Maxmin, Sauroktonos Maxmin, J., “A Note on Praxiteles’ “Sauroktonos””, Greece & Rome. Second series 20, no. 1 (1973) 36-37.

Metzler/Otto, et al. (eds.), Antidoron Metzler, v.D., Otto, B., and Müller-Wirth, C., et al. (eds.), Antidoron: Festschrift für Jürgen Thimme zum 65. Geburtstag am 26 September 1982 (Karlsruhe, 1983).

McDermott, Ape McDermott, W.C., The Ape in Antiquity (Baltimore, 1938).

Meuli, “Opferbräuche” Meuli, v.K., “Griechische Opferbräuche” in Phyllobolia: für Peter von der Mühll zum 60. Geburtstag am 1. August 1945, edited by Peter von der Mühll and Olof Gigon (Basel, 1946) 185-288.

McDonald, et al. (eds.), Aegean McDonald, W.A., Wilkie, N.C., and Coulson, W.D.E. (eds.) Contributions to Aegean Archaeology: Studies in Honor of William A. McDonald (Dubuque, Iowa, 1985).

Michell, Economics Michell, H., The Economics of Ancient Greece. 2nd ed (Cambridge, 1957).

McNiven, “Gestures” McNiven, T.J.., “Behaving Like an Other: Telltale Gestures in Athenian Vase Painting” in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 71-97.

Midgley, Animals and Why They Matter Midgley, M., Animals and Why They Matter (Athens, 1984).

Mee/Renard (eds.), Cooking Mee, Christopher and Renard, Josette (eds.), Cooking up the Past,(Oakville, CT., 2007).

Mikalson, Religion Mikalson, J.D., Ancient Greek Religion (Oxford, 2005).

Meggitt, “Dingoes” Meggitt, M., “The Association Between Australian Aborigines and Dingoes” in Leeds/ Vayda (eds.), Man, Culture, and Animals (Washington, 1965) 7-26.

Mill, Liberty Mill, J.S., J.S. Mill, On Liberty, in Focus edited by J. Gray and G.W. Smith (London, 1991).

Mendel, Catalogue des Sculptures Mendel, G., Catalogue des Sculptures Grecques, Romaines et Byzantines (Constantinople, 1914).

Miller, Athens and Persia Miller, M.C., Athens and Persia in the Fifth century B.C. : a Study in Cultural Receptivity (Cambridge, 1997).

Merlen, Canibus Merlen, R.H.A., De Canibus: Dog and Hound in Antiquity (London, 1971).

Miller, “Peacocks” Miller, M.C., “Peacocks and Tryphe in Classical Athens”, Archaeological News 15, no. 104 (1989) 1-10.

Mertens, White Mertens, J.R., Attic White-ground: its Development on Shapes Other than Lekythoi (New York, 1977).

Mitchell, Comic Pictures Mitchell, A.G., Comic Pictures in Greek Vase-painting: Humour in the Polis and the Dionysian World, in the Sixth and the Fifth Centuries B.C. D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford University, 2002.

Messent, “Dogs” Messent, P.R., “Social Facilitation of Contact with Other People by Pet Dogs” in Katcher/

147

at Athens. Volume 23: Attic Black-figured Pottery (Princeton (NJ), 1986).

Mitten, “Animals” Mitten, D.G., “Animals from the Classical World” in Kozloff (ed.), Animals (Cleveland, 1981) 79-82.

Morgan/Coulton, “Polis” Morgan, C., and Coulton, J.J., “The Polis as a Physical Entity” in Hansen (ed.), Polis (Copenhagen, 1997) 87-144.

Modrak, “Theophrastus” Modrak, D.K.W., “Theophrastus and Recent Scholarship”, Journal of the History of Ideas 55, no. 2 (1994) 337-345.

Morgan, “Hares” Morgan, T.J., “Working With Wildlife: Practical - Rabbits and Hares”, Veterinary Nursing Times (2004) 16-17.

Möller, Naukratis Möller, A., Naukratis: Trade in Archaic Greece (Oxford, 2000).

Morin-Jean, Animaux Morin-Jean, J., Le Dessin des Animaux en Grèce d’Après les Vases Peints (Paris, 1911).

Mommsen, Affecter Mommsen, H., Der Affecter (Mainz, 1975). Mommsen, Exekias Mommsen, 1997).

H.,

Exekias

(Mainz/Rhein,

Morris, “KASAMA” Morris, S.P., “KASAMA: a Contribution to the Ancient Greek Kitchen”, Hesperia 54, no. 4 (1985) 393-409.

Montagu, Touching2 Montagu, A., Touching: the Human Significance of the Skin2 (New York, 1978).

Morris (ed.), Classical Greece Morris, Ian (ed.), Classical Greece: Ancient Histories and Modern Archaeologies (Cambridge, 1994).

Moon, “Italian” Moon, N., “Some Early South Italian Vase Painters: with a Brief Indication of the Later History of Italiote Vase-Painting”, Papers of the British School at Rome, 11 (1929) 3049.

Müller, Mischwesen Müller, P., Löwen und Mischwesen in der Archaischen Griechischen Kunst (Zürich, 1978).

Moon/Berge, Midwestern Moon, W.G., and Berge, L., Greek Vasepainting in Midwestern Collections (Chicago, 1979).

Murray

Homer, ed. by Murray, A.T., The Iliad (London, 1924).

Murray (ed.), Sympotica Murray, O. (ed.), Sympotica: a Symposium on the Symposion (Oxford, 1990).

Moore, “Amasis” Moore, M., “The Amasis Painter and Exekias: Approaches to Narrative” in Amasis Papers (Malibu, Calif., 1987) 153-167. Moore, BF Horses Moore, M., Horses on Black-figure Greek Vases (New York (N.Y.), 1972).

Mylonas, “Olynthian House” Mylonas, G.E., “The Olynthian House of the Classical Period”, Classical Journal 35, no. 7 (1940) 389-402.

Moore, “Horses by Exekias” Moore, M., “Horses by Exekias”, AJA 72, no. 4 (1968) 357-368.

Naiden, “Willing Victim” Naiden, F.S., “The Fallacy of the Willing Victim”, JHS 127 (2007) 61-73.

Moore/Philippides, Agora Moore, M., and Philippides, M., The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies

Nastis, “Feeding” Nastis, A., “Feeding Behaviour of Goats and Utilisation of Pasture and Rangelands” in Recent Advances in Goat Research, edited

148

Oakley, Achilles Oakley, J.H., The Achilles Painter (Mainz/ Rhein, 1997).

by P. Morand-Fehr (Zaragoza, 1997) 39-45. Naughton-Treves, “Forest” Naughton-Treves, L., “Farming the Forest Edge: Vulnerable Places and People around Kibale National Park, Uganda”, Geographical Review 87, no. 1 (1997) 27-46.

Oakley, Death Oakley, J.H., Picturing Death in Classical Athens: the Evidence of the White Lekythoi (Cambridge, 2004).

Neils, “Hetairai and Maenads” Neils, J., “Others Within the Other: An Intimate Look at Hetairai and Maenads” in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 203-226.

Oakley/Coulson, et al. (eds.), Potters and Painters Oakley, J.H., Coulson, W.D.E., and Palagia, O. (eds.), Athenian Potters and Painters: the Conference Proceedings (Oxford, 1997).

Neils, Parthenon Frieze Neils, J., The Parthenon Frieze (Cambridge, 2001).

Oakley/Sinos, Wedding Oakley, J.H., and Sinos, R.H., The Wedding in Ancient Athens (Madison, 1993).

Nevett, “Space” Nevett, L.C., “The Organisation of Space in Classical and Hellenistic Houses from Mainland Greece and the Western Colonies”” in Time, Tradition, and Society in Greek Archaeology, edited by N. Spencer (London, 1995) 89-108.

Oates/O’Neill (eds.), Greek Drama Oates, W.J., and O’Neill, E., Jr. (eds.), The Complete Greek Drama: All the Extant Tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides, and the Comedies of Aristophanes and Menander, in a Variety of Translations. 2 vols (New York, 1938).

Newton, Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidae Newton, C.T., and Pullan, R.P., A History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, Cnidus and Branchidæ (London, 1862).

OCD3

Nicholson, Life in Miniature Nicholson, F., Ancient Life in Miniature: an Exhibition of Classical Terracottas from Private Collections in England 12th October to 30th November 1968 (Birmingham, 1968).

OED2

Hornblower, S. and Spawforth, A. (eds.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary3 (Oxford, 1996). Simpson, J.A., and Weiner, E.S.C., The Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1989).

O’Farrell, Canine O’Farrell, V., Manual of Canine Behaviour2 (Cheltenham, 1992).

Noe, “Mende” Noe, S.P., “The Mende (Kaliandra) Hoard”, Numismatic Notes and Monographs 27 (New York, 1926).

Olivová, Games Olivová, V., Sports and Games in the Ancient World (London, 1984).

Notopoulos, “Name of Plato” Notopoulos, J.A., “The Name of Plato”, Classical Philology 34, no. 2 (1939) 135145.

Osborne, Demos Osborne, R., Demos: the Discovery of Classical Attika (Cambridge, 1985).

Nowak, Mammals Nowak, R.M., Walker’s Mammals of the World. 5th ed. (Baltimore, 1991).

Osborne, Dumb Beasts Osborne, C., Dumb Beasts and Dead Philosophers: Humanity and the Humane in Ancient Philosophy and Literature (Oxford, 2007).

Nutton, Ancient Medicine Nutton, V., Ancient Medicine (New York, 2004).

149

Osborne, Engraved Gems Osborne, D., Engraved Gems: Signets, Talismans and Ornamental Intaglios, Ancient and Modern (New York, 1912).

Techniques in the Archaic and Classical Periods, edited by Olga Palagia (Cambridge, 2006) 243-279. Palmatier, Crisis Palmatier, L.L., Crisis Counseling for a Quality School Community: Applying Wm. Glasser’s Choice Theory (Washington, 1998).

Osborne, Landscape Osborne, R., Classical Landscape with Figures: the Ancient Greek City and its Countryside (London, 1987).

Pape/Benseler, Griechischen Eigennamen Pape, W., and Benseler, G.E., Wörterbuch der griechischen Eigennamen. (Braunschweig, 1911).

Osborne, “Relations” Osborne, R., “Inter-personal Relations on Athenian Pots: Putting Others in Their Place” in Cartledge/Millet, et al. (eds.), Kosmos (Cambridge, 1998) 13-36.

Para

Ostwald, “Cleisthenes” Ostwald, M., “The Reform of the Athenian State By Cleisthenes” in Boardman, et al. (eds.), CAH2 Vol.4, (Cambridge, 1988) 303346.

Para2

Owens, “Koprologoi” Owens, E.J., “The Koprologoi at Athens in the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BC”, Classical Quarterly. New Series 33, no. 1 (1983) 44-50.

Beazley, J.D., Paralipomena: Additions to Attic Black-figure Vase-painters and to Attic Red-figure Vase-painters. 2 vol (Oxford, n.d.). Beazley, J.D., Paralipomena2: Additions to Attic Black-figure Vase-painters and to Attic Red-figure Vase-painters (Oxford, 1971).

Parker, Miasma Parker, R., Miasma: Pollution and Purification in Early Greek Religion (Oxford, 1983).

Padgett, “Stable Hands” Padgett, J.M., “The Stable Hands of Dionysos: Satyrs and Donkeys as Symbols of Social Marginalization in Attic Vase Painting” in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 43-70.

Parker, “Orphism” Parker, R., “Early Orphism” in The Greek World, edited by Anton Powell (London, 1995) 483-510.

Padgett, “Syleus Sequence” Padgett, J.M., “The Workshop of the Syleus Sequence: a Wider Circle” in Oakley/ Coulson, et al. (eds.), Potters and Painters (Oxford, 1997) 213-230.

Parker, Polytheism Parker, R., Polytheism and Society at Athens (Oxford, 2005). Paroemiogr. Corpus Paroemiographorum Graecorum. edited by E.L. Leutsch and P.G. Schneidewin (Hildesheim 1839).

Page, PMG Page, D.L., Poetae Melici Graeci: Alcmanis, Stesichori, Ibyci, Anacreontis, Simonidis, Corinnae, Poetarum Minorum Reliquias, Carmina Popularia et Convivialia Quaeque Adespota Feruntur (Oxford, 1962).

Pasqui, “Fèrento” Pasqui, A., “Fèrento (Comune di Viterbo) Scavi Nella Necropoli”, Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità, no. 2 (1902) 84-94.

Palagia, “Akropolis 581” Palagia, O., “Akropolis Museum 581: a Family at the Apaturia?”, Hesperia 64, no. 4 (1995) 493-501.

Paton

Palagia, “Techniques” Palagia, O., “Marble Carving Techniques” in Greek Sculpture: Function, Materials, and

Paton, W.R., The Greek Anthology (London, 1916).

Payne, Necrocorinthia Payne, H., Necrocorinthia: a Study of

150

Corinthian Art in the Archaic Period (Oxford, 1931).

Relating to Aesop or Ascribed to Him or Closely Connected with the Literary Tradition that Bears His Name (Urbana, 1952).

Payne, “Partial Recovery” Payne, S., “Partial Recovery and Sample Bias” in Archaeozoological Studies: papers of the Archaeozoological Conference 1974, held at the Biologisch-Archaeologisch Instituut of the State University of Groningen, edited by A.T. Clason (Oxford, 1975) 7-17.

Perry (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus Perry, B.E. (ed.), Babrius and Phaedrus: Newly Edited and Translated into English, Together with an Historical Introduction and a Comprehensive Survey of Greek and Latin Fables in the Aesopic Tradition (London, 1965).

Payne, “Zoo-archaeology” Payne, S., “Zoo-archaeology in Greece: a Reader’s Guide” in McDonald, et al. (eds.) Aegean (Dubuque, Iowa, 1985) 281-303.

Pipili, “Workmen” Pipili, M., “Wearing an Other Hat: Workmen in Town and Country” in Cohen (ed.), Ideal (Leiden, 2000) 153-179.

Pearson/Simalenga, et al. (eds.), Harnessing Pearson, R.A., Simalenga, T., and Krecek, R.C., Harnessing and Hitching Donkeys, Mules and Horses for Work (Edinburgh, 2003).

Pollard, Birds Pollard, J., Birds in Greek Life and Myth (London, 1977). Pomeroy, “Erinna” Pomeroy, S.B., “Supplementary Notes on Erinna”, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 32 (1978) 17-22.

Pease, “Bells” Pease, A.S., “Notes on Some Uses of Bells Among the Greeks and Romans”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 15 (1904) 2959.

Poole, BM Coins: Italy Poole, R.S., A Catalogue of Greek Coins in the British Museum: Italy (London, 1873).

Pedley, “Architecture” Pedley, J.G., “Reflections of Architecture in Sixth-century Attic Vase-painting” in Amasis Papers (Malibu, Calif., 1987).

Potter

Peirce, “Thysia” Peirce, S., “Death, Revelry, and Thysia”, Classical Antiquity 12, no. 2 (1993) 219266.

Pottier, Vases du Louvre Pottier, E., Vases Antiques du Louvre (Paris, 1897).

Pelliccia, Mind, Body, and Speech Pelliccia, H., Mind, Body, and Speech in Homer and Pindar (Göttingen, 1995).

Preisigke, S.B. Preisigke, F., Sammelbuch Griechischer Urkunden aus Ägypten (Strassburg, 1915-).

Pelling, Literary Texts Pelling, C.B.R., Literary Texts and the Greek Historian (London, 2000). Perrin

Oates, W.J. and O’Neill, E. Jr. (eds.), Euripides. The Complete Greek Drama, edited by Whitney J. Oates and Eugene O’Neill, Jr. in two volumes. Ion, translated by Robert Potter. (New York, 1938).

Pritchett/Pippin, “Attic Stelai II” Pritchett, W.K., and Pippin, A., “The Attic Stelai: Part II”, Hesperia 25, no. 3 (1956) 178-328.

Plutarch, ed. by Perrin, B., Plutarch’s Lives. Aratus. Artaxerxes. Galba. Otho. (London, 1926).

Procope, “Democritus on Politics and Soul” Procope, J.F., “Democritus on Politics and the Care of the Soul”, Classical Quarterly 39, no. 2 (1989) 307-331.

Perry, Aesopica Perry, B.E., Aesopica: a Series of Texts

151

Reilly, Slave Names Reilly, L.C., Greek Slave Names (Ann Arbor, 1969).

Prummel, “New Halos” Prummel, W., “Animal Remains from the Hellenistic Town of New Halos in the Almirós Plain, Thessaly” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou (London, 2003) 153159.

Reilly, “Hunting Frieze” Reilly, L.C., “The Hunting Frieze from Vergina”, JHS 113 (1993) 160-162.

Pugliese Carratelli (ed.), Western Greeks Pugliese Carratelli, G. (ed.), The Western Greeks: Classical Civilization in the Western Mediterranean (London, 1996).

Reinach, Répertoire Reinach, S., Répertoire des Vases Peints Grecs et Étrusques (Paris, 1899). Reinholdt, “Oder Vita Humana?” Reinholdt, C., “„MOSTOS ODUSSGI” Oder Vita Humana? Zu Einem Vasenbild Des Schweine-Malers in Cambridge”, Opuscula Atheniensia 20 (1994) 163-177.

Raab, Parisurteils Raab, I., Zu den Darstellungen des Parisurteils in der Griechischen Kunst (Frankfurt (M.), 1972). Rabe

Renehan, “Anthropocentric View” Renehan, R., “The Greek Anthropocentric View of Man”,Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 85 (1981) 239-259.

Rabe, H., Scholia in Lucianum (Lipsiae, 1906).

Rackham Pliny, ed. by Rackham, H., Natural History. Libri XXXIII-XXXV. 2nd ed. (London, 1952).

Renfrew/Wagstaff (eds.), Island Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, J.M., An Island Polity: the Archaeology of Exploitation in Melos (Cambridge, 1982).

Rasmussen/Spivey (eds.), Looking Rasmussen, T., and Spivey, N.J. (eds.), Looking at Greek Vases (Cambridge, 1991).

Ricci, “Una Hydria Ionica da Caere” Ricci, G., “Una Hydria Ionica da Caere”, Annuario Della Scuola Archeologica di Atene e Delle Missioni Italiane in Oriente 24-26 (1948) 47-57.

Raubitschek/Raubitschek, “Boeotian” Raubitschek, A.E., and Raubitschek, I.K., “Early Boeotian Potters”, Hesperia 35, no. 2 (1966) 154-165.

Richards, “Acropolis” Richards, G.C., “Selected Vase-fragments from the Acropolis of Athens II”, JHS 14, (1894) 186-197.

Razeto, Archaeological Museum, Florence Razeto, F., Archaeological Museum, Florence (Firenze, 1985).

Richter, Animals Richter, G.M.A., Animals in Greek Sculpture: a Survey (London, 1930).

Reed, “Animal Domestication” Reed, C.A., “Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East”, Science 130, no. 3389 (1959) 1629-1639.

Richter, “Five Bronzes” Richter, G.M.A., “Five Bronzes Recently Acquired by the Metropolitan Museum”, AJA 48, no. 1 (1944) 1-9.

Reeder, Pandora Reeder, E.D., Pandora: Women in Classical Greece (Baltimore, Md., 1995).

Richter, Furniture Richter, G.M.A., The Furniture of the Greeks, Etruscans and Romans (London, 1966).

Reese, “Bone” Reese, D. S., “A Bone Assemblage at Corinth of the Second Century After Christ”, Hesperia 56, no. 3 (1987) 255-274.

Richter, Gems Classical Richter, G.M.A., Catalogue of Engraved Gems

152

of the Classical Style (New York, 1920).

Rieu

Richter, GER Richter, G.M.A., Catalogue of Engraved Gems: Greek, Etruscan, and Roman (Roma, 1956).

Homer, ed. by Rieu, E.V., Rieu, D.C.H., and Jones, P.V., The Odyssey. Rev. ed. (London, 1991).

Rijksmuseum, Klassieke Kunst Rijksmuseum van Oudheden te Leiden., Klassieke Kunst uit Particulier Bezit: Nederlandse Verzamelingen, 1575-1975, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, Leiden, 15 Mei t/m 13 Juli 1975 (Leiden, 1975).

Richter, “Graecopersian Gems” Richter, G.M.A., “The Late ‘Achaemenian’ or ‘Graecopersian’ Gems”, Hesperia Supplements 8 (1949) 291-298, 467-474. Richter, “Greeks in Persia” Richter, G.M.A., “Greeks in Persia”, AJA 50, no. 1 (1946) 15-30.

Ripoll, “Pastoral Greek Thrace” Ripoll, M.P., “Preliminary Study of Pastoral Activities Among the Pomaks in Greek Thrace” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou (London, 2003) 291-295.

Richter/Hall, Metropolitan Richter, G.M.A. and Hall, L. F., Red-figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New Haven, 1936).

Robert, Hellenica Robert, L., Hellenica (Paris, 1955).

Richter, “Pyxis” Richter, G.M.A., “White Athenian Pyxis”, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 3, no. 8 (1908) 154-155.

Robertson, “The Food of Achilles” Robertson, D.S., “The Food of Achilles”, The Classical Review 54, no. 4 (1940) 177180.

Richter, “Recent M.M.A.” Richter, G.M.A., “Two Recent Acquisitions by the Metropolitan Museum of Art”, AJA 43, no. 1 (1939) 1-9.

Robertson, Architecture Robertson, D.S., Greek and Architecture (London, 1969).

Roman

Richter, Sculptors2 Richter, G.M.A., The Sculpture and Sculptors of the Greeks2 (New Haven, 1950).

Robertson, Art Robertson, C.M., A History of Greek Art (London, 1975).

Richter, “Two Statuettes” Richter, G.M.A., “Two Archaic Bronze Statuettes”, Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin. New Series 4, no. 10 (1946) 249253.

Robertson, Shorter Art Robertson, C.M., A Shorter History of Greek Art (Cambridge, 1981). Robertson, Vase-painting Robertson, C.M., The Art of Vase-painting in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1992).

Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog2” Ridgway, B.S., “The Man-and-Dog Stelai” in Ridgway, Second Chance (London, 2004) 45-70.

Robin/Bensel, et al., “Pets” Robin, M., Bensel, R. T., Quigley, J. S. and Anderson, R. K., “Childhood Pets and the Psychosocial Development of Adolescents” in Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) 436-443.

Ridgway, “Meniskoi” Ridgway, B.S., “Birds, “Meniskoi”, and Head Attributes in Archaic Greece”, AJA 94, no. 4 (1990) 583-612.

Robinson, “Ointment” Robinson, D. M., “Ointment-Vases from Corinth”, AJA 10, no. 4 (1906) 420-426.

Ridgway, Second Chance Ridgway, B.S., Second Chance: Greek Sculptural Studies Revisited (London, 2004).

153

Robinson, Olynthus Robinson, D. M., Excavations at Olynthus (Baltimore, 1933).

S. Young Gallery”, Expedition 36, no. 2-3 (1994) A1-A40. Ruby, “Images” Ruby, J., “Images of the Family: the Symbolic Implications of Animal Photography” in Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) 138-146.

Robinson, Ontario Robinson, D. M., A Catalogue of the Greek Vases in the Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology, Toronto: (Largely the Gift of Sigmund Samuel, Esq.) (Toronto, 1930).

Ruffell, “World Upside Down” Ruffell, I., “The World Turned Upside Down: Utopia and Utopianism in the Fragments of Old Comedy” in Harvey, et al. (eds.), Rivals of Aristophanes (London, 2000) 473-506.

Roes, Oorsprong Roes, A., De Oorsprong der geometrische Kunst (Haarlem, 1931). Rolley, “Dieux Patrôoi” Rolley, C., “Le Sanctuaire des Dieux Patrôoi et le Thesmophorion de Thasos”, BCH 89 (1965) 441-483.

Rühfel, Kinderleben Rühfel, H., Kinderleben im Klassischen Athen: Bilder auf Klassichen Vasen (Mainz am Rhein, 1984).

Root, “Horse Race” Root, M.C., “An Etruscan Horse Race from Poggio Civitate”, AJA 77, no. 2 (1973) 121137.

Rumpf, Malerei Rumpf, A., Malerei und Zeichnung der Klassischen Antike (München, 1953).

