we have thus spoken of the generation of animals both generally and separately in all the different classes. but, since male and female are distinct in the most perfect of them, and since we say that the sexes are first principles of all living things whether animals or plants, only in some of them the sexes are separated and in others not, therefore we must speak first of the origin of the sexes in the latter. for while the animal is still imperfect in its kind the distinction is already made between male and female.

it is disputed, however, whether the embryo is male or female, as the case may be, even before the distinction is plain to our senses, and further whether it is thus differentiated within the mother or even earlier. it is said by some, as by anaxagoras and other of the physicists, that this antithesis exists from the beginning in the germs or seeds; for the germ, they say, comes from the male while the female only provides the place in which it is to be developed, and the male is from the right, the female from the left testis, and so also that the male embryo is in the right of the uterus, the female in the left. others, as empedocles, say that the differentiation takes place in the uterus; for he says that if the uterus is hot or cold what enters it becomes male or female, the cause of the heat or cold being the flow of the catamenia, according as it is colder or hotter, more ‘antique’ or more ‘recent’. democritus of abdera also says that the differentiation of sex takes place within the mother; that however it is not because of heat and cold that one embryo becomes female and another male, but that it depends on the question which parent it is whose semen prevails — not the whole of the semen, but that which has come from the part by which male and female differ from one another. this is a better theory, for certainly empedocles has made a rather light-hearted assumption in thinking that the difference between them is due only to cold and heat, when he saw that there was a great difference in the whole of the sexual parts, the difference in fact between the male pudenda and the uterus. for suppose two animals already moulded in embryo, the one having all the parts of the female, the other those of the male; suppose them then to be put into the uterus as into an oven, the former when the oven is hot, the latter when it is cold; then on the view of empedocles that which has no uterus will be female and that which has will be male. but this is impossible. thus the theory of democritus would be the better of the two, at least as far as this goes, for he seeks for the origin of this difference and tries to set it forth; whether he does so well or not is another question.

again, if heat and cold were the cause of the difference of the parts, this ought to have been stated by those who maintain the view of empedocles; for to explain the origin of male and female is practically the same thing as to explain this, which is the manifest difference between them. and it is no small matter, starting from temperature as a principle, to collect the cause of the origin of these parts, as if it were a necessary consequence for this part which they call the uterus to be formed in the embryo under the influence of cold but not under that of heat. the same applies also to the parts which serve for intercourse, since these also differ in the way stated previously.

moreover male and female twins are often found together in the same part of the uterus; this we have observed sufficiently by dissection in all the vivipara, both land animals and fish. now if empedocles had not seen this it was only natural for him to fall into error in assigning this cause of his; but if he had seen it it is strange that he should still think the heat or cold of the uterus to be the cause, since on his theory both these twins would have become either male or female, but as it is we do not see this to be the fact.

again he says that the parts of the embryo are ‘sundered’, some being in the male and some in the female parent, which is why they desire intercourse with one another. if so it is necessary that the sexual parts like the rest should be separated from one another, already existing as masses of a certain size, and that they should come into being in the embryo on account of uniting with one another, not on account of cooling or heating of the semen. but perhaps it would take too long to discuss thoroughly such a cause as this which is stated by empedocles, for its whole character seems to be fanciful. if, however, the facts about semen are such as we have actually stated, if it does not come from the whole of the body of the male parent and if the secretion of the male does not give any material at all to the embryo, then we must make a stand against both empedocles and democritus and any one else who argues on the same lines. for then it is not possible that the body of the embryo should exist ‘sundered’, part in the female parent and part in the male, as empedocles says in the words: ‘but the nature of the limbs hath been sundered, part in the man’s . . . ’; nor yet that a whole embryo is drawn off from each parent and the combination of the two becomes male or female according as one part prevails over another.

and, to take a more general view, though it is better to say that the one part makes the embryo female by prevailing through some superiority than to assign nothing but heat as the cause without any reflection, yet, as the form of the pudendum also varies along with the uterus from that of the father, we need an explanation of the fact that both these parts go along with each other. if it is because they are near each other, then each of the other parts also ought to go with them, for one of the prevailing parts is always near another part where the struggle is not yet decided; thus the offspring would be not only female or male but also like its mother or father respectively in all other details.

