The Fountain of Life (Fons Vitae) (excerpt), by Solomon Ibn Gabirol, tr. by Harry E. Wedeck [1962], at sacred-texts.com
Master: You will understand how many things exist in one simple thing when we discuss the form of the universal intelligence, that bears the aggregate of all the forms. You will then know how the inferior things exist in the superior things and the parts in the whole. And from there you will come to know how all the forms subsist in the universal matter and how the universal matter and the universal form, with all that is contained therein, subsist in the will of the First Author, holy and sublime. Listen therefore now to the proofs that demonstrate the existence of many things in one simple thing.
The numerous forms assembled in the simple substance are simple and spiritual. Now all that is simple and spiritual does not occupy place. Therefore the numerous forms assembled in the simple substance do not occupy place. Then I take this proposition as a premise and I add another one: Whenever a thing does not occupy place, a single one is equal—or several of these things, assembled in the unity that bears them. Therefore a single one is equal—or several of the numerous forms assembled in the simple substance in the unity that assembles and bears them. I take again this proposition as a premise and I add: When a thing is equal—or several of these things, assembled in a single thing, there is no opposition to the union of several of them in a single thing. Therefore there is no opposition to the union in the simple substance of the numerous forms that are assembled therein.
The simple substance and the compound substance
are contraries. Now whenever two things are contraries, if something suits one, its contrary suits the other. Therefore if something suits the simple substance, its contrary suits the compound substance. Similarly, I take this proposition and I assert: The compound substance is a corporeal place for the corporeal forms. Now whenever a thing is a corporeal place for another, it is impossible that several things should be there at the same time. Therefore it is impossible that several forms should subsist at the same time in the compound substance. And there is the inverse proof: The simple substance is a spiritual place for the spiritual forms. Now whenever a thing is a spiritual place for another, there is nothing to prevent a multitude of forms from subsisting therein at the same time. Therefore there is nothing to prevent a multitude of forms from subsisting at the same time in the simple substance.
The multiple comes from the one. Now all that comes from something is in that form which it comes. Therefore the multiple is in the one. Similarly, I take this proposition and I assert: The forms of the compound substance are multiple. Now every multiple is in the one. Therefore the multiple forms of the compound substance are in the one. Now the forms of the simple substance are in the form of the simple substance.
The more the substance is simple and one, the more forms it comprehends so that numerous forms are in it: and the more corporeal and multiple the substance is, the fewer forms it receives. From these two principles we shall deduce a single proposition, that asserts: The union of numerous forms does not appear necessarily except with the union of the substance and disappears with it. Then I add this statement:
[paragraph continues] Whenever a thing does not appear necessarily except with another thing and disappears with it, the second thing is the cause of the existence of the first thing. Therefore the union of the substance is the necessary cause of the assembly in it of numerous forms. Now the union of the simple substance comes from the unity that is in it. Therefore the unity that is in the simple substance is the necessary cause of the assembly in it of numerous forms. Similarly, I take this conclusion as a premise and I assert: Unity assembles numerous forms. Now whenever a thing assembles numerous forms, these numerous forms are in it. There are therefore numerous forms in unity. Then I take this proposition and I assert: There are numerous forms in unity. Now the unity of the simple substance is its form. Therefore numerous forms are in the form of the simple substance.
The form that is more united comprehends more forms. Now the forms of the simple substances are more united than the forms of the compound substances. Therefore the forms of the simple substances comprehend more forms than the forms of the compound substances. Now the forms of the simple substances are one. Therefore the forms that are one comprehend more forms than the forms of the compound substances.
Unity is the sole origin of multiplicity. Now all that is the sole origin of a thing has this thing. Therefore unity has by itself multiplicity. Now whenever a thing has by itself multiplicity, the multiplicity is in it by itself. Therefore multiplicity is by itself in unity. Now the essence of unity is one. Therefore multiplicity is in the essence of the one.
Every form unites what is imagined by it. Now all that unites something does not multiply it. Therefore
the form does not multiply that which is imagined by it. And since the form does not multiply, it is necessary that the matter should multiply. Similarly, I take this proposition as a premise and I say: The multiplication of the form is due to the matter. Now there is no matter in the simple substance. Therefore the forms in the simple substance do not multiply themselves. Therefore they unite in it. Similarly, I take this proposition as a premise and I assert: The multiple forms unite in the simple substance. Now nothing prevents all that unites from existing in the single simple substance. Therefore nothing prevents multiple forms from existing in the single simple substance.
