Virtus Formativa and Human Embryology

Cerrito, Amalia

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-24023-2_3

Amalia Cerrito⁴

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Medicine ((PSMEMM))

62 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the development of Albert’s notion of formative power in dialogue with medical, natural-philosophical, and theological doctrines on human generation available in the thirteenth century. To overcome the inconsistencies between the medical and natural-philosophical model of epigenesis and the Christian doctrine of the creatio ex nihilo of the human soul, Albert focuses on the dynamics of configuration of the embryo to explain how the morphological and functional structures are handed down from generator to generated, without presupposing the transmission of the soul. It will be shown how, by creatively resorting to medical and natural-philosophical explanatory models, Albert gives a coherent account that harmonizes theological and philosophical perspectives on the configuration of the embryo.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

eBook: USD 16.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 119.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
See supra, Sects. 2.2 and 2.3, passim.
2.
Cf. Maaike Van der Lugt, “Formed Fetuses and Healty Children in Scholastic Theology, Medicine and Law”, in Reproduction: Antiquity to the Present Day, eds. Nick Hopwood, Rebecca Flemming, and Lauren Kassell, 167–180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
3.
Cf. Katja Krause, “Albert the Great on Animal and Human Origin in His Early Works”, Lo sguardo. Rivista di filosofia 18/2 (2015): 205–232. The first, pioneering, investigation on Albert’s embryology, as it is presented in his De animalibus, was offered by Joseph Needham, A History of Embryology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934), 86–91.
4.
In their study on Albert’s embryology, Luke Demaitre and Anthony Travill claim that Albert’s theory of animal generation is essentially Aristotelian. Nevertheless, they recognize Albert’s progressive effort to incorporate within the Aristotelian epistemological framework, the recently available Galenic sources indirectly obtained through the mediation of Arabic authors. Luke Demaitre-Anthony Travill, “Human Embryology and Development in the Works of Albertus Magnus”, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. James Weisheipl, 405–440, esp. 416–417 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980).
5.
The digitalized Stadler’s edition of Albert’s De animalibus is available at Alberti Magni e-corpus (http://albertusmagnus.uwaterloo.ca). In the De animalibus, the Latin syntagm virtus formativa in the nominative case appears over fifty times. The number of mentions significantly rises if one considers related syntagms, semantic variants, and inflected forms.
6.
Cf. Albertus Magnus, De animalibus XVI, 1, 4 (ed. Stadler, 1074): «Haec autem verba sumpsit Avicenna ab eo philosopho quem Theodorum Arabes et Graeci vocant: hic enim dixit semen habere animae actum, quem actum quidam vocant animam. Actum autem hunc vocant formativam animati impressam semini ab anima generantis»., ibid., IX, 2, 3 (ed. Stadler, 714): «[…] dicimus quod in veritate mulier aliqua in coitu et conceptu emittit aliquando humorem album viscosum et philosum, quem sperma muliebre vocat Galienus, et cui dat virtutem informativam, non formativam, sicut in antehabitis scientiae animalium libris ostendimus»., ibid., III, 2, 8 (ed. Stadler, 346): «[…] antiquissimi Aristotelis discipuli sicut Theofrastus et Porfirius distinxerunt inter virtutem informativam et virtutem formativam, dicentes quod virtus informativa, sive quod melius dicitur informabilis, est virtus in qua forma formatur, et est in materia […]».
7.
Cf. David Lefebvre, “Looking for the Formative Power in Aristotle Nutritive Soul”, in Nutrition and Nutritive Soul in Aristotle and Aristotelianism, eds. Giouli Korobili and Roberto Lo Presti, 101–126 (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter 2021). For an accurate reconstruction of Aristotle’s doctrine on generation, see Andrea Falcon and David Lefebvre, Aristotle’s Generation of Animals. A Critical Guide (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
8.
Cf. Roberto Lo Presti, “Informing Matter and Enmattered Forms: Aristotle and Galen on the ‘Power’ of the Seed”, British Journal for the History of Philosophy 5 (2014): 929–950, esp. 943–944. On the anatomy of the reproductive organs in Galenic thought and its reception in the Middle Ages, see Danielle Jacquart and Claude Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical au Moyen Âge (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1985), 67–84 and James Wilberding, “Embryology”, in A Companion to Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Greece and Rome, ed. Georgia L. Irby, 329–342 (Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2016).
9.
Cf. Robert J. Hankinson, “Philosophy of Nature”, in The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. id., 210–241 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) and Diethard Nickel, Untersuchungen zur Embryologie Galens (Berlin: Akademie‐Verlag: 1989). On the distinction and localization of the faculties of the soul in medical and philosophical thought, see Heinrich von Staden, “Body, Soul, and the Nerves: Epicurus, Herophilus, Erasistratus, the Stoics, and Galen”, in Psyche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind–Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightment, eds. John P. Wright and Paul Potter, 79–116 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), and Romana Martorelli Vico, “Anima e corpo nell’embriologia medievale”, in Anima e corpo nella cultura Medievale, eds. Carla Casagrande and Silvana Vecchio, 95–106 (Firenze: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 1999).
10.
Scholars still debate on where and how Albert acquired his medical knowledge. Several references scattered in his works suggest that he became acquainted with medicine at the University of Padua before joining the Dominican order. However, there is no evidence supporting Albert’s attendance of medicine courses. According to Siraisi, it is most likely that Albert learned medical doctrines through personal study. It is worth remembering that the Dominican Order, especially in its early years, was not hostile at all to medical learning, as demonstrated by the extensive medical knowledge of Albert’s confrères Roland of Cremona (ca. 1178–1259) and Guerric of St. Quentin (ca. 1225–1243/1245). On Albert’s medical learning, see Nancy Siraisi, “The Medical Learning of Albertus Magnus”, in Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays 1980, ed. James Weisheipl, 379–404 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980). On Roland’s and Guerric’s medical training, see, respectively, Ayelet Even-Ezra, “Medicine and Religion in Early Dominican Demonology”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (2018): 728–745, and Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1964).
11.
See Erik Kwakkel and Francis Newton, Medicine at Monte Cassino. Constantine the African and the Oldest Manuscript of His Pantegni (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019), and Brian Long, “Arabic-Latin Translations, Transmission and Transformation”, in Brill’s Companion to the Reception of Galen, ed. Petros Bouras Villatanos and Barbara Zipser, 343–358 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2019).
12.
Constantinus Africanus, Pantegni IV, 2 (ed. Basel 1539, 81–82): «Generativa duas habet virtutes ministrantes, una vocatur mutabilis, prima et secunda, altera vero formativa virtus. Mutabilis primae generativae est necessaria ad mutandam substantiam spermatis et menstrua in quorumlibet membrorum foetus substantias. […]. Differunt mutabilis prima et secunda, quia prima spissat sperma et menstrua et in substantiam membrorum mutat. Secunda sanguinis substantiam membrorum formatorum mutat essentiam eiusdem assimilans. […]. Virtus formativa format et designat singula membra suae formae competentia, et ea perforat et concavat, lenit et asperat, solidat ubicumque sunt necessaria».
13.
See Tommaso Alpina, “Exercising Impartiality to Favor Aristotle: Avicenna and ‘the Accomplished Anatomists’ (Aṣhāb al-Tašrīḥ al-Muḥaṣṣilūna)”, Arabic Science and Philosophy 32/2 (2022): 137–178, esp. 165–167. As pointed out by Alpina, in Avicenna’s Canon medicinae the formative faculty is called al-qūwa al-muṣawwira, i.e., ‘imprinting faculty’, and is the principle responsible for shaping and setting up the organs. In his psychological work Liber de anima (Kitāb al-Nafs), the Persian philosopher uses the same term for one of the internal senses, i.e., the form-bearing faculty. On Avicenna’s embryology, see Carmela Baffioni, “L’embryologie islamique. Entre héritage grec et Coran: les philosophes, les savants, les théologiens”, in L’embryon: formation et animation. Antiquité grecqué et latine, traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, eds. Luc Brisson, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, and Jean-Luc Solère, 213–231 (Paris: Vrin, 2008).
14.
Avicenna, Liber canonis medicinae I, fen. 1, tr. 6, cap. 2 (ed. Venetiis 1507, fol. 22r): «Virtus vero informativa imprimens est illa ex qua, praecepto sui Creatoris, procedit membrorum lineatio et ipsorum figuratio […]».
