Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book One — the works of the six days

THE WORK OF THE SIXTH DAY

LatineEnglish

THE WORK OF THE SIXTH DAY.1

OPUS SEXTI DIEI.

God also said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth according to their kinds. — Verse 24.2

Dixit quoque Deus, Producat terra animam viventem in genere suo, iumenta et reptilia et bestias terrae secundum species suas. — Vers. 24.

Hoc sexto et ultimo die, duo narrat Moses opera a Deo facta, animalia videlicet terrestria et hominem. Verum de creatione hominis, eiusque felici statu ante peccatum, quoniam ea res apprime nobilem ac memorabilem doctrinam habet, aliis duobus libris, id est, quarto et quinto, proprie ac separatim agemus. Nunc quae Moses tradit de creatione terrestrium animantium, quia longam non desiderant explanationem, breviter exponamus. Principio, annotarunt quidam Interpretes, non temere esse quod Moses ita distinxit aquatilia a terrestribus, ut illa quidem appellarit reptilia animae viventis, haec autem praecise et simpliciter dixerit animam viventem: scilicet ostendere voluit longe perfectiorem animam et vitam esse in terrestribus quam in piscibus.
On this sixth and last day Moses narrates two works made by God: namely the land animals and man. But concerning the creation of man, and his happy state before sin, since that matter contains a teaching especially noble and memorable, we shall treat properly and separately in two other books, that is, the fourth and the fifth. Now let us briefly expound what Moses hands down about the creation of the land animals, since they do not require a long explanation. In the first place, certain interpreters have noted that it is not without purpose that Moses so distinguished the water-creatures from the land-creatures, that the former he called 'the creeping thing of living soul,' but the latter he called precisely and simply 'living soul': namely, he wished to show that the soul and life are far more perfect in the land animals than in the fishes.3
Necnon verisimile est quod inquit Caietanus, eo quod Moses ait, Deum dixisse: Producat terra animam viventem, satis indicasse omnem animam sentientem quantumvis perfecti animalis (hominem semper excipio) ex mixtione elementari, in qua primas tenet terra, produci. Porphyrium autem et Pythagoricos, qui animas cunctorum animalium secundum substantiam, nec mortales esse, nec animis nostris dissimiles tradiderunt, liquet in magno errore esse versatos. Illud autem: Producat terra, non denotat vim activam et effectricem animalium, vel fuisse in terra, in prima productione animalium, vel postea in eorundem propagatione futuram: non enim credibile est terram capacem esse tantae virtutis, ut per se animalia cuiuslibet generis generare queat. Denotat igitur tantum materiam, e qua postea per omnipotentem Dei vim, facta sunt animalia: denotat etiam, terram esse locum naturalem eiusmodi animalium, in quo nimirum ea generantur, aluntur, atque conservantur. Itaque nonnulli Hebraice scientes existimant illud: Producat terra, positum esse, Phrasi Hebraica, pro eo quod est Producantur ex terra, vel Producantur in terra. Si enim producta sunt ex terra, ut ex materia, non potuerunt, ab efficienti produci ab eadem, nam materia et efficiens causa, in idem numero...
And it is also probable, as Cajetan says, that by the fact that Moses says God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature, it is sufficiently indicated that every sentient soul, of however perfect an animal (man always excepted), is produced from the elemental mixture, in which earth holds the chief place. But Porphyry and the Pythagoreans, who handed down that the souls of all animals are, as to their substance, neither mortal nor unlike our own souls, are clearly seen to have been involved in a great error. But that phrase, 'Let the earth bring forth,' does not denote that an active and effective power of producing animals either was in the earth at the first production of animals, or would afterward be in their propagation; for it is not credible that the earth is capable of so great a power that it could of itself generate animals of any kind whatever. It denotes, therefore, only the matter from which the animals were afterward made by the omnipotent power of God; it denotes also that the earth is the natural place of such animals, in which, namely, they are generated, nourished, and preserved. And so some who know Hebrew think that the phrase 'Let the earth bring forth' is set down, by a Hebrew idiom, for what is 'Let them be brought forth from the earth,' or 'Let them be brought forth in the earth.' For if they were produced from the earth as from matter, they could not be produced by the same as efficient cause; for matter and the efficient cause, in one and the same number...4
...numero convenire non possunt. Nec designatur quaelibet terra, sed ea modo quae tertio die segregatis aquis, supra eas extare, propter stirpium et animantium utilitatem iussa est. Nec sane omnia, terra, cuiuscumque generis animalia, aut tunc produxit, aut nunc potest producere, sed alia aliis terrae locis tantum generari et conservari possunt.
...cannot coincide in one and the same individual. Nor is any earth whatever designated, but only that which on the third day, the waters being separated, was commanded to stand out above them, for the benefit of the plants and the living creatures. Nor indeed did the earth then produce, nor can it now produce, animals of every kind whatsoever; but different animals can be generated and preserved only in different places of the earth.5
Distinguit autem hoc loco Moses tria animantium terrestrium genera, hoc est, iumenta, quo nomine comprehenduntur omnia magis domestica et familiaria homini, ut canes, equi, boves: deinde bestias, quod vocabulum significat agrestes et feras animantes, nec fere humani imperii patientes, ut Leones, Pantherae, Tigres: denique reptilia, in quibus continentur, tam ea quae nullos habent pedes, ut serpentes, quam quae habent, sed admodum breves et exiguos quibus parum ex terra elato corpore moventur, ut formicae et lacertae. Sed quia in nullo istorum generum comprehendi videntur cervi, lepores, capri, propterea Septuaginta Interpretes, praeter supradicta posuerunt quadrupedia. Plato in Politico, duo tantum facit genera animalium terrestrium, ferum et mansuetum: Aristoteles autem libro primo de Historia animalium, tripartitos distinguit animantes; alias enim esse perpetuo cicures, alias perpetuo feras, quasdam vero ad utrumque horum ita flexibili ingenio, ut et cicurari et efferari facile possint.
Now Moses here distinguishes three kinds of land animals, that is: cattle, by which name are comprehended all the more domestic and familiar to man, such as dogs, horses, oxen; then beasts, which word signifies the wild and savage animals, scarcely tolerant of human rule, such as lions, panthers, tigers; finally creeping things, in which are contained both those that have no feet, such as serpents, and those that have feet, but very short and small, by which they move with the body little raised from the earth, such as ants and lizards. But because in none of these kinds do deer, hares, and goats seem to be comprehended, the Seventy Translators for that reason placed, besides the aforesaid, 'four-footed beasts.' Plato, in the Statesman, makes only two kinds of land animals, the wild and the tame; but Aristotle, in the first book of the History of Animals, distinguishes the animals into three: for some are perpetually tame, others perpetually wild, but some are of so flexible a nature toward both of these that they can easily be both tamed and made wild.6
Sed cur non itidem terrestribus, ut aquaticis tributa est benedictio illa Dei, Crescite et multiplicamini? Respondent Hebraei, propterea non esse datam terrestribus benedictionem, quod inter eas esset serpens, paulo post seducturus hominem, ob idque a Deo maledicendus. Verum probabilius est aliorum responsum; Mosem voluisse, quod de benedictione piscium dixerat, intelligi etiam in terrestribus, nec solum in hoc, sed in aliis quoque, ex his quae in uno aliquo genere prodita sunt a Mose, similia etiam in aliis, quae brevitatis causa, non sunt tradita, intelligi debent. Homini vero proprie ac separatim tribuenda erat benedictio, quod in homine propria quaedam et singularis ratio sit generationis et multiplicationis; nempe non ad conservandam modo speciem, sed potissime ad complendum numerum electorum, et ne quisquam putaret in officio gignendi, nullum hominis posse esse peccatum. Licet enim munus generandi sit omnino naturale in ceteris animantibus, in homine tamen partim est naturale, et partim voluntarium, et quod in aliis nec vitii nec virtutis capax est, in homine vel laudi vel crimini verti potest. Plantis autem non congruebat benedictio, quia nullum habent sensum nullumque propagandae prolis affectum. Lege quae in hanc sententiam et Augustinus libro tertio de Genesi ad litteram, capite decimo tertio, et Beda in Hexameron scripserunt.
