platos embryology

23
1 Plato’s Embryology James Wilberding Ruhr-Universität Bochum [email protected] * Abstract Embryology was a subject that inspired great cross-disciplinary discussion in antiquity, and Plato’s Timaeus made an important contribution to this discussion, though Plato’s 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 Plato’s 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-Universität Bochum; Institut für Philosophie II; GA 3/31; Universitätsstraße 150; D-44780 Bochum (Germany). I would like to thank the journal’s anonymous referees for their useful comments on the first version of this article. 1 Censorinus, De dei nat., 5-11 and Aëtius, Plac. phil., 5.3-21. A new reconstruction of Aëtius’ Plac. phil. currently being produced by Jaap

Upload: goforitandgetit007

Post on 05-Sep-2015

266 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Intéressant de voir les intuitions de cet Ancien ...

TRANSCRIPT

  • 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.