Physiologia Epicuro-Gassendo-Charltoniana, or, A fabrick of science natural, upon the hypothesis of atoms founded by Epicurus repaired [by] Petrus Gassendus ; augmented [by] Walter Charleton ...

SECT. I.

THe Rabbins, whenever they encoun∣ter any Problem;* 1.1 that seems too strong for their Reason; to excuse their despair of conquering it, they instantly recurr to that proverbial Sanctuary, Reservatur in adventum Eliae, it belongs to the Catalogue of secrets, that are re••erved for the revealment of Elia••. And, in∣genously, if any Abstrus••••y in Nature be so impervestigable, as to justifie our open profession of Incapacity, and necessitate our opprest Understand∣ing to retreat to the same common Refuge; it must be this of the NATURE OF COLOURS, to the consideration whereof the Clue of our Method hath now brought us. For, though all Philosophers unanimously embrace, as an indubitable verity, that the object of Sight in General, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Visible, whatever is deprehensi∣ble by that Sens••▪ and that, in Particular, the Proper and Adequate ob∣ject thereof, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Colour, because nothing is visible but under the gloss or vernish of Colour, nor doth Light it self submit to the d••scernment of the eye, quate••us Lux, in the capacity ofits Form, or meerly as Light, but instar Albedinis, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 it retains to Whiteness; all which Mersennus (optic••e part 2. theorem. 1.) hath judiciously contracted into this one Theorem, ••bjectu•• visus praecipuum est Lux & Color, vel Lux colorata, aut Color incidus: we say, notwithstanding this their Ground-work be laid in the rock of manifest Certitude, yet when they attempt to erect thereon an establisht and per∣manent Theory of the Essence of Colours, either in their s••••ple and first

Natures, or complex and secondary Removes; they find the eye of their Curiosity so obnubilated with dense and impervious Difficulties, that all of certainty they can discover, is only this; that their most subtle indagations were no more but anxious Gropings in the dark, after that, whose Existence is evidenced only by, and Essence consisteth chiefly in Light. But, this Infelicity of our Intellectuals will be more fully commonstrated by our abridged rehearsal of the most memorable Opinions of others, and the de∣clarement of our own, concerning this Magnale.

The Despot of the Schools (in lib. de sensu & sensili,* 1.2 cap. 3.) defines Co∣lour to be, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the Extremity of a Dia∣phanum, or transparent body terminated: subjoining that Colour appertains to all things, ratione Perspicuitatis, and consequently, that the extremity of a perspicuous body terminated is the Subject of Colour. Which that we may clearly understand, let us consult the great Scaliger, who (in Exercit. 325.) thus concisely Comments thereupon. If the Perspicuum (saith He) suffer condensation so far as to the amission of its Transparency, and so pro∣hibit the trajection of the Visible Species; it instantly becomes Colorate, and ought to be accounted Terminate, because it bounds or limits the Vi∣sive rayes. Wherefore, the law of Consequence injoineth, that we explore the Essence of Colours, in the Gradual Termination of the Diaphanum; and derive that Termination (1) from meer Condensation, without the ad∣mixture of any other thing to the Diaphanum; as may be instanced in the Starrs, for they become visible, though of a Lucid nature, only because they are of a Compact or Dense contexture. (2) From the Admission of an Opace with a Translucid body; as is exemplified in our Culunary Fire, which though in the simplicity of its most perspicuous, doth yet appear Red, because commixt and in some degree obnubilated with fuliginous Exhalations, from the pabulum or Fewel thereof, or compound body in combustion. The same likewise is to be understood of Aer and Water; for, those three Elements are all perspicuous, though in divers degrees: Fire being most perspicuous, Aer possessing the next degree, and Water coming behind them both, as seeming to be a Medium betwixt Perspicuity and Opacity. And, therefore, from the admission of the parts of that Opace Element, Earth, to any other of the three Diaphanous▪ one or other Colour among the many must arise. But, the Perspicuum passeth first into Whiteness, and therefore is it that Perspicuity, Light and Whiteness, are of the same nature, cozen Germans once removed, and discriminate only by Degrees: as, on the contrary, an Opacum, Darkness, and Blackness are also cognate. ••his being the origi∣nal of the Two Father, or Ground Colours: it can be no Difficulty to at∣tain the specifical Causes of all others, since they are only Intermediate, i. e. they arise from the various Complexion or Contemperation of the two Extrems. And this is the sense of Aristotles Text, if we admit the in∣terpretation of Scaliger.

Plato, being either unable,* 1.3 or unwilling to erase out of the table of his mind some of the ingravements of Democritus; understands Colour to be Flammula quaedam, sive Fulgor, è singulis corporibus emicans, partes ha∣bens visui accommodatas (in Timaeo). For, having held, as Diogenes Laer∣tius (lib. 3.) hath well observed, and we may easily collect from that dis∣course of his, in the name of Timaeus Locrus; that the world consisteth of the four Elements, of Fire, as it is Visible, of Earth, as Tangible, of Aer and

Water, ut proportione non vacet: lest he should apostate from his Funda∣mentals, He affirmed, Corpora videri propter Ignem, & propter Terram tangi, that the Visibility of all things was radicated in their participation of Fire, and their Tangibility in their share of Earth; and consequently that the Colour of bodies was nothing but an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Emicancy of their internal Fulgor, and the variety of its Species dependent meerly on the various degrees, or more or less of that inhaerent luster.

As for the Pythagorean and Stoick; the Former, with inexcusable inco∣gitancy,* 1.4 confounded the Tinctures of things with their Extrems, allowing no real difference betwixt the Superfice, and the Colour it bears. Pythagor••s Colorem e••le extimam corporis superficiem censuit, hanc ob Caussam; quod Color Sectilem naturam habet, non tamen sit Corpus, aut Linea: as Plutarch (de Placit. Philosoph.) and out of him, Bernhard. Caesius (de Mineral. lib. 2. cap. 3. Sect. 2. art. 12.). The Later, with unsatisfactory subtility, (as if, indeed, He meant rather to blanch over the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or incom∣prehensibility of the Subject, with ambiguous and Sophistical Terms, than confess, or remove it.) makes Colour to be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a certain Efflores∣cence, arising from a determinate Figuration of the First Matter; as we have collected from the memorials of Plutarch (lib. 1. de Placit. Philosoph. cap. 15.)

Lastly, the illuminated Sons of Hermes, who boast to have, if not attain∣ed to the bottom of the mystery,* 1.5 yet out done the endeavours of all other Sects of Philosophers, in profounding it; confidently lead our curiosity to their general Asylum, the three Universal Principles, Sal, Sulphur and Mer∣cury, and tell us, that the Elemental Salts carry the mighty hand, or most potent Energy in the production of Colours. For, supposing three kinds of Salt in all natural Concretions; the first a Fixt and Terrestrial, the second a Sal Nitre, allied to Sulphur, the Third a Volatile or Armoniac, referrible to Mercury; and that all bodies receive degrees of Perspicuity, or Opacity, respon∣dent to the degrees of Volatility, or Terrestriety in the Salts, that amass them: they thereupon deduce their various Colours, or visible Glosses, from the various Commistion of Volatile or Tralucent Salts, with Fixt or obscure.

