BMCR 2009.04.15: Van der Horst on Luc Brisson et al., L'Embryon: formation et animation

Luc Brisson, Marie-He/le\ne Congourdeau, Jean-Luc Sole\re (ed.),
L'Embryon: formation et animation. Antiquite/ grecque et latine,
traditions he\brai+que, chre/tienne et islamique. Histoire des
doctrines de l'Antiquite/ classique 38.  Paris:  Librairie
Philosophique J. Vrin, 2008.  Pp. 290.  ISBN 9782711619573.  [euro
]32.00 (pb).

Reviewed by Pieter W. van der Horst, The Netherlands ([email protected])
Word count:  1566 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-04-15.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/04/20090415.html
-------------------------------

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

Ever since Erna Lesky published her classic work Die Zeugungs- und
Vererbungslehren der Antike und ihr Nachwirken in 1951,  ancient
embryological theories have remained on the agenda of historians of
ancient medicine, but a comprehensive new work on the scale of Lesky's
has not been published so far. For that reason it is good to have a
volume in which one finds assembled a number of important essays in
which developments in research since Lesky are presented.

The volume to be reviewed here contains the papers read at a conference
on ancient and medieval embryology in Paris in 2005.  In the opening
essay, Jacques Jouanna discusses three short embryological treatises
from late antiquity (two pseudo-Hippocratic, one by Alexander the
Sophist) that have come to light only recently. He demonstrates among
other things that these treatises often are nothing but excerpts from
works in the Hippocratic corpus, but also that in one of them one finds
a novel combination of a non-Hippocratic single-seed embryology with
the doctrine of the four humors and their corresponding characters. In
an appendix, Jouanna presents critical editions of the
pseudo-Hippocratic On the Generation of Man and on Seed and of
Alexander the Sophist's  On the Generation of Man (the other
pseudo-Hippocratic tract, On the formation of Man, had already been
published by him in 2006).

Next Pierre-Marie Morel discusses the reasons why Aristotle formulates
his embryological theory in constant opposition to Democritus. For
instance, Democritus' pangenesis doctrine clashes with Aristotle's
teleology: "La doctrine de la pangenesis ne permet pas de comprendre la
ve/ritable nature de la semence comme posse/dant les parties en
puissance, car ses tenants semblent croire que le corps est pre/sent en
acte dans la semence. (...) La doctrine de De/mocrite est incapable
d'appliquer a\ l'embryologie la ne/cessaire distinction de la puissance
et de l'acte" (55-56). And Democritus' epikrateia principle assumes a
much too active role of the female contribution to the formation of the
embryo.

In the third chapter, Jean-Baptiste Gourinat deals with Stoic theories
of the animation of the embryo. The Stoa holds that the embryo does not
have a soul but is rather (like) a plant (with a 'vegetative' breath).
However, "a\ partir de la naissance, la nature ce\de la place a\
l'a^me" (69) because by its sudden confrontation with cold air the
vegetative breath is transformed into a real soul (Note the
etymological wordplay psyche-psychros). This sudden transformation,
however, is prepared slowly during pregnancy because the seed contains
"des caracte\res psychiques he/re/ditaires."

In the next chapter, Ve/ronique Boudon-Millot discusses Galen's theory
of the origins of life. She first reviews the widely differing views of
his predecessors (Empedocles, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics) and pays
attention to the almost insoluble translation problems as far as terms
like Greek kue^ma (embryo) and embruon (foetus) are concerned. She
finally argues that in Galen's (and others') view an embryo does have
life from the beginning but that is a form of life 'in potency' that
only gradually develops into life in the full sense of the word. Stages
in that development are, e.g., the beginning of heartbeat and of
movements, and the final stage is of course breathing that is only
reached at birth.

In the only essay in English, Ann Ellis Hanson deals with the same
topic, which she calls 'the gradualist view of fetal development,' but
her treatment ranges wider and surveys an impressive number of texts
that advocate the idea of a 'gradual animation' of the embryo.
Fascinating is her brief treatment of magical amulets to induce a quick
and easy birth (o^kytokia) in which the fetus is sometimes addressed
and thus is supposed to be able to hear the spell.

Ve/ronique Dasen contributes a fascinating chapter about twins and
focuses on the debate about astrology,  because the latter has often
been discredited on the basis of the argument that twins never have an
identical fate (see, e.g., Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Math.).

Next, Tiziano Dorandi discusses the textual history of Ad Gaurum, a
work formerly attributed to Galen, but since Kalbfleisch's  edition of
1895 to Porphyry. This important treatise is wholly dedicated to the
question of how an embryo is ensouled, but has been preserved in only
one manuscript. Dorandi traces the indirect tradition of the text in
the form of quotations and paraphrases in later authors such as John
Philoponus and Michael Psellus and assesses their value as textual
witnesses.

Gwenae+lle Aubry also focuses on Ad Gaurum but deals only with its
concept of epite^deiote^s: the embryo is said to be a plant in actu but
also a living being in potency kat' epite^deiote^ta,  which she
translates by 'according to receptivity.' "Si l'on peut, selon
Porphyre, dire de l'embryon qu'il est animal en-puissance, c'est donc
en un tout autre sens que celui qu' entend Aristote: ce n'est pas parce
qu'il serait capable, de/ja comme embryon, et a\ un certain stade de
son evolution, de developper par lui-me^me les faculte/s distinctives
de l'animal,  mais parce qu'il est, a\ la naissance, et a\ terme
seulement, apte a\ recevoir l'a^me animal" (155).