15.
Ibid., III, fen. 20, tr. 1, cap. 3 (ed. Venetiis 1507, fol. 352r): «Virtus enim formativa in spermate masculi intendit informando ad similitudinem eius a quo separatum est. […] Et virtus informativa in spermate mulieris intendit separatim in recipiendo formam ad hoc quod recipiat eam secundum similitudinem eius a quo separatum est».
16.
Id., De animalibus IX, cap. 2 (ed. Venetiis 1508, fol. 41v): «[…] dicere quod ipsa sit asperitate facta quae sit cooperiens materiam ex omni parte in decoctione matricis non est remotum valde: quoniam, si in spermate sit virtus maturativa et informativa, tunc illa virtus erit potens generare membranam sicut est potens generare ossa et venas et nervos».
17.
Averroes, In Metaphysicorum libros VII, 10 (ed. Venetiis 1552, VII, f. 85): «Et ideo dicit Aristoteles in libro de Animalibus quod ‹hae virtutes› sunt similes intellectui, quia agunt per actiones intellectuales. Et istae virtutes assimilantur intellectui in hoc, quod non agunt per instrumentum corporale. Et in hoc differunt istae virtutes generantium quas Medici vocant formativas a virtutibus naturalibus, quae sunt in corporibus animalium. Istae enim agunt non actione intellectus operativi, sed agunt per instrumenta terminata et membra propria. Et ideo dubitat Galenum et dicit […] utrum ista virtus sit creator, aut non. Sed universaliter non agit nisi per calorem, qui est in semine: non ita quod sit forma in eis, sicut anima est inclusa in corporibus coelestibus».
18.
For a reconstruction of the medieval models of formation and development of the embryo, see Demaitre and Travill, “Human Embryology and Development”, Romana Martorelli Vico, Medicina e filosofia. Per una storia dell’embriologia medievale nel XIII e nel XIV secolo (Milano: Guerini e Associati, 2002), and ead., “Introduzione”, in Aegidii Romani Opera Omnia II. 13, De formatione Humani Corporis in Utero, ed. ead., 3–48 (Firenze: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008), 24–47.
19.
Cf. Maaike Van der Lugt, “L’animation de l’embryon humain et le statut de l’enfant à naître dans la pensée médiévale”, in L’embryon: formation et animation, 233–254. Cf. also Fabrizio Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013), 58–63.
20.
As clerics trained both in liberal arts and theological disciplines, the members of the so-called ‘School of Chartres’, investigated the universe and nature by intertwining several Platonic sources (such as Plato’s Timaeus in Calcidius’ translation, Macrobius’ Commentary on the Dream of Scipio and Boethius’ Consolation of Philosophy) and medical learning. Before the recovery of the Aristotelian corpus in the thirteenth century, the Platonic tradition offered a more systematic outlook on reality. In his Dragmaticon (a dialogue on natural-philosophical topics) and in Philosophia mundi (a natural-philosophical and scientific encyclopedia), William of Conches integrates Platonic cosmology with medical–physical theories of the four elements (and he is strongly influenced by Galenic doctrines, as they appear in Constantine’s works). Cf. Willemien Otten, “Opening the Universe: William of Conches and the Art of Science”, in From Paradise to Paradigm. A Study of Twelfth-Century Humanism, ed. id., 83–128 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2004). On the influence of medical texts in William’s philosophy see Italo Ronca, “The influence of the Pantegni on William of Conches Dragmaticon”, in Constantine the African and Ali ibn al-Abbas al-Mangusi: The “Pantegni” and Related Text, eds. Charles Burnett and Danielle Jacquart, 266–285 (Leiden: Brill, 1994).
21.
Guillelmus de Conchis, De philosophia mundi IV, XIII, 20–21 (ed. Maurach-Telle, 107): «[…] Tertia septimana ad ipsum conceptionis humorem se demergunt, quarta in quadam liquida solidate velut inter carnem et sanguinem coagulatur, quinta vero, si puer septimo mense nasci debeat, sin autem in nono, septima incipit virtus formativa, cuius est officium humanam figuram conferre. […]». Cf. also id., Dragmaticon VI, IX, 3, 25–27 (ed. Ronca, 213): «Quinta vero si puer in septimo mense nasci debet, sed si in nono septima, incipit operari vis formativa, conferendo humanam figuram illi materiae. […] Formatis vero membris, assimilatis et concavatis, incipit aer subtilis per arterias discurrere motumque et vitam conferre».
22.
Id., De philosophia mundi IV, XXXIII, 51: «Auctoritate Augustini hoc probatur, qui dicit: “Cotidie creat deus novas animas”. Tempus vero coniunctionis illius cum corpore a nullo diffinitur. Nobis tamen post operationem informativae et concavativae virtutis videtur, tunc enim naturalis virtus per membra potest discurrere, sine qua vita non potest esse nec anima in corpore». On the relationship between formation and animation of the embryo in William’s thought, see Van der Lugt, “L’animation de l’embryon humain”, 238–239.
23.
Cf. Bernard Pouderon, “L’influence d’Aristote dans la doctrine de la procréation des premiers Pères et ses implications théologiques”, in L’embryon: formation et animation. Antiquité grecqué et latine, traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, eds. Luc Brisson, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, and Jean-Luc Solère, 157–183 (Paris: Vrin, 2008).
24.
On the structure and content of Peter Lombard’s Liber sententiarum, see Philipp W. Rosemann, Peter Lombard (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). In Lombard’s Sententiae, the most prominent authority in embryology is St. Augustine with his doctrine of rationes seminales (borrowed from the Stoics’ physical doctrine of logoi spermatikoi), according to which the generative seed contains latent potencies ordered to inform the indeterminate matter and promote the development of the embryo. On Augustine’s theory of rationes seminales, see supra, Sect. 2.1, footnote 7. The thirteenth-century development of the Augustinian doctrine will be dealt with later. See Demaitre and Travill, “Human Embryology and Development”, 406–407.
25.
See, e.g., Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae II, dist. 18, ch. 7 (ed. Quaracchi, 392), quoting Gennadius: «Animas hominum non esse ab initio, inter ceteras intellectuals naturas, nec simul creatas, sicut Origines fingit, dicimus, neque cum corporibus per coitum seminari, creationem vero animae solum Creatorem nosse, eiusque iudicio corpus coagulari in vulva et compingi atque formari, ac formato iam corpore animam creari et infundi, ut vivat in utero homo ex anima constans et corpore, et egrediatur vivus ex utero, plenus humana substantia».
26.
The same theoretical approach is attested in the thirteenth-century theological discussion on the transmission of original sin. See Luciano Cova, Peccato originale. Agostino e il Medioevo (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2014). See also my forthcoming study devoted to the theoretical treatment of leprosy in thirteenth-century theological discussions on the transmission of original sin, Amalia Cerrito, “Leprosy and Inherited Diseases in 13th-Century Discussions on the Original Sin” (Turnhout: Brepols, 2023, forthcoming).
27.
Cf. Van der Lugt, “L’animation de l’embryon humain”, 248, ead., Le ver, le démon et la Vierge. Les théories médiévales de la génération extraordinaire. Une étude sur les rapports entre théologie, philosophie naturelle et médicine (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2004), 79–89, and Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 58–63.
28.
Roland explicitly ascribes the origin of the notion of formative power to Galen, cf. Rolandus Cremonensis, Summa III, 22, 3 (ed. Cortesi and Midali, 81): «[…] Galienus dicit quod sententia de virtute informativa venit ad Aristotelem, cum alii nescirent determinare, et ipse dixit quod erat virtus divina». Among early-thirteenth-century theologians, Roland stands out for his extensive knowledge of natural philosophy and medicine. This is mirrored in his theological and exegetical works, which show deep interaction between liberal knowledge and theological issues. Cf. Even-Ezra, “Medicine and Religion”. It is not clear whether Roland actually taught and practiced medicine at the University of Bologna before teaching theology in Paris, cf. Ephrem Filthaut, Roland von Cremona O.P. und die Anfange der Scholastik im Predigerorden: ein Beitrag zur Geistesgeschichte der älteren Dominikaner (Vechta: Albertus Magnus Verlag, 1935), 10–19.
29.
