Chapter 7.—There is Another Trinity in the Memory of Him Who Thinks Over Again What He Has Seen.

11. But yet again, take the case of another trinity, more inward indeed than that which is in things sensible, and in the senses, but which is yet conceived from thence; while now it is no longer the sense of the body that is informed from the body, but the eye of the mind that is informed from the memory, since the species of the body which we perceived from without has inhered in the memory itself. And that species, which is in the memory, we call the quasi-parent of that which is wrought in the phantasy of one who conceives. For it was in the memory also, before we conceived it, just as the body was in place also before we [sensuously] perceived it, in order that vision might take place. But when it is conceived, then from that form which the memory retains, there is copied in the mind’s eye (acie) of him who conceives, and by remembrance is formed, that species, which is the quasi-offspring of that which the memory retains. But neither is the one a true parent, nor the other a true offspring. For the mind’s vision which is formed from memory when we think anything by recollection, does not proceed from that species which we remember as seen; since we could not indeed have remembered those things, unless we had seen them; yet the mind’s eye, which is informed by the recollection, existed also before we saw the body that we remember; and therefore how much more before we committed it to memory? Although therefore the form which is wrought in the mind’s eye of him who remembers, is wrought from that form which is in the memory; yet the mind’s eye itself does not exist from thence, but existed before it. And it follows, that if the one is not a true parent, neither is the other a true offspring. But both that quasi-parent and that quasi-offspring suggest something, whence the inner and truer things may appear more practically and more certainly.

12. Further, it is more difficult to discern clearly, whether the will which connects the vision to the memory is not either the parent or the offspring of some one of them; and the likeness and equality of the same nature and substance cause this difficulty of distinguishing. For it is not possible to do in this case, as with the sense that is formed from without (which is easily discerned from the sensible body, and again the will from both), on account of the difference of nature which is mutually in all three, and of which we have treated sufficiently above. For although this trinity, of which we at present speak, is introduced into the mind from without; yet it is transacted within, and there is no part of it outside of the nature of the mind itself. In what way, then, can it be demonstrated that the will is neither the quasi-parent, nor the quasi-offspring, either of the corporeal likeness which is contained in the memory, or of that which is copied thence in recollecting; when it so unites both in the act of conceiving, as that they appear singly as one, and cannot be discerned except by reason? It is then first to be considered that there cannot be any will to remember, unless we retain in the recesses of the memory either the whole, or some part, of that thing which we wish to remember. For the very will to remember cannot arise in the case of a thing which we have forgotten altogether and absolutely; since we have already remembered that the thing which we wish to remember is or has been, in our memory. For example, if I wish to remember what I supped on yesterday, either I have already remembered that I did sup, or if not yet this, at least I have remembered something about that time itself, if nothing else; at all events, I have remembered yesterday, and that part of yesterday in which people usually sup, and what supping is. For if I had not remembered anything at all of this kind, I could not wish to remember what I supped on yesterday. Whence we may perceive that the will of remembering proceeds, indeed, from those things which are retained in the memory, with the addition also of those which, by the act of discerning, are copied thence through recollection; that is, from the combination of something which we have remembered, and of the vision which was thence wrought, when we remembered, in the mind’s eye of him who thinks. But the will itself which unites both requires also some other thing, which is, as it were, close at hand, and adjacent to him who remembers. There are, then, as many trinities of this kind as there are remembrances; because there is no one of them wherein there are not these three things, viz. that which was stored up in the memory also before it was thought, and that which takes place in the conception when this is discerned, and the will that unites both, and from both and itself as a third, completes one single thing. Or is it rather that we so recognize some one trinity in this kind, as that we are to speak generally, of whatever corporeal species lie hidden in the memory, as of a single unity, and again of the general vision of the mind which remembers and conceives such things, as of a single unity, to the combination of which two there is to be joined as a third the will that combines them, that this whole may be a certain unity made up from three?

CAPUT VII.

0993

11. Trinitas alia in memoria recogitantis de visione. Jam vero in alia trinitate, interiore quidem, quam est ista in sensibilibus et sensibus, sed tamen quae inde concepta est, cum jam non ex corpore sensus corporis, sed ex memoria formatur acies animi, cum in ipsa memoria species inhaeserit corporis quod forinsecus sensimus, illam speciem quae in memoria est, quasi parentem dicimus ejus quae fit in phantasia cogitantis. Erat enim in memoria et priusquam cogitaretur a nobis, sicut erat corpus in loco et priusquam sentiretur, ut visio fieret. Sed cum cogitatur, ex illa quam memoria tenet, exprimitur in acie cogitantis, et reminiscendo formatur ea species, quae quasi proles est ejus quam memoria tenet. Sed neque illa vera parens, neque ista vera proles est. Acies quippe animi quae formatur ex memoria cum recordando aliquid cogitamus, non ex ea specie procedit quam meminimus visam; quandoquidem eorum meminisse non possemus, nisi vidissemus: acies autem animi quae reminiscendo formatur, erat etiam priusquam corpus quod meminimus videremus; quanto magis priusquam id memoriae mandaremus? Quanquam itaque forma quae fit in acie recordantis, ex ea fiat quae inest memoriae; ipsa tamen acies non inde existit, sed erat ante istam . Consequens est autem, ut si non est illa vera parens, nec ista vera sit proles. Sed et illa quasi parens, et ista quasi proles aliquid insinuant, unde interiora atque veriora exercitatius certiusque videantur.

12. Difficilius jam plane discernitur, utrum voluntas quae memoriae copulat visionem, non sit alicujus eorum sive parens sive proles: et hanc discretionis difficultatem facit ejusdem naturae atque substantiae parilitas et aequalitas. Neque enim, sicut foris facile discernebatur formatus sensus a sensibili corpore, et voluntas ab utroque, propter naturae diversitatem quae inest ab invicem omnibus tribus, de qua satis supra disseruimus, ita et hic potest. Quamvis enim haec trinitas, de qua nunc quaeritur, forinsecus invecta est animo; intus tamen agitur, et non est quidquam ejus praeter ipsius animi naturam. Quo igitur pacto demonstrari potest, voluntatem nec quasi parentem, nec quasi prolem esse, sive corporeae similitudinis quae memoria continetur, sive ejus quae inde cum recordamur exprimitur, quando utrumque in cogitando ita copulat, ut tanquam unum singulariter appareat, et discerni nisi ratione non possit? Atque illud primum videndum est, non esse posse voluntatem reminiscendi, nisi vel totum, vel aliquid rei ejus quam reminisci volumus, in penetralibus memoriae teneamus. Quod enim omni modo et omni ex parte obliti fuerimus, nec reminiscendi voluntas exoritur: quoniam quidquid recordari volumus, recordati jam sumus in memoria nostra esse vel fuisse. Verbi gratia, si recordari volo quid heri coenaverim, aut recordatus jam sum coenasse me, aut si et hoc nondum, certe circa ipsum 0994 tempus aliquid recordatus sum, si nihil aliud, ipsum saltem hesternum diem, et ejus eam partem qua coenari solet, et quid sit coenare. Nam si nihil tale recordatus essem, quid heri coenaverim, recordari velle non possem. Unde intelligi potest, voluntatem reminiscendi ab iis quidem rebus quae memoria continentur procedere, adjunctis simul eis quae inde per recordationem cernendo exprimuntur, id est, ex copulatione rei cujusdam quam recordati sumus, et visionis quae inde facta est in acie cogitantis cum recordati sumus. Sed ipsa quae utrumque copulat voluntas, requirit et aliud quod quasi vicinum est atque contiguum recordanti. Tot igitur hujus generis trinitates, quot recordationes, quia nulla est earum ubi non haec tria sint; illud quod in memoria reconditum est etiam antequam cogitetur, et illud quod fit in cogitatione cum cernitur, et voluntas utrumque conjungens, et ex utroque ac tertia se ipsa unum aliquid complens. An potius ita cognoscitur una quaedam in hoc genere trinitas, ut unum aliquid generaliter dicamus quidquid corporalium specierum in memoria latet, et rursus unum aliquid generalem visionem animi talia recordantis atque cogitantis, quorum duorum copulationi tertia conjungitur copulatrix voluntas, ut sit hoc totum unum quiddam ex quibusdam tribus?