Aristotle and Michael of Ephesus on how cicadas sing

Aristotle on how cicadas sing

“All the longer-lived insects (for all insects are bloodless) have a deep indentation under their midsection, so that they can be cooled through a finer membrane. For since they’re rather warm, they need a greater amount of cooling, for example bees (some bees even live seven years) and other insects that make a humming sound like wasps, cockchafers and cicadas.

“They in fact make the sound using pneuma, as if they were panting: for in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting, friction arises against the membrane; and they move this region just as animals that breath outside air with lungs and fish with gills. A similar thing also happens if one suffocates a breathing animal by holding its mouth closed*—for these animals too will make this rising movement with the lungs, except for them it does not produce sufficient cooling, while for insects it is sufficient.

“And with the friction against the membrane they produce their humming, as we said, like children do with reeds that have had holes made in them when they cover them with a fine membrane.** For this is how the singing cicadas sing: they are warmer and there is a deep indentation under their midsection, while it is no indented in those that do not sing.”

ὅσα δὲ μακροβιώτερα τῶν ἐντόμων (ἄναιμα γάρ ἐστι πάντα τὰ ἔντομα), τούτοις ὑπὸ τὸ διάζωμα διέσχισται, ὅπως διὰ λεπτοτέρου ὄντος τοῦ ὑμένος ψύχηται· μᾶλλον γὰρ ὄντα θερμὰ πλείονος δεῖται τῆς καταψύξεως, οἷον αἱ μέλιτται (τῶν γὰρ μελιττῶν ἔνιαι ζῶσι καὶ ἑπτὰ ἔτη) καὶ τἆλλα δὲ ὅσα βομβεῖ, οἷον σφῆκες καὶ μηλολόνθαι καὶ τέττιγες. καὶ γὰρ τὸν ψόφον ποιοῦσι πνεύματι, οἷον ἀσθμαίνοντα· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι, τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἰρομένῳ καὶ συνίζοντι, συμβαίνει πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα γίνεσθαι τρίψιν· κινοῦσι γὰρ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ὥσπερ τὰ ἀναπνέοντα ἔξωθεν τῷ πνεύμονι καὶ οἱ ἰχθύες τοῖς βραγχίοις. παραπλήσιον γὰρ συμβαίνει κἂν εἴ τίς τινα τῶν ἀναπνεόντων πνίγοι, τὸ στόμα κατασχών· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα ποιήσει τῷ πνεύμονι τὴν ἄρσιν ταύτην· ἀλλὰ τούτοις μὲν οὐχ ἱκανὴν ἡ τοιαύτη ποιεῖ κίνησις κατάψυξιν, ἐκείνοις δ' ἱκανήν. καὶ τῇ τρίψει τῇ πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα ποιοῦσι τὸν βόμβον, ὥσπερ λέγομεν, οἷον διὰ τῶν καλάμων τῶν τετρυπημένων τὰ παιδία, ὅταν ἐπιθῶσιν ὑμένα λεπτόν. διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ τῶν τεττίγων οἱ ᾄδοντες ᾄδουσιν· θερμότεροι γάρ εἰσι, καὶ ἔσχισται αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόζωμα· τοῖς δὲ μὴ ᾄδουσι τοῦτ' ἐστὶν ἄσχιστον.

Aristotle, On Youth and Old Age, Life and Death 15 (On Respiration 9), 475a1-20

*rather disturbing

**like an internal kazoo?

Michael of Ephesus on Aristotle on how cicadas sing

Michael of Ephesus comments on Aristotle’s explanation of why some cicadas sing and others do not. In his comments, he refers to an interpretation of the same passage by a colleague. It is not clear whether he’s talking about an interpretation that was written down, or whether it was one that was discussed between them (or maybe even in class). He does claim, however, that his colleague has written on Aristotle and he humbly claims that his colleague is a better interpreter of Aristotle than him and others. Suggests to me that Michael was not the only commentator at the time writing commentaries on this text, or at least on explanations of cicadas.

“Therefore, that is the sense of what he said. What he means by the words “in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting” is something like this: it so happens that friction is produced by the innate pneuma against the membrane that is at the midsection. For when the innate heat that is in the midsection expands and contracts, or opens and closes the indentations, friction against the membrane is produced by the entrapped air, i.e., friction is produced by the innate pneuma.

“With these words he seems to indicate that what makes the noise is the innate pneuma itself, and not the air shut up inside that was taken in through the slits. He therefore seems to be saying with these words that the innate breath is what produces the sound when it expands and contracts (for during the expansion, when it strikes the membrane, it makes a sound), and perhaps this is what happens. But since the animals that breath move their chest by means of the entrance of air coming in from the outside, lest someone assume that flies and all the other insects move the region under the midsection through a certain kind of air entering through the mouth, he adds:

‘A similar thing also happens if one suffocates a breathing animal by holding its mouth closed.’ (475a11).

“And in the case of singing cicadas, the thorax has an indentation, while in the case of those that do not sing, it does not have an indentation. For if their singing is due to the indentation, the [other’s] not singing is due to it not being indented. And so, I think that in [his commentary on?] the present passage [475a12], my most divine colleague does not consider that, in an [earlier] passage [where he says,] “in the midsection itself, by means of the innate pneuma expanding and contracting” [475a8], it is the innate pneuma that falls against the membrane and makes a sound. For why is no sound produced in those [insects] that do not have an indentation, even though in these cases the innate pneuma falls against the analogue of the membrane as well? But perhaps it is not necessary to condemn a man who has written down many works of philosophy and has a finer ability than me and others beyond me for getting at Aristotle’s meaning. For which reason, let his point of view have first place, and let mine be ranked wherever it is welcome to those fond of learning.”

ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶν λεγομένων πάντων διάνοια αὕτη, κατὰ δὲ τὰς λέξεις τὸ «ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἴροντι καὶ συνίζοντι» τοιοῦτόν ἐστι· συμβαίνει κατὰ τὸν ὑμένα τὸν ἐν τῷ ὑποζώματι ὄντα γίνεσθαι τρῖψιν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμφύτου πνεύματος. ἐπεὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τῷ ὑποζώματι ὂν ἔμφυτον πνεῦμα αἶρον καὶ συνίζον, ἤτοι ἀνοῖγον καὶ κλεῖον τὰ σχίσματα, διὰ τοῦ ἐναπολαμβανομένου ἀέρος γίνεται τρῖψις πρὸς τὸν ὑμένα, δηλονότι ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐμφύτου πνεύματος γίνεται τρῖψις. αὐτὸς δ’ ἔοικε διὰ τῆς λέξεως δηλοῦν, ὅτι αὐτὸ τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ψοφοῦν, καὶ οὐχὶ ὁ ἐναπολαμβανόμενος διὰ τῶν σχισμάτων ἀήρ. ἔοικεν οὖν διὰ τῆς λέξεως λέγειν, ὅτι τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ψοφοῦν ἐκτεινόμενον καὶ συστελλόμενον (ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἐκτάσει προσπῖπτον τῷ ὑμένι ποιεῖ ψόφον), καὶ ἴσως εἴη ἂν καὶ τοῦτο γινόμενον· ἐπεὶ δὲ τὰ ἀναπνέοντα δοκεῖ ὅτι τῇ τοῦ εἰσιόντος ἔξωθεν ἀέρος εἰσόδῳ κινοῦσι τὸν θώρακα, ἵνα μή τις ὑπολάβῃ, ὅτι καὶ αἱ μυῖαι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα διά τινος ἀέρος εἰσερχομένου διὰ τοῦ στόματος κινοῦσι τὸν ὑπὸ τὸ ὑπόζωμα τόπον, ἐπήγαγε·

«Παραπλήσιον γὰρ συμβαίνει, κἂν εἴ τίς τινα τῶν ἀναπνεόντων πνίγοι τὸ στόμα κατασχών.»

καὶ τοῖς μὲν ᾄδουσι τέττιξιν ἔσχισται τὸ ὑπόζωμα, τοῖς δὲ μὴ ᾄδουσιν οὐκ ἔσχισται. εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὴν σχίσιν τὸ ᾄδειν, τὸ μὴ ᾄδειν διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐσχίσθαι. ὥστε ἀξιῶ τὸν θειότατόν μου ἑταῖρον διὰ τῆς νῦν λέξεως μὴ ὑπονοεῖν ἐν τῇ λέξει τῇ «ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ τῷ ὑποζώματι τῷ ἐμφύτῳ πνεύματι αἴροντι καὶ συνίζοντι», ὅτι τὸ ἔμφυτον πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ προσπῖπτον τῷ ὑμένι καὶ ψοφοῦν. διὰ τί γὰρ καὶ ἐν τοῖς μὴ ἔχουσι σχίσμα οὐ γίνεται ψόφος, καίτοι τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἐμφύτου προσπίπτοντος καὶ ἐν τούτοις πρὸς τὸ ἀνάλογον τῷ ὑμένι; ἀλλ' ἴσως οὐ χρὴ καταψηφίζεσθαι ἀνδρὸς πολλοὺς ἐπὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ πόνους καταβεβληκότος καὶ δυναμένου κάλλιον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἄλλων τῶν ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ τῆς Ἀριστοτέλους διανοίας ἐφάπτεσθαι. δι' ὃ ἐχέτω μὲν τὰ πρῶτα ἡ ἐκείνου ἐπιβολή, ἡ δὲ ἐμὴ τετάχθω ὅπου φίλον τοῖς φιλομαθέσι.

Michael of Ephesus, In parva naturalia commentaria, CAG 22.1, 130,31–131,8 Wendland

---

For once they say rosy-fingered Dawn, taught by love,
took Tithonos and went to the ends of the earth.
He was beautiful and young, but in time grey old age
caught him all the same, as he held on to an immortal spouse.

καὶ γάρ π̣[ο]τ̣α̣ Τίθωνον ἔφαντο βροδόπαχυν Αὔων,
ἔρωι δε̣δ̣άθ̣ειϲαν, βάμεν’ εἰϲ ἔϲχατα γᾶϲ φέροιϲα[ν, [10]
ἔοντα̣ [κ]ά̣λ̣ο̣ν καὶ νέον, ἀλλ’ αὖτον ὔμωϲ ἔμαρψε
χρόνωι π̣ό̣λ̣ι̣ο̣ν̣ γῆραϲ, ἔχ̣[ο]ν̣τ̣’ ἀθανάταν ἄκοιτιν. [12]

From Sappho’s poem on old age (or Tithonus, fr. 58). Text is Richard Janko’s, available here.

Sleepwalking

From Michael of Ephesus’ commentary on Aristotle’s Generation of Animals.The discussion occurs during a comment on GA 5.1 779a11–25. The lemma printed is a11–12: “infants do not laugh when they are awake, but they cry and laugh when they are asleep [καὶ ἐγρηγορότα μὲν οὐ γελᾷ τὰ παιδία, καθεύδοντα δὲ καὶ δακρύει καὶ γελᾷ]”. Aristotle likens it to sleepwalking (a14–16: “just as those who get up while still sleeping do many things without dreaming [καθάπερ τοῖς ἀνισταμένοις καθεύδουσι καὶ πολλὰ πράττουσιν ἄνευ τοῦ ἐνυπνιάζειν]”). Michael tells us that something similar happened to his roommate.

