Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
James Wilberding
Ruhr-Universitt Bochum
James.Wilberding@ruhr-uni-bochum.de*
Abstract
Embryology was a subject that inspired great cross-disciplinary discussion
in antiquity, and Platos Timaeus made an important contribution to this
discussion, though Platos precise views have remained a matter of
controversy, especially regarding three key questions pertaining to the
generation and nature of the seed: whether there is a female seed; what
the nature of seed is; and whether the seed contains a preformed human
being. In this paper I argue that Platos positions on these three issues can
be adequately determined, even if some other aspects of his theory
cannot. In particular, it is argued that (i) Plato subscribes to the encephalomyelogenic theory of seed, though he places particular emphasis on the
soul being the true seed; (ii) Plato is a two-seed theorist, yet the female
seed appears to make no contribution to reproduction; and (iii) Plato
cannot be an advocate of preformationism.
Keywords
Plato embryology seed history of medicine ancient Greek science
In antiquity embryology was a subject that inspired great crossdisciplinary discussion. As even a brief look at two later doxographical
texts sufficiently illustrates, embryology generated interest not only among
dedicated physicians but also among philosophers these doxographers
refer to Alcmaeon, Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Democritus, Diogenes,
Empedocles, Epicharmus, Epicurus, Hippon, Leucippus, Parmenides,
Plato, Pythagoras and Pythagoreans, the Stoics, Strato and Zeno of Citium
by name and this interest was spread out over a wide-ranging collection
of questions.1 When viewed against this background, it should come as no
*
surprise that Plato, too, seeks to include embryology within the scope of
his dialogue on natural philosophy, the Timaeus. What is surprising,
however, is Platos rather selective engagement with the traditional issues
here. There are a number of classic and very central embryological
questions that Plato simply remains silent on, for example: how twins are
formed, how the offsprings sex is determined, and how to account for
deformities and (lack of) resemblance. Moreover, on other issues, notably
on the three major issues in spermatogenesis the number of seeds
involved in reproduction, the corporeal origin of the seed, the manner in
which the offspring is present in the seed previous scholarship has not
been able to reach a consensus on Platos positions.2 As I shall show in
what follows, there are indeed difficulties here, but I shall argue that Platos
views can nevertheless be adequately determined on all three of these
issues.
Let us begin with a preliminary description of the three issues in
question. The first concerns the number of seeds involved in normal
biological reproduction. On one theory the male is the sole supplier of
seed. References to such a theory in Aeschylus and Euripides suggest that
it was widespread among early Greeks, and we have evidence that it was
advanced by a number of philosophers, including Anaxagoras, Diogenes
of Apollonia, Aristotle, and the Stoics.3 An obvious difficulty connected to
Mansfeld and David Runia. For book 5, however, the Stobaean material is
also lost, so that we are basically left with Pseudo-Plutarchs Plac. phil. [=
Mor. 904C-911C], an abbreviated version of Atius lost work. I have been
working with Lachenauds edition of that text, though I have adopted the
more informative system of referring to the text by book, chapter and
lemma (as in H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci (Berlin, 1879), 415-44), even
though Lachenauds edition does not include the numbers for the lemmas. I
would like to thank an anonymous referee and David Runia for clarification
on the background and current state of affairs regarding this PseudoPlutarchean epitome.
2
See E. Lesky, Die Zeugungs- und Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr
Nachwirken (Wiesbaden, 1951); I.M. Lonie, The Hippocratic Treatises On
Generation On the Nature of the Child Diseases IV (Berlin and New
York, 1981), 99-110; and H. von Staden, Herophilus. The Art of Medicine in
Early Alexandria (Cambridge, 1989), 288-96.
3
Aeschylus, Eumen., 657-666 (cf. Sept., 754) and Euripides, Orest., 551-6
(and cf. Sophocles, Od. Tyr., 1211 and 1257). Anaxagoras is sometimes
2
the one-seed theory is how to account for maternal resemblance, which the
alternative two-seed theory could easily explain. The view that both the
male and the female emitted seed found a wide-ranging scope of
acceptance among philosophers Alcmaeon, Hippon, and other
Pythagoreans, Parmenides, Empedocles, Democritus, Epicurus and
especially among ancient physicians: the Hippocratics, Diocles,
Herophilus, Soranus, and Galen.4 One difficulty of the two-seed theory that
reported to have advanced a two-seed theory, e.g., Censorinus, De dei
nat., 5.4 and 6.8, and this is sometimes accepted by modern scholars, for
example, by G. Lachenaud, Plutarque. Oeuvres Morales. Tome XII. 2e Partie.
