permanent light, ever sufficient to direct our steps through the dark mazes of ignorance and error, into the bright paths of certainty and truth.
20. Let us next consider whether universal demonstration is preferable to particular, or not. And first, in favour of particulars we may say that their evidence is more exquisite and certain than that of universals. Thus, the knowledge, from inspection, that Callias is a rational animal, is superior to that acquired by a reasoning process which infers his rationality, because every man is a rational animal.
By particular demonstration a thing is known as it is, by universal only in common. Besides, particulars possess some solidity, universals none: and the demonstration of things which have a real existence, is more excellent than that of things which have none. And there are no errors more frequent than those about universals; demonstration considering them as things entirely abstracted from singulars. On the contrary, particulars are usurped by the sight, grasped, as it were, by the hand, and the general subject of every sense; so that concerning these, demonstration affirms nothing false or inconstant.
But these reasons, however plausible, are easily confused. And, first, the term essential is more closely connected with universals than particulars. Thus the possession of three angles equal to two right, is an affection more essential to the triangle itself, than to one equilateral or scalene. Add too, that in the demonstration of universals we always infer some property of a subject from its simple existence, or because it is such a subject. Again, many affections are contained in singulars assumed from no particular nature, but from that which is universal; as rationality in Socrates, which is not inferred from his existence as Socrates, but from his existence as man.
Farther, that demonstration is the more excellent which is derived from the better cause: but an universal cause is more extended and excellent than a particular one; since the arduous investigation of the _why_ in any subject is stopt by the arrival at universals.
Thus, if we desire to know why the exterior angles of a triangle are equal to four right ones, and it is answered, because the triangle is isosceles; we again ask, But why because isosceles? And if it be replied, because it is a triangle, we may again enquire, But why because a triangle? To which we finally answer, because a triangle is a right-lined figure; and here our enquiry rests at that universal idea which embraces every preceding particular one, and is contained in no other more general and comprehensive than itself. Add too, that the demonstration of particulars is almost the demonstration of infinites; of universals, the demonstration of finites.--We add farther, _that_ demonstration is the best, which furnishes the mind with the most ample knowledge; and this is alone the province of universals.
Again, the principles of science become immediate only in proportion as the demonstration becomes universal; and he who knows universals, knows particulars in capacity: but we cannot infer, that he who has the best knowledge of particulars, knows any thing of universals.
Lastly, that which is universal, is the province of intellect and reason, particulars are the offspring of sense; and hence we conclude that universal demonstration exceeds particular both in dignity and excellence, and is first in the nature of things, although last in the progressions of the reasoning power.
Again, That affirmative demonstration is superior to negative, appears from hence: the affirmative does not require the assistance of the negative; but the negative cannot exist without the affirmative; on which account, the demonstration composed from negatives alone, is incapable of producing real evidence and conviction. Besides, affirmation exceeds negation both in priority and simplicity of existence.
Again, the demonstration which concludes _directly_, is better than that which confirms a proposition by evincing the absurdity of its contrary. The first proceeding in a regular order, establishes, by a natural deduction, the truth which was first advanced. The second taking a wider circuit, yet with the same intentions produces a conclusion quite opposite to its apparent design. The one may be compared to the open attack of a valiant and skilful soldier, who expects the conquest of his enemy from strength and courage alone: the progress of the other resembles the same soldier, uniting force with stratagem, and advancing, by an irregular march, which his foe mistakes for a retreat, but finds the secret cause of his destruction. The first is simple and impromiscuous, as composed from propositions alone: the second is compound and miscellaneous, calling in hypothesis to its assistance.
21. One science is said to be prior to, and more certain than another in many respects;--when the one reasons from primary causes, but the other from such as are secondary:--when the one may be ranked in the genera of intelligibles and universals; but the other in the genera of sensibles and particulars. And such is the relation of arithmetic to music; of geometry to optics; and lastly, of every superior to every subordinate science. Again, this happens when the one reasons from simple principles, the other from such as are complex and connected; on which account arithmetic seems to possess greater certainty than geometry. For the principle of arithmetic is unity; but of geometry a point; and unity is without position, with which a point is always connected. And in this manner geometry inherits greater evidence than astronomy; for the one considers body simply, the other as connected with a circular motion. The science is called one which contemplates actions belonging to one genus: the genus is one which possesses the same first principles; and hence geometry and stereometry form one science. On the contrary, the sciences are called different which have different principles, such as geometry and optics; the latter of which does not originate from the principles of the former.
