Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

Empedocles.

fitting of

tions into

the organ.

§ 2. As to tasting and touching, Empedocles says Taste: its function nothing definite respecting either of them, not stating the performed mode in which or the causes by which they are effected, by the except merely to enunciate his general principle that all symmetrisensation whatever is due to the fitting of emanations into cal emanathe pores1.' 'Parmenides, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Demo- the pores of critus, Epicurus, and Heraclides held that the particular sensations are produced in us by the symmetrical relations between the pores of the sense-organ and the object of sense, i. e. when each sense has its proper object of perception fitting into its pores 2.' Theophrastus observes that the theory of ȧñoрpoaí is, notwithstanding objections, a possible theory regarding the other senses, but is met with difficulties of a special sort as regards those of tasting and touching3. It may be that this difficulty prevented Empedocles from developing his theory of emanation with reference to the sense of tasting and touching.

6

kinds exist

in water,

§ 3. But though, except for this vague doctrine, he Taste, obteaches nothing respecting the function of tasting, hejectively regarded, gives certain opinions on the physical nature of tastes, according to Empeobjectively regarded, i. e. the sapid substances which cause docles. All the sensations of taste. The following, we learn from its various Aristotle Taste is a mode of touch. Now the natural primarily substance water tends to be tasteless, but it is necessary but in either that the water should have in itself the various particles genera of sapid qualities, though imperceptible owing to tesimally their minuteness, as Empedocles holds, or &c.4' In accord- small size, ance with this is the view ascribed to Empedocles by Aelian fore not that the sea contains particles of sweet water among the perceptible 1 Theophr. de Sens. § 9; Diels, Vors., p. 177 nepì dè yevσews kai ἁφῆς οὐ διορίζεται καθ ̓ ἑκατέραν οὔτε πῶς οὔτε δι' ἃ γίγνονται, πλὴν τὸ κοινὸν ὅτι τῷ ἐναρμόττειν τοῖς πόροις αἴσθησίς ἐστιν.

2 Aët. iv. 9, Diels, Dox., p. 397; Vors., p. 180 Пapμevidns, 'Eμñedokλñs, ̓Αναξαγόρας, Δημόκριτος, Επίκουρος, Ηρακλείδης παρὰ τὰς συμμετρίας τῶν πόρων τὰς κατὰ μέρος αἰσθήσεις γίνεσθαι τοῦ οἰκείου τῶν αἰσθητῶν ἑκάστου ἑκάστῃ ἐναρμόττοντος.

3 Theophr. de Sens. § 20 τὸ περὶ τὴν ἀπορροὴν . . . περὶ δὲ τὴν ἁφὴν καὶ γεῦσιν οὐ ῥᾴδιον. 4 Arist. de Sens. iv. 441a 3.

[blocks in formation]

of infini

and there

The tastes

of plants and fruits,

whence derived.

severally. predominating salt. 'Empedocles of Agrigentum says that there is a certain portion of sweet water in the sea, though not perceptible to all creatures, and that it serves for the nourishment of the fishes. He declares that the cause of this sweetness which is produced amidst the brine is a natural one. Unfortunately Aelian omits to state what natural cause Empedocles assigned for the sweetness of sea-water; yet we may connect his view of this with what Aristotle tells us above, that Empedocles regarded all genera of taste as existing in water, but in particles too small to be separately perceptible. The several sorts of particles might combine according to their affinities, and when enough of them come together, and are combined like with like, the perceptibly sweet, bitter, harsh, acid, and other tastes appear 2. We must further connect with this view the statement attributed to Empedocles that wine is water which has undergone fermentation 3. 'The differences of taste in plants correspond to the variations in the manifold of their nutrient particles, and hence in the plants themselves, since they assimilate the kindred particles, from that which nourishes them, differently (in different soils), as we see in the case of vines. It is not differences in the vines that make the wine good or bad, but differences in the soil which nourishes them. The nourishment of

1 Aelian, Hist. An. ix. 64 Εμπεδοκλῆς ὁ ̓Ακραγαντῖνος λέγει τι εἶναι γλυκὺ ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ ὕδωρ, οὐ πᾶσι δῆλον, τρόφιμον δὲ τῶν ἰχθύων· καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν τοῦδε τοῦ ἐν τῇ ἅλμῃ γλυκαινομένου λέγει φυσικήν.

2 Karsten, Emped., pp. 439 and 482. Cf. Arist. 357b 24; Diels, Dox., p. 381.

* Arist. Τοp. Δ 5. 1278 17 ὁμοίως δ ̓ οὐδ ̓ ὁ οἶνός ἐστιν ὕδωρ σεσηπός, καθάπερ Εμπεδοκλής φησί ; Diels, Vors., p. 205

οἶνος ἀπὸ φλοιοῦ πέλεται σαπὲν ἐν ξύλῳ ὕδωρ.

Wine is water that has penetrated from the rind of the vine inwards, and undergone decomposition or fermentation within the wood.

The version is from the text of Galenus, Hist. Phil., with Diels' (παρὰ): τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν χυμῶν (παρὰ) παραλλαγὰς γίγνεσθαι τῆς πολυμερείας καὶ τῶν φυτῶν διαφόρως ἑλκόντων τὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ τρέφοντος ὁμοιομερείας. The τῆς γῆς) πολυμερείας of Diels (Vors.) is unfortunate, as Empedocles held not yn but vdwp for the source of xvuoi. Cf. Diels, Dox., p. 439; Vors., p. 172.

plants, according to Empedocles, is effected by the attrac tion of kindred elements into them through their pores from the earth in which they grow.

...

Democritus.

of taste:

real. Dif

pend on the

sweet, sour,

to the

§4. According to Democritus, 'The atomic figure has The object absolute existence (kao' airó éσT), but the sweet, like objects only subof sense in general, is relative and dependent on extraneous jectively things' (πpòs ǎλdo kaì év ăλdois)1. 'He does not specify the ferences of atomic shapes (μoppás) which generate all objects of sense, but taste derather those which form tastes (xvλŵv) and colours; of these differences of shape he treats definitely and in detail those that are the objective in the condition of tastes (τὰ περὶ τοὺς χυλούς), explaining how atoms of sapid they present themselves as purely relative to us (åvapépwv things. τὴν φαντασίαν πρὸς ἄνθρωπον). The acid taste (ὀξύν) he Acid, declares to be formed from atomic shapes that are angular, bitter, saline, winding, small, and thin (γωνοειδῆ 2 τῷ σχήματι καὶ πολυκαμπῆ κ pungent, kaì μikpòv kaì λeñтóv).... The sweet taste (yλvkúv) is com- succulent; explained posed of shapes which are spherical and not too (ayav) according small. . . . The astringently sour (στρvovóv) is composed of particular shapes large and with many angles, and having very little shapes of rotundity. . . . The bitter (TIкρóv) consists of shapes small, affecting smooth, and spherical, having got a spherical surface which the organs actually has hooks attached to it (τὴν περιφέρειαν ειληχότα καὶ καμπὰς ἔχουσαν). . . . The saline is composed of large shapes, not spherical, but in some cases also not scalene 3, and therefore without many flexures. .. The pungent taken into (òpiμús) is small, spherical, and regular, but not scalene. . . . account. In the same way he explains the other "powers" (dvváμeis) of each taste-stimulus, reducing them all to their atomic figures (ἀνάγων εἰς τὰ σχήματα). Of all these shapes he says that none is simple or unmixed with the others, but that in each taste there are combined many shapes, and that each one and the same taste involves somewhat of the smooth, the rough, the spherical, the sharp, and the rest. But of the shapes that which is chiefly involved determines 1 Theophr. de Sens. § 69.

[ocr errors]

2 So Diels, 'ut ex yŵvos,' Dox., p. 517 n. 3 Diels, Vors., p. 393 ἀλλ ̓ ἐπ' ἐνίων καὶ (οὐ) σκαληνῶν. See next page,

the atoms

in each case. But the bodily

state of the

, person has to be also

note 3.

Theophr. de Caus. Plant.

tasting, like

sense, a

mode of

the effect upon sensation, and the sensible "power" of the whole. It makes much difference also what the bodily state is with which the shapes come into relation; for from this it happens sometimes that the same stimulus (rò avtó) produces contrary subjective effects, and that contrary stimuli produce the same subjective effect'.'

