• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Avicenna
On Nature
, Book 6 (De anima), Part 3: On Vision
*
Translated by Erik Norvelle
Chapter I: On Light and Luminance
We must
〈
now
〉
speak of vision. In speaking of it, however, it will first benecessary to speak of luminance and the luminous, of color and of the quality of continuity which falls between the one sensing and the visible thing sensed. But first letus speak about light. Since it is called “luminance”, “light” and a “ray”, it would appear that in regards to the imposition of names, there is no great distance between these
〈
three terms
〉
. Therefore it is necessary that, after stating these
〈
names
〉
, wedistinguish between them. But here there are three notions extending themselves, thefirst of which
〈
corresponds to
〉
the quality which the vision apprehends in the sun andin fire, and which is not distinguished as being white or black or red or any other color.The second
〈
notion corresponds to
〉
that which shines brightly because of these
〈
things
〉
, i.e. the splendor which is seen to fall upon bodies, so that whiteness or  blackness or greenness is revealed in them. The third
〈
notion corresponds to
〉
thatwhich appears on bodies, as though it were spread out
〈
over them
〉
, hiding their color,and which is like something which emanates from them; if this is in a body whichacquires it from another body, it will be called “radiosity”, whereas if it is in a bodywhich has it of itself, it will be called a “ray”. For now, however, we do not need
〈
theterms
〉
radiosity or ray, but just the former two. But let one of them, i.e. that which has
〈
this quality
〉
of itself, be
〈
termed
〉
“light” [
lux
], and let its effect be
〈
termed
〉
 “luminance” [
lumen
].But that which we term “light”, i.e. that which the sun and moon have, is that whichis seen of itself. For the body which bears this quality—when there is something like air or water between it and the vision—will necessarily be seen, so that it does not need
〈
anything further 
〉
. Similarly there is that for which, in order that it be seen as it is initself, it does not suffice that there be air or water or something similar between itself and the thing seen, but also requires that that which we call luminance first illuminate itso that it can then be visible. This luminance will be in it
〈
as
〉
an affection of the light- bearing body, provided that it be
〈
 positioned
〉
opposite to that
〈
 body
〉
and there be between them a body which does not tend to hide the affection of the light-emitting body and is receptive of luminance, such as air and water, which aid and do not impede.But the bodies which are according to the first division are of two modes: i.e.
〈
those
〉
  bodies which do not tend to conceal
〈
others
〉
, as mentioned above, and which aretermed “translucent”, and
〈
those
〉
bodies which do tend to conceal, like walls andmountains.But of 
〈
those bodies
〉
which do tend to conceal, one
〈
kind
〉
tends to be seen
〈
of itself 
〉
, so that it has no need of another 
〈
to illuminate it
〉
,
〈
 provided that
〉
there is atranslucent medium in front of it, and this is
〈
what we call
〉
“luminous,” like the sunand fire; another 
〈
kind
〉
is that which is not translucent, but rather hides that which is behind it. You can see this with a candle when another candle is placed in front, since
*This translation is based on the Latin text contained in
 Avicenna.
 
 Liber de Anima seu Sextus de Naturalibus, parts I-III. Avicenna Latinus (Brill, Leiden, 1972)
. This translation is for informational purposes only, andshould not be cited for the purposes of academic publications without prior comparison with the Latin text.Translation by Erik Norvelle, published under a Creative Commons 2.0 Non-Commercial Share-Alike license.
R 92
 
