Patricius: Tome I: Panaugia

Trium genera corporum in universo diximus, Lucida, Diaphana, et Opaca. Lucida ea esse, quae lucem habent ingenitam et perpetuo sibi haerentem. Lucida enim omnia a luce sunt, et nominantur.

We have said that in the universe there are three kinds of bodies, Lucida, Diaphana, and Opaca. Lucida are those which have light ingenerate and perpetually adhering to themselves. For all Lucida are from light, and are named from it.

Sed addidere optici, lucida corpora ea esse, quae sunt sui luminis diffusiva. Quod sicuti optime dixerunt, ita lucem eis esse innatam videntur esse obliti. Integra ergo lucidorum corporum fuerit definitio.

But the opticians added that lucid bodies are those which are diffusive of their own light. And although they said this very well, they nevertheless seem to have forgotten that light is innate to them. Therefore the definition of lucid bodies would be complete.

Lucida corpora esse qua innatam habent lucem, ex qua lumen diffunditur. At quae in loca, et quo versum, lumen hoc diffunditur?

Luminous bodies are those which have light innate, from which light is diffused. But into what places, and in what direction, is this light diffused?

In corpora generis secundi, et generis etiam tertii, diaphana, et opaca, et in lucida quoque generis primi. Sed in omnia proprio quodam modo, et conditione non eadem in omnia. Ad opaca enim et lucida, non pervenit lucidorum lumen, nisi prius transeat per diaphana, et postquam eo pervenit, diversos in utroque edit effectus.

Into bodies of the second genus, and even of the third—diaphanous and opaque—and into luminous ones, too, of the first genus. But into all, in a certain proper way, and not under the same condition in all. For the light of luminous things does not reach opaque and luminous bodies, unless it first passes through the diaphanous; and after it has come there, it produces different effects in each of the two.

De quibus locis suis. Nunc de Diaphanis. Optici iisdem, Corpus diaphanum esse, per quod lumini est transitus.

Of which, in their proper places. Now about Diaphanous things. The Opticians, in the same terms: a Diaphanous Body is that through which there is a transit for light.

Recte quidem haec. Sed nos planius in hunc modum. Lucida et opaca corpora inter se contraia esse asserimus.

These things are indeed correct. But we, more plainly, in this manner: we assert that luminous and opaque bodies are contrary to one another.

Diaphana vero inter haec extrema esse media. Haec diversitas in eo consistit, ut sicuti lucida corpora illa, sol, astra, ignis, lucem sibi inexistentem habent, vel lux ipsa corporea sunt, ita opaca corpora, sui natura sunt tenebricosa. Et sicut lucida a luce sua, lumen diffundunt, ita opaca ab obscuritate innata, tenebras extra se effundunt.

But the diaphanous, however, are the middle between these extremes. This diversity consists in this: that, just as those lucid bodies—the sun, the stars, fire—have light inherent in themselves, or are light itself corporeal, so opaque bodies are, by their own nature, tenebrous. And just as the lucid, from their own light, diffuse lumen, so the opaque, from innate obscurity, pour forth darkness outside themselves.

Diffundunt ergo utraque extra se, veluti germina quaedam sua, et suarum naturarum, quasi testimonia, lucida lumen, opaca tenebras. Diffusio autem utriusque in una sit diaphana. Quae nec lucida sunt, nec opaca.

They both, therefore, diffuse outside themselves, as if certain seeds of their own, and, as testimonies of their natures, the lucid things light, the opaque darkness. But the diffusion of both takes place in one diaphanous medium, which is neither lucid nor opaque.

Inter haec vero extrema veluiti medium posita diaphana, utriusque extremi germina in se recipiunt per vices, aeque tenebras ac lumina. Tria specie fuerunt lucida, sol, stellae, ignis, unum participatione: Ignea. Tria specie sunt, et opaca, luna, nubes, terra, et quartum participatione terrea.

Among these extremes, moreover, the diaphanous, placed as it were in the middle, receive into themselves by turns the offshoots of each extreme, darknesses as well as lights alike. Three in species were the lucid: the sun, the stars, fire; one by participation: Igneous. Three in species also are the opaque: the moon, the clouds, the earth; and a fourth by participation, terrestrial.

Totidem sunt, et diaphana, aether, aer, aqua, et quae hunc participant, aquea. De lucidis, et luce iam est actum. De opacis postea: Nunc de diapanis, brevibus agamus.

There are the same number, too, of diaphanous things: aether, air, water, and those which participate in this, aqueous. Concerning the lucid things and light it has already been treated. Concerning the opaque, afterwards: now let us speak briefly about the diaphanous.

Diaphana Graeco nomine, dicta sunt haec corpora, quoniam diaphanes transparent, ita ut per ea lux cernatur, et lumen, et colores; et visus etiam per ea transeat. Ideoque Latinis, et transparentia, et transpicua, et perspicua, a meliore offico sunt appellata, lucis inquam et luminis vehendi, atque oculis representandi. Nam non minus, quam lucem et lumen, tenebras atque obscuritatem, et vehunt, et representant.