Rolandus Cremonensis, Summa II, 326, 32 (ed. Cortesi and Midali, 445): «[…] sextus digitus fuit vanus et superfluus […] quantum ad intentionem naturae universalis […]. Non fuit autem vanus, vel superfluus, quantum ad naturam particularem, quae erat in semine, quia superhabundans erat in semine materia de qua debant fieri digiti. Si natura particularis posuisset totam illam materiam in quinque digitis, turbatus fuisset ordo informative, et praetera nature universalis, quia quilibet digitus habet in sua oppositione nervorum qui nascitur de nucha, sicut dicitur in libro de interioribus Galieni, unde fit quilibet digitus secundum quod natura universalis. Vel etiam informativa fecit illos nervos et non fecit exire illos nervos a nucha, ut deberent portare tantam materiam».
30.
Id., Summa II, cap. 134, art. 3 (ed. Cortesi and Midali, 189): «[…] embrio non crescit, vel vegetatur, nisi vegetatione matris sue. Quia, antequam infundatur ei anima rationalis, est sicut quoddam membrum matris, quoniam continuatur matrici embrio per cotiledones».
31.
Bonaventura de Balneoregio, Commentarius in Ecclesiasten XI (ed. Quaracchi, vol. 6, 89): «[…] Avicenna etiam ipse dicit quod vis formativa membrorum est vis divina». Cf. Avicenna, Liber canonis medicinae I, fen. 1, tr. 6, cap. 2 (ed. Venetiis 1507, fol. 22r): «Virtus vero informativa imprimens est illa ex qua, praecepto sui Creatoris, procedit membrorum lineatio et ipsorum figuratio […]». Danielle Jacquart has shown that Bonaventure’s allusions to medical theories, though rare, are on the mark. Along with Avicenna’s Liber canonis medicinae, in his commentary on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Bonaventure also resorts to Isaac Israeli’s De urinis, see Danielle Jacquart “Medicine in Some Thirteenth-Century Biblical Commentaries, with a Flashback on Augustine’s De genesi ad litteram”, in Professors, Physicians and Practices in the History of Medicine. Essays in Honor of Nancy Siraisi, eds. Gideon Manning and Cynthia Kestinec, 31–56, esp. 41–42 (Cham: Springer, 2017). On the life and works of Bonaventure, see Marianne Schlosser, “Bonaventure: Life and Works”, in A Companion to Bonaventure, eds. Jay M. Hammond, J. A. Wayne Hellmann, and Jared Goff, 9–60 (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2014).
32.
Bonaventure recurs to this notion within the broader theological discussion of the assumption in heaven. Cf. Bonaventura de Balneoregio, In II Sententiarum, dist. 8, art. 2, q. 1 (ed. Quaracchi, vol. 2, 214): «Eiusdem virtutis creatae est corpus formare et informare, quia vis formativa est ab informativa sive perfectiva». Ibid. (ed. Quaracchi, vol. 2, 215) «Non etiam est ibi vere organizatio, quae competit corpori humano, quae quidem est a virtute formativa, cum seminibus delata […]».
33.
Id., In IV Sententiarum, dist. 43, art. 1, q. 5 (ed. Quaracchi, vol. 4, 893): «Quaedam ‹animalia› completam ‹organizationem habent›, ut animalia sensibilia perfecta et gradientia, ut equus, et talia non potest nisi per vim formativam influxam cum decisione seminis, et tale est corpus humanum, quod non potest naturaliter organizari nisi adsit semen et debitum vas suscipiens, scilicet matrix».
34.
Cf. Mark D. Jordan, “Medicine and Natural Philosophy in Aquinas”, in Thomas von Aquin: Werk und Wirkung im Licht neuerer Forschungen, ed. Albert Zimmerman, 233–246 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012).
35.
Cf. id., “The Disappearance of Galen in Thirteenth-Century Philosophy and Theology”, in Mensch und Natur im Mittelalter, eds. Albert Zimmerman and Andreas Speer, 703–717 (Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter, 2013).
36.
Thomas de Aquino, Summa theologiae I, q. 118, art. 2, ad. 2 «[…] aliqui dixerunt quod operationes vitae quae apparent in embryone, non sunt ab anima eius, sed ab anima matris, vel a virtute formativa quae est in semine. Quorum utrumque falsum est: opera enim vitae non possunt esset a principio extrinseco, sicut sentire, nutriri et augeri. Et ideo dicendum est quod anima praeexistit in embryone a principio quidem nutritiva, postmodum autem sensitiva et tandem intellectiva». Cf. Bruno Nardi, “L’origine dell’anima umana secondo Dante”, Giornale critico di filosofia italiana 12 (1931): 433–456, reprinted in id., Studi di filosofia medievale, 9–68 (Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura: 1979), 22–24 and 33, and Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 61.
37.
Thomas de Aquino, Summa theologiae I, q. 118, art. 2, ad. 2: «Et ideo alii dicunt illa eadem anima quae primo fuit vegetativa tantum, postmodum, per actionem virtutis quae est in semine, producitur ad hoc quod fiat etiam sensitiva, et tandem perducitur ad hoc ut ipsa eadem fiat intellectiva, non quidem per virtutem activam seminis, sed per virtutem superioris agentis, scilicet Dei deforis illustrantis […]».
38.
Cf. Nardi, “L’origine dell’anima umana secondo Dante” and Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 61.
39.
Thomas De Aquino, Summa theologiae I, q. 118, art. 2, ad. 2: «Sed hoc stare non potest. Primo quidem, quia nulla forma substantialis recipit magis et minus, sed superadditio maioris perfectionis facit aliam speciem in numeris. Non est autem possibile ut una et eadem forma numero sit diversarum specierum».
40.
Robert Pasnau suggested that Aquinas’ notion of formative power, in loose analogy to today’s DNA, could be conceived as a kind of project potentially encapsulated in the male semen that guides the formation of the organic body in the image and likeness of the paternal one. Fabrizio Amerini rejected this reading, given that once the virtus formativa has fulfilled its formative task, the formative power does not persist in the individual as the DNA does. Cf. Robert Pasnau, Thomas Aquinas on Human Nature. A Philosophical Study on Summa Theologiae Ia 75–89 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2004), 100–104, Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 86–97. For a further counterargument to the comparison between formative power and DNA, cf. also Carl Vater, “The Role of the Virtus formativa in St. Thomas Aquinas’ Account of Embryogenesis”, The Thomist: A Speculative Quarterly Review 1 (2018): 113–132.
41.
Cf. Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 62. As Amerini suggests, it appears that Thomas was willing to distinguish the virtus formativa ruling the formation of the body from the power of the soul responsible for the vital activities of the embryo, see ibid., 90–91.
42.
Cf. Nardi, “L’origine dell’anima umana secondo Dante”, 22–24, and Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 61.
43.
Cf. James Weisheipl, “The Axiom Opus naturae est opus intelligentiae and Its Sources”, in Albertus Magnus - Doctor Universalis 1280–1980, ed. Gerbert Meyer and Albert Zimmerman, 441–463, esp. 458–459 (Mainz: Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, 1980), Amerini, Aquinas on the Beginning and End of Human Life, 80–84, and Thomas M. Ward, “John Buridan and Thomas Aquinas on Hylomorphism and the Beginning of Life”, Res Philosophica 93 (2016): 27–43.
44.
For an introduction to preformistic doctrine and texts in the thirteenth century see Étienne Gilson, La philosophie de saint Bonaventure (Paris: Vrin (2nd Edition), 1978), 236–253.
45.
On Augustine’s theory of rationes seminales, see supra, Sect. 2.1, footnote 7. The Franciscan masters Alexander of Hales and Bonaventure conjecture that the male seed might possess an active germ (or ratio seminalis) from which the vegetative and sensitive soul develop. Created by God, this active germ is enclosed within the matter since the act of Creation. Cf. Nardi, “L’origine dell’anima umana secondo Dante”, 40–41.
46.
Augustine dealt at length with the problem of the origin of the human souls in De genesi ad litteram libri duodecim. In there, the idea that all human souls come from Adam’s soul by propagation is presented. For more on Augustine’s doctrine on the origin of the soul, see Roland Teske, “Augustine’s Theory on the Soul”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, eds. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann, 116–124 (Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
47.
On Augustine’s doctrine on original sin, see William E. Mann, “Augustine on Evil and Original Sin”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, 40–48 and Cova, Peccato originale.
48.
