Fear,disgust,hate: negative emotions evoked by animals in ancient literature

Introduction

According to The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties (Doctor, Kahn and Adamec, 2008: x), phobia is an intense fear that is out of proportion to the apparent stimulus. The term phobia, even though it originates from the ancient Greek language, was not commonly used in medical literature before the nineteenth century (Milosevic and McCabe, 2015: xiv). Some researchers claim that the works of ancient medical scholars (the Hippocratic Corpus, Celsus, Aretaeus of Cappadocia, Galen and Alexander of Tralles) described disorders in patients suffering from specific phobias, which are not fundamentally different from the cases known to modern medicine (e.g. Drabkin, 1955: 227; Gourevitch and Gourevitch, 1982: 888; Stok, 1988; Urso, 2018: 303, 310). Other researchers advise caution when interpreting ancient accounts from the perspective of modern medical terminology. Scholars have pointed out that the ancient physicians considered irrational fear to be a symptom of melancholy (King, 2013; Thumiger, 2017: 355). The ancient authors often described cases of irrational fear without giving a diagnosis; however, King (2013; 267) observed that ‘The lack of diagnoses has not prevented modern commentators from adding their own’. Regardless of the above-mentioned doubts, it is not unreasonable to conclude that ancient sources can be a meaningful starting point when researching the problem of phobias in history. Doctor et al. (2008) indicate also, in addition to phobias, two more categories of mental phenomena, i.e. ‘fears’ and ‘anxieties’, and discuss disgust in the introduction to their publication as a key element (xii–xiii). Fear is ‘an emotion of uneasiness that arises as a normal response to perceived threat that may be real or imagined’, while anxiety is ‘the full experience of fear in the absence of a known threat’ (pp. 232, 50).

The ancient accounts, which may be of great interest to scientists researching the problem of phobias, fears and anxieties in history, but have not yet been considered in previous studies, contain descriptions of fear, and often an excessive and disproportionate disgust and hate towards animals (zōon, zōion: ‘a living being’, ‘an animal’). In researching the history of animal phobias (or, speaking more generally, the entire spectrum of negative emotions evoked by animals in individuals or in entire social groups or societies), we can go as far back as ancient times, when the phenomenon was observed and described in an anecdotal form, and attempts to establish the causes of this phenomenon were undertaken. Of course, the population as a whole is clearly non-phobic; nonetheless, we can undoubtedly consider the fear of animals in terms of stereotypical thinking or sociocultural constructs. Fear may have a varying intensity, and it differs from phobia in terms of its degree, not its type. ‘The term “phobia” is used to denote the apparent irrationality and intensity of the fear response’ (Bennett-Levy and Marteau, 1984: 41). Thus, the present article discusses not only animal phobias (zoophobia), but also fears and anxieties related to animals. Importantly, current studies have proved that the emotions of fear and disgust, although based on separate neural systems, may interact with each other during the development of a phobia (e.g. Davey and Marzillier, 2009; Polák et al., 2019). Moreover, as was shown by Rozin and Fallon (1987), ‘nearly all disgust objects are animals or animal products’ (Rozin and Fallon, 1987). The aim of my study is to determine which animal species provoked fear (often exaggerated), disgust or hate in antiquity.

Admittedly, ancient medical writings do not reflect a strong understanding of zoophobia (a post-classical term constructed from the ancient Greek); rather, information about the fear (the fear spectrum) of certain animal species is dispersed throughout the entire body of ancient literature, ranging from philosophical treatises to comedy. Particularly valuable information can be found in the ancient works related to animals written by Aristotle, Pliny the Elder, Plutarch, Aelian and Porphyry. The ancient authors not only observed individual cases of an intensive fear of coming into contact with animals, but also believed that negative emotions (fear, disgust, hate) could be manifest in the form of a widespread dislike towards certain animal species or could create a local or ethnic construct. Of course, the ancient authors who wrote about animals evoking negative emotions were imprecise in their descriptions, because they did not have specialist terminology at their disposal. Undoubtedly, the aversion towards animals in ancient times is a complex issue to research because of the overlapping medical and cultural threads.

This article is composed of five parts. In the first part, basic issues connected with researching the ancient terms describing fear, disgust and hate are presented. In the second part, animals that were stereotypically perceived in antiquity as terrifying and disgusting are described. The third part is dedicated to the animal fear characteristic of only certain peoples and social groups, and in the fourth part ancient accounts of individual cases of an obsessive fear of animals are discussed. The fifth part contains an analysis of Greek and Roman sources that mention irrational fear, disgust and hate in the world of non-human animals, because this material can expand our knowledge about the ancient understanding of these negative emotions.

Ancient terms describing fear, disgust and hate: issues and controversies

The ancient terminology connected with fear, disgust and hate does not fully correspond to the contemporary meanings of these terms (Konstan, 2005, 2006, 2015: 7–9, 2016, 2020; Lateiner and Spatharas, 2017). As Konstan (2006: 4) has reminded us, ‘the way the Greeks conceived the individual emotions and emotion as such . . . differ in important respects from the way they are characteristically conceived today’. Similarly, Kaster (2005: 6) writes: ‘the Romans’ language of emotions is not our own’. Of course, the differences in the understanding of the concepts of fear, disgust and hate in antiquity and today are not so significant as to speak of the absence of a continuum. Undoubtedly, one can talk about the evolutionary continuum of the human experience. It is necessary to emphasize that the history of emotions as a research field has crystallized only recently because, for a long time, it was believed that emotions, being innate, do not have a history (Campeggiani and Konstan, 2017). However, the ancient sources contain rich and complicated discussions on emotions.

First and foremost, it should be emphasized that in current psychiatric terminology, the feelings of fear and anxiety are different emotional states. Fear tends to be about a threat that is happening now, whereas anxiety is an organism’s preparatory response to contexts in which a threat may occur. Today, a phobia is understood as a type of an anxiety disorder, even though the term phobia derives from the Greek word phobos (‘fear’, ‘terror’), the primary meaning of which, ‘panic flight’, contains an irrational component (Chantraine, 1968: 1183; Liddell, Scott and Jones, 1968, s.v.). As Walter Kaufmann (1992: 47) pointed out, ‘It is a word with a history and originally meant, in Homer, panic flight, but later became a much paler word as it moved in the direction of “fear”’. It needs to be emphasized that the Greek and the Roman vocabulary contained numerous terms that can be translated into English as ‘fear’ or ‘anxiety’ (Patera, 2014).

We are faced with similar complexities in the case of the terms hate and disgust. The Greek noun misos (‘hate’) and the verb miseō (‘to hate’), which were often used to refer to hatred towards animals, also had the meaning of ‘disgust’ and ‘to loathe’ (Konstan, 2006: 185–200; Liddell at al., 1968, s.v.). Similarly, the Latin noun odium denoted ‘hatred’, ‘aversion’ and ‘disgust’ (Glare, 2012, s.v.; cf. fastidium: Kaster, 2001). Particularly controversial is the term disgust in the ancient language of emotions. Disgust figures rarely, if at all, in the ancient Greek or Roman classifications. As Lateiner and Spatharas (2017: 4) note, ‘Ancient writers produced no known “systematic” definition of disgust – not even a discussion survives, if ever one was written’. Despite the problems with the ancient definition, one can fully understand the disgust of a slave who prepares dung cakes to feed the beetle that will transport Trygaeus to Zeus’ palace (Aristophanes, 1998, Peace 14).

Animals that commonly provoke fear, revulsion and hate

Ancient descriptions that mention negative emotions caused by animals suggest stereotypical thinking and even attempts at combating this psychological phenomenon. The Greek and Roman authors observed that many animals evoked fear, disgust or hate on a social scale. The ancient Greeks and Romans avoided some animals because of unpleasant appearance or touch, annoying sounds, association of behaviour linked to dirt and decay, and overt harm to human bodies.

The ancient authors rarely revealed their own negative emotions towards a particular animal species. Aelian (On Animals 9.27), who could not hide his aversion towards scorpions, was one of the few exceptions. He wrote, ‘I detest scorpions’ (misō men skorpious), and he justified his fear by the fact that scorpions are dangerous to humans (cf. asps: 1.54).

In general, the ancient authors tried to convince their audience that they should fight their feelings of disgust while researching animals. In the first book of Parts of Animals, Aristotle (645a) explained that we should resist our childish disgust when researching meaner (atimos) animals and those of little value. Later researchers of animals undoubtedly followed Aristotle’s recommendation, as was evidenced in Pliny’s Natural History (29.39.140) where, out of his respect for nature, the Roman writer declared his plan to conduct a detailed study of even the most disgusting animals. Pliny’s declaration constitutes a commentary on the description of an insect called the blatta (the name is applied to various insects, e.g. the cockroach, clothes moth and bookworm: LSJ, s.v.), which the Roman author considered disgusting (Hoc quoque animal inter pudenda est). A large part of Pliny’s work deals with animal remedies. To prevent the readers from feeling disgusted (the feeling of fastidium), he pointed out (29.8.28) that Homer addressed the fly in his work, and Virgil wrote about ants, weevils and blattae (Homer, Iliad 17.570–573; Virgil, Georgics 1.181–186).

Pliny’s recommendation to overcome one’s disgust during ‘zoological’ research did not prevent the ancient authors in general from indicating animals that commonly cause fear, revulsion and hate. Negative emotions could be triggered by the sight of the animal, its smell, the sound it made and by touching it directly. The phrasing of the ancient authors suggests that they were expressing a common opinion; but, of course, we must remember that in the case of some animals, the authors in reality could have only been presenting the local tradition. Both the Greek and Roman civilizations covered a vast area, which means a multitude of specific sociocultural contexts and, undoubtedly, cultural factors played a role in forming the stereotypical depictions of revolting animals.

The accounts contain ‘lists’ of animals that – according to the ancient authors – commonly provoked extremely negative emotions. Importantly, information about animals triggering fear, disgust or hate can also be found in works that were not specifically dedicated to this subject. It seems that the authors mentioned the animal groups that came to their minds spontaneously. In other words, they reached for the examples of animals that were traditionally and stereotypically considered as ‘scary’ and/or revolting. The following are a few of the most representative examples.

In a comedy by Aristophanes (Plutus, 1963, 537–538), violent reactions are triggered by lice, gnats and flies (cf. the fear of wasp stings in Wasps 426–427). Similarly, in a comedy by Plautus (Curculio 4.2.14–15), hate and disgust (odium) are provoked by the presence of flies, gnats, bugs, lice and fleas. Of course, the aim of comedy is to make people laugh, and exaggerations and ‘scary’ or ‘icky’ insects were a common trick.

The philosopher Seneca the Younger wrote in Natural Questions (3.16.4–5, 3.19.1–3) about deformed and hideous creatures that lived deep underground, without access to air and light, and resembling moles and subterranean mice (subterranei mures) in appearance.

Many terrifying and repulsive creatures can be found in Plutarch’s works. In On Love of Wealth (6.525f), he wrote: ‘vipers, blister-beetles, and venomous spiders offend and disgust us more than bears and lions’. Later on, Plutarch explained that venomous beasts kill humans, even if this does not bring them any benefit. Let us add that the female bear was called the wildest and the gloomiest animal by Plutarch (On Affection for Offspring 2.494c), and the bear’s lair (alongside the lair of the snake and the lair of sea monsters) was described as a terrifying place (Superstition 9.169e). In On the Delays of the Divine Vengeance, Plutarch (7.552f) also called the hyena and the seal impure animals.

Porphyry, in On Abstinence from Killing Animals (3.20), included flies, mosquitoes, bats, dung beetles, scorpions and vipers in the list of revolting animals. The philosopher wrote that seeing, touching or hearing these animals provokes unpleasant emotions.

Lucian (The Fly, 2) listed the insects that make sounds evoking negative feelings: gnats, mosquitoes, bees and wasps. He also indicated a number of horrendous animals inhabiting Libya: snakes, asps, vipers, horned snakes, darters, double-headed snakes (amphisbainai), pythons, scorpions, toads, puff-toads and ox beetles (Lucian, The Lover of Lies, 12; Dipsads, 3).

As we can see, the ancient accounts most commonly considered flies, gnats, mosquitoes, lice, fleas and cockroaches to be revolting. Certainly, the aversion to irritating insects did not result from medical knowledge, because the ancients were not aware of the fact that insects transmit illnesses. The connection between the appearance of quickly multiplying pests and the outbreak of an epidemic was interpreted only in terms of the omens (omina) of illness (Faraone, 1992: 39–43). It seems that these insects were mostly considered to be irritating pests that are difficult to remove from homes, public baths, bakeries, etc. (Beavis, 1988: 47, 234, passim). Flies and dung beetles were obviously associated with faeces and other decomposing matter. Additionally, flies were seen flocking towards injured people, and Homer wrote that these insects enter the wounds (Iliad 19.25–27).

Another reason why these insects provoked revulsion may be that they bred quickly and invaded human spaces. Nowadays these are referred to as ‘bad animals’. As Kay Peggs (2012: 81–2) writes: ‘They are feared by humans and are often constructed as repulsive creatures’ and ‘animals who humans see as vermin rarely physically threaten humans, yet they invoke feelings of disgust as they are often seen as symbols of dirt.’ Today, the term ‘bad animals’ is also associated with mice and rats. However, according to the ancient accounts, mice did not commonly evoke revulsion, even though they were pests that destroyed crops and spread inside houses and temples. Classical Greek and Latin did not have a word for ‘rat’, so this rodent was either considered a mouse (mys/mus) or it arrived in Europe relatively late, i.e. during the period of the Roman Empire (McCormick, 2003).

The ‘lists’ of scary and disgusting animals also include scorpions, venomous spiders and snakes. Modern research has shown that the human fear of scorpions and venomous snakes is probably an evolutionary adaptation (New and German, 2015) that correlates with disgust (Rádlová et al., 2020). In antiquity, scorpions were considered to be the most terrifying venomous creatures, stinging the human out of pure malice at every possible opportunity. A popular saying stated that: ‘Under every stone there waits a scorpion’ (Beavis, 1988: 21, 27–28). Nicander (Theriaca 796) wrote: ‘there the scorpions . . . are born, to work ruin from wall and fence’. In the ancient Mediterranean Basin, probably the most common scorpion species were Euscorpius carpathicus and Euscorpius italicus, the sting of which can be serious (obviously, the fear of scorpions is fully rational), but is only deadly to children and persons with health problems (Kitchell, 2014: 166). Similarly, being bitten by a venomous snake could be very dangerous for a child, although it seems that incidents involving these animals were not as common in reality as the ancients feared (Graumann, 2017: 273–4). It should be stressed that non-venomous snakes appearing in areas inhabited by humans were often perceived in a positive way in the pre-Christian ancient world. Snakes living in the shrines of Asclepius were thought to be able to heal the sick by their touch or tongue (e.g. Toynbee, 1973: 223–36). Surprisingly, there is no ancient source that mentions fear of the spider as such (Lewis and Llewellyn-Jones, 2018: 624). Therefore, it seems that the non-venomous arachnai inhabiting ancient buildings provoked not even a trace of fear or disgust. No surviving accounts evaluate the appearance or habits of the spider as revolting, and fear was caused only by the venomous phalangia, i.e. spiders with a venomous bite (Beavis, 1988: 39).