The simple substance has no location. Now whenever a thing has no location, its essence is equidistant from everything. And all that is equidistant from everything assumes by itself the forms of all things in one. And whenever a thing grasps by itself the forms of all things at the same time, these forms are in its essence. Therefore the forms of all things are in the essence of the simple substance. Now the forms of all things are numerous. Therefore the numerous forms are in the essence of the simple substance.
The property of continuous quantity is to occupy a place equal to itself. Now whenever the property of a thing is to occupy a location equal to itself, another thing cannot occupy this location so long as the first thing occupies it. Therefore the property of quantity consists in this, that nothing occupies its location so long as it occupies it itself. Now that of which another thing cannot occupy the location, so long as it occupies it, cannot unite with another thing in one location. Therefore the property of quantity is the inability to unite with another thing in one location. Then I take this conclusion as a premise and I
add the following proposition: The forms that are in the simple substance are exempt from quantity. Therefore the forms that are in the simple substance unite in one location. The simple substance is not a corporeal location. Now the property of the corporeal location is that numerous things do not unite in it at the same time. Therefore numerous things can unite at the same time in the simple substance.
Forms exist in the spiritual substance in a more noble manner than all their manners of existing in the corporeal substances. Now in the compound substance there is the union of numerous forms in a single subject: as color, figure, line and surface are united in it. Therefore the spiritual substance is more worthy to have in it such a union of forms.
Individuals and species are numerous. Now individuals and species are in the genera. Therefore numerous things are in the genera. Now the genera are a single thing. Therefore numerous things are in a single thing.
If the inferior comes from the superior, the inferior exists in the superior. Now the inferior comes from the superior. Therefore the inferior exists in the superior. Now the inferior is multiple. Therefore the multiple exists in the superior. But the superior is one. Therefore the multiple exists in the one.
The Master continues: We have just adduced the proofs, as far as it was possible, demonstrating that the multiple exists in the one. And it is the proof of which we said: The forms borne by the compound substance exist in the simple substance. Therein also lies the proof of what we wanted to demonstrate, namely, the existence of the simple substances that impress in the compound substance its designs and figures.
Pupil: Although the doubt regarding the union of a multitude of things in a single thing is removed, yet two other doubts have assailed me, that are not smaller than this one. It may be asked how the spiritual forms become corporeal, and how the corporeal accident arises from a spiritual substance.
Master: What we have already said in discussing this question is sufficient. But I am going to repeat it briefly. (1) I assert that whenever two contrary things unite, from their union arises a thing that is not one of them such as they were individually. Now since the simple substance is contrary to the compound substance, it is necessary that from their union there should arise another thing that is not one of them. Such is the form borne by the compound substance, for this form is not spiritual absolutely since it is borne by the corporeal matter. Similarly, it is not corporeal absolutely either, because it is more simple than the matter and can be borne sometimes, divested of matter, by the soul. (2) Furthermore, the corporeal matter is finite and contracted, and whenever a thing is finite and contracted, the form diffused on it by the substance that is before it extends over its surface and exists in it. It is therefore necessary that the form diffused by the simple substance on the corporeal matter should extend on its surface and exist in it, for the form follows the matter by taking on a contour and a figure. Thus, since the matter is in itself corporeal, it is necessary that the form diffused on it by the spiritual substance should also be spiritual. (3) Furthermore, the form regularly penetrates the matter that receives it, when the latter is ready to receive it, because the first form that comprehends all forms penetrates into the first matter and is diffused in it, as has been shown before. For if the matter is
subtle, the form is diffused in it, dispersed and hidden, with the result that it escapes the senses. If, on the contrary, the matter is coarse, the form has less power to penetrate it and to be diffused through it. Then the essence of the form contracts and does not divide, so that it becomes sensible on account of its contraction: for when the essence of a thing contracts, this thing becomes corporeal and is presented to the senses: and, inversely, when the essence of a thing divides, it becomes more subtle and evades the senses. (4) The emanation of the spiritual forms on the corporeal forms and the subsequent appearance of the corporeal forms in the corporeal matter may be compared to the emanation of light on bodies and the subsequent appearance of colors.
Pupil: Show me and explain it to me.
