Free Novel Read

Various Works Page 56


  15

  The cephalopoda entwine together at the mouth, pushing against one

  another and enfolding their arms. This attitude is necessary,

  because Nature has bent backwards the end of the intestine and brought

  it round near the mouth, as has been said before in the treatise on

  the parts of animals. The female has a part corresponding to the

  uterus, plainly to be seen in each of these animals, for it contains

  an egg which is at first indivisible to the eye but afterwards

  splits up into many; each of these eggs is imperfect when deposited,

  as with the oviparous fishes. In the cephalopoda (as also in the

  crustacea) the same passage serves to void the excrement and leads to

  the part like a uterus, for the male discharges the seminal fluid

  through this passage. And it is on the lower surface of the body,

  where the mantle is open and the sea-water enters the cavity. Hence

  the union of the male with the female takes place at this point, for

  it is necessary, if the male discharges either semen or a part of

  himself or any other force, that he should unite with her at the

  uterine passage. But the insertion, in the case of the poulps, of

  the arm of the male into the funnel of the female, by which arm the

  fishermen say the male copulates with her, is only for the sake of

  attachment, and it is not an organ useful for generation, for it is

  outside the passage in the male and indeed outside the body of the

  male altogether.

  Sometimes also cephalopoda unite by the male mounting on the back of

  the female, but whether for generation or some other cause has not yet

  been observed.

  16

  Some insects copulate and the offspring are produced from animals of

  the same name, just as with the sanguinea; such are the locusts,

  cicadae, spiders, wasps, and ants. Others unite indeed and generate;

  but the result is not a creature of the same kind, but only a

  scolex, and these insects do not come into being from animals but from

  putrefying matter, liquid or solid; such are fleas, flies, and

  cantharides. Others again are neither produced from animals nor

  unite with each other; such are gnats, 'conopes', and many similar

  kinds. In most of those which unite the female is larger than the

  male. The males do not appear to have spermatic passages. In most

  cases the male does not insert any part into the female, but the

  female from below upwards into the male; this has been observed in

  many cases (as also that the male mounts the female), the opposite

  in few cases; but observations are not yet comprehensive enough to

  enable us to make a distinction of classes. And generally it is the

  rule with most of the oviparous fish and oviparous quadrupeds that the

  female is larger than the because this is expedient in view of the

  increase of bulk in conception by reason of the eggs. In the female

  the part analogous to the uterus is cleft and extends along the

  intestine, as with the other animals; in this are produced the results

  of conception. This is clear in locusts and all other large insects

  whose nature it is to unite; most insects are too small to be observed

  in this respect.

  Such is the character of the generative organs in animals which were

  not spoken of before. It remains now to speak of the homogeneous parts

  concerned, the seminal fluid and milk. We will take the former

  first, and treat of milk afterwards.

  17

  Some animals manifestly emit semen, as all the sanguinea, but

  whether the insects and cephalopoda do so is uncertain. Therefore this

  is a question to be considered, whether all males do so, or not all;

  and if not all, why some do and some not; and whether the female

  also contributes any semen or not; and, if not semen, whether she does

  not contribute anything else either, or whether she contributes

  something else which is not semen. We must also inquire what those

  animals which emit semen contribute by means of it to generation,

  and generally what is the nature of semen, and of the so-called

  catamenia in all animals which discharge this liquid.

  Now it is thought that all animals are generated out of semen, and

  that the semen comes from the parents. Wherefore it is part of the

  same inquiry to ask whether both male and female produce it or only

  one of them, and to ask whether it comes from the whole of the body or

  not from the whole; for if the latter is true it is reasonable to

  suppose that it does not come from both parents either. Accordingly,

  since some say that it comes from the whole of the body, we must

  investigate this question first.

  The proofs from which it can be argued that the semen comes from

  each and every part of the body may be reduced to four. First, the

  intensity of the pleasure of coition; for the same state of feeling is

  more pleasant if multiplied, and that which affects all the parts is

  multiplied as compared with that which affects only one or a few.

