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.

Theophrastus on Art and Nature II – Natural and Artificial Ecology

“The fact that some plants also cooperate towards each other’s preservation and generation is also evident from the following considerations. Among wild plants, deciduous ones cooperate with evergreens since when their leaves decay the earth is, as it were, fertilized which is useful for both good feeding and for the germination of their seeds; while among cultivated plants, those cooperate which people sow among their plants when they want to remove excess moisture from their vines, and among their vegetables either for this reason or because there is an infestation of bugs as bitter vetch is sown among radishes to guard against aphids and whatever else similarly grows among others. For we should assume these kinds of things happen among nature’s spontaneous creations, as well, especially if art imitates nature.”

ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς ἔνια συνεργεῖ πρὸς τὴν ἀλλήλων σωτηρίαν καὶ γένεσιν καὶ ἐκ τῶνδε φανερόν· ἐν μὲν γὰρ τοῖς ἀγρίοις τὰ φυλλοβόλα τοῖς ἀειφύλλοις ὅτι σηπομένων ξυμβαίνει καθάπερ κοπρίζεσθαι τὴν γῆν ὃ καὶ πρὸς εὐτροφίαν καὶ πρὸς τὴν βλάστησιν τῶν σπερμάτων χρήσιμον. ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἡμέροις ὅσα τοῖς φυτοῖς ἐπισπείρουσι τῶν ἀμπέλων ἀφαιρεῖν βουλόμενοι τὸ πλῆθος τῆς ὑγρότητος καὶ τοῖς λαχάνοις ἢ τούτου χάριν ἢ τῶν γινομένων θηρίων οἷον ταῖς ῥαφανίσι τοὺς ὀρόβους πρὸς τὰς ψύλλας καὶ εἴ τι τοιοῦτον ἕτερον ἑτέροις. οἴεσθαι γὰρ χρὴ τοιαῦτα καὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτομάτοις τῆς φύσεως ὑπάρχειν ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ ἡ τέχνη μιμεῖται τὴν φύσιν.

Theophrastus, Causes of Plants, 2.18.1–2

More on Providential Ecology from Herodotus and Plato

Yes, more providential ecology. Herodotus and Plato explain why some animals have many babies, others do not. Also, flying snakes.

Wise Gods

“And, it’s reasonable to suppose that divine providence, since it is wise, set things up so that all the timid and edible animals produce many offspring in order that they would not go extinct by all being eaten up; while all the savage and violent animals are able to produce only a few offspring.”

καί κως τοῦ θείου ἡ προνοίη, ὥσπερ καὶ οἰκός ἐστι, ἐοῦσα σοφή, ὅσα μὲν ψυχήν τε δειλὰ καὶ ἐδώδιμα, ταῦτα μὲν πάντα πολύγονα πεποίηκε, ἵνα μὴ ἐπιλίπῃ κατεσθιόμενα, ὅσα δὲ σχέτλια καὶ ἀνιηρά, ὀλιγόγονα.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2

“[Epimetheus] devised these things, taking care that no animal species goes extinct: when he had provided them a way to avoid destroying each other, he devised protection from the seasonal weather sent by Zeus, by clothing them in thick hair and solid hides, which are enough to keep off the winter cold, and also able to ward off burning heat; and, when they go home to their lairs, these same clothes serve as a proper and natural bed-cushion for them all. And to some he gave hooves, to others claws and thick, bloodless hides. Then, he provided them with various foods: to some, grass from the earth; others, fruits from trees; others, roots. There are also those to whom he gave other animals to eat as food, and to them he bestowed few offspring, while to those consumed by them, many offspring, ensuring the survival of the species.”

ταῦτα δὲ ἐμηχανᾶτο εὐλάβειαν ἔχων μή τι γένος ἀϊστωθείη· ἐπειδὴ δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀλληλοφθοριῶν διαφυγὰς ἐπήρκεσε, πρὸς τὰς ἐκ Διὸς ὥρας εὐμάρειαν ἐμηχανᾶτο ἀμφιεννὺς αὐτὰ πυκναῖς τε θριξὶν καὶ στερεοῖς δέρμασιν, ἱκανοῖς μὲν ἀμῦναι χειμῶνα, δυνατοῖς δὲ καὶ καύματα, καὶ εἰς εὐνὰς ἰοῦσιν ὅπως ὑπάρχοι τὰ αὐτὰ ταῦτα στρωμνὴ οἰκεία τε καὶ αὐτοφυὴς ἑκάστῳ· καὶ ὑποδῶν τὰ μὲν ὁπλαῖς, τὰ δὲ <ὄνυξι> καὶ δέρμασιν στερεοῖς καὶ ἀναίμοις. τοὐντεῦθεν τροφὰς ἄλλοις ἄλλας ἐξεπόριζεν, τοῖς μὲν ἐκ γῆς βοτάνην, ἄλλοις δὲ δένδρων καρπούς, τοῖς δὲ ῥίζας· ἔστι δ᾽ οἷς ἔδωκεν εἶναι τροφὴν ζῴων ἄλλων βοράν· καὶ τοῖς μὲν ὀλιγογονίαν προσῆψε, τοῖς δ᾽ ἀναλισκομένοις ὑπὸ τούτων πολυγονίαν, σωτηρίαν τῷ γένει πορίζων.

Plato, Protagoras, 321A–B

The Mating Habits of Vipers and the Winged Snakes of Arabia*

“As for vipers and the winged snakes of Arabia, if they came about as their nature would have it, living would be impossible for human beings; in fact, however, when the vipers mate, at the very moment when the male ejaculates, once he emits the seed, the female grabs his throat, bites down, and does not let go until she has eaten through. And while the male dies in the way we just described, the female gets paid back for it by the male. Seeking revenge for their father, the offspring, while they are still in the belly, chew through their mother and eat through her womb, thus making their escape. The other snakes, however, since they are not harmful to people, lay eggs and hatch a great clutch of offspring.”

ὣς δὲ καὶ οἱ ἔχιδναί τε καὶ οἱ ἐν Ἀραβίοισι ὑπόπτεροι ὄφιες εἰ ἐγίνοντο ὡς ἡ φύσις αὐτοῖσι ὑπάρχει, οὐκ ἂν ἦν βιώσιμα ἀνθρώποισι: νῦν δ᾽ ἐπεὰν θορνύωνται κατὰ ζεύγεα καὶ ἐν αὐτῇ ᾖ ὁ ἔρσην τῇ ἐκποιήσι, ἀπιεμένου αὐτοῦ τὴν γονὴν ἡ θήλεα ἅπτεται τῆς δειρῆς, καὶ ἐμφῦσα οὐκ ἀνιεῖ πρὶν ἂν διαφάγῃ. ὁ μὲν δὴ ἔρσην ἀποθνήσκει τρόπῳ τῷ εἰρημένῳ, ἡ δὲ θήλεα τίσιν τοιήνδε ἀποτίνει τῷ ἔρσενι: τῷ γονέι τιμωρέοντα ἔτι ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ ἐόντα τὰ τέκνα διεσθίει τὴν μητέρα, διαφαγόντα δὲ τὴν νηδὺν αὐτῆς οὕτω τὴν ἔκδυσιν ποιέεται. οἱ δὲ ἄλλοι ὄφιες ἐόντες ἀνθρώπων οὐ δηλήμονες τίκτουσί τε ᾠὰ καὶ ἐκλέπουσι πολλόν τι χρῆμα τῶν τέκνων.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2–3

“Megasthenes says that in India there are winged scorpions of immense size, and that their sting is similar to that of European ones. And that in the same place, there are also snakes with wings, and that they come around not during the day but at night, and they emit from themselves a urine, which, immediately produces decay when it falls on someone’s body.”

