History of Monsters, 394. Ulysses Aldrovandi.

Finally, as a crowning conclusion, we shall append from the same author the twofold formal cause of monsters. The first is common to all living creatures, but the specific formal cause unique to monsters is nothing other than a corrupted constitution of the body, or a deformed construction of the monster and a defective formation of its parts. This view conforms to the teachings of Aristotle, who attributed monsters to nature’s "sins"—a view that seems so profoundly true it might have come from an oracle of Apollo. Thus, we see that Weinrich did not stray from the plain truth when he argued that what is evil and defective does not seem to possess a form in the proper sense, since it is a privation or rather a depravity of form. Nevertheless, monsters do possess forms, though they are foreign ones, which later manifest in their various differences. For this reason, we cannot assign a final purpose to monsters; since all species in nature have their own forms, if they do not achieve them at birth, they are considered to have failed to reach their purpose.

Having laid this out, it should be noted that the causes of monsters explained so far are so intertwined that one cannot be understood without the others. Consequently, those who attempt to reduce monsters to a single cause face great difficulties—especially those who proclaim matter as the true producer of monsters. Such thinkers deviate significantly from Aristotelian doctrine. The Philosopher established it as a philosophical axiom that matter is the passive principle and form the active one. In his second book on *Coming-to-be and Passing-away*, he stated that it is the property of matter to be acted upon and of form to act; in the third book of the *Physics*, he declared that things are acted upon because of matter, but not for the sake of form; and finally, in the ninth book of the *Metaphysics*, he asserted that matter is suited for being acted upon and for change, but not for acting or initiating change itself.

Furthermore, in the second book of the *Physics*, the same Philosopher described a monster as a "sin" of nature which was operating toward a goal. Therefore, if the intended goal is not achieved, the error is attributed not to the matter, but to the acting agent. Finally, in his *History of the Generation of Animals*, Aristotle persuaded us that a monster is a mutilated effect of nature at work. Moreover, if a monstrous human is born with three orifices in the face, this does not spring from the matter, but from a powerful formative force; therefore, the effect of monsters should not be attributed to matter alone. It remains for us to assert that the aforementioned causes are joined together in manifold ways to produce the imperfect effects seen in monsters.

DISPUTATIONS

Since the history of monsters is, for many, not free from controversy, we have deemed it worthwhile to bring only the most important difficulties into the field of discussion, so that we might satisfy our readers at least in part. First and foremost, we must discuss whether monsters are produced by nature by accident or by design. Since various strong arguments are assigned to prove each side, we shall present some of the primary ones, so that the truth of the matter may be revealed through their resolution.

Those who believe that monsters are generated by nature by accident rely on the following reasons. First, Nature—or the Agent—always strives to procreate something like itself; but since monsters are not at all like the Agent or Nature, they infer that they were generated by nature by accident. Second, nothing produced by chance is created according to the mind of the Agent; but monsters are of this condition, and therefore they are not generated according to Nature's intention. Third, Nature's intention and its desire for operation can never err; therefore, it must necessarily always procreate something good. But monsters are not counted among good things; thus, they come into the light outside of Nature's intention. Furthermore, Nature only produces individuals to preserve and propagate the species; indeed, if it could achieve this with only a single individual, it would certainly not go to the trouble of generating so many. Yet monsters do not arise for the sake of propagating the species; thus, we can say with greater certainty that monsters are nature’s