But why was that blessing of God, 'Increase and multiply,' not bestowed on the land animals likewise as on the aquatic ones? The Hebrews reply that the blessing was not given to the land animals because among them was the serpent, soon to seduce man, and on that account to be cursed by God. But the answer of others is more probable: that Moses wished what he had said about the blessing of the fishes to be understood also of the land animals; and not only in this, but in other matters too, from what is recorded by Moses in some one kind, like things in the others, which for brevity's sake are not stated, ought to be understood. But to man the blessing had to be assigned properly and separately, because in man there is a certain proper and singular manner of generation and multiplication—namely not only to preserve the species, but especially to fill up the number of the elect; and lest anyone should think that in the office of begetting there can be no sin of man. For although the function of generating is wholly natural in the other animals, yet in man it is partly natural and partly voluntary; and what in the others is capable of neither vice nor virtue, in man can be turned to either praise or blame. But the blessing did not suit the plants, because they have no sense and no affection for propagating offspring. Read what both Augustine wrote to this effect in the third book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter thirteen, and Bede in the Hexameron.7
Porro Philosophi quicumque arbitrati sunt mundum esse ab aliquo principio temporis factum, causam efficientem primorum animalium varie tradiderunt. Plato quidem in Timaeo, animalium opificium...
Furthermore, whatever philosophers judged that the world was made from some beginning of time handed down variously the efficient cause of the first animals. Plato indeed, in the Timaeus, [says that] the fashioning of the animals...8
...opificium, a primo et summo Deo demandatum esse, ait, diis secundis, per quos videtur intelligere sydera, vel daemones qui versantur in aere, et imperium habent in res caducas atque mortales. Epicurus putavit animalia omnia in exordio mundi, facta esse ex terra, ob eximiam terrae nascentis bonitatem, novorumque syderum efficaciam, Deo nihil ad eorum molitionem conferente: quam opinionem elegantissimis versibus libro quinto tractat Lucretius. Nec hoc videri debet mirum cuiquam, ut aiunt isti, cum etiam nunc ex terra imbribus madefacta, caloreque solis tepefacta, varias animantes gigni sciamus, sicut in locis Aegypti ubi stagnantes Nili aquae remanserunt. Lege quae in hanc sententiam copiose scribit Diodorus Siculus, libri primi capite primo. Avicenna opinatus est omnia animalia, cuiuscumque sint generis, non solum in principio potuisse, sed etiam nunc posse generari ex terra: in quam sententiam forte inductus est, verba Mosis, quae sunt hoc loco, Producat terra animam viventem, non satis intelligens. Sed constat inter melioris notae Philosophos, falsam esse opinionem Avicennae, adversus quam, nos etiam libro nostro de Philosophia octavo copiose disputavimus.
...the fashioning of the animals was, he says, entrusted by the first and highest God to the secondary gods, by whom he seems to understand the stars, or the demons who dwell in the air and have dominion over the perishable and mortal things. Epicurus thought that all the animals at the beginning of the world were made from the earth, on account of the surpassing goodness of the nascent earth and the efficacy of the new stars, God contributing nothing to their making; which opinion Lucretius treats in most elegant verses in the fifth book. Nor should this seem a wonder to anyone, as these men say, since even now we know that from the earth, soaked by rains and warmed by the heat of the sun, various living creatures are begotten, as in those places of Egypt where the standing waters of the Nile have remained. Read what Diodorus Siculus copiously writes to this effect, in the first chapter of the first book. Avicenna held that all animals, of whatever kind, not only could at the beginning, but even now can, be generated from the earth—an opinion into which he was perhaps led by not sufficiently understanding the words of Moses which are in this place, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature.' But it is agreed among the philosophers of better repute that Avicenna's opinion is false, against which we too have disputed copiously in the eighth book of our work On Philosophy.9
Beatus Augustinus libro tertio de Genesi ad litteram, capite decimoquarto, ponit hanc quaestionem, Verum in exordio mundi, cum Deus creavit terrestres animantes, etiam fecerit eas quae generantur ex putrescente materia vel terrae, vel aquae, vel stirpium, vel fructuum, vel ex tabe cadaverum et corruptione mortuorum animalium. Ad quam respondet, Quae ex mortuis animalibus generantur, ea videri absurdum facta esse in prima creatione animalium: tunc enim nullum fuit mortuum aut corruptum animal: quae autem ex vitio et corruptione aliarum rerum generantur, ea si tunc facta dicantur, nihil esse absurdi. Idem sentit et tradit Beatus Thomas prima parte, quaestione septuagesima secunda.
Blessed Augustine, in the third book On Genesis according to the Letter, chapter fourteen, poses this question: Whether at the beginning of the world, when God created the land animals, he also made those which are generated from putrefying matter—whether of earth, or of water, or of plants, or of fruits, or from the decay of carcasses and the corruption of dead animals. To which he answers: that those which are generated from dead animals seem absurd to have been made in the first creation of animals—for then there was no dead or corrupted animal; but those which are generated from the fault and corruption of other things, if they be said to have been made then, there is nothing absurd. The same Blessed Thomas holds and hands down, in the first part, question seventy-two.10
Sed hoc Augustini responsum duplici nomine posset improbari, tum quod est una ratio corruptionis plantarum atque animalium, quare aeque ac similiter vel utraque, vel neutra in illa prima mundi origine esse potuerunt, tum etiam quod istiusmodi animalia prima, non sunt facta ex putri vel corrupta materia, sed proxime a Deo, modo ceterorum animalium terrestrium, producta sunt ex terra, deinceps per causas secundas, et ex propriis materiis, sicut eorum natura poscit, progeneranda atque propaganda. Quemadmodum enim animalia perfecta, quae non nisi ex semine, et a sui similibus animantibus procreantur, in illa prima effectione rerum, et proxime a Deo, et ex terra sunt producta, sic quae secundum naturam, non aliter quam ex putri materia fiunt, tunc immensa Dei potestate, ex terra sunt condita. Certe Basilius Homilia septima in Genesim, perspicue docet eiusmodi animalia imperfecta, quaeque originem habent ex putrescente materia, in exordio...
But this answer of Augustine could be disproved on two counts: both because the manner of corruption of plants and of animals is one, so that equally and alike either both, or neither, could have existed in that first origin of the world; and also because such first animals were not made from putrid or corrupted matter, but were produced immediately by God, in the manner of the other land animals, from the earth, thereafter to be propagated and multiplied through secondary causes and from their own matters, as their nature requires. For just as the perfect animals, which are procreated only from seed and from animals like themselves, were in that first making of things produced both immediately by God and from the earth, so those which, according to nature, come to be in no other way than from putrid matter, were then, by the immense power of God, founded from the earth. Certainly Basil, in the seventh homily on Genesis, plainly teaches that such imperfect animals, which have their origin from putrefying matter, were at the beginning...11