Μεγασθένης φησὶ κατὰ τὴν Ἰνδικὴν σκορπίους γίνεσθαι πτερωτοὺς μεγέθει μεγίστους, τὸ κέντρον δὲ ἐγχρίμπτειν τοῖς Εὐρωπαίοις παραπλησίως. γίνεσθαι δὲ καὶ ὄφεις αὐτόθι καὶ τούτους πτηνούς· ἐπιφοιτᾶν δὲ οὐ μεθ' ἡμέραν ἀλλὰ νύκτωρ, καὶ ἀφιέναι ἐξ αὑτῶν οὖρον, ὅπερ οὖν ἐὰν κατά τινος ἐπιστάξῃ σώματος, σῆψιν ἐργάζεται παραχρῆμα.

Aelian, Nature of Animals, 16.41

*So, I guess winged serpents are more like cobras, less like flying snakes? More curious is the contrast Herodotus implies between what an animal does by its own nature, and what it does because of divine providence. Is the idea that the divine intervenes in how animals act and interact, but doesn’t make them what they are?

Via getty images

Spontaneous Generation: Galen and Alexander against the Platonists on why the world soul doesn’t make mosquitos

Stranger: Take animals and all mortal things, and even plants, those which grow from seeds on the earth or those which grow from roots, and those bodies without soul which form in the earth, both the ones that can be melted and the ones that can’t. Surely we are not going to say anything other than divine craftsmanship makes them come to be after previously not being? Or do we consult the saying and opinion of the masses that…

Theaetetus: That what?

Stranger: That nature produces them from some spontaneous cause and without an engendering thought, rather than with reason and divine knowledge that comes from a god?

Ξένος: ζῷα δὴ πάντα θνητά, καὶ δὴ καὶ φυτὰ ὅσα τ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐκ σπερμάτων καὶ ῥιζῶν φύεται, καὶ ὅσα ἄψυχα ἐν γῇ συνίσταται σώματα τηκτὰ καὶ ἄτηκτα, μῶν ἄλλου τινὸς ἢ θεοῦ δημιουργοῦντος φήσομεν ὕστερον γίγνεσθαι πρότερον οὐκ ὄντα; ἢ τῷ τῶν πολλῶν δόγματι καὶ ῥήματι χρώμενοι—

Θεαίτητος: ποίῳ τῳ;

Ξένος: τὴν φύσιν αὐτὰ γεννᾶν ἀπό τινος αἰτίας αὐτομάτης καὶ ἄνευ διανοίας φυούσης, ἢ μετὰ λόγου τε καὶ ἐπιστήμης θείας ἀπὸ θεοῦ γιγνομένης; [265δ]

Plato, Sophist 265 C-D

“When one of my Platonists teachers told me that the soul-that-is-extended-through-the-whole-cosmos formed the (human) embryo, I thought that the technical skill and power is worthy of it; but, I could not abide thinking that the world-soul formed scorpions, poisonous spiders, flies, conopses, vipers, grubs, worms and ascarides. I take it this kind of opinion comes near impiety. ”

εἰπόντος δέ τινος τῶν διδασκάλων μοι τῶν Πλατωνικῶν, τὴν δι' ὅλου κόσμου ψυχὴν ἐκτεταμένην διαπλάττειν τὰ κυούμενα, τὴν μὲν τέχνην καὶ δύναμιν ἀξίαν ἐκείνης ἐνόμισα, σκορπίους δὲ καὶ φαλάγγια, καὶ μυῖαν καὶ κώνωπας, ἐχίδνας τε καὶ σκώληκας, ἕλμινθάς τε καὶ ἀσκαρίδας ὑπ' ἐκείνης διαπλάττεσθαι νομίζειν οὐχ ὑπέμεινα, πλησίον ἀσεβείας ἥκειν ὑπολαβὼν τὴν τοιαύτην δόξαν.

Galen, On the Formation of the Foetus, 4.700—701 K

“Again, it is possible to discover the existence of a regular order even among evil things and things that come to be contrary to nature, like abscesses, wounds, inflammations, and periodic illnesses. But also the generation of some living things is in fact orderly, without being relative to an Idea, like the generation of grubs, gnats, and grubs.”

ἔτι τὸ εὔτακτον ἔστιν εὑρεῖν καὶ ἐν τοῖς κακοῖς καὶ παρὰ φύσιν γιγνομένοις, οἷον ἀποστήματα, τραύματα, φλεγμοναί, νόσων περίοδοι. ἀλλὰ καὶ ζῴων τινῶν γενέσεις τεταγμέναι μέν, ἀλλ' οὐ πρὸς ἰδέαν, οἷον σκωλήκων, ἐμπίδων, τερηδόνων.

Alexander of Aphrodisias, On Aristotle’s Metaphysics Α, 103,35-104-19 Hayduck

Spontaneous Generation: Aristotle on why life is not decay

“Of things that come to be, some come to be by nature, some by art, some spontaneously. But everything that comes to be (1) comes to be by something and (2) comes to be from something and (3) comes to be something.”

Τῶν δὲ γιγνομένων τὰ μὲν φύσει γίγνεται τὰ δὲ τέχνῃ τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου, πάντα δὲ τὰ γιγνόμενα ὑπό τέ τινος γίγνεται καὶ ἔκ τινος καὶ τί.

Aristotle, Metaphysics Ζ 7, 1032a12-4

“When I was young, Cebes, I was wonderfully keen on that wisdom which they call natural history, for I thought it was splendid to know the causes of each thing, why each comes to be and why it perishes and why it is. And often, I would turn myself up and down, looking first into questions like these: do living creatures arise when heat and cold take on a kind of decay, as some people used to say?”

ἐγὼ γάρ, ἔφη, ὦ Κέβης, νέος ὢν θαυμαστῶς ὡς ἐπεθύμησα ταύτης τῆς σοφίας ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν: ὑπερήφανος γάρ μοι ἐδόκει εἶναι, εἰδέναι τὰς αἰτίας ἑκάστου, διὰ τί γίγνεται ἕκαστον καὶ διὰ τί ἀπόλλυται καὶ διὰ τί ἔστι. καὶ πολλάκις [96β] ἐμαυτὸν ἄνω κάτω μετέβαλλον σκοπῶν πρῶτον τὰ τοιάδε: ἆρ᾽ ἐπειδὰν τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸ ψυχρὸν σηπεδόνα τινὰ λάβῃ, ὥς τινες ἔλεγον, τότε δὴ τὰ ζῷα συντρέφεται;

Plato, Phaedo 96a6-b3

“Nothing that is decaying comes to be; rather, what is being concocted does; the process of decay and the thing decaying are residues from what has been concocted. Actually, there isn’t anything that comes to be from the whole (of the material it is made out of), any more than in the case of what has been fashioned by art. For if that were the case, there wouldn’t be any need to produce things. What actually happens is that the useless stuff is removed, in the one case by art, in the other case by nature.

“Animals and plants come to be in earth and in water because in earth there is water, and in water there is pneuma, and in all pneuma, there is psychic heat, and so, in a certain way, all things are full of soul. That’s why they are formed quickly once it has been enveloped.

“When it is enveloped, and when the bodily moisture is heated, it becomes like a frothy bubble. Whether what takes shape is a more or less honourable kind of thing, the difference depends on what envelops the psychic principle. Of this (i.e,. what envelops the psychic principle), the causes are the places and the body which is being enclosed.”

γίγνεται δ' οὐθὲν σηπόμενον ἀλλὰ πεττόμενον· ἡ δὲ σῆψις καὶ τὸ σαπρὸν περίττωμα τοῦ πεφθέντος ἐστίν· οὐθὲν γὰρ ἐκ παντὸς γίγνεται καθάπερ οὐδ' ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς τέχνης δημιουργουμένοις – οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἔδει ποιεῖν – νῦν δὲ τὸ μὲν ἡ τέχνη τῶν ἀχρήστων ἀφαιρεῖ, τὸ δ' ἡ φύσις.

