theory of vision in psalm 58 and Aristotle's De Sensu and De Anima, and Philo's De Ebrietate

PSALM 58 COMPARED WITH PASSAGES IN DE EBRIETATE OF PHILO OF ALEXANDRIA

The Mikhtam Psalm 58 is easily compared with important passages in De Ebrietate (On Drunkenness) of Philo of Alexandria. The comparisons will straightforwardly argue, that Philo has been considering especially the Mikhtam Psalm 58 when writing some important passages of De Ebrietate. In the book De Ebrietate is easily found reference to the wife of Lot in the Ebr 164, Philo here writing
MOI DOKEI LOT O THUGATROPOIOS MALISTA KERAINEIN ARREN KAI TELEION EN PSUKHE FUTON ANATHREPSAI ME DUNAMENOS DUO GAR THUGATERAS EK TES LITHOUMENES GUNAIKOS ESKHKEN
Philo here notices that Lot was parent only to daughters- he had two daughters from his wife who was turned to stone (LITHOUMENES)- Lot could not raise complete male growths in the soul. This statement in De Ebrietate 164 very clearly paraphrases the Biblical history of Lot, especially the LITHOUMENES here notices the Gen 19:26
KAI EPEBLEPSEN HE GUNE AUTOU EIS TA OPISO KAI EGENETO STELE HALOS
This reference to the history of the wife of Lot in Gen 19 thus clearly notices in this writing of De Ebrietate the ideas of STELE and generally ideas of stone. Philo further notices in Ebr 164 concerning the wife of Lot that
She was lagging behind and seeing round to old and familiar things, and was then remaining among them in the manner of stele without soul
HUSTERIDZOUSAN KAI PERIBLEPOMENEN TA ARKHAIA KAI SUNTROFA KAI APSUKHOU TROPON STELES EN MESOIS AUTOIS KATAMENOUSAN
In this Midrashic interpretation of the Gen 19:26 the STELE is clearly noticed. Also for other Mikhtam Psalms has been noticed that Philo makes references to them especially in such texts where he writes interpretations of this Biblical history of wife of Lot, understandably, because here the Greek Bible writes the important word STELE noticing the stele pillar of stone material. The writing of the wife of Lot occurs in this De Ebrietate 164 here in very notorious text: this writing of De Ebrietate is well known among the historians of philosophy for its clear listing and discussing of the famous TROPES OF AENESIDEMUS, especially in Ebr 170 ff and – the writing of Ebr 164ff. is very clearly echoing the teachings of Sceptic philosophers (see, for example Colson’s comment for Ebr 164ff “the sections which follow are very extraordinary. Philo seems to jettison his general dogmatic principles and to enrol himself in the school of the Sceptics. In fact he reproduces so clearly several of the ten tropes of the famous sceptic Aenesidemus, as given by Diogenes Laertius and Sextus Empiricus, that he enables the historians of philosophy to lay down a terminus ad quem for the date of that philosopher” (Philo V, 314 in the Introduction to the book De Ebrietate). The general philosophical questions of the Sceptic philosophers concerned truth and impossibility of attaining to the truth and descriptions of sources and circumstances of making errors in sensations and in making assent. The writing of De Ebrietate 164ff. very detailed considers such difficulties, and is very notoriously writes also interpretation of the history of the wife of Lot. Among the Mikhtam Psalms the Psalm 58 in the Greek Bible very clearly commences with questioning
EI ALETHOS ARA DIKAIOSUNEN LALEITE
