« EdellinenJatka »
The MOON By the Moon we must understand that other part of the soul of man, which is not in itself rational, μετέχει μέντοι πη λόγο, Aliquo tamen modo rationis particeps. I confess, reason may in man have some influence upon it, but in its own nature it is altogether devoid of it; it is that part of the soul which is usually called sensitive, and is common to all other animals as well as unto man; and in him is but the lesser light, and rul. eth but the darker part only, and therefore may be most aptly expressed by the moon. It is conversant principally about those species which are communicated to it, from the outward senses; the operations about which are either simple, or compound: The simple operations are first to receive them as they are communicated from without, and then to retain them for so long time as it is exercising itself about them. Secondly, to dijudicate them as they are in themselves, and to discern them as they differ from all other whatsoever. The compound operations are excellently described by a modern author of our own*; who faith, that the liberty of the imagination is threefold, either compofition, or new mixing of objects; translation, or new placing of them; creation, or new making them. Now all these, or whatsoever else may
be * Dr. Reynolds upon the faculties, p. 24.
be comprehended within the compass of the pure fenfitive part of the foul, are but the operations of one faculty, and therefore by one word, are most fitly hereexpresfed. And though the philofophers have usually diftinguished them into more, as into the common sense, the fancy, both estimative, and cogitative ; yet really and truly they are bụt one : for as one fuperior faculty in the fuperior part of the foul, which is the underlanding, could both receive, compound, and collect, as you heard before ; what hindereth but the same may be done in the fame manner in the inferior? And we are not to multiply faculties without neceflity. Beside, the ground of their variety is not to be admit, ted. For they suppofed the operations about their objects to be divers, attributing perception and difcerning to the common sense only, dividing and compounding to the fancy.
Now the fancy doth as well perceive and discern, nay, better too, than the common fense doth ; and the common fenfe may be said to compound, and divide, as the fancy doth ; Therefore fome, more quick fighted of late, perceiving this ground not fufficient, that they might be fure to uphold Aristotle's division of the jpward fenfes, have found out another way, and fay, that the common sense is conversant about a present object only, the fancy about that which is abfent; but this seems as weak as the former, and that according to the Peripatetic
Doctrine ; forasmuch as the fancy is conversant about an object only while present with it ; indeed it can detain it a while, until it have done its work about it; so can the common sense al
and it can receive it again after it is paffed away, and operate upon it anew, but for this it must be beholden to the memory, and can do nothing upon an object by its own strength, but while it hath it present with it. I argue this, only to shew that they are but one faculty, and therefore by this one word, viz. the Moon, they are both represented: which (as the more superior powers of the soul, and all the members of the body,) hath in this state of weakness its anfwerable declension. I confess, with Aristotle*, if an old man had a young man's eye, he would fee as well as a young man ; but I deny that which I suppose he meant by it, that is, that he would perceive and discern as well as a young man, unless he had a young man's internal faculty also.. It is one thing, to see, it is another thing, to know that a man fees, and to distinguish what colour, and what figure he sees. As age brings a weakness upon the outward senses, so that they cannot see, so also upon the inward, that they cannot discern could they fee; and this is most fignificantly expressed by old Barzillai, when King David would have had him, to feed him at his own table; I am this day, faith he, fourscore years old, and can I discern between good and
evil? • Arif. de anima, lib. 3.
svil? Can thy servant taste what I eat, or what I drink? Can I hear any more the voice of longing men, and singing women? 2 Sam. xix. 35. He first expresseth his inward decay, I cannot discern; and then his outward, I cannot taste, nor hear. It is proper to the outward fense, to taste and hear ; but it appertains to the inward, to know whether the objects both of tasting and hearing, and of all the other outward fenfes, be good or evil. And thus old Ifaac was imposed upon, not only in respect of the dulness of his outward senses, (all five of which are mentioned in that one chapter, where his younger son is said to come with subtilty, and take away the blessing, Gen. xxvii.) but chiefly in respect of the weakness of his inward sense, wherein he was most mistaken; for be difcerned him not, ver. 22. And thủs you have the lesser light, that rules the night of man darkened, as well as the greater, that rules the day, that which is subservient to them both, is that which followeth,
The STARS. By the Stars, I understand, neste Humpove torta, All those species whatsoever, either rational or imaginary, that (like the stars in their orb) stand fixedly treasured up in the memory. Now the stars do not properly pertain either to day or night, but are distinct luminaries from the the rulers of the day and night, and subfervient
to them both ; and do communicate both day and night, to all inferior bodies, of their influences, and also of their light; for altbough the greater light of the fun in the day time doth cause them to us to disappear, yet they are ftill thining, as is fufficiently demonstrated in the eclipse of the fun, when that greater light is darkened or in the narrow and long contraction of the visible species, either by art, in glasses, or naturally, if a man stand at the bottom of a deep and narrow well, then will the stars give their light apparently at noon day. In like manner, all the species and reprefentations of things that are past, whether they are the product of the day or night, that is, as you have heard, either of the understanding, or of the fancy, are treasured up in one single faculty of the memory. And that the stars have belonged only to the night, hath not been a more common mistake among the vulgar; than that the me. mory belongeth only to the imagination, hath been among the learned. And therefore they have much troubled themselves, and confounded others, in finding out another receptacle of the intelligible species, which they call reminiscency or recordation; as though one and the same faculty were not able to retain the fpecies that are of a diverse nature. The ground of this mistake hath principalļy rifen from this; that they have given more unto the memory, ihan properly doth belong unto it, in that they