“The fact that children are asleep during these kinds of activities is clear. For when they wake up later on, if they are asked, they say they did not know at all either that they were awake or what they did—like what happened to my friend as well. For an acquaintance of mine was a doctor by trade, and while I was reading and he was sleeping* (it was the seventh hour of the day**), he got up, went into the room where we keep the chickens,*** opened the door without doing much else, and having returned again he lay back down and went to sleep. Afterwards, when he had woken up, I asked him, ‘what was the necessity or the reason for which you woke up and opened the door then went back to sleep again?’ And he answered that he didn’t know, ‘for I was not conscious that I woke up let alone that I opened the door.’”

ὅτι δὲ κοιμῶνται ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις πράξεσι, δῆλον· ὕστερον γὰρ ἐπειδὰν ἐγρηγορήσωσιν, ἐρωτώμενοι λέγουσι μηδὲν εἰδέναι, εἰ ὅλως ἠγέρθησαν ἢ ἔπραξάν τι, οἷόν τι συμπέπτωκε καὶ ἐμῷ φίλῳ. ἦν γὰρ ἐμὸς συνήθης τις τὴν τέχνην ἰατρός, καὶ ἐμοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ἐκείνου δὲ κοιμωμένου (ἦν δὲ ὥρα ἑβδόμη τῆς ἡμέρας) ἐγερθεὶς καὶ ἀπελθὼν ἐν τῷ οἰκήματι, ἐν ᾧ εἴχομεν ἀποκεκλεισμένας τὰς ἀλεκτορίδας, ἤνοιξε τὴν θύραν μηδέν τι πλέον πράξας καὶ στραφεὶς πάλιν ἀνέπεσε καὶ ἐκοιμᾶτο· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐγερθεὶς καὶ ὑπ' ἐμοῦ ἐρωτηθεὶς ‘τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη καὶ ἡ αἰτία δι' ἣν ἐγερθεὶς ἤνοιξας τὴν θύραν, εἶτα πάλιν κατέδαρθες.’ ἐκεῖνος ἀπεκρίνατο μηδὲν εἰδέναι· ‘οὔτε γὰρ εἰ ὅλως ἠγέρθην σύνοιδα οὔτε πολλῷ μᾶλλον, εἰ τὴν θύραν ἀνέῳξα’.

Michael of Ephesus, On Aristotle’s Generation of Animals, CAG 14.3, 215,27–216,7 Hayduck

*Some people think Michael may have been a doctor. This passage suggests to me he was not, at least not when he wrote this.

**A reference to a period of rest in the middle of the day (i.e., the seventh hour after sunrise). The sixth (ἕκτη) hour is traditionally one of rest and in the canonical hours of prayer. Perhaps this is why Michael was reading and his friend, a professional, was sleeping. Note: Galen mentions the seventh hour in San. Tu. 6.333.1K (τὸ δέ τι καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἀναγινώσκων εἰς ἑβδόμην ὥραν παρέτεινε) as a time when a doctor named Antiochus might meet with friends or do some reading. I’m not too sure about the history though—need to follow up on it.

***Michael kept chickens.

Grasshoppers

“When I was an irrational child, I would rip off the big legs of grasshoppers and I would set them down on rocks or on the ground or wherever. There, having set them down, they were completely motionless, but when I would touch one of them, it would leap up and actually move from here to there, as if it had sensation.”

ἐγὼ γὰρ οὑτωσὶ ἀλόγως παῖς ὢν ἀνέσπων τοὺς μεγάλους τῆς ἀκρίδος πόδας καὶ ἐτίθουν αὐτοὺς ἐν πέτρᾳ ἢ γῇ ἢ ὅπου ἂν ἔτυχεν· ἐν ᾧ τεθέντες ἦσαν πάμπαν ἀκίνητοι. ὁπηνίκα δ' ἡψάμην τινὸς αὐτῶν, ἥλλετο καὶ ὅλως ἐκινεῖτο ἐκ τοῦδε εἰς τόδε τὸ ὑποκείμενον, ὡς δηλονότι αἴσθησιν ἔχον.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s Parva Naturalia, 102.19–23 Wendland

Aristotle on menstruating women and mirrors

“It is hard to believe that the man who set aside so widespread, tenacious and respectable a belief (sc. in the divine origin of prophetic dreams) accepted as fact the superstition that when a menstruous woman looks into the mirror its surface takes on a reddish tinge which may be difficult to remove.”

W.K.C. Guthrie, Review: Aristotle. Parva Naturalia. A revised text with introduction and commentary by Sir David Ross. (Oxford, Clarendon Press 1955. Pp. xi 355. Price £2.). Philosophy, 31 (118), 274-276.

“The story of the staining of the mirror by the eyes of a menstruating woman is thus a rationalization of a pre-existing superstition, the correctness of which Aristotle was not inclined to question, because he believed himself capable of explaining it.”

“Bei der Geschichte der Befleckung des Spiegels durch die Augen einer menstruierenden Frau haben wir es also mit einer Rationalisierung eines bereits vorhandenen Aberglaubens zu tun, dessen Richtigkeit Aristoteles nicht in Frage zu stellen geneigt war, weil er zu seiner Erklärung sehr wohl fähig zu sein glaubte.”

Philip van der Eijk, Aristoteles. De insomniis, De divinatione per somnum, Übersetzt und erläutert von Philip J. van der Eijk. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994, p. 182.

Superstition

I’ve been collecting texts related to a passage On Dreams where Aristotle says menstruating women tarnish a mirror when they look at it.

I think this has to be the strangest passage in Aristotle. It is not the frighteningly casual misogyny. Aristotle could have questioned his sources, something he often does, like when he questions seers’ beliefs about prophesying by dreams or when he questions fishermen’s reports of parthenogenic fish in the second book of Generation of Animals. Instead, his credulity in this case just goes to show how deeply he believed in the corrupting influence of women. The way he says it, it’s like he’s saying the most obvious thing in the world: when menstruating women look at a very bright mirror, a cloudy, bloody spot forms on the surface. If it’s a new mirror, then getting the stain out is very difficult; if it’s an older mirror, it’s easier. Like most of the men we are about to encounter, questioning this does not come up.

But for now, let’s suppose he’s picking up a common superstition. For a superstition, it is extremely specific. It’s not a lot of detail, but still weirdly specific enough to wonder if he had polished some such mirrors himself.

First, he says the mirrors need to be very clean (i.e., bright), so probably a highly polished bronze. Second, he says the newer the mirror, the harder it is to remove the tarnish, which means it can be buffed out, it just takes some work.

In fact, one thing about Aristotle’s description that makes it different from other reports of this phenomenon (all of which were written by people after Aristotle, by the way) is this kind of detail. We’ll see Pliny’s description, which is closer to what I would expect from superstition—with all his fear-mongering about menstrual blood sterilizing trees, killing bees, and giving dogs rabies, not to mention dimming mirrors, rusting metal, and dulling the edges of swords, and all given with no attempt to explain any of this nonsense.

Philip van der Eijk, whose commentary is the only detailed look at the Aristotle passage, points to parallels similar to Pliny in Columella De re rustica XI 3, 50; Geoponica XII 20, 5 and 25, 2; and Solinus, Collectanea Rerum Mirabilium I 54-56 (PJvdE p. 184). And indeed, they simply seem to take over Pliny’s account.

Aristotle, however, focuses not just on the fact that women causes mirrors to dim, or even cause bloody spots to appear on them, but on variations of the phenomenon, both with respect to the object affected (new vs. old mirrors) and on the type of effect (easy vs. hard to remove).

There’s a part of me that wants to find some explanation for this, to start from the assumption that the phenomenon was real, even though menstrual blood had nothing to do with it.

Did women’s bronze mirrors in particular show spots of rust? Was there some ingredient common to cosmetics or bronze polish or something which got onto fingers and then onto the mirror—something like soda (sodium carbonate) or white lead (lead carbonate)?

I found a website that explains how to get all sorts of different patinas on bronze or copper using different chemicals, but nothing really stuck out. And there is absolutely no record of this phenomenon anywhere at all apart from these weird passages.

So: was what Aristotle described a common superstition among the Greeks and Romans? Not really. It’s mentioned about ten times, and even then, rarely with the detail Aristotle goes into.

Is it plausibly a real phenomenon? That bronze tarnishes, sure. But that a specific rust-red patina shows up on bronze mirrors, or on specifically the kind of bronze alloy used for mirrors in antiquity? Who knows, but I’d be very curious to find out.

Explanations

I won’t get too much into the details here. Aristotle thinks that the eyes of menstruating women act on the mirror, via the air, I guess by changing the colour of the air, which changes the colour on the surface of the mirror. How he could have felt this is a satisfactory explanation is a mystery to me. Proclus, when he reports it, associates it with the arts of magicians and sympathetic relationality. Granted, sympathy hadn’t been thought up in Aristotle’s time, but I think Proclus probably couldn’t stand Aristotle’s explanation, and so he threw a reference to it in his discussion of the cave allegory in order to help him out.

Incredibly, Michael of Ephesus doesn’t even mention it. His commentary on Aristotle’s explanation is almost as weird as Aristotle’s explanation itself. He writes as if Aristotle was talking about an echo: if a menstruating woman looks at herself in a mirror, the small detail of the red in her eyes’ will be reflected back to her (we need to keep in mind here that mirrors back then would not have had the clarity and brightness of mirrors today); but on any other surface, it would not be.

Marsilio Ficino uses another analogy. He likens it to condensation. As breath condenses on a cold piece of glass, so the visual ray, which is a spirituous substance obviously, condenses on the cold, smooth, dense mirror when it touches it leaving a spot of blood. Before and after this passage, Ficino assimilates this explanation to the explanation of the evil eye and other forms of optical contagion. In all these cases, the contagion doesn’t operate sympathetically, but more like poisoning: if the visual ray, which is vaporized blood, condenses inside the body of someone else, then the blood, which was originally harmful (as it would be if it came from a person who was ill or menstruating or whatever), causes a change for the worse.

Another thing: these explanations totally re-describe the phenomenon: Aristotle is thinking of something like tarnish or rust. Proclus, however, ends up describing something else, like looking through red glasses or something. Michael thinks the phenomenon is seeing blood spots in the eyes via the mirror. And Ficino thinks a spot of blood (not tarnish) appears on the mirror.

Now, Aristotle is not an extramissionist: he doesn’t think sight is analogous to touch, i.e., that visual rays go out of the eye and touch objects, bringing back information about them. At least he’s not usually an extramissionist—there is all the stuff in the Meteorology where he seems to be.

Aristotle also doesn’t think particles leave surfaces and then come to our eyes (the standard criticism of this view is that if they did, we could never see things as big as mountains, since they could not fit into our pupil).

Instead, he thinks objects act on the air which acts on our eyes. And here he is trying to explain that the reverse is true as well: our eyes act on the air, which acts on objects. And he thinks this happens all the time, but in mirrors it is especially noticeable since they are especially sensitive to these changes. So sensitive in fact that the image can (so to speak) burn into the mirror.

So Ficino’s explanation is not Aristotle’s, because Ficino is an extramissionist. Michael’s explanation is not Aristotle’s either (I think he’s embarrassed at the text too and trying to save it). Meanwhile, Proclus is doing his own thing, trying to make it into a kind of magical illusion.