Cf. Maaike Van der Lugt, “Les maladies héréditaires dans la pensée scolastique (XIIe–XIVe siècle)”, in L’hérédité entre Moyen Âge et Époque moderne. Perspectives historiques, ed. ead. and Charles de Miramon, 273–320 (Firenze: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008), and Valerio Marotta, “Metafore della cittadinanza e dell’appartenenza. La nozione di ius originis nella patristica latina fino a sant’Agostino”, in Pensiero giuridico romano e teologia cristiana tra il I e il V secolo, ed. Giovanni M. Vian, 113–131 (Torino: Giappichelli, 2020).
49.
See Augustinus Hipponensis, Contra Iulianum Imperatorem I, 48 (English trans., by R. J. Teske, 76): «The sins of our parents […] are ours by the law of propagation and growth (per hoc iure seminationis atque germinationis)». For the theoretical framework of Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, see Lenka Karfíková, Grace and the Will According to Augustine (Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill, 2012).
50.
According to Cova, Peccato originale, 110–111, rather than sketching a biological model of transmission, Augustine employs the juridic metaphor of hereditas exclusively for rhetorical purposes.
51.
Cf. Tertullianus, De anima, 25–27. E.g., «Porro vitam a conceptu agnoscimus, quia animam a conceptu vindicamus, exinde enim vita, quo anima. […] Et quando collocabitur corporis semen, quando animae? […] Nam etsi duas species confitebimur seminis, corporalem et animalem, indiscretas tamen vindicamus et hoc modo contemporales eiusdemque momenti».
52.
For an overview on the medieval reception of Augustine’s thought, see Martin W. F. Stone, “Augustine and Medieval Philosophy”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, eds. Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann, 253–266 (Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
53.
Cf. Alain Boureau, “Hérédité, erreurs et vérité de la nature humaine (XII^e–XIII^e siècles)”, in L’hérédité entre Moyen Âge et Époque moderne. Perspectives historiques, eds. Maaike van der Lugt and Charles de Miramon, 67–82, esp. 72–74 (Firenze: Sismel-Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008).
54.
Petrus Lombardus, Sententiae in IV libris distinctae II, dist. 31, cap. 3–4 (ed. Quaracchi, t. 1, pars 2, 506.8–28): «Non igitur secundum animam, sed secundum carnem solam, peccatum originale trahitur a parentibus. […] In concupiscentia igitur et libidine concipitur caro formanda in corpus prolis. Unde caro ipsa, quae concipitur in vitiosa concupsicentia, polluitur et corrumpitur, ex cuius contactu anima, cum infunditur, maculam trahit qua polluitur et fit rea, id est vitium concupiscentiae, quod est originale peccatum».
55.
Albertus Magnus, Commentarii in IV Sententiarum libros II, dist. 18, art. 8 (ed. Borgnet, 324b): «[…] secundum Catholicam fidem, et secundum Philosophos, nulla anima est ex traduce, nec plantae, nec bruti, neque hominis. Et per errorem scientiae naturalis inductae sunt opiniones contrariae: dicunt enim quidam quod materia spiritualis descinditur cum semine, ex qua fiunt anima bruti, et vegetabilis: et hoc numquam aliquis Philosophus sensit, sicut patet in libris eorum, Aristotelis in libris XV et XVI de Animalibus, et Avicennae qui exponit Aristotelis verba omnino per alium modum».
56.
Ibid. (ed. Borgnet, 325b): «[…] Aristoteles seipsum explanat in libro XVII de animalibus, et Avicenna et Averroes exponunt, quod virtus animae dicitur ibi anima: et haec est virtus formativa, quae datur semini a virtute genitalium complete, dispositive etiam a corde, et hepate, et cerebo, et materialiter a toto corpore: et haec vocatur anima propter actum animae. Si dicis, quod virtus non est sine subiecto: et ideo si est ibi virtus, ibi est subiectum: dico, quod argomentum provenit ex malo intellectu naturalium […]».
57.
Ibid.: «[…] virtus animae est duplex: scilicet effectiva sive effluxa ab anima in corpus: et huius subiectum in semine spiritus corporalis seminis est, quae innititur calori, ut dicit Aristoteles, scilicet primus elementi qui dirigens est, et secundus, coeli, qui est motivus ad substantiam et speciem, et tertius animae qui est complexionativus et formativus organorum».
58.
Ibid.: «Et haec virtus ‹formativa› bene est sine subiecto».
59.
Id., II Summa theologiae q. 72, 3 (ed. Borgnet, 38): «Videbant quod virtus formativa in semine, non potest esse ex ipso semine: cum ergo oporteat quod habeat principium in natura: et cum non possit aliud esse nisi anima generantis, videtur quod sit ab anima generantis. Cum enim in semine agat actus animae formando, figurando, disponendo membra, non potest esse nisi anima, ut dicebant».
60.
Ibid.: «Adhuc, ad hoc inducebant signum: quia saepe videmus, quod in minoribus filius imitatur patrem: principium autem morum in anima est: relinquitur ergo, quod anima filii traducatur ab anima patris».
61.
Ibid.: «Hoc videtur confirmari per hoc quod dicit Aristoteles in III Ethicorum, ubi probat, quod […] iracundus pater saepe generat iracundum filium: incontinens autem saepe continentem […] sicut ille <ira> patrem suum traxerat avum trahentis».
62.
Ibid., q. 70 (ed. Borgnet, 26a): «Sed in XVI de Animalibus intendit Aristoteles reddere causam, loquens contra Platonem, qui dicebat semen esse parvum animal, quomodo virtus formativa est in semine maris, quod dicit intrare in semen foeminae sicut spiritum in corpus, et coagulum in lac, quod spiritualiter penetrat in ipsum lac, et comprehendit ipsum totum: et sicut formantur in causam, quod similiter penetrat in pastam».
63.
On the analogy with cheese in Aristotle, see Sandra Ott, “Aristotle Among the Basques: the ‘Cheese Analogy”, Man (N.S.) 14 (1979): 699–711.
64.
Cf. Albertus Magnus, Super Matthaeum, 6, 9 (ed. Schmidt, 176: 12–15), id., Summa theologiae II, q. 110 (ed. Borgnet, 312). For the theological and metaphysical premises of this analogy, see Amalia Cerrito, “Paternitas naturalis and Paternitas divina: Albert the Great on Matthew 6,9 and Luke 11,2”, Divus Thomas 122/2 (2019): 59–78, 71. In his commentary on the Book of Job, when explaining the nature of the two animals mentioned in Job, 40–41 (namely, Behemoth and Leviathan), Albert relies extensively on the physiology of sexual reproduction to show how sin is rooted in the lowest level of man’s animal nature. In this context, Albert offers a detailed account of the dynamics involved in sexual reproduction, resorting to the metaphor of rennet and milk to explain the mechanism of interaction between male and female sperm. Cf. Stefano Perfetti, “Biblical Exegesis and Aristotelian Naturalism: Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, and the animals of the Book of Job”, Aisthesis 11 (2018): 81–96, esp. 91–92. For an overview on the medieval notion of spirit, see James Bono, “Medical Spirits and the Medieval Language of Life”, Traditio 40 (1984): 91–130.
65.
Albertus Magnus, Summa theologiae II, q. 70 (ed. Borgnet, 26a): «Et per has similitudines vult ostendere Aristoteles, qualiter formativa contenta intra viscositatem seminis, operatur ad operationem corporis organici animae. Dicit quod primo operatur cibando, digerendo, quae sunt operationes vitae, non animae quae sit in semine, sed formativae quae est ut artifex, eo quod habet instrumentum calorem coeli, et calorem animae generantis, per quod descinditur semen, et calorem matricis matris».
66.
Albert upholds this argumentation also in the following question, cf. ibid., q. 72 (ed. Borgnet, 38b): «Et quod supponunt, falsum est: formativa enim in semine non facit actus et operationes animae. Actus enim et operationes essentiales animae sunt vivificare, continere et perficere ad esse animati: et nullum eorum actuum facit formativa in semine […]. Sed sicut ante determinatum est, formativa est in semine sicut artifex in artificiato».
67.
Ibid., q. 70 (ed. Borgnet, 26a): «Dicit quod primo operatur cibando, digerendo, quae sunt operationes vitae, non animae quae sit in semine, sed formativae quae est ut artifex […]».
68.
Ibid.: «Et secundo, eisdem caloribus et eadem virtute, quae est in semine sicut artifex, format membra sensitiva, in quibus perficiuntur operationes sensuum[…]».
