/ 



92 ANTIENT METAPHYSICS. Book IL 



commentators, Philoponus and Simplicius, differ from him ; for they 

 both agree, that all annuals, even thofe mentioned by Ariftotle, have 

 it in fome degree ; and the way that Philoponus fiwes his author*s 

 credit is, by faying, that Ariftotle means that the bee, for example, 

 has not a phantafta fuch as the dog or horfe, by which it can learn 

 any thing, or is capable of difcipline ; but one of an inferior kind, by 

 which it has only a confufed and general perception of things, but 

 which, it feems, is fufficient for the purpofes of its oeconomy *. Thefe 

 commentators appear to me to be in the right ; for the perceptions of 

 fenfe, unlefs they were retained in the phantafta.^ would not be fuffi- 

 cient for the purpofes of nature. An animal could not feek the food 

 that nature has deftined for him, without a pidture of it in the 

 imagination ; nor could he find the way back again to the place 

 where he found that food, unlefs the place was likewife paint- 

 ed in his phantafia. And, in many cafes, it appears impoffible, 

 that an animal, without fuch help, could either propagate or 

 rear the offspring. And, as to the bee in particular, it is evi- 

 dent, that, without fome fuch inward directory, fhe could not, at 

 any confiderable diftance, find her way back again to her hive, 

 which, it is certain, fhe does. And, further, though there be a 

 myltilude of hives in the fame place, fo like to one another, that one 

 fliould think it impoffible to diflinguifh the one from the other, yet 

 the bee never miftakes another hive for her own ; and this fhows not 

 only tliat fhe has an impreffion of it on the phantafia^ but a very ac- 

 curate one. And, as to the authority of Ariftotle, on the other fide, 

 he appears to me to have altered his opinion upon maturer confide- 

 ration ; for, in the nth chapter of the 3d book Do Anuria^ he fays 

 exprefsly, that ther€ can be no defire or appetite without a phantafia. 

 Now, without defire or appetite, there can be no animal. And he 



fur- 



* Philoponus accufes Ariflotle of contradi<Sllng himfelf upon this point, faying in 

 one place, That all animals have the phantafia ; in another, That fome have it not. 

 And he oppofes nx^cn A^t<TraTiXYn to I w* AftrTonMi' See hi3 commentary on the 

 4th chap, of the 3d book De ^nima> 



