Ross (OCT, 1955) · Beare (1908)
Beare (1908)
Greek line numbers are exact. The translations carry no Bekker numbers of their own, so those beside the English are aligned to the Greek: upright = fixed (anchored to this point in the text), italic grey = approximate (interpolated estimate).
Chapter 1 (436a1–437a18)
436a
1 Ἐπεὶ δὲ περὶ ψυχῆς καθ' αὑτὴν διώρισται πρότερον καὶ περὶ
τῶν δυνάμεων ἑκάστης κατὰ μόριον αὐτῆς, ἐχόμενόν ἐστι ποιήσασθαι
τὴν ἐπίσκεψιν περὶ τῶν ζῴων καὶ τῶν ζωὴν ἐχόντων
ἁπάντων, τίνες εἰσὶν ἴδιαι καὶ τίνες κοιναὶ πράξεις αὐτῶν.
5 τὰ μὲν οὖν εἰρημένα περὶ ψυχῆς ὑποκείσθω, περὶ δὲ τῶν
λοιπῶν λέγωμεν, καὶ πρῶτον περὶ τῶν πρώτων. φαίνεται
δὲ τὰ μέγιστα, καὶ τὰ κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἴδια τῶν ζῴων, κοινὰ
τῆς τε ψυχῆς ὄντα καὶ τοῦ σώματος, οἷον αἴσθησις καὶ μνήμη
καὶ θυμὸς καὶ ἐπιθυμία καὶ ὅλως ὄρεξις, καὶ πρὸς
10 τούτοις ἡδονὴ καὶ λύπη· καὶ γὰρ ταῦτα σχεδὸν ὑπάρχει
πᾶσι τοῖς ζῴοις. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις τὰ μὲν πάντων ἐστὶ
τῶν μετεχόντων ζωῆς κοινά, τὰ δὲ τῶν ζῴων ἐνίοις. τυγχάνουσι
δὲ τούτων τὰ μέγιστα τέτταρες οὖσαι συζυγίαι τὸν
ἀριθμόν, οἷον ἐγρήγορσις καὶ ὕπνος, καὶ νεότης καὶ γῆρας,
15 καὶ ἀναπνοὴ καὶ ἐκπνοή, καὶ ζωὴ καὶ θάνατος·
περὶ ὧν θεωρητέον, τί τε ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, καὶ διὰ τίνας αἰτίας
συμβαίνει. φυσικοῦ δὲ καὶ περὶ ὑγιείας καὶ νόσου τὰς
πρώτας ἰδεῖν ἀρχάς· οὔτε γὰρ ὑγίειαν οὔτε νόσον οἷόν τε
γίγνεσθαι τοῖς ἐστερημένοις ζωῆς. διὸ σχεδὸν τῶν περὶ
20 φύσεως οἱ πλεῖστοι καὶ τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ φιλοσοφωτέρως τὴν
τέχνην μετιόντες, οἱ μὲν τελευτῶσιν εἰς τὰ περὶ ἰατρικῆς,
1Having now definitely considered the soul, by itself, and its several faculties, we must next make a survey of animals and all living things, in order to ascertain what functions are peculiar, and what functions are common, to them. What has been already determined respecting the soul [sc. by itself] 5must be assumed throughout. The remaining parts [sc. the attributes of soul and body conjointly] of our subject must be now dealt with, and we may begin with those that come first.
The most important attributes of animals, whether common to all or peculiar to some, are, manifestly, attributes of soul and body in conjunction, e.g. sensation, memory, passion, appetite and desire in general, and, 10in addition pleasure and pain. For these may, in fact, be said to belong to all animals. But there are, besides these, certain other attributes, of which some are common to all living things, while others are peculiar to certain species of animals. The most important of these may be summed up in four pairs, viz. waking and sleeping, youth and old age, 15inhalation and exhalation, life and death. We must endeavour to arrive at a scientific conception of these, determining their respective natures, and the causes of their occurrence.
But it behoves the Physical Philosopher to obtain also a clear view of the first principles of health and disease, inasmuch as neither health nor disease can exist in lifeless things. Indeed we may say of 20most physical inquirers, and of those physicians who study their art philosophically, that while the former complete their works with a disquisition on medicine, the latter usually base their medical theories on principles derived from Physics.
The most important attributes of animals, whether common to all or peculiar to some, are, manifestly, attributes of soul and body in conjunction, e.g. sensation, memory, passion, appetite and desire in general, and, 10in addition pleasure and pain. For these may, in fact, be said to belong to all animals. But there are, besides these, certain other attributes, of which some are common to all living things, while others are peculiar to certain species of animals. The most important of these may be summed up in four pairs, viz. waking and sleeping, youth and old age, 15inhalation and exhalation, life and death. We must endeavour to arrive at a scientific conception of these, determining their respective natures, and the causes of their occurrence.
But it behoves the Physical Philosopher to obtain also a clear view of the first principles of health and disease, inasmuch as neither health nor disease can exist in lifeless things. Indeed we may say of 20most physical inquirers, and of those physicians who study their art philosophically, that while the former complete their works with a disquisition on medicine, the latter usually base their medical theories on principles derived from Physics.
436b
1 οἱ δ' ἐκ τῶν περὶ φύσεως ἄρχονται [περὶ τῆς ἰατρικῆς]. ὅτι
δὲ πάντα τὰ λεχθέντα κοινὰ τῆς τε ψυχῆς ἐστὶ καὶ τοῦ σώματος,
οὐκ ἄδηλον. πάντα γὰρ τὰ μὲν μετ' αἰσθήσεως συμβαίνει,
τὰ δὲ δι' αἰσθήσεως, ἔνια δὲ τὰ μὲν πάθη ταύτης
5 ὄντα τυγχάνει, τὰ δ' ἕξεις, τὰ δὲ φυλακαὶ καὶ σωτηρίαι,
τὰ δὲ φθοραὶ καὶ στερήσεις· ἡ δ' αἴσθησις ὅτι διὰ
σώματος γίγνεται τῇ ψυχῇ, δῆλον καὶ διὰ τοῦ λόγου καὶ
τοῦ λόγου χωρίς. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν αἰσθήσεως καὶ τοῦ αἰσθάνεσθαι,
τί ἐστι καὶ διὰ τί συμβαίνει τοῖς ζῴοις τοῦτο τὸ
10 πάθος, εἴρηται πρότερον ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς. τοῖς δὲ ζῴοις,
ᾗ μὲν ζῷον ἕκαστον, ἀνάγκη ὑπάρχειν αἴσθησιν· τούτῳ γὰρ
τὸ ζῷον εἶναι καὶ μὴ ζῷον διορίζομεν. ἰδίᾳ δ' ἤδη καθ'
ἕκαστον ἡ μὲν ἁφὴ καὶ γεῦσις ἀκολουθεῖ πᾶσιν ἐξ ἀνάγκης,
ἡ μὲν ἁφὴ διὰ τὴν εἰρημένην αἰτίαν ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς,
15 ἡ δὲ γεῦσις διὰ τὴν τροφήν· τὸ γὰρ ἡδὺ διακρίνει καὶ
τὸ λυπηρὸν αὐτῇ περὶ τὴν τροφήν, ὥστε τὸ μὲν φεύγειν τὸ
δὲ διώκειν, καὶ ὅλως ὁ χυμός ἐστι τοῦ θρεπτικοῦ
πάθος. αἱ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἔξωθεν αἰσθήσεις τοῖς πορευτικοῖς
αὐτῶν, οἷον ὄσφρησις καὶ ἀκοὴ καὶ ὄψις, πᾶσι μὲν τοῖς
20 ἔχουσι σωτηρίας ἕνεκεν ὑπάρχουσιν, ὅπως διώκωσί τε προαισθανόμενα
τὴν τροφὴν καὶ τὰ φαῦλα καὶ τὰ φθαρτικὰ
1That all the attributes above enumerated belong to soul and body in conjunction, is obvious; for they all either imply sensation as a concomitant, or have it as their medium. Some are either affections or states of sensation, 5others, means of defending and safe-guarding it, while others, again, involve its destruction or negation. Now it is clear, alike by reasoning and observation, that sensation is generated in the soul through the medium of the body.
10We have already, in our treatise On the Soul, explained the nature of sensation and the act of perceiving by sense, and the reason why this affection belongs to animals. Sensation must, indeed, be attributed to all animals as such, for by its presence or absence we distinguish essentially between what is and what is not an animal.
But coming now to the special senses severally, we may say that touch and taste necessarily appertain to all animals, touch, for the reason given in On the Soul, 15and taste, because of nutrition. It is by taste that one distinguishes in food the pleasant from the unpleasant, so as to flee from the latter and pursue the former: and savour in general is an affection of nutrient matter.
The senses which operate through external media, viz. smelling, hearing, seeing, are found in all animals which possess the faculty of locomotion. 20To all that possess them they are a means of preservation; their final cause being that such creatures may, guided by antecedent perception, both pursue their food, and shun things that are bad or destructive.
10We have already, in our treatise On the Soul, explained the nature of sensation and the act of perceiving by sense, and the reason why this affection belongs to animals. Sensation must, indeed, be attributed to all animals as such, for by its presence or absence we distinguish essentially between what is and what is not an animal.
But coming now to the special senses severally, we may say that touch and taste necessarily appertain to all animals, touch, for the reason given in On the Soul, 15and taste, because of nutrition. It is by taste that one distinguishes in food the pleasant from the unpleasant, so as to flee from the latter and pursue the former: and savour in general is an affection of nutrient matter.
The senses which operate through external media, viz. smelling, hearing, seeing, are found in all animals which possess the faculty of locomotion. 20To all that possess them they are a means of preservation; their final cause being that such creatures may, guided by antecedent perception, both pursue their food, and shun things that are bad or destructive.
437a
1 φεύγωσι, τοῖς δὲ καὶ φρονήσεως τυγχάνουσι τοῦ εὖ ἕνεκα·
πολλὰς γὰρ εἰσαγγέλλουσι διαφοράς, ἐξ ὧν ἥ τε τῶν νοητῶν
ἐγγίνεται φρόνησις καὶ ἡ τῶν πρακτῶν. αὐτῶν δὲ τούτων
πρὸς μὲν τὰ ἀναγκαῖα κρείττων ἡ ὄψις καθ' αὑτήν,
5 πρὸς δὲ νοῦν κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἡ ἀκοή. διαφορὰς μὲν
γὰρ πολλὰς καὶ παντοδαπὰς ἡ τῆς ὄψεως εἰσαγγέλλει
δύναμις διὰ τὸ πάντα τὰ σώματα μετέχειν χρώματος,
ὥστε καὶ τὰ κοινὰ διὰ ταύτης αἰσθάνεσθαι μάλιστα (λέγω
δὲ κοινὰ μέγεθος, σχῆμα, κίνησιν, ἀριθμόν), ἡ δ' ἀκοὴ
10 τὰς τοῦ ψόφου διαφορὰς μόνον, ὀλίγοις δὲ καὶ τὰς τῆς
φωνῆς· κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς δὲ πρὸς φρόνησιν ἡ ἀκοὴ πλεῖστον
συμβάλλεται μέρος. ὁ γὰρ λόγος αἴτιός ἐστι τῆς μαθήσεως
ἀκουστὸς ὤν, οὐ καθ' αὑτὸν ἀλλὰ κατὰ συμβεβηκός·
ἐξ ὀνομάτων γὰρ σύγκειται, τῶν δ' ὀνομάτων ἕκαστον
15 σύμβολόν ἐστιν. διόπερ φρονιμώτεροι τῶν ἐκ γενετῆς ἐστερημένων
εἰσὶν ἑκατέρας τῆς αἰσθήσεως οἱ τυφλοὶ τῶν ἐνεῶν
καὶ κωφῶν.
Περὶ μὲν οὖν τῆς δυνάμεως ἣν ἔχει τῶν αἰσθήσεων ἑκάστη,
πρότερον εἴρηται.
1But in animals which have also intelligence they serve for the attainment of a higher perfection. They bring in tidings of many distinctive qualities of things, from which the knowledge of truth, speculative and practical, is generated in the soul.
Of the two last mentioned, seeing, regarded as a supply for the primary wants of life, and in its direct effects, is the superior sense; 5but for developing intelligence, and in its indirect consequences, hearing takes the precedence. The faculty of seeing, thanks to the fact that all bodies are coloured, brings tidings of multitudes of distinctive qualities of all sorts; whence it is through this sense especially that we perceive the common sensibles, viz. figure, magnitude, motion, number: 10while hearing announces only the distinctive qualities of sound, and, to some few animals, those also of voice. indirectly, however, it is hearing that contributes most to the growth of intelligence. For rational discourse is a cause of instruction in virtue of its being audible, which it is, not directly, but indirectly; since it is composed of words, and 15each word is a thought-symbol.
Accordingly, of persons destitute from birth of either sense, the blind are more intelligent than the deaf and dumb.
Of the two last mentioned, seeing, regarded as a supply for the primary wants of life, and in its direct effects, is the superior sense; 5but for developing intelligence, and in its indirect consequences, hearing takes the precedence. The faculty of seeing, thanks to the fact that all bodies are coloured, brings tidings of multitudes of distinctive qualities of all sorts; whence it is through this sense especially that we perceive the common sensibles, viz. figure, magnitude, motion, number: 10while hearing announces only the distinctive qualities of sound, and, to some few animals, those also of voice. indirectly, however, it is hearing that contributes most to the growth of intelligence. For rational discourse is a cause of instruction in virtue of its being audible, which it is, not directly, but indirectly; since it is composed of words, and 15each word is a thought-symbol.
Accordingly, of persons destitute from birth of either sense, the blind are more intelligent than the deaf and dumb.
Chapter 2 (437a19–439a5)
τοῦ δὲ σώματος ἐν οἷς ἐγγίγνεσθαι πέφυκεν
20 αἰσθητηρίοις, ἔνιοι μὲν ζητοῦσι κατὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τῶν σωμάτων·
οὐκ εὐποροῦντες δὲ πρὸς τέτταρα πέντ' οὔσας συνάγειν, γλίχονται
περὶ τῆς πέμπτης. ποιοῦσι δὲ πάντες τὴν ὄψιν πυρὸς
διὰ τὸ πάθους τινὸς ἀγνοεῖν τὴν αἰτίαν· θλιβομένου γὰρ καὶ
κινουμένου τοῦ ὀφθαλμοῦ φαίνεται πῦρ ἐκλάμπειν· τοῦτο δ' ἐν
25 τῷ σκότει πέφυκε συμβαίνειν, ἢ τῶν βλεφάρων ἐπικεκαλυμμένων·
γίγνεται γὰρ καὶ τότε σκότος. ἔχει δ' ἀπορίαν
τοῦτο καὶ ἑτέραν. εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἔστι λανθάνειν <μὴ> αἰσθανόμενον
καὶ ὁρῶντα, ἀνάγκη ἄρ' αὐτὸν ἑαυτὸν ὁρᾶν
τὸν ὀφθαλμόν. διὰ τί οὖν ἠρεμοῦντι τοῦτ' οὐ συμβαίνει; τὸ
30 δ' αἴτιον τούτου, καὶ τῆς ἀπορίας καὶ τοῦ δοκεῖν πῦρ εἶναι
τὴν ὄψιν, ἐντεῦθεν ληπτέον. τὰ γὰρ λεῖα πέφυκεν ἐν τῷ
σκότει λάμπειν, οὐ μέντοι φῶς γε ποιεῖν, τοῦ δ' ὀφθαλμοῦ
19Of the distinctive potency of each of the faculties of sense enough has been said already.
But as to the nature of the sensory organs, or parts of the body in which each of the senses is naturally implanted, 20inquirers now usually take as their guide the fundamental elements of bodies. Not, however, finding it easy to coordinate five senses with four elements, they are at a loss respecting the fifth sense. But they hold the organ of sight to consist of fire, being prompted to this view by a certain sensory affection of whose true cause they are ignorant. This is that, when the eye is pressed or moved, fire appears to flash from it. 25This naturally takes place in darkness, or when the eyelids are closed, for then, too, darkness is produced.
This theory, however, solves one question only to raise another; for, unless on the hypothesis that a person who is in his full senses can see an object of vision without being aware of it, the eye must on this theory see itself. 30But then why does the above affection not occur also when the eye is at rest?
But as to the nature of the sensory organs, or parts of the body in which each of the senses is naturally implanted, 20inquirers now usually take as their guide the fundamental elements of bodies. Not, however, finding it easy to coordinate five senses with four elements, they are at a loss respecting the fifth sense. But they hold the organ of sight to consist of fire, being prompted to this view by a certain sensory affection of whose true cause they are ignorant. This is that, when the eye is pressed or moved, fire appears to flash from it. 25This naturally takes place in darkness, or when the eyelids are closed, for then, too, darkness is produced.
This theory, however, solves one question only to raise another; for, unless on the hypothesis that a person who is in his full senses can see an object of vision without being aware of it, the eye must on this theory see itself. 30But then why does the above affection not occur also when the eye is at rest?
437b
1 τὸ καλούμενον μέλαν καὶ μέσον λεῖον. φαίνεται
δὲ τοῦτο κινουμένου τοῦ ὄμματος διὰ τὸ συμβαίνειν ὥσπερ
δύο γίγνεσθαι τὸ ἕν. τοῦτο δ' ἡ ταχυτὴς ποιεῖ τῆς κινήσεως,
ὥστε δοκεῖν ἕτερον εἶναι τὸ ὁρῶν καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον. διὸ καὶ
5 οὐ γίγνεται, ἐὰν μὴ ταχέως καὶ ἐν σκότει τοῦτο συμβῇ· τὸ
γὰρ λεῖον ἐν τῷ σκότει πέφυκε λάμπειν (οἷον κεφαλαὶ
ἰχθύων τινῶν καὶ ὁ τῆς σηπίας θολός), καὶ βραδέως μεταβάλλοντος
τοῦ ὄμματος οὐ συμβαίνει ὥστε δοκεῖν ἅμα ἓν
καὶ δύο εἶναι τό θ' ὁρῶν καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον. ἐκείνως δ' αὐτὸς
10 αὑτὸν ὁρᾷ ὁ ὀφθαλμός, ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τῇ ἀνακλάσει· ἐπεὶ
εἴ γε πῦρ ἦν, καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησὶ καὶ ἐν τῷ Τιμαίῳ
γέγραπται, καὶ συνέβαινε τὸ ὁρᾶν ἐξιόντος ὥσπερ
ἐκ λαμπτῆρος τοῦ φωτός, διὰ τί οὐ καὶ ἐν τῷ σκότει
ἑώρα ἂν ἡ ὄψις; τὸ δ' ἀποσβέννυσθαι φάναι ἐν τῷ σκότει
15 ἐξιοῦσαν, ὥσπερ ὁ Τίμαιος λέγει, κενόν ἐστι παντελῶς· τίς
γὰρ ἀπόσβεσις φωτός ἐστιν; σβέννυται γὰρ ἢ ὑγρῷ ἢ ψυχρῷ
τὸ θερμὸν καὶ ξηρόν (οἷον δοκεῖ τό τ' ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρακώδεσιν
εἶναι πῦρ καὶ ἡ φλόξ), ὧν τῷ φωτὶ οὐδέτερον
φαίνεται ὑπάρχον. εἰ δ' ἄρα ὑπάρχει μὲν ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ
20 ἠρέμα λανθάνει ἡμᾶς, ἔδει μεθ' ἡμέραν γε καὶ ἐν τῷ
ὕδατι ἀποσβέννυσθαι τὸ φῶς καὶ ἐν τοῖς πάγοις μᾶλλον
γίγνεσθαι σκότον· ἡ γοῦν φλὸξ καὶ τὰ πεπυρωμένα σώματα
πάσχει τοῦτο· νῦν δ' οὐδὲν συμβαίνει τοιοῦτον. Ἐμπεδοκλῆς
δ' ἔοικε νομίζοντι ὁτὲ μὲν ἐξιόντος τοῦ φωτός, ὥςπερ
25 εἴρηται πρότερον, βλέπειν· λέγει γοῦν οὕτως·
ὡς δ' ὅτε τις πρόοδον νοέων ὡπλίσσατο λύχνον
χειμερίην διὰ νύκατα, πυρὸς σέλας αἰθομένοιο,
ἅψας παντοίων ἀνέμων λαμπτῆρας ἀμοργούς,
οἵ τ' ἀνέμων μὲν πνεῦμα διασκιδνᾶσιν ἀέντων,
30 πῦρ δ' ἔξω διαθρῷσκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν,
λάμπεσκεν κατὰ βηλὸν ἀτειρέσιν ἀκτίνεσσιν·
ὣς δὲ τότ' ἐν μήνιγξιν ἐεργμένον ὠγύγιον πῦρ
1The true explanation of this affection, which will contain the answer to our question, and account for the current notion that the eye consists of fire, must be determined in the following way:
Things which are smooth have the natural property of shining in darkness, without, however, producing light. Now, the part of the eye called 'the black', i.e. its central part, is manifestly smooth. The phenomenon of the flash occurs only when the eye is moved, because only then could it possibly occur that the same one object should become as it were two. The rapidity of the movement has the effect of making that which sees and that which is seen seem different from one another. 5Hence the phenomenon does not occur unless the motion is rapid and takes place in darkness. For it is in the dark that that which is smooth, e.g. the heads of certain fishes, and the sepia of the cuttle-fish, naturally shines, and, when the movement of the eye is slow, it is impossible that that which sees and that which is seen should appear to be simultaneously two and one. But, in fact, 10the eye sees itself in the above phenomenon merely as it does so in ordinary optical reflexion.
If the visual organ proper really were fire, which is the doctrine of Empedocles, a doctrine taught also in the Timaeus, and if vision were the result of light issuing from the eye as from a lantern, why should the eye not have had the power of seeing even in the dark? 15It is totally idle to say, as the Timaeus does, that the visual ray coming forth in the darkness is quenched. What is the meaning of this 'quenching' of light?
That which, like a fire of coals or an ordinary flame, is hot and dry is, indeed, quenched by the moist or cold; but heat and dryness are evidently not attributes of light. Or if they are attributes of it, but belong to it in a degree so slight as to be imperceptible to us, 20we should have expected that in the daytime the light of the sun should be quenched when rain falls, and that darkness should prevail in frosty weather. Flame, for example, and ignited bodies are subject to such extinction, but experience shows that nothing of this sort happens to the sunlight.
Empedocles at times seems to hold that vision is to be explained as above stated by light issuing forth from the eye, 25e.g. in the following passage:- As when one who purposes going abroad prepares a lantern, A gleam of fire blazing through the stormy night, Adjusting thereto, to screen it from all sorts of winds, transparent sides, Which scatter the breath of the winds as they blow, 30While, out through them leaping, the fire, i.e. all the more subtile part of this, Shines along his threshold old incessant beams:
So [Divine love] embedded the round "lens", [viz.]
Things which are smooth have the natural property of shining in darkness, without, however, producing light. Now, the part of the eye called 'the black', i.e. its central part, is manifestly smooth. The phenomenon of the flash occurs only when the eye is moved, because only then could it possibly occur that the same one object should become as it were two. The rapidity of the movement has the effect of making that which sees and that which is seen seem different from one another. 5Hence the phenomenon does not occur unless the motion is rapid and takes place in darkness. For it is in the dark that that which is smooth, e.g. the heads of certain fishes, and the sepia of the cuttle-fish, naturally shines, and, when the movement of the eye is slow, it is impossible that that which sees and that which is seen should appear to be simultaneously two and one. But, in fact, 10the eye sees itself in the above phenomenon merely as it does so in ordinary optical reflexion.
If the visual organ proper really were fire, which is the doctrine of Empedocles, a doctrine taught also in the Timaeus, and if vision were the result of light issuing from the eye as from a lantern, why should the eye not have had the power of seeing even in the dark? 15It is totally idle to say, as the Timaeus does, that the visual ray coming forth in the darkness is quenched. What is the meaning of this 'quenching' of light?
That which, like a fire of coals or an ordinary flame, is hot and dry is, indeed, quenched by the moist or cold; but heat and dryness are evidently not attributes of light. Or if they are attributes of it, but belong to it in a degree so slight as to be imperceptible to us, 20we should have expected that in the daytime the light of the sun should be quenched when rain falls, and that darkness should prevail in frosty weather. Flame, for example, and ignited bodies are subject to such extinction, but experience shows that nothing of this sort happens to the sunlight.
Empedocles at times seems to hold that vision is to be explained as above stated by light issuing forth from the eye, 25e.g. in the following passage:- As when one who purposes going abroad prepares a lantern, A gleam of fire blazing through the stormy night, Adjusting thereto, to screen it from all sorts of winds, transparent sides, Which scatter the breath of the winds as they blow, 30While, out through them leaping, the fire, i.e. all the more subtile part of this, Shines along his threshold old incessant beams:
So [Divine love] embedded the round "lens", [viz.]
438a
1 λεπτῇσιν τ' ὀθόνῃσι λοχεύσατο κύκλοπα κούρην·
αἱ δ' ὕδατος μὲν βένθος ἀπέστεγον ἀμφιναέντος,
πῦρ δ' ἔξω διίεσκον, ὅσον ταναώτερον ἦεν.
ὁτὲ μὲν οὖν οὕτως ὁρᾶν φησίν, ὁτὲ δὲ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις ταῖς
5 ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρωμένων. Δημόκριτος δ' ὅτι μὲν ὕδωρ εἶναί φησι,
λέγει καλῶς, ὅτι δ' οἴεται τὸ ὁρᾶν εἶναι τὴν ἔμφασιν, οὐ
καλῶς· τοῦτο μὲν γὰρ συμβαίνει ὅτι τὸ ὄμμα λεῖον, καὶ
ἔστιν οὐκ ἐν ἐκείνῳ ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ ὁρῶντι· ἀνάκλασις γὰρ τὸ
πάθος, ἀλλὰ καθόλου περὶ τῶν ἐμφαινομένων καὶ ἀνακλάσεως
10 οὐδέν πω δῆλον ἦν, ὡς ἔοικεν. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ μὴ
ἐπελθεῖν αὐτῷ ἀπορῆσαι διὰ τί ὁ ὀφθαλμὸς ὁρᾷ μόνον,
τῶν δ' ἄλλων οὐδὲν ἐν οἷς ἐμφαίνεται τὰ εἴδωλα. τὸ μὲν
οὖν τὴν ὄψιν εἶναι ὕδατος ἀληθὲς μέν, οὐ μέντοι συμβαίνει
τὸ ὁρᾶν ᾗ ὕδωρ ἀλλ' ᾗ διαφανές· ὃ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀέρος
15 κοινόν ἐστιν. ἀλλ' εὐφυλακτότερον καὶ εὐπιλητότερον τὸ
ὕδωρ τοῦ ἀέρος· διόπερ ἡ κόρη καὶ τὸ ὄμμα ὕδατός ἐστιν.