By the Greek name, these bodies are called diaphana, since the diaphanes are transparent, such that through them light is discerned, and lumen, and colors; and sight also passes through them. And therefore by the Latins, both transparentia, and transpicua, and perspicua, from the better office have been named, namely for conveying light and lumen, and for representing to the eyes. For no less than light and lumen, they also carry and represent darkness and obscurity.

Sed de his suo loco. Nunc meliora. Dubia res apud veteres, nec minus posteris seculis, an diaphana corpora per se essent luminosa, vel per se essent obscura.

But about these in their proper place. Now to better things. It was a dubious matter among the ancients, and no less in later ages, whether diaphanous bodies were luminous in themselves, or in themselves were obscure.

Et tertio dubio, an per se sub visum caderent: et per se essent visilia aether, aer, aqua. Quaestiones sane, non faciles solutu. Peripati magister docuit lumen esse energiam, et entelechiam diaphani.

And as a third doubt, whether of themselves they fall under sight: and whether of themselves aether, air, and water are visible. Questions indeed, not easy to resolve. The master of the Peripatetics taught that light is the energy and entelechy of the diaphanous.

Utraequae hae voces, solent illi essentialem formam significare. Si id ita esse, lumen esset diaphani forma essentialis. At singulis diebus, et singulis saepe horis, aer et aqua, umbris, tenebrisque obruuntur, lumenque amittunt prius.

Both these terms are wont to signify the essential form. If that is so, light would be the essential form of the diaphanous. But on each day, and often at each hour, air and water are overwhelmed by shadows and darkness, and they lose the light first.

Quod esse talibus nullis formis accidit, ut et adveniant, et recendnat, et etiam revertantur. Si vero energia haec ad visum referatur, ut sine eo, visilia non cernantur, et cum eo cernantur rursum, verum forte id fuerit, quo ad colores, qui lumine in diaphano existente, conspiciuntur, atque ita per lumen diaphanum, coloribus et visui fieret diaphanum, non autem per se in sui natura consideratum, lumen est diaphani energia vel actus essentialis, Non ergo nos docuit, aut quid lumen esset, aut quid sit diaphanum. Sin vero e contra, daphana per se essent, et essentialiter obscura, lumen recipere nequirent; perpetuo namque tenebris obsiderentur.

That it happens to no such forms to both arrive, and recede, and even return. But if indeed this energy be referred to sight, so that without it the visibles are not discerned, and with it they are discerned again, this perhaps would be true as to the colors, which, light existing in the diaphanous, are perceived; and thus through light the diaphanous would be made diaphanous for colors and for sight, but not, considered per se in its own nature, is light the energy or essential act of the diaphanous. Therefore he did not teach us either what light was, or what the diaphanous is. But if on the contrary the diaphana were per se and essentially obscure, they could not receive light; for they would be besieged by darkness perpetually.

Diaphana ergo, non sunt sui natura [4r]vel luminosa vel tenebricosa. Verum cum et lumen, et tenebras, aeque in se suscipiant, media quadam praedita esse natura est necesse.

Diaphana, therefore, are not by their own nature [4r]either luminous or tenebrous. But since they receive both light and darkness equally into themselves, it is necessary that they be endowed with a certain middle nature.

Utrum autem diaphana sui natura, per se sint visibilia, maior forte fuerit difficultas. Namque si verum sit, quod Peripati pater scripsit, colorem esse primum visile, et color sit diaphani terminus, poterunt diaphana videri, esse visibilia. Sed triplici hac in re, vir a suis tam adoratus, labitur errore.

But whether the diaphanous, by its own nature, is per se visible may perhaps be a greater difficulty. For if what the father of the Peripatetic school wrote is true—that color is the first visible, and that color is the terminus of the diaphanous—then the diaphanous could seem to be, to be visible. But in this matter, in a threefold way, the man so adored by his own slips into error.

Neque enim color est primum visile. Neque color est terminus diaphani. Et praeter colores, lux, et lumen et contrariae tenebrae, et umbrae, sunt visibiles.

For neither is color the first visible. Nor is color the terminus of the diaphanous. And besides colors, light, and lumen, and contrary darknesses, and shadows, are visible.

Umbras enim fere semper cernimus, tenebras saepe. Eas enim cognoscimus, quod nemo negat. Sensu tamen non alio quam vivu, quod omnes fatentur.

For indeed we almost always discern shadows, and darkness often. For we recognize them, which no one denies. Yet by no sense other than vision, as all confess.

Visiles ergo, et tenebrae sunt et umbrae, colores tamen non sunt, neque visuntur per colores. Imo e contra, colores per tenebras non visuntur. Lucem autem esse visilem, quis dubitet?

