10 2307@41538365 PDF

Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles
The Sentimental Education of the Roman Child : the Role of Pet-Keeping

Author(s): Keith Bradley
Source: Latomus, T. 57, Fasc. 3 (JUILLET-SEPTEMBRE 1998), pp. 523-557
Published by: Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41538365 .
Accessed: 12/06/2014 14:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Latomus.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Sentimental Education of the Roman Child :
the Role of Pet-Keeping
Attendingcockfights and participating

in themis,
for theBalinese,a kindofsentimental education.
C. Geertz
Early in the second centuryAD, perhaps preciselyin the year 104,

the Roman senator M. Aquilius Regulus sufferedthe untimelyloss
of a son, a boy who was just sixteen years or so of age. The grief
he experienced at this misfortunewas profound, or so it seemed, for
at his son's funeral, in a sort of act of sacrificeto the dead young
man, Regulus dramaticallyslaughteredaround the pyreboth the Gallic
ponies the boy had kept for riding and drawing his carriages, and
all his many dogs and birds as well - his pet nightingales,parrots
and blackbirds. To the younger Pliny ( Ep . IV, 2), who records these
events,the sacrificedemonstratedon Regulus' part an immoderategrief
more affectedthan real ; but Regulus was a man for whom Pliny felt
considerable repugnance,and he describesthe father'sloss consequently
withlittlesympathy(').
Whateverthe truthabout Regulus' grief,Pliny's referenceto his son's
pets is arresting,for it provokes the question of how conventional it
was in Roman societyforchildrento keep pet animals at all. In modern
westernsocieties,pet-keepingis a normativefeatureof familylife,and
a feature of childhood especially. But in Britain pet-keeping of the
modern kind began only in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies,
when for the firsttime on a large scale certain animals were given
names, allowed into the family home, and not eaten - or in other
(1) On Pliny'sletter
andRegulus,
seeA. N. Sherwin-White, TheLettersofPliny:
Л Historical
andSocialCommentary , Oxford, withR. Syme,Roman
1966,p. 266-267,
Papers/,Oxford,1979,p. 259; RomanPapersVII, Oxford,1991,p. 491,n. 151.
Theson was bornaboutAD 88 (cf.also Plin., Ер. IV,7). Lucían, Luct.14,refers
to theburning of horsesand otheritemsas sacrifices
to thedead forpossibleuse
intheafterlife.

524 EDUCATIONOF THE ROMANCHILD
THE SENTIMENTAL
words were kept as objects of affectionfor their own sake. This was
a result of a shift in attitudes towards animals dependent on the
emergenceof new moral and intellectualviews about the natural world
more egalitarianin characterthan the heavilyanthropocentricattitudes
that preceded. In France, the rise of modern pet-keepingwas a feature
of the rise of bourgeois culturein the nineteenthcentury,even though,
as in Britain,pet-keepinghad not been completelyunknownbeforehand.
The point I wish to make is that pet-keepinghas to be understood
not as an absolute - somethingthat is inherentand unquestionably
common in and to all societies - so much as a phenomenon that
has a history and that is culturally specific. So despite the ease of
association with which Pliny's letterabout Regulus' son may now be
read, it cannot merelybe assumed that pet-keepingwas naturallyand
always widespread among childrenin ancient Roman society(2).
If pet-keeping was conventional in Roman society, the further
question arises of what contributionit may have made to the general
education or socialisation of Roman children - the manner, that is,
in which Roman childrenacquired knowledge of the normativevalues
of their society. Modern parents take it for granted that introducing
children to pet animals, from a very tender age, is in and of itself
a valuable, socially integratingexperience, a view that stems from the
clear perceptionthat childhood is a distinctstage of human lifehaving
its own demands and requirements.It is an attitude,too, which assumes
that the physical space in which the familyresides will eitherinclude
an area devoted to children's needs, in which some pets might be
housed, a hamsteror a tortoise,for example, or else will be completely
open to large animals such as cats and dogs (or both). At Rome,
however,the same assumptions will not necessarilyapply, for although
there was to some degree a conception that childhood was a distinct
stage of human life, it is difficultto identifyareas in Roman houses
(2) Britain
: seeK. Thomas,ManandtheNaturalWorld : A HistoryoftheModern
, New York,1983,especially
Sensibility p. 110-120;H. Ritvo, TheAnimalEstate:
TheEnglishand OtherCreatures in the VictorianAge,Cambridge, Mass.-London,
1987,p. 82-121,and TheEmergence of ModernPet-Keeping in A. N. Rowan,ed.,
Animalsand PeopleSharingthe World , Hanover-London, 1988,p. 13-31.France:
see К. Kete, The Beastin theBoudoir: Petkeeping in Nineteenth-CenturyParis,
Berkeley-LosAngeles-London, 1994.In general,J. Serpell, In the Companyof
Animals, NewYork-Oxford, 1986.Assumed : cf.T. Wiedemann, Adultsand Children
in theRomanEmpire , New Haven-London, 1989,p. 146 (it seemsto me difficult
to provethat"farmorethanin our world,children had animalsto playwith"in
Romanantiquity).

К. BRADLEY 525
that catered specifically to children's needs (the need to play for

example). If thereforeRoman children were routinelyprovided with
pets,what purposes and functionsdid the animals serve? In what sense,
if any, were pets of social or socialisingvalue (3) ?
It is questions of this sort that I wish to discuss in this paper. I begin
by assembling a certain amount of representativeevidence suggesting
that in the central era of Roman history,that is roughly from the
early second centuryВС to the late second centuryAD, the experience
of Regulus' son was not in itselfunusual, and then discuss when pet-
keeping firstbecame part of the general experience of childhood at
Rome. I subsequently put forward a number of modern views about
the social value of providingchildrenwith animal companions, asking
whether modern theories might have any relevance to the Roman
experience; and finally, by concentrating on one pet animal in
particular, I consider how the question of the relationship between
Roman children and their pets must be understood in the context of
Roman cultureas a whole.
*
* *
it quickly
If the example of Regulus' son is taken as a starting-point,
appears fromliterarysources, both imaginativeand factual, that birds
mightcommonlyformpart of theworld of the Roman child. In Plautus'
Captivi (1002-1003), words fromthe pitifulslave Tyndarus suggestthat
elite children("patriciispueris") commonly keptjackdaws ( monerulae),
ducks (<anites) and quails ( coturnices) as pets. In Petronius' Satyri-
con (46), the firefighter (centonarius) Echion say that his son was
obsessed with birds, that he himselfhad recentlykilled three of the
boy's goldfinches{cárdeles), and that he had told his son the lie that
a weasel had eaten them. The elder Pliny {Nat. X, 120) records that
as boys Nero and Britannicushad kept a starling{sturnus) and some
nightingales{lusciniae) which were so proficientin speaking that they
could command both Greek and Latin. And Fronto {Amie. И, p. 172
[18 IN]), writingon the progress of his grandson in Rome to his son-
in-law Aufidius Victorinus, away on militaryservice, observes in a
touching sketch how devoted the child was to chickens (pulii gallini),
(3) Romanhouses: see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Housesand Societyin Pompeii

andHerculaneum 1994,p. 9-10.
, Princeton,

THE SENTIMENTAL
doves (or pigeons : columbae) and sparrows (passeres). He remarks,

too, on having been told by his childhood attendantsthat he himself
had had a passion forthe same birds fromhis earliestdays (4).
Various items indicate that in upper-class society Regulus' son was
not unusual in his taste for dogs and horses. Sallust (Cat. 14.6), for
instance,reportsthat Catiline made a habit of buyingdogs and horses
for the youths ( adulescentes) he regarded as potential recruits for
political conspiracy,while the younger Pliny (Ep. IX, 12.1) again tells
of a son he terms a iuuenis who had fallen afoul of his fatherfor
having spent too much money on the same animals. Horace (Ars
161-162), in giving advice on characterisationfor the stage, associates
dogs and horses with the older boy, the beardless youth ("imberbus
iuuenis") who is not yet a man. Perhaps in these texts it is hunting
dogs that are meant, since boys mightwell be introduced to the sport
when in theirteens : the futureemperor Hadrian was in his fifteenth
year when he was sent from Rome to Italica to deter him from his
over-fondnessfor matters Hellenic and devoted himself instead to
hunting. But there were other sorts of pet dogs as well, such as the
puppy belongingto the young child Croesus, the deliciae of Trimalchio
in the Satyricon (64,5-6) - a dog, incidentally,that had a name,
Margarita - or the puppy playmate ("contusione catello") of a rural
slave boy in Juvenal(IX, 60-61) (5).
In referencessuch as these, one detail after another is suggestive.
Not only is there evidence of a certain range of pets being kept, but
also, as the chronological distributionof the texts indicates, evidence
of pet-keepingby children throughout much of the central Roman
era. Pet-keepingby children of differentages and social backgrounds
is also visible : Fronto's grandson was no more than an infantwhen
Fronto wrote his letter,and Juvenal's boy is also infans; Echion's
(4) Libanius,Or.I, 4, also refers to havingkeptdovesas a child; cf.Apul.,Met.

VIII, 20, a littleboytrying to catcha singingsparrow.Plautus: cf.E. Fraenkel,
Elementini Plautini in Plauto, Florence,1960,p. 170-171.
Fronto: cf.E. Champlin,
TheChronology ofFrontoinJRS 64,1974,p. 136-159 atp. 155-156.
(5) Dogs and horses: cl. also 1er.,An.,58 ; Philostr., Vò p. 603. On hunting
in Romansociety, see J. K. Anderson,Huntingin theAncientWorld , Berkeley-
Los Angeles-London, 1985,p. 83-121.Hadrian: HA Hadr. 1,3-2,1, withR. Syme,
RomanPapers//,Oxford,1979,p. 619.Name: fora repertory of animals'names,
see J. M. C. Toynbee,Beastsand TheirNamesin theRomanEmpirein PBSR
16,1948,p. 24-37.Juvenal : cf.E. Courtney,A Commentary ontheSatires ofJuvenal
,
London,1980,p. 434.

К. BRADLEY 527
son is somewhat older, a small boy - Petronius termshim a cicaro -

while Nero and Britannicusare in theirearly teens in the elder Pliny's
text.The teenage ages of the pet-keepingson of Regulus and the young
huntsman Hadrian have already been noted. Similarly,if most of the
material refersto the socially elite, it is implicit in Petronius' and
Juvenal's evidence that pet-keepingwas known in less elevated circles
as well. Boys predominate as pet-owners,but Catullus' Lesbia in the
famous sparrow poems may perhaps stand as a paradigm of the upper-
class teenaged girlwho kept pets, despite her adult role in otheraspects
of life(6).
Literaturecan also provide evidence of pets other than those Pliny
associates with Regulus' son. Martial (XII, 99), for instance, indicates
that a gazelle might be given to a boy as a pet, a rather spectacular
and unusual choice presumably,while in Ovid's Metamorphoses (XIII,
831-837), Polyphemus promises Galatea that she shall have no ordinary
pets - does, hares, a goat, a pair of doves - but twin bear cubs
that he has found on a mountain top. It is to the evidence of art,
however, especially funeraryart, to which I now want brieflyto turn,
in order to confirmimpressionsformedfromthe literarysources and,
since the material derives from both Italian and provincial settings,
in order also to broaden the geographical perspectiveof the enquiry.
From Arlon in Belgium, for example, a memorial relief of the late
second century AD might be cited, on which three young children
are portrayedsharing a bowl of food with what looks like their pet
dog. To the leftan older girl seems to be supervisingthe proceedings,
while to the right another boy is playing a flute. The children may
all be siblings.Rather ominously,however,the young boy to the right
in the group of three appears to be about to strike the dog with a
stick(7).
Images of children and pet dogs are frequentlyfound in funerary
art. Thus a kline monument of the Seveřan period in the Capitoline
(6) Sparrowpoems: Catul. 2 ; 3. Lesbia: on herage and possibletrueidentity,

seeT. P. Wiseman,Catullus andHis World, Cambridge, 1985,p. 23-24; S. Treggiari,
RomanMarriage : IustiConiugesfromtheTimeof Ciceroto theTimeof Ulpian ,
Oxford, 1991,p. 304.
(7) Polyphemus : cf. Longus 1,15,a calfand birdsas a lover'sgifts ; D. Chr.
VII,67-69(withD. A. Russell, ed.,Dio Chrysostom, OrationsVII, XII andXXXVI,
Cambridge, 1992,p. 128),a hare.Arlonrelief : see M. Pobé & J. Roubier,The
ArtofRomanGaul, Toronto, 1961,p. 73-74withplate218,andp. 74 withplate221
foranother relieffromDijonshowing a childpilgrim a dog.
carrying

