he seems to interpret Aristotle’s statement, that every Agent is physically acted upon and changed at the moment of acting, and every Patient is physically active.[1] For, this action of the Patient cannot be referred to its resistance alone, but to the fact that it may even change and alter the Agent itself. He seems indeed to think of an actual conflict between Patient and Agent. For, a complete effect of the Agent can be generated in the Patient only when the Agent has a greater potentiality than the Patient has.[2] And we have already seen, that the Species of the Agent subsides into decay through the opposition of the nature-proper of the Patient, as well as through its own inherent weakness.[3] Accordingly the source whence the Species is produced, is not the mere passive potentiality, fitted only to receive, but the active potentiality of the Matter of the Patient; and as such it is competent to assist in the process.[4]
But we have still to look more closely into the process of eduction, to see just what takes place. The Agent acts as a whole and not part by part; its virtue is not something which can be cut into bits in that fashion.[5] But how is it with the Patient out of whose Matter the Species is produced? It is acted upon and changed part by part, says Bacon.[6] And in the following manner. The Agent changes the Patient by contact with it, as is agreed. But this contact cannot effect a real transmutation in the bare surface, and hence it must change some part of the real substance of the Patient. This part is not a mere surface but a body, however small, which must have depth to be even conceived as touched or altered. It is clear that, in this way, the Agent truly reaches the depths of at least this first part of the Patient. And this, as he vigorously adds, is “enough for any sound judgment, although it may not satisfy a loose imagination.”
By mere contact, therefore, the first part of the Patient has been altered;[7] and that part is eo ipso already Effect, although it is called Species because it is only a part of the total Effect to be wrought.[8] But just how much of the Patient has been affected thereby? Very little, indeed. This part possesses quantity, to be sure, and it is as
- ↑ See II—439 and references to Arist. in notes. Cf. Zeller, op. cit. 418. 419. Bacon's interpretation is probably open to serious question.
- ↑ See II—452.
- ↑ See II—544ff.
- ↑ Bacon usually refers simply to "potentia materiae" as the source, thus e. g. II—486, 437, 458, 503, 608, 548. That he means the "materia patientis" and not the Agent is clear from the fact that he seriously considers (II—437, 438) certain cases, e.g. air and shadow, as sources of light; he shows how one can speak of educing light from these!
- ↑ See II—441.
- ↑ See II—442ff., cf. 436.
- ↑ Concerning the exact time when this change takes places, Bacon does not tell us here. But the answer he would give is clear from his consideration of a similar problem elsewhere (see Br. 145ff., cf. I—69). The change is instantaneous for each part; and in the sense that the last moment when the part ceased to have the old character, is numerically identical with that when it acquired the new one. For that is just what change means; namely, that a thing loses its character only by taking on another.
- ↑ So far as size, is concerned the whole Effect is there. For, if this part is considered as a whole in itself, and not as part of a whole, it may be regarded as serving for the subject of action. See II—443.