Rothwell, Choruses Rothwell, K.S., Nature, Culture and the Origins of Greek Comedy: a Study of Animal Choruses (Cambridge, 2007).

Russell, Information Gathering Russell, F.S., Information Gathering in Classical Greece (Ann Arbor, 1999).

Rotroff, Hellenistic Pottery Rotroff, S.I., The Athenian Agora: Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Volume 29: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (Princeton (NJ), 1997).

Rusten

Rotroff/Oakley, Debris Rotroff, S.I., and Oakley, J.H., Debris from a Public Dining Place in the Athenian Agora (Princeton, N.J, 1992).

Sallares, Ecology Sallares, R., The Ecology of the Ancient Greek World (London, 1991).

Theophrastos, Herodas, Cercidas, Hipponax, and Ananius, Theophrastus, Characters. Herodas, Mimes. Cercidas and the Choliambic Poets. Translated by Jeffrey Rusten, I.C. Cunningham and A. D. Knox. 2nd ed. (London, 1993).

Santillo Frizell (ed.), Pecus Santillo Frizell, B. (ed.), Pecus. Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9-12, 2002 (Rome, 2004).

Rouse, Votive Rouse, W.H.D., Greek Votive Offerings: an Essay in the History of Greek Religion (Cambridge, 1902). Roy, “Dog-Meat” Roy, J., “The Consumption of Dog-Meat in Classical Greece” in Mee/Renard (eds.), Cooking (Oakville, CT., 2007) 342-353.

Savishinsky, “Pet” Savishinsky, J. S., “Pet Ideas: the Domestication of Animals, Human Behavior, and Human Emotions” in Katcher/Beck (eds.), Perspectives (Philadelphia, 1983) 112-131.

“R. S. Young Gallery” “The Ancient Greek World: the Rodney

154

Schauenburg, “EΥΡΥΜEΔΩΝ” Schauenburg, K., “EΥΡΥΜEΔΩΝ EIΜI”, Athenische Mitteilungen 90 (1975) 97-121.

Seaford, “Euripides’ Cyclops” Seaford, R., “Some Notes on Euripides’ Cyclops”, Classical Quarterly. New Series 25, no. 2 (1975) 193-208.

Schefold/Jung, Göttersage Schefold, K., and Jung, F., Die Göttersage in der Klassischen und Hellenistischen Kunst (München, 1981).

SEG

Schefold, Kertscher Vasen Schefold, K., Untersuchungen zu den Kertscher Vasen (Berlin, 1934).

Supplementum Epigraphicum (Amsterdam, 1923-).

Graecum

Segal, “Tragedy of the Hippolytus” Segal, C.P., “The Tragedy of the Hippolytus: The Waters of Ocean and the Untouched Meadow: In Memoriam Arthur Darby Nock”, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 70 (1965) 117-169.

Schefold, Sagen von den Argonauten Schefold, K., and Jung, F., Die Sagen von den Argonauten, von Theben und Troia in der Klassischen und Hellenistischen Kunst (München, 1989).

Segrè, Circolazione Monetaria Segrè, A., Circolazione Monetaria e Prezzi nel Mondo Antico ed in Particolare in Egitto (Roma, 1922).

Scheibler, Griechische Töpferkunst Scheibler, I., Griechische Töpferkunst: Herstellung, Handel und Gebrauch der Antiken Tongefässe. 2nd ed. (München, 1995).

Semple, “Stock-raising” Semple, E.C., “The Influence of Geographic Conditions Upon Ancient Mediterranean Stock-raising”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 12 (1922) 3-38.

Scheidel, “Silent Women I” Scheidel, W., “The Most Silent Women of Greece and Rome: Rural Labour and Women‘s Life in the Ancient World (I)”, Greece & Rome. Second series 42, no. 2 (1995) 202-217.

Serpell, “Attitudes” Serpell, J., “From Paragon to Pariah: Some Reflections on Human Attitudes to Dogs” in Serpell (ed.), Dog (Cambridge, 1995) 245256.

Scheidel, “Silent Women II” Scheidel, W., “The Most Silent Women of Greece and Rome: Rural Labour and Women’s Life in the Ancient World (II)”, Greece & Rome. Second series 43, no. 1 (1996) 1-10.

Serpell (ed.), Dog Serpell, J. (ed.), The Domestic Dog: its Evolution, Behaviour, and Interactions with People (Cambridge, 1995).

Schlam, “Actaeon” Schlam, C. C., “Diana and Actaeon: Metamorphosis of a Myth”, Classical Antiquity 3 (1984) 82-110.

Serpell, “Pet-keeping” Serpell, J., “Pet-keeping and Animal Domestication: a Reappraisal”, edited by J. CluttonBrock (London, 1989).

Scholfield Aelian, ed. by Scholfield, A.F., On the Characteristics of Animals (London, 1959).

Seymour, Homeric Seymour, T.D., Life in the Homeric Age (New York, 1907).

Scott, “Dogs” Scott, J. A., “Dogs in Homer”, The Classical Weekly 41, no. 15 (1948) 226-228.

Shapiro, Art and Cult Shapiro, H.A., Art and Cult Under the Tyrants in Athens (Mainz, 1989).

Scullion, “Chthonian” Scullion, S., “Olympian and Chthonian”, Classical Antiquity 13, no. 1 (1994) 75-119.

Shapiro, “Correlating” Shapiro, H.A., “Correlating Shape and Subject: the Case of the Archaic Pelike” in

155

Oakley/Coulson, et al. (eds.), Potters and Painters (Oxford, 1997) 63-70.

Slater (ed.), Dining Slater, W.J. (ed.), Dining in a Classical Context (Ann Arbor, 1991).

Shapiro, Myth into Art Shapiro, H.A., Myth into Art: Poet and Painter in Classical Greece (London, 1994).

Sleeman, Stoats and Weasels, Polecats and Martens Sleeman, P., and Troughton, G., Stoats and Weasels, Polecats and Martens (London, 1989).

Shapiro, Personifications

Shapiro, H.A., Personifications in Greek Art: the Representation of Abstract Concepts, 600-400 BC (Zurich, 1993).

Slicher van Bath, Agrarian Slicher van Bath, B.H., The Agrarian History of Western Europe, A.D. 500-1850, translated by Olive Ordish (London, 1963).

Sider/Brunschön (eds.), Theophrastus on Weather Signs Sider, D., and Brunschön, C.W. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus on Weather Signs (Leiden, 2007).

Smith, BM Sculpture Smith, A.H., A Catalogue of Sculpture in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1892).

Sillar/Meyler, Cats Sillar, F.C., and Meyler, R.M., Cats Ancient and Modern (London, 1976).

Smith, “Eurymedon” Smith, A.C., “Eurymedon and the Evolution of Political Personifications in the Early Classical Period”, JHS 119 (1999) 128141.

Simon, Festivals Simon, E., Festivals of Attica: an Archeological Commentary (Madison, 1983).

Smith, “Harpies” Smith, C., “Harpies in Greek Art”, JHS 13 (1892) 103-114.

Simpson, “Egyptian Art in Boston” Simpson, W.K., “Egyptian and Ancient Near Eastern Art in Boston, 1970-71”, The Burlington Magazine 114, no. 829 (1972) 237-242.

Smith, “Marriage” Smith, C., “An Archaic Vase with Representation of a Marriage Procession”, JHS 1 (1880) 202-209.

Singer, Greek Biology Singer, C.J., Greek Biology & Greek Medicine (Oxford, 1922).

Smith, “Pipes” Smith, P.L., “Vergil’s Avena and the Pipes of Pastoral Poetry”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 101 (1970) 497-510.

Singer, “Pygmies” Singer, M., “Pygmies and Their Dogs: a Note on Culturally Constituted Defense Mechanisms”, Ethos 6, no. 4 (1978) 270277.

Smith, et al. (eds.) G&R Antiquities Smith, W., Wayte, W., and Marindin, G.E., A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. 3rd, rev. and enlarged ed. (London, 1890).

Skeen, “Happiness” Skeen, J.W., “Discovering Human Happiness: Choice Theory Psychology, Aristotelian Contemplation, and Traherne’s Felicity”, Quodlibet: Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy 5, no. 2-3 (2003).

SNG

American Numismatic Society, Sylloge Nummorum Graecorum (New York, 19611998).

Snodgrass, “Rural Landscape” Snodgrass, A.M., “The Rural Landscape and its Political Significance”, Opus 6-8 (198789) 53-64.

Skydsgaard, “Transhumance” Skydsgaard, J.E., “Transhumance in Ancient Greece” in Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral (Cambridge, 1988) 75-86.

156

Snyder/Klippel, “Lerna to Kastro” Snyder, L.M., and Klippel, W.E., “From Lerna to Kastro: Further Thoughts on Dogs as Food in Ancient Greece: Perceptions, Prejudices and Reinvestigations” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou (London, 2003) 221-231.

commentary by (Warminster, 2001).

A.H.

Sommerstein

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Wasps, edited with translation and notes by A.H. Sommerstein. (Oxford, 1983). Sonnabend, Landschaft Sonnabend, H., Mensch und Landschaft in der Antike: Lexikon der Historischen Geographie (Stuttgart, 1999).

Snyder, “Well G5:3” Snyder, L.M., “The Animal Bones from Well G5:3: Domestic Debris, Industrial Debris, and Possible Evidence for the Sacrifice of Domestic Dogs”, AJA 103, no. 2 (1999) 284285.

Sorabji, Animal Minds Sorabji, R., Animal Minds and Human Morals: the Origins of the Western Debate (London, 1993).

Soho, Lion Soho, A.M., Did the Lion Exist in Greece Within Historic Times? Phd Thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1898.

Sotheby-Parke-Bernet Sotheby Parke Bernet (New York), [Catalogues of auction sales held by Sotheby Parke Bernet Inc., New York] (New York, 1972- ).

Sokolowski, LSCG Sokolowski, F., Lois Sacrées des Cités Grecques (Paris, 1969).

Sparkes, Greek Pottery Sparkes, B., Greek Pottery: an Introduction (Manchester, 1991).

Sommerstein Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Birds, edited with translation and notes by A.H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1987).

Sparkes, “Onesimos” Sparkes, B., “Aspects of Onesimos” in Boulter, Archaic into Classical (Leiden, 1985) 18-39.

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Ecclesiazusae, edited with translation and commentary by A.H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1998).

Sparkes, Red and Black Sparkes, B., The Red and the Black: Studies in Greek Pottery (London, 1996).

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Knights, edited with translation and commentary by A.H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1981).

Spence, Cavalry Spence, I.G., The Cavalry of Classical Greece: a Social and Military History with Particular Reference to Athens (Oxford, 1993).

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Lysistrata, edited with translation and notes by A.H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1990).

Spier, Getty Gems Spier, J., J. Paul Getty Museum, Ancient Gems and Finger Rings: Catalogue of the Collection (Malibu, Calif., 1992).

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Clouds, edited with translation and notes by A.H. Sommerstein (Warminster, 1982). Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Peace, edited with translation and notes by A.H. Sommerstein. 2nd ed. (Oxford, 2005).

Spruytte, Early Harness Spruytte, J., Early Harness Systems: Experimental Studies: a Contribution to the History of the Horse (London, 1983).

Aristophanes, ed by Sommerstein, A.H., Wealth, edited with translation and

Starkey, “Trends” Starkey, P., “Transport Animals: World-wide

157

Trends and Issues” in Hall (ed.), Traction (Potters Bar, 1997) 5-16.

LXXVI”, Greece & Rome 17, no. 51 (1948) 143-144.

Starr, Aristocratic Temper Starr, C.G., The Aristocratic Temper of Greek Civilization (Oxford, 1992).

Sussman (ed.), Pets Sussman, M.B. (ed.), Pets and the Family (New York, 1985).

Steiner, Reading Steiner, A., Reading Greek Vases (Cambridge, 2007).

Syll.3

Steingräber, “Pygmäen” Steingräber, S., “Zum Ikonografischen und Hermeneutischen Wandel von Pygmäenund Speziell Geronomachiedarstellungen in Vorhellenistischer Zeit (6.-4./3. Jh. v. Chr.)”, Mediterranean Archaeology 12 (1999) 29-42.

Tani, “Sheep Flock leaders” Tani, Y., “The Geographical Distribution and Function of Sheep Flock leaders: a Cultural Aspect of the Man-Domesticated Animal Relationship in Southwestern Eurasia” in Clutton-Brock (ed.), Larder (London, 1989) 185-199.

Steinhart, Töpferkunst Steinhart, M., Töpferkunst und Meisterzeichnung: Attische Wein- und Ölgefässe aus der Sammlung Zimmermann (München, 1996).

Taylor

Stengel, Kultusaltertümer Stengel, P., Die griechischen Kultusaltertümer. 3rd ed (München, 1920). Stewart, Greek Sculpture Stewart, A., Greek Sculpture: an Exploration (New Haven, 1990).

Dittenberger, W., Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1915-1924).

Iamblichus, ed by Taylor, T., Iamblichus’ Life of Pythagoras, Or, Pythagoric Life: Accompanied by Fragments of the Ethical Writings of Certain Pythagoreans in the Doric Dialect and a Collection of Pythagoric Sentences from Stobaeus and Others (London, 1987).

Tarbell, “Effect of Burial” Tarbell, F.B., “Greek Ideas as to the Effect of Burial on the Future of the Soul”, Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869-1896) 15 (1884) 36-45.

Stewart, Desire Stewart, A.F., Art, Desire and the Body in Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 1997).

Technau, Exekias Technau, W., Exekias (Leipzig, 1936).

Stewart, “Narrative” Stewart, A.F., “Narrative, Genre, and Realism in the Work of the Amasis Painter” in Amasis Papers (Malibu, Calif., 1987) 29-42.

Thalmann, Conventions Thalmann, W.G., Conventions of Form and Thought in Early Greek Epic Poetry (Baltimore, 1984).

Stinton, Euripides Paris Stinton, T.C.W., Euripides and the Judgement of Paris (London, 1965).

ThesCRA Thesaurus Cultus et Rituum Antiquorum (Los Angeles, Calif., 2004-).

Stratton/Theophrastus, Greek Physiological Psychology Stratton, G.M., and Theophrastus, Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology Before Aristotle (London, 1917).

Thomas, Natural World Thomas, K., Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800 (Harmondsworth, 1984). Thomas, Oral Tradition Thomas, R., Oral Tradition and Written

“Suppl. Plates LXXIII-LXXVI” “Notes on Supplementary Plates LXXIII-

158

Record in Classical Athens (Cambridge, 1989).

Trendall/Cambitoglou, Studies Trendall, A.D. and Cambitoglou, A.D. (eds.), Studies in Honour of Arthur Dale Trendall (Sydney, 1979).

Thompson, “Agora 1950” Thompson, D.A.W., “Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1950”, Hesperia 20, no. 1 (1951) 45-60.

Trevarthen, “Sense” Trevarthen, C., “Making Sense of Infants Making Sense”, Intellectica (Revue de l’Association pour la Recherche Cognitive) 34 (2003) 161-188.

Thompson, “Agora 1951” Thompson, D.A.W., “Excavations in the Athenian Agora: 1951”, Hesperia 21, no. 2 (1952) 83-113.

TrGF

Thompson, Aristotle as Biologist Thompson, D.A.W., On Aristotle as a Biologist. Herbert Spencer Lect., 1913 (Oxford, 1913).

Snell, B., Kannicht, R.,, and Radt, S.L., (eds.) Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta (Göttingen 1971–2004).

Trypanis Callimachus and Musaeus, ed by Trypanis, C.A., Gelzer, T., and Whitman, C.H., Aetia, Iambi, Lyric Poems, Hecale, Minor Epic and Elegiac Poems and Other Fragments (London, 1975).

Thompson, BirdsNew Thompson, D.A.W., A Glossary of Greek Birds. New ed. (London, 1936). Thompson, “Gravestone” Thompson, H.A., “An Archaic Gravestone from the Athenian Agora”, Hesperia Supplements 8 (1949) 373-377, 487-488.

Tsoukala, Pleistocene Fauna Tsoukala, E., Contribution to the Study of the Pleistocene Fauna of Large Mammals (Carnivora, Perissodactyla, Artiodactyla) from Petralona Cave Chalkidiki (N. Greece). Doctoral Degree Thesis (Thessaloniki, Greece., 1989).

Thompson, “Hellenistic Terracottas” Thompson, D.B., “Three Centuries of Hellenistic Terracottas, I, B and C”, Hesperia 23, no. 1 (1954) 72-107.

Universität Zürich, Tier in der Antike Universität Zürich. Archäologisches Institut., Das Tier in der Antike: 400 Werke ägyptischer griechischer, etruskischer und römischer Kunst aus privatem und öffentlichen Besitz: Ausgestellt im Archäologischen Institut der Universitat Zürich, 21. September-17. November 1974: [Katalog] (Zürich, 1974).

Thompson, “Jtikos” Thompson, D.A.W., “Jtikos = Ktilos”, Classical Review 46, no. 2 (1932) 53-54. Thornley Longus, ed by Thornley, G. Daphnis and Chloe (London, 1916).

Ure/Ure, Aryballoi Ure, P. N. and Ure, A. D., Aryballoi and Figurines from Rhitsona in Boeotia: an Account of the Early Archaic Pottery and of the Figurines, Archaic and Classical, with Supplementary Lists of the Finds of Glass, Beads and Metal, from Excavations made by R.M. Burrows and P.N. Ure in 1907, 1908, 1909 and by P. N. and A.D. Ure in 1921 and 1922 (Cambridge, 1934).

Tosto, Nicosthenesepoiesen Tosto, V., The Black-figure Pottery Signed “Nicosthenesepoiesen”. 2 vols (Amsterdam, 1999). Toynbee, Roman Animals Toynbee, J.M.C., Animals in Roman Life and Art (London, 1973). Trendall, Apulia Trendall, A.D., The Red-figured Vases of Apulia (Oxford, 1978).

Ure/Ure, Rhitsona Ure, P.N. and Ure, A.D., Sixth and Fifth

159

Century Pottery from Excavations made at Rhitsona by R.M. Burrows in 1909, and by P.N. Ure and A.D. Ure in 1921 & 1922 (London, 1927).

Lloyd (New York, 1988). Veyne, Bread and Circuses Veyne, P., Murray, O., and Pearce, B., Bread and Circuses: Historical Sociology and Political Pluralism (London, 1992).

Van Dijk, Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi Dijk, G.-J.v., Ainoi, Logoi, Mythoi: Fables in Archaic, Classical, and Hellenistic Greek Literature: with a Study of the Theory and Terminology of the Genre (Leiden, 1997).

Vidal-Naquet, “Beasts” Vidal-Naquet, P., “Beasts, Humans and Gods: the Greek View” in Agon, Logos, Polis: the Greek Achievement and its Aftermath, edited by Jóhann Páll Árnason and Peter Murphy (Stuttgart, 2001) 127-137.

Van Gelder, Biology of Mammals Van Gelder, R.G., Biology of Mammals (London, 1969).

Vidal-Naquet, Black Hunter Vidal-Naquet, P., The Black Hunter: Forms of Thought and Forms of Society in the Greek World (Baltimore, 1986).

Van Straten, Hiera Kala Van Straten, F.T., Hiera Kala: Images of Animal Sacrifice in Archaic and Classical Greece (Leiden, 1995).

Villard, Vases Grecs Villard, F., Les Vases Grecs (Paris, 1956).

Van Straten, “Sacrificial Representations” Van Straten, F.T., “Greek Sacrificial Representations: Livestock Prices and Religious Mentality” in Gifts to the Gods: Proceedings of the Uppsala Symposium 1985, edited by T. Linders and G. Nordquist (Uppsala, 1987) 159-170.

Voigt

Voigt, E.-A. (ed.), Sappho et Alcaeus; Fragmenta, edited by Eva-Maria Voigt (Amsterdam, 1971).

von Reden, Exchange von Reden, S., Exchange in Ancient Greece (London, 2003).

Varro/Storr-Best, Farming Varro, M.T., ed by Storr-Best, L., Varro on Farming. M. Terenti Varronis Rerum Rusticarum Libri Tres (London, 1912).

von Staden, Herophilus von Staden, H., and Herophilus, Herophilus: the Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria: Edition, Translation and Essays (Cambridge, 1989).

Varro/Tilly, Farming Varro, M.T., ed by Tilly, B., Varro the Farmer: a Selection From the Res Rusticae (London, 1973).

Vorberg, Erotik Vorberg, G., Die Erotik der Antike in Kleinkunst und Keramik (Munich, 1921).

Veevers, “Social” Veevers, J.E., “The Social Meaning of Pets: Alternative Roles for Companion Animals” in Sussman (ed.), Pets (New York, 1985) 11-30.

Voultsiadou/Tatolas, “Fauna” Voultsiadou, E., and Tatolas, A., “The Fauna of Greece and Adjacent Areas in the Age of Homer: Evidence from the First Written Documents of Greek Literature”, Journal of Biogeography 32, no. 11 (2005) 1875-1882.

Vermeule, “Funerary Animals” Vermeule, C., “Greek Funerary Animals, 450-300 B.C.”, AJA 76, no. 1 (1972) 49-59. Vernant, Myth and Society Vernant, J.P., and Lloyd, J., Myth and Society in Ancient Greece (New York, 1988).

Vorberg, Erotik Vorberg, G., Die Erotik der Antike in Kleinkunst und Keramik (Munich, 1921).

Vernant/Vidal-Naquet, Myth and Tragedy Vernant, J.-P. and Vidal-Naquet, P., Myth and Tragedy in Ancient Greece, transl. Janet

Wagner/Boardman, Eastern Intaglios. Wagner, C., and Boardman, J., A Collection

160

of Classical and Eastern Intaglios, Rings and Cameos (Oxford, 2003).

Weaver, “Grape” Weaver, J., “Grape Growing in Greece”, Economic Botany 14 (1960) 207-224.

Wagstaff/Augustson, “Land Use” Wagstaff, J.M., and Augustson, S., “Traditional Land Use” in Renfrew/ Wagstaff (eds.), Island (Cambridge, 1982) 106-133.

Webster, “Stanford” Webster, T.B.L., “Greek Vases in the Stanford Museum”, AJA 69, no. 1 (1965) 63-65. Wees, Warfare Wees, Hans van, Greek Warfare: Myths and Realities (London, 2004).

Walsh, Distorted Ideals Walsh, David, Distorted Ideals in Greek Vase-Painting: the World of Mythological Burlesque (Cambridge, 2009).

Wehgartner, Weissgrundige Wehgartner, I., Attisch Weissgrundige Keramik: Maltechniken, Werkstätten, Formen, Verwendung (Mainz am Rhein, 1983).

Walters, “Black-figured Vases” Walters, H.B., “On Some Black-figured Vases Recently Acquired by the British Museum”, JHS 18 (1898) 218-301.

Wells (ed.), Agriculture Symposium Wells, B. (ed.), Agriculture in Ancient Greece: Proceedings of the Seventh International Symposium at the Swedish Institute at Athens, 16-17 May, 1990 (Stockholm, 1992).

Walters, BM Gems2 Walters, H.B., Catalogue of the Engraved Gems and Cameos, Greek, Etruscan and Roman, in the British Museum Rev. and enlarged (London, 1926).

West, (ed.) Greek Lyric West, M.L. (ed.) Greek Lyric Poetry: the Poems and Framents of the Greek Iambic, Elegiac, and Melic Poets (Excluding Pindar and Bacchylides) Down to 450 BC (Oxford, 1993).

Walters, BM Vases Walters, H.B., Catalogue of the Greek and Etruscan Vases in the British Museum (London, 1893). Walters, “Odysseus and Kirke” Walters, H.B., “Odysseus and Kirke on a Boeotian Vase”, JHS 13 (1892) 77-87.

West, Homeric Hymns West, M.L., Homeric Hymns, Homeric Apocrypha, Lives of Homer (Cambridge (Mass.), 2003).

Walters, “Recent BM Vases” Walters, H.B., “Red-figured Vases Recently Acquired by the British Museum”, JHS 41, no. 1 (1921) 117-150.

West (ed.), Iambi West, M.L. (ed.) Iambi et Elegi Graeci ante Alexandrum Cantati (Oxford, 1971-1972).