This statement in the Greek Bible explicit writes alert to consider if they were in accordance with TRUTH speaking concerning righteousness. The Greek Bible notices this topic often in this Psalm 58 (the Psalm 57 in the Greek Bible)- 58:2 writing question if EUTHEIA KRINETE, the 58:4 noticing APELLOTRIOTHESAN (of ALLOTRIO, undergoing alterations) and ELALESAN PSEUDE. Importantly, it is this Psalm 58 of the Mikhtam Psalms that writes the clear and unmistakable references to practises of magic and doings of magicians and the incantations- clearly noticing of the snakes and the 58:6 writing of the FARMAKOU TE FARMAKEUOMENOU. Very importantly, Philo clearly makes references to THIS Mikhtam Psalm 58 in many details of his writing in De Ebrietate 164ff in manner following the Sceptics. The following study will argue for this- and thus the following argumentation will argue that the Mikhtam Psalm 58 was in the time of Philo applied for highly educated Jewish discussions with then very influential philosophies of the Sceptics (they are, of course, even currently very important for many philosophical argumentations)- the current argument will argue for this reading of the Psalm 58 in the Greek Bible; but the current study will NOT argue that the Greek translation itself of this Psalm 58 into the Greek language would have been written to discuss with some earlier forms of Sceptic thought. The writing of the 58:2 EI ALETHOS LALEITE to 58:4 ELALESAN PSEUDE clearly notices in this Mikhtam Psalm 58 questioning for truth and notices of false speaking and thus clearly motivates Philonic references to this Psalm in his writing in the style of Sceptic philosophers here in Ebr 164ff. Philo writes here of errors concerning visions and seeing especially in Ebr 181ff. and here Philo writes clearly words that unmistakably refer to the ideas of STELOGRAPHEIN of these Mikhtam Psalms, especially the Ps 58. Philo concludes the Ebr 183 with writing
KAI MURIA ALLA HUPO TES FANERAS OPSEOS PSEUDOGRAFEITAI, OIS OUK AN TIS EU FRONON OS BEBAIOIS SUNEPIGRAPSAITO
The words PSEUDOGRAFEITAI and SUNEPIGRAPSAITO concluding this discussion of alterations of visions and illusory visions of Ebr 181-183 thus very clearly notice the GRAFEIN writing or depicting- and more specifically they notice the EPIGRAMMA and EPIGRAFEIN- these words especially notice in Philonic writings carving inscriptions on stele, such esp. in Philo’s book Heres where Heres 30 writes the only occurrence of STELOGRAPHEIN in Philonic literature and words of EPIGRAMMA and EPIGRAFEIN are importantly written. Philo writes the word SUNEPIGRAFO here also in Ebr 205 in very Sceptic style discussion for suspending judgement- Philo here considers that mind cannot clearly and firmly grasp neither sleeping nor waking. Importantly, after this concluding Philo commences more discussing the gluttony following drunkenness- thus is the SUNEPIGRAFO in Ebr 205 in very important text written. This discussion is importantly written in Ebr 205 to be interpretation of the two daughters of Laban, the Ebr 203 referring to Gen 19:33-35. It is in the descriptions of episodes of Laban that also the word PSEUDOGRAFEIN is written in this De Ebrietate. Philo writes here in Ebr 47 concerning Laban who did not see the true laws of nature describes wrongly (PSEUDOGRAFEI) the laws among people. Philo is also in Ebr 46 commenting making errors in apprehending something
TA DE PERI SOMA TE KAI EKTOS KHROMASI KAI SKHEMASI PEPOIKILMENA PROS APATEN AISTHESEOS EUPARAGOGOU THAUMADZETAI
Philo here notices some one wandering like miracles the colours and forms concerning what is outside the body and concerning of body in such manner that the senses are deceived. Importantly, the Hebrew name Laban exactly means white and whiteness, and especially for Platonic writings of senses white and seeing white are very fundamental for descriptions of working of seeing. Very importantly, thus Philo writes in this discussion of STELE (noticing the history of wife of Lot) and writes of errors of senses with words SUNEPIGRAFEIN and PSEUDOGRAFEIN. Clearly is the central topic of STELOGRAPHEIN Psalms 56-60 thus referred to.