THE SENTIMENTAL
Museum shows a girl lying on her back holding flowersin her right
hand with a small dog beside her (Fig. 1). The lid of a sarcophagus
from the Vatican depicts a recliningboy touching the head of a small
dog before him that opens its mouth and scratches its ear with one
of its paws. A relief from the British Museum, with an inscription
in Greek, commemorates a girl named Abeita (Avita) who died at the
age of ten (Fig. 2) : she is shown sittingon a stool reading a scroll
while a pet dog sits on its haunches behind her, one paw raised as
if about to touch a cushion on the stool, perhaps tryingto distract
her from her reading. One particularlynotable item is a grave relief
from Rome now in the Getty Museum in Malibu dedicated to a girl
named Helena (Fig. 3). The reliefshows not an image of Helena herself
but just of a dog, presumably her pet, a Maltese, and it is interesting
because of the suggestion that has been made that Helena, who is
described as an alumna in the inscriptionaccompanying the image,
was a slave girl. If so, she must have been a relativelyfavoured slave
child, as indeed alumni oftenwere (8).
Representationsof deceased children with animals other than dogs
are equally plentiful.A tomb relieffrom Lincoln in Britain preserves
the memoryof a young boy who is shown holding a rabbit or a hare
against his lower chest. It is similar to a funeraryrelieffrom Mérida
in Spain on which a boy, his head now damaged, clutches a rabbit
(or hare) to his chest with one hand but holds a bunch of grapes,
from which the pet is feeding,in the other (Fig. 4). From Bordeaux
in France there is an illustrationof a child holding up a cat under
its front paws while a rooster below nips at the cat's hanging tail
(Fig. 5) ; it is an example of a relativelyrich repertoryof cat re-
presentationsin Gallo-Roman funeraryart commemoratingchildren.
(8) Figure1 : fortheidentity of thechildas a girl,see K. Fittschen,Mädchen

nichtKnabenin MDAI(R) 99, 1992,p. 301-305at p. 303.Vaticansarcophagus : see
F. Cumont,Recherches surlesymbolisme desRomains
funéraire , Paris,1942,plate40,
figure1 ; J.Huskinson,RomanChildren's Sarcophagi: TheirDecoration andSocial
Significance, Oxford,1996,p. 39n° 5.5withplate10.2.Suggestion : G. Koch,Roman
Funerary Sculpture: CatalogueoftheCollections, TheJ.PaulGetty Museum , Malibu,
1988,p. 87.Alumni: seeB. Rawson,Children intheRomanFamiliain B. Rawson,
ed.,TheFamily inAncientRome: NewPerspectives , London-Sydney, 1986,p. 170-200;
H. SigismundNielsen,Alumnus : A Termof RelationDenotingQuasi- Adoption
in С & M 38, 1987,p. 141-188 ; J. Bellemore & B. Rawson,Alumni : TheItalian
Evidencein ZPE 83, 1990,p. 1-17.Note also C. Nerzic, La Sculpture en Gaule
romaine , Paris,1989,p. 241,fora funerary ofa youngchild,seated,holding
portrait
a smalldogacrosstheknees.

К. BRADLEY 529
An item from Italy, perhaps of Hadrianic date, shows a cat learning

to dance (Fig. 6) : the cat stands on its hind legs with its frontlegs
and head stretchingto reach a pair of ducks suspended from a tree
above ; meantimea girlis sittingon a chair,playinga lyre.The funerary
altar of a boy named C. Aelius Urbicus shows the child, at full-length,
with what looks like a pet rooster (Fig. 7). A sarcophagus of Trajanic
date from Rome incorporates an image of the boy it commemorates
playing with a pet goose (Fig. 8). There is also the well-known
sarcophagus of the mid-second centuryAD in the Louvre of the boy
C. Cornelius Statius, who is shown driving a toy carriage pulled by
sheep (Fig. 9). Similar representationsof sheep- or goat-drawncarriages
have appeared in a varietyof locations (9).
With examples such as these, the assumption that the animals
portrayed were the pets of the children commemorated is a natural
one to make, but because animals were sometimesincluded in funerary
art for their symbolic value rather than as realistic elements - the
dog most clearly of all serving as a symbol of fidelityor the rabbit
as a symbol of fertility- the assumption may not be completely
justified.When thereforea dog appears beneath the funeral couch of
a deceased child in a scene of mourning, as on a sarcophagus from
Rome now in the British Museum (Fig. 10), a literal interpretation
that the animal was the child's pet may not be correct. But on the
view that artistsdid not think the association of animals and children
in any way incongruous or inappropriatefor theiraudiences, it seems
plausible to take these artistic representationsas illustrationsof the
way in which certain animals might enter the world of the Roman
(9) Lincolnrelief : seeJ.M. C. Toynbee,ArtinBritain undertheRomans , Oxford,

1964,plate48B. Repertory : J. M. C. Toynbee,Animalsin RomanLifeand Art,
London,1973,p. 90. Similarrepresentations : a cartpulledby a ramis shownon
another,latethird century, sarcophagus from Rome; seeR. Amedick, Die Sarkophage
mitDarstellungen aus demMenschenleben. Die antikeSarkophagreliefs, Bd I Teil4,
VitaPrivata , Berlin,1991,p. 165,n° 273; and a thirdexampleappearson an early
secondcentury sarcophagus fromAgrigentum ; see F. Valbruzzi, Un sarcofago di
bambinorinvenuto ad Agrigento in MDAI(R) 98, 1991,p. 299-313(cf.G. Koch,
ed.,Grabeskunst derrömischen Kaiserzeit
, Mainz,1993,p. 155-158,withplates66-67);
R. Amedick,VitaPrivata , p. 121,n° 2. See in generalR. Amedick,VitaPrivata ,
p. 67-69,withplate 53, nos. 1-4; and Zur Ikonographie der Sarkophagemit
Darstellungen ausderVitaPrivata unddemCurriculum VitaeeinesKindesinG. Koch,
Grabeskunst , p. 143-153 ; cf.further, J. M. C. Toynbee,Deathand Burialin the
RomanWorld , London,1971,p. 250.Forchildren andbirds, notealsoJ.Huskinson,
Children's Sarcophagi [n. 8], p. 24, n° 1.47,p. 47, n° 6.1, p. 58, nos. 8.22,8.26,
p. 66,n° 9.43; C. Nerzic,La Sculpture [n.8],p. 239.

THE SENTIMENTAL
child as objects of affectionor amusement,and it is certainlypossible

that in some cases animals were included in funerarysculpture both
for literal and symbolic purposes together.A story found in Lucian
( Philops. 27) about a dead woman who came back to life a week after
her death mightbe kept in mind in this regard : the woman returned
to her husband to complain that she could no longer use a shoe that
he had failed to burn with her corpse on her funeral pyre. But she
vanished into thin air as soon as she heard a small dog, a Maltese,
begin to bark. The husband had been recliningon a couch, consoling
himself by reading Plato, when his wife had arrived, and she had
actually sat down beside him. Beneath the couch, unknown to her
(it is the location that is important),was the Maltese (l0).
*
* *
The evidence described so far all belongs to the central period of

Roman history,and I have made no attemptto distinguishpet-keeping
by Roman childrenin one part of that period from another (if indeed
such is possible). But the question of how early pet-keepingby children
arose at Rome as a cultural norm is important,and, as far as the
historyof Roman childrenis concerned,connected to the issue of when
children themselveswere firstviewed not simply as miniature adults
but as a distinctsocial categoryworthyof attentionin theirown right.
The question of when animals firststartedto become objects of interest
to society as a whole, to adults as well as to children,is also relevant.
As with many aspects of the history of Roman childhood, the
chronological evolution of pet-keepingby childrenis difficultto trace
because evidence from and for the sub-periods into which the central
period mightbe divided - the end of the Middle Republic, the Late
Republic, the Triumviral Period, the Principáte, and so on - is
unevenly distributedover time, which means that far more can be
known of the firstand second centuries AD than of the second or
even the firstcenturyВС. The relativevolume of evidence now extant
cannot necessarilythereforebe taken as an accurate index of developing
(10) Assumption: J. Huskinson,Children's Sarcophagi [n. 8], p. 14. Symbolic

value: see,aboveall,F. Cumont,Recherches surlesymbolisme funéraire desRomains
[n. 8]. Dog : Plín.,Nat.VIII, 142-145
; Ael., NA VI, 25 ; VI, 62 ; VII, 10; VII, 29 ;
VII,40 ; XII,35.Rabbit: Ael., NA XIII, 15; Plín.,Nat.VIII,217.Purposes together :
cf.J.Huskinson,Children's Sarcophagi [n.8],p. 88,112.

K.BRADLEY 531
social attitudes.In England and France, however,two prominentcausal

factorsbehind the growth of interestin pets in the early modern era
were firstthe rise of urbanism,with all the attendanteffectsof human
isolation and alienation that were visited upon many of the residents
of the new industrialcentres,and secondlythe emergenceof the modern
nuclear family,a numericallysmall unit physicallyseparated fromother
familiesin the seclusive retreatof the private house. To some extent,
especially among the bourgeoisie of nineteenth-century France, pet-
keeping in its most extravagant forms was also a response to new
and continuallyrisinglevels of wealth. The resultwas that in this new
emotional and socio-economic environmentpet animals were able to
serve their owners as emotional safety-valvesor as status symbols or,
sometimes, as both. Precise parallels with Rome are scarcely to be
expected, but the modern case nonetheless encourages identification
of an era of significantchange in Rome's historythat may have made
cultural change of the sort represented by normative pet-keeping
possible (n).
It has been said of Rome that "an interestin animals as pets and
the like was fostered by the increasing importance of home life as
political scope decreased ... under the principáte".This view, however,
does not take account of the late Republican evidence seen earlier and
is in itselfopen to several objections. It is highlydebatable firstwhether
therewas a significantshiftin domestic sensibilityunder the Principáte
and, if there was, whether it depended directlyon the new political
order. Certainly there is a problem in proving that this was so, not
least because all political opportunity did not disappear with the
Principáte as is oftenassumed. Secondly, it is not obvious in any case
that a connection between constitutionaland political change on the
one hand and changes in Roman domesticityon the other should be
made ifto do so relieson assumptions about public and privatespheres
not altogetherappropriate for Roman society. Thirdly, even if true,
this is a view that could have relevance only to the political classes,
the elite of Roman society,though it is inherentlyunlikelythat when
an interestin animals as pets developed at Rome it was confined to
(11) Index: K. R. Bradley, Writing theHistoryof theRomanFamilyin CP

88,1993,p. 237-250; cf.R. P. Saller, Patriarchy,
PropertyandDeathintheRoman
Family, Cambridge, 1994,p. 4-6. Englandand France: K. Thomas,Man and the
NaturalWorld[n. 2], p. 110-120;К. Kete, Beastin theBoudoir[n. 2], p. 22-55.