Master: It is evident that colors are perceived by their essence and that they are not perceived by their deprivation. Now the cause of this is that light in itself is spiritual and subtle. That is why the essence, that is, its form, is invisible, unless it unites with a body that has a surface, and when it does not unite with a body that has a surface, its form is hidden and evades the senses. Thus the light diffused in the air, whose form is not perceived by the senses before it is diffused over a solid body, for example, the earth, so that the light appears and becomes perceptible. And when the form of the light appears on the surface of the body, the form of the color then appears, borne by it, since it is impossible for the form of the light to appear without the form of the color.
Here is the proof: The form of the light appears when it unites with the surface of the body. And as the surface bears in it the essence of the color, it is necessary that the light that unites with the surface should unite also with the color when it unites with
the surface. And it is necessary that the color should appear with the appearance of the light. The argumentation regarding the perception of the light with the color proceeds as follows: The light of the sight unites with the light of the sun on account of its resemblance to it. Now the light of the sun unites with its color. Therefore the light of the sight unites with the color. Similarly with another mode of reasoning. The light unites with the color borne by the surface of the body. Now the light appears when it unites with the surface. Therefore the color appears when the light unites with the surface.
And with God's assistance, consider, following this reasoning, the way in which the spiritual form spreads over the corporeal matter. Compare the spiritual form that is in the simple substance to the light of the sun; compare the form diffused over the matter to the light that is on the surface of the body, and compare the color to the corporeal form that is in the corporeal matter in potentiality, for the color is in the body in potentiality. And by comparing these forms with each other, you will see that the corporeal form that is in the matter in potentiality becomes perceptible when it unites with it in the form emanating from the spiritual form on the matter. Thus the color that is in the body is in potentiality, but becomes perceptible when it unites with it the light emanating from the light of the sun on the body. And you will thus realize that the form emanating from the spiritual form on the matter appears to the sense when it unites with the corporeal form that is in the matter in potentiality, for these two forms become one only, as the light diffused on the surface of the body appears to the senses when it unites with the surface of the body, this light and the color becoming a single thing.
Pupil: Thanks to the four methods that you have
enumerated, I understand how the spiritual form becomes corporeal when it unites with the corporeal matter. Show me then how it is possible for an accidental form to come from a spiritual substance.
Master: There are two possible answers to this question. One consists in saying that the corporeal form is not by itself an accident but a substance, since it completes the essence of the matter that bears it, and it is not called accident except by comparison to the matter that bears it.
The second answer consists in saying, admitting that it is an accident, that this form does not emanate from the essence of the simple substance, that is, from the matter that bears the form of this substance, but that it is drawn from its form, which is an accident of the matter that bears it, although it is a substance since it completes the essence of the simple substance. And if it is said of the form borne by the compound substance that it is a substance, it is because it emanates from the form of the simple substance, which is a substance.
Therefore since the form borne by the matter of the simple substance is a substance in itself and an accident because it is borne by the matter of the simple substance, nothing prevents the form emanating from it into the compound substance from also being a substance in itself and also an accident because it is borne by the matter of the compound substance.
Pupil: Why is the primal form called substantial and not substance, when it completes the essence of the matter, which is a substance?
Master: Because it can exist only in the matter in which it subsists.
Pupil: If then the form that subsists in the compound matter is a substance, there is no accident.
Master: It cannot be declared absolutely that the form such as quantity and certain kinds of quality is an accident, for quantity is an inseparable form of the essence of the substance and it completes it, and similarly certain qualities are substantial differences, on which depends the existence of the essence of the substance in which they are. But in respect of the other categories, it cannot be said that they are substances.
Pupil: You have shown me that the forms borne by the compound substance emanate from the simple substance, and you have dissipated the doubts that I had on that score. But what will you say if I return to the charge and declare that the simple substance, like the soul, has no form in itself? If you confront me with the forms set in the essence of the soul, I shall say that these forms are accidents that pass over the essence of the soul, as the forms of light pass through the air, that they are not established in its substance, and that they do not change its essence. On the contrary, these forms touch the soul only on coming from the compound matter. When the latter confronts the soul, it unites its designs with the soul and impresses in it its figures on account of the subtlety of the substance of the soul in itself, and these forms pass through it as the forms reflected by polished bodies reflect them. And since these forms are not essential to these bodies and are only accidents that arise in them, the possibility is hence eliminated of the sensible forms being drawn from the spiritual substances.
Master: Explain this objection and develop it while waiting for the answer to follow.