Aristotle, however, although he doesn’t use the term, is treating the process as one akin to alchemy, where the nature of a metal is changed into something else. And by extension, whether the intends to or not, he is conceiving of women as alchemists by nature.

Texts

Aristotle, On Dreams

“A sign that the sense-organs sense even a small difference quickly is what happens in the case of mirrors, a subject which, even on its own, someone might pause to inquire into and puzzle about. At the same time, from the same facts it is clear that, just as sight is acted upon, so it also produces some effect. For in the case of very clean mirrors, when menstruating women observe their reflection, the surface of the mirror becomes like a bloody cloud. And if the mirror is new, it is not easy to wipe off a stain like this; if it is old, however, it is easier.

“The cause, as we said, is that sight is not only affected by the air, but it also produces a certain effect and change. For the eye is a bright object and has colour. Therefore, it is reasonable that during menstruation, the eyes are affected, just like any other bodily part, for they are naturally veiny. For this reason, when menstruation occurs because of a disturbance and bloody inflammation, while to us the difference in the eyes is not evident, it is nevertheless present (for the nature of semen and the menstrual fluid is the same). The air is changed by the eyes, and since the air near the mirror is continuous [with it], it produces an effect like the one it was affected with, and then it produces the effect on the surface of the mirror.

“As with cloaks, those that are especially clean are quickest to be stained. For a clean mirror accurately shows whatever it receives, and an especially clean one shows even the smallest changes. The bronze mirror, because of how smooth it is, is especially sensitive to any touch (one should think about the air’s touch like a kind of friction, like wiping-off or washing), and because it is clean, it becomes evident, no matter its size. But the cause of stains not leaving quickly from new mirrors is cleanliness and smoothness. For through them, the stain permeates both deeply and all over: deeply because of their cleanliness, all over because of their smoothness. In the case of old mirrors, however, the stain does not remain, because the stain cannot penetrate in the same way, but only superficially.

“From this it is evident that change is caused even by small differences, that sensation is quick, and that the sense-organ of colours is not only affected, but produces an effect in return. Evidence for what we’ve described are facts about wines and perfumery. For oil, when it has been prepared, quickly takes on the scents of things close by, and wines are affected in the same way. For they not only acquire the scents of things thrown into them or mixed in with them, but also the things placed near or growing near the vessels.”

ὅτι δὲ ταχὺ τὰ αἰσθητήρια καὶ μικρᾶς διαφορᾶς αἰσθάνεται, σημεῖον τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐνόπτρων γινόμενον· περὶ οὗ καὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστήσας σκέψαιτό τις ἂν καὶ ἀπορήσειεν. ἅμα δ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ δῆλον ὅτι ὥσπερ καὶ ἡ ὄψις πάσχει, οὕτω καὶ ποιεῖ τι. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἐνόπτροις τοῖς σφόδρα καθαροῖς, ὅταν τῶν καταμηνίων ταῖς γυναιξὶ γινομένων ἐμβλέψωσιν εἰς τὸ κάτοπτρον, γίνεται τὸ ἐπιπολῆς τοῦ ἐνόπτρου οἷον νεφέλη αἱματώδης· κἂν μὲν καινὸν ᾖ τὸ κάτοπτρον, οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἐκμάξαι τὴν τοιαύτην κηλίδα, ἐὰν δὲ παλαιόν, ῥᾷον.

αἴτιον δέ, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ὅτι οὐ μόνον πάσχει ἡ ὄψις ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος, ἀλλὰ καὶ ποιεῖ τι καὶ κινεῖ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ λαμπρά· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ὄψις τῶν λαμπρῶν καὶ ἐχόντων χρῶμα. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὄμματα εὐλόγως, ὅταν ᾖ τὰ καταμήνια, διακεῖται ὥσπερ καὶ ἕτερον μέρος ὁτιοῦν· καὶ γὰρ φύσει τυγχάνουσι φλεβώδεις ὄντες. διὸ γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων διὰ ταραχὴν καὶ φλεγμασίαν αἱματικὴν ἡμῖν μὲν ἡ ἐν τοῖς ὄμμασι διαφορὰ ἄδηλος, ἔνεστι δέ (ἡ γὰρ αὐτὴ φύσις σπέρματος καὶ καταμηνίων), ὁ δ' ἀὴρ κινεῖται ὑπ' αὐτῶν, καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ τῶν κατόπτρων ἀέρα συνεχῆ ὄντα ποιόν τινα ποιεῖ καὶ τοιοῦτον οἷον αὐτὸς πάσχει· ὁ δὲ τοῦ κατόπτρου τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν.

ὥσπερ δὲ τῶν ἱματίων, τὰ μάλιστα καθαρὰ τάχιστα κηλιδοῦται· τὸ γὰρ καθαρὸν ἀκριβῶς δηλοῖ ὅ τι ἂν δέξηται, καὶ τὸ μάλιστα τὰς ἐλαχίστας κινήσεις. ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ μὲν τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα (δεῖ δὲ νοῆσαι οἷον τρίψιν οὖσαν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος ἁφὴν καὶ ὥσπερ ἔκμαξιν καὶ ἀνάπλυσιν), διὰ δὲ τὸ καθαρὸν ἔνδηλος γίνεται ὁπηλικηοῦν οὖσα. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀπιέναι ταχέως ἐκ τῶν καινῶν κατόπτρων αἴτιον τὸ καθαρὸν εἶναι καὶ λεῖον· διαδύεται γὰρ διὰ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ εἰς βάθος καὶ πάντῃ, διὰ μὲν τὸ καθαρὸν εἰς βάθος, διὰ δὲ τὸ λεῖον πάντῃ. ἐν δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐκ ἐμμένει, ὅτι οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ' ἐπιπολαιότερον.

ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν μικρῶν διαφορῶν γίνεται κίνησις, καὶ ὅτι ταχεῖα ἡ αἴσθησις, καὶ ὅτι οὐ μόνον πάσχει, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀντιποιεῖ τὸ τῶν χρωμάτων αἰσθητήριον, φανερὸν ἐκ τούτων. μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς οἴνους καὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν συμβαίνοντα. τό τε γὰρ παρασκευασθὲν ἔλαιον ταχέως λαμβάνει τὰς τῶν πλησίον ὀσμάς, καὶ οἱ οἶνοι τὸ αὐτὸ τοῦτο πάσχουσιν· οὐ γὰρ μόνον τῶν ἐμβαλλομένων ἢ ὑποκιρναμένων ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν πλησίον τοῖς ἀγγείοις τιθεμένων ἢ πεφυκότων ἀναλαμβάνουσι τὰς ὀσμάς.

Aristotle, On Dreams, Chapter 2, 459b23–460a32*

*In the 1935 Loeb, the Greek of this passage is translated into Latin instead of English ffs!

Pliny the Elder, Natural History

“But it is not easy that anything should be discovered that is more monstrous than woman’s menstrual fluid. New wine turns sour by coming near it, crops that are touched become barren, grafts whither, seeds of the garden dry up, fruit of trees by which she sits falls off, the brightness of mirrors are dimmed by reflecting her, the edge of iron is dulled, the brightness of ivory, bee hives die, bronze and even iron are seized by rust, and the air is seized by an awful smell. Dogs become rabid by tasting it and their bite is infected by an incurable poison. In fact, bitumen, too, which has an otherwise pliable and sticky nature and which floats at certain times of the year on the lake of Judaea, which is called Asphaltites, is not able to be divided up, as it sticks to everything it makes contact with, except a thread which is infected with this slime. Also ants, the tiniest animal, and sensitive to its presence, reject the tasty fruit which it was carrying never to return to it again.”

sed nihil facile reperiatur mulierum profluvio magis monstrificum. acescunt superventu musta, sterilescunt tactae fruges, moriuntur insita, exuruntur hortorum germina, fructus arborum, quibus insidere, decidunt, speculorum fulgor aspectu ipso hebetatur, acies ferri praestringitur, eboris nitor, alvi apium moriuntur, aes etiam ac ferrum robigo protinus corripit odorque dirus aera; in rabiem aguntur gustato eo canes atque insanabili veneno morsus inficitur. quin et bituminum sequax alioqui ac lenta natura in lacu Iudaeae, qui vocatur Asphaltites, certo tempore anni supernatans non quit sibi avelli, ad omnem contactum adhaerens praeterquam filo quem tale virus infecerit. etiam formicis, animali minimo, inesse sensum eius ferunt abicique gustatas fruges nec postea repeti.

Plinii Naturalis Historia 7.64–65

Proclus, Commentary on Plato’s Timaeus

“For even the shadows [i.e., on the wall the cave], which they say the images correspond to, have a nature of this kind. For these are likenesses of bodies and shapes, and they are in total sympathy with those things from which they arise, as it is also clear from the magic arts which profess to do things with images and shadows. And why mention only their powers? For even irrational animals have them, without any rational activity. For the hyena, they say, when it wants to eat, it casts its shadow on top of a resting dog and makes the dog a meal.* And Aristotle says that when a menstruating women looks into a mirror, the mirror and the reflected image are stained with blood.”

καὶ γὰρ αἱ σκιαί, αἷς τὰ εἴδωλα συζυγεῖν φησιν, τοιαύτην ἔχουσι φύσιν· καὶ γὰρ αὗται σωμάτων εἰσὶ καὶ σχημάτων εἰκόνες, καὶ παμπόλλην ἔχουσιν πρὸς τὰ ἀφ' ὧν ἐκπίπτουσιν συμπάθειαν, ὡς δηλοῖ καὶ ὅσα μάγων τέχναι πρός τε τὰ εἴδωλα δρᾶν ἐπαγγέλλονται καὶ τὰς σκιάς. καὶ τί λέγω τὰς ἐκείνων δυνάμεις; ἃ καὶ τοῖς ἀλόγοις ἤδη ζῴοις ὑπάρχει πρὸ λόγου παντὸς ἐνεργεῖν. ἡ γὰρ ὕαινα, φασί, τὴν τοῦ κυνὸς ἐν ὕψει καθημένου πατήσασα σκιὰν καταβάλλει καὶ θοίνην ποιεῖται τὸν κύνα· καὶ γυναικὸς καθαιρομένης, φησὶν Ἀριστοτέλης, εἰς ἔνοπτρον ἰδούσης αἱματοῦται τό τε ἔνοπτρον καὶ τὸ ἐμφαινόμενον εἴδωλον.

Proclus, In Platonis rem publicam commentaria 1.290

*I’ve talked about the magic of the hyena here.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s On Dreams

“And so this is the general idea [of what Aristotle wrote], but in the passage, “for sight, too, is a bright object and one that has colour”, ‘sight’ means the whole eye. Also, he says that “it is reasonable” that the eyes change during the period of menstruation. For since the whole body changes at that time, necessarily the eyes also change. After talking about ‘the eyes’ in the neuter, he shifts and talks about them in the masculine, saying ‘for they [masculine] are naturally veiny’. For the eyes [masculine] are veiny. He also says that, as among menstruating women, a certain bloody affection is produced around the eyes, so too it happens to us during the emission of semen. This is not obvious when we look into a mirror because of the fact that semen is naturally white.

‘The bronze mirror, because of how smooth it is, is especially sensitive to any touch.’