Γίγνονται δ' ἐν γῇ καὶ ἐν ὑγρῷ τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ διὰ τὸ ἐν γῇ μὲν ὕδωρ ὑπάρχειν ἐν δ' ὕδατι πνεῦμα, ἐν δὲ τούτῳ παντὶ θερμότητα ψυχικήν, ὥστε τρόπον τινὰ πάντα ψυχῆς εἶναι πλήρη· διὸ συνίσταται ταχέως ὁπόταν ἐμπεριληφθῇ.

ἐμπεριλαμβάνεται δὲ καὶ γίγνεται θερμαινομένων τῶν σωματικῶν ὑγρῶν οἷον ἀφρώδης πομφόλυξ. αἱ μὲν οὖν διαφοραὶ τοῦ τιμιώτερον εἶναι τὸ γένος καὶ ἀτιμότερον τὸ συνιστάμενον ἐν τῇ περιλήψει τῆς ἀρχῆς τῆς ψυχικῆς ἐστιν. τούτου δὲ καὶ οἱ τόποι αἴτιοι καὶ τὸ σῶμα τὸ περιλαμβανόμενον.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals, 3.11, 762a13—27

“The cause is similar to that in the case of yeast. For yeast goes from being something small to being big, when the more solid part becomes fluid, and the fluid becomes pneumatized. The psychic heat fashions this in the case of animals, but in the case of the yeast, it is the heat of the humour that was blended with it.”

τὸ δ' αἴτιον παραπλήσιον ὅπερ ἐπὶ τῆς ζύμης· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ζύμη ἐκ μικρᾶς μεγάλη γίγνεται τοῦ μὲν στερεωτέρου ὑγραινομένου τοῦ δ' ὑγροῦ πνευματουμένου. δημιουργεῖ δὲ τοῦτο ἡ τοῦ ψυχικοῦ θερμοῦ φύσις ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις, ἐν δὲ ταῖς ζύμαις ἡ τοῦ χυμοῦ τοῦ συγκραθέντος θερμότης.

Aristotle, Generation of Animals 3.4, 755a14-25

Spontaneous Generation: fire animals, animals that look like twigs, and mosquitos

“There is a fact common to animals and plants. Some plants come to be from seed, while others come to be spontaneously, when some seed-like principle is formed; and of these, some grow in (lit. ‘get their nourishment from’) the ground, while others emerge inside other plants, as we said in our exposition on plants. In the same way, some animals come to be from animals in accordance with a shared kind of form, while others come to be spontaneously and not from something of the same kind; of these, some come from decaying earth and plants, as happens with many of the insects, while others come to be inside of animals from the residues in their internal organs.”

Κοινὸν μὲν οὖν συμβέβηκε καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ζῴων, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν φυτῶν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἀπὸ σπέρματος ἑτέρων φυτῶν, τὰ δ' αὐτόματα γίνεται, συστάσης τινὸς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς, καὶ τούτων τὰ μὲν ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαμβάνει τὴν τροφήν, τὰ δ' ἐν ἑτέροις ἐγγίνεται φυτοῖς, ὥσπερ εἴρηται ἐν τῇ θεωρίᾳ τῇ περὶ φυτῶν. Οὕτω καὶ τῶν ζῴων τὰ μὲν ἀπὸ ζῴων γίνεται κατὰ συγγένειαν τῆς μορφῆς, τὰ δ' αὐτόματα καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ συγγενῶν, καὶ τούτων τὰ μὲν ἐκ γῆς σηπομένης καὶ φυτῶν, ὥσπερ πολλὰ συμβαίνει τῶν ἐντόμων, τὰ δ' ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν τοῖς μορίοις περιττωμάτων.

Aristotle, History of Animals 5.1, 539a15-539a25

“At first, the decaying slime itself takes on a white color, then black, and finally blood-red. When this happens, things grow from it that are like very tiny, red wisps of seaweed. At this point in time, they wiggle as they cling to things, then, the ’ascarides’ (as they are called) break loose and swim around in the water. After a few days, they stand straight in the water, motionless and rigid, and then, when the shell breaks off, the mosquito sits on it, until the sun or pneuma causes it to move. Then they fly away. For all the rest of the grubs, too, and all the animals that emerge from grubs, the principle of generation comes to be from the sun or the pneuma.”

Τὸ μὲν οὖν πρῶτον αὐτὴ ἡ ἰλὺς σηπομένη χρῶμα λαμβάνει λευκόν, εἶτα μέλαν, τελευτῶσα δ' αἱματῶδες· ὅταν δὲ τοιαύτη γένηται, φύεται ἐξ αὐτῆς ὥσπερ τὰ φυκία μικρὰ σφόδρα καὶ ἐρυθρά· ταῦτα δὲ χρόνον μέν τινα κινεῖται προσπεφυκότα, ἔπειτ' ἀπορραγέντα φέρεται κατὰ τὸ ὕδωρ, αἱ καλούμεναι ἀσκαρίδες. Μεθ' ἡμέρας δ' ὀλίγας ἵστανται ὀρθαὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὕδατος ἀκινητίζουσαι καὶ σκληραί, κἄπειτα περιρραγέντος τοῦ κελύφους ἡ ἐμπὶς ἄνω ἐπικάθηται, ἕως ἂν ἥλιος ἢ πνεῦμα κινήσῃ· τότε δ' ἤδη πέτεται. Πᾶσι δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σκώληξι καὶ τοῖς ζῴοις τοῖς ἐκ τῶν σκωλήκων περιρρηγνυμένοις ἡ ἀρχὴ γίνεται τῆς γενέσεως ὑφ' ἡλίου ἢ ὑπὸ πνεύματος.

Aristotle, History of Animals 5.32, 551b29-552a11

“In Cyprus, in places where copper-ore is smelted, with heaps of the ore piled on day after day, an animal is engendered in the fire, somewhat larger than a large fly, furnished with wings, which can hop or crawl through the fire.”

Ἐν δὲ Κύπρῳ, οὗ ἡ χαλκῖτις λίθος καίεται, ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ἐμβαλλόντων, ἐνταῦθα γίνεται θηρία ἐν τῷ πυρί, τῶν μεγάλων μυιῶν μικρόν τι μείζονα, ὑπόπτερα, ἃ διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς πηδᾷ καὶ βαδίζει.

Aristotle, History of Animals 5.19, 552b10-13

“There is a kind of grub, which is called ‘twig-bearer,’ stranger than any animal. Its head projects outside its shell, mottled in colour, and its feet are near the end, as is the case with other grubs, but the rest of its body is encased in a tunic of something like a spider’s web. Around it are tiny dry twigs that seem to have stuck to it as it walked about, but they are fused together with the tunic. Like the shell is to the snail, so is the whole formation to this grub. And it does not fall off, but can be torn off, like natural appendages. And if someone removes the tunic, it dies and becomes as helpless as a snail whose shell was removed. In time, this grub becomes a chrysalis, just like a caterpillar, and then it lives without moving. The winged animal which comes to be from it has not yet been observed.”

Ἔστι δέ τι σκωλήκιον ὃ καλεῖται ξυλοφθόρον, οὐδενὸς ἧττον ἄτοπον τῶν ζῴων. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ κεφαλὴ ἔξω τοῦ κελύφους προέρχεται ποικίλη, καὶ οἱ πόδες ἐπ' ἄκρου, ὥσπερ τοῖς ἄλλοις σκώληξιν, ἐν χιτῶνι δὲ τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα ἀραχνιώδει, καὶ περὶ αὐτὸ κάρφη, ὥστε δοκεῖν προσέχεσθαι βαδίζοντι· ταῦτα δὲ σύμφυτα τῷ χιτῶνί ἐστιν· ὥσπερ κοχλίᾳ τὸ ὄστρακον, οὕτω τὸ ἅπαν τῷ σκώληκι, καὶ οὐκ ἀποπίπτει ἀλλ' ἀποσπᾶται ὥσπερ προσπεφυκότα· καὶ ἐάν τις τὸν χιτῶνα περιέλῃ, ἀποθνήσκει καὶ γίνεται ὁμοίως ἀχρεῖος ὥσπερ ὁ κοχλίας περιαιρεθέντος τοῦ ὀστράκου. Χρόνου δὲ προϊόντος γίνεται καὶ οὗτος ὁ σκώληξ χρυσαλλὶς ὥσπερ αἱ κάμπαι, καὶ ζῇ ἀκινητίζων· ὅ τι δ' ἐξ αὐτοῦ γίνεται τῶν πτερωτῶν ζῴων, οὔπω συνῶπται.