THE SENTIMENTAL
one narrow band of society alone, even if the elite were the leaders
of social fashion(12).
To identifythe requisite period, the most urgentneed is to identify
a shiftfroma utilitarianattitudetowards animals - in which animals
are regarded as valuable only for the food, clothingor physical power
they provide - to one in which they mightbe thought of as sources
of pleasure or delightas well, or exclusively,and whichjustifieskeeping
them for this purpose. Such a change can be seen on a small scale
in the historyof private game and fish parks, which were introduced
in the firstcenturyВС as a branch of farmingforthe raisingof animals,
birds and fishto be sold on the open market,but which soon became
sources of pleasure in their own right.Varro ( R . Ill 17, 2 ; III, 10, 2)
makes this particularlyclear of fishponds and aviaries. Varro himself
in fact (R. Ill, 5, 8 ; III, 8-17) built an aviary, purely for recreational
reasons, on propertyhe owned near Casinum in which he kept among
other birds nightingalesand blackbirds. The same idea is visible in
Columella's observation (VIII, 8, 10), from the middle of the first
century AD, that pigeons and doves might profitablybe raised for
the market but could also provide pleasure and enjoyment. But this
specificdevelopment with game parks was relativelylate, which leaves
the question of when a change from the utilitarianto the pleasurable
firsttook place on a consequential scale (I3).
In broad terms,the most likely answer, it seems to me, is in the
era of the Middle Republic. Before the firstgreat age of overseas
expansion, animals at Rome must have been regarded and valued
primarilyas sources of food, wealth, labour-power and transportation,
and as suitable offerings to the gods. Once foreignexpansion had begun
to prove successful,however,and the spoils of empire startedto make
an impact on the Roman heartland, the way was open for them to
become sources of pleasure in a new and much larger way as well.
Four factorsmay be considered (l4).
(12) Quotation : M. Beagon, RomanNature: The Thought of PlinytheElder,

Oxford,1992,p. 127-128, to a commonbutunillustrated
referring view.Domestic
: seeP. Veyne,La Familleetl'amoursouslehaut-empire
sensibility romain inAnnales
ESC 33, 1978,p. 35-63,unconvincing to my mind.Publicand private : see A.
Wallace-Hadrill, HousesandSociety [n.3],p. 10-11; 13-37.
(13) Parks: see G. Jennison, Animals for Showand Pleasurein AncientRome,
Manchester, ; 131-135
1937,p. 101; 122-123 ; K. D. White,RomanFarming, London,
1970,p. 400-401; J.Toynbee,Animals[n.9], p. 16.Noteespecially Plin.,Nat.VIII,
211; IX, 169-170 ;X, 141.
(14) Before : on thegeneraldevelopment of Romanattitudes towards animals,see

К. BRADLEY 533
1. It is a familiarbut nonethelessimportantfact that in the century

from the end of the First Punic War to the destructionof Carthage
(241-146 ВС) Rome became extraordinarilywealthy.From the expan-
sion of empire both the civic community and private individuals
acquired money and other forms of material wealth on a level pre-
viously unknown. In 167, afterRome's defeat of the Macedonian king
Perseus and the pillagingof Greece that followed,the senate exempted
Roman citizens from paying direct taxes because they were simply
superfluous.The cityitselfcame to reflectthe factthat it was the centre
of a vast empirethroughenormous physicalexpansion and adornment,
and attracted an ever increasing and ever more diverse immigrant
population (not always voluntary). The integrallink between city and
countrythat had characterisedthe earlyhistoryof the Roman Republic
thus began to erode, so that the paradigm of the Roman leader was
no longer the Cincinnatus who had to be summoned fromthe plough
to lead the communityin war, but the absentee latifundistlandowner,
who, devoted to politics in the city where he was domiciled in ever
increasingsplendour,was contentto leave the managmentof his estates
to bailiffsmanaging battalions of slaves and to visit the country no
more than periodically. Among the elite at least, direct and constant
contact with the world of farming,and with animals, was broken (15).
2. "All elites", the remark has been made, "buttresstheir rule with
theatre". The most theatrical of the means by which elite rule was
buttressedat Rome was the ceremony of the triumph,the great, res-
M. Beagon, RomanNature[n. 12],p. 124-158 ; cf.С. Ampolo,Romearchaïque :

une sociétépastorale? in С. R. Whittaker,ed., PastoralEconomiesin Classical
Antiquity, Cambridge, 1988,p. 120-133,and A. Drummondin The Cambridge
Ancient History , 2nded.,VII Part2, Cambridge, 1989,p. 122-124, on stock-raising
and animalhusbandry in theearlyRomaneconomy. On Romanprosperity in the
age of Italianexpansion, see T. J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italyand
RomefromtheBronzeAge to thePunicWars(c.100-264 ВС), London-New York,
1995,p. 380-390.
(15) Extraordinarily wealthy : W. V. Harris, Warand Imperialism in Republican
Rome327-70ВС, Oxford,1979,p. 63-74; forthedetailedevidence, see T. Frank,
ed.,AnEconomic Survey ofAncient RomeVolume I, RomeandItalyoftheRepublic ,
Baltimore, 1933,p. 56-214; and cf.in generalJ.-RMorel, The Transformation of
, 300-133В. С. TheEvidence
Italy ofArchaeology in TheCambridge Ancient History,
2nd ed., VIII, Cambridge, 1989,p. 475-516.Taxes: Plin., Nat. XXIII, 56 ; Cic.,
OffII, 76 ; Plut., Aem.38. 1. Thecity: seeJ.E. Stambaugh,TheAncient Roman
City, Baltimore, 1988,p. 28-35; cf. W. Harris, Warand Imperialism , p. 71-72.
Cincinnatus : Liv.Ill, 26,7-12; cf.Cic., Sen.56 ; forsimilarimages, seeA. Vassaly,
Representations : Imagesof theWorldin Ciceronian Oratory, Berkeley-LosAngeles-
London,1993,p. 162.

THE SENTIMENTAL
plendentpublic procession celebratedby generalsvictoriousin war who

withtheirtroops, captives and spoils in tow paraded throughthe streets
of Rome before giving thanks on the Capitol to the gods for success
in war and increase of empire. In the second centuryВС, a third of
the men who held the consulship subsequently went on to celebrate
a triumph,so that by the middle of the centurythe Roman populace
was more than used to regularlyseeingthe signsand symbolsof Rome's
militarymightparaded before them - the painted placards depicting
the battles Rome's armies had fought,the prisoners of war led along
in chains (and humiliation) by theircaptors, the displays of gold and
silverfinery(16).
Roman generals drew great prestigefromtheirtriumphs,but as with
everythingelse in the age of mid Republican expansion ceremonies
tended to become more lavish and magnificentas generals competed
with one another for the rewards that triumphs conferred. The
ceremonial route took the procession through the Circus Maximus,
and there a display of exotic wild animals brought from a recentarea
of combat was one of the ways by which throngsof onlookers could
be impressed and the competitivestakes raised. In 275 ВС M.' Curius
Dentatus celebrated his victory over the Epirote king Pyrrhus with
a procession that included not merelyprisonersfrom overseas, which
was a firstin itself,but also the elephants that Roman troops had
encountered,also for the firsttime, in the actual fightingin southern
Italy. In battle the animals had terrifiedthe Romans with theirstrange
appearance, huge bulk and smell, but now, captured and submissive,
they brought to the crowd in the Circus not just a sign of Roman
invincibilitybut a certain sort of pleasure as well. In the mid third
centuryelephants were still such a raritythat L. Caecilius Metellus,
the victor at Panormus in the First Punic War, could later be claimed
to have been the firstto display elephants in a triumph(in 250 ВС).
At Panormus itself about a hundred elephants were captured from
Hasdrubal and taken to Rome, the total exhibited reported on one
count at 142. They were displayed in the Circus as objects of contempt
and subsequentlybutchered.Once precedentshad been establishedand
(16) Quotation: L. Colley, Britons: Forging theNation1707-1837, NewHaven-

London,1992,p. 177.Triumph : fordetails,see H. S. Versnel, Triumphus: An
Enquiry intotheOrigins,Development andMeaningoftheRomanTriumph , Leiden,
1970; E. Künzl, Der römische Triumph, Munich,1988.Consulship : W. Harris,
WarandImperialism [n. 15],p. 26.

К. BRADLEY 535
appetites whetted, however, displays of savage beasts and the mock

hunts (uenationes) associated with them became routinised. The
pleasure taken in animals, though inextricablybound up with the
violent, increased. And displays were by no means confined to
triumphal celebrations. M. Fulvius Nobilior, the consul of 189 ВС,
celebrated a triumph in 186 for his victorythe year before over the
Aetolians and Cephallenians, giving in the games that followed a
uenatio of lions and panthers. But in 169 ВС, when P. Cornelius
Lentulus and P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica displayed fortybears, sixty-
three "African beasts" (probably leopards) and some elephants, they
were not triumphatoresbut merely the aediles of the year. Popular
expectations of displays of wild animals for the sake of entertainment
were well entrenched,and the aediles were now the customary agents
of fulfillment(17).
3. Among the material goods that Romans acquired from the mid
Republican wars of expansion were works of art, especially paintings
and statues,with which theyincreasinglydecorated theircityand their
houses. Again, the fact is very familiar. It must have been the case
thereforethat many elite Romans became aware in the late thirdand
second centuries ВС, whether in the East or at Rome, of the new
tendencyin Hellenistic art to depict children in realistic poses - no
longer as miniature adults but as individuals worthy of interest as
children. The representationof a young boy plucking a thorn from
the sole of his foot is one of the most celebrated types of Hellenistic
genre statues that exemplifythe trend(Fig. 11). An argumenthas been
(17) 275: Var., L. VII, 39 ; Sen., Dial. X, 13,3 ; Flor., Epit.I, 13,8 ; I, 13,
populusRomanusaspexit
26-28.Pleasure: Flor., Epit.I, 13,8 : "Sed nihillibentius
quamillas,quas ita timuerat, cumturribus suisbeluas".250: Sen., Dial. X, 13,8 ;
Plin., Nat.VII, 139(cf.VIII, 16).Claimed: byMetellus' sonin theeulogydelivered
athisfuneral; theconfusion inPlinymaybe duetotextual problems ortheambiguity
of "primus":see H. H. Scullard, TheElephantin theGreekand RomanWorld ,
London,1974,p. 111.Hundredelephants:Flor., Epit.I, 18,28. 142: Plin., Nat.
VIII, 16; cf. Plb. I, 40, 15,withF. W. Walbank,Л HistoricalCommentary on
Polybius, Oxford,1957,p. 102-103.Butchered : Plin., Nat. VIII, 17; theelephant
subsequently becamean emblemof theMetelli; H. Scullard, Elephant , p. 152;
cf. M. H. Crawford, RomanRepublicanCoinage , Cambridge, 1974,I, p. 287.
M. FulviusNobilior : Liv.XXXIX,22,1-2,withT. R. S. Broughton,TheMagistrates
of the Roman Republic , Cleveland,repr.1968,I p. 369. P. CorneliusLentulus,
P.CorneliusScipioNasica: Liv. XXXIV,18,8. Aediles:Pl., Poen. 1011-1012, on
thedateofwhichsee G. E. Duckworth,TheNatureof RomanComedy , 2nded.,
Bristol,1994,p. 55.

THE SENTIMENTAL
made that Roman sensitivityto and recognition of the small child

emerged only in the Late Republic. But in view of the evidence from
art history,it seems more likely to me that this interest,as with so
much else in the material and cultural spheres that was transported
from East to West, was well in place at Rome well before the turn
of the firstcentury ВС. In any case, in Hellenistic genre sculpture
children were sometimes depicted with animals. The most famous
example, copied time and time again, is perhaps that of a boy wrestling
with a goose (Fig. 12). But other well-knownillustrationsinclude boys
holding puppies and girls shown with doves. Funerary reliefsreveal
images of boys and girls of all ages with dogs, roosters,hares, geese
and doves, even a butterflyand a partridge,and often they contain
scenes that are playfullyand affectionatelycomposed : the child will
hold a bunch of grapes high in the air as a rooster or a puppy jumps
to grasp it, or else the child will dangle the grapes, or in one case
a fish, for the pet to eat, or else (or as well) the child will have a
ball to toss for the dog to fetch,or will hold a dove fondly to the
breast, or a puppy will cling to the child's garments.The reliefscome
from all over the Hellenistic East and extend chronologically right
throughto the Roman era. They were images to which Romans were
repeatedlyexposed (18).
4. In Latin the phrase that best expressed the idea of keeping or
owning a pet was "in deliciis habere". Cicero (Div. I, 76) used it to
say of a king of the Molossians that the king had a pet monkey, and
(18) Fact: forevidenceand discussion, see E. S. Gruen,Cultureand National

Identityin Republican Rome, Ithaca,1992,p. 84-130.New tendency : M. Bieber,
TheSculpture of theHellenistic Age, NewYork,1955,p. 136-138 ; M. Robertson,
A History of GreekArt, Cambridge, 1975,I, p. 557-561 ; J. J. Pollitt, Artin the
Hellenistic
Age,Cambridge, 1986,p. 128-130 ; 141-147 ; R. R. R. Smith,Hellenistic
Sculpture: A Handbook , London,1991,p. 136-137 ; cf.В. S. Ridgway,Hellenistic
SculptureI : TheStylesof ca. 331-200 В. C., Madison, 1990,p. 338-340.Argument :
M. MAnson,PuerBimulus (Catulle,17,12-13)etl'imagedupetitenfant chezCatulle
et sesprédécesseursin MEFRA 90, 1978,p. 247-291 ; and TheEmergence of the
SmallChildat Rome(ThirdCentury ВС-FirstCentury AD) in History ofEducation
12,1983,p. 149-159.Well-known : J.Pollitt, ArtintheHellenistic
illustrations World,
p. 128-129.For someterracotta figurinesfromAmisuson theBlackSea showing
a boy holdingand kissinga pet birdas a girlcompanion or playmate lookson,
see E. D. Reeder, Some Hellenistic Terracottas and Sculpture in Asia Minorin
J.P. Uhlenbrock,TheCoroplasťs Art: GreekTerracottas oftheHellenistic World,
Princeton, 1991,p. 81-88at p. 82. Funerary : E. Pfuhl & H. Möbius,Die
reliefs
ostgriechischen , Mainz,repr.1977-1979,
Grabreliefs 1,p. 133,n° 392,plate64 ; p. 134,
n° 395,plate64.