“The phrase ‘is especially sensitive’ can be paraphrased as, ‘it makes stains on it that are especially sensible and obvious to us.’ For just as noises are produced especially on smooth bodies because of the fact that the air on them is not broken up or in general divided up into very fine parts, so too on smooth mirrors the blemish becomes obvious because of the fact that they are continuous and unitary, so to speak, because of the extreme smoothness of the mirror. But on those that are not smooth they are not observed, since they are divided up into very fine parts because of the unevenness of the reflecting surface, and what is very fine is not easily sensed. Therefore, the smoothness is the cause of continuity, while the cleanliness is productive of the clarity. For if it were clean but not smooth, then it will not produce sensation since it is broken up into small parts due to the unevenness. It is clear that, in the case of clean mirrors, stains become visible deep down. But that sensation that is quick also apprehends the images from the sensible object quickly, this is not clear.

‘Evidence for what we’ve described are facts about wines and perfumery.’

“Having said ‘that change is caused even by small differences,’ as proof of it he adds what happens in the case of perfumery: ‘For oil, when it has been prepared, quickly takes on the scents of things close by.’ For the scent of something close by, when it changes the oil, gives it a share of its own scent.”

Ἡ μὲν οὖν διάνοια αὕτη, ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξει τῇ «καὶ γὰρ ἡ ὄψις τῶν λαμπρῶν καὶ ἐχόντων χρῶμα» ὄψιν τὸν ὅλον ὀφθαλμὸν εἴρηκε. λέγει δὲ καὶ ὅτι εὐλόγως ἐν τῷ τῶν καταμηνίων καιρῷ τὰ ὄμματα μεταβάλλει· τοῦ γὰρ σώματος ὅλου τότε μεταβάλλοντος ἀνάγκη συμμεταβάλλειν καὶ τὰ ὄμματα. εἰπὼν δὲ τὰ «ὄμματα,» τρέψας εἶπε τὴν λέξιν ἀρρενικῶς εἰπών· «καὶ γὰρ φύσει τυγχάνουσι φλεβώδεις ὄντες·» οἱ γὰρ ὀφθαλμοὶ φλεβώδεις. λέγει δὲ καὶ ὅτι, ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν γυναικῶν γινομένων τῶν καταμηνίων γίνεταί τι πάθος περὶ τὰ ὄμματα αἱματικόν, οὕτω γίνεται καὶ ἡμῖν ἐν τῇ τοῦ σπέρματος προέσει. οὐ φαίνεται δὲ ἐνορῶσιν εἰς τὸ κάτοπτρον διὰ τὸ τὸ σπέρμα φύσει λευκὸν εἶναι.

ὥσπερ δὲ τῶν ἱματίων, τὰ μάλιστα καθαρὰ τάχιστα κηλιδοῦται· τὸ γὰρ καθαρὸν ἀκριβῶς δηλοῖ ὅ τι ἂν δέξηται, καὶ τὸ μάλιστα τὰς ἐλαχίστας κινήσεις. ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ μὲν τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα (δεῖ δὲ νοῆσαι οἷον τρίψιν οὖσαν τὴν τοῦ ἀέρος ἁφὴν καὶ ὥσπερ ἔκμαξιν καὶ ἀνάπλυσιν), διὰ δὲ τὸ καθαρὸν ἔνδηλος γίνεται ὁπηλικηοῦν οὖσα. τοῦ δὲ μὴ ἀπιέναι ταχέως ἐκ τῶν καινῶν κατόπτρων αἴτιον τὸ καθαρὸν εἶναι καὶ λεῖον· διαδύεται γὰρ διὰ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ εἰς βάθος καὶ πάντῃ, διὰ μὲν τὸ καθαρὸν εἰς βάθος, διὰ δὲ τὸ λεῖον πάντῃ. ἐν δὲ τοῖς παλαιοῖς οὐκ ἐμμένει, ὅτι οὐχ ὁμοίως εἰσδύεται ἡ κηλὶς ἀλλ' ἐπιπολαιότερον.

«Ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς διὰ τὸ λεῖος εἶναι ὁποιασοῦν ἁφῆς αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα.»

Τὸ «αἰσθάνεται μάλιστα» ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ ‘αἰσθητὰς μάλιστα καὶ διαδήλους ἡμῖν ποιεῖ τὰς ἐν αὐτῷ κηλῖδας’. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς λείοις σώμασι μάλιστα γίνεται ὁ ψόφος διὰ τὸ μὴ θραύεσθαι ἐν αὐτοῖς τὸν ἀέρα μηδ' ὅλως εἰς λεπτότατα κατακερματίζεσθαι, οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς λείοις κατόπτροις αἱ κηλῖδες διάδηλοι γίνονται διὰ τὸ μένειν συνεχεῖς καὶ ὡς εἰπεῖν μία διὰ τὴν τοῦ κατόπτρου λειότητα. ἐν δὲ τοῖς μὴ λείοις οὐχ ὁρῶνται, ὅτι κατακερματίζονται εἰς λεπτότατα διὰ τὴν τοῦ ἐνόπτρου ἀνωμαλίαν· τὸ δὲ λεπτότατον οὐκ εὐαίσθητον. τὸ μὲν οὖν λεῖόν ἐστιν αἴτιον τῆς συνεχείας, τὸ δὲ καθαρὸν τοῦ διαδήλους γίνεσθαι. κἂν γὰρ ᾖ καθαρὸν μὴ λεῖον δέ, εἰς μικρὰ κατακερματισθὲν διὰ τὴν ἀνωμαλίαν οὐ ποιήσει αἴσθησιν. ὅτι δὲ ἐν τοῖς καθαροῖς ἐνόπτροις εἰς βάθος ἐμφαίνονται αἱ ἐν αὐτοῖς κηλῖδες, δῆλον. ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἡ αἴσθησις ταχεῖα καὶ ταχέως ἀντιλαμβάνεται τῶν ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν εἰδώλων, οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἄδηλον.

«Μαρτυρεῖ δὲ τοῖς εἰρημένοις καὶ τὰ περὶ τοὺς οἴνους καὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν συμβαίνοντα.»

Εἰπὼν «ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν μικρῶν διαφορῶν γίνεται κίνησις,» πίστιν τούτου παράγει τὰ περὶ τὴν μυρεψίαν γινόμενα. «τὸ γὰρ παρασκευασθὲν ἔλαιον ταχέως λαμβάνει τὰς τῶν πλησίον ὀσμάς·» ἡ γὰρ ὀσμὴ τοῦ πλησίον κινήσασα τὸ ἔλαιον μετέδωκεν αὐτῷ τῆς οἰκείας ὀσμῆς.

Michael of Ephesus In de insomniis commentaria, 66,4–67,9 Wendland

Marsilio Ficino, Commentary on Plato’s Symposium or On Love

“Aristotle writes that women, when they are menstruating, often make their mirror dirty with bloody specks when they look into it. I believe it happens for the following reason, because spirit [pneuma], which is the vapor of blood, appears to be blood so subtle that it escapes the eye’s observation, but when it condenses on the surface of the mirror, it becomes clearly visible. If it comes into contact with some less compact material, like a piece of cloth or wood, it cannot be seen because it does not remain on its surface, but penetrates into it. If it comes into contact with something dense but rough, like stones, bricks and the like, it is dissipated and broken up by the unevenness of its body. But on account of its hardness, the mirror keeps the spirit on the surface, on account of its evenness and smoothness, it prevents it from breaking up, and on account of its coolness, it condenses the extremely fine mist of the spirit into droplets. For the same reason, whenever we open our both and breath forcefully on glass, we sprinkle its surface with very fine saliva like dew. This is because the breath expelled from the saliva, when condensed on this material, returns to being saliva.”

Scribit Aristoteles, mulieres quando sanguis menstruus defluit, intuitu suo speculum sanguineis guttis sepe fedare. Quod ex eo fieri arbitror quia spiritus, qui vapor sanguinis est, sanguis quidam tenuissimus videtur esse, adeo ut aspectum effugiat oculorum, sed in speculi superficie factus crassior clare perspicitur. Hic si in rariorem materiam aliquam, ceu pannum aut lignum incidat, ideo non videtur quia in superficie rei illius non restat, sed penetrat. Si in densam quidem, sed asperam, sicuti saxa, lateres et similia, corporis illius inequalitate dissipatur et frangitur. Speculum autem propter duritiem sistit in superficie spiritum ; propter equalitatem lenitatemque servat infractum ; propter nitorem, spiritus ipsius radium iuvat et auget ; propter frigiditatem, rarissimam illius nebulam cogit in guttulas. Eadem ferme ratione quotiens hiantibus faucibus obnixe hanelamus in vitrum, eius faciem tenuissimo quodam salive rore conspergimus. Siquidem alitus a saliva evolans in ea materia compressus relabitur in salivam.

Marsilio Ficino, De amore: Commentarium in Convivium Platonis 7.4

“Don’t get me wrong, I respect them…” — Michael of Ephesus on his colleagues

“I don’t mean to sound divisive and contentious, and I don’t say this with any jealousy towards my colleagues—I swear on my teacher’s soul, which I esteem and worship second only to God. But, honestly, speaking from my experience with the other teachers, some of them are completely dumb. They don’t understand at all the actual words written on the page, never mind their deeper meaning. Sure, some of the slightly more clever ones have sporadic thoughts, but they are way off from establishing the text correctly, while the others just wander at random … I don’t need to get into this. Don’t get me wrong, I respect them and I am fond of them, but since Providence thought it was a good idea, my teacher flew away to heaven, while we, with Providence as our guide and helper, ought to get back to the work that lies before us.”

ταῦτα δὲ λέγω οὐ διαφορᾷ ἢ φιλονεικίᾳ ἢ φθόνῳ τῷ πρὸς τοὺς καθ' ἡμᾶς, οὐ μὰ τὴν ἐκείνου ψυχήν, ἣν ἐγὼ μετὰ θεὸν σέβομαί τε καὶ προσκυνῶ, ἀλλ' ἀληθείᾳ καὶ πείρᾳ τῇ πρὸς τούτους μοι γεγονυίᾳ. οἱ μὲν γὰρ αὐτῶν παντελῶς εἰσιν ἄφωνοι μηδὲν ὅλως ἐννοοῦντες, τί ποτ' ἐστὶν ὅλως τὰ ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις γεγραμμένα καὶ τίς ὁ τούτων νοῦς, τινὲς δὲ τῶν χαριεστέρων τῆς μὲν διανοίας ἐφάπτονται σποράδην, τοῦ δὲ τὴν λέξιν καθιστάνειν πόρρω ποι ἀποπλανῶνται, ἄλλοι δ' ἄλλως· περὶ ὧν οὐ δεῖ με λέγειν. πλὴν καὶ τούτους τιμῶ καὶ ἀσπάζομαι, ἀλλ' ἐκεῖνος μέν, ὡς ἔδοξε τῇ προνοίᾳ, ἡμῶν ἀπέπτη, ἡμεῖς δ' ὑπὸ ταύτης χειραγωγούμενοι καὶ βοηθούμενοι ἐπὶ τὸ προκείμενον ἐπανέλθωμεν.

