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

Plato on Providence in Laws X

More on providence: the theodicy from Plato’s Laws. Plato doesn’t say the divine punishes or spites people for failing to be as virtuous as they could be. Instead, he says the cosmic ruler figures out where people with less-than-perfect characters in this life are most likely to succeed in the next one, and makes sure that’s where they end up. Didn’t make it as a good human? No problem—in the next round, maybe you can make it as a good bird or fish. The idea is that the cosmos has been set up so that we’re always given a chance to excel, not just for our own sake, but for the sake of being a part of a process of making everything as good as possible.

“Athenian: This. When the ruler of the cosmos saw that all our actions are ensouled, and that in them there is much virtue and much vice, and that soul and body, once they came into existence, were indestructible—for, had either of them been destroyed, there would never have been a generation of animals—, but they were not eternal like the customary gods, and when he saw by how much the good of the soul is always by nature beneficial, and the evil harmful—when he saw all these things, he determined where, if placed, each individual would make virtue victorious and vice defeated in the universe. And he made it so that, depending on what we are like, we must make our home always in a certain abode and ever in certain places. The causes of becoming the way we are, however, he left to our individual choices. For how we desire and what our soul is like—in just about every case, all of us for the most part come to be the way we are by this.”

ΑΘ. Ὧδε. ἐπειδὴ κατεῖδεν ἡμῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐμψύχους οὔσας τὰς πράξεις ἁπάσας καὶ πολλὴν μὲν ἀρετὴν ἐν αὐταῖς οὖσαν, πολλὴν δὲ κακίαν, ἀνώλεθρον δὲ ὂν γενόμενον, ἀλλ' οὐκ αἰώνιον, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα, καθάπερ οἱ κατὰ νόμον ὄντες θεοί – γένεσις γὰρ οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἦν ζῴων ἀπολομένου τούτοιν θατέρου – καὶ τὸ μὲν ὠφελεῖν ἀεὶ πεφυκός, ὅσον ἀγαθὸν ψυχῆς, διενοήθη, τὸ δὲ κακὸν βλάπτειν· ταῦτα πάντα συνιδών, ἐμηχανήσατο ποῦ κείμενον ἕκαστον τῶν μερῶν νικῶσαν ἀρετήν, ἡττωμένην δὲ κακίαν, ἐν τῷ παντὶ παρέχοι μάλιστ' ἂν καὶ ῥᾷστα καὶ ἄριστα. μεμηχάνηται δὴ πρὸς πᾶν τοῦτο τὸ ποῖόν τι γιγνόμενον ἀεὶ ποίαν ἕδραν δεῖ μεταλαμβάνον οἰκίζεσθαι καὶ τίνας ποτὲ τόπους· τῆς δὲ γενέσεως τοῦ ποίου τινὸς ἀφῆκε ταῖς βουλήσεσιν ἑκάστων ἡμῶν τὰς αἰτίας. ὅπῃ γὰρ ἂν ἐπιθυμῇ καὶ ὁποῖός τις ὢν τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτῃ σχεδὸν ἑκάστοτε καὶ τοιοῦτος γίγνεται ἅπας ἡμῶν ὡς τὸ πολύ.

Plato, Laws 904A6–C4

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

Plato on Providential Ecology

Disobedient Stomachs

“What comes next needs to be pursued along the same lines, and that is: how has the rest of our body come to be? It would be more fitting than anything else if it had been composed following a rationale like the following: those who were putting our kind together were aware of the intemperance for food and drink that would exist within us, and that we would want much more than what is moderate or necessary because of our gluttony. Therefore, to prevent wasting away swiftly through disease and the immediate and complete coming to an end of the incomplete race of mortals, the gods, foreseeing these problems, set up a receptacle, called the “lower belly,” to serve as a container for surplus food and drink; and they coiled the entrails around as they made them, in order to prevent food from passing through too quickly, a situation which would quickly compel the body to need even more food and produce insatiable desire, a gastric-gluttony on account of which the whole race would be rendered unphilosophical, uncultured and disobedient to what is most divine in us.”

τὸ δ᾽ ἑξῆς δὴ τούτοισιν κατὰ ταὐτὰ μεταδιωκτέον: ἦν δὲ τὸ τοῦ σώματος ἐπίλοιπον ᾗ γέγονεν. ἐκ δὴ λογισμοῦ τοιοῦδε συνίστασθαι μάλιστ᾽ ἂν αὐτὸ πάντων πρέποι. τὴν ἐσομένην ἐν ἡμῖν ποτῶν καὶ ἐδεστῶν ἀκολασίαν ᾔδεσαν οἱ συντιθέντες ἡμῶν τὸ γένος, καὶ ὅτι τοῦ μετρίου καὶ ἀναγκαίου διὰ μαργότητα πολλῷ χρησοίμεθα πλέονι: ἵν᾽ οὖν μὴ φθορὰ διὰ νόσους ὀξεῖα γίγνοιτο καὶ ἀτελὲς τὸ γένος εὐθὺς τὸ θνητὸν τελευτῷ, ταῦτα προορώμενοι τῇ τοῦ περιγενησομένου πώματος ἐδέσματός τε ἕξει τὴν ὀνομαζομένην κάτω κοιλίαν ὑποδοχὴν ἔθεσαν, εἵλιξάν τε πέριξ τὴν τῶν ἐντέρων γένεσιν, ὅπως μὴ ταχὺ διεκπερῶσα ἡ τροφὴ ταχὺ πάλιν τροφῆς ἑτέρας δεῖσθαι τὸ σῶμα ἀναγκάζοι, καὶ παρέχουσα ἀπληστίαν, διὰ γαστριμαργίαν ἀφιλόσοφον καὶ ἄμουσον πᾶν ἀποτελοῖ τὸ γένος, ἀνυπήκοον τοῦ θειοτάτου τῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν.

