Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Epicurusonvoid,matterandgenesis
Some historicalobservations
FRIEDRICH
SOLMSEN
Florence, 1936.
a Epikurs Kritik der platon. Elementenlehre (Leipzig, 1936) 16 ff.
a Particularly important are articles by C. Diano in Giornale critico di filosofia
ital. esp. 21-22 (194041). See also David Furley, Two Studies in the Greek
Atomists (Princeton, 1967) 115 ff., 194 ff. Fuller information is found in J. M.
Rist, EPicurus. An Introduction (Cambridge, 1972) which includes a "Bibliography."
"For the Philebus see Diano, SIFC 12 (1935) 61 ff., 237 ff.; Rist 107; for
esoterica (of Plato and his successors) H. J. Kramer, Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie (Berlin, 1971), 171 ff., 199 ff., 288 ff.
263
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sophical topics and among them central ones like those named in our
title have so far been by-passed. le may not be able to achieve
complete clarity on every aspect of their origin, but hope that the
suggestions offered here point in the right direction.
It seems convenient to begin with the "void." J. M. Rist in his recent
Epicurus presents a fair and conscientious account of the present
status quaestionis: "Earlier atomists had run into logical puzzles by
calling the void non-being (oiux6v or tu 6v), thus bringing down on
themselves the wrath of Aristotle, who remarks in the Physics that
some people gave in to the Eleatic arguments and said that non-being
(r6 u d6v) exists. To escape this objection, which he would have
regarded as merely semantic, Epicurus avoids the term non-being
and speaks of void as though it were a substance" but a "substance
of a very peculiar kind ... an untouchable substance (&vacpJcouato)."
Rist next refers to terminological problems. "Space" (X6'po)when
used for the void suggests "empty spaces between atoms and groups
of atoms," whereas "place" (r'6oq) indicates a concern with "the
area occupied" by atoms or their clusters.5Actually matters are more
complex. "Places" are not always filled, and, to quote Rist once
more: "some 'places' contain atoms and others void!" There is much
in this account that I accept as factually correct;6 my reservations
and my disagreement relate to the explanations.
Aristotle when alluding to the Abderites in Physics I 3, 187 a lf.
suggests they posited a pm 6v because Parmenidean being was "one"
(...
rv'a gv, t8 6v tv oa-%tavet), leaving no room for a plurality of
things. As we know and as Aristotle knew, other thinkers of the
generation following Parmenides recognized a plurality of physical
objects - and indeed of principles - without admitting the void as
,% 6v or by any other name. The reason why the Abderites took this
step is stated by Aristotle more precisely in de gen. et corr. I 8, 325 a
23 ff. Here too it is in reaction against Parmenidesthat they developed
their tenets. Leucippus, we read (a 26 ff.), agreed with those building
up the One: Wgoux iv xCvwmvOSaxv &vcuxevo5, '6 rs xcv'ov [0] U xcl roVO cit. (n. 3) 56. Bailey (The Greek A tomists and Epicurus, Oxford, 1928,
Op.
293 ff. and elsewhere) discusses "space" instead of "void," which causes
distortions.
6 Robin goes farther in the right direction (Lucr&cede la nature. Commentaire
ex6g6tiqueet critique par Alfred Ernout et L6on Robin, Paris, Bud6 I, 1925) ad
I 329-397 where he refers to Aristotle, Phys. IV 6 and 9 as helping Epicurus to
"pr6ciser et compl6ter" the Abderite account of the void.
264
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6vtoq o6&6v ,uJ 6v qpatv eIvaL. From Melissus we learn7 how closely
movement, void and non-being are linked to one another and how
natural it was for anyone working in the shadow of Parmenides to
treat the void as ,u 6v. When we now turn to Aristotle's own system,
we find that he has his own version of the v ov as well as his own way
of restoring it to philosophical validity; in Physics 1 7 f., where he
even vindicates genesis from non-being, he thinks of non-being chiefly
as privation (aetp-aLq) but is also preparedto identify it with potential
being as distinct from and opposed to actual being.8 With genesis
back in honors and Being itself no longer monolithic but a plurality,
multiform and hierarchically articulated,9 Parmenides was not as
formidable an authority as he had been for Leucippus and Democritus. Aristotle criticizes Abderite non-being in Physics I 7 but his
perfunctory strictures there are less significant for our purpose than
the close examination of the void in Physics IV (6-9) which results
in a rejection of it as &X1 xevov216 a 26 f.), a product of fallacious
reasoning and a potential source of confusion. Still, to expose the
fallacies in question, Aristotle has first of all to clarify the nature of
the void. What kind of thing would it be if it were real? He provides a
definition which to his own mind only points up the error of positing
such a concept - yet someone operating on a different set of first
assumptions might find the definition more positively useful.