Pupil: (1) Since all knowledge and all reasoning are founded on simple ideas, that are the ten genera,
it follows that all that is imagined by the soul and every utterance depending on these representations must be composed of these simple ideas, according to the various modes of their union and their divers compositions of differences, properties, and accidents. And as the knowledge of these simple ideas consists in the existence in the soul of the forms of each of them, for the soul is a subject for it as the matter is a subject for its forms, it follows that the knowledge must be the generation and the substance of all these forms in the soul, then their union and their division by the differences, properties, and accidents. These forms are therefore similar to the accidents that pass through the substance and succeed each other in it. And since this is the case, since the simple ideas of the union from which the sciences spring and speech arises come from the natural matter and from its accidents, that is, from the substance that supports the categories, (2) the rank of the soul being superior to that of matter, and science signifying the presence in the senses of the sensible forms or the accidents that are in the substance, then the passing of these forms in the imaginative faculty, and finally their impression and their perception in the soul because they have become more subtle and more refined by their double stay in the senses and in the imagination—it follows evidently that the soul has no proper knowledge in itself nor essential forms, but that it receives the forms when they reach it on account of its fineness, simplicity, and subtlety of its substance. And it acquires knowledge only if it is above the matter and its accidents and if its essence unites with the forms of the accidents. And the figures and the designs of the accidents are inscribed first of all in it because they are present and touch it, and they mark in it the
impression by which the soul receives the truth of the forms impressed in it through the action of the sensible forms on the senses and through the perception that it has of these forms when they act on it. Thus the sensible forms pass through the soul and do not remain there attached to its being when they act on it (3) and as all the accidental forms are divided in themselves since they are compound and not simple absolutely, they divide and separate also in the essence of the soul and each one is constituted separately. And it is fitting that the constitution of these forms in the essence of the soul should be called ideas since they are made intelligible therein and exist in it. (4) And as the soul is intermediary between the substance of the intelligence and the senses, that the perception of that which is in the intelligence should escape it. Similarly, when it turns toward the intelligence, the perception of that which is in the senses is taken from it, for each of the extremes is opposed to the other, and when the soul approaches one, it recedes from the other, while the forms pass through its essence and succeed each other in its essence, since they are not essential to it, just as the sensible forms pass through the sense of sight, for this sense, turning from some forms toward the others, loses them, and they have no existence in it. Such is my opinion of the forms that exist in the soul. A long explanation would be necessary to establish that these forms on the contrary are essential to the soul and inseparable from its substance. Begin then, now, with the second principle that you postulated before, namely, that the sensible forms exist in the essence of the simple substance.
Master: If you wanted, in your discussion, to exclude from the substance of the soul the intelligible
knowledge, that is, the perception by the soul itself of the intelligible forms, the proofs demonstrating that the soul knows by itself prevent you from so doing. I shall briefly recapitulate the principles of these proofs as follows: If the substance of the soul receives the figures and the forms of things, they are in it in potentiality. And if they are in it in potentiality, it knows them by itself. Similarly: If the soul perceives in it the forms without an organ, they are in it in potentiality. Similarly: If men have in common the perception of everything, knowledge is in their essence. Similarly: If men conceive knowledge without being taught, knowledge is in their essence. Similarly: If the soul foresees things before they exist, it knows them by itself. Similarly: If the soul perceives and feels from the beginning of the growth of the body, it then knows by itself. And so with the other proofs that have the same purpose.
If on the other hand you wanted to exclude from the substance of the soul sensible knowledge, that is, the perception of the sensible forms without an organ, that can be done in a certain way. For we did not mean that the sensible forms exist in the substance of the soul without uniting with it by means of the organs established to receive them. The soul can easily perceive these forms without an organ through the imagination, but this happens after it has perceived them by means of the organs.
But we did not intend to imply either that these forms exist in the soul, after they have approached the soul and the soul encloses them, as they subsist in their supports. We mean that the sensible forms are in the soul in potentiality and that these forms are similar to the sensible forms in act and for this reason join and unite with them. And the idea that
we express that the sensible form is in potentiality in the substance of the soul explains that the substance of the soul receives the sensible forms and that these forms are impressed in it and unite with it. But when we say that all the sensible forms are in the substance of the soul in potentiality, we do not understand that each of these forms is in it separately, as they are in their corporeal supports: but we mean that the form of the sensible soul is a single simple form that gathers into it all the sensible forms, for this form has the power to bear all the sensible forms in act when they unite with it, and these forms are in it in potentiality. We must not therefore deny that a multitude of forms unite in one single form: we have already given the proofs of this. And what we say about the form of this soul is similar to that which is said of the form of the rational soul and of that of the intelligence: the form of each of these substances unites all the intelligible forms, except that the form of the intelligence unites them more than the form of the soul. And we do not mean that each of these forms is in these substances separately, nor that these forms come to them exteriorly: but we mean that the form of each of these substances is in itself a universal form, or that by nature and essence it perceives and bears every form. And we could not say that all forms exist in the form that unites them, whatever be the form assumed among the forms of the universal substances, if these forms did not exist therein in potentiality.