Opinions des Philosophes (Paris, 2003), 298, who claims to find this in
Aristotle, GA, 763b30-764a1 (= 59A107 DK), but Aristotle here clearly
attributes a one-seed theory to Anaxagoras. R. Joly, Recherches sur le trait
pseudo-hippocratique du regime (Paris, 1960), 78-80, prefers Censorinus
testimony to Aristotles. For Diogenes of Apollonia, see Censorinus, De dei
nat., 5.4 (= 64A27 DK) and cf. 64A24 DK. For Aristotle, see GA, 1.17-23
(726a30-731b14). Concerning the Stoics, see Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.4;
SVF, 1.128 and cf. Atius, Plac. phil., 5.11.4 (on which see Lesky, Zeugung,
171). For Zeno, see Atius, Plac. phil., 5.5.2 (= SVF, 1.129); for Sphaerus,
see Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil., 7.159 = SVF, 1.626).
4
For Alcmaeon, see Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.4 (= 24A13 DK) and 6.4 (=
24A14 DK). Hippon is sometimes described as having advanced a oneseed theory on the basis of 38A14 DK and Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.4, but
Atius, Plac. phil. 5.5.3 (= 38A13 DK) attributes a theory of female seed to
Hippon, though this seed does not contribute to the embryo as it is not
conducted to the uterus, as in Herophilus. See Lesky, Zeugung, 28, and
below on the female seed in Plato. For other references to the
Pythagoreans, see Diogenes Laertius, Vit. phil., 8.28 (= 58B1 DK); Atius,
Plac. phil., 5.5.1; and L. Zhmud, Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans
(Oxford, 2012), 374-80. For Parmenides, see 28B18 DK; Atius, Plac. phil.,
5.11.2 (= 28A54 DK); Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.4; 6.5; and 6.8 (the latter
two passages are included in 28A54 DK). For Empedocles, see 31B63 DK.
Cf. 31A81 DK. For Democritus, see Atius, Plac. phil., 5.5.1 (= 68A142 DK);
Aristotle, GA, 764a6-11 Drossaart Lulofs (= 68A143 DK), and P.-M. Morel,
Aristote contra Dmocrite. Sur lembryon, in L. Brisson, M.-H.
Congourdeau and J.-L. Solre, eds., Porphyre. Sur la manire dont
lembryon reoit lme (Paris, 2008), 43-57, at 46ff. For Epicurus, see
Atius, Plac. phil., 5.5.1. For the Hippocratics, see especially Genit. and
Nat. Puer. and Lonie, Hippocratic Treatises, 119-122. Also Mul. I, 8 (8.34,9f.;
8.56,21f.; and 8.62,20f. Littr) and Vict. I, 27 (144,4-5 Joly = 6.500,8f. Littr).
For Diocles, see Fr. 42a/b in P.J. van der Eijk, Diocles of Carystus. A
Collection of the Fragments with Translation and Commentary, 2 vols
(Leiden, 2000-2001) = Fr. 172 in M. Wellmann, Die Fragmente der
sikelischen rzte Akron, Philistion and des Diokles von Karystos (Berlin,
1901). Cf. Lesky, Zeugung, 30. For Herophilus, see Galen, De sem., 146,203
its proponents must address is why the male is required for reproduction,
seeing as the female already has a seed at hand. A common (but not
universal) response to this difficulty was to posit that the female seed is
either inferior or else completely inactive.5
The second issue relates to the corporeal origin of the seed, and
there were three standard responses to this issue. The oldest was the socalled encephalo-myelogenic theory, which states that the seed comes
from the brain and/or the marrow.6 This was held by Pythagoreans such as
Alcmaeon and Hippon, and traces of this theory can still be found in the
Hippocratic corpus and in Diocles.7 This theory eventually gave way to the
theory of pangenesis, which has the seed being drawn from the entire
body in order to better account for the family resemblances, as was
advanced by Anaxagoras, Democritus, Hippocratic authors and Epicurus.8
148,24 De Lacy (= 4.596,4- 598,7 Khn and T60 von Staden) but also note 5
below. For Soranus, see Gyn., 1.4.93-98 Burguire et al. Regarding Galen,
see especially De sem., 2.1 (144,4 - 160,23 De Lacy = 4.593,1-610,10 Khn)
and D. Nickel, Untersuchungen zur Embryologie Galens (Berlin, 1989), 4049.