The ‘lists’ also include seals and hyenas, which were considered in antiquity to be demonic animals. Johnson and Lavigne (1999: 14, passim) proved that:

the ancients generally held a cynical and hostile view of the monk seal, believing it to be deformed of body, rank in smell, and malignant in character . . . . Even among those ancient texts that have managed to survive the passage of time, a good number testify to the seal’s evilness of character, its sinister behaviour, and the damage it wreaked.

The seal was considered in antiquity to be stunted, because it lies halfway between a land and water animal (Aristotle, History of Animals 487b 20–23, 566b 27; Progression of Animals 714b 9–13). In the case of the hyena, its habit of digging up graves could have constituted the basis for fear and disgust (Keller, 1909: 152). Furthermore, the ‘hyena’s laughter’ was considered as an attempt to mimic human speech, which is why the hyena was said to call to its victims by their name before devouring them (Funk, 2012: 148–9).

We can also learn what animals were commonly considered to be revolting from passages where the ancient authors tried to mitigate or debunk such a common belief. The description of the medicinal properties of a revolting bug (cimex) is an example. Pliny (Natural History 29.17.61) wrote: ‘The nature for instance of bugs, a most foul creature and nauseating even to speak of (animalis foedissimi et dictu quoque fastidiendi), is said to be effective against the bite of serpents, and especially of asps, as against all poisons.’ The vulture that aroused disgust in antiquity, due to its habit of eating carrion, is another example. A Greek mythographer, Antoninus Liberalis (Metamorphoses 21; see Detienne, 1994: 24), described the vulture as ‘the bird most detested by gods and men’. However, according to Plutarch’s account (e.g. Roman Questions 93.286b), some treated the vulture with respect, justifying this by the fact that the bird does not devour living creatures.

Local and ethnic nature of fear, hatred and revulsion towards animals

This group includes some sociocultural constructs: fear caused in a given society by intrusive animal species (animals damaging human property); tales of peoples who do not tolerate particular animal species; and religious beliefs (often local in character) that associated fear with animals. In ancient sources, we find traces of psychiatric problems known today as fears, anxieties, anticipatory anxiety.

The ancient topoi connected with animals include tales about local invasions of mosquitoes, locusts, mice, moles, snakes, birds, scorpions, venomous ants, frogs, salamanders and even lions. Where they were unable to deal with these quickly multiplying pests, people as well as wild beasts usually abandoned their homelands (Kitchell, 1994). The fear and disgust invoked by intrusive species were probably a consequence of such traumatic encounters. If a population decided to tolerate the invasion and remain in their homeland, despite the damage done to the area, we would expect the sources to mention an anticipatory anxiety developing in the victims of the invasion. Unfortunately, the accounts contain only scraps of information about the emotions accompanying such terrifying events.

In his description of the invasion of frogs near Macedonia, Athenaeus (The Learned Banqueters 333ab, quoting Heraclides Lembus, Fr. 3; see Müller, 1849: 168) reported that live frogs filled the streets, houses and pots, and when the inhabitants started to kill them, they had to wade through piles of dead amphibians. Athenaeus finished this tale by mentioning briefly that the irritated people escaped.

Pliny (Natural History 11.35.104–105) described the invasion of human dwellings by locusts (Locusta migratoria). The Roman writer reported that tribes looked out for locusts with great anxiety, expecting the arrival of large insects flapping their wings like birds. Pliny added that the inhabitants of Italy, who feared hunger as the consequence of a locust invasion, searched for a remedy in the Sibylline Books. Pliny’s assertion that Indian locusts were so big that their legs could be used as saws (11.35.104) was part of the common belief that animals in far regions were larger, stronger and more dangerous than domestic ones (Lewis and Llewellyn-Jones, 2018: 613).

Anticipatory fear could also be experienced by some of the populations inhabiting regions consistently abundant in wild, dangerous animals. Of course, the fear of being devoured by a lion or a tiger was rational, but anxiously expecting to be attacked by an animal can be considered as anticipatory fear. Perhaps, the circulating tales of lions showing mercy to people begging for their lives (e.g. Pliny, Natural History 8.19.48) had a calming and ‘therapeutic’ effect. Let us add that most animal-specific magic seems to have been related to pest control, and sought to avert dangerous or troublesome creatures from persons or from places, e.g. amulets to protect against the bite or sting of certain creatures (Ogden, 2014: 302–3).

