1O OPERIS MAJORIS PARS QUINTA.
Aristotic
on this sub-
ject im-
perfectly
translated.
distinctionem, nam non expresse fit mentio nisi de sensu communi, et imaginatione, et memoria. Quoniam autem non potest textus Aristotelis propter perversitatem translationis intelligi ibi sicut nec alibi, et quoniam ubique Avicenna fuit perfectus imitator et expositor Aristotelis atque dux et princeps philosophiae post eum, ut dicit commentator super caput de Iride, propter hoc sententiae Avicennae, quae plana et perfecta cst, adhaerendum est. Et licet translatores librorum Avicennac, ut in illo libro de Anima et in libro de Animalibus et in libris medicinae, aliter transtulerunt et vocabula mutaverunt, ita ut ubique non sit eadem intentio Avicennae translata, quoniam in libro de Animalibus Avicennae reperitur quod aestimatio est loco rationis in brutis, et sic aliquando invenitur alibi contrarietas respectu praedictorum, tamen non est vis de hoc quod diversi interpretes diversificantur in vocabulis, et aliquando a parte rei habent aliquain diversi- Latem; sed tenenda est ejus sententia in libro de Anima, quia ibi ex principali intentione discutit vires animae, alibi autem magis ex incidenti facit mentionem. Item ille liber est melius mode of expressing a difference from Aristotle, who even then was beginning to assert the supremacy which in the two following centuries became so dangerous. In the present instance the difference between Aristotle and the Schoolmen is a real one. Their studies of Arabian thinkers, and especially of Avicenna, had given them far sounder views of animal intelligence than those which Aristotle had held. Such passages as De Anima, iii. το (ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ζώοις οὐ νόησις οὐδὲ λογισμός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ φαντασία), or Polit. vii. το μόνον γὰρ ἔχει λόγον, or Nat. Auscult. ii. 8 (Μάλιστα δὲ φανερὸν ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἐ οὔτε τέχνῃ οὔτε ζητή σαντα είτε βουλευσάμενα παεί) show systematic refusal to admit anything like reasoning power in animals. Memory as (distinct from recollection) he allowed them, sensus communis, and phantasia, but not anything which could be called cogilativa, or the rudimentary syllogizing of which Bacon speaks. Turning to the psychology of Aquinas (S. T. Pars Prima, Quaest. Ixxviii. Art. 4), we find substantial accordance with Bacon's view. For though Aquinas does not specify cogitativa as a distinct faculty of animals as distinct from aestima- tiva, yet he says: 'Quae in aliis animalibus dicitur aestimativa naturalis in homine dicitur cogitativa, quac per collationem quandam hujusmodi inventiones invenit. Unde etiam dicitur ratio particularis cui medici assignant determinatum or- ganum, scilicct mediam partem capitis. Est enim collativa intentionum indivi- dnalium, sicut ratio intellectiva est collativa intentionum universalium.' Cf. the Quaestiones Naturales of Adelard of Bath, cap. xiv, Utrum bruta animas habent. The translation of the De Animalibus (printed 1500) is, as Bacon says, stuffed with Arabic words. The De Anina of Avicenna (ncwly translated) was printed 1546.