Therefore, both darkness and shadows are visible, yet they are not colors, nor are they seen through colors. Nay rather, on the contrary, colors are not seen through darkness. But that light is visible, who would doubt?

quando et in lumine, et per tenebras cernitur. Neque color est, diaphani aetheris, vel aeris, vel aquae terminus, quae sui natura quatenus diaphana dicuntur, sunt interminanta. Neque color est primum visile, quia per se non est visilis.

since it is discerned both in the light and through the darkness. Nor is color the boundary of the diaphanous aether, or of air, or of water, which by their own nature, insofar as they are called diaphanous, are without boundary. Nor is color the first visible, because by itself it is not visible.

Per umbras enim densiores, per tenebras etiam cerneretur, sicuti lux. At in tenebris color non videtur. Non est ergo color primum visile.

For through denser shadows, indeed even through darkness, it would be discerned, just like light. But in darkness color is not seen. Therefore color is not the first visible.

Neque est visile per se, quando non nisi per lumen visitur. Et luminis beneficio visilis redditur, sicuti obscruitatis maleficio redditur invisilis. Sed hunc in philosophia errorum omnium patrem, ommittamus.

Nor is it visible per se, since it is seen only by means of light. And by the benefit of light it is rendered visible, just as by the malefice of obscurity it is rendered invisible. But let us omit, in philosophy, this father of all errors.

Primum visile est lux, quando etiam per tenebras, quae alia oculunt, videtur, et stellae, et ignes. Secundum visile, lucis, proles, radii sunt. Tertium, radiorum proles lumen.

The first visible is light, since even through the darkness, which conceals other things, it is seen, and the stars, and fires. The second visible, the progeny of light, are the rays. The third, the progeny of the rays, is the lumen.

Quartum colores luminis progenies. Quintum umbrae. Sextum obscuritas.

The fourth, the colors, progeny of light. The fifth, shadows. The sixth, obscurity.

Septimum tenebrae. Haec postrema tria, per se visuntur, longe prius, quam colores, qui non nisi in lumine visuntur, et per lumen. Non sunt ergo per se visiles, colores, nec primo, sed per aliud, ut qui in umbra etiam visuntur, non tamen in tenebris visuntur.

Seventh, darkness. These last three are seen in themselves, long before colors, which are seen only in light and through light. Therefore colors are not visible in themselves, nor first, but through another; inasmuch as they are seen even in shadow, yet are not seen in darkness.

Alia illa quaestio. Suntne diaphana sui natura visibilia? Si sui natura viderentur, vel luces essent, vel radii, vel lumen, vel umbrae, vel obscuritates, vel tenebrae, vel horum aliquid haberent innaturm.

That is another question. Are diaphanous things visible by their own nature? If they were seen by their own nature, either they would be lights, or rays, or light, or shadows, or obscurities, or darknesses, or they would have something of these in their nature.

At horum nihil sunt. Neque horum quicquam innatur habent. Visilia ergo per se non sunt.

But they are none of these. Nor do they have anything of these in their nature. Therefore they are not visible of themselves.

At utrum per horum aliquod sunt visilia? Visitur ne aether? Cernitur ne aer, vel aqua?

But are the visibles through any of these? Is the aether seen? Is the air, or water, discerned?

Si lumine videntur, non per se videntur. Si in lumine cernuntur, sui natura non cernuntur. At si lumen per se non videtur, neque diaphana per se visentur.

If they are seen by light, they are not seen per se. If they are discerned in the light, their own nature is not discerned. But if light is not seen per se, neither will diaphanous things be seen per se.

Lumen autem per se non cerni, indicio adducunt, quod in aere non discernatur. In terra, in pariete, opacis omnibus cernatur. Si hoc ita sit, lumen per se non videbitur.

Moreover, they adduce as evidence that light is not perceived in itself, namely that in air it is not discerned. On the ground, on a wall, in all opaque things it is perceived. If this is so, light will not be seen in itself.

At in aethere, visitur, quia semer apparet luminosus. In aqua quoque visitur, in crystallis, vitrisque visityr. Cur ergo et in aere non visatur, quando et earem, sicuti aeterha et aquam, et aquea reddat illuminata, et opaca illustret?

But in the aether it is seen, because it always appears luminous. In water too it is seen; in crystals and in glasses it is seen. Why therefore is it not seen also in air, since air too, just as it does with aether and with water, renders aqueous things illuminated and illuminates the opaque?

Visitur quidem in his omnibus lumen. Verum in opacis discernitur magis, quia in eo multiplicatur repercussu. An vero aer, quando est lumine plenus, per lumen visitur, non visitur per tenebras?

Light indeed is seen in all these things. But in opaques it is more distinctly discerned, because in them it is multiplied by repercussion. Or truly, is air, when it is full of light, seen by means of the light—not seen by means of the darkness?

Sive potius aer, neque illuminatus cernitur; sed lumen in aere visitur, sive aer in lumine? Potius enim videri possit, aer esse in lumine, quam lumen in aere, quando quod maius atque amplius est, loci ratione obtinet: minus vero et angustius, qualis aer est, locati vices tenet. At longe quam aer, lumen amplius est, aethera enim implet, et aquam, quae aeres non sunt, et aerem continent.