Waters, et al., “Testis” Waters, D.J., Shen, S., and Glickman, L.T., “Life Expectancy, Antagonistic Pleiotropy, and the Testis of Dogs and Men”, The Prostate 43, no. 4 (2000) 272-277.

Westgate, “House and Society” Westgate, R., “House and Society in Classical and Hellenistic Crete”, AJA 111, no. 3 (2007) 423-457.

Walters, Terracottas Walters, H. B., Catalogue of the Terracottas in the Department of Greek and Roman Antiquities, British Museum (London, 1903).

Whiston Josephus, F., ed by Whiston, W., The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston (Auburn & Buffalo (N.Y.), 1895).

Watts, Oxen Watts, M., Working Risborough, 1999).

Whittaker (ed.), Pastoral Whittaker, C.R., Pastoral Economies in Classical Antiquity (Cambridge, 1988).

Oxen

(Princes

161

White, Bibliography of Agriculture White, K.D., A Bibliography of Roman Agriculture (Reading, 1970).

Winkler/Zeitlin (eds.), Dionysos? Winkler, J.J., Zeitlin, F.I., Nothing to do with Dionysos?: Athenian Drama in its Social Context (Princeton, 1990).

White, Farming White, K.D., Roman Farming (London, 1970).

Winnefeld, “Kabirenheiligtum” Winnefeld, H., “Das Kabirenheiligtum Bei Theben”, Athenische Mitteilungen 13 (1888) 412-428.

Whitley, The Archaeology of Ancient Greece Whitley, J., The Archaeology of Ancient Greece (Cambridge, 2001).

Winter, “Typen” Winter, F., “Die Typen der Figuerlichen Terrakotten” in Die Antiken Terrakotten, vol.3, edited by R. Kekulé (Berlin, 1903).

Wiesner, Reiten Wiesner, J., Fahren und Reiten (Göttingen, 1968).

Wolters, Kabirenheiligtum Wolters, P., Das Kabirenheiligtum Bei Theben (Berlin, 1940).

Wilcox, et al., “Zoosexual” Wilcox, D.T., Foss, C.M., and Donathy, M.L., “A Case Study of a Male Sex Offender with Zoosexual Interests and Behaviours”, Journal of Sexual Aggression 11, no. 3 (2005) 305-317.

Woysch-Méautis, Animaux Woysch-Méautis, D., La Représentation des Animaux et des Êtres Fabuleux sur les Monuments Funéraires Grecs: de l’ Époque Archaïque à la Fin du IVe Siècle av. J.-C. (Neuchâtel, 1982).

Wilkins, Boastful Chef Wilkins, J., The Boastful Chef: the Discourse of Food in Ancient Greek Comedy (Oxford, 2000).

Wroth, BM Coins: Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos Wroth, W.W., Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos (London, 1894).

Wilkins/Hill, Food Wilkins, J., and Hill, S., Food in the Ancient World (Oxford, 2006).

Yannouli, “Non-domestic Carnivores” Yannouli, E., “Non-domestic Carnivores in Greek Prehistory: a Review” in Zooarchaeology in Greece: Recent Advances, edited by Eleni Kotjabopoulou (London, 2003) 175-192.

Williams, “Curses” Williams, T., “The Curses of Bouzyges: New Evidence”, Mnemosyne. Fourth Series 15, no. 4 (1962) 396-398. Wilson

Wilson, N.G. (ed.), Aelian: Historical Miscellany, edited and translated by N.G. Wilson (London, 1997).

Yerkes, Apes Yerkes, R. M., The Great Apes (New Haven, 1929).

Winkler, Desire Winkler, J.J., The Constraints of Desire: the Anthropology of Sex and Gender in Ancient Greece (New York, 1990).

Young, “Sounion” Young, J.H., “Studies in South Attica: Country Estates at Sounion”, Hesperia 25, no. 2 (1956) 122-146.

Winkler, “Ephebes’ Song” Winkler, J.J., “The Ephebes’ Song: Tragoidia and Polis” in Winkler/Zeitlin (eds.) Dionysos? (Princeton, 1990) 20-62.

Zafiropoulos, Ethics in Aesop Zafiropoulos, C.A., Ethics in Aesop’s Fables: the Augustana Collection (Leiden, 2001).

162

Zahn, Rotfiguriger Zahn, R., Rotfiguriger Attischer Krater im Antiquarium (Berlin, 1934).

Animals (London, 1963). Zlotogorska, Hunden Zlotogorska, M., Darstellungen von Hunden auf Griechischen Grabreliefs von der Archaik bis in die Römische Kaiserzeit (Hamburg, 1997).

Zeitlin, “Playing the Other” Zeitlin, F.I., “Playing the Other: Theater, Theatricality, and the Feminine in Greek Drama” in Winkler/Zeitlin (eds.) Dionysos? (Princeton, 1990) 63-96.

Zwierlein-Diehl, Wien Zwierlein-Diehl, E., Die Antiken Gemmen des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien (München, 1973).

Zeuner, Domesticated Animals Zeuner, F.E., A History of Domesticated

163

Catalogue

2. Munich, Antikensammlungen 2347.

Artefacts are arranged in order of their first appearance in the thesis. This arrangement is intended to group items related to particular arguments as much as possible, although several artefacts are referred to in relation to more than one animal.

Boeotian red-figure pelike, 500-480 BC. Lullies, Vasenmalerei 1-2, pl.1 (A), and Rumpf, Malerei 83, pl.23.7 (B).

Where possible, references to a least one published image are supplied, as well as to standard catalogues such as ABV, ARV and CVA, and other references relevant to the discussion. Beazley Archive Database numbers are given, and the Database may be used as a source of further references and illustrations.

Side A: A cat in a domestic context contemplates meat on a stand while the woman guarding it sleeps. Side B: A butcher cleaving meat. 3. London, British Museum GR 1852,0901.13 (Bronze 180).

1. Munich, Staatliche Antikensammlungen, 2412, J386.

Bronze figurine group, possibly Cypriot, late seventhcentury BC.

Attic red-figure stamnos, 475-425 BC.

Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 74-75, 78, pl.1a.

ARV2 1036.5, 1679. Addenda2 318. Para. 443. Berard (ed.), Images 228, fig.1. Boardman, ARFV Classical1 fig.141. CVA München Antiker Kleinkunst 5 38, pls.(962,964,966,970) 247.2, 249.3-4, 251.12, 255.4. LIMC VI, s.v. Nike, 878, no.337, pl.586 (Goulaki-Voutira). Matheson, Polygnotos 98, pl.74. Van Straten, Hiera Kala no.V90, fig.46. BA 213476.

Ox-drawn plough turning at the end of a row. 4. London, British Museum GR 1875,0313.11 (Bronze 182). Bronze figurine group, possibly Cypriot, late seventhcentury BC. Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 74-75, 78, pl.1b.

Side A: Dithyrambic victory sacrifice. Nike pours water from a hydria into a basin. A bull, ornamented with a fillet for sacrifice, stoops its head to drink. Behind it a woman holds up another fillet. In the background stands a large tripod. Side B: Women, and a man holding a sceptre.

Ox-drawn plough turning at the end of a row. 5. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 32.4. Bronze figurine group, possibly Cypriot, late seventh-

165

century BC.

A shepherd wearing a conical pilos and carrying a lamb and an open-mouthed vessel – possibly for milking.

Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 74-75, 78, pl.1c.

Inscribed on the base: “Aineas [dedicated me] to Pan.”

Ox-drawn plough turning at the end of a row.

11. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 1972.118.67.

6. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum 32.5. Bronze figurine group, possibly Cypriot, late seventhcentury BC.

Arcadian bronze statuette, 525-500 BC. Bothmer, Baker Collection Exhib. no.20. Bothmer, NY Private Collections no. 209, pl. 61.

Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 74-75, 78, pl.1d. Ox-drawn plough turning at the end of a row.

Hermes as a shepherd, wearing a conical pilos and carrying a lamb.

7. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA352.

12. Basel Market.

Terracotta statuette of from Tanagra, seventh-century BC.

Engraved sardonyx, first-century BC.

Gow, Plough 253, fig.5.

Antike Kunstwerke 4 21, no.38. Zwierlein-Diehl, Wien vol.1, 243, pl.42.

A man ploughing with oxen.

Herder milking a goat beneath a tree.

8. Los Angeles, Malibu Getty 96.AD.101.

13. London, British Museum GR 1856,1223.941 (Finger Ring 44).

Boeotian terracotta figure, 500-475 BC. Getty website: http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/ artObjectDetails?artobj=35613 . Chesterman, Terracotta Figures 39-40, fig.31. Nicholson, Life in Miniature 24, no.73, pl.5.

Gold ring bezel from tomb 12 at Tharros, ca.500BC.

Woman feeding hen and chicks. Note the woman’s rustic headgear. Remains of white slip on hen and woman's dress, and traces of black paint on the woman’s hair

Youth milking a ewe being held by a man.

Boardman, Gems2 215, 296, pl.660. Marshall, LondonR no.44, pl.2.

PLATE 1a.

9. Berlin, Antikensammlung 10781.

14. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 31.11.10.

Arcadian bronze statuette, 525-500 BC.

Attic black-figure lekythos, 575-525 BC.

Lamb, “Statuettes” 133-134, 136, fig.1.3.

ABV 154.57, 688. Addenda2 45. Para. 64. Barber, Women’s Work 82, 220, figs.3.6, 9.4. Boardman, Vases 56, fig.69. Harrison, “Dress” 216, 218-219, figs.1-2. Stewart, “Narrative” 38, fig.14. BA 310485.

A shepherd wearing a conical pilos and carrying a ram. 10. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 43.11.3.

Shoulder: Woman or goddess with wreath seated on a stool between youths. Women dancing.

Arcadian bronze statuette, 525-500 BC.

Body: Domestic, wool-working, women weave at a loom, spin with a spindle, fold cloth and handle and weigh wool.

Richter, “Five Bronzes” 5-6, figs.11-15. Richter, “Two Statuettes” 249-250.

166

15. Athens, National Museum 243.

33-34, pls.(1013,1014,1015) 84.1-2, 85.1-4, 86.1-4. CVA Berlin Antiquarium 3 19, 20, pls.(1056,1063) 127.4.8, 134.9. LIMC VII, s.v. Paridis Iudicium, 179, 187, no.36, pl.112 (Kossatz-Deissmann). Kunisch, Makron 36, 68, figs.19, 31, pls.94-95.295. Robertson, Vase-painting 103, fig.99 (A). Sparkes, Red and Black 127, fig.V.8 (A). Stinton, Euripides and Paris. BA 204685.

Statue of Hermes in Pentelic marble, secondcentury AD copy of a late fifth-century BC original, attributed to Naukydes, a sculptor of the school of Polykleitos. Kaltsas, Sculpture 116-117, no.209.

Side A: Judgement of Paris. Paris, with a lyre, is seated among his goats. He is approached by Athena, Hera, Aphrodite, Hermes and erotes.

Hermes grasps one horn of a ram next to him, lifting it into its hind legs. 16. New York, Hoppin and Gallatin Collection.

Side B: Paris leading Helen. Interior: Erotic courtship of youth by a man, with a hare.

Attic red-figure sheep’s-head rhyton, 500-450 BC.

20. Malibu, Getty 83.AE.323.

CVA Hoppin and Gallatin 17-18, pl.(50) 29.1-2. BA 9004951.

Attic red-figure cup tondo fragment, 510-500 BC.

Neck: Education. Youths, one seated with a lyre, one holding pipes.

Peirce, “Thysia” fig.6. BA 13362.

17. London, British Museum E178.

Interior: Old man dragging a shaggy goat to sacrifice.

Attic red-figure hydria, 500-450 BC.

21. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 38.11.2.

ARV2 503.20. Addenda2 251. Boardman, ARFV Classical1 fig.34. CVA British Museum 5 III.Ic.14, pl.(331) 81.3. LIMC VII, s.v. Paridis Iudicium, 180, 187, no.38, pl.113 (Kossatz-Deissmann). BA 205649.

Attic red-figure figure vase in the shape of a hoof, 500-450 BC. Richter, “Recent M.M.A.” 6, figs.4-5. BA 5968.

Judgment of Paris, seated on a rock, with a lyre. Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite approach. A sheep stands near Paris.

Body: A smiling youth in goat skin and cow or goatskin pilos seated with a staff on a rock. A hoof dangles from his goat-skin cloak. Before him, cows. A large, emaciated, snarling canine emerges from a rocky, ivyhung cave. A hare makes its way between the cattle and the two stunted shrubs that are painted on the protuberances modeling the dewclaws of the ox-foot.

18. Berlin, Antikensammlung 4052. Attic red-figure neck-amphora, 475-425 BC. ARV2 649.2. Addenda2 276. Licht, Sittengeschichte vol.3, 96. BA 207562.

The light, short strokes of glaze on the canine’s body may suggest coarse hair, and there is a small cheekruff and feathering to the haunches. The lips on its sharp muzzle lift as it snarls, and its teeth are plain to be seen.

Side A: Shepherd (youth in pilos, chitoniskos and animal skin) seated on rock, playing auloi, satyr dancing, tree, sheep. 19. Berlin, Antikensammlung F2291.

22. London, British Museum (Blacas Collection) GR 1867,0507.585 (Gem 2249).

Attic red-figure cup, ca.480 BC.

Walters, BM Gems2 231, no.2249.

ARV 459.4, 481, 1385, 1654. Para. 377. Addenda 244. Beazley, Lectures 88, pl.65 (A B). Cohen, “Literate Potter” 74, figs.43-44. CVA Berlin Antiquarium 2 2

2

Greek or Roman engraved nicolo ring stone, dating between the second-century BC and the first-century

167

Side A: Satyr and maenad in erotic scene.

AD. A shepherd fondles his dog. Behind him is a shepherd’s crook.

Side B: Symposium, satyr and maenad.

PLATE 1b.

Interior: Shepherd and sheep, with inscription: “kalos”. On close inspection, the ram walking with the boy is on a lead, the faded red strand grasped in the boy’s left fist. The ram turns its eye back towards the boy. The boy carries a stick, and holds it up as if prompting the animals.

23. St Petersburg, Hermitage Ж835. Roman cornelian (Hellenistic influence), secondcentury BC. Gosudarstvenny*i/Neverov, Intaglios Osborne, Engraved Gems pl.18.11.

66,

pl.74.

27. Taranto, Museo Archeologico Nazionale 114326.

A shepherd following a flock of sheep and leaning on a stick.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 525–475 BC.

24. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.185.

D’Amicis, et al., Catalogo di Taranto 197-198, no.30.1. Lo Porto, “Anfora Attica” 18-19, figs.1-3 (A, B). Pipili, “Workmen” 165. BA 42029.

Attic red-figure bell-krater, 500-450 BC. ARV2 550.1, 1659. Addenda 125. Addenda2 256. Boardman, Pan 29, fig.33(B). Boardman, Vases 96, fig.130(B). Borgeaud, Pan 58, 110. Cartledge/Millett, et al. (eds.), Kosmos 28-29, figs.5A-C (A,B). Cohen, “Killers” 117. Osborne, “Relations” 28-29, figs.5A-C. Robertson, Vase-painting 145-147, figs.148-149. BA 206276.

NA: Bird trapping. A huntsman in fur pilos and animal skin crouches, watched by a draped man with a staff. NB: Bird trapping. An owl perches on a pole as a target for birds to mob. Some birds are flying, some perch in a tree. 28. Copenhagen, National Museum 731.

Side A: Death of Actaeon.

Attic red-figure pyxis lid, ca.430 BC.

Side B: Pan pursuing a goatherd, who holds a whip, and wears an animal skin.

CVA Copenhague 4 125-126, pl.(165) 163.1. LIMC VII, s.v. Paridis Iudicium, 180, 187, no.40, pl.114-115 (Kossatz-Deissmann). Lund/Rasmussen, Antiquities 102. BA 7928.

25. Paris, Musée du Louvre F69. Attic black-figure kyathos, 550-500 BC.

Judgment of Paris, in oriental dress and seated on a rock, accompanied by a dog and a shorn ram. Also present: Hermes, Hera (in chariot), Athena (in chariot drawn by snakes), Aprodite (in chariot drawn by erotes).

ABV 349. Addenda2 95. Para. 159. Malagardis, “Rural Attique” 108, fig.1A. Mommsen, Affecter pl.133. Raubitschek/Raubitschek, “Boeotian” 160, pl.52c-d. Reinholdt, “Oder Vita Humana?” 174, figs.16a-b. Tosto, Nicosthenesepoiesen 99, pl.153.111b. BA 301977.

29. Sarajevo, National Museum 33.

Body: Goats, two dogs, and a man with fur cap and whip.

Attic red-figure bell-krater fragments, 450-400 BC.

26. Bremen, Zimmermann Collection.

CVA Sarajevo 49-50, pls.(173,175) 46.1-3, 48.1-2. BA 9288.

Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Side A: Judgment of Paris (Paris in oriental dress). Also present: Eros, Hermes, cattle, dog.

Hoffmann, Pursuit pl.8.5. Neils, “Hetairai and Maenads” 204-205, figs.8.1-2. Pipili, “Workmen” 169, fig.6.6, and Sparkes, “Onesimos” pls.26-27. Steinhart, Töpferkunst 99-101, no.20, pls.11, 13. BA 5969.

Side B: Maenad with kantharos, satyr with thyrsos, maenad.

168

30. Paris, Musée du Louvre G536.

Kastriotes, Katalogos (1908), no.805. Richter, Animals 26 and note 3, 70, fig.133.

Attic red-figure pelike, 500-450 BC.

Two kids rear and butt heads.

ARV2 286.14. Addenda2 209. Boardman, ARFV Archaic fig.180. CVA Louvre 8 III.I.D.32, III.I.D.33, pl.(525) 45.5.7.11. BA 202620.

35. Athens, Piraeus Museum 1744. Attic marble grave stele finial.

Side A: Peasant boy playing auloi, riding ram.

Clairmont, Tombstones 397, no.2.369a(v).

Side B: Peasant boy playing auloi, riding he-goat.

Two billy goats rear and butt heads.

31. Malibu, J.Paul Getty Museum 85.AN.444.29.

36. Florence, Museo Archeologico 70792.

Spier, Getty Gems 43, no.75.

Bronze statuette, ca.480 BC.

Greek bronze ring bezel, late fifth-century BC.

Richter, Animals 26, 68, fig.124.

A squatting satyr playing a syrinx, while a goat dances before him

A goat browsing high branches.

32. Bucharest, National Museum 0461.

37. Netherlands, Private (once Munich, Preyss).

Attic black-figure lekythos, 525-475 BC.

Attic red-figure skyphos, 475–425 BC.

Para. 241. CVA Bucarest 1 31, pl.(027)27.4-5. BA 361306.

ARV2 979.5. Addenda2 310. Rijksmuseum, Klassieke Kunst no.513, figs.227-28. BA 213326.

A youth runs, and looks back at a goat and a satyr. The satyr appears to be about to interfere sexually with the goat.

Side A: Youth running with staff, looking back as he runs. Side B: Ram chasing youth.

33. London, British Museum GR 1929,1016.2.

38. Athens, Agora Museum P21708.

Attic red-figure chous, 450–400 BC.

Attic black-figure stand fragment, 600 – 550 BC.

ARV2 1320.1. Addenda2 363. Hoorn, Choes fig.300. Rühfel, Kinderleben 159, figs.92a-b. BA 220546.

ABV 28.6. Addenda2 8. Moore/Philippides, Agora 23, pl.57.616. BA 300328.

Children play with a large prancing, butting, and smiling goat. One, facing the goat, raises his hands and braces his legs, body bent forward in a defensive posture. Whether he is defending himself or the oinochoe on the small table between them is unclear.

Animal frieze, with a ram butting the rump of a feline. 39. Paris, Musée du Louvre F95, 3256.

The goat’s hair, in added white, has a slightly woolly texture. The details of its face have been added with some care, giving it a jovial expression, but it has no ears.

Attic black-figure Little Master lip-cup, 575–525 BC.

PLATE 2.

CVA Louvre 9, III.H.E.75, pl.(628) 87.5, 7, 9. BA10900.

34. Athens, National Museum.

Ram frisking quietly.

Attic marble grave stele finial, fourth-century BC.

169

40. Brussels, Musées Royaux R222.

44. Brussels, Musées Royaux: A715.

Attic black-figure lebes, 600-550 BC.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 575-525.

CVA Brussels Royaux1 1, III.H.D.1, pl.(013) 2, 1a-d. BA 1429.

ABV 103.109. Addenda2 27. CVA Brussels Royaux 9 1, III.H.D.1, pl.(012) 1.2a, 2b, 2c. BA 310108.

Animal friezes, with panthers, deer, goat, rams, swans, horses, and a bull.

A1: Satyrs and maenads dancing. B1: Warriors running. Their shield devices include a bull’s head, and an eagle.

41. Oslo, University 6920. Attic black-figure lekythos, 525-475 BC.

AB24: Animal friezes, with sirens, panthers, rams and a goat.

ABV 551.331. Addenda2 135. Para. 270. CVA Norway 1 30, pl.(32) 32.1-2.BA 331425.

AB3: Animal frieze with panthers and deer, and men attacking deer.

Body: Odysseus escapes from the cave of Polyphemus by hanging under a ram.

45. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 06.1099.

Polyphemus is seated, with a club.

Attic red-figure rhyton, 475-425 BC.

42. Paris, Cabinet des Medailles 280.

ARV2 1699, 767.20. BA 209499.

Attic black-figure lekythos, 550-500 BC.

Figure: Head of ram dimidiating head of ass. The ram is silent, the ass is braying.

ABV 492.71. Addenda2 122. CVA Bibliothèque Nationale 2 2.58-59, pls.(465,466) 79.8, 80.3. Haspels, Lekythoi 224.10. BA 303586.

Above: Satyr and maenad.

Body: Odysseus escapes from the cave of

46. Worcester (MA), Art Museum.

Polyphemus under a ram.

Attic black-figure lekythos, 500-450 BC.

43. Karlsruhe, Badisches Landesmuseum B32, 167.

Gardiner, “Lecythi” 302, 304, 307-309, fig.1a-d. BA 15058.

Attic black-figure, white-ground column-krater, 525475 BC.

Hermes driving a flock of sheep in the countryside, represented by trees and rocks.

ABV 507.57. Addenda2 126. CVA Karlsruhe 1 1, 18, pl.(307) 9.1-3. Harrison, “Monuments” 248-251, figs.1-2. Haspels, Lekythoi 228.57. Kurtz, White Lekythoi pl.55.1. LIMC VI, s.v. Odysseus, 958, no.105, pl.628 (Touchefeu-Meynier). Mertens, White pl.11.1. BA 305504.

47. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 99.489.

Side A: Odysseus escaping from the cave of Polyphemus by hanging under a ram. He holds a sword, and nonsense inscriptions surround the figures.

48. Bologna, Museo Civico Archeologico PU275.

Spartan bronze figurine of Hermes Kriophoros, ca.520. Mattusch, Classical Bronzes 12, fig 1.8.

Attic red-figure cup, 400-300 BC. ARV2 1524.14. Benndorf/Niemann, Heroon 168. BA 231146.

Side B: Amazons setting out in a chariot.

170

53. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1806.

Interior: Hermes and Pan cut up a sacrificed goat. Sides A and B: Athlete and youths.

Attic black-figure cup, 550-500 BC.

49. Würzburg, Universität, Martin von Wagner Museum H5982.

ABV 223.66. Addenda2 58. Para2 104. Gow, “Plough” fig.3. Osborne, Landscape 19, fig.4. Sonnabend, Landschaft 18, Fig.2. BA 302815.

Attic red-figure bell-krater, 400-300 BC. LIMC VII, s.v. Poseidon, 467, no.188 pl.370 (Simon). BA 44032.

Interior, centre: Crouching huntsman. Interior, outer frieze: Youths ploughing with oxen. Also in the scene, youths stalking, deer, lizard, locust, and tortoise.

Side A: A possibly theatrical scene, with Poseidon, Amphitrite, a chorus of old men, and Pan with a stick, and goats – apparently under Pan’s charge.

54. London, British Museum GR 1906,1215.1.

50. Athens, Athenian Agora Museum S 1797.

Attic black-figure Siana cup, 575-560 BC.