Michael of Ephesus, In parva naturalia commentaria, CAG 22.1, 142,8-142,18 Wendland

Contained within the limits of the stars: the cycles of our common matter

Aristotle on the astral limits of life

“It is reasonable that for everything, the times of gestation, generation and life wish to be measured by natural periods. By a period, I mean day, night, month, year and the times measured by these, and in addition the periods of the moon. The periods of the moon are full moon, new moon and the mid-point of the times in between. For at these points the moon contributes to the sun, and the month is a period shared by them both. The moon is a principle because of its association with the sun and participation in its light. It becomes like another, lesser sun. That’s why it contributes to all processes of generation and completion. For heating and cooling up to a certain proportion produce generation, and after this corruption; and the movements of these stars contain their limits, of both the beginning and the end. For just as we observe that the sea and whatever has the nature of wetness are either at rest or in process of change depending on the movement or stillness of the winds, while the air and the winds depend on the period of the sun and the moon, so too the things that grow from them and are in them necessarily follow them.* For it is in accordance with reason that the periods of the less powerful things follow those of the more powerful. For the winds have a kind of life, as well, both a coming-to-be and a process of decline. Of the revolution of these stars, perhaps they have some other principles. Nature wants, therefore, to count generations and endings by the numbers of the stars, but it can’t do so precisely, because of the indeterminateness of matter and because there are many principles which, since they impede natural generation and corruption, are often causes of things that occur contrary to nature.”

* also the most important differentiae of the matter in spontaneous generation.

εὐλόγως δὲ πάντων οἱ χρόνοι καὶ τῶν κυήσεων καὶ γενέσεων καὶ τῶν βίων μετρεῖσθαι βούλονται κατὰ φύσιν περιόδοις. λέγω δὲ περίοδον ἡμέραν καὶ νύκτα καὶ μῆνα καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ τοὺς χρόνους τοὺς μετρουμένους τούτοις, ἔτι δὲ τὰς τῆς σελήνης περιόδους. εἰσὶ δὲ περίοδοι σελήνης πανσέληνός τε καὶ φθίσις καὶ τῶν μεταξὺ χρόνων αἱ διχοτομίαι· κατὰ γὰρ ταύτας συμβάλλει πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον· ὁ γὰρ μεὶς κοινὴ περίοδός ἐστιν ἀμφοτέρων. ἔστι δὲ ἡ σελήνη ἀρχὴ διὰ τὴν πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον κοινωνίαν καὶ τὴν μετάληψιν τὴν τοῦ φωτός· γίγνεται γὰρ ὥσπερ ἄλλος ἥλιος ἐλάττων· διὸ συμβάλλεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τελειώσεις. αἱ γὰρ θερμότητες καὶ ψύξεις μέχρι συμμετρίας τινὸς ποιοῦσι τὰς γενέσεις, μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα τὰς φθοράς· τούτων δ' ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς αἱ τούτων κινήσεις τῶν ἄστρων. ὥσπερ γὰρ καὶ θάλατταν καὶ πᾶσαν ὁρῶμεν τὴν τῶν ὑγρῶν φύσιν ἱσταμένην καὶ μεταβάλλουσαν κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν καὶ στάσιν, τὸν δ' ἀέρα καὶ τὰ πνεύματα κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων φυόμενα καὶ τὰ ἐν τούτοις ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον· κατὰ λόγον γὰρ ἀκολουθεῖν καὶ τὰς τῶν ἀκυροτέρων περιόδους ταῖς τῶν κυριωτέρων. βίος γάρ τις καὶ πνεύματός ἐστι καὶ γένεσις καὶ φθίσις. τῆς δὲ τῶν ἄστρων τούτων περιφορᾶς τάχ' ἂν ἕτεραί τινες εἶεν ἀρχαί. βούλεται μὲν οὖν ἡ φύσις τοῖς τούτων ἀριθμοῖς ἀριθμεῖν τὰς γενέσεις καὶ τὰς τελευτάς, οὐκ ἀκριβοῖ δὲ διά τε τὴν τῆς ὕλης ἀοριστίαν καὶ διὰ τὸ γίγνεσθαι πολλὰς ἀρχὰς αἳ τὰς γενέσεις τὰς κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τὰς φθορὰς ἐμποδίζουσαι πολλάκις αἴτιαι τῶν παρὰ φύσιν συμπιπτόντων εἰσίν.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 4.10, 777b16–778a6

Athenaeus of Attalia: late Hellenistic medical elaboration

“From Athenaeus’ works:

‘In the springtime, then, the air is wet and hot, in the summer hot and dry, in the autumn cold and dry, and in the winter wet and cold. Again, in each of the seasons, there are three differences: first, middle and last. Middle times have the purest mixture; the first and last ones are made like the adjacent time. And monthly, the moon produces four differences in the air: the first seven-day period, from new-moon until the seventh, it seems like the spring, moist and hot. The second seven-day period until full moon resembles summer; the third seven day period when the moon is waning is cold and dry; and the fourth and last is cold and wet. And during each day, there are differences of the air. For dawn is wet and hot like the spring. For this reason, the bodies of both healthy and sick persons loosen, so that this period of time is most manageable even for those who are feverish. The middle times of the day are likened to summer, those during the afternoon autumn, and around evening winter. And of night, the first resembles evening, the middle seems like winter, and correspondingly the others.’”

ἐκ τῶν Ἀθηναίου.

«ἐν μὲν οὖν τῇ ἐαρινῇ ὥρᾳ ὑγρὸς καὶ θερμὸς ὁ ἀήρ, ἐν δὲ τῇ θερινῇ θερμὸς καὶ ξηρός, ἐν δὲ τῇ φθινοπωρινῇ ψυχρὸς καὶ ξηρός, ἐν δὲ τῇ χειμερινῇ ὑγρὸς καὶ ψυχρός. πάλιν δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῃ τῶν ὡρῶν τρεῖς διαφοραὶ γίγνονται· πρώτη καὶ μέση καὶ ὑστάτη. τὰ μὲν οὖν μέσα τὴν εἰλικρινεστάτην τῆς ὥρας ἔχει κρᾶσιν· τὰ δὲ πρῶτα καὶ ὕστατα τῇ γειτνιώσῃ ὥρᾳ ἀφομοιοῦνται. καὶ ἡ σελήνη δὲ κατὰ μῆνα ἐργάζεται διαφορὰς δ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι· ἡ μὲν οὖν α ἑβδομὰς ἀπὸ νεομηνίας μέχρι τῆς ζ παρέοικε τῷ ἔαρι ὑγρὰ καὶ θερμή. ἡ δὲ β´ ἑβδομὰς μέχρι πανσελήνου θερινῇ παραπλήσιος· ἡ δὲ τρίτη ἑβδομὰς φθινούσης σελήνης ψυχρὰ καὶ ξηρά· ἡ δὲ τετάρτη καὶ τελευταῖα ψυχρὰ καὶ ὑγρά. καὶ καθ' ἑκάστην δὲ ἡμέραν διαφοραὶ τοῦ ἀέρος γίγνονται· ὁ μὲν γὰρ ὄρθρος ὑγρὸς καὶ θερμὸς ὡς τὸ ἔαρ· διὰ τοῦτο καὶ τὰ σώματα ἀνίεται καὶ τῶν ὑγιαινόντων καὶ τῶν νοσούντων, ὥστε καὶ τοῖς πυρέσσουσιν ὁ καιρὸς οὗτος εὐφορώτατος· τὰ δὲ μέσα τῆς ἡμέρας θέρει παρείκασται, τὰ δὲ κατὰ τὴν δείλην φθινοπώρῳ, τὰ δὲ περὶ ἑσπέραν χειμῶνι καὶ τῆς νυκτὸς δὲ τὰ πρῶτα τῇ ἑσπέρᾳ παρείκασται· τὰ δὲ μέσα χειμῶνι παρέοικε καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἀκολούθως.»

Aëtius Amidenus, Libri medicinales 3.162 (332,1–17 Olivieri)

Michael of Ephesus restates the obvious

“The moon, he says, is the principle of the month. For having passed the sun after conjunction, it takes its start. In the text, ‘contain their limits, of both the beginning and the end,’ ‘their’ refers to heating and cooling. For the principle and generation of heat is the waxing of the moon and the sun’s approach towards the northern zodiac, while of cold, the waning of the moon and the retreat of the sun towards the south. And as the sea changes according to the motion of the winds, while the winds, as it says in the Meteorology, are generated according to the periods of the sun and the moon, so too the things that come to be out of water and the others, also the things that are in them, necessarily follow the movements of these stars. For fish, oysters, and crustaceans thrive at the waxing moon, but suffer the opposite at the waning of the moon. And the ground sprouts and plants blossom, and animals are vigorous and procreate at the approach of the sun, but pass away at its retreat. And all the others come-to-be with their cycles. But it’s not the right time to talk about them. He says the winds, earth and seas, are less powerful, and the sun, moon, and the rest of the stars are more powerful.”

ἡ δὲ σελήνη, φησίν, ἐστὶν ἀρχὴ τοῦ μηνός· διελθοῦσα γὰρ τὸν ἥλιον μετὰ τὴν σύνοδον ἀρχὴν ὁ μὴν λαμβάνει. ἐν δὲ τῇ λέξει τῇ «τούτων δ' ἔχουσι τὸ πέρας καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τῆς τελευτῆς» τὸ «τούτων» περὶ τῆς θερμότητος καὶ ψυχρότητος εἴρηται. ἀρχὴ μὲν γὰρ καὶ γένεσίς ἐστι θερμότητος ἥ τε τῆς σελήνης αὔξησις καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἡλίου πρὸς τὰ βόρεια ζῴδια προσέλευσις, ψύξεως δ' ἐκείνης μὲν ἡ μείωσις, τοῦ δὲ ἡλίου ἡ πρὸς τὰ νότια ἀναχώρησις. καὶ ὥσπερ ἡ θάλασσα μεταβάλλει κατὰ τὴν τῶν πνευμάτων κίνησιν, τὰ δὲ πνεύματα γίνεται, ὡς ἐν τοῖς Μετεώροις εἴρηται, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου καὶ τῆς σελήνης περίοδον, οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἐκ τῶν ὑγρῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων γινόμενα καὶ ἐν αὐτοῖς ὄντα ἀκολουθεῖν ἀναγκαῖον τῇ τῶν ἀστέρων τούτων κινήσει. εὐθηνοῦσι μὲν γὰρ ἰχθύες, ὄστρεια, μαλακόστρακα ἐν τῇ αὐξήσει, πάσχει δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐν τῇ μειώσει τῆς σελήνης· καὶ βλαστάνει γῆ καὶ φυτὰ ἀνθεῖ, ζῷα δὲ ἡβᾷ καὶ γεννᾷ τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου προσελεύσει, φθίνει δὲ τῇ τούτου ἀποχωρήσει, καὶ τἆλλα πάντα γίνεται ταῖς τούτων περιόδοις, περὶ ὧν νῦν λέγειν οὐ καιρός. ἀκυρότερα δὲ λέγει πνεύματα, γῆν, θάλασσαν, κυριώτερα δὲ ἥλιον, σελήνην καὶ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀστέρας.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle’s Generation of Animals, 210,5–23 Hayduck

Two ways to talk about eggs

Two discussions of eggs: one, from Michael of Ephesus, on the egg as a boundary between death and life; another, from Aetius of Amida, on the best way to cook eggs (soft boiled, soaked in wine and fish sauce and cooked on a double-boiler).