...brought forth by God at the beginning of the world, in nearly these words: For not only in the sea or the rivers will the more perfect fishes be generated at God's command, but also in muddy and marshy places: for indeed the frogs, [gnats?], and the very midges were emerging from the lake-mud itself. Thus Basil.12

...in exordio mundi esse a Deo edita, his fere verbis. Non enim tantum in mari vel fluviis pisces perfectiores Dei iussu generabuntur, sed etiam in limosis et palustribus locis: etenim ranae, muliones, culices ipsi, ex ipso nimirum lacustri emergebant caeno. Sic Basilius.

Quanquam dici etiam potest, species istas animalium, tunc non esse actu productas, sed tantum causaliter et potentialiter: sevit enim Deus perfectiores species animantium, videlicet eas quae non nisi ab aliis animalibus generari possunt, ex quibus deinde, vel vivis vel mortuis, cetera imperfectiora naturalium causarum potentia procrearentur. Nec obstat, quod Deus mundum perfectum et consummatum fecisse dicitur, ob idque nullis carentem animalium speciebus: non enim mundus appellatur perfectus, vel vocatur universum quod nulla desit ei species rerum quoquo modo possibilis, alioqui ne nunc quidem perfectus esset, quinimo nunquam esse posset: quippe longe plures quam nunc sunt rerum species, et quibuscumque productis plures alias, et deinceps alias sine ullo termino posse a Deo produci, Theologiae institutis atque decretis eruditus nemo negabit. Multas item diversis seculis species, vel stirpium, vel animalium, vel metallorum, vel liquorum, vel condimentorum, atque medicamentorum, seu naturali diversorum animalium aliarumve rerum commistione, seu solertia et artificio hominum extitisse, hodieque exoriri, in confesso est apud omnes. Illud tamen videtur posse dici affirmate, animalia quae ex humani corporis aliqua corruptione vel intemperie in ipso gignuntur, et in eo non sine molestia et offensione hominis semper inhaerent, tunc non fuisse: eorum namque generationem foelicissimo illi hominis statui, valde alienam et indecoram fore arbitramur.
Although it may also be said that those species of animals were then not produced in act, but only causally and potentially: for God sowed the more perfect species of living creatures, namely those which can be generated only from other animals, from which afterward, whether living or dead, the other more imperfect ones might be procreated by the power of natural causes. Nor is it an obstacle that God is said to have made the world perfect and consummate, and therefore lacking no species of animals: for the world is not called perfect, nor named 'universe,' because no species of things in any way possible is wanting to it—otherwise it would not be perfect even now, nay, it could never be; since no one learned in the principles and decrees of Theology will deny that there are far more species of things than now exist, and that, whatever be produced, God can produce more others, and then others without any end. Likewise it is agreed among all that many species, in different ages—whether of plants, or animals, or metals, or liquids, or condiments and medicines—have come into existence, and today come forth, whether by the natural mingling of diverse animals or other things, or by the cleverness and art of men. This, however, seems able to be said with assurance: that the animals which are begotten from some corruption or distemper of the human body, and always cling within it not without the trouble and offense of man, did not then exist; for we judge their generation would be very foreign and unbecoming to that most happy state of man.13
Rupertus libro primo de Trinitate et operibus eius, capite quinquagesimoseptimo, tradit, animalia quae generantur ex coitione diversarum specierum, veluti mulus ex equa et asino, ex hirco et ove Tityrus, ex Leaena et Pardo Leopardus, ex Lupo et Cerva lynx, fieri praeter naturam, eorumque generationem esse adulterinam; quamobrem eiusmodi animalia in primordiis mundi non esse a Deo facta: cuius rei argumentum adducit, quod Deus in Levitico cap. 19. vetat eiusmodi animalium generationem ab hominibus procurari, tanquam rem abominandam: sic enim praecipit: Iumenta tua non facies coire alterius generis animantibus. Agrum tuum non seres diverso semine. Idemque confirmat Deuteronomii capit. 22. et inibi additur, Non arabis in bove simul et asino: Non indueris vestimento quod ex lana linoque contextum est.
Rupert, in the first book On the Trinity and his Works, chapter fifty-seven, hands down that the animals which are generated from the coupling of diverse species—such as the mule from a mare and an ass, the 'tityrus' from a he-goat and a ewe, the leopard from a lioness and a pard, the lynx from a wolf and a hind—come to be against nature, and that their generation is adulterous; wherefore such animals were not made by God at the beginnings of the world. As an argument for this he adduces that God in Leviticus, chapter 19, forbids the generation of such animals to be procured by men, as an abominable thing; for thus he commands: Thou shalt not make thy cattle to gender with beasts of any other kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with diverse seed. And the same he confirms in Deuteronomy, chapter 22, and there is added: Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together; thou shalt not be clothed with a garment that is woven of wool and linen.14
Non esse autem in principio mundi haec animalia producta a Deo, nec nisi multis post saeculis extitisse, indicio est, quod primus mortalium Ana (ut traditur tricesimosexto, capite Geneseos) auctor fuit generationis muli ex equa et asino: nam cum pasceret in deserto greges equarum et asinorum, fecit ut equae cum asinis miscerentur, indeque generarentur muli. Nam ubi Latinus interpres vertit, Iste est Ana qui invenit aquas calidas in solitudine, He-...