Fragmentary Attic relief, fourth-century BC.

ABV 90.7. Addenda2 24. Amouretti, Le Pain 294, pl.8a. Ashmole, “Kalligeneia”. CVA British Museum 2 IIIHe.4, pl.(68) 10.6A-B. Simon, Festivals 20-21, pl.7.1. BA 300834.

Edwards, “Aphrodite” 71. Aphrodite riding on a she-goat. Two kids run with them.

Side A: Youth and women dancing near a woman with a liknon (winnowing fan) at an altar. A goddess (possibly Demeter) is seated on a stool with a sceptre, observing the scene.

51. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA928. Attic red-figure hydria, 400-300 BC. ARV2 1483.1. Metzger, Céramique Attique pl.4.1. BA 230504.

Side B: Ploughing with two oxen, and sowing. PLATE 3a-b.

Aphrodite riding on a goat, accompanied by a kid, a woman, a youth with a torch, and Eros.

55. Harvard, Fogg Museum 60.345.

52. London, British Museum GR 1856,1213.1 (Vase E467), Old catalogue 1265 vase E467.

Attic red-figure bell-krater, 475-425 BC. ARV2 1115.30. Addenda2 331. Para. 453. CVA Robinson Collection 2 35-36, pl.(291) 48.2A-B. Simon, Festivals 21, pl.7.2. BA 214755.

Attic red-figure calyx-krater, 460-450 BC. ARV2 601.23. Addenda2 266. Para. 395. Boardman, Vases 212, fig.226. Hurwit, “Beautiful Evil” 176, fig.6. Shapiro, Myth into Art 68, figs.42-44. Stewart, Desire 41, fig.27. BA 206955.

Side A: Bouzyges ploughing with two bulls, Kekrops leaning on a staff, Demeter with a sceptre and a sheaf of corn.

A1: Pandora and chorus of women, goddesses, Zeus seated, Poseidon, Iris, Hermes. Warrior, draped man, youth in chiton playing auloi.

Side B: Youths leaning on staffs.

A2: Theatrical scene. Chorus of Pans, dancing around a draped youth playing auloi.

Attic black-figure Little Master Band cup, 575-525 BC.

B2: Satyr family playing ball, some piggy back, satyr boy, maenad with thyrsos.

Beazley, Dev2 pl.91.2 (part of B). CVA Louvre 9 III.H.e.69, III.H.e.70, pl.(623) 82.4.6-10. Durand,

56. Paris, Musée du Louvre F77.

171

Sacrifice 182-4, fig.89a-d, and Gow, “Plough” fig.1 (drawing of part of A and B). BA 164.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 329, pl.126, no.387. Obverse: Hermes with an ox-drawn wheeled seat.

Side A: Agricultural activities, with men and youths ploughing with oxen, and an ass.

62. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 98.718.

Side B: Agricultural activities, with youths, man ploughing with an ass, pithoi on a cart drawn by asses.

Chalcedony scaraboid, 480-450 BC. Boardman, Gems2 194, 287, pl.460. Richter, Animals 22, fig.100.

57. Private collection: Wallace 3.

A cow grazing the leaves of a tree.

Euboean stater, 411/410 BC

63. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 27.664.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 327, pl.122. no.370.

Obsidian scaraboid, 480-450 BC.

Obverse: A recumbent cow licking her flank. The scene is idyllically peaceful. There have been advances in naturalistic rendering in comparison with Paris, Colln de Luynes 2000, below [58].

Boardman, Gems2 194, 287, pl.462. Richter, Animals 22, fig.92. A cow suckling a calf. A cock stands by.

58. Paris, Colln de Luynes 2000.

64. Paris, Musée du Louvre 1830.

Euboean coin, 525-515 BC.

Marble metope from the Temple of Zeus at Olympia, ca.470 BC.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 328, pl.121, no.368.

Ashmole, Architect 75-77, fig.88.

Obverse: A cow scratching its nose with its hind leg. On its back perches a swallow.

Herakles fighting the Cretan bull.

59. London, British Museum.

65. Vatican City (Rome), Museo Gregoriano Etrusco Vaticano 16591, 389.

Gortyn silver stater, ca.320 BC. Hill, Select Coins pl.55.4. Richter, Animals 22, fig.102.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 550-500 BC. ABV 288.8. Para2 126. Albizzati, Vaticano pl.55. BA 320311.

Obverse: Standing bull, licking its flank. 60. London, British Museum. Macedonian octadrachm of Edoni, 500-480 BC.

Side A: Herakles fighting the Cretan bull, which in this instance is piebald, indicating human manipulation in its ancestry.

Head, PCG pl.3.14. Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 329, pl.125, no.386.

66. New York (NY), Metropolitan Museum 41.162.73.

Obverse: A herdsman carrying goads, walking beside two oxen.

Attic red-figure column krater, 500-450 BC. ARV2 235.7. CVA Hoppin and Gallatin III Ic, pl.(29)9.5,7-8. LIMC VII, s.v. Theseus, 937, no.186, pl.655 (Neils). BA 202336.

61. Paris. Macedonian dodecadrachm of Derrones, 520-500 BC.

Side A: Theseus fighting the Marathon bull.

172

67. London, British Museum GR 1852,0707.1 (Vase B136).

Reverse: The river-god Amenanos, with bulls’ horns. 72. Paris, Musée du Louvre, F211.

Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora, 550-500 BC.

Attic black-figure type B amphora, 550-500 BC.

CVA British Museum 1 IIIHe.3, pl.(27)3.1A-B. BA 8786.

ABV 368.104. Addenda2 98. CVA Louvre 3 III.He.1516, pls.(162-163, 165) 25.3, 26.1.3.5, 28.2. LIMC I, s.v. Acheloos, 27, 33, no.249, pl.51 (Isler). BA 302099.

Side A: Athena holding a shield, the device of which is a bull protome.

Side A: Herakles fighting Acheloos, Athena seated on block, Hermes.

68. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1927.4502.

Side B: Armed horsemen with dogs.

Attic red-figure hydria, 525-475 BC.

73. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 14.147.1.

ARV2 210.172. Addenda2 195. Para2 343. Beazley, Berlin 5, pl.23.2. Boardman, ARFV Archaic fig.147. CVA Ashmolean 2 114, pl.(425) 61.4. Kurtz/Beazley, Berlin 102, no.62, pls.29, 68a-b. Schefold/Jung, Göttersage 234-5, fig.327. BA 201990.

Bronze utensil or furniture attachment, 450-400 BC. Richter, Animals 21-22, 65, fig.96.

Shoulder: Europa riding on the back of Zeus, who is disguised as a bull.

An ornament in the shape of a calf’s head. 74. Athens, National Museum 990.

PLATE 4a.

Attic geometric krater with silhouette figures, ca.750 BC.

69. Delphi, Delphi Museum.

Boardman, EGVP pl.45.

Limestone metope from the Sicyonian Treasury at Delphi, ca.560 BC.

Upper frieze: Ekphora with horse-drawn bier.

Boardman, Archaic Sculpture fig.208.3.

Lower frieze: Armed men processing in horse-drawn chariots.

Europa riding on the back of Zeus, who is disguised as a bull. 70. Private collection.

75. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1814.

Gela didrachm, 495-480 BC.

Attic black-figure plaque fragments, 550-530 BC.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 295, pl.55, no.156.

ABV 146.22-23. Addenda2 41. Para2 60. Beazley, Dev2 66, pl.74.4. Mommsen, Exekias 47-55, pls.3, XIV, XIVa. Stewart, Desire 11 fig.6. BA 350493.

Obverse: Horseman. Reverse: The river-god Gelas as a man-faced bull.

Funerary scene of an ekphora, including a cart drawn by mules named ‘Phalios’ and ‘Mulios’ or ‘…is’.

71. Pennisi. Catanian drachma, ca.415 BC.

76. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1823.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 284, pl.12, no.38.

Attic black-figure plaque fragments, 550-530 BC.

Obverse: horse-drawn quadriga.

ABV 146.22-23. Addenda2 41. Para2 60. Mommsen,

173

Exekias 47-55, pls.14-14a. BA 350493.

On side A, two horses are named: ‘Kalliphoras’ and ‘Pyrichos’. Also inscribed on side A: “Exekias epoiese”.

Funerary scene of an ekphora. The fragments show a seated woman’s dress, and hand holding a trace for controlling the mules in F1814.

80. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1720.

77. Berlin, Staatliche Antikensammlung Museen F1732.

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 575-525 BC. ABV 143.1, 686. Addenda2 39. Para. 59. Beazley, Dev2 59, pl.63.1-3. Moore, “Amasis” 161, fig.5. Technau, Exekias pls.1-2. BA 310383.

Attic black-figure oinochoe, 575-525 BC. ABV 110.37, 685. Para. 44, 48. Addenda 13. Immerwahr, Script 31, no.118. LIMC VII, s.v. Phobos, 393, no.2, pl.330 (Boardman); s.v. Poseidon, 464, no.167, pl.367 (Simon). Luce, “Heracles” fig.6. Shapiro, Art and Cult 63-64 n.155, 115, 147, pl.30c-d BA 310183.

Side A: Herakles and the lion between Iolaos and Athena. Side B: Akamas and Demophon leading horses named Phalios and Kalliphoras.

Body: Zeus arbitrates between Kyknos and Herakles. Also present are Ares, Athena, Poseidon, and draped men. The gods and humans are named, as are two horses: ‘…gora’, or ‘…goras’, and ‘Hokn…s’ or ‘Aokn...s’ (AOJMOS (Fearless)) would be very suitable.

81. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1820A-B. Attic black-figure plaque fragments, 550-530 BC. ABV 146.22-23. Para2 60. Addenda2 41. Beazley, Dev2 66, pl.75.2. Mommsen, Exekias 44-47, pls.1313a. BA 350009.

78. Paris, Musée du Louvre, F53. Attic black-figure Type B amphora, 575 – 525 BC.

An ekphora. The fragments show the legs of two chariot horses, called Kalliphoras and Semos.

ABV 136.49, 674, 686. Para. 55. Addenda2 36. CVA Louvre 3, III.He.13, PLS.(156-157) 19.1-3, 20.1-4. BA 310309.

82. Copenhagen, National Museum 112.

Lid: frieze of sirens and deer.

Attic Black-figure neck amphora, 550-500 BC.

Body side A: Herakles fights Geryon, Eurytion lies fallen between them.

ABV 292.5, Addenda2 76. CVA Copenhague 3 3, 85-86, pl.(108) 106.2a-b. Moore, BF Horses 384, no.A611. BA 320351.

Body side B: A warrior drives a four-horse chariot. The four horses are named ‘Kallikome’, ‘Pyrrhikome’, ‘Semos’ and ‘Kalliphoras’.

Side A: A warrior departing in a four-horse chariot. One of the horses is named Kalliphoras.

79. Toledo, Museum of Art 1980.1022.

Side B: Another warrior departing in a four-horse chariot.

Attic black-figure Type B amphora, 575-525 BC.

83. Munich, Antikensammlungen J130, 1694.

Addenda2 391. CVA Toledo 2 10-11, pls.(964-966)81.12, 82.1-2, 83.1-2. BA 6426.

Attic black-figure hydria, 550-500 BC. ABV 161, 266.5. Burow, Antimenesmaler pl.105, no.107. Moore, BF Horses 385, no.A519. BA 320015.

Lid: Deer and panther frieze. Body, sides A and B: A charioteer and warrior in a four-horse chariot.

Lower body frieze: Horsemen hunting a deer.

174

Shoulder: A warrior with a dolphin shield device departing in a chariot.

horses is named Xanthos. 88. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 48.2032.

Body: Man and youths harnessing horses to a chariot. One horse is named Xanthos.

Corinthian black-figure hydria, 575 -550 BC.

84. Wurzburg, Universitat, Martin von Wagner Mus.: L319, 319.

Hill, “Corinth” 3. Moore, BF Horses 385, no.B145. Payne, Necrocorinthia 166 no.49, 328 no.1448.

Attic black-figure hydria, 550 – 500 BC.

Galloping horsemen. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

ABV 293.10. Addenda2 76. Moore, BF Horses 385, no.A615. Shapiro, Art and Cult pl.52c. BA 320356.

89. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen 1657 (now lost).

Body: The warrior Adrastos departing in a four-horse chariot, following an archer. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

Corinthian black-figure hydria, ca.560. Kleinbauer, “Dionysios” pls.113-114. Moore, BF Horses 386, no.B147. Payne, Necrocorinthia 166 no.50, 328 no.1449, pl.37.3.

Lower body frieze: Horsemen at a deer hunt. Shoulder: Horses. 85. Athens, National Museum 277, CC620.

Body: Warriors arming, with two frontal horsemen. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

Corinthian black-figure bottle, ca.580 BC.

90. Paris, Musée du Louvre E642.

Moore, BF Horses 385, no.B68. Payne, Necrocorinthia 163, no.14, 314, no.1072, pl.34.5.

Corinthian black-figure hydria ca.575-550 BC. Moore, BF Horses 386, no.B148. Pottier, Vases du Louvre 58-59, pl.50.

Achilles waylaying Troilos and Polyxena. The horse Xanthos is named. 86. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 27.116.

Hector prepares to depart, accompanied by a dog, and driving a four-horse chariot. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

Corinthian black-figure column crater, ca.600-575 BC.

91. Taranto, Museo Nazionale 52846.

Benson, “Three Maidens” 121, fig.24. Moore, BF Horses 385, no.B98. Payne, Necrocorinthia 163 no.17, 318 no.1187, pl.33.5.

Corinthian black-figure hydria ca.575-550 BC. Lo Porto, “Taranto” 228-230, figs.201b, 202-203. Moore, BF Horses 386, no.B151.

Upper frieze side A: Marriage of Paris and Helen. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

Warriors departing in a four-horse chariot. The nearest horse is named Xanthos.

87. Paris, Musée du Louvre E638.

92. Paris, Musée du Louvre E648.

Corinthian black-figure column krater, ca.575-550 BC.

Corinthian black-figure olpe.

Gjødesen, “Greek Bronzes” pl.69.2. Moore, BF Horses 385, no.B113. Payne, Necrocorinthia 168 no.65, no.1474, pls.36.4, 40.3.

Moore, BF Horses 386, no.B170. Pottier, Vases du Louvre pl.51. Frontal-facing four-horse chariot. One of the horses is named Xanthos.

Upper frieze side A: A departure of Hector. One of the

175

93. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen 508.

Kleinkunst 8 53-54, pls.(1815-1817) 397.5, 398.1, 399.1-2. BA 301777.

Corinthian black-figure plaque fragment, ca.575 BC.

Side A: Wedding procession with horse-drawn chariot. Dionysos, Apollo, Hermes in attendance.

AD II, pl.24.4. Moore, BF Horses 386, no.B176.

Side B: Satyrs molesting a priapic mule.

94. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 203.

97. Hamburg, Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe 1962.124.

Chalcidian black-figure neck amphora, ca.550 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, 475-425. Boardman, CAH2 Plates pl.89, fig.90. BA 3649.

CVA Cab. Med 1 21, pls.24.5-7, 26.1-6. Moore, BF Horses 386, no.E37.

Agricultural scene of a man with a pestle and an ass on a threshing floor.

Departure scene with archers, horses, and warriors arming. 95. Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco 4209.

98. London, British Museum GR 1875,0309.16 (Terracotta 966).

Attic black-figure volute krater, ca.560 BC.

Corinthian terracotta figure, ca.375 BC.

ABV 76.1, 682. Addenda2 21. Para2 29. AhlbergCornell, Myth and Epos 289, figs.47-48. Anderson, Hunting (Caledonian Boar) 3, fig.1. Boardman, Overseas (Pygmies) fig.189. Carpenter, Dionysian Imagery (Hephaistos on a mule) 13, 19-20, pl.4a. Carpenter, Myth (Calydonian Boar) fig.284. Carpenter, Myth (Other scenes) figs.1-2, 20, 75, 86, 248. Dasen, Dwarfs (Pygmies) pl.58a-d. Hedreen, „Silens“ (Hephaistos’ return) pl.1a. Hephaistos, 646, no.186, pl.402 (Hermary). LIMC IV, s.v. Hera, 693, 709, no.309, 421, pls.423, 430 (Kossatz-Deissmann). Padgett, “Stable Hands” (Hephaistos’ return) 50, fig.2.2. Root, “Horse Race” (Chariot race) pl.22, fig.24.Steingräber, “Pygmäen” (Pygmies) pl.4a-c. BA 300000.

Higgins, BM Terracottas (Text) 262, (Plates) pl.136, no.966. Higgins, Tanagra 115, fig.138. McDermott, Ape 170, no.61. Walters, Terracottas 83, B66. An ape rides an ass. The ape’s mouth is open, and it waves its limbs wildly. A hole in the groin indicates that a penis was present. 99. London, British Museum GR 1875,0309.15 (Terracotta 967). Corinthinan terracotta figure, ca.375 BC. Higgins, BM Terracottas (Text) 263, (Plates) pl.136, no.967.

Rim, side A, centre: Calydonian Boar hunt, including one fallen man, youths with spears, archers, and dogs (one fallen).

An ass overladen with what appear to be cheeses, and a rider. 100. London, British Museum GR 1880,1113.4 (Terracotta 968).

Neck, side A: Horse-chariot race. Body, side B, frieze 1: Hephaistos on ass. Body, side B, frieze 2: Return of Hephaistos, on mule, carrying a whip.

Corinthian terracotta figure, ca.375 BC.

Foot: Pygmies fighting cranes. Some ride goats.

Higgins, BM Terracottas (Text) 263, (Plates) pl.136, no.968.

96. Munich, Antikensammlungen J312, 1529.

An ass laden with a large fish.

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 550-500 BC.

101. Athens, National Museum 11559.

ABV 330.1. Addenda2 89. CVA München Antiker

Attic red-figure calyx krater, 400-375 BC.

176

ARV2 1437.14. Ebbinghaus, Rhyta RfB2, pl.98a. BA 218073.

Above: Satyr and maenad. 106. London, British Museum GR 1885,1213.24 (Vase E725).

A youth lying on a couch, squirting a jet of liquid from an ass or goat or stag rhyton into his mouth. Near him, someone else plays kottabos.

Attic red-figure askos, ca.425 BC.

102. Switzerland, Private.

Hoffmann, Pursuit pl.5.1-2. BA 6024.

Attic red-figure figure vase, 475-425 BC.

A braying jack ass pursues a jennet.

Hoffmann, “Rhyta Addendum” 92, pls.25-26, figs.56, 9-11. BA 10135.

107. Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina T306, 2673.

Figure: Head of a ram dimidiating the head of an ass.

Attic red-figure column krater, ca.460 BC.

Above: Satyrs and an ass.

ARV2 568.35. Addenda 128. Addenda2 261. LezziHafter/Zindel, Dionysos 69, no.30. BA 206524.

103. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum 85.AE.699.

Side A: Return of Hephaistos, accompanied by Dionysos, both riding male asses with leg barring. Unusually, only the one ridden by Dionysos is sexually aroused.

Attic red-figure figure rhyton, 475-425 BC. Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 143, figs.9a-c. BA 43198.

Side B: Satyrs and maenad.

Figure: Head of a ram dimidiating the head of an ass.

108. Marzabotto, Museo Nazionale Etrusco Pompeo Aria.

Above: Maenad and satyr, running. 104. Baltimore (MD), Walters Art Gallery 48.2050.

Attic red-figure column krater, 475-425 BC. ARV2 1114.3. Addenda2 330. LIMC IV, s.v. Hephaistos, 644, no.165d, pl.399. Mannack, Mannerists pl.27. BA 214728.

Attic red-figure rhyton, 475-425 BC. ARV2 1669, 765.15. Addenda2 286. CVA Toledo 2 52, pls.(1466-1467) 54.4-6, 55.1-5. Hill, “Rhyton” 1-2, figs.1-2. Hoffmann, Immortality 62, figs.32-34. BA 209472.

Side A: Return of Hephaistos on an aroused male ass, accompanied by a satyr with a lyre. 109. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1920.107.

Figure: Head of ram dimidiating head of ass. The ram is silent, the ass is braying.

Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora, ca.550 BC. ABV 89.2. Addenda2 24. Para2 33. Carpenter, Myth 14, fig.4. CVA Ashmolean 2 97, pls.(405, 410) 4.1, 9.1-2. Richter, Furniture fig.43. BA 300829.

Above: Satyrs, one seated on a rock, one with a pointed amphora. Tree. 105. New York (NY), Metropolitan Museum 06.1099.

Shoulder: Return of Hephaistos on an aroused mule, accompanied by Dionysos, a satyr, gods and goddesses. The satyr has his left hand on the mule’s rump, and reaches to his own erect penis with his right.

Attic red-figure rhyton, 475-425 BC. ARV2 1699, 767.20. BA 209499. Figure: Head of ram dimidiating head of head of ass. The ram is silent, the ass is braying.

PLATE 4b.

177

110. Athens.

CVA British Museum 2 IIIHe.3, pl.(65) 7.4B. Smith, “Marriage” 202-209, pl.7. Van Stratten, Hiera Kala 22, 212, no.V107, fig.14.

Chalcidian tetradrachm of Mende, 425 BC. Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 331, pl.131, fig.404. Noe, “Mende” 87.

Exterior: Festive procession, with mule-cart, bull, goat, and crow atop altar. Two men lead a sacrificial bull, one holding a rope attached to one foreleg of the victim, the other holding ropes attached to the two hind legs.

Obverse: Dionysos, reclining on an ass. Below, a grain of barley. 111. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1965.134.

115. New York (NY), Metropolitan Museum 56.11.1.

Attic red-figure oinochoe, ca.460 BC.

Attic black-figure lekythos, ca.540 BC.

ARV2 1069.1 (as Northwick). Para2 447. Addenda2 325. Chittenden/Seltman, Burlington pl.22.97. BA 214405.

Addenda2 45. Para. 66. Boardman, Vases 56, figs.68.12 (parts). Bothmer, Amasis 182-184, no.47, figs.47a-d, pl.4. Crouwel, Chariots 93, pls.38, 39a-b. Hornblower/ Spawforth (eds.), Classical Civilization 423 (colour of part). Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 82, fig.59 (shoulder), 87-88, figs.68-70 (body). Pedley, “Architecture” 70, fig.9 (part). BA 350478.

Departure scene, including warrior at altar, old man with staff, Nike proffering helmet. The shield device is a prancing, braying, priapic ass. 112. Athens, Agora Museum P24679. Attic black-figure type B amphora, 550-500 BC.

Body: Wedding procession. The bride and groom ride in a cart drawn by asses. Men ride in a second cart drawn by mules.

Moore/Philippides, Agora 23 pl.11.96A-B. BA 31228.

116. Athens, National Museum 424.

Side B: Maenad riding mule between satyrs.

Boeotian Cabeiric skyphos, ca.400 BC.

113. London, British Museum GR 1836,0224.64 (Vase E102), Old catalogue 818 vase E102. Attic red-figure cup, 450-400 BC.

Daumas, Cabiriaca 65-66, fig.1. Lorimer, “Country Cart” 137, fig.3, notes 7 and 8 (drawing). Winnefeld, “Kabirenheiligtum” 422. Wolters, Kabirenheiligtum 108, pl.33.1.

ARV2 1253.70. Lezzi-Hafter, Eretria 72, fig.18e, pls.10a-d, 53c no.15. BA 217008.

Two galloping wreathed asses draw a cart, in a parody of a wedding procession.

Side A: Dionysos riding ass, accompanied by satyrs with thyrsoi.

117. Paris, Cabinet des Medailles 355. Attic one-handled black-figure kantharos, 550-500 BC.

Side B: Satyr with thyrsos, riding ass, accompanied by satyrs with torches.

ABV 346.8. Addenda2 94. Crouwel, Chariots pl.25.1 (drawing of part). CVA Bibliotheque Nationale 2 5254, pls.(457, 459) 71.2.4.6, 73.1-3. Kurtz/Boardman, GBC pl.35. Rasmussen/Spivey (eds.), Looking 147, fig.60. BA 301935.

Interior: Satyr with thyrsos, riding ass. PLATE 5. 114. London, British Museum GR 1879,1004.1 (Vase B80).