---

Lemma: “The reason for this is that nature produces the eggs, as it were, before [their] time, because of its own incompleteness…” (Aristotle, Generation of Animals 3.8, 758b19)

"In what follows, he (sc. Aristotle) discusses the reason why insects produce at first a grub which moves itself and is generally speaking an animal; then, once the grub has grown, it turns into an egg, lacking sensation and movement; then it turns into a different animal from the grub. He says that since an insect’s nature, because of its inherent weakness, is in itself unable to nourish and complete the embryo, what it produces is incomplete. And if in addition to generating an incomplete embryo, its nature generated something lacking soul and sensation as well, the embryo would cease to exist. But if this were the case, it is quite likely that the insect-kind would be absent from the world.* So it must be for this reason that nature generates an animal that is able to be nourished from itself, and it feeds on itself until it reaches completion.** Having reached completion, it dies.*** For living and eating are granted to it so that it becomes complete, but once it has reached completion, there is no longer any point for it to eat, and so no point for it to live.**** At this moment it dies, and it is then like an egg surrounded all around by a shell.***** Later, when what is inside of this shell has been completely concocted by the climate as if by a bird and has changed into an animal, it emerges."

758b19 «Τούτου δ’ αἴτιον ὅτι ἡ φύσις ὡσανεὶ πρὸ ὥρας ᾠοτοκεῖ διὰ τὴν ἀτέλειαν τὴν αὐτῆς.»

Τὴν αἰτίαν διὰ τούτων λέγει, τίνος ἕνεκα πρῶτον μὲν σκώληξ γεννᾶται κινούμενος καὶ ὅλως ζῷον ὑπάρχων, εἶτα αὐξηθεὶς ᾠὸν γίνεται ἀναίσθητον καὶ ἀκίνητον, εἶθ’ οὕτω πάλιν ζῷον ἕτερον παρὰ τὸν σκώληκα. λέγει οὖν ὅτι ἡ τῶν ἐντόμων φύσις ἀδυνατοῦσα θρέψαι ἐν αὑτῇ καὶ τελειῶσαι τὸ κύημα διὰ τὴν οἰκείαν ἀσθένειαν, ἀτελὲς αὐτὸ γεννᾷ· ὥστ’ εἴπερ πρὸς τῷ ἀτελὲς αὐτὸ γεννᾶν καὶ ἄψυχον ἐγέννα καὶ ἀναίσθητον, ἐφθείρετο ἄν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, τάχιον ἂν ἐκ τοῦ παντὸς ἐξέλιπε τὸ τῶν ἐντόμων γένος. διά τοι τοῦτο γεννᾷ ζῷον ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμενον τρέφεσθαι, καὶ τρέφεται ἕως ἂν τελειωθῇ, τελειωθὲν δὲ θνήσκει· τὸ γὰρ ζῆν καὶ ἐσθίειν δέδοται αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ τέλειον γεγονέναι, ἐπειδὴ δὲ τετελείωται, οὐκέτι χρεία αὐτῷ τοῦ ἐσθίειν, ὥστε οὐδὲ τοῦ ζῆν. καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ θνήσκει, καὶ ἔστι τότε οἷον ᾠὸν κύκλῳ περιεχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ κελύφους· εἶθ’ οὕτως τὸ ἐντὸς ὑπάρχον τούτου τοῦ κελύφους ὑπὸ τῆς ὥρας ὥσπερ ὑπὸ ὄρνιθος συμπεφθὲν καὶ εἰς ζῷον μεταβαλὸν ἔξεισιν.

Michael of Ephesus, Commentary on Aristotle's Generation of Animals 3.8, (CAG 14,3 p.153,10-25 Hayduck).

*A reductio: if nature generated embryos without soul, i.e., without life, there wouldn't be any insects in the world; but, there are insects; so, nature does not generate embryos without a soul.

**The idea is either (1) that the grub is able to feed itself, or (2) that it is able to be nourished from the whole of its own body, unlike an egg, in which one part is food (yolk) and one part becomes the animal (white). Cf. GA 2.1, 732a28-32 and Michael’s comments; 3.2, 752a27-28.

***Michael might be thinking of allegories of metempsychosis. I have yet to find whether the psuchê (butterfly) was used as a symbol of resurrection by late Byzantine Christians. Whether or not that's what he has in mind, the idea is not Aristotle’s—he nowhere says that grubs die when they become cocoons, nor does he say, as Michael takes him to, that cocoons are akinêton or without movement; rather, he says they are akinêtisanta or at rest. Elsewhere, Aristotle claims cocoons move when touched, e.g. HA 5.19, 551a19-20. Just how familiar Michael was with the HA is not clear; but Michael is nevertheless right that in the passage he is commenting on, Aristotle emphasizes the lack of motion of chrysalids throughout. And even if allegories of metempsychosis are in the background, Michael is most likely drawing the following inference: if something is alive, it has nutritive (and sensitive) soul; if something has nutritive (and sensitive) soul, then it can (move, sense), eat, and excrete residues; cocoons do none of these things; hence cocoons are not alive. The inference of course would be false: at most it would imply that cocoons are asleep. Michael, however, likely sees that there would be a deeper problem in saying cocoons are alive in this sense of 'sleeping': on the one hand, the soul of the grub and the soul of the completed animal cannot be identical, since the animals have different bodily organs, and souls and the organs they use are correlative; on the other hand, it seems implausible that the grub should have both souls simultaneously. But if it cannot have both souls simultaneously, and it must have a soul, then it must have the souls successively, and so must ‘die’ in some sense. Michael, then, thinks it is better to say that the soul the grub had has perished, while what it left behind is something alive potentially, but actually dead, namely an egg, which comes back to life when warmed by the season. Michael hints that this is what he has in mind by emphasizing that cocoons are like eggs, although he does not explicitly distinguish actual and potential kinds of living. It's telling that another commentator, Philoponus, denies caterpillars perish, and claims they merely change from one form to another (On Physics 8, CAG 16 180,19-20). This suggests people other than Michael were thinking through this problem.

****Michael’s interpretation likely relies on the familiar Arisotelian claim that nature does nothing in vain: it would be in vain for an animal whose purpose is to become an egg to continue to live.

*****A similar point is made by Plutarch, Quaest. Conv. 2.3 (Moralia 636C3-D7)

Eggs the right way, soft boiled and in cups. Detail from a 3rd century mosaic at the Hatay Archaeological Museum in Antakya, Turkey. 

"Eggs of hens and of pheasants are better, while those of geese and ostriches [literally, 'sparrow-camels'] are worse. Best for the body's nourishment are the ones called 'trembling' [i.e., soft-boiled], while runny ones nourish less, but are passed more easily. They soothe the roughness in the throat caused by shouting or an acrid humour, when they are plastered on the affected places and remain there like a poultice; they also cure roughness because their whole substance is not stinging. For the same reason, they heal roughness in the stomach, bowels and bladder. An egg boiled in vinegar, when eaten, dries the discharges in the bowels. And if you mix things suitable for dysentery or a colic disposition with it and then broil it on coals and give it to eat, you will offer no small benefit to your patients. Suitable for these dispositions are the juice of unripe grapes, unripe mulberry plastered on, ashes of snails burnt whole, and grape seeds, myrtle berries and similar things.  Boiled eggs are hard to digest, pass slowly and provide thick nourishment to the body. The ones baked in hot ashes pass even more slowly and produce even thicker humours than them. Fried eggs have the least nutrition in every respect. For when they are cooked they become greasy and produce a thick humor that is bad and full of residues. Better than boiled and baked ones are those called 'curdled': briefly soaked in oil, garum and wine, and boiled on a double-boiler to a medium consistency. Eggs thickened longer become like boiled or baked ones. The same thing should also be done in cases where eggs are poured on a frying pan, taking the frying pan off the fire when the eggs are still soft."

Ὠὰ ἀμείνω τά τε τῶν ἀλεκτορίδων ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν φασιανῶν, φαυλότερα δὲ τὰ τῶν χηνῶν καὶ στρουθοκαμήλων. κάλλιστα μὲν οὖν εἰς τροφὴν τοῦ σώματός ἐστι τὰ τρομητὰ καλούμενα, τὰ δὲ ῥοφητὰ ἧττον μὲν τρέφει, ῥᾷον δὲ ὑποχωρεῖ. τὰς δὲ ἐν τῷ φάρυγγι τραχύτητας διὰ κραυγὴν ἢ χυμοῦ δριμύτητα ἐκλεαίνει, περιπλαττόμενα τοῖς πεπονθόσι τόποις καὶ προσμένοντα ὥσπερ τι κατάπλασμα καὶ τῷ τῆς ὅλης οὐσίας ἀδήκτῳ ἐκθεραπεύοντα καὶ τὰς τραχύτητας. τῷ δὲ αὐτῷ λόγῳ καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸν στόμαχον καὶ γαστέρα καὶ κύστιν ἰᾶται τραχύτητας· ἐν ὄξει δὲ ἑψηθὲν ὠὸν εἰ βρωθείη, ξηραίνει τὰ κατὰ γαστέρα ῥεύματα. καὶ εἰ μίξας δὲ αὐτῷ τι τῶν πρὸς δυσεντερίαν ἢ κοιλιακὴν διάθεσιν ἁρμοττόντων, εἶτα ἐπ' ἀνθράκων ταγηνίσας, δοίης φαγεῖν, οὐ σμικρὰ τοὺς κάμνοντας ὠφελήσεις. ἐπιτήδεια δέ ἐστιν εἰς ταῦτα ὀμφάκιον καὶ ῥοῦς ἐπιπαττόμενος καὶ τέφρα τῶν κοχλιῶν ὅλων καέντων γίγαρτά τε σταφυλῆς καὶ μύρτα καὶ τὰ παραπλήσια. τὰ δὲ ἑφθὰ ὠὰ δύσπεπτα καὶ βραδύπορα καὶ τροφὴν παχεῖαν ἀναδίδωσι τῷ σώματι. τούτων δὲ ἔτι μᾶλλον βραδυπορώτερά τε καὶ παχυχυμότερα τὰ κατὰ θερμὴν σποδιὰν ὀπτηθέντα. τὰ δὲ ταγηνισθέντα χειρίστην ἔχει τροφὴν εἰς ἅπαντα· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ πέττεσθαι κνισσοῦται καὶ παχὺν χυμὸν γεννᾷ καὶ μοχθηρὸν καὶ περιττωματικόν. ἀμείνω δὲ τῶν ἑφθῶν τε καὶ ὀπτῶν ἐστι τὰ καλούμενα πηκτὰ μετ' ἐλαίου καὶ γάρου καὶ οἴνου βραχέος ἀναδευθέντα καὶ ἐπὶ διπλώματος ἑψηθέντα μέχρι μετρίας συστάσεως. τὰ γὰρ ἐπὶ πλέον παχυνθέντα παραπλήσια τοῖς ἑψηθεῖσι καὶ ὀπτηθεῖσι γίγνεται. τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ χρὴ ποιεῖν κἀπὶ τῶν ἐπιχεομένων ταῖς λοπάσιν ὠῶν, ἔτι ἐγχύλων ὄντων ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς αἴροντας τὴν λοπάδα.