That these animals were not produced by God at the beginning of the world, and did not exist until many ages afterward, is indicated by this: that the first of mortals, Anah (as is related in the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis), was the author of the generation of the mule from a mare and an ass; for when he was pasturing in the desert the herds of mares and asses, he caused the mares to be mingled with the asses, and thence the mules to be generated. For where the Latin translator renders, 'This is the Anah who found the hot waters in the wilderness,' the He-...15
...braice Periti aiunt verbum Hebraeum ימים Iemim, quod illic est, non maria vel aquas, sed mulos significare, nostrumque Interpretem fortasse legisse pro Iemim, Iamim, quod maria significat. Suffragatur huic interpretationi Paraphrasis Chaldaica, quae eo ipso in loco sic habet, Ipse est Ana qui invenit fortes in deserto, per fortes significans mulos, animal robustissimum et ferendis oneribus validissimum. Scribunt Hebraei, Ana fuisse manserem, id est, spurium ex damnato coitu natum, filium videlicet fratris sui Sebeonis, qui commistus matri suae hunc genuit, Ana filium simul et fratrem suum: ut mirum non sit, eum qui tam degenere et vitiosa generatione sit editus, adulterinam quoque animantium generationem procurasse.
...the experts in Hebrew say that the Hebrew word ימים (yemim), which is there, signifies not seas or waters, but mules; and that our translator perhaps read, instead of yemim, yamim, which signifies seas. This interpretation is supported by the Chaldee Paraphrase, which in that very place has thus: This is the Anah who found the mighty ones in the desert—by 'the mighty ones' signifying the mules, a most robust animal and most strong for bearing burdens. The Hebrews write that Anah was a 'mamzer,' that is, a bastard born of a condemned union—namely the son of his own brother Zibeon, who, having mingled with his own mother, begot this Anah, his son and at once his brother: so that it is no wonder that he who was brought forth from so degenerate and vicious a generation should also have procured the adulterous generation of animals.16
At enim vero mea longe diversa est sententia: senseo equidem istiusmodi generationem animalium naturalem esse, cum fere omnia quae ad eam proficiendam conveniunt sint naturalia, hoc est, materia unde generantur, efficiens causa, locus, tempus, appetitus, convenientia naturalis inter mares et foeminas, denique nobilitas eiusmodi animalium, quae perfectissimis vel paria vel proxima sunt. Sed obiiciunt, eorum generationem lege Divina esse prohibitam atque damnatam: Verum germanam et propriam Divini illius praecepti sententiam et intellectum tradit Beatus Thomas in prima secundae, quaestione 102. articulo sexto, et his fere verbis exponit,
But in truth my opinion is far different: for I hold that this kind of generation of animals is natural, since nearly all the things that come together to bring it about are natural—that is, the matter from which they are generated, the efficient cause, the place, the time, the appetite, the natural agreement between males and females, and finally the nobility of such animals, which are either equal or close to the most perfect. But they object that their generation is forbidden and condemned by the Divine law. But the genuine and proper meaning and understanding of that Divine precept Blessed Thomas hands down in the First of the Second part, question 102, article six, and expounds it in nearly these words:17

Concerning the coupling of animals of diverse species, a threefold literal reason can be given. One indeed, for the detestation of the idolatry of the Egyptians, who used diverse minglings of animals and plants and other things in the service of the planets, which according to their diverse conjunctions have diverse effects, and over diverse species of things. The second reason is, to exclude intercourse contrary to nature. The third reason is, to take away universally the occasion of concupiscence: for animals of diverse species are not easily mingled with one another unless this be procured by men, and at the sight of the coupling of animals a motion of concupiscence is stirred up in man; whence also in the traditions of the Jews, as Rabbi Moses reports, it is commanded that men avert their eyes from animals coupling. There was also a figurative reason for that precept: that cattle—that is, common men—should not couple, that is, have fellowship and intercourse, with animals of another kind, that is, with Jews, Heretics, Pagans, lest, namely, by their intercourse and familiarity, they be drawn also to their vices and errors. Thus St. Thomas.18

Circa coitionem animalium diversae speciei, ratio litteris triplex reddi potest. Una quidem ad detestationem idololatriae Aegyptiorum, qui diversis commistionibus animalium et plantarum aliarumque rerum utebantur in servitium planetarum, qui secundum diversas coniunctiones habent diversos effectus, et super diversas species rerum. Altera ratio est, ad excludendum concubitum contra naturam. tertia ratio est, ad tollendam universaliter occasionem concupiscentiae: animalia enim diversarum specierum non facile commiscentur invicem, nisi hoc per homines procuretur, in aspectu autem coitus animalium, excitatur homini concupiscentiae motus: unde et in traditionibus Iudaeorum, ut refert Rabbi Moyses, praecipitur, ut homines avertant oculos ab animalibus coeuntibus. Figuralis etiam ratio eius praecepti fuit, ne iumenta, id est, populares homines, coeant, id est, societatem et commercium habeant, cum alterius generis animantibus, hoc est, cum Iudaeis, Haereticis, Paganis, ne videlicet eorum commercio et consuetudine, ad eorum quoque vitia et errores pertrahantur. Haec S. Thomas.