Ekphora, with the body on a mule-cart (the mule is wearing an head-plume), arriving at a tomb. Beside the tomb stands a hedgehog.

Boeotian black-figure cup, ca.570 BC.

178

118. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen F1819.

Side A: Athena between columns surmounted by cocks. The device on her shield is Pegasos.

Attic black-figure plaque fragments, 550-530 BC.

Side B: Biga, drawn by mules.

ABV 146.22-23, 687. Addenda2 41. Para2 60. Beazley, Dev2 66, pl.75.1. Mommsen, Exekias 40-41, 45-47, pls.7-7a. BA 350094.

123. London, British Museum GR 1842,0728.783 (Vase B132), Old catalogue 571 vase B132. Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora, ca.480 BC.

Funerary. An ekphora. The fragments include the heads of two horses, with noticeably smaller, less wrinkled lips than the mules on Berlin F1814.

ABV 405.5. Addenda2 105. Beazley, Dev2 82, note 7. CVA British Museum 1 IIIHe.3, 4, pl.(25) 1.3A-B. BA 303066.

119. Private collection.

Side A: Athena between columns surmounted by cocks. The device on her shield is Pegasos.

Messanian tetradrachm, 430-410 BC. Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 286, pl.18, no.56.

Side B: Biga, drawn by mules (although Beazley is cautious, because of the restorations).

Obverse: Biga drawn by two proudly erect mules. Reverse: Running hare, below which is a dolphin.

124. London, British Museum GR 1842,0728.834 (Vase B130), Old catalogue 569 vase B130.

120. Private collection.

Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora, ca.560 BC.

Rhegian tetradrachm, 480-460 BC.

Obverse: Biga drawn by two proudly erect mules.

ABV 89.1. Para. 33.1. Addenda2 24. Beazley, Dev2 8182, note 7, pls.89-90. Beazley, “Panathenaica” 441. Corbett, “Burgon” 52-58, pl.1-2. Crouwel, Chariots 95-6, pl.23.1a-b. CVA British Museum 1 IIIHe.3, pl.(25)1.1a-b. BA 300828.

Below, a laurel leaf

Side A: Athena with dolphin as shield device.

Reverse: Running hare.

Side B: Biga.

121. London, British Museum.

Neck A: Siren. Neck B: Owl.

Cypriot pale green steatite pseudo-scarab, ca.500.

125. London, British Museum GR 1865,0103.31 (Vase B485).

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 312, pl.98, no.281

Boardman, Gems2 140, 180, pl.281. Walters, BM Gems2 no.480, fig.29, pl.8.

Attic black-figure oinochoe, 575-525 BC. ABV 90.4, 442.1, 715. Para. 191. Beazley, “Panathenaica” 441. Crouwel, Chariots 96, pl.24.1. BA 300831.

Two mules drawing a biga. 122. London, British Museum GR 1837,0609.75 (Vase B131), Old catalogue 570 vase B131.

Youths and man, all in cart drawn by mules.

Attic black-figure Panathenaic amphora, ca.480 BC.

126. Giessen, Justus Liebig-Universität 103.

ABV 405.4. Addenda2 105. Beazley, Dev2 82, note 7. Crouwel, Chariots pl.23.2 (drawing of B). CVA British Museum 1 IIIHe.3, 4, pl.(25) 1.2A-B. Harris, Sport fig.67b. Olivová, Games 116. BA 303065.

Attic black-figure lekythos, 525 – 475 BC. Para. 216. Bothmer, Amasis 184. CVA Giessen 1

179

pl.21.1-5, fig.3.2. BA 340829.

131. Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Regionale.

Two women riding in a mule cart are greeted by a man.

Attic figure vase, 525-475 BC. ARV2 29.2. Addenda2 156. Para2 324. Griffo, Agrigento 23, fig.6. Marconi, “Muletto” 65-68, figs.15. BA 200121.

127. London, British Museum GR 1912,0709.1. Attic red-figure oinochoe, 475-425 BC.

Figure: Laden ass.

ARV2 775.1. Addenda2 288. Schauenburg, “EUQULEDYM” pl.26.1-2. Walters, “BM Vases” pl.8.iii.2. BA 209562.

Below: Satyr with skyphos. 132. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1925.136.

Warriors in oriental costume, one with axe, bow and whip, one with axe riding an ass.

Sliced agate, 450-400 BC.

128. Hamburg, Museum fur Kunst und Gewerbe 1981.173.

Boardman, Gems2 290, pl.522. Dog gnawing a fetlock with hoof attached.

Attic red-figure oinochoe, 475-425 BC.

133. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 21.88.38.

McNiven, “Gestures” 88, figs.3.6-7. Schauenburg, “EUQULEDYM” pl.25.1-3. Smith, “Eurymedon” esp.38-39, pl.8a-b. BA 1107.

Engraved carnelian, 450-400 BC. Richter, Animals 32, 75, fig.164.

The “Eurymedon”, or ‘bend over’ oinochoe, on which a Persian offers himself for buggery by a Greek youth.

A dog wearing a collar gnaws a lower limb with a hoof still attached.

129. Oxford, Ashmolean 1966.688.

134. Dunedin (N.Z.), Otago Museum E48.226.

Fragments of an Attic red-figure cup.

Attic black-figure pelike, 525-500 BC.

ARV2 829.38. Ebbinghaus, Rhyta RfB1, pl.97c. Hoffmann, “Persian” 23, pl.10.3-4. Hoffmann, “Rhyta and Kantharoi” 139, 140, figs.7a-b. Slater (ed.), Dining fig.26. BA 210293.

ABV 386.12. Addenda2 102. Para2 169. CVA New Zealand 1 13, pl.(17) 17.1-4. Shapiro, “Correlating” 66, figs.6-7. Shapiro, Art and Cult 46, pl.22b-c. BA 302889.

Exterior: Warriors and Persians fighting.

Side A: Athena and Ares fighting giants.

Interior: Figures in oriental dress, one with a phiale, and one with a donkey-head rhyton.

Side B: A recital. In the centre the speaker stands on a podium. A bitch (note the full teats) accompanying a listener gnaws on an animal leg with a hoof attached.

130. Boston (MA), Museum of Fine Arts 10.199. Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

135. New Haven (CT), Yale University 1913.127.

ARV2 337.26, 1603, 1646. Para2 361. Anderson, Horsemanship pl.7. Boardman, CAH2 Plates 104, fig.110(I). Caskey/Beazley, Boston iii no.144. Caskey, “Recent Additions” 53-54. BA 203463.

Attic black-figure plate, 525-475 BC. Baur, Yale pl.5, no.127. Callipolitis-Feytmans, Plats pl.82.11. BA 8547.

Interior: Ass loaded with pannier frame, on which is tied a bundle wrapped in striped cloth.

Centre: Dionysos riding an ass.

180

141. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art CE22.

Rim: Dog, chewing leg of meat. Deer. 136. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum V539, G273.

Chalcedony scaraboid set in a silver ring, from Cyprus, 450-400 BC.

Attic red-figure askos, 430-420 BC. Christiansen/Melander (eds.), 3rd Symposium 345, fig.9. CVA Ashmolean 1 36, pls.(137, 140) 45.1, 48.28 (top view). Hoffmann, Pursuit 3 pl.3.1. BA 5746.

Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems pl.36, no.561. Richter, GER no.105. A horse kneeling to roll, ears forward in an attitude of pleasant anticipation.

Side A: Satyr running with animal skin and club, possibly to club the fox on side B.

142. New York, Shelby White and Leon Levy Collection (private).

Side B: Fox caught in large trap baited with the end of an ungulate’s leg, including fetlock and cloven hoof.

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 525-475 BC. Boardman, Ox. Hist. Classical Art 72, fig.67. Bothmer, Glories 139, no.106. BA 14902.

PLATE 6. 137. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 27.701.

Side A: Agricultural scene with a man ploughing with oxen.

Gold ring bezel, 400-350 BC.

Side B: Bird liming, tree, birds, owl on post, draped men.

Beazley, Lewes 55, fig.83.

143. London, British Museum GR 1849,0518.14 (Vase B58), Old catalogue 422 vase B58.

A particularly emaciated ass. Note the prominent veins, swollen belly, sore on the neck, protruding vertebrae, drooping ears, and scrawny mane.

Laconian black-figure hydria, ca.540 BC.

138. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale M6468.

Pollard, Birds fig.11.

Cornelian scarab, 500-475 BC.

Upper body: Frieze of cocks and waterfowl.

Boardman, Gems2 152, 186, pl.404.

Lower body: Frieze of demoiselle cranes.

A rolling ass.

144. Bloomington, Indiana University Art Museum 68.133.

139. London, British Museum. Pale green steatite scaraboid, from Asia Minor, ca.500 BC.

East Greek chalcedony gem, fifth-century BC. Berry, Gems 14, no.23.

Boardman, Archaic Greek Gems 116, pl.26, no.357. Walters, BM Gems2 451.

A hound worries a heron or crane.

A rolling ass seen from above.

145. London, Lockett Collection.

140. London, British Museum.

Silver stater from Metapontum, 325-300 BC.

Sard scarab, ca.500 BC.

SNG Vol.III, 412 Lockett Collection, no.0300 0412.

Walters, BM Gems2 486.

Obv.: Head of Demeter.

181

Rev.: Ear of barley with mouse on leaf.

151. Rome, Mus. Naz. Etrusco di Villa Giulia.

146. Oxford, Ashmolean.

Fragmentary Attic red-figure pelike, 550-500 BC. (The upper fragment of side B is in Chicago, University of Chicago, Smart Gallery 1967.115.1.)

Stater from Metapontum, ca.300 BC.

ARV2 16.12. Addenda2 153. Beazley, “Membra” 40, no.6. Caskey/Beazley, Boston ii, 1-2. III, 29-30 and note 4. Moon/Berge, Midwestern 136-137, figs.77a-b. BA 200074.

SNG Vol.V Ashmolean Collection, no.0501a0702. Obv.: Head of deity. Rev.: Ear of barley with locust. 147. London, Lockett Collection

Side A: Seated youth having his laces tied by a small boy.

Silver stater from Metapontum, 430-300 BC.

Side B: Seated youth dangling a titbit for a marten.

SNG Vol.III Lockett Collection, no.0300 0384.

152. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum 1912.

Obv.: Head of deity.

Attic black-figure skyphos, 525-475 BC.

Rev.: Ear of barley with locust.

Haspels, Lekythoi 250.28. Heinemann, Polygnot 75, fig.13. BA 9301.

148. Switzerland, Private collection.

A dog confronts a marten-like creature, watched by a draped man with staff or club.

Greek grey chalcedony scaraboid, 450-350 BC. Wagner/Boardman, Eastern Intaglios 7, pl.7, no.17.

153. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.193.

Mice surround an ear of corn.

Attic red-figure cup, 525-475 BC.

149. London, British Museum GR 1854,0519.147 (Finger Ring 89).

ARV2 1567.12, 1698.1567. Caskey/Beazley, Boston III, pl.71.

Gold ring bezel, third-century BC.

154. Munich, Antikensammlungen 8710.

Boardman, Gems2 300, pl.751. Marshall, LondonR 89.

Attic red-figure cup, ca.480 BC.

A mouse has been taken captive and tied with his front paws behind his back to a column. That this is a punishment for stealing corn is indicated by the two ears hanging from his mouth.

ARV2 443.220. Buitron-Oliver, Douris pl.51,no.73. Interior: A youth contemplates a dead fox, hanging by its forefeet.

PLATE 7a.

155. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, 04.11.

150. London, British Museum.

East Greek bronze mustelid, sixth-century BC.

Bronze coin of Alexandria Troas, ca.300 BC.

Haynes, “East Greek Bronzes” 76, 78, pl.3d.

Wroth, BM Coins: Troas, Aeolis and Lesbos 9, nos.13, pl.3.6.

156. Whereabouts presently unknown.

Obv.: Head of Apollo.

Greek Silver mustelid, fourth or third-century BC.

Rev.: Apollo Smintheus, with a mouse at his feet.

Christie’s, Kingdom 205, no. 232.

182

PLATE 7b.

A woman raises her hand to deter a collared cat from leaping onto a statue. The woman holds her right arm up, ready to slap, and her left akimbo. The corner of her mouth is turned down, and she frowns as she watches the cat.

157. Berlin, Antikensammlung F2517. Attic red-figure pyxis lid, 475-425 BC. ARV2 917.205. Para. 430. CVA Berlin, Antiquarium 3 22, pls.(1066-1067) 137.6, 138.1. Keller, Tierwelt i, 168-170, fig.60. BA 211142.

161. Malibu, J. Paul Getty Museum 86.AE.476.

Lid: Draped youths with staffs threaten mice and harry cats to hunt them, but the cats prefer to consume food from bowls.

Padgett, “Syleus Sequence” 222, figs.11-12. BA 21579.

Attic red-figure pelike fragment, 500-450 BC.

Side A: Artemis with bow, Aktaion, dogs.

158. London, British Museum GR 1905,0710.9.

Side B: An old man lifts a sandal to spank what appears to be a cat seated on top of a stand, on which is hanging a ladle and a sieve. Another man watches from the other side of the stand.

Attic red-figure lobster-claw askos, 475-425 BC. ARV2 971. Beazley, “Brygos” 157 n.3. Hoffman, Pursuit 14, no.154. BA 213229.

162. Athens, National Museum 715.

Side A: A cat stoops to devour a chicken that it has apparently just killed.

Attic Pentelic marble funerary relief, 430-400 BC.

Side B: A hound. Its posture suggests movement, but not speed. Perhaps this is a guard that has neglected its duties, or one that is about to send the predator packing.

Adam, Sculpture 110-113, pls.56-59. Clairmont, Tombstones 1, 396-398, pl.1.550. Woysch-Méautis, Animaux no.70, pl.56. A youth holds a small bird in his left hand, and reaches to a bird-cage with his right. On a pillar beneath the cage sits a cat.

The askos shape is very close indeed to that of a real lobster claw, and a break in the vase, at the point of attachment of the lobster’s movable digit, follows the line of weakness that might be created were the vase moulded around a real claw.

163. Athens, Acropolis Museum 4.

PLATE 8a.

The so-called Lion Group VII, from the Athenian Acropolis, ca.575-550 BC.

159. London, British Museum GR 1865,0103.34 (Vase E765).

Dickins/Casson et al., Acropolis Museum Vol.2, 7678. Stewart, Greek Sculpture 114, pl.72.

Attic red-figure lobster-claw askos, 475–425 BC.

A comparatively gargantuan lioness, with a mane, and teats along her entire abdomen, overpowers a bull.

ARV2 971.3. Addenda 150. Addenda2 309. Martens, Transgression 175, fig.76. BA 213225.

164. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 21.2286.

A deer and fox confront each other, though without obvious aggression.

Attic red-figure figure vase in shape of a mounted warrior, 500-450 BC.

160. Palermo, Museo Nazionale 1018.

ARV2 772, 1669. Para. 416. Addenda2 287. Cohen, “Literate Potter” 84-85, figs.62-63 (full vase view). BA 209548.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.440 BC. Hoorn, Choes 166, no.808, fig520. Moon, “Italian” 38.

Side A: Horseman in Thracian dress, fallen warrior.

183

170. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

Side B: Warrior, and Amazon with wolf as her shield device.

Epirus hemidrachm, ca.375 BC.

165. Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden, T411, T428. Attic black-figure on fragments, 550-500 BC.

white-ground

Kraay, A and C Greek Coins 129, pl.24, no.444.

oinochoe

Obverse: Hound. The principal tribe in Epirus was called the Molossians, and so this is probably the hound of that name.

ABV 434.5, 697. Addenda2 111. BA 320456.

Reverse: Thunderbolt of Zeus of Dodona.

From beneath a tree, a wolf approaches two goats, which rear defensively.

171. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

166. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA370.

Argive triobol, ca.485 BC.

Boeotian terracotta of ca.520-470.

Kraay, A and C Greek Coins 96, pl.16, no.287.

Musée du Louvre website.

Obverse: Wolf.

Two wolves worrying a ram.

172. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

167. Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery 54.2413.

Argive triobol, ca.450 BC.

Bronze wolf holding a lamb, ca.720 BC.

Kraay, A and C Greek Coins 98, pl.16, no.294.

Hill, “Other Geometric Objects in Baltimore” 35-36, pl.28.1.

Obverse: Forepart of a wolf. 173. New York, In the Collection of E.T. Newell.

168. St Petersburg, Hermitage Museum ST879, 653, 1542.

Argive silver triobol, 468-421 BC.

Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Richter, Animals 13, fig.43.

ARV2 413.23. Addenda2 233. Para. 512. Schefold, Sagen von den Argonauten 200-201, figs.182A-B. BA 204505.

Forepart of a wolf.

Interior: Warrior running, shield with apron, horse as shield device.

Argive didrachm, ca.360 BC.

174. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

Kraay, A and C Greek Coins 101, pl.17, no.309.

Sides A and B: Dolon between men with petasoi, spears and sword, tree.

Obverse: Argive Hera.

169. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA1802.

Reverse: Crouching wolf encircled by dolphins.

Attic red-figure lekythos, 475-425 BC.

175. Berlin, Antiquarium A9.

LIMC III, s.v. Dolon, 661, 663, no.2, pl.525 (Williams). BA 5236.

Attic black-figure amphora, ca.650 BC. CVA Berlin Antiquarium 1 12-13, pl.(51) 5.1-3.

Dolon crawling in his wolf skin near a tree.

Side A: Chiron the Centaur brings a selection of animals (fox (or wolf), boar, and lion) to feed to the

184

Caskey/Beazley, Boston II 83, pl.62. CVA Ashmolean 1, pl.(116)25.6. Matheson, Polygnotos 93, pl.69. Reeder, Pandora 316, no.95. Schlam, “Actaeon” 91-92. Shapiro, Personifications 170, fig.130. BA 213562.

infant Achilles. Side B: Peleus. 176. Now lost. Previously Santa Barbara (CA), Avery Brundage.

Side A: Aktaion with spears, dogs, Zeus with sceptre and thunderbolt, Lyssa with a small head of a dog rising from the top of her own head, Artemis with torch, bow and quiver (all named).

Attic red-figure column crater, 500-450 BC. ARV2 541.13. Para. 385. BA 206141. Side A: Draped men and youth with staffs, woman with sword and shield, device, head of wolf.

Side B: Women, draped youth with staff. 181. Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco 72732.

Side B: Youths.

Attic black-figure pelike, 525-475 BC.

177. Berlin, Staatliche Museen 1850.

De Waele, “Vente de L’Huile” 288-290, figs.4-5. Esposito/De Tommaso (eds.), Vasi Attici 45, fig.57 (A). Scheibler, Griechische Töpferkunst 19, fig.7 (B). BA 9458.

Gerhard, Vasenbilder 4, 17, pl.248.4. Eurystheus cowers in a pithos as Herakles delivers the boar. Athena observes, hold a shield with a wolf device.

Side A: An oil-shop scene, with an old man selling oil to a woman.

178. Heidelberg, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität 253.

Side B: Another oil-shop scene. Two dogs fight amid the vessels, and are threatened and cursed by a youth with a stick.

Attic black-figure olpe, 525-475 BC. Berard (ed.), Images fig.80. CVA Heidelberg 1 64, pl.(473)39.3. BA 10598.

182. Paris, Musée du Louvre F204.

Butchers cutting up meat. One dog gnaws on a scrap or bone beneath the work surface, another dog stands hopefully in wait.

Attic bilingual Type A amphora, 550-500 BC.

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 525-475 BC.

ABV 254.1. ARV2 4.11, 1617. Addenda2 65, 150. Cohen, Bilingual Vases pls.15.2, 19.1. LIMC V, s.v. Herakles, 87, no.2554, pl.92 (Smallwood). BA 200011. Side A: Herakles takes Cerberos captive.

Mitchell, Comic Pictures 93, pl.20.3a-c.

Side B: Dionysos and entourage.

Universität Zürich, Tier in der Antike 54, pl.56, no.325a-e.

183. Munich, Antikensammlungen, J394, 1561.

179. Basel, Private collection.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 550-500 BC.

Two men work with meat from a sacrifice. Behind them, a pack of dogs circle and wait for an opportunity to take some meat.

CVA München Antiker Kleinkunst 8 67-69, fig.E4, pls.(1825, 1829-1830) 407.4, 411.1-2, 412.6. BA 1576.

180. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 00.346.

Side A: Herakles with the boar, Eurystheus in pithos.

Attic red-figure bell crater, 475-425 BC.

Side B: Warriors and archers departing. Their dog stands with them (facing the same way) as they farewell an old man.

ARV2 1045.7, 1579. Addenda 156. Addenda2 320. Para. 444. Boardman, ARFV Classical1 fig.152.

185

184. Glasgow, Sir William Burrell Collection 19.59.

189. Northampton, Castle Ashby, 62 Attic red-figure stemless cup.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 525-475 BC. CVA Glasgow 13, pls.(874, 875) 15.4-6, 16.3-4. Marks, Burrell Collection 35, fig.4. BA 9464.

Boardman, ARFV Classical1 fig.364. CVA Castle Ashby 24, pl.(695) 40.1-4. Robertson, Vase-painting 269, fig.269. BA 398.

Side A: Warriors, one arming, woman, archer.

Interior: Eros with sprig and trap.

Side B: Warrior with dog between archers, device, leg.

Side A: Woman seated and Eros. Side B: Nike and youth, aryballos and sponge suspended.

185. Basel Market. (ex. Antikenmuseum Basel und Samelung Ludwig 258).

190. Mainz, Johannes Gutenberg Universitat 12.

Silver tetradrachm of Akragas, 420-415 BC.

Attic red-figure lekythos, 475-425 BC.

Boardman, Nostalgia 146. Franke/Hirmer, Münze no.175.

CVA Mainz, Universität 2 29, fig.6.4, pl.(3104) 15.57. ARV2 720.20. BA 208852.

Obv: Two eagles on a dead hare.

Satyr holding trap.

Rev.: Crab above, Skylla below. Two ravening dogs protrude from her loins.

191. Basel, Market, Munzen und Medaillen.

186. London, British Museum GR 1917,0501.1131 (Finger Ring 1131).

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 550-500 BC. Addenda2 61. Para. 111.25. LIMC V, s.v. Hermes, 351, no.783a, pl.263 (Siebert). Mommsen, Affecter no.110, pls.14, 125. BA 340430.

Silver ring bezel, ca.350 BC. Boardman, Gems2 226, 284, fig.237. Marshall, LondonR no.1131, pl.28.

Side A: Return of Hephaistos on mule, satyr, men, fox in trap.

A fox on a grape vine.

Side B: Hermes, men and youth, deer.

187. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1893.1494.

192. Copenhagen, Danish National Museum 319.

Blue chalcedony cut scaraboid, 450-425 BC.

Corinthian terracotta figurine, early fifth-century BC.

Boardman, Gems2 198, 226, 289, pl.497.

Higgins, Terracottas 84, pl.36c.

A fox on a grape vine.

An ape holding a fox.

188. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, G70, 48.1864.

193. Boston, Museum of Fine Art 50.2299.

Attic red-figure cup fragment, 525-475 BC.

East Greek blue faience aryballos. Sixth-century BC.

ARV2 85.23, 1690.3. Addenda2 170. CVA Fitzwilliam 1 29, pl.(263) 25.1. BA 200685.

Simpson, “Egyptian Art in Boston” 241. 194. Berlin 1655 (destroyed in the war).

Interior: Warrior, running, shield device, fox with grapes.

Attic black-figure krater, ca.550 BC.

186

Edlund, “Meaningless?” LXXIII-LXXVI” pl.73.

pl.5.1.

“Suppl.

199. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 27.45.

Plates

Departure of Amphiaraos. Amphiaraos steps into his chariot amid a crowd of well-wishers. Between his feet are a lizard, a hare, and a hedgehog.

Parian grave stele, ca.440 BC.

195. Athens, National Museum, Acropolis Collection 2112.

Girl with pet doves.

Richter, Sculptors2. 132, 204, fig.426.

200. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles 949.

Attic black-figure lekanis lid fragments, 575-525 BC.

Apulian red-figure stamnos, fourth-century BC.