Aetius of Amida, Libri Medicinales, II 134, 201,19-202,14 Olivieri

Michael of Ephesus on providence and good behaviour

I'm writing a paper on Michael of Ephesus on providence. I've looked at his views on providence before, but I've started to take it a bit more seriously. Michael uses providence in a few places in his commentaries on Aristotle's biology, and he uses it, as you might expect, as a deus (natura?) ex machina to explain things Aristotle does not (maybe it's more precise to say that he uses providence to complete explanations which Aristotle had left incomplete). On the one hand, I'm interested in in figuring out what Michael thinks providence is - is it a version of the Christian God, or nature, or νοῦς? - but I'm also trying to figure out what his rules are for using it in his commentaries. The way he uses it doesn't seem to be arbitrary (there are times he doesn't use it when he could) and this makes me wonder if he's drawing on an earlier tradition, or following his own philosophical or cultural intuitions. Here is one of these appeals, about why some animals have testes and some do not. NB: I think the fact that Michael refers to providence in this passage should not distract us from what he is actually trying to do, and that is to explain animal mating behaviour in terms of the contribution the behaviour makes to the survival of the species. Also: contrary to what Aristotle and Michael say, fish and snakes do in fact have testes.

Aristotle: "Nature does everything because of necessity of because of the better..."

"If nature does everything either because of necessity or because of the better, then this part [i.e., the testicles] would also exist for one of these reasons. Now, that testicles are not necessary for generation is obvious, since then all animals that generate would have them; but in fact, snakes, birds, and fish do not have testicles, for they are observed when they are mating and they have ducts filled with milt. It remains, then, that they are present for something better. It is a fact that, for most animals, there is just about no other function than [producing] seed and fruit, as is the case for plants. And just as in matters of nutrition animals with straight intestines are more ravenous* in their desire for food, so too those that do not have testicles but only ducts, or which have testicles but have them internally, they are all quicker with respect to the activity of mating. Those animals which need to be more moderate**, just as before the intestines are not straight, also here the ducts have coils so that their desire is not either ravenous or sudden.*** Testicles have been designed for this reason, for they make the movement of the spermatic residue slower."****

εἰ δὴ πᾶν ἡ φύσις ἢ διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον ποιεῖ ἢ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον, κἂν τοῦτο τὸ μόριον εἴη διὰ τούτων θάτερον. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον πρὸς τὴν γένεσιν φανερόν· πᾶσι γὰρ ἂν ὑπῆρχε τοῖς γεννῶσι, νῦν δ' οὔθ' οἱ ὄφεις ἔχουσιν ὄρχεις οὔθ' οἱ ἰχθύες· ὠμμένοι γάρ εἰσι συνδυαζόμενοι καὶ πλήρεις ἔχοντες θοροῦ τοὺς πόρους. λείπεται τοίνυν βελτίονός τινος χάριν. ἔστι δὲ τῶν μὲν πλείστων ζῴων ἔργον σχεδὸν οὐθὲν ἄλλο πλὴν ὥσπερ τῶν φυτῶν σπέρμα καὶ καρπός. ὥσπερ δ' ἐν τοῖς περὶ τὴν τροφὴν τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερα πρὸς τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τὴν τῆς τροφῆς, οὕτω καὶ τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις πόρους δὲ μόνον ἢ ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δ' ἔχοντα, πάντα ταχύτερα πρὸς τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῶν συνδυασμῶν. ἃ δὲ δεῖ σωφρονέστερα εἶναι, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖ οὐκ εὐθυέντερα, καὶ ἐνταῦθ' ἕλικας ἔχουσιν οἱ πόροι πρὸς τὸ μὴ λάβρον μηδὲ ταχεῖαν εἶναι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν. οἱ δ' ὄρχεις εἰσὶ πρὸς τοῦτο μεμηχανημένοι· τοῦ γὰρ σπερματικοῦ περιττώματος στασιμωτέραν ποιοῦσι τὴν κίνησιν.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 1.4, 717a12-32 (Peck's Loeb edition here)

* λαβρότερα | 'more ravenous' The word λάβρος can describe violent surges of water and wind, also people and animals. LSJ suggest 'furious' or 'violent', or 'impetuous'; Peck translates it as 'violent'. The sense, however, is clearly that the animals have strong appetites: their intestines are shorter, and without twists and turns to slow down the food and residues, they are never full for long. I like 'ravenous' here: we use it in English (although it is a bit affected) to describe strong appetites + 'ravenous' comes from the archaic ravin ('an act of rapine or robbery'), which is a direct borrowing from French ravine ('impetuosity', violence', 'force'), from which we get ravine, i.e., 'a violent rush of water' and by extension the gorge it travels through. From the Latin rapina, 'to rob', 'plunder', etc. In the Michael passage, I translate it as "(more) impulsive".

** δεῖ σωφρονέστερα | 'need to be more moderate' More of a moral term than λάβρος. Peck translates 'have to be more sober'. But it's the δεῖ that's caused people to pause: why do some animals need to be more moderate in their appetites? Why couldn't all animals be ravenous and impetuous? Aristotle does not tell us why; he just mentions that testicles cause the seminal ducts to double back, 'like stone weights on a loom (a35-6: καθάπερ τὰς λαιὰς προσάπτουσιν αἱ ὑφαίνουσαι τοῖς ἱστοῖς)'.

*** πρὸς τὸ μὴ λάβρον μηδὲ ταχεῖαν εἶναι τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν This is a statement of the final cause - testicles cause the ducts to coil in order to steady the animal's desire. The relationship between desire and lack or excess might be in the background: desire for food is an impulse to fill something that has been emptied beyond what is natural; and the desire for sex is an impulse to empty something that has been filled to excess. However, if this were the case, it's not clear to me why slower moving semen would cause an animal to have less desire. Aristotle is vague about the details of the analogy, and Michael will focus mostly on trying to make sense of it.

**** στασιμωτέραν ποιοῦσι τὴν κίνησιν Peck translates 'makes the motion steadier'. στάσιμος is an absence of κίνσις, i.e., movement as flow (e.g. Plato, Sophist 256b6-7; Hippocrates, Nature of Women 1.10). Potter translates it as 'constipated' in his Loeb translation of Nature of Women. The idea again is that the residues don't flow out as quickly as they would if the ducts were straight.

Michael on Aristotle on pudic providence

"What comes to be by nature, comes to be by necessity or the better. "Necessity" means that which is found in every kind, and without which it is not possible for something to come to be. "Better" [means] that which is not like this. Since testicles are not found in every [kind] of male, and generation also occurs without them, they do not exist because of necessity, but because of the better.

Just as, in matters of nutrition, [animals] with straight intestines are more ravenous…

"In what follows he sets out the reasons because of which, among [animals] that have testicles and do not have testicles, (i) some have them, (ii) others do not have them; and of those that have them, (i.b) some have them internally, like birds, but (i.a) others externally. He says, then, that just as "animals with straight intestines" are "more impulsive with respect to desire for food", because the residue comes out more quickly because of their straight intestines, while those that do not have straight intestines are more self-controlled and take less nourishment, "the same applies to (ii) [animals] that do not have testicles but only passages", like fish, "or (i.b) [animals] that have [testicles] but internally",  like birds. Hence, (ii) [animals] that do not have testicles at all are quicker than all other [animals] with respect to the task of mating; (i.b) while [animals] that have [testicles] internally are slower and more self-controlled with respect to this kind of task than those that do not have testicles, but they are more impulsive and faster than (i.a) the ones that have them externally.

"First, we should say why [nature] has designed some [animals] to be naturally self-controlled and has made the testicles of these kinds external, some [naturally] more impulsive and [made their testicles] internal, but others it has utterly neglected and did not assign testicles, and for this reason they are also most impulsive of all. But on this point we should say briefly that [nature] did not neglect them, but that it has regarded them by an even greater magnitude. For since (as he will say going on) they are not able to engage in contact for a long time because they live in water, [nature] has not given [them] testicles in addition to the other things (which he is going to speak about later). For in the case of animals that have testicles, the emission of semen comes about slowly because of the reasons which we will learn. But let this much have been said as an introduction. We must discuss what was mentioned, and then the cause according to which (i.a) firstly, those that have external testicles are especially self-controlled, (i.b) second those [that have] internal [testicles] are even less so, and (ii) most undisciplined of all are those that do not have any [testicles]. And so, we must move on to Aristotle's answer.

"One should note that since nature desires that animals and all other things exist eternally and aims at this, whatever things were not able to be preserved eternally as the same thing numerically, for them [nature] decreed eternity by means of always generating others from others. But since continuous mating causes dissolution of the body* for reasons he will mention in the present book when he talks about what the nature of semen is—since then [continuous mating] imparts weakness, and it is normal for death to follow dissolution in the majority of cases, all those animals that naturally bear few offspring (he will also talk about the reasons for their bearing few young in the present book and in those that follow this one)—all those, then, that naturally bear few offspring have come to be more self-controlled than the others by nature's forethought, so that the animals are not dissolved and destroyed by mating many times each day, and this kind of animal is not suddenly eradicated. Those animals that bear offspring, but [bear] more than those that bear few and a fewer number than those that bear very many, are less moderately self-controlled than those that bear few offspring. For even though they [i.e., the individual animals] should happen to be destroyed from frequent mating, still, because of the fact that they bear more than two or three offspring (it is sometimes possible [for them to bear] even more than seventeen**), such a kind will not be left out of the whole. For this reason, then, [nature] designed these to be less self-controlled. But those that bear altogether many offspring, what necessity is there to regard them? For it is clear that they will not be lacking, since heaps of them are produced. This, then, is the reason that some are more self-controlled, others less, and others not at all."

τὰ δὲ ὑπὸ τῆς φύσεως γινόμενα τὰ μὲν γίνεται διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, τὰ δὲ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον. ἀναγκαῖον δὲ λέγεται τὸ ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ γένει εὑρισκόμενον, καὶ οὗ ἄνευ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται γενέσθαι τι, βέλτιον δὲ τὸ μὴ τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ οἱ ὄρχεις οὔτε ἐν ἅπαντι τῷ τῶν ἀρρένων εὑρίσκονται γένει, γίνεται δὲ γένεσις καὶ χωρὶς αὐτῶν, οὔκ εἰσι διὰ τὸ ἀναγκαῖον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ βέλτιον.

[35] 717a23 «Ὥσπερ δὲ ἐν τοῖς περὶ τροφὴν τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερα.»