5
Herophilos held that the female seed simply does not contribute anything
to the embryo because his anatomical studies suggested to him that the
seed was conducted to the bladder and from there expelled. Soranus
(Gyn., 1.12.93-98 Burguire et al.) takes over this view from Herophilus.
This same view has also been attributed to Hippon (see 38A13 DK). More
on this below.
6
Cf. Galens reference to this view as tau/th palaia do/xh (In Tim.,
14.10 Schrder).
7
Regarding Alcmaeon, see Atius, Plac. phil., 5.5.3, and Censorinus, De dei
nat., 5.2 (both are included in 24A13 DK). Censorinus testifies that
Alcmaeon actually opposed the encephalo-myelogenic theory, but as
Lesky, Zeugung, 12, points out, this is simply due to his ungenaue
Sammelberichterstattung. For Hippon, see Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.2 (=
38A12 DK); Atius, Plac. phil., 5.3.3 (= 38A13 DK). For more general
evidence of Pythagoreans holding this view, see Diogenes Laertius, Vit.
phil., 8.28 (= 58B1 DK) and the note ad loc (905A) in Lachenaud, Plutarque.
There are traces of this view in the Hippocratic corpus at, e.g., Genit., 1.2
(44,10-20 Joly = 7.470,8-16 Littr). In general, see Lesky, Zeugung, 13-18;
Lonie, Hippocratic Treatises, 101-3; von Staden, Herophilus, 288-96. For
Diocles, see Fr. 41a-b van der Eijk.
8
Anaxagoras 59B10 DK; Democritus 68B32 DK and cf. Aetius, Plac. phil.,
5.3.6 (= 68A141 DK). Concerning the Hippocratics, see, e.g., Morb. Sacr., 5
(12,21-14,2 Jouanna = 6.368,10-370,11 Littr); Aer., 14 (58,8-26 Diller =
2.58,11-60,8 Littr); Genit., 1.1 (44,1-10 Joly = 7.470,1-8 Littr), and in
4
The third and final position to emerge was the hematogenous theory,
which derives seed from the concoction of blood. This appears to be
advanced by Parmenides and Diogenes of Apollonia and is taken up and
developed in much greater detail by Aristotle and later physicians such as
Erasistratus, Herophilus and Galen.9
The final issue concerned the manner of the offsprings physical
presence in the seed. Preformationists held that the body of the offspring
exists pre-formed in the seed, whereas epigenesists (e.g., Aristotle and
Galen) argued that the parts are formed successively after conception.10
Some form of preformationism necessarily follows from pangenesis, where
the exact type of preformationism to follow will depend on the kind of parts
being supplied and whether they are pre-arranged into an organic unity
(though preformationism would seem to be at least conceptually possible
even in the absence of pangenesis). It is helpful to distinguish between
three varieties of preformationism, which I shall call homoiomerous
preformationism, anhomoiomerous preformationism and homuncular
preformationism. The first two maintain respectively that the
homoiomerous parts such as the humors or flesh and bone and the
anhomoiomerous parts such as the head, hands and organs pre-exist in the
seed but are not yet organized into a unified whole, while according to
homuncular preformationism the seed already contains a unified organic
living thing. It is not clear that anyone in antiquity actually intended to
general, Lesky, Zeugung, 76ff.; Lonie, Hippocratic Treatises, 99-110; von
Staden, Herophilus, 288-96. Epicurus, Ep. Hdt., 38 and 66; cf. Lucretius, De
rerum nat., 1037-57; Aetius, Plac. phil., 5.3.5.