ABV 58.120. Addenda2 13. LIMC I, s.v. Amphiaraos, 694, 707, no.8, pl.556 (Krauskopf). Lioutas, Lekanai und Lekanides pl.30.2. Marks, Burrell Collection 35, fig.4. BA 300497.

Lacy, “Aktaion” pl.1a. LIMC I, s.v. Aktaion, 464, no.112, pl.361 (Guimond). Trendall, Apulia 428-9, no.71, pls.158.3-4, 159.3. 201. New York, ex-Hirschmann Collection G64.

Lid: Amphiaraos departing. On the ground behind his chariot, a hedgehog.

Attic red-figure cup, 525-475 BC.

196. Vatican City, Museo Gregoriano Etrusco Vaticano 84. Attic red-figure amphora, 500-450 BC.

Addenda2 396. Barringer, Hunt 77, fig.37. Berard (ed.), Images 81, fig.118 (I). Buitron-Oliver, Douris pl.59, no.89 (Side A). Hirschmann, Hirschmann 68, no.33. BA 7242.

ARV2 248.3, 1639. LIMC VII, s.v. Poseidon, 465, 478, no.177a, pl.369 (Simon). BA 202472.

Interior: Seated youth playing with a hare on his lap. Nearby, a suspended, empty cage with its door open.

Side A: Fight, Poseidon with trident and rock, fighting a giant. On the rock, octopus, scorpion and hedgehog.

Side A: Men, youths, small feline on leash.

Side B: Warriors and archer departing.

Side B: A leopard crouches on a stool, confronted by a snarling dog. They are surrounded by men and youths, two of whom appear to be displaying alarm.

197. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1892.1427.

202. Athens, National Museum 39.

East Greek cornelian ringstone, 100-50 BC.

Boeotian blue-grey marble funerary relief, 500-490 BC.

Boardman, Engraved Gems 95, no.326, pl.54.

Clairmont, Gravestone and Epigram 29, no.81. Ridgway, “Man-and-Dog2” 45-46, 48, 50, 52-57, fig.1. Stewart, Greek Sculpture fig.254. Zlotogorska, Hunden no.8, pl.1.

A swineherd driving four sows with a stick. 198. Geneva, Musée d’Art et d’Historie 14047.

203. Athens, National Museum 869.

Attic black-figure Little Master band cup, 550-500 BC.

Attic Pentelic marble funerary relief, 350-300 BC.

CVA Geneva 2 33-34, pl.(122) 66.1-3. BA 5678.

Boardman, GSLCP fig.124.1-2. Clairmont, Tombstones 2.950(v). Conze, Grabreliefs 1055, pl.211. Zlotogorska, Hunden no.42.

Interior: Gorgoneion Sides A and B: Sphinxes between onlookers.

A hound, standing with a youth, sniffs at the feet of an old man.

187

204. Tarentum.

208. London, British Museum GR 1864,1007.84 (Vase E171).

Western Greek gold ring bezel found at Tarentum, ca.500 BC.

Attic red-figure hydria, 500-450 BC.

Boardman, Gems2 227, 300, pl.757. LIMC IV, s.v. Odysseus, 965, no.196, pl.637 (Hermary). A stooped old man walks with his dog (possibly Odysseus with Argos).

CVA British Museum 5 III.1.c13, pls.(325, 326) 75.3, 76.2. BA 206689. Shoulder: A dog attends a music lesson. It sits with its tail between its legs, and raises its head. The painter has added an upper lip to its mouth at some distance from the lower, and it may have been intended that the dog was about to howl in response to the youth playing the auloi directly behind it. Another youth, smiling, offers a morsel to a cheerful-looking, rosetted leopard cub, standing on a stool.

205. Ferrara, Museo Nazionale di Spina, T931A. Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC. ARV2 412.11, 1651. Para2 372. Alfieri, Spina pl.48. BA 204493. Interior: A man with a staff walks with a large hound.

PLATE 8b. 209. Boulogne, Musée Communale 134.

206. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 07.286.47.

Attic red-figure pelike, 500-450 BC. ARV2 293.47. Addenda2 211. Ashmead, “Cats” 39, 45, figs.12-13. Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe 108, fig.44. BA 203021.

Attic red-figure cup, 510-500 BC. ARV2 175, 1631. Addenda2 184. Para2 339. Boardman, ARFV Archaic fig.126 (I). Furtwängler, et al., Vasenmalerei pl.93.2 (A, B, I). Richter, “Greeks in Persia” 28-29, fig.28. Robertson, Vase-painting 39, fig.30 (I). BA 201603.

Side A: A man offers a cock to a youth, while a cheetah on a leash lunges towards a dog, which looks uncomfortable.

Interior: Stooped, wrinkled old (possibly oriental) man with staff, walking with his equally grizzled, unkempt old dog.

Side B: A man holding a hare engages with a youth.

Side A: Symposium with man and youths holding lyres, and a seated woman.

Attic Pentelic marble votive relief, 425-400 BC. (A cast is in London, BM 711. Smith, BM Sculpture 298302, no.711. Rouse, Votive 21-22, fig.3.)

210. Athens, National Museum 1501.

Side B: Komos, youths with lyres.

Kaltsas, Sculpture 136, no.261.

207. Cambridge (MA), Harvard University, Fogg Museum 24.08.

Symposium scene with a dog gnawing a bone beneath the couch.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.400 BC.

211. Paris, Musée du Louvre E635.

CVA Fogg and Gallatin 38, pl.20. Hoorn, Choes no.438, fig.324. Klein, Child Life 12, pl.26B.

Corinthian column-crater, ca.600 BC. Morin-Jean, Animaux 60-61, 63, figs.58, 59, 62:1-3.

A child with meat or grapes tempts a Melitaean to stand on its hind legs. The dog is standing on some kind of architectural elevation, like a flight of stairs or a platform.

Upper body: Symposiasts on couches, hounds tethered below couches.

188

212. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G217, 1884.710.

A man playing a lyre and accompanied by a Melitaean.

Attic black-figure neck amphora, 525-475 BC.

PLATE 10.

Para. 248.129. CVA Ashmolean 3 13, pl.(640) 25.1-2. Haspels, Lekythoi 238.129. BA 361410.

216. St. Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum: ST848, 657.

Side B: Amazons, one arming with helmet. Accompanied by a lion.

Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Side A: Warrior mounting a piebald horse in the company of an excited white dog. All named.

ARV2 413.19. Para. 512. Lissarrague, Guerrier 137, fig.77. BA 204502.

PLATE 9.

Sides A and B: Warriors fighting. Shield devices: horse, tripod, bull’s head.

213. Palermo, Museo Nazionale, Metope from Temple E at Selinos.

Interior: A warrior standing before an altar. His shield device is a Melitaean dog.

Metope from Temple E at Selinos, 460-450 BC.

217. Paris, Musée du Louvre D894.

LIMC I, s.v. Aktaion, 457, no.31, pl.351 (Guimond). Robertson, Art 212-4, pl.69c.

Boeotian terracotta figurine, late Hellenistic.

Aktaion under attack by his hounds.

Besques, Figurines pl.166.c-d1350.

214. Vulci, Basseggio collection at one time, but whereabouts now unknown.

A recumbent Melitaean with a bell on its collar. 218. Whereabouts unknown. Once in the possession of Professor Petrie.

Attic red-figure amphora, ca.500 BC. Arthur Bernard Cook, in Leitch, Maltese 10. Busuttil, “Maltese” 206. Keller, Hunderassen 243 diag. fig. 56. Kretschmer, Vaseninschriften 88, no.60. Répertoire des Vases Peints Grecs et Étrusques V.II, 294.

Late Hellenistic scarab of Graeco-Egyptian translucent noble serpentine. Possibly a dog’s name tag. Gardner, “Scarab”. Preisigke, S.B. no.168. Inscribed with the name Laelaps (Whirlwind). The terminal c on the tag gives the impression that the object dates to an earlier period, but the lettering overall is Hellenistic. Gardner suggests that its presence is owed to lack of knowledge by a non-Greek craftsman.

Side A: A man leans on his staff and converses with his dog. Above them is written ‘oi vqouqoi’, (the guardians). Side B: A youth stands alongside a small long-haired dog with a high tail. The word ‘Lekitaie’ (Melitaean) is written above them in large letters.

219. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA1833. Boeotian terracotta figurine, ca.525 BC.

215. London, British Museum GR 1843,1103.74 (Vase E267).

Besques, Figurines V.1 no.B86, pl.XI.B86.

Attic red-figure amphora, 525-475 BC.

A seated woman with a Melitaean on her lap.

ARV2 199.28. Beazley, Berlin 3, pl.8.1. Birch, “Anacreon” 258-259, 263, pl.4. CVA British Museum 3 III.Ic.5, pls. (174, 175) 9.1a-b, 10.1a-b. BA 201836.

220. Athens, National Museum 994. Attic Pentelic marble funerary relief, 430-400 BC.

189

Clairmont, Tombstones 1, 323-324, pl.1.343. WoyschMéautis, Animaux no.309, pl.48. Zlotogorska, Hunden no.205, pl.21.

225. Athens, National Museum 1769.

A youth plays with a Melitaean puppy.

Oakley, Death 209-210, fig.171.

221. Whereabouts unknown to me. Previously Zurich, Mildenberg 313.

A youth brings a quail in a small cage to a tomb.

Attic white-ground lekythos, ca.430 BC.

226. Athens, National Museum 3476.

Greek terracotta figurine, ca.325 BC.

Attic marble relief statue base, 510-500 BC.

Christie’s, Kingdom 254-255, no. 330. Kozloff, Mildenberg no.134.

Richter, Animals 77, fig.175. Richter, Sculptors2. 95, 114, fig.283.

A Melitaean standing smartly, with its tail curled over its back. Note the remains of a white slip.

Cat and dog, both on leads, set against each other by youths.

PLATE 11a.

227. Zurich, Private Collection.

222. Whereabouts unknown to me. Previously Zurich, Mildenberg Collection.

Attic red-figure cup, 475-425 BC. ARV2 866.1, 1572, 1582, 1673. Para2 426. Addenda2 299. Ashmead, “Cats” 38, fig.8 (A). Dörig, Suisse no.215(A,B,I). Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe 114, fig.49(A). Kunstwerke no.172, pls.49, 57(A,B,I). BA 211392.

Red-figure askos, ca 350 BC. Christie’s, Kingdom 254-255, no. 329. Side A: Melitaean, standing with its tail curled over its back.

Interior: Youth holding live hare by its ears.

Side B: Mouse.

Side A: Youths and man standing around cat, with leash, on table, and a confronting dog.

223. Munich, Private collection of Eduard Schmidt.

Side B: Men and youths, one with cock.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.420 BC.

228. Providence, Museum of Art, Rhode Island School of Design 13.1479.

Hoorn, Choes 47, no.722, fig.340. Klein, Child Life pl.13F.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 550-500 BC.

A boy leans conversationally toward a pet hare. 224. London, British Museum GR 1864,1007.85 (Vase E172).

ABV 314.6. Addenda2 85. Barringer, Hunt 93, fig.53. CVA Rhode Island School of Design 1 pl.(62) 9.1a-c. Pasqui, “Fèrento” 88-89, figs.1-2. BA 301624.

Attic red-figure hydria, 500-45 BC.

Side A: Man with dog, youth with cocks.

ARV2 565.42. CVA British Museum 5 III.1.c13, pls. (325, 327) 75.4, 77.2. BA 206472.

Side B: Man with deer, youth with cock and hen. 229. Laon, Musée Archeologique Municipal 37.1056.

Shoulder: A dog attends a music lesson, as does an accurately depicted cheetah, on a leash.

Attic red-figure cup, 475-425 BC.

PLATE 11b.

ARV2 874.4. Addenda2 300. Berard (ed.), Images 81,

190

fig.119 (I). CVA Musée de Laon 1 32-33, pls.(919, 921) 47.5, 49.1.4-6. BA 211537.

234. London, British Museum GR 1892,0718.7 (Vase E46).

A man approaches a youth, dangling a live hare by its ears.

Attic red-figure cup, 525-475 BC. ARV2 315-16.1. Addenda2 213. Berard (ed.), Images 85, fig.121. CVA British Museum 9 15, pls.2-3, fig.4b. BA 203239.

230. Tarquinia, Museo Nazionale Tarquiniense 701. Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Interior: A youth courses a hare wearing a collar. There is a similar red band on the youth’s left ankle.

ARV2 348.4. Barringer, Hunt 77-79, fig.39. BA 203644.

PLATE 12a. 235. Florence, Museo Archaeologico.

A youth, courted by a man, suspends a live hare by its ears.

Bronze statuette, fourth or third-century BC

231. Gotha, Schlossmuseum 48.

Bieber, Alexander 24, fig.24.

Attic white-ground cup, 550-500 BC.

Alexander taming Bucephalus.

ARV2 20. Addenda2 153. Para2 322. Berard (ed.), Images 84, fig.117. CVA Gotha, Schlossmuseum 1 53-54, fig.2, pls.(1166-1167) 42.1-2, 43.1-3. Dover, Homosexuality R27. Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe 82, fig.17. Wehgartner, Weissgrundige pls.14-15. BA 200100.

236. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 4996. Bronze statuette. Bieber, Alexander 36, fig.19.

Interior: a youth and boy fondle one another, while a dog jumps at the hare in a suspended cage.

Alexander riding Bucephalus. 237. Naples, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 10020.

232. Paris, Musée du Louvre F90.

Roman mosaic, ca.80 BC.

Attic black-figure cup, 575-525 BC.

Cohen, Alexander pl.1.

CVA Louvre 9 III.H.e.74, pl.(627) 86.1-5. BA 10871.

Alexander and Bucephalus in battle.

A youth and man prepare to pit their cockerels against each other.

238. Berlin, Antikensammlung 31390.

233. Paris, Musée du Louvre G175.

Attic red-figure/silhouette on white ground alabastron, 525-475 BC.

Attic red-figure bell-crater, 525-475 BC.

ARV2 101.4. Addenda2 172. Ashmead, “Cats” fig.11a-d. Wehgartner, Weissgrundige pl.40.4-6. BA 200892.

ARV 206.124, 1633. Addenda 193. Beazley, “Master” 283-284, fig.6. CVA Louvre 2 III.I.c 9-10, pl.(82, 84)12.5,7, 14.3-4. Olivová, Games 132. Robertson, Vase-painting 78, fig.64. BA 201933. 2

2

A youth looks down at a rather dog-like spotted feline standing beside him, which looks back up. 239. London, British Museum GR 1836,0224.230 (Vase E57), Old catalogue 978 vase E57.

Side A: Ganymede with a hoop and cock. Side B: Zeus.

Attic red-figure cup, 510-500 BC.

191

ARV2 120.9. Addenda2 175. CVA British Museum 9 26, pl.(792) 16. Keller, Thiere 155, fig.35.

A girl dangles a tortoise by a string tied around its leg, tempting a small dog.

Interior: A man with a cheetah on a collar and lead.

PLATE 14. 244. Thessaloniki, Archaeological Museum 388.

PLATE 12b.

Terracotta figurine found at Olynthus, 425-400 BC.

240. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles, 189.

Robinson, Olynthus 7, 82, no.314, pl.38.

Laconian black-figure cup, ca.550 BC.

Seated ape.

Arias/Hirmer, et al., GVP pls.xxiv and 74. Ashmead, “Cats” 45. Boardman, Vases 67, pl.89.1,2. Brown, Lion 172. Elderkin, “Archaeological Studies” 406. Smith, “Harpies” 107.

245. Athens, National Museum 867. Tanagran terracotta figure.

Interior: Arkesilas supervises the loading of silphium onto a ship. Beneath his chair crouches a tethered feline.

Winter, “Typen” Vol.III.I 1, 224, fig.9.

241. Würzburg, Universität, Martin von Wagner Museum L473.

246. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA531.

A seated ape wearing a Phrygian cap.

Terracotta figurine.

Attic red-figure cup, ca.400 BC.

Roes, Oorsprong 122, fig.129.

ARV2 92.65. Addenda2 171. Koch-Harnack, Knabenliebe 117, fig.51. BA 200762.

Monkey. 247. Thebes. Museum 112.77.

A large spotted feline brings down a deer in the presence of a youth.

Boeotian terracotta figure, 525-500 BC.

242. London, British Museum, GR 1867,0507.20 (Gem 554).

Ure/Ure, Aryballoi 65, pl.17. Ure/Ure, Rhitsona 90.

Mottled, clear, red and yellow scaraboid, ca.500

A monkey, in red jacket and yellow cap, riding a horse.

Boardman, Gems2 448, no.509. Miller, “Peacocks” 1-10, pl. 1. Richter, Animals 39 (drawing). Walters, BM Gems2 no.554.

248. St Petersburg, Hermitage. Greek agate intaglio, sixth-century BC.

Peacock holding down two snakes, one of which is bearded and has a crest.

Hermitage Museum digital archive.

PLATE 13.

A travelling circus scene with a cage holding a monkey tied on a chain. Nearby, an archer kneels to fire an arrow, and an acrobat with a helmet and shield leaps over the head of a horse.

243. London, British Museum GR 1856,0512.12 (Vase F101), Old Catalogue 1442 Vase F101.

249. Toronto, Royal Ontario Museum of Archaeology C443.

Apulian red-figure chous, 325-300 BC. Beck, Album 50, pl.60.309. Deubner, “Spiele” 370, Abb.18 (drawing).

Corinthian alabastron, late seventh-century BC.

192

Robinson, Ontario 1, 41, no.141, and 2, pl.11.

255. Paris, Musée du Louvre CA2192.

Figure-vase in the shape of an ape wearing a collar, and clasping its hands at its neck. Robinson lists similar vases.

Attic red-figure mug, 475-425 BC.

250. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1921.1238.

ARV2 983.14. Addenda2 311. Berard, Images 43-44, fig.60. Bruneau, Deliaca 298, fig.20. Dugas, Lécythe 177, fig.8. BA 213371.

Agate scaraboid, 475-425 BC.

Owl, armed with helmet, shield and spear.

Beazley, Gifts no.645, pl.83. Boardman, Engraved Gems no.118. Boardman, Gems2 209, pl.631.

256. London, British Museum, GR 1901,0514.1. Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Two parrots face each other over a basket or cage.

ARV2 348.2, 1647. Addenda2 220. CVA British Museum 9 29-30, fig.6C, pls.(796-797) 20.a-b, 21.ab. Deubner/Deubner (eds.), Schriften 832, fig.d(I). Walters, BM Vases 125-126, fig.6. BA 203642.

251. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art L1812. Loaned by the American Numismatic Society. Engraved Graeco-Persian agate, 450-400 BC.

Interior: A youth holds a caged quail on his lap. A bird-liming rod, bird-scarer, or torch (see discussion in text) hangs above.

Richter, Animals 38, 83, fig.210. Richter, Gems Classical no.55. Richter, GER no.139. Richter, “Graecopersian Gems” 294, pl.32, nos.3-8. Parrot.

Exterior: youths in a schoolroom setting, some boys hold writing tablets. Hanging on the walls are sandals, a shallow box, and cross-bars like those on the dubiously identified object on the tondo.

252. Paris, Musée du Louvre CP11024. Attic red-figure oinochoe.

PLATE 15.

ARV2 1208.44. Addenda2 346. Lezzi-Hafter, Schuwalow-Maler pl.122e-f. BA 216503.

257. London, British Museum GR 1881,0824.51 (Vase C858).

Youth sitting on a chair, with a bird perched on his hand.

Cypriot crater fragment, ca.700 BC.

253. St Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum 2352.

CVA British Museum 2 6, pl.(49)5.1. Heinemann, Polygnot 31. Walters, BM Vases C858.

Attic red-figure pelike, ca.510 BC.

Birds land on rods with cross-shaped ends, set among shrubbery.

ARV2 1594.48. Para2 507. Addenda2 389. Gorbunova/ Saverkina, Hermitage no.28-29, figs.28-29. BA 275006.

258. London, British Museum GR 1881,0824.52 (Vase C859).

A man, youth, and boy rejoice at the first swallow of spring.

Cypriot crater fragment, ca.700 BC.

254. Private collection of Charles Dugas.

CVA British Museum 2 6, pl.(49)5.4. Pollard, Birds fig.28. Walters, BM Vases C859.

Attic red-figure squat lekythos, ca.410 BC.

Birds land on rods with cross-shaped ends, set among shrubbery.

Bruneau, Deliaca 298, fig.21-22. Dugas, Lécythe 176, fig.6.

PLATE 16.

A lark, armed with helmet, shield and spear.

193

259. Ruvo, Museo Jatta 1094.

BA 209229.

Apulian red-figure volute krater, ca.350 BC.

Domestic scene with a seated woman, suspended oinochoe, building, and goose.

Bucci, Ruvo no.16.

PLATE 17.

A woman holds two cross-formed torches, each with five flames.

265. Rome, Art Market.

260. Würzburg, Martin von Wagner Museum H5329.

Attic white-ground lekythos, 475-425 BC. Oakley, Achilles pl.94. BA 19882.

Attic white marble funerary relief, 430-400 BC.

Domestic scene with women, stool, suspended sash, and duck.

Clairmont, Tombstones 1, 146, pl.0.695. WoyschMéautis, Animaux no.216, pl.30.

266. Athens, National Museum 12743, N988.

A girl hand-feeds a cock.

Attic white-ground lekythos, 475-425 BC.

261. Stanford (CA), Stanford University 17.412. Attic red-figure hydria, 500-450 BC.

ARV2 1574, 995.125. Oakley, Achilles pl.96A-B. BA 213947.

Para2 393.56BIS. Webster, Stanford 64, pl.19.6. BA 275754.

Two women. One holds a plemochoe, the other a box. A duck stands between the two.

Domestic wool-working scene, with dog and cock present.

267. Cambridge (M.A.), Harvard University, Arthur M. Sackler Museum 1960.340.

262. Fiesole, Museo Civico No.1.

Attic red-figure hydria, 470-460 BC.

Sandstone funerary relief, late sixth-century BC.

ARV2 503.22. CVA Robinson Collection 2 27, pls. (277, 277A)34.1, 34.A1. Holliday, Hydria 3, 6, fig.4. BA 205650.

Giglioli, Etrusca 29, pl.155.1. Uppermost scene: Symposium, with a cock standing under the couch.

Domestic scene with suspended basket, and women, one seated on chair, feeding herons, which wait expectantly.

263. Mayence, Johannes Gutenberg Universität 20.

268. Philadelphia (PA.), Market.

Attic white-ground lekythos, 475-425 BC.

Attic white-ground lekythos, 475-425 BC.

ARV2 745. CVA Mainz, Universität 2 35-36, fig.9.1, pl.(3110) 21.1-5. Hampe, Spiegel no.35, pl.35.1. BA 209197.

ARV2 746.8BIS. Allen, Pottery no.7, fig.7. BA 209209. Man with staff, woman with phiale, both standing. A waterfowl stands between them.

Domestic scene showing a woman with alabastron, suspended mirror, stool, and goose. 264. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.73, 549.

269. London, British Museum GR 1872,0604.1332 (Gem 531).

Attic white-ground lekythos, 500-450 BC.

Chalcedony scaraboid, 550-525 BC.

ARV2 1595, 747.27. Gardner, Ashmolean 76, pl.3.1.

Boardman, Gems2 195, 197, 288, pl.482.

194

Beck, Album 49, pl.58.297. Klein, Child Life pl.10a. Hoorn, Choes fig.349, no.21. BA 4308.

A woman reclines on a couch and feeds a heron. 270. Copenhagen, National Museum 4997.

Two children and a swan or goose. One child holds the bird on a table by its leg, the other offers it a bunch of grapes.

Attic red-figure chous, 450-400 BC. ARV2 1214.4, 1687. Addenda2 348. CVA Copenhague 4 121, pl.(159)157.1. Felten, Thanatos 39, figs.102.2, 105.2, 110.3. BA 216564.

275. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.52. Attic red-figure chous, ca.425 BC.

A heron standing between a youth with scroll, and a woman seated on a chair.

Beck, Album 49, pl.59.301. Klein, Child Life pl.3b. Hoorn, Choes fig.504, no.367. BA 4199.

271. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1041 (Vase E202).

Child crawling towards a Melitaean. 276. Copenhagen, National Museum CHR. VIII856, B141.