Caietanus autem in commentario super illum locum Levitici ad hunc modum scribit, Perspicuum est, isto Dei praecepto non prohiberi generationem mulorum et equarum, tum quia huiusmodi animalium usus legitur apud Hebraeos, sicut patet secundi Regum decimotertio et decimooctavo, et tertii Regum capite primo et decimooctavo, et primi Esdrae, capite secundo, et apud Isaiam capite sexagesimosexto, tum praecipue quia Beatus Paulus absurdum reputat quod Deus legem statuat bobus: Ideo hoc praeceptum, altero duorum sensuum intelligendum est, vel superstitiose vel parabolice. Superstitiose quidem, ut intelligatur prohiberi imitatio superstitionum gentilium, ut quemadmodum in Evangelio dicitur, Orantes nolite multum loqui, sicut Ethnici faciunt, ita...
But Cajetan, in his commentary on that passage of Leviticus, writes in this manner: It is plain that by this precept of God the generation of mules and mares is not forbidden, both because the use of such animals is read of among the Hebrews—as is clear from 2 Samuel 13 and 18, and 1 Kings 1 and 18, and Ezra 2, and in Isaiah 66—and especially because Blessed Paul reckons it absurd that God should make a law for oxen. Therefore this precept must be understood in one of two senses, either superstitiously or parabolically. Superstitiously indeed, so that it be understood that the imitation of the superstitions of the gentiles is forbidden—as, just as in the Gospel it is said, When you pray, do not speak much, as the heathens do, so...19
...hic intelligatur prohiberi commistio animalium diversae speciei, non absolute, sed more Ethnicorum. Si vero parabolicus est sermo, sicut et ille, Non alligabis os bovi trituranti, in promptu est ratio huiusmodi parabolae: prohibetur enim ea similitudine, ut homo abstineat penitus a novitatibus praeter rationem: mistio enim animalium novum parit animal praeter naturam, et neutrius speciei. Hactenus Caietanus.
...here it be understood that the mingling of animals of diverse species is forbidden, not absolutely, but after the manner of the gentiles. But if the discourse is parabolic, like that other one, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn, the reason of such a parable is ready at hand: for by that similitude it is forbidden that a man wholly abstain from novelties beyond reason; for the mingling of animals begets a new animal contrary to nature, and of neither species. Thus far Cajetan.20
Porro argumentum illud ex tricesimo sexto capite Geneseos, quo significatur Anam auctorem fuisse generationis mulorum, facillime dissolvitur: tum quia, ut eam lectionem et interpretationem admittamus, non continuo tamen efficitur, mulos non fuisse productos a Deo in mundi exordio, aut ante Anam nusquam fuisse, sed illum fuisse inventorem eiusmodi commistionis et generationis animalium in illa regione, et apud illam gentem. Quanquam de vera illius loci sententia et interpretatione, iam olim etiam ante Hieronymum varias fuisse opiniones, liquet ex his quae scribit Hieronymus in libro suo de traditionibus Hebraicis super Genesim: tractans enim hunc locum ita scribit,
Furthermore, that argument from the thirty-sixth chapter of Genesis, by which Anah is signified to have been the author of the generation of mules, is very easily dissolved: both because, even granting that reading and interpretation, it does not at once follow that mules were not produced by God at the beginning of the world, or that they nowhere existed before Anah, but [only] that he was the inventor of this kind of mingling and generation of animals in that region and among that people. And that there were various opinions, even long ago and before Jerome, about the true sense and interpretation of that passage, is clear from what Jerome writes in his book On the Hebrew Traditions on Genesis; for, treating this passage, he writes thus:21

“Many and various things are disputed among the Hebrews about this little chapter; for among the Greeks and our own writers there is silence about it. Some think that Iamim means 'seas'; for 'seas' are written with the same letters as this passage is now written. And they hold that he, while pasturing his father's asses in the desert, found gatherings of waters, which by the idiom of the Hebrew tongue are called 'seas'; namely that he found a pool, the discovery of which is a difficult thing in the wilderness. Some think that by this word are signified 'hot waters,' according to the neighborhood of the Punic tongue, which borders on the Hebrew. There are those who suppose that wild asses (onagers) were here admitted to the she-asses, and that he discovered this kind of coupling, so that from them might be born the swiftest asses, which are called Iamim. Most think that he was the first to cause the herds of mares in the desert to be mounted by asses, so that from them the new animals, the mules, contrary to nature, might be born.” Thus Jerome.22

Multa et varia apud Hebraeos de hoc capitulo disputantur: apud Graecos quippe et nostros, super hoc silentium est. Alii putant, Iamim maria appellata: iisdem enim litteris scribuntur maria, quibus et nunc hic sermo descriptus est. Et voluit illum, dum pascit asinos patris sui in deserto, aquarum congregationes reperisse, quae iuxta idioma linguae Hebraicae maria nuncupentur; quod scilicet stagnum repererit, cuius rei inventio, in eremo difficilis est. Nonnulli putant, aquas calidas, iuxta Punicae linguae viciniam quae Hebraeae contermina est, hoc vocabulo signari. Sunt qui arbitrentur, onagros ad hoc admissos esse ad asinas, et ipsum istiusmodi reperisse concubitum, ut velocissimi ex his asini nascerentur qui vocantur Iamim. Plerique putant, quod equarum greges ab asinis in deserto ipse fecerit primus ascendi; ut mulorum inde nova contra naturam animalia nascerentur. Sic Hieronymus.