Or rather is the air, even when illuminated, not discerned; but is the light seen in the air, or the air in the light? For it might more properly seem that the air is in the light than that the light is in the air, since what is greater and more ample, by reason of place obtains occupancy: but the lesser and narrower, such as the air is, holds the role of the thing located. But far more than the air, light is more ample, for it fills the aether and the water, which are not air, and contain the air.

Opacam etiam lumen ambit Lunam, terramque, et nubes operit, et intra eas non raro penetrat. Quid ergo, sive sit in aere lumen, sive sit in lumine aer, dicendum ne erit, aerem videri? Per se quidem cerni non videtur, quoniam dum sine lumine est, non videtur.

Light also encircles the dusky Moon, and covers the earth and the clouds, and not seldom penetrates within them. What then? Whether light is in the air, or the air is in the light, must it be said that the air is seen? By itself indeed it does not seem to be discerned, since, while it is without light, it is not seen.

Si videtur illuminatus, non per se, sed videbitur per lumen. Si visilis per se esset, cerneretur, sicuti lux, etiam in obscuro. An vero aer, sicuti color est qui in tenebris non cernitur, cernitur in lumine?

If it appears illuminated, it is not by itself, but it will be seen through the light. If it were visible per se, it would be discerned, like light, even in the dark. Or rather, is air, just as color is—which is not discerned in darkness—discerned in the light?

Et eo devolvetur questio haec, ut iuxta Stratonis physici sententiam dicatur, aerem, et aquam, et terram natura esse alba, quia simplicia sint corpora? et ut colorata sunt cernantur, quanvis non nisi illuminata? At alba quae revera sunt, quamvis non in tenebris, in obscuro tamen visuntur, colores alii non visuntur.

And will this question be devolved to this: that, according to the opinion of Strato the physicist, air, water, and earth are by nature white, because they are simple bodies? and that they are perceived as colored, albeit only when illuminated? But things that are truly white, although not in utter darkness, yet in the dim are seen, while other colors are not seen.

Aer et aqua, si alba essent, in obscuro cernerentur. At non cernuntur. Non sunt ergo alba.

Air and water, if they were white, would be seen in the dark. But they are not seen. Therefore they are not white.

Si non alba sunt revera, num saltem albus sit eorum hoion chroma veluti color? Si ita esset in eis albedo, veluti color, eandem cum lumine haberent proportionem. At lumen, et conspici videtur, et in causa esse, ut alia conspicantur.

If they are not really white, is at least their as-it-were chroma, as a color white? If whiteness were thus in them, as a color, they would have the same proportion with light. But light both seems itself to be seen, and to be the cause that other things are seen.

Albedo haec, neque conspicitur in diaphanis, neque in causa est, cur vel ipsa diaphana, vel alia per ipsa conspiciantur. Non ergo albedi, in diaphanis, vel color est, vel tamquam color. Cum ergo aer colorem non habeat, neque lucidum corpus sit, nec tenebrosum, non videtr posse per se videri, neque esse visilis.

This whiteness is neither perceived in diaphanous things, nor is it the cause why either the diaphanous things themselves, or other things through them, are perceived. Therefore whiteness in diaphanous things is neither a color nor as if a color. Since therefore air does not have color, and is neither a luminous body nor a tenebrous one, it does not seem able to be seen by itself, nor to be visible.

An vero, eodem modo alia diaphana non sunt per se visilia? Sane aether, nequaquam est conspicuus. Sed huius rei, duplex potest esse ratio, quia scilicet, et procul est a nobis; et quia ab aere occulitur.

But indeed, are other diaphanous things in the same way not visible of themselves? Surely the aether is by no means conspicuous. But of this matter a twofold reason can be given, namely that both it is far from us; and that it is hidden by the air.

His addatur, ratio tertia quia sit manime, et raritatis, et tenuitatis. Quibus, cum minus crredatur praeditus [4v] esse aer, et aer non cernitur, multo minus cernetur aether. Quid ergo illud est, quod oculis clara die in coelum sublatis, fornicis instar conspici videtur, coerulei coloris, aer ne ille est, an aether?

To these let a third reason be added, namely that it is especially of rarity and tenuity. With which qualities, since air is believed to be less endowed [4v] with them, and air is not discerned, much less will aether be discerned. What then is that which, when the eyes are lifted to heaven on a bright day, seems to be seen in the likeness of a vault, of cerulean color— is that air, or aether?

Coeruleus quidem color, inter nigricantes uti postea apparebit est numerandus. At nigror revera omnia est ab opaco: in aethere vero nulla est opacitas, ut ab ea evaneus ille color esse, possit dici. Qui ergo ibi apparet?

Cerulean color indeed, among the nigrescent, as will appear afterwards, is to be numbered. But blackness, in truth, is wholly from the opaque: in the ether, however, there is no opacity, so that that evanescent color can be said to be from it. What, then, appears there?

An aeris profunditas, eam reddit apparentiam? Ita videtur, ut scilicet in magna distantia, ob multarum sui partium interiectionem, ac mutuam subitionem, opacitatis aliquas sumat vices. Hoc enim proprii muneris habet aer, ut longo sui intervallo res etiam coloratas, et bene visiles, et in claro lumine obtegat, sano etiam atque acuto visui, ut ille nempe minime cernantur, et ipse appareat umbrosior.