К. BRADLEY 537
Seneca (Арос . 13.3) to referto the emperor Claudius' pet dog. The
words deliciae and delicia, however,were used of anythingthat brought
enjoyment or delight - as when Pliny (Ер. I, 3, 1) referredto his
native town of Comum as "meaeque deliciae" - so that when used
of animals it was the notion of pleasure that they brought that the
terminologymost of all conveyed. Through their use as terms of
endearment or in referenceto favouritesof one sort or another, the
words also carried strong affectiveassociations. Cicero ( Att. I, 5, 8 ;
XVI, 6, 4) referredto his beloved daughter Tullia as his "deliciae"
and to the daughterof his friendAtticusas his "deliciae atque amores".
Suetonius (Tit. 1. 1) famously described the emperor Titus as "amor
ac deliciae generis humani", while Catullus (32, 20), drawing on a
common erotic connotation, addressed Ipsitilla as "meae deliciae, mei
lepores". Again thereforewhen used of pet animals the emotional
content in the vocabulary was strong, as is perhaps best understood
fromCatullus' sparrow poems whereintimacybetweenpet and mistress
is stronglyrepresented,or else fromMartial's epigram (I, 109) on Issa,
the pet puppy of an associate who was so devoted to his dog that
he had her portraitpainted. The grave stele,incidentally,fromc.100 ВС
of Apollonia, daughter of Aristandrosand Thebageneidas, now in the
GettyMuseum, provides a fittingvisual dimensionto Catullus' poems :
shown in three-quarterprofile,the girl stretchesout her right hand
to caress a dove perched a littleway to her rightat eye level, turning
its head to look at her (Fig. 13). What is particularly interesting,
however, is that use of deliciae / delicia as terms of endearment is
evident as early as Plautus, and that, conversely,animal terminology
was also a standard way by which to express human affection.In
Plautus' Poenulus (365-367 ; cf. 388-390), the slave Milphio addresses
Adelphasium as, among other things,"mea delicia", while in Asinaria
(666-667, 693-694) and Casina (138) terms of endearment are derived
from sparrows, hens, quails, lambs, kids, calves, ducks, doves, dogs,
swallows,jackdaws, and rabbits(19).
It is in the context,it seems to me, of an emergentnew urban culture
in which exciting and exotic animals were publicly displayed for
(19) Deliciae/ delicia: see on theseterms,H. SigismundNielsen, Deliciain

RomanLiterature andintheUrbanInscriptionsinARID 19,1990,p. 79-88.Martial's
epigram:cf.J. P. Sullivan, Martial: The Unexpected Classic
, Cambridge,
1991,
p. 20 ; cf. also Оv., Met. XIII, 834. Plautus: cf. С. J. Fordyce, Catullus
: A
Commentary 1961,p. 88.
, Oxford,

THE SENTIMENTAL
pleasure, in which art laid emphasis on childrenand in which affective

terminologywas both applied to and derived from animals that pet-
keeping among upper-class Roman children firsthad the opportunity
to take off as a social convention. Those with the resources to do
so could indulgetheirchildrenwithanimal companions no longereasily
familiarfrom an increasinglyremote agrarian world, stimulated by a
new sensitivityto childrenfosteredby the works of art they collected
and admired, and encouraged by the sense of pleasure they found in
animais exhibited in the Circus and other public places. An anecdote
concerningL. Aemilius Paullus, the conqueror of Perseus, bringsthese
themes together.One evening Paullus returnedto his house from the
senate after he had been given charge in 168 ВС of the war against
the Macedonians to find his young daughter, Aemilia Tertia, crying,
saddened, as he discovered on questioning the child, by the death of
a familypuppy - which Paullus at once took as a favourable omen
for his forthcomingencounter with Perseus because the dog's name
was Persa. For present purposes it is instructiveto recognise the
sentimentalconnection between child and dog (which, observe, had
a name) and to note that Paullus had such a reputation as an
-
exceptionallydevoted father he was rememberedamong otherthings
for securing the Greek philosopher Metrodorus as a teacher for his
children - that Plutarch ( Aem . 6.5) could label him ^(piXoxEKVÓxaxoç
'Ptojuaímv".Tertia,quite clearly,was the typeof the pet-owning"patricii
pueri" to whom Plautus alluded in the Captivi (20).
*
#*
If Roman childrenof the centralperiod regularlykept pets, as seems

inarguable, the convention should be related to the habit of playing
with animal toys, examples of which in the material record are very
common. One of the veryfirsttypes of toy that Roman childrenwere
given was the rattle,a hollow terracottaor metal container filledwith
pebbles or seeds that made a noise when shaken. Very often it was
made in the form of a duck or a bear, a rooster, a pig or a dog.
The image of Roman children playing with animal toys, whetherthe
animals were domesticated or wild, has a ratherpleasant and familiar
: Cic., Div. I, 103; cf.II, 83 ; V. Max. I, 5, 3 ; Plut., Aem. 10,

(20) Anecdote
Ciceroas thesource).Metrodorus
3-4(acknowledging : Plin.,Nat.XXXV,135.

К. BRADLEY 539
aspect to it, suggestingperhaps a simple continuitybetween ancient

and modern culture as far as the innocence of childhood is concerned.
In art, moreover, pet animals and toys can sometimes be seen
representedtogether(21).
Roman children were also introduced to animals at an early age
throughstoriessuch as Aesop's fables - in literaryevidence it is often
children's nurses who do the storytelling- in which, as Philostratus
{Im. 1.3) shows, animals could be used not just to point a moral but
to some degree to prepare children for life: "Aesop has treated all
sides of human life in his fables, and has made his animals speak in
order to point a moral. For he checks greed and rebukes insolence
and deceit, and in all this some animal is his mouthpiece - a lion
or a fox or a horse, by Zeus, and not even the tortoise is dumb -
that through them children may learn the business of life". It seems
plausible, therefore,that animals kept as pets could also contribute
to the general socialisation of the Roman child. What functionsmight
theyhave served? One way to tryto answer that question is to survey
the functional benefitsof pet-keepingposited for children in modern
westernsocietiesby contemporarysocial psychologistsand psychiatrists.
I give next thereforea list of interrelatedpropositions taken from
various modern sources that examine the effectson childrenof owning
pets. I am not concerned with verifyingthese propositions, but only
in illustratinghow the social value of pet-keepingis currentlyunder-
stood. Most of the ideas put forward,it seems to me, are based on
common sense and are not inherentlyunreasonable (22).
(21) Toys: seeJouerdansl'antiquité (Muséesde Marseille - Réunions desMusées

Nationaux, 1991-1992), p. 50-52; 164-168 ; cf.K. R. Bradley, TheNurseand the
Childat Rome.éDuty,Affect and Socialisation in Thamyris I, 1994,p. 137-156at
p. 149.Art: see,forinstance, G. Koch, RomanFunerary Sculpture[n. 8], n° 4 :
a klinemonument fora girlshowing a smalldogandtwodolls(earlysecondcentury
AD) ; cf.Augustin,ConfI, 9.
(22) Stories: K. Bradley,NurseandtheChild , [n.21],p. 150-151.Modernsources:
in thefollowing paragraphs I have drawnindiscriminately fromthefollowing in
additionto modernworkscited earlier : B. M. Levinson, Pets and Human
Development , Springfield, 1972,p. 34-82; TheChildandhisPetinS. A. Corson &
111.,
E. O'Leary Corson, eds., Ethologyand NonverbalCommunication in Mental
Health: An Interdisciplinary Biopsychosocial Exploration , Oxford-New York-etc.,
1980,p. 63-81; S. A. Corson & E. O'Leary Corson, Pet Animalsas Nonverbal
Communication Mediators in Psychotherapy inInstitutional inS. Corson &
Settings
E. O'Leary Corson,Ethology , p. 83-110; R. A. Mugford,TheSocialSignificance
of Pet Ownership in S. Corson & E. O'Leary Corson, Ethology , p. 111-122;

THE SENTIMENTAL
First the purelyeducational benefits.From direct exposure to pets,

children may be introduced at an early age to the mechanics of sex
and reproduction. It is said that young children commonly find the
sexual organs of their pets and the uses to which they are put the
most fascinatingelementof pet ownership,while observationof animals
such as hamstersor rabbits seen over time in such settingsas nurseries
or pre-schoolsallows forinstructionin pregnancy,birthand interaction
between mother and child. In addition, beyond the factual knowledge
that association with animals encourages, awareness of ethical and
ecological issues affectinganimals and the natural environmentmay
develop from and be heightened by the direct contact with animals
that pet-keeping involves, especially among older children. For all
children,knowledgeof thevalues societydeems importantand desirable
can be communicated through the ubiquitous tendency to ascribe to
animals kept as pets such human qualities as fidelity,cleanliness,
diligenceand frugality.
Secondly, the personal moral benefits.From having regularlyto feed,
clean and sometimes exercise their pets, pet-keeping inculcates in
children a sense of personal responsibility.The practical tasks of pet
care are useful for developing in children an understandingthat the
lifeof the familyto whichthe child belongs requiresactive contributions
from all of its members. Passivity and simple acquiescence are
discouraged in favour of individual initiativeand commitment.The
simple job of walking the dog may help children to establish a sense
of their own independence, and learning to see the point of view of
the pet may prepare for the same possibilityin human relationships.
Thirdly,the emotional or psychological functions.This is the most
complex categoryand involves the followingideas. To exercise control
over a tamed pet helps relieve a natural fear of animals in children.
To control a subservient animal allows children a consciousness of
superior intelligenceand strengththat assumes special importance at
times when they are put upon or demeaned by others. To interact
with pets, as for instance when teaching them to performtricks,builds
a sense of mastery,control and securityin children,and so provides
J.E. Schowalter,TheUseandAbuseofPetsinJournal oftheAmerican Academy

of ChildPsychiatry 22, 1983,p. 68-72; S. R. Kellert, Attitudes
towards Animals:
Age-Related Development amongChildren in Journalof Environmental
Education
16,1985,p. 29-39; M. Shell, TheFamilyPetinRepresentations 15,1986,p. 121-153.