  Secondly, the alleged fact that mutilations are inherited, for they

  argue that since the parent is deficient in this part the semen does

  not come from thence, and the result is that the corresponding part is

  not formed in the offspring. Thirdly, the resemblances to the parents,

  for the young are born like them part for part as well as in the whole

  body; if then the coming of the semen from the whole body is cause

  of the resemblance of the whole, so the parts would be like because it

  comes from each of the parts. Fourthly, it would seem to be reasonable

  to say that as there is some first thing from which the whole

  arises, so it is also with each of the parts, and therefore if semen

  or seed is cause of the whole so each of the parts would have a seed

  peculiar to itself. And these opinions are plausibly supported by such

  evidence as that children are born with a likeness to their parents,

  not in congenital but also in acquired characteristics; for before

  now, when the parents have had scars, the children have been born with

  a mark in the form of the scar in the same place, and there was a case

  at Chalcedon where the father had a brand on his arm and the letter

  was marked on the child, only confused and not clearly articulated.

  That is pretty much the evidence on which some believe that the

  semen comes from all the body.

  18

  On examining the question, however, the opposite appears more

  likely, for it is not hard to refute the above arguments and the

  view involves impossibilities. First, then, the resemblance of

  children to parents is no proof that the semen comes from the whole

  body, because the resemblance is found also in voice, nails, hair, and

  way of moving, from which nothing comes. And men generate before

  they yet have certain characters, such as a beard or grey hair.

  Further, children are like their more remote ancestors from whom

  nothing has come, for the resemblances recur at an interval of many

  generations, as in the case of the woman in Elis who had intercourse

  with the Aethiop; her daughter was not an Aethiop but the son of

  that da
ughter was. The same thing applies also to plants, for it is

  clear that if this theory were true the seed would come from all parts

  of plants also; but often a plant does not possess one part, and

  another part may be removed, and a third grows afterwards. Besides,

  the seed does not come from the pericarp, and yet this also comes into

  being with the same form as in the parent plant.

  We may also ask whether the semen comes from each of the homogeneous

  parts only, such as flesh and bone and sinew, or also from the

  heterogeneous, such as face and hands. For if from the former only, we

  object that resemblance exists rather in the heterogeneous parts, such

  as face and hands and feet; if then it is not because of the semen

  coming from all parts that children resemble their parents in these,

  what is there to stop the homogeneous parts also from being like for

  some other reason than this? If the semen comes from the heterogeneous

  alone, then it does not come from all parts; but it is more fitting

  that it should come from the homogeneous parts, for they are prior

  to the heterogeneous which are composed of them; and as children are

  born like their parents in face and hands, so they are, necessarily,

  in flesh and nails. If the semen comes from both, what would be the

  manner of generation? For the heteroeneous parts are composed of the

  homogneous, so that to come from the former would be to come from

  the latter and from their composition. To make this clearer by an

  illustration, take a written name; if anything came from the whole

  of it, it would be from each of the syllables, and if from these, from

  the letters and their composition. So that if really flesh and bones

  are composed of fire and the like elements, the semen would come

  rather from the elements than anything else, for how can it come

  from their composition? Yet without this composition there would be no

  resemblance. If again something creates this composition later, it

  would be this that would be the cause of the resemblance, not the

  coming of the semen from every part of the body.

  Further, if the parts of the future animal are separated in the

  semen, how do they live? and if they are connected, they would form

  a small animal.

  And what about the generative parts? For that which comes from the

  male is not similar to what comes from the female.

  Again, if the semen comes from all parts of both parents alike,

  the result is two animals, for the offspring will have all the parts

  of both. Wherefore Empedocles seems to say what agrees pretty well

  with this view (if we are to adopt it), to a certain extent at any

  rate, but to be wrong if we think otherwise. What he says agrees

  with it when he declares that there is a sort of tally in the male and

  female, and that the whole offspring does not come from either, 'but

  sundered is the fashion of limbs, some in man's...' For why does not

  the female generate from herself if the semen comes from all parts

  alike and she has a receptacle ready in the uterus? But, it seems,

  either it does not come from all the parts, or if it does it is in the

  way Empedocles says, not the same parts coming from each parent, which

  is why they need intercourse with each other.

  Yet this also is impossible, just as much as it is impossible for

  the parts when full grown to survive and have life in them when torn

  apart, as Empedocles accounts for the creation of animals; in the time

  of his 'Reign of Love', says he, 'many heads sprang up without necks,'

  and later on these isolated parts combined into animals. Now that this

  is impossible is plain, for neither would the separate parts be able

  to survive without having any soul or life in them, nor if they were

  living things, so to say, could several of them combine so as to

  become one animal again. Yet those who say that semen comes from the

  whole of the body really have to talk in that way, and as it

  happened then in the earth during the 'Reign of Love', so it happens

  according to them in the body. Now it is impossible that the parts

  should be united together when they come into being and should come

  from different parts of the parent, meeting together in one place.

