Whether land or sea animals are cleverer (5-9)

SOCLARUS. Yet it is astonishing how greatly man surpasses the animals in his capacity for learning and in sagacity and in the requirements of justice and social life.

AUTOBULUS. There are in fact, my friend, many animals wliich surpass all men, not only in bulk and swiftness, but also in keen sight and sharp hearing[*]; but for all that man is not blind or crippled or earless. We can run, if less swiftly than deer; and see, if less keenly than hawks; nor has Nature deprived us of strength and bulk even though, by comparison with, the elephant and the camel, we amount to nothing in these matters.[*] In the same way, then, let us not say of beasts that they are completely lacking in intellect and understanding and do not possess reason even though their understanding is less acute and their intellect inferior to ours; what we should say is that their intellect, is feeble and turbid, like a dim and clouded eye. And if I did not expect that our young men, learned and studious as they are, would very shortly present us here, one with a large collection of examples drawn from the land, the other with his from the sea, I should not have denied myself the pleasure of giving you countless examples of the docility and native capacity of beasts - of which fair Rome[*] has provided us a reservoir from which to draw in pails and buckets, as it were, from the imperial spectacles. Let us leave this subject, therefore, fresh and untouched for them to exercise their art upon in discourse.

AUTOBULUS. There is, however, one small matter which I should like to discuss with you quietly. It is my opinion that each part and faculty has its own particular weakness or defect or ailment which appears in nothing else, as blindness in the eye, lameness in the leg, stuttering in the tongue. There can be no blindness in an organ which was not created to see, or lameness in a part which was not designed for walking; nor would you ever describe an animal without a tongue as stuttering, or one voiceless by nature as inarticulate. And in the same way you would not call delirious or witless or mad anything that was not endowed by Nature with reason or intelligence or understanding; for it is impossible to ail where you have no faculty of which the ailment is a deficiency or loss or some other kind of impairment. Yet certainly you have encountered mad dogs, and I have also known of mad horses; and there are some who say that cattle and foxes also go mad.[*] But dogs will do, since no one questions the fact in their case, which provides evidence that the creature possesses reason and a by no means despicable intellectual faculty. What is called rabies and madness is an ailment of that faculty when it becomes disturbed and disordered. For we observe no derangement either of the dogs’ sight or of their hearing; yet, just as when a human being suffers from melancholy or insanity, anyone is absurd who does not admit that it is the organ that thinks and reasons and remembers which has been displaced or damaged (we habitually say, in fact, of madmen that they are not themselves, but have fallen out of their wits), just so, whoever believes that rabid dogs have any other ailment than an affliction of their natural organ of judgement and reason and memory so that, when this has become infected with disorder and insanity, they no longer recognize beloved faces and shun their natural haunts - such a man, I say, either must be disregarding the evidence or, if he does take note of the conclusion to which it leads, must be quarrelling with the truth.[*]

SOCLARUS. Your inference seems quite justified. For the Stoics[*] and Peripatetics strenuously argue on the other side, to the effect that justice could not then come into existence, but would remain completely without form or substance, if all the beasts partake of reason. For[*] either we are necessarily unjust if we do not spare them; or, if we do not take them for food, life becomes impracticable or impossible; in a sense we shall be living the life of beasts once we give up the use of beasts.[*] I omit the numberless hosts of Nomads and Troglodytes who know no other food but flesh. As for us who believe our lives to be civilized and humane, it is hard to say what pursuit on land or sea, what aerial art,[*] what refinement of living, is left to us if we are to learn to deal innocently and considerately with all creatures, as we are bound to if they possess reason and are of one stock with us. So we have no help or cure for this dilemma which either deprives us of life itself or of justice, unless we do preserve that ancient limitation and law by which, according to Hesiod,[*] he who distinguished the natural kinds and gave each class its special domain:

To fish and beasts and winged birds allowed

Licence to eat each other, for no right

Exists among them; right, he gave to men

for dealing with each other. Those who know nothing of right action toward us can receive no wrong from us either.[*] For those who have rejected this argument have left no path, either broad or narrow, by which justice may slip in.

AUTOBULUS. This, my friend, has been spoken from the heart. [*] We certainly must not allow philosophers, as though they were women in difficult labour, to put about their necks a charm for speedy delivery so that they may bring justice to birth for us easily and without hard labour. For they themselves do not concede to Epicurus,[*] for the sake of the highest considerations, a thing so small and trifling as the slightest deviation of a single atom-which would permit the stars and living creatures to slip in by chance and would preserve from destruction the principle of free will. But, seeing that they bid him demonstrate whatever is not obvious or take as his starting-point something that is obvious, how are they in any position to make this statement about animals[*] a basis of their own account of justice, when it is neither generally accepted nor otherwise demonstrated by them?[*] For justice has another way to establish itself, a way which is neither so treacherous nor so precipitous, nor is it a route lined with the wreckage of obvious truths. It is the road which, under the guidance of Plato,[*] my son and your companion,[*] Soclarus, points out to those who have no love of wrangling, but are willing to be led and to learn. For certain it is that Empedocles[*] and Heraclitus[*] accept as true the charge that man is not altogether innocent of injustice when he treats animals as he does; often and often do they lament and exclaim against Nature, declaring that she is Necessity and War, that she contains nothing unmixed and free from tarnish, that her progress is marked by many unjust inflictions. As an instance, say. even birth itself springs from injustice, since it is a union of mortal with immortal, and the offspring is nourished unnaturally on members torn from the parent.

