-
1
Platos Embryology
James Wilberding Ruhr-Universitt Bochum
[email protected]*
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 encephalo-myelogenic 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
cross-
disciplinary 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
* Ruhr-Universitt Bochum; Institut fr Philosophie II; GA 3/31;
Universittsstrae 150; D-44780 Bochum (Germany). I would like to
thank the journals anonymous referees for their useful comments on
the first version of this article. 1 Censorinus, De dei nat., 5-11
and Atius, Plac. phil., 5.3-21. A new reconstruction of Atius Plac.
phil. currently being produced by Jaap
-
2
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 Pseudo-Plutarchean 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
-
3
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 one-seed 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., 146,20-
-
4
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 so-
called 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), 40-49. 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
-
5
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 (106,14-114,21 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.
-
6
defend homuncular preformationism, though some remarks come
close to
suggesting it.11
Platos views on all three of these issues have been the subject
of
various interpretations over the years. Remarks that give some
indications
on Platos embryological views can be found scattered throughout
the
dialogues, but it is in the Timaeus that we find Platos most
considered
views on the issue, with the two most critical passages
appearing at 73b1-
e1 and at the end of the dialogue in 91a4-91d5.
The first passage is concerned with the nature of the seed and
its
origin in the body:
As for flesh and bones and things of that nature, this is
how it is. The starting point for all these was the
formation of marrow. For life's chains, as long the soul
remains bound to the body, are bound within the
marrow, giving roots for the mortal race. The marrow
itself came to be out of other things. For the god
isolated from their respective kinds those primary
triangles which were undistorted and smooth and
hence, owing to their exactness, were particularly well
suited to make up fire, water, air and earth. He mixed
them together in the right proportions, and from them
made the marrow, a panspermia contrived for every
mortal kind. Next, he implanted in the marrow the
various types of soul and bound them fast in it. And in
making his initial distribution, he proceeded
immediately to divide the marrow into the number and
kinds of shapes that matched the number and kinds of 11 Notably,
Aeschylus, Eumen., 657-666, and Euripides, Orest., 551-6. Among
philosophers, Democritus 68B32 DK strongly suggests the homuncular
variety, but when understood in the context of the rest of his
embryology, he seems to be advancing a weaker form of
preformationism. See the discussion of Plato below. Note one of
Leon the Physicians etymological explanations of the Greek term
embryon is a mortal is within (endon broton) (Synopsis, 16,13
Renehan).
-
7
shapes that the types of soul were to possess, type by
type. He then proceeded to mold the field, as it were,
that was to receive the divine seed, making it round,
and called this portion of the marrow, brain. Each
living thing was at its completion to have a head to
function as a container for this marrow. That, however,
which was to hold fast the remaining, mortal part of the
soul, he divided into shapes that were at once round
and elongated, all of which he named marrow. And
from these as from anchors he put out bonds to secure
the whole soul and so he proceeded to construct our
bodies all around this marrow, beginning with the
formation of solid bone as a covering for the whole of
it.12
This passage has been pointed to as evidence that Plato is an
encephalo-
myelogenic theorist, and there is certainly a good deal of truth
in this
12 Plato, Tim., 73b1-e1: To\ de ojstw n kai sarkw n 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. tw n gar trigwnwn osa prw ta
astrabhv kai lei a onta puvr te kai udwr kai aera kai ghvn di
akribeia malista hn parascei n dunata, tauvta oJ qeo\ apo\ tw n
eautw n ekasta genw n cwri apokrinwn, meignu\ de allh/loi
su/mmetra, panspermian panti qnhtw genei mhcanwmeno, to\n muelo\n
ex aujtw n aphrgasato, kai meta tauvta dh\ futeu/wn en aujtw
katedei ta tw n yucw n genh, schmatwn te osa emellen au sch/sein
oia te kaq ekasta eidh, to\n muelo\n aujto\n tosauvta kai toiauvta
dihrei to sch/mata eujqu\ en thv dianomhv thv kat arca. kai th\n
men to\ qei on sperma oion arouran mellousan exein en auJthv
periferhv pantachv plasa epwno/masen touv muelouv tau/thn th\n moi
ran egkefalon, w apotelesqento ekastou zwou to\ peri touvt aggei on
kefalh\n genhso/menon: o d au to\ loipo\n kai qnhto\n thv yuchv
emelle kaqexein, ama stroggu/la kai promh/kh dihrei to sch/mata,
muelo\n de panta epefh/misen, kai kaqaper ex agkurw n ballo/meno ek
tou/twn pash yuchv desmou\ peri touvto su/mpan hdh to\ sw ma hJmw n
aphrgazeto, stegasma men aujtw prw ton sumphgnu\ peri olon
ojsteinon. The above translation is drawn from D.J. Zeyl, Plato.
