fied in species. The pleasurableness of odour derived from appe felt in the odour, e.g. Thus we into those per se pleasant, and those pleasant Kатà σUμ βεβηκός. The latter class of divisible into species. They have an aspect in which they run parallel to tastes. In this aspect their pleasant or unpleasant quality belongs to them only as a consequence of their relation to savour.' Plato, rejecting all classification of odours, except into pleasant and unpleasant, tite for overlooked the distinction between the pleasantness of food must certain odours per se and that of others which depends on be distinguished appetite for the food from which they arise. But there is from the pleasure a close connexion between the taste of things and the nutrient faculty of the soul, and animals find the odour of of flowers. food pleasant when they have an appetite for the food itself. When they are satisfied and want no more food, they cease divide pleasant odours to feel the odour of it pleasant. Their agreeable or disagreeable quality belongs to such odours only incidentally i. e. as a result of their relationship to food; but just because of this relationship, all animals without exception perceive them. But there is a different class, viz. that of odours which are per se agreeable or disagreeable, as for example, those of flowers, which have nothing to do with appetite (though they be divided preserve health, as below explained) either as stimulating or as dulling it. Odours of the former class are divisible into as many sub-classes as there are different classes of savours. Those of the latter class are not divisible in the same way. These latter odours are perceptible to man, and man divisible. only, as agreeable or disagreeable. Other animals perceive pleasure in only those of the former kind. If they perceive such odours as those of sweet flowers, they are not in the least The lower degree attracted by them. If they perceive the odours animals do which to man are essentially disagreeable, they evince not the slightest repugnance to them, unless, indeed, besides being disagreeable, they are noxious or pernicious, like the fumes of charcoal and brimstone. By the latter animals and men alike are affected, and animals, like men, shun them on account of their effects. But certain plants, which to us smell offensively, seem no way offensive to the lower animals, nor do they concern themselves with them, except as affecting their food. odours can into as many species as there are savours. The former class not so Man finds this kind of odours. not. subdivision into genera and species, and can only be classed as either pleasant or unpleasant. to and in odours the lower due to the compara ness of greater sen 24. The reason why the perception of such odours is Reason why the confined to man is to be found in the comparative size perception and coldness of man's brain, which is, in proportion to his of pleasur bulk, larger and moister than that of any other species of of flowers, &c., beanimal. Now odour is naturally akin to the hot, longs to being introduced through the act of respiration, in the man, not to case of all animals which respire, it mounts up the animals: brain, and tempers with its heat the coldness of that organ due which might otherwise be excessive. The heat which tive largeodour contains renders it light, so that it naturally ascends man into the region of the brain, and thus produces in the latter brain. His a healthy tone and temperature1. While this is true of sitiveness odour in all animals alike, man, for the reason above given, to odo (as proved has, in his perception of odours essentially pleasant or by this perunpleasant, an additional provision for the same purpose. marks It was nature's own device for counteracting the dangers additional provision arising from the greater size and coldness of the human made by brain. Man's richer endowment in this sense, evidenced nature for by his perception of pleasures and pains of odour in which of his brain other animals have no share, is thus and thus only to be exby the plained. This is the sole purpose of his perception of such effect of odours. That they effect this purpose is manifest enough, haled. for odours sweet per se are (unlike sweet tastes, which Hence often mislead) universally found to be, beneficial, irre- (of food) spectively of particular states of health or appetite2. In often be 1 For medicinal effects of ὀσμή cf. Theophrastus, Περὶ Οσμῶν, §§ 42 seqq.; Athenaeus 687 D (Kock, Com. Att. ii. p. 368) OK οἶδας ὅτι αἱ ἐν τῷ ἐγκεφάλῳ ἡμῶν αἰσθήσεις ὀδμαῖς ἡδείαις παρηγοροῦνται προσέτι τε θεραπεύονται, καθὰ καὶ ̓Αλεξίς φησιν ἐν Πονήρᾳ οὕτως— ὑγιείας μέρος μέγιστον, ὀσμὰς ἐγκεφάλῳ χρηστὰς ποιεῖν. In what follows Athenaeus dilates at great length on the wholesome efficacy of odours sweet per se. 2 Arist. de Sens. v. 443b 17-4458 16. The passage in which the writer expounds his theory of the classification of odours is very confused and ill-composed. It digresses frequently into other matters; but, worst of all, it leaves obscure the precise point on which the difference between man and other animals consists. At one time (444a 3, 8, 29) the writer says, man alone perceives the second class of odours. Later on (444 31-3) he seems to qualify this, as if his ception) the warmth thermic odour in sweet taste trays: smells sweet per se never betray. general, however, what taste is for nutrition, this smell is for health 1. § 25. It has been already observed (§ 14 supra) that the Position sense of smell occupies a middle position between the of the olfactory senses which perceive by contact and those which perceive among the other through an external medium. The senses are five, that senses, and is, they form an odd number; and an odd number has object of a middle unit, which answers to the position of smelling this among among the other five senses. Hence the object of smell, too, objects of has an analogous place among those of the other senses. It that of the other sense: smelling comes midway between is an effect (§ 19 supra) produced in water or air by the ἔγχυμον ξηρόν (or ὑγρόν), and therefore involves at once affinities for the nutrient objects, which come within the the tactual provinces of taste and touch, and also for the objects of externally seeing and hearing, whence it is that water and air-the mediated media of seeing and hearing-are its vehicles. and the senses: between of the two Accord odour ingly, odour is something belonging to both spheres in midway common. It has its more material side in the provinces the objects of touch and taste, its less material in the provinces of classes re- seeing and hearing. From this fanciful position Aristotle spectively. deduces a justification of the figure, by which he described odour as a sort of 'dyeing' (cf. Neuhäuser op. cit. p. 24, and Arist. 441 16) or 'washing' of 'dryness' in the moist and fluid 2. Pythagorean theory that odour is nutrient 3 § 26. The theory held by certain Pythagoreans that certain animals are nourished by odour alone is untenable. For food must be composite, as the animal structure meaning was that man alone feels pleasure in their perception. We must suppose that this pleasurable perception by man is the distinguishing feature in his case, and that it implies a keenness of scent for odours of this class surpassing that of other animals; so that while they may or may not (ws eiπeiv, 444a 32, seems to indicate uncertainty on this point) perceive them objectively, or in their effects, at all events they do not feel pleasure or pain in these odours as such. Their sense of them lacks the vividness and force with which they impress the consciousness and benefit the health of man. 1 445 30. 2 οἷον βαφή ( Abfärbung ') τις καὶ πλύσις, 4458 4-14, 4438 1. 3 On the ground of Alexander's stating that certain physicians held this opinion, Zeller doubtfully refers it to Alcmaeon. and false. Odour a nourished by it is composite. Even water, when unmixed, mistaken does not suffice for food; that which is to form part of the animal system must itself be corporeal; but air is even inois of less capable than water of assuming the required corporeal capable of form. air, not forming food, which sides, Besides, food passes into the stomach, whence the body must be - derives and assimilates it. The organ by which odour is solid. Beperceived is in the head, and thither to the respiratory odour goes tract-odour goes in the process of inhaling.' going to the stomach, it is impossible that odour should food downact as food1. 1 De Sens. v. 445a 16-29; de An. ii. 3. 414b 10. But, not upwards to the brain; wards to the stomach. a sponge, and so absorbs the sapid particles which it dissolves by its warmth and moisture. ness of THE ANCIENT GREEK PSYCHOLOGY OF TASTING Alcmaeon. Organ and taste. 1 Theophr. de Sens. 25; Diels, Vors., p. 104 yλwtty dè toùs xvμoùs κρίνειν χλιαρὰν γὰρ οὖσαν καὶ μαλακὴν τήκειν τῇ θερμότητι δέχεσθαι δὲ καὶ διαδιδόναι διὰ τὴν μανότητα καὶ ἁπαλότητα. So Wimmer reads for MSS. τὴν μ. τῆς ἁπαλότητος. 2 Plut. Epit. iv. 18, Diels, Dox., p. 407; Vors., p. 104 'Aλkμaiwv rô ὑγρῷ καὶ τῷ χλιαρῷ τῷ ἐν τῇ γλώττῃ πρὸς τῇ μαλακότητι διακρίνεσθαι τοὺς χυμούς. 3 Foster, Text-Book of Physiology, § 865, p. 1398. |