Attic red-figure hydria, 440-430 BC. ARV2 1131.155. Addenda2 333. Cameron, Women 100, fig.7.7. CVA Britain 6 III.I.C.5, pl.(363) 88.2. Robertson, Art 224, fig.232. BA 214965.

Attic red-figure chous, 420-410 BC. CVA Copenhague 4 pl.(160)158.1. Hoorn, Choes fig.235, no.476. BA 10749.

Two naked women at a laver, on which perches a goose or duck. One of the women is interacting with the duck, possibly to shoo it away, or perhaps fussing it as a pet.

A crawling boy, with cake and chous, turns to the small dog bounding towards him. 277. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art 06.1021.196.

PLATE 18a. 272. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum V297, 1885.663, 297.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.400 BC. Deubner, Feste 244. Richter/Hall, Metropolitan no.164, pls.161, 177.

Attic red-figure hydria, 475-425 BC. ARV2 658.19. CVA Ashmolean 1 25, pl.(124) 32.2. BA 207677.

Four children play at being revellers. Their Melitaean dog leaps excitedly about them.

A domestic scene with women, one is holding a mirror, one feeds a goose.

278. London, British Museum, 1894,1204.1.

PLATE 18b.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-375 BC.

273. Munich, Glyptothek 268.

Walters, “Recent BM Vases” 147-148, fig.14. BA 15409.

Pentelic marble statue, ca.150 BC.

A small dog (not a Melitaean) jumping through a hoop held between a girl and a boy.

Furtwängler, Beschreibung no.268. Richter, Sculptors2. 297, fig.761. A small boy strangling/struggling with a goose.

279. Munich, Museum Antiker Kleinkunst J275, 2674.

274. Athens, National Museum 1224.

Attic red-figure cup, 500-450 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-400 BC.

ARV2 479.326. Addenda 121. Addenda2 247. Bazant,

195

285. Copenhagen, National Museum CHR. VIII344, B142.

Citoyens II, pl.37.61(I). Klein, Child Life pl.20d. Kunisch, Makron pl.81.244(I). Van Straten, Hiera Kala 236, fig.161(I). BA 205009.

Attic red-figure chous, 450-400 BC.

Youth running with hoop, stick, and leg of meat, Melitaean accompanying.

CVA Copenhague 4 122, pl.(160)158.3. Lund/ Rasmussen, Antiquities 66, fig.1.4. BA 10754.

280. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8086.

A boy reaches forward to catch the hare leaping towards him.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-400 BC.

286. Graz, University G200.

Beck, Album 49, no.300, pl.58. Hoorn, Choes no.377, fig.363. Klein, Child Life 11, pl.11a. BA 4200.

Attic red-figure chous fragment, 450-400 BC.

A boy with what appears to be food (perhaps bread), and a toy cart closely regards a bird standing on a table.

Hoorn, Choes 47, no.547ter, fig.388j. BA 16256.

281. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.54.

A sitting hare, with possible leads around its neck and forepaw.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.420 BC.

287. Berlin, Antikensammlung F2419.

Hoorn, Choes no.369. Klein, Child Life 11, pl.11b. Beck, Album 49. BA 10230.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-420 BC. Hoorn, Choes fig.307, no.317. BA 16295.

Child seated with bird.

A boy riding a deer.

282. Athens, National Museum 1559, CC1303.

288. Athens, National Museum 1736.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.420 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.425 BC.

Hoorn, Choes 47, no.54, fig.343. BA 16175.

Hoorn, Choes no.69, fig.308. BA 1290.

Child with cake, table, and hare.

Eros figures preparing a fawn-chariot.

283. Athens, National Museum 6254.

289. Athens, National Museum 14534.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-420 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-400 BC.

Hoorn, Choes no.12, fig.341.

Hoorn, Choes fig.311, no.105. BA 4197.

A crawling child reaches for a small hare, which bounds towards him.

A girl rides in a deer-cart.

284. Würzburg, Universität, Martin von Wagner Museum H465.

290. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 10.182. Attic red-figure chous, 420-410 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, ca.400 BC. Hoorn, Choes no.1002, fig.344. BA 16282.

Beck, Album 49, pl.59.305. Hoorn, Choes fig.306, no.384. Kerényi, Dionysos fig 102. BA 3413.

A child holding grapes stands with a hare and a cart.

A boy approaches a deer, raising a hand to its nose.

196

291. Copenhagen, National Museum 1944.

Keller, Katze 55, fig.3. Keller, Tierwelt I, 77-78, fig.24. Lenormant/Witte, Elite V.4 fig.82. Walters, BM Vases V.4 15-16, F126.

Attic red-figure chous, 425-375 BC. CVA Copenhague 4 122, pl.(160)158.2. Lund/ Rasmussen, Antiquities 66, fig.1.3. Rühfel, Kinderleben 140, fig.78. BA 9611.

Side A: A youth holding a strigil in his left hand stands with a small bird perched on his right hand. A tabby cat on his shoulder raises a paw and closely observes the bird, but his attention is taken in watching a woman toss a ball.

A boy in a goat-cart. 292. Copenhagen, National Museum.

Side B: Domestic setting. A duck looks up at a winged youth holding a box. A woman holding a mirror watches the duck.

Attic red-figure chous fragment, 425-400 BC. Beck, Album 50, pl.60.308. CVA Copenhague 4 122, pl.(160) 158.7. Hoorn, Choes fig.338, no.482. BA 4195.

PLATE 19a-b.

A girl leans on a tortoise that a boy encourages forward with a sprig.

Apulian red-figure squat lekythos, ca.370 BC.

297. Taranto, Museo Nazionale Archeologico 4530.

Arias/Hirmer, et al., GVP 389-90, no.238.

293. New York, Private collection of Christos G. Bastis 165.

A youth holds a pet cat balanced on his arm. 298. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1284 (Vase F207).

Attic red-figure lekythos, ca.490 BC. Bothmer, Bastis 283, no.165.

Campanian red-figure lekane, ca.330 BC.

A youth lures a cat to climb a staff for some meat.

Engels, Classical Cats 90-91, fig.3.3. Keller, Katze 57, fig.5. Keller, Tierwelt I, 78, fig.25. Walters, BM Vases IV, F207.

294. Altenburg, Staatliches Lindenau-Museum 255. Attic red-figure chous, 450-400 BC.

Lid: Various decoration, including a running dog, and a thrush(?) holding a worm.

CVA Staatliches Lindenau 2 17, pl.(849) 64.4-5. BA 12612.

Side A: a seated woman offers a bird to a cat, which stretches up on its hind legs and sticks out its tongue. On her lap is a ball of wool, a strand from which extends up to her wrist, and might be attached to the dove she is dangling towards the reaching cat. Her companion holds up another round object with her left hand, and possibly a mirror or a wool-laden spindle in her right hand.

A youth poses with what is probably a cat, balanced on his outstretched arm. 295. Berlin, Antiker Kunst Museen, 4878. Boeotian black-figure oinochoe, ca.425 BC. Kekulé, Berliner Museum [4]. Lazenby, “Pets” 303. Zahn, Rotfiguriger 13-14, pl.1.

Side B: Seated woman and nude youth.

A boy plays a lyre, observed by a cat sitting on a stool before him.

Lower lid side A: a small bird with a worm in its beak. Lower lid side B: a running hound.

296. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1175 (Vase F126).

299. London, British Museum, Tarentum 81. Tarentine bronze coin, ca.450 BC.

South Italian skyphos in Attic style.

197

305. London, British Museum GR 1873,0820.364 (Vase E307).

Poole, BM Coins: Italy 171, no.81 Obverse: Taras holds out a bird to a cat.

Attic red-figure neck-amphora, 475 BC to 425 BC.

Reverse: Taras rides a dolphin.

CVA British Museum 5 III.Ic.6, pl.(305)55.1A-B. Keuls, Phallus 89, fig.82. BA 4707

300. London, Lloyd Collection II, 683. Rhegian tetradrachm, ca.435-425 BC.

A: A woman, baffled by the ape that has taken her purse and sits holding it. She holds her veil over her face, and appears unwilling to risk touching the ape.

Kraay/Hirmer, Greek Coins 312, pl.99. Lloyd/Lloyd, Lloyd Collection pl.22, no.683.

B: Draped man.

Reverse: Cat playing with a ball beneath Iocastus’ chair.

PLATE 20.

301. Athens, National Archaeological Museum 1654.

306. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 95.25. Attic red-figure bell-krater, ca.440 BC.

Attic red-figure chous, 450-400 BC.

ARV2 1149.9. Addenda2 335. Para. 457. Berard (ed.), Images 58, fig.82. Osborne, Landscape 175, fig.58. Van Straten, Hiera Kala 217, no.V131, fig.32. BA 215220.

Deubner/Deubner (eds.), Schriften 832, fig.A. Golden, Children 36, fig.7a-c. Klein, Child Life pl.10c. BA 10220. Boys feeding chickens.

Side A: ritual preparations for sacrifice of a sheep. A bucranium ‘hangs’ at the back of the scene.

302. Paris, Musée du Louvre, MA441.

Side B: Satyr and maenads.

First or second-century AD marble Roman copy of the Attic bronze sculpture “Apollo Sauroktonos”, attributed to Praxiteles, and dating to ca.350 BC.

307. Florence, Museo Archeologico Etrusco 3950. Attic red-figure cup, 475-425 BC.

Boardman, GSLCP 54, fig.27. Maxmin, “Sauroktonos”. Stewart, Greek Sculpture 179, pl.509. 303. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 01.8185.

ARV2 194.142. CVA Firenze 3 III.I.18, III.I.19, pls.(1373,1374,1380) 109.1-3, 110.1-2, 116.27. BA 211080.

Engraved gold ring bezel, 520-490 BC.

Side A: Women dancing.

Richter, Animals 34, fig.178.

Side B: Sacrificial procession, among which a woman holds a bowl, apparently containing meat.

A tabby-striped cat raises a front paw to a cock.

Interior: Dionysos with maenad.

304. Bloomington, Berry Museum 68.

308. Adolphseck, Schloss Fasanerie 130.

Milky chalcedony scaraboid, 520-500 BC.

Attic black-figure type-B amphora, 550-500 BC.

Berry, Gems no.23. Boardman, Gems2 399, pl.1048.

Para. 137. CVA Schloss Fasanerie 2 24, pl.(755)66.12. BA 351017.

Dog harassing heron or crane.

Side A: A seated man thrashes a youth with a sandal.

198

Side B: Sacrifice. Youths grill meat on spits (splanchnopts) over an altar.

313. New York (NY) Market, Sotheby’s (previously Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 99.527.)

309. New York (NY), Metropolitan Museum: 41.162.29.

Attic black-figure oinochoe, 550-500 BC. ABV 430.25. Addenda2 111. Sotheby-Parke-Bernet, 17.12.1997, no.98. BA 303318.

Attic black-figure white-ground lekythos, 525-475 BC.

A man and a youth butcher an ox carcass.

ABV 507.6, 702. Addenda2 126. Buitron-Oliver, New Perspectives 50, fig.18. CVA Fogg and Gallatin 9394, pl.(392) 44.1a-d. Haspels, Lekythoi 96, 98-99, 113, 120.3, 226.6, pl.32.1.Rasmussen/Spivey (eds.), Looking 109, fig.44. BA 305499.

314. Rome, Villa Giulia Museum. Black-figure hydria from Caere, ca.550 BC. Durand, “Edible” 135, figs.1-4. Morris, “KASAMA” 396-397, 400, pl.24a-b. Ricci, “Una Hydria Ionica da Caere”.

Body: Helios, Nyx, and Eos in chariots. Herakles crouches at an altar cooking meat on spits. The tail of the sacrificed bovine curls in the flames, and a dog waits below.

315. Cleveland, Museum of Art 26.242.

310. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts 99.538. Attic ‘bilingual’ black-figure/red-figure amphora, 550-500 BC.

Attic red-figure cup, ca.490-480. ARV2 1570.12. CVA Cleveland 1 23-24, pl.(717) 37.1. Van Straten, Hiera Kala 106, V144, fig.112. Wees, Warfare pl.11. BA 9003650.

type-A

ABV 255.6. 691. ARV2 4.12. Addenda2 66, 150. Para. 113, 321. Berard (ed.), Images 56-58, fig.81. Cohen, Bilingual Vases pl.35.1, 2. BA 200012.

Interior: Pre-battle sacrifice. A warrior is piercing a ram’s throat with his sword. 316. London, British Museum GR 1897,0727.2.

Sides A and B: Herakles driving a bull to sacrifice. He carries with him the spits for his splanchnopts.

Attic black-figure neck-amphora, 575-525 BC.

311. Agrigento, Museo Archeologico Regionale 715, 26.

ABV 97.27, 683. Para. 37. Addenda2 26. LIMC VII, s.v. Polyxene, 433, no.26, pl.347 (Touchefeu-Meynier). Van Straten, Hiera Kala fig.118. BA 310027.

Attic red-figure lekythos, ca.470 BC. ARV2 521.49. Van Straten, Hiera Kala fig.159. BA 205855.

Upper frieze, side A: Sacrifice of Polyxene over altar.

Youth running with meat and looking back.

317. Philadelphia (PA), University of Pennsylvania 2448.

312. Boston (MA), Museum of Fine Arts 10.184.

Attic red-figure cup, 500 BC to 450 BC.

Attic red-figure neck-amphora, ca.470 BC.

ARV2 337.24. Durand, Sacrifice 135, fig.59. “R.S. Young Gallery” A25. BA 203461.

ARV2 553.39. Addenda2 258. Van Straten, Hiera Kala fig.160. BA 206314.

Interior: Sacrifice, youth with pig and basket. 318. St Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum 525, 339, 1659.

Side A: Zeus with sceptre, pursuing Ganymede. Side B: Youth running with a leg of meat.

Attic red-figure relief-hydria in 400-300 BC.

199

Clairmont, Tombstones pl.1.289.

Clinton, Eleusinian Mysteries figs.17-19. Van Straten, Hiera Kala V103, fig.22. BA 30214.

A youth stands with his hunting hound. In his right hand he holds up a hare by its ears. Its legs hang lifelessly down, and the hound looks keenly up at it. In his right hand the youth holds a lagobolon, and so this hare is apparently the victim of a hunt.

Shoulder: Gods arranged around Demeter and Kore. Herakles, as initiate, carries his piglet, which hangs by one hind leg. Body: Animal frieze with lions, griffins, panthers, and dogs.

322. Houston, Du Menil Foundation 70-32-DJ.

319. London, British Museum Parthenon Frieze South Slab XLIII, GR 1816,0610.85 (Sculpture 327).

Attic Pentelic marble stele, ca.410 BC.

Attic marble relief, 447-438 BC.

A woman holds a hare, supporting it against her body. A boy reaches out his hand to it. The attitudes of the humans are gentle.

Clairmont, Tombstones 1.695.

Neils, Parthenon Frieze fig.115.

323. Leiden, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden: PC47, XIV3.

Procession participants struggle with a sacrificial cow. 320. St Petersburg, State Hermitage Museum ST1791, Q9.

Attic black-figure hydria, 575-525 BC. ABV 104.126. Addenda2 28. CVA Leiden 1 4-5, pl.(98) 4.1-4. Gerhard, “Canino” 178-179. Jeschonnek, Nominibus 56. BA 310125.

Attic red-figure lekanis, 400-300 BC. ARV2 1476.3. Addenda2 381. Furtwängler et al., Vasenmalerei pl.68. LIMC V, s.v. Hermes, 304-305, no.158, pl.214 (Siebert). Oakley/Sinos, Wedding 76, figs.44-45. BA 230433.

Upper body frieze: Theseus and the Minotaur fighting. Also in attendance are Hermes, men and a youth, a seated woman, and Athena. A pair of chickens stands either side of the group. One pair of cocks is about to fight, the other cock and a hen face outwards from their end of the frieze to watch the two cocks about to fight. The chickens are named from left to right as follow: Chaitos, Sphekis, Chaitos, Pelkos.

Lid: Domestic preparations for wedding. Among the effects is a cage containing a quail. 321. Basle, Antikenmuseum und Sammlung Ludwig BS 233/S 175, and Brauron, Museum BE 812. (The lower legs, lagobolon, and greater part of the hound are in Brauron, but a plaster restoration is in Basle with the rest of the stele.)

Centre body frieze: Sphinxes between panthers. Lower body frieze: Cocks between sphinxes, between panthers, sirens between lions.

Attic Pentelic marble stele, ca.410 BC.

200

Plate 1

1A. Catalogue no. 13. London, British Museum GR 1856,1223.941 (Finger Ring 44). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

1B. Catalogue no. 22. London, British Museum GR 1867,0507.585 (Gem 2249). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 2

2. Catalogue no. 33. London, British Museum GR 1929,1016.2. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 3

3A. Catalogue no. 54. London, British Museum GR 1906,1215.1. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

3B. Catalogue no. 54. London, British Museum GR 1906,1215.1. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 4

4A. Catalogue no. 68. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1927.4502. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

4B. Catalogue no. 109. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1920.107. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Plate 5

5. Catalogue no. 113. London, British Museum GR 1836,0224.64 (Vase E102) Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 6

6. Catalogue no. 136. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum V539, G273. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Plate 7

7A. Catalogue no. 149. London, British Museum GR 1854,0519.147 (Finger Ring 89). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

7B. Catalogue no. 156. Whereabouts presently unknown. Copyright: © Christie’s Images Limited

Plate 8

8A. Catalogue no. 158. London, British Museum GR 1905,0710.9. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

8B. Catalogue no. 208. London, British Museum GR 1864,1007.84 (Vase E171). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 9

9. Catalogue no. 212. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum G217, 1884.710. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Plate 10

10. Catalogue no. 215. London, British Museum GR 1843,1103.74 (Vase E267). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 11

11A. Catalogue no. 221. Previously Zurich, Mildenberg 313. Copyright: © Christie’s Images Limited

11B. Catalogue no. 224. London, British Museum GR 1864,1007.85 (Vase E172). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 12

12A. Catalogue no. 234. London, British Museum GR 1892,0718.7 (Vase E46). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

12B. Catalogue no. 239. London, British Museum GR 1836,0224.230 (Vase E57). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 13

13. Catalogue no. 242. London, British Museum, GR 1867,0507.20 (Gem 554). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 14

14. Catalogue no. 243. London, British Museum GR 1856,0512.12 (Vase F101). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 15

15. Catalogue no. 256. London, British Museum, GR 1901,0514.1. Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 16

16. Catalogue no. 258. London, British Museum GR 1881,0824.52 (Vase C859). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 17

17. Catalogue no. 264. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum 1895.73, 549. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Plate 18

18A. Catalogue no. 271. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1041 (Vase E202). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum.

18B. Catalogue no. 272. Oxford, Ashmolean Museum V297, 1885.663, 297. Photograph © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

Plate 19

19A. Catalogue no. 296. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1175 (Vase F126). Photographs © Trustees of the British Museum

19B. Catalogue no. 296. London, British Museum GR 1867,0508.1175 (Vase F126). Photographs © Trustees of the British Museum

Plate 20

20. Catalogue no. 305. London, British Museum GR 1873,0820.364 (Vase E307). Photograph © Trustees of the British Museum.

Index

Aesop, see fables affection, 3, 11, 24, 26, 27, 35, 39, 57, 63, 71-73, 8088, 94, 96, 97, 106, 107, 111-115 agalmata, 42 aged animals, 5, 7, 20, 27, 33, 37, 41, 43, 45, 46, 50, 54, 56-58, 64, 73, 79, 81-83, 87, 89, 95, 104, 106-109, 113, 114 aggression by animals, 6, 10, 14, 28-33, 37, 40, 42, 47, 63, 65, 67-73, 77, 80, 82, 86, 93, 96, 111 ailments, injuries, and treatment, 2, 5, 22, 23, 29, 33, 37-41, 47, 54-58, 62, 67, 70, 72, 74, 80, 87, 89, 95, 96, 100, 103, 104, 108-111 Akhilles, 6, 40, 45, 50, 69, 77, 82, 103 Aktaion, 28, 70, 80, 83, 84 alcohol, 5, 30, 32, 34, 40, 46, 48, 49, 51, 63, 89, 90 Alexander the Great, 45, 73, 82, 87 Alkibiades, 45, 85, 89, 107 altars, 59, 60, 62, 69, 101-104 Alxenor’s stele, 81 Amasis Painter, 21, 51 Amazons, 69 ambivalence, 24, 26, 58, 64, 73, 118 Amphiaraos, 75 anger, 2, 6, 40, 59, 61, 68, 72-74, 76, 77, 81, 108, 111, 118 animal remains, 9, 10, 15, 19, 20, 21, 29, 31, 33, 40, 42, 43, 55, 56, 61, 62, 65, 66, 71, 76, 79, 81, 82, 92, 96, 101-104, 110, 112 animal rights, 4, 97, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 119 anthropocentricity, 6, 43, 108 anthropomorphism, 81, 82, 89, 91, 114, 118 anti-types, 35, 41, 49, 50, 51, 54, 58, 69, 77, 99, 117 apes and monkeys, 48, 73, 81, 89, 90, 96, 97, 119

Aphrodite, 33, 34, 42, 43 Apollo, 5, 8, 32, 42, 49, 50, 56, 60, 62, 66, 69, 70, 80, 95 Apuleius, 48, 56 Aristides, 22, 37, 68 Aristophanes, 7, 15, 16, 21, 30, 44, 47-50, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 68-74, 82, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 104, 107, 109, 113 Aristotle, 4-6, 10, 16, 20, 22-24, 28-30, 37, 38, 45, 48, 49, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61-63, 66-68, 72-75, 83, 85, 90, 94, 100, 105-111, 114 Arkhilokhos, 40, 56, 73, 74, 90 Arrian, 80, 81, 90 Artemis, 14, 32, 77, 93, 103, asses, 3, 5, 6, 14, 15, 27, 32, 45-58, 75, 84, 90, 104, 106, 112, 113, 118 Athena, 27, 42, 43, 51, 61, 66, 69, 91 Athenaeus, 5, 30, 75, 89, 90, 96, 112 auloi, see music and dancing baiting of animals, 27-30, 42, 43, 63, 71, 80, 85, 86, 94, 95, 107, 108, 112, 113 bears, 66, 75, 77 beauty in animals, 4, 25, 26, 43-45, 51, 53, 63, 82, 89, 97, 112 Beazley, Sir John Davidson, 52, 54 Beazley Archive, 8, 25, 28, 29, 42, 44, 49, 60, 63, 65, 81, 83, 85, 91-93 bellwethers, 23, 24. See also sheep bereavement, 7, 81, 83, 85, 94 Berlin Painter, 43 betrayal, 5, 63-65, 67, 68, 72, 73, 77, 83, 96 big cats, 3, 6, 10, 31, 55, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 73, 74, 77, 81, 82, 85-88, 93, 100, 104 cheetahs, 3, 64, 82, 85, 87, 88, 93