Timaeus. Translated with Introduction (Indianapolis, 2000), with
some minor revisions.
-
8
attribution.13 For here Plato describes the marrow, which is
constituted of
the most perfect triangles, as the starting point of the
formation of all the
other parts. More importantly, he labels the marrow a
panspermia, which
usually gets translated as a kind of seed.14 But a closer look
at the details of
this passage reveals that Plato appears to be employing the
term
panspermia in the sense of a receptacle of seed or a seedbed
rather than a
seed itself.15 For he goes on to say that the Demiurge implants
(futeu/wn)
the various types of soul in the marrow. Moreover, the
concentration of
marrow that constitutes the brain is called a field (arouran),
and this
field is again said not to be a seed but to receive the divine
seed, which
is the immortal (rational) soul.16 In short, the marrow appears
to be
introduced not as a universal seed but as a universal seedbed,
that is, a
receptacle for all kinds of seeds. The true seed appears to be
the soul,
though Plato does not explain here or elsewhere in the Timaeus
how
exactly the soul is supposed to execute the essential seminal
function of
forming the embryo. Moreover, Plato explicitly refers only to
the rational
soul as a seed, but the larger implication of the passage
appears to be that
all three kinds of soul are in fact seeds, since otherwise the
marrow could
13 E.g., Lesky, Zeugung, 18-20; E. Lesky and J.H. Waszink,
Embryologie, Reallexikon fr Antike und Christentum 4 (1959),
1228-1244 at 1228; F.M. Cornford, Platos Cosmology: The Timaeus of
Plato translated with a running Commentary (London, 1937), 295; van
der Eijk, Diocles of Carystus, vol. 2, 92; M.-H. Congourdeau,
Lembryon et son me dans les sources grecques (Paris, 2007), 197. 14
Zeyl, Timaeus, and Taylor (apud Cornford, Cosmology, 294):
universal seed; Cornford, Cosmology: a mixture of seeds of every
sort; R.D. Archer-Hind, The Timaeus of Plato (London, 1988): a
common seed; T. Paulsen and R. Rehn, Platon. Timaios (Stuttgart,
2003): den gesamten Samen; L. Brisson, La vivant, sa reproduction
et sa nutrition selon Platon, in L. Brisson, G. Aubry, M.-H.
Congourdeau and F. Hudry, eds., Porphyre. Sur la manire dont
lembryon reoit lme (Paris, 2012), 31-46 at 40: une semence
universelle. Cf. H. Mller, Platons smmtliche Werke, bersetzt von
Hieronymus Mller, vol. 6 (Leipzig, 1857): eine Verbindung aller
Samen. 15 H.D. Rankin, Plato and the Individual (London, 1964), 33,
comes close to drawing this conclusion. 16 Cf. Theophilus
Protospatharius, De corp. hum. fabr., 5.3.1 (189,5-8 Greenhill),
where the brain is described as a field in which the rational soul
is planted, either directly or by means of the spinal marrow.
-
9
not be called a universal seedbed for every mortal kind.17 To be
sure,
Plato does subsequently refer to the marrow as a seed (sperma),
which
would seem to be in tension with what he says here, but the
tension is
easily alleviated by acknowledging that in the remaining part of
the
Timaeus Plato is conceiving of marrow that is already in
possession of
soul.18
The remaining two issues explored in our overview are best
approached by considering the second and the major
embryological
passage in the Timaeus:
For the fluids we consume there is a channel, and where it
receives the fluids going through the lungs over the
kidneys to the bladder and expels them under pressure
from air, they bored a channel to the compacted marrow
that runs from the head down the neck and over the spine
the marrow, that is, that we called seed above. This
marrow, seeing that it is ensouled and has been given
vent [in the male member], created a vital desire for
emission in the [part] where the venting takes place and
so brought an erw of begetting to completion. This is the
17 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.