Aristotle's examination of the void forms the sequel to his disquisition about the reality and peculiar nature of "place" (TO6ioq,
Phys. IV 1-5); for the void too, if it has any meaning at all, must for
Aristotle be some kind of place; his entire discussion of the concept
rests on this view.10A prior condition for his study of both place and
void in purely physical termnswas the demotion of ?67roofrom the far
7 30 B 7.7 D-K. In Parmenides I would not find the void lurking behind the
265
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
'rtv& xal O&yy?tovr6 xev6v XC8OXCL8i 7CXvpCq ,Li ClVLX,6'aV 9X'n'6v 6yxoV o06
8Cx'rLx6v Earmv, 6'av 8i a'=epv$jj, xev6v, cl S'o cc&r6 ,?'v 6v xMvOv [x0Ct
6v. (213 a 15-19). Difi0Xipec]18 xol '6nov, 'r 8'CtVOL ot6roZ4 ov ro
ferently expressed, 8oxz-L8! ' xcv6v tr67roqelvaL iv tq86v ZCaLV (213
UOV:LV
ot
Xe'yOv',
CZ0a
"tangible.-"14
For Epicurus' new use of '6rtogwe cannot rest our case on a conjecture - dubious and by now out of favor - in the well known passage
of ad Herodotum(37) 'r67rxv&aL <a4O'[LM'a
xaalT6to0>,15 nor can we base
"I
266
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
it on a doxographer'stestimony: 'E7rdxoupoc
OV60MMaL7t0pOc
rTTLV XeV6&
?6lov x?pcx(Stob., Ecl. I 13.4 p. 318. 1, Diels Doxogr.), but when Plutarch quotes Epicurus as declaring * scov6vmrcav
&a'L xaot
cp saRMOcLsCk
'r6noq(adv.Col. 1112 E = frg. 13 Bailey), we may accept this without
suspicion (even though such use of TU'Mqand 6vrt in another thinker
would give us pause).""Fuller information is provided by Lucretius.
In his first reference to the void: quapropterlocus est intactus inane
vacansque (I 334) he supports its existence by arguments relating to
movement and to difference of weight and texture. There is nothing
here (vv. 335-397) - at least no essential thought - that could not go
back to the original proponents of atomism." Somewhat different in
import are two passages of which it will suffice to present one; tumporro
locus ac spatiumquodinane vocamussi nulum forethaudusquamsita corporapossentesse (neque.. .rmeare).I8
The words sita esse specify the function of locus. Void is found not only between bodies but is also occupied
by them, in which case Aristotle would refer to it as "filled". Epicurus
may not go so far with him; he may indeed think of bodies not so
much as "filling" but as being in the void. Without it oux &v elxc -oc
acoaocT 67oU~v ou
&L 0
oi &v-CLro
c
...
he says in a passage(adHerod.40)
Jackson Hershbell draws my attention to adv. Col. 1114 a, where reality once
more = sa6umarm
xocl xcv6v. The doxographer knows that Epicurus varied his
expressions.
17 About the polemical section (vv. 337-397) I ought perhaps to be less positive.
Democritus may have had to oppose the notion of "circular thrust" (cf. Guthrie
HGP II 147 n., where he speaks of this notion as present "in the mind" of
Empedocles).
18 I 426 f. Note also vv. 419 ff., omnis ut est igitur per se natura duabus constitit
in rebus; nam corpora sunt et inane,/ haec in quo sita sunt et qua diversa moventur
(the first two lines are strikingly like Plutarch's quotation of Epicurus' own
words). Cf. C. Giussani, T. Lucreti Cari De rer. nat. libri sex. vol. 1 (Torino 1896),
21 ff., 129 ff., 187 f.
" I regard geri =
LvelcOmL. To credit Democritus
of void
and place is an error caused by Aristotle's habit of reading his own theories into
earlier thinkers. Phys. 208 b 25 ff. is a clear case of "interpretation," which
should fortify us for 213 a 15 ff., 214 b 23 f. Simplicius is no independent
witness. At in de caelo 295.3 (A 37 D-K) on which Guthrie (II 391 n. 3) relies,
he quotes Aristotle.
267
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
268
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
269
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
sume is transformed into it; see further de part. an. II 3, 650 a 3 ff. (note a
34 ff.) and de gen. an. II 6 (e.g. 743 a 8 ff.) - For the analogy of food and matter
in an Epicurean text see Lucr. I 103841.
s When reading the Epicurean polemic against Heracitus' fire as materies rerum
and against similar errors of others (Lucr. I 635-920), we recall Aristotle's
treatment of Presocratic "principles" as &v5)-q teLSC, Metaph. I 3, 983 b 6 ff.