К. BRADLEY 541
emotional reassurance that will be valuable in dealing with problems

in adulthood. To own pets is to learn how to cope with death, since
the death of a pet is for most children the firstexperience of loss
they encounter. To own a pet is always to have available a reliable
and sympatheticfriend,with whom feelingscan oftenbe shared more
comfortablyand with fewerinhibitionsthan with adults. This includes
a physical, tactile dimension : a pet may be cuddled and emotional
warmthwill follow fromthe physicalcontact ; pleasure, companionship
and protectionall derive from pets. To own a pet helps childrenlearn
how to give and to receive love, and allows a sense of self-worthto
be present when parents might make excessive demands and create
insecurity.To own a pet, especially a large pet, symbolic of strength,
is also to have available a surrogate at times of parental absence or
in a more serious crisis: it is said that pets are highlyvalued by children
who see littleof theirparents,and that the constancywhich pets afford
is especiallyimportantwhen parentsdivorce,a benefitthatis particularly
valuable in the context of the very small modern nuclear family,and
even more so in urban contexts.The stressof any difficultsituation-
- may be alleviated
losing a friend or moving house for example
by owning a pet.
In summary, the benefits of pet-ownership are regarded as so
significantby modern theorists,especially in building self-esteemin
children,that "pet-facilitatedpsychotherapy"has become a treatment
used to assist those contending with emotional and behavioural
disordersof all ages.
Now in theory there is no reason why these therapeuticfunctions
of pet-keepingmay not have operated in the lives of childrenof classical
Roman society,forthe beneficialeffectsof pet-owningcan be measured
objectivelyto some extent,which suggestsa constancy of effectacross
time and place. It has been shown forexample that interactionbetween
humans and animals generally lowers blood pressure, whereas inter-
action between humans alone generallycauses blood pressure to rise
if any change is noticed at all. The implication is that association
between human and animal is qualitatively preferablein some ways
to interactionbetween human and human. Moreover, similar positive
effectshave been identifiedin historical settings.In 1889, in a report
to the Société protectricedes animaux, the French veterinarianMarius
Portanier maintained that the dog provided children with ethical
instructionsince it elicited from them the "sentiments of good, of

THE SENTIMENTAL
humanity,of love". A few years earlier, in 1883, in an authoritative

book on dogs in France, AlfredBarbou wrote, in both utilitarianand
sentimentalterms,of the dog's importancein the home as a protector
of children and as a consolation in times of adversity.There may be
some reason, therefore,to seek socialising effectson Roman children
fromtheirpet-keepinghabits (23).
On the other hand, it is obvious that some of the posited effects
of modern pet-ownershipare culturally specific and so are unlikely
to be relevant to the Roman past. For example, given the vastly
different demographic regimethat prevailed in antiquity,under which
infantmortalitywas high, early deaths of adult women in childbirth
were common, and average ages of death for all adults relativelyearly,
the loss of a pet is not as likely to have given Roman childrentheir
first experience of death as it may in contemporary society. Pet-
ownershipcannot thereforehave had the same educative function.Nor
are pets likelyto have served,at least to the same degree, as surrogates
for missingparents. Upper-class Roman households were not predom-
inantly nuclear in composition in the modern sense, but included
collateral familymembers and large numbers of servantswith whom
affectivebonds were formed.Even in lower-classsociety,the insularity
of the modern nuclear household was not the norm. Any extrapolation
from the modern material, therefore,must be cautious and tentative.
I offerthreepossibilities(24).
First, it will probably not be controversialto say that there could
be strong ties of affectionbetween Roman children and their pets.
The language of pet-ownership discussed earlier in itself provides
sufficient evidence to allow that animals provided Roman childrenwith
protectivewarmth and security,open friendshipand pleasure, while
the practice of naming pets, evident from the time of Aemilia Tertia
on, is also relevant.Confirmationis abundant in visual evidence,where,
as in the examples noted above of young children clutching rabbits
to theirchests,artistsconvey in theirwork a certaintendernessbetween
child and animal. One item particularlyrelevantfor stressingthe direct
(23) Interaction Barbou:

: К. Kete, Beastin theBoudoir[n. 2], p. 37. Portanier,
К. Кете,BeastintheBoudoir , p. 48-49.
(24) Demographic regime : see T. G. Parkin,Demography and RomanSociety,
Baltimore-London, 1992; R. S. Bagnall & B. W.Frier,TheDemography ofRoman
Egypt, Cambridge, 1994; R. Saller, Patriarchy andDeath[n. 11].Roman
, Property
households: K. R. Bradley,Discovering theRomanFamily , NewYork-Oxford,1991.

К. BRADLEY 543
physical contact between animals and childrenis the late thirdcentury

AD sarcophagus of P. Caecilius Vallianus, which shows a table in front
of the couch on which the deceased man is recliningunder which two
boys play with a dog (Figs. 14, 15). The child to the left holds the
dog on the top of the head, while the child to the right,astride the
dog's back, touches the animal with his left hand in a scene that is
clearlymeant to communicate a sense of the affectionate(25).
Secondly, Roman childrenmay also have drawn a sense of mastery
and control fromtheirexperiences of pet-owning.If the reliefreferred
to earlier of the girl teaching her cat to dance and the representations
of Cornelius Statius and others driving sheep-drawn carriages are in
any way typical of how Roman children played with their pets, then
there is no major differencebetween ancient and modern forms of
behaviour, and it follows that Roman children could take from their
play the same enhanced capacity to cope with later challenging
situations that modern children are thought to do. Certainlypositive
interaction between child and pet is well in evidence. In Catullus'
sparrow poems, furthermore,there is some sensitivity,whatever the
irony intended, to the way in which a pet bird could be trained to
performcertaintricks(26).
Thirdly,Roman childrenmay also have been able to draw consolation
from their pets at times of emotional distress.In the life-cycleof the
Roman familychildrenwere frequentlyexposed to criticalcircumstan-
ces. Among the Roman elitethe extentof serial marriageand household
reconstitutionwas very high. Children were frequentlycompelled to
enternew domestic settingsand to deal with step-relatives.They were
also frequentlyseparated from their fathersfor considerable intervals
of time by the demands on the latterof public service(as with Fronto's
grandson and his father),and no matterwhat resources and support
may have been available from the childminding members of the
households to which they belonged, children often had to face and
respond to the reality of the death of a familymember. To support
the view that Roman fatherswere not despotic towards theirchildren
despite the wide-rangingauthoritythat patria potestas affordedthem,
: cf. Catul. 3, 5 : quernplus ilia oculissuis amabat; and see

(25) Affection
J. Huskinson,Children's Sarcophagi [n. 8], p. 88. Namingpets: cf.J. Toynbee,
BeastsandtheirNames[n.5].
: cf.Catul. 2, 3-4: cuiprimům
(26) Sensitivity dareappetenti
digitum / et acris
morsus
soletincitare ; 3, 10: ad solamdominam usquepipiabat.

THE SENTIMENTAL
attention has been drawn to the demographic probability that very

high numbers of childrenlost theirfathersin the years of pubertyand
early adulthood. How childrenresponded to this situationhas not been
contemplated, but the opportunityfor turningto pets as emotional
safety-valveswas unequivocally available. Catullus, again, evokes an
image of the pet as an agent of consolation at timesof pain and anxiety,
in this case the pain and anxietyof love, but the principleis established
nonetheless(27).
To the best of my knowledge, Roman commentatorsdid not write
about children and animals from the same point of view as modern
studentsof child psychology.To posit any similaritythereforebetween
the effectsof pet-keepingon childrenin ancient and modern societies
may be utterlyanachronistic and historicallyinept. But there are at
least occasional hints in ancient authors that suggest an awareness of
the idea that human behaviour could be improved through contact
with animals, and this means that the correspondences I have noted
so far may not be altogetherwithout merit,and that other functions,
the purelyeducative for instance,should also be considered applicable
to Roman society. Plutarch (Mor. 959F-960A), for example, attributes
to the Pythagoreans the idea - he may have been wrong but that
is beside the point - that kindlinessto animals inculcates humanity
and compassion in men, "for habituation has a strangepower to lead
men onward by a gradual familiarizationof the feelings". Similarly
thereis a passage in Lucian ( Anach . 36-37) wherethe interlocutorSolon
speaks about the value of athletic competition as a preparation for
war. He refersto the legal requirement(the context is Athens in the
sixth centuryВС, but presumablythe argumentstill made some sense
to Lucian's audience in the second centuryAD) that all men of military
age should watch quail-fightsand cock-fights- and keep in mind
that pet roosters have already been seen in the Roman evidence -
in order to imbibe the bravery,courage and pertinacityof the fighting
birds for use in battle. The connection these authors make between
an improvementof human performanceand associating with animals,
with all of its stress on habituation, points to something of a link
between ancient pet-keeping and modern socialising interpretations.
: K. Bradley,Discovering
(27) Life-cycle theRomanFamily[n.24].Demographic
probability:R. Saller, Patriarchy [n. 11],p. 189.Consolation:Catul. 2. 7 : el
solaciolum isanimiIettare
suidoloris; 2, 10: ettrist curas.

PLATE XII
S3 à
S
cd • <u
С Яч^
лv £«s^о
® -О ^
^° -, 5Г
<u
gI
Лu S<ug°
(U
^Д ° л..
U2 Õ
> cd
cd л:*-<
t *рЗ
о S .
1 £ S
cd3
i ■•3(и
. U
гл л¿§
, S2
2 Ы>S>> d
Uhtí ü §tí
< O 8
ètí
<u !S ¿ л^
СЛ
tí ^ S
s > сл°
м
Й<U ^Í-I■'
с Sß
и
0 «/V?
2 S -£*
'E,
Cd tí со о
ü о
и S tí -
<D ООО
sо U J -tí о
. .
U I1 ЙРнg
üb
о ^ <: ё I
£ о ge
-о
G
cd
Tí
'ад
ад
с
£
о
лсл
сл
3
ад
cd
J3
Л
О
0
Uh
cd
(Zi
Ц-Н
Г2^
н-1О
1А
^ . <иtí
О ОС
£<
Û

PLATE XIII
gа
1 §
о I
!-.i Л
^
SслЪ О
о<D 2 сл
О >>
сл »н(D
3
S Cdо
5 Q
cd "cd
о О^
"С
-d) S.Š
"S*.
3
*-»*
v 2 «
■я
Ž 1 Э"3
° '3
2 S tuo О"1
- ^
"§5
cd«ч-t •|> ^ТЗ
О ^
2 ^<L>
43
О*^ слсл
X) S ^ >5
hntí
2
tí*о ЛÜ ^5
.S й
£°
-§ •Ё
м Sо "cd
ti
<4-1 О
•а£ S
2 о
S
bi S
2 g 0
С^ U
Я£ 1
uS
"■а О
^ *ёЗ £
О§
£'§
£

PLATE XIV
^
SSOV
3
.a o
^
X)
u
СЛ£
3 Öß
Л<u<Ь>
С
< tí
*3Û
в s
Id
. исл
2
<L>S
й
§ §
£-ä
12
^ ё
^о S
О
S
з
<D
с/з
3
S
<u
_й
'ft
oí
и
<u
sо
p¿
"Йо
ед
С
"о сai
ТЗ
Л
'I
'5Ь
ад
с
£
0
Is (5О
<DÍN
'-=3 .
^Г/ЧО Г-
1. ад
<и
чо с
d p¿
С<
Û

PLATE XV
o'
i/Ч
ON
m
ON
Г-
ьЬ
<l>
С
Ěh
<
Û
ai
S
£
riž
13
-о
о
<D
кл
3
S
<lT
S
о
ó
00
л0
сл
"Он
оо
О
£

PLATE XVI
M
£
ì
£
<lT
o
oS
сл
0)
PC
!-
<
T3 O
3
a5-и
O
o
o
CLh
oj
S-H
>3
O
-I
c/T
"Ccd
Ph
СУ2
"Й
Й
СЛ
*õ>
eо
U
<■+-!
О
сл
ла>
Он
0
й
oj
íñ
1
ON
О
£

PLATE XVII
s
<D
сл
3
В
'S
<ч-н
'о
с/з
<D
и
3
О
О
о
-«->
о
дз
Он
аs
<и
сл
й
s
'S
*С
0Q
ОС
ТЗсо
-
-С о
3
о
о
í-ч
Й
а
5з
43о
л
"Й
cu
Й
0Í
X)
ад
о
73
ад
с
'?о
л(УЗ
(/3
3
SP
-С
ао
0
ti
cti
СЛ
1
О
О
£

PLATE XVIII
<D
.В
2
'ShkJ
OJ
41
*
I
<D.о
о
СЛ »-н
3
О
адо
О
g
-S с*
ад^4
•S ^
*2'С
Л
я?
Ö .s
ю2
! ■§
сц
- e
dS
£ В
S
<ď
S
о
о
а
во ^ .
^£ m г-~
С ^i^'
-С ^
^ Ы)
ад
с й g
M P¿
Ž<
ftû
s*s
« g
с/з
I1 3
S
^»-h<D
_C
0 ■§
£ &
U

PLATE XIX
Fig. 13. - Gravereliefof Apollonia.Los Angeles, of the

Collection
California,
J.PaulGetty ofthemuseum.
Museum.Photo: courtesy

PLATE XX
rn
О
ON
ад
<u
с
<
Q
б
<и
с3л
S
§0
1
а
с§
сл
3
I
I
сл
"Ö
cá
U
OÎ
<4-1
О
сл
3
с?
хз
Он
0
в03
сл
1
о
£

PLATE XXI
Г-*
Tf
Ö
Os
üb
CD
С
Ěh
<
0
а
<ü
сл
3
S
§О
1
с-Г
S
0
p¿
тз
1
"о
й
то
U
Он'
<-ьн
о
сл
3
$
Дн
а0
й
оЗ
00
1
W)
2
£

PLATE XXII
Fig. 16.- Funerary scene.Rome,VaticanMuseum.D AIR

urnwithcockfighting
neg.7527.