Plato, Timaeus 72E-73A

Providential Ecology in Herodotus and Aristotle

(Some classic examples of thinking that divine providence is providential enough, continued from here…)

Prolific Rabbits, Savage Lions

“Well, I suppose divine providence, which is wise as far as I can tell, has made all the timid and edible animals produce many offspring so that they would not go extinct by being eaten up, while it has made all the savage and violent animals produce few offspring.

“Take the following case: the hare is hunted by everyone—beast, bird, and human. Obviously, then, it produces many offspring. It is the only creature that can conceive when it is already pregnant. Some of the young in her belly are hairy, others are bare; and some in the womb are finishing taking on their shape, others are just starting out.

“That’s one kind of case. Another is the lioness, who is very strong and bold, and bears a single cub once in her lifetime since she casts out the womb with the cub. The cause of this is the following: when the cub first begins to move about in the womb, its claws—much sharper than those of all the other beasts—tear the womb. The more it grows, the more it tears and scratches, and when it is close to being born, there is absolutely nothing healthy left of it.”

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. τοῦτο μέν, ὅτι ὁ λαγὸς ὑπὸ παντὸς θηρεύεται θηρίου καὶ ὄρνιθος καὶ ἀνθρώπου, οὕτω δή τι πολύγονον ἐστί: ἐπικυΐσκεται μοῦνον πάντων θηρίων, καὶ τὸ μὲν δασὺ τῶν τέκνων ἐν τῇ γαστρὶ τὸ δὲ ψιλόν, τὸ δὲ ἄρτι ἐν τῇσι μήτρῃσι πλάσσεται, τὸ δὲ ἀναιρέεται. τοῦτο μὲν δὴ τοιοῦτο ἐστί: ἡ δὲ δὴ λέαινα ἐὸν ἰσχυρότατον καὶ θρασύτατον ἅπαξ ἐν τῷ βίῳ τίκτει ἕν: τίκτουσα γὰρ συνεκβάλλει τῷ τέκνῳ τὰς μήτρας. τὸ δὲ αἴτιον τούτου τόδε ἐστί: ἐπεὰν ὁ σκύμνος ἐν τῇ μητρὶ ἐὼν ἄρχηται διακινεόμενος, ὁ δὲ ἔχων ὄνυχας θηρίων πολλὸν πάντων ὀξυτάτους ἀμύσσει τὰς μήτρας, αὐξόμενός τε δὴ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐσικνέεται καταγράφων: πέλας τε δὴ ὁ τόκος ἐστί, καὶ τὸ παράπαν λείπεται αὐτέων ὑγιὲς οὐδέν.

Herodotus, Histories, 3.108.2-4

Hungry Dolphins

“When it comes to the mouth, as well, there are differences among kinds of fish. Some have a mouth that goes straight across and is in the front, while others have it underneath, like dolphins and selachians. And they turn belly-up when they feed. It seems nature does this not only to preserve all the other animals (when the dolphins are turned upside down, they move slowly and the other animals can get away – all such animals are carnivorous), but also so that they are not guided by gluttony for food, since if they could get their food easily, they would be destroyed because of the rate at which they would fill themselves up.”

Ἔχει δὲ καὶ περὶ τὸ στόμα διαφοράς. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ κατ' ἀντικρὺ ἔχει τὸ στόμα καὶ εἰς τὸ πρόσθεν, τὰ δ' ἐν τοῖς ὑπτίοις, οἷον οἵ τε δελφῖνες καὶ τὰ σελαχώδη· καὶ ὕπτια στρεφόμενα λαμβάνει τὴν τροφήν. Φαίνεται δ' ἡ φύσις οὐ μόνον σωτηρίας ἕνεκεν ποιῆσαι τοῦτο τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων (ἐν γὰρ τῇ στρέψει σῴζεται τἆλλα βραδυνόντων· πάντα γὰρ τὰ τοιαῦτα ζῳοφάγα ἐστίν), ἀλλὰ καὶ πρὸς τὸ μὴ ἀκολουθεῖν τῇ λαιμαργίᾳ τῇ περὶ τὴν τροφήν· ῥᾷον γὰρ λαμβάνοντα διεφθείρετ' ἂν διὰ τὴν πλήρωσιν ταχέως.

Aristotle, Parts of Animals, 4.13, 696b24-32

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.