Again, the same thing may admit of many demonstrations, and may be known from many mediums: at one time from the application of such as are congenial: at another, from those of a different order or genus. From congenials, as when we demonstrate that the plantain is a substance, first, by the medium of a tree, and then by the medium of a plant, thus: Every tree is a substance; The plantain is a tree: Therefore the plantain is a substance. And again, Every plant is a substance: The plantain is a plant: Therefore the plantain is a substance.
We demonstrate, from mediums, of a following order or genus, as when we prove man to be a substance, at one one time from his being rational, at another from his being a biped; and these mediums, in part, mutually contain each other.
22. Fortuitous events can never, in any science, become the subject of demonstration; since they are neither limited by necessity, nor admit the arrangement of syllogism. Indeed, so far from obtaining a necessary, they do not possess a frequent existence, but every syllogism is composed from one or other of these.
Again, science is not the business of sense, since that which is universal is the object of perception in particulars themselves. For the object of sight is colour in general, and not this particular colour: the object of hearing is sound in general, and not any particular sound; and, on this account we see or hear not only this or that colour or sound, but likewise every other which falls under the cognizance of these senses. Hence, if it were possible for any one to discern by his sight, the equality of the three angles of some particular triangle to two right, he would not by this means possess a demonstration of the conclusion which affirms this to be the property of every triangle; but his knowledge would extend no farther than the triangle he inspects. Thus too, if we could perceive an eclipse of the moon to arise from the interposition of the earth, we could not universally conclude that this is the cause of every eclipse, but only of the particular one we behold. For the explication of causes extends to universals; and comprehends not only the knowledge of one particular defect of the moon, but simply of every eclipse; since the interposition of the earth is not so much the cause of any present eclipse, as of all which can possibly exist in every age. Whenever, then, the cause is universal, the knowledge of any effect deduced from such a cause is, in every respect, superior to the evidence arising from the perceptions of sense. It is likewise more excellent than the apprehension which subsists independent of the proper cause; as if any one should give absolute credit to the proposition, that the three angles of a triangle are equal to two right, without a previous conviction that the external angle of a triangle, is equal to the two interior opposite ones; and without applying this last proposition as the cause of the first. The comprehension, then, which is conjoined with the proper cause, far exceeds the strongest evidence of sense.
But perhaps it may be said that science consists in sense, because the science of any particular, fails from a defect of the sense by which it is apprehended. To this we reply, that science, indeed, is not acquired without the assistance of sense, but it does not follow from hence, that _to perceive_ is _to know_; because the object of science is that which is universal; but of sense, that which is particular. Thus, if we could see light penetrating the pores of glass (on the atomical hypothesis) the cause why it illuminates would be manifest from sensible inspection as the means, and from the universal apprehension of science, by which we should understand this to be universally true.
Again, the principles of all sciences cannot be the same neither considered as remote or proximate. Not considered as proximate, because the principles always correspond to the demonstrated conclusions; but these are not the same, since they are often generically different; and consequently the propositions from which they result must be derived from discordant genera. But propositions consist of such things as essentially exist; and hence we infer, that the principles of geometry are essentially distinguished from those of arithmetic, that they cannot admit of reciprocal accommodation, so that the one may be predicated, or become the subject of the other, and that the one can never be subservient as a medium to the other. Again, common and first principles are not applied in every science; such as this, that every thing must either be affirmed or denied. Nor can any thing be proved by their assistance alone, but as often as these are required in demonstration, other principles more proximate and peculiar to the given proposition, must always be adopted. Again, axioms universally conceived, cannot be assumed in syllogism, but they must be contracted, as it were, to some subject genus. Of this kind is that common axiom, that as often as any four quantities are proportionable, by permutation, or changing the order of the terms, the same ratio will result. For the arts apply this axiom in a restricted sense; geometry, by considering the relatives as four magnitudes, and arithmetic as four numbers; but the natural philosopher, by adapting the comparison to four motions, or four times. Besides, if the principles of all sciences were the same, it is necessary they should be comprehended by some certain number, similar to the limitation of the elements: but every science is capable of immense increase from the many different modes of amplification the conclusions will admit; and consequently it is requisite to establish a correspondent number of proper principles; for such as are common cannot be alone sufficient. Lastly, if the same principles accord with every science, it follows, that any thing may be demonstrated from such principles: but the certainty of geometrical conclusions cannot be established from the principles of music; and from hence it follows, that although the principles of every science are not the same, they do not possess an entire diversity, nor yet an absolute affinity of nature.