At Hieronymus Oleaster magna linguae Hebreae scientiam professus, contendit per vocem illam ימים Iemim, denotari venam aquae falsae, quae ibi more sacrarum litterarum appellatur mare, ut quia tale inventum usque ad illam aetatem novum erat, praesertim in deserto, propterea eo nomine memorabilis fuerit auctor eius Ana. Affirmat autem Oleaster, vocabulum ימים Iemim, nusquam in Scriptura significare mulos. Manifestum igitur est ex illo Scripturae loco, invalide probari generationem eiusmodi animalium aut esse contra naturam, aut in prima illa mundi origine non fuisse. Sed cur eodem die et homo, et animantes terrestres conditae sunt? An quia utraque pertinent ad terrae complementum et ornamentum? utrorumque enim sedes et domicilium est in terra. An quia terrestres animantes sunt similiores homini, praestantioresque ceteris? An quia magis sunt domesticae et familiares nobis, magisque capaces et participes humanae consuetudinis et disciplinae? An denique quia magis sunt in usu et utilitate hominum? illis enim utimur ad cibum, ad vestitum, ad vectationes, ad custodiam nostri nostrarumque...
But Jerome Oleaster, professing a great knowledge of the Hebrew tongue, contends that by that word ימים (yemim) is denoted a vein of salt water, which there, after the manner of the sacred writings, is called a 'sea'; so that, because such a find was a novelty up to that age, especially in the desert, therefore the author of it, Anah, became memorable by that name. And Oleaster affirms that the word ימים (yemim) nowhere in Scripture signifies mules. It is therefore manifest that from that passage of Scripture it is weakly proved that the generation of such animals is either against nature, or did not exist at that first origin of the world. But why were both man and the land animals created on the same day? Is it because both pertain to the completion and adornment of the earth?—for the seat and dwelling of both is on the earth. Or because the land animals are more like to man, and more excellent than the rest? Or because they are more domestic and familiar to us, and more capable of and partaking in human society and discipline? Or finally because they are more in the use and benefit of men?—for we use them for food, for clothing, for carriage, for the guarding of ourselves and of our...23
...rerum, ad venationes, ad gerenda bella, ad medicinam et remedia morborum, denique ad multiplicem oblectationem atque voluptatem.
...goods, for hunting, for the waging of wars, for medicine and the remedies of diseases, and finally for manifold delight and pleasure.24
Postremo, vetus quaestio est, non prorsus intacta hoc loco relinquenda, utrum facta sint aliqua animalia in elemento ignis sicut in terra et in aqua: nam esse genus aliquod animalium in igne sicut multa sunt in terra in aquis et aere, et ratio ipsa suadet, et ordo naturae perfectaque omnium partium eius dispositio deposcit, et probat experientia. Etenim cum ignis multis rebus praestantior sit ceteris elementis, consentaneum videtur, ut si haec plena sunt animalium, ille ab omni genere animantium non sit vacuus. Atque hoc innuere videtur Aristoteles cum libro tertio, de Generatione animalium capite 11. ita scribat,
Finally, there is an old question, not to be left wholly untouched in this place: whether any animals were made in the element of fire, as in earth and in water. For that there is some kind of animal in fire, as there are many in earth, in the waters, and in the air, both reason itself persuades, and the order of nature and the perfect disposition of all its parts demands, and experience proves. For since fire is in many respects more excellent than the other elements, it seems agreeable that, if these are full of animals, it should not be empty of every kind of living creature. And this Aristotle seems to intimate, when in the third book On the Generation of Animals, chapter 11, he writes thus:25

“Each single element is the seat and dwelling of certain things which are born and live in it: for one would set down plants as inhabitants of the earth; the aquatic kind of animals, of the water; the walking kind, of the air. A fourth kind is not to be sought in these places, although the order [of nature] requires that something should belong to fire, for that is reckoned the fourth body. But fire seems never to have a form of its own, but in another body; for what is set on fire seems to be either air, or smoke, or earth. But this kind is to be sought near the Moon, for she seems to attain to that fourth distance; but of these things elsewhere.” Thus Aristotle.26

Unum quodque elementum sedes et domicilium est aliquorum quae in ipso nascuntur et degunt: plantas enim terrae incolas quispiam esse statuerit; aquae aquatile animalium genus; aeris pedestre. Quartum genus non his locis quaerendum est, quanquam aliquid esse exigit ordine ignis, id enim quartum corpus enumeratur. Verum ignis semper formam non propriam habere videtur, sed in alio corpore: aut enim aer, aut fumus, aut terra esse videtur quod ignitum est. Sed enim genus hoc apud Lunam quaerendum est, haec enim quartam illam distantiam adipisci videtur, sed de his alias. Sic Aristoteles.

Proditum est ab antiquis, vulgoque iactatum, quaedam esse animalia quae gignantur in igne, et ab eo paulo longius remota continuo intereant: quam historiam et probavit Aristoteles, et libro quinto, de Historia animalium capite decimonono, his verbis retulit,
It has been handed down by the ancients, and commonly bruited, that there are certain animals which are begotten in fire, and which, removed a little farther from it, at once perish; which account Aristotle both approved and related, in the fifth book of the History of Animals, chapter nineteen, in these words:27

“In the island of Cyprus, in the copper-smelting furnaces, where the chalcite stone, heaped in, is burned for several days, little winged creatures are born in the midst of the fire, a little larger than big flies, which leap and walk through the fire; and this kind also dies when it is removed from the fire.” That there are some bodies of animals which are not consumed by it, the Salamander is a clear proof; which, as they say, walking through the fire, puts it out.28

In Cypro insula aerariis fornacibus, ubi chalcites lapis ingestus compluribus diebus crematur, bestiolae in medio igne nascuntur pennatae, paulo muscis grandibus maiores, quae per ignem saliant atque ambulent; emoritur et hoc genus cum ab igne remotum est. Nonnulla corpora esse animalium quae ab ipso non absumantur, Salamandra claro documento est; quae, ut aiunt, per ignem inambulans eum extinguit.

Similia narrat Plinius libro duodecimo, capite trigesimosexto. Balbus apud Ciceronem libro secundo, de Natura deorum esse animalia in igne, confirmat Aristotelis testimonio: Sic autem ait,
Pliny relates similar things in the twelfth book, chapter thirty-six. Balbus, in Cicero's second book On the Nature of the Gods, confirms by the testimony of Aristotle that there are animals in fire; and he speaks thus:29

“Since therefore the origin of some living creatures is in earth, of others in water, of others in air, it seems absurd to Aristotle that in that part which is most apt for generating animals, no animal should be thought to be generated. But the stars hold the aethereal place: which, since it is most rarefied and is always in motion and vigor, it is necessary that whatever animal is generated in it be both of the keenest sense and of the swiftest mobility; wherefore, since the stars are generated in the aether, it is agreeable that there be in them sense and intelligence.”30

Cum igitur aliorum animantium ortus in terra sit, aliorum in aqua, in aere aliorum; absurdum esse Aristoteli videtur, in ea parte quae sit ad gignenda animalia aptissima, animal gigni nullum putare. Sydera autem aethereum locum obtinent: qui quoniam tenuissimus est et semper agitatur et viget; necesse est quod animal in eo gignatur, idem et sensu acerrimo, et mobilitate celerrima esse, quare cum in aethere astra gignantur; consentaneum est in iis sensum inesse, et intelligentiam.

Verum Balbus eo loco amplissime sumit nomen ignis, ut videlicet comprehendat etiam astra, quae Stoici quorum Balbus inibi causam agit, ignea esse censebant. Nec diversa scribit Ovidius libro primo Metamorphoseos:
But Balbus in that place takes the name 'fire' in the widest sense, so as to comprehend also the stars, which the Stoics—whose cause Balbus there pleads—held to be fiery. Nor does Ovid write differently in the first book of the Metamorphoses:31

And lest any region should be bereft of its own living creatures, the stars and the forms of the gods possess the celestial floor; the waters fell to be inhabited by the gleaming fishes; the earth received the wild beasts; the moving air, the birds.32

Neu regio foret ulla suis animalibus orba, Astra tenent Caeleste solum, formaeque deorum, Cesserunt nitidis habitandae piscibus undae: Terra feras cepit, volucres agitabilis aer.