9
Parmenides 28B18 DK. For Diogenes of Apollonia, see 64A24 and B6 DK;
Diocles, Fr. 40 van der Eijk (= Wellmann, Fragmente, 208ff. = Herophilus,
T191 van Staden), and see van der Eijks extended comments ad loc. For
Erasistratus and Herophilus, see Herophilus, T191 von Staden (with his
discussion on pp. 293-6). For Galen, see, e.g., De sem., 1.12-14 (106,14114,21 De Lacy = 4.555,5-563,13 Khn); De usu part., 14.10 (2.316,5-319,22
Helmreich) and 16.10 (2.412,21-424,15 Helmreich). On Galens
hematogenous theory, see Lesky, Zeugung, 181, and Nickel,
Untersuchungen, 34 and 89.
10
Aristotle, GA, 734a16ff. For Galens views on preformationism and
epigenesis, see Nickel, Untersuchungen, 67-83, and M. Boylan, Galens
Conception Theory, Journal of the History of Biology 19.1 (1986), 47-77.
5
12
Plato, Tim., 73b1-e1: To\ de ojstwn kai sarkwn kai thv toiau/th fu/sew
peri pash wde escen. tou/toi su/mpasin arch\ men hJ touv muelouv genesi:
oi gar touv biou desmoi, thv yuchv tw swmati sundoumenh, en tou/tw
diadou/menoi katerrizoun to\ qnhto\n geno: aujto\ de oJ muelo\ gegonen ex
allwn. twn gar trigwnwn osa prwta astrabhv kai leia onta puvr te kai
udwr kai aera kai ghvn di akribeia malista hn parascein dunata,
tauvta oJ qeo\ apo\ twn eautwn ekasta genwn cwri apokrinwn, meignu\
de allh/loi su/mmetra, panspermian panti qnhtw genei mhcanwmeno,
to\n muelo\n ex aujtwn aphrgasato, kai meta tauvta dh\ futeu/wn en aujtw
katedei ta twn yucwn genh, schmatwn te osa emellen au sch/sein oia te
kaq ekasta eidh, to\n muelo\n aujto\n tosauvta kai toiauvta dihreito
sch/mata eujqu\ en thv dianomhv thv kat arca. kai th\n men to\ qeion
sperma oion arouran mellousan exein en auJthv periferhv pantachv
plasa epwno/masen touv muelouv tau/thn th\n moiran egkefalon, w
apotelesqento ekastou zwou to\ peri touvt aggeion kefalh\n
genhso/menon: o d au to\ loipo\n kai qnhto\n thv yuchv emelle kaqexein,
ama stroggu/la kai promh/kh dihreito sch/mata, muelo\n de panta
epefh/misen, kai kaqaper ex agkurwn ballo/meno ek tou/twn pash
yuchv desmou\ peri touvto su/mpan hdh to\ swma hJmwn aphrgazeto,
stegasma men aujtw prwton sumphgnu\ peri olon ojsteinon. The above
translation is drawn from D.J. Zeyl, Plato. Timaeus. Translated with
Introduction (Indianapolis, 2000), with some minor revisions.
7
There has been some disagreement on the sense in which the marrow
here is said to be a panspermian panti qnhtw genei (73c1-2). Cornford,
Cosmology, 294-5, following A. Rivaud, Platon. Tome x: Time, Critias
(Paris, 1925), and subsequently followed by Rankin, Individual, 34, has
suggested that Plato is here alluding to the future degeneration of human
beings into all the other kinds of mortal animals. As the skeletal structures
of all these animals are degenerate forms of the human structure, the
marrow, it is claimed, is a suitable foundation for the souls of all mortal
kinds of animals. I believe the main motivation behind this interpretation
has now been sufficiently diffused by T.K. Johansen, Platos Natural
Philosophy. A Study of the Timaeus-Critias (Cambridge, 2004), 151-2, and
follow him (and others) in taking the rational, spirited and appetitive parts
of soul to be the proper residents of the marrow.
18
This is particularly clear in Tim., 91b1-2. All of these characterizations of
marrow as seed (74a3-4; 74b3; 86c3-4; and cf. 77d3-4) are subsequent
steps in the generation of the human body that depend on the crucial initial
procedure of implanting the soul into the marrow (73c3-4), as is made
clear, e.g., in 75a2-3 (cf. 74e1-2), 81d4-7 and 91b1-2.