τοῦτο δὲ καὶ ἐπ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων δῆλον· φαίνεται γὰρ
ὕδωρ τὸ ἐκρέον διαφθειρομένων, καὶ ἔν γε τοῖς πάμπαν
ἐμβρύοις τῇ ψυχρότητι ὑπερβάλλον καὶ τῇ λαμπρότητι,
20 καὶ τὸ λευκὸν τοῦ ὄμματος ἐν τοῖς ἔχουσιν αἷμα πῖον καὶ
λιπαρόν· ὅπερ διὰ τοῦτ' ἐστί, πρὸς τὸ διαμένειν τὸ ὑγρὸν
ἄπηκτον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τοῦ σώματος ἀρριγότατον ὁ ὀφθαλμός
ἐστιν· οὐδεὶς γάρ πω τὸ ἐντὸς τῶν βλεφάρων ἐρρίγωσεν.
τῶν δ' ἀναίμων σκληρόδερμοι οἱ ὀφθαλμοί εἰσι, καὶ
25 τοῦτο ποιεῖ τὴν σκέπην. ἄλογον δὲ ὅλως τὸ ἐξιόντι τινὶ τὴν
ὄψιν ὁρᾶν, καὶ ἀποτείνεσθαι μέχρι τῶν ἄστρων, ἢ μέχρι
τινὸς ἐξιοῦσαν συμφύεσθαι, καθάπερ λέγουσί τινες. τούτου
μὲν γὰρ βέλτιον τὸ ἐν <τῇ> ἀρχῇ συμφύεσθαι τοῦ ὄμματος.
ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο εὔηθες· τό τε γὰρ συμφύεσθαι τί ἐστι
30 φωτὶ πρὸς φῶς, ἢ πῶς οἷόν θ' ὑπάρχειν (οὐ γὰρ τῷ τυχόντι
1the primaeval fire fenced within the membranes, In [its own] delicate tissues; And these fended off the deep surrounding flood, While leaping forth the fire, i.e. all its more subtile part-.
Sometimes he accounts for vision thus, but at other times 5he explains it by emanations from the visible objects.
Democritus, on the other hand, is right in his opinion that the eye is of water; not, however, when he goes on to explain seeing as mere mirroring. The mirroring that takes place in an eye is due to the fact that the eye is smooth, and it really has its seat not in the eye which is seen, but in that which sees. For the case is merely one of reflexion.
But it would seem that even in his time there was no scientific knowledge of the general subject of the formation of images and the phenomena of reflexion. 10It is strange too, that it never occurred to him to ask why, if his theory be true, the eye alone sees, while none of the other things in which images are reflected do so.
True, then, the visual organ proper is composed of water, yet vision appertains to it not because it is so composed, but because it is translucent- a property common alike to water and to air. 15But water is more easily confined and more easily condensed than air; wherefore it is that the pupil, i.e.
the eye proper, consists of water. That it does so is proved by facts of actual experience. The substance which flows from eyes when decomposing is seen to be water, and this in undeveloped embryos is remarkably cold and glistening. 20In sanguineous animals the white of the eye is fat and oily, in order that the moisture of the eye may be proof against freezing.
Wherefore the eye is of all parts of the body the least sensitive to cold:
no one ever feels cold in the part sheltered by the eyelids. The eyes of bloodless animals are covered with a hard scale which gives them similar protection.
It is, to state the matter generally, 25an irrational notion that the eye should see in virtue of something issuing from it; that the visual ray should extend itself all the way to the stars, or else go out merely to a certain point, and there coalesce, as some say, with rays which proceed from the object. It would be better to suppose this coalescence to take place in the fundament of the eye itself. But even this would be mere trifling.
For what is meant by the 'coalescence' of light with light? 30Or how is it possible? Coalescence does not occur between any two things taken at random.
Sometimes he accounts for vision thus, but at other times 5he explains it by emanations from the visible objects.
Democritus, on the other hand, is right in his opinion that the eye is of water; not, however, when he goes on to explain seeing as mere mirroring. The mirroring that takes place in an eye is due to the fact that the eye is smooth, and it really has its seat not in the eye which is seen, but in that which sees. For the case is merely one of reflexion.
But it would seem that even in his time there was no scientific knowledge of the general subject of the formation of images and the phenomena of reflexion. 10It is strange too, that it never occurred to him to ask why, if his theory be true, the eye alone sees, while none of the other things in which images are reflected do so.
True, then, the visual organ proper is composed of water, yet vision appertains to it not because it is so composed, but because it is translucent- a property common alike to water and to air. 15But water is more easily confined and more easily condensed than air; wherefore it is that the pupil, i.e.
the eye proper, consists of water. That it does so is proved by facts of actual experience. The substance which flows from eyes when decomposing is seen to be water, and this in undeveloped embryos is remarkably cold and glistening. 20In sanguineous animals the white of the eye is fat and oily, in order that the moisture of the eye may be proof against freezing.
Wherefore the eye is of all parts of the body the least sensitive to cold:
no one ever feels cold in the part sheltered by the eyelids. The eyes of bloodless animals are covered with a hard scale which gives them similar protection.
It is, to state the matter generally, 25an irrational notion that the eye should see in virtue of something issuing from it; that the visual ray should extend itself all the way to the stars, or else go out merely to a certain point, and there coalesce, as some say, with rays which proceed from the object. It would be better to suppose this coalescence to take place in the fundament of the eye itself. But even this would be mere trifling.
For what is meant by the 'coalescence' of light with light? 30Or how is it possible? Coalescence does not occur between any two things taken at random.
438b
1 συμφύεται τὸ τυχόν), τό τ' ἐντὸς τῷ ἐκτὸς πῶς; ἡ
γὰρ μῆνιγξ μεταξύ ἐστιν. περὶ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ἄνευ φωτὸς
μὴ ὁρᾶν εἴρηται ἐν ἄλλοις· ἀλλ' εἴτε φῶς εἴτ' ἀήρ ἐστι
τὸ μεταξὺ τοῦ ὁρωμένου καὶ τοῦ ὄμματος, ἡ διὰ τούτου
5 κίνησίς ἐστιν ἡ ποιοῦσα τὸ ὁρᾶν. καὶ εὐλόγως τὸ ἐντός ἐστιν
ὕδατος· διαφανὲς γὰρ τὸ ὕδωρ, ὁρᾶται δὲ ὥσπερ καὶ
ἔξω οὐκ ἄνευ φωτός, οὕτως καὶ ἐντός· διαφανὲς ἄρα δεῖ
εἶναι· ἀνάγκη ἄρα ὕδωρ εἶναι, ἐπειδὴ οὐκ ἀήρ. οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ
ἐσχάτου τοῦ ὄμματος ἡ ψυχὴ ἢ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αἰσθητικόν
10 ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δῆλον ὅτι ἐντός· διόπερ ἀνάγκη διαφανὲς εἶναι
καὶ δεκτικὸν φωτὸς τὸ ἐντὸς τοῦ ὄμματος. καὶ τοῦτο καὶ
ἐπὶ τῶν συμβαινόντων δῆλον· ἤδη γάρ τισι πληγεῖσιν ἐν
πολέμῳ παρὰ τὸν κρόταφον οὕτως ὥστ' ἀποτμηθῆναι τοὺς
πόρους τοῦ ὄμματος ἔδοξε γενέσθαι σκότος ὥσπερ λύχνου
15 ἀποσβεσθέντος, διὰ τὸ οἷον λαμπτῆρά τινα ἀποτμηθῆναι
τὸ διαφανές, τὴν καλουμένην κόρην. ὥστ' εἴπερ ἐπὶ τούτων
συμβαίνει καθάπερ λέγομεν, φανερὸν ὡς εἰ δεῖ τοῦτον τὸν
τρόπον ἀποδιδόναι καὶ προσάπτειν ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων
ἑνὶ τῶν στοιχείων, τοῦ μὲν ὄμματος τὸ ὁρατικὸν ὕδατος
20 ὑποληπτέον, ἀέρος δὲ τὸ τῶν ψόφων αἰσθητικόν, πυρὸς δὲ
τὴν ὄσφρησιν (ὃ γὰρ ἐνεργείᾳ ἡ ὄσφρησις, τοῦτο δυνάμει
τὸ ὀσφραντικόν· τὸ γὰρ αἰσθητὸν ἐνεργεῖν ποιεῖ τὴν αἴσθησιν,
ὥσθ' ὑπάρχειν ἀναγκαῖον αὐτὴν δυνάμει πρότερον.
ἡ δ' ὀσμὴ καπνώδης τίς ἐστιν ἀναθυμίασις, ἡ δ' ἀναθυμίασις
25 ἡ καπνώδης ἐκ πυρός. διὸ καὶ τῷ περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον
τόπῳ τὸ τῆς ὀσφρήσεως αἰσθητήριόν ἐστιν ἴδιον· δυνάμει
γὰρ θερμὴ ἡ τοῦ ψυχροῦ ὕλη ἐστίν. καὶ ἡ τοῦ ὄμματος
γένεσις τὸν αὐτὸν ἔχει τρόπον· ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου γὰρ
συνέστηκεν· οὗτος γὰρ ὑγρότατος καὶ ψυχρότατος τῶν ἐν
30 τῷ σώματι μορίων ἐστίν). τὸ δ' ἁπτικὸν γῆς, τὸ δὲ γευστικὸν
1And how could the light within the eye coalesce with that outside it? For the environing membrane comes between them.
That without light vision is impossible has been stated elsewhere; but, whether the medium between the eye and its objects is air or light, 5vision is caused by a process through this medium.
Accordingly, that the inner part of the eye consists of water is easily intelligible, water being translucent.
Now, as vision outwardly is impossible without [extra-organic] light, so also it is impossible inwardly [without light within the organ].
There must, therefore, be some translucent medium within the eye, and, as this is not air, it must be water. The soul or its perceptive part is not situated at the external surface of the eye, 10but obviously somewhere within: whence the necessity of the interior of the eye being translucent, i.e. capable of admitting light. And that it is so is plain from actual occurrences. It is matter of experience that soldiers wounded in battle by a sword slash on the temple, so inflicted as to sever the passages of [i.e. inward from] the eye, feel a sudden onset of darkness, 15as if a lamp had gone out; because what is called the pupil, i.e. the translucent, which is a sort of inner lamp, is then cut off [from its connexion with the soul].
Hence, if the facts be at all as here stated, it is clear that- if one should explain the nature of the sensory organs in this way, i.e.
by correlating each of them with one of the four elements,- we must conceive that the part of the eye immediately concerned in vision consists of water, that the part immediately concerned in 20the perception of sound consists of air, and that the sense of smell consists of fire. (I say the sense of smell, not the organ.) For the organ of smell is only potentially that which the sense of smell, as realized, is actually; since the object of sense is what causes the actualization of each sense, so that it (the sense) must (at the instant of actualization) be (actually) that which before (the moment of actualization) it was potentially. Now, odour is a smoke-like evaporation, and smoke-like evaporation arises from fire. This also helps us to understand 25why the olfactory organ has its proper seat in the environment of the brain, for cold matter is potentially hot. In the same way must the genesis of the eye be explained. 30Its structure is an offshoot from the brain, because the latter is the moistest and coldest of all the bodily parts.
That without light vision is impossible has been stated elsewhere; but, whether the medium between the eye and its objects is air or light, 5vision is caused by a process through this medium.
Accordingly, that the inner part of the eye consists of water is easily intelligible, water being translucent.
Now, as vision outwardly is impossible without [extra-organic] light, so also it is impossible inwardly [without light within the organ].
There must, therefore, be some translucent medium within the eye, and, as this is not air, it must be water. The soul or its perceptive part is not situated at the external surface of the eye, 10but obviously somewhere within: whence the necessity of the interior of the eye being translucent, i.e. capable of admitting light. And that it is so is plain from actual occurrences. It is matter of experience that soldiers wounded in battle by a sword slash on the temple, so inflicted as to sever the passages of [i.e. inward from] the eye, feel a sudden onset of darkness, 15as if a lamp had gone out; because what is called the pupil, i.e. the translucent, which is a sort of inner lamp, is then cut off [from its connexion with the soul].
Hence, if the facts be at all as here stated, it is clear that- if one should explain the nature of the sensory organs in this way, i.e.
by correlating each of them with one of the four elements,- we must conceive that the part of the eye immediately concerned in vision consists of water, that the part immediately concerned in 20the perception of sound consists of air, and that the sense of smell consists of fire. (I say the sense of smell, not the organ.) For the organ of smell is only potentially that which the sense of smell, as realized, is actually; since the object of sense is what causes the actualization of each sense, so that it (the sense) must (at the instant of actualization) be (actually) that which before (the moment of actualization) it was potentially. Now, odour is a smoke-like evaporation, and smoke-like evaporation arises from fire. This also helps us to understand 25why the olfactory organ has its proper seat in the environment of the brain, for cold matter is potentially hot. In the same way must the genesis of the eye be explained. 30Its structure is an offshoot from the brain, because the latter is the moistest and coldest of all the bodily parts.
439a
1 εἶδός τι ἁφῆς ἐστίν. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ τὸ
αἰσθητήριον αὐτῶν, τῆς γεύσεως καὶ τῆς ἁφῆς· ἀντίκειται
γὰρ τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ αὕτη, καὶ ἔστι θερμότατον τῶν
μορίων. καὶ περὶ μὲν τῶν αἰσθητικῶν τοῦ σώματος μορίων
5 ἔστω τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον διωρισμένα.
1The organ of touch proper consists of earth, and the faculty of taste is a particular form of touch. This explains why the sensory organ of both touch and taste is closely related to the heart. For the heart as being the hottest of all the bodily parts, is the counterpoise of the brain.
5This then is the way in which the characteristics of the bodily organs of sense must be determined.
5This then is the way in which the characteristics of the bodily organs of sense must be determined.
Chapter 3 (439a6–440b25)
Περὶ δὲ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τῶν καθ' ἕκαστον αἰσθητήριον,
οἷον λέγω χρώματος καὶ ψόφου καὶ ὀσμῆς καὶ χυμοῦ καὶ
ἁφῆς, καθόλου μὲν εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς, τί τὸ ἔργον
αὐτῶν καὶ τί τὸ ἐνεργεῖν καθ' ἕκαστον τῶν αἰσθητηρίων.
10 τί δέ ποτε δεῖ λέγειν ὁτιοῦν αὐτῶν, οἷον τί χρῶμα ἢ τί
ψόφον ἢ τί ὀσμὴν ἢ χυμόν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ ἁφῆς,
ἐπισκεπτέον, καὶ πρῶτον περὶ χρώματος. ἔστι μὲν οὖν ἕκαστον
διχῶς λεγόμενον, τὸ μὲν ἐνεργείᾳ τὸ δὲ δυνάμει. τὸ
μὲν οὖν ἐνεργείᾳ χρῶμα καὶ ψόφος πῶς ἐστὶ τὸ αὐτὸ
15 ἢ ἕτερον ταῖς κατ' ἐνέργειαν αἰσθήσεσιν, οἷον ὁράσει καὶ
ἀκούσει, εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς· τί δὲ ἕκαστον αὐτῶν
ὂν ποιήσει τὴν αἴσθησιν καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν, νῦν λέγωμεν.
ὥσπερ οὖν εἴρηται περὶ φωτὸς ἐν ἐκείνοις, ὅτι ἐστὶ χρῶμα
τοῦ διαφανοῦς κατὰ συμβεβηκός—ὅταν γὰρ ᾖ τι πυρῶδες
20 ἐν διαφανεῖ, ἡ μὲν παρουσία φῶς, ἡ δὲ στέρησίς ἐστι
σκότος· ὃ δὲ λέγομεν διαφανὲς οὐκ ἔστιν ἴδιον ἀέρος ἢ
ὕδατος οὐδ' ἄλλου τῶν οὕτω λεγομένων σωμάτων, ἀλλά
τίς ἐστι κοινὴ φύσις καὶ δύναμις, ἣ χωριστὴ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν,
ἐν τούτοις δ' ἔστι, καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις σώμασιν ἐνυπάρχει,
25 τοῖς μὲν μᾶλλον τοῖς δ' ἧττον· ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τῶν σωμάτων
ἀνάγκη τι εἶναι ἔσχατον, καὶ ταύτης—ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ
φωτὸς φύσις ἐν ἀορίστῳ τῷ διαφανεῖ ἐστίν· τοῦ δ' ἐν τοῖς
σώμασι διαφανοῦς τὸ ἔσχατον ὅτι μὲν εἴη ἄν τι, δῆλον,
ὅτι δὲ τοῦτ' ἐστὶ τὸ χρῶμα, ἐκ τῶν συμβαινόντων φανερόν.
30 τὸ γὰρ χρῶμα ἢ ἐν τῷ πέρατί ἐστιν ἢ πέρας (διὸ καὶ οἱ
Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν χρόαν ἐκάλουν)· ἔστι μὲν γὰρ ἐν
τῷ τοῦ σώματος πέρατι, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸ τοῦ σώματος πέρας,
ἀλλὰ τὴν αὐτὴν φύσιν δεῖ νομίζειν ἥπερ καὶ ἔξω
6Of the sensibles corresponding to each sensory organ, viz. colour, sound, odour, savour, touch, we have treated in On the Soul in general terms, having there determined what their function is, and what is implied in their becoming actualized in relation to their respective organs. 10We must next consider what account we are to give of any one of them; what, for example, we should say colour is, or sound, or odour, or savour; and so also respecting [the object of] touch. We begin with colour.
Now, each of them may be spoken of from two points of view, i.e.
either as actual or as potential. We have in On the Soul explained in what sense the colour, or sound, regarded as actualized [for sensation] is the same as, and in what sense 15it is different from, the correlative sensation, the actual seeing or hearing. The point of our present discussion is, therefore, to determine what each sensible object must be in itself, in order to be perceived as it is in actual consciousness.
We have already in On the Soul stated of Light that it is the colour of the Translucent, [being so related to it] incidentally; for whenever a fiery element is 20in a translucent medium presence there is Light; while the privation of it is Darkness. But the 'Translucent', as we call it, is not something peculiar to air, or water, or any other of the bodies usually called translucent, but is a common 'nature' and power, capable of no separate existence of its own, but residing in these, and subsisting likewise in all other bodies in a greater or less degree. 25As the bodies in which it subsists must have some extreme bounding surface, so too must this. Here, then, we may say that Light is a 'nature' inhering in the Translucent when the latter is without determinate boundary. But it is manifest that, when the Translucent is in determinate bodies, its bounding extreme must be something real; and that colour is just this 'something' we are plainly taught by facts-30colour being actually either at the external limit, or being itself that limit, in bodies. Hence it was that the Pythagoreans named the superficies of a body its 'hue', for 'hue', indeed, lies at the limit of the body; but the limit of the body; is not a real thing; rather we must suppose that the same natural substance which, externally, is the vehicle of colour exists [as such a possible vehicle] also in the interior of the body.
Air and water, too [i.e. as well as determinately bounded bodies] are seen to possess colour; for their brightness is of the nature of colour.
Now, each of them may be spoken of from two points of view, i.e.
either as actual or as potential. We have in On the Soul explained in what sense the colour, or sound, regarded as actualized [for sensation] is the same as, and in what sense 15it is different from, the correlative sensation, the actual seeing or hearing. The point of our present discussion is, therefore, to determine what each sensible object must be in itself, in order to be perceived as it is in actual consciousness.
We have already in On the Soul stated of Light that it is the colour of the Translucent, [being so related to it] incidentally; for whenever a fiery element is 20in a translucent medium presence there is Light; while the privation of it is Darkness. But the 'Translucent', as we call it, is not something peculiar to air, or water, or any other of the bodies usually called translucent, but is a common 'nature' and power, capable of no separate existence of its own, but residing in these, and subsisting likewise in all other bodies in a greater or less degree. 25As the bodies in which it subsists must have some extreme bounding surface, so too must this. Here, then, we may say that Light is a 'nature' inhering in the Translucent when the latter is without determinate boundary. But it is manifest that, when the Translucent is in determinate bodies, its bounding extreme must be something real; and that colour is just this 'something' we are plainly taught by facts-30colour being actually either at the external limit, or being itself that limit, in bodies. Hence it was that the Pythagoreans named the superficies of a body its 'hue', for 'hue', indeed, lies at the limit of the body; but the limit of the body; is not a real thing; rather we must suppose that the same natural substance which, externally, is the vehicle of colour exists [as such a possible vehicle] also in the interior of the body.
Air and water, too [i.e. as well as determinately bounded bodies] are seen to possess colour; for their brightness is of the nature of colour.
439b
1 χρωματίζεται, ταύτην καὶ ἐντός. φαίνεται δὲ καὶ ἀὴρ
καὶ ὕδωρ χρωματιζόμενα· καὶ γὰρ ἡ αὐγὴ τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν.
ἀλλ' ἐκεῖ μὲν διὰ τὸ ἐν ἀορίστῳ οὐ τὴν αὐτὴν ἐγγύθεν καὶ
προσιοῦσι καὶ πόρρωθεν ἔχει χρόαν οὔθ' ὁ ἀὴρ οὔθ' ἡ θάλαττα·
5 ἐν δὲ τοῖς σώμασιν, ἐὰν μὴ τὸ περιέχον ποιῇ
μεταβάλλειν, ὥρισται καὶ ἡ φαντασία τῆς χρόας. δῆλον
ἄρα ὅτι τὸ αὐτὸ κἀκεῖ κἀνθάδε δεκτικὸν τῆς χρόας ἐστίν.
τὸ ἄρα διαφανὲς καθ' ὅσον ὑπάρχει ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν (ὑπάρχει
δὲ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἐν πᾶσι) χρώματος ποιεῖ μετέχειν.
10 ἐπεὶ δ' ἐν πέρατι ἡ χρόα, τούτου ἂν ἐν πέρατι εἴη.
ὥστε χρῶμα ἂν εἴη τὸ τοῦ διαφανοῦς ἐν σώματι ὡρισμένῳ
πέρας. καὶ αὐτῶν δὲ τῶν διαφανῶν, οἷον ὕδατος καὶ
εἴ τι ἄλλο τοιοῦτον, καὶ ὅσοις φαίνεται χρῶμα ἴδιον ὑπάρχειν,
κατὰ τὸ ἔσχατον ὁμοίως πᾶσιν ὑπάρχει. ἔστι μὲν
15 οὖν ἐνεῖναι ἐν τῷ διαφανεῖ τοῦθ' ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ποιεῖ
φῶς, ἔστι δὲ μή, ἀλλ' ἐστερῆσθαι. ὥσπερ οὖν ἐκεῖ τὸ μὲν
φῶς τὸ δὲ σκότος, οὕτως ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ἐγγίγνεται τὸ
λευκὸν καὶ τὸ μέλαν. περὶ δὲ τῶν ἄλλων χρωμάτων ἤδη,
διελομένοις ποσαχῶς ἐνδέχεται γίγνεσθαι, λεκτέον. ἐνδέχεται
20 μὲν γὰρ παρ' ἄλληλα τιθέμενα τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ
μέλαν, ὥσθ' ἑκάτερον μὲν εἶναι ἀόρατον διὰ σμικρότητα,
τὸ δ' ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ὁρατόν, οὕτω γίγνεσθαι. τοῦτο γὰρ οὔτε
λευκὸν οἷόν τε φαίνεσθαι οὔτε μέλαν· ἐπεὶ δ' ἀνάγκη μέν
τι ἔχειν χρῶμα, τούτων δ' οὐδέτερον δυνατόν, ἀνάγκη μεικτόν
25 τι εἶναι καὶ εἶδός τι χρόας ἕτερον. ἔστι μὲν οὖν οὕτως
ὑπολαβεῖν πλείους εἶναι χρόας παρὰ τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ
μέλαν, πολλὰς δὲ τῷ λόγῳ (τρία γὰρ πρὸς δύο, καὶ
τρία πρὸς τέτταρα, καὶ κατ' ἄλλους ἀριθμοὺς ἔστι παρ'
ἄλληλα κεῖσθαι· τὰ δ' ὅλως κατὰ μὲν λόγον μηδένα,
30 καθ' ὑπεροχὴν δέ τινα καὶ ἔλλειψιν ἀσύμμετρον), καὶ τὸν
αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον ἔχειν ταῦτα ταῖς συμφωνίαις· τὰ μὲν
γὰρ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς εὐλογίστοις χρώματα, καθάπερ ἐκεῖ τὰς
συμφωνίας, τὰ ἥδιστα τῶν χρωμάτων εἶναι δοκοῦντα, οἷον
1But the colour which air or sea presents, since the body in which it resides is not determinately bounded, is not the same when one approaches and views it close by as it is when one regards it from a distance; 5whereas in determinate bodies the colour presented is definitely fixed, unless, indeed, when the atmospheric environment causes it to change. Hence it is clear that that in them which is susceptible of colour is in both cases the same. It is therefore the Translucent, according to the degree to which it subsists in bodies (and it does so in all more or less), that causes them to partake of colour. 10But since the colour is at the extremity of the body, it must be at the extremity of the Translucent in the body. Whence it follows that we may define colour as the limit of the Translucent in determinately bounded body. For whether we consider the special class of bodies called translucent, as water and such others, or determinate bodies, which appear to possess a fixed colour of their own, it is at the exterior bounding surface that all alike exhibit their colour.
Now, 15that which when present in air produces light may be present also in the Translucent which pervades determinate bodies; or again, it may not be present, but there may be a privation of it. Accordingly, as in the case of air the one condition is light, the other darkness, in the same way the colours White and Black are generated in determinate bodies.
We must now treat of the other colours, reviewing the several hypotheses invented to explain their genesis.