On Nature
, Book 6, Part III: On Light and VisionAvicenna
one of these will prohibit the other from operating in the medium between them, and italso impedes vision, so that the
〈
candle flame
〉
behind it cannot be seen. And one of these
〈
kinds
〉
requires that there be there another thing present which causes it to havea certain property, and this is something colored.But luminance is a quality of the first member of the division, according to itsnature, whereas color is a quality of the second member of the division, deriving fromits nature. For a wall does not permit a light source to illuminate what is behind it, nor is a body which is colored in potency luminous of itself; for color does not occur in actexcept as caused by luminance. For when luminance illuminates some body, either whiteness or blackness or greenness or something else of this kind comes to be in act inthe body; if, however, it does not light up
〈
the body
〉
, it will just be dark black,although it is colored in potency—if we want to call 'color in act' whiteness or  blackness or redness or greyness or something similar to these. For whiteness is notwhiteness nor redness redness, except insofar as we see it; but it does not becomevisible unless it is illuminated.But you do not posit that the whiteness which is not in such a way as to be seen byus, or redness or other things of this sort, have existence in act in bodies, such thatwhen dark air prevents us from seeing, the air itself is not darkened; for nothing isdarkened except that which was illuminated. Air does not, however, prevent theapprehension of something illuminated, even if it there is no light source in it, nor doesit hide the color which is in act in something. Imagine that you are in a deep cave, withair in it which is entirely of that property which you call darkened, and
〈
suppose
〉
thatthere is a light source illuminating a body outside
〈
the cave
〉
, placed in air which youstate to be illuminated: you will see that
〈
 body
〉
, and the dark air which is between youand the thing itself will not impede
〈
your seeing it
〉
, but the air, according to you, ineither disposition is like nothing. Therefore darkness is nothing other than thedisposition for seeing nothing; that is, that the qualities which are in non-translucent bodies—while they are in shadow and not illuminated—are nevertheless visible in potency, but are not seen, nor is the air seen. Therefore, it would seem that it would bevisible to you if you were to shut your eyes: because the darkness would be the same,and because you see it as your disposition would be, if you were in dark air. But this isnot the case. For you do not see dark air if you close your eyes, nor is the darkness yousee something in your eyes, except just the fact that you do not see. And this is nothingother than the privation of luminance from that which is normally illuminated, i.e. thatwhich is sometimes seen: for luminance is visible, and that in which there is luminanceis visible. But the translucent is not visible in any way; darkness, however, is in thesubject of luminance, and both are in a body which is not translucent. Therefore, the body whose color tends to be seen, when it is not illuminated, will become dark, andthen color will most certainly not be in it in act. But that colors are said to be presentthere, although hidden, is
〈
saying
〉
nothing: for air does not hide them, even if it isdark, when colors are present in act.But if a man were to call “colors” those diverse aptitudes which are in the bodieswhich, when illuminated,
〈
makes
〉
one of them white and another red, this might beso; it would come about, however, due to an equivocal use of names: for whiteness ismost certainly only of that to which it properly pertains to be seen, and this does nothave being when there is between you and
〈
the white thing
〉
something pervious which
2
R 93R 94
 
On Nature
, Book 6, Part III: On Light and VisionAvicenna
 passes the thing seen, yet the
〈
whiteness
〉
itself is not seen. But the pervious thingsometimes is pervious in act, sometimes in potency. In order that it be pervious in potency, it need not be changed in itself, but rather 
〈
there is
〉
change in another andmovement in another, and this is
〈
the quality of being
〉
permeable and transitable; andin order that this be in act, it does not need anything in itself, but
〈
is necessary for 
〉
theexistence of that which penetrates and transits in act. Indeed, the permutation which the pervious in potency requires in order to be pervious in act, is the permutation of thecolored body in order that it be illuminated and have its color in act; the motion, in fact,is that the luminous body be moved with regards to [
ad 
] that
〈
 pervious body
〉
withoutthe permutation of that
〈
 body
〉
(however, you already knew the certainty of this via the premisses of this
〈
argument
〉
). But when one of these
〈
conditions
〉
is obtained, thevisible is transmitted and
〈
the pervious in potency
〉
is made pervious in act due to theexistence of something other than itself. We must resolve the truth about thistransmission, but we will put
〈
this issue
〉
off until later, when we enumerate the problems which occur relating to the issue we been discussing. The solutions of these
〈
issues
〉
will make it easier to affirm our own position.
3
R 95
of 00

Leave a Comment

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