PLATE XXIII
Fig. 17.- Cockfighting

scene,HouseoftheLabyrinth,
Pompeii.D AIR neg.123.

PLATE XXIV
О
О
дз
Он
Ê?
JJ
Id
0
tí
<
сл
и*
(Ü
1
й
О
e
is
да
С/3
3
ел
<
б
О
<4Н
<D
Ö
(U
О
сл
.£
"§)
Sо
о
0
А
'I
<ч-н
D
Л<й
(-и
cd
1 I
ä S
gI
[S a
Iб
<+н
ООО
СЛ
S и
И
Uhtí
S
О
О

PLATE XXV
ON
Os
чо
чо
ад
сü
Й
<
Q
c/i
'оОн
(U
H-I
с/Г
2
Ut.
<D
><U
Сл
ел
S
S
Он
<L>
Сл
<+ч
о
ло
1-1
<
«и
Й
<и
О
сл
<L>
О
£Uh
О
03
сЛ
.1з
'С
Он
e
7
ON
О
С

К. BRADLEY 545
The notion that habitual exposure to and interactionwith an animal

will produce an effect,whether physical, psychological, emotional or
even ethical,is clearlyimplicit,and it is recognitionof this socialisation
principle,if I may call it that, that I think is important. The elder
Pliny was well aware of the virtuous characteristics attributed to
animals and birds that might be kept as pets : the loyalty not only
of dogs but of horses too (Nat. VIII, 142-145), the regal demeanour
and victorious pride of the rooster (Nat. X, 47), the application to
learning and the competitivenessof the nightingale(Nat. X, 83), the
commitmentto marital fidelityand love of offspringto be found in
doves ( columbae) (Nat. X, 104-105), the remarkable devotion with
which mice feed theiraged parents(Nat. VIII, 224). Animals embodied
and symbolised,and so communicated and transmitted,such cardinal,
elemental Roman virtues as fides, nobilitas, disciplina, aemulatio,
concordia, pietas. It becomes possible to posit, consequently,that pets
played a certain role in the education of the senses of the Roman
child (28).
*
* *
So far my discussion has operated, perhaps inevitably,at the level

of the warm and the affectionate.But Lucian's idea that the fighting
cock was an animal capable of inspiringmartial virtuemoves matters
now to a different plane. For cockfightingwas a bloodsport, and once
the violence it involved is considered it becomes apparent that the
sentimentaleducation of the Roman child throughthe medium of the
pet mightinvolve rathermore than warmthand affection.
As seen earlier, animal figurineswere common toys in Roman
antiquity,and not surprisinglytheyincluded the cock : the roosterafter
all was a common farmyardbird that must have been much more
familiarin the fleshto most Roman children,even those livingin cities,
than to theirmodern westerncounterparts.A passage from Herodian
(III, 10, 3), however, indicates that the cock was not associated with
(28) Plutarch and consideration

: see also Cat. Ma. 5 : kindness to animalsas a
preparationforcomparable humaninteraction. Battle: muchthesamewas said at
Romeaboutgladiatorial contests: theyweremeantto prepare spectators forthepain
ofwoundsand death;Cíe., Tuse.II, 41 ; Plin., Pan. 33, 1. Competitiveness : note
thatin a keytexton theupbringing ofchildren,
Seneca,Ira, II, 21,5, assumesthat
amongchildren
rivalry (boysatleast)is bothnatural
anddesirable.

THE SENTIMENTAL
play alone, or not at least with the simple play associated with animal
rattles.For in explainingthegreatrivalrythatexistedbetweenCaracalla
and Geta in the reign of their father Septimius Severus, Herodian
comments that antagonism between the brotherswent back to their
childhood when, among other things,they had constantlyquarrelled
over their fightingcocks, that is, over contests between real animals
whose ultimateobject was victorythroughdeath. In the period to which
Herodian refers, when Severus was in Rome after the military
operations of the firstdecade of his reign (198-208), Caracalla and
Geta were in theirmiddle and late teens. Their devotion to cockfighting,
therefore,seems to have arisen in earlyboyhood and was not a product
of their more advanced childhood years. A far from innocent image
thus begins to emerge, because as a bloodsport cockfightingby
definitionembraced violence, pain, suffering and death. To the modern
sensibilityit seems utterlyinappropriate as a pastime forthe earlyyears
of childhood (29).
Cockfightingwas a popular diversion in the central era of Roman
history.Varro ( R . Ill, 9, 6), Columella (VIII, 2, 4-5) and the elder
Pliny (Nat. X, 47-48) all variously speak of breeding special types of
birds for fightingpurposes, of the men who trained the birds to fight,
and of the bettingthat, as in other ages and cultures, accompanied
contests and probably accounted for much of their appeal. But how
conventional was the childhood experience of Caracalla and Geta?
At once it should be noticed that Herodian does not seem to think
it unusual or worthyof any criticalcomment that Caracalla and Geta,
as boys, were involved with a bloodsport ; and an importantpassage
in Plutarch (Mor. 487E-F), which seems to have been writtenalmost
propheticallyas far as Caracalla and Geta are concerned, implies that
the practice of children keeping cocks for fightingpurposes was very
familiar and uncontroversialin Greco-Roman society of the second
centuryAD : as an example of the sort of dispute brothersof a similar
age should avoid when childrenin order to avoid disputes over more
importantissues when grown up, it is preciselyargumentsover fighting
cocks and other game birds that Plutarch brings forward. (The
April4, 188 and

(29) Caracallaand Geta: on theirdatesof birth,respectively
Severus
March7, 189,see A. R. Birley,Septimius : TheAfricanEmperor, 2nded.,
NewHaven-London, 1988,p. 215; 218.

К. BRADLEY 547
connection between childhood activity and adult behaviour is self-

evident)(30).
In literary sources, there is little else to connect cockfighting
specificallywithchildren.But a funeraryurn once housed in the Lateran
Museum and now in the Vatican contains a scene withchildrenpresent
at a cockfightin the manner Herodian and Plutarch presuppose. It
shows the end of a fight,with a very young boy on one side holding
a victorious bird in his arms, while on the other a second very young
boy puts one hand to his face to wipe away his tears as he holds
the defeated bird under his other arm (Fig. 16). The representation
implies that the presence of Roman children at cockfights,especially
of boys, was not unusual, though the issue is not as simple as it seems.
As an iconographie theme the cockfightcan be traced fromthe Greek
archaic period all the way through to the late Roman imperial age,
but thereis littleagreementamong scholars as to whetherillustrations
of fightsreflecta literal,common reality- the simple everydayfact
of cockfighting as a sport- or communicatea symbolicor metaphorical
meaning in which nothing at all literal is implied. A mosaic from the
House of the Labyrinthat Pompeii depicts a cockfightingscene where
two adults appear, each with a smallerfigurebehind him, one carrying
a crown for the victorious cock before him, the other turningaway
from the defeated bird in disappointment. Of the two lesser figures,
one carries a palm, while the other recoils from the defeated bird,
which is shown with blood drippingfrom its side (Fig. 17). Here the
adult figureshave been taken, realistically,to be the owners of the
birds, and youths at that, shown at a fightfull of heightenedemotion,
but alternatively,and allegorically,they have been taken to represent
the abstractnotions of Victoryand Defeat (31).
(30) Cockfighting: Ch. Daremberg & E. Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités

grecquesetromaines, Paris,1877-1919,1,p. 180-184; K. Schneider,RE VII,2 (1912),
col. 2210-2215.M. G. Morgan, ThreeNon-Roman Blood Sportsin CQ n. s. 25,
1975,p. 117-122,unconvincingly maintains thatcockfighting had no appealto adult
Romansand as a "tame"activity was merelya child'sdiversion. For the Greek
background, seeH. Hoffman,Hahnenkampf inAthen.ZurIkonologie einerattischen
Bildformelin RA 1974,p. 195-220 ; L. Y. Baird, PriapusGallinaceus : The Role
of theCockin Fertility and Eroticism in ClassicalAntiquity and theMiddleAges
in Studiesin Iconography 7-8,1981-82, p. 81-111; E. Csapo, Deep Ambivalence:
Noteson a GreekCockfight, Part/inPhoenix47, 1993,p. 1-28; DeepAmbivalence :
Notesona GreekCockfight, PartsII-IVinPhoenix47,1993,p. 115-124.
(31) Literarysources: cf. Philostr., VS p. 603. Iconographie theme: see Ph.
Bruneau,Le Motifdes coqs affrontés dans l'imagerie antiquein BCH 89, 1965,

THE SENTIMENTAL
Since the Lateran urn is a funerarymonument,the likelihood that

the decorative elements it contains have symbolic meanings could be
high, and so again the image of the cockfightmay have nothing at
all to do with the world of children's reality. In Greek funeraryart,
the cock has long been regarded as a symbol of the soul and traces
of that association may be at work here. On Roman sarcophagi,
moreover, comparable scenes can be found in which fightingcocks
are depicted with putti or Erotes, which leads to furthersymbolic
possibilities: puttimightrepresentsubstitutesforwhat would normally
be the adult owners of fightingcocks as part of a symbolic strategy,
perhaps most evident when winged Erotes ratherthan wingless putti
are on display, to portraythrough the cockfightan image of victory
over death in honour of the deceased person for whom a particular
sarcophagus was prepared. Some scholars,however,are highlysceptical
about taking cockfightingimages as expressions of a quest for im-
mortality,preferringa more prosaic interpretationof the motif as a
reflectionof a pleasure enjoyed by the dead in the everyday world
of reality,or else one to be enjoyed in the world to come. One obvious
question is why putti or Erotes have to be introduced in cockfighting
scenes at all if the artist's intention was purely symbolic, since
representationof the birds alone could have served that purpose (32).
Despite these ambiguities,it seems hard to deny that a cockfighting
scene showing children in attendance derives in some manner from
a recognisableworld of reality.There is afterall nothingstylisedabout
the graphic way in which the ends of fightsare shown. And to make
the case for literalismstronger,a furtheritem can be introduced, a
piece of Hellenistic date and so not strictlyrelevant to Rome except
for its value as a control on the images that have already been intro-
duced. It is a terracotta from Amisus on the northerncoast of the
p. 90-121.Realistically, : see D. Levi, AntiochMosaic Pavements

allegorically /,
Princeton,1947,p. 193-194;Ph. Bruneau,Motif ' p. 114; V. M. Strocka, Casa
delLabirinto
, Munich, 1991,p. 48 ; 101.
(32) Symbolof thesoul: C. T. Seltman,Eros: In EarlyAtticLegendand Art
in ABSA 26, 1923-24, p. 88-105.Sarcophagi : see K. Schauenberg,Ganymed und
Hahnenkämpfe auf römischen Sarkophagen in AA 87, 1972,p. 501-516 ; cf.
R. Stuveras, Le Puttodans l'art romain , Brussels,1969,p. 124-126.Prosaic
: A. D. Nock, Sarcophagi
interpretation and Symbolism in Essayson Religionand
the AncientWorld , Oxford,1972,p. 605-641(originally publishedin 1946);
R. Stuveras,Le Putto , 126.