69.
Ibid.: «Et tertio, eadem vis formativa eisdem caloribus distinguit membra pertinentia ad operationes animales animae rationalis […]».
70.
Ibid., q. 72 (ed. Borgnet, 38b) «Hoc enim triplici calore formativa dirigendo, figurando, distinguendo, ordinando, componendo, operatur ad perfectionem corporis: quo perfecto solus infundit animam Deus, maxime rationalem, quam de nihilo creat per seipsum».
71.
On Albert’s exegetical approach to the Aristotelian Book of Animals, see Henryk Anzulewicz, “Albertus Magnus und die Tiere”, in Tiere und Fabelwesen im Mittelalter, ed. Sabine Obermaier, 29–54 (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009), Stefano Perfetti, “La disseminazione del sapere sugli animali e l’iperaristotelismo di Alberto Magno”, in La zoologia di Aristotele e la sua ricezione dell’età ellenistica e romana alle culture medievali, eds. Maria M. Sassi, Elisa Coda, Giuseppe Feola, 269–298 (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2017), and id., Nature imperfette. Umano subumano e animale nel pensiero di Alberto Magno (Pisa: ETS, 2020), 7–60.
72.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus XVI, 1, 12 (ed. Stadler, 1095): «Cum autem dicto modo vegetabilem et sensibilem dicamus esse in semine, dicemus quod ambae prius insunt in potentia quam potentiam vocamus formativam cum virtutibus spiritus et caloris et spermatis de quibus diximus: postea autem efficiuntur in actu in fine generationis, quando conceptus est completus. […] istae animae fiunt in materia, quamvis non concedamus eas secundum quod animae sunt, intrare in semen transfusas in semine maris sicut dixit Plato: quod enim transfunditur actus animae, est maris et similitudo virtutum membrorum eius et non anima proprie loquendo. […] Propter quod etiam absurdum est inquirere qualiter formativa intret in sperma ab exstrinseco, sicut quaesivit Plato dicens hanc virtutem esse datam spermati a datore formarum extrinsecus. Hic enim spiritus corporeus est nec est pars speciei et formae per quam res est id quod est […]». English translation (modified) by Kenneth F. Kitchell Jr. and Irven M. Resnick, in Albertus Magnus, On Animals. A Medieval Summa Zoologica (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999), 1190.
73.
See supra, Chapter 2, passim.
74.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus XVI, 1, 12 (ed. Stadler, 1098–1099).
75.
Aristoteles, Ethica Nichomachea I, 1, 1102 a 32. In Albertus Magnus, Super Ethica I, XV (ed. Kübel, 76): «Irrationalis autem hoc quidem assimilatur communi et plantativo, dico autem causam eius quod est nutritiri et augeri, talem enim virtutem animae in omnibus quae nutriuntur, ponet aliquis utique et in embryonibus, eandem utique hanc et in perfecti, rationabilius enima quam aliam aliquam».
76.
Albertus Magnus, Ethica I, 9, 4 (ed. Borgnet, 143): «Irrationale autem duplex est. Irrationalis enim partis quaedam pars assimilata est communi, quod scilicet in omnibus vivis inest, quae vivunt organica et physica: et assimilatur plantativo: quia sicut plantativum in continua nutrimenti acceptione, et nutrimenti digestione, et nutriti additione, secundum substantiam et quantitatem et necessitatem materiae est obligatum ad hoc: unde tales operationes facit quamdiu vivit, naturae aliqua increpatione vel suasione, removetur ab eis. Dico autem plantativum quod est causa et principium eius quod est nutriri et augeri». See also, id. Super Ethica I, XV (ed. Kübel, 82): «[…] plantativum, scilicet nutritivum, quod est commune omnibus viventibus, cuius operatio est nutrire et augere».
77.
Nemesius’ De natura hominis, i.e., On human nature, written circa 400, is the first Christian anthropological treatise that systematizes the most notable philosophical, medical, and theological doctrines. Burgundio of Pisa’s twelfth-century Latin translation, although mistakenly attributed to the Cappadocian Church Father Gregory of Nyssa, had a widespread circulation in the thirteenth century. Cf. David Lloyd Dusenbury, Nemesius of Emesa on Human Nature: A Cosmopolitan Anthropology from Roman Syria (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021).
78.
The Syrian John of Damascus (seventh to eighth centuries), one of the last Greek-speaking Church Fathers, was the author of Source of Knowledge. Its third part, entitled Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Ekdosis akribes tēs orthodoxou pisteōs), a systematic summa of the dogmatic writings of the early Church Fathers, was translated into Latin by Burgundio of Pisa (c. 1153–1154) as De fide orthodoxa, i.e., On the orthodox faith, and became a model for all subsequent scholastic Christian theology. Cf. Vassilis Adrahtas, “John of Damascus”, in The Wiley Companion to Patristics, ed. Ken Parry, 264–277 (Oxford: Wiley Blackwell, 2015). For a focus on the Latin reception see, ibid., 268–269.
79.
With the syntagm principium plantativum the Latin translators of medical texts blended two similar Greek expressions, namely the Aristotelian to threptikon and the Galenic to phytikon. The first one indicates the nutritive-reproductive power of the soul. The second one describes the nutritive power of the soul once it is actualized in the liver, where it starts the process of nutrition. See Vivian Nutton, “Greek Medical Astrology and the Boundaries of Medicine”, in Astro-Medicine: Astrology and Medicine, East and West, eds. Anna Akasoy, Charles S. F. Burnett, and Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim, 17–32 (Firenze: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008).
80.
Nemesius Emesenus, De natura hominis, cap. XIV (ed. Verbeke and Moncho, 91–92): «Dividunt autem et aliter in virtutes vel species vel partes animam, in plantativum quod et nutritivum et passivum vocatur et in sensibile. […] Aristoteles autem in Physicis quidem quinque dicit esse partes animae: plantativum et sensibile et motivum secundum locum et concupiscibile et excogitativum, plantativum dicens quod nutrit et augere et generare facit et plasmat corpus. Vocat autem plantativum et nutritivum totum a portiori parte vocans, a nutrient a quo et aliae partes plantativi existentiam habent. In Ethica vero in duo prima et generalissima dividit animam, in rationale et irrationale, subdividit autem irrationale et in obediens rationi et in inoboediens».
81.
Iohannes Damascenus, De fide orthodoxa, De homine II, 12 (ed. Buytaert, 118): «Oportet cognoscere quoniam rationale naturale principatur irrationali. Divididuntur enim virtutes animae in rationale et irrationale. Irrationalis vero partes sunt duae, haec quidem inobediens est rationi, scilicet non suadetur ratione, illa vero obediens est et persuabilis ratione. Ergo inobediens quidem et quae non persuadetur ratione est zodicum (id est vitale), quod et pulsativum vocatur seminativum, sive generativum, et plantativum quod et nutritivum vocatur, huius autem est et augmentativum, quod et plasmat corpora: haec enim non ratione gubernantur, sed natura […]».
82.
Albertus Magnus, Ethica I, 9, 4 (ed. Borgnet, 143): «Talem autem animi virtutem sive potentiam aliquis rationabiliter ponit esse in omnibus quae nutriuntur, tam in plantis quam animalibus, et eamdem hanc potentiam ponit esse in embryonibus et animalibus perfectis».
83.
Ibid.: «Embryones vocantur concepta a matricibus semina, in quibus (sicut in libro Animalium determinatum est) gutta masculi intrat in guttam foeminae sicut spiritus in corpus: et per virtutem proprii spiritus qui intrat in viscositatem seminis, continetur, dirigit, purgat et purificat guttam foeminae, et ex purgamento pellem circumducit, intra quam semina sic unita concluduntur, ut spiritus resolutus ab unione seminum evaporare non possit, sed veniens ad pellem reflectatur in seipsum, et intra substantiam seminum revertatur, et sic de imo moveatur ad sursum et de surso ad imum, et talibus motibus pulsare incipiat, et pulsum perficiat, in quo pulsu vitam influat vivo».
84.
Ibid.: «Cum autem spiritus non resolvatur nisi ex humido radicali, necessarium est humidum ipsa resolutione diminui: et nisi restituatur, statim deficiet spiritus resolutus ab ipso. Non restituitur autem nisi per humidum alimenti».
85.
On the concept of ‘radical moisture’ see the bibliography quoted supra, Chapter 1, footnote 5.
