按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
already acquired。
That Savours； either as a quality or as the privation of a
quality； belong not to every form of the Dry but to the Nutrient； we
shall see by considering that neither the Dry without the Moist； nor
the Moist without the Dry； is nutrient。 For no single element； but
only composite substance； constitutes nutriment for animals。 Now；
among the perceptible elements of the food which animals assimilate；
the tangible are the efficient causes of growth and decay； it is qua
hot or cold that the food assimilated causes these； for the heat or
cold is the direct cause of growth or decay。 It is qua gustable；
however； that the assimilated food supplies nutrition。 For all
organisms are nourished by the Sweet ＇i。e。 the 'gustable' proper＇；
either by itself or in combination with other savours。 Of this we must
speak with more precise detail in our work on Generation： for the
present we need touch upon it only so far as our subject here
requires。 Heat causes growth； and fits the food…stuff for
alimentation； it attracts ＇into the organic system＇ that which is
light ＇viz。 the sweet＇； while the salt and bitter it rejects because
of their heaviness。 In fact； whatever effects external heat produces
in external bodies； the same are produced by their internal heat in
animal and vegetable organisms。 Hence it is ＇i。e。 by the agency of
heat as described＇ that nourishment is effected by the sweet。 The
other savours are introduced into and blended in food ＇naturally＇ on a
principle analogous to that on which the saline or the acid is used
artificially； i。e。 for seasoning。 These latter are used because they
counteract the tendency of the sweet to be too nutrient； and to
float on the stomach。
As the intermediate colours arise from the mixture of white and
black； so the intermediate savours arise from the Sweet and Bitter；
and these savours； too； severally involve either a definite ratio；
or else an indefinite relation of degree； between their components；
either having certain integral numbers at the basis of their
mixture； and； consequently； of their stimulative effect； or else being
mixed in proportions not arithmetically expressible。 The tastes
which give pleasure in their combination are those which have their
components joined in a definite ratio。
The sweet taste alone is Rich； ＇therefore the latter may be regarded
as a variety of the former＇； while ＇so far as both imply privation
of the Sweet＇ the Saline is fairly identical with the Bitter。
Between the extremes of sweet and bitter come the Harsh； the
Pungent； the Astringent； and the Acid。 Savours and Colours； it will be
observed； contain respectively about the same number of species。 For
there are seven species of each； if； as is reasonable； we regard Dun
＇or Grey＇ as a variety of Black （for the alternative is that Yellow
should be classed with White； as Rich with Sweet）； while ＇the
irreducible colours； viz。＇ Crimson； Violet； leek…Green； and deep Blue；
come between White and Black； and from these all others are derived by
mixture。
Again； as Black is a privation of White in the Translucent； so
Saline or Bitter is a privation of Sweet in the Nutrient Moist。 This
explains why the ash of all burnt things is bitter； for the potable
＇sc。 the sweet＇ moisture has been exuded from them。
Democritus and most of the natural philosophers who treat of
sense…perception proceed quite irrationally； for they represent all
objects of sense as objects of Touch。 Yet； if this is really so； it
clearly follows that each of the other senses is a mode of Touch；
but one can see at a glance that this is impossible。
Again； they treat the percepts common to all senses as proper to
one。 For ＇the qualities by which they explain taste viz。＇ Magnitude
and Figure； Roughness and Smoothness； and； moreover； the Sharpness and
Bluntness found in solid bodies； are percepts common to all the
senses； or if not to all； at least to Sight and Touch。 This explains
why it is that the senses are liable to err regarding them； while no
such error arises respecting their proper sensibles； e。g。 the sense of
Seeing is not deceived as to Colour； nor is that of Hearing as to
Sound。
On the other hand； they reduce the proper to common sensibles； as
Democritus does with White and Black； for he asserts that the latter
is ＇a mode of the＇ rough； and the former ＇a mode of the＇ smooth； while
he reduces Savours to the atomic figures。 Yet surely no one sense； or；
if any； the sense of Sight rather than any other； can discern the
common sensibles。 But if we suppose that the sense of Taste is
better able to do so； then… since to discern the smallest objects in
each kind is what marks the acutest sense…Taste should have been the
sense which best perceived the common sensibles generally； and
showed the most perfect power of discerning figures in general。
Again； all the sensibles involve contrariety； e。g。 in Colour White
is contrary to Black； and in Savours Bitter is contrary to Sweet；
but no one figure is reckoned as contrary to any other figure。 Else；
to which of the possible polygonal figures ＇to which Democritus
reduces Bitter＇ is the spherical figure ＇to which he reduces Sweet＇
contrary？
Again； since figures are infinite in number； savours also should
be infinite； ＇the possible rejoinder… 'that they are so； only that
some are not perceived'… cannot be sustained＇ for why should one
savour be perceived； and another not？
This completes our discussion of the object of Taste； i。e。 Savour；
for the other affections of Savours are examined in their proper place
in connection with the natural history of Plants。
5
Our conception of the nature of Odours must be analogous to that
of Savours； inasmuch as the Sapid Dry effects in air and water
alike； but in a different province of sense； precisely what the Dry
effects in the Moist of water only。 We customarily predicate
Translucency of both air and water in common； but it is not qua
translucent that either is a vehicle of odour； but qua possessed of
a power of washing or rinsing ＇and so imbibing＇ the Sapid Dryness。
For the object of Smell exists not in air only： it also exists in
water。 This is proved by the case of fishes and testacea； which are
seen to possess the faculty of smell； although water contains no air
（for whenever air is generated within water it rises to the
surface）； and these creatures do not respire。 Hence； if one were to
assume that air and water are both moist； it would follow that Odour
is the natural substance consisting of the Sapid Dry diffused in the
Moist； and whatever is of this kind would be an object of Smell。
That the property of odorousness is based upon the Sapid may be seen
by comparing the things which possess with those which do not
possess odour。 The elements； viz。 Fire； Air； Earth； Water； are
inodorous； because both the dry and the moist among them are without
sapidity； unless some added ingredient produces it。 This explains
why sea…water possesses odour； for ＇unlike 'elemental' water＇ it
contains savour and dryness。 Salt； too； is more odorous than natron；
as the oil which exudes from the former proves； for natron is allied
to ＇'elemental'＇ earth more nearly than salt。 Again； a stone is
inodorous； just because it is tasteless； while； on the contrary；
wood is odorous； because it is sapid。 The kinds of wood； too； which
contain more ＇'elemental'＇ water are less odorous than others。
Moreover； to take the case of metals； gold is inodorous because it
is without taste； but bronze and iron are odorous； and when the
＇sapid＇ moisture has been burnt out of them； their slag is； in all
cases； less odorous the metals ＇than the metals themselves＇。 S