221

leopards, 64, 66, 67, 82, 85-87, 93 lions, 3, 6, 10, 55, 64, 66, 67, 73, 74, 77, 81, 87, 88, 93, 100, 104 lynxes, 66, 81 panthers, 3, 31, 64, 65, 66, 85, 93 birdliming, 59, 91 birds, 1, 2, 4-6, 15, 25, 47, 56, 59, 60, 63, 65, 68, 80, 84-86, 88-97, 104, 107, 109, 112, 113, 118 chickens, 15, 21, 30, 65, 72, 80, 85, 86, 91, 94, 96, 107, 112, 113 cockerels, 80, 85, 86, 91, 96, 101, 107, 112, 113 coots, 86 cranes, 59, 60, 92, 96, 113 crows, 56, 90, 91, 96 doves, 89, 91, 94, 112 ducks, 91, 92 eagles, 109 geese, 60, 72, 86, 91, 92, 95, 96, 111 herons, 59, 60, 91, 92, 96 jackdaws, 59, 91, 95, 96 larks, 91 magpies, 90 nightingales, 90 parrots, 88-90 partridges, 80, 82, 85, 91 peacocks, 88 pheasants, 4, 96 pigeons, 80, 84, 91 quail, 85, 91, 95, 107 ravens, 90, 92 sparrows, 61, 96, 109 starlings, 59, 90 swallows, 90, 101, 107 swans, 91, 92 thrushes, 90 bird-sellers, 91 boars, 6, 31, 48, 69, 76, 77 Bouphonia, 38, 42 boustrophedon, 41 bridles and halters, 40, 62, 93  ‘Bucephalus’, 45, 87 bulls, see cattle burials, see death butchery, 9, 33, 55, 56, 65, 69, 81, 95, 103, 109

cattle, 15, 16, 19, 23, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39-44, 47, 104 bulls, 6, 7, 26, 37, 38, 40-44, 51, 67, 102, 112 calves, 38, 41-44 cows, 14, 37, 38, 41-43, 56, 68, 80, 101, 102, 113 heifers, 28, 41-43, 113 oxen, 3, 7, 8, 19, 37-44, 54, 55, 57, 58, 77, 102-107, 112, 113, 118 centaurs, 3, 69, 77 cheeses, 14, 20, 33, 56, 69, 82, 113 cheetahs, see big cats children and infants, 4, 6, 9, 21, 24-28, 30, 45, 54, 60, 62, 67, 69, 70, 72, 77, 80-82, 84, 85, 8997, 99, 111-113, 119 exposed infants, 25, 26, 110 choes, 9, 28, 48, 55, 65, 81, 92, 94, 96 choruses, see music and dancing clothing, 8, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 33, 34, 60, 61, 64, 67, 85, 89, 101, 105, 113 Clytemnestra, 53 cock-fighting, 85, 86, 107, 113 coinage, 9, 41, 43, 46, 49, 52, 61, 62, 72, 76, 94, 117 ‘comedy of innocence’, 102 companion animals, 1, 2, 3, 11, 24-26, 34, 39, 54, 58, 61, 73, 74, 78-84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 112, 115 containment of animals, 2, 3, 8, 13-15, 19-23, 28, 33, 42, 48, 57, 66, 68, 70, 82, 85-87, 90, 91, 94-96, 102, 107 contempt, degradation, and ridicule, 8, 21, 25, 27, 30, 35, 44, 48, 51, 54, 56-58, 73, 82, 83, 89, 90, 101, 105, 106, 115 corpses, see death cost of animals, 5, 6, 9, 14-16, 19-22, 24, 27, 31, 32, 37-39, 41-46, 50, 53-55, 57, 58, 76, 77, 84-89, 94, 97, 105-108, 114 courage, 29, 31, 42, 69, 72, 86, 110, 114, 117 courtyards, see houses cowardice, 63, 67 cows, see cattle crimes by animals, see prosecution of animals cruelty and suffering, 4, 5, 15, 20, 21, 22, 29, 32, 37, 40, 47, 48, 50, 55-58, 64, 70, 72-76, 80, 81, 83, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95-97, 102, 104, 106-109, 115, 118 cunning, 42, 47, 68, 73, 74, 86 cyclops, 21-24, 30, 31, 101, 111

Callimachus, 22, 29, 38, 70, 112 calves, see cattle camels, 6, 66 castration, 9, 19, 24, 35, 37, 38, 47, 96 cats, 3, 4, 8, 31, 62-66, 70, 80, 81, 82, 85-89, 93-97, 106, 107, 112, 113 transgressions by cats, 64, 65, 94-96

damage by animals, 1, 2, 4, 6, 11, 15, 22, 28, 29, 40, 59-62, 64, 65, 70, 72-77, 80, 83, 85, 90, 94-97, 105, 107, 110, 118, 119 Daphnis and Chloe, 16, 23, 25-30, 33, 34 death, 6, 9, 10, 19, 25, 29, 31, 38, 40, 44, 50, 52, 55,

222

56, 68, 70, 73-75, 79-85, 92, 94-96, 101, 103, 104, 106, 110-112 burials, 9, 10, 25, 44, 79, 81-84, 101, 112 corpses, 52, 73 funerals, 9, 31, 44, 52, 75, 83, 92, 96, 103, 112 grave gifts, 8, 31 graves and grave markers, 8, 9, 13, 14, 19, 28, 31, 66, 68, 73, 80-85, 89, 91-94, 112 decoy animals, 4, 80, 107 deer, 6, 31, 55, 70, 75, 83, 86, 88, 92, 93 Delphi, 7, 43, 44, 48, 66, 69, 102, 103 Demeter, 13, 37, 38, 42, 43, 76 Demosthenes, 14, 25, 53, 54 Diogenes Laertius, 5, 21, 100, 105, 114 Dionysos, 4, 27, 30-34, 38, 42, 48-50, 54, 59, 60, 102 diplomatic gifts, 88 dissection and vivisection, 5, 107 dog burials, 79, 81-84 dog flesh, 10, 56, 74, 81 dog-food, 14, 15, 20, 56, 69, 82, 113 dogs, 2-8, 10, 15, 23-26, 31, 34, 44, 47, 48, 56, 60, 63, 65-74, 76, 77, 79-90, 92, 93, 95-97, 100, 104, 106, 107, 110-114, 117, 118 feral dogs, 6, 67, 73 laconian hounds, 60, 74, 84, 86, 88 lapdogs, 8, 48, 74, 80, 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 91, 92, 94, 97, 112 melitaean lapdogs, 74, 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 92, 97, 112 molossian hounds, 68, 69 dog-tag, 84 Dolon, 6, 64, 67 dolphins, 69, 89 donkeys, see asses Douris, 63 draught and burden animals, 1, 3, 5-11, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, 37-43, 45, 47, 50-58, 61, 66, 77, 84, 92, 93, 101, 106, 108, 110, 111, 118 drums, see music and dancing dung, see excreta

Epicurus, 106, 108, 110, 111 epithets, 21, 33, 34, 43, 45, 53, 55 Eumaeus , 22, 70, 71, 75, 82, 103 Euripides, 6, 22, 25, 26, 53, 60, 66, 72 Europa, 43 excreta , 16, 60, 62, 72, 73, 96, 97 Exekias, 44, 45, 52 exercise, 80, 81, 100, 108, 110 exotic animals, 3, 10, 38, 54, 56, 62-64, 66, 68, 85-88, 93, 94 fables, 7, 22, 24, 29, 40, 46-48, 54-59, 63, 65, 68, 7074, 76, 80, 84, 90, 91, 95, 96, 106 facial expressions, 2, 26, 52, 67, 68, 82, 84-86, 88, 89, 94, 97 ‘fair dealing’ in using animals, 106, 107 farming, 4, 6, 7, 14-16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 37-40, 46, 50, 58-60, 74-77, 106, 118 fear, 2, 23, 29, 33, 42, 50, 59, 63, 67, 68, 70, 72, 76, 77, 86 feral animals, 6, 10, 27, 28, 30, 67, 73, 75, 93 fertility, 14, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46, 51, 76 ferrets, see mustelids festivals, 34, 51, 70 flocks and herding, 2, 6, 14-16, 19-35, 56, 59, 60, 6668, 75, 92, 99, 103, 109 food-stands, 65 foxes, 56, 63, 65, 68, 69, 73, 74, 85, 101, 104 François Vase, 46, 77 freedmen, 25, 47, 48, 50, 53, 55, 89, 90 funerals, see death Galton’s criteria for domestication, 2, 11 gems and seal-stones, 9, 21, 23, 24, 29, 33, 41, 46, 56, 57, 60, 61, 74, 75, 77, 84, 88, 90-92, 95, 96 genets, 62 genitalia, 27, 30, 46, 48-52, 75, 101 Glasser’s choice theory, 79, 80, 86 goads, whips, sticks for use on animals, 23, 29, 38-42, 47, 48, 53, 63, 65, 68, 71, 72, 75 goats, 3, 10, 11, 14-16, 19-35, 42, 48, 51, 61, 66-68, 75, 81, 82, 85, 92-94, 96, 101, 103-105, 112, 113, 118 billy goats, 16, 19, 21, 28-30, 32-34, 68, 93, 113 goat skins, 21, 22, 25 goat-smell, 21, 30, 32 kids, 19, 20, 22, 24, 27, 67, 68 nanny goats, 19, 20, 25, 28, 30, 33, 68, 85 gods and goddesses, 3, 4, 9, 14, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 54, 60, 62, 67-69, 76, 93, 101, 102, 105, 106, 108, 110, 114,

élite ideals and practices, 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10, 11, 21, 22, 24-26, 30-35, 37-46, 48-55, 57, 58, 69, 72-74, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86-89, 96, 97, 107, 113, 114, 118, 119 empathy, 1, 3, 7, 10, 11, 14-16, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 34, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 54, 56-58, 63, 71-73, 77, 79-85, 87, 94, 96, 97, 99-101, 106108, 111-115, 118 Empedokles, 55, 100, 104, 105, 109, 111

223

117. See also names of individual deities gorgoneia, 77 gratitude, 41, 57, 106-108, 111, 118, 119 grave gifts, see death graves and grave markers, see death grazing, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 28, 29, 39, 41, 45, 68, 71, 75 guarding, 13, 19, 20, 24, 26, 61, 66-68, 71, 72, 76, 80, 83, 85, 90, 110 guilt, 100-102, 104, 105, 111

hunters and hunting, 4, 5, 31, 46, 61, 63-67, 69, 70, 73, 74, 77, 80-84, 86-88, 99, 108, 109, 112 illness, 2, 5, 23, 33, 37, 40, 41, 47, 56-58, 62, 70, 72, 74, 80, 95, 96, 104 rabies, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74 inconveniences caused by animals, 1, 2, 4, 11, 7, 16, 21, 22, 28, 39, 40, 49, 54-56, 59, 60-62, 64-66, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75-77, 81, 88, 90, 91, 94-97, 100, 103, 107, 111, 118, 119 insects, 2, 3, 7, 16, 40, 59, 61, 70, 74, 81, 89, 106, 108 bees, 3, 16, 106 cicadas, 3, 7 crickets, 3, 7 locusts, 59, 61, 81 Isocrates, 101

hair and fur, 13, 19, 21, 25, 27, 34, 47, 61, 66, 73, hares, 4, 74, 80, 84-86, 92, 93, 95, 96, 104, 107, 112 harnessing and loading, 9, 14, 27, 36-42, 45, 46, 50, 51, 53-58, 88, 93, 106, 118 Hecate, 63, 73, 104 hedgehogs, 74, 75, 85, 101, 104 heifers, see cattle Hephaistos, 46, 49 Hera, 32, 42, 43 Herakles, 32, 42, 52, 63, 71, 103 herders and herding, 2, 6, 15, 16, 19-30, 32, 33-35, 67, 68, 70, 71, 75, 82, 91, 92, 99, 103, 109 Hermes, 16, 27, 32, 33, 41, 42, 56 Herodotos, 21, 45, 48, 49, 55, 56, 61, 66, 96 Hesiod, 6, 13, 16, 22, 24, 33, 37, 38, 55, 59, 71, 102, 103, 104, 109 hides and pelts, 3, 8, 13, 19, 21, 22, 25, 30, 42, 43, 53, 55, 56, 64, 67, 68, 74, 96, 108, 109 hinnies, see also asses hinnies, 46, 47 Homer, 6, 11, 20, 22, 23, 26, 33, 41, 42, 43, 48, 50, 51, 53, 52, 55, 61, 62, 63, 67, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 82, 88, 90, 103, 110, 117 homosexuality, 26, 27, 48, 63, 73, 85, 86 honey, 40, 59, 70, 106 hoof-cup figure-vase, 21, 68 horses, 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 23, 34, 39, 41, 44-58, 81, 83, 86, 87, 89, 93, 104, 106, 112-114, 118 bucephalus , 45, 87 cavalry, 45 hippomania, 39, 44 horsemanship, 5, 44, 54 race horses, 45 rolling equids, 51, 57, 72, 74, 75 houses, 14, 15, 19-21, 25, 35, 39, 47, 61, 62, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 75, 76, 81, 82, 85, 88, 91, 92, 96, 111-113, 119 courtyards, 14, 15, 21, 68, 75, 96 households, 35, 39, 64, 71, 75, 82, 111113, 119 humour and derision, 6, 7, 8, 9, 26, 28-32, 34, 48-52, 55, 57, 60, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 77, 80, 82, 89, 92, 93, 96, 101-105

justice applied to animals, 76, 100, 106-111, 113, 114 ‘Kerberos’, 3, 71, 73 killing, 15, 19-21, 37, 38, 40, 44, 52, 56, 57, 60, 62-65, 67-71, 74-76, 80, 82, 87, 96, 100-105, 109-111 Koan inscription, 43, 103, 111 komasts, see music and dancing labouring classes and their activities, 1, 4-8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 21, 25, 26, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 45, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 65, 67, 85, 90, 97, 101, 106, 107, 113, 115, 117, 118 Laertes, 15, 55 laws and decrees, 14, 16, 40, 43, 57, 69, 70, 76, 82, 102, 103, 106, 108-111 leads and collars, 23, 24, 28, 31, 41, 44, 45, 47, 52, 65, 85-90, 93, 94, 95, 111, 112 leather-jacketed sheep, 21, 22. See also sheep leopards, see big cats lions, see big cats lizards, 75, 95 lobster-claw askoi, 65, 96 Longus, 16, 23-30, 33 love gifts, 26, 63, 72, 73, 81, 85, 86, 94, 97, 113 loyalty, 39, 41, 57, 70, 82, 83, 88, 106-108, 110, 111, 118, 119 lynxes, see big cats lyres, see music and dancing Lyssa, 28, 70 maenads, 33, 50 magic, 61, 63, 69 Makron, 21, 26, 28 malnutrition, 5, 47, 55, 56, 59, 107

224

pests and nuisances, 1, 4, 15, 59-77, 94, 95 pets, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 15, 21, 24, 27, 35, 45, 48, 57, 60, 62, 65, 66, 70, 75, 77, 79, 80-97, 99, 111, 112, 118, 119 petting and fondling, 22, 23, 24, 27, 35, 39, 80, 83, 86, 112 physical injuries, 2, 22, 23, 29, 37-39, 40, 47, 48, 5456, 58, 62, 67, 70, 72, 87, 89, 95, 96, 100, 103, 104, 108-111, 118 pigs, 6, 15, 16, 23, 31, 42, 48, 49, 57, 61, 69, 75-77, 79, 80, 102-105, 107, 110, 114, 115, 118 Pindar, 7, 42, 45, 50, 52, 53 pipes, see music and dancing play, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 25, 26-30, 33-35, 48, 52, 53, 66, 72, 73, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84, 86, 88, 90, 92-95, 97, 107, 118, 119 ploughing, 9, 13, 16, 19, 37-42, 55, 106 poisoning, 66, 69, 75 polecats, see mustelids Polyphemos, 21, 22-24, 30, 31, 101, 111 Polyxena, 103 Porphyry, 7, 80, 101, 102, 104, 106 Poseidon, 43, 75 poverty, 3, 8, 16, 22, 25, 38, 49, 51, 55, 56, 65, 79, 87, 96, 106, 117 prestige and status, 2-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 13, 25, 26, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 42-47, 49-54, 57, 58, 61, 63, 67, 79, 84-90, 93-97, 99, 112, 113, 117-119 predation, 1, 2, 6, 24, 31, 33, 37, 47, 64, 66-68, 70, 74, 77, 95, 107, 112, 118 pregnant animals, 43, 52, 62, 101 Priam, 23, 33, 51, 52 Priapus, 50 priests and priestesses, 43, 55, 56, 93, 96, 103 promiscuity, 15, 27, 30, 33-35, 47, 49-51, 80, 113 prosecution of animals, 76, 100, 106-111, 113, 114 punishment, 29, 48, 60, 61, 63, 65, 68, 76, 82, 110, 111, 118 Pythagoreans, 4, 99, 100, 105, 106, 108-111

manure, 15, 16, 37, 45 martens, see mustelids masculinity, 24, 30-32, 49, 86, 113 meat, 3, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 20, 34, 41-43, 50, 55, 56, 59-61, 64, 65, 69, 71, 73, 74, 81, 93, 95, 96, 101-105, 108, 114, 115 medicines and treatments, 2, 13, 23, 40, 47, 56, 58, 60-62, 70, 72, 74, 80, 96, 101, 107 Menander, 6, 19, 22, 25, 37, 42, 456, 48, 49, 55, 56, 90, 101 meniskoi, 60 mice, 22, 61-66, 74, 83, 96, 101, 104, 118 milk, 3, 6, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20-22, 24, 28, 33, 34, 103, 105, 106, 112, 115, 117 monkeys, see apes and monkeys mule-cart racing, 52, 53 mules, 4, 5, 14, 46-58, 89, 118 music and dancing, 3, 8, 22, 26, 27, 29-31, 33, 34, 38, 42, 54, 55, 56, 60, 84, 85, 87, 93, 94, 101, 104 auloi, 26, 27, 55, 82, 93, 101 choruses, 22, 34, 54, 60, 104 drums, 38, 55, 56 komasts, 31 lyres, 8, 26, 42, 85, 94, 101 pipes, 26, 27, 55, 93 singing, 30, 34 syrinxes, 26, 27, 33 mustelids, 4, 10, 62-65, 77, 80, 83, 93-96, 101, 104 ferrets and polecats, 64, 65, 93 martens, 62-64, 83, 93, 94 stoats, 63 weasels, 4, 10, 62-65, 93, 96, 101, 104 octopus, 75 odour of animals, 14, 21, 22, 29, 30, 34, 56, 64, 65, 70, 95 Odysseus, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, 31, 39, 47, 51, 55, 67, 70, 71, 72, 75-77, 80, 82, 113, 114 orientals, 31, 32, 42, 48, 54, 55, 60, 88-90, 104 oxen, see cattle

quail-philipping, 85

Pan, 16, 23, 27, 28, 32-34, 66, 70, 83 Pan Painter, 23, 28, 70 panathenaic amphorae, 42, 52, 69 panthers, see big cats parasites, 2, 73, 74, 80, 96, 97 Penelope, 21, 92, 111 ‘Peritas’, 82, 87 Persephone, 76 Persians, see orientals personal names for animals, 4, 6, 8, 10, 14, 23, 24, 28, 32, 34, 35, 39, 41, 44, 45, 49, 52, 61, 62, 77, 82-84, 87, 112-114

rabies, see illness rationality and intelligence, 1, 3, 4, 16, 34, 44, 46, 5052, 55, 57, 64, 76, 80, 91, 99-104, 108110, 111, 113, 114, 118, 119 rats, 60, 61, 83. See also mice reincarnation, 100, 109, 111, 115. See also transmigration of souls retirement, 5, 41, 57, 58, 106, 113 rhyta, 31, 32, 48-50, 55, 67 riding, 5, 26, 27, 34, 42, 44, 46, 49-51, 53, 54, 66, 87, 89, 94

225

rights, 4, 97, 105-107, 109, 110, 114, 115, 119 river gods, 43 rolling equids, see horses rusticity, 6-8, 16, 20-22, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 41, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 89, 94, 97

talking animals, 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 22, 24, 28, 30, 48, 50, 73, 83, 89, 90, 99, 100, 104, 108, 111, 113 tame animals, 1-3, 10, 57, 62-64, 80, 85-88, 91, 95, 97, 105, 106, 110, 111 Themistocles, 85 Theokritos, 20, 22-28, 30, 95, 112, 113 Theophrastos, 4, 5, 7, 14, 16, 22, 23, 29, 31, 37, 38, 59, 63, 64, 71, 75, 84, 86, 89, 91, 95, 96, 99-101, 105, 106, 111 Theseus, 6, 42, 112 thieving, 21, 22, 24, 33, 34, 37, 45, 59-61, 63-65, 6870, 71, 74, 75, 77, 82, 90, 91, 95, 96, 103, 106, 113 threshing, 13-15, 38, 45, 48, 55 tortoises, 89, 93-95, 101 toys, 1, 9, 15, 21, 75, 84, 89-91, 94, 95 trade routes, 87, 88 tragos, 34 training animals, 5, 10, 21-24, 27, 38-40, 43, 45, 62, 64, 76, 80, 81, 88, 97, 110 transmigration of souls, 104, 105. See also reincarnation traps, 56, 59, 61, 63, 66, 68, 69, 72, 74, 90 Trimalchio, 53, 89, 90

sacrifice, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15, 19, 20, 28, 31-35, 38, 42, 43, 50, 51, 56, 58, 61, 66, 67, 70-72, 75, 76, 82, 83, 100-104, 108, 109, 111114, 117 satyrs, 3, 22, 23, 27, 31, 33, 34, 49, 50, 74, 89 scientific enquiry, 4, 5, 10, 107, 119 scorpions, 75 Semonides, 52-54, 63, 72, 73 sentimentality, 3, 7, 15, 41, 58, 79, 82, 106, 108, 113, 118 sexuality, 15, 27, 29, 30, 32-34, 47, 49-51, 63, 80, 100, 113, 114 sheep, 2, 16, 19, 20-24, 26, 28, 29, 31-35, 37, 49, 50, 67, 70, 93, 97, 101, 108, 108, 111, 113 bellwethers, 23, 24 ewes, 19, 21, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 37 rams, 16, 20, 22-24, 26, 29-33, 35, 49, 50, 93, 108, 109, 111, 113 lambs, 16, 20, 22, 24, 67, 70 lead sheep, 2, 23, 24, 97 wethers, 19, 24 shepherding, 6, 16, 23-26, 33, 68, 91 shield-devices, 42, 43, 49, 67, 69, 74, 84 sieges, 5, 81 singing, see music and dancing skins, pelts, hides, hair, 3, 8, 13, 16, 19-22, 25, 27, 30, 34, 42, 47, 53, 55, 56, 61, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 74, 117 slavery and servitude, 4, 13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 28, 35, 38, 40, 46, 49, 50, 52, 56, 58, 59, 80, 89, 9497, 106, 107, 115, 117 smells, see odours snakes , 3, 63, 74, 75, 107, 108 social skills, 1-8, 10, 11, 26, 32, 35, 38, 42, 49, 5557, 79-81, 85, 94, 97, 101, 105, 106, 108, 110, 112-115, 117-119 Solon, 41, 45, 67, 111 Sophokles, 4, 16, 25, 28, 40, 54, 101, 109, 113, 114 Spartans, 33, 56, 68, 69, 72, 73, 75, 84, 85, 88, 103 speech, 2, 6, 7, 22, 24, 28, 30, 48, 50, 83, 89, 90, 99, 100, 104, 108, 111, 113 squalor, 1, 4, 6-8, 13, 16, 21, 25, 26, 51, 53, 54, 55, 65, 85, 90, 97, 107 stereotypes, 7, 28, 30, 35, 55, 73, 117, 118 stoats, see mustelids suicide, 22, 37, 68 superstition, 59, 63, 73, 77, 100 syrinxes, see music and dancing

ugliness, 30, 48, 52, 63, 67, 89, 90, 103, 111 utopianism, 104 vegetarianism, 104, 105, 111, 114 violence by animals, 2, 4, 14, 23, 27-29, 40, 42, 47, 48, 51, 61, 63, 64, 66-68, 70-74, 76, 77, 80, 81, 85-88, 91, 94-96, 104, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113 vivisection, see dissection and vivisection vocalisations, 2, 3, 7, 28-30, 34, 39, 47-49, 60, 63, 68, 69, 82, 83, 85, 89, 90, 96, 100, 107, 109 warfare and weapons, 4, 5, 38, 40, 42, 43, 45, 49, 55, 60, 67, 69, 71-74, 81, 84, 85, 87, 91, 94, 102, 103, 107, 108, 110, 118. See also shield devices weasels, see mustelids weddings, 4, 45, 50-52, 70, 100 wild animals, 1-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 21, 22, 24, 27, 33, 34, 53, 57, 62-64, 66-69, 73-77, 82, 85, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 100, 104, 105, 107, 109, 110 wolves, 5, 6, 19, 24, 33, 37, 64, 66-69, 74, 77, 117, 118 women, 6, 15, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 38, 42, 43, 48, 50-54, 57, 63-65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 77, 85, 87, 9092, 94-97, 100, 109, 111, 114

226

wool, 8, 16, 19, 20-22, 26, 33, 34, 54, 64, 88, 94, 96, 103, 105, 106, 113, 115, 117. See also sheep wounds, see physical injuries

Xenophon, 5, 6, 14-16, 25, 37, 39, 43-47, 53-56, 6668, 74, 112 Zeus, 26, 33, 42- 44, 56, 61, 77, 86, 102, 108, 109

227