(1) It is conceivable that 20the White and the Black should be juxtaposed in quantities so minute that [a particle of] either separately would be invisible, though the joint product [of two particles, a black and a white] would be visible; and that they should thus have the other colours for resultants. Their product could, at all events, appear neither white nor black; and, as it must have some colour, and can have neither of these, this colour must be of a mixed character- 25in fact, a species of colour different from either. Such, then, is a possible way of conceiving the existence of a plurality of colours besides the White and Black; and we may suppose that [of this 'plurality'] many are the result of a [numerical] ratio; for the blacks and whites may be juxtaposed in the ratio of 3 to 2 or of 3 to 4, or in ratios expressible by other numbers; while some may be juxtaposed according to no numerically expressible ratio, but according to some relation of excess or defect in which the blacks and whites involved would be 30incommensurable quantities; and, accordingly, we may regard all these colours [viz. all those based on numerical ratios] as analogous to the sounds that enter into music, and suppose that those involving simple numerical ratios, like the concords in music, may be those generally regarded as most agreeable; as, for example, purple, crimson, and some few such colours, their fewness being due to the same causes which render the concords few. The other compound colours may be those which are not based on numbers.
Now, 15that which when present in air produces light may be present also in the Translucent which pervades determinate bodies; or again, it may not be present, but there may be a privation of it. Accordingly, as in the case of air the one condition is light, the other darkness, in the same way the colours White and Black are generated in determinate bodies.
We must now treat of the other colours, reviewing the several hypotheses invented to explain their genesis.
(1) It is conceivable that 20the White and the Black should be juxtaposed in quantities so minute that [a particle of] either separately would be invisible, though the joint product [of two particles, a black and a white] would be visible; and that they should thus have the other colours for resultants. Their product could, at all events, appear neither white nor black; and, as it must have some colour, and can have neither of these, this colour must be of a mixed character- 25in fact, a species of colour different from either. Such, then, is a possible way of conceiving the existence of a plurality of colours besides the White and Black; and we may suppose that [of this 'plurality'] many are the result of a [numerical] ratio; for the blacks and whites may be juxtaposed in the ratio of 3 to 2 or of 3 to 4, or in ratios expressible by other numbers; while some may be juxtaposed according to no numerically expressible ratio, but according to some relation of excess or defect in which the blacks and whites involved would be 30incommensurable quantities; and, accordingly, we may regard all these colours [viz. all those based on numerical ratios] as analogous to the sounds that enter into music, and suppose that those involving simple numerical ratios, like the concords in music, may be those generally regarded as most agreeable; as, for example, purple, crimson, and some few such colours, their fewness being due to the same causes which render the concords few. The other compound colours may be those which are not based on numbers.
440a
1 τὸ ἁλουργὸν καὶ τὸ φοινικοῦν καὶ ὀλίγ' ἄττα τοιαῦτα (δι'
ἥνπερ αἰτίαν καὶ αἱ συμφωνίαι ὀλίγαι), τὰ δὲ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς
τἆλλα χρώματα· ἢ καὶ πάσας τὰς χρόας ἐν ἀριθμοῖς
εἶναι, τὰς μὲν τεταγμένας τὰς δὲ ἀτάκτους, καὶ αὐτὰς
5 ταύτας, ὅταν μὴ καθαραὶ ὦσι, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς
εἶναι τοιαύτας γίγνεσθαι. εἷς μὲν οὖν τρόπος τῆς γενέσεως
τῶν χρωμάτων οὗτος, εἷς δὲ τὸ φαίνεσθαι δι' ἀλλήλων,
οἷον ἐνίοτε οἱ γραφεῖς ποιοῦσιν, ἑτέραν χρόαν ἐφ'
ἑτέραν ἐναργεστέραν ἐπαλείφοντες, ὥσπερ ὅταν ἐν ὕδατί τι
10 ἢ ἐν ἀέρι βούλωνται ποιῆσαι φαινόμενον, καὶ οἷον ὁ ἥλιος
καθ' αὑτὸν μὲν λευκὸς φαίνεται, διὰ δ' ἀχλύος καὶ καπνοῦ
φοινικοῦς. πολλαὶ δὲ καὶ οὕτως ἔσονται χρόαι τὸν αὐτὸν
τρόπον τῷ πρότερον εἰρημένῳ· λόγος γὰρ ἂν εἴη τις
τῶν ἐπιπολῆς πρὸς τὰ ἐν βάθει, τὰ δὲ καὶ ὅλως οὐκ ἐν
15 λόγῳ. τὸ μὲν οὖν, ὥσπερ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι, λέγειν ἀπόρροιαν
εἶναι τὴν χρόαν καὶ ὁρᾶσθαι διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν
ἄτοπον· πάντως γὰρ δι' ἁφῆς ἀναγκαῖον αὐτοῖς ποιεῖν τὴν
αἴσθησιν, ὥστ' εὐθὺς κρεῖττον φάναι τῷ κινεῖσθαι τὸ μεταξὺ
τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὑπὸ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ γίγνεσθαι τὴν αἴσθησιν, ἁφῇ
20 καὶ μὴ ταῖς ἀπορροίαις. ἐπὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν παρ' ἄλληλα κειμένων
ἀνάγκη ὥσπερ καὶ μέγεθος λαμβάνειν ἀόρατον, οὕτω
καὶ χρόνον ἀναίσθητον, ἵνα λανθάνωσιν αἱ κινήσεις ἀφικνούμεναι
καὶ ἓν δοκῇ εἶναι διὰ τὸ ἅμα φαίνεσθαι· ἐνταῦθα δὲ
οὐδεμία ἀνάγκη, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐπιπολῆς χρῶμα ἀκίνητον ὂν καὶ
25 κινούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὑποκειμένου οὐχ ὁμοίαν ποιήσει τὴν κίνησιν.
διὸ καὶ ἕτερον φαίνεται καὶ οὔτε λευκὸν οὔτε μέλαν. ὥστ' εἰ
μὴ ἐνδέχεται μηδὲν εἶναι μέγεθος ἀόρατον, ἀλλὰ πᾶν ἔκ
τινος ἀποστήματος ὁρατόν, καίτοι αὕτη τις ἂν εἴη χρωμάτων
μίξις. κἀκείνως δ' οὐδὲν κωλύει φαίνεσθαί τινα χρόαν κοινὴν
30 τοῖς πόρρωθεν· ὅτι γὰρ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲν μέγεθος ἀόρατον,
ἐν τοῖς ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον. εἰ δ' ἔστι μίξις τῶν σωμάτων
1Or it may be that, while all colours whatever [except black and white] are based on numbers, some are regular in this respect, others irregular; and that the latter [though now supposed to be all based on numbers], 5whenever they are not pure, owe this character to a corresponding impurity in [the arrangement of] their numerical ratios. This then is one conceivable hypothesis to explain the genesis of intermediate colours.
(2) Another is that the Black and White appear the one through the medium of the other, giving an effect like that sometimes produced by painters overlaying a less vivid upon a more vivid colour, as when they desire to represent an object appearing under water or enveloped in a haze, and 10like that produced by the sun, which in itself appears white, but takes a crimson hue when beheld through a fog or a cloud of smoke. On this hypothesis, too, a variety of colours may be conceived to arise in the same way as that already described; for between those at the surface and those underneath a definite ratio might sometimes exist; in other cases they might stand in no determinate ratio. 15To [introduce a theory of colour which would set all these hypotheses aside, and] say with the ancients that colours are emanations, and that the visibility of objects is due to such a cause, is absurd. For they must, in any case, explain sense-perception through Touch; so that it were better to say at once that visual perception is due to a process set up by the perceived object in the medium between this object and the sensory organ; due, that is, to contact [with the medium affected,] not to emanations.
20If we accept the hypothesis of juxtaposition, we must assume not only invisible magnitude, but also imperceptible time, in order that the succession in the arrival of the stimulatory movements may be unperceived, and that the compound colour seen may appear to be one, owing to its successive parts seeming to present themselves at once. On the hypothesis of superposition, however, no such assumption is needful: the stimulatory process produced in the medium by the upper colour, when this is itself unaffected, 25will be different in kind from that produced by it when affected by the underlying colour. Hence it presents itself as a different colour, i.e. as one which is neither white nor black. So that, if it is impossible to suppose any magnitude to be invisible, and we must assume that there is some distance from which every magnitude is visible, this superposition theory, too [i.e.
as well as No. 3 infra], might pass as a real theory of colour-mixture.
Indeed, in the previous case also there is no reason why, 30to persons at a distance from the juxtaposed blacks and whites, some one colour should not appear to present itself as a blend of both. [But it would not be so on a nearer view], for it will be shown, in a discussion to be undertaken later on, that there is no magnitude absolutely invisible.
(3) There is a mixture of bodies, however, not merely such as some suppose, i.e.
(2) Another is that the Black and White appear the one through the medium of the other, giving an effect like that sometimes produced by painters overlaying a less vivid upon a more vivid colour, as when they desire to represent an object appearing under water or enveloped in a haze, and 10like that produced by the sun, which in itself appears white, but takes a crimson hue when beheld through a fog or a cloud of smoke. On this hypothesis, too, a variety of colours may be conceived to arise in the same way as that already described; for between those at the surface and those underneath a definite ratio might sometimes exist; in other cases they might stand in no determinate ratio. 15To [introduce a theory of colour which would set all these hypotheses aside, and] say with the ancients that colours are emanations, and that the visibility of objects is due to such a cause, is absurd. For they must, in any case, explain sense-perception through Touch; so that it were better to say at once that visual perception is due to a process set up by the perceived object in the medium between this object and the sensory organ; due, that is, to contact [with the medium affected,] not to emanations.
20If we accept the hypothesis of juxtaposition, we must assume not only invisible magnitude, but also imperceptible time, in order that the succession in the arrival of the stimulatory movements may be unperceived, and that the compound colour seen may appear to be one, owing to its successive parts seeming to present themselves at once. On the hypothesis of superposition, however, no such assumption is needful: the stimulatory process produced in the medium by the upper colour, when this is itself unaffected, 25will be different in kind from that produced by it when affected by the underlying colour. Hence it presents itself as a different colour, i.e. as one which is neither white nor black. So that, if it is impossible to suppose any magnitude to be invisible, and we must assume that there is some distance from which every magnitude is visible, this superposition theory, too [i.e.
as well as No. 3 infra], might pass as a real theory of colour-mixture.
Indeed, in the previous case also there is no reason why, 30to persons at a distance from the juxtaposed blacks and whites, some one colour should not appear to present itself as a blend of both. [But it would not be so on a nearer view], for it will be shown, in a discussion to be undertaken later on, that there is no magnitude absolutely invisible.
(3) There is a mixture of bodies, however, not merely such as some suppose, i.e.
440b
1 μὴ μόνον τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ὅνπερ οἴονταί τινες, παρ' ἄλληλα
τῶν ἐλαχίστων τιθεμένων, ἀδήλων δ' ἡμῖν διὰ τὴν αἴσθησιν,
ἀλλ' ὅλως πάντη πάντως, ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς περὶ μίξεως
εἴρηται καθόλου περὶ πάντων (ἐκείνως μὲν γὰρ μείγνυται
5 ταῦτα μόνον ὅσα ἐνδέχεται διελεῖν εἰς τὰ ἐλάχιστα,
καθάπερ ἀνθρώπους <ἢ> ἵππους ἢ τὰ σπέρματα· τῶν μὲν γὰρ
ἀνθρώπων ἄνθρωπος ἐλάχιστον, τῶν δ' ἵππων ἵππος· ὥστε τῇ
τούτων παρ' ἄλληλα θέσει τὸ πλῆθος μέμεικται τῶν συναμφοτέρων·
ἄνθρωπον δὲ ἕνα ἑνὶ ἵππῳ οὐ λέγομεν μεμεῖχθαι·
10 ὅσα δὲ μὴ διαιρεῖται εἰς τὸ ἐλάχιστον, τούτων οὐκ ἐνδέχεται
μίξιν γενέσθαι τὸν τρόπον τοῦτον ἀλλὰ τῷ πάντη μεμεῖχθαι,
ἅπερ καὶ μάλιστα μείγνυσθαι πέφυκεν· πῶς δὲ τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι
δυνατόν, ἐν τοῖς περὶ μίξεως εἴρηται πρότερον)—ἀλλ'
ὅτι ἀνάγκη μειγνυμένων καὶ τὰς χρόας μείγνυσθαι, δῆλον,
15 καὶ ταύτην τὴν αἰτίαν εἶναι κυρίαν τοῦ πολλὰς εἶναι χρόας,
ἀλλὰ μὴ τὴν ἐπιπόλασιν μηδὲ τὴν παρ' ἄλληλα θέσιν· οὐ
γὰρ πόρρωθεν μὲν ἐγγύθεν δ' οὒ φαίνεται μία χρόα τῶν μεμειγμένων,
ἀλλὰ πάντοθεν. πολλαὶ δ' ἔσονται χρόαι διὰ τὸ
κατὰ πολλοὺς λόγους ἐνδέχεσθαι μείγνυσθαι ἀλλήλοις τὰ
20 μειγνύμενα, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἐν ἀριθμοῖς τὰ δὲ καθ' ὑπεροχὴν
μόνον. καὶ τἆλλα δὴ τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον ὅνπερ ἐπὶ τῶν παρ'
ἄλληλα τιθεμένων χρωμάτων ἢ ἐπιπολῆς, ἐνδέχεται λέγειν
καὶ περὶ τῶν μειγνυμένων. διὰ τίνα δ' αἰτίαν εἴδη τῶν
χρωμάτων ἐστὶν ὡρισμένα καὶ οὐκ ἄπειρα, καὶ χυμῶν καὶ
25 ψόφων, ὕστερον ἐπισκεπτέον.
1by juxtaposition of their minimal parts, which, owing to [the weakness of our] sense, are imperceptible by us, but a mixture by which they [i.e. the 'matter' of which they consist] are wholly blent together by interpenetration, as we have described it in the treatise on Mixture, where we dealt with this subject generally in its most comprehensive aspect.
For, on the supposition we are criticizing, 5the only totals capable of being mixed are those which are divisible into minimal parts, [e.g. genera into individuals] as men, horses, or the [various kinds of] seeds. For of mankind as a whole the individual man is such a least part; of horses [as an aggregate] the individual horse. Hence by the juxtaposition of these we obtain a mixed total, consisting [like a troop of cavalry] of both together; but we do not say that by such a process any individual man has been mixed with any individual horse. 10Not in this way, but by complete interpenetration [of their matter], must we conceive those things to be mixed which are not divisible into minima; and it is in the case of these that natural mixture exhibits itself in its most perfect form. We have explained already in our discourse 'On Mixture' how such mixture is possible. This being the true nature of mixture, it is plain that when bodies are mixed their colours also are necessarily mixed at the same time; and [it is no less plain] that 15this is the real cause determining the existence of a plurality of colours- not superposition or juxtaposition. For when bodies are thus mixed, their resultant colour presents itself as one and the same at all distances alike; not varying as it is seen nearer or farther away.
Colours will thus, too [as well as on the former hypotheses], be many in number on account of the fact that the ingredients may be combined with one another in a multitude of ratios; 20some will be based on determinate numerical ratios, while others again will have as their basis a relation of quantitative excess or defect not expressible in integers. And all else that was said in reference to the colours, considered as juxtaposed or superposed, may be said of them likewise when regarded as mixed in the way just described.
Why colours, as well as savours 25and sounds, consist of species determinate [in themselves] and not infinite [in number] is a question which we shall discuss hereafter.
For, on the supposition we are criticizing, 5the only totals capable of being mixed are those which are divisible into minimal parts, [e.g. genera into individuals] as men, horses, or the [various kinds of] seeds. For of mankind as a whole the individual man is such a least part; of horses [as an aggregate] the individual horse. Hence by the juxtaposition of these we obtain a mixed total, consisting [like a troop of cavalry] of both together; but we do not say that by such a process any individual man has been mixed with any individual horse. 10Not in this way, but by complete interpenetration [of their matter], must we conceive those things to be mixed which are not divisible into minima; and it is in the case of these that natural mixture exhibits itself in its most perfect form. We have explained already in our discourse 'On Mixture' how such mixture is possible. This being the true nature of mixture, it is plain that when bodies are mixed their colours also are necessarily mixed at the same time; and [it is no less plain] that 15this is the real cause determining the existence of a plurality of colours- not superposition or juxtaposition. For when bodies are thus mixed, their resultant colour presents itself as one and the same at all distances alike; not varying as it is seen nearer or farther away.
Colours will thus, too [as well as on the former hypotheses], be many in number on account of the fact that the ingredients may be combined with one another in a multitude of ratios; 20some will be based on determinate numerical ratios, while others again will have as their basis a relation of quantitative excess or defect not expressible in integers. And all else that was said in reference to the colours, considered as juxtaposed or superposed, may be said of them likewise when regarded as mixed in the way just described.
Why colours, as well as savours 25and sounds, consist of species determinate [in themselves] and not infinite [in number] is a question which we shall discuss hereafter.
Chapter 4 (440b26–442b26)
Τί μὲν οὖν ἐστὶ χρῶμα καὶ διὰ τίν' αἰτίαν πολλαὶ
χρόαι εἰσίν, εἴρηται· [περὶ δὲ ψόφου καὶ φωνῆς εἴρηται πρότερον
ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς·] περὶ δὲ ὀσμῆς καὶ χυμοῦ λεκτέον.
σχεδὸν γάρ ἐστι τὸ αὐτὸ πάθος, οὐκ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῖς
30 δ' ἐστὶν ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν. ἐναργέστερον δ' ἡμῖν ἐστι τὸ τῶν χυμῶν
γένος ἢ τὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς. τούτου δ' αἴτιον ὅτι χειρίστην
26We have now explained what colour is, and the reason why there are many colours; while before, in our work On the Soul, we explained the nature of sound and voice. We have next to speak of Odour and Savour, both of which are almost the same physical affection, although they each have their being in different things. 30Savours, as a class, display their nature more clearly to us than Odours, the cause of which is that the olfactory sense of man is inferior in acuteness to that of the lower animals, and is, when compared with our other senses, the least perfect of Man's sense of Touch, on the contrary, excels that of all other animals in fineness, and Taste is a modification of Touch.
441a
1 ἔχομεν τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων τὴν ὄσφρησιν καὶ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς
αἰσθήσεων, τὴν δ' ἁφὴν ἀκριβεστάτην τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων·
ἡ δὲ γεῦσις ἁφή τίς ἐστιν. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ὕδατος φύσις βούλεται
ἄχυμος εἶναι· ἀνάγκη δ' ἢ ἐν αὑτῷ τὸ ὕδωρ ἔχειν
5 τὰ γένη τῶν χυμῶν ἀναίσθητα διὰ μικρότητα, καθάπερ
Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησίν, ἢ ὕλην τοιαύτην εἶναι οἷον πανσπερμίαν
χυμῶν, καὶ ἅπαντα μὲν ἐξ ὕδατος γίγνεσθαι, ἄλλο
δ' ἐξ ἄλλου μέρους, ἢ μηδεμίαν ἔχοντος διαφορὰν τοῦ ὕδατος
τὸ ποιοῦν αἴτιον εἶναι, οἷον εἰ τὸ θερμὸν καὶ τὸν ἥλιον φαίη
10 τις. τούτων δ' ὡς μὲν Ἐμπεδοκλῆς λέγει λίαν εὐσύνοπτον
τὸ ψεῦδος· ὁρῶμεν γὰρ μεταβάλλοντας ὑπὸ τοῦ θερμοῦ τοὺς
χυμοὺς ἀφαιρουμένων τῶν περικαρπίων [εἰς τὸν ἥλιον] καὶ πυρουμένων,
ὡς οὐ τῷ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος ἕλκειν τοιούτους γιγνομένους,
ἀλλ' ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ περικαρπίῳ μεταβάλλοντας, καὶ ἐξικμαζομένους
15 δὲ καὶ κειμένους διὰ τὸν χρόνον αὐστηροὺς ἐκ γλυκέων
καὶ πικροὺς καὶ παντοδαποὺς γιγνομένους, καὶ ἑψομένους
εἰς πάντα τὰ γένη τῶν χυμῶν ὡς εἰπεῖν μεταβάλλοντας.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ πανσπερμίας εἶναι τὸ ὕδωρ ὕλην ἀδύνατον·
ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ γὰρ ὁρῶμεν ὡς [ἐκ τῆς αὐτῆς] τροφῆς γιγνομένους
20 ἑτέρους χυμούς. λείπεται δὴ τῷ πάσχειν τι τὸ ὕδωρ
μεταβάλλειν. ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν οὐχ ὑπὸ τῆς τοῦ θερμοῦ μόνον δυνάμεως
λαμβάνει ταύτην τὴν δύναμιν ἣν καλοῦμεν χυμόν,
φανερόν. λεπτότατον γὰρ πάντων τῶν οὕτως ὑγρῶν τὸ ὕδωρ ἐστί,
καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐλαίου (ἀλλ' ἐπεκτείνεται ἐπὶ πλέον τοῦ ὕδατος
25 τὸ ἔλαιον διὰ τὴν γλισχρότητα· τὸ δ' ὕδωρ ψαθυρόν ἐστι,
διὸ καὶ χαλεπώτερον φυλάξαι ἐν τῇ χειρὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἤπερ ἔλαιον),
ἐπεὶ δὲ θερμαινόμενον οὐδὲν φαίνεται παχυνόμενον τὸ ὕδωρ
αὐτὸ μόνον, δῆλον ὅτι ἑτέρα τις ἂν εἴη αἰτία· οἱ γὰρ χυμοὶ
πάντες πάχος ἔχουσι μᾶλλον· τὸ δὲ θερμὸν συναίτιον.
30 φαίνονται δ' οἱ χυμοὶ ὅσοιπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς περικαρπίοις,
1Now the natural substance water per se tends to be tasteless. But [since without water tasting is impossible] either (a) we must suppose that water contains in itself [uniformly diffused through it] the various kinds of savour, already formed, though 5in amounts so small as to be imperceptible, which is the doctrine of Empedocles; or (b) the water must be a sort of matter, qualified, as it were, to produce germs of savours of all kinds, so that all kinds of savour are generated from the water, though different kinds from its different parts, or else (c) the water is in itself quite undifferentiated in respect of savour [whether developed or undeveloped], but some agent, such for example as one might conceive Heat or the Sun to be, is the efficient cause of savour.
(a) Of these three hypotheses, 10the falsity of that held by Empedocles is only too evident. For we see that when pericarpal fruits are plucked [from the tree] and exposed in the sun, or subjected to the action of fire, their sapid juices are changed by the heat, which shows that their qualities are not due to their drawing anything from the water in the ground, but to a change which they undergo within the pericarp itself; and we see, moreover, that these juices, when extracted and allowed to lie, 15instead of sweet become by lapse of time harsh or bitter, or acquire savours of any and every sort; and that, again, by the process of boiling or fermentation they are made to assume almost all kinds of new savours.
(b) It is likewise impossible that water should be a material qualified to generate all kinds of Savour germs [so that different savours should arise out of different parts of the water]; for we see different kinds of taste generated from the same water, having it as their nutriment.
(C) 20It remains, therefore, to suppose that the water is changed by passively receiving some affection from an external agent. Now, it is manifest that water does not contract the quality of sapidity from the agency of Heat alone. For water is of all liquids the thinnest, thinner even than oil itself, 25though oil, owing to its viscosity, is more ductile than water, the latter being uncohesive in its particles; whence water is more difficult than oil to hold in the hand without spilling. But since perfectly pure water does not, when subjected to the action of Heat, show any tendency to acquire consistency, we must infer that some other agency than heat is the cause of sapidity. For all savours [i.e. 30sapid liquors] exhibit a comparative consistency.
(a) Of these three hypotheses, 10the falsity of that held by Empedocles is only too evident. For we see that when pericarpal fruits are plucked [from the tree] and exposed in the sun, or subjected to the action of fire, their sapid juices are changed by the heat, which shows that their qualities are not due to their drawing anything from the water in the ground, but to a change which they undergo within the pericarp itself; and we see, moreover, that these juices, when extracted and allowed to lie, 15instead of sweet become by lapse of time harsh or bitter, or acquire savours of any and every sort; and that, again, by the process of boiling or fermentation they are made to assume almost all kinds of new savours.
(b) It is likewise impossible that water should be a material qualified to generate all kinds of Savour germs [so that different savours should arise out of different parts of the water]; for we see different kinds of taste generated from the same water, having it as their nutriment.
(C) 20It remains, therefore, to suppose that the water is changed by passively receiving some affection from an external agent. Now, it is manifest that water does not contract the quality of sapidity from the agency of Heat alone. For water is of all liquids the thinnest, thinner even than oil itself, 25though oil, owing to its viscosity, is more ductile than water, the latter being uncohesive in its particles; whence water is more difficult than oil to hold in the hand without spilling. But since perfectly pure water does not, when subjected to the action of Heat, show any tendency to acquire consistency, we must infer that some other agency than heat is the cause of sapidity. For all savours [i.e. 30sapid liquors] exhibit a comparative consistency.