Many parallels to the Psalm 58 written in the Greek Bible are easily found in this writing of De Ebrietate. For the Psalm 58:6 the writing of FARMAKOU TE FARMAKEUOMENOU PARA SOFOU is notorious; and in De Ebrietate Philo writes notably often of FARMAKON. Philo notices wine and especially unmixed wine here to be chemical producing folly, writing thus of AFROSUNES FARMAKON in Ebr 128 and Ebr 27; this notice connects to the central topic of this book De Ebrietate, concerning describing wine drinking and drunkenness. Notably, such writing of AFROSUNES FARMAKON so much echoes this Ps 58:6 noticing SOFOS and FARMAKON. The word FARMAKON also appears in the Ebr 184; the Ebr 183 writes of errors in visions and illusions, and writes of PSEUDOGRAFEIN and SUNEPIGRAFEIN, these comparing to the STELOGRAFEIN of this Psalm 58. The Ebr 184 writes of rightly measuring the medicines in accordance with the knowledge of medical science
TON KATA TEN IATRIKEN EPISTEMEN EKHEI FARMAKON
Philo here discusses the effects of measuring the medicines rightly, or making erroneous measurements either excessive or too weak, and their harmful consequences. The word FARMAKON also is written in the Ebr 172 in somewhat more general meaning, considering
TAKHA POU TES SOTERIOU FUSEOS ALEKSIKAKON SULLEPSEOS DORESAMENES TEN EIS TO POLYKHROMATON AUTOIS TROPEN FARMAKON
Here Philo writes of some animals to which the helpful nature has given changing of colours to be remedy (FARMAKON) for the dangers of captivity. This word FARMAKON echoes also this Ps 58:6 writing of the FARMAKON, and more attentive considerations of these texts further establish Philonic reference here to the Psalm 58. Philo writes here in Ebr 172-175 a list of animals that change their colours. This is written to discuss the trope of AENESIDEMUS called
PARA TEN TON ZOON EKSALLAGEN
This trope of Aenesidemus considers that the differencies of the constitution of animals give rise to differencies of sensations coming from such animals. Very importantly, Colson comments that the list of the examples in the animal world here in Ebr 172-174 written is notable “the introduction of these examples, which have no parallel in Sextus or Diogenes, is quite illogical...Philo, or the source from which he drew, was attracted by the interest of these supposed changes in the animal world and could not refrain from noticing them in a passage which deals with animals” (Philo V, 506). However, easily is found that Philo with this list of animals is commenting the Psalm 58, this emphasising his reference to Psalm 58 here, also writing of FARMAKON, STELE and GRAFEIN, especially EPIGRAFEIN. For the Philonic style of writing interpretations of Biblical texts, such reference to Psalm 58 in this highly Sceptic style writing of De Ebrietate was surely obvious, because so many illusory or visual sensations are here in De Ebr considered or their erroneous interpretations and the Psalm 58:1-2 commences writing that EIS STELOGRAFIAN EI ALETHOS...Philo commences in Ebr 172 writing of chameleon and polypus
KHORIS GAR TON KRINONTON IDE KAI TON KRINOMENON ENIA OIA TON KHAMAILEONTA, TON POLYPODA. This notoriously echoes the Ps 58:6-7 writing of the FARMAKON and noticing TAS MULAS TON LEONTON. The Ps 58:5 also notices the snake, such crawling creature; and Philo continues the description of the chameleon noticing its changing colours similar to places where it is crawling
TEN KHROAN ALLATTONTA TOIS EDAFESIN OMOIOUSTHAI KATH’ ON EIOTHEN ERPEIN
The notice of the polypus finds parallel in the Psalm 58:10 where some bowl or pot is noticed; the Greek Bible here writes PRO TOU SUNIENAI TAS AKANTHAS HUMON TEN RAMNON- and often such bowls or pots occur in literature with their names noticing how many feet they had. Also Philo here connects such polypus to waters- this further comparably to the usual water containing pots with many feet- Philo here specifying the polypus changing its colours growing similar to the rocks of sea to which it is clinging
TAIS KATA THALATTES PETRAIS, ON AN PERIDRAKSETAI
To these creatures polypus and chameleon Philo then notices that the nature has given the ability to change their colours to be remedy (FARMAKON) for dangers of captivity. In this list Philo clearly writes thus reference to the Psalm 58, in this discussion considering truth, error and sensations. Philo writes here in Ebr 174 a further example of such changing of colours of creatures-
THERION O KALEITAI TARANDROS, MEGETHOS MEN BOOS OUK APODEON, ELAFO DE TON TOU PROSOPOU TUPON EMFERESTATON LOGOS EKHEI TOUTO METABALLEIN AEI TAS TRIKHAS PROS TE TA KHORIA KAI TA DENDRA...OS DIA TEN TES KHROAS OMOIOTETA LANTHANEIN TOUS ENTUGKHANONTAS
Here Philo writes description of “elk” (so translation of Colson here), that was known for its changing colour of its hair to be similar of its place and the trees and its thus escaping the sight of those it meets. Philo writes that such creature is famously occurring in the land of Scythians, known also as Geloans (TOIS KALOUMENOIS GELOOIS). Attentive reading of this descriptions finds easily parallels in the Mikhtam Psalm 60. There the Ps 60:8-9 writes of AGALLIASOMAI...GALAAD echoing the KALOUMENOIS GELOOIS in Ebr 174; the notice of the change of the colour of the hair notices in Ps 60:4 where are emphatically changes describes, also the SUNETARAKSAS – this noticing the TRIKS (nom. Greek for hair) and also noticing the TARANDROS “elk”. Philo emphasises here in Ebr 174 that such ability of changing colour of hair makes such “elk” difficult to catch and helps its evading the passers-by; and so notices Ps 60:6 TOU FUGEIN APO PROSOPOU TOKSOU. Also is notable the statement of the Mikhtam Psalm 56:7 PAROIKESOUSIN KAI KATAKRUPSOUSIN noticing for Readers of Greek sojourning in a place in hiddenness, or sojourning in a place and hiding themselves. Philo also writes example of creatures in Ebr 173 considering how the neck of dove changes its colours- and mention of dove does find notorious parallel in the commencing of the Mikhtam Psalm 56:1 (Hebrew) YL JWNT ALM RHQJM that writes of the Jona, that is, the dove. Philo here writes a notorious Midrashic interpretation of statements of the Psalm 56 (the LXX Psalm 55) for describing the variable colours of the dove. The Psalm 56 in the Greek Bible concludes with the words EN FOTI ZOONTON, thus describing something of the light of the living beings; and writing an ingenuous interpretation of these statements, Philo describes in Ebr 173 exactly how the neck of dove is seen to change its colours in thousand varieties in the sun light, writing that
TON DE AUKHENA TES PERISTERAS EN HELIAKAIS AUGAIS OU KATENOESAS MURIAS KHROMATON ALLATTONTA IDEAS
This clear description of observation of natural creatures and their alteration of their colours is in this writing of De Ebrietate 173 a very ingenuous Midrashic interpretation of details of the Mikhtam Psalm 56 writing of the Jona-dove and concluding EN FOTI ZOONTON.

Further textual details in this discussion of De Ebrietate notice to the attentive Readers, that writing this text Philo is making references especially to the Mikhtam Psalm 58. Philo commences in the Ebr 175 discussion of another trope of the Sceptic AENESIDEMUS, writing here of the trope called
O PARA TEN TON ANTHROPON DIAFORAN
Thus is this trope named by Sextus Empiricus, and this trope considers the difficulties and impossibilities of apprehension due to changing of the impressions because of the changes in the situation of the observers themselves. De Ebr 176 writes of this
OU GAR MONON ALLOTE ALLOS TA AUTA KRINOUSIN ALLA KAI ETEROS ETEROI
This notices that different observers receive different impressions from objects at different times. Philo writes to exemplify this trope descriptions for situations where something is liked by some people but disliked by other people. The Ebr 177 writes description of Philo’s having attended some theatre and noticed that some single tune of melody sung (ENOS MELOUS) by the actors or played by the musicians has produced totally different effects among the audience. Some people in the audience are utterly praising such melodies and tunes; but some other among that audience have become utterly irritated by such melody, leaving then the theatre and very importantly, then they have stopped their ear with their both hands so that echoes of such tunes would no further irritate their souls- especially here are notable the descriptions of
OS KAI TEN THEAN KATALIPONTAS ETI KAI PROSAPOKLEIOMENOUS EKATERA TON KHEIRON TA OTA
This is notable Midrashic interpretation of Psalm 58:5-6 writing in the Greek
BUOUSES TA OTA AUTES, ETIS OUK EISAKOUSETAI FONEN EPADONTON
This Greek text of the Psalm 58:5-6 notices exactly stopping ears and not hearing to the voice of those who are singing. Once more it is very important to notice that this text from the Psalm 58:5-6 is then followed by the notice of FARMAKOU TE FARMAKEUOMENOU PARA SOFOU that was already in this study noticed for its clear parallels in De Ebrietate, especially Ebrietate 184-185 describing amounts of chemicals and the science of medicine and the Ebr 172 writing of the different animals having been given by the nature the special ability to change their colours for remedy for the dangers of capture, TEN EIS TO POLYKHROMATON AUTOIS TROPEN FARMAKON. Philo writes here in De Ebrietate thus references especially to the Mikhtam Psalm 58. The Mikhtam Psalm 58 in the Greek Bible also notices creatures of different ages; for the readers considering some philosophical theories such writing is very specific notice of important alteration for living beings, their being young, adult and elderly beings. Philosophically thinking Readers thus might suppose Philo making at least some references also to such alterations when thus writing of further trope considering O PARA TAS PERISTASEIS. Philo indeed does continue the discussion of this trope after now quoted writing of the theatre and some of the audience leaving the theatre covering their ears after some for them irritating tunes and melodies. Philo continues thus in the Ebr 178 the discussion of this trope noticing that every one is
MURIAS METABOLAS KAI TROPAS DEKHOMENOS KATA TE SOMA KAI PSUKHEN
Especially, Philo notices for such alterations that people are some times healthy, some times they are sick; some times people are sleeping, some times awake; and importantly, they are young and they are old. Such notices parallel clearly the writing of the Psalm 58, especially 58:4 APELLOTRIOTHESAN OI AMARTOLOI, and the 58:2 noticing HUIOI TON ANTHROPON, the 58:7 even noticing the whelps of lions. Especially is notorious the statement of the 58:2 writing
EUTHEIA KRINETE OI HUIOI TON ANTHROPON
This statement exhorting people to make right judgements directly notices the topic of this trope- alterations of people their being younger and elder, and their making judgements (KRINEIN). Importantly, now the KRINEIN is used in these context of epistemology to denote judgements, not in the juridical sense of the KRINEIN; so is the KRINEIN in these discussions of De Ebrietate written and so can the KRINEIN of 58:2 also be comprehended.

Further very important parallel to the writings of Psalm 58 is found in Philo’s discussing of the trope called by Sextus Empiricus O PARA TAS THESEIS KAI TA DIASTEMATA KAI TOUS TOPOUS (see PH 1.118-120), so writes also Philo in this Ebr 181. Philo follows here discussing the examples of fishes in the sea and that some oars seem to be bent under water; different illustrations for this is there written by Sextus Empiricus, noticing in PH 1.118-120 pillar, tower and ship- and concerning ship noticing how it appears to be larger and moving when seen near and its appearing smaller and steady to observers situated far from it (DIASTEMATA); and here is also written the example of that oar seems to be bent under water. Importantly, the Psalm 58:8-9 writes of
OS HUDOR DIAPOREUOMENON ENTENEI
This statement in the Greek Bible notices how living (or streaming) waters make stretching – this statement is clear although the current division of verses discourages the Readers from finding this clear statement concerning waters (once more the division into verses is difficult for the Readers). This notice of stretching by waters here in Psalm 58:8-9 constitutes clear parallel to the notice of Ebr 182 writing
E TOUS KATA THALATTES IKHTUS OUKH OROMEN OPOTE TAS PTERUGAS DIATEINONTES ENNEKHOINTO, MEIDZOUS AEI TES FUSEOS PROFAINOUMENOIS
The Translation of Colson for this statement reads
“We see that fishes in the sea, when they swim with their fins stretched, always look larger than nature has made them” (Philo III, 413). Philo had many contemporary parallels for writing such description of magnified visions seen through waters, especially seeing fishes magnified in waters. Especially important is that then wide spread cult of Atargatis, according to the descriptions of Lucian, did also include observations of fishes in the fish ponds and making observations of their huge magnitudes- Lucian much writes of this in the De Dea Syria. This specific writing of Philo was more discussed by the current writer in the Book “Divination by Bowls in Bible, Septuagint, Qumran Texts, Philo and Matthew 13:1-12. Magnified Visions from Glass Bowls in Bible Interpretations” (2007), the Chapter 2.5.4. there more interpreting this text of magnified fish in Ebrietate 182 and noticing Hellenistic context. The current study establishes that the highly Sceptic style discussion of senses in De Ebrietate is writing many Midrashim clearly referring to the Mikhtam Psalms 56-60 and 16 in the Old Testament, especially the Psalm 58 there being referred to. It is very important that these Mikhtam Psalms 56-60 and 16 write the only occurrences of the word STELOGRAFEIN in the Greek Bible- the GRAFEIN exactly does mean production of visual signs and visions. We can thus retrieve important pieces of ancient Jewish somewhat theoretical writing of production of visions and visual signs- importantly, this Philonic writing of De Ebrietate 164ff. is very clearly written writing of philosophical style, discussing with contemporary philosophies- and this writing of De Ebrietate is widely also recognised for its philosophical writing among current historians of philosophy. It is further very important to notice that Philo of Alexandria writes these somewhat more philosophical style considerations of senses and sensations in this writing of De Ebrietate- this writing is profoundly a Midrash for the Old Testament statement of Noah’s wine drinking according to the Genesis 9. Noah’s becoming sober from his wine drinking is described in Gen 9:24 WJJQZ NH MJJN WJDY (Hebrew Bible); and this statement is profoundly studied in the De Sobrietate by Philo of Alexandria. Importantly, prophetic state of mind is often described to be some sober drunkenness. We notice also that the very philosophical writing of the senses is in De Ebrietate written to be Midrash for wine drinking, the Gen 19:33 writing of the daughters of Laban that they EPOTISAN TON PATERA OINON, this quoted in the Ebr 166- the Ebr 164 already had noticed the wife of Lot who had become STELE HALOS. We can thus conclude that these Jewish traditions concerning wine and wine cups contained in the writings of Philo of Alexandria descriptions of productions of visions and visual signs and sensations written with very specialised and philosophical style writing, discussing with contemporary philosophical theories. The traditions of wine and wine cups especially notice the Biblical histories of Noah and wine drinking, so that the Hebrew QZ words are always important (WJJQZ NH MJJN WJDY), also some Qumranic writings of the QZ thus being . Philo’s more philosophical writing of such theories of producing of visions in De Ebrietate make clear Midrashim for details in the Mikhtam Psalms 56-60 and 16- these Psalms expressly write of the STELOGRAFEIN or production of visual signs and visions; and in Hebrew Bible the STELOGRAFEIN translates the MTKM or Mikhtam, this rare word thus noticing vision-producing and even referring to the famous Kittim so often noticed in the Qumranic writings. Thus is found important theoretical discussion concerning producing of visions with philosophically very specialised writing among the Jewish of the Hellenistic times.

Philo writes in the discussion of the Ebr 172 considering the trope of Aenesidemus O PARA TEN TON ZOON EKSALLAGEN (see Sextus Empiricus PH 1.36 and for more of this trope in PH 1.40ff). Writing of the alterations of colours is generally for the Greek and Hellenistic theory of seeing very serious argument indeed, because of the central role the colour has for the seeing. Aristotle writes of the senses and sensations in De Anima very extensively; and the objects proper to the sense of seeing are especially colours. Some notices to Aristotle’s writing of the sense of seeing are here helpful for better comprehending the seriousness of these examples from nature mentioned by Philo concerning the change of colours. Aristotle writes in De An II.7 commencing the more extensive writing of the sense of vision that
OU MEN OUN ESTIN E OPSIS TOUT’ ESTIN ORATON. ORATON D’ ESTIN KHROMA TE, KAI O LOGO MEN ESTIN EIPEIN, ANONUMON TUGKHANEI ON
All writings of Aristotle are very detailed and very difficult and much debated, but here major idea for discussing the sense of sight notices that the visible is object of sight. Aristotle here further notices that such visible are colour and something else: ORATON D’ ESTIN KHROMA (418a26-28). Further Aristotle writes here even more specifically TO GAR ORATON ESTI KHROMA. TOUTO D’ ESTI TO EPI TOU KAT’ AUTO ORATOU; thus is noticed that the visible is colour- and that such colour is on something that in itself is visible (418a28-30). Thus is the colour (KHROMA) very fundamental for the sense of sight according to the De Anima of Aristotle. For the sense of seeing is further very central the idea of some transparent medium, and De An II.7 writes of the DIAFANES transparent medium
PAN DE KHROMA KINETIKON ESTI TOU KAT’ ENERGEIAN DIAFANOUS
Here is noticed that every colour produces some movement in the actually transparent (418b1-2). Further is written in De An II.7 concerning light, ESTI TI DIAFANES (418b3-4); Aristotle notices among such transparent media air, water and many solid objects (POLLA TON STEREON), thus writing in 418b5-7. What might be such transparent solid objects- the modern Readers might well suppose some crystals and possibly glass objects (that is, transparent glass objects!) thus been noticed. Aristotle writes further in 418b10-11 that TO DE FOS OION KHROMA ESTI TOU DIAFANOUS thus considering light in some sense to be colour of the transparent, although writing more difficult statement here FOS DE ESTIN E TOUTOU ENERGEIA TOU DIAFANES E DIAFANES writing thus a difficult statement concerning the actuality of the transparent, and light (418b9-10). Further continuing the writing of sense of sight, Aristotle here in De An II.7 emphasises that what is seen in the light is colour, TO MEN EN FOTI OROMENON KHROMA (419a9-10). Very important although difficult statement of the essence of colour is here written in 419a10-11 TOUTO GAR EN AUTO TO KHROMATI EINAI TO KINETIKO EINAI TOU KAT’ ENERGEIAN DIAFANOUS E D’ ENTELEKHEIA TOU DIAFANOUS FOS ESTIN. This is VERY fundamental statement of the essence of colour. Furthermore, Aristotle writes also of the sense of sight in De Sensu. There Aristotle considers more questions of potential and actual and senses (439a). Aristotle continues here writing of De Anima and notices PERI FOTOS...OTI ESTI KHROMA TOU DIAFANOUS KATA SUMBEBEKOS. OTAN GAR ENE TI PURODES EN DIAFANEI E MEN PAROUSIA FOS E DE STERESIS SKOTOS (439a18-21). Here Aristotle notices observable bodies and colour and colour’s appearing in their limits or surfaces TO GAR KHROMA E EN TO PERATI ESTIN E PERAS (439a30-31); thereafter is a notice to the theories of the Pythagoreans written. Further he writes in 439b10-11 that KHROMA AN EIE TO TOU DIAFANOUS EN SOMATI ORISMENO PERAS, thus noticing the limit of observable body and the transparent, and there appearing colour- more specifically this describes KHROMA AN EIE. Very important notice of production of colours seen through air or waters is written here in De Sensu 440a6-10
EIS MEN OUN TROPOS TES GENESEOS TON KHROMATON OUTOS, EIS DE TO FAINESTHAI DI’ ALLELON, OION ENIOTE OI GRAFES POIOUSIN, ETERAN KHROAN EF’ ETERAN ENARGESTERAN EPALEFOUSIN, OSPER OTAN EN HUDATI TI E EN AERI BOULONTAI POIESAI FAINOMENON
This describes exactly attempts for making something seen in waters or in air (EN AERI!) and the appearance of colours of that object to the sight in such situations, the DI’ ALLELON being here central. Aristotle here continues in De Sensu 440a13-15 writing of the situation DI’ ALLELON and writes the statement
POLLAI DE KAI OUTOS ESONTAI KHROAI TON AUTON TROPON TO PROTERON EIREMENO LOGOS GAR AN EIE TIS TON EPIPOLES PROS TA EN BATHEI, TA DE KAI OLOS OUK EN LOGO
Aristotle writes here very clearly concerning attempts of those people OI GRAFES to make visions through water (and through air), clearly writing example of sun seen with different colours in different air conditions. Why does Aristotle here write of POLLAI KHROAI? Does this POLLAI denote the numerousness of different colours? Other obvious possibility is that such POLLAI refers to spatially magnified visions seen from objects through water filled glass bowls, glass chalices, glass cups and glass bottles. Aristotle in this De Sensu specifically writes that the colour is something that is limit of the observed body and the transparent, especially in 439b10-13 KHROMA AN EIE TO TOU DIAFANOUS EN SOMATI ORISMENO PERAS. KAI AUTON DE TON DIAFANON OION HUDATOS KAI EI TI ALLO TOIOUTON. Notoriously, here is especially WATER noticed to be example of such TRANSPARENT. Thus is very important question the comprehension of POLLAI KHROAI in the situation of making something visible through water (and air). Clearly, such POLLAI can here with arguable grounds be comprehended to notice that the limits of observable bodies seem to be spatially stretched from the waters, that is, transparent water containers produce magnified visions of objects. The full and comprehensive academic discussion of these difficult details of Aristotle’s writings and their later interpretations is, however, to be left to specialists of that philosophy. (Also many statements especially in Meteorologica of Aristotle are for such discussions of notorious importance). Importantly, Aristotle here writes of those attempting to produce such visions the term OI GRAFES; the current study is devoted to translating and commenting the Mikhtam Psalms 56-60 and 16 of the Old Testament, the Greek Bible writing for the Hebrew word Mikhtam the notorious word STELOGRAFIA. Aristotle refers here to the example of seeing sun either white when it is directly seen, and seeing sun red if seen through DIA AKHLUOS KAI KAPNOU. Aristotle’s writing of colour and sense of sight is very difficult; but these references to the important writings in De Anima do clearly emphasises to the Readers of the very fundamental role of colour for seeing and the sense of sight. Thus Philo’s writing in De Ebrietate concerning the changes of COLOURS of animals, the chameleon, polypus, “elk” and dove noticed address very important questions concerning the impressions arriving to eyes and the functioning of the sense of sight and mind’s working.


comparison of theory of seeing in Philo of Alexandria's De Ebrietate (the Sceptic discussion), and Aristotle's De Sensu and De Anima, for study of Mikhtam Psalm 58, written by Pasi Pohjala 2009, copyright Pasi Pohjala 2009 based on fre art licence http://artlibre.org