§ 5. 'Democritus investing each taste with its characteristic figure makes the sweet that which is round and large in restates this its atoms; the astringently sour that which is large in its theory of tastes. For atoms, but rough, angular, and not spherical; the acid, as Democritus its name imports, that which is sharp in its bodily shape every other (o§Ùv Tê õykų), angular, and curving, thin, and not spherical; the pungent that which is spherical, thin, angular, and curving; touching. the saline, that of which the atoms are angular, and large, and crooked (okoλtóv) and isosceles; the bitter, that which is spherical, smooth, scalene, and small. The succulent (Aɩmaρóv) is that which is thin, spherical, and small 3.' We need not here endeavour to reproduce the reasons given, on the authority of Theophrastus, for the assignment of the particular shapes to the production of the respective tastes. To us the whole theory seems almost a play of fancy; yet we must not forget that to its author it was a serious attempt, on the most scientific and common-sense lines at that time known, to account physically for these sensations. Our interest in it is mainly and primarily historical. Except for the general idea of atomism, this theory of 'atomic shapes' has little affinity to any modern scientific theory of taste, physiological or psychological.

Democritus, as sufficiently appears from what precedes,

1 Theophr. de Sens. §§ 64-7; Diels, Vors., p. 393; Mullach, Democ., p. 219.

* Mullach reads ἔχοντα σκαληνίαν ; Diels keeps the MSS. σκολιότητα, crookedness.'

3 Theophr. de Caus. Pl. vi. 1. 6. I have given this extract for comparison with the preceding. It shows that some degree of consistency was observed in the respective descriptions of the corpuscular shapes which according to Democritus go to form the various stimuli of taste. It may be noted that here the atoms of the saline are described as ἰσοσκελή. This confirms the insertion of οὐ before σκαληνῶν Theophr. de Sens. § 66.

reduced the sensations of taste to modifications of the sense of touch. This was not peculiar to his system. It was, says Aristotle, a doctrine shared by him with most of the natural philosophers 1 who tried to explain the sensory functions. They all conceived the objects which affect the senses generally as being tangible.

[ocr errors]

different

taste to atoms alike

but dif

this.

tions of

produced? are

§ 6. Theophrastus, having stated that Democritus' opinions Democrias regards the sensory operations of smelling, tasting, and tus ascribes touching were much like those of most other writers2, criticizes kinds of as follows his theory of tastes, and the physical account he gives of them. There is this strange feature too in in shape the theory of those who advocate the atomic shape doctrine, ferent in viz. the different kind of sensory effect which they ascribe size. Theophrastus to atoms alike in shape, and differing only in smallness criticizes or largeness. For this would imply that their powers as Agai Again, how affecting sense depend not only upon their shapes, but are alteraon their bulks. But though one might assign atomic bulk tast as cause of the greater force or impressiveness of a sensory the atomic stimulus, or of the amount or degree of sensory effect shapes and produced, it is not reasonable to explain in this differences in the quality or kind of sensory Democritus' leading hypothesis is that the sensory powers from, some depend on the figures of the atoms; since, if the figures of different stimuli were homogeneous,, their effects on former sense would be homogeneous in the sphere of taste, as in aggregate? other spheres; just as a triangle of sides a foot long agrees with one with sides of ten thousand feet in having its three angles together equal to two right angles.'

bulks

way altered? or effect. are some

removed

into, the

If the latter

be true,

what is

the effi

cient cause of the re

tion?

'One might, as against Democritus, well ask how it is moval or that the different tastes are generated from or succeed introducone another. For either the atomic figures must be altered so as, for instance, from scalene and angular to become spherical; or, assuming that all the various shapes which give rise to certain tastes are in (the moist founda1 Cf. Arist. de Sens. iv. 442a 29. 2 Theophr. de Sens. § 57.

3

Theophrastus argues as if Democritus had asserted oxýpara alone to be the cause of the perception of sensible qualities.

• Theophr. de Caus. Pl. vi. 2. 3; Diels, Vors., p. 390. 13; Mullach, Democr., p. 350.

« PredošláPokračovať »