  Then how can the upper and lower, right and left, front and back parts

  have been 'sundered'? All these points are unintelligible. Further,

  some parts are distinguished by possessing a faculty, others by

  being in certain states or conditions; the heterogeneous, as tongue

  and hand, by the faculty of doing something, the homogeneous by

  hardness and softness and the other similar states. Blood, then,

  will not be blood, nor flesh flesh, in any and every state. It is

  clear, then, that that which comes from any part, as blood from

  blood or flesh from flesh, will not be identical with that part. But

  if it is something different from which the blood of the offspring

  comes, the coming of the semen from all the parts will not be the

  cause of the resemblance, as is held by the supporters of this theory.

  For if blood is formed from something which is not blood, it is enough

  that the semen come from one part only, for why should not all the

  other parts of the offspring as well as blood be formed from one

  part of the parent? Indeed, this theory seems to be the same as that

  of Anaxagoras, that none of the homogeneous parts come into being,

  except that these theorists assume, in the case of the generation of

  animals, what he assumed of the universe.

  Then, again, how will these parts that came from all the body of the

  parent be increased or grow? It is true that Anaxagoras plausibly says

  that particles of flesh out of the food are added to the flesh. But if

  we do not say this (while saying that semen comes from all parts of

  the body), how will the foetus become greater by the addition of

  something else if that which is added remain unchanged? But if that

  which is added can change, then why not say that the semen from the

  very first is of such a kind that blood and flesh can be made out of

  it, instead of saying that it itself is blood and flesh? Nor is

  there any other alternative, for surely we cannot say that it is

  increased later by a process of mixing, as wine when water is poured

  into it. For in that case each element of the mixture would be

  itself at first while still unmixed, but the fact rather is that flesh

  and bone and each of the other parts is such later. And to say that

  some part of the semen is sinew and bone is quite above us, as the

  saying is.

  Besides all this there is a difficulty if the sex is determined in

  conception (as Empedocles says: 'it is shed in clean vessels; some

  wax female, if they fall in with cold'). Anyhow, it is plain that

  both men and women change not only from infertile to fertile, but also

  from bearing female to bearing male offspring, which looks as if the

  cause does not lie in the semen coming from all the parent or not, but

  in the mutual proportion or disproportion of that comes from the woman

  and the man, or in something of this kind. It is clear, then, if we

  are to p
ut this down as being so, that the female sex is not

  determined by the semen coming from any particular part, and

  consequently neither is the special sexual part so determined (if

  really the same semen can become either male or female child, which

  shows that the sexual part does not exist in the semen). Why, then,

  should we assert this of this part any more than of others? For if

  semen does not come from this part, the uterus, the same account may

  be given of the others.

  Again, some creatures come into being neither from parents of the

  same kind nor from parents of a different kind, as flies and the

  various kinds of what are called fleas; from these are produced

  animals indeed, but not in this case of similar nature but a kind of

  scolex. It is plain in this case that the young of a different kind

  are not produced by semen coming from all parts of the parent, for

  they would then resemble them, if indeed resemblance is a sign of

  its coming from all parts.

  Further even among animals some produce many young from a single

  coition (and something like this is universal among plants, for it is

  plain that they bear all the fruit of a whole season from a single

  movement). And yet how would this be possible if the semen were

  secreted from all the body? For from a single coition and a single

  segregation of the semen scattered throughout the body must needs

  follow only a single secretion. Nor is it possible for it to be

  separated in the uterus, for this would no longer be a mere separation

  of semen, but, as it were, a severance from a new plant or animal.

  Again, the cuttings from a plant bear seed; clearly, therefore, even

  before they were cut from the parent plant, they bore their fruit from

  their own mass alone, and the seed did not come from all the plant.

  But the greatest proof of all is derived from observations we have

  sufficiently established on insects. For, if not in all, at least in

  most of these, the female in the act of copulation inserts a part of

  herself into the male. This, as we said before, is the way they