These strictures, however, seem to be unpalatably strong and bitter; for there is an alternative, an inoffensive formula which does not, on the one hand, deprive beasts of reason, yet does, on the other, preserve the justice of those who make fit use of them. When the wise men of old had introduced this, gluttony joined luxury to cancel and annul it; Pythagoras,[*] however, reintroduced it, teaching us how to profit without injustice. There is no injustice, surely, in punishing and slaying animals that are anti-social and merely injurious, while taming those that are gentle and friendly to man and making them our helpers in the tasks for which they are severally fitted by nature[*]:

Offspring of horse and ass and seed of bulls

which Aeschylus’[*] Prometheus says that he bestowed on us

To serve us and relieve our labours;

and thus we make use of dogs as sentinels and keep herds of goats and sheep that are milked and shorn.[*] For living is not abolished nor life terminated when a man has no more platters of fish or pate de foie gras or mincemeat of beef or kids’ flesh for his banquets[*] - or when he no longer, idling in the theatre or hunting for sport, compels some beasts against their will to stand their ground and fight, while he destroys others which have not the instinct to fight back even in their own defence. For I think sport should be joyful and between playmates who are merry on both sides, not the sort of which Bion[*] spoke when he remarked that boys throw stones at frogs for fun, but the frogs don’t die for fun, but in sober earnest.[*] Just so, in hunting and fishing, men amuse themselves with the suffering and death of animals, even tearing some of them piteously from their cubs and nestlings. The fact is that it is not those who make use of animals who do them wrong, but those who use them harmfully and heedlessly and in cruel ways.

SOCLARUS. Restrain yourself, Autobulus, and turn off the flow of these accusations.[*] I see a good many gentlemen approaching who are all hunters; you will hardly convert them and you needn’t hurt their feelings.

AUTOBULUS. Thanks for the warning. Eubiotus, however, I know quite well and my cousin Ariston, and Aeacides and Aristotimus here, the sons of Dionysius of Delphi, and Nicander, the son of Euthydamus, all of them expert, as Homer[*] expresses it, in the chase by land - and for this reason they will be on Aristotimus’ side. So too yonder comes Phaedimus with the islanders and coast-dwellers about him, Heracleon from Megara and the Euboean Philostratus,

Whose hearts are on deeds of the sea.[*]

And here is my contemporary Optatus: like Diomedes, it is

Hard to tell the side on which he ranges,[*]

for with many a trophy from the sea, many likewise from the chase on the mountain, he has glorified [*] the goddess[*] who is at once the Huntress and Dictynna. It is evident that he is coming to join us with no intention of attaching himself to either side. Or am I wrong, my dear Optatus, in supposing that you will be an impartial and neutral umpire between the young men ?

OPTATUS. It is just as you suppose, Autobulus. Solon’s[*] law, which used to punish those who adhered to neither side in a factious outbreak, has long since fallen into disuse.

AUTOBULUS. Come over here, then, and take your place beside us so that, if we need evidence, we shall not have to disturb the tomes of Aristotle,[*] but may follow you as expert and return a true verdict on the arguments.

SOCLARUS. Well then, my young friends, have you reached any agreement on procedure ?

PHAEDIMUS. We have, Soclarus, though it occasioned considerable controversy; but at length, as Euripides[*] has it,

The lot, the child of chance,

made arbiter, admits into court the case of the land animals before that of creatures from the sea.

SOCLARUS. The time has come, then, Aristotimus, for you to speak and us to hear.

ARISTOTIMUS. The court is open for the litigants⋯[*] And there are some fish that waste their milt by pursuing the female while she is laying her eggs.[*]

There is also a type of mullet called the grayfish[*] which feeds on its own slime[*]; and the octopus sits through the winter devouring himself,

In fireless home and domicile forlorn,[*]

so lazy or insensible or gluttonous, or guilty of all of these charges, is he. So this also is the reason, again, why Plato[*] in his Laws enjoined, or rather prayed, that his young men might not be seized by a love for sea hunting. For there is no exercise in bravery or training in skill or anything that contributes to strength or fleetness or agility when men endure toil in contests with bass or conger or parrot-fish; whereas, in the chase on land, brave animals give play to the courageous and danger-loving qualities of those matched against them, crafty animals sharpen the wits and cunning of their attackers, while swift ones train the strength and perseverance of their pursuers. These are the qualities which have made hunting a noble sport, whereas there is nothing glorious about fishing. No, and there’s not a god, my friend, who has allowed himself to be called conger-killer, as Apollo is wolf-slayer, [*] or surmullet-slayer, as Artemis[*] is deer-slaying. [*] And what is surprising in this when it’s a more glorious thing for a man to have caught a boar or a stag or, so help me, a gazelle or a hare than to have bought one ? As for your tunny[*] and your mackerel and your boriito ! They’re more honourable to buy than to catch oneself. For their lack of spirit or of any kind of resource or cunning has made the sport dishonourable, unfashionable, and illiberal.