Does the profundity of the air render that appearance? So it seems, namely that at a great distance, by reason of the interposition of many of its own parts and their mutual superposition, it takes on certain vicissitudes of opacity. For this the air has as a proper office: that, over a long interval of itself, it veils even colored things, well-visible and in clear light, even to a sound and acute sight, so that they are scarcely discerned, and it itself appears shadowier.

Haec utraque opaci corporis sunt propria, non autem diaphani. Partes ergo aeris multae, quamvis omnes, lumine aeque collustrentur, inter obiectum, et visum interpositae, veluti densitatem quandam induunt. Atque ideo in perspicuo corproe contra sui naturam, opacitatem aliquam efficientes coeruleum illum, vel cyaneum colorem representant.

These both are proper to an opaque body, not, however, to a diaphanous one. Therefore many parts of the air, although all are equally illuminated by the light, when interposed between the object and the sight, as it were assume a certain density. And thus, in a transparent body, contrary to its nature, by producing some opacity they represent that cerulean, or cyan color.

Cur autem in fornicis modum visitur? Quia circumquaque ab aequali invervallo,oculos nostros incurrunt quasi in centrum, partes illae aeris omnes, opacitatem eam referentes. Hanc ob causam opacitatem in aere efformari, ob artium videlicit multiplicationem et subitionem testimnio sunt diaphana omnia, quae nobis sunt prae manibus.

But why is it seen in the manner of a vault? Because on every side, from an equal interval, all those parts of the air, reproducing that opacity, run upon our eyes as into a center. For this reason, that opacity is formed in the air—owing, namely, to the multiplication and mutual superposition of parts—has as its testimony all the diaphanous things that are at hand.

Nam si quis duo, vel vitra, vel crystalla, unum alteri superponat, opaciora efficientur ambo. Luminis enim penetrationis, ac pertransitioni praecludunt viam, magis quam prius, quando una tantum erant. Si tertia vel quarta adiunges, opacantur etiam magis.

For if someone were to place two, either panes of glass or crystals, one upon the other, both will become more opaque. For they preclude the way to the penetration and passage of light more than before, when there was only one. If you add a third or a fourth, they are darkened even more.

Et quando plura super posueris, tanto effeceris opaciora, ita ut tandem, et lumini negent transitum, et visui, et colori. Omnium ergo diaphanorum, eadem hae in re est natura, ut partium multiplicatione ac subitione, opacitatem vel sentiant, vel efficiant. Nam maria quoque idem patiuntur, si vera, urinatores unionum, in orbe novo referunt: Solis radios, non nisi, ad certam profunditatemm, fundum illustrare.

And when you have placed more on top, by so much you will have made them more opaque, so that at length they deny passage to light, and to sight, and to color. Therefore, of all diaphanous things, their nature in this matter is the same: that by the multiplication and superposition of parts, they either undergo opacity or effect it. For the seas also suffer the same, if it is true, as the divers for pearls in the New World report: that the Sun’s rays, only to a certain depth, illuminate the bottom.

Ubi altius sit mare, non illuminari. Quin statim aqua, in vitreo vase parvo, lumini ac visui dat transitum liberiorem, quam si maius vas fuerit. In lacubus quoque ac fluminibus, etiamsi limpidissima sit aqua, minus, quae sunt in fundo visu percipimus, si alta; quam si brevior alicubi fuerit aqua eadem.

Where the sea is deeper, it is not illuminated. Indeed, straightway water, in a vitreous vessel small, to light and to sight gives a freer passage, than if the vessel were larger. In lakes also and rivers, even if the water be most limpid, we perceive less by sight the things which are on the bottom, if it be deep; than if the same water were somewhere shallower.

Magno ergo intervallo, limpidissima diaphana vel opacitatis rationem subeunt, vel reaspe redduntur opaca. Ita ut et visum rerum adimant, et lumini transitum praecludant. An vero aether, et ipse sit huius modi, nec negaverim, nec affirmaverim.

Therefore, after a great interval, even the most limpid diaphanous things either undergo the condition of opacity, or in very truth are rendered opaque; so that they both deprive one of the sight of things and preclude transit to light. Whether indeed the ether itself is of this kind, I would neither deny nor affirm.

Tam enim a nobis procul positus est, ut visus noster, eo non pertingat. Satis illud constat, stellarum luces, a nobis per tenebras etiam cerni, et lumina Veneris et Lunae, usque ad terram pervenire; aere lumine solis apud nos vacuo. An vero, eadem aetheris, vel profunditas, vel opacatio luces stellarum infra sextam magnitidunem, nobis occultet, in incerto est.

For it is placed so far from us that our vision does not reach to it. It is sufficiently established that the lights of the stars are seen by us even through darkness, and that the lights of Venus and the Moon reach all the way to the earth; the air among us being void of the sun’s light. Whether indeed that same aether’s profundity or opacity hides from us the lights of the stars below the sixth magnitude is uncertain.