9
reason why the male genitals are disobedient and selfwilled, like a living thing that will not listen to reason and
on account of its raging desires tries to overpower
everything else. And in women the wombs and uteri are
said for these same reasons to be a living thing within
them that desires to give birth to children; whenever this
living thing remains unfruitful for too long beyond the due
season, it becomes irritated and difficult and wanders
throughout the entire body and blocks off the passages of
breath, and by restricting its respiration sends the body
into severe difficulties and provides for all sorts of
diseases,19 until the [female] desire and the [males] erw
bring [these male and female parts] together and, like
plucking a fruit from the trees, sow into the womb as if
into a tilled field living things that are too small to see and
unformed, and then after having separated them again,
they nourish them until they grow large inside [the
womb] and after this they bring them to the light of day,
completing the generation of living things.20
19
It has been often and correctly remarked that Plato here is taking up the
doctrine of the wandering womb, which figures prominently in
Hippocratic gynecology, on which see J. Longrigg, Greek Medicine From
the Heroic to the Hellenistic Age. A Source Book (London, 1998), 194-201.
Although Longrigg gives no examples here of the wandering womb
causing respiratory problems, this is an ailment described often enough in
Hippocratic medicine (e.g., Mul. II, 125-6 and 130 [8.268,9-272,8 and 278,711 Littr). This is likely Platos intended meaning, though his use of pneuvma
(91a6), anapnoh/n (91b2) and anepneusen (91b3) in connection with the
male seed raises some questions about whether the ailment in question
(ta touv pneu/mato diexo/dou apofratton, anapnein oujk ewn) is rather
the obstruction of the menstrual flow, which is still more frequently
associated with the wandering womb (see Longrigg, Greek Medicine, 194201).
20
Plato, Tim., 91a4-d5: th\n touv potouv diexodon, h dia touv pleu/mono
to\ pwma uJpo\ tou\ nefrou\ ei th\n ku/stin elqo\n kai tw pneu/mati
qlifqen sunekpempei decomenh, sunetrhsan ei to\n ek thv kefalhv
kata to\n aujcena kai dia thv rJacew muelo\n sumpephgo/ta, on dh\
sperma en toi pro/sqen lo/goi eipomen: oJ de, at emyuco wn kai
labwn anapnoh/n, touvq hper anepneusen, thv ekrohv zwtikh\n
10
Before examining some of the larger issues in this passage, a few words
are necessary on the phrase in italics. This is a translation of kai palin
diakrinante (Tim. 91d3), and scholars have proposed a number of
plausible interpretations of this phrase. (i) One possible interpretation has
been put forth by Praechter, namely that the living things that were initially
sown into the flesh of the womb are then separated from the wall of the
womb for gestation.21 Such an interpretation might be behind ArcherHinds (1888) translation: and again separating them.22 (ii) Praechter also
suggests another interpretation on behalf of Michael of Ephesus, though
Praechter distances himself from it.23 Working on the assumption that Plato
is a two-seed homuncular preformationist, one might take kai palin
diakrinante to mean that each of the tiny human beings the one
supplied by the male and the other by the female must be divided again
epiqumian empoih/sa aujtw, touv gennan erwta apetelesen. dio\ dh\
twn men andrwn to\ peri th\n twn aidoiwn fu/sin apeiqe te kai
aujtokrate gegono/, oion zwon anuph/koon touv lo/gou, pantwn di
epiqumia oistrwdei epiceirei kratein: ai d en tai gunaixin au
mhvtrai te kai uJsterai lego/menai dia ta aujta tauvta [I delete the
comma here. See below note 45] zwon epiqumhtiko\n eno\n thv
paidopoiia, otan akarpon para th\n wran cro/non polu\n gignhtai,
calepw aganaktouvn ferei, kai planwmenon panth kata to\ swma,
ta touv pneu/mato diexo/dou apofratton, anapnein oujk ewn ei
aporia ta escata emballei kai no/sou pantodapa alla
parecei, mecriper an ekaterwn hJ epiqumia kai oJ erw sunagago/nte,
oion apo\ dendrwn karpo\n katadreyante, w ei arouran th\n
mh/tran ao/rata uJpo\ smikro/thto kai adiaplasta zwa
kataspeirante kai palin diakrinante megala ento\ ekqreywntai
kai meta touvto ei fw agago/nte zwwn apoteleswsi genesin.
