art historians claim people . artists saw dogs and cats back then; do you believe that?
In Western (especially medieval and early modern European) culture and art, dogs and cats were viewed and symbolized quite differently.
Dogs were generally positive: symbols of loyalty, fidelity, protection, and status (especially hunting dogs for the nobility). They appear frequently in portraits and domestic scenes as faithful companions. The Bible mentions dogs more often and more neutrally or favorably; they fit the idea of animals existing to serve humans.
Cats had a more mixed or negative reputation in Christian Europe. They were useful as mouse-catchers, but their independence, nocturnal habits, and resistance to training made them seem uncanny or defiant of the expected human-animal hierarchy. They became linked to cunning, lust, witchcraft, and the devil (notably in papal bulls and witch-hunt literature). This contrasted sharply with their sacred status in ancient Egypt (tied to Bastet).
Views were never uniform—manuscripts show playful or domestic cats, and some people clearly liked them as pets—but the symbolic and cultural gap between the two animals was real and long-lasting. It narrowed later as pet-keeping became more common in the Enlightenment and Victorian eras, with both animals increasingly treated as companions rather than pure symbols or tools.
Your images illustrate aspects of this history:
The sheet of cat sketches is by Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1513–18, Royal Collection). He carefully observed cats’ movements and postures (alongside lions and a dragon), reflecting a naturalistic, almost scientific interest rather than pure superstition.
The other depictions show the more stylized, expressive, or anthropomorphic ways animals were often rendered in earlier art, which can look odd or human-like to modern eyes
Frank McCormick never got the memo that she lied about being a Native American descendant?
descendant of notorious pirate-style courtier to King James.