Aristotle, History of Animals 5.32, 557b12-25

The Spontaneously Generated Animals of Aristotle’s Historia Animalium

This list contains all the animals in Aristotle’s History of Animals which he says are generated spontaneously.

Each entry contains: (1) the name of the animal (or whatever it is called in the text); (2) the kind of animal it is; (3) an English translation of the name; (4) the matter and its differentia, i.e., that out of which the animal comes to be and (usually) where it comes to be; (5) the reference in Hist. an.

Spontaneously generated animals exist at the boundary between living and non-living world. They are alive, but not quite living: living, according to Aristotle, means sharing in divine activity, and this requires the eternal reproduction of the species. Spontaneously generated animals do not reproduce. They’re essentially ephemeral.

Aristotle thinks all spontaneously generated animals have the same mother and father. Their father—their efficient cause—is the heat from the celestial realm. This is primarily the heat from the sun, but it also includes the heat and motion distributed to the winds, and perhaps with some influence from the moon and other planets as well. The mother—their material cause—is the earth, but not just any material on the earth. It is usually some kind of slime or otherwise decaying stuff, and it’s here where the variety comes in. Aristotle thinks the kind of material from which an animal is spontaneously generated, along with the place in which that materials is found, are the two most important differentiae for explaining why different kinds of things are spontaneously generated: sometimes we get flies (like from dead animals), somtimes moths (from wool clothes), sometimes eels (from muddy slime), and sometimes worms (from improperly digested food in your intestines). This is similar to earlier Greek theories of reproduction where what determined whether a child was male or female was where the father’s semen landed in the womb (right for boys, left for girls, obvs.).

Malcolm Wilson’s book on the Meteorology makes a really cool point about this. Aristotle explains spontaneously generated animals the same way he explains meteorological phenomena (meteorology, in the broad Aristotelian sense of sublunary physics of non-living things). In meteorology, the sun produces different effects because its orientation to a given point on the earth changes throughout the year, and because the material it acts on differs in kind and in (especially) in place. When the sun’s heat acts on water on the surface of the earth, we get evaporation, clouds and rain. When it acts on water within the earth, we can get various metals. It is the same pattern of explanation.

NB: Of fishes, only the eels from book VI are included. There are some issues with the text. Also, in Gen. an. he says other fish generate spontaneously.

---

 ἀκαρί, τό | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα   mite

                material   old cheese and wood (ἐπὶ κηρίῳ παλαιουμένῳ καὶ ἐν ξύλῳ) | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b6-10

ἀσκαρίς, ἡ (1) | ἔντομα   ascaris

material   residues still in animals (ἐν τοῖς περιττώμασι ἔτι ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551a8-13

ἀσκαρίς, ἡ (2) | ἔντομα   ascaris

material   mud of wells and where there is a confluence of water with an earthy deposit (ἔν τε τῇ ἰλύϊ τῶν φρεάτων καὶ ὅπου ἂν σύρρευσις γένηται ὕδατος γεώδη ἔχουσα ὑπόστασιν) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b27-552a11

material   deposit of a mixed and heterogeneous kind, as in kitchens and fields, for these kinds of places putrefy quickly (ἐν τοῖς ἔχουσι παντοδαπὴν ὑπόστασιν, οἷον ἐν μαγειρείοις τε γίνεται καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις· σήπεται γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα θᾶττον) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a11-552a15

βάλανος, ἡ | ὀστρακοδέρμα   barnacle

material   mud around the crags in rocks (περὶ τὰς σήραγγας τῶν πετριδίων (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

βόστρυχος, ὁ | ἔντομα   lit. ‘curly’ (?), male fly of the glow worm (?)

material   glow-worm (ἐκ τῶν πυγολαμπίδων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b23-26

ἔγχελυς, ἡ | ἰχθῦς   eel

material   earth's guts, so-called, produced spontaneously in sediment and in humid earth (ἐκ τῶν καλουμένων γῆς ἐντέρων, ἃ αὐτόματα συνίσταται ἐν τῷ πηλῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ τῇ ἐνίκμῳ) | Hist. an. 6.16, 570a13

ἕλμινς, ἡ καλουμένη | ἔντομα   worm

material   residues still in animals (ἐν τοῖς περιττώμασι ἔτι ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551a7-13

ἕλμινς ἡ ὀνομαζομένη πλατεῖα | ἔντομα   flatworm

material   residues still in animals (ἐν τοῖς περιττώμασι ἔτι ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551a8-13

ἕλμινς, ἡ στρογγυλή | ἔντομα   roundworm

material   residues still in animals (ἐν τοῖς περιττώμασι ἔτι ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551a8-13

ἐμπίς, ἡ | ἔντομα   gnat

material   ascarides (ἐκ τῶν ἀσκαρίδων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b27

ἔντομόν τι (1) |   a kind of insect

material   dew falling on leaves (ἐκ τῆς δρόσου τῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς φύλλοις πιπτούσης) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἔντομόν τι (2)|   a kind of insect

material   decaying slime and dung (ἐν βορβόρῳ καὶ κόπρῳ σηπομένοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἔντομόν τι (3) |   a kind of insect

material   wood, either growing or dry (ἐν ξύλοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἔντομόν τι (4) |   a kind of insect

material   animal hair (ἐν θριξὶ ζῴων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἔντομόν τι (5) |   a kind of insect

material   animal flesh (ἐν σαρκὶ τῶν ζῴων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἔντομόν τι (6) |   a kind of insect

material   excreted residues (ἐν τοῖς περιττώμασι ἐκκεχωρισμένοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 550b32-551a8

ἐφήμερον, τό | ἔντομα   mayfly

material   sack-like things larger than grapes, which flow down the river Hypanis in the Cimmerian Bosophorus to the sea near the summer solstice (οἷον θύλακοι μείζους ῥαγῶν, ἐξ ὧν ῥηγνυμένων ἐξέρχεται ζῷον πτερωτὸν τετράπουν, περὶ δὲ τὸν Ὕπανιν ποταμὸν τὸν περὶ Βόσπορον τὸν Κιμμέριον ὑπὸ τροπὰς θερινὰς καταφέρονται ὑπὸ τοῦ ποταμοῦ) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552b17-23

ζωσδάριόν τι (1) | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα   a little animal

material   books (ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις) | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b6-10

ζωσδάριόν τι (2) | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα   a little animal

material   dry things moistening, moist things drying, which are life-promoting (?) (ἔν τε τοῖς ξηροῖς ὑγραινομένοις καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὑγροῖς ξηραινομένοις, ὅσα ἔχει αὐτῶν ζωήν) | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b10-12

θηρίον τι | ἔντομα   a kind of beast

material   fire in Cyprus where copper-ore is smelted, thrown on heaps each day (ἐν τῷ πυρί ἐν Κύπρῳ, οὗ ἡ χαλκῖτις λίθος καίεται, ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἡμέρας ἐμβαλλόντων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552b10-13

κανθαρίς, ἡ | ἔντομα   cantharis

material   caterpillars found on fig trees, pear trees, fir trees, and dog rose (ἐκ τῶν πρὸς ταῖς συκαῖς καμπῶν καὶ ταῖς ἀπίοις καὶ ταῖς πεύκαις καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐν τῇ κυνακάνθῃ) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a31-b4