86.
Albertus Magnus, Ethica I, 9, 4 (ed. Borgnet, 143): «Est igitur de necessitate quod in ipso semine ante formationem sit tractus alimenti ad restaurationem humidi resoluti».
87.
Ibid.: «Iste autem tractus ‹alimenti› non est caloris ut calor est: quia calor ut calor est consumptivus et distractivus: oportet ergo quod sit caloris ut instrumentum animae est. Principium igitur in semine trahens anima est. In embryone ergo plantativa anima est».
88.
Ibid.: «Sed in hoc deviavit Plato, quod seminibus dixit animam inesse ut actus: propter quod dicere cogebatur semina esse parva animalia. Veritas autem est secundum Peripateticorum sententiam, quod anima est in semine ut artifex et non ut actus».
89.
Ibid.: «Sicut enim in artibus se habet, quod ars in dolabra et securi et ascia est: et ideo ad formam artis incidunt: et si sine forma artis moveantur, scindunt et destruunt».
90.
Ibid.: «Ita est in omni natura divinum lumen, quod inundat super omnes causas secundas usque ad proximas, ita quod omnium virtutes in centro conceptae congregantur, et omnes informatae et motae primo lumine intellectuali et divino operantur ad formam intellectivae propriae, sicut dolabra movetur in forma et virtute artificis qui est primus motor eius».
91.
Ibid.: «Et ideo dicit Aristoteles, quod totum opus naturae ibi est opus intelligentiae. Intelligentia movet per intentionem et per modum artis […] et ideo diversas facit formas membrorum, et diversa continuat ad unum eorum ubi natura non perficere potest. Propter quod dicit etiam Aristoteles quod intellectus est in semine, eo quod ibi est virtus intelligentiae propriae et fortuna». According to Takahashi, Albert deems the potential form hidden in the semen as flowing from the Prime Intellect to the seminal fluid thanks to the mediation of celestial intelligences. Each natural thing is univocally produced by the formative power, though, deriving from the First Intellect, preserves the archetypical form and end of every natural being. Cf. Adam Takahashi, “Nature, Formative Power and Intellect in the Natural Philosophy of Albert the Great”, Early Science and Medicine 13 (2008): 451–481. On role of the celestial intelligences in natural generation and their relationship with the formative power see, supra, Sect. 2, passim.
92.
Albertus Magnus, Ethica I, 9, 4 (ed. Borgnet, 144): «Propter quod non tantum in semine hominis, sed in seminibus omnibus plantarum et animalium est anima ut artifex intellectualis, et non ut actus: quia si sicut actus inesset omnium vivorum, semina essent intellectualia: et quando generata sunt ipsa viva, intellectum haberent hanc animam quae inest ut artifex et non ut actus in seminibus».
93.
Ibid.: «Antiqui animam intellectum vocabant ut arteficem. Posterius autem, videntes quod anima aequivoce dicitur de tali, et de ea quae est ut actus, mutaverunt dictiones. Et illam quidem quae inest ut artifex, vocaverunt virtutem formativam. Aliam quae inest ut actus, vocaverunt animam: praecipue quia viderunt quod etiam Plato qui inter Philosophos super alios multus emicuit, propter hanc aequivocationem deceptus erravit».
94.
For an overview of the debate on the seminal fluid, see Conway Zirkle, “The Early History of the Idea of Inheritance of Acquired Characters and of Pangenesis”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 35 (1946): 91–151 and Jacques Jouanna, “La postérité de l’embryologie d’Hippocrate dans deux traités pseudo-hippocratiques de la médecine tardive (Sur la formation de l’homme et Sur la génération de l’homme et la semence)”, in L’embryon: formation et animation. Antiquité grecqué et latine, traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, eds. Luc Brisson, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, and Jean-Luc Solère, 30–31 (Paris: Vrin, 2008).
95.
Alcmaeon of Croton was an early Greek medical and philosophical author who devoted several pages to the physiology and anatomy of sensory activity and embryo development. The chronology of his literary activity is dated between 500 and 450 BCE. For an introduction of Alcmaeon’s thought see Carl Huffman, “Alcmaeon”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta (Summer 2021 Edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/alcmaeon/. Cf. Franco Giorgianni and Antonietta Provenza, “Una voce per un “lessico della genetica”. Generazione e aspetti dell’ereditarietà dai Presocratici a Galeno: le nozioni principali e la terminologia tecnica”, Medicina nei Secoli Arte e Scienza 27/3 (2015): 1111–1158.
96.
Cf. Tage U. H. Ellinger, Hippocrates on the Intercourse and Pregnancy (New York: Henry Schuman, 1952), Ian Lonie, The Hippocratic Treatises: On Generation, on the Nature of the Child and Diseases IV (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1981), and Michael Boylan, “The Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s Conception Theory”, Journal of the History of Biology 17 (1984): 83–112. In the Hippocratic treatises, also the female’s seed was thought to contribute to the conception of the child, see Lesley Dean-Jones, Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 153–160, and id. “Female Patients”, in The Cambridge Companion to Hippocrates, ed. Peter E. Pormann, 246–262 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
97.
Aristoteles, De generatione animalium I, 17, 721b 13–27. Cf. Pierre-Marie Morel, “Aristote contra Démocrite. Sur L’Embryon”, in L’embryon: formation et animation. Antiquité grecqué et latine, traditions hébraïque, chrétienne et islamique, eds. Luc Brisson, Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, and Jean-Luc Solère, 43–57 (Paris: Vrin 2008).
98.
Aristoteles, De generatione animalium I, 17, 726b 10.
99.
Ibid., 724b 21. Between the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, medical and natural-philosophical Latin-speaking authors were intrigued by the manifold theories available about the origin of the seminal fluid. See Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical, 73–84.
100.
Cf. Albertus Magnus, De animalibus III, 2, 8 (ed. Stadler, 343): «Generaliter autem loquendo de humore qui sperma vocatur, dicimus quod sperma est superfluum quod separatur a quarta digestione, quando iam celebrata in venis tertia digestione humor distillare incipit a venis in membra et non est adhuc coagulatus et assimilatus et unitus membro particulari».
101.
Ibid. (ed. Stadler, 348): «Ypocras autem Cohus sperma omne dixit descendere a capite per duas venas quas spermaticas vocavit: et sunt post aures continuatae cum nucha in superiori parte coniunctionis capitis et colli et deinde perveniunt ad renes, et ideo delectatio coitus sentitur in renibus […]».
102.
Ibid.: «Galienus autem dixit se nescire utrum hoc sit vero quod dixit Ypocras. Sed quod probabilius de hac sententia dici potest esse quod sperma, quod est superfluum quartae digestionis, exsudat ab omnibus membris, sed maxime a capite, […] eo quod in capite sunt vires animae nobiliores».
103.
Cf. Demaitre and Travill, “Human Embryology and Development”, 419–420. On the contrary, according to Steven Epstein’s interpretation, Albert decidedly rejects the pangenetic theory. Cf. Steven A. Epstein, The Medieval Discovery of Nature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).
104.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus, XV, 2, 10 (ed. Stadler, 1054): «Dictum tamen Stoycorum et medicorum quod sperma exit a toto corpore, non usquequaque est falsum […]».
105.
Ibid.: «Sed nos non dicimus quod ideo exeat a membris sicut pars exit a toto, sed potius descinditur a quarta digestione quae iam virtutem assimilationis a membris accepit antequam membris imbibatur et uniatur».
106.
Ibid.: «[…] et quia assimilatio est universalis, praecipue membris similibus ex quibus ubique per totum componuntur membra composita instrumentalia, ideo universaliter secundum illum modum dicitur a toto corpore sperma descindi».
107.
Cf. Jacquart and Thomasset, Sexualité et savoir médical, 76.
108.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus IX, 2, 3 (ed. Stadler, 718): «[…] virtus formativa datur spermati secundum aliquos a testiculis, et quod testiculis trahit a toto corpore per modum ventosae per suam caliditatem […]».
109.
Ibid.: «Sperma enim, sicut in antehabitis diximus, est superfluitas quartae digestionis: et illa est quae est in membris facta ad similitudinem membrorum: propter quod sperma est humor membris assimilatus et iamiam sigillandus formis et figuris membrorum, sed nondum sigillatus […]».
110.