besides, it is absurd to suppose that these parts should come into being as something isolated, without the body as a whole having changed along with them. take first and foremost the blood-vessels, round which the whole mass of the flesh lies as round a framework. it is not reasonable that these should become of a certain quality because of the uterus, but rather that the uterus should do so on account of them. for though it is true that each is a receptacle of blood of some kind, still the system of the vessels is prior to the other; the moving principle must needs always be prior to that which it moves, and it is because it is itself of a certain quality that it is the cause of the development. the difference, then, of these parts as compared with each other in the two sexes is only a concomitant result; not this but something else must be held to be the first principle and the cause of the development of an embryo as male or female; this is so even if no semen is secreted by either male or female, but the embryo is formed in any way you please.

the same argument as that with which we meet empedocles and democritus will serve against those who say that the male comes from the right and the female from the left. if the male contributes no material to the embryo, there can be nothing in this view. if, as they say, he does contribute something of the sort, we must confront them in the same way as we did the theory of empedocles, which accounts for the difference between male and female by the heat and cold of the uterus. they make the same mistake as he does, when they account for the difference by their ‘right and left’, though they see that the sexes differ actually by the whole of the sexual parts; for what reason then is the body of the uterus to exist in those embryos which come from the left and not in those from the right? for if an embryo have come from the left but has not acquired this part, it will be a female without a uterus, and so too there is nothing to stop another from being a male with a uterus! besides as has been said before, a female embryo has been observed in the right part of the uterus, a male in the left, or again both at once in the same part, and this not only once but several times.

some again, persuaded of the truth of a view resembling that of these philosophers, say that if a man copulates with the right or left testis tied up the result is male or female offspring respectively; so at least leophanes asserted. and some say that the same happens in the case of those who have one or other testis excised, not speaking truth but vaticinating what will happen from probabilities and jumping at the conclusion that it is so before seeing that it proves to be so. moreover, they know not that these parts of animals contribute nothing to the production of one sex rather than the other; a proof of this is that many animals in which the distinction of sex exists, and which produce both male and female offspring, nevertheless have no testes, as the footless animals; i mean the classes of fish and of serpents.

to suppose, then, either that heat and cold are the causes of male and female, or that the different sexes come from the right and left, is not altogether unreasonable in itself; for the right of the body is hotter than the left, and the concocted semen is hotter than the unconcocted; again, the thickened is concocted, and the more thickened is more fertile. yet to put it in this way is to seek for the cause from too remote a starting-point; we must draw near the immediate causes in so far as it is possible for us.

we have, then, previously spoken elsewhere of both the body as a whole and its parts, explaining what each part is and for what reason it exists. but (1) the male and female are distinguished by a certain capacity and incapacity. (for the male is that which can concoct the blood into semen and which can form and secrete and discharge a semen carrying with it the principle of form — by ‘principle’ i do not mean a material principle out of which comes into being an offspring resembling the parent, but i mean the first moving cause, whether it have power to act as such in the thing itself or in something else — but the female is that which receives semen, indeed, but cannot form it for itself or secrete or discharge it.) and (2) all concoction works by means of heat. therefore the males of animals must needs be hotter than the females. for it is by reason of cold and incapacity that the female is more abundant in blood in certain parts of her anatomy, and this abundance is an evidence of the exact opposite of what some suppose, thinking that the female is hotter than the male for this reason, i.e. the discharge of the catamenia. it is true that blood is hot, and that which has more of it is hotter than that which has less. but they assume that this discharge occurs through excess of blood and of heat, as if it could be taken for granted that all blood is equally blood if only it be liquid and sanguineous in colour, and as if it might not become less in quantity but purer in quality in those who assimilate nourishment properly. in fact they look upon this residual discharge in the same light as that of the intestines, when they think that a greater amount of it is a sign of a hotter nature, whereas the truth is just the opposite. for consider the production of fruit; the nutriment in its first stage is abundant, but the useful product derived from it is small, indeed the final result is nothing at all compared to the quantity in the first stage. so is it with the body; the various parts receive and work up the nutriment, from the whole of which the final result is quite small. this is blood in some animals, in some its analogue. now since (1) the one sex is able and the other is unable to reduce the residual secretion to a pure form, and (2) every capacity or power in an organism has a certain corresponding organ, whether the faculty produces the desired results in a lower degree or in a higher degree, and the two sexes correspond in this manner (the terms ‘able’ and ‘unable’ being used in more senses than one)— therefore it is necessary that both female and male should have organs. accordingly the one has the uterus, the other the male organs.