23. There is a remarkable difference between science and opinion.
Whatever is the subject of science must have a necessary existence; on the contrary, opinion is conversant with things liable to mutation and decay. Again, as science depends on necessary propositions for support; so opinion on such as possess only a possibility of existence; and so there is one mode of approbation in subjects of opinion, and another in those of science. Hence science is distinguished from opinion by two discriminations, the one arising from their subjects, the other from the mode of approbation. That opinion is conversant with things possible or contingent, we may learn from hence; contingencies cannot belong to science, because their existence is not necessary; nor to intellect, or that principle of science by which its terms are known; nor to the apprehension or belief of immediate propositions, called indemonstrable science. Hence, if every habit by which truth is known, is either science, or intellect, or opinion, it remains that opinion alone consists of things which are, indeed, true; but not necessary.
It is, therefore, inconstant and unstable, from the mutable nature of its subjects. Besides, no one thinks he possesses an opinion of things which he believes to have a necessary existence, so that they cannot be otherwise than they are; but to such conviction he properly gives the name of knowledge, and to its contrary the name of opinion.
Again, the same thing from the same propositions may at one time become the subject of knowledge, at another, of opinion; and this happens according to the different formation of the syllogism which the propositions compose; whether reasoning from the proper cause it explains the _why_, or only simply declares a thing exists. Hence a doubt arises why opinions of this kind may not be called science, since both the subjects and propositions are the same? The solution is obvious. If it is believed that the propositions cannot be otherwise than they are, or that they have a necessary existence, such an assent of the mind is not opinion, but science; because things which inherit an essential existence are the ornaments of science alone. On the contrary, if we are convinced that the propositions are true, but at the same time not necessary, such conviction is not science, but opinion. Hence, it is impossible that science and opinion can be the same, since they vary in their definition and mode of approbation, and in a different manner demand our belief. Similar to this, although it may happen that of the same thing a true and a false opinion may arise, it will not therefore follow, that true and false opinions are the same. For that which is firm and constant can never be the same with that which is mutable and frail; and that which is always true must be essentially different from that which may be changed into false. By the power of habit indeed in different men, the same thing may be comprehended by opinion and science. Thus it was opinion in Epicurus when he said that the sun was eclipsed by the moon passing under its orb, because he thought it might otherwise happen, and that the moon might be interposed without obscuring the light of the sun.
It was science in Hipparchus, because he knew it as a necessary event.
But in the same mind, at the same time, and of the same thing, it is impossible that science and opinion can exist. And thus much concerning the difference of the two.
24. Lastly, sagacity is an acute and sudden apprehension of the medium, or proper cause of a certain effect: as if any one, beholding the moon, should in a moment conjecture the cause of the part opposite to the sun being lucid, and the other parts obscure, because she derives her splendor from the sun. Hence he is universally called acute and sagacious, who, from the aspect or hearing of the extremes, can readily perceive the medium which exists between them: as the term imports a certain revolution of the conclusion into its first propositions, and, as it were, a swift comprehension and continuation of the medium.
SECTION III.