κάνθαρος, ὁ | ἔντομα   dung-beetle

material   grubs from dung rolled into a ball (ἣν κυλίουσι κόπρον, ἐν ταύτῃ φωλοῦσί τε τὸν χειμῶνα καὶ ἐντίκτουσι σκωλήκια, ἐξ ὧν γίνονται κάνθαροι) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a17-19

καράβιος, ὁ | ἔντομα   stag-beetle

material   grubs that live in dry wood (ἐκ δὲ τῶν σκωλήκων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ξύλοις τοῖς αὔοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b16-18

καρκίνιον, τὸ | ὀστρακοδέρμα   hermit crab

material   earth and mud (ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἰλύος) | Hist. an. 5.15, 548a14-15

κνίδν, ἡ | τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄστρακον   sea anemone

material   earth and mud in the hollows of rocks (ἐκ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἰλύος ἐν ταῖς σήραγξι τῶν πετρῶν) | Hist. an. 5.15, 548a22-27

κόγχη, ἡ | ὀστρακοδέρμα   cockle

material   sandy mud (ἐν τῇ ἀμμώδει (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

κόρις, ὁ | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   bug

material   moisture as it thickens outside the bodies of animals (ἐκ τῆς ἰκμάδος τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ζῴων συνισταμένης ἐκτός) | Hist. an. 5.31, 556b24-28

κροτών, ὁ | ἔντομα   tick

material   dog's tooth grass (ἐκ τῆς ἀγρώστεως) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a15

κυνοραιστής, ὁ | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   dog tick

material   dogs (ἐν δὲ τοῖς κυσὶν) | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a17-18

κώνωψ, ὁ | ἔντομα   conops (bee and wasp endoparasite)

material   grubs which comes to be in the mud of vinegar (ἐκ σκωλήκων οἳ γίνονται ἐκ τῆς περὶ τὸ ὄξος ἰλύος) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552b4-5

λεπάς, ἡ | ὀστρακοδέρμα   limpet

material   mud around the crags in rocks (περὶ τὰς σήραγγας τῶν πετριδίων (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

μηλολόνθη, ἡ | ἔντομα   cockchafer, may-bug

material   grubs in cow or donkey dung (ἐκ τῶν σκωλήκων τῶν ἐν τοῖς βολίτοις καὶ τῶν ὀνίδων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a15-17

μυῖα, ἡ | ἔντομα   fly

material   grubs in dung separated into piles (ἐκ τῶν σκωλήκων τῶν ἐν τῇ κόπρῳ τῇ χωριζομένῃ κατὰ μέρος) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a20-29

μύωψ, ὁ | ἔντομα   horse-fly

material   wood (ἐκ τῶν ξύλων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a29

νεκύδαλος, ὁ | ἔντομα   silk-moth

material   large grub that has horns and differs from other grubs (ἐκ δέ τινος σκώληκος μεγάλου, ὃς ἔχει οἷον κέρατα καὶ διαφέρει τῶν ἄλλων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b9-12

νηρείτης, ὁ | ὀστρακοδέρμα   sea snail

material   mud around the crags in rocks (περὶ τὰς σήραγγας τῶν πετριδίων (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

ξυλοφόρος, ὁ | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα   twig-bearer (bagworm moth?)

material   ? | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b12-25

οἶστρος, ὁ | ἔντομα   gadfly

material   flat litte animals that skim across rivers (ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ποταμοῖς πλατέων ζωδαρίων τῶν ἐπιθεόντων) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b21-23

οἶστρος, ὁ τῶν θύννων | ἔντομα ὅσα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   gadfly of the tunny

material   mud, not from fish (ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσι οὐκ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἰχθύων ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς ἰλύος) | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a27-29

ὀρσοδάκνη, ἡ | ἔντομα   leaf beetle (?)

material   grub underdoing change that came to be in kale-stalks (ἐκ τῶν σκωληκίων μεταβαλλόντων· τὰ δὲ σκωλήκια ταῦτα γίνεται ἐν τοῖς καυλοῖς τῆς κράμβης. ) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a29-31

ὄστρεον, τό | ὀστρακοδέρμα   oyster

material   slimy mud (ἐν τῇ βορβορώδει (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

πρασοκουρίς, ἡ | ἔντομα   leek-bane

material   (grubs growing on) kale (ἐκ τῶν κραμβῶν (sc. τῶν σκωλήκων)) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b19-21

πτερωτὸν ζῷον τι | ἔντομα   a kind of winged-animal

material   grubs in pulses (ἐκ τῶν σκωλήκων τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὀσπρίοις) | Hist. an. 5.19, 552a19-20

πυγολαμπίς, ἡ | ἔντομα   glow-worm

material   black, hairy, small caterpillar (ἐκ δὲ μελαινῶν τινων καὶ δασειῶν οὐ μεγάλων καμπῶν) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551b23-26

σῆς, ὁ | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα clothes moth

material   wool and woolen clothes (ἐν ἐρίοις καὶ ἐξ ἐρίων) | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b1-6

σκώληξ τις | ἔντομα   a kind of grub

material   unputrefiable stuff, like old snow (ἐν τοῖς δοκοῦσιν ἀσηπτοτάτοις εἶναι, οἷον ἐν χιόνι τῇ παλαιᾷ) | Hist. an. 5.19, 554b6-10

material   snow in Media (ἐκ τῆς ἐν Μηδίᾳ χιόνος) | Hist. an. 5.19, 554b6-10

σπόγγος, ὁ | τὰ μὴ ἔχοντα ὄστρακον   sponge

material   feed on mud and earth and grow either near rocks or shore (φύονται δ' ἢ πρὸς πέτρᾳ πάντες ἢ ἐν ταῖς θισί, τρέφονται δ' ἐν τῇ ἰλύϊ) | Hist. an. 5.15, 548a29-b10

τήθυον, τό | ὀστρακοδέρμα   sea squirt, ascidian

material   mud around the crags in rocks (περὶ τὰς σήραγγας τῶν πετριδίων (sc. ἰλύϊ)) | Hist. an. 5.15, 547b18-23

φθείρ, ὁ | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   louse

material   flesh (ἐκ τῶν σαρκῶν) | Hist. an. 5.31, 556b24-28

material   (flesh of) animals other than humans (ἐγγίνονται δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ἐν πολλοῖς) | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a10-17

material   the animal itself (i.e., not cross-species) (ἐν τοῖς ἔχουσιν ἐξ αὐτῶν γίνονται τῶν ζῴων) | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a18-21

φθείρ θαλάσσιος, ὁ | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   sea louse

material   mud, not fish (unlike other lice) (ἐν τοῖς ἰχθύσι οὐκ ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν ἰχθύων ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς ἰλύος) | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a21-27

φθείρ, ὁ καλεῖται ἄγριος | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   wild louse

                material   ? | Hist. an. 5.31, 557a4-10

ψήν, ὁ | ζῳδάρια ἄλλα   fig wasp

material   grub from fruit of wild fig (τὰ δ' ἐρινεὰ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἐρινεοῖς ἔχουσι) | Hist. an. 5.32, 557b25-31

ψύλλα, ἡ | ἔντομα ζῇ χυμοῖς σαρκὸς ζώσης   flea

material   putrefaction, a small amount (ἐξ ἐλαχίστης σηπεδόνος) | Hist. an. 5.31, 556b24-28

ψυχή, ἡ καλουμένη | ἔντομα   butterfly

material   caterpillars that grow on green leaves, especially cabbage, which some people call kale (ἐκ τῶν καμπῶν αἳ γίνονται ἐπὶ τῶν φύλλων τῶν χλωρῶν, καὶ μάλιστα ἐπὶ τῆς ῥαφάνου, ἣν καλοῦσί τινες κράμβην) | Hist. an. 5.19, 551a13-16

Aristotle on Ctesias on the Manticore and Unicorn

Ctesias of Knidos was a Greek physician and writer of tales and legends from far-away lands. He is often compared negatively to Herodotus. Herodotus, it is said, wrote histories. Ctesias wrote something else entirely.