Nulla enim orbium, (si orbes sunt) opacitas sui dat sensum. Vel etiam potius aeris est ea opacitas, quae nobis visum stellarum aestate adimit, quae hyeme, noctibus serenis, infinitae fere numero visuntur? Vel vaporum id vitium est, qui aerem implnet, et visui nostro se se opponunt, hieme vero liberum aerem relinquunt, cut nulli ob pororum.

For no opacity of the orbs (if they are orbs) gives a perception of itself. Or rather, is that opacity of the air which deprives us of the sight of the stars in summer—stars which in winter, on clear nights, are seen almost infinite in number? Or is it the fault of vapors, which fill the air and set themselves against our sight, but in winter leave the air free, to which no pores are opposed.

terrae frigore constipationem, attoluntur.
Quid ergo concludendum? Omnia ne diaphana sunt invisilia?

by the earth’s cold constriction, they are lifted.
What, therefore, is to be concluded? Are all diaphanous things invisible?

an vero visilia? Et si visilia sunt, per se ne, an per accidens sunt visilia? An vero pars eorum visibilis est?

or rather are they visible? And if they are visible, are they visible per se, or per accidens? Or rather is a part of them visible?

pars alia invisibilis? Omnia quidem in tenebris, in obscuro, in umbra densiore, invisilia sunt, in umbra vero clariore ac lumnie, visilis est eorum pars, vitra atque crystalla. Idque quia solida sunt, solditas autem omnis est a terra.

is another part invisible? All things indeed in darkness, in obscurity, in a denser shadow, are invisible; but in a clearer shadow and in light, a part of them is visible, glass and crystals. And this because they are solid, and every solidity is from earth.

Terra autem omnis colorata? Pars vero alia invisilis aether, et aer, luce carentes. Aqua vero, inter duo illa et duo haec, medium quodam videtur esse.

Is all earth, however, colored? But another part is invisible—the aether and the air—lacking light. Water, indeed, between those two and these two, seems to be a kind of middle.

Invisilis videretur esse, nisi fundum cui supernatant mare, lacus, flumina, subesset. Ex cuius repercussu, indicaret, ibi aquam esse. Visilis vero etiam videtur aqua esse, quoniam urinantes, et infra se fundum versus: et supra se versus aerem, vident aquam.

It would seem to be invisible, unless a bottom lay beneath, upon which the sea, lakes, and rivers float. From whose reflection it would indicate that there is water there. Yet water too seems to be visible, since divers, both turned below themselves toward the bottom: and above themselves toward the air, see the water.

Quod et nos pueri, sumus experti saepe.

Which even we boys have often experienced.

Sed et nocte obscura, aqua videtur conspici, ubi remi, et temo navis eam secant. Innmeras enim veluti stellulas lucentes excitant per aquam, et in superficie, et sub ea cursitantes, et slientes, perque eas, et circa eas aqua cospicitur, commota. At hae non indicant aquam per se visilem esse.

But even in dark night, water seems to be seen where the oars and the pole of the ship cut it. For they excite, as it were, countless little shining stars through the water, both on the surface and beneath it, running to and fro and silent; and through them, and around them, the water is seen, set in motion. Yet these do not indicate that water is visible by itself.

Non enim nisi luciditatis illius appositu, ac comparatione videtur cerni. Per accidens ergo cernitur. Per se etiam cerni videtur, ea qua urinantibus superstat.

For it is not seen to be discerned except by the apposition and comparison of that brightness. Therefore it is discerned per accidens. It also seems to be discerned per se, by that whereby it stands above those who are diving.

Cernitur enim, non contra opacum, ut inferior contra fundum, vel contra diaphanum aera, eumque illuminatum. Et guttae imbrium, contra partem aeris ferenam per se visuntur. Est ergo aqua, et per se visilis, et per accidens.

For it is discerned, not against the opaque, as the lower [water] against the bottom, but against the diaphanous air, and that illuminated. And raindrops, against the serene part of the air, are seen per se. Therefore water is both per se visible and visible per accidens.

Vitra, et crystalla, quia cum duritie ac densitate, opacitate quadam sint induta, per se visilia sunt. Aer autem et aether, in dubio adhuc sunt, an omnino visilia sunt. De aere quidem ita videtur statuendum.

Glass and crystals, because, being endowed with hardness and density and clothed with a certain opacity, are visible in themselves. Air, however, and aether are still in doubt, whether they are at all visible. Concerning air, indeed, thus it seems to be determined.

Quia prope non positus cerni ac discerni non [5r] videtur,eum per se esse invisibilem. Et si in fornice illa coerulea cerni, dicatur procul posita, non nisi procul cerni dicetur. Idque per accidens, quando non locis omnibus conspicitur.

Because, when it is not situated near, it does not seem to be seen and discerned [5r], it is taken to be invisible in itself. And if it is seen in that cerulean vault, let it be said to be placed far off; it will be said to be seen only at a distance. And this is per accidens, since it is not beheld in all places.