-
10
reason why the male genitals are disobedient and self-
willed, 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 278,7-11 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, anapnei n oujk ew n) is
rather the obstruction of the menstrual flow, which is still more
frequently associated with the wandering womb (see Longrigg, Greek
Medicine, 194-201). 20 Plato, Tim., 91a4-d5: th\n touv potouv
diexodon, h dia touv pleu/mono to\ pw ma 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 h per
anepneusen, thv ekrohv zwtikh\n
-
11
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
Archer-
Hinds (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\ tw n men andrw n to\ peri th\n tw n aidoiwn fu/sin apeiqe
te kai aujtokrate gegono/, oion zw on anuph/koon touv lo/gou,
pantwn di epiqumia oistrwdei epiceirei kratei n: 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] zw on 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\
sw ma, ta touv pneu/mato diexo/dou apofratton, anapnei n oujk ew n
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 zw a 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).
-
12
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 See again Praechter, Platon Prformist, 29n23. Cf. Michael, In
GA, 25,20-31 and 33,19-34,6, and In PA, 36,35-37,3. And see below
note 48. 25 E.g., A.E. Taylor, A Commentary on Platos Timaeus
(Oxford, 1928); Cornford, Platos Cosmology; Zeyl, Timaeus; Brisson,
La vivant. 26 See, e.g., the Hippocratic Nat. Puer., 17.1-18.1
[59,9-61,7 Joly]. 27 contra Rankin, Individual, 35. 28 See Broadie,
Nature and Divinity in Platos Timaeus (Cambridge, 2012), 270-1.
Broadie does not even consider alternative senses of diakrinante,
but she does an excellent job drawing out the absurd consequences
of the consensus interpretation. If the male erw is responsible for
the formation, then Plato is on the way to admitting a third sort
of principle into his cosmology, something that is neither
Intelligence nor material Necessity
-
13
These problems disappear if we simply do not insist on importing
the
technical embryological sense of articulation and instead
translate the
participle diakrinante straightforwardly as the complement
to
sunagago/nte: first, the male erw and the female epiqumia bring
the two
reproductive parts together, and then they separate
(diakrinante) them
again (palin). While the suggestion that love is responsible not
just for
bringing the male and female together but also for separating
them might
sound surprising, it is reasonable if we bear in mind that the
desire at issue
is a desire not for union but for creation. In other words, on
the Timaeus
account, there is no desire for sexual intercourse per se; there
is only a
desire for procreation. This desire for procreation leads to
sexual
intercourse in the first instance, but afterwards it promotes
other, non-
sexual activities, such as caring for and nourishing the embryo
during its
full period of gestation (cf. Tim. 91d4-5).29 This should be
compared to
Plato Symposium 207a-b, where again erw and epiqumia (207a7)
are
described as causing certain ailments in living things that
account not only
for sexual intercourse (summighvnai allh/loi b1-2) but also for
their
nourishing of the offspring (th\n trofh\n touv genomenou b2;
ektrefein b5).
Now back to the larger issues. As has been remarked, Plato is
not
delivering a fully worked-out embryology here, and the concision
of his
account has led to some diverging opinions on where Plato stands
with
respect to the existence of maternal seed and preformationism.30
This
passage initially appears to provide strong evidence for
Platos
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.
-
14
subscribing to the one-seed theory.31 There is no explicit
mention of a
female seed here or anywhere else in the Timaeus. The focus of
Timaeus
91a4-b7, where the creation of the channel that leads the seed
to the
reproductive organ is described, is exclusively on men, and when
Timaeus
turns to discuss female reproductive organs no such channel is
mentioned.