He lived sometime in the fifth and fourth centuries. Originally from Knidos, a Greek city in what is now south-western Turkey, he likely practiced medicine as an Asclepiad. At some point in the fifth century he was brought to the Persian Court as a physician, although the circumstances of his move are not clear. Some sources refer to him as physician at the court of Artaxerxes II, a prominent post. If these sources are right, it explains his familiarity with the Persian kingdom. In all, he likely stayed and travelled with the court for 17 years.

When he returned to Knidos at the beginning of the fourth century, he wrote a work called the Indica, the first Greek-language description of the lands, people, animals and plants east of Persia, almost a century before reports would come back from Alexander’s expedition. The book circulated widely. It contained fantastic tales about the strangeness of the lands to the east at the end of the earth—tales Ctesias’ audience would have desired because of how weird and terrifying they were, but whose reality they could (most of the time) safely ignore because of how remote they were. The bestiary he introduced to the Greek world and ultimately to ours includes not just the manticore and the unicorn, but also a bird that can speak in human tongues and a race of half-human, half-dog people called the Cynocephaloi.

I find it especially interesting that his stories are repeated by Aristotle. Aristotle’s History of Animals includes several animals he took from Ctesias’ writings, even though he says Ctesias is not not worth believing (οὐκ ἀξιόπιστος). There is a puzzle here. Aristotle calls Ctesias an untrustworthy source, but at the same time he includes his observations, often without comment and, even more puzzling, often without any indication they are not to be trusted.

The unicorn is one example. Ctesias is clearly Aristotle’s source for his discussion of the unicorn. We know this based on what Aristotle says about the unicorn’s knucklebones and because of the proximity of Aristotle’s unicorn discussion to one about the manticore, which Aristotle says he took from Ctesias. It looks like Aristotle was jotting down notes as he was reading Ctesias’ work.

It is curious, then, that Aristotle does not cite Ctesias as his source for the unicorn passage. Moreover, he gives no indication the report is questionable or not to be trusted. In fact, he doesn’t make it look like a report at all. So the question is: what does the fact that he includes accounts of animals from foreign lands based on the testimony of someone he does not trust mean for Aristotle’s way of collecting facts and doing science?

It’s a question that’s been raised a lot before, and one I think is always worth raising again. What is Aristotle’s attitude to his sources of information about the natural world beyond his experience? And why does he think some stories are worth believing and not others?

(Not-quite) Biogeography

“Animals differ according to place. In certain places, some animals do not exist at all; in some places, they do exist, but they are smaller, or shorter-lived, or they do not thrive. And sometimes a difference like this occurs in neighbouring places, for example, in areas of Miletus that neighbour each other, in one place cicadas exist, in another they do not. There is a river that runs through Cephalenia, where on one side cicadas exist, but on the other they do not. In Boeotia, many moles live around the Orchomenos, but in neighbouring Lebadiake, there aren’t any; even if someone introduces them, they do not wish to make their burrows there. In Ithaca, hares (if someone releases them after introducing them) are not able to live, but are observed dead, turned towards the sea where they had been brought in. In Sicily, there are no horse-ants, while in Cyrene, croaking frogs did not exist before. In all of Libya, there are no wild pigs, no deer, no wild goats. And in India, as Ctesias — who isn’t worth believing — says, there are neither wild nor tame pigs, but massive bloodless [animals] all covered in scales.”

Διαφέρει δὲ τὰ ζῷα καὶ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους· ὥσπερ γὰρ ἔν τισιν ἔνια οὐ γίνεται παντάπασιν, οὕτως ἐν ἐνίοις τόποις γίνεται μὲν ἐλάττω δὲ καὶ ὀλιγοβιώτερα, καὶ οὐκ εὐημερεῖ. Καὶ ἐνίοτε ἐν τοῖς πάρεγγυς τόποις ἡ διαφορὰ γίνεται τῶν τοιούτων, οἷον τῆς Μιλησίας ἐν τόποις γειτνιῶσιν ἀλλήλοις ἔνθα μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες ἔνθα δ' οὐ γίνονται, καὶ ἐν Κεφαληνίᾳ ποταμὸς διείργει, οὗ ἐπὶ τάδε μὲν γίνονται τέττιγες, ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα δ' οὐ γίνονται. Ἐν δὲ Πορδοσελήνῃ ὁδὸς διείργει, ἧς ἐπ' ἐκεῖνα μὲν γαλῆ γίνεται, ἐπὶ θάτερα δ' οὐ γίνεται. καὶ ἐν τῇ Βοιωτίᾳ ἀσπάλακες περὶ μὲν τὸν Ὀρχομενὸν πολλοὶ γίνονται, ἐν δὲ τῇ Λεβαδιακῇ γειτνιώσῃ οὐκ εἰσίν, οὐδ' ἄν τις κομίσῃ, ἐθέλουσιν ὀρύττειν. Ἐν Ἰθάκῃ δ' οἱ δασύποδες, ἐάν τις ἀφῇ κομίσας, οὐ δύνανται ζῆν, ἀλλὰ φαίνονται τεθνεῶτες πρὸς τῇ θαλάττῃ ἐστραμμένοι, ᾗπερ ἂν εἰσαχθῶσιν. Καὶ ἐν μὲν Σικελίᾳ ἱππομύρμηκες οὐκ εἰσίν, ἐν δὲ Κυρήνῃ οἱ φωνοῦντες βάτραχοι πρότερον οὐκ ἦσαν. Ἐν δὲ Λιβύῃ πάσῃ οὔτε σῦς ἄγριός ἐστιν οὔτ' ἔλαφος οὔτ' αἲξ ἄγριος· ἐν δὲ τῇ Ἰνδικῇ, ὡς φησὶ Κτησίας οὐκ ὢν ἀξιόπιστος, οὔτ' ἄγριος οὔτε ἥμερος ὗς, τὰ δ' ἄναιμα καὶ τὰ φολιδωτὰ πάντα μεγάλα.

Aristotle, History of Animals 8.28, 605b22-606a10

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 25r 13th century. This post is an excuse to put up pictures from this manuscript.

Aristotle on Ctesias on the Martichora, or the Manticore

“There is such a thing, if we must trust Ctesias. He says that the beast among the Indians, whose name is ‘martichora,’ has triple-rows of teeth on both sides. In size, he says it is as big as a lion, equally hairy, and having smaller feet. Its face and ears are human-like, its eyes shining blue, its colour like cinnabar. Its tail is similar to that of a land-scorpion, and in it, it has a stinger and it can shoot the spines like arrows. Its cry is like the sound of a shepherd’s-pipe and a war-trumpet at the same time, and it runs as quickly as a deer. It is savage and a man-eater.”