again, nature gives both the faculty and the organ to each individual at the same time, for it is better so. hence each region comes into being along with the secretions and the faculties, as e.g. the faculty of sight is not perfected without the eye, nor the eye without the faculty of sight; and so too the intestine and bladder come into being along with the faculty of forming the excreta. and since that from which an organ comes into being and that by which it is increased are the same (i.e. the nutriment), each of the parts will be made out of such a material and such residual matter as it is able to receive. in the second place, again, it is formed, as we say, in a certain sense, out of its opposite. thirdly, we must understand besides this that, if it is true that when a thing perishes it becomes the opposite of what it was, it is necessary also that what is not under the sway of that which made it must change into its opposite. after these premisses it will perhaps be now clearer for what reason one embryo becomes female and another male. for when the first principle does not bear sway and cannot concoct the nourishment through lack of heat nor bring it into its proper form, but is defeated in this respect, then must needs the material which it works on change into its opposite. now the female is opposite to the male, and that in so far as the one is female and the other male. and since it differs in its faculty, its organ also is different, so that the embryo changes into this state. and as one part of first-rate importance changes, the whole system of the animal differs greatly in form along with it. this may be seen in the case of eunuchs, who, though mutilated in one part alone, depart so much from their original appearance and approximate closely to the female form. the reason of this is that some of the parts are principles, and when a principle is moved or affected needs must many of the parts that go along with it change with it.

if then (1) the male quality or essence is a principle and a cause, and (2) the male is such in virtue of a certain capacity and the female is such in virtue of an incapacity, and (3) the essence or definition of the capacity and of the incapacity is ability or inability to concoct the nourishment in its ultimate stage, this being called blood in the sanguinea and the analogue of blood in the other animals, and (4) the cause of this capacity is in the first principle and in the part which contains the principle of natural heat — therefore a heart must be formed in the sanguinea (and the resulting animal will be either male or female), and in the other kinds which possess the sexes must be formed that which is analogous to the heart.

this, then, is the first principle and cause of male and female, and this is the part of the body in which it resides. but the animal becomes definitely female or male by the time when it possesses also the parts by which the female differs from the male, for it is not in virtue of any part you please that it is male or female, any more than it is able to see or hear by possessing any part you please.

to recapitulate, we say that the semen, which is the foundation of the embryo, is the ultimate secretion of the nutriment. by ultimate i mean that which is carried to every part of the body, and this is also the reason why the offspring is like the parent. for it makes no difference whether we say that the semen comes from all the parts or goes to all of them, but the latter is the better. but the semen of the male differs from the corresponding secretion of the female in that it contains a principle within itself of such a kind as to set up movements also in the embryo and to concoct thoroughly the ultimate nourishment, whereas the secretion of the female contains material alone. if, then, the male element prevails it draws the female element into itself, but if it is prevailed over it changes into the opposite or is destroyed. but the female is opposite to the male, and is female because of its inability to concoct and of the coldness of the sanguineous nutriment. and nature assigns to each of the secretions the part fitted to receive it. but the semen is a secretion, and this in the hotter animals with blood, i.e. the males, is moderate in quantity, wherefore the recipient parts of this secretion in males are only passages. but the females, owing to inability to concoct, have a great quantity of blood, for it cannot be worked up into semen. therefore they must also have a part to receive this, and this part must be unlike the passages of the male and of a considerable size. this is why the uterus is of such a nature, this being the part by which the female differs from the male.