of the distinctive potency of each of the faculties of sense enough has been said already.

but as to the nature of the sensory organs, or parts of the body in which each of the senses is naturally implanted, inquirers now usually take as their guide the fundamental elements of bodies. not, however, finding it easy to coordinate five senses with four elements, they are at a loss respecting the fifth sense. but they hold the organ of sight to consist of fire, being prompted to this view by a certain sensory affection of whose true cause they are ignorant. this is that, when the eye is pressed or moved, fire appears to flash from it. this naturally takes place in darkness, or when the eyelids are closed, for then, too, darkness is produced.

this theory, however, solves one question only to raise another; for, unless on the hypothesis that a person who is in his full senses can see an object of vision without being aware of it, the eye must on this theory see itself. but then why does the above affection not occur also when the eye is at rest? the true explanation of this affection, which will contain the answer to our question, and account for the current notion that the eye consists of fire, must be determined in the following way: things which are smooth have the natural property of shining in darkness, without, however, producing light. now, the part of the eye called ‘the black’, i.e. its central part, is manifestly smooth. the phenomenon of the flash occurs only when the eye is moved, because only then could it possibly occur that the same one object should become as it were two. the rapidity of the movement has the effect of making that which sees and that which is seen seem different from one another. hence the phenomenon does not occur unless the motion is rapid and takes place in darkness. for it is in the dark that that which is smooth, e.g. the heads of certain fishes, and the sepia of the cuttle-fish, naturally shines, and, when the movement of the eye is slow, it is impossible that that which sees and that which is seen should appear to be simultaneously two and one. but, in fact, the eye sees itself in the above phenomenon merely as it does so in ordinary optical reflexion.

if the visual organ proper really were fire, which is the doctrine of empedocles, a doctrine taught also in the timaeus, and if vision were the result of light issuing from the eye as from a lantern, why should the eye not have had the power of seeing even in the dark? it is totally idle to say, as the timaeus does, that the visual ray coming forth in the darkness is quenched. what is the meaning of this ‘quenching’ of light? that which, like a fire of coals or an ordinary flame, is hot and dry is, indeed, quenched by the moist or cold; but heat and dryness are evidently not attributes of light. or if they are attributes of it, but belong to it in a degree so slight as to be imperceptible to us, we should have expected that in the daytime the light of the sun should be quenched when rain falls, and that darkness should prevail in frosty weather. flame, for example, and ignited bodies are subject to such extinction, but experience shows that nothing of this sort happens to the sunlight.

empedocles at times seems to hold that vision is to be explained as above stated by light issuing forth from the eye, e.g. in the following passage:—

as when one who purposes going abroad prepares a lantern,

a gleam of fire blazing through the stormy night,

adjusting thereto, to screen it from all sorts of winds,

transparent sides,

which scatter the breath of the winds as they blow,

while, out through them leaping, the fire,

i.e. all the more subtile part of this,

shines along his threshold old incessant beams:

so [divine love] embedded the round “lens”, [viz.]

the primaeval fire fenced within the membranes,

in [its own] delicate tissues;

and these fended off the deep surrounding flood,

while leaping forth the fire, i.e. all its more subtile part-.

sometimes he accounts for vision thus, but at other times he explains it by emanations from the visible objects.

democritus, on the other hand, is right in his opinion that the eye is of water; not, however, when he goes on to explain seeing as mere mirroring. the mirroring that takes place in an eye is due to the fact that the eye is smooth, and it really has its seat not in the eye which is seen, but in that which sees. for the case is merely one of reflexion. but it would seem that even in his time there was no scientific knowledge of the general subject of the formation of images and the phenomena of reflexion. it is strange too, that it never occurred to him to ask why, if his theory be true, the eye alone sees, while none of the other things in which images are reflected do so.

true, then, the visual organ proper is composed of water, yet vision appertains to it not because it is so composed, but because it is translucent — a property common alike to water and to air. but water is more easily confined and more easily condensed than air; wherefore it is that the pupil, i.e. the eye proper, consists of water. that it does so is proved by facts of actual experience. the substance which flows from eyes when decomposing is seen to be water, and this in undeveloped embryos is remarkably cold and glistening. in sanguineous animals the white of the eye is fat and oily, in order that the moisture of the eye may be proof against freezing. wherefore the eye is of all parts of the body the least sensitive to cold: no one ever feels cold in the part sheltered by the eyelids. the eyes of bloodless animals are covered with a hard scale which gives them similar protection.

it is, to state the matter generally, an irrational notion that the eye should see in virtue of something issuing from it; that the visual ray should extend itself all the way to the stars, or else go out merely to a certain point, and there coalesce, as some say, with rays which proceed from the object. it would be better to suppose this coalescence to take place in the fundament of the eye itself. but even this would be mere trifling. for what is meant by the ‘coalescence’ of light with light? or how is it possible? coalescence does not occur between any two things taken at random. and how could the light within the eye coalesce with that outside it? for the environing membrane comes between them.

that without light vision is impossible has been stated elsewhere; but, whether the medium between the eye and its objects is air or light, vision is caused by a process through this medium.

accordingly, that the inner part of the eye consists of water is easily intelligible, water being translucent.

now, as vision outwardly is impossible without [extra-organic] light, so also it is impossible inwardly [without light within the organ]. there must, therefore, be some translucent medium within the eye, and, as this is not air, it must be water. the soul or its perceptive part is not situated at the external surface of the eye, but obviously somewhere within: whence the necessity of the interior of the eye being translucent, i.e. capable of admitting light. and that it is so is plain from actual occurrences. it is matter of experience that soldiers wounded in battle by a sword slash on the temple, so inflicted as to sever the passages of [i.e. inward from] the eye, feel a sudden onset of darkness, as if a lamp had gone out; because what is called the pupil, i.e. the translucent, which is a sort of inner lamp, is then cut off [from its connexion with the soul].

hence, if the facts be at all as here stated, it is clear that — if one should explain the nature of the sensory organs in this way, i.e. by correlating each of them with one of the four elements — we must conceive that the part of the eye immediately concerned in vision consists of water, that the part immediately concerned in the perception of sound consists of air, and that the sense of smell consists of fire. (i say the sense of smell, not the organ.) for the organ of smell is only potentially that which the sense of smell, as realized, is actually; since the object of sense is what causes the actualization of each sense, so that it (the sense) must (at the instant of actualization) be (actually) that which before (the moment of actualization) it was potentially. now, odour is a smoke-like evaporation, and smoke-like evaporation arises from fire. this also helps us to understand why the olfactory organ has its proper seat in the environment of the brain, for cold matter is potentially hot. in the same way must the genesis of the eye be explained. its structure is an offshoot from the brain, because the latter is the moistest and coldest of all the bodily parts.

the organ of touch proper consists of earth, and the faculty of taste is a particular form of touch. this explains why the sensory organ of both touch and taste is closely related to the heart. for the heart as being the hottest of all the bodily parts, is the counterpoise of the brain.

this then is the way in which the characteristics of the bodily organs of sense must be determined.