Ἔστι δέ τι, εἰ δεῖ πιστεῦσαι Κτησίᾳ· ἐκεῖνος γὰρ τὸ ἐν Ἰνδοῖς θηρίον, ᾧ ὄνομα εἶναι μαρτιχόραν, τοῦτ' ἔχειν ἐπ' ἀμφότερά φησι τριστοίχους τοὺς ὀδόντας· εἶναι δὲ μέγεθος μὲν ἡλίκον λέοντα καὶ δασὺ ὁμοίως, καὶ πόδας ἔχειν ὁμοίους, πρόσωπον δὲ καὶ ὦτα ἀνθρωποειδές, τὸ δ' ὄμμα γλαυκόν, τὸ δὲ χρῶμα κινναβάρινον, τὴν δὲ κέρκον ὁμοίαν τῇ τοῦ σκορπίου τοῦ χερσαίου, ἐν ᾗ κέντρον ἔχειν καὶ τὰς ἀποφυάδας ἀπακοντίζειν, φθέγγεσθαι δ' ὅμοιον φωνῇ ἅμα σύριγγος καὶ σάλπιγγος, ταχὺ δὲ θεῖν οὐχ ἧττον τῶν ἐλάφων, καὶ εἶναι ἄγριον καὶ ἀνθρωποφάγον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 501a24-b1

At the Bodleian in Oxford. MS. Bodley 764, Folio 22r

Aristotle on the Indian Donkey, or the Unicorn

“Some animals have horns, others do not. The majority of those that have horns are naturally cloven-hooved, like the ox, the stag and the goat. We have not observed any single-hooved, two-horned animals. But there are a few animals that are single-horned and single-hooved, like the Indian donkey. The oryx is single-horned and double-hooved. And the Indian donkey is the only single-hooved animal that has a knucklebone.”*

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὰ μὲν κερατοφόρα τῶν ζῴων τὰ δ’ ἄκερα. Τὰ μὲν οὖν πλεῖστα τῶν ἐχόντων κέρατα διχαλὰ κατὰ φύσιν ἐστίν, οἷον βοῦς καὶ ἔλαφος καὶ αἴξ· μώνυχον δὲ καὶ δίκερων οὐθὲν ἡμῖν ὦπται. Μονοκέρατα δὲ καὶ μώνυχα ὀλίγα, οἷον ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος. Μονόκερων δὲ καὶ διχαλὸν ὄρυξ. Καὶ ἀστράγαλον δ’ ὁ Ἰνδικὸς ὄνος ἔχει τῶν μωνύχων μόνον.

Aristotle, History of Animals 2.1, 499b15-20

*Aristotle does not name his source, but Aelian attributes the same claim to Ctesias and I bet Aristotle is getting it from him.

Aelian on the Indian Donkey, or Unicorn

“I have heard that in India there are wild donkeys as big as horses. The rest of their body is white, but the head is very nearly purple and their eyes exude a deep blue colour. They have a horn on their forehead almost a meter long and the lower part of the horn is white, the upper part a deep, dark red, and the middle a dreadful black.

I hear the Indians drink from these colourful-patterned horns — not all of them, but the mightiest of the Indians — and on sections of them they inlay gold as if adorning the arms of a beautiful statue with bracelets. They say the one who has tasted from this horn becomes ignorant and unburdened of incurable diseases. He is not seized by convulsion or what is called the sacred disease nor destroyed by poisons. Even if he had drunk something harmful earlier, he vomits this up and he becomes healthy.

It is believed that the other donkeys across the whole world, both tame and savage, and the other single-hoofed beasts, do not have knucklebones and do not have bile in the liver. But Ctesias says the horned Indian donkey has knucklebones and is not without bile. The knucklebones are said to be black, and if someone grinds them up, they are even like this inside.

They are swifter not only than donkeys, but even horses and deer. They start with a slow pace, but bit by bit they get faster, and to pursue them is, to put it poetically, to chase the uncatchable. When the female gives birth and leads the newborns around, the fathers, who heard with them, also guard the offspring. The donkeys spend their time in most desolate of the plains of India. When the Indian people go on a hunt for them, the [parents] let the tender and still young [offspring] graze behind them, while they fight for them, and go meet the enemy horsemen and strike with their horns. Their horns are so strong. Nothing can withstand a strike from them; instead, they give way and are broken in two, and sometimes they’re shattered and made useless. In the past, they have hit the horses’ ribs, even tearing them open and spilling their vital organs. That is why the horsemen dread getting close to them – the penalty for getting to close is a most pitiable death, and both they and the horses are destroyed. They are able to kick terribly as well. And their bite goes down so deep, that everything they get hold of is ripped off. When full grown, one cannot catch them alive; instead, they are shot with javelins and arrows, and when the Indians have stripped their horn from the corpse, they handle them in the way I mentioned. The meat from the Indian donkey is inedible; the reason: it is naturally very bitter.”

Ὄνους ἀγρίους οὐκ ἐλάττους ἵππων τὰ μεγέθη ἐν Ἰνδοῖς γίνεσθαι πέπυσμαι. καὶ λευκοὺς μὲν τὸ ἄλλο εἶναι σῶμα, τήν γε μὴν κεφαλὴν ἔχειν πορφύρᾳ παραπλησίαν, τοὺς δὲ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἀποστέλλειν κυανοῦ χρόαν. κέρας δὲ ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῷ μετώπῳ ὅσον πήχεως τὸ μέγεθος καὶ ἡμίσεος προσέτι, καὶ τὸ μὲν κάτω μέρος τοῦ κέρατος εἶναι λευκόν, τὸ δὲ ἄνω φοινικοῦν, τό γε μὴν μέσον μέλαν δεινῶς.

ἐκ δὴ τῶνδε τῶν ποικίλων κεράτων πίνειν Ἰνδοὺς ἀκούω, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ πάντας, ἀλλὰ τοὺς τῶν Ἰνδῶν κρατίστους, ἐκ διαστημάτων αὐτοῖς χρυσὸν περιχέαντας, οἱονεὶ ψελίοις τισὶ κοσμήσαντας βραχίονα ὡραῖον ἀγάλματος. καί φασι νόσων ἀφύκτων ἀμαθῆ καὶ ἄπειρον γίνεσθαι τὸν ἀπογευσάμενον ἐκ τοῦδε τοῦ κέρατος· μήτε γὰρ σπασμῷ ληφθῆναι ἂν αὐτὸν μήτε τῇ καλουμένῃ ἱερᾷ νόσῳ, μήτε μὴν διαφθαρῆναι φαρμάκοις. ἐὰν δέ τι καὶ πρότερον ᾖ πεπωκὼς κακόν, ἀνεμεῖν τοῦτο, καὶ ὑγιᾶ γίνεσθαι αὐτόν.

πεπίστευται δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους τοὺς ἀνὰ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ὄνους καὶ ἡμέρους καὶ ἀγρίους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μώνυχα θηρία ἀστραγάλους οὐκ ἔχειν, οὐδὲ μὴν ἐπὶ τῷ ἥπατι χολήν, ὄνους δὲ τοὺς Ἰνδοὺς λέγει Κτησίας τοὺς ἔχοντας τὸ κέρας ἀστραγάλους φορεῖν, καὶ ἀχόλους μὴ εἶναι· λέγονται δὲ οἱ ἀστράγαλοι μέλανες εἶναι, καὶ εἴ τις αὐτοὺς συντρίψειεν, εἶναι τοιοῦτοι καὶ τὰ ἔνδον.

εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ ὤκιστοι οἵδε οὐ μόνον τῶν ὄνων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἵππων καὶ ἐλάφων: καὶ ὑπάρχονται μὲν ἡσυχῆ τοῦ δρόμου, κατὰ μικρὰ δὲ ἐπιρρώννυνται, καὶ διώκειν ἐκείνους τοῦτο δὴ τὸ ποιητικὸν μεταθεῖν τὰ ἀκίχητά ἐστιν. ὅταν γε μὴν ὁ θῆλυς τέκῃ, καὶ περιάγηται τὰ ἀρτιγενῆ, σύννομοι αὐτοῖς οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν φυλάττουσι τὰ βρέφη. διατριβαὶ δὲ τοῖς ὄνοις τῶν Ἰνδικῶν πεδίων τὰ ἐρημότατά ἐστιν. ἰόντων δὲ τῶν Ἰνδῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄγραν αὐτῶν, τὰ μὲν ἁπαλὰ καὶ ἔτι νεαρὰ ἑαυτῶν νέμεσθαι κατόπιν ἐῶσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ ὑπερμαχοῦσι, καὶ ἴασι τοῖς ἱππεῦσιν ὁμόσε, καὶ τοῖς κέρασι παίουσι. τοσαύτη δὲ ἄρα ἡ ἰσχὺς ἡ τῶνδέ ἐστιν. οὐδὲν ἀντέχει αὐτοῖς παιόμενον, ἀλλὰ εἴκει καὶ διακόπτεται καὶ ἐὰν τύχῃ κατατέθλασται καὶ ἀχρεῖόν ἐστιν. ἤδη δὲ καὶ ἵππων πλευραῖς ἐμπεσόντες διέσχισαν καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν. ἔνθεν τοι καὶ ὀρρωδοῦσιν αὐτοῖς πλησιάζειν οἱ ἱππεῖς: τὸ γάρ τοι τίμημα τοῦ γενέσθαι πλησίον θάνατός ἐστιν οἴκτιστος αὐτοῖς, καὶ ἀπόλλυνται καὶ αὐτοὶ καὶ οἱ ἵπποι. δεινοὶ δέ εἰσι καὶ λακτίσαι. δήγματα δὲ ἄρα ἐς τοσοῦτον καθικνεῖται αὐτῶν, ὡς ἀποσπᾶν τὸ περιληφθὲν πᾶν. ζῶντα μὲν οὖν τέλειον οὐκ ἂν λάβοις, βάλλονται δὲ ἀκοντίοις καὶ οἰστοῖς, καὶ τὰ κέρατα ἐξ αὐτῶν Ἰνδοὶ νεκρῶν σκυλεύσαντες ὡς εἶπον περιέπουσιν. ὄνων δὲ Ἰνδῶν ἄβρωτόν ἐστι τὸ κρέας: τὸ δὲ αἴτιον, πέφυκεν εἶναι πικρότατον.