21
K. Praechter, Platon Prformist?, Philologus 83 (1928), 18-3 at 29n23.
22
And cf. Paulsen and Rehns translation: sie dann wieder von ihr
trennen.
23
Michael of Ephesus was a Byzantine commentator working in the 12th
century, who is the author of the earliest known commentary on Aristotles
GA (which was wrongly preserved under Philoponus name). Within this
commentary Michael presents an interpretation of Platos embryology (see
passages in next note) that is hard to reconcile with the complete picture
offered by the Timaeus (see below note 48). Praechter, Platon Prformist,
28, has suggested that this is due to the influence of Neoplatonism, but
Michaels understanding of Platonic embryology is in fact very far
removed from Neoplatonic embryology (see J. Wilberding, The
Revolutionary Embryology of the Neoplatonists, Oxford Studies in Ancient
Philosophy 49 [2015]: 321-361).
11
into their organs so that a single composite human being may be created
out some male parts and some female parts. In fact, there is good reason to
doubt that Michaels Plato was a homuncular preformationist; he appears
rather to be a two-seed vital anhomoiomerous preformationist.24 More to
the point, there are very good reasons for not ascribing any variety of
preformationism to Plato, as we shall see below. (iii) The current scholarly
consensus favors a third interpretation that takes this phrase together with
megala [] ekqreywntai, with both picking up on the description of the
seed as ao/rata uJpo\ smikro/thto kai adiaplasta: since the seed is still
small and unformed, it must be given form and made larger. Thus, kai
palin diakrinante is given the technical embryological sense of
articulating the embryo.25 It is certainly true that it was common in
embryological contexts to discuss when the articulation of the limbs took
place the so-called point of first articulation, and that diakrinein and
diakrisi are terms commonly used to refer to this process.26
When confronted with the details of the Greek text, however, the
consensus interpretation runs into serious problems. First, there is the
problem of the palin at 91d3. For what, on the consensus interpretation
(iii), would it mean for the embryo to be articulated again? But the real
problem concerns the subjects of the participle diakrinante: the male
erw and the female epiqumia remain the subject throughout 91c7-d5.27 But
how can Plato think that the male erw and the female epiqumia are
responsible for articulating the embryos features? This is a problem that
has already been brought out with great force by Sarah Broadie.28 (iv)
24
nor the combined effect of the two of them [] its mode of causation is sui
generis.
29
This is analogous to the effects of the basic desire to restore the natural
state of the body. When my body is cold, this desire will lead me to
approach the fire, but once my body becomes too warm, it will also lead
me away from the fire (cf. Philebus 32a-b). This is possible because the
motivating desire is not simply a desire to be warm. Perhaps Plato even
followed the Hippocratic author of Superf. in believing intercourse during
pregnancy to be harmful to the child (see Superf., 13 [78,15-16 Lienau] and
26 [82,14-15 Lienau]; cf. Soranus, Gyn., 1.46.64-67 Burguire et al.), though
interpretation (iv) hardly requires us to assume this.
30
E.g., Taylor, Commentary, 639, and Lesky, Zeugung, 20.
13
(ensouled) matter of the brain or marrow would seem to demand a twoseed theory, since brain and marrow are just as much a part of female
anatomy as they are of male anatomy. Perhaps this is also why, according
to the little evidence we possess, all Presocratic encephalo-myelogenic
theorists were also two-seed theorists.36 When viewed from this
perspective, then, Platos endorsement of a version of the encephalomyelogenic theory would already seem to commit him to a two-seed
theory. Further, certain details in the present passage supply some
additional support for a two-seed theory. He conspicuously says that the
female reproductive organs are living things for these same reasons (dia
ta aujta tauvta) that explained the male case, which could be taken to
refer to a single cause of life in the male and female reproductive organs:
the life-status of the female reproductive organs is owed to the presence of
an ensouled marrow-seed.37 Likewise, what is said to be sown into the
womb are living things (zwa plural), which could be taken to mean that
two seeds are involved. Finally, denying that Plato allowed for a female
seed would seem to raise certain difficulties, such as how to account for
maternal resemblance.