Caeterum, ut in igne gignatur et vivat ullum animal, qui paulo attentiori animo et vim ignis, et naturam animalis aestimaverit, fieri non posse comperiet. Etenim tanta est vis et efficacitas ignis, ut quodcumque animal comprehenderit, vel ilico vel paulatim totum conficiat atque consumat, necesse sit: praesertim vero quia non potest constare animal sine tactu, qui cum in primarum qualitatum temperatione consistat, necesse est, ut ab exuperante quacumque qualitate, maxime vero calore corrumpatur atque dissolvatur. Certe Aristoteles libro secundo de Generatione animalium, capite tertio, libro item quarto Meteororum, in capite primo summae secundae, et in libro secundo de Generatione et corruptione, text. vicesimoprimo, affirmatissime tradit, nullum animal ex igne generari aut in igne vivere posse. nam quae in igne dicitur esse, ea quidem propter frigidissimam corporis constitutionem in locis calidissimis et propter ignes procreantur, nec inde longius sine interitu recedunt.
But that any animal should be generated and live in fire, whoever shall weigh with a little more attentive mind both the force of fire and the nature of an animal will find it cannot be. For so great is the force and efficacy of fire that it must, of necessity, either at once or gradually finish off and consume whatever animal it has seized; especially since an animal cannot subsist without touch, which, since it consists in the temperament of the primary qualities, must necessarily be corrupted and dissolved by any excessive quality, but most of all by heat. Certainly Aristotle, in the second book On the Generation of Animals, chapter three, and likewise in the fourth book of the Meteorology, in the first chapter of the second part, and in the second book On Generation and Corruption, text twenty-one, hands down most affirmatively that no animal can be generated from fire or live in fire. For the creatures said to be 'in fire' are procreated, on account of the very cold constitution of their body, in the hottest places and because of the fires, and do not withdraw far from there without perishing.33
Quantum autem in eiusmodi animalibus insit frigoris, vel unius Salamandrae patet indicio, non nisi magnis imbribus provenientis et serenitate deficientis; cui tantus rigor est, ut ignem tactu extinguat, non alio modo quam glacies: eiusdem sanie quae lactea ore vomitur, quacumque parte corporis humani contacta, toti defluunt pili, idque quod contactum est, colorem in vitiliginem mutat, ita scribit Plinius libro decimo capite sexagesimoseptimo. Opinionem namque veterum in vulgus probatam, in mediis ignibus vivere Salamandram, refellit Galenus libro tertio de Temperamentis, et Dioscorides lib. 2. capite quinquagesimosexto, quem locum explanans Matthiolus in Commentariis suis super Dioscoridem, affirmat se eandem opinionem, multis Salamandris periclitandi experiendique causa, in ignem coniectis brevique consumptis, falsam comperisse. Quod autem Aristoteles dixit, in elemento ignis etiam versari animalia; id sane dixit secundum opinionem veterum, qui caelum natura ignea constare, et quae in ea versantur astra, viventia et intelligentia esse existimarent.
But how much cold is in such animals is plain even from the single instance of the salamander, which comes forth only in heavy rains and fails in clear weather; whose chill is so great that it extinguishes fire by its touch, in no other way than ice does: with its milky ooze, which it vomits from its mouth, whatever part of the human body is touched, all the hairs fall off, and that which is touched changes its color to a white blotch (vitiligo)—so Pliny writes in the tenth book, chapter sixty-seven. For the opinion of the ancients, commonly received, that the salamander lives in the midst of fires, Galen refutes in the third book On the Temperaments, and Dioscorides in book 2, chapter fifty-six; explaining which passage, Mattioli, in his Commentaries on Dioscorides, affirms that he found that same opinion false—many salamanders, for the sake of testing and experiment, having been cast into the fire and quickly consumed. But as for what Aristotle said, that animals dwell even in the element of fire, he said this indeed according to the opinion of the ancients, who held the heaven to consist of a fiery nature, and the stars that dwell in it to be living and intelligent.34