Moreover, the language of plucking a fruit (karpo/n singular)
and sowing
it in the womb, and describing the womb as a field further
suggests that the
female is simply receiving the male seed. This would also seem
to be
corroborated by Platos likening the receptacle to a mother and
the source
of this reception to the father.32 Finally, a one-seed theory
would also
harmonize well with several remarks regarding the male and
female
contributions to generation that Plato makes elsewhere in the
corpus. The
Republic, for example, already appears to draw a strong
distinction
between the male and female contributions to reproduction: the
male
begets (ojceu/ein) children, while the female bears (tiktein)
them.33 And the
same goes for Diotimas account of physical pregnancy in the
Symposium,
where Plato appears to buy in to the traditional view that the
male actually
gives birth to the child when he emits the seed, where the
females role
appears limited to providing a beautiful receptacle.34
Nevertheless, a strong case might be made for saying that Plato
is in
fact a two-seed theorist and is simply not giving voice to the
role of the
female seed in this passage.35 For the identification of the
seed with the
31 E.g., Lesky, Zeugung, 30n1; Congourdeau, Lembryon, with
caution; Taylor, Commentary, 638-9 appears to lean towards the
one-seed theory, but is uncertain. 32 Tim., 50d2-3. 33 Plato, Rep.,
454d10-e1. As K. Dover, Plato Symposium (Cambridge, 1980), 147,
notes, the verb tiktein can be used of both male begetting and
female bearing, but the contrast here is clear. 34 Plato, Symp.,
206b-e (esp. 206d7: iscon to\ ku/hma), on which see E.E. Pender,
Spiritual Pregnancy in Platos Symposium, The Classical Quarterly
N.S., 42.1 (1992), 72-86 at 73-76. 35 A two-seed theory has been
attributed to Plato by H. Cherniss, Aristotles Criticism of
Presocratic Philosophy (Baltimore, 1935), 284n243; W. Gerlach, Das
Problem des weiblichen Samens in der antiken und mittelalterlichen
Medizin, Sudhoffs Archiv fr Geschichte der Medizin und der
Naturwissenschaften 30:4-5 (1938), 177-193 at 182; Geurts (apud
Lesky,
-
15
(ensouled) matter of the brain or marrow would seem to demand a
two-
seed 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
encephalo-
myelogenic 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 (zw a 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
Zeugung, 30); and H.D. Rankin, On (Plato, Timaeus 91d3),
Philologus 107 (1963), 138-145 at 141, and Individual, 36. 36 For
Alcmaeon, see 24A13-14 DK; for the Pythagoreans, see Diogenes
Laertius, Vit. phil, 8.28 (= 58B1 DK), Atius, Plac. phil., 5.5.1;
for Hippon, see Censorinus, De dei nat., 5.2 (= 38A12 DK); Atius,
Plac. phil., 5.5.3 (= 38A13 DK). 37 Cf. Taylor, Commentary, 639. 38
Cf. Cherniss, Aristotles Criticism, 284n243: I think anyone who
reads Timaeus 91A-D will admit that Plato could not consistently
have otherwise supposed [viz. that there is also a female seed].
Spinal marrow which is seed exists in both sexes, and he expressly
says both sow the unformed animals into the womb. As will become
clear, I agree with Cherniss only regarding the former claim.
-
16
theory was advanced by Herophilus, the famous physician
living
approximately a century after Plato, whose detailed anatomical
studies led
him to conclude that although the female produces a seed, there
are no
spermatic ducts leading the seed to her uterus so that the seed
was
expelled from the body without making any contribution, and this
view was
subsequently taken over wholesale by Soranus.39 A similar theory
has
been ascribed to the Presocratic Hippon, who lived in the
century prior to
Plato. Presumably it was theoretical rather than anatomical
considerations
that led Hippon to this conclusion: the encephalo-myelogenic
theory
demands the existence of the female seed, but perhaps Hippon
denied it
any role in embryology in order to avoid the problem of
parthenogenesis.40 We may do justice to the present passage,
then, by
allowing for a female seed but then taking Plato seriously when
he
describes the seminal duct as being constructed exclusively in
the male.41
The other considerations in favor of a more efficacious female
seed
are not compelling. First, Plato does not seem particularly
interested in
addressing the problem of maternal resemblance, and even if he
were
concerned about this, the remarks he makes elsewhere suggest
that he
would have again agreed with Hippon that the nourishment
provided by
the mother is sufficient to the task.42 For example, when
Socrates in the
Republic complains about the current Athenian constitutions
ability to
corrupt the nature of its citizens, he draws a comparison to how
differences
in soil can alter and pervert the natures of plants: just as a
foreign seed
sown in alien ground: when it is overcome, it fades and likes to
go over
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.
-
17
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 Plato, Rep., 497b4-5: wsper xeniko\n sperma en ghv allh
speiro/menon exithlon ei to\ epicwrion filei kratou/menon ienai.
Cf. Plato, Rep., 491d1-4; Theat., 149e3-4; Menex., 237e1-238a5. 44
Interestingly, Aristotle himself seems to accept some version of
this theory in GA, 2.4 (at 738b27-36), for which Galen later
criticizes him for effectively turning nourishment into a seed
instead of acknowledging a female seed (De sem., 154,1-11 De Lacy
[= 4.602,10-603,15 Khn] and 156,1-7 De Lacy [= 4.604,12-18 Khn]).
