§2.8#1ἐν μὲν οὖν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις γένεσιν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον, κατὰ μέρος ἡ τοιαύτη συμβαίνει πήρωσις, τὸ δὲ τῶν ἡμιόνων γένος ὅλον ἄγονόν ἐστιν.
Now, in humans and the other kinds, as has been said before, such deformity occurs individually, but the kind of mules as a whole is sterile.
περὶ δὲ τῆς αἰτίας, ὡς μὲν λέγουσιν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Δημόκριτος, λέγων ὁ μὲν οὐ σαφῶς, Δημόκριτος δὲ γνωρίμως μᾶλλον, οὐ οκαλῶς εἰρήκασιν.
Regarding the cause, though Empedocles and Democritus speak of it—the former not clearly, but Democritus more intelligibly—they have not spoken well.
λέγουσι γὰρ ἐπὶ πάντων ὁμοίως τὴν ἀπόδειξιν τῶν παρὰ τὴν συγγένειαν συνδυαζομένων.
For they state their proof in the same way for all animals that mate outside their own kind.
Δημόκριτος μὲν γάρ φησι διεφθάρθαι τοὺς πόρους τῶν ἡμιόνων ἐν ταῖς ὑστέραις διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐκ συγγενῶν γίνεσθαι τὴν ἀρχὴν τῶν ζῴων.
For Democritus says that the passages of mules in the uterus are destroyed because the generation of the animals does not start from kindred parents.
συμβαίνει δ’ ἐφ’ ἑτέρων ζῴων τοῦτο μὲν ὑπάρχειν, γεννᾶν δὲ μηδὲν ἧττον· καίτοι χρῆν, εἴπερ αἴτιον τοῦτ’ ἦν, ἄγονα καὶ τἇλλ’ εἶναι τὰ μιγνύμενα τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον.
Yet this is found to occur in other animals, which nevertheless generate; and yet they ought, if this were the cause, to be sterile also, namely the others that mate in this manner.
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δ’ αἰτιᾶται τὸ μῖγμα τὸ τῶν σπερμάτων γίνεσθαι πυκνὸν ἐκ μαλακῆς τῆς γονῆς οὔσης ἑκατέρας· συναρμόττειν γὰρ τὰ κοῖλα τοῖς πυκνοῖς ἀλλήλων, ἐκ δὲ τῶν τοιούτων γίνεσθαι ἐκ μαλακῶν σκληρόν, ὥσπερ τῷ καττιτέρῳ μιχθέντα τὸν χαλκόν, λέγων οὔτ’ ἐπὶ τοῦ χαλκοῦ καὶ τοῦ καττιτέρου τὴν αἰτίαν ὀρθῶς (εἴρηται δ’ ἐν τοῖς προβλήμασι περὶ αὐτῶν) οὖθ᾽ ὅλως ἐκ γνωρίμων ποιούμενος τὰς ἀρχάς.
Empedocles, on his part, blames the mixture of the seeds for becoming dense, though each of the two is soft; for he says that the hollows fit into the dense parts of one another, and from such soft things a hard thing is produced, just as bronze mixed with tin. Yet he does not state the cause correctly either in the case of bronze and tin (this has been discussed in the Problems concerning them), nor does he make his principles at all from intelligible things.
τὰ γὰρ κοῖλα καὶ τὰ στερεὰ ἁρμόττοντα ἀλλήλοις πῶς ποιεῖ τὴν μίξιν, οἷον οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος;
For how do the hollows and solids fitting one another produce mixture, as in the case of wine and water?
τοῦτο γὰρ ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς ἐστὶ τὸ λεγόμενον· πῶς γὰρ δεῖ λαβεῖν τὰ κοῖλα τοῦ οἴνου καὶ τοῦ ὕδατος, λίαν ἐστὶ παρὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν.
For this statement is beyond us; for how one must understand the hollows of wine and water is too much contrary to sense.
ἔτι δ’ ἐπειδὴ συμβαίνει καὶ ἐξ ἵππων γίνεσθαι ἵππον καὶ ἐξ ὄνων ὄνον καὶ ἐξ ἵππου καὶ ὄνου ἡμίονον, ἀμφοτέρως ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος ὁποτερουοῦν ὄντος, διὰ τί ἐκ μὲν τούτων γίνεται πυκνὸν οὕτως ὥστ’ ἄγονον εἶναι τὸ γενόμενον, ἐκ δ’ ἵππου θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος ἢ ὄνου θήλεος καὶ ἄρρενος οὐ γίνεται ἄγονον;
Moreover, since it happens that from horses a horse is generated, and from asses an ass, and from a horse and an ass a mule, in whichever way the male and female are combined, why does the mixture from these become so dense that the product is sterile, while from a female and a male horse, or a female and a male ass, it does not become sterile?
καίτοι μαλακὸν καὶ τὸ τοῦ ἄρρενος ἵππου ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ τοῦ θήλεος.
And yet the seed both of the male horse and of the female is soft.
μίγνυται δὲ καὶ ὁ θῆλυς ἵππος καὶ ὁ ἄρρην τῷ ὄνῳ, καὶ τῷ ἄρρενι καὶ τῷ θήλει.
And the female horse and the male mate with the ass, both with the male and with the female.
καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γίνονται ἄγονα ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων, ὡς φησίν, ὅτι ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἕν τι γίνεται, μαλακῶν ὄντων τῶν σπερμάτων.
And because of this, they become sterile from both combinations, as he says, because from both a single thing is produced, the seeds being soft.