Given the considerable amount of evidence pointing in each
direction, the truth would seem to lie near some intermediate position. In
light of Platos identification of marrow and seed, it is very difficult to deny
the existence of a female seed,38 but he might well have thought that this
seed made no direct contribution to the formation of the embryo. Such a
39
Herophilus, T61 von Staden, with the comments by von Staden on 230ff.
Soranus, Gyn., 1.12.96-98 Burguire et al.
40
Aetius, Plac. phil., 5.5.3 (= 38A13 DK) and see above note 5. According to
Aetius, Plac. phil., 5.7.7 (= 38A14 DK) Hippon viewed the female
contribution to consist only in trofh/. See Lesky, Zeugung, 27-28.
41
Taylor, Commentary, 637, also appears to restrict the seminal ducts
creation to the male. Note that Aristotle considered the uterus to be the
female counterpart to male seminal passages (GA, 720a12-14).
42
For Hippon, see Aetius, Plac. phil., 5.7.7 (= 38A14 DK) with Lesky,
Zeugung, 27-28.
16
into the native species.43 Given the widely accepted analogy between the
earth-plant relationship and the mother-embryo relationship, the
implication would seem to be that the nourishment supplied by the mother
is sufficient to account for significant formative changes in the embryo.44 In
addition, Platos description of the living things in the seed still being
unformed (adiaplasta) also leaves the door open for the female to
exercise some formative influence during the period of gestation, a point
to which we shall return below. Second, when the womb is said to be a
living thing for these same reasons (dia ta aujta tauvta), Plato is
making an epistemological point rather than giving a causal account.45 He
is drawing our attention to that fact that it is possible to witness behavior of
both male and female reproductive organs from which it may be inferred
that they are independent living things. Just as we may infer that the male
member is an independent living thing on account of its unruliness in
being aroused, so too may the womb be inferred to be a living thing on
account of its own brand of unruliness, namely its proclivity to wander. In
both cases the parts behave contrary to the interests of the whole on
account of their individual agendas the males desire (epiqumia) for
emission and erw of procreation (gennan), and the females desire
(epiqumia) for child-bearing (paidopoiia). The dia ta aujta tauvta is,
therefore, sufficiently accounted for by this parallel. There remains the
question of how to account for the wombs desire for child-bearing, but it is
hard to see how transferring the account given for the male to the female
43
would be of any help here.46 For that account can only explain the males
desire to emit seed and procreate but not the females unique desire to
bear children, which is perhaps better explained by assuming that her
reproductive parts lack the seed that they naturally long for. Finally, Platos
use of the plural zwa to describe the seed cannot be decisive, as he has
been loose with his use of singulars and plurals throughout the passage,
and the repetition of the plural in his account of birth completing the
generation of living things suggests that Plato has switched to the plural
because he is discussing all cases of reproduction collectively and not
because he means to suggest that there is more than one seed.47
Platos position on preformationism has equally caused a great deal
of confusion. A number of scholars have seen Plato as a preformationist
even as a homuncular preformationist but what he gives us in the Timaeus
is really just a puzzle. This puzzle is concentrated in his description of the
seed in Timaeus 91d2-3. On the one hand he calls the seed a zwon (or even
a plurality of zwa) that is simply too small to see, which suggests a strong
form of preformationism, but on the other he describes these same zwa as
being unformed (adiaplasta), which would seem to speak against
preformationism.48 What has gone unnoticed is that this same puzzle is
46
overturning the empirical evidence and positing viscera that are too small
to see (dia mikro/thta adhla) in bloodless creatures. Plato appears to
make a similar inference about the seed in Tim., 91d2 (ao/rata uJpo\
smikro/thto). Cf. Tim., 43a3.