Ibid.: «[…] duae virtutes sunt in spermate, quarum una oboedit alteri, generativa videlicet quae est a testiculo, et nutritiva quae est membri a quibus attractum est. Sperma enim […] est superfluitas quartae digestionis: et illa est quae est in membris facta ad similitudinem membrorum: propter quod sperma est humor membris assimilatus et iam sigillandus formis et figuris membrorum, sed nondum sigillatus: et ideo virtuti formativae est oboediens facile ad omnis membri formam suscipiendam […]». English translation by Kitchell and Resnick, in Albertus Magnus, On Animals, 815–816.
111.
In his reconstruction of the medieval sources of William Harvey’s biology, Walter Pagel offers a brief, still accurate, overview on Albert’s doctrine on seminal fluid and its relation with the formative power. According to Pagel, in Albert’s view the sperm would be “an epitome of the virtues of the paternal organs and is produced by the testicles from metabolic superfluities of the organs”. See Walter Pagel, “William Harvey Revisited”, History of Science 9/1 (1970): 1–41, esp. 22–23.
112.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus, XV, 2, 10 (ed. Stadler, 1054) «Tunc enim ad similitudinem virtutis membrorum sigillatur a virtutibus membrorum quae sunt sibi extrinsecae. Sic ergo quoad originem primam istae virtutes sunt extrinsecae, sed subiecto sunt intrinsecae […]. Inpossibile enim dicere, quod formet, et faciat per virtutes omnium membrorum latentes in ipso: possibile autem erit quod formet et faciat membra per id quod principium motus formationis et facturae membrorum est in ipso […]».
113.
On the pseudo-Aristotelian De plantis see Henry Hugonnard-Roche, “Pseudo-Aristote, De plantis”, in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, ed. Richard Goulet, 499–505 (Paris: CNRS-Éditions, 2003). In the thirteenth century, this work was available in Alfred of Sareshel’s Latin translation. Cf. James R. Long, “Alfred of Sareshel’s Commentary on De plantis: A Critical Edition”, Medieval Studies 47 (1985): 125–167.
114.
Albert does not explicitly question the authorship of this work. Nevertheless, his commentary bears several traces of what I have labeled pragmatic disavowal. This consists in: (i) a massive reorganization of structure and content of the De plantis, to the benefit of the argumentative flow and consistency, (ii) the inclusion of rich integrative sections (both theoretical, pharmacological, and agricultural), (iii) criticism addressed to style and argumentation of the text. In doing so, Albert rewrites the De plantis just as Aristotle should (or could) have done. I have discussed this topic in several articles: Amalia Cerrito, “Botany as Science and Exegetical Tool in Albert the Great”, Aisthesis 11 (2018): 97–107, ead., “Alberto Magno e il De plantis: ricostruire la botanica perduta di Aristotele”, in Ricerche di Storia della Filosofia e Teologia Medievali. Raccolta di Saggi in onore di Marco Arosio, vol. 5, ed. Marco Martorana, Rafael Pascual, and Veronica Regoli, 9–28 (Roma: IF Press, 2019), and ead., “Disclosing the Hidden Life of Plants. Theories of the Vegetative Soul in Albert the Great’s De vegetabilibus et plantis”, in Vegetative Powers: The Roots of Life in Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern Natural Philosophy. «Archives Internationales d’Histoire des idées», vol. 234, ed. Fabrizio Baldassarri and Andreas Blank, 105–122 (Cham: Springer, 2021).
115.
Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus I, I, 7 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 26): «Sed sexuum vires sunt in seminibus embryis sive impraegnationibus. Embrya autem sive impraegnationes dico concepta semina».
116.
Ibid., VII, 1, 9 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 618): «De seminis autem natura virtute iam in praecedentibus dictum est. Sed quod hic attendendum est hoc est quod seminis substantia duo continet. Quorum unum est virtus formativa, quam habet et cum calore et spiritu, qui instrumentaliter formativae ‹vires› serviunt, calor quidem digerendo et segregando et subtiliando, spiritus autem vehendo virtutem. Alterum autem, quod habet semen, est substantia farinalis, quae, immixto sibi humido, suscipit formationem et figurationem in plantam et plantae organa». In his analysis of the botanical terminology employed in Albert’s De vegetabilibus, Timothy Sprague has interpreted the substantia farinalis as the endosperm of the embryo, a cellular reserve that surrounds the seed and from which all the nourishment is taken to support the formation of the plant in the early stages. Cf. Timothy Sprague, “Botanical Terms in Albertus Magnus”, Kew Bulletin 9 (1933): 440–459, esp. 446.
117.
Ibid., I, 1, 7 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 27): «Quia tamen non invenimus aliquam operationem nobilem in plantis nisi generationem, et generatio immediate fit a viribus sexuum permixtis, ideo natura in una et eadem planta miscuit masculinum et femininum, quia tota planta concipit semen fructuum et pullulationum propter suae substantiae homogeneitatem».
118.
Ibid., I, 1, 13 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 49): «Et ideo, cum semen, ex quo educuntur tales formae (i.e., animales), descenderit per totam corporis spongiositatem, et assimilatum fuerit toti corpori generantis active vel passive, tunc nihilominus ultra hoc oportet, quod attrahatur ad vasa seminaria, in quibus a testiculis infundatur ei virtus divina, quae formativa vocatur. Et in hoc solo gradu formarum exigitur distinctio sexus. Et quaecumque forma est in toto incorporea, ita quod nec sit virtus in corpore aliquo operans: ista procul dubio non ex materia educitur, sed ab extrinseco principio aliquo datur generatis. In materiam tamen infunditur assimilativa et informativa per virtutem divinam in testiculis existentem».
119.
Id., De animalibus XVI, 2, 1 (ed. Stadler, 1115): «[…] quia cor est tamquam sedes huius virtutis ‹formativa quae est in semine›, fit cor prius inter alia membra in actu, licet in potentia omnia simul sint in eo». Albert holds the same in his Metaphysica I, 4, 12 (ed. Geyer, 64: 49–60): «Eodem modo formativa, quae est in semine, primo quidem in corde se ponens, una quidem est secundum substantiam et formam et substantiali operatione formam suam, quae vitae forma est, communicans, spiritum accipit instrumentum, per quem sicut suae virtutis vectorem cunta distincte producit. In se enim una existens et per spiritum applicata et influxa spiritibus et humiditatibus et caloribus et locis et complexionibus membrorum, ex unoquoque istorum distincte producit hoc membrum quod est cerebrum, vel hoc quod est hepar, vel hoc quod est oculus vel pes vel manus».
120.
Id., De animalibus XVI, 2, 1 (ed. Stadler, 1115): «Conceptum enim adunatum et coagulatum et formatum semine maris ex gutta feminae, quando efficitur unum aliquid in se distinctum, habet regere se sicut fillius qui exit a domo patris. Filius enim exiens a domo patris partem fert substantiae secum et illam primam multiplicat et sic procurat domum.»
121.
Ibid.: «Sic igitur primum quod est in substantia parentum, convertitur in substantia cordis». Also in his theological works, Albert resorts to the same analogy to explain how the substance received from parents is converted into the first substance of the vital organs (membra radicalia) of the embryo. Cf. Id., Commentarii in IV Sententiarum II, dist. XVIII, art. 8 (ed. Borgnet, 325): «[…] quia semen assimilatur filio egredienti de domo patris, qui partem substantiae secum portat, et illam negotiando multiplicat: ita semen partem substantiae ex qua fiunt radicalia secum adducit, et partem aliunde attrahit ex semine matris vel sanguine menstruo: et illud nutrimentum est ad formationem organorum […]»., and id., Summa de creaturis II, art. 3, q. 17 (ed. Borgnet, 161a): «Et ideo dicit Philosophus circa finem libri XVI de Animalibus, quod semen assimilatur filio egredienti de domo patris: ille enim cum egreditur, partem cibi sumit quam portat secum de domo patris, et in domo propria per lucrum et negotiationem multiplicat cibum illum, ut sufficiat sibi. Sic semen humidum quoddam in quo salvatur virtus formativa, trahit secum de corpore masculi generantis: et cum est in matrice, negotiatur circa sanguinem menstrui extrahendo purius ex eo ad multiplicationem sui humidi, ut ex eo possit perfici formatio suorum organorum».
122.