The next contribution, by Bernard Pouderon, is about Aristotle's
influence on the embryological theories of the early Church Fathers
(Justin, Theophilus,  Athenagoras, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
etc.). He demonstrates that a single-seed theory (Aristotle) much
better fitted in with the christological and mariological interests of
these Fathers than a double-seed theory (Hippocrates, Galen) which
assumed an active role and important contribution of women in the
embryogenesis.  He also shows the consequences of the Aristotelian and
other influences for the patristic views on abortion and resurrection.
It is strange that twice Pouderon says that the biblical Paradise story
figures in the book of Exodus.

Marie-He/le\ne Congourdeau, too, like Dorandi, deals with the Byzantine
reception history of Porphyry's Ad Gaurum, especially in John
Philoponus  (who uses it as one of his sources for opposite arguments),
Michael Psellus (who by and large agrees with Porphyry), and the 14th
century anonymous author of Hermippus sive de astrologia (who combats
Porphyry's embryological ideas). There is some overlap with Dorandi's
piece here, but only to a limited degree, for Congourdeau is more
interested in the Byzantines' philosophical argumentation than in their
value for textual criticism.

In the last four contributions we move outside the world of classical
antiquity. Etienne Lepicard deals with the rabbinic literature of late
antiquity.  In this Jewish literary corpus, one will look in vain for a
systematic treatise comparable to Ad Gaurum or De generatione
animalium, but some of the topics raised in the Greek
medico-philosophical writings on embryology are nevertheless broached
in passing in rabbinic debates on religious law. It is regrettable that
Lepicard does not address those rabbinic passages where one finds
unmistakable influence of the Greek debates on the question of whether
only males or also females produce seed and where one can see that some
rabbis even developed their own variant of a double-seed theory.[[1]]

Carmela Baffioni describes how via Arabic translations of works of
Aristotle, Hippocrates, and Galen, a wide variety of Greek
embryological theories (including the theory of female sperm) came to
the notice of Islamic scholars who adopted and modified them in the
light of their religious convictions.  For instance, Averroes and
Avicenna created their own adaptations of Aristotle's embryology, while
others relied more upon Hippocrates and Galen.

Maike van der Lugt discusses the questions concerning the ensoulment of
the embryo according to Christian Medieval authors. She focuses on the
12th and 13th centuries and traces some of the important developments
in this medieval discourse, against the background of ancient
Graeco-Roman theories.

Finally, Jean-Claude Dupont shows how in the 17th and 18th centuries
the embryological debate moves from the philosophico-theological  field
to that of biology, with special attention for the pioneering work of
Caspar Friedrich Wolff.

This is an interesting collection of essays most of which deal
competently with major aspects of ancient and medieval embryology.
Anyone interested in new developments in the research of ancient
embryologies since Lesky can ignore this volume only to one's
detriment. What is lacking in it, however, is a treatment of the
ancient debate on the (non-)viability of  seven-months' and
eight-months' embryos, a discussion of biblical data, however scarce
these may be (see Leviticus 12:1 and Hebrews 11:11), and a survey of
the relevant material in post-biblical Jewish literature (Apocrypha,
Pseudepigrapha, Philo). The book is concluded with indexes of ancient
texts, authors, and subjects.

Table of Contents:


J. Jouanna, La poste/rite/ de l'embryologie d'Hippocrate dans deux
traite/s pseudo-hippocratiques de la me/decine tardive
P.-M. Morel, Aristote contre De/mocrite: Sur l'embryon
J.-B. Gourinat, L'embryon ve/ge/tatif et la formation de l'a^me selon
les Stoi+ciens
V. Boudon-Millot, La naissance de la vie dans la the/orie me/dicale et
philosophique de Galien
A.E. Hanson, The gradualist view of fetal development
V. Dasen, Nai+tre jumeaux: un destin ou deux?
T. Dorandi, Pour une histoire du texte du traite/ Ad Gaurum attribue/
a\ Galien
Gwenae+lle Aubry, Capacite/ et convenance: la notion d'epite^deiote^s
dans la the/orie porphyrienne de l'embryon
B. Pouderon, L'influence d'Aristote dans la doctrine de la procreation
des premiers Pe\res et ses implications the/ologiques
M.-H. Congourdeau, La poste/rite/ Byzantine de l'Ad Gaurum
E. Lepicard, L'embryon dans la literature rabbinique ancienne
C. Baffioni, L'embryologie islamique entre he/ritage grec et Coran
M. van der Lugt, L'animation de l'embryon humain dans la pense/e
me/die/vale
J.-C. Dupont, Un autre embryon? Quelques relectures classiques de
l'embryologie antique
------------------
Notes:


1.   See P.W. van der Horst, "Sarah's Seminal Emission: Hebrews 11:11
in the Light of Ancient Embryology," in D.L. Balch, E. Ferguson & W.A.
Meeks (eds.), Greeks, Romans, and Christians: Essays in Honor of
Abraham J. Malherbe (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 287-302.