See for Heracitus 984 a 7, for the atomists 985 b 4-10. Epicurus derived information
about
Presocratic
doctrines
from
Theophrastus'
OuaLx&v
A6,CaL
(see Erich Reitzenstein, Theophrast bei Epicur und Lucrez, Heidelberg, 1924),
a work for which Aristotle's interpretations were by and large canonical (John
B. McDiarmid, HSCP61 (1953) 93 ff.).
"s Cf. Phillip H. DeLacy TAPA 79 (1948) 14 ff.
270
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
menides &6vapplying to the atom ibid. 392. I am aware that the listing of some
items needs justification but the purpose of this paper would not be affected by
disagreements on one or the other. To save space I have also disregarded differences between Democritus and Leucippus.
31 Where several levels of reality are set up, the predicates of Parmenides' &6v
attach to the highest. See for the Platonic Forms AJP 92 (1971) 62 ff., for the
Platonic Cosmos (Tim. 33 b ff.) Cornford, Plato's Cosmology 54. The Parmenidean
motifs in the doctrine of soul in the Phaedo (78 c f., 80 a f.) and in Aristotle's
Prime Mover and Cosmos have not yet been investigated. The history of "Parmenides' legacy" remains to be written. Cf. Guthrie, HGP II 38 f., 47 f.
271
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
272
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
273
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
',3See Cherniss, Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy, 218 ff. and pass.
44
8Xn on the one hand and &pXmt,a-roLXctm, etc. on the other, but it is difficult to
substantiate this belief since Lucretius, our principal witness, may not have
preserved the nuances. There are passages in him, e.g. III 372, 425 ff.,
V 187 ff., where primordia could not easily be replaced by materies; the reason
may be that individual atoms are essential to the argument. The same is true of
primordia principiorum in III 262 f. Note, however, the ready change from
materies to primordia in II 768 ff. (cf. 1 545 ff. quoted above p. 273).
4 For the orthodoxy cf. Robin (see n. 6) ad I 150 (it does not include divinitus,
generally considered Lucretius' own addition).
274
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and requires the period for growth that is normal and natural semine
certo (I 180-189). The entire section I 159-214 has regularity and
organic development for its subject. Lucretius, doubtless following
the master and reruminventor,specifies the limits and conditions within
which genesistakes place. materiesrebusredditacertastgignundis e qua
constat quid possit oriri (vv. 203 f.), and similarly materies certa is
required for nourishment, increase, and growth (grandescerealique,
v. 191; cf. 184; II 711 ff.).
Comparedwith the later Presocratics who replaced genesis by composition or mixture and destruction by decomposition, Epicurus'
attitude strikes us as remarkably original, an impression which we
may modify - but hardly abandon - when we take account of the
275
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(without enthusiasm, it seems fair to say, but how could he deny it?);
true to his categorical denial of divine operations, he locates the ordo
certusin "seeds," i.e. atoms whose behavior follows definite patterns.5'
To these major developments concerning genesis and order we may
still add an increased awareness ever since Plato that definite causes
have definite effects - since an attempt to substantiate this suggestion
would requirea lengthy digressionI must be content to hope that such
keener awareness is intrinsically probable.52
Has the same recognition of ordo (ro'CL) that enters into Epicurus'
See P1., Tim. 48 b-53 c (note 52 d 2 ff.); Arist., Phys. I 6-9; de gen. et corr.
I 3-5,II 4, 9 ff.
50 For Plato see Gorg. 503 a ff.; Tim. 30 a; Phileb. 30 a ff.; Legg. 809 d, 821 a ff.,
897 bff.; for Aristotle de gen. et corr. II 10 (336 bll ff. etc.); metaph. A 10;
de part. anim. I 1, 648 b 18 ff.; de gen. anim. IV 10 - but no number of individual
passages can convey an adequate impression.
"1 The most instructive passages are Lucr. V 655 ff., 732 ff. Cf. AJP 72 (1951)
16 ff. = Kleine Schrilten I 476 ff.
52 See however Phys. I 5, 188 a 31-34 and the passage just quoted from De part.
an. In the Phaedo (96 a ff.) at(tx as such for the first time becomes a philosophical subject.
276
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mount to denying all law and regularity in nature. It has been said
that Epicurus "proves more than he need; all it was necessary for him
to show was that every created thing was sprung from an antecedent
something, was created of substance which already existed..."53
This opinion, while logically correct, ignores the historical situation
and fails to grasp Epicurus' specific motivation. Genesis as such had
been re-established and that genesis from something was no problem
is shown by the readiness with which Lucretius avails himself of it
throughout I 159-214 (as well as elsewhere). What Epicurus envisaged
when he came to deal with the traditional topic of "no genesis from
nothing" was the appalling condition of utter anarchy in nature.