Non est autem mirum, aerem atque alia diaphana, ab opacitate libera, non cerni. Sensio enim nisi returm a sentiente diversarum est. Aer vero diaphanus est, et cornea oculi diaphana.

Nor, however, is it surprising that air and other diaphanous things, free from opacity, are not seen. For perception is only of things different from the perceiver. But air is diaphanous, and the cornea of the eye is diaphanous.

Humores eius tres, aqueus, crystallinus. et vitreus diaphani omnes sunt: eiusdemque cum aqua, crystallo, vitro, et naturae et diaphanitatis. Non ergo, quae intra sunt, ea quae extra sunt, sibi similia, sentient, nisi haec diversitatem aliquam aquirant.

Its three humors, aqueous, crystalline. and vitreous, are all diaphanous: and of the same both in nature and in diaphaneity with water, crystal, and glass. Therefore, those things which are inside, those which are outside, similar to themselves, will not sense them, unless these acquire some diversity.

De aethere vero nihil dixerimus. Altitudine enim sua, et sensum fugit, et iudicium. Spiritus enim, per quem anima videt, aethereus et ipse est, et ideo diaphanus.

But of the aether let us say nothing. For by its own altitude it escapes both sense and judgment. For the spirit, through which the soul sees, is itself aethereal, and therefore diaphanous.

Simile ergo sibi non sentiet, et nisi astra luce sua se proderent, sensus, nihil ibi esse, cognoscret. Diaphana ergo sui natura, invisilia sunt, ea nimirum quae sunt rariora. Quae vero densiora sunt, ut aqua et aquea, sunt quidem visilia, quia visus et ea densitate refrangitur, et opacitatis aliquid in se habent.

Therefore it will not perceive what is similar to itself; and unless the stars revealed themselves by their own light, the sense would recognize that there is nothing there. Things diaphanous, therefore, by their own nature are invisible—namely, those which are rarer. But those which are denser, like water and watery things, are indeed visible, because sight too is refracted by that density, and they have something of opacity in themselves.

Illud quaestioni aeris addamus. Quando in lumnine tingitur coloribus, viridi, rugeo, croceo, aliis, visilis ne tunc ipse fit? an colores tantum in eo visuntur?

Let us add this to the question of air. When in light it is tinged with colors—green, red, saffron, others—does it then itself become visible? or are the colors only seen in it?

Si colores tantum, ipse sicuti erat sui natura, invisilis remanet. Si per colores ipse quoque visitur, non per se, sed per eos videbitur, atque ideo per accidens cernetur. Species autem, rerum objectarum quas visiles quidem, sed intentionales vocant, si in aere sunt, et non forte in lumine, visiles illae quidem, sed per eas aer, nequaquam cernitur.

If only the colors (are seen), it itself remains, just as it was by its nature, invisible. If through the colors it too is seen, it will be seen not through itself but through them, and therefore will be perceived per accidens. But the species of the objects presented, which indeed they call visile but intentional: if they are in the air, and not perhaps in the light, those species are indeed visile, but through them the air is by no means discerned.

Et si cerneretur, per accidens cerneretur, quando non suis sed illarum viribus conspiceretur. At vero, non in aere illae sunt, sed in lumine, in cognata, scilicet re potius, quam in aliena. Colores enim omnes lucis sunt progenies, sicuti et lumen.

And even if it were perceived, it would be perceived per accidens, since it would be beheld not by its own powers but by theirs. But in truth, those are not in the air, but in the light—in a cognate thing, namely, rather than in an alien one. For all colors are the progeny of light, just as is the light itself.

A cognata ergo re, facillime excitantur. In eamque insiliunt laetae, uti per eam visantur. Ab eaque laetanter recipiuntur, ut non torpeant, sed suum munus obeant, visionisque se se exponant.

From a kindred thing, therefore, they are most easily excited. And into it they leap gladly, so that through it they may be viewed. And by it they are gladly received, so that they do not grow torpid, but discharge their proper office, and expose themselves to vision.

Et si quis eas in aere esse dicat, non quidem id negabimus nos, sed aiemus per accident eas ibi esse: quia in aere lumen fit, vel aer in lumine. In quo lumine ipsa sunt primo. Idque indicio patefieri, quia in aere si lumen absit, non vidantur.

And if anyone should say that they are in the air, we will not indeed deny that, but we will say that they are there per accidens: because in the air light comes to be, or the air is in the light. In which light they themselves are primarily. And this is made plain by the indication that in the air, if light is absent, they are not seen.

Si adsit illico, adsunt et ille, ipsique miscentur, ut et prope, et quadam tenus procul conspiciantur. Quid vero in causa est, ut et vitra, et crystalla, et aqua, quasi specula quaedam essent, speciem visilem referant ac reflectatun. Corydon enim ille, Nuper se in litore viderat, dum placitum ventis staret mare.

