Aristotle's ›Generation of Animals‹

A Comprehensive Approach

Sabine Föllinger, Sabine Föllinger

• Verlag: De Gruyter
• Jahr: 2022
• ISBN:
  9783110762112
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Philosophy
• Thema: Ancient & Classical Philosophy

Aristotle's work "On Generation of Animals" is fascinating. By integrating empirical facts into contexts of justification and by explaining reproduction in the framework of his general theory Aristotle wrote a biological 'masterpiece'. At the same time it raises many issues because due to the difficulty of the subject under investigation (for example, the egg-cell had not yet been discovered) the theory is complex and often speculative.

The contributions in this volume resulting from a conference held in Marburg in 2018 study the challenging writing from various perspectives. They examine the structure of the work, the method and the manner of writing, its relation to other writings, and its scientific context. By investigating the underlying philosophical concepts and their relation to the empirical research offered in "On Generation of Animals" the contributions also try to solve puzzles which Aristotle's explanation of the role of male and female offers as well as his idea of embryogenesis. An outlook for the history of reception rounds off the volume.

I. Content, Structure and Method

Aristotle’s GA and the Hippocratic Discourse on Generation

Dr Christoph Hammann

Cappeler Straße 51 35039 Marburg Germany

If one addresses oneself to Aristotle’s work Generation of Animals with an interest for the Hippocratic theories of generation and their reception by Aristotle, one raises a question that, at least at first glance, seems to be only of minor relevance. In comparison with the Presocratic philosophers and Aristotle’s frequent references to their views on generation, Hippocratic texts seem to play a secondary role as a source of ideas for Aristotle’s GA. Even if we find clear references to the Hippocratics – for example at the beginning of the refutation of the so-called pangenesis theory, the theory that semen comes from every part of the body –, Aristotle makes use of the rather impersonal phrase Δοκεῖ δὲ ¹ (“It is generally held that …”) ² to introduce this position. Often, he only refers to the Hippocratics with the indefinite pronoun τινές – for example in the second book of the GA, when he states that semen – like any other residue – is secreted naturally and not with the aid of any additional force. Then, he immediately reports the theory that is developed in the Hippocratic treatise Ancient Medicine ³ according to which the genitals attract the seminal fluid. ⁴ Aristotle thinks that this assumption is mistaken because from his point of view, it would almost amount to the accusation that nature has not succeeded in finding the perfect, namely the most uncomplicated way for the secretion of semen. One of the somewhat precise – if we may call it that – designations of the Hippocratics in the GA appears in the sixth chapter of the second book. Here, Aristotle speaks of Τῶν δ’ ἀρχαίων τινὲς φυσιολόγων and gives them credit for having concentrated their efforts on finding out the order in which the single parts of the body are generated. ⁵

Only a few times does Aristotle call medical authors by their names. In the second chapter of the second book of the GA, Aristotle criticises the physician and historian Ktesias of Knidos for his view on the semen of elephants. ⁶ And in the first chapter of the fourth book, Aristotle speaks of a certain Leophanes. ⁷ But on the whole, Aristotle’s references to the Hippocratics appear to be rather unspecific, ⁸ and Aristotle, as we may suppose, strangely downplays the importance of the Hippocratic thinkers and their works for his own conceptions.

Aristotle’s references to the Hippocratics might be vague, but apparently, he refers back to their thoughts, as some of the recent studies have shown – shedding light on the impact of the Hippocratics on Aristotle’s works. ⁹ In her doctoral thesis “Aristoteles und das Corpus Hippocraticum”, Carolin M. Oser-Grote meticulously compares the Hippocratic and the Aristotelian anatomical doctrines and points at those Hippocratic writings that Aristotle obviously read and took note of. ¹⁰ In his article “Les mouvements de la matière dans la génération des animaux selon Aristote”, ¹¹ Philip van der Eijk shows that not only the male seed but also the female matter plays an active part in Aristotle’s model of generation, and that Aristotle evidently draws on the Hippocratic treatise Regimen. This is corroborated by Hynek Bartoš, who highlights parallels between the treatise Regimen and numerous of Aristotle’s texts in his article, with a focus on the concept of innate heat. ¹² Finally, in her recent monograph “Aristotle on Female Animals”, Sophia Connell refutes the stereotype that the Hippocratics and Aristotle are antagonists only because Aristotle did not adopt in every respect the Hippocratic view that women produce semen. Thereby, Connell also frees Aristotle from the prejudice that he expresses misogynistic views. ¹³

Furthermore, if the information is reliable that the papyrus Anonymus Londinensis contains about Aristotle, his pupil Meno and their knowledge of older medical and philosophical literature, then we can assume – with Daniela Manetti ¹⁴ and others ¹⁵ – that Aristotle has dealt with Hippocratic texts quite intensively.