К. BRADLEY 549
Black Sea that is now in the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore, dating
fromthe second or firstcenturyВС (Fig. 18). It shows two littleboys
intentlywatchinga cockfight.Betweenthemand behind the birdsstands
a female figurewho cannot be properlyidentifiedbecause the object
breaks off at her waist. The encounter between the cocks is intense.
In the words of the Walters catalogue : "A cock seen in rightprofile
presses his rightclaw against the throatof a slumpingopponent shown
in leftprofile".Victor and vanquished, there is no doubt about which
is which, nor is there any doubt about the fact that it is a specific
momentin thefightthathas been portrayed.The childwho accompanies
the victorious cock is pleased with the outcome of the contest, while
the boy accompanying the defeated bird is correspondinglydistressed.
It is an obvious inferencethat they are the owners of the cocks. The
boys, moreover,are not Erotes and the context, as far as can be told,
is not funerary: the artisthere has deliberatelychosen to portrayreal
children, and although the figures could simply be dismissed as
stereotypicalputti, it was the new interestin the child in Hellenistic
artreferredto earlierthat apparentlycontrolledthe artisticdevelopment
of the putto in the firstplace. Distinctions between putti and real
childrenmay be difficult to draw in many cases, but in Roman evidence
the formerare oftendepicted in situations that derive from children's
reality,particularlyin scenes of play. Altogether,therefore,objections
to taking this scene as a reflectionof a world in which young children
directlyengaged in cockfightingseem inconsequential. I conclude that
artiststook it for granted that to place children - even toddlers, as
here in the Baltimore piece - in the context of the cockfightwould
not offendthe sensibilitiesof those who looked at their work, and
thatto associate childrenwiththe bloody realityof the cockfightwas no
more problematicalforthemthan it was forHerodian and Plutarch (33).
(33) Reality : see also thematerial

collected byK. Schauenberg,Hahnenkämpfe
[n. 32],p. 512,n. 53,wherethecontext is obviously commemorative and symbolism
thus appropriate, but the associationof childrenwithcockfighting nonetheless
unmistakable; cf.J. Huskinson,Children's Sarcophagi [n. 8], p. 19-20; 113-114.
Walters catalogue : E. D. Reeder,HellenisticArtintheWalters ArtGallery, Baltimore,
1988,p. 183. For thecontextof thepiece,whichwas by no meansunique,see
D. K. Hill, GreekCock Fighting in Bulletin of the Walters ArtGallery2, 1949,
n° 3 ; E. Reeder, Hellenistic Terracottas[n. 18]; cf.also A. E. Klein, ChildLife
in GreekArt, NewYork,1932,p. 11-12.Real children:cf.E. Reeder, Hellenistic
Terracottas, p. 82.Apparently controlled
: R. Stuveras,Le Putto[п. 32],p. 5.

THE SENTIMENTAL
The Baltimore terracottaconfirmsthat the essence of cockfighting

was the killingof one bird by another,with death to follow as quickly
as possible from a mortal wound inflictedby the cock's spur or by
the beak or both. But as a necessarilyfrozen image, the terracotta,
as otherimages, can scarcelyconvey the fullsensoryrange of the whole
event or the impact the grislyspectacle made on those who witnessed
it. It may be forthis reason that commentatorshave sometimesapplied
such epithets as "charming" to the Baltimore terracotta, with no
apparent thought of what the scene is actually reporting- a contest
involving raw violence and pain, the laceration of flesh,the flow of
blood, the cries of the fightingbirds and an agonisingdeath, a spectacle
where the spectatorscould actually hear the sounds made as the birds
attacked one another, see the tearing of fleshand the tumult of flying
feathers,smell the blood as it began to run, witness the finalityof
death. The elder Pliny's remark {Nat. X, 47) after all must be kept
in mind : "Often the fightdoes not end until both cocks are dead".
The cockfight was in fact a dramatic experience, implicating the
audience in a pitch of heightenedemotion and sentiment,as a descrip-
tion from a seventeenth-century account of English cockfightingwell
illustrates: "When it is time to start,the persons appointed to do so
bring in the cocks hidden in two sacks, and then everyone begins to
shout and wager before the birds are on view. The people, gentle and
simple (they sit with no distinction of place) act like madmen, and
go on raising the odds to twentyguineas and more. As soon as one
of the bidders calls 'done' ... the other is pledged to keep his bargain.
Then the cocks are taken out of the sacks and fittedwith silverspurs ...
As soon as the cocks appear, the shouting grows even louder and the
bettingis continued. When theyare released, some attack,while others
run away ... [and some] are impelled by terrorto jump down from
the table among the people ; they are then, however, driven back on
to the table with great yells (in particularby those who have put their
money on the lively cocks which chase the others) and are thrustat
each other until they get angry. Then it is amazing to see how they
peck at each other, and especially how they hack with their spurs.
Their combs bleed terriblyand they often slit each other's crop and
abdomen with the spurs. There is nothing more divertingthan when
one seems quite exhausted and there are great shouts of triumphand
monstrous wagers ; and then the cock that appeared to be quite done
for suddenly recovers and masters the other. When one of the two

K.BRADLEY 551
is dead, the conqueror invariably begins to crow and jump on the

other..." П.
A celebrated study of cockfightingin Balinese society revealed how
the cock could be taken as a powerfulsymbol of masculinityand how
the drama of the fightcaptured the drama of human struggle and
competitivenessin a community where a high premium was placed
on individual status and prestige."Drawing on almost every level of
Balinese experience",it was said, the fight"brings togetherthemes -
animal savagery, male narcissism,opponent gambling, status rivalry,
mass excitement,blood sacrifice - whose main connection is their
involvementwith rage and the fear of rage, and, bindingthem together
into a set of rules which at once contains them and allows them play,
builds a symbolic structurein which, over and over again, the reality
of theirinneraffiliationscan be intelligiblyfelt"(35).
In antiquity,too, the cock was a symbol of male bravado and warrior
prowess, a token of the honour that came with victoryin warfareand
of the shame that came with defeat - and warfare, it is worth
remembering,was exclusively a male preserve in the ancient world
(34) "Charming" : M. Bieber,Sculpture [n. 18],p. 137.Description : quotedin

R. W. Malcolmson, PopularRecreations in EnglishSociety , Cambridge,1973,
p. 49-50.Observealsothisextract froma descriptionofa scenein a Londoncockpit
publishedby EdwardHerbert in The LondonMagazineof November, 1822:
"Sometimes thefirstblowwas fatal- at anothertimethecontestwas longand
doubtful, and thecocksshowedall theobstinate courage,weariness, and
distress,
breathlessness, whichmarkthestruggles ofexperienced I sawthebeakopen,
pugilists.
thetonguespalpitate - thewingdragon themat.I noticedthelegstremble, and
thebodytoppleoveruponthebreast- theeyegrowdim- andevena perspiration
breakoutuponthefeathers of theback.Whena battlelastedlong,and thecocks
lay helplessnearor uponeach other- one of thefeeders countedten,and then
thebirdswereseparated and set-toat thechalk.If thebeatenbirddoes notfight
whileforty is counted, and theotherpecksor showssignsof battle,theformer is
declaredconquered" ; and thisstatement fromThe NationalHumaneReviewof
November 1952: "In almosteveryfightat leastone cockis seriously mutilatedor
killed.In abouthalfofthefights, moreorless,bothbirdsaremaimedbeyondfurther
use ifnotkilled.Eyesaregougedout,abdomens slitand slasheduntilthebirdsare
anguished monstrosities, legsand wingsare broken.Butso longas a birdcan and
willkeepfacingtowardtheopposingcockhe is leftin thepitand cheeredforhis
'courage'".Bothitemsarequotedin G. R. Scott, TheHistory , 2nd
of Cockfighting
ed., Hindhead, Surrey,1983,p. 78 ; 166.Cf. thelapidary definition
of a cockfight
givenbyC. Geertz,DeepPlay: Noteson theBalineseCockfight in TheInterpretation
of Cultures , New York,1973,p. 412-453at p. 449: "a chickenhackinganother
mindlessly to bits".
(35) Study: C. Geertz,Deep Play[n. 34].Quotation : C. Geertz,Interpretation
ofCultures [n.34],p. 449-450.

THE SENTIMENTAL
and often the exclusive preserve of male citizens. Also, in the Greek
world especially but sometimes in Roman experience as well the
masculine associations of the cock are seen in the way the bird was
given as a giftby an adult male to a youth he was hoping to make
his lover, as a giftof courtship,that is to say, in a homoerotic context.
And in the way the Balinese might compare heaven to the mood of
a man whose bird has won a victoryand hell to the mood of a man
whose bird has been defeated, so the Greeks and Romans spoke of
the defeated cock as a slave, drawing a metaphor from the lowest
form of social rank available, with all its associations of degradation
and subjection, to mark the bird's demise. Given the absence of any
extended description of a cockfightfrom antiquity,it is difficultto
say to what extent the contest should be read as a text encoding all
the values and tensions of classical society,but the general assocations
of the bird and the fightare evidentenough (36).
The direct association of children with cockfighting,however, is
somethingnot found in the Balinese evidence,for although theymight
form part of the crowds that generallyformed whenever fightswere
put on, formally Balinese children (and women) were barred from
watching them. English schoolboys of the seventeenthand eighteenth
centuries kept cocks for fightingpurposes, but in England as well
cockfightingin the early modern period was supposed to be a sport
confinedto adult men. In 1663 Samuel Pepys recorded seeing a cross-
section of society at a cockpit he visited, men of all types from
"parliamentmen" to "the poorest prentices,bakers, brewers,butchers,
draymenand what not". But he saw no one youngerthan the appren-
tices and no women at all. In contrast, Roman boys, at times very
young boys, did watch fightsand as they did so they were exposed
to the full range of sights and sounds that the contest and the kill
evoked. As with their adult companions, their senses were stimulated
also (37).
(36) Prowess : E. Csapo, Deep Ambivalence, PartI [n. 30],p. 9-11.Homoerotic

context: L. Baird, Priapus[n. 30],p. 83-84; K. J. Dover, GreekHomosexuality ,
Cambridge, Mass.,1978,p. 92 ; E. Csapo,DeepAmbivalence, Part/,p. 16-27.Slave:
Ar., Av. 70 ; Plín., Nat. X, 47 ; forthe sexualovertones, see E. Csapo, Deep
Ambivalence, Part/,p. 23-27.
(37) Balinesechildren : C. Geertz,Interpretation
of Cultures[n. 34],p. 435; 440.
Englishschoolboys : G. Scott, Historyof Cockfighting[n. 34],p. 93-99.England:
K. Thomas,Man and theNaturalWorld[n. 2], p. 144-145 ; 159-160(withreference
to Pepys; cf.G. Scott,History , p. 100-101).
ofCockfighting

К. BRADLEY 553
In Roman society the shedding of blood was a frequentsight. In

amphitheatresgladiators were commonly seen fightingto the death
in "murderous games", and in the accompanying uenationes men, and
sometimeswomen, were commonly pitted against wild, exotic beasts.
Criminals were likewise frequentlyto be seen sufferingthe agonies of
execution from exposure to wild animals, from being burned alive,
or being crucified.Modern interpreters sometimessee symbolicmeaning
behind these conventions. Under the Principáte, when Roman armies
were no longer conquering the Mediterranean as they had under the
Republic, gladiatorial contests served on one view to remind their
audiences of the militarymightthat had made Rome great. Or again,
the capacity to exhibitlavish displays of wild animals - lions, leopards,
tigers - brought from all quarters of the world for the public
entertainment was a demonstrationof human domination over nature,
a sign of the total subjection of the natural world to humankind.
Whethersuch meanings consciously enteredthe minds of contempor-
aries it is difficultto say, but there can be little doubt of what was
before their eyes : intense, protracted physical pain and suffering,
destructionand despoliation of the flesh,and terminationof life. To
call such events cruel may be to engage in anachronism, but to
emphasise their literal realityis to understand how deeply embedded
within Roman culture acts of violence were. Many Romans enjoyed
ritualisedkillingand the sightof blood that accompanied it (38).
Blood shed in the arena was a sight that perhaps some Romans
chose not to behold. The games after all were not compulsory. But
no one was exempt fromparticipationin religiouscult and ritual, and
in animal sacrifice,that essential aspect of religious protocol, it must
have been difficultfor any Roman permanentlyto avoid witnessing
the outflow of blood from a sheep, a pig or an ox offeredto the
(38) "Murderous games":K. Hopkins,Deathand Renewal:Sociological Studies

in RomanHistory2, Cambridge, 1983,p. 1-30; T. Wiedemann,Emperors and
, London-New
Gladiators York,1992; cf.С. A. Barton, TheSorrowsoftheAncient
Romans: TheGladiator and theMonster , Princeton,1993.Criminals: P. Garnsey,
SocialStatusand LegalPrivilege in theRomanEmpire , Oxford,1970,p. 103-152 ;
T. Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators , p. 68-97.Symbolicmeaning : K. Hopkins,
Deathand Renewal , p. 29-30; T. Wiedemann, Emperors , p. 55-67;
and Gladiators
cf.К. M. Coleman, Fatal Charades : RomanExecutions Stagedas Mythological
Enactments in JRS 80, 1990,p. 44-73.Actsof violence : J. P. Toner, Leisurein
Ancient Rome, Cambridge, 1995,p. 34-52,contends thatRomanaudiences weremore
interestedin witnessing the stylisationof gladiatorial conteststhantheirbloody
conclusions(cf.,however,Tert.,Sped. 29,uisautemetsanguinis aliquid?).