Aelian, On the Nature of Animals 4.52

Bullshit biology: some ancient sources on the scarab beetle

So, apparently, there are no female scarab beetles. Instead, the male makes himself a womb out of dung. Not sure what to call this. Hebegenesis? Coprogenesis?

---

"The Egyptian military used to have a seal engraved in the shape of the scarab-beetle, since no female beetles exist, but all of them are male. They breed by emitting their seed into dung, which they make into a ball, since they prepare material for [the offspring's] nourishment just as much as the place for its generation."

τοῖς δὲ μαχίμοις κάνθαρος ἦν γλυφὴ σφραγῖδος· οὐ γὰρ ἔστι κάνθαρος θῆλυς, ἀλλὰ πάντες ἄρσενες. τίκτουσι δὲ τὸν γόνον <ἀφιέντες> εἰς ὄνθον, ὃν σφαιροποιοῦσιν, οὐ τροφῆς μᾶλλον ὕλην ἢ γενέσεως χώραν παρασκευάζοντες.

Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 9, (Moralia 355A 8-11)

"The scarab beetle is an un-female animal, and it sows its seed in the ball which it rolls up. Having done this and having warmed it for twenty-eight days, the day after it produces the young. The military of Egypt keep a carved scarab on their rings, because the one who made the law was hinting that those who fight for the country should be totally male in every way, since the scarab does not have a share of female nature."

Ὁ κάνθαρος ἄθηλυ ζῷόν ἐστι, σπείρει δὲ ἐς τὴν σφαῖραν ἣν κυλίει· ὀκτὼ δὲ καὶ εἴκοσιν ἡμερῶν τοῦτο δράσας καὶ θάλψας αὐτήν, εἶτα μέντοι τῇ ἐπὶ ταύταις προάγει τὸν νεοττόν. Αἰγυπτίων δὲ οἱ μάχιμοι ἐπὶ τῶν δακτυλίων εἶχον ἐγγεγλυμμένον κάνθαρον, αἰνιττομένου τοῦ νομοθέτου, δεῖν ἄρρενας εἶναι πάντως πάντῃ τοὺς μαχομένους ὑπὲρ τῆς χώρας, ἐπεὶ καὶ ὁ κάνθαρος θηλείας φύσεως οὐ μετείληχεν.

Aelian, The Nature of Animals, 10.15

"Among the Egyptians, those who are educated learn first of all the method of Egyptian writing called 'Epistolographic'. Second, they learn 'Hieretic', which the Sacred Scribes use. Last but not least, there is 'Hieroglyphic': one form, 'Kyriologic' (i.e., literal), uses the primary letters; the other is 'Symbolic'. Of the symbolic, one kind expresses things literally through imitation; one kind expresses things in a sense figuratively; another is straightforwardly allegorical, expressing things enigmatically.

"So, when they want to refer to the sun in writing they make a circle, while for the moon they make a moon-shape, and this is in accordance with expressing the form literally. In the case of figurative expression in the proper sense, they inscribe by transferring and transposing things, changing things, transforming the characters in all sorts of ways. When telling stories about the gods, they write praises of kings using anaglyphs.

"Here's an example of the third kind, the enigmatic. Now, since the other stars follow an oblique course, they represent them with the bodies of serpents, but they represent the sun with the body of a scarab beetle, since the scarab forms a round-shaped ball out of ox-dung and rolls it backwards. They say this animal lives underground for six months, while the other part of the year it lives above ground, and it fertilizes the ball and reproduces and female scarabs do not exist.

"And so everyone who theologizes about the first principles of things, both Barbarian and Greek, have obscured them, passing down the truth using enigmas and symbols, allegories, metaphors and similar kinds of figures."

Αὐτίκα οἱ παρ' Αἰγυπτίοις παιδευόμενοι πρῶτον μὲν πάντων τὴν Αἰγυπτίων γραμμάτων μέθοδον ἐκμανθάνουσι, τὴν ἐπιστολογραφικὴν καλουμένην· δευτέραν δὲ τὴν ἱερατικήν, ᾗ χρῶνται οἱ ἱερογραμματεῖς· ὑστάτην δὲ καὶ τελευταίαν τὴν ἱερογλυφικήν, ἧς ἣ μέν ἐστι διὰ τῶν πρώτων στοιχείων κυριολογική, ἣ δὲ συμβολική. τῆς δὲ συμβολικῆς ἣ μὲν κυριολογεῖται κατὰ μίμησιν, ἣ δ' ὥσπερ τροπικῶς γράφεται, ἣ δὲ ἄντικρυς ἀλληγορεῖται κατά τινας αἰνιγμούς. Ἥλιον γοῦν γράψαι βουλόμενοι κύκλον ποιοῦσι, σελήνην δὲ σχῆμα μηνοειδὲς κατὰ τὸ κυριολογούμενον εἶδος. Τροπικῶς δὲ κατ' οἰκειότητα μετάγοντες καὶ μετατιθέντες, τὰ δ' ἐξαλλάττοντες, τὰ δὲ πολλαχῶς μετασχηματίζοντες χαράττουσιν. τοὺς γοῦν τῶν βασιλέων ἐπαίνους, θεολογουμένοις μύθοις παραδιδόντες, ἀναγράφουσι διὰ τῶν ἀναγλύφων. Τοῦ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αἰνιγμοὺς τρίτου εἴδους δεῖγμα ἔστω τόδε· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἄλλων ἄστρων διὰ τὴν πορείαν τὴν λοξὴν ὄφεων σώμασιν ἀπείκαζον, τὸν δὲ ἥλιον τῷ τοῦ κανθάρου, ἐπειδὴ κυκλοτερὲς ἐκ τῆς βοείας ὄνθου σχῆμα πλασάμενος ἀντιπρόσωπος κυλίνδει. φασὶ δὲ καὶ ἑξάμηνον μὲν ὑπὸ γῆς, θάτερον δὲ τοῦ ἔτους τμῆμα τὸ ζῷον τοῦτο ὑπὲρ γῆς διαιτᾶσθαι σπερμαίνειν τε εἰς τὴν σφαῖραν καὶ γεννᾶν καὶ θῆλυν κάνθαρον μὴ γίνεσθαι. Πάντες οὖν, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, οἱ θεολογήσαντες βάρβαροί τε καὶ Ἕλληνες τὰς μὲν ἀρχὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπεκρύψαντο, τὴν δὲ ἀλήθειαν αἰνίγμασι καὶ συμβόλοις ἀλληγορίαις τε αὖ καὶ μεταφοραῖς καὶ τοιούτοις τισὶ τρόποις παραδεδώκασιν.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 5.4.21