Lesky, Zeugung, 173-7, takes Galens criticism to be directed at
both Aristotle and Athenaeus of Attaleia. 45 I read the dia ta
aujta tauvta as modifying lego/menai and delete the comma after
tauvta: are said for these same reasons to be a living thing within
them.
-
18
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 zw a 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 zw
on (or even
a plurality of zw a) that is simply too small to see, which
suggests a strong
form of preformationism, but on the other he describes these
same zw a as
being unformed (adiaplasta), which would seem to speak
against
preformationism.48 What has gone unnoticed is that this same
puzzle is
46 Taylor, Commentary, 639, points to this question: As we have
had no description of the formation in the female of a counterpart
to the erw touv gennan, one may perhaps suppose that T. regards the
passion as due in both sexes to the same cause, the attempt of the
muelo/ to exit [] Yet the very next sentence suggests the cruder
view that the whole of the childs body comes from the father. 47 As
noted above, Plato gives the analogy of plucking a single fruit
(karpo\n) at Tim., 91d1, and at Tim., 91b7-c2 Plato turns to the
womb by using the plural (ai d en tai gunaixin au mhvtrai te kai
uJsterai) but then switches to the singular zw on, which remains
the subject of 91c2-7. 48 Taylor, Commentary, 640, attributes
homuncular preformationism to Plato: The zw on spoken of here is
supposed to be the future infant itself in minature, as we see from
the words megala ei fw agago/nte. H. Balss, Prformation und
Epigenese in der griechischen Philosophie, Archivo di storia della
scienza 4 (1923), 319-325 at 320, and M. Wellmann, Spuren Demokrits
von Abdera im Corpus Hippocraticum, Archeion 11 (1929), 297-330 at
307-8, also attribute some form of preformation to Plato, though
both put a great deal of weight on Michael of Ephesus account of
Platos embryology (on Michael of Ephesus, see above notes 23 and
24). Lesky, Zeugung, 20, credits Praechter and Geurts with having
refuted
-
19
already to be found in Democritus, whose embryology appears to
have
had a significant influence on Platos own.49 This is certainly
not to say that
Plato took over Democritus embryological theory wholesale, as
there are
many features of the Democritean embryology that are
incompatible with
the bits of theory to which Plato does clearly subscribe.
Democritus, for
example, advances a two-seed theory of pangenesis in which the
female
seed makes a significant contribution to the embryo, and his
atomism
figures prominently into his embryology. Yet Plato does appear
to help
himself to bits and pieces of Democritus, which is perhaps only
to be
expected given Democritus contributions to the field.50 This is
most
striking in Platos possible appropriation of the Democritean
term
panspermia (67A15 and 28 DK) as well as in the readiness of
both
philosophers to infer the existence of organic entities that are
too small to
be seen on the basis of rational inquiry.51 Yet it also appears
in a more
Michaels relevance, and she herself thinks that the adiaplasta
decides the matter: denn der Ausdruck nicht durchgeformte Lebewesen
spricht durchaus gegen die Annahme von Prformation. The conclusion
reached by Brisson, La vivant, 41, may be viewed as a
recapitulation of the puzzle: Quoi quil en soit, Platon peut tre
considr comme un prformiste, dans la mesure o les tres vivants sont
dj forms dans le sperme mme sils sont invisibles et informes. 49
This parallel between Plato and Democritus was noted by Wellmann,
Spuren Demokrits, though Wellmann depends too much on Michaels
exegesis (see previous note), but is oddly not to be found in S.M.