441b
1 οὗτοι ὑπάρχοντες καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ. διὸ καὶ πολλοί φασι τῶν
ἀρχαίων φυσιολόγων τοιοῦτον εἶναι τὸ ὕδωρ δι' οἵας ἂν γῆς
πορεύηται. καὶ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν ἐπὶ τῶν ἁλμυρῶν ὑδάτων
μάλιστα· οἱ γὰρ ἅλες γῆς τι εἶδός εἰσιν. καὶ τὰ διὰ τῆς
5 τέφρας διηθούμενα πικρᾶς οὔσης πικρὸν ποιεῖ τὸν χυμόν, εἰσί
τε κρῆναι πολλαὶ αἱ μὲν πικραί, αἱ δ' ὀξεῖαι, αἱ δὲ παντοδαποὺς
ἔχουσαι χυμοὺς ἄλλους. εὐλόγως δ' ἐν τοῖς φυομένοις
τὸ τῶν χυμῶν γίγνεται γένος μάλιστα. πάσχειν γὰρ πέφυκε
τὸ ὑγρόν, ὥσπερ καὶ τἆλλα, ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐναντίου· ἐναντίον δὲ τὸ
10 ξηρόν. διὸ καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς πάσχει τι· ξηρὰ γὰρ ἡ τοῦ
πυρὸς φύσις. ἀλλ' ἴδιον τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ θερμόν ἐστι, γῆς δὲ τὸ
ξηρόν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ στοιχείων. ᾗ μὲν οὖν πῦρ
καὶ ᾗ γῆ, οὐδὲν πέφυκε ποιεῖν καὶ πάσχειν, οὐδ' ἄλλο οὐδέν·
ᾗ δ' ὑπάρχει ἐναντιότης ἐν ἑκάστῳ, ταύτῃ πάντα καὶ ποιοῦσι
15 καὶ πάσχουσιν. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ ἐναποπλύνοντες ἐν τῷ
ὑγρῷ τὰ χρώματα καὶ τοὺς χυμοὺς τοιοῦτον ἔχειν ποιοῦσι τὸ
ὕδωρ, οὕτως καὶ ἡ φύσις τὸ ξηρὸν καὶ γεῶδες, καὶ διὰ τοῦ
ξηροῦ καὶ γεώδους διηθοῦσα καὶ κινοῦσα τῷ θερμῷ ποιόν τι τὸ
ὑγρὸν παρασκευάζει. καὶ ἔστι τοῦτο χυμός, τὸ γιγνόμενον
20 ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰρημένου ξηροῦ πάθος ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ, τῆς γεύσεως τῆς
κατὰ δύναμιν ἀλλοιωτικὸν <ὂν> εἰς ἐνέργειαν· ἄγει γὰρ τὸ αἰσθητικὸν
εἰς τοῦτο δυνάμει προϋπάρχον· οὐ γὰρ κατὰ τὸ
μανθάνειν ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ θεωρεῖν ἐστι τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι. ὅτι δ'
οὐ παντὸς ξηροῦ ἀλλὰ τοῦ τροφίμου οἱ χυμοὶ ἢ πάθος εἰσὶν
25 ἢ στέρησις, δεῖ λαβεῖν ἐντεῦθεν, ὅτι οὔτε τὸ ξηρὸν ἄνευ τοῦ
ὑγροῦ οὔτε τὸ ὑγρὸν ἄνευ τοῦ ξηροῦ· τροφὴ γὰρ οὐχ ἓν μόνον
τοῖς ζῴοις, ἀλλὰ τὸ μεμειγμένον. καὶ ἔστι τῆς προσφερομένης
τροφῆς τοῖς ζῴοις τὰ μὲν ἁπτὰ τῶν αἰσθητῶν αὔξησιν
ποιοῦντα καὶ φθίσιν· τούτων μὲν γὰρ αἴτιον ᾗ θερμὸν
30 καὶ ψυχρὸν τὸ προσφερόμενον (ταῦτα γὰρ ποιεῖ καὶ αὔξησιν
1Heat is, however, a coagent in the matter.
Now the sapid juices found in pericarpal fruits evidently exist also in the earth. Hence many of the old natural philosophers assert that water has qualities like those of the earth through which it flows, a fact especially manifest in the case of saline springs, for salt is a form of earth. Hence also 5when liquids are filtered through ashes, a bitter substance, the taste they yield is bitter. There are many wells, too, of which some are bitter, others acid, while others exhibit other tastes of all kinds.
As was to be anticipated, therefore, it is in the vegetable kingdom that tastes occur in richest variety. For, like all things else, the Moist, by nature's law, is affected only by its contrary; and 10this contrary is the Dry. Thus we see why the Moist is affected by Fire, which as a natural substance, is dry. Heat is, however, the essential property of Fire, as Dryness is of Earth, according to what has been said in our treatise on the elements. Fire and Earth, therefore, taken absolutely as such, have no natural power to affect, or be affected by, one another; nor have any other pair of substances. Any two things can affect, or be affected by, one another only so far as contrariety to the other resides in either of them.
15As, therefore, persons washing Colours or Savours in a liquid cause the water in which they wash to acquire such a quality [as that of the colour or savour], so nature, too, by washing the Dry and Earthy in the Moist, and by filtering the latter, that is, moving it on by the agency of heat through the dry and earthy, imparts to it a certain quality. 20This affection, wrought by the aforesaid Dry in the Moist, capable of transforming the sense of Taste from potentiality to actuality, is Savour. Savour brings into actual exercise the perceptive faculty which pre-existed only in potency.
The activity of sense-perception in general is analogous, not to the process of acquiring knowledge, but to that of exercising knowledge already acquired.
That Savours, 25either as a quality or as the privation of a quality, belong not to every form of the Dry but to the Nutrient, we shall see by considering that neither the Dry without the Moist, nor the Moist without the Dry, is nutrient. For no single element, but only composite substance, constitutes nutriment for animals. Now, among the perceptible elements of the food which animals assimilate, the tangible are the efficient causes of growth and decay; it is qua hot or cold that the food assimilated causes these; 30for the heat or cold is the direct cause of growth or decay. It is qua gustable, however, that the assimilated food supplies nutrition.
Now the sapid juices found in pericarpal fruits evidently exist also in the earth. Hence many of the old natural philosophers assert that water has qualities like those of the earth through which it flows, a fact especially manifest in the case of saline springs, for salt is a form of earth. Hence also 5when liquids are filtered through ashes, a bitter substance, the taste they yield is bitter. There are many wells, too, of which some are bitter, others acid, while others exhibit other tastes of all kinds.
As was to be anticipated, therefore, it is in the vegetable kingdom that tastes occur in richest variety. For, like all things else, the Moist, by nature's law, is affected only by its contrary; and 10this contrary is the Dry. Thus we see why the Moist is affected by Fire, which as a natural substance, is dry. Heat is, however, the essential property of Fire, as Dryness is of Earth, according to what has been said in our treatise on the elements. Fire and Earth, therefore, taken absolutely as such, have no natural power to affect, or be affected by, one another; nor have any other pair of substances. Any two things can affect, or be affected by, one another only so far as contrariety to the other resides in either of them.
15As, therefore, persons washing Colours or Savours in a liquid cause the water in which they wash to acquire such a quality [as that of the colour or savour], so nature, too, by washing the Dry and Earthy in the Moist, and by filtering the latter, that is, moving it on by the agency of heat through the dry and earthy, imparts to it a certain quality. 20This affection, wrought by the aforesaid Dry in the Moist, capable of transforming the sense of Taste from potentiality to actuality, is Savour. Savour brings into actual exercise the perceptive faculty which pre-existed only in potency.
The activity of sense-perception in general is analogous, not to the process of acquiring knowledge, but to that of exercising knowledge already acquired.
That Savours, 25either as a quality or as the privation of a quality, belong not to every form of the Dry but to the Nutrient, we shall see by considering that neither the Dry without the Moist, nor the Moist without the Dry, is nutrient. For no single element, but only composite substance, constitutes nutriment for animals. Now, among the perceptible elements of the food which animals assimilate, the tangible are the efficient causes of growth and decay; it is qua hot or cold that the food assimilated causes these; 30for the heat or cold is the direct cause of growth or decay. It is qua gustable, however, that the assimilated food supplies nutrition.
442a
1 καὶ φθίσιν), τρέφει δὲ ᾗ γευστὸν τὸ προσφερόμενον
(πάντα γὰρ τρέφεται τῷ γλυκεῖ, ἢ ἁπλῶς ἢ μεμειγμένῳ).
δεῖ μὲν οὖν διορίζειν περὶ τούτων ἐν τοῖς περὶ γενέσεως, νῦν
δ' ὅσον ἀναγκαῖον ἅψασθαι αὐτῶν. τὸ γὰρ θερμὸν αὐξάνει,
5 καὶ δημιουργεῖ τὴν τροφήν, καὶ τὸ κοῦφον ἕλκει,
τὸ δ' ἁλμυρὸν καὶ πικρὸν καταλείπει διὰ τὸ βάρος. ὃ δὴ ἐν
τοῖς ἔξω σώμασι ποιεῖ τὸ ἔξω θερμόν, τοῦτο τὸ ἐν τῇ φύσει
τῶν ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν· διὸ τρέφεται τῷ γλυκεῖ. συμμείγνυνται
δ' οἱ ἄλλοι χυμοὶ εἰς τὴν τροφὴν τὸν αὐτὸν τρόπον
10 τῷ ἁλμυρῷ καὶ ὀξεῖ, ἀντὶ ἡδύσματος, ταῦτα δὲ διὰ
τὸ ἀντισπᾶν τῷ λίαν τρόφιμον εἶναι τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ ἐπιπολαστικόν.
ὥσπερ δὲ τὰ χρώματα ἐκ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος
μίξεώς ἐστιν, οὕτως οἱ χυμοὶ ἐκ γλυκέος καὶ πικροῦ, καὶ
κατὰ λόγον δ' ἢ τῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἧττον ἕκαστοί εἰσιν, εἴτε
15 κατ' ἀριθμούς τινας τῆς μίξεως καὶ κινήσεως, εἴτε καὶ ἀορίστως,
οἱ δὲ τὴν ἡδονὴν ποιοῦντες μειγνύμενοι, οὗτοι ἐν ἀριθμοῖς
μόνον· ὁ μὲν οὖν λιπαρὸς τοῦ γλυκέος ἐστὶ χυμός, τὸ
δ' ἁλμυρὸν καὶ πικρὸν σχεδὸν τὸ αὐτό, ὁ δὲ δριμὺς καὶ αὐστηρὸς
καὶ στρυφνὸς καὶ ὀξὺς ἀνὰ μέσον. σχεδὸν γὰρ ἴσα
20 καὶ τὰ τῶν χυμῶν εἴδη καὶ τὰ τῶν χρωμάτων ἐστίν· ἑπτὰ
γὰρ ἀμφοτέρων εἴδη, ἄν τις τιθῇ, ὥσπερ εὔλογον, τὸ
φαιὸν μέλαν τι εἶναι· λείπεται γὰρ τὸ ξανθὸν μὲν τοῦ λευκοῦ
εἶναι ὥσπερ τὸ λιπαρὸν τοῦ γλυκέος, τὸ φοινικοῦν δὲ
καὶ ἁλουργὸν καὶ πράσινον καὶ κυανοῦν μεταξὺ τοῦ λευκοῦ
25 καὶ μέλανος, τὰ δ' ἄλλα μεικτὰ ἐκ τούτων. καὶ ὥσπερ τὸ
μέλαν στέρησις ἐν τῷ διαφανεῖ τοῦ λευκοῦ, οὕτω τὸ ἁλμυρὸν
καὶ τὸ πικρὸν τοῦ γλυκέος ἐν τῷ τροφίμῳ ὑγρῷ. διὸ καὶ ἡ
τέφρα τῶν κατακαιομένων πικρὰ πάντων· ἐξίκμασται γὰρ
τὸ πότιμον ἐξ αὐτῶν. Δημόκριτος δὲ καὶ οἱ πλεῖστοι τῶν
30 φυσιολόγων, ὅσοι λέγουσι περὶ αἰσθήσεως, ἀτοπώτατόν τι
1For all organisms are nourished by the Sweet [i.e. the 'gustable' proper], either by itself or in combination with other savours. Of this we must speak with more precise detail in our work on Generation: for the present we need touch upon it only so far as our subject here requires. Heat causes growth, and fits the food-stuff for alimentation; 5it attracts [into the organic system] that which is light [viz. the sweet], while the salt and bitter it rejects because of their heaviness. In fact, whatever effects external heat produces in external bodies, the same are produced by their internal heat in animal and vegetable organisms. Hence it is [i.e. by the agency of heat as described] that nourishment is effected by the sweet.
The other savours are introduced into and blended in food [naturally] on a principle analogous to that on which 10the saline or the acid is used artificially, i.e. for seasoning. These latter are used because they counteract the tendency of the sweet to be too nutrient, and to float on the stomach.
As the intermediate colours arise from the mixture of white and black, so the intermediate savours arise from the Sweet and Bitter; and these savours, too, severally involve either a definite ratio, or else an indefinite relation of degree, between their components, 15either having certain integral numbers at the basis of their mixture, and, consequently, of their stimulative effect, or else being mixed in proportions not arithmetically expressible. The tastes which give pleasure in their combination are those which have their components joined in a definite ratio.
The sweet taste alone is Rich, [therefore the latter may be regarded as a variety of the former], while [so far as both imply privation of the Sweet] the Saline is fairly identical with the Bitter. Between the extremes of sweet and bitter come the Harsh, the Pungent, the Astringent, and the Acid. Savours and Colours, it will be observed, 20contain respectively about the same number of species. For there are seven species of each, if, as is reasonable, we regard Dun [or Grey] as a variety of Black (for the alternative is that Yellow should be classed with White, as Rich with Sweet); while [the irreducible colours, viz.] Crimson, Violet, leek-Green, and deep Blue, 25come between White and Black, and from these all others are derived by mixture.
Again, as Black is a privation of White in the Translucent, so Saline or Bitter is a privation of Sweet in the Nutrient Moist. This explains why the ash of all burnt things is bitter; for the potable [sc. 30the sweet] moisture has been exuded from them.
The other savours are introduced into and blended in food [naturally] on a principle analogous to that on which 10the saline or the acid is used artificially, i.e. for seasoning. These latter are used because they counteract the tendency of the sweet to be too nutrient, and to float on the stomach.
As the intermediate colours arise from the mixture of white and black, so the intermediate savours arise from the Sweet and Bitter; and these savours, too, severally involve either a definite ratio, or else an indefinite relation of degree, between their components, 15either having certain integral numbers at the basis of their mixture, and, consequently, of their stimulative effect, or else being mixed in proportions not arithmetically expressible. The tastes which give pleasure in their combination are those which have their components joined in a definite ratio.
The sweet taste alone is Rich, [therefore the latter may be regarded as a variety of the former], while [so far as both imply privation of the Sweet] the Saline is fairly identical with the Bitter. Between the extremes of sweet and bitter come the Harsh, the Pungent, the Astringent, and the Acid. Savours and Colours, it will be observed, 20contain respectively about the same number of species. For there are seven species of each, if, as is reasonable, we regard Dun [or Grey] as a variety of Black (for the alternative is that Yellow should be classed with White, as Rich with Sweet); while [the irreducible colours, viz.] Crimson, Violet, leek-Green, and deep Blue, 25come between White and Black, and from these all others are derived by mixture.
Again, as Black is a privation of White in the Translucent, so Saline or Bitter is a privation of Sweet in the Nutrient Moist. This explains why the ash of all burnt things is bitter; for the potable [sc. 30the sweet] moisture has been exuded from them.
442b
1 ποιοῦσιν· πάντα γὰρ τὰ αἰσθητὰ ἁπτὰ ποιοῦσιν. καίτοι εἰ
τοῦτο οὕτως ἔχει, δῆλον ὡς καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθήσεων ἑκάστη
ἁφή τίς ἐστιν· τοῦτο δ' ὅτι ἀδύνατον, οὐ χαλεπὸν συνιδεῖν.
ἔτι δὲ τοῖς κοινοῖς τῶν αἰσθήσεων πασῶν χρῶνται ὡς ἰδίοις·
5 μέγεθος γὰρ καὶ σχῆμα καὶ τὸ τραχὺ καὶ τὸ λεῖον,
ἔτι δὲ τὸ ὀξὺ καὶ τὸ ἀμβλὺ τὸ ἐν τοῖς ὄγκοις, κοινὰ τῶν
αἰσθήσεών ἐστιν, εἰ δὲ μὴ πασῶν, ἀλλ' ὄψεώς γε καὶ ἁφῆς.
διὸ καὶ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀπατῶνται, περὶ δὲ τῶν ἰδίων οὐκ
ἀπατῶνται, οἷον ἡ ὄψις περὶ χρώματος καὶ ἡ ἀκοὴ περὶ ψόφων.
10 οἱ δὲ τὰ ἴδια εἰς ταῦτα ἀνάγουσιν, ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος·
τὸ γὰρ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ μέλαν τὸ μὲν τραχύ φησιν
εἶναι τὸ δὲ λεῖον, εἰς δὲ τὰ σχήματα ἀνάγει τοὺς χυμούς.
καίτοι ἢ οὐδεμιᾶς ἢ μᾶλλον τῆς ὄψεως τὰ κοινὰ γνωρίζειν.
εἰ δ' ἄρα τῆς γεύσεως μᾶλλον, τὰ γοῦν ἐλάχιστα τῆς ἀκριβεστάτης
15 ἐστὶν αἰσθήσεως διακρίνειν περὶ ἕκαστον γένος, ὥστε
ἐχρῆν τὴν γεῦσιν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων κοινῶν αἰσθάνεσθαι μάλιστα
καὶ τῶν σχημάτων εἶναι κριτικωτάτην. ἔτι τὰ μὲν
αἰσθητὰ πάντα ἔχει ἐναντίωσιν, οἷον ἐν χρώματι τῷ μέλανι
τὸ λευκὸν καὶ ἐν χυμοῖς τῷ γλυκεῖ τὸ πικρόν· σχῆμα
20 δὲ σχήματι οὐ δοκεῖ εἶναι ἐναντίον· τίνι γὰρ τῶν πολυγώνων
τὸ περιφερὲς ἐναντίον; ἔτι ἀπείρων ὄντων τῶν σχημάτων
ἀναγκαῖον καὶ τοὺς χυμοὺς εἶναι ἀπείρους· διὰ τί γὰρ ὁ μὲν
τῶν χυμῶν αἴσθησιν ποιήσει, ὁ δ' οὐκ ἂν ποιήσειεν; καὶ περὶ μὲν
τοῦ γευστοῦ καὶ χυμοῦ εἴρηται· τὰ γὰρ ἄλλα πάθη τῶν χυμῶν
25 οἰκείαν ἔχει τὴν σκέψιν ἐν τῇ φυσιολογίᾳ τῇ περὶ τῶν
φυτῶν.
1Democritus and most of the natural philosophers who treat of sense-perception proceed quite irrationally, for they represent all objects of sense as objects of Touch. Yet, if this is really so, it clearly follows that each of the other senses is a mode of Touch; but one can see at a glance that this is impossible.
Again, they treat the percepts common to all senses as proper to one. For [the qualities by which they explain taste viz.] 5Magnitude and Figure, Roughness and Smoothness, and, moreover, the Sharpness and Bluntness found in solid bodies, are percepts common to all the senses, or if not to all, at least to Sight and Touch. This explains why it is that the senses are liable to err regarding them, while no such error arises respecting their proper sensibles; e.g. the sense of Seeing is not deceived as to Colour, nor is that of Hearing as to Sound.
10On the other hand, they reduce the proper to common sensibles, as Democritus does with White and Black; for he asserts that the latter is [a mode of the] rough, and the former [a mode of the] smooth, while he reduces Savours to the atomic figures. Yet surely no one sense, or, if any, the sense of Sight rather than any other, can discern the common sensibles. But if we suppose that the sense of Taste is better able to do so, then- since to discern the smallest objects 15in each kind is what marks the acutest sense-Taste should have been the sense which best perceived the common sensibles generally, and showed the most perfect power of discerning figures in general.
Again, all the sensibles involve contrariety; e.g. in Colour White is contrary to Black, and in Savours Bitter is contrary to Sweet; 20but no one figure is reckoned as contrary to any other figure. Else, to which of the possible polygonal figures [to which Democritus reduces Bitter] is the spherical figure [to which he reduces Sweet] contrary?
Again, since figures are infinite in number, savours also should be infinite; [the possible rejoinder- 'that they are so, only that some are not perceived'- cannot be sustained] for why should one savour be perceived, and another not?
This completes our discussion of the object of Taste, i.e. Savour; for the other affections of Savours 25are examined in their proper place in connection with the natural history of Plants.
Table of Contents Home Browse and Comment Search Translated by J. I. 30Beare Table of Contents Section 2
Again, they treat the percepts common to all senses as proper to one. For [the qualities by which they explain taste viz.] 5Magnitude and Figure, Roughness and Smoothness, and, moreover, the Sharpness and Bluntness found in solid bodies, are percepts common to all the senses, or if not to all, at least to Sight and Touch. This explains why it is that the senses are liable to err regarding them, while no such error arises respecting their proper sensibles; e.g. the sense of Seeing is not deceived as to Colour, nor is that of Hearing as to Sound.
10On the other hand, they reduce the proper to common sensibles, as Democritus does with White and Black; for he asserts that the latter is [a mode of the] rough, and the former [a mode of the] smooth, while he reduces Savours to the atomic figures. Yet surely no one sense, or, if any, the sense of Sight rather than any other, can discern the common sensibles. But if we suppose that the sense of Taste is better able to do so, then- since to discern the smallest objects 15in each kind is what marks the acutest sense-Taste should have been the sense which best perceived the common sensibles generally, and showed the most perfect power of discerning figures in general.
Again, all the sensibles involve contrariety; e.g. in Colour White is contrary to Black, and in Savours Bitter is contrary to Sweet; 20but no one figure is reckoned as contrary to any other figure. Else, to which of the possible polygonal figures [to which Democritus reduces Bitter] is the spherical figure [to which he reduces Sweet] contrary?
Again, since figures are infinite in number, savours also should be infinite; [the possible rejoinder- 'that they are so, only that some are not perceived'- cannot be sustained] for why should one savour be perceived, and another not?
This completes our discussion of the object of Taste, i.e. Savour; for the other affections of Savours 25are examined in their proper place in connection with the natural history of Plants.
Table of Contents Home Browse and Comment Search Translated by J. I. 30Beare Table of Contents Section 2
Chapter 5 (442b27–445b2)
Τὸν αὐτὸν δὲ τρόπον δεῖ νοῆσαι καὶ περὶ τὰς ὀσμάς·
ὅπερ γὰρ ποιεῖ ἐν τῷ ὑγρῷ τὸ ξηρόν, τοῦτο ποιεῖ ἐν ἄλλῳ
γένει τὸ ἔγχυμον ὑγρόν, ἐν ἀέρι καὶ ὕδατι ὁμοίως. (κοινὸν δὲ
30 κατὰ τούτων νῦν μὲν λέγομεν τὸ διαφανές, ἔστι δ' ὀσφραντὸν
27Our conception of the nature of Odours must be analogous to that of Savours; inasmuch as the Sapid Dry effects in air and water alike, but in a different province of sense, precisely what the Dry effects in the Moist of water only.
443a
1 οὐχ ᾗ διαφανές, ἀλλ' ᾗ πλυτικὸν καὶ ῥυπτικὸν ἐγχύμου
ξηρότητος.) οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἐν ἀέρι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν ὕδατι τὸ τῆς
ὀσφρήσεώς ἐστιν. δῆλον δ' ἐπὶ τῶν ἰχθύων καὶ τῶν ὀστρακοδέρμων·
φαίνονται γὰρ ὀσφραινόμενα οὔτε ἀέρος ὄντος ἐν τῷ
5 ὕδατι (ἐπιπολάζει γὰρ ὁ ἀήρ, ὅταν ἐγγένηται) οὔτ' αὐτὰ
ἀναπνέοντα. εἰ οὖν τις θείη καὶ τὸν ἀέρα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ ἄμφω
ὑγρά, εἴη ἂν ἡ ἐν ὑγρῷ τοῦ ἐγχύμου ξηροῦ φύσις ὀσμή, καὶ
ὀσφραντὸν τὸ τοιοῦτον. ὅτι δ' ἀπ' ἐγχύμου ἐστὶ τὸ πάθος, δῆλον
ἐκ τῶν ἐχόντων καὶ μὴ ἐχόντων ὀσμήν· τά τε γὰρ στοιχεῖα
10 ἄοσμα, οἷον πῦρ ἀὴρ γῆ ὕδωρ, διὰ τὸ τά τε ξηρὰ
αὐτῶν καὶ τὰ ὑγρὰ ἄχυμα εἶναι, ἂν μή τι μειγνύμενον
ποιῇ. διὸ καὶ ἡ θάλαττα ἔχει ὀσμήν (ἔχει γὰρ χυμὸν
καὶ ξηρότητα), καὶ ἅλες μᾶλλον νίτρου ὀσμώδεις (δηλοῖ δὲ
τὸ ἐξικμαζόμενον ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔλαιον), τὸ δὲ νίτρον γῆς ἐστι
15 μᾶλλον. ἔτι λίθος μὲν ἄοσμον, ἄχυμον γάρ, τὰ δὲ ξύλα
ὀσμώδη, ἔγχυμα γάρ· καὶ τούτων τὰ ὑδατώδη ἧττον. ἔτι
ἐπὶ τῶν μεταλλευομένων χρυσὸς ἄοσμον, ἄχυμον γάρ, ὁ δὲ
χαλκὸς καὶ ὁ σίδηρος ὀσμώδη· ὅταν δ' ἐκκαυθῇ τὸ ὑγρόν,
ἀοσμότεραι αἱ σκωρίαι γίγνονται πάντων· ἄργυρος δὲ καὶ
20 καττίτερος τῶν μὲν μᾶλλον ὀσμώδη τῶν δ' ἧττον· ὑδατώδη
γάρ. δοκεῖ δ' ἐνίοις ἡ καπνώδης ἀναθυμίασις εἶναι ὀσμή,
οὖσα κοινὴ γῆς τε καὶ ἀέρος [καὶ πάντες ἐπιφέρονται ἐπὶ
τοῦτο περὶ ὀσμῆς]· διὸ καὶ Ἡράκλειτος οὕτως εἴρηκεν, ὡς εἰ
πάντα τὰ ὄντα καπνὸς γένοιτο, ῥῖνες ἂν διαγνοῖεν, <καὶ πάντες
25 ἐπιφέρονται ἐπὶ τοῦτο περὶ ὀσμῆς>, οἱ μὲν ὡς ἀτμίδα,
οἱ δ' ὡς ἀναθυμίασιν, οἱ δ' ὡς ἄμφω ταῦτα· ἔστι δ' ἡ μὲν ἀτμὶς
ὑγρότης τις, ἡ δὲ καπνώδης ἀναθυμίασις, ὥσπερ εἴρηται,
κοινὸν ἀέρος καὶ γῆς· καὶ συνίσταται ἐκ μὲν ἐκείνης ὕδωρ, ἐκ
δὲ ταύτης γῆς τι εἶδος. ἀλλ' οὐδέτερον τούτων ἔοικεν· ἡ μὲν
30 γὰρ ἀτμίς ἐστιν ὕδατος, ἡ δὲ καπνώδης ἀναθυμίασις ἀδύνατος
ἐν ὕδατι γενέσθαι· ὀσμᾶται δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι,
1We customarily predicate Translucency of both air and water in common; but it is not qua translucent that either is a vehicle of odour, but qua possessed of a power of washing or rinsing [and so imbibing] the Sapid Dryness.