In the ensuing Commentaries, the soul is considered as immaterial; and as possessing a middle nature between intelligibles and sensibles; but that this important assertion may not remain without proof, the following demonstrative arguments, derived from the Platonic philosophy, are offered to the reader’s consideration. And first, that the soul is an unextended, and consequently immaterial essence, may be thus proved. If, after the manner of magnitude, it consisted of continuous parts, it would be impossible that any one part could be sentient from the passion of another; but the soul, for instance, which is situated in the finger, would be sensible of passion, as if detached from soul in the other parts of the body, and existing by itself; for the soul, from this hypothesis, would be sentient by parts, and not considered as a whole. Besides, there must be many souls governing each part of us, different among themselves, and endued with their own peculiar energies. For whatever may be said of continuity, is to no purpose, unless it conduces to unity of sensation; so that the hypothesis which supposes that the sensations gradually arrive at the principal part of the soul by a certain continued succession, is not to be admitted, since it may be reasonably asked, How is the principal part to be peculiarly distinguished? By what rule of quantity can the parts be discerned, by what difference are they to be distinguished, where the quantity is one, and the bulk continuous? Besides, is the principal part alone, or are the other parts, sentient? If the principal part alone be perceptive, the soul can then alone be sentient when a sensible passion meets with this principal part, situated in its peculiar seat; but if a sensible passion falls upon any other part of the soul destitute of sense, it is impossible that such a part should be able to transmit the same passion to the principal, or be at all sentient. For how can that which is void of sense, receive passion, and convey it entire to a sentient part? Besides, if passion accedes to the principal, it either falls on one of its parts, and so either one part alone will be sentient, and the rest without sensation, and consequently superfluous, or there must be innumerable and dissimilar sensations; for if the sensation of each of the parts singly, is the same with the aggregate of them all, of what use is a multitude of parts? But if the sensations are various, a man may say, as it were, I am primarily sentient in this place, and secondarily in another; and every sentient part besides the first, will be ignorant where sensation is most powerful: or perhaps (from such an hypothesis) every part of the soul will be equally deceived, each part thinking the passion to arise in the place where it is situated. But if not the principal part alone, but every part of the soul be sentient, a principal part is superfluous for the purpose of sensation; and if the soul be divisible like magnitude, how is it able to recognize, as belonging to one subject, the qualities which flow, as it were, through many senses, as through the eyes and ears? For that part of the soul which is perceptive through the eyes, distinguishes nothing but colours; that which energises through the ears, nothing but sounds; and that which acts through the medium of the touch, nothing but the surfaces of bodies: what is it then which perceives all these properties of bodies united in one subject, or what is that which perceives any thing as a certain one? For unless the intentions of the senses, and of sensible objects, were collected together in one, the soul could never be able to judge of the peculiar and different properties of bodies: Hence it is necessary that the soul should be, as it were, a general centre; that the several senses should be extended on all sides to this, similar to lines verging from the circumference of a circle to the centre; and that a power of this kind, comprehending all things; should be truly one. For if the soul was any thing divisible, and the intentions of the senses reached the soul, and ended in its essence like the extremities of various lines, they must either again concur in one and the same as a medium, or have different situations, in such a manner that each sense may perceive different from one another: as if, for instance, the sense of sight should perceive the form of Socrates, and the sense of hearing recognize his voice; that essence which pronounces the whole to be one person, that of Socrates, must be something different from each of the senses. Hence it is necessary that the soul should be an indivisible essence; for if she possessed magnitude, she must be divided along with every sensible object she perceives; so that one part of the soul would perceive a certain part of a sensible object, and we should possess no sentient power capable of perceiving the whole, or of pronouncing any thing one. Thus, in the perception of a man, considered as one, how is it possible that the soul can be divided, so that the perception of a part shall be the same with the perception of the whole. But if we suppose the soul divisible in all her perceptions, since it is impossible she should be co-extended with every sentient object, in how many parts is the division to be made? Is the soul to be distributed into the same number of parts as the sensible object she perceives, so that every part of the soul may perceive the same part of the object? Or shall we say that the parts of the soul have no sensation of the parts of the object?
But this would be absurd and impossible. If every part then of the soul perceived every part of a magnitude as a whole, since magnitude is divisible to infinity, and since, on this hypothesis, there must be innumerable sensations of every sensible object, there must be innumerable images, as it were, of the same thing in our principal part. Besides, if that which perceives is corporeal, it will not be possible for it to perceive in any other manner than as if certain images were impressed from a seal in wax, or in brass, or in any other sensible substance. But if the images of sensation exist as in humid bodies (which is most probable), they will certainly be confounded like images in water; nor can there be any memory, the image departing with its forming substance. And if we suppose the figures to remain like impressions in solid bodies, either it will not be possible for others to succeed while the former endure; and thus, sensations of other things cannot take place; or if others succeed, the former images must be immediately destroyed, and memory be no more. So that if we allow it possible to remember, and, besides this, to perceive other things, without any hindrance from former impressions, it is impossible that the soul should be corporeal. Since the soul, therefore, is an unextended, indivisible, and immaterial substance, it is consequently incorruptible and immortal; for every thing capable of dissolution and dispersion is either corporeal and composite, or exists in some subject from which it is inseparable. And indeed, whatever may be dissolved is corruptible, as being compounded from many. But whatever naturally subsists in something different from itself, when it is separated from its subject, immediately vanishes into non-entity. But the soul, as we have proved, is incorporeal; it is likewise removed from every subject, and naturally reverts to itself, and is therefore immortal and incorruptible.
2. Let us now consider how, and on what account the soul is said to be of a middle nature, and to be the receptacle of all middle energies, both vital and gnostic. Since, then, there is a long gradation of beings, proceeding from the first being, even to formless matter, which is nothing more than the dark shadow of essence, it is requisite to enquire what the properties are of the first and last beings, and what the condition is of the middle orders; for thus we shall know where the essence of the soul ought to be placed. The properties of intelligible natures, therefore, are as follows: true being, eternal, indivisible, immoveable, total, perfect, full of essence, replete with life, free, moving all things, similitude, presiding over all things, and at the same time separated from all; for each of these properties appears in intelligibles, according to the processions of being.
But the properties of sensible natures, different from these by the greatest interval, are such as, not-true-being, temporal according to essence, partible, moveable, particular, indigent of another, always replete with subsistence, living by participation, moved by another, dissimilitude, and occupying place by parts. But the middle properties of these are, not-true-being, an essence better than non-being, and inferior to true-being, according to essence eternal, but according to its energies extended with time, indivisible according to its divine part, but divisible according to the various processions of reasons, self-motive, governing things moved by another, but subordinate to such as are immoveable, bearing before itself a particular nature, together with its totality; (for, because it contains in itself all reasons, it is after a manner a whole, but because it is diminished and fallen, ends in parts, and suffers a transition of its energy, it must be esteemed a particular nature): and again, perfecting itself, yet, nevertheless, perfected by natures prior to its own; filling itself with power and strength, and at the same time filled by others: living from itself, and receiving life from others, being more divine, indeed, than things which live only by participation, but inferior to things primarily vital; moving other things, and itself moved by others; at the same time similar and dissimilar; and separated, at the same time, from last natures, and co-ordinated with them. Such then, being the properties of the first, middle, and last orders, let us consider where we ought to place the soul, whether in the first order, or in those which retain the last place: but if we establish it among the first, it must be true being, every way eternal and immoveable, and it must consequently possess every thing which we have attributed to the first beings; add too, that on this hypothesis we can no longer attribute to the soul a power of self-motion, nor the discursive processions of reasoning, nor a variety of other particulars, which manifestly belong to the soul. But can we place it with propriety among the last of beings? The least of all: for on this hypothesis we shall make it alone moved by others, divisible, composite, and alone possessing perfection from others, the opposite of which is evident in all our souls; since they move and perfect themselves, and are led wherever they please.
Since then it is not possible to place the soul either in the first, or last order of beings, it is requisite to assign it a middle place, in imitation of its divine cause Rhea (according to the theologists), who is the conciliating band of the two parents Saturn and Jupiter, and is reported, from her prolific bosom to produce the life of the soul. But though the soul is thus the extremity of intelligible, and the principle of sensible natures, we must not conceive it to be such a principle or extremity as a point in a line, for it is not in both the natures it terminates, like a point in both the sections of a line; but it is to be called the extremity of intelligibles, because it appears after an intelligible essence, and the principle of sensibles, as being abstracted from them, and the source of their motion. And thus it will preserve to us a certain proportion, that as the natures which are moved by others, are to those which are moved by themselves, so are these last to immoveable natures; and hence it will obtain the condition of a bond, on account of its peculiar mediocrity, unfolding, indeed, united causes, but reducing the dissipated powers of sensibles into _one_, and being contained by an immoveable and perpetually abiding cause; but containing itself the generation, which, moved by another, is subject to continual mutation. It is likewise intelligible, if we regard generated natures; but generated, if we compare it with intelligibles; and thus it exhibits in its middle nature both extremes, imitating also, by this means, (according to the Greek theologists) its divine cause, for it is said to be on both sides refulgent, ἀμφιφαὴς, and to be endued with two faces ἀμφιπρόσωπος, and to receive in its bosom the processions of intelligible natures. It is likewise said to be replenished with intellectual life, and to be the fountain of the ever-running streams of corporeal life, and to contain in itself the centre of the processions of all beings. On this account it is, with great propriety, affirmed to be generated, and at the same time without generation. For true being, according to the Platonists, is without generation, because it has an infinite power of being totally present at the same time: and body is said to be generated, because it always possesses in itself an infinite flowing power, which it cannot at once totally receive. The soul, therefore, because it is incorporeal, abiding in itself, has an infinite power of being, and this total with respect to its essence, and immortal without generation; but according to parts it may be considered in infinite production. For it has not the same total infinity ever present, or there would be the same infinity of the whole and part, of the perfect and imperfect, of the contained and containing, which is impossible. But neither is it possible that the whole of its essence should be in the act of perpetual production, any more than that a part of it should be eternal being, lest the part should be more worthy and better than the whole.
