• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Albert the Great,
 De homine
Tractatus I, Question 20, Article 5
*
 How do visible species exist in the eyes and in the medium?
 NEXT we will investigate how visible species exist in the medium and in the eye.1. It would appear that <they exist> in the matter and in the subject in the following way:The being of every accident does not exist except in something as in its matter and as in its subject; but visible species are accidents; ergo, they are not in the eye and the medium except as in <their>matter and subject.2. Further, every accident which alters something, is in that thing as its subject; ergo,<colors> are in <the medium and the eye> as in <their> subjects.3. Further, every substance which acts by the act of its accident, has that accident in itself asin a subject; <but> air and the eye act by the act of colors; therefore colors are in them as in asubject. This is first proven by the fact that a substance does not act by the act which is
 per se
accidental, but rather by the accident which is in it <as in a subject>. Second, it is obvious from thesupposition given above, i.e. that the medium alters the eye, and the eye <alters> the organ of thecommon sense and phantasy.4. Further, against this point there is the argument that no accident can exist in the samesubject along with its contrary. But a given color can exist in the medium of air at the same time asits contrary; therefore, colors do not exist in the medium as in a subject. The first <proposition> is proven by the notion of contraries. For contraries are what are naturally apt to exist in the samething, but which are never simultaneously in act in one <subject>. The second <proposition> is proven by demonstration as follows. Let A be an eye located towards the east, but looking west,and let B be an eye located towards the west but looking east, and let the distance <between them> be half a dozen cubits [9 feet]. Towards the east let there be C, a white body of vigorous whiteness,which alters the air all the way to the eye located opposite it, to the west. Towards the west let there be C, a black body of vigorous blackness, which alters the air all the way to the eye located to theeast. And let these bodies be separated and placed on the line connecting these two eyes, such thatat the same time one <eye> is altered by the white object and the other by the black object.Therefore these two colors must occur there in the medium, and they are simultaneously in act in it,which is impossible if they have a contrariety and are in the air as an accident is in its subject.5. Further, every accident which is in something as in <its> subject is said to be <anaccident> either according to the whole or according to a part; colors are in the air as in <their>subject and also in the eye; therefore they are termed <accidents> either according to the whole or according to a part. And thus we can state that air and the eye are white or black either according tothe whole or according to a part, which is false. The first <proposition> is proven by the fact that itmay be difficult to convert that which is a denomination from an accident, as is shown in
Topics
II; because it does not follow that if whiteness exists in something, that it is therefore white;nevertheless it can be properly converted under disjunction, i.e. relatively or simply, that is,according to the whole or according to a part. For this follows correctly, i.e. <if something is>white, whiteness must exist in it. Thus, it correctly follows that it is white either according to thewhole or according to a part.Some <thinkers> wished to solve <this problem> by following the opinion of Averroes inhis commentary on the
 De anima
, <where he> stated that colors are not in the medium and in theeye according to their proper and natural being, according to which they are in something as inmatter and subject, but according to a spiritual being, which is separated from matter and subject,and in which <manner> being does not have opposition and contrariety, just as the notions of their intentions do not have <opposition and contrariety> when in the soul. But against this position
*Translation by Erik Norvelle. This translation is based on the Latin text contained in
 Beati Alberti Magni, Ratisbonensis Episcopi Ordinis Prædicatorum, Opera quæ hactenus haberi potuerunt 
(Lugduni [Leiden], 1651),vol. XIX. This is a rough translation offered as a service to interested scholars; due to its status as a non critically-revised translation, it should not be cited for the purposes of academic publications.
 
Albert the Great
Visible Species in the Eye and the Medium
there are several arguments.1. The first argument is that everything which is received in something, is received in itaccording to the capacity of the recipient and not of the thing received; but colors are received in themedium and in the eye; therefore, they are received according to the potency of the recipient andnot of the thing received; but the recipients are bodies; ergo, they are received according to acorporal being and not a spiritual being. The first <proposition> is clear from Boethius; the secondis known per se.2. Further, everything which is in something such that its excellence destroys that in which itacts, is in that thing in a material manner of being. Colors are in the air in this way, since theydestroy vision by their excellence; ergo, they are in the air in a material way of being. The first<proposition> is proved by opposition, since species denuded entirely of matter and theappurtenances of matter, no matter how intense they are, they do not destroy, as is shown in
 Deanima
III: this is the difference between the sense and the intellect, which is not corrupted by theexcellence of the things thought, but rather is strengthened in its understanding of them. The sense,on the other hand, is corrupted by the excellence of the things sensed, which <thereafter>apprehends fewer sensibles more poorly, or else is entirely <destroyed>, as it clear by experiment.For if pure and clear glass is taken, and is covered with quicksilver, and is placed under the sun, agreat reflection will come about on the surface of the glass, and a reflection of <the sun> will comeabout due to the motion of the quicksilver. And if somebody is forced to look a long time upon it,he will become completely blind. Similarly, those who have been in prison a long time, and arelater released, cannot look upon extremely white things except with great pain. But in all men, thevision is confused by gazing at the course of the sun.Because of this, some have wished to say that when Averroes said that visible species are inthe medium as in a spiritual manner of being, that he did not mean ‘spirit’ as meaning ‘not a body’,in the way that we say that the soul is a spirit, but rather he meant by ‘spirit’ the subtle and clear  body which is the instrument for the perfection of animal virtues, as ‘spirit’ was defined by Algazelin his
 Physics
, where it is stated: “Spirit is a subtle body composed of the vapors of the humors,whose seat is the heart, and this is the vehicle of the vital and animal virtues, by which sensible andmotive virtues are transferred to their instruments.” Hence, they say that because this spirit is of thenature of air, therefore air also receives sensible species according to the power of that spirit. Butagainst this is <the fact> that not just air is a medium, but also water, which does not have from itsmatter a generality with that spirit.Because of this, others wished to state that in truth visible species are not in the mediumaccording to spiritual being thusly or in the former manner, but are in it as in potency, just as theform to which a motion is <directed> is in the motion itself. For since a motion is an entelechyexisting in potency qua potency, the form to which the motion is <directed> will exist
qua
being inmotion, neither in pure act nor in pure potency. And in such a being, a form can certainly existmixed with its contrary. And because of this, contraries can simultaneously be in the medium, sincethey are not in it in act, but in potency. For contraries can certainly exist simultaneously in potency.But it is proven that this would <solve> nothing. For it has been shown in
 Physics
V that no singlething is simultaneously, on the same occasion and according to the same part, moved to contrarytermini of motion. Therefore we return again that which was demonstrated above. For it is clear from that <demonstration> that <a portion> of air which is the same in number is altered by whiteand black according to diverse places. Therefore it is necessary that those colors come together inthe medium at an equal distance from each other, and that the medium is necessarily moved bycontrary motions, which is impossible.2. Further, being in motion and being at the terminus of the motion <pertain to> the samesubject, if that motion has a terminus, and if it does not have a terminus, then it is perpetual.2
 
Albert the Great
Visible Species in the Eye and the Medium
Therefore, if the medium is in a motion of alteration according to visible species, it will necessarilyeither be in perpetual motion, which is false, or else sometime it will be at the terminus of thatmotion. But if it is at its terminus, then it must be necessarily named according to that terminus,and thus the air will be either white or black or another color, which is false.If it could perhaps be said that in truth air is not moved by that motion, but the motion isfrom the visible species itself, such that <the air> itself would be like a space carrying the motionand the mobile. Against this <opinion> is <the fact> that nothing is a mobile by any motion excepta body. Therefore, if this is a motion, there must be body which is moved by that motion. But thisis not air, as they say, nor the colored body, because this does not transit by air. Therefore, therewill be there some body besides the colored body and the air and the eye, which is contrary to whatis observed.2. Further, it has been proven in
 Physics
VIII that although the motion of a circle which is ina circle does not have a contrary motion, nevertheless on a circle there may be a contrary. For let acircle be divided by its diameter, and let there be points of contact with the diameter A and B and D,and let there be a mobile with motion from A to B by a semicircle, and it passes through B andtravels to A by the other semicircle. But let C be the mobile from A by the other semicircle, andtraveling by B let it come to A. These two motions will touch each other at B and one will stop themotion of the other, because they are towards the opposite place on the circumference; therefore, itwill be similar with rectilinear motion. Therefore, if the white thing alters some eye towards theeast, and the black thing <alters> some eye towards the west, and the blackness and whiteness are inthe medium as in a motion, as those <thinkers> state, of necessity the motion of one will stop themotion of the other, and so neither eye will be altered, because the one <motion of color> will notallow the other to travel to the eye. If it were perhaps stated that one <color> turns aside from theother when meeting, the following impossibility results, that the color of one of them wil not beseen diametrically opposite the colored thing, but rather from a transverse position. For let A be awhite body, and there be an eye diametrically opposite to it at CDE, and let the black body oppositeto the white body on the diameter be F, and let G be the eye seeing this <black body> opposite tothe eye seeing the white body. Therefore, if the black turns aside from the white, then it will turnaside beyond the measure of the diameter CDE, and that will be the diameter which was betweenthe eye seeing the black and the black body; and that is impossible and against what is observed.This is similarly against Euclid, who demonstrated that <for> everything that is apprehended by thevision, there strikes upon it the diameter of an obtuse-angled triangle, under which vision is broughtabout.3. Further, whatever operates in act, is in act; the visible species acts in the medium by anact which alters the eye; therefore it is in act in the medium. NEXT it is asked, according to which different modes are the visible species in the eye andin the medium?
SOLUTION 
It must be stated that there are three <issues> which must be attended to in order tounderstand how how visible species are in the medium and the eye. Of which one is the nature of the agent of colors and of their abstraction: the nature of the agent is a quality, as was demonstratedabove, which does not have a contrary, whose transit through the medium is instantaneous and notin time; and thus colors do not act in the medium and eye except by the act of illumination,according to which they act in their own action without having a contrary.A second <issue> is the nature of the abstracted color. For <color> is not abstracted alongwith the causes of its generation in the subject, i.e. heat, cold, wetness and dryness, as was statedabove. But the abstraction comes about in the proper species of color alone, without any material3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...