Translator’s notes

  1. Section heading for the Sixth Day: the creation of the land animals and of man (Genesis 1:24ff.). ↩
  2. The scripture lemma for the Sixth Day, Genesis 1:24. ↩
  3. The decorated initial begins 'Hoc.' Pererius defers the creation of man to books 4 and 5 of his work. Genesis 1:24 calls the land animals simply 'living soul,' marking their superiority to fish ('creeping thing of living soul'). ↩
  4. Marginal gloss: 'Cajetan on Genesis.' The land animals are from earth as their matter (in which earth predominates), not as an active cause—God is the maker. Pererius condemns the Pythagorean/Porphyrian error (animal souls immortal and like ours, i.e. transmigration). Sentence continues onto p. 154 ('...in idem numero [non conveniunt]'). ↩
  5. Completes (from p. 153) the point that 'let the earth bring forth' denotes earth as matter, not as efficient cause (matter and efficient cause cannot be the same individual). Different regions yield different animals. ↩
  6. Marginal gloss: 'The three kinds of land animals.' The three Genesis kinds—iumenta (cattle), bestiae (wild beasts), reptilia (creeping things)—plus the Septuagint's 'four-footed beasts.' Plato, Statesman (two kinds); Aristotle, Historia animalium 1 (three kinds). ↩
  7. Marginal gloss: 'Why God did not bless the land animals.' Why no explicit blessing of the land animals (it is understood from the fish-blessing); but man is blessed separately because human generation is partly voluntary, capable of merit or sin, and serves to fill the number of the elect. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 3.13; Bede. ↩
  8. Marginal gloss: 'The various opinions of the philosophers on the efficient cause of the first generation of animals.' Begins a survey of pagan views (Plato, Epicurus, Avicenna); continues onto p. 155. ↩
  9. Plato, Timaeus (the demiurge entrusting the animals to 'secondary gods'); Epicurus and Lucretius (book 5, animals from earth); spontaneous generation along the Nile; Diodorus Siculus 1.1; Avicenna (animals generable from earth even now—rejected). Pererius's own De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis, bk. 8. ↩
  10. Marginal glosses: 'A question, whether at the beginning of the world there were created the animals that are generated from putrid matter'; and 'Augustine's opinion is refuted on two counts.' Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram 3.14, on spontaneously-generated creatures; Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 72. ↩
  11. Pererius's two objections to Augustine: the corruption of plants and animals is on a par; and the spontaneously-generated creatures were made directly by God from the earth (like the rest), not from putrid matter. Basil, Hexameron homily 7, follows; continues onto p. 156. ↩
  12. Quotation from Basil, Hexameron homily 7 (on the spontaneous emergence of lesser creatures—frogs, gnats, midges—from marshy mud at creation). The middle word 'muliones' is an uncertain reading in the original (some small marsh-creature). ↩
  13. Marginal gloss: 'In what way the world is called perfect, or named universe.' An alternative: the imperfect creatures were made causally. The world is not 'perfect' by containing every possible species (God can always make more); new species arise over the ages; but parasites of the human body did not exist in man's happy (pre-Fall) state. ↩
  14. Marginal glosses: 'Rupert's opinion is weighed, that the animals generated from the mixture of diverse species of animals are against nature'; and 'That animals procreated from diverse seeds were not produced at the beginning of the world.' Rupert, De sancta Trinitate 1.57, on hybrids (mule, 'tityrus,' leopard, lynx) as unnatural, citing the prohibitions of Leviticus 19:19 and Deuteronomy 22:9–11. ↩
  15. Genesis 36:24 (Anah, who 'found' the hot springs—or, per the rabbis, invented mules—in the desert). The Vulgate's 'aquas calidas' (hot waters) is contrasted with the Hebrew reading below. Sentence continues onto p. 157. ↩
  16. The Hebrew הַיֵּמִם / ימים (yemim) in Genesis 36:24, of uncertain meaning: the rabbis read it as 'mules' (the Targum: 'the mighty ones'), whereas the Vulgate read yamim ('seas/hot waters'). The Hebrews call Anah a mamzer (bastard) born of Zibeon's incest—fittingly the inventor of hybrid breeding. ↩
  17. Marginal glosses: 'The author's opinion on the generation of animals from the mixture of diverse species'; and 'The passage of Leviticus chapter 19 and Deuteronomy 22 is explained.' Pererius (against Rupert) holds hybrid generation is natural; the Levitical prohibition is explained via Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 102, a. 6 (quoted next). ↩
  18. Quotation from Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 102, a. 6: the threefold literal sense of the Levitical ban on hybridizing (against Egyptian astral idolatry, against unnatural intercourse, against occasion of lust), plus the figurative sense. 'Rabbi Moses' = Maimonides. ↩
  19. Marginal references: '1 Corinthians 9' (Paul: 'Doth God care for oxen?', 1 Cor 9:9) and 'Matthew 6' (Matt 6:7, on praying like the heathens). Cajetan on Leviticus 19:19: the precept does not literally ban mule-breeding (since Hebrews used mules—2 Sam, 1 Kings, Ezra, Isaiah), but is to be read superstitiously (against pagan rites) or parabolically. Sentence continues onto p. 158 (catchword 'hic in'). ↩
  20. Completes (from p. 157) Cajetan's exposition of the Levitical hybrid-ban: read either as forbidding pagan-style mingling, or parabolically (like 'thou shalt not muzzle the ox,' Deut 25:4 / 1 Cor 9:9), against unreasonable novelties. ↩
  21. Marginal gloss: 'The passage of Genesis chapter 36 is unraveled.' Pererius dismisses the Anah argument; even granting it, it shows only that Anah invented hybrid-breeding locally. Jerome, Liber de quaestionibus hebraicis in Genesim (on Gen 36:24), is quoted next. ↩
  22. Quotation from Jerome, Liber de quaestionibus hebraicis in Genesim, on Genesis 36:24: a survey of the disputed meanings of the Hebrew word—'seas/pools of water,' 'hot waters' (from Punic), swift wild-ass crossbreeds ('Iamim'), or 'mules.' ↩
  23. Marginal gloss: 'Why on the same day the land animals and man were created.' Jerome Oleaster (Jerónimo de Azambuja), a Hebraist, reads ימים (yemim) as a salt-water spring, denying it means 'mules.' Then: why land animals and man share the sixth day (both belong to the earth; the beasts are nearest, tamest, and most useful to man). Sentence continues onto p. 159's lower text. ↩
  24. Completes the catalogue of the uses of land animals to man. ↩
  25. Marginal gloss: 'A question, whether some kind of animal is generated and lives in the element of fire.' The old question of fire-dwelling creatures; Aristotle, De generatione animalium 3.11, is quoted next. ↩
  26. Quotation from Aristotle, De generatione animalium 3.11: each element houses its own creatures (earth-plants, water-fish, air-walkers); a 'fourth kind' belonging to fire is to be sought near the Moon (the sphere of fire). ↩
  27. Lead-in to Aristotle, Historia animalium 5.19, on the fire-born creatures of the Cyprus furnaces. ↩
  28. Quotation from Aristotle, Historia animalium 5.19: the winged fire-creatures of the Cyprus copper furnaces (the 'pyrausta'), and the salamander said to quench fire. ↩
  29. Pliny, Natural History 12.36; lead-in to the quotation from Cicero, De natura deorum 2 (the Stoic Balbus, citing Aristotle). ↩
  30. Quotation from Cicero, De natura deorum 2 (Balbus, paraphrasing Aristotle): the aether being most apt for life, the stars generated there must be sentient and intelligent. ↩
  31. Balbus's 'fire' includes the (Stoic) fiery stars. Lead-in to Ovid, Metamorphoses 1, quoted on p. 160. ↩
  32. Ovid, Metamorphoses 1.72–75: each region of the world is given its own inhabitants—stars (and gods) the heaven, fish the waters, beasts the earth, birds the air. ↩
  33. Pererius's refutation: fire destroys any animal (which cannot subsist without the sense of touch, dissolved by excessive heat). Cites Aristotle, De generatione animalium 2.3, Meteorologica 4.1, and De generatione et corruptione 2 (text 21): no animal lives in fire; the 'fire-creatures' are merely very cold-bodied animals drawn to hot places. ↩
  34. Marginal gloss: 'The nature of the salamander is described.' The salamander's extreme cold (Pliny, NH 10.67). The vulgar belief that it lives in fire is refuted by Galen (De temperamentis 3), Dioscorides (2.56), and Mattioli (who burned many salamanders to test it). Aristotle spoke of fire-animals only following the ancient view that the heaven and stars are living fire. This closes the digression on fire-creatures. ↩