Ἐντεῦθεν τὰς αἰτίας ἐκτίθεται, δι' ἃς τὰ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις καὶ τὰ μὴ [6.1] ἔχοντα τὰ μὲν ἔχει, τὰ δ' οὐκ ἔχει, καὶ τῶν ἐχόντων τὰ μὲν ἐντὸς ἔχει, ὥσπερ οἱ ὄρνιθες, τὰ δ' ἐκτός. φησὶν οὖν ὅτι, ὥσπερ «τὰ εὐθυέντερα λαβρότερά» ἐστι «πρὸς τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν τῆς τροφῆς» διὰ τὸ θᾶττον ἐξέρχεσθαι τὸ περίττωμα διὰ τὴν εὐθυεντερίαν, τὰ δὲ μὴ εὐθυέντερα σωφρονέστερα καὶ [5] ὀλιγοτροφώτερα, «οὕτω καὶ τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄρχεις, πόρους δὲ μόνον», ὡς οἱ ἰχθύες, «ἢ ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δέ» [717a23-25], ὡς οἱ ὄρνιθες· τὰ μὲν οὖν μηδ' ὅλως ἔχοντα ὄρχεις εἰσὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐργασίαν τοῦ συνδυασμοῦ ταχύτερα πάντων, τὰ δ' ἔχοντα μὲν ἐντὸς δὲ βραδύτερα πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἐργασίαν τῶν μὴ ἐχόντων ὄρχεις καὶ σωφρονέστερα, λαβρότερα δὲ καὶ ταχύτερα τῶν αὐτοὺς [10] ἐχόντων ἐκτός.

ῥητέον δ' οὖν ἡμῖν πρῶτον μέν, τίνος ἕνεκεν τῇ φύσει πεφρόντισται τοῦ τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώφρονα καὶ πεποίηκε τῶν τοιούτων τοὺς ὄρχεις ἐκτός, τὰ δὲ λαβρότερα καὶ ἐντός, τῶν δὲ καὶ παντελῶς κατωλιγώρηκε καὶ οὐκ ἀπέδωκεν ὄρχεις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτό εἰσι καὶ πάντων λαβρότατα. ῥητέον δὲ πρὸς τοῦτο συντόμως ὅτι οὐδὲ τούτων κατωλιγώρησεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ [15] μᾶλλον κατὰ πολὺ πεφρόντικεν· ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἐν ὕδατι ὄντα οὐ δύνανται ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐνδιατρίβειν, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς προϊὼν ἐρεῖ, τῇ ἁφῇ, οὐ δέδωκε πρὸς τοῖς ἄλλοις οἷς μέλλει λέγειν λόγοις περὶ τούτων ὄρχεις· ἐν γὰρ τοῖς ἔχουσιν ὄρχεις βραδεῖα δι' ἃς μαθησόμεθα αἰτίας ἡ πρόεσις τοῦ σπέρματος γίνεται. ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν οὕτως προλελέχθω· ἡμῖν δὲ τὰ εἰρημένα ῥητέον καὶ ἔτι [20] τὴν αἰτίαν καθ' ἣν συμβαίνει πρώτως καὶ μάλιστα σώφρονα εἶναι τὰ ἐκτὸς ἔχοντα τοὺς ὄρχεις, δευτέρως δὲ καὶ ἧττον τὰ ἐντός, πάντων δὲ ἀκολαστότατα τὰ μηδ' ὅλως τούτους ἔχοντα· καὶ οὕτως τὴν Ἀριστοτέλους ῥῆσιν μετιτέον.

ἰστέον οὖν ὡς ἐπειδὴ ἡ φύσις τοῦ ἀεὶ εἶναι ζῷα καὶ τὰ ἄλλα πάντα ἐφίεται καὶ τούτου στοχάζεται, ὅσα οὐκ ἠδυνήθη φυλάξαι ἀεὶ τὰ [25] αὐτὰ τῷ ἀριθμῷ, τούτοις ἐπρυτάνευσε τὴν ἀιδιότητα διὰ τοῦ ἀεὶ ἄλλα ἐξ ἄλλων γίνεσθαι. ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ ὁ συνδυασμὸς ὁ συνεχὴς ἔκλυσιν τοῦ σώματος ἐμποιεῖ δι' ἃς ἐρεῖ αἰτίας ἐν τῷ παρόντι βιβλίῳ, ὅταν περὶ τῆς φύσεως τοῦ σπέρματος λέγῃ τίς ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ οὖν ἔκλυσιν ἐμποιεῖ, τῇ ἐκλύσει δὲ φιλεῖ ὡς τὰ πολλὰ παρέπεσθαι θάνατον, ὅσα τῶν ζῴων ὀλιγοτόκα πέφυκεν [30] (ἐρεῖ δὲ καὶ τῆς τούτων ὀλιγοτοκίας τὰς αἰτίας ἐν τῷ παρόντι βιβλίῳ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς τούτου) ὅσα οὖν πέφυκεν ὀλιγοτόκα, γέγονε σωφρονέστερα τῶν ἄλλων προνοίᾳ φύσεως, ὅπως μὴ πολλάκις τῆς ἡμέρας συνδυαζόμενα ἐκλύηται καὶ φθείρηται καὶ τάχιον ἐκποδὼν γένηται τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος. ὅσα δὲ τίκτει μέν, ἀλλὰ πλείω μὲν τῶν ὀλιγοτόκων, ἐλάττω δὲ κατὰ πολὺ [35] τῶν πάνυ πολλὰ τικτόντων, ἧττόν ἐστι σωφρονέστερα τῶν ὀλιγοτόκων· εἰ γὰρ καὶ συμβαίη αὐτοῖς φθορὰ ἐκ τοῦ πολλάκις συνδυάζεσθαι, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ [7.1] πλείω τοῖν δυοῖν καὶ τριῶν τίκτειν, ἔστι δ' ὅτε καὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα, οὐκ ἐπιλείψει τὸ τοιοῦτον γένος ἐκ τοῦ παντός. διὰ τοῦτο οὖν ἧττον ἐφρόντισε τοῦ σώφρονα εἶναι ταῦτα. τῶν δὲ πάμπαν πολλὰ τικτόντων τίς ἡ ἀνάγκη τούτων φροντίσαι; δῆλον γὰρ ὡς οὐκ ἐπιλείψουσι σωρηδὸν γινό[5]μενα. ἡ μὲν οὖν αἰτία τοῦ τὰ μὲν εἶναι σώφρονα μᾶλλον τὰ δ' ἧττον τὰ δ' οὐδ' ὅλως αὕτη.

Michael of Ephesus, In de generatione animalium commentaria 1.4 (CAG 14.3, 5,35-7,6 Hayduck)

*ἔκλυσιν τοῦ σώματος | dissolution of the body.  The idea is not articulated in Aristotle in quite the way Michael thinks it is, but it's a common belief that too much sex will weaken and destroy the body.

**ἔστι δ' ὅτε καὶ τῶν ἑπτὰ καὶ δέκα.   This is rather specific.

More from Michael of Ephesus on dreams

Michael is again talking about his dreams.  Here, he comments on a passage from On prophesying by dreams. Aristotle says in this passage that dreams are more vivid when they involve things we are anxious or thinking about. Michael disagrees--dreams about our anxieties (or even our recent conscious thoughts) are not the only ones that can be extremely vivid. We can have dreams about things that are not on our minds, as well, that feel just as bright and real. As an example, he mentions a dream he had about a colleague who died when he was young, and whom he (curiously) distinguishes from his current, more famous, colleague and collaborator on ‘the discourses’. The names of both have been lost to time.

"And in fact [we have vivid dreams] even if something else should appear to us, [something] which we are not [currently] thinking about. Like the time I saw my colleague in a dream—not my famous [colleague], who is alive and working with me on the discourses (τοὺς λόγους), but another one who, because of the quick approach of death, wrote down only a few works in philosophy—anyway, I saw the one who died long ago in a dream; he was discussing things with me which I had not thought about during that whole month, or even the month before, [but which I] had thought about a lot in earlier times. For both my questions to him and his answers to me were about the soul."

καὶ γὰρ κἂν ἄλλο τι ἡμῖν φαίνηται, οὗπερ οὐ φροντίζομεν· ὥσπερ ἐμοὶ ἰδόντι τὸν ἐμὸν ἑταῖρον, οὐχὶ τὸν κλεινόν μοι τουτονί, ὅστις ἔτι μοι ζῶν συμπονεῖ περὶ τοὺς λόγους, ἀλλ' ἄλλον ὀλίγους ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ πόνους καταβεβληκότα διὰ τὴν τοῦ θανάτου σύντομον προσέλευσιν, ἐγὼ γοῦν ἐκεῖνον πάλαι θανόντα εἶδον καθ' ὕπνον διαλεγόμενόν μοι, περὶ ὧν ἐγὼ κατ' ἐκεῖνον ὅλον τὸν μῆνα καὶ ἔτι τὸν πρὸ ἐκείνου οὐκ ἐφρόντισα, πρότερον πολλὰ φροντίσας· ἦσαν γὰρ περὶ ψυχῆς αἱ ἐμαί τε πρὸς ἐκεῖνον ἐρωτήσεις κἀκείνου πρός με αἱ ἀποκρίσεις.

Michael of Ephesus, In parva naturalia commentaria, CAG 22.1, 85,3-11 Wendland

A Neoplatonist’s Hymn

“I once heard someone singing

Two souls were passing on, and one said to the other, where must we go?* 

Some time later, I heard another person singing the tune and the rhythm to which Two souls were passing on was sung, but the words and the meaning were not the ones from before. Instead they were

The First Reason leads me and again downward brings me.**

Like I said, both this song and the earlier song were sung to the same rhythm. When [my soul] had been moved here and there by [this] rhythm, I remembered the place I had first heard it, then [I remembered] the man who sang it, and then the [lyrics] ‘Two souls were passing on’ and the rest. There are, then, certain traces in the soul which follow one another by necessity, in which it is impossible that [the memories] that come next will not follow once [the soul] is set in motion.”

πάλιν ἤκουσά του ᾄδοντος “δύο ψυχαὶ ἐξήρχοντο, καὶ μία πρὸς ἄλλην ἔλεγε, ποῖ πορευτέον”.* μετὰ δέ τινας χρόνους ἤκουσα ἄλλου ᾄδοντος τὸ μὲν μέλος καὶ τὸν ῥυθμὸν ἐκεῖνον, καθ' ὃν ᾔδετο τὸ “δύο ψυχαὶ ἐξήρχοντο”, ἡ δὲ λέξις καὶ ἡ ἔννοια οὐκ ἐκείνη, ἀλλ' ἦν ὅτι “ὁ νοῦς ὁ πρῶτος ἄγει με καὶ πάλιν κάτω φέρει”. ᾔδετο οὖν, ὥσπερ εἶπον, τῷ αὐτῷ ῥυθμῷ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ ἐκεῖνα· ἀφ' οὗ ῥυθμοῦ πρῶτον ἀνεμνήσθην κινηθεὶς ὧδε κἀκεῖσε τὸν τόπον, ἐν ᾧ ἤκουσα τοῦ ῥυθμοῦ, εἶτα τὸν ᾄδοντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ τότε τὸ “δύο ψυχαὶ ἐξήρχοντο” καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. εἰσὶ μὲν οὖν τύποι τινὲς ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἀκολουθοῦντες ἀλλήλοις, ἐν οἷς ἀδύνατόν ἐστι τούτου κινηθέντος μὴ ἕπεσθαι καὶ τὸν ἑξῆς.

Michael of Ephesus, In parva naturalia commentaria, CAG 22.1, 24,23-25,3 Wendland

*This song does not come up with a TLG search, except for the paraphrase in “Themistius” (Sophonias?), in Parva Naturalia, CAG 5.6 8,25.

**I haven’t found this song in a TLG search either, except for the “Themistius” paraphrase: in PN CAG 5.6 8,27-8.