For the object of Smell exists not in air only: it also exists in water. This is proved by the case of fishes and testacea, which are seen to possess the faculty of smell, although water contains no air (5for whenever air is generated within water it rises to the surface), and these creatures do not respire. Hence, if one were to assume that air and water are both moist, it would follow that Odour is the natural substance consisting of the Sapid Dry diffused in the Moist, and whatever is of this kind would be an object of Smell.
That the property of odorousness is based upon the Sapid may be seen by comparing the things which possess with those which do not possess odour. The elements, viz. Fire, Air, Earth, Water, 10are inodorous, because both the dry and the moist among them are without sapidity, unless some added ingredient produces it. This explains why sea-water possesses odour, for [unlike 'elemental' water] it contains savour and dryness. Salt, too, is more odorous than natron, as the oil which exudes from the former proves, for natron is allied to ['elemental'] earth more nearly than salt. 15Again, a stone is inodorous, just because it is tasteless, while, on the contrary, wood is odorous, because it is sapid. The kinds of wood, too, which contain more ['elemental'] water are less odorous than others. Moreover, to take the case of metals, gold is inodorous because it is without taste, but bronze and iron are odorous; and when the [sapid] moisture has been burnt out of them, their slag is, in all cases, less odorous the metals [than the metals themselves]. 20Silver and tin are more odorous than the one class of metals, less so than the other, inasmuch as they are water [to a greater degree than the former, to a less degree than the latter].
Some writers look upon Fumid exhalation, which is a compound of Earth and Air, as the essence of Odour. [Indeed all are inclined to rush to this theory of Odour.] Heraclitus implied his adherence to it when he declared that if all existing things were turned into Smoke, the nose would be the organ to discern them with. 25All writers incline to refer odour to this cause [sc. exhalation of some sort], but some regard it as aqueous, others as fumid, exhalation; while others, again, hold it to be either.
30Aqueous exhalation is merely a form of moisture, but fumid exhalation is, as already remarked, composed of Air and Earth.
For the object of Smell exists not in air only: it also exists in water. This is proved by the case of fishes and testacea, which are seen to possess the faculty of smell, although water contains no air (5for whenever air is generated within water it rises to the surface), and these creatures do not respire. Hence, if one were to assume that air and water are both moist, it would follow that Odour is the natural substance consisting of the Sapid Dry diffused in the Moist, and whatever is of this kind would be an object of Smell.
That the property of odorousness is based upon the Sapid may be seen by comparing the things which possess with those which do not possess odour. The elements, viz. Fire, Air, Earth, Water, 10are inodorous, because both the dry and the moist among them are without sapidity, unless some added ingredient produces it. This explains why sea-water possesses odour, for [unlike 'elemental' water] it contains savour and dryness. Salt, too, is more odorous than natron, as the oil which exudes from the former proves, for natron is allied to ['elemental'] earth more nearly than salt. 15Again, a stone is inodorous, just because it is tasteless, while, on the contrary, wood is odorous, because it is sapid. The kinds of wood, too, which contain more ['elemental'] water are less odorous than others. Moreover, to take the case of metals, gold is inodorous because it is without taste, but bronze and iron are odorous; and when the [sapid] moisture has been burnt out of them, their slag is, in all cases, less odorous the metals [than the metals themselves]. 20Silver and tin are more odorous than the one class of metals, less so than the other, inasmuch as they are water [to a greater degree than the former, to a less degree than the latter].
Some writers look upon Fumid exhalation, which is a compound of Earth and Air, as the essence of Odour. [Indeed all are inclined to rush to this theory of Odour.] Heraclitus implied his adherence to it when he declared that if all existing things were turned into Smoke, the nose would be the organ to discern them with. 25All writers incline to refer odour to this cause [sc. exhalation of some sort], but some regard it as aqueous, others as fumid, exhalation; while others, again, hold it to be either.
30Aqueous exhalation is merely a form of moisture, but fumid exhalation is, as already remarked, composed of Air and Earth.
443b
1 ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον. ἔτι ἡ ἀναθυμίασις ὁμοίως λέγεται
ταῖς ἀπορροίαις· εἰ οὖν μηδ' ἐκεῖναι καλῶς, οὐδ' αὕτη καλῶς.
ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἐνδέχεται ἀπολαύειν τὸ ὑγρόν, καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ
πνεύματι καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι, καὶ πάσχειν τι ὑπὸ τῆς ἐγχύμου
5 ξηρότητος, οὐκ ἄδηλον· καὶ γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ ὑγρὸν τὴν
φύσιν ἐστίν. ἔτι δ' εἴπερ ὁμοίως ἐν τοῖς ὑγροῖς ποιεῖ καὶ ἐν τῷ
ἀέρι οἷον ἀποπλυνόμενον τὸ ξηρόν, φανερὸν ὅτι δεῖ ἀνάλογον
εἶναι τὰς ὀσμὰς τοῖς χυμοῖς. ἀλλὰ μὴν τοῦτό γε ἐπ'
ἐνίων συμβέβηκεν· καὶ γὰρ δριμεῖαι καὶ γλυκεῖαί εἰσιν
10 ὀσμαὶ καὶ αὐστηραὶ καὶ στρυφναὶ καὶ λιπαραί, καὶ τοῖς πικροῖς
τὰς σαπρὰς ἄν τις ἀνάλογον εἴποι· διὸ ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα
δυσκατάποτα, τὰ σαπρὰ δυσανάπνευστά ἐστιν. δῆλον ἄρα
ὅτι ὅπερ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι ὁ χυμός, τοῦτ' ἐν τῷ ἀέρι καὶ ὕδατι
ἡ ὀσμή. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ ψυχρὸν καὶ ἡ πῆξις καὶ τοὺς χυμοὺς
15 ἀμβλύνει καὶ τὰς ὀσμὰς ἀφανίζει· τὸ γὰρ θερμὸν τὸ
κινοῦν καὶ δημιουργοῦν ἀφανίζουσιν ἡ ψύξις καὶ ἡ πῆξις.
εἴδη δὲ τοῦ ὀσφραντοῦ δύο ἐστίν· οὐ γάρ, ὥσπερ τινές φασιν,
οὐκ ἔστιν εἴδη τοῦ ὀσφραντοῦ, ἀλλ' ἔστιν. διοριστέον δὲ πῶς ἔστι
καὶ πῶς οὐκ ἔστιν· τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι κατὰ τοὺς χυμοὺς τεταγμένον
20 αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, καὶ τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ τὸ λυπηρὸν κατὰ
συμβεβηκὸς ἔχουσιν (διὰ γὰρ τὸ τοῦ θρεπτικοῦ πάθη εἶναι,
ἐπιθυμούντων μὲν ἡδεῖαι αἱ ὀσμαὶ τούτων εἰσί, πεπληρωμένοις
δὲ καὶ μηδὲν δεομένοις οὐχ ἡδεῖαι, οὐδ' ὅσοις μὴ καὶ ἡ
τροφὴ ἡ ἔχουσα τὰς ὀσμὰς ἡδεῖα, οὐδὲ τούτοις)—ὥστε
25 αὗται μέν, καθάπερ εἴπομεν, κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔχουσι τὸ
ἡδὺ καὶ λυπηρόν, διὸ καὶ πάντων εἰσὶ κοιναὶ τῶν ζῴων· αἱ
δὲ καθ' αὑτὰς ἡδεῖαι τῶν ὀσμῶν εἰσιν, οἷον αἱ τῶν ἀνθῶν·
οὐδὲν γὰρ μᾶλλον οὐδ' ἧττον πρὸς τὴν τροφὴν παρακαλοῦσιν,
οὐδὲ συμβάλλονται πρὸς ἐπιθυμίαν οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον
30 μᾶλλον· ἀληθὲς γὰρ ὅπερ Εὐριπίδην σκώπτων εἶπε Στράττις,
"ὅταν φακῆν ἕψητε, μὴ 'πιχεῖν μύρον." οἱ δὲ νῦν μειγνύντες
1The former when condensed turns into water; the latter, in a particular species of earth. Now, it is unlikely that odour is either of these. For vaporous exhalation consists of mere water [which, being tasteless, is inodorous]; and fumid exhalation cannot occur in water at all, though, as has been before stated, aquatic creatures also have the sense of smell.
Again, the exhalation theory of odour is analogous to the theory of emanations. If, therefore, the latter is untenable, so, too, is the former.
5It is clearly conceivable that the Moist, whether in air (for air, too, is essentially moist) or in water, should imbibe the influence of, and have effects wrought in it by, the Sapid Dryness. Moreover, if the Dry produces in moist media, i.e. water and air, an effect as of something washed out in them, it is manifest that odours must be something analogous to savours. Nay, indeed, this analogy is, in some instances, a fact [registered in language]; 10for odours as well as savours are spoken of as pungent, sweet, harsh, astringent rich [='savoury']; and one might regard fetid smells as analogous to bitter tastes; which explains why the former are offensive to inhalation as the latter are to deglutition. It is clear, therefore, that Odour is in both water and air what Savour is in water alone. 15This explains why coldness and freezing render Savours dull, and abolish odours altogether; for cooling and freezing tend to annul the kinetic heat which helps to fabricate sapidity.
There are two species of the Odorous. For the statement of certain writers that the odorous is not divisible into species is false; it is so divisible. We must here define the sense in which these species are to be admitted or denied.
One class of odours, then, is that which runs parallel, as has been observed, to savours: 20to odours of this class their pleasantness or unpleasantness belongs incidentally. For owing to the fact that Savours are qualities of nutrient matter, the odours connected with these [e.g.
those of a certain food] are agreeable as long as animals have an appetite for the food, but they are not agreeable to them when sated and no longer in want of it; nor are they agreeable, either, to those animals that do not like the food itself which yields the odours. 25Hence, as we observed, these odours are pleasant or unpleasant incidentally, and the same reasoning explains why it is that they are perceptible to all animals in common.
The other class of odours consists of those agreeable in their essential nature, e.g. 30those of flowers.
Again, the exhalation theory of odour is analogous to the theory of emanations. If, therefore, the latter is untenable, so, too, is the former.
5It is clearly conceivable that the Moist, whether in air (for air, too, is essentially moist) or in water, should imbibe the influence of, and have effects wrought in it by, the Sapid Dryness. Moreover, if the Dry produces in moist media, i.e. water and air, an effect as of something washed out in them, it is manifest that odours must be something analogous to savours. Nay, indeed, this analogy is, in some instances, a fact [registered in language]; 10for odours as well as savours are spoken of as pungent, sweet, harsh, astringent rich [='savoury']; and one might regard fetid smells as analogous to bitter tastes; which explains why the former are offensive to inhalation as the latter are to deglutition. It is clear, therefore, that Odour is in both water and air what Savour is in water alone. 15This explains why coldness and freezing render Savours dull, and abolish odours altogether; for cooling and freezing tend to annul the kinetic heat which helps to fabricate sapidity.
There are two species of the Odorous. For the statement of certain writers that the odorous is not divisible into species is false; it is so divisible. We must here define the sense in which these species are to be admitted or denied.
One class of odours, then, is that which runs parallel, as has been observed, to savours: 20to odours of this class their pleasantness or unpleasantness belongs incidentally. For owing to the fact that Savours are qualities of nutrient matter, the odours connected with these [e.g.
those of a certain food] are agreeable as long as animals have an appetite for the food, but they are not agreeable to them when sated and no longer in want of it; nor are they agreeable, either, to those animals that do not like the food itself which yields the odours. 25Hence, as we observed, these odours are pleasant or unpleasant incidentally, and the same reasoning explains why it is that they are perceptible to all animals in common.
The other class of odours consists of those agreeable in their essential nature, e.g. 30those of flowers.
444a
1 εἰς τὰ πόματα τὰς τοιαύτας δυνάμεις βιάζονται τῇ
συνηθείᾳ τὴν ἡδονήν, ἕως ἂν ἐκ δύ' αἰσθήσεων γένηται τὸ
ἡδὺ ὡς ἂν καὶ ἀπὸ μιᾶς. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν τὸ ὀσφραντὸν ἴδιον
ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν, ἡ δὲ κατὰ τοὺς χυμοὺς τεταγμένη καὶ τῶν
5 ἄλλων ζῴων, ὥσπερ εἴρηται πρότερον· κἀκείνων μέν, διὰ τὸ
κατὰ συμβεβηκὸς ἔχειν τὸ ἡδύ, διῄρηται τὰ εἴδη κατὰ τοὺς
χυμούς, ταύτης δ' οὐκέτι, διὰ τὸ τὴν φύσιν αὐτῆς εἶναι καθ'
αὑτὴν ἡδεῖαν ἢ λυπηράν. αἴτιον δὲ τοῦ ἴδιον εἶναι ἀνθρώπου
τὴν τοιαύτην ὀσμὴν διὰ τὴν ἕξιν τὴν περὶ τὸν ἐγκέφαλον.
10 ψυχροῦ γὰρ ὄντος τὴν φύσιν τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου, καὶ τοῦ αἵματος
τοῦ περὶ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς φλεβίοις ὄντος λεπτοῦ μὲν καὶ
καθαροῦ, εὐψύκτου δέ (διὸ καὶ ἡ τῆς τροφῆς ἀναθυμίασις
ψυχομένη διὰ τὸν τόπον τὰ νοσηματικὰ ῥεύματα ποιεῖ),
τοῖς ἀνθρώποις πρὸς βοήθειαν ὑγιείας γέγονε τὸ τοιοῦτον εἶδος
15 τῆς ὀσμῆς· οὐδὲν γὰρ ἄλλο ἔργον ἐστὶν αὐτῆς ἢ τοῦτο.
τοῦτο δὲ ποιεῖ φανερῶς· ἡ μὲν γὰρ τροφὴ ἡδεῖα οὖσα, καὶ
ἡ ξηρὰ καὶ ἡ ὑγρά, πολλάκις νοσώδης ἐστίν, ἡ δ' ἀπὸ
τῆς ὀσμῆς τῆς καθ' αὑτὴν ἡδείας εὐωδία ὁπωσοῦν ἔχουσιν ὠφέλιμος
ὡς εἰπεῖν αἰεί. καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γίγνεται διὰ τῆς ἀναπνοῆς,
20 οὐ πᾶσιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις καὶ τῶν ἐναίμων οἷον τοῖς
τετράποσι καὶ ὅσα μετέχει μᾶλλον τῆς τοῦ ἀέρος φύσεως·
ἀναφερομένων γὰρ τῶν ὀσμῶν πρὸς τὸν ἐγκέφαλον
διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐταῖς τῆς θερμότητος κουφότητα ὑγιεινοτέρως
ἔχει τὰ περὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον· ἡ γὰρ τῆς ὀσμῆς δύναμις
25 θερμὴ τὴν φύσιν ἐστίν. κατακέχρηται δ' ἡ φύσις τῇ ἀναπνοῇ
ἐπὶ δύο, ὡς ἔργῳ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν εἰς τὸν θώρακα βοήθειαν,
ὡς παρέργῳ δ' ἐπὶ τὴν ὀσμήν· ἀναπνέοντος γὰρ ὥςπερ
ἐκ παρόδου ποιεῖται διὰ τῶν μυκτήρων τὴν κίνησιν. ἴδιον
δὲ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεώς ἐστι τὸ τῆς ὀσμῆς τῆς τοιαύτης
30 γένος διὰ τὸ πλεῖστον ἐγκέφαλον καὶ ὑγρότατον ἔχειν
τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων ὡς κατὰ μέγεθος· διὰ γὰρ τοῦτο καὶ μόνον ὡς
εἰπεῖν αἰσθάνεται τῶν ζῴων ἄνθρωπος καὶ χαίρει ταῖς τῶν
ἀνθῶν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὀσμαῖς· σύμμετρος γὰρ αὐτῶν
1For these do not in any degree stimulate animals to food, nor do they contribute in any way to appetite; their effect upon it, if any, is rather the opposite. For the verse of Strattis ridiculing Euripides- Use not perfumery to flavour soup, contains a truth.
Those who nowadays introduce such flavours into beverages deforce our sense of pleasure by habituating us to them, until, from two distinct kinds of sensations combined, pleasure arises as it might from one simple kind.
Of this species of odour man alone is sensible; the other, viz.
that correlated with Tastes, is, as has been said before, 5perceptible also to the lower animals. And odours of the latter sort, since their pleasureableness depends upon taste, are divided into as many species as there are different tastes; but we cannot go on to say this of the former kind of odour, since its nature is agreeable or disagreeable per se. The reason why the perception of such odours is peculiar to man is found in the characteristic state of man's brain. 10For his brain is naturally cold, and the blood which it contains in its vessels is thin and pure but easily cooled (whence it happens that the exhalation arising from food, being cooled by the coldness of this region, produces unhealthy rheums); therefore it is that odours of such a species have been generated for human beings, 15as a safeguard to health. This is their sole function, and that they perform it is evident.
For food, whether dry or moist, though sweet to taste, is often unwholesome; whereas the odour arising from what is fragrant, that odour which is pleasant in its own right, is, so to say, always beneficial to persons in any state of bodily health whatever.
For this reason, too, the perception of odour [in general] effected through respiration, 20not in all animals, but in man and certain other sanguineous animals, e.g. quadrupeds, and all that participate freely in the natural substance air; because when odours, on account of the lightness of the heat in them, mount to the brain, the health of this region is thereby promoted. 25For odour, as a power, is naturally heat-giving. Thus Nature has employed respiration for two purposes: primarily for the relief thereby brought to the thorax, secondarily for the inhalation of odour. For while an animal is inhaling,- odour moves in through its nostrils, as it were 'from a side-entrance.'
But the perception of the second class of odours above described [does not belong to all animal, but] is confined to human beings, 30because man's brain is, in proportion to his whole bulk, larger and moister than the brain of any other animal. This is the reason of the further fact that man alone, so to speak, among animals perceives and takes pleasure in the odours of flowers and such things.
Those who nowadays introduce such flavours into beverages deforce our sense of pleasure by habituating us to them, until, from two distinct kinds of sensations combined, pleasure arises as it might from one simple kind.
Of this species of odour man alone is sensible; the other, viz.
that correlated with Tastes, is, as has been said before, 5perceptible also to the lower animals. And odours of the latter sort, since their pleasureableness depends upon taste, are divided into as many species as there are different tastes; but we cannot go on to say this of the former kind of odour, since its nature is agreeable or disagreeable per se. The reason why the perception of such odours is peculiar to man is found in the characteristic state of man's brain. 10For his brain is naturally cold, and the blood which it contains in its vessels is thin and pure but easily cooled (whence it happens that the exhalation arising from food, being cooled by the coldness of this region, produces unhealthy rheums); therefore it is that odours of such a species have been generated for human beings, 15as a safeguard to health. This is their sole function, and that they perform it is evident.
For food, whether dry or moist, though sweet to taste, is often unwholesome; whereas the odour arising from what is fragrant, that odour which is pleasant in its own right, is, so to say, always beneficial to persons in any state of bodily health whatever.
For this reason, too, the perception of odour [in general] effected through respiration, 20not in all animals, but in man and certain other sanguineous animals, e.g. quadrupeds, and all that participate freely in the natural substance air; because when odours, on account of the lightness of the heat in them, mount to the brain, the health of this region is thereby promoted. 25For odour, as a power, is naturally heat-giving. Thus Nature has employed respiration for two purposes: primarily for the relief thereby brought to the thorax, secondarily for the inhalation of odour. For while an animal is inhaling,- odour moves in through its nostrils, as it were 'from a side-entrance.'
But the perception of the second class of odours above described [does not belong to all animal, but] is confined to human beings, 30because man's brain is, in proportion to his whole bulk, larger and moister than the brain of any other animal. This is the reason of the further fact that man alone, so to speak, among animals perceives and takes pleasure in the odours of flowers and such things.
444b
1 ἡ θερμότης καὶ ἡ κίνησις πρὸς τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς ἐν τῷ τόπῳ
ὑγρότητος καὶ ψυχρότητός ἐστιν. τοῖς δ' ἄλλοις ὅσα
πνεύμονα ἔχει διὰ τοῦ ἀναπνεῖν τοῦ ἑτέρου γένους τῆς ὀσμῆς
τὴν αἴσθησιν ἀποδέδωκεν ἡ φύσις, ὅπως μὴ δύο αἰσθητήρια
5 ποιῇ· ἀπόχρη γάρ, ἐπείπερ καὶ ὣς ἀναπνέουσιν, ὥσπερ τοῖς
ἀνθρώποις ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ὀσφραντῶν, τούτοις τῶν ἑτέρων
μόνων ὑπάρχουσα ἡ αἴσθησις. τὰ δὲ μὴ ἀναπνέοντα ὅτι μὲν
ἔχει αἴσθησιν τοῦ ὀσφραντοῦ, φανερόν· καὶ γὰρ ἰχθύες καὶ
τὸ τῶν ἐντόμων γένος πᾶν ἀκριβῶς καὶ πόρρωθεν
10 αἰσθάνεται, διὰ τὸ θρεπτικὸν εἶδος τῆς ὀσμῆς, ἀπέχοντα
πολὺ τῆς οἰκείας τροφῆς, οἷον αἵ τε μέλιτται [ποιοῦσι πρὸς τὸ μέλι]
καὶ τὸ τῶν μικρῶν μυρμήκων γένος, οὓς καλοῦσί τινες κνῖπας,
καὶ τῶν θαλαττίων αἱ πορφύραι, καὶ πολλὰ τῶν
ἄλλων τῶν τοιούτων ζῴων ὀξέως αἰσθάνεται τῆς τροφῆς διὰ
15 τὴν ὀσμήν. ὅτῳ δὲ αἰσθάνεται, οὐχ ὁμοίως φανερόν. διὸ κἂν
ἀπορήσειέ τις τίνι αἰσθάνονται τῆς ὀσμῆς, εἴπερ ἀναπνέουσι
μὲν γίγνεται τὸ ὀσμᾶσθαι μοναχῶς (τοῦτο γὰρ φαίνεται ἐπὶ τῶν
ἀναπνεόντων συμβαῖνον πάντων), ἐκείνων δ' οὐθὲν ἀναπνεῖ,
αἰσθάνεται μέντοι, εἰ μή τις παρὰ τὰς πέντε αἰσθήσεις ἑτέρα.
20 τοῦτο δ' ἀδύνατον· τοῦ γὰρ ὀσφραντοῦ ὄσφρησις, ἐκεῖνα
δὲ τούτου αἰσθάνεται, ἀλλ' οὐ τὸν αὐτὸν ἴσως τρόπον, ἀλλὰ
τοῖς μὲν ἀναπνέουσι τὸ πνεῦμα ἀφαιρεῖ τὸ ἐπικείμενον ὥςπερ
πῶμά τι (διὸ οὐκ αἰσθάνεται μὴ ἀναπνέοντα), τοῖς δὲ
μὴ ἀναπνέουσιν ἀφῄρηται τοῦτο, καθάπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν
25 τὰ μὲν ἔχει βλέφαρα τῶν ζῴων, ὧν μὴ ἀνακαλυφθέντων
οὐ δύναται ὁρᾶν, τὰ δὲ σκληρόφθαλμα οὐκ ἔχει,
διόπερ οὐ προσδεῖται οὐδενὸς τοῦ ἀνακαλύψοντος, ἀλλ' ὁρᾷ ἐκ
τοῦ δυνατοῦ ὄντος αὐτοῖς εὐθύς. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῶν ἄλλων
ζῴων ὁτιοῦν οὐδὲν δυσχεραίνει τῶν καθ' αὑτὰ δυσωδῶν τὴν
30 ὀσμήν, ἂν μή τι τύχῃ φθαρτικὸν ὄν, ὑπὸ τούτων δ' ὁμοίως
φθαρεῖται καθάπερ καὶ οἱ ἄνθρωποι ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀνθράκων
ἀτμίδος καρηβαροῦσι καὶ φθείρονται πολλάκις· οὕτως ὑπὸ
τῆς τοῦ θείου δυνάμεως καὶ τῶν ἀσφαλτωδῶν φθείρεται
1For the heat and stimulation set up by these odours are commensurate with the excess of moisture and coldness in his cerebral region. On all the other animals which have lungs, Nature has bestowed their due perception of one of the two kinds of odour [i.e.
that connected with nutrition] through the act of respiration, guarding against the needless creation of two organs of sense; 5for in the fact that they respire the other animals have already sufficient provision for their perception of the one species of odour only, as human beings have for their perception of both.
But that creatures which do not respire have the olfactory sense is evident. For fishes, and all insects as a class, have, 10thanks to the species of odour correlated with nutrition, a keen olfactory sense of their proper food from a distance, even when they are very far away from it; such is the case with bees, and also with the class of small ants, which some denominate knipes. Among marine animals, too, the murex and many other similar animals have an acute perception of their food by its odour.
15It is not equally certain what the organ is whereby they so perceive.
This question, of the organ whereby they perceive odour, may well cause a difficulty, if we assume that smelling takes place in animals only while respiring (for that this is the fact is manifest in all the animals which do respire), whereas none of those just mentioned respires, and yet they have the sense of smell- unless, indeed, they have some other sense not included in the ordinary five. 20This supposition is, however, impossible.
For any sense which perceives odour is a sense of smell, and this they do perceive, though probably not in the same way as creatures which respire, but when the latter are respiring the current of breath removes something that is laid like a lid upon the organ proper (which explains why they do not perceive odours when not respiring); while in creatures which do not respire this is always off: 25just as some animals have eyelids on their eyes, and when these are not raised they cannot see, whereas hard-eyed animals have no lids, and consequently do not need, besides eyes, an agency to raise the lids, but see straightway [without intermission] from the actual moment at which it is first possible for them to do so [i.e. from the moment when an object first comes within their field of vision].
Consistently with what has been said above, not one of the lower animals shows repugnance to the odour of things which are essentially ill-smelling, 30unless one of the latter is positively pernicious. They are destroyed, however, by these things, just as human beings are; i.e.
that connected with nutrition] through the act of respiration, guarding against the needless creation of two organs of sense; 5for in the fact that they respire the other animals have already sufficient provision for their perception of the one species of odour only, as human beings have for their perception of both.
But that creatures which do not respire have the olfactory sense is evident. For fishes, and all insects as a class, have, 10thanks to the species of odour correlated with nutrition, a keen olfactory sense of their proper food from a distance, even when they are very far away from it; such is the case with bees, and also with the class of small ants, which some denominate knipes. Among marine animals, too, the murex and many other similar animals have an acute perception of their food by its odour.
15It is not equally certain what the organ is whereby they so perceive.
This question, of the organ whereby they perceive odour, may well cause a difficulty, if we assume that smelling takes place in animals only while respiring (for that this is the fact is manifest in all the animals which do respire), whereas none of those just mentioned respires, and yet they have the sense of smell- unless, indeed, they have some other sense not included in the ordinary five. 20This supposition is, however, impossible.
For any sense which perceives odour is a sense of smell, and this they do perceive, though probably not in the same way as creatures which respire, but when the latter are respiring the current of breath removes something that is laid like a lid upon the organ proper (which explains why they do not perceive odours when not respiring); while in creatures which do not respire this is always off: 25just as some animals have eyelids on their eyes, and when these are not raised they cannot see, whereas hard-eyed animals have no lids, and consequently do not need, besides eyes, an agency to raise the lids, but see straightway [without intermission] from the actual moment at which it is first possible for them to do so [i.e. from the moment when an object first comes within their field of vision].
Consistently with what has been said above, not one of the lower animals shows repugnance to the odour of things which are essentially ill-smelling, 30unless one of the latter is positively pernicious. They are destroyed, however, by these things, just as human beings are; i.e.
445a
1 τἆλλα ζῷα, καὶ φεύγει διὰ τὸ πάθος. αὐτῆς δὲ καθ' αὑτὴν
τῆς δυσωδίας οὐδὲν φροντίζουσιν (καίτοι πολλὰ τῶν φυομένων
δυσώδεις ἔχει τὰς ὀσμάς), ἐὰν μή τι συμβάλληται
πρὸς τὴν γεῦσιν ἢ τὴν ἐδωδὴν αὐτοῖς. ἔοικε δ' ἡ αἴσθησις ἡ
5 τοῦ ὀσφραίνεσθαι, περιττῶν οὐσῶν τῶν αἰσθήσεων καὶ τοῦ
ἀριθμοῦ ἔχοντος μέσον τοῦ περιττοῦ, καὶ αὐτὴ μέση εἶναι τῶν
τε ἁπτικῶν, οἷον ἁφῆς καὶ γεύσεως, καὶ τῶν δι' ἄλλου αἰσθητικῶν,
οἷον ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς. διὸ καὶ τὸ ὀσφραντὸν τῶν
θρεπτικῶν ἐστὶ πάθος τι (ταῦτα δ' ἐν τῷ ἁπτῷ γένει), καὶ
10 τοῦ ἀκουστοῦ δὲ καὶ τοῦ ὁρατοῦ, διὸ καὶ ἐν ἀέρι καὶ ἐν ὕδατι
ὀσμῶνται. ὥστ' ἐστὶ τὸ ὀσφραντὸν κοινόν τι τούτων ἀμφοτέρων,
καὶ τῷ τε ἁπτῷ ὑπάρχει καὶ τῷ ἀκουστῷ καὶ τῷ
διαφανεῖ· διὸ καὶ εὐλόγως παρείκασται ξηρότητος ἐν ὑγρῷ καὶ
χυτῷ οἷον βαφή τις εἶναι καὶ πλύσις. πῶς μὲν οὖν εἴδη
15 δεῖ λέγειν καὶ πῶς οὐ δεῖ τοῦ ὀσφραντοῦ, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον εἰρήσθω.
ὃ δὲ λέγουσί τινες τῶν Πυθαγορείων, οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον·
τρέφεσθαι γάρ φασιν ἔνια ζῷα ταῖς ὀσμαῖς. πρῶτον μὲν
γὰρ ὁρῶμεν ὅτι τὴν τροφὴν δεῖ εἶναι συνθετήν (καὶ γὰρ τὰ
τρεφόμενα οὐχ ἁπλᾶ ἐστιν, διὸ καὶ περιττώματα γίγνεται
20 τῆς τροφῆς, ἢ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἢ ἔξω, ὥσπερ τοῖς φυτοῖς, ἐπεὶ δ'
οὐδὲ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐθέλει αὐτὸ μόνον ἄμεικτον ὂν τρέφειν—σωματῶδες
γάρ τι δεῖ εἶναι τὸ συστησόμενον—ἔτι πολὺ ἧττον
εὔλογον τὸν ἀέρα σωματοῦσθαι)· πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὅτι πᾶσιν
ἔστι τοῖς ζῴοις τόπος δεκτικὸς τῆς τροφῆς, ἐξ οὗ ἕλκον
25 λαμβάνει τὸ σῶμα· τοῦ δ' ὀσφραντοῦ ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ αἰσθητήριον,
καὶ μετὰ πνευματώδους εἰσέρχεται ἀναθυμιάσεως,
ὥστ' εἰς τὸν ἀναπνευστικὸν βαδίζοι ἂν τόπον. ὅτι μὲν
οὖν οὐ συμβάλλεται εἰς τροφὴν τὸ ὀσφραντόν, ᾗ ὀσφραντόν,
δῆλον· ὅτι μέντοι εἰς ὑγίειαν, καὶ ἐκ τῆς αἰσθήσεως καὶ
30 ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων φανερόν, ὥστε ὅπερ ὁ χυμὸς ἐν τῷ θρεπτικῷ
καὶ πρὸς τὰ τρεφόμενα, τοῦτ' ἐστὶ πρὸς ὑγίειαν τὸ
1as human beings get headaches from, and are often asphyxiated by, the fumes of charcoal, so the lower animals perish from the strong fumes of brimstone and bituminous substances; and it is owing to experience of such effects that they shun these. For the disagreeable odour in itself they care nothing whatever (though the odours of many plants are essentially disagreeable), unless, indeed, it has some effect upon the taste of their food.
5The senses making up an odd number, and an odd number having always a middle unit, the sense of smell occupies in itself as it were a middle position between the tactual senses, i.e. Touch and Taste, and those which perceive through a medium, i.e. Sight and Hearing. Hence the object of smell, too, is an affection of nutrient substances (which fall within the class of Tangibles), 10and is also an affection of the audible and the visible; whence it is that creatures have the sense of smell both in air and water.
Accordingly, the object of smell is something common to both of these provinces, i.e. it appertains both to the tangible on the one hand, and on the other to the audible and translucent. Hence the propriety of the figure by which it has been described by us as an immersion or washing of dryness in the Moist and Fluid. 15Such then must be our account of the sense in which one is or is not entitled to speak of the odorous as having species.
The theory held by certain of the Pythagoreans, that some animals are nourished by odours alone, is unsound. For, in the first place, we see that food must be composite, since the bodies nourished by it are not simple. 20This explains why waste matter is secreted from food, either within the organisms, or, as in plants, outside them. But since even water by itself alone, that is, when unmixed, will not suffice for food- for anything which is to form a consistency must be corporeal-, it is still much less conceivable that air should be so corporealized [and thus fitted to be food]. But, besides this, we see that all animals have a receptacle for food, from which, when it has entered, the body absorbs it. 25Now, the organ which perceives odour is in the head, and odour enters with the inhalation of the breath; so that it goes to the respiratory region. It is plain, therefore, that odour, qua odour, does not contribute to nutrition; that, however, it is serviceable to health is equally plain, as well by immediate perception 30as from the arguments above employed; so that odour is in relation to general health what savour is in the province of nutrition and in relation to the bodies nourished.
5The senses making up an odd number, and an odd number having always a middle unit, the sense of smell occupies in itself as it were a middle position between the tactual senses, i.e. Touch and Taste, and those which perceive through a medium, i.e. Sight and Hearing. Hence the object of smell, too, is an affection of nutrient substances (which fall within the class of Tangibles), 10and is also an affection of the audible and the visible; whence it is that creatures have the sense of smell both in air and water.
Accordingly, the object of smell is something common to both of these provinces, i.e. it appertains both to the tangible on the one hand, and on the other to the audible and translucent. Hence the propriety of the figure by which it has been described by us as an immersion or washing of dryness in the Moist and Fluid. 15Such then must be our account of the sense in which one is or is not entitled to speak of the odorous as having species.
The theory held by certain of the Pythagoreans, that some animals are nourished by odours alone, is unsound. For, in the first place, we see that food must be composite, since the bodies nourished by it are not simple. 20This explains why waste matter is secreted from food, either within the organisms, or, as in plants, outside them. But since even water by itself alone, that is, when unmixed, will not suffice for food- for anything which is to form a consistency must be corporeal-, it is still much less conceivable that air should be so corporealized [and thus fitted to be food]. But, besides this, we see that all animals have a receptacle for food, from which, when it has entered, the body absorbs it. 25Now, the organ which perceives odour is in the head, and odour enters with the inhalation of the breath; so that it goes to the respiratory region. It is plain, therefore, that odour, qua odour, does not contribute to nutrition; that, however, it is serviceable to health is equally plain, as well by immediate perception 30as from the arguments above employed; so that odour is in relation to general health what savour is in the province of nutrition and in relation to the bodies nourished.
445b
1 ὀσφραντόν. καθ' ἕκαστον μὲν οὖν αἰσθητήριον διωρίσθω τὸν
τρόπον τοῦτον.
1This then must conclude our discussion of the several organs of sense-perception.
Chapter 6 (445b3–448a27)
Ἀπορήσειε δ' ἄν τις, εἰ πᾶν σῶμα εἰς ἄπειρον διαιρεῖται,
ἆρα καὶ τὰ παθήματα τὰ αἰσθητά, οἷον χρῶμα
5 καὶ χυμὸς καὶ ὀσμὴ καὶ ψόφος, καὶ βαρῦ καὶ κοῦφον,
καὶ θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν, καὶ σκληρὸν καὶ μαλακόν, ἢ ἀδύνατον.
ποιητικὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν τῆς αἰσθήσεως
(τῷ δύνασθαι γὰρ κινεῖν αὐτὴν λέγεται πάντα), ὥστ' ἀνάγκη, εἰ ἡ δύναμις,
καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν εἰς ἄπειρα διαιρεῖσθαι καὶ πᾶν εἶναι μέγεθος
10 αἰσθητόν (ἀδύνατον γὰρ λευκὸν μὲν ὁρᾶν, μὴ ποσὸν
δέ)· εἰ γὰρ μὴ οὕτως, ἐνδέχοιτ' ἂν εἶναί τι σῶμα μηδὲν
ἔχον χρῶμα μηδὲ βάρος μηδ' ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον πάθος, ὥστ'
οὐδ' αἰσθητὸν ὅλως· ταῦτα γὰρ τὰ αἰσθητά. τὸ ἄρ' αἰσθητὸν
ἔσται συγκείμενον οὐκ ἐξ αἰσθητῶν. ἀλλ' ἀναγκαῖον· οὐ
15 γὰρ δὴ ἔκ γε τῶν μαθηματικῶν. ἔτι τίνι κρινοῦμεν ταῦτα καὶ
γνωσόμεθα; ἢ τῷ νῷ; ἀλλ' οὐ νοητά, οὐδὲ νοεῖ ὁ νοῦς τὰ
ἐκτὸς μὴ μετ' αἰσθήσεως. ἅμα δ' εἰ ταῦτ' ἔχει οὕτως,
ἔοικε μαρτυρεῖν τοῖς τὰ ἄτομα ποιοῦσι μεγέθη· οὕτω γὰρ ἂν
λύοιτο ὁ λόγος. ἀλλ' ἀδύνατα· εἴρηται δὲ περὶ αὐτῶν ἐν
20 τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς περὶ κινήσεως. περὶ δὲ τῆς λύσεως αὐτῶν
ἅμα δῆλον ἔσται καὶ διὰ τί πεπέρανται τὰ εἴδη καὶ χρώματος
καὶ χυμοῦ καὶ φθόγγων καὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἰσθητῶν.
ὧν μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἔσχατα, ἀνάγκη πεπεράνθαι τὰ ἐντός· τὰ
δ' ἐναντία ἔσχατα, πᾶν δὲ τὸ αἰσθητὸν ἔχει ἐναντίωσιν, οἷον
25 ἐν χρώματι τὸ λευκὸν καὶ τὸ μέλαν, ἐν χυμῷ γλυκὺ καὶ
πικρόν· καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις δὴ πᾶσίν ἐστιν ἔσχατα τὰ ἐναντία.
τὸ μὲν οὖν συνεχὲς εἰς ἄπειρα τέμνεται ἄνισα, εἰς δ'
ἴσα πεπερασμένα· τὸ δὲ μὴ καθ' αὑτὸ συνεχὲς εἰς πεπερασμένα
εἴδη. ἐπεὶ οὖν τὰ μὲν πάθη ὡς εἴδη λεκτέον, ὑπάρχει
30 δὲ συνέχεια ἀεὶ ἐν τούτοις, ληπτέον ὅτι τὸ δυνάμει καὶ
τὸ ἐνεργείᾳ ἕτερον· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸ μυριοστημόριον λανθάνει
3One might ask: if every body is infinitely divisible, are its sensible qualities- Colour, 5Savour, Odour, Sound, Weight, Cold or Heat, [Heaviness or] Lightness, Hardness or Softness-also infinitely divisible? Or, is this impossible?
[One might well ask this question], because each of them is productive of sense-perception, since, in fact, all derive their name [of 'sensible qualities'] from the very circumstance of their being able to stimulate this. Hence, [if this is so] both our perception of them should likewise be divisible to infinity, and every part of a body [however small] should be a perceptible magnitude. For it is impossible, e.g. 10to see a thing which is white but not of a certain magnitude.
Since if it were not so, [if its sensible qualities were not divisible, pari passu with body], we might conceive a body existing but having no colour, or weight, or any such quality; accordingly not perceptible at all. For these qualities are the objects of sense-perception. On this supposition, every perceptible object should be regarded as composed not of perceptible [but of imperceptible] parts. Yet it must [be really composed of perceptible parts], since assuredly it does not consist of mathematical [and therefore purely abstract and non-sensible] quantities. 15Again, by what faculty should we discern and cognize these [hypothetical real things without sensible qualities]? Is it by Reason? But they are not objects of Reason; nor does reason apprehend objects in space, except when it acts in conjunction with sense-perception. 20At the same time, if this be the case [that there are magnitudes, physically real, but without sensible quality], it seems to tell in favour of the atomistic hypothesis; for thus, indeed, [by accepting this hypothesis], the question [with which this chapter begins] might be solved [negatively].
[One might well ask this question], because each of them is productive of sense-perception, since, in fact, all derive their name [of 'sensible qualities'] from the very circumstance of their being able to stimulate this. Hence, [if this is so] both our perception of them should likewise be divisible to infinity, and every part of a body [however small] should be a perceptible magnitude. For it is impossible, e.g. 10to see a thing which is white but not of a certain magnitude.
Since if it were not so, [if its sensible qualities were not divisible, pari passu with body], we might conceive a body existing but having no colour, or weight, or any such quality; accordingly not perceptible at all. For these qualities are the objects of sense-perception. On this supposition, every perceptible object should be regarded as composed not of perceptible [but of imperceptible] parts. Yet it must [be really composed of perceptible parts], since assuredly it does not consist of mathematical [and therefore purely abstract and non-sensible] quantities. 15Again, by what faculty should we discern and cognize these [hypothetical real things without sensible qualities]? Is it by Reason? But they are not objects of Reason; nor does reason apprehend objects in space, except when it acts in conjunction with sense-perception. 20At the same time, if this be the case [that there are magnitudes, physically real, but without sensible quality], it seems to tell in favour of the atomistic hypothesis; for thus, indeed, [by accepting this hypothesis], the question [with which this chapter begins] might be solved [negatively].
446a
1 τῆς κέγχρου ὁρωμένης, καίτοι ἡ ὄψις ἐπελήλυθεν, καὶ ὁ ἐν
τῇ διέσει φθόγγος λανθάνει, καίτοι συνεχοῦς ὄντος ἀκούει τοῦ
μέλους παντός· τὸ δὲ διάστημα τὸ τοῦ μεταξὺ πρὸς τοὺς
ἐσχάτους λανθάνει. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις αἰσθητοῖς
5 τὰ μικρὰ πάμπαν· δυνάμει γὰρ ὁρατά, ἐνεργείᾳ δ' οὔ, ὅταν
μὴ χωρὶς ᾖ· καὶ γὰρ ἐνυπάρχει δυνάμει ἡ ποδιαία τῇ δίποδι,
ἐνεργείᾳ δ' ἤδη ἀφαιρεθεῖσα. χωριζόμεναι δ' αἱ τηλικαῦται
ὑπεροχαὶ εὐλόγως μὲν ἂν καὶ διαλύοιντο εἰς τὰ περιέχοντα,
ὥσπερ καὶ ἀκαριαῖος χυμὸς εἰς τὴν θάλατταν ἐγχυθείς.
10 οὐ μὴν ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ οὐδ' ἡ τῆς αἰσθήσεως ὑπεροχὴ
καθ' αὑτὴν αἰσθητὴ οὐδὲ χωριστή (δυνάμει γὰρ ἐνυπάρχει
ἐν τῇ ἀκριβεστέρᾳ ἡ ὑπεροχή), οὐδὲ τὸ τηλικοῦτον αἰσθητὸν
χωριστὸν ἔσται ἐνεργείᾳ αἰσθάνεσθαι. ἀλλ' ὅμως ἔσται αἰσθητόν·
δυνάμει τε γάρ ἐστιν ἤδη, καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ ἔσται προςγενόμενον.
15 ὅτι μὲν οὖν ἔνια μεγέθη καὶ πάθη λανθάνει, καὶ
διὰ τίν' αἰτίαν, καὶ πῶς αἰσθητὰ καὶ πῶς οὔ, εἴρηται. ὅταν
δὲ δὴ ἐνυπάρχῃ τούτῳ τοσαῦτα ὥστε καὶ ἐνεργείᾳ αἰσθητὰ
εἶναι, καὶ μὴ μόνον ὅτι ἐν τῷ ὅλῳ ἀλλὰ καὶ χωρίς,
πεπερασμένα ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὸν ἀριθμόν, καὶ χρώματα καὶ
20 χυμοὺς καὶ φθόγγους. ἀπορήσειε δ' ἄν τις, ἆρ' ἀφικνοῦνται
ἢ τὰ αἰσθητὰ ἢ αἱ κινήσεις αἱ ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθητῶν (ὁποτέρως
ποτὲ γίγνεται ἡ αἴσθησις), ὅταν ἐνεργῶσιν, εἰς τὸ μέσον
πρῶτον, οἷον ἥ τε ὀσμὴ φαίνεται ποιοῦσα καὶ ὁ ψόφος·
πρότερον γὰρ ὁ ἐγγὺς αἰσθάνεται τῆς ὀσμῆς, καὶ ὁ ψόφος
25 ὕστερον ἀφικνεῖται τῆς πληγῆς. ἆρ' οὖν οὕτω καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον
καὶ τὸ φῶς, καθάπερ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς φησιν ἀφικνεῖσθαι
πρότερον τὸ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἡλίου φῶς εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ πρὶν πρὸς τὴν
ὄψιν ἢ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν; δόξειε δ' ἂν εὐλόγως τοῦτο συμβαίνειν·
τὸ γὰρ κινούμενον κινεῖταί ποθέν ποι, ὥστ' ἀνάγκη εἶναί τινα
30 καὶ χρόνον ἐν ᾧ κινεῖται ἐκ θατέρου πρὸς θάτερον· ὁ δὲ
1But it is impossible [to accept this hypothesis].
Our views on the subject of atoms are to be found in our treatise on Movement.
The solution of these questions will bring with it also the answer to the question why the species of Colour, Taste, Sound, and other sensible qualities are limited. For in all classes of things lying between extremes the intermediates must be limited. But contraries are extremes, and every object of sense-perception involves contrariety: e.g. in Colour, White x Black; in Savour, Sweet x Bitter, and in all the other sensibles also the contraries are extremes. Now, that which is continuous is divisible into an infinite number of unequal parts, but into a finite number of equal parts, while that which is not per se continuous is divisible into species which are finite in number. Since then, the several sensible qualities of things are to be reckoned as species, while continuity always subsists in these, we must take account of the difference between the Potential and the Actual. It is owing to this difference that we do not [actually] see its ten-thousandth part in a grain of millet, although sight has embraced the whole grain within its scope; and it is owing to this, too, that the sound contained in a quarter-tone escapes notice, and yet one hears the whole strain, inasmuch as it is a continuum; but the interval between the extreme sounds [that bound the quarter-tone] escapes the ear [being only potentially audible, not actually]. So, in the case of other objects of sense, 5extremely small constituents are unnoticed; because they are only potentially not actually [perceptible e.g.] visible, unless when they have been parted from the wholes. 10So the footlength too exists potentially in the two-foot length, but actually only when it has been separated from the whole.
Our views on the subject of atoms are to be found in our treatise on Movement.
The solution of these questions will bring with it also the answer to the question why the species of Colour, Taste, Sound, and other sensible qualities are limited. For in all classes of things lying between extremes the intermediates must be limited. But contraries are extremes, and every object of sense-perception involves contrariety: e.g. in Colour, White x Black; in Savour, Sweet x Bitter, and in all the other sensibles also the contraries are extremes. Now, that which is continuous is divisible into an infinite number of unequal parts, but into a finite number of equal parts, while that which is not per se continuous is divisible into species which are finite in number. Since then, the several sensible qualities of things are to be reckoned as species, while continuity always subsists in these, we must take account of the difference between the Potential and the Actual. It is owing to this difference that we do not [actually] see its ten-thousandth part in a grain of millet, although sight has embraced the whole grain within its scope; and it is owing to this, too, that the sound contained in a quarter-tone escapes notice, and yet one hears the whole strain, inasmuch as it is a continuum; but the interval between the extreme sounds [that bound the quarter-tone] escapes the ear [being only potentially audible, not actually]. So, in the case of other objects of sense, 5extremely small constituents are unnoticed; because they are only potentially not actually [perceptible e.g.] visible, unless when they have been parted from the wholes. 10So the footlength too exists potentially in the two-foot length, but actually only when it has been separated from the whole.
446b
1 χρόνος πᾶς διαιρετός, ὥστε ἦν ὅτε οὔ πω ἑωρᾶτο ἀλλ' ἔτ'
ἐφέρετο ἡ ἀκτὶς ἐν τῷ μεταξύ. καὶ εἰ <καὶ> ἅπαν ἅμα ἀκούει
καὶ ἀκήκοε, καὶ ὅλως αἰσθάνεται καὶ ᾔσθηται, καὶ μή ἐστι
γένεσις αὐτῶν, ἀλλ' εἰσὶν ἄνευ τοῦ γίγνεσθαι, ὅμως οὐδὲν ἧττον,
5 ὥσπερ ὁ ψόφος ἤδη γεγενημένης τῆς πληγῆς οὔ πω πρὸς τῇ
ἀκοῇ—δηλοῖ δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ τῶν γραμμάτων μετασχημάτισις,
ὡς γιγνομένης τῆς φορᾶς ἐν τῷ μεταξύ· οὐ γὰρ τὸ
λεχθὲν φαίνονται ἀκηκοότες διὰ τὸ μετασχηματίζεσθαι
φερόμενον τὸν ἀέρα—ἆρ' οὖν οὕτω καὶ τὸ χρῶμα καὶ τὸ
10 φῶς; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τῷ πως ἔχειν τὸ μὲν ὁρᾷ τὸ δ' ὁρᾶται,
ὥσπερ ἴσα ἐστίν· οὐθὲν γὰρ ἂν ἔδει που ἑκάτερον εἶναι· τοῖς
γὰρ ἴσοις γιγνομένοις οὐδὲν διαφέρει ἢ ἐγγὺς ἢ πόρρω ἀλλήλων
εἶναι. ἢ περὶ μὲν τὸν ψόφον καὶ τὴν ὀσμὴν τοῦτο συμβαίνειν
εὔλογον· ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἀὴρ καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, συνεχῆ
15 μέν, μεμέρισται δ' ἀμφοτέρων ἡ κίνησις. διὸ καὶ
ἔστι μὲν ὡς τὸ αὐτὸ ἀκούει ὁ πρῶτος καὶ ὁ ὕστερος καὶ ὀςφραίνεται,
ἔστι δ' ὡς οὔ. δοκεῖ δέ τισιν εἶναι ἀπορία καὶ
περὶ τούτων· ἀδύνατον γάρ φασί τινες ἄλλον ἄλλῳ τὸ
αὐτὸ ἀκούειν καὶ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὀσφραίνεσθαι· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τ' εἶναι
20 πολλοὺς καὶ χωρὶς ὄντας <ἓν> ἀκούειν καὶ ὀσφραίνεσθαι· τὸ γὰρ ἓν
χωρὶς ἂν αὐτὸ αὑτοῦ εἶναι. ἢ τοῦ μὲν κινήσαντος πρώτου,
οἷον τῆς κώδωνος ἢ λιβανωτοῦ ἢ πυρός, τοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἑνὸς
ἀριθμῷ αἰσθάνονται πάντες, τοῦ δὲ δὴ ἰδίου ἑτέρου ἀριθμῷ,
εἴδει δὲ τοῦ αὐτοῦ, διὸ ἅμα πολλοὶ ὁρῶσι καὶ ὀσμῶνται καὶ
25 ἀκούουσιν; ἔστι δ' οὔτε σώματα ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ πάθος καὶ κίνησίς
τις (οὐ γὰρ ἂν τοῦτο συνέβαινεν), οὔτ' ἄνευ σώματος.
περὶ δὲ τοῦ φωτὸς ἄλλος λόγος· τῷ ἐνεῖναι γάρ τι τὸ φῶς ἐστιν,
ἀλλ' οὐ κίνησίς τις. ὅλως δὲ οὐδὲ ὁμοίως ἐπί τε ἀλλοιώσεως
ἔχει καὶ φορᾶς· αἱ μὲν γὰρ φοραὶ εὐλόγως εἰς τὸ μεταξὺ
30 πρῶτον ἀφικνοῦνται (δοκεῖ δ' ὁ ψόφος εἶναι φερομένου
1But objective increments so small as those above might well, if separated from their totals, [instead of achieving 'actual' exisistence] be dissolved in their environments, like a drop of sapid moisture poured out into the sea. But even if this were not so [sc. with the objective magnitude], still, since the [subjective] of sense-perception is not perceptible in itself, nor capable of separate existence (since it exists only potentially in the more distinctly perceivable whole of sense-perception), so neither will it be possible to perceive [actually] its correlatively small object [sc. its quantum of pathema or sensible quality] when separated from the object-total. But yet this [small object] is to be considered as perceptible:
for it is both potentially so already [i.e. even when alone], and destined to be actually so when it has become part of an aggregate. Thus, therefore, we have shown that some magnitudes and their sensible qualities escape notice, and the reason why they do so, as well as the manner in which they are still perceptible or not perceptible in such cases. Accordingly then when these [minutely subdivided] sensibles have once again become aggregated in a whole in such a manner, relatively to one another, as to be perceptible actually, and not merely because they are in the whole, but even apart from it, it follows necessarily [from what has been already stated] that their sensible qualities, whether colours or tastes or sounds, are limited in number.
One might ask:- do the objects of sense-perception, or the movements proceeding from them ([since movements there are,] in whichever of the two ways [viz. 5by emanations or by stimulatory kinesis] sense-perception takes place), when these are actualized for perception, always arrive first at a spatial middle point [between the sense-organ and its object], as Odour evidently does, and also Sound?
for it is both potentially so already [i.e. even when alone], and destined to be actually so when it has become part of an aggregate. Thus, therefore, we have shown that some magnitudes and their sensible qualities escape notice, and the reason why they do so, as well as the manner in which they are still perceptible or not perceptible in such cases. Accordingly then when these [minutely subdivided] sensibles have once again become aggregated in a whole in such a manner, relatively to one another, as to be perceptible actually, and not merely because they are in the whole, but even apart from it, it follows necessarily [from what has been already stated] that their sensible qualities, whether colours or tastes or sounds, are limited in number.
One might ask:- do the objects of sense-perception, or the movements proceeding from them ([since movements there are,] in whichever of the two ways [viz. 5by emanations or by stimulatory kinesis] sense-perception takes place), when these are actualized for perception, always arrive first at a spatial middle point [between the sense-organ and its object], as Odour evidently does, and also Sound?
447a
1 τινὸς κίνησις), ὅσα δ' ἀλλοιοῦται, οὐκέτι ὁμοίως· ἐνδέχεται
γὰρ ἀθρόον ἀλλοιοῦσθαι, καὶ μὴ τὸ ἥμισυ πρότερον, οἷον τὸ
ὕδωρ ἅμα πᾶν πήγνυσθαι. οὐ μὴν ἀλλ' ἂν ᾖ πολὺ τὸ θερμαινόμενον
ἢ πηγνύμενον, τὸ ἐχόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐχομένου
5 πάσχει, τὸ δὲ πρῶτον ὑπ' αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀλλοιοῦντος μεταβάλλει
καὶ ἀνάγκη ἅμα ἀλλοιοῦσθαι καὶ ἀθρόον. ἦν δ' ἂν
καὶ τὸ γεύεσθαι ὥσπερ ἡ ὀσμή, εἰ ἐν ὑγρῷ ἦμεν καὶ πορρωτέρωθεν
πρὶν θιγεῖν αὐτοῦ ᾐσθανόμεθα. εὐλόγως δὴ ὧν ἐστι
μεταξὺ τοῦ αἰσθητηρίου, οὐχ ἅμα πάντα πάσχει, πλὴν ἐπὶ
10 τοῦ φωτὸς διὰ τὸ εἰρημένον, διὰ τὸ αὐτὸ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ
ὁρᾶν· τὸ γὰρ φῶς ποιεῖ τὸ ὁρᾶν.
Ἔστι δ' ἀπορία καὶ ἄλλη τις τοιάδε περὶ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, πότερον
ἐνδέχεται δυεῖν ἅμα αἰσθάνεσθαι ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ
ἀτόμῳ χρόνῳ, ἢ οὔ. εἰ δὴ ἀεὶ ἡ μείζων κίνησις τὴν ἐλάττω
15 ἐκκρούει—διὸ ὑποφερομένων ὑπὸ τὰ ὄμματα οὐκ αἰσθάνονται,
ἐὰν τύχωσι σφόδρα τι ἐννοῦντες ἢ φοβούμενοι ἢ ἀκούοντες
πολὺν ψόφον—τοῦτο δὴ ὑποκείσθω, καὶ ὅτι ἑκάστου μᾶλλον
ἔστιν αἰσθάνεσθαι ἁπλοῦ ὄντος ἢ κεκραμένου, οἷον οἴνου ἀκράτου
ἢ κεκραμένου, καὶ μέλιτος, καὶ χρόας, καὶ τῆς νήτης μόνης
20 ἢ ἐν τῇ διὰ πασῶν, διὰ τὸ ἀφανίζειν ἄλληλα. τοῦτο
δὲ ποιεῖ ἐξ ὧν ἕν τι γίγνεται. εἰ δὴ ἡ μείζων τὴν ἐλάττω
κίνησιν ἐκκρούει, ἀνάγκη, ἂν ἅμα ὦσι, καὶ αὐτὴν ἧττον
αἰσθητὴν εἶναι ἢ εἰ μόνη ἦν· ἀφαιρεῖται γάρ τι ἡ ἐλάττων
μειγνυμένη, εἴπερ ἅπαντα τὰ ἁπλᾶ μᾶλλον αἰσθητά ἐστιν.
25 ἐὰν ἄρα ἴσαι ὦσιν ἕτεραι οὖσαι, οὐδετέρας ἔσται αἴσθησις·
ἀφανιεῖ γὰρ ἡ ἑτέρα ὁμοίως τὴν ἑτέραν, ἁπλῆς δ' οὐκ ἔστιν
αἰσθάνεσθαι. ὥστε ἢ οὐδεμία ἔσται αἴσθησις, ἢ ἄλλη ἐξ ἀμφοῖν·
ὅπερ καὶ γίγνεσθαι δοκεῖ ἐπὶ τῶν κεραννυμένων ἐν ᾧ ἂν
μειχθῶσιν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἐκ μὲν ἐνίων γίγνεταί τι, ἐκ δ' ἐνίων οὐ
30 γίγνεται, τοιαῦτα δὲ τὰ ὑφ' ἑτέραν αἴσθησιν (μείγνυνται γὰρ
1For he who is nearer [to the odorous object] perceives the Odour sooner [than who is farther away], and the Sound of a stroke reaches us some time after it has been struck. Is it thus also with an object seen, and with Light? Empedocles, for example, says that the Light from the Sun arrives first in the intervening space before it comes to the eye, or reaches the Earth. This might plausibly seem to be the case. For whatever is moved [in space], is moved from one place to another; hence there must be a corresponding interval of time also in which it is moved from the one place to the other. But any given time is divisible into parts; so that we should assume a time when the sun's ray was not as yet seen, but was still travelling in the middle space.
Now, even if it be true that the acts of 'hearing' and 'having heard', and, generally, those of 'perceiving' and 'having perceived', form co-instantaneous wholes, in other words, that acts of sense-perception do not involve a process of becoming, but have their being none the less without involving such a process; yet, just as, [in the case of sound], though the stroke which causes the Sound has been already struck, the Sound is not yet at the ear (and that this last is a fact is further proved by the transformation which the letters [viz. 5the consonants as heard] undergo [in the case of words spoken from a distance], implying that the local movement [involved in Sound] takes place in the space between [us and the speaker]; for the reason why [persons addressed from a distance] do not succeed in catching the sense of what is said is evidently that the air [sound wave] in moving towards them has its form changed) [granting this, then, the question arises]: is the same also true in the case of Colour and Light?
Now, even if it be true that the acts of 'hearing' and 'having heard', and, generally, those of 'perceiving' and 'having perceived', form co-instantaneous wholes, in other words, that acts of sense-perception do not involve a process of becoming, but have their being none the less without involving such a process; yet, just as, [in the case of sound], though the stroke which causes the Sound has been already struck, the Sound is not yet at the ear (and that this last is a fact is further proved by the transformation which the letters [viz. 5the consonants as heard] undergo [in the case of words spoken from a distance], implying that the local movement [involved in Sound] takes place in the space between [us and the speaker]; for the reason why [persons addressed from a distance] do not succeed in catching the sense of what is said is evidently that the air [sound wave] in moving towards them has its form changed) [granting this, then, the question arises]: is the same also true in the case of Colour and Light?
447b
1 ὧν τὰ ἔσχατα ἐναντία· οὐκ ἔστι δ' ἐκ λευκοῦ καὶ ὀξέος ἓν γίγνεσθαι
ἀλλ' ἢ κατὰ συμβεβηκός, ἀλλ' οὐχ ὡς ἐξ ὀξέος καὶ
βαρέος συμφωνία), οὐκ ἄρα οὐδ' αἰσθάνεσθαι ἐνδέχεται αὐτῶν
ἅμα. ἴσαι μὲν γὰρ οὖσαι αἱ κινήσεις ἀφανιοῦσιν ἀλλήλας,
5 ἐπεὶ μία οὐ γίγνεται ἐξ αὐτῶν· ἂν δ' ἄνισοι, ἡ κρείττων
αἴσθησιν ἐμποιήσει. ἔτι μᾶλλον ἅμα δυοῖν αἴσθοιτ'
ἂν ἡ ψυχὴ τῇ μιᾷ αἰσθήσει ὧν μία αἴσθησις, οἷον ὀξέος
καὶ βαρέος (μᾶλλον γὰρ ἅμα ἡ κίνησις τῇ μιᾶς αὐτὴ ἑαυτῇ
ἢ τοῖν δυοῖν, οἷον ὄψεως καὶ ἀκοῆς), τῇ μιᾷ δὲ ἅμα δυοῖν
10 οὐκ ἔστιν αἰσθάνεσθαι ἂν μὴ μειχθῇ (τὸ γὰρ μεῖγμα ἓν βούλεται
εἶναι, τοῦ δ' ἑνὸς μία αἴσθησις, ἡ δὲ μία ἅμα αὑτῇ),
ὥστ' ἐξ ἀνάγκης τῶν μεμειγμένων ἅμα αἰσθάνεται, ὅτι μιᾷ
αἰσθήσει κατ' ἐνέργειαν αἰσθάνεται· ἑνὸς μὲν γὰρ ἀριθμῷ ἡ
κατ' ἐνέργειαν μία, εἴδει δὲ ἡ κατὰ δύναμιν μία· καὶ εἰ
15 μία τοίνυν ἡ αἴσθησις ἡ κατ' ἐνέργειαν, ἓν ἐκεῖνα ἐρεῖ. μεμεῖχθαι
ἄρα ἀνάγκη αὐτά. ὅταν ἄρα μὴ ᾖ μεμειγμένα,
δύο ἔσονται αἰσθήσεις αἱ κατ' ἐνέργειαν. ἀλλὰ κατὰ μίαν
δύναμιν καὶ ἄτομον χρόνον μίαν ἀνάγκη εἶναι τὴν ἐνέργειαν·
μιᾶς γὰρ ἡ εἰσάπαξ μία χρῆσις καὶ κίνησις, μία δὲ
20 ἡ δύναμις. οὐκ ἄρα ἐνδέχεται δυοῖν ἅμα αἰσθάνεσθαι τῇ
μιᾷ αἰσθήσει. ἀλλὰ μὴν εἰ τὰ ὑπὸ τὴν αὐτὴν αἴσθησιν
ἅμα ἀδύνατον, ἐὰν ᾗ δύο, δῆλον ὅτι ἧττον ἔτι τὰ κατὰ
δύο αἰσθήσεις ἐνδέχεται ἅμα αἰσθάνεσθαι, οἷον λευκὸν καὶ
γλυκύ. φαίνεται γὰρ τὸ μὲν τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἓν ἡ ψυχὴ οὐδενὶ
25 ἑτέρῳ λέγειν ἀλλ' ἢ τῷ ἅμα, τὸ δὲ τῷ εἴδει ἓν τῇ κρινούσῃ
αἰσθήσει καὶ τῷ τρόπῳ. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, ὅτι ἴσως τὸ λευκὸν
καὶ τὸ μέλαν, ἕτερον τῷ εἴδει ὄν, ἡ αὐτὴ κρίνει, καὶ τὸ
γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ πικρὸν ἡ αὐτὴ μὲν ἑαυτῇ, ἐκείνης δ' ἄλλη,
ἀλλ' ἑτέρως ἑκάτερον τῶν ἐναντίων, ὡς δ' αὔτως ἑαυταῖς τὰ
30 σύστοιχα, οἷον ὡς ἡ γεῦσις τὸ γλυκύ, οὕτως ἡ ὄψις τὸ λευκόν,
1For certainly it is not true that the beholder sees, and the object is seen, in virtue of some merely abstract relationship between them, such as that between equals. For if it were so, there would be no need [as there is] that either [the beholder or the thing beheld] should occupy some particular place; since to the equalization of things their being near to, or far from, one another makes no difference.
Now this [travelling through successive positions in the medium] may with good reason take place as regards Sound and Odour, for these, like [their media] Air and Water, are continuous, but the movement of both is divided into parts. This too is the ground of the fact that the object which the person first in order of proximity hears or smells is the same as that which each subsequent person perceives, while yet it is not the same.
Some, indeed, raise a question also on these very points; they declare it impossible that one person should hear, or see, or smell, the same object as another, urging the impossibility of several persons in different places hearing or smelling [the same object], for the one same thing would [thus] be divided from itself. The answer is that, in perceiving the object which first set up the motion- e.g. a bell, or frankincense, or fire- all perceive an object numerically one and the same; while, of course, in the special object perceived they perceive an object numerically different for each, though specifically the same for all; and this, accordingly, explains how it is that many persons together see, or smell, or hear [the same object]. These things [the odour or sound proper] are not bodies, but an affection or process of some kind (otherwise this [viz. 5simultaneous perception of the one object by many] would not have been, as it is, a fact of experience) though, on the other hand, they each imply a body [as their cause].
Now this [travelling through successive positions in the medium] may with good reason take place as regards Sound and Odour, for these, like [their media] Air and Water, are continuous, but the movement of both is divided into parts. This too is the ground of the fact that the object which the person first in order of proximity hears or smells is the same as that which each subsequent person perceives, while yet it is not the same.
Some, indeed, raise a question also on these very points; they declare it impossible that one person should hear, or see, or smell, the same object as another, urging the impossibility of several persons in different places hearing or smelling [the same object], for the one same thing would [thus] be divided from itself. The answer is that, in perceiving the object which first set up the motion- e.g. a bell, or frankincense, or fire- all perceive an object numerically one and the same; while, of course, in the special object perceived they perceive an object numerically different for each, though specifically the same for all; and this, accordingly, explains how it is that many persons together see, or smell, or hear [the same object]. These things [the odour or sound proper] are not bodies, but an affection or process of some kind (otherwise this [viz. 5simultaneous perception of the one object by many] would not have been, as it is, a fact of experience) though, on the other hand, they each imply a body [as their cause].
448a
1 ὡς δ' αὕτη τὸ μέλαν, οὕτως ἐκείνη τὸ πικρόν. ἔτι εἰ αἱ
τῶν ἐναντίων κινήσεις ἐναντίαι, ἅμα δὲ τὰ ἐναντία ἐν τῷ
αὐτῷ καὶ ἀτόμῳ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται ὑπάρχειν, ὑπὸ δὲ τὴν αἴσθησιν
τὴν μίαν ἐναντία ἐστίν, οἷον γλυκὺ πικρῷ, τούτων οὐκ
5 ἂν ἐνδέχοιτο αἰσθάνεσθαι ἅμα. ὁμοίως δὲ δῆλον ὅτι οὐδὲ
τὰ μὴ ἐναντία· τὰ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ λευκοῦ τὰ δὲ τοῦ μέλανός
ἐστιν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοίως, οἷον τῶν χυμῶν οἱ μὲν τοῦ
γλυκέος οἱ δὲ τοῦ πικροῦ. οὐδὲ τὰ μεμειγμένα ἅμα (λόγοι
γάρ εἰσιν ἀντικειμένων, οἷον τὸ διὰ πασῶν καὶ τὸ διὰ πέντε),
10 ἐὰν μὴ ὡς ἓν αἰσθάνηται. οὕτως δ' εἷς ὁ λόγος ὁ τῶν ἄκρων
γίγνεται· ἄλλως δ' οὔ, ἔσται γὰρ ἅμα ὁ μὲν πολλοῦ πρὸς
ὀλίγον ἢ περιττοῦ πρὸς ἄρτιον, ὁ δ' ὀλίγου πρὸς πολὺ ἢ ἀρτίου
πρὸς περιττόν. εἰ οὖν πλεῖον ἔτι ἀπέχει ἀλλήλων καὶ
διαφέρει τὰ συστοίχως μὲν λεγόμενα ἐν ἄλλῳ δὲ γένει τῶν
15 ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει (λέγω δ' οἷον τὸ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ λευκὸν
καλῶ σύστοιχα, γένει δ' ἕτερα, τὸ γλυκὺ δὲ τοῦ λευκοῦ
πλεῖον ἔτι τῷ εἴδει διαφέρει ἢ τὸ μέλαν), ἔτι ἂν ἧττον ἅμα
ἐνδέχοιτο αὐτὰ αἰσθάνεσθαι ἢ τὰ τῷ γένει ταὐτά. ὥστ' εἰ
μὴ ταῦτα, οὐδ' ἐκεῖνα. ὃ δὲ λέγουσί τινες τῶν περὶ τὰς
20 συμφωνίας, ὅτι οὐχ ἅμα μὲν ἀφικνοῦνται οἱ ψόφοι, φαίνονται
δέ, καὶ λανθάνει, ὅταν ὁ χρόνος ᾖ ἀναίσθητος, πότερον
ὀρθῶς λέγεται ἢ οὔ; τάχα γὰρ ἂν φαίη τις καὶ νῦν
παρὰ τοῦτο δοκεῖν ἅμα ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀκούειν, ὅτι οἱ μεταξὺ
χρόνοι λανθάνουσιν. ἢ τοῦτ' οὐκ ἀληθές, οὐδ' ἐνδέχεται χρόνον
25 εἶναι ἀναίσθητον οὐδένα οὐδὲ λανθάνειν, ἀλλὰ παντὸς ἐνδέχεται
αἰσθάνεσθαι; εἰ γάρ, ὅτε αὐτὸς αὑτοῦ τις αἰσθάνεται ἢ
ἄλλου ἐν συνεχεῖ χρόνῳ, μὴ ἐνδέχεται τότε λανθάνειν ὅτι
ἔστιν,
1But [though sound and odour may travel,] with regard to Light the case is different. For Light has its raison d'etre in the being [not becoming] of something, but it is not a movement. And in general, even in qualitative change the case is different from what it is in local movement [both being different species of kinesis]. Local movements, of course, arrive first at a point midway before reaching their goal (and Sound, it is currently believed, is a movement of something locally moved), but we cannot go on to assert this [arrival at a point midway] like manner of things which undergo qualitative change. For this kind of change may conceivably take place in a thing all at once, without one half of it being changed before the other; e.g. it is conceivable that water should be frozen simultaneously in every part. But still, for all that, if the body which is heated or frozen is extensive, each part of it successively is affected by the part contiguous, while the part first changed in quality is so changed by the cause itself which originates the change, and thus the change throughout the whole need not take place coinstantaneously and all at once. Tasting would have been as smelling now is, if we lived in a liquid medium, and perceived [the sapid object] at a distance, before touching it.
Naturally, then, the parts of media between a sensory organ and its object are not all affected at once- except in the case of Light [illumination] for the reason above stated, and also in the case of seeing, for the same reason; 5for Light is an efficient cause of seeing.
Naturally, then, the parts of media between a sensory organ and its object are not all affected at once- except in the case of Light [illumination] for the reason above stated, and also in the case of seeing, for the same reason; 5for Light is an efficient cause of seeing.
Chapter 7 (448a28–449b4)
ἔστι δέ τις ἐν τῷ συνεχεῖ καὶ τοσοῦτος ὅσος ὅλως ἀναίσθητός
ἐστι, δῆλον ὅτι τότε λανθάνοι ἂν εἰ ἔστιν αὐτὸς αὑτόν, καὶ
30 εἰ ὁρᾷ καὶ αἰσθάνεται [καὶ εἰ αἰσθάνεται]. ἔτι οὐκ ἂν εἴη
28Another question respecting sense-perception is as follows: assuming, as is natural, that of two [simultaneous] sensory stimuli the stronger always tends to extrude the weaker [from consciousness], is it conceivable or not that one should be able to discern two objects coinstantaneously in the same individual time? The above assumption explains why persons do not perceive what is brought before their eyes, if they are at the time deep in thought, or in a fright, or listening to some loud noise. This assumption, then, must be made, and also the following: that it is easier to discern each object of sense when in its simple form than when an ingredient in a mixture; easier, for example, to discern wine when neat than when blended, and so also honey, and [in other provinces] a colour, or to discern the nete by itself alone, than [when sounded with the hypate] in the octave; the reason being that component elements tend to efface [the distinctive characteristics of] one another.
448b
1 οὔτε χρόνος οὔτε πρᾶγμα οὐδὲν ὃ αἰσθάνεται ἢ ἐν ᾧ, εἰ μὴ
οὕτως, ὅτι ἐν τούτου τινὶ ἢ ὅτι τούτου τι ὁρᾷ, εἴπερ ἔστι τι μέγεθος
καὶ χρόνου καὶ πράγματος ἀναίσθητον ὅλως διὰ μικρότητα·
εἰ γὰρ τὴν ὅλην ὁρᾷ, καὶ αἰσθάνεται τὸν αὐτὸν συνεχῶς
5 χρόνον, οὕτω, τῷ ἐν τούτου τινί, ἀφῃρήσθω τὸ ΓΒ, ἐν
ᾧ οὐκ ᾐσθάνετο. οὐκοῦν ἐν ταύτης τινί ἢ ταύτης τι, ὥσπερ
τὴν γῆν ὁρᾷ ὅλην, ὅτι τοδὶ αὐτῆς, καὶ ἐν τῷ ἐνιαυτῷ βαδίζει,
ὅτι ἐν τῳδὶ τῷ μέρει αὐτοῦ. ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐν τῷ ΓΒ
οὐδὲν αἰσθάνεται. τῷ ἄρα ἐν τούτου τινὶ τοῦ ΑΒ αἰσθάνεσθαι
10 λέγεται τοῦ ὅλου αἰσθάνεσθαι καὶ τὴν ὅλην. ὁ δ' αὐτὸς λόγος
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ΑΓ· ἀεὶ γὰρ ἐν τινὶ καὶ τινός, ὅλου δ' οὐκ ἔστιν
αἰσθάνεσθαι. ἅπαντα μὲν οὖν αἰσθητά ἐστιν, ἀλλ' οὐ φαίνεται
ὅσα ἐστίν· τοῦ γὰρ ἡλίου τὸ μέγεθος ὁρᾷ καὶ τὸ τετράπηχυ
πόρρωθεν, ἀλλ' οὐ φαίνεται ὅσον, ἀλλ' ἐνίοτε ἀδιαίρετον,
15 <ὃ> ὁρᾷ δ' οὐκ ἀδιαίρετον. ἡ δ' αἰτία εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν
περὶ τούτου. ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὐθείς ἐστι χρόνος ἀναίσθητος, ἐκ τούτων
φανερόν· περὶ δὲ τῆς πρότερον λεχθείσης ἀπορίας σκεπτέον,
πότερον ἐνδέχεται ἅμα πλειόνων αἰσθάνεσθαι ἢ οὐκ ἐνδέχεται.
τὸ δ' ἅμα λέγω ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ἀτόμῳ χρόνῳ πρὸς ἄλληλα.
20 πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἆρ' ὧδ' ἐνδέχεται, ἅμα μέν, ἑτέρῳ
δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς αἰσθάνεσθαι, κἀν [οὐ τῷ ἀτόμῳ] οὕτως ἀτόμῳ
ὡς παντὶ ὄντι συνεχεῖ; ἢ [ὅτι] πρῶτον μὲν κατὰ τὴν
μίαν αἴσθησιν, οἷον λέγω ὄψιν, εἰ ἔσται ἄλλῳ αἰσθανομένη
ἄλλου καὶ ἄλλου χρώματος, πλείω γε μέρη ἕξει εἴδει
25 ταὐτά; καὶ γὰρ ἃ αἰσθάνεται ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ γένει ἐστίν.
εἰ δέ, [ὅτι] ὡς ὄμματα δύο, φαίη τις οὐδὲν κωλύειν οὕτω καὶ
ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ, [ὅτι] ἴσως ἐκ μὲν τούτων ἕν τι γίγνεται καὶ μία
ἡ ἐνέργεια αὐτῶν· ἐκεῖ δέ, εἰ μὲν ἓν τὸ ἐξ ἀμφοῖν, ἐκεῖνο
τὸ αἰσθανόμενον ἔσται, εἰ δὲ χωρίς, οὐχ ὁμοίως ἕξει. ἔτι
30 αἰσθήσεις αἱ αὐταὶ πλείους ἔσονται, ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἐπιστήμας
1Such is the effect [on one another] of all ingredients of which, when compounded, some one thing is formed.
If, then, the greater stimulus tends to expel the less, it necessarily follows that, when they concur, this greater should itself too be less distinctly perceptible than if it were alone, since the less by blending with it has removed some of its individuality, according to our assumption that simple objects are in all cases more distinctly perceptible.
Now, if the two stimuli are equal but heterogeneous, no perception of either will ensue; they will alike efface one another's characteristics.
But in such a case the perception of either stimulus in its simple form is impossible. Hence either there will then be no sense-perception at all, or there will be a perception compounded of both and differing from either.
The latter is what actually seems to result from ingredients blended together, whatever may be the compound in which they are so mixed.
Since, then, from some concurrent [sensory stimuli] a resultant object is produced, while from others no such resultant is produced, and of the latter sort are those things which belong to different sense provinces (for only those things are capable of mixture whose extremes are contraries, and no one compound can be formed from, e.g. White and Sharp, except indirectly, i.e. not as a concord is formed of Sharp and Grave); there follows logically the impossibility of discerning such concurrent stimuli coinstantaneously.
For we must suppose that the stimuli, when equal, tend alike to efface one another, since no one [form of stimulus] results from them; while, if they are unequal, the stronger alone is distinctly perceptible.
Again, the soul would be more likely to perceive coinstantaneously, with one and the same sensory act, two things in the same sensory province, such as the Grave and the Sharp in sound; for the sensory stimulation in this one province is more likely to be unitemporal than that involving two different provinces, as Sight and Hearing. But it is impossible to perceive two objects coinstantaneously in the same sensory act unless they have been mixed, [when, however, they are no longer two], for their amalgamation involves their becoming one, and the sensory act related to one object is itself one, and such act, when one, is, of course, coinstantaneous with itself. Hence, when things are mixed we of necessity perceive them coinstantaneously:
for we perceive them by a perception actually one. For an object numerically one means that which is perceived by a perception actually one, whereas an object specifically one means that which is perceived by a sensory act potentially one [i.e. by an energeia of the same sensuous faculty]. If then the actualized perception is one, it will declare its data to be one object; they must, therefore, have been mixed. Accordingly, when they have not been mixed, the actualized perceptions which perceive them will be two; but [if so, their perception must be successive not coinstantaneous, for] in one and the same faculty the perception actualized at any single moment is necessarily one, only one stimulation or exertion of a single faculty being possible at a single instant, and in the case supposed here the faculty is one. It follows, therefore, that we cannot conceive the possibility of perceiving two distinct objects coinstantaneously with one and the same sense.
But if it be thus impossible to perceive coinstantaneously two objects in the same province of sense if they are really two, manifestly it is still less conceivable that we should perceive coinstantaneously objects in two different sensory provinces, as White and Sweet. For it appears that when the Soul predicates numerical unity it does so in virtue of nothing else than such coinstantaneous perception [of one object, in one instant, by one energeia]: while it predicates specific unity in virtue of [the unity of] the discriminating faculty of sense together with [the unity of] the mode in which this operates. What I mean, for example, is this; the same sense no doubt discerns White and Black, [which are hence generically one] though specifically different from one another, and so, too, a faculty of sense self-identical, but different from the former, discerns Sweet and Bitter; but while both these faculties differ from one another [and each from itself] in their modes of discerning either of their respective contraries, yet in perceiving the co-ordinates in each province they proceed in manners analogous to one another; for instance, as Taste perceives Sweet, so Sight perceives White; and as the latter perceives Black, so the former perceives Bitter.
Again, if the stimuli of sense derived from Contraries are themselves Contrary, and if Contraries cannot be conceived as subsisting together in the same individual subject, and if Contraries, e.g. Sweet and Bitter, come under one and the same sense-faculty, we must conclude that it is impossible to discern them coinstantaneously. It is likewise clearly impossible so to discern such homogeneous sensibles as are not [indeed] Contrary, [but are yet of different species]. For these are, [in the sphere of colour, for instance], classed some with White, others with Black, and so it is, likewise, in the other provinces of sense; for example, of savours, some are classed with Sweet, and others with Bitter. Nor can one discern the components in compounds coinstantaneously (for these are ratios of Contraries, as e.g. the Octave or the Fifth); unless, indeed, on condition of perceiving them as one. For thus, and not otherwise, the ratios of the extreme sounds are compounded into one ratio: since we should have together the ratio, on the one hand, of Many to Few or of Odd to Even, on the other, that of Few to Many or of Even to Odd [and these, to be perceived together, must be unified].
If, then, the sensibles denominated co-ordinates though in different provinces of sense (e.g. I call Sweet and White co-ordinates though in different provinces) stand yet more aloof, and differ more, from one another than do any sensibles in the same province; while Sweet differs from White even more than Black does from White, it is still less conceivable that one should discern them [viz. sensibles in different sensory provinces whether co-ordinates or not] coinstantaneously than sensibles which are in the same province. Therefore, if coinstantaneous perception of the latter be impossible, that of the former is a fortiori impossible.
Some of the writers who treat of concords assert that the sounds combined in these do not reach us simultaneously, but only appear to do so, their real successiveness being unnoticed whenever the time it involves is [so small as to be] imperceptible. Is this true or not? One might perhaps, following this up, go so far as to say that even the current opinion that one sees and hears coinstantaneously is due merely to the fact that the intervals of time [between the really successive perceptions of sight and hearing] escape observation. 5But this can scarcely be true, nor is it conceivable that any portion of time should be [absolutely] imperceptible, or that any should be absolutely unnoticeable; the truth being that it is possible to perceive every instant of time.
If, then, the greater stimulus tends to expel the less, it necessarily follows that, when they concur, this greater should itself too be less distinctly perceptible than if it were alone, since the less by blending with it has removed some of its individuality, according to our assumption that simple objects are in all cases more distinctly perceptible.
Now, if the two stimuli are equal but heterogeneous, no perception of either will ensue; they will alike efface one another's characteristics.
But in such a case the perception of either stimulus in its simple form is impossible. Hence either there will then be no sense-perception at all, or there will be a perception compounded of both and differing from either.
The latter is what actually seems to result from ingredients blended together, whatever may be the compound in which they are so mixed.
Since, then, from some concurrent [sensory stimuli] a resultant object is produced, while from others no such resultant is produced, and of the latter sort are those things which belong to different sense provinces (for only those things are capable of mixture whose extremes are contraries, and no one compound can be formed from, e.g. White and Sharp, except indirectly, i.e. not as a concord is formed of Sharp and Grave); there follows logically the impossibility of discerning such concurrent stimuli coinstantaneously.
For we must suppose that the stimuli, when equal, tend alike to efface one another, since no one [form of stimulus] results from them; while, if they are unequal, the stronger alone is distinctly perceptible.
Again, the soul would be more likely to perceive coinstantaneously, with one and the same sensory act, two things in the same sensory province, such as the Grave and the Sharp in sound; for the sensory stimulation in this one province is more likely to be unitemporal than that involving two different provinces, as Sight and Hearing. But it is impossible to perceive two objects coinstantaneously in the same sensory act unless they have been mixed, [when, however, they are no longer two], for their amalgamation involves their becoming one, and the sensory act related to one object is itself one, and such act, when one, is, of course, coinstantaneous with itself. Hence, when things are mixed we of necessity perceive them coinstantaneously:
for we perceive them by a perception actually one. For an object numerically one means that which is perceived by a perception actually one, whereas an object specifically one means that which is perceived by a sensory act potentially one [i.e. by an energeia of the same sensuous faculty]. If then the actualized perception is one, it will declare its data to be one object; they must, therefore, have been mixed. Accordingly, when they have not been mixed, the actualized perceptions which perceive them will be two; but [if so, their perception must be successive not coinstantaneous, for] in one and the same faculty the perception actualized at any single moment is necessarily one, only one stimulation or exertion of a single faculty being possible at a single instant, and in the case supposed here the faculty is one. It follows, therefore, that we cannot conceive the possibility of perceiving two distinct objects coinstantaneously with one and the same sense.
But if it be thus impossible to perceive coinstantaneously two objects in the same province of sense if they are really two, manifestly it is still less conceivable that we should perceive coinstantaneously objects in two different sensory provinces, as White and Sweet. For it appears that when the Soul predicates numerical unity it does so in virtue of nothing else than such coinstantaneous perception [of one object, in one instant, by one energeia]: while it predicates specific unity in virtue of [the unity of] the discriminating faculty of sense together with [the unity of] the mode in which this operates. What I mean, for example, is this; the same sense no doubt discerns White and Black, [which are hence generically one] though specifically different from one another, and so, too, a faculty of sense self-identical, but different from the former, discerns Sweet and Bitter; but while both these faculties differ from one another [and each from itself] in their modes of discerning either of their respective contraries, yet in perceiving the co-ordinates in each province they proceed in manners analogous to one another; for instance, as Taste perceives Sweet, so Sight perceives White; and as the latter perceives Black, so the former perceives Bitter.
Again, if the stimuli of sense derived from Contraries are themselves Contrary, and if Contraries cannot be conceived as subsisting together in the same individual subject, and if Contraries, e.g. Sweet and Bitter, come under one and the same sense-faculty, we must conclude that it is impossible to discern them coinstantaneously. It is likewise clearly impossible so to discern such homogeneous sensibles as are not [indeed] Contrary, [but are yet of different species]. For these are, [in the sphere of colour, for instance], classed some with White, others with Black, and so it is, likewise, in the other provinces of sense; for example, of savours, some are classed with Sweet, and others with Bitter. Nor can one discern the components in compounds coinstantaneously (for these are ratios of Contraries, as e.g. the Octave or the Fifth); unless, indeed, on condition of perceiving them as one. For thus, and not otherwise, the ratios of the extreme sounds are compounded into one ratio: since we should have together the ratio, on the one hand, of Many to Few or of Odd to Even, on the other, that of Few to Many or of Even to Odd [and these, to be perceived together, must be unified].
If, then, the sensibles denominated co-ordinates though in different provinces of sense (e.g. I call Sweet and White co-ordinates though in different provinces) stand yet more aloof, and differ more, from one another than do any sensibles in the same province; while Sweet differs from White even more than Black does from White, it is still less conceivable that one should discern them [viz. sensibles in different sensory provinces whether co-ordinates or not] coinstantaneously than sensibles which are in the same province. Therefore, if coinstantaneous perception of the latter be impossible, that of the former is a fortiori impossible.
Some of the writers who treat of concords assert that the sounds combined in these do not reach us simultaneously, but only appear to do so, their real successiveness being unnoticed whenever the time it involves is [so small as to be] imperceptible. Is this true or not? One might perhaps, following this up, go so far as to say that even the current opinion that one sees and hears coinstantaneously is due merely to the fact that the intervals of time [between the really successive perceptions of sight and hearing] escape observation. 5But this can scarcely be true, nor is it conceivable that any portion of time should be [absolutely] imperceptible, or that any should be absolutely unnoticeable; the truth being that it is possible to perceive every instant of time.
449a
1 διαφόρους φαίη· οὔτε γὰρ ἡ ἐνέργεια ἄνευ τῆς κατ' αὐτὴν
ἔσται δυνάμεως, οὔτ' ἄνευ ταύτης αἴσθησις ἔσται. εἰ δὲ τούτων
ἐν ἑνὶ καὶ ἀτόμῳ <μὴ> αἰσθάνεται, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἄλλων·
μᾶλλον γὰρ ἐνεδέχετο τούτων ἅμα πλειόνων ἢ τῶν τῷ γένει
5 ἑτέρων. εἰ δὲ δὴ ἄλλῳ μὲν γλυκέος ἄλλῳ δὲ λευκοῦ αἰσθάνεται
ἡ ψυχὴ μέρει, ἤτοι τὸ ἐκ τούτων ἕν τί ἐστιν ἢ οὐχ
ἕν. ἀλλ' ἀνάγκη ἕν· ἓν γάρ τι τὸ αἰσθητικόν ἐστι μέρος.
τίνος οὖν ἐκεῖνο ἑνός; οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐκ τούτων ἕν. ἀνάγκη ἄρα ἕν
τι εἶναι τῆς ψυχῆς ᾧ ἅπαντα αἰσθάνεται, καθάπερ εἴρηται
10 πρότερον, ἄλλο δὲ γένος δι' ἄλλου. ἆρ' οὖν ᾗ μὲν ἀδιαίρετόν
ἐστι κατ' ἐνέργειαν, ἕν τί ἐστι τὸ αἰσθητικὸν γλυκέος
καὶ λευκοῦ, ὅταν δὲ διαιρετὸν γένηται κατ' ἐνέργειαν, ἕτερον;
ἢ ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτῶν ἐνδέχεται, οὕτως
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς; τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ καὶ ἓν ἀριθμῷ λευκὸν
15 καὶ γλυκύ ἐστι, καὶ ἄλλα πολλά· εἰ γὰρ μὴ χωριστὰ τὰ πάθη
ἀλλήλων, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶναι ἕτερον ἑκάστῳ. ὁμοίως τοίνυν θετέον
καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ψυχῆς τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ ἓν εἶναι ἀριθμῷ τὸ αἰσθητικὸν
πάντων, τὸ μέντοι εἶναι ἕτερον καὶ ἕτερον τῶν μὲν γένει
τῶν δὲ εἴδει. ὥστε καὶ αἰσθάνοιτ' ἂν ἅμα τῷ αὐτῷ καὶ
20 ἑνί, λόγῳ δ' οὐ τῷ αὐτῷ. ὅτι δὲ τὸ αἰσθητὸν πᾶν ἐστι μέγεθος
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδιαίρετον αἰσθητόν, δῆλον. ἔστι γὰρ ὅθεν
μὲν οὐκ ἂν ὀφθείη ἄπειρον τὸ ἀπόστημα, ὅθεν δὲ ὁρᾶται,
πεπερασμένον· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τὸ ὀσφραντὸν καὶ ἀκουστὸν καὶ
ὅσων μὴ αὐτῶν ἁπτόμενοι αἰσθάνονται. ἔστι δή τι ἔσχατον
25 τοῦ ἀποστήματος ὅθεν οὐχ ὁρᾶται, καὶ πρῶτον ὅθεν ὁρᾶται.
τοῦτο δὴ ἀνάγκη ἀδιαίρετον εἶναι, οὗ ἐν μὲν τῷ ἐπέκεινα οὐκ
ἐνδέχεται αἰσθάνεσθαι ὄντος, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἐπὶ τάδε ἀνάγκη
αἰσθάνεσθαι. εἰ δή τι ἔστιν ἀδιαίρετον αἰσθητόν, ὅταν τεθῇ
ἐπὶ τῷ ἐσχάτῳ ὅθεν ἐστὶν ὕστατον μὲν οὐκ αἰσθητὸν πρῶτον
30 δ' αἰσθητόν, ἅμα συμβήσεται ὁρατὸν εἶναι καὶ ἀόρατον·
τοῦτο δ' ἀδύνατον.
1[This is so]; because, if it is inconceivable that a person should, while perceiving himself or aught else in a continuous time, be at any instant unaware of his own existence; while, obviously, the assumption, that there is in the time-continuum a time so small as to be absolutely imperceptible, carries the implication that a person would, during such time, be unaware of his own existence, as well as of his seeing and perceiving; [this assumption must be false].
Again, if there is any magnitude, whether time or thing, absolutely imperceptible owing to its smallness, it follows that there would not be either a thing which one perceives, or a time in which one perceives it, unless in the sense that in some part of the given time he sees some part of the given thing. For [let there be a line ab, divided into two parts at g, and let this line represent a whole object and a corresponding whole time. Now,] if one sees the whole line, and perceives it during a time which forms one and the same continuum, only in the sense that he does so in some portion of this time, let us suppose the part gb, representing a time in which by supposition he was perceiving nothing, cut off from the whole. Well, then, he perceives in a certain part [viz. in the remainder] of the time, or perceives a part [viz. the remainder] of the line, after the fashion in which one sees the whole earth by seeing some given part of it, or walks in a year by walking in some given part of the year. But [by hypothesis] in the part bg he perceives nothing: therefore, in fact, he is said to perceive the whole object and during the whole time simply because he perceives [some part of the object] in some part of the time ab. But the same argument holds also in the case of ag [the remainder, regarded in its turn as a whole]; for it will be found [on this theory of vacant times and imperceptible magnitudes] that one always perceives only in some part of a given whole time, and perceives only some part of a whole magnitude, and that it is impossible to perceive any [really] whole [object in a really whole time; a conclusion which is absurd, as it would logically annihilate the perception of both Objects and Time].
Therefore we must conclude that all magnitudes are perceptible, but their actual dimensions do not present themselves immediately in their presentation as objects. One sees the sun, or a four-cubit rod at a distance, as a magnitude, but their exact dimensions are not given in their visual presentation: nay, at times an object of sight appears indivisible, but [vision like other special senses, is fallible respecting 'common sensibles', e.g. magnitude, and] nothing that one sees is really indivisible. The reason of this has been previously explained. It is clear then, from the above arguments, that no portion of time is imperceptible.
But we must here return to the question proposed above for discussion, whether it is possible or impossible to perceive several objects coinstantaneously; by 'coinstantaneously' I mean perceiving the several objects in a time one and indivisible relatively to one another, i.e. indivisible in a sense consistent with its being all a continuum.
First, then, is it conceivable that one should perceive the different things coinstantaneously, but each with a different part of the Soul? Or [must we object] that, in the first place, to begin with the objects of one and the same sense, e.g. Sight, if we assume it [the Soul qua exercising Sight] to perceive one colour with one part, and another colour with a different part, it will have a plurality of parts the same in species, [as they must be,] since the objects which it thus perceives fall within the same genus?
Should any one [to illustrate how the Soul might have in it two different parts specifically identical, each directed to a set of aistheta the same in genus with that to which the other is directed] urge that, as there are two eyes, so there may be in the Soul something analogous, [the reply is] that of the eyes, doubtless, some one organ is formed, and hence their actualization in perception is one; but if this is so in the Soul, then, in so far as what is formed of both [i.e. of any two specifically identical parts as assumed] is one, the true perceiving subject also will be one, [and the contradictory of the above hypothesis (of different parts of Soul remaining engaged in simultaneous perception with one sense) is what emerges from the analogy]; while if the two parts of Soul remain separate, the analogy of the eyes will fail, [for of these some one is really formed].
Furthermore, [on the supposition of the need of different parts of Soul, co-operating in each sense, to discern different objects coinstantaneously], the senses will be each at the same time one and many, as if we should say that they were each a set of diverse sciences; for neither will an 'activity' exist without its proper faculty, nor without activity will there be sensation.
But if the Soul does not, in the way suggested [i.e. with different parts of itself acting simultaneously], perceive in one and the same individual time sensibles of the same sense, a fortiori it is not thus that it perceives sensibles of different senses. For it is, as already stated, more conceivable that it should perceive a plurality of the former together in this way than a plurality of heterogeneous objects.
5If then, as is the fact, the Soul with one part perceives Sweet, with another, White, either that which results from these is some one part, or else there is no such one resultant. But there must be such an one, inasmuch as the general faculty of sense-perception is one. What one object, then, does that one faculty [when perceiving an object, e.g. as both White and Sweet] perceive? [None]; for assuredly no one object arises by composition of these [heterogeneous objects, such as White and Sweet]. We must conclude, therefore, that there is, as has been stated before, some one faculty in the soul with which the latter perceives all its percepts, 10though it perceives each different genus of sensibles through a different organ.
May we not, then, conceive this faculty which perceives White and Sweet to be one qua indivisible [sc. qua combining its different simultaneous objects] in its actualization, but different, when it has become divisible [sc. qua distinguishing its different simultaneous objects] in its actualization?
Or is what occurs in the case of the perceiving Soul conceivably analogous to what holds true in that of the things themselves? For the same numerically one thing is white and sweet, 15and has many other qualities, [while its numerical oneness is not thereby prejudiced] if the fact is not that the qualities are really separable in the object from one another, but that the being of each quality is different [from that of every other].
In the same way therefore we must assume also, in the case of the Soul, that the faculty of perception in general is in itself numerically one and the same, but different [differentiated] in its being; different, that is to say, in genus as regards some of its objects, in species as regards others. Hence too, we may conclude that one can perceive [numerically different objects] coinstantaneously with a faculty which is numerically one and the same, but not the same in its relationship [sc. according as the objects to which it is directed are not the same].
20That every sensible object is a magnitude, and that nothing which it is possible to perceive is indivisible, may be thus shown. 25The distance whence an object could not be seen is indeterminate, but that whence it is visible is determinate.
Again, if there is any magnitude, whether time or thing, absolutely imperceptible owing to its smallness, it follows that there would not be either a thing which one perceives, or a time in which one perceives it, unless in the sense that in some part of the given time he sees some part of the given thing. For [let there be a line ab, divided into two parts at g, and let this line represent a whole object and a corresponding whole time. Now,] if one sees the whole line, and perceives it during a time which forms one and the same continuum, only in the sense that he does so in some portion of this time, let us suppose the part gb, representing a time in which by supposition he was perceiving nothing, cut off from the whole. Well, then, he perceives in a certain part [viz. in the remainder] of the time, or perceives a part [viz. the remainder] of the line, after the fashion in which one sees the whole earth by seeing some given part of it, or walks in a year by walking in some given part of the year. But [by hypothesis] in the part bg he perceives nothing: therefore, in fact, he is said to perceive the whole object and during the whole time simply because he perceives [some part of the object] in some part of the time ab. But the same argument holds also in the case of ag [the remainder, regarded in its turn as a whole]; for it will be found [on this theory of vacant times and imperceptible magnitudes] that one always perceives only in some part of a given whole time, and perceives only some part of a whole magnitude, and that it is impossible to perceive any [really] whole [object in a really whole time; a conclusion which is absurd, as it would logically annihilate the perception of both Objects and Time].
Therefore we must conclude that all magnitudes are perceptible, but their actual dimensions do not present themselves immediately in their presentation as objects. One sees the sun, or a four-cubit rod at a distance, as a magnitude, but their exact dimensions are not given in their visual presentation: nay, at times an object of sight appears indivisible, but [vision like other special senses, is fallible respecting 'common sensibles', e.g. magnitude, and] nothing that one sees is really indivisible. The reason of this has been previously explained. It is clear then, from the above arguments, that no portion of time is imperceptible.
But we must here return to the question proposed above for discussion, whether it is possible or impossible to perceive several objects coinstantaneously; by 'coinstantaneously' I mean perceiving the several objects in a time one and indivisible relatively to one another, i.e. indivisible in a sense consistent with its being all a continuum.
First, then, is it conceivable that one should perceive the different things coinstantaneously, but each with a different part of the Soul? Or [must we object] that, in the first place, to begin with the objects of one and the same sense, e.g. Sight, if we assume it [the Soul qua exercising Sight] to perceive one colour with one part, and another colour with a different part, it will have a plurality of parts the same in species, [as they must be,] since the objects which it thus perceives fall within the same genus?
Should any one [to illustrate how the Soul might have in it two different parts specifically identical, each directed to a set of aistheta the same in genus with that to which the other is directed] urge that, as there are two eyes, so there may be in the Soul something analogous, [the reply is] that of the eyes, doubtless, some one organ is formed, and hence their actualization in perception is one; but if this is so in the Soul, then, in so far as what is formed of both [i.e. of any two specifically identical parts as assumed] is one, the true perceiving subject also will be one, [and the contradictory of the above hypothesis (of different parts of Soul remaining engaged in simultaneous perception with one sense) is what emerges from the analogy]; while if the two parts of Soul remain separate, the analogy of the eyes will fail, [for of these some one is really formed].
Furthermore, [on the supposition of the need of different parts of Soul, co-operating in each sense, to discern different objects coinstantaneously], the senses will be each at the same time one and many, as if we should say that they were each a set of diverse sciences; for neither will an 'activity' exist without its proper faculty, nor without activity will there be sensation.
But if the Soul does not, in the way suggested [i.e. with different parts of itself acting simultaneously], perceive in one and the same individual time sensibles of the same sense, a fortiori it is not thus that it perceives sensibles of different senses. For it is, as already stated, more conceivable that it should perceive a plurality of the former together in this way than a plurality of heterogeneous objects.
5If then, as is the fact, the Soul with one part perceives Sweet, with another, White, either that which results from these is some one part, or else there is no such one resultant. But there must be such an one, inasmuch as the general faculty of sense-perception is one. What one object, then, does that one faculty [when perceiving an object, e.g. as both White and Sweet] perceive? [None]; for assuredly no one object arises by composition of these [heterogeneous objects, such as White and Sweet]. We must conclude, therefore, that there is, as has been stated before, some one faculty in the soul with which the latter perceives all its percepts, 10though it perceives each different genus of sensibles through a different organ.
May we not, then, conceive this faculty which perceives White and Sweet to be one qua indivisible [sc. qua combining its different simultaneous objects] in its actualization, but different, when it has become divisible [sc. qua distinguishing its different simultaneous objects] in its actualization?
Or is what occurs in the case of the perceiving Soul conceivably analogous to what holds true in that of the things themselves? For the same numerically one thing is white and sweet, 15and has many other qualities, [while its numerical oneness is not thereby prejudiced] if the fact is not that the qualities are really separable in the object from one another, but that the being of each quality is different [from that of every other].
In the same way therefore we must assume also, in the case of the Soul, that the faculty of perception in general is in itself numerically one and the same, but different [differentiated] in its being; different, that is to say, in genus as regards some of its objects, in species as regards others. Hence too, we may conclude that one can perceive [numerically different objects] coinstantaneously with a faculty which is numerically one and the same, but not the same in its relationship [sc. according as the objects to which it is directed are not the same].
20That every sensible object is a magnitude, and that nothing which it is possible to perceive is indivisible, may be thus shown. 25The distance whence an object could not be seen is indeterminate, but that whence it is visible is determinate.
449b
1 περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν τίνα
τρόπον ἔχει καὶ κοινῇ καὶ καθ' ἕκαστον αἰσθητήριον εἴρηται·
τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν πρῶτον σκεπτέον περὶ μνήμης καὶ τοῦ
μνημονεύειν.
1We may say the same of the objects of Smelling and Hearing, and of all sensibles not discerned by actual contact. Now, there is, in the interval of distance, some extreme place, the last from which the object is invisible, and the first from which it is visible.
This place, beyond which if the object be one cannot perceive it, while if the object be on the hither side one must perceive it, is, I presume, itself necessarily indivisible. Therefore, if any sensible object be indivisible, such object, if set in the said extreme place whence imperceptibility ends and perceptibility begins, will have to be both visible and invisible their objects, whether regarded in general or at the same time; but this is impossible.
This concludes our survey of the characteristics of the organs of Sense-perception and their objects, whether regarded in general or in relation to each organ. Of the remaining subjects, we must first consider that of memory and remembering.
THE END Table of Contents Home Browse and Comment Search
This place, beyond which if the object be one cannot perceive it, while if the object be on the hither side one must perceive it, is, I presume, itself necessarily indivisible. Therefore, if any sensible object be indivisible, such object, if set in the said extreme place whence imperceptibility ends and perceptibility begins, will have to be both visible and invisible their objects, whether regarded in general or at the same time; but this is impossible.
This concludes our survey of the characteristics of the organs of Sense-perception and their objects, whether regarded in general or in relation to each organ. Of the remaining subjects, we must first consider that of memory and remembering.
THE END Table of Contents Home Browse and Comment Search