Hence the ὑπόϛασις, or subsistence of the soul, is at the same time of infinite power, and is generated in infinitum; for by this means it participates of being, and obtains the first place among generated natures; while body alone, both with respect to its whole and parts, is obnoxious to a perpetual generation.
3. But let us now enquire from what genera Plato composes this nature of the soul, which contains in itself the bond of all beings; previous to which it will be requisite to explain what these genera are, and from whence they originate. Of the species, then, existing in the intelligible world, or the divine intellect, which contains in itself the causes of all posterior natures, some are most general, extending themselves to the universality of things; but others are more particular, like the most special species, and others subsisting between these, expand themselves, indeed, to a multitude of things, but not to all, according to the division, of the Elean guest in the Sophista. For man is produced from the ideal man, and horse from the ideal horse, in the intelligible world; but the similitude which is found in man and horse, and other animals, is produced from likeness itself, or the ideal similitude, as dissimilitude from unlikeness itself; but the sameness and difference which are found in all beings, proceed from the sameness and difference which subsist in ever-vital energy and perfection, in the supreme intellect, or the ideal world.
Now, as among the sciences some are especially universal, so in intelligible causes some are perfectly particular, presiding alone over the proper and peculiar number of one species; but others extend themselves to a multitude, such as equality, likeness, totality, (for the whole considered as a whole is not common to all things, since the part is not a whole); but others, again, expand themselves to all things, as all beings participate of these, considered as beings, and not considered as vital or animated, or possessing any other property exclusive of the denomination of being. Because, therefore, _being_ is the first, the causes of _being_ obtain the most universal order among genera; and these are five in number, as follows, _essence_, _sameness_, _difference_, _motion_, and _station_. For every being is endued with essence; is united to itself; is by itself, or its own sameness, separated from others; proceeds from itself, and its own state and principle, and no less appears to participate of a certain _abiding_, in preserving its own proper species. All things, therefore, whether intelligibles or sensibles, or subsisting between both, depend on these genera for their existence. For without the being of _essence_, nothing could subsist; in like manner, without _sameness_ every whole would be dissipated, and divided from itself; and _difference_ being taken away, all things would be one alone, and multitude be destroyed. But without _motion_ and _station_, all things would either be inefficacious and dead, or, losing their proper state and stability, would end in non-entity.
4. Such then being the middle nature of the soul, Plato, with great propriety, in the Phædrus, and in his tenth book of laws, defines it to be number moving itself; which definition he received from Philolaus, and Philolaus from Pythagoras. For since mathematical species have a middle subsistence, as is proved in the following Commentaries, they are of all things most accommodated to the nature of the soul.
Hence Plato, in imitation of Pythagoras, sometimes explains the soul by number, as in the present instance; and sometimes by figure and magnitude, as in the Timæus; while he considers in the soul the intersection of lines, and a twofold circle. For since mathematical forms are separated from the flux and inconstancy of matter, they participate of a certain, exact, sure, and exquisite condition, by means of which they eminently confer to the elevation of our ingenuity, and the explication of latent concerns; and, on this account, as they pertain to numbers, we may say, preserving the analogy, that there are of these is uniform, the second immoveable, the third self-motive, the fourth moved by another, and the last the image of the others, and their external measure. The divine number is considered eminently in the deity, as in the principle of all things; the essential belongs to intellect through ideas, and is called _essence_, _unity_, and _the first being_; the animative number belongs to the soul, through the medium of her inherent reasons; the natural to physical concerns, through the seeds of nature; and lastly, the mathematical belongs to opinion, as it is nothing more than the image of essential