If it be present straightway, they too are present, and they themselves are mingled, so that both near at hand, and to a certain extent from afar, they are beheld. What indeed is the cause, that both glass, and crystals, and water, as though they were certain mirrors, should carry back and reflect the visible species. For that Corydon, Recently saw himself on the shore, while the sea, pleasing to the winds, stood still.

Neque id solum, sed eas species reddunt viciniores; quamvis de longe veniant. Quales etiam, stellarum species faciunt, dum eas nobis prope positas ostentent. Id quidem inde fieri credam, quod reflexio ea, non ab ipso diaphano per se fiat, quamvis illuminato.

Nor that alone, but they render those appearances nearer; although they come from far away. Such also, the appearances of the stars produce, while they display them to us as placed close. I would indeed believe this to happen on that account, that that reflection is not made by the diaphanous itself per se, although illuminated.

Sed quoniam ab opaco, quod reflexio ea, non ab ipso diaphano per se fiat, quamvis illuminato. Sed quoniam ab opaco, quod aquae subest, quodque speciei illi, sicuti et lumini, non dat in se transitum, speciem, sicuti et lumen a se reiiciat. Illa reiecta, a reiiciente refugit, ex eo tamen non exit.

But since it is from the opaque that such reflection takes place, not from the diaphanous itself, though illuminated. Rather, since it is from the opaque that underlies the water, which does not grant passage into itself to that appearance (just as neither to the light), it casts back the appearance, as it does the light, from itself. That which has been cast back recoils from the rejector, yet does not go out from it.

Atque ita in sublimi suspensam se se ostentat. Idque clarissime apparet in pelui aqua pleno. Nam species quae in fundo ab opaci redditur, sublimior visitur, et fere in superficie.

And thus it displays itself as suspended on high. And this most clearly appears in a basin full of water. For the image which on the bottom is rendered by the opaque is seen higher, and almost at the surface.

Stellarum autem species vicina eadem ratione apparet, quia in tenebris, quae opacitatis terraeae sunt proles a terra reflexa sistitur, ac vicina visitur. Idem, eadem ratione sit in vitris, atque crystallis, quae quamquam diaphana sui natura sint, opacitate tamen uti ostendimus non carent. A qua species relata ad superficiem diaphani, quod in eis est advolat, ibique se se ostentat.

Moreover, the near appearance of the stars shows itself by the same reasoning, because in the darknesses—which are the offspring of earthy opacity—reflected back from the earth, it is set in place and is seen as near. The same, by the same reasoning, holds in glasses and crystals, which, although by their own nature they are diaphanous, nevertheless, as we have shown, are not devoid of opacity. From this, the appearance, borne back to the surface of the diaphanous medium that is in them, flies to it, and there displays itself.

Quae res et in speculis, ea ipsa ratione evenit. Composita enim sunt, ex diaphano atque opaci. Ab hoc species resilit, in illo apparet.

This same thing also happens in mirrors, by that very rationale. For they are composed of the diaphanous and the opaque. From the opaque the image rebounds; in the diaphanous it appears.

Quae si in aere, eodem pacto dum est in lumine, oculis occurrit, a partium multiplicatione, quae densitatem et opacitatem inducunt reiecta, in lumine quod in aere est, se se ostendit. In quo lumine et in speculis, et in vitris, et in crystallis, et in aqua, quasi in suo solio laeta sedet, eo abeunte, tristis emoritur. Concludamus, diaphana corpora, aetherea, aerem, aquam, aquea sui natura esse media, inter lucida et opaca.

Which, if in the air, in the same manner while it is in the light, meets the eyes, the multiplication of parts—which induce density and opacity—being cast off, shows itself in the light that is in the air. In which light both in mirrors, and in glasses, and in crystals, and in water, as if on its own throne it sits glad; that departing, it dies sad. Let us conclude that diaphanous bodies—the ethereal, the air, the water—aqueous in their own nature, are media between the lucid and the opaque.

Utrorumque horum proles, lumen et tenebras, aeque recipere. Et quae ab his, vel proveniunt, vel pendent omnia. Aethera et aerem non esse per se visilia.

The progeny of both of these receive light and darkness equally. And all things which either proceed from these or depend upon them. That aether and air are not per se visible.

Aquea crystalla et vitra per se esse visilia, non quatenus diaphana, sed quatenus opacitatis cuiusdam sunt participia. A quam vero et per se invisilem, qua est diaphana, et per visilem qua opacitatem includit. Quatuor haec, aerem minus, aquam magis, crystalla etiam magis, vitra quoque magis, multitudine partium atque earundem subitione opacescere.

Aqueous crystals and glasses are visible in themselves, not insofar as they are diaphanous, but insofar as they are participants in a certain opacity. But water, indeed, is both invisible in itself insofar as it is diaphanous, and visible insofar as it encloses opacity. These four—air less, water more, crystals even more, and glass more too—become opaque by the multitude of parts and by the superposition of the same.

Eaque opacitate, et colores, et species in lumine edere, atque ostentare.

And by that opacity, to bring forth and to display both colors and appearances in the light.

FINIS SECUNDI LIBRI.

END OF THE SECOND BOOK.