If we still - perhaps unnecessarily - hesitate to speak of ordo and on
the other hand are reluctant to introduce a modern concept such as
"law of nature," we may remember the passages where Lucretius
invokes foederanaturae. These foedera,as we infer especially from I
584-598,r4guarantee predictability both in the phases of nature that
present themselves to our senses and in those below the threshold of
vision, which are the domain of atomist science. However the regularity (nec commutatutrquicquam etc., I 588) which we today would
consider a natural law presents itself to Epicurus under the rather
different aspect of a finita potestas: quid possit oriri, quid nequeat
(I 594 f.). We should like to know more about the underlying idea.
If an approximation and (as seems probable) also a concession to
Plato's and Aristotle's TOCLq,55 it is yet rather differently conceived.
It is a "limit." However as we cannot even decide what if any Epicurean term Lucretius rendered by foedera,56we must be satisfied with
the rather general impressions gathered from a few passages in his
poem.
The word =ctp[mwith its connotations and Epicurus' use of them
for his version of genesis require no further comment. About the degree
of his originality no precise statement is possible, since it is not certain
53Bailey, A tomists 276.
"4 Passages where a comparable appeal to the foedera is made are II 302; V
310, 823 f. III 416 strikes me as different; and at II 254 the swerve "breaks"
the foedera.
" See my paper cited above n. 51.
65 Cf. the illuminating discussion of "limit" in Epicurus by Phillip DeLacy,
Phoenix 23 (1969) 103 ff., esp. 109 ff. As for alte terminus haerens, while not
minimizing Lucretius' poetic contributions to the image, I am inclined to
regard terminus = 8poS.
277
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
" Bailey does feel sure but his comment on Lucr. I 59: "Gk. a7 p avra,a word
which the atomists took from Anaxagoras" is unwarrantably dogmatic.
I' No more than a step however, since atoms cannot grow, unfold or develop
(as seeds normally would). For Epicurus genesis and growth still come about by
mixture and conglomeration. Here he does not depart from the Abderite scheme,
and his doctrines have nothing in common with "organic growth."
I' Phys. 203 a 19 ff.; Dc caelo III 4, 303 a 10-6; De an. I 2, 404 a 1 ff. (59 A 45;
67 A 15; 69 A 88 D-K). In De caelo 303 a 15 f. I read: q oaotv a.urtv (obcrv codd.)
'r?v cacv otov rvac7rep[v(
&vrxdcvv
'r&vc'-OLX6(cov (cf. a 11 f.).
'I The Abderites doubtless knew that each biological species had its particular
sperma but I do not see what bearing such elementary information might have
on the Epicurean use of semina certa (also outside the biological sphere). I make
bx&a'rou
x
this point because the thought: oiu y&p 6nt 'rxcv broi
a7rip,uocroq
yEyVrxL in Phys. 196 a 31 f. is rightly or wrongly by Simplicius and Ross (ad loc.)
fathered on Democritus.
278
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
u See 68 A 1.44.
65 There is, to be sure, room for altemative conclusions. If (as might be argued)
in the later Presocratics the on had with its uniqueness also lost some of its
original Parmenidean majesty and aloofness, Epicurus would merely continue
this trend. Something could also be said for the thesis that Epicurus by the new
predicates he attaches to hyle raises it considerably above the level it has in
Aristotle.
279
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
280
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
o/
North Carolina
69
See E. Bignone, Empedocle (Torino, 1916) 408. Cf. also Bailey (see below n. 71).
A straightforward assertion that a vanishing of T6 6v is inconceivable, is found
elsewhere in Empedocles (B 12.2; cf. v. 1 and for &ituaroqParm. B 8.21).
71 Commentary ad I 216
(p. 636). Nothing in ad Her. parallels Lucretius' unde...
questions concerning replenishments; very probably, as Bailey suggests, they
go back to a larger work of Epicurus. Conversely the argument in ad Her. 39
that there is nothing into which the all could change does not recur in Lucretius.
It too has a parallel in Empedocles (B 17.33) and is likely to have occurred in
Democritus.
James Longrigg (Philologus 119 (1975) 147 ff.) compares Lucr. III 510-522
with Melissus B 7. The similarities are striking and cannot be accidental.
That Lucretius read Melissus I consider unlikely. Here, too, I should think of
Democritus and Epicurus as intermediaries but would not exclude other
possibilities.
72 I am indebted to Jackson P. Hershbel for a number of critical comments.
70
281
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.29 on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions