Capitulum 12 Chapter 12 The species of odors Species autem odorabilis duae sunt: non enim, sicut quidam dicunt, non est species odorabilis, sed sunt. Determinandum autem quomodo sunt et quomodo non sunt. There are two species of the odorous. For it is not the case that, as some say, there are no species of the odorous; there are. But the ways in which there are and are not must be determined. Hoc quidem enim est secundum sapores ordinatum ipsorum, sicut dictum est, et delectabile et triste habent secundum accidens (quoniam enim nutrimenti passio est, appetentibus quidem delectabiles odores eorum sunt, plenis autem et nichil egentibus non delectabiles neque odores et esca habens odores delectabilis neque hiis). Quare iste quidem, velut diximus, secundum accidens habent delectabile et triste, propter quod omnibus sunt communes animalibus. One kind of odor is ordered according to flavors, as was said. These contain the pleasant and unpleasant accidentally. For because odor is an affection of nourishment, these odors are pleasant to those that have an appetite. But to those that are full and not in need, neither the odors nor the food that has the odors is pleasant. Therefore, as we said, these contain the pleasant and unpleasant accidentally, and for this reason they are common objects for all animals. Quidam autem secundum ipsos delectabiles odorum sunt, quemadmodum illi qui florum. But some odors, such as those of flowers, are pleasant of themselves. Nihil enim magis vel minus ad escam assecuntur, neque conferunt ad desiderium quicquam, sed contrarium magis. Verum enim est quod Euripedem vituperans Tracius dixit: quando lentem decoquis, non infundas myron. For they do not follow from food with respect to more and less. And they do not contribute anything to desire, but rather the contrary. For what Thracius said in criticism of Euripides is true: when you cook lentils, you don’t pour on ointment. Qui autem nunc commiscent ad potationes tales virtutes vim faciunt per usum delectationi, donec utique a duobus sensibus fiat delectabile, quemadmodum unum et ab uno. And those who do mix such virtues into drinks do violence to pleasure by the practice until it becomes pleasant to two senses, in the way that one thing is pleasant to one. Hoc quidem igitur odorabile proprium hominis est, qui autem secundum sapores ordinatus et aliorum animalium, sicut dictum est prius. Et illorum quidem, quia secundum accidens habent delectabile, dividuntur species secundum sapores, istius autem non iam, propter naturam ipsius esse secundum ipsam delectabilem aut tristem. This species of the odorous, then, is proper to the human being. But the kind that is ordered according to flavors is also an object for other animals, as was said above. And because the latter contains the pleasant accidentally, its species are divided according to flavors. But the former is not, because its very nature is, of itself, pleasant or unpleasant. Causa autem est proprium esse hominis talem odorem propter frigus quod circa cerebrum. Frigido enim natura existente cerebro, et sanguine qui circa illud in angustis venis existente subtili et puro, de facili autem infrigidabili (propter quod et cibi fumositas infrigidata propter locum infirmantia reumata facit hominibus), ad adiutorium sanitatis facta est ista species odoris; nihil enim aliud est opus ipsius quam hoc, hoc autem facit manifeste. Now the cause of this kind of odor being proper to the human being is the coolness around his brain. For the brain is cool by nature. And the blood around it in narrow veins is fine and pure, but easily cooled. For this reason, fumes from food, when cooled because of the coolness of this region, cause rheumatic illnesses in human beings. This kind of odor is produced as an aid to health, for it has no other function than this, and this it clearly has. Quae enim a cibo delectabilis existens, et sicca et humida, multociens infirmans est, quae autem ab odore secundum se ipsum odorifero, quomodocumque se habeat, utilis, ut est dicere, semper. The odor that is pleasant because of food, dry or moist, is often unhealthy. But that which is pleasant because of odor that is of itself odorous, whatever it may be, is always useful, so to speak. Et propter hoc fit per respirationem, non omnibus sed hominibus et sanguinem habentibus, velut quadrupedibus et magis participantibus naturae aeris. For this reason it is done by breathing—not in all animals, but in human beings and those that have blood, such as quadrupeds and those participate more in the nature of air. Ascendentibus namque odoribus ad cerebrum propter levitatem caloris quae in ipsis, sanius habent quae circa locum hunc; odoris namque virtus natura calida est. Utitur autem natura respiratione ad duo, ut operose quidem ad toracis adiutorium, ut adventiciae ad odorem: respirante enim sicut ex transitu facit per nares motum. Proprium autem hominis naturae tale genus odoris, quia plus cerebrum et humidius habet aliis animalibus ut secundum magnitudinem; propter hoc enim et solum, ut est dicere, sentit aliorum animalium homo et gaudet florum et talium odoribus: commensuratus enim eorum calor et motus ad hyperbolem eius quae in loco frigiditatis et humiditatis est. When odors rise to the brain because of the lightness of the heat in them, this area is healthier. For odor by nature has the power of heat. Nature uses breathing for two things: actively as an aid to the chest, and adventitiously for odor. For in breathing one causes movement through the nostrils as through a passageway. This genus of odor is proper to the nature of the human being because he has a bigger and moister brain in proportion to his size than do the other animals. And for this reason the human being, alone among the animals so to speak, senses and enjoys the odors of flowers and such things: for their heat and movement are commensurate with the hyperbole in this area of coolness and moistness. Aliis vero quaecunque pulmonem habent per respirare alterius generis odoris sensum dedit natura, ut non duo sensitiva faciat; sufficit enim, quoniam quidem et ut respirantibus, quaemadmodum hominibus utrorumque odorabilium, hiis alterorum solum existens sensus. To the other animals that have lungs nature gave sensation of the other kind of odor by means of breathing, so as not to make two sensitive parts. For this is sufficient. Just as it is by breathing that human beings have sensation of both kinds of the odorous, in the same way these animals have sensation of just one kind. Species autem odorabilis etc. Postquam Philosophus determinavit generationem et naturam odoris, hic determinat de speciebus odorum. Et circa hoc duo facit: There are two species of the odorous (443b17) etc. After the Philosopher has determined the generation and nature of odor, here he determines the species of odors. On this point he does two things. primo determinat diversas species odoris; First he determines the various species of odor. secundo determinat modum odorandi, ibi: et propter hoc fit per respirationem etc. Second he determines the modes of smelling, where he says for this reason (444a19). Circa primum tria facit: On the first point he does three things. primo proponit esse aliquas species odoris; First he proposes that there are species of odor. secundo determinat de speciebus odoris per convenientiam ad species saporum, ibi: hoc quidem enim est secundum sapores etc.; Second he determines the species of odor by correspondence with species of flavor, where he says one kind of odor (443b19). tertio determinat species quae sunt odoris secundum se, ibi: quidam autem secundum ipsos etc. Third he determines the species belonging to odor of itself, where he says but some odors (443b26). Dicit ergo primo quod duae sunt species odorabilis, una quidem per convenientiam ad sapores, alia secundum se; falsum est enim quod quidam dicunt odorabile species non habere, habet enim species. Sed oportet determinare quomodo habeat et quomodo non habet. Accordingly he first says that there are two species of the odorous, one by correspondence with flavors, the other pertaining to odor in itself. For what some say, that the odorous does not have species, is false, for it does. But we have to determine the ways in which it does and does not have species. Est enim determinare species odorum secundum convenientiam ad species saporum, ut supra dictum est, non autem sunt determinatae odoris species secundum se, nisi solum secundum diversa odorabilia, sicut si dicamus alium esse odorem rosarum et violarum et aliorum huiusmodi; discernitur tamen in his odoribus delectabile et abominabile. It is possible to determine species of odors by agreement with species of flavors, as was said above (ch. 11, 443bb–16). But the species of odor in itself are determined only by reference to the different kinds of odorous things, as when we say that the odors of roses, violets, and other such things are different. It is in these odors that the pleasant and the unpleasant are discerned. Deinde cum dicit: hoc quidem enim etc., determinat de speciebus odorum quae consequuntur species saporum. Then, when he says one kind of odor (443b19), he determines about the species of odors that follow from the species of flavors. Et dicit quod inter odorabilia aliquid est ordinatum secundum saporis species, ut supra dictum est, et ideo delectabile et contristans est in eis secundum accidens, id est non in quantum habent odorem, sed in quantum eorum odor significat nutrimentum (odor enim est quaedam passio nutrimenti sicut et sapor: animal enim discernit conveniens nutrimentum a remotis per odorem, sicut coniunctum per saporem; et ideo huiusmodi odores non sunt delectabiles animalibus repletis et quae cibo non indigent, sicut nec esca habens hos odores est his delectabilis, sed animalibus appetentibus cibum, id est esurientibus vel sitientibus, sunt huiusmodi odores appetibiles, sicut et cibus vel potus est eis appetibilis). Unde manifestum est quod huiusmodi odorabile habet delectationem et tristitiam secundum accidens, sicut dictum est, scilicet ratione nutrimenti, et quia nutrimentum est commune omnibus animalibus, idcirco omnia animalia percipiunt hos odores. Quod tamen intelligendum est de animalibus habentibus motum progressivum, quae necesse habent quaerere alimentum ex longinquo per odorem; animalibus autem immobilibus sufficit gustus et tactus ad discernendum convenientiam alimenti. He says that among odorous things, one kind is ordered according to the species of flavor, as was said above, and so the pleasant and unpleasant are in them accidentally, that is, not inasmuch as they have odor, but inasmuch as their odor indicates nourishment. For odor is an affection of nourishment, as flavor also is: for an animal discerns appropriate nourishment from a distance by means of odor, as it discerns appropriate nourishment taken in by means of flavor. And so these odors are not pleasant to animals that are full and not in need of food, just as neither is food that has these odors pleasant to them; but it is pleasant to animals that have an appetite for food—that is, ones that are thirsty or hungry—just as food or drink is also desirable to them. Hence it is clear that this kind of odorous contains the pleasant and unpleasant accidentally—that is, because of nourishment—as was said (443b21). And because nourishment is common to all animals, all animals perceive these odors. But the all must be understood with reference to animals that have forward movement, and have to seek food from a distance by means of odor; in the case of immobile animals, taste and touch suffice for discerning suitability of food. Deinde cum dicit: quidam autem secundum ipsos etc., determinat species odoris per se. Then, when he says but some odors (443b26), he determines the per se species of odor. Et primo ponit huiusmodi species odoris; First he presents these species of odor. secundo ostendit a quibus animalibus percipiantur, ibi: hoc quidem igitur odorabile etc. Second he shows which animals perceive them, where he says this species of the odorous (444a3). Circa primum tria facit: On the first point he does three things. primo proponit quid intendit; First he presents what he intends. secundo probat propositum, ibi: nihil enim magis etc.; Second he proves the proposal, where he says for they do not follow (443b28). tertio excludit obiectionem contrariam, ibi: qui autem nunc commiscent etc. Third he eliminates an objection to the contrary, where he says and those who do mix (443b31). Dicit ergo primo quod quidam odores sunt delectabiles secundum se ipsos, id est non per comparationem ad alimentum, sicut fieri <dicitur> de odoribus florum. Accordingly he first says that some odors are pleasant of their very selves, that is, not in relation to food, and this is said to be the case with the odors of flowers. Deinde cum dicit: nihil enim magis etc., probat quod huiusmodi odores sunt secundum se delectabiles, quia scilicet non se habent consequenter ad escam, ut videlicet appetentes escam magis his odoribus delectentur et repleti minus, neque etiam huiusmodi odores conferunt aliquid ad desiderium escae, sicut odores de quibus supra dictum est provocant escae appetitum, sed magis accidit contrarium, quia permixtionem horum odorabilium redditur esca indelectabilis, quia frequenter quae bene redolent secundum huiusmodi odorem sunt mali saporis. Et inducit ad hoc verbum cuiusdam poetae comici qui Tracius dicebatur vel Stratides, qui in vituperium alterius poetae, scilicet Euripidis, exquirentis cibaria nimis delicate parata, dixit: quando lentem decoquis, non infundas myron, id est unguentum suaviter redolens, quasi dicat: non oportet quod in pulmento tuo apponas aliqua suaviter redolentia. Then, when he says for they do not follow (443b28), he proves that such odors are of themselves pleasant. This is because they are not related to food as a consequence of it, that is, such that animals with an appetite for food take more pleasure in these odors, and animals that are full less pleasure. Also, such odors do not contribute anything to desire for food in the way that the odors discussed above provoke an appetite for food. Rather the contrary occurs: food is made unpleasant by being mixed with things that have this kind of odor, because often what smells good inasmuch as it has this kind of odor, nevertheless has a bad taste. To confirm this he introduces a saying of a certain comic poet named Thracius or Stratides, who, in criticism of another poet—namely Euripides, who devised very fastidiously prepared dishes—said: when you cook lentils, you don’t pour on ointment—that is, sweet-smelling perfume; as if to say: “you shouldn’t add anything sweet-smelling to your relish.” Deinde cum dicit: qui autem nunc commiscent etc., excludit obiectionem quae posset fieri propter consuetudinem quorumdam talia cibis admiscentium. Then, when he says and those who do mix (443b31), he eliminates an objection that could be made because of the custom of some who do mix such things into food. Sed ipse respondet dicens quod illi qui huiusmodi virtutes, id est res odoriferas, commiscent cibis et potibus faciunt per suam consuetudinem quamdam violentiam naturali delectationi, ut scilicet perveniant ad hoc quod unum et idem sit delectabile duobus sensibus, scilicet gustui et odoratui, sicut naturaliter unum est delectabile uni sensui. He answers by saying that those who do mix “virtues”—that is, odorous things—of this kind with food and drink do violence to natural pleasure by their custom in order to reach a point where one and the same thing is pleasant to two senses, namely taste and smell, whereas by nature one thing is pleasant to one sense. Deinde cum dicit: hoc quidem igitur etc., ostendit a quibus huiusmodi odorabilia percipiantur. Et circa hoc tria facit: Then when he says this species of the odorous (444a3), he shows by what animals such objects of smell are perceived. On this point he does three things.