Re: "The existence of vegetative eggs and mammalian eggs, and the equal hereditary contributions of mothers as well as fathers, though, was unknown until modern times."
Not so!
Well, okay, not *quite*. The ancients did not know about microscopic ova, true, but at least some of them *did* know about ovaries -- which were called "testes" by the Greeks -- and of course they knew about menstrual blood, which was thought by some to be a female kind of semen.
This is reflected in the Bible itself, when Hebrews 11:11 says Sarah, by faith, had a "seminal emission" (Greek: katabole spermatos) in her old age.
Also, the Hebrew grammar in Leviticus 12:2 seems to indicate that women produce seed -- and at least some of the Talmudic rabbis argued that Genesis 46:15 makes a distinction between "the sons of Leah" and "the daughter of Jacob" because each parent's seed produced children of the opposite sex, and it all came down to whose semen was emitted *first*.
Various Greek and Latin writers also held that a woman's seed could determine the sex of the child, depending on the temperature in the uterus, or whose semen was most abundant during sex, etc., etc.
Wonderful comment and background, Peter, thanks so much! I knew some of this, but not all. How interesting that rabbis working from Genesis 46:15 concluded that each parent’s seed produced children of the *opposite* sex, in contrast to the Aristotelian assumption that the mother’s influence kicks in with daughters (as well as sons that look like their mother) only when the father’s seed isn’t strong enough or doesn’t develop properly.
My contention that the mammalian egg (as well as the vegetive egg) was unknown until modern times is fundamentally vis-a-vis the egg *as egg*, i.e., that which is made fertile (or not) by the male “seed” or sperm. It was, I think, pretty obvious to most premoderns that female birds regularly produce eggs, but those eggs develop into chicks only if the female has recently mated with a male bird! (Do you know whether the analogy of birds laying eggs to menstrual blood was made in premodern times? It strikes me as something that could have been common knowledge, but I’ve never heard about this one way or the other.)
The Greeks and others may have had enough knowledge of gross anatomy to know that women had internal organs analogous to testes (developing, they might not have been surprised to learn, from the same embryonic bipotential gonads based on genetic and hormonal factors). And in some cases they may have speculated that women as well as men make hereditary contributions to their children—perhaps, per your example from Genesis 46, with each parent providing the “seed” for some children but not others.
I am aware, though, of no premodern theory of reproduction that posits the *union* of male and female “seed” as the basis for every human or mammalian life, as every bird is clearly the union of the eggs the female bird is producing anyway with the male bird’s contribution. (On a side note, while mammalian ova are obviously vastly smaller than those of birds, human ova at least aren’t usually “microscopic” in the strict sense; they are generally large enough to be seen with the naked eye.)
It’s true, in any case, that my generalization about female “fertility” being understood in premodern times as passive, providing a nurturing environment for the male seed, is not the whole story. Thanks again for important context!
Re: the analogy between birds' eggs and menstrual blood, I have no idea if anyone made it in pre-modern times.
Re: theories of reproduction that posit the *union* of male and female “seed”, one of the Talmudic passages quoted in that article I linked to is quite interesting:
"Our rabbis taught: There are three partners in [the conception of] man, the Holy One—blessed be He—, his father and his mother. His father supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, the brains in his head and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the blank of his eye. The Holy One—blessed be He—gives him the spirit and the breath, beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing, the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment."
I don't know if that would necessarily be taken to mean that each parent contributes to the *form* of each child -- maybe it only means that both parents contribute to the *substance* of each child -- but I've always thought it was a really beautiful passage.
(A footnote to the article says the passage I quoted "can be found in Qiddushin 30b, Qohlet Rabba 5.10.2, Midrash Yetsirat ha-Walad vol. 1, p. 156, 18ff. in Jellinek’s Beth ha-Midrasch," if you're inclined to look at it in its original context.)
Re: "The existence of vegetative eggs and mammalian eggs, and the equal hereditary contributions of mothers as well as fathers, though, was unknown until modern times."
Not so!
Well, okay, not *quite*. The ancients did not know about microscopic ova, true, but at least some of them *did* know about ovaries -- which were called "testes" by the Greeks -- and of course they knew about menstrual blood, which was thought by some to be a female kind of semen.