Pupil: Explain this in still greater detail.
Master: If the simple substance perceives many forms, it perceives them by its form, for if the form of the simple substance perceives many forms, it perceives them either by that which is in it, or by that
which is not in it. If it perceives them by that which is in it, then the many forms are in it. If on the other hand it perceives them by that which is not in it, it is possible that a substance other than that of the soul perceives these forms: which is false. Furthermore, if the form of the simple substance perceives the forms by that which is not in it, it is quite unthinkable that this form and the forms that it perceives are in agreement. But if they are not in agreement, they do not unite in any way. Now the concept of agreement of two forms implies that the form of the simple substance is capable of receiving the form that unites with it and that it is prepared to unite with it.
Pupil: All the arguments that you have produced will be valid only when you have established that the soul has a form in itself. But what answer will you give me if I say that the soul has not any form in itself?
Master: Either the simple substance has a form that is peculiar to it, or it has not. Now it is impossible that it should not have a form peculiar to it for it would not exist. In fact, the existence of a thing is always due to the form. Furthermore, if the simple substance had no form peculiar to it, it would not be a species different from the others. For every difference comes from the form. Furthermore, it would not perceive any form, for it is by its form that it perceives the forms.
Now if the simple substance has a special form, either it receives all the forms, or does not receive any, or receives a single form. If it received a single form in act, there would be no difference between the form of the simple substance and that of the compound substance, for the compound substance receives one form only, while the simple substance receives a
large number. And if it did not receive any form, the simple substance would not perceive anything. But the evidence shows the contrary. It remains therefore that the simple substance perceives all the forms. Similarly: Since the simple substance has a form, either it differs from every form or it is similar to every form. If it differs from every form, it does not receive any form. But if it is similar to every form: and if it receives every form, all the forms are in it.
Pupil: Why does the substance of the soul not resemble the substance with categories, that I envisage as divested of all forms?
Master: It is not really but ideally that the substance of the categories is divested of form. On the other hand, we do not say of the substance of the soul that ideally it is not divested of form, but we assert that in act or existence it is not, for it is possible to distinguish ideally between the matter and the form of the same, while it is impossible to do so effectively and in existence.
Furthermore, if it is said that the substance of the soul has no form, if it is denied that all forms are in it, and if it is asserted that the forms pass through it as the forms pass through a mirror, it still remains true despite that, that there is a resemblance between the form of the soul and the forms that pass through it. But what would be said of the course of the production of the organs of the soul, and how could the soul be informed if the forms did not dwell in it? What could one say also of the form of intelligence, in which are all the forms by themselves, since no one can say that the knowledge of things is not essential to the intelligence? For the substance of the intelligence is never without knowledge of things. And since it must be granted that the form of the intelligence
gathers every form and that all the forms are in it in a more simple way than they are in themselves, why still deny that the form of the soul unites every form? Except that in this respect its rank is inferior to that of the intelligence, for the form of the intelligence is more perfect and more luminous than the form of the soul, although the forms are in the substance of the soul in a more subtle way than in the substance that has the sensible forms.
If we say that all the sensible forms exist in the form of the soul, we must then understand by that, that all the forms are united in its form because the form of the soul by its nature and its being is an essence that unites essentially the essence of every form, for all the forms are united in the concept of the form—all in fact are forms and that is why they are one in the concept of the form—and the concept of the forms is united with the form of the soul, since both are forms: and the particular forms, or the aggregate of the sensible forms, are united with the universal form or the form that comprehends all the forms and the universal form is united with the form of the soul. Therefore the forms that the universal form unites exist in the form of the soul.
Pupil: I see that you have not left me a loophole to deny that all the forms exist in the soul. But what will your answer be to the objection that I raised (2): the knowledge that is in the substance of the soul, I said, proceeds from the accidents borne by the compound substance, and these accidents are not essentially in the soul since the substance of the soul is of a higher rank than the compound substance?
