Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

180 Aristotle and his schoolbuilt on observation of ‘the facts surrounding sleep’ (459 a 24), and hisclaims are backed up by a much more considerable amount of empiricalevidence:1. There is no sense-perception in sleep (458 b 7; but see nos. 23 and 24 below).2. During sleep, we often have thoughts accompanying the dream-images (458 b13–15); this appears most clearly when we try to remember our dreams immediatelyafter awakening (458 b 18–23).3. When one moves from a sunny place into the shade, one cannot see anythingfor some time (459 b 10–11).4. When one looks at a particular colour for a long time and then turns one’sglance to another object, this object seems to have the colour one has beenlooking at (459 b 11–13).5. When one has looked into the sun or at a brilliant object and subsequentlycloses one’s eyes, one still sees the light for some time: at first, it still has theoriginal colour, then it becomes crimson, then purple, then black, and then itdisappears (459 b 13–18).6. When one turns one’s gaze from moving objects (e.g. fast flowing rivers),objects that are at rest seem to be moving (459 b 18–20).7. When one has been exposed to strong sounds for a long time, one becomesdeaf, and after smelling very strong odours one’s power of smelling is impaired(459 b 20–2).8. When a menstruating woman looks into a mirror, a red stain occurs on thesurface of the mirror, which is difficult to remove, especially from new mirrors(459 b 23–460 a 23). 249. Wine and unguents quickly acquire the odours of objects near to them (460 a26–32).24 For a full discussion of this extraordinary claim see van der Eijk (1994) 167–93 with more detailedbibliographical references (to which should now be added Woolf (1999), who arrives at a very similarview to mine about the passage being illuminating for Aristotle’s views on material alteration in senseperception).While in earlier scholarship the authenticity of the passage was disputed, the discussionnow focuses on the following issues: (1) the problem of the passage’s obvious counterfactuality; (2)is the theory of menstruation as expounded here in accordance with what Aristotle says elsewhere?(3) is the theory of something emanating from the eye not inconsistent with Aristotle’s views onvisual perception as stated elsewhere? (4) What is the point of the passage for the discussion of theway in which dreams come into existence? Briefly summarised, my view is (1) that what seems tobe underlying the passage is a traditional belief (perhaps derived from magic or midwives’ tales) inthe dangerous and polluting effects of menstrual blood, and that Aristotle must have accepted thisstory without checking it because he felt able to provide an explanation for it; such beliefs were notuncommon regarding menstruation (although most of the evidence dates from the Roman period);(2) there is no inconsistency regarding the cause of menstruation, for in 460 a 6–7 the words must be connected with (paceDean-Jones (1987) 256–7); (3) there is no inconsistency, for Aristotle is not discussing perceptionbut reflection, in which the eye is not the perceiving subject but the object that sets the process inmotion and brings the reflection about; (4) the passage illustrates (a) the swiftness and acutenessof the senses, which allows them to register even the tiniest differences and changes, and (b) thelingering of such tiny perceptions after the impression has been made. It is these lingering, tinymovements that constitute the material for dreams.