52
68B32 DK: xunousih apoplhxih smikrh/: exessutai gar anqrwpo ex
anqrwpou kai apospatai plhghvi tini merizo/meno. Lesky, Zeugung, 72,
takes this to imply homuncular preformationism: Der real-morphologishe
Zusammenhang zwischen den elterlichen Organen und Organteilen und
denen des Keims, die dieser in prformiertem Zustand denn als Mensch
strzt er schon aus dem Menschen heraus vererbt erhlt, ist [] zum
Ausdruck gebracht. Lonie, Hippocratic Treatises, 180, with somewhat
more caution, agrees: It is exceedingly tempting to see a form of the
homunculus theory here [] Clearly we cannot be certain that Democritus
did think in this way; but we can at least say that of existing theories, that of
Democritus was the best suited to explain organic structure. As M.L.
Gemelli Marciano, Le Dmocrite technicien. Remarques sur la reception
de Dmocrite dans la littrature technique, in A. Brancacci and P.-M.
Morel, eds., Democritus: Science, the Arts, and the Care of the Soul (Leiden
and Boston, 2007), 207-237 at 215, shows, 68B32 DK nest toutefois atteste
nulle part sous sa forme complte. Cf. also John of Alexandrias use of a
similar phrase in what is clearly not a case of homuncular preformationism
(In Hipp. Nat. Puer., 134,16 Bell et al.).
53
Aristotle, GA, 740a35-7 (= 68A144 DK): tou/tou gar carin en tai
uJsterai menei to\ zwion, all oujc w Dhmo/krito/ fhsin, ina
diaplatthtai ta mo/ria kata ta mo/ria thv ecou/sh. And 740a13-15 (=
68A145 DK): osoi legousin, wsper Dhmo/krito, ta exw prwton
diakrinesqai twn zwiwn, usteron de ta ento/, oujk ojrqw legousin.
20
Plato describes it as zwa that are still adiaplasta. Even Platos use of the
plural zwa might have some connection to the enigmatic Democritean
fragment 68B124: oJ men Dhmo/krito legwn anqrwpoi ei estai kai
anqrwpo pante, if it has not been corrupted in transmission.54 For
Democritus, this paradox is presumably to be resolved by a more liberal
reading of 68B32 that credits him with a softer version of pangenesis. This,
in any case, would also seem to be the implication of 68A141: Democritus
says that [the seed derives] from the entire body and the most important
parts such as its bones, flesh and sinews.55 If this is right, then Democritus
theory would be preformationist to the extent that the seed contains a
human being in the sense of containing all of the relevant parts of a human
being (certainly bones, flesh and sinews, and perhaps even
anhomoiomerous parts), though these parts would still need to be
assembled together and formed in the womb.56
54
Diels-Kranz label the fragment unintelligible and do not even translate it.
Diels conjectures that 68B124 DK is a corruption and suggests the original
read anqrwpo exessutai ex anqrwpou panto/ (cf. 68B32 DK), which
might well be right. As it stands, the sense might be that every portion of
the seed may be counted as a human and that all of these humans go
together to form a single human offspring. The phenomenon of polygony
might be in the background here.
55
Atius, Plac. phil. 5.3.6 (= 68A141 DK): Dhmo/krito af olwn twn
swmatwn kai twn kuriwtatwn merwn oion ojstwn sarkwn kai inwn [to\
sperma einai]. There is some disagreement about whether the first kai/ is
meant to be epexegetic (thus Perilli, Democritus, 171) or co-ordinative
(H. De Ley, Pangenesis versus panspermia. Democritean Notes on
Aristotles Generation of Animals, Hermes 108 [1980], 130-153 at 135-6). In
the former case we have homoiomerous pangenesis, the results for the
latter interpretation will depend on how one understands af olwn twn
swmatwn (which De Ley takes to refer to the organs).
56
As P.-M. Morel, Dmocrite et lobjet de la philosophie naturelle. A
propos des sens de chez Dmocrite, in A. Brancacci and P.-M.
Morel, eds., Democritus: Science, the Arts, and the Care of the Soul (Leiden
and Boston, 2007), 105-124 at 110-11, and Aristote contra Dmocrite, 5253, notes, there remains some ambiguity about how to reconcile
Democritus two-seed theory, which is already supposed to account for
paternal and maternal resemblances at conception (68A143 DK), with his
claim (68A144-5 DK) that the mother forms the embryo according to her
own parts during gestation. On the former aspect of Democritus theory,
see Lesky, Zeugung, 73-4, and De Ley, Pangenesis, 142-3.
21
23