Now, notwithstanding all these Sects are as remote each from other,* 1.6 as the Zenith from the Nadir, in their opinions touching the Nature and Causes, of Colours, as to all other respects; yet do they gene∣rally Concur in this one particular, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Colores esse Coh••rentes corporibus, that Colours are CONGENITE▪ or COHAERENT to bodies. Which being manifestly repugnant to reason, as may be clearly evinced as well from the Arguments alledged by Plutarch (1. advers. Colot.) to that purpose, as from the result of our whole subsequent discourse, concerning this theorem: we need no other justifica∣tion of our Desertion of them, and Adhaerence to that more verisimilous Doctrine of Democritus and Epicurus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Colorem Le∣ge esse, or more plainly in the words of Epicurus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; Colores in corpori∣bus gigni, juxta quosdam, respectu visus▪ ordines positus{que}. The Probabili∣ty of which opi••••••n, that we may with due strictness and aequ••n••mity exa∣mine; and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 wh••t we formerly delivered, in our O••igine of Quali∣ties, touching th•• possible Causes of an inassignable Variety of Colours:

We are briefly to advertise,* 1.7

First, That by the word, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Bodies, we are not to understand Atoms, or simple bodies, for those are generally praesumed to be devoyd of all Colour; but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Concretions, or Compounds. Secondly, that Epicurus, in this text, according to the litteral importance thereof, and the Exposition of Gassendus, his most judicious and copious Interpreter, had this and no other meaning. That in the Extrems, or superficies of all Concretions, there are such certain Coordinations and Dispositions of their component particles (which, according to our First Assumption in the immediately praecedent Chapter, borrowed from the incomparable Bullial∣dus, are never contexed without more or less of Inaequality.) as that, upon the incidence of Light, they do and must exhibit some certain Colour, or other, respective to their determinate Reflection and Refraction, or Modi∣fication of the rayes thereof, and the position of the Eye, that receives them. That from these superficial Extancies and and Cavities of bodies are emitted those substantial Effluviaes, constituting the visible Image; which striking upon the primary Organ of Vision, in a certain Order and Position of particles, causeth therein a sensation, or Perception of that par∣ticular Colour. But, that these Colours are not really Cohaerent to those superficial particles, so as not to be actually separated from them, upon the abscedence of Light: and, consequently that Colours have no Existence in the Dark. Moreover, that the substance of Light, or the minute par∣ticles, of which its beams consist, are necessarily to be superadded to the superficial particles of bodies, as the Complement, nay the Principal part of Colour: as may be inferred from these words of Epicurus, registred by Plutarch (1. advers. Colot.) Quinetiam hâc parte (luce, viz.) seclusa, no•• video, qui dicere liceat, corpora quae in tenebris in conspicua sunt, colorem ha∣bere. Of which persuasion was also that admirable Mathematician, Samius Aristarchus; who positively affirmed (apud Stobaeum, in Ecl. Phys. 19.) Incidentem in subjectas res Lucem, Colorem esse; ideoque constituta in tene∣bris corpora colore prorsùs destitui. To which, doubtless Virgil ingeniously alluded in his

— Ubi Coelum condidit Umbra Iupiter, & rebus nox abstulit atra Colorem.

And Lucretius in his

Qualis enim coecis poterit Color esse tenebris, Lumine qui mutatur in ipso; propterea quod Recta aut obliqua percussus luce refulget? &c.

And, lastly, that Light doth create and vary Colours, according to the various condition of the minute Faces, or sides of the Particles in the super∣fice, which receive and reflect the incident rayes thereof, in various Angles▪ toward the Eye.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Art. 1. The Argument duely ac∣knowledged to ••e superla∣tively Difficult, i•• not abso∣lutely A••ata∣lept••cal.
• * 1.2

  Art. 2. The sentence of Arist••tle, concerning the Nature of Colours: and the Commen∣t••••y of Scal••ge•• thereup••n.
• * 1.3

  Art. 3. The opinion of Plato.
• * 1.4

  Art. 4. Of the Pytha∣gorean and Sto∣i••k.
• * 1.5

  Art. 5. Of the Spagy∣rical Philoso∣phers.
• * 1.6

  Art. 6. The reason of the 〈…〉〈…〉, and ele∣ction of Demo∣critus and Epi∣curus judg••••ent, touch∣ing the Gene∣ra••i••n of Co∣l••u••s.
• * 1.7

  Art. 7. The Text of Epicurus, fully and faithfully expounded.