In an ethnic context, the ancient authors were interested in the cases of revulsion towards animals they observed among foreign people. The authors thought that the roots of fear, disgust and hate stemmed from the local religious traditions and medical knowledge. Plutarch used the word ‘hate’ (misos) to refer to the feelings of the Magi, Persian priests of Zoroaster, who killed ‘water mice’ (probably water voles; Kitchell, 2014: 191). He wrote that the Magi felt revulsion towards these animals, believing that their god considered them to be disgusting (On Envy and Hate 3.537b; cf. Table-Talk 4.5.670d), adding that almost all Arabs and Ethiopians feel disgust towards these ‘water mice’. This seems to be a case of religious taboos.

Another example involves the violent disgust directed towards the pig and its meat in the Jewish culture, which was commented on extensively in ancient literature (Grottanelli, 2004). In the longest ancient discussion about this subject, Plutarch in the Table-Talk dialogues (4.5. 670d) asked ‘Whether the Jews abstain from pork because of reverence or aversion for the pig’. The interlocutors concurring with the thesis about this Jewish aversion called the animal deformed and dirty, and one of their explanations reads as follows: ‘The Jews apparently abominate pork because barbarians especially abhor skin diseases like leprosy and white scale, and believe that human beings are ravaged by such maladies through contagion.’ But Plutarch also wrote, ‘So I think the Jews would kill pigs if they hated them, as the Magi kill water mice; but in fact, it is just as unlawful for Jews to destroy pigs as to eat them’. While the ancients did not casually associate rodents and ticks with epidemics, they might have seen a correlation. It is usually suggested that the Jewish prohibition against eating pig meat relates to trichinosis (a disease caused by human-generated garbage with meat scraps infected by parasitic worms; Price, 2020: 24, 100). The observation that the disease appeared after eating the meat of the pig could be the underlying cause of the dislike towards this animal, which became a taboo. However, many scholars have also sought cultural and social routes for this taboo (Milner, 2011: 107–9).

The ancient authors reported a similar aversion towards the pig among the Egyptians. Herodotus (The Persian Wars 2.47.1) informed his readers that in Egypt, the pig is considered to be an unclean and repulsive animal; when an Egyptian accidentally touches a pig, they walk into a river, still clothed. Plutarch (Isis and Osiris 8.353f–354a) wrote about the Egyptian priests: ‘In like manner they hold the pig to be an unclean animal, because it is reputed to be most inclined to mate in the waning of the moon, and because the bodies of those who drink its milk break out with leprosy and scabrous itching.’ Aelian’s commentary (On Animals 10.16) on the Egyptians’ dislike was more radical; he wrote that the Egyptians considered the pig to be the most hated animal under the Sun and the Moon. In the case of the Egyptian aversion towards the pig, it seems that the ancient authors exaggerated the problem, because the archaeological evidence does not confirm their words. An explanation lies in how the ancients described the customs of the barbarians (barbaroi), which were supposed to be the opposite of the Greek customs. Thus, because the Greeks were fond of sacrificing pigs to their gods, they accused the Egyptians of a severe dislike of the animal (Lewis and Llewellyn-Jones, 2018: 104).

In a religious context, when there were conflicts between peoples, the same event involving animals could have different effects, that is, it could lead to panic or to the animal becoming worshipped as holy. Herodotus (The Persian Wars 2.141) provides the example of an Assyrian army attempting to invade Egypt. The army camp was overrun in the night by field mice, which gnawed on the quivers, bows and handles of the shields. As a consequence, the Assyrians fell dead while fleeing in panic, and the Egyptians honoured the rodent by erecting, in a temple, a statue of King Sethos holding a mouse in his hand.

Another example of such religious duality is found in Plutarch’s writings. In Table-Talk (4.5.3, 670e), he relates that the Jews prized the donkey highly and abstained from eating the hare because of its resemblance to a donkey. In Isis and Osiris (30, 362f), the philosopher comments that ‘the people of Busiris and Lycopolis do not use trumpets at all, because these make a sound like an ass’. They regard the donkey as an unclean and daimonikos animal. The rumour about the Jews worshipping a donkey probably arose from the fact that the donkey was the sacred animal of Seth, who was commonly thought by the Egyptians to be the god of foreigners (for other sources, see Bar-Kochva, 2010).

In a religious context, the ancient authors also described a very local manifestation of fear of animals. The sources mention visitors to temples being afraid of the animals that lived there, e.g. snakes in the sanctuary of Asclepius at Titane (Pausanias, Description of Greece 2.11.8), the sacred snakes in the Asklepieion at Athens, the sacred snakes in Trophonius’ Labadeia sanctuary (Aristophanes, 1963, Plutus 689–693, 733; Clouds 506–508) and the oracular snakes in Epirus (Aelian, On Animals, 11.2). Fear could accompany animal sacrifices, because the ancients believed that sacrificing an animal improperly might incur a divine punishment (e.g. Aristotle, History of Animals 496b; Aelian, 7.44). Killing an animal, even unintentionally, could make the animal haunt humans in hallucinations, driving them to lunacy, which could be cured only by a god (e.g. Aelian, 11.32).