Master: The fact that the substance of the soul is of a higher rank than the compound substance does not prevent the forms from existing in the substance of the soul as well as in the compound substance. But
it follows rather that these forms in the compound are dispersed, divided, and not united, and that in the substance of the soul they are joined, not divided, but united. And their union is much greater in the substance of the intelligence, as I shall show you when I discuss the universal form of the intelligence. For these forms in the substance of the soul are intermediary between the corporeal forms borne by the compound substance and the spiritual forms that are in the substance of the intelligence. And the proof of this is that the substance of the intelligence perceives being in all beings, that is, the unifying simple form, or the genera and the species, while the substance of the soul perceives the non-being, that is, the differences, the properties, and the accidents that the senses attain. That is why, when the soul wants to know the being of the thing, it joins and unites with the intelligence in order to acquire through it simple being. And when the soul unites with and attaches itself to the intelligence, their forms unite equally with each other and become a single thing. And as the genus exists in the form of the intelligence, for the genus is the being, and as the difference exists in the form of the soul, for the difference is other than being, and because the one is superimposed on the other or the genus that exists in the intelligence is superimposed on the difference that exists in the essence of the soul, the soul then perceives the being of the thing since the elements of the being, that is, the genus and the difference, unite with its essence: thus it completes the knowledge of the being or of the definition of the thing.
Pupil: Show me how the nine categories, that are the totality of the sensible forms, exist in the substance of the soul and in that of the intelligence.
Master: The nine sensible categories that are in
the compound substance exist in it corporeally, dispersed and divided as the senses perceive them in the compound substance. They exist in a more simple manner in the substances of the soul, for they are abstracted from the substance that possesses them: and they still exist in the substance of the intelligence in a more simple manner, for each of them is individually defined by it. Therefore the intelligible form is opposed to the form that exists in the compound substance, since the former is purely substantial and the latter purely corporeal. But the corporeal form is not alien to the concept of the spiritual form, for the spiritual form penetrates the corporeal form interiorly. And the form of the soul is intermediary between these two forms and participates in both extremes. It is spiritual because it is not borne by the compound substance, and corporeal because it is similar in itself to the form borne by the compound substance. And as it is necessary that the forms borne by the compound substance should be in the essence of the soul in a spiritual sense, it is likewise necessary that these forms should be in the essence of the intelligence in a much more spiritual manner. It is also necessary that all the forms, both spiritual and corporeal, should be in the source and origin of the form, that is, in the Will. For every being is in the essence of Perfection and Plenitude: and each substance is a matter and a subject to that which is superior to it and an agent for that which is inferior to it. Just as the corporeal matter is a potency that receives from the soul the sensible forms, so the soul is a receptive power, a matter and a subject in relation to the intelligible form, and the whole is assigned to receive the form of the Will.
As for your idea (4) that the soul perceives that
which is in the intelligence when it turns toward it, and perceives that which is in the corporeal matter when it inclines toward this, it is correct. For when the soul inclines toward the corporeal matter, it perceives corporeally and in act the forms that the matter bears, while it perceives them in itself spiritually and in potentiality. And it rises toward the intelligence, it seizes them with intelligent perception, that is, by the knowledge of their definition and what they are. But it does not follow that the passing of the forms in the soul is like the passing of light in the air, so that they are not essential to it, as you thought. For if the forms were not essential to the soul, they would not unite with it and would not pass into act. And here is a proof of the truth of what I say about these forms: The substance of the soul, in dreams, receives from the substance of the intelligence the intelligible forms as the soul does, that is, through the imagination, and in the waking state it perceives them corporeally and materially. And we shall consider in this fashion the being of every inferior in the superior, until the primal matter is reached that possesses everything. But you will learn this when I discuss the universal primal matter and the universal primal form.
Pupil: I know now that the sensible forms exist necessarily in the simple substance and all the doubts that I had on this question are gone. I no longer wonder how the sensible forms are in the substance of the soul, or how these forms must exist in it by virtue of the perception that it has of it, or how a multitude of things is in a single thing. Gone too is the idea that the sensible and intelligible forms that pass into the soul exist in it as the light that passes through the air. And your first proposition is established: The sensible forms that are in the compound substance are impressed
by the simple substances. And I know this by the synthetic method. But you promised to show me the same proposition by the analytical method, that is, by resolving the impressions marked by the different simple substances in the compound substance and marked by the simple substances on each other, in order to acquaint me with the quantity and the quality of the simple substances. Begin then this demonstration.