# The History of Monsters. 396. Ulisse Aldrovandi.

Furthermore, if monsters contributed to the beauty of the universe, they would be born very frequently, since the great adornment of the world is sustained by common occurrences. Yet a monster occurs only rarely; for this reason, it is excluded from this worldly beauty. Finally, monsters do not come into the light for the sake of the universe’s beauty, because if they did, they would have been created at the beginning of the world—a claim that is recorded nowhere.

It remains for us to say, then, that monsters are outside the intention of nature and occur by accident. Aristotle taught this doctrine in the second book of the *Physics*, text sixty-four, where we read: "But this too is of the other; of this indeed the cause is external, but of that it is internal." Simplicius, John Philoponus, and Averroes, in explaining these words, reported that monsters do not exist simply by chance, but rather by a specific kind of chance; for in such a case, the cause of the thing made is "outside"—that is, undefined and occurring from the exterior. In contrast, the cause of the monster is "inside"—meaning the matter, which is its internal and defined cause. However, it would be better to follow Saint Thomas in interpreting that word "outside" not according to existence, but according to intention. With these points explained, the prudent reader can dismantle all the arguments brought to the contrary and uphold Aristotle's doctrine, in which we understand monsters to be the "errors" of Nature. Let this suffice for the current question.

The second question of doubt is whether monsters originated at the beginning of the world. On the affirmative side, there are opinions from very distinguished men who bring forward arguments that should not be dismissed. First, Benito Pereira argues with many reasons that monsters existed at the world's dawn, as he admits hybrid animal species—such as mules and the like—were present even then. He states clearly: everything that concurs in the generation of these species is natural, therefore they too are intended and generated by Nature. For this reason, they originated at the beginning of the world along with these natural animal species. This argument is supported by the fact that the matter from which they arise is natural; furthermore, the place, the time, and the agents—namely the male and female—are natural.

Next, that which God manufactured at the time of creation is called the "Universe" because it encompasses all things desired and to be desired; and since the aforementioned hybrid species could have been desired then, they were produced by the supreme Architect of things during the days of creation. This is further established because if animals of this kind had not been created, the Universe would not have achieved its complete perfection. Furthermore, we must believe that the supreme God did not overlook things necessary for human convenience; such hybrid species were to be of the greatest benefit to man, so it should not be claimed they were not created at the beginning of the world. To these points is added the authority of Holy Scripture, which says there is "nothing new under the sun." Therefore, it must be declared that these species were not produced recently but were created long ago at the very start of the world.

However, this opinion is not accepted everywhere, since the aforementioned species carry something monstrous about them. In the second book of *On the Generation of Animals*, Aristotle called similar species "novel births," and in the *Metaphysics*, he admitted that a mule is something contrary to Nature. For even though a donkey and a mare are joined to produce something similar in species, this nevertheless does not happen due to the obstacle provided by the difference in their seeds. Thus it happens that Nature does not achieve its intention but brings forth something merely outside of Nature. With this said, the first position is dismissed, and a solution to the second is suggested; in confirmation, it should be noted that such animals are monstrous, and as such, they cannot contribute to the perfection of the universe, as was explained above.

Furthermore, all living things were created by the almighty Architect at the beginning of the world and were blessed by Him, a blessing that concerns fertility; this is how Lyra, Abulensis, Pereira, and many other doctors interpret it. Among these, Saint John Chrysostom writes: "And God blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply." For since they were living creatures, and He wanted them to be perpetual, God blessed them and said, "Increase and multiply." Indeed, that word preserves them even to the present day; although so much time has passed, not one genus of these has diminished. For the blessing of God and the word He had spoken, so that they might subsist and endure