Nikolaou, Die Atomlehre Demokrits und Platons Timaios (Stuttgart,
1998). 50 Democritus appears to have developed at least one of if
not the most comprehensive embryological theories of the
Presocratic philosophers. He is often regarded as having exercised
a considerable influence on Hippocratic embryology. See, e.g.,
Wellmann, Spuren Demokrits; Lesky, Zeugung, 70-76; A. Stckelberger,
Vestigia Democritea. Die Rezeption der Lehre von den Atomen in der
antiken Naturwissenschaft und Medizin (Basel, 1984), 49-87; Lonie,
Hippocratic Treatises, 62-71 (and 176-86 and passim). His influence
has been called into question by L. Perilli, Democritus, Zoology
and the Physicians, in A. Brancacci and P.-M. Morel, eds.,
Democritus: Science, the Arts, and the Care of the Soul (Leiden and
Boston, 2007), 143-179 at 162-172: There are two radically opposing
parties: philosophers as a rule see an influence of Democritus on
medical treatises concerning specific aspects, while historians of
medicine usually tend to exclude it. I subscribe to the latter view
(167). 51 In PA, 665a31-33, (= Democritus, 68A148 DK) Aristotle,
who maintains that only blooded animals have viscera, criticizes
Democritus for
-
20
subtle form in connection with Democritus commitment to
preformationism. A commitment on his part of some kind
necessarily
follows from his pangenesis, though which kind exactly he
subscribes to is
obscured somewhat by mixed messages in our evidence. One
fragment
appears to provide strong evidence for Democritus commitment
to
homuncular pangenesis: Sexual intercourse is a minor stroke: for
a human
being bursts forth from a human being, and is torn off,
separating, by a
blow.52 Yet homuncular pangenesis would seem to be
irreconcilable with
two of Aristotles reports about the formation of the embryo in
the womb.
He criticizes Democritus for maintaining that the embryo remains
in the
womb in order that the parts may be formed (diaplatthtai) after
the
fashion of the parts of the mother, whose articulation of the
embryo
begins on the outside and works its way inwards.53 So just as
Democritus
describes the seed as an anqrwpo that still needs to be
diaplattesqai,
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\ zw ion, 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 prw ton
diakrinesqai tw n zwiwn, usteron de ta ento/, oujk ojrqw
legousin.
-
21
Plato describes it as zw a that are still adiaplasta. Even
Platos use of the
plural zw a 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
tw n swmatwn kai tw n kuriwtatwn merw n oion ojstw n sarkw n kai
inw n [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 tw n 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, 52-53, 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.
-
22
The puzzle, however, that Plato presents to us in the Timaeus,
is
more resistant to solution, though preformation, in any of its
three forms,
would seem to be difficult to square with the theory of the
Timaeus. Some
might look to buttress the case for preformationism by appealing
to
Diotimas account of pregnancy in the Symposium, and perhaps
the
absence of any discussion in the Timaeus of the standard
question of the
order of formation of the offsprings parts could be interpreted
as further
evidence that Plato is simply assuming that the parts are
already formed.57
Yet the fact stands that in the Timaeus the seed consists only
of soul plus
marrow, while even the weakest variety of preformationism,
homoiomerous preformationism, demands that all of the
fundamental
homoiomerous parts be present in the seed.58
None of the above is meant to overturn our opening observation
that
Plato is not attempting to deliver a fully worked-out
embryology. Indeed,
there are many major issues of ancient embryology that appear
simply not
to have fit into the Timaeus philosophical program. But we can
clearly
distinguish the contours of his theory on the three central
issues of
spermatogenesis, which may now be summarized as follows.
Plato
subscribes to the encephalo-myelogenic theory of seed, though he
places
particular emphasis on the soul being the true seed. From this
it also
follows that Plato is a two-seed theorist, yet the female seed
appears to
57 In the Symp., 206c-e, Plato appropriates the female
experience of pregnancy for the male. Ejaculation of the seed is
recast as giving birth. Plato is silent on the womans birth pains.
Birth, moreover, is recast as an entirely pleasant affair that no
longer maps onto a females experience. The only pain worth
mentioning is that of the male, when he cannot off-load his
offspring ( ). See F. Sheffield, Psychic Pregnancy and Platonic
Epistemology, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 20 (2001), 1-35
at 13-15. 58 Nor may one claim that for Plato marrow is the only
fundamental homoiomerous part. At least when Plato describes the
creation of flesh, there is no indication that it is being created
out of marrow (Tim., 74c5-d2). Bones, likewise, are soaked in
marrow but are not described as being generated out of marrow
(Tim., 73e1-74a1). Additional (minimal) support against
preformationism might be drawn from Leg., 872e5-10, where Plato
advocates equal punishments for matricide and patricide, in stark
contrast to the preformationism-based defense of Orestes in
Aeschylus, Eumen., 602-10 and 652-66.
-
23
make no contribution to reproduction. Finally, given his
commitment to the
above encephalo-myelogenic theory, Plato cannot be an advocate
of
preformationism. Rather, his view must be that the soul in the
seed is
responsible for forming the embryo, though he offers us no
further
explanation of this aspect of this theory.