Sometimes, the ancient authors attributed a dislike of certain animal species to the gods themselves. The goddess Athena in Virgil’s Georgics (4.246–247) could not stand spiders (of course, this is an aetiological tale related to the competition between Athena, the inventor and protectress of weaving, and Arachne, ‘Spider’, a simple mortal). Nicander states that Apollo himself purged the woods around his sanctuary at Clarus from vipers, hateful spiders (phalangia) and scorpions (Nicander, Fr. 31 [Gow and Scholfield, 1953] quoted by Aelian 10.49). On the subject of the gods’ dislike of arthropods, it is noted that in a comedy by Timocles crabs (pagouroi) are animals hated by the gods, and Oppian called them ‘shameless tribes’ (Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters 319a quotes Timocles, Fr. 8 [Kassel and Austin, 1989: 761]; Oppian, Fishing 281–282).

‘Zoophobia’

According to the extant sources, the Greeks and the Romans noticed that the problem of an intense fear of a particular animal species may concern only an individual person. One could say that they were on their way to discovering a disease known today as zoophobia or animal phobia. As Doctor et al. (2008: x) explain, ‘Many people do not like snakes or spiders. Some people, however, have irrationally excessive fears and may exhibit a marked reaction to even a drawing or the mere thought of snakes and spiders (or another feared object)’.

However, the Greeks and Romans did not distinguish fear as a separate illness and did not use the term ‘specific phobias’ that we have today. They presumably acknowledged the similarity between the fear of an animal and other ‘phobias’. As for the other ‘phobias’, the ancient accounts noted a fear of the sound of a musical instrument, as well as entering a cave, crossing a bridge or walking along a ditch (Drabkin, 1955: 227). They also identified the fear of water, calling it hydrophobia (Celsus, On Medicine 5.27.1; Thumiger, 2018). The most famous ancient case, which modern literature often considers to be a case of a specific phobia, concerns Nicanor, who feared the sound of the aulos that could be heard during a symposium (Hippocrates, Epidemics, 5.81; see King, 2013).

The ancient medical treatises contain scarce information about patients suffering from the fear of animals. Although Rufus of Ephesus did write about the fear of a particular species in On Melancholy (Fr. 13.2–3), he considered it a symptom of another illness:

The beginning of melancholy is indicated by fear, anxiety and suspicion aimed at one particular thing whilst no disease is present in any other respect. Examples of their imaginations include the following. Some are afraid of thunder; others ardently desire to discuss death; others want to wash themselves [constantly], or hate a particular food, a particular drink or a particular kind of animal; or they imagine that they have swallowed a viper or something similar.

A viper is also mentioned by Alexander of Tralles (On Melancholy 1.607), who described one female patient obsessed with swallowing a snake.

In one ancient medical work, a description of memory loss due to unexpected contact with a crocodile was classified as a symptom of furor (‘mania’):

When the grammarian Artemidorus was lying on the sand he was frightened by the ponderous approach of a crocodile: his mind was so affected by the sudden sight of the reptile’s motion that he imagines that his left leg and hand has been eaten by the animal, and he lost his memory even of literature. (Caelius Aurelianus, Chronic Diseases 1.5.150–151)

Much more information about the fear of animals comes from the rather anecdotal material that can be found in the works belonging to a broad spectrum of literary genres. The ancient authors described the cases of ‘zoophobia’ in their works as a pretext for reflection on the general nature of fear and cowardice, although the authors were clearly aware that such cases were irrational in character.

Aristotle concluded in Nicomachean Ethics (7.5. 1149a 6) that ‘the man who was afraid of a weasel was a case of disease (nosos)’. Ahonen (2014: 83) notes that ‘. . . a nosos suggests that it was only temporary’. The ancient philosopher clearly differentiated between a human struggling with an irrational fear and a common coward. The latter is afraid of everything, even the scratching of a mouse. Aristotle asserts that all instances of ‘folly, cowardice, profligacy, and ill-temper, whenever they run to excess, are either bestial or morbid condition’ (7.5. 1149a 5).

In his description of a case of ‘zoophobia’, Diodorus Siculus (Library of History 20.26.1) attempted to explain it by a belief in prophecies. He describes Satyrus (the son of a Bosporan king), who was afraid of mice because he received a prophecy that this animal would cause his death. Driven by fear, Satyrus ordered his slaves to kill field and house mice, and even block their holes.