Following the aforementioned studies on the relationship between Aristotle and the Hippocratics, we will take a closer look at certain contexts in Aristotle’s GA that reveal quite remarkable similarities between the Hippocratics and Aristotle.

To give a first example, the Hippocratic treatise On the Nature of Man seems to foreshadow a striking element of Aristotle’s theory of generation. In the first two chapters of this treatise, the Hippocratic author criticises certain philosophers who argue that the nature of man consists of only one substance – like air, fire, water, or earth. ¹⁶ Moreover, he attacks certain doctors who purport that this nature consists of only one humour, respectively – be it blood, bile, or phlegm. ¹⁷ The author rejects those monistic views and goes on to define his own position regarding the constitution of human nature. In order to demonstrate that our nature is made up not only of one element, but of several elements and humours, the author takes a closer look at the only possible way in which generation can, in his view, take place:

Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἀνάγκη τὴν γένεσιν γενέσθαι μὴ ἀφ’ ἑνός· πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἕν γ’ ἐόν τι γεννήσειεν, εἰ μή τινι μιχθείη; εἶτ οὐδὲ ἢν μὴ ὁμόφυλα ἐόντα μίσγηται καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχοντα δύναμιν, γέννα οὐδ’ ἂν μία συντελέοιτο. καὶ πάλιν, εἰ μὴ τὸ θερμὸν τῷ ψυχρῷ καὶ τὸ ξηρὸν τῷ ὑγρῷ μετρίως πρὸς ἄλληλα ἕξει καὶ ἴσως, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἕτερον τοῦ ἑτέρου πολλὸν προέξει καὶ τὸ ἰσχυρότερον τοῦ ἀσθενεστέρου, ἡ γένεσις οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο. ὥστε πῶς εἰκὸς ἀπὸ ἑνός τι γεννηθῆναι, ὅτε γε οὐδ’ ἀπὸ τῶν πλειόνων γίνεται, ἢν μὴ τύχῃ καλῶς ἔχοντα τῆς κρήσιος τῆς πρὸς ἄλληλα; ¹⁸

Now in the first place generation cannot take place from a unity. How could a unity generate, without copulating? Again, there is no generation unless the copulating partners be of the same kind, and possess the same qualities; nor would there be any offspring. Moreover, generation will not take place if the combination of hot with cold and of dry with moist be not tempered and equal – should the one constituent be much in excess of the other, and the stronger be much stronger than the weaker. Wherefore how is it likely for a thing to be generated from one, when generation does not take place from more than one unless they chance to be mutually well-tempered? ¹⁹

Two of the points the author mentions in this text are of considerable importance for Aristotle’s conception. Firstly, there is a thought that generation, in any case, requires at least a plurality of beings that mingle with each other and thereby create a new animate being. ²⁰ This is a notion that Aristotle implicitly confirms himself, in the first book of the GA. In the 20^th chapter, Aristotle deals with the embryo (κύημα) and defines the embryo as “the first mixture of male and female” (τὸ πρῶτον μίγμα ἐκ θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος). ²¹ With the expression μίγμα, Aristotle approaches the author of On the Nature of Man even on the level of terminology. ²² As is clear by his following remarks, however, Aristotle does not adopt the Hippocratic theory of two seeds constituting the new human being. ²³ This is a conception that the text of On the Nature of Man only suggests or implies, without fully elaborating. We can find it in other Hippocratic works, though, for example in Diseases IV. The author prefaces this treatise with the statement that generation presupposes the sperm not only of the man, but also of the woman:

Τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐς τὴν γένεσιν ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν μελέων τοῦ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τῆς γυναικὸς ἐλθὸν τὸ σπέρμα καὶ ἐς τὰς μήτρας τῆς γυναικὸς πεσὸν ἐπάγη· χρόνου δὲ γενομένου φύσις ἀνθρωποειδὴς ἐγένετο ἐξ αὐτοῦ. ²⁴

To generate a human being, sperm coming from all the parts of a man and a woman arrives in the woman’s uterus and congeals, and, as time passes, out of this a creature of human shape arises. ²⁵

Apart from Diseases IV, we can find another example in the text Nature of the Child. Here, the author states that the mingling of the seeds of the man and the woman marks the beginning of the formation of the embryo:

Ἢν ἡ γονὴ μείνῃ ἀπ’ ἀμφοῖν ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι τῆς γυναικὸς, πρῶτον μὲν μίσγεται ὁμοῦ, ἅτε τῆς γυναικὸς οὐκ ἀτρεμεούσης, καὶ ἀθροίζεται καὶ παχύνεται θερμαινομένη. ²⁶

If seed from both (sc. parents) remains in a woman’s uterus, first this is mixed together – since the woman does not remain still – and then on being warmed it aggregates and becomes thicker. ²⁷

Instead of adopting this conception of two seeds contributing to the generation of the new human being, Aristotle, as we can see by looking at the first book of the GA, holds that only the man can provide the see...