This is reflected in the Bible itself, when Hebrews 11:11 says Sarah, by faith, had a "seminal emission" (Greek: katabole spermatos) in her old age.
Also, the Hebrew grammar in Leviticus 12:2 seems to indicate that women produce seed -- and at least some of the Talmudic rabbis argued that Genesis 46:15 makes a distinction between "the sons of Leah" and "the daughter of Jacob" because each parent's seed produced children of the opposite sex, and it all came down to whose semen was emitted *first*.
Various Greek and Latin writers also held that a woman's seed could determine the sex of the child, depending on the temperature in the uterus, or whose semen was most abundant during sex, etc., etc.
I first learned about all this 33 years ago via an article in Bible Review that is currently available online here (but is probably behind a paywall): https://library.biblicalarchaeology.org/article/did-sarah-have-a-seminal-emission/
Wonderful comment and background, Peter, thanks so much! I knew some of this, but not all. How interesting that rabbis working from Genesis 46:15 concluded that each parent’s seed produced children of the *opposite* sex, in contrast to the Aristotelian assumption that the mother’s influence kicks in with daughters (as well as sons that look like their mother) only when the father’s seed isn’t strong enough or doesn’t develop properly.
My contention that the mammalian egg (as well as the vegetive egg) was unknown until modern times is fundamentally vis-a-vis the egg *as egg*, i.e., that which is made fertile (or not) by the male “seed” or sperm. It was, I think, pretty obvious to most premoderns that female birds regularly produce eggs, but those eggs develop into chicks only if the female has recently mated with a male bird! (Do you know whether the analogy of birds laying eggs to menstrual blood was made in premodern times? It strikes me as something that could have been common knowledge, but I’ve never heard about this one way or the other.)
The Greeks and others may have had enough knowledge of gross anatomy to know that women had internal organs analogous to testes (developing, they might not have been surprised to learn, from the same embryonic bipotential gonads based on genetic and hormonal factors). And in some cases they may have speculated that women as well as men make hereditary contributions to their children—perhaps, per your example from Genesis 46, with each parent providing the “seed” for some children but not others.
I am aware, though, of no premodern theory of reproduction that posits the *union* of male and female “seed” as the basis for every human or mammalian life, as every bird is clearly the union of the eggs the female bird is producing anyway with the male bird’s contribution. (On a side note, while mammalian ova are obviously vastly smaller than those of birds, human ova at least aren’t usually “microscopic” in the strict sense; they are generally large enough to be seen with the naked eye.)
It’s true, in any case, that my generalization about female “fertility” being understood in premodern times as passive, providing a nurturing environment for the male seed, is not the whole story. Thanks again for important context!
Re: the analogy between birds' eggs and menstrual blood, I have no idea if anyone made it in pre-modern times.
Re: theories of reproduction that posit the *union* of male and female “seed”, one of the Talmudic passages quoted in that article I linked to is quite interesting:
"Our rabbis taught: There are three partners in [the conception of] man, the Holy One—blessed be He—, his father and his mother. His father supplies the semen of the white substance out of which are formed the child’s bones, sinews, nails, the brains in his head and the white in his eye. His mother supplies the semen of the red substance out of which is formed his skin, flesh, hair, blood and the blank of his eye. The Holy One—blessed be He—gives him the spirit and the breath, beauty of features, eyesight, the power of hearing, the ability to speak and to walk, understanding and discernment."
I don't know if that would necessarily be taken to mean that each parent contributes to the *form* of each child -- maybe it only means that both parents contribute to the *substance* of each child -- but I've always thought it was a really beautiful passage.
(A footnote to the article says the passage I quoted "can be found in Qiddushin 30b, Qohlet Rabba 5.10.2, Midrash Yetsirat ha-Walad vol. 1, p. 156, 18ff. in Jellinek’s Beth ha-Midrasch," if you're inclined to look at it in its original context.)
(I just looked up one of the cited passages -- Qohlet Rabba 5.10.2 -- and found this: https://www.sefaria.org/Kohelet_Rabbah.5.10.2?lang=bi)
P.S. Added a footnote providing some of these points with appropriate credit to you, Peter!
Hate to use a comment for this! Grammar touch-up needed: "In Catholic magisterial writing is is common". :-)
Got it, thanks!