Plutarch described the largest number of cases of an irrational fear of animals. However, he (Fragments 217g) did not attempt to find the cause of this phenomenon; rather, he expressed surprise, asking how it was possible that some people, even though they were brave, could be afraid of ordinary animals, such as the weasel and the rooster (cockerel), without a clear reason. Plutarch wrote in On Envy and Hate (3.537a) that some people feel hatred (misos) towards weasels, dung beetles, toads or snakes. In the extant fragment of another work (Fragments 215k), the philosopher provided examples of people who are afraid of weasels, lizards or tortoises. Plutarch also mentioned an apothecary who did not fear venomous snakes, but would run away from the gadfly; Germanicus (the nephew of Emperor Tiberius), who hunted bears and lions, could stand neither the sight nor the crowing of the rooster. However, Plutarch did not refer to the examples he provided as a mental disorder, so he may have very well perceived these cases as evidence of cowardice. Nevertheless, Plutarch described cases that today would undoubtedly be interpreted as examples of zoophobia. As Ahonen (2014: 83, n. 55) notes, ‘The fears enumerated by Plutarch are, apparently, constant phobias . . .’.

Interestingly, the weasel (galeē, mustela), which was mistaken in antiquity for similar animals (marten, polecat, ferret, cat, etc.), makes a common appearance in these accounts. Weasels were an everyday occurrence in the lives of the Greeks and the Romans; they were present both in households, where they exterminated rodents, and in public spaces (Mackinnon, 2014: 168–9). The weasel itself was considered a cowardly animal, which could be easily frightened by a noise or a human voice (e.g. Apuleius, Metamorphoses 2.25; Plutarch, On Moral Virtue 7.446e). As was concluded by Aristotle (Parts of Animals, 667a 21–3), the weasel is prone to fear (and to be precise, is cowardly) because it has a large heart. Let us add that this popular animal constituted ‘the ancient equivalent of our black cat’. Apparently, a weasel crossing a human’s path brought misfortune (e.g. Ammianus Marcellinus, History 16.8.2; Aristophanes, 2002, Assemblywomen 793; Theophrastus, Characters 16.3; see also Bettini, 2013: 154–9; Johnston, 2008: 130).

The best-known animal phobias today include the fear of dogs, cats, snakes, worms, spiders, birds, mice, fish and frogs (Antony and McCabe, 2005: 23; Doctor et al., 2008: 43–4). We can assume that there were people in antiquity who suffered from cynophobia (fear of dogs). This can be indirectly inferred from the sources, as there are numerous mentions of the attacks of rabid dogs on humans, as well as treating the consequences of bites, reports of dogs looking like wolves, information about dogs eating human corpses, and tales of dangerous dog-like mythical beasts. In Homer’s Iliad (22.75; see also Kitchell, 2004: 177–8), Priam is afraid that he would be torn to pieces by his own dogs, and even though it is difficult to consider the King of Troy’s fear to be an example of a phobia, we may conclude on this basis that such beliefs about the dog could lead to a phobia. It is also probable that there were people in antiquity who suffered from fear of birds, ornithophobia (although the ancient sources record only the rooster). Birds were the most popular prophetic animals, and would therefore provoke fear if any foreboding signs appeared. Ominous magical birds that could foretell the future included ravens, crows and, to an extent, owls (Mynott, 2018: 255–8). Cats were not a common species in the Graeco-Roman world, which is why the sources do not note cases of fearing them, ailurophobia. Nonetheless, a mention has survived, most probably from Galen, of illnesses caused by cats, but this referred to allergies rather than mental problems (Engels, 1999: 75–6).

Search for answers in the animal world

Although the subject of this article is human, not animal, emotions, there is a group of accounts worth analysing in which animals are the ‘victims’ of an irrational fear of other species. The value of these accounts lies in that they allow us to investigate the ancient way of thinking about the mechanisms governing negative emotions, as well as demonstrate how the Greeks and the Romans tried to unravel the mystery of irrational feelings. Of course, it should be remembered that the most influential philosophers in antiquity, including Aristotle and the Stoics, viewed animals as irrational (in contrast to Plutarch and Aelian, for example). Animals could not experience true emotions, but only ‘pre-emotions’, or something analogous to emotions (Fortenbaugh, 1971, 2002: 94; Newmyer, 2006, 2017: 121–33). If phobias are irrational fears, and non-human animals are irrational, they could hardly experience the traits of a phobia since phobias are aberrations of reason.

The most interesting aspect of the accounts discussed above are the conclusions drawn by ancient authors that the emotions of fear, disgust and hate can be interrelated. In Natural History, Pliny (8.10.29) wrote that among all animals, elephants hate mice the most (animalium maxime odere murem). If they see a mouse touch their food, elephants ‘refuse it with disgust’ (fastidiunt). In his treatise On Envy and Hate, Plutarch (4.537c) stated: ‘It is likely, moreover, that in lions the strong hatred (misos) of cocks, and in elephants of swine, has been engendered by fear (phobos); for what they fear they naturally hate as well.’ In his work On Animals, Aelian (3.31, 5.50, 6.22, 6.45, 8.28, 16.36) compiled numerous examples of animals feeling, in his opinion, irrational fear and disgust at the sight of a specimen from a different species; for instance, the basiliskos (a venomous serpent) fears the rooster, the stork feels disgust towards the bat, and draught animals take fright at the sight of the shrew-mouse. As far as the elephant is concerned, Aelian (16.36) made an assumption that this animal instinctually hates the pig and is disgusted by it. In reality, the elephant does not fear the mouse or the pig, and the lion is not afraid of the rooster (Ernout, 1952: 122; Zafiropoulos, 2009).