ἔδει οὖν καὶ τὸ ἐξ ἵππου ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος γινόμενον.
Therefore, what is generated from a male and a female horse ought to have been so too.
εἰ μὲν γὰρ θάτερον ἐμίγνυτο μόνον, ἐνῆν ἂν λέγειν ὅτι θάτερον αἴτιον τοῦ μὴ γεννᾶν ὅμοιον τῇ τοῦ ὄνου γονῇ· νῦν δ’ οἵᾳπερ οὔσῃ ἐκείνῃ μίγνυται, τοιαύτῃ καὶ τῇ τοῦ συγγενοῦς.
For if only one of them mated, it would be possible to say that one of them was the cause of the failure to generate, being like the seed of the ass; but as it is, in whatever state it mates with that of the ass, in that same state it mates with that of its own kind.
ἔτι δ’ ἡ μὲν ἀπόδειξις κατ’ ἀμφοτέρων εἴρηται ὁμοίως καὶ τοῦ θήλεος καὶ τοῦ ἄρρενος, γεννᾷ δ’ ὁ ἄρρην ἑπταέτης ὢν μόνος, ὡς φασίν· ἀλλ’ ἡ θήλεια ἄγονος ὅλως, καὶ αὕτη τῷ μὴ ἐκτρέφειν εἰς τέλος, ἐπεὶ ἤδη κύημα ἔσχεν ἡμίονος.
Furthermore, the proof has been stated in the same way for both female and male, yet the male generates only when he is seven years old, as they say; but the female is entirely sterile, and this because she does not nourish the embryo to the end, since a mule has before now been known to have a conception.
ἴσως δὲ μᾶλλον ἂν δόξειεν ἀπόδειξις εἶναι πιθανὴ τῶν εἰρημένων λογική.
But perhaps a dialectical proof would seem to be more persuasive than those mentioned.
λέγω δὲ λογικὴν διὰ τοῦτο, ὅτι ὅσῳ καθόλου μᾶλλον, πορρωτέρω τῶν οἰκείων ἐστὶν ἀρχῶν. ἔστι δὲ τοιαύτη τις.
And I call it dialectical because the more universal it is, the further it is from its own principles.
εἰ γὰρ ἐξ ὁμοειδῶν ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος ὁμοειδὲς γίνεσθαι πέφυκε τοῖς γεννήσασιν ἄρρεν ἢ θῆλυ, οἷον ἐκ κυνὸς ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος κύων ἄρρην ἢ θήλεια, καὶ ἐξ ἑτέρων εἴδει ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει, οἷον εἰ κύων ἕτερον λέοντος, καὶ ἐκ κυνὸς ἄρρενος καὶ λέοντος θήλεος ἕτερον καὶ ἐκ λέοντος ἄρρενος καὶ κυνὸς θήλεος ἕτερον· ὥστ’ ἐπειδὴ γίνεται ἡμίονος ἄρρην καὶ θῆλυς ἀδιαφόρων ὄντων τῷ εἴδει ἀλλήλοις, γίνεται δ’ ἐξ ἵππου καὶ ὅνου ἡμίονος, ἕτερα δ’ ἐστὶ τῷ εἴδει ταῦτα καὶ οἱ ἡμίονοι, ἀδύνατον γενέσθαι ἐξ ἡμιόνων.
And it is of this kind: if from male and female of the same species a offspring of the same species is naturally generated, male or female, like the parents—for example, from a male and a female dog, a male or female dog—and from those differing in species, something differing in species is generated, for example, if a dog differs from a lion, then from a male dog and a female lion something different, and from a male lion and a female dog something different; so that since a male and a female mule are generated, though they do not differ in species from one another, but the mule is generated from a horse and an ass, and these are different in species from the mules, it is impossible for offspring to be generated from mules.
ἕτερον γὰρ γένος οὐχ οἷόν τε διὰ τὸ ἐξ ἄρρενος καὶ θήλεος τῶν ὁμοειδῶν ταὐτὸ γίνεσθαι τῷ εἴδει· ἡμίονος δ’ ὅτι ἐξ ἵππου καὶ ὄνου γίνεται ἑτέρων ὄντων τῷ εἴδει, ἐκ δὲ τῶν ἑτέρων τῷ εἴδει ἕτερον ἐτέθη γίνεσθαι ζῷον.
For another species cannot be generated because from male and female of the same species the same species is generated; but a mule is generated from a horse and an ass which are different in species, and it was laid down that from those different in species a different animal is generated.
οὕτος μὲν οὖν ὁ λόγος καθόλου λίαν καὶ κενός.
Now this argument is too universal and empty.
οἱ γὰρ μὴ ἐκ τῶν οἰκείων ἀρχῶν λόγος κενοί, ἀλλὰ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι τῶν πραγμάτων οὐκ ὄντες.
For arguments that are not from the appropriate principles are empty, and seem to be of the facts when they are not.
οἱ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν τῶν γεωμετρικῶν γεωμετρικοί, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων· τὸ δὲ κενὸν δοκεῖ μὲν εἶναί τι, ἔστι δ’ οὐθέν.
For those from geometrical principles are geometrical, and similarly in the other cases; and the empty argument seems to be something, but is nothing.
οὐκ ἀληθὲς δέ, ὅτι πολλὰ τῶν μὴ ὁμοειδῶν γενομένων γίνεται γόνιμα, καθάπερ ἐλέχθη πρότερον.
And it is not true, because many things generated from different species are fertile, as was said before.