THE SENTIMENTAL
gods. Representations of animal sacrifice are very familiar from the

Roman iconographie record : the sacrificeof two large animals before
Septimius Severus, his wifeJulia Domna and theirsons Caracalla and
Geta on a panel of the Arch of Severus from Lepcis Magna is a case
in point (Fig. 19). Yet because of that familiarity,as again because
of the no more than partial renderingof what were highlycomplex
events, the full emotional import of sacrifice can easily be missed.
Imagine, for instance, the tension that surrounded the sacrificial
attendantsas they controlled and manipulated the animals being led
to the slaughter. It was not just a question of whether the animals
would go willingly,but of whether they would go at all : some of
the animals were huge and sometimes theybolted, bringingthe whole
enterpriseto a terribleand terrifyinghalt. What the scene was like
when a magnificencesuch as Herodes Atticussacrificeda hundred oxen
to Athena, one can scarcely guess. There was furthertension when,
as in the Seveřan example, the momentcame forthe animals to receive
the blow fromthepopa that would stun and bringthemto theirknees :
what if he missed and again broughtthe entireproceedingsto naught?
As the crowd looked on, their senses were at full stretch: they could
hear the prayers intoned by magistratesand priests,the bellowing of
the victims,the music of the pipers played to keep out hostile noise ;
theycould see the richdecorations adorningthe animals, theceremonial
dress of the presiding officials,the flutteringvexillum, the red wine
firstpoured as a libation over altar and victimand then coursing onto
the ground. Captivating smells of oriental incense and of flowerswere
in the air - "cassia, frankincense,and saffron... amaryllislilies,roses,
and sprigs of myrtle". With the strugglingvictim held down by
attendants,the climax came when the priest,or his assistant,took the
ceremonial knife,cut the animal's neck, and the warm blood began
to flow. The animals' organs were then removed, and the spectacle
concluded as the priest, covered in blood, poured the sacrificiallife
force around the altar. This was not empty, meaningless ritual (39).
(39) Animal sacrifice

: seeR. Gordon,TheVeilofPowerinM. Beard & J.North,
eds.,PaganPriests: Religion andPowerintheAncient World, Ithaca,1990,p. 201-231
at p. 202-219.Representations : see,forinstance,I. S. Ryberg,Ritesof theState
Religionin RomanArt, Rome,1955; and PanelReliefsof MarcusAurelius , New
York,1967.The Seveřansceneis described by I. Ryberg,Rites,p. 160-162, and
R. Gordon, Veilof Power , p. 214: notethatSeverushimself is notvisible.Bolted:
Suet.,Jul 59 ; Cass. D. XXXXI,39, 2. HerodesAtticus : Philostr., VS, p. 549.
Senses: see theremarks of R. Macmullen,Paganismin theRomanEmpire , New

К. BRADLEY 555
Cockfíghtingwas part of the culturalmatrixthatrepeatedlydemanded

of adult Romans that they witness the shedding of blood. And when
witnessed and engaged in as a form of pet-keepingby children,cock-
fighting,I suggest, functioned as a means of preparing for the large
scale bloodshedding sights of which their adult world was to be full.
Many pets undoubtedly brought Roman childrenaffectionatepleasure
of the sort that contemporarysocietycan easily recognise; but Romans
of the central era were not disposed to link children and animals in
terms of the affectionatealone. As seen earlier, one of the most
celebrated types of genre statue in Hellenistic art was that of a young
boy stranglinga goose. The elder Pliny {Nat. XXXIV, 84) mentions
a certain Boethus who may have been its originator. Knowledge of
this type of statue depends mainly on copies that were made in the
Roman era, which means that many Romans must have been very
used to seeing,ifnot owning,statuesof thiskind. They were continually
observing,therefore,and in some sense enjoying, not representations
of childhood innocence but images of children involved in violent,
intense struggle. The goose may have been a pet, but the boy was
shown tryingto kill it, in no uncertain manner. It seems to me very
unlikely,therefore,that this image could have been regarded, as one
commentatorhas put it,"withthe same affectionate,sentimentalwarm-
heartednessthat would be applied today to a pictureof a freckle-faced
boy and his dog in an advertisementfor dog biscuits". Exactly the
reverse,in fact. The child and the violent were tightlybound together
by this image, and cockfightingdid the same, stimulatingthe senses
and arousing the emotions. It was an acculturativeformof pet-keeping
that introducedand inured childrento a type of experiencetheywould
repeatedlyencounterthroughouttheiradult lives (40).
Perhaps it also prepared for other forms of bloodshed. In recent
times cockfightinghas been condemned on the grounds that it
encourages the very opposite of the martial spirit some ancient ob-
serversfound in it : "cockfighting",it has been said, "because of its
sanguinary features,appeals to, arouses, and develops brutalityand
savageryin the minds of the spectators". Whetherthis view is relevant
Haven-London, 1981,p.40-41."Cassia..." : Ach.Tat. 2.15.Priest: Lucían.,Sacr.13;

cf.Lucr. V, 1201-1202.Spectacle: seeespecially
Ov.,Fast.I, 317-456(a "subversive"
passageaccordingtoС. E. Newlands,Playing withTime: OvidandtheFasti, Ithaca-
London,1995,p. 58-59).
(40) Commentator : J.Pollitt, ArtintheHellenistic World [n. 18],p. 128.

556 THE SENTIMENTAL
EDUCATIONOF THE ROMANCHILD
to antiquity I do not know, but it is, I think, worth consideration.

On February4, AD 21 1 at York in the province of Britain,the emperor
Septimius Severus died. He was succeeded jointly by Caracalla and
Geta, to whom he is reportedto have given the advice on his deathbed
that they should live in harmony, enrich the troops, and despise all
else. Less than a year later Geta was dead, murdered, on Decem-
ber 26, 211, in the palace at Rome in the apartments of his mother
Julia by soldiers Caracalla had suborned for the task. At Caracalla's
instigation,Julia had invited the brothersto attend upon her during
the festivalof the Saturnalia, ostensiblyfor the purpose of reconciling
before her the differencesthey had long shared. Geta was assaulted
as soon as he arrived and immediatelytook refugewith his mother,
who in the skirmishwas wounded in the hand. He quickly died in
her arms, and so left his mother not just horrified,but drenched in
the blood of the wounds his brotherhad had inflicted(41).
*
* *
In the gardens of Pompeii it was not unusual to see decorative

statuettesthat now serve as symbols of the intimacy between child
and animal that formedpart of Roman culturein its maturity: a small
boy, sometimes naked, holding a dove, a goose, a duck or a rabbit,
a bunch of grapes as well,the animal's mouth operatingas a fountain-
this was the kind of ornament that householders found attractive,
desirable and suitable for display. The statuettesmay be understood
to representalso one aspect of the complex mannerin which the animal
world produced an impact on Roman society,which was never strong
enough to lead, as in later European societies,to organisationsdevoted
to the protectionof animals fromharm and abuse, but which did lead
to the keeping of animals as pets to be enjoyed for their own sake.
That form of behaviour was probably very old, for already in Italy
of the fifthand fourth centuries ВС the domestic cat figuresas an
artisticmotif.But as a standard feature of Roman society,especially
with referenceto children,the habit of pet-keepingon a large scale
is likelyto have blossomed under the favouringconditions of the age
(41) Quotation:G. Scott, Historyof Cock-fighting [n. 34], p. 11. Septimius

Severus : Cass. D. LXXVI,15,2, withA. Birley,Septimius Severus[n. 29],p. 187.
Geta: Cass. D. LXXVII,2, 1-6(cf.Hdn.,IV,4, 3),withA. Birley,Septimius Severus
,
p. 189.

К. BRADLEY 557
of Republican expansion, when in so many respectsRoman awareness

of the animal world was almost forcefullyraised, and the valuation
set on childrenthemselves,perhaps among elite familiesin particular,
was already high. Certainlythe evidence is incontrovertiblethat in the
centralera pet-keepingby Roman children,at all ages and at all social
levels,was conventional.With the aid of modern theory,the emotional
and psychological effects of pet-keeping on the children can be
glimpsed, just a little, though in the face of differencesin cultural
attitudesacross time socialising correspondencesbetween ancient and
modern societies cannot be pushed too far. Much, accordingly,must
remainspeculative.Yet to recogniseand explore the interactionsbeween
childrenand theirpets in the central era of Rome's historyis, I think,
not only to understand betterthe histrionicsof Regulus, but also to
make some progressin recreatingthe historyand experienceof Roman
childhood (42).
Universityof Victoria, Canada. Keith Bradley.
(42) Pompeii: W. F. Jashemski,The Gardensof Pompeii,Volume//,New

Rochelle, N. Y., 1993,n°s. 55, 143,294,382,568.Italy: J.Toynbee,Animals[n. 9],
p. 87 ; cf.J. P. Small, Eat,Drink,and Be Merry : EtruscanBanquetsin R. D. De
Puma & J. P. Small, eds.,Murloand theEtruscans : Artand Societyin Ancient
Etruria , Madison-London, 1994,p. 85-94at p. 89 (birds).- For adviceon andhelp
withthecomposition ofthisarticleI shouldliketothankBerylRawson,LeslieShumka
and especially MicheleGeorge.I am grateful to thevariousinstitutions
mentioned
inthecaptions totheillustrationsforproviding photographs forreproduction.


10 2307@41538365 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 2307@41538365 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Societe d’Etudes Latines de Bruxelles

The Sentimental Education of the Roman Child : the Role of Pet-Keeping

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

Attendingcockfights and participating

Early in the second centuryAD, perhaps preciselyin the year 104,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

that catered specifically to children's needs (the need to play for

(3) Romanhouses: see A. Wallace-Hadrill, Housesand Societyin Pompeii

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

doves (or pigeons : columbae) and sparrows (passeres). He remarks,

(4) Libanius,Or.I, 4, also refers to havingkeptdovesas a child; cf.Apul.,Met.

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

son is somewhat older, a small boy - Petronius termshim a cicaro -

(6) Sparrowpoems: Catul. 2 ; 3. Lesbia: on herage and possibletrueidentity,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

(8) Figure1 : fortheidentity of thechildas a girl,see K. Fittschen,Mädchen

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

An item from Italy, perhaps of Hadrianic date, shows a cat learning

(9) Lincolnrelief : seeJ.M. C. Toynbee,ArtinBritain undertheRomans , Oxford,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

child as objects of affectionor amusement,and it is certainlypossible

The evidence described so far all belongs to the central period of

(10) Assumption: J. Huskinson,Children's Sarcophagi [n. 8], p. 14. Symbolic

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

social attitudes.In England and France, however,two prominentcausal

(11) Index: K. R. Bradley, Writing theHistoryof theRomanFamilyin CP

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

(12) Quotation : M. Beagon, RomanNature: The Thought of PlinytheElder,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

1. It is a familiarbut nonethelessimportantfact that in the century

M. Beagon, RomanNature[n. 12],p. 124-158 ; cf.С. Ampolo,Romearchaïque :

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

plendentpublic procession celebratedby generalsvictoriousin war who

(16) Quotation: L. Colley, Britons: Forging theNation1707-1837, NewHaven-

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

appetites whetted, however, displays of savage beasts and the mock

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

made that Roman sensitivityto and recognition of the small child

(18) Fact: forevidenceand discussion, see E. S. Gruen,Cultureand National

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

(19) Deliciae/ delicia: see on theseterms,H. SigismundNielsen, Deliciain

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

pleasure, in which art laid emphasis on childrenand in which affective

If Roman childrenof the centralperiod regularlykept pets, as seems

: Cic., Div. I, 103; cf.II, 83 ; V. Max. I, 5, 3 ; Plut., Aem. 10,

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

aspect to it, suggestingperhaps a simple continuitybetween ancient

(21) Toys: seeJouerdansl'antiquité (Muséesde Marseille - Réunions desMusées

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

First the purelyeducational benefits.From direct exposure to pets,

J.E. Schowalter,TheUseandAbuseofPetsinJournal oftheAmerican Academy

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

emotional reassurance that will be valuable in dealing with problems

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

humanity,of love". A few years earlier, in 1883, in an authoritative

(23) Interaction Barbou:

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

physical contact between animals and childrenis the late thirdcentury

: cf. Catul. 3, 5 : quernplus ilia oculissuis amabat; and see

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM

attention has been drawn to the demographic probability that very

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.223 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:59:16 PM