The ancient authors explained astounding – in their opinion – reactions of some large animal species which lacked the mental ability to correctly assess danger. They wondered why large and dangerous beasts were afraid and disgusted by creatures smaller and weaker than themselves. In his work On Anger, Seneca the Younger (2.11.5–6) concluded that ‘for the foolish, foolish things are terrible’, and provided the example of an elephant being afraid of the sounds made by a pig. Pliny (8.5.10) asked why animals tremble with fear at the sight of a human, even though they are stronger, larger and faster. He tried to provide a rational explanation by stating that the law of nature makes them fear the unknown, and that fear allows them to gain the time needed to sense potential danger. As Carleton (2016) argues, fear of the unknown in humans may be a fundamental fear underlying anxiety and therein neuroticism.

In other cases, the ancient authors could not explain the disproportionate and violent reaction of an animal to a stimulus in the form of a specimen from a different species. In one of Aesop’s fables, a mighty lion wonders why it is scared of a rooster. Prometheus explains to an embarrassed lion that, at the moment of its making, it received every gift possible, and the fear of the rooster was simply the lion’s weakness (Aesopica 259; but cf. a rational explanation in Achilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clitophon 2.20–2.22). Let us recall that Aesop’s ‘stereotypes’, going back to ancient Egyptian tales/fables of animals written in a cleverly but fanciful way to educate readers about human qualities, became ‘common wisdom’. In his description of the lion’s fear of the rooster, Pliny (8.19.52) clearly wondered at the disproportionate reaction of this mighty, wild animal. Aelian (8.28) considered the behaviour of the lion, the basilisk and the elephant to be an impenetrable mystery of nature.

The details in the ancient descriptions of the irrational fear that dangerous animals feel towards harmless animals from other species show the traits of a real phobia in humans. This is how Aelian (3.31; cf. 5.50) presented the basilisk’s behaviour in the presence of the rooster: the basilisk trembled with fear at the very sight of the bird, and when the rooster crowed, the serpent convulsed and fell down. Apparently, the mere sight of the ‘enemy’s’ body or the characteristic sound it makes is enough to trigger a violent psychological reaction in an animal. Pliny (8.19.52; 10.24.47) wrote that the lion was afraid even at the sight of the rooster’s comb, and was even more afraid of the rooster’s crowing. A lion fleeing in panic at the sound of rooster’s crowing was a popular ancient literary motif (Aelian, 5.50; Aesopica, 82; Lucretius, On the Nature of Things 4.710; Solinus, Collection of Remarkable Things 120.9). Let us add that the work by Saint Ambrose (Hexameron 6.4.26) described the lion’s particular fear of the white rooster.

Some sources indicate that the ancients knew, at least in a rudimentary way, how to cope with fear. It seems that they realized that panic could be overcome by accustoming oneself to the object of that fear. Aelian (16.36) wrote that the trainers of elephant calves would raise them together with pigs, so that they would not panic at the sound of squealing (cf. other examples: Aelian, 5.50).

Conclusion

The ancient sources describe aversion towards certain animal species in, first and foremost, three categories: fear, disgust, hate.

Descriptions can be found in Greek and Roman accounts of humans seized by an irrational fear of animals (snakes, mice, lizards, weasels, tortoises, roosters, toads, dung beetles and gadflies), which would today be qualified as cases of zoophobia. The most well-known animal phobias today do not appear in ancient sources (only a fear of snakes and a fear of mice were observed). On the other hand, the extant ancient accounts do not include any cases of arachnophobia, which is a common specific phobia.

There are also many extant sources revealing the existence of an aversion towards certain animal species occurring on a social scale (lice, gnats, mosquitoes, flies, fleas, bugs, cockroaches, ox beetles, blister beetles, dung beetles, bees and wasps, locusts, bats, water voles, ‘subterranean mice’, snakes, vipers, scorpions, venomous spiders, toads, hyenas, seals, pigs, donkeys, vultures, bears in their lairs, sea monsters in their lairs, large groups of any species). This group was undoubtedly larger because, in antiquity, animals were deeply rooted in culture and, most importantly, in religion. This resulted in continuous interactions between the human world and the animal world. Moreover, the ancients did not know any effective methods of fighting the ubiquitous pests; thus, some animals regularly disturbed the human physical space.

The ancient authors did not have at their disposal the tools available to modern psychiatry. However, the Greeks and the Romans certainly experienced zoophobia (animal phobia), fears and anxieties related to animals, and despite the lack of a specialized scientific framework, attempted to describe these experiences. In ancient sources, we also find traces of psychiatric problems known today as anticipatory anxiety and the fear of the unknown. Ancient literature can undoubtedly constitute a meaningful starting point for research focused on the history of the negative emotions caused by animals.