The question of the so-called ‘hegemonic organ’ is part of the broader so-called controversia inter philosophos et medicos in which medieval Latin authors engaged, alternatively supporting Greek, Arabic, and Latin traditions, and their heterogeneous doctrines, mostly in contrast with each other. In addition to the question of the hegemonic organ, another major point of contrast between Aristotelian and Galenic traditions was the nature of the female contribution to the generative process. Cf. Per-Gunnar Ottosson, Scholastic Medicine and Philosophy. A Study of Commentaries on Galen’s Tegni (ca. 1300–1400) (Napoli: Bibliopolis, 1984), 219–239, Anthony Preus, “Galen’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Conception Theory”, Journal of the History of Biology 10/1 (1977): 65–85, Jöel Chandelier, “Medicine and Philosophy”, in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy. Philosophy Between 500 and 1500, ed. Henrik Lagerlund, 735–742 (Dordrecht: Springer, 2011), Adrian Thatcher, Redeeming Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 21–23, and Rebecca Flemming, “Galen’s Generation of Seeds”, in Reproduction: Antiquity to the Present Day, eds. Nick Hopwood, Rebecca Flemming, and Lauren Kassell, 95–108 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018).
123.
On Albert’s conciliatory approach in the controversia inter philosophos et medicos, see Siraisi, “The Medical Learning of Albertus Magnus”, 379–404, Miguel de Asúa, “War and Peace: Medicine and Natural Philosophy in Albert the Great”, in A Companion to Albert the Great. Theology, Philosophy, and Sciences, ed. Irven M. Resnick, 269–298: esp. 290 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), Luciano Cova, “Seme e generazione umana nelle opere teologiche di Alberto Magno”, in Summa doctrina et certa experientia: studi su medicina e filosofia per Chiara Crisciani, ed. Gabriella Zuccolin, 237–256, esp. 249 (Firenze: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2017) and Evelina Miteva, “Iam patet igitur veritas eius quae dixit Aristoteles et causa deceptionis Galieni. Philosophers vs. Medics in Albertus Magnus’Account on Conception”, in Irrtum-Error-Erreur, ed. Andreas Speer and Maxime Mauriège, 107–122 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018).
124.
On the discrepancies between Aristotle and Galen on the role of the heart, Albert has at his disposal both Avicenna’s De animalibus and Averroes’ De corde, see Siraisi, “The Medical Learning of Albertus Magnus”, 399.
125.
Cf. Wilberding, “Embryology”.
126.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus III, 1, 4 (ed. Stadler, 294): «[…] vena oritur a corde, et virtus formativa facit eam duram iuxta cor, ut duritia foramen et ventriculum retineret apertum qui est versus epar. In alia autem extremitate facit eandem mollem, ut magis ibi oboediret divisioni et ramificationi».
127.
Id., De motibus animalium I, 2, 2 (ed. Borgnet, 271): «[…] formativa quippe virtus in semine existens primo format cor sibi in sedem et domicilium, et ex illo porrectis lacertis et venis et arteriis superiora fabricat et inferiora. Quod autem est principium substantiae, ipsum est etiam principium operationis et motus aliorum membrorum. Oportet igitur cor esse principium omnium motuum».
128.
Id., De animalibus III, 1, 4 (ed. Stadler, 295): «Licet autem, sicut diximus, refellere possimus dicta medicorum et probare dictum magistri primi: tamen etiam alius modus est quo potest stare dictum Aristotelis, quod videlicet dicamus, quod virtus formativa in generatione est in materia spermatis: et tunc sicut dicemus in sequentibus, ex subtiliori et meliori facit cor, et ex residuo materiae simul quidem non successive facit alia membra nobilia, et non facit cerebrum et postea ex ipso producit nervus, sed simul ex corde derivat materiam cerebri et nervi […]». English translation by Kitchell and Resnick, in Albertus Magnus, On Animals, 363–364.
129.
Cf. Nickel, Untersuchungen zur Embryologie Galens, 74–79.
130.
Albertus Magnus, De animalibus III, 1, 4 (ed. Stadler, 295): «[…] anima quidem, secundum se est una virtus, a qua fluunt omnes virtutes membrorum. Cum enim ipsa sit organica, oportebit unum est membrum in quo sita omnes effluat a se virtutes: et sicut ipsa est principium virtutum, ita necessario erit illud membrorum principium organorum. Constat autem animam secundum actum vitae et potestatem esse in corde».
131.
For further reflections on the analogy of plant roots to animal mouth see Luciana Repici, Uomini capovolti. Le piante nel pensiero dei Greci (Roma and Bari: Laterza, 2000).
132.
Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis II, I, IV, 62 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 126).
133.
Ibid., II, 1, 4 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 127): «[…] omnes partes plantae compositae referuntur ad radicem sicut ad unum patrem et procuratorem, a quo recipiunt substantiam nutrimenti et virtutis, quam propriis et deputatis sibi officiis convertunt in lucrum et in divitias speciei et perpetuitatis, […]». I discuss the analogy between roots and paterfamilias in Cerrito, “Disclosing the Hidden Life of Plants”, 114–115.
134.
Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus et plantis II, I, IV, 62 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 126): «[…] non omnis officialis pars est composita, sed composita aliquando habet officium, et aliquando non habet, nisi ad speciem et ad salutem speciei ordinetur, sicut stipes habent officium sustendandi et radix, cum utrumque istorum sit pars composita. Virga et rami non ordinantur ad ufficium, quod ad substantiam individualem plantae pertineat, sed ad frondendum et florendum et fructificandum, quae omnia sunt propter salutem speciem».
135.
Ibid., V, 1, 6 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 310): «In radice enim est virtus nutritiva formatorum et virtus formativa et reformativa abscisorum, sed nutritiva sola secundum Peripateticos est in animalium cordibus, et siqua abscinditur de membris animalium, ex virtute cordis non reformantur, nisi in valde paucis animalibus».
136.
On the concept of ‘radical moisture’ see the bibliography quoted supra, Chapter 1, footnote 5.
137.
Cf. supra, Sect. 3.3, passim.
138.
On Albert’s doctrine of the restoration of damaged bodily parts see Stefano Perfetti, “Rigenerazione degli animali? Alberto Magno tra Parva Naturalia e De animalibus”, in Vita longa. Vecchiaia e durata della vita nella tradizione medica e aristotelica antica e medievale. Atti del Convegno internazionale (Torino, 13–14 Giugno 2008), eds. Chiara Crisciani, Luciana Repici, and Pietro B. Rossi, 149–167 (Firenze: Sismel – Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2008).
139.
Albertus Magnus, De generatione et corruptione I, 3, 8 (ed. Borgnet, 383b): «Tamen si aliquid est simile in partibus habens humorem radicalem terrestrem et aquaticum, sicut plantae, et quaedam animalia, sicut cancri: quaedam membra formalia aliquandiu recrescunt eis ex humido nutrimentali».
140.
Ibid.: «[…] virtus formativa propter similitudinem partium, non est distributa in membris, sed in uno membro quod est cor, vel id quod est in loco cordis in animalibus, et radix in plantis, et ex isto formantur omnes partes. Sed in animalibus magnam diversitatem habentibus in membris, non potest hoc esse […]».
141.
Ibid.: «[…] quia formativa virtus non per eadem principia quibus utitur in manu, potest aliquid formare in pede: et ideo virtus formativa quae format humorem nutrimentalem in simili membro quantum potest, non sita est in uno membro in talibus animalibus: et ideo membra formativa in aliis abscissa non recrescunt».
142.
Id., De vegetabilibus et plantis V, 1, 6 (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 309): «Si autem tota absciditur planta, adhuc virtus formativa quae est in radice format aliam. Dubitatur tamen, an planta sit manens eadem secundum formam, quae tota abscissa formetur in similem ex eadem radice».
143.
Ibid. (ed. Meyer-Jessen, 310–311): «[…] virtus quae est in radice non est quae formaliter quiescit in subjecto stipitis et ramorum, et dat eis esse plantae et rationem, sed potius est causa et origo formae illius».

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Centre for the Studies of Medicine and the Body in the Renaissance (CSMBR), Universities of Pisa and Florence, Florence, Italy
Amalia Cerrito

Authors

Amalia Cerrito
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amalia Cerrito .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cerrito, A. (2023). Virtus Formativa and Human Embryology. In: Albert the Great (c. 1193–1280) and the Configuration of the Embryo. Palgrave Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Medicine. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24023-2_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-24023-2_3
Published: 28 September 2023
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-24022-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-24023-2
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics