alexander aphrodisiensis # avotins (alexander of aphrodisias on vision in the atomists) bb
Post on 02-Jun-2018
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
1/27
Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists
Ivars Avotins
The Classical Quarterly, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 2. (1980), pp. 429-454.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%281980%292%3A30%3A2%3C429%3AAOAOVI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U
The Classical Quarterlyis currently published by The Classical Association.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/classical.html.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.
JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.orgTue May 8 15:18:26 2007
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%281980%292%3A30%3A2%3C429%3AAOAOVI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Uhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/classical.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/classical.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0009-8388%281980%292%3A30%3A2%3C429%3AAOAOVI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U -
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
2/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S I A S O N V I S I O N
I N T H E A T O M I S T S
In discussing the atom ists ' the ory of vision m oder n accou nts have quite
neglected to ta ke into accou nt tw o sections of Alexander of Aphrodisias on
this topic.' Nearly identical in length and cont ent , they contain objections to
th e atomist theory of vision by means of the ~ i whahenceforth ' idols') . In
form the y consist of a series of ques tions purport ing t o contain atom ist doctr ine.
Each question is fol lowed by objections to i ts subject-ma tter . Most of the
q u es ti on s c o nt ai n d o ct r in e k n o w n t o u s al re ad y fr o m o t h e r s o ~ r c e s . ~owever,
on e of the questions at tr ibu tes to the a tomists a solution of a problem o f vision
by idols which has quite escaped all the better-known and mo re recent accounts
of atom ist epistemology.3 This solution explains ho w idols em anating from
large objec ts enter th e pupil of th e eye and are able to be perceived as wholes.
In another quest ion Alexander a t t r ibu te s to the a tomists the no t ion tha t t he
idols may have served merely to arouse and m ake ready th e ey e for vision. This
P. Wendland (ed.), Alexandri in librum
de sensu commentarium , Commentaria in
Ar is to te lem G raeca ,
111.1 (Berlin, 1901),
pp. 56.6-58.22 (henceforth
De sensu)
and I. Bruns (ed .), Alexandri Aphrodisiensis
praeter commentaria scripta minora. De
anima liber cum mantissa , Sup p l e m e n t um
Aris to te l i cum, 11.1 (Berlin, 188 7) , pp. 134 .
28-136.28 (henceforth Mantissa) . The
Mantissa
may not be an original part of the
work of Alexander going under t he title
De Anima (Bruns, ibid., v). Bruns is never-
theless convinced that most of Book 2 is
by Alexander (ibid.). In fact, the informa-
tion in this section is somewhat fuller than
tha t found in the corresponding section in
De sensu. If its author was not Alexander,
he was certainly someone well acquainted
with atomist writings. This is suggested, for
instance, by his use, in reference to t he
idols, of the term ~a~apvooodoflat13 5.
19-20). The only other instance of the use of
this verb or a related one in a similar contex t
occurs, as far as I know, in a passage attri-
buted by Plutarch to Democritus: . 6
@qowA ~ ~ ~ K P L T O S
TQ
y~a~ap~oooLiof lat
~ ' ibwhath WV nopwv
~ TU
o w p a ~ a
.
(Quae s t . Conv iv .
8 .10 .2
734 Diels-
Kranz12, Democritus A 77) .
P. Moraux thinks it very probable tha t
the section of the
Mantissa
considered in
this paper was a part of a series of studies on
the De sensu of Alexander. He makes no
firm statement o n its authorship ( A l e x a nd r e
d A p hr o d i s e (Paris, 1942) , pp. 24-8). P. L.
Donini (Tre s tud i sul l hvis to te lismo nel
11
secolo D. C . (Turin, 1974), p. 159 ) thinks
that the author of the Mantissa, if not
Alexander himself, certainly belonged to his
school. Therefore there seems to be n o
reason why the question of authorship
should prevent us from making use of the
information contained in this passage. For
the sake of convenience I shall use the name
of Alexander to refer in th e rest of this paper
to the author of the Mantissa.
In De sensu 56.10-16 Alexander groups
Empedocles with Leucippus and Democr itus
as representatives of the same theory of
vision. In consequence, one might consider
that he could have attr ibuted t he atomist
doctrines found in the chapters in
De sensu
and the Mantissa also to Empedocles. How-
ever, when dealing with some aspects of
vision in more detail Alexander clearly
separates Empedocles from Leucippus,
Democritus, and Epicurus (ibid., 23.5-24.9
versus 24.10-27).
This explanation is referred to in the
cont ext of vision by A. E. Haas, Antike
Lichttheorien , Archiv fur Geschichte der
Philosophie
20 (1 907), 364, and
passim, J .
Zahlfleisch, Die Polemik Alexanders von
Aphrodisia gegen die verschiedenen Theorien
des Sehens , ibid., 9 (18 96), 149-55, A.
Koenig, Lucreti de simulacris et de visu
doc tnn a cum font ibus com para ta (Greifs-
wald, 1914), pp. 91-2, and Ch. Mugler,
Les ~ h i o r i e s e la vie et de la conscience
chez ~Cmo crit e ,
PH
33 (1959), 24.
However, these scholars make very slight
use of it.
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
3/27
430 IVARS AVOTl NS
theo ry seems to have escaped scholarship even more com pletely. For bo th of
these theories Alexander is our on ly source of information.
Alexander does not mention his sources. Should we believe that all of the
doctr ine which his quest ions imp ute t o t he atom ists was, indeed, theirs? It
seems to m e that in pr inciple we have no reason t o t reat A lexander with m or e
suspicion than oth er evidence. Th e great major i ty of t he wri tings of Democri tus
and of Epicurus is lost. We kn ow very litt le of th e teachings o f th e later Epi-
cureans and of the possible supplements to their phi losophy which the y ma y
have excogitated to defend i t against the at tacks of their Hellenist ic com peti tors.
Nor is mu ch Epicurean d octr in e fou nd in the wri tings of m en l iving in th e R om an
period. Therefore, i t is qui te possible tha t a tom ist doctr ine fo und in Alexander
and n ot at tested elsewhere may b e genuine. The plausibil ity of each i tem has to
be co nsidered sep arately . In general, Alexander s record for veracity and accuracy
is rather good. His accounts have been quest ioned here an d there b ut there
appears to be n o major scandaL4
Because of o ur lack of inform ation we cann ot in mos t cases determine
whether or n ot th e a tomis t doc t rines ment ioned by Alexander were held both by
D em ocritu s (an d Leucippus) a nd ~ ~ i c u r u s . ~n o ur t w o passages a clear differen-
t ia t ion between Demo cri tus and Epicurus can, i t seems, be m ade on o nly on e
point . In the Mant i ssa 136 .24, the idols are said t o lack co lour . As wil l be
discussed later on, this statem ent can not b e ma de of t he Epicurean idol . Alex-
ander also does no t men tion th e air - imprint theo ry of vision at t r ibu ted to
Dem ocritus by ~ h e o ~ h r a s t u s . ~owever , the doxographical t radi t ion at t r ibut es
the theo ry of idols a lso to ~e m oc r i tu s . Therefore the omission of th e a ir -
imprints need not mean that specifically Epicurean doctrine was followed by
Alexander here.
Alexander himself does no t men tion Epicurus by nam e in these two accounts.
There is evidence, however , which indicates th at he did not dif ferent iate in his
mind among th e views o n this point of Leucippus, Democritus, and Epicurus. In
De sensu 56.1 2 ff . he states that he is opposing th e theory of vision of those wh o
Eiawha Twa dpoiopopq5a an0 ~ c j vpwpivwv av w~ cj c noppiov~a a i
6pnin~ov~aO E ~ TOV dpav f i ~ i h v ~ or AS representatives of th is theo ry h e men-
t ions on ly Leucippus and Democri tus. No names are given in th e corresponding
section in th e
Mantissa
(pp. 1 3 4 f f . ) but a ll a tomis ts appear to be covered b y the
phrase
npd~ TOVC
d
T ~ ~ficbhuv
(134.30) . Moreover , in
TO dpav hyov~ac
De se n su
24.18-2 1
(=
Us. 3 19 ) Epicurus is ad de d as a representative of this
For instance, H.
H.
Joachim in his
Simplicius ought t o be preferred t o that of
commenta ry t o Aristotle s
De Generat ione
Alexander
Metaphysics
36.25-7).
e t C o n u p t i o n e
328a (Oxford, 1922) ,
A. A. Long, Stoic Determinism and
pp. 183-4, believes that of the two differ-
Alexander of Aphrodisias De F ato (i-
ent doctrines on mixture attributed t o
xiv) .
Archiv fur Gesch ichte de r Philosophie
Democritus by Alexander and Philoponus
52 (1970 ), 247-68, states that Alexander s
respectively we ought t o prefer t he one
conclusions sometimes involve misrepresenta-
reported by the latter. In this Joachim has tion of Stoics views (ibid.,
p.
247).
been support ed recently by
R
B. Todd,
Cicero asserts that in vision Epicurus
Alexander of Aphrodisias on Stoic Physics
followed Democritus:
.
sunt tot a Demo-
(Leiden, 19 76) , pp. 184-5.
criti imagines quae e i wha nominant,
D. J Furley,
Tw o Studie s in the Greek
quorum incursione non solum videamus, sed
A t o mi s t s
(Princeton, 19 67 ), pp. 98-9,
etiam cogitemus
D e f in . ,
1.6.21.
believes that in the question o n the parts
Theophrastus,
De sensu
50-1.
of the Democritean atom the testimony of
Diels-Kranz 67A 29-31, pp. 78-9.
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
4/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S I A S O N V I S I O N I N T H E A T O M I S T S
431
t h e o r y :
iiarepov 6i oi nep i TOV 'Enkovpov .
Since the De sensu is a com -
mentary t o Aristot le i t is no t surprising that atomist philosophers fou nd in
Ar isto tle himself Leucippus and Democr i tus- should be ment ioned more
freq uen tly by Alexander than Epicurus. Moreover differences between th e
views of D emocritus and Epicurus on vision need no t affect th e specific problem
discussed by Alexander: how are effluences from large objects--Alexander
ment ions temples and thea t res-ab le to be perce ivedin the i r en t i rety by th e much
smaller eye ?
Since the G reek of these tw o passages is no t eve rywhere perfectly clear
have translated the m and discussed t he m ore diff icult par ts in detai l . The rest
of this paper will be devot ed chiefly t o a discussion of- those section s which
introduce atomist doctr ine not encountered in other sources.
This is th e Greek tex t as fo un d in the CAG edit ions and a translat ion of th e
tw o passages:
De
sensu 56.6 58.22
p.
44 a 1 5 To pkv ovv iju nc p oi apxaio i At-yeiv anoppolav eivai
'E~Oipevos hs 665ac rhc 660,
K ~ O
as ai rw v nhewvwv xpw pdrwv
@avraoiat~ a r hitw r wv kvavriwv, 706 re A E V K O ~a i06 pihavos, rive-
oat
t
~ O K E ~v fiv 6dta nppo~arapephqpi~r)epi rod 6pdv bno TWV hp-
xaiwv, w s &pa706 6pdv ~ a r ai v &norwv bpw pivw v hndppotav ytvo-
1
pivov. e'idwha ydp rtva bpotdpop@ahnb rw v bpwpiv wv avvexws hnop-
pCovra ~ a ipninrovra
B EL706 dpdv TL WV TO .ow6rot 6.4 fiaav o'i
re nepi Aeir~tnnov~ a iqpdyptrov. O? ~ a iKrqs TWV hOp6rwv 6th pt-
118
~pdr qr anapaO60ews rqv rwv perat6 xpwpdrwv @avraoiavknoiovv hhhh
~ a iEpneSo~Afisoiirw
7 bpdv yiveoOat h iy et , we npo dhiyov tpvqpdvevoev.
L
6k p i i)yt+q q 6dtap q6 i o6rwc oidv re 76 dpdv yweoOat, hhh' h e
a b ~ b ~t 6 e t t e ~ , n o p t p ~ ~ ~ e ~pds ~aOdhou~ E L K V ~ F71 ~ a r h hnop- 5
poiac ?as hnb r wv 6pwpE1vwv
7
bpdv yiveaOat oidv re. e i y h o h w , 6 i
h@fic
i
dvriAq te rfi BJiet Borat, e'iye r h hnoppiovra owpara iiwa 73
tpninretv airrh
fi
6paOetowv * * ob~hr tnp0o iOq~ ev7b indpevov
hronov. eYq 6' iiv, ei eliT)61' &fis, Sew ab riv uxpoV Oepp06,bypod
~ a iwv am wv t v a v r ~ w a e w ~vrtAappdveoOat.
O ~ ~ E V O C
2 roirrwv hvrthqn
- 1
r t ~ f i .'rt ei ouvexqc hnb rGv 6pwpivwv hndppota. nws o i , ~V ah i 0~ ~ 7 at 7 a~ i w s
rooairrqs ow pa rt ~f ishno ~p ioe wcan' a h w v ytvopivqc; ei
S k
hvrtnpoaKpi-
verat abrois ahha , npwrov phv 6th ri 706~0 ~ Kei ywerat kn' abrwv,
119
wore ioa [r e ]abrh 6~ ap iv et v;is re aIria 706 wp ~ op iv wcaijtea8at
~ a iahrv wpt api vwc petodoOat; gnetra nw s dpotoo~qpova6tapivec;rh
piv yap hnoppiovra bpodpop@a(6th70670y06v ~ a ipwpdrwv q ~ L C
hvrthap~dverar)
ra 6 i npooyp~vdpeva6th ri roadrd ta rt; ~ a ii avvexqc
i
hndppota
@
i~ do ro u~ a ia r hdvra rh pdpuz, nws o b ~pno6iaet rh
hnoyptvdpeva rok @epopivots,&a npooyp&j,
i C~ ei vaoirrots, Eva p i
@Cpqrat;nwc 6 i henrh Bvra oi, a~e6aaOqaerathvi pwv Bvrwv; 6pwpev ydp,
K V dvepos
6
peraEi). Ert nw s 6taorfiparoc h.vrihq ~eytverat, ei r h kp-
ninrovrq b@OaA&s dpir;n ws 6 i ~ a i60vres O ~ K dpeOa, ei o h w q
1
tori rd @epdpevahenrd; 6vvTjuerat
~ ai pv dv rw v6th rw v ndpwv eiow
xwpeiv. 6ta ri 6.4 ~ a intreeivroc 706 bpwpivov obx 6Qd-
peOa; ~ a iap 7676 hnoppe6oerat 7h ei8wha ~ a iiterat a h a 6 & Oabdc.
6th ri@wr bsx p e h npos T O dpdv, 6eXopivov76 bp3peuov 7 1 3& Oah-
12
po6, ywerac;
276
ijrot rh hnoppiovra napd ~et rat
L F
b@Oa@@
4
rdre
biper at, &av E L a b ~ ancorp@.0. ei piv oirv napdK17al,066' dhwc
6taoriparoc hvrihq tc 807at.
E L
62 rdre ~iperat,npwrov pkv nhewvt
xpdv q r a nheiov a@eorLjrab dpeOa, 6nep obx oijrwc ytvdpevov dpw pev.
eira ei T L F 706 hipos rod npdrepov hnoppiovrds re ~ a ipninrovroc 706
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
5/27
4 3 2 l V A R S A V O T IN S
ei6whou
71)
b$e1
nos@,
6s ~ a ibroc kpninret r e 6$et,
KUT
airroOc
72,
6idorqpa bpa 8~ oera t, pwrov phv n wc sooo6rov hi pa i 6$1s &'[era1 ( ~ a e '
k~ da rq v hp @opave1Gwhou ~oao6~ovip a 66Eera~,baos arw b perat6
25
ab~od e ~ a i T L V ~ rh dnopp6owa e'iGwha,
1 0
06 bpwpivou);ei7a &[ EL io xi )~
Ws 706rov npoweeiv 6hvaoOat; ei7a nwc , 87av a ve ~oc 70670 $71 ( I W & ~ O
6 yap bvepos bpdrai napaohpwv rov perat3 hi pa . ei 67) ra eBw ha henrd-
repa 6 v ~ ata6JeIrat 7ilv TWV hviwwv piav, nws obxi 6ta 706 hipos 6 a -
121
66ae~at ;i 6k Earat ~ a i eiawvra cis ~ i l v
1 2 1
b hvaperp06v T ~ V B$LVhhpa; nw s 66
~ a i ~ a i0 ~ E ~ Y E ~ O rd axf ipa 706 dpwpivov i Qis ~p we i, a7d rd rfjs ~d pq q
U ~ Y E ~ O C e16whou pdpmv; ~ a i
5
exopivq hnb 706 @ E P O ~ ~ V O U yap ei no hh d~ lr
~ a iohha 6ixera1, nws K Q ~6ta 7i ahho7e ahho pip09 706 ~16whou ite7a1,
5
~ a i ;K h ~ a ibxi hei
70
a h 0 ~ a i 6 t a o ~ q p d ~ w v ; hei 70 rrapa~e&evov,
7ic
i U J V ~ E O ~ C
kv 77j 6$ 1,
s
e i a ~ p o vi vadv ~ O K E ~ V
0 ~ 7 ~ ~
twpa~Elva t 1 ~
oikw ptt~)Cju opiwv
TWV
kp ni nr dv ~w v nb 706 hn' aiurwv eiswhov @epopCvou;
nws 66 ob perat6 hn' ahhwv riv3u elSwhwv &.~nin~dv~wvn S$et 7tva
1 0
Staundaei 7.ilv 7ijs d$ews 7ijs 706 npcjrou uuvixetav, el 6ei rouav~ciwism i
1 0
7oua67a e'iSwha Pvexeijvar &no ~ t v o spbs airrqv, w s ~ a 7 a
O
76s ~dpq q
p i y e e o s 6 ~ ~ 0 p i v q vn' airrwv
7 6
~ A O Vei SiEauea~, hho hn' ahhou e b d -
hou pipos happdvouaav; nws 6h ~ a i heiwv
w s
ku~qpa7iupivano
TWV
7a ~ S w h aappcivet, p b ~xdvrwv kbxhs;
j
n3 c hnb 7 3 v ~ardnrpwv;
1 2 2
4 nws ai ktoxai &v6 dv a~a i@ipeueacpivouuw kv 71)6$e1, ei
O ~ ~ T W S
15
Curi hen7a ~ a i ~ a i dhiyovoeevfj 7a ~ S w h a , 06 uuyxhovrai; 61a
7 ;
6h ~ h v
hnehedv~os
TOU
6pwpivou,7a67a pivet fi
C
3 v 6u 7fi 6$ei; 76 66 h iyetv
puwni
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
6/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S IA S O N V I S I O N IN T H E A T O M I S T S
4 3 3
bodies , by impin ging . ( te x t cor rup t here) he fa iled to add the consequent absurdi ty .
If i t were to uch , i t (sc. vision) wou ld necessarily have perception of cold, ho t , wet , < th e
dry>" and the ' ' tact i le opposi tes; bu t i t perceives none of these.
Moreover , if em anat ion f rom the th ings seen too k p lace cont inuous ly , wh y do es not the
de t achmen t o f so muc h bodi ly subs tance f rom them lead t o the i r rapid d isappearance? But
if o t her b odi ly subs tance is added t o the m in exchange , f ir s t of a ll why does th i s
no t accrue t o t hem in pe rpe tu i t y so as t o preserve them in the same s ta te? Why d o they
increase and, then , decrease in a regular manner? Secondly , how d o they m ainta in th e same
shape? Althoug h th e eman ations are of th e same shape ( i t is for this reason tha t eyes perceive
colours , too ) why i s the replacement m at te r of the same k ind? Fur the rmo re , if the emana-
t ion f ro m each objec t i s cont inuo us and w i th respect t o a ll of i t s par t s , how wi ll the e f flu-
ences not ge t in th e way of th e ar riving replacements? Or the replacements h inder the
mo t ion of the ef f luences? Or , ho w wi l l they (sc . th e idols ) , be ing fine , not be sca t te red i f
there are winds? Fo r we see even if wind is between (sc. th e eye and th e external objec t) .
Moreover, how is distance perceived if th e eye sees those (sc. idols) which str ike i t?
If th e moving < idols> are so f ine , why d o we no t see even wi th ou r eyes shu t? For they
will be able t o en ter through the pores even if w e c lose ou r eyes . Also , why d o we n ot see
if th e thing seen is placed o n ou r eyes? Fo r then , too , the idols will em ana te and be received
by th e eye. Or, if th e eye receives th e thing seen , w hy is l ight needed fo r vision?
Fur the rmore , the e f f luences a re e i ther ad jacent to th e eye or move w hen th e eye is turned
towards them
(sc . the externa l objec ts ). I f they are adjacent there wi ll b e n o percept ion of
d is tance whatsoever. I f o n the o the r hand they m ove a t tha t mom ent , th en f i r s t of a ll more
t ime will be requi red for us t o see the mo re remote objec ts ; we are aware tha t th i s i s not the
case. Next , if acc ording t o them distance wil l be perceived b y th e am oun t of air which , too ,
ente rs the eye- belongs with th e idol which eman ates before (sc. th e air) and
enters the eye13 - f i r s t of a l l , how wi ll the eye b e able t o accomm odate so much a i r? Th e
travelI4 of each ido l1 ' will bring as mu ch air as there is between i t I6 and t h e thing seen.
Second ly, will the ema nating idols have any strength t o push forward this air? Next , how
will i t (sc. idol) survive in win d? F or we see th at win d displaces the in-between air. I f ,
indeed, being f iner , the idols evade th e force of t he w inds ho w wil l the y avoid sl ipping
through th e air (sc. th e air's part icles)? Also, w ha t wil l measure th e air which enters the e ye?
Moreover, how wil l the e ye dist inguish the size and th e shape of th e obj ect seen if i t
receives a sect ion of the mo ving idol corresponding to th e size of the pup il? Fo r even if th e
eye receives m an y (sc. such sect ions) rep eatedly, ho w and w hy wil l i t receive a different
sec t ion of the idol I7 a t d i f fe rent t imes ra ther than a lways the same sec t ion or one th a t is
I
551~ 06added by T hurot (Charles
reasonable . H owever, o ther sources do n ot
Th uro t , 'Alexandre d lAphrodis ias . Com-
men t ion i t . Whichever tex t we prefer , th e
men taire De Sensu et Sensibi l i' , N o t i c e s e t remaining part of this sentence can not be
E x tr ai ts d e s M an us cr it s d e la ~ i b l i o t h i q u e
l i teral ly t ru e. The air pushed by an idol
Nationale
2 5 ( 1 8 7 5 ) , 1 1 8 , n . 1 5 .
canno t be all the air 6009 kor iv pes a td
l Z
d h h w v plausibly su ggested by Wend-
It would have to be a column of air of the
land.
same f ronta l a rea as tha t of the idol . To what
l 7 0 0 . ~ ~ O P P ~ O V T O ~ ,
exte nt th e atomists were aware of al l these
espite its
pos i t ion , cannot re fer to th e a ir because the
considerat ion s is no t know n. For th e singu-
t e rm h a o p p e i v is used in A lexander on ly of
lar ~ i 6 w h o uee n. 15.
emanat ions f rom an externa l objec t .
Th e singular
E ~ G W A O U
us t be a
Nowhere else is air men tion ed as an emana-
generalization. Stric tly speaking, th e plural
t ion f rom an objec t . Therefore , th e con-
~ i 6 w h w vs required be cause a single idol
s t ruc t ion must be : 6 h i p 7 00 h n o p pi o m d q
canno t make more t han one
@ o p &
or have
T E
K U ~
& ) A ~ T ~ ~ T T O V T O S
6 i a @ o p a l
with respec t to i t s own shape .
O
~ i 6 C j A o u .
l Usener 's emendation @ o p & vof the
This use of t he singular is fou nd also in D e
MSS 6 ~ a @ o p & veem s advisable. If G i@opdv
d h h o ~ P 7 0 0 ~ f i w h o uensu 58.4 : ~ A A O T E
is re ta ined , the tex t would be s ta t ing tha t
6 i t ~ ~ a i .
the q uant i ty of a i r pushed forward b y an
l 6 Since af irod must re fer to 6 iq in 57.23
idol depended no t only on the d is tance Wendland conjec tures
a 6 7 i q . However,
covered by the idol bu t a lso on i t s s ize and Alexander ma y have had the gender of
shape. Since larger external o bjects emit
&@ah pdq
in his mind here.
larger idols, this notion is, of course, entirely l 7 For t he singular ~ i 6 w h o uee n . 15 .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
7/27
4 34 I V A R S A V O T I N S
n o t c o n t i g ~ o u s ? ~ ' ven if i t receives each t im e the adjoining (sc. part) , h ow can t he y be
jo ined together in the eye s o tha t we seem to have perce ived a thea t re o r a temple as a
produ ct of the e nt rance ( in to ou r eyes) of such small sec t ions of th e idol t rave ll ing f rom
the m (sc . f ro m th e thea t re o r the temp le)? When (or ' if ') par t s of some ot her idols fa ll in to
ou r eyes in th e in terva ls , how wi ll som e of them (TLVU) no t d i srup t t he con t inu i t y of t he
vision of th e f irs t (sc. external o bjec t)I9 if i t is necessary for so m an y idols
to be ca r ri ed fo r so m any t imes f rom some ( sc . ob jec t ) t o i t ( s c. t he ey e ) i n o rde r t ha t t h e
lat ter , as i t keeps receiving something fro m the m (sc. from each idol) correspo nding in size
to t he size of t he pu pil , always receives an idol in i ts ent iret yzo al though ( or 'as' ) i t (sc. th e
eye) keeps obta in ing a d i f ferent par t f rom a d i f ferent idol?
Why does s ight receive idols even f rom sm oo th as though they had shape
a l though they have no p ro t~ be ra n ce s? ~ ' hy do ( s c . ido ls ) f rom mi r ro r s? Al so , if t he i do ls
l s becomes clear later in these
passages, Alexander assumes tha t in the
atomist doctr ine the small parts of each
successive idol ema nating from an obje ct
and entering the pupil are someh ow re-
combined in the ey e to form a l ikeness of
the externa l objec t . In order for such a
recombinat ion to be successfu l Alexander
assumes that those parts of successive idols
which (sc . par t s ) en ter o ur pupi ls m ust
correspon d t o successive contiguous pa rts
of th e external object . If we were t o receive
the sa me sec t ion of each successive idol-
for ins tance , the upper le f t -hand corner of a
house-obvious ly no t ru thfu l recons t ruc t ion
of the l ikeness of the externa l obj ect could
occur. This last notion is referred t o in the
Greek by
obxi hei 7 abrd.
With respect to
the m eaning of
~ a i
t h eK
6taa7qpd~wv
con text indicates tha t Alexander is here
hold ing against th e a tomis t doct r ine th e
possibil i ty th at tho se parts of successive
idols which (sc. parts) en ter o ur pupil wil l
n ot necessarily be p arts representing co n-
t iguous par t s of the externa l objec t. For
ins tance , when looking a t a ma n, the pupil
could from the f irst idol receive part of an
eye , f rom the s econd a pa r t o f t he b ig t oe ,
f rom the th i rd a small war t , and s o on . In
such a case the reco nstructed l ikeness of
the m an w ould have a ll the par t s , bu t in
mo nst rous d isar rangement . That th is i s the
mean ing of
K 6taosrlpdswv
is indicated by
Mant i s sa
135. 12 14:
hAAh ndeev ye 67 7
kli c. AfirLe~at
sc.
6 &Bahpds
o r
~ d p q ,
706 i6whou, ~ a ioiIxi> nohhd~tc
6
a b ~ d
4 lihho 7 pdprov ndppw 7 0i )~ov eip evo v
~ a iiteonaophvov elra
O V V T L ~ ~ ~ E V O V ;
In the phrase
~ a i
t h e
K
6 t a o ~ r l p d ~ w v
sense requires
.f
ra ther than ~ a i : K
6 t a o ~ q p d ~ w v .owever, the subs t i tu t ion of
~ a ior i in com parable cqnte xts is a t tes ted ,
e.g. in Soph. P l ~ i l .1 0 8 1 :
~o i h asnhrpas
yi)ahov Bepp6v ~ a i
.
are~cj6ec
l 9 Alexander assumes here t ha t while
the representa t ion of o ne externa l objec t
is be ing bu i lt up i n t he ey e by t he add i t i on
of pa rts of successive idols from t ha t
object , parts of idols from othe r objects
will be entering t he e ye as well
( ~ ~ 7 a E c ) .
How wi ll these o ther par t s be kept f rom
being in tegra ted in to th e recons t ruc t ion of
the idol of t he f ir s t objec t? That th i s is the
correc t in terpre ta tion of the words of
Ale xand er see m s c!ear fr om Mantissa
135.14-16: nw s oidv T E 76 uwpa owOjvat
706
~ P W ~ ~ V O U ;
76
O ~ K E ~ O YT W C
6h 76
c ( Y E ~ o ( .
~ K ~ U T O U ; ~h i w v dhhwvi)varat yhp ~ a i
TO^ npCj70ts np oo ~i Oe uO ai ~e pkyvvoBata i
Th e Greek here is no t qu ite clear. In
58.1
1
b o t h
6exopCvqv
and
SC[aoBac
should
have a direct object . I have taken
ha' ab73v
71
as th e objec t of 6exopCvav and 6hov as
the object of 6h[aaBat.T h e ijhov, a plausible
eme ndat ion of Usener for th e MSS ijhwv,
re fers, I th ink , t o an idol : 6hov ei whov. In
De sensu 60.3-7 Alexander observes tha t
a l though the pupil ma y be adm i t t ing only
parts of idols of an ob ject at on e t im e, we
nevertheless feel tha t we are beholding th e
same objec t a t once in i t s en t i re ty ra ther
than pa r t by smal l par t :
iLa p i ~ a r atwh
&Ah'- a h 6
(sc.
76
bpwpevov,
t h e
externa l objec t ) bp6v 6 o ~ jsc. fi 6Jits).T h e
hBp6ov here cor responds exac t ly to the
ijhov.
+oXqpa7topCvahere has a peculiarly
nar row m eaning. Obvious ly , sm oot h objec ts
l ike water or mir rors a re percept ib le and d o
have a shape. However, he re and in Alexan-
de r , Mantissa 1 3 5 . 2 4 f f . &oxqpartophvaa n d
axepa are defined as idols displaying to
our eyes pro tuberances and hol lows. On the
other hand, in 135.2 2 f f . ib id . , Alexander
seems to be s epa ra ti ng t hem:
nws
. .
phvet a b ~ w v
6
axepa ~ a i
i
&toxi~ a i
eiooxi Perhaps one could translate here:
' the shape wit i t s convexity and con-
cavi ty ' In o ther contex ts Alexander
uses o x i p a in a mo re general way, fo r
ins tance , in 13 6.26: n 3 s 66 7 3 v o x q p d ~ w v
(SC.hv~thapf ldve~at )
?
Here h e is talking
abo ut any externa l objec t .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
8/27
ALEX AND ER O F APHRODISIAS ON VISION IN THE ATOMISTS
435
are so fine and so weak, why do the protrusions from those objects from which idols with
protrusions can emanate remain in the eye and not be obliterated? Why even for a short
time, with the thing seen removed, do they remain (tex t corrupt here) from which in
the vision?'
Those who assert tha t the eye is being stimulated by the idols moving towards it and
roused and prepared for vision may no longer maintain that vision is brought about by
idols. For it is obvious that if the eye is stimulated by the idol it will see something else if
not the idol. What, then, are these things (sc. the 'something else') and how (will they be
seen)? These are the types of arguments available against those who maintain that some-
thing emanates from the objects of vision and tha t the things seen are seen in this manner.
Ds nim i Mantissa 134 .28 136 .28
npbc 6h roljc 6ui rwv eMwhwv 70 bpav hhyovrac yiveoflar npwrov phv
npooanopioetev liv rrc, nwc o b ~vahi o~era t ooolirwv hnoppedvrwv 8 ~ a -
urov rwv bpwphvwv raxhwc, el Sh hhyoiev hvrtnpoo~piveuOatabroic dhha,
45
hhh' o h w v hnoppedvrwv ~ a iwv npoo~ pwoph vwv b ~vrwv hAhiAoic
bpoioo~qpdvwv r aphv yap hnopphovra ei6wha ~ a ipowpop@a, a Sh
35
npouqwdpeva obx o k w c npooqwerai ) o b ~6ei ra bno~ei@eVa a ipw-
peva bpowoxqpova phverv, &Aha dAAore hhhowv ibxetv oxjpa . Irk nwc
uuvexodc ri)c hnoppoiac ywophvqc ~ a iavraxod ~ a iavraxdflev oidv re
rqv npdoqiuw yweuOai; hAA~Aoic ap bv ra hnotqwdpeva roic npouqivo-
50
pivorc kpnoSicor h6laheinrov hp&rhpoic r j c Qopdc olioqc. &r nwc oidv
re rod 6raoriparoc hvrihq w yweoflat, ei ra e'i6wAa & ~ r ia bpwpeva;
hvenaiuflqroc ya p, 8v hhyouuw npoepninrerv, b hqp, ob rfi noudrqrr rb
5
6b or qp a hvaperpeioflai. m i r i rb perpodv rbv &&pa odrqv; I ~ a iwc
15 v
i r y hvaphh ai ~ a ia ndppwflev bparat; nwc 61 owv re ~ a iwv
u ~q p dr wv a iwv peyeOwv hvriAq w yweoflar
u i
rw v elbwhwv
(a
pov-
hdpevot owfew ra eL'6wha nowbow), e'i ye m r a ppaxlj ? &bnrwutceic 7bv
10
6Qfla;Lubvabrwv ywerar; 06 yap
i
peifdv kart 70 r j e ~ d p q c ,
bpwpev,
phyefloc rod elbwhou, 6exdpefla ~ a r ' holjc eic rqv Kdpqv. ei yap
~ a ivyxwpioeth rrc ahoic 6 d rb
T X O S U U V E X ~ C
&AX0 ~ a ihho 6hxe-
oOar, &Aha ndflev ye 671 rd &[fie j er at rod elbwhou, ~ a iohxi> nO_hh&~tc
rd. a6ro
f
dhho r i pdpmv ndppw rolirou
K E ~ @ E V O V
~ a ireonaophvov eira
uuvr~b'hpevov;nwc oidv T E 76 uw pa uwfl jvai rod bpwpdvou; nwc 6h rd
15
pCyeOoc rb ol~ewv& K & ~ ~ o v ;i)varai yap ~ a ia rw v dhhwv roic npwrotc
npourieeuflaire m i piyvuoflai ~ a ii ~ a r ' i~ ei avnepiypa@jv&'~aorov
abrwv bpbqflat, pq6h o qpeb v rod radra phv
T O ~ O V
ra e'i6wha, radra 6h
pq
T O ~ O U
eivai. &Awe 6h ri ywerat ra npoe iuehfl i)v~a;b yap
@ V ~ ~ U U E -
uflai abra hhyew ~arapvooolipeva a iuvrieeuflat kv r y &Oahpw Aiav
20
kori pvflw6ec. nod yap ~araflvuoodra i phvei, ric 66 b oi~oSopwv bra
&ppaSdv~ a iuvrrfleic;4 nwc &~doroubrwv mr' Slav ~eq~ hv ou
i O V V -
&eta ~ a ib phyefloc ~ a io o x jpa @awesac; wc Sh, ei O ~ W Curi ra
e'iGwha ebnaf li , rrj &pnrwuei rj elc rov &OaApov phver a h w v rb oxjpa
~ a i
k[oxq ~ a iiuoxq ~ a ib uvyxeirai; nwc dh ~ a inb 7wv heiwv
25
roixwv we &u~qpartopCvaappdvet ra e f6wha obx Cxdvrwv &[oxhe~ a i
15
~ a i &n'
concise form:
j
nwe a1 &&xai olirwy
TWV
bhiyov phvei;
e16whwv l @Cperarhn' &~eiv wv
* the reading of the
MSS
The Greek here appears t o be, in less
hnehfldvroc rod bpwvroc abra K V
h
wv
6 m ~ i ~ e u e a t ,
6i)varai@hpeoflai.
i.e. idols from those does not seem to have any meaning approp-
external objects which, unlike mirrors, riate to this con text. Wendland suggests
etc., do have protuberances. 6teyeipeoflaifrom Mantissa
136.10.
Because of the corruption in the last
This sentence assumes that if the idol
part of the sentence the meaning is con-
acts
as
a stimulus it cannot be seen (so
fused but is probably the same as in Alex- Mantissa
136.9 1
1 .
ander, Mantissa
135.30:
6th ri obxi
mailto:@hpeoflaimailto:@hpeoflai -
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
9/27
436 I V A R S A V O T I N S
E ~ U O X ~ C ;
W C61 hnd.
T W U
~ a 7 d n . r ~ ~ ~6 d ~ w vkp@arvoplvwvk~ebotq h
o x i p a ~ aAeiwv i i v~ wv ;we 61 ei6wAou 6v70c 706 kv TCF ~ a ~ d n ~ p ~ t )'i6wAa
ndhw hnoppei T O U ~ ~ T ~ ,a ith 7i kv roic Ka~dn7pot< 'i6wAa na xl i~ ep a,
we ~ o o a d ~ q vn' a h G v hnoppohv yweoflat;6ra 7 i 6h ~ a idver ~ a 6 r a a i
3
ob ~ w e i ~ a c ;d 7i 6h ~ a ii vov~a bxi ~ a ineA86v~oc 06 bpGvroq ab7a
K V kn' bhiyov p&ver;6 ~ i
h o b ~ni ~ f i c&n@aveiac wv ~ a r d n ~ p w va
e'i6wAa, &Aha kv paflee; nwc Sh ocxi ~ a i ,i oi i~ wq o ~ i vbnafli) ~ a i
eb ~iv qr a, vipov nvhov~oc v napaulipovrat TCF hlpc &v ~i o tv ;O yap
Aiyetv 6reKninrecv 61' a b ~ w vd dAAa @epdpevaob uwfdurwv k u ~ i j v
~V~kxe taLJ06 E ~ ~ W ~ O V ,poob7t6~? a i~ e p e d ~ q ~ dw a a iv ~i ~u ni av
~ a ~ a h r n d v ~ w v .t%we yap ab7h pivor, 61e~~in7016hd 7wu
K E V W V
7a
@epdpeva. i 6i ho~ev ~K OA OCbrwv K O V I U L C ;K @Aoewbwv ~ a iipe-
vwfiwv, we @sow ~ a iauabonq i~av i ) apao6pat aura, &E L i bpau 25
5
70vc ~ a 7 aov avepov phi nov~ac.&t ei ~a e'iGwha k o ~ wb7a 76 kpnin-
7ovra ~ a ipwpeva, 6ca 7i7 a dpwpeva ndppw & ~ a aiverac; 6 yap puw-
niSeo8ac hiyecv < ~ q v $tv> bno 7wv EL ~WA WVb 7wv E ~ W A W U m i
T O
6p6v
noteiv, &Aha dhhov 7w h xpi) ~po nov f)reivab~odc,1' ob puwneofleioa
i
7 ~ P Q T O V8$Tal
K K E ~ v L + ~
n p o o ~ a h e i ~
I W S
yap bparov ~ T L
O
'i-
1
bwhov yiverac,
ye pdvov npoc T O napao~evaoat i)v d ' $ ~b ~ q v~ a iee-
yeipar 7 e'i6wAov y~~f ioepdvo~cv ; 66 Aiyeev 7 y n oo y 706 hipoc 706
3
pe7atv 706 re bpwp&uou,h@'od 7a e'iGwAa, ~ a i06 b@OaApo67i)v h v~ i -
Aq$cv y weoflac 706 6 ~ a o ~ ~ p a ~ o c70670 yap i)no 706 eidwhou npowOolipevov
npoepnin~ecv717 ~ d p qpo 706 eibwhou) hroniav ob6epiav bneppdhher.
5
nwc yap
T O
e'iGwAov 6liva~ac ov npo abro6 npowfleiv hl pa, Sv o h w c eb-
naflCc;~ a iwc 70670~ ~ d p q 6 ~ ~ 7 ~ 1 ,poob~ce nohhci~cc
O ~ O ~ T O V
dEe-
7aL;06 yap & Joe ibwhov &pn 7do l b p 6 ~
~ K ~ L ~ T o L J
6v
TWV ~ C ( ~ T T T ( T T T O V -
7w v ~oo0670v ipa nponip$ec aho d eic 7i)v ~ d p q v ,l pi) dpa ~a @epd-
peva e'ibwha &no706 bpwpivou obx O T E Phinee7676 @ipe~ac,Aha
2
napa~eipeva
~y
b@OahpCF) ob yap bfi,h e bpa b@Oahpdc,
~ T E
hnoppei
7d e'i6wAa. nwc odv 7a na pa ~e ip eu a 71 npowoec roo peratv &&p a; i
ei bno TWV hubpwv pi) o ~ i i i v a ~ a ~a e'lbwha 6th 7 bno~C17w~ a ienrd-
Tepa ~ a ipardrepa 7j v @liocveivae 706 @epopivouhipoc bno TWV hvlpwv.
25
nWq &pa T O V &&pa OUTOV oidv T E 8 0 ~ ~ 1powfleiv;&L ei d x ~ o d U T Lh
e'ibwha ~ a iota6 7a h a 6Cxerae i o$~c ,nwc xpwpdrwv hv~chappave~ac; 4
T W ~6 TWV ~ ~ q p d 7 ~ ~a7' kh h~ l0 70 ~b7h
~ E ~ o ~ ~ v I ) ; 7 ~
6 7 ~JIW-
pdrwv 0 6 7 ~ xqpci~wviv yivoe~o ~ $ L c ,i TLCh ~ p @ w e& te ~d to c a i
i
ndvra ai~oupivotc b~ oie t6oiq. T ~ V O S06v 271 i d'$re go~ar;
Against those who maintain that vision
co mes ab o u t
by
th e impa ct of idols
Against those w ho say th at vis ion occurs by m eans of idols one could s tar t by adducing
ano ther diff icul ty: with so many emanat ing why is each thing seen not used up
quickly? Should they answer tha t they assimilate o ther < mater ial as replacement>, never-
theless what em anates , and wh at is added are n ot of s imilar shape; wh at em anates is idols
and of a shape s imilar sc , to th e objects) whereas the ad di t ions are not adde d in the same
form. There fore , the under ly ing ob jec t s o f vi sion ought no t to have kep t the same shape bu t
rather a different one at different t imes. Also, if th e emanat ion goes on co nt inuously,
everywhere, and from all quarters how can addi t ion take place? Since the mo tion of both
the separat ing and the accreting ma tter is con t inuo us one would e xpect the t wo t o interfere
wi th each o ther .
Moreover , ho w can t he percept ion of dis tance take place if wh at is seen is the idols? Th e
air which the y say fal ls sc . into ou r eye) in advance sc . of the idol) and th e quant i ty of
which is supposed t o serve as the measure o f dis tance cann ot be perceived. Also, wh at is it
tha t doe s the measuring of th at a ir? Also, how d o we see things even far away immediately
upon beg inn ing to look up ?
Moreover , how is i t possible t o ob tain percept ion of shapes and s izes by means of the
idols i t is in order to account f or them sc. shapes and s izes) tha t they manu factu re their
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
10/27
A L E X A N D E K O F A P H K O D I S I A S O N V I S IO N IN T H E A T O M I S T S
4 3 7
idols) if th ey enter th e eye a small sect ion at a t i rne?16 For th e s ize of th e pupil , by m eans
of which we see, is surely not larger than th e idol which according to them (sc. the ato mists)
we receive into the pupil . Even if one should conced e to them (sc. the atom ists) tha t
because of their speed successive particles are received without interruption what will bring
it about2?hat i t (sc . th e eye? wil l receive the contiguo us partz9 of an idol and no t repeatedly
the same par t o r a d i f fe ren t par t s i tua ted fa r f rom i t ( sc . f rom the par t rece ived before i t ) ye t
subsequent ly added on (ovv~cOC~evov) , How is i ti sp laced (6ceonao~hvov)hough i t be?) '
possible t o preserve3' th e body of the thing seen? How the s ize peculiar to each of th em ?
For i t is a lso possible for idols of o ther things to b e add ed t o the f i rs t ones and to b e com -
mingled with them so that n one of th em is seen in i ts peculiar out l ine and there is no
dist inguish ing mark of the fac t tha t these idols be long to th i s objec t , bu t those d o not .
In general , wh at happens to thoseg3 which en te red f i r st ( sc . the pup i l )? T o say tha t they
sink in and are preserved and com bined in the ey e is very fanciful. Where d o they sink or
remain? Who is the one who s teps in to bui ld them up and to put them toge ther? Or , if
each of the m l ies by i tself , how can co ntin uity , s ize, and shape appear?
Also, if th e idols are so easi ly affected w hy, wh en the y en ter the ey e, do the y retain their
shape, convexit ies , and concavit iesgs rather tha n have them obli terated? How doe s perceive idols as though they had shapeg 6 even when th ey from walls smooth
6
T his m eaning of ~ a r apaxir is con- the external object .
f i rmed by De sensu 58.2-3: ~ a r hO ~ f i c O 1 have taken 6c~onaopCvov losely with
~ d p q c CyeOoc 6exopivq (sc.
j
B+ce) hrro ouust8+pevou, as tho ugh th e word-order
706 @epo piuouei6whov poptov and by
w ere e i r a 6 ~ e o n a o p & ~ o uvv~cOhpevov.
Mantissa 136.25-6 : j d$cc ~ a 7 '
Preserve in our perception , of course.
6 hax co ro v a c r a (S C. a o x 6 p a ~ a exop 'vq)
Alexander here seems to be picturing
the representat ion s of several external
2 7
Alexander here seems t o be assuming objects bui l t up in th e eye and each consist-
taci t ly tha t if th e idol is t o enter th e eye
ing of a mixture of p arts derived from th e
entire , the pupil mu st be larger than th e
idols of all these extern al objects . Th e
idol . Bu t , says Alexan der, th e pupil is no t resul t, of course, will be representat ion s
larger than the idol . Therefore the idol
bearing no certain and perceptible relation-
which , accord ing t o the a tomis t s , does en te r
sh ip t o the ex te rna l ob jec ts .
the pupil must be reconstructed in the eye
33 The reference is to th e parts of the
ou t of th e parts of successive idols which idol e nter ing the pupil .
have en te red ~ a r hpaxd. If the entire idol
34 According to the dict ionaries the
is not seen a t once , how can i t s shape and
adverb 6ppa6ov is found only in Iliad
size be establ ished, objects Alexa nder.
15. 505 and in Pausanias 10.20.8. In both
With ndeev ye
he
I unders tand 6'orar
cases it refers to w ading. In th e Iliad t he
or ye vfioerat or something similar .
word is used in a sarcastic repro ach . Ajax
9
i[*c here ca nn ot govern 706 ei6whov
asks the Argives wheth er th ey expe ct t o
because the meaning 'what i s next t o the
return ho me by wading if they no w permit
idol ' is no t at a ll approp riate here. I take Hecto r to burn their ships. A sarcastic
TO & j c as a noun here . If th e cor rec t repro- me anin g is quite possible in ou r passage,
duc t ion of the ex te rna l ob jec t is to be too: Alexander may be conjur ing up a man
recons t ruc ted in the eye f rom the succes-
wh o hppaivee into th e eye t o deal with th e
sive pupil-sized sect ions of the idols given ~asa puoo o+ ev a . The s to r age p lace o f
of f by the o bjec t , the sec t ions mus t
earlier idols seems to have been a problem
p re su m ab ly e n te r t h e e y e in t h e c o rr e ct o r d e r a lr ea dy t o E uc li d: ~ a iic ai r i a 706 hrro~A q-
(see n. 1 8 for mo re detai l ) . In oth er words, if p06oOae
a
~ i o ~ ~ w d p ~ v a ; . ( I .. Heiberg
of idol A the pupil receives part 1, then of (ed. ) , Euclidis opera omnia v. VII, 'Opti-
idol B i t should receive and retain a par t
corum recensio Theonis ' (Leipzig, 1895),
which in the external object is s i tuated nex t 150.7-8 and 150.21 -7.)
to p ar t 1 of idol A ra ther than a nother par t
*
See n. 21.
1 o r a pa r t no t s i tua t ed n ex t t o pa r t 1 in 6 S e e n . 2 1 .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
11/27
I V A R S A V O T I N S
and devoid3' of convexities and concavities? How perceive th e shapes visible3"n mirrors and wa ter al though are sm oo th?
Also, how d o so m any idols em ana te in turn ( or: ba ck) i f what is (sc. visible) in the
mirror is an idol? Wh y are the idols in the mirrors thicke r so t ha t so much can emana t e
f rom them ? Why do t hey s t ay < s t il l> and no t move? S ince t hey s t ay why don ' t t hey
rema in , even if f o r a sho r t t ime , a f te r t he depa r tu r e o f t he b e h ~ l d e r ? ~ ' hy a r e t he i do ls in
the back of th e mir rors ra ther than o n the ir sur face?
If are so easily affected and moved w hy a re the y no t , whe n wind blows,
displaced by th e air in which the y are si tuated (o r , perhaps: w hy are they n ot displaced
together wi th th e wind in which they are
. . Those who p rofes s t o m a in ta in t ha t t he
idol s ta ys together and , in a ddit ion, have i t retain i ts certain sol idi ty and unyieldingness
may not asser t tha t th e o thers ( sc. the idols ) as they move, pass be tween th em (sc .
be tween th e part ic les of the a ir and th e wind) . In such a case i t would be th ey , ( sc . th e
a ir and th e wind) tha t s tood f i rm and i t would b e the objec ts in mo t ion t ha t passed
through th e void passages (separat ing the part icles of air and wind). Also, if they (sc. th e
idols) are easi ly moved of4 ' bark-like and mem branace ous
, (or: i f they are easi ly mov ed by < things> bark-l ike and memb ranaceou s) , as
they say, and if any impulse is suff icient to displace the m, those looking downw ind4' should
be unable t o see.
Moreover, if wh at s tr ikes th e eye and is seen is the idols wh y d o th e things seen appear to
be a t a d i s tance? Tho se wh o say tha t < th e eye> is st imula ted by the idols are not making
3
The smooth wall s must be tho ught
assume tha t
@ A o t w S w v
. . here is the
here to be funct ioning , l ike water and
equivalent of
hno @A otwS wv .
. . and refers to
mirrors, as ref lect ing surfaces. This fol lows agency. Th e Greek would then be stat ing
from Alexander 's interpretat ion (p . 141.30 - that th e idols are easi ly moved by things
5,
I n m e t e o r o l o g i c o m m
(H ayd uck )) bark- l ike and membranaceous . These
of Aristotle 's reference to sm oot h surfaces: lat ter objects wou ld have to be oth er
6 tc &uCLK~&TCLL. idols . In oth er word s, Alexander would be&no
.
n d v sw v 7 3 v
& x d v s w v Aeiav 7qv k n @ a v e t a v .
. (Aristot le ,
saying tha t idols a re so l ight tha t they are
meteoro log icorum
372a29). Aristot le
easily moved even by obje cts as light as
repeats this ibid. , 373a 35:
h v a ~ A w p d v q
. . .
othe r idols . (Th e idols are referred to as
b' rc & no n a v ~ w v a i ve s at 7 w v Ae iw v
.
bpdves
in a new fragment of Diogenes of
Plato, too , associates smoo thness a nd
Oenoanda, discovered and published by
reflect ion: . T ~ V
e i 6 w -
M . F Smi th , J 7 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) N. F 1 ,
3 v ~ a 7 d r s p w u
Aonotiav ~ a i Aeia . .d vs a 6 oa & p @ a vi a i
Col. 3.2-3, 57. The connection betw een
( T i m .
4 6 A ) .
idols and bark is found in some MSS of
For
~ a s d n s p w v3 6 d s w v & p @ a r vo p d vw v
Plutarch,
Non posse suavi ter
1 1 0 6 A :
Bruns adduce s Mantissa 62.13-14 and sug-
pq Svvapdvovs &noppi ar ~a eB w ha nd vsa
gests < )>
b d d s w v Pp@atvdpeva .
I t seems
~ a iows @Aorolis
. . Lucret ius l ikens the
easier to p osi t < T & v > & . t @ a w o p i u w vwith simulacra t o m e m b r a n a e in 4 .31 and 4 .51
T W V
om it ted because of haplography. The
a n d t o c o r t e x in 4 .51) .
omission of < I>, too , could have occurred
The no t ion t h a t one i dol may be moved
because of haplography, the scr ibe pro-
by anothe r may be present in Lucret ius
nouncing and
3
alike. A case of p ossible
4.1 83-98, esp. 19 3- 4. A. Barigazzi has
double haplography is repor ted by Rob er t
argued s t rongly tha t the parvola causa
Renehan,
Greek Textual Cr i t icism
quae provehat
should refer no t to
(Cambr idge , 1 969 ) , pp . 94-5 .
ndAotr in a physical ob ject bu t rather t o
9
The beholder here must be looking
one idol 's s t r ik ing anoth er f rom behind
in the m irror at his own image.
(PP
13 (19 58) . 269-73) . I t is essent ia l to
4 The interpretat ion of K here is not
add t o Barigazzi's argum ent tha t
procul
in
quite s traightforward. If the K
@AotwSQv
Lucre t . 4 .194 mu st be taken wi th
provehat
. . .
is causal and exp lains wh y th e ~ i v q o r c a tque prope l la t ra ther than wi th a t e r g o .
of idols is easy, one would e xpe ct the
This syntax was defended already by F.
presence of a participle in the prepositional
Susem ihl and A. Brieger,
Philologus
29
phrase: K
@ A orw S w v ~ a i
( l a p ) , 4 3 3 .
p e v w 6 c j v
< n e n o t q p h v w v > .
Causal force is given t o
~ a s a B V E ~ O V
~ V
could also mean: in
the & K by H. Lackenbacher ,
W S
3 2 ( 1 9 1 0 ) ,
the w ind, when wind is blowing. However,
22 9. He does not , however, discuss the
idols would no t necessarily b e lost to th e
awkwardness of the Greek.
beholder if he were walking
against
the
I t would be ra ther more na tura l t o
wind.
mailto:kn@avetavmailto:Pp@atvdpevamailto:Pp@atvdpevamailto:kn@avetav -
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
12/27
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
13/27
440
I V A R S A V O T I N S
co mm on s ourc e. If th e passage in the Mantissa was written by so me follower of
Alexander it is reasonable t o surmise th at h e used t h e passage in De sensu as his
model .
At f i rst s ight i t may be surpr ising to notice th at in his refutat ions A lexander
fai ls to m ake use o f some o f th e stock diff icul t ies aimed at t he th eory of idols:
th e apparent roundness of th e square tower a t a d is tance , th e bent oar , the use of
images in tho ugh t (how can we thin k o f Bri tain?) , e tc . However, in his quest ions
Alexander app ears to b e interested chief ly in dem onstrat ing th at ocular vision
by means of idols cann ot acc oun t for th e observable facts and , therefore, vision is
not caused by idols. We d o see distance, shape, s ize. External objects are not
be ing quickly worn down . The di f ficul ties wi th th e tow er and the oar concern
more th e t rus twor thiness of informat ion derived f rom th e idols than th e
quest ion of their very existence. Alexander wants t o prove tha t idols play n o
part a t al l in vision rather th an th at we c ann ot always trust them .
As ment ioned above , the acco unt of Alexander a t t r ibutes to the a tom is t
doc tr ine of vision features not kno wn to u s f ro m oth er sources. It a lso states
th at t he idols are colourless. As far as I k no w, this is the on ly passage which
explicitly predicates lack of co lour in th e idols. I shall now exam ine these
novelties in greater detai l and discuss wh at in th em may m odify o r improve ou r
und erstan ding of som e passages of Epicurus and L ucretius.
The most s t rik ing and impor tant of th e new doctr ines a t t r ibuted by N ex -
ander to th e a tomis ts is the one which expla ins how th e eye dea ls wi th la rge
idols (De sensu 58.1-12; Mantissa 135.6-22). Those f rom cer tain external
objects-Alexander mentions theatres and temples-cannot ente r th e pupil
ent ire . H owever , exper ience shows th at such o bjects are never theless perceived
by us. Th e atomist explanat ion, according to Alexander, s tated th at p ar t of
each successive idol ema nating from such objects entered o ur eyes and th at
these par ts were recombined in the eye in th e fo rm of a complete idol . (Although
Alexander is s i lent o n idols smaller than th e pupil , the y mu st have been able
somet imes to enter th e eye ent i re and, therefore , d id n ot a lways need t o be
reconstructed.)
This do ctri ne is in several aspects strikingly d ifferent fro m views universally
held on vision in the atomists . There seems, fo r instance, to be near-unanimous
agreement in modern scholarship that in orde r to be perceived, idols f rom the
outside had to e nter the pupil ent ire , i.e. they had t o be smaller than t he pupil .
Large objects give off large idols, ye t are capable of being perceived. If t he y
enter th e pupil ent ire they mu st , therefore, somehow have shrunk in t ransi t
f rom the external o bject t o th e eye. This view has been held by near ly every
s c h o l a ~ . ~Several of th em believe th ey have foun d supp ort in the tex ts for
this reduction. AIexander s accoun t , on t he o ther h and, does no t involve the
requirement t ha t idols, in orde r to be perceived, be reduced t o th e size of th e
pupil in their travel to the eye.
Since Alexander was mor e o r less a con temp orary of Diogenes of O enoanda
and a capable philosopher an d histor ian o f philosop hy, his accou nt of the idols
7 Explanations not involving reduction
Bailey in his commentary on Lucretius
in the s ize of the idols were attempted by
thought that this problem was never faced
C . Giussani,
T
Lucreti Cari
D e R e r u m
by Epicurus 111, p. 1 20 8) . In this he was
Nat ura , Excursus to Book IV, p . 28 5
f o l low e d b y J
M .
Rist, Epicurus C am-
n. 1 Tur in , 18 97 ) and M. Conche, Lucrece
b rid ge, 1 972 ) . p . 85 .
e t I expkrience Paris, 19671, p . 10 2 .
C .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
14/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S IA S O N V I SI O N I N T H E A T O M I S T S
4 4 1
deserves to be examine d. Shou ld i t indeed conflict with earl ier atomist sources,
we would have t o assume that there had been divergences or later developments
in the scho ol despite th e fact th at Alexander appears to consider i t valid for al l
th e a tomis ts . However, i t seems to me tha t there i s no good evidence in th e
sources in supp ort of a uniform reduction of th e idols. I shall now examine th e
opinions in favour of the reduc tion the ory in detail .
References t o t he reduction of idols have been discerned in Epicu rus, in
Sextus Em piricus, and in Dem ocritus . Koenig, perhaps following a remark m ade
by W oltjer, suggested tha t t he phrase
KUTU T O t - v a p p d ~ ~ o viyefloe eic TT)Vo iv
(Ep. H d t . 49 ) ma y have been intended by Epicurus to refer t o an accomm oda-
t io n of t he idol t o th e size of th e eye.48 In this he w as followed b y De ~ i t t , ~ ~
~ i a n o , w es tm an , ~ r r i g h e t t i , ~ ~ T hese scho lars have dis-n d ~ a r i g a z z i . ' ~
regarded here t he s ignif icance of t he con text. T he fuller sentence runs:
n j n o v
TLVOV
~ E L U L ~ W W V KUTU
T O
t - v a p p d ~ ~ o vipiv and TGVn p a y p a ~ o v p i y e f l o e
eic TT V O LV TT V ~ L L V O U Z V
The men t ion of the entrance of th e idols e i ther
in to the e ye or th e mind immediate ly calls to m ind th e d is t inct ion between th e
min d- a nd th e eye-idols fou nd in Lucretius 4.72 2 ff. , especially 4.752-6.
Lucretius there distinguishes betw een tw o classes of idols on ground s of their
f ineness rather than of their size (4.726-9, 747 , and 752-6). Epicurus, too ,
when introducing the idols in Ep. H d t . 46 and 47 refers to thei r X E ~ ~ T O T ~ Cu t
no t t o their s ize. However, De Witt and his followers conten d th at w hen using
the word piyefloc in the phrase KUTU T O t - v a p p d ~ ~ o viyedoc Epicurus intende d
t o refer t o the reduction in s ize in transit rather tha n th e f ineness
( h e n ~ d v c )
f
th e arr iving idols . I t seems to m e th at th e c onte xt is entirely against their view.
If th e word
pyefloc
referred t o th e s ize of th e idols , the n th e larger idols would
presumably be entering the ey e, the smaller the min d. Now, ther e is evidence
tha t th e mind idols could be very large. Fo r instance, th e idols of th e gods were
perceived by t he mind.54 Nevertheless , th ey were n ot small but rather of great
size. It is generally recognized th at th e ter m KUTU TO
t - v a p p d ~ ~ o viyefloc
in
Epicurus points t o the the ory o f perception by m eans of eff luences and pores
developed b y Empedocles . This theo ry p ostulated different s izes of pores for
differe nt effluences. Difference in th e size and shape of
foramina
and th e cor-
responding semina in the process of taste is men tione d by Lucretius (4.64 8 ff.).
There is no h int in this theo ry of any reduction of th e s ize of th e eff luences t o
suit the pores . When we f ind in Epicurus the concepts and vocabulary at tr ib uted
t o Empedocles we would be very rash t o detec t behind t he m th e radically n ew
and unat tes te d c oncept of reduction of idols t o scale. All th at we can reasonably
infer fro m Evicurus here is th at t he idols which entered t he mind were different
in size in some unspecif ied way from those which entered t he eye . The y had t o
be different in s ize because, apparently, the pores of th e bod y differed from
those of t he ey e (Lucretius 4.728-3
1
In othe r words, the s tate me nts of Epicurus
8 Koenig, above, n. 3 and J Woltjer,
s 2 Epicuro, OpereZ ( T ur in , 197 3 ) ,
Lucretii philosophia cu m fontibus comparata
p .
500
( G ron in gen , 1 87 7 ) , p . 87 .
s 3
Sui nuovi frammenti di Diogene
9 Epicurus,
nepi Qau~aoias ,
APA 7 0
d Enoanda , Prometheus 3 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 6 .
( 1 9 39 ) , 4 1 7 .
s4 Lucret . 5 .1 17 1, C ic.
N
D 1 . 4 9 , S e x t.
s a psicologia d Epicuro e la teoria
E mp . Adv. math. 9 . 2 5
=
U s. 3 5 3 ) .
delle passioni , Giornale cri tico della filosofia
s 5
S e xt . E mp . , ab ove , n . 5 4 : pcydhwu
italiana 9 ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 1 2 .
yap eidwhwu npoonrmdvrwu 6n6hapou
slPlutarchgegen Kolotes Acta Philo- bnhpxew rruas rowdsous Oeo3s huOpw-
sop hic ~ ennica Fasc. vii , 1955 (Helsingfors, nop6p@ous.
1 9 5 5 ) , p p. 1 6 5 f
mailto:nop6p@ousmailto:nop6p@ous -
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
15/27
442 IVARS AVOTINS
and Lucretius can be explained p erfectly along tradit ional l ines. Nothing in
them just if ies th e assumpt ion tha t by K ~ T UT O vap~orrov yeBocwas meant ,
as asser ted by De Witt and his supporters, 'according to t he p ropo rt ion ate size,
tha t is reduced t o scale ' .
An othe r supposed reference t o th e diminution in size of idols in Epicurus
has been foun d in a papyrus of Book
2
of his Peri physeos. 6 It was suggested
by ~ a i l e ~ rach a t t h e t e r m ovvihoic in t he phrase [ a u e ] [ a ] v v i f~ ) a e [ i c ]
e[ic K ] E V [ O ] T ~ T U hen[ror]qraK U ~
referred t o th e gradual col-
a i p i[ ~ pd rq ]r a
lapse of t he hollow idol in transi t as i t was beaten up on on al l sides by ato ms
or c ompo und bodies . This meaning of avvifqaic was adopted wi th a some-
what d i f feren t in terpre ta t ion by K . ~ l e v e . However , the meaning of the en t i re
column is quite obscure. The wo rk d on e o n i t has been discussed by Arr ighett i
(above , n .
5 6
who cannot see how the in terpre ta t ion of Kleve can f i t in to the
con tex t . Cer tain ly , i t seems to m e t ha t th is obscure passage cannot over r ide the
explici t sta tem ents of Alexander, i .e . i t does no t establish against him th at t he
idol of a large object shrank in transi t t o th e size of t he pupil .
A third supposed proof in favour of the reduction of idols was fo un d in
Epicurus by De ~ i t t . He asserts tha t the idea of reduct ion t o sca le is exp lic it ly
stat ed in Ep. Hdt 50: ~ a r aO jc i r v ~ v u p ai yKarahe@pa rov e8 hh ov .
According to De Witt , the m eaning of this phrase is made clear by a passage in
Sextus Empir icus who 'explains the reduction of images according to Epicurus
as being effected b y t he detr i t ion of th e edges of th e idols during their t ransi t
f rom the ob jec t t o the eye '.60 De Witt unders tands th e y~araheippaas the idol
worn dow n in transi t . The phrase
T O
(q c m i ~ v u p a
efers, he says, t o ' the orderly
reduct ion or the reduct ion t o scale' .
F i r s t of a ll , i t seems to me tha t th e example of Sex tus cannot poss ibly refer t o
orderly reduction, t he kind of redu ction th at is indispensable if th e reduced idols
are to give us t ru thfu l in format ion abo ut t he ex ternal wor ld . Th e verb ano8padeiv
refers to breaking rather th an t o gradual wear . Moreover , Sextus himself uses i t
t o refer t o a deform ed ido l, one th a t does no t give us t rue in format ion ab out it s
source. In any case, wear n o mo re th an breakage wil l preserve a corresponden ce
betw een m os t large exte rnal objec ts and their pupil-sized remains. In general,
changes in idols due t o damage- -wear, b reakage , e t c . must be kep t s t r ic t ly
apar t f rom the n otio n of orderly , to-scale reduction.
Also , the te rm k y ~ a ~ a h e i p p as used frequently as a technical term in th e
theory of percep t ion by th e com menta tors on Ar isto tle an d refers usual ly t o
an impression or me mo ry lef t in o ne 's m ind b y a n ear lier sense perception.61 T his
well-attested use of y~araheLppaeems approp riate in this passage of Epicurus
and m us t be preferred t o t h e u ns up po rte d interpre ta tion of De ~ i t t . ~ ~
56 See (24.43) n Arrighetti, above, n. 52,
hipoq @op T T O ~ ~ ~ U O ~ ~ V W V
~ T U
WV ~ h
pp. 207 f. and 584 f f.
~ l b w h an e p ~ w v .
The Greek Atomists and Epicurus
6 See discussion and references in K B
(Oxford, 192 8), pp. 412-13. Todd, Lexicographical Notes on Alexander
Cnosis Theon , Symb . Osl. Supplet,
of Aphrodisias Philosophical Terminology ,
XIX
(Oslo, 1963), pp. 16-18.
Clotta
52 (19 74), 210 f .
9 Above, n . 49, 417-18.
6 2
The commentators meaning of
t y ~ a r a -
Adv. math.
7.208 f .
=
Us. 24 7) . In
Aetppa
is also adopted for Epicurus by D J
this passage Sextus explains why a square
Furley, Knowledge of Atoms and Void in
tower appears round if seen from far away:
Epicureanism , Essays in Ancient Creek
P p a ~ p o ~ i p r~ po u p g
TO V
kv b ~ a a ~ i p a r o q Philosophy,
ed. John P. Anton with George
L
nirpyou ~ a irpoyyirhov rf j 6th 706
Kustas (Albany, 19 71) , pp. 610 f .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
16/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S I A S O N V i S l O N IN T H E A T O MI S TS 443
With Sextus Empir icus and th e
eyttaraheqpa
el imin ated, De Wit t s th eo ry is
now su ppo r ted only by h is in terpre ta t ion of
T O e qc x v ~ v o p a roc ~ 8 C j h o v . ~ ~
Although De Wi t t is wrong in t ry ing to fo i s t th e meaning of wearing aw ay o n
n d ~ v o p a ,
meaning inappropr ia te both to t he id ioma t ic range of the word and
to th e not ion of prop or t ion ate reduct ion of the ido l, he could nevertheless be
t hough t t o be on t he r ight t r ack . The ph rase
T O
e .i)c
.rrd~vopa
ould perhaps
refer t o t h e collapse th e o ry of ~ a i l e ~ ~ ~nd his predecessors who also postula-
ted gradual reduct ion bu t , l ike Bailey , were unable t o supply good ev idence
fro m the tex t s6 In th is d if f icu l t passage of Epicurus th i s in terpre ta t ion does
no t seem t o be a ny less plausible th an ;he oth ers so far offere d. However, i t is
obvious ly incompat ib le wi th t he do ct r ine expl ic i tly a t t r ibu ted t o the a tomis t s
by A lexander. Th e best and mo st plausible interpreta t ion of this Epicurean
passage w ould be th e one which could harmonize i t wi th the t ex t of Alex-
ander- . I shal l propo se such a harm oniza t ion later in this pap er. If I am success-
fu l , m y in terpre ta t ion should f rom the p oin t of v iew of m etho d be preferred
to those which can not coexis t wi th the ev idence of A lexander .
Recent ly Burker t has brought forw ard a passage on D emocr i tus f ro m Theo-
phras tus which in his opinion refers to th e reduc t ion of the idol , or i ts equivalent
in Demo cri tus , in th e ai r.66 The ophr astus says of th e the ory of vis ion of D emoc-
ri tus: opav p.iv ovv
T I O L E C T ~ ~
Tj7v yap .Zp ao~v ir ~ t%c ~ o p np aa e~ . ev
T ' I ~
yiveo8a~, hha rov a pa
TOU
pera d rqc o+eoc ~ a i m.rrova8a~ov O p o p v o ~
avarehhopevov 6 rro rov d.pwpvov~ a i Burkert believes that inOV o p ~ j v r o c . ~ ~
this passage th e verb ovorPhheo8ai refers t o th e redu ct ion in s ize of th e air-
impr in t as it is being t ranspor ted toward the eye . I t seems to m e tha t Burker t s
proposal c ann ot be r ight . In the phrase rov aPpa rv.rrovoOal ovorehhopevov
th e G reek me ans tha t th e ai r is being im printed as it is being
C J U U T E ~ ~ O ~ E U O U .
The t w o ac t ions are coextensive in t im e. If we accept B urkert s in terpre ta t ion
tha t the a i r- impr in t keeps being reduced in it s path u p to th e eye then the
Greek forces us to assume that th e ac t ion of rv.rrovaOai,t oo , con t i nues un ti l t he
imprin t reaches th e eye . This is un l ikely t o be th e theo ry of Democr i tus . Theo-
ph ras tu s te ll s u s t ha t D emocr i tu s com pa red t he i mpri n ti ng o f t h e a i r t o an
imp rint mad e in wax (ibid.,
51 ) : T O K L V T ~ Veivai r4 v k v ~ d . r r o ~ ~ v
~ U
i e~pcigeiac
eic K ~ P O V .t seems tha t the ac t of impr in t ing w ax b y m eans , for ins tance , of a
s ignet r ing would normally b e pictured b y D em ocri tus and his audience as a
6 De Witt s theory has been suppor ted kiinnen wir uns vorstellen dass alle dicht
with some changes by R. Westman, above, vor einander stehenden und bis an die
n. 51, 165-6. Westman differs from De Witt Pupille unsers Auges reichenden Bilder
in not mentioning the passage of Sextus
bestandig sich verkleinern, bis das erste
Empiricus and in suggesting tha t
T ~ K
Bild an der Pupille einen Durchmesser haben
vwpa refers no t to the process of reduction muss, der gleich ist demjenigen der Pupille
in size of the idol but rather to t he end
selber.
produ ct, i.e.
T n ~ v w p a
s the reduced
6 6 W. Burkert, Air-Imprints or Eidola:
idol.
Democr itus Aetiology of Vision , ICS 2
6
Above, n.
57. 1977), 99-101.
6 The need for gradual reduction was
Sens.
50
= D - K ,
A 135, vol. 2,
stated by P. Natorp, Forschungen zur
pp. 114.28 ff. or H. Diels, Dox. Graec i , p . 5 13).
Geschichte de s Erkenntni sproblems im
That
ovo~ehhopeuov
in this passage of Theo-
A l t e r t u m (Berlin, 1884), p. 226: Dass es
phrastus referred to th e decreasing size of
(sc. das Bild) der Grosse nach mi t d er
the image on its way to th e eye was already
Entfernung ab nimmt , ist klar , and by H.
asserted, although witho ut argument, by
Schiitte,
Theor ie de r S innesempf indungen
R.
E. Siegel,
Galen on Sense Percept ion
bei ucrez
(Danzig,
1888),
p.
10:
dann
(Basel, 1970), p. 18 n. 22.
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
17/27
444
I V A R S A V O T I N S
mo me ntary act ra ther th an o ne s ignify ing ex ten ded c ont inu ous pressure . I f so ,
avorehhopevov is be t ter envisaged as front-to-ba ck rather th an u niform al l -round
compression of th e sect ion of ai r involved.
FLrthermore , there is ev idence tha t Theophras tus d id no t a t t r ibu te any reduc-
t ion t o the a i r - impr in t s of Dem ocr itus . He s ta tes tha t De mocr i tus a t t r ibu ted
vis ion t o refle ct ion:
bpav pPv ovv noiei re kp@ aoei
ibid., 50). Earlier in his
t reat ies he had cri ticized t he p@aoic-theorybecause it d id not expla in why th e
s ize of the ex ternal ob ject s was not co mm ensurate wi th thei r ref lect ion in th e
eye :
T O V T O
i P
OVK. ?TLU V E ~ ~ O Ve O ~ Ea pey.?Oq o v p p ~ r p aa o pd pev a roic
.Gp@aivopPvoic
(ibid.,
36 .
Dem ocri tus mus t obviously have been included in
this crit icism. Theoph rastus also s tated th at D em ocri tus had no t been successful
in expla in ing th e problem of how th e t ru e s izes of e x ternal ob ject s were ref lec ted :
ra 6P p~y.?tlq irGc kp@aiverai, a i i r ~ p anoi5ficmwnixeiprjoac h.?yeivo l j ~
( ib id . , 54) . If th e answer of D emocr i tus to th i s problem had been g iven in the
verb
avorihheaOai on e would expe ct Theophras tus to have know n th is . If he
bel ieved i t , he wou ld n ot have lumpe d al l th e reflect ion the ories togeth er as
defective; if he d id no t , on e would exp ect h im to have del ivered a refu ta t ion .
The mo s t reasonable explanat ion of th i s ev idence ind icates that Theo phras tus
was not aware a t th e t ime of an y shr inkage of th e impr in t s of D emocr i tus .
A
fur th er object ion t o Burker t s theo ry seems to be fo und in a passage of
Plo tinu s n ot a dd uc ed ei th er b y D iels-K ranz o r b y ~ u r i a . ~ ~n 4.5.3.27-32
Plo tinus refers to a theory of v is ion which app ears to be tha t a t t r ibu ted t o
Democr i t u s by Theophras tu s :
EL yap 6q naaxoi T O rov a.?poc,awparutwc
6rjnovOev a v a y ~ qraoxeiv.
T O V T O
6.?kariv obv kv ~ q pU . irnov yev.?atlai. p.?poc
64 6ei rov dparov ~ a 6 ~a or ov T O ovva@Pc e ELopiov rvnovotlai d o r e ~ a i
poplov roaovrov, ooov ~ a i~ o p qO ~ a 6 irro popwv TOV 6parov 6.?xoiroav. vvv
6P nav
T E
oparai ( tex t of Henry-Schw yzer) . Plot inus here s tates th at if th e
ai r -impr in t theory were t rue o ur eye could n ot perceive the w hole of th e
6parov
bu t only a por t ion of
t
no t larger th an t he pupi l . But , objects Plotinus,
we actual ly see the e n t i re objec t :
vvv 6P nav oparai
Therefore , the a i r-
impr in t theory cann ot be t rue . If P lo t inus had kno wn th at th e impr in t was
supp osed t o shrink in transi t , his refutat io n w ould no t have been val id.
I t appears , then , tha t n one of t he references in the sources so far adduced by
scholars convincingly sup po rts th e belief th at in th e atom ist doctr in e a large
idol , if i t was t o be perceived ent i re , was assumed to have sh runk in t ransi t t o
t he s ize of t he pup il . On t h e o t h e r hand , s t a t em en t s by anc ien t au t ho r s f rom
Theophras tus onw ard c lear ly imply that th ey were unaware of an y such theory .
Theophras tus reproached Dem ocr i tus fo r no t expla in ing the t iny ref lec tion of
an ex ternal ob ject in the e ye . The o t he r au thors cr it ic ized th e a tomis t theor y of
vis ion o n th e grou nds th at idols of large objects seen by us co uld no t possibly
ente r the small
If they had been aware of a hypothes i s of redu ct ion , on e
D e m o c r i t e a Leningrad, 197 0) .
here to the problem of the large idols and the
9
For the criticism of Theophrastus see
small pupil. An even earlier objection to a
above , n . 6 7 , Sens . 36, 50 , and 54 The
similar theory of vision is attributed b y
other type of criticism may have begun w ith
Plutarch to Hieronymus of Rhodes ( Q u a e s t .
Cicero, wh o jokingly m entioned to Atticus
Conv iu .
1 .8 .3 , 6 2 6 A -B). It is rather certain,
the difficulties which the atomist
el wXa
how ever, that the doctrine attacked by
might experience in trying to squ eeze
Hieronymus could no t have been that of
through the small windows of his house
any k now n atom ist. Other objections are
( A d A t t . 2. 3. 2) . He may have been al luding
found in Galen,
Plac . ,
pp. 615 -16 Mueller
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
18/27
A L E X A N D E R O F A P H R O D I S I A S O N V I S IO N I N T H E A T O M I S T S
445
would expec t th em t o have ment ioned i t , if only in rebut ta l. As fa r as I kno w,
the only theory apar t f rom tha t of Alexander which a t temp ts to expla in ho w we
c an pe rc eive ob j e c ts t oo l arge t o be t a ke n in by one g la nce a ppe ars in ~ e m e s i u s . ~
I t
makes no m ent ion of a ny reduc t ion in s ize and a l though n ot based on th e
the ory of idols , has some similari ty to th at a t tack ed b y Alexander of Aphrodisias .
According to th i s theory , we see objec ts which a re to o large t o be taken in by
on e glance piece b y piece ( K U T U &POC o r K ~ T Uue.r@aoiv). Th e pieces seen in
tempora l success ion a re preserved by mem ory and th en p ut toge ther by th e
mind :
TOV
pv ovv ,ueyPBovc GixLjc h v ~ i h a p f l a v e r a iSC. o ie ) ,
~ O T
u p d q ,
n or 6 p e ~ a V t j p q ~
~ a i
uzvoiac
D e nut. hom.
1 8 4 ) .
The tw o theor ies share
th e basic not io n th at w hen perceiving a large object as a whole w e perceive i t
by m eans of a mosaic bui l t up of pieces of th e s ize of o ur pupils . Of course ,
nei ther of these tw o theories explains ho w we can judge th e t rue s ize of an
external o bject . Th e difficulty is especial ly a cute fo r th e a tom ists because their
the ory , as given by Alexander, would seem t o entai l th e physical recon struct ion
in th e eye of a n idol of th e same size as its exte rna l objec t. If a large idol need n ot
be reduced t o th e s ize of th e pupil be fore i t en te rs th e eye then w e would expec t
reduc t ion in i t s recons t ruc t ion . The idol of th e temple o r of th e thea t re could
obviously no t b e restored t o i ts original s ize within t h e largest head. However,
Alexander s t rangely does no t seem t o have not iced th is obvious weakness in
the theory which he was demol ishing.
At this poi nt i t seems clear th at we have no evidence fo r a consistent and
thou ght -o ut hypothes is of an order ly reduc t ion in t rans i t of the idols . The
accou nt of Alexander m ust no w be recognized as the only ex tan t explic it a to m -
ist theo ry of how large idols were deal t with b y th e eye.71 It m ust be reme mbe red
here tha t Alexander s ac coun t is restric ted t o ocular vision and do es not m ention
a t a ll the ent rance of th e idols d i rec t ly in to th e mind. T here seems to be n o
explic it inform ation o n how large-sized idols were supposed t o enter th e min d.
If we start from th e assump tion tha t Alexander s a tom ist doctrine o n large
idols was, as he asserts , held by a ll the a tom ists , som e new interpreta t ion s seem
advisable . For instance, a unan imou sly held view on atom ist percept io n m ay
have t o be reconsidered. In
Mantissa 136.17
Alexander s ta tes tha t th e ent rance
of a single idol is no t sufficient t o cause vision:
ov ya p Pvoc ei6 3A ov &,u.rr?ho~i
T O opav. This is a do ctrine famil iar to us fro m Lucret ius, who asserts several
t imes tha t eyes are unable t o see an isola ted
simulacrum (4 .8 9, 4.1'05, 4 .256 ff . ) .
(v. p.
618
Kiihn) and p.
639
Mueller (v. one would expect him to mention i t here.
p . 639 Kuh n) , in Plot inus , 4.5.3 an d, I t is very interest ing to notice th at th e
possibly, 4.6.1,in St. Basil, Against Eu no - brilliant Giussani (abo ve, n. 47 , al though
mius 3.6, in Macrobius. Sat. 7.14.1
1
in
ignorant of the passages in Alexander, offered
St. Augustine, Ep. 118.29 P L. 3 3 p. 446 , a tentat ive atomist so lution fo r the large-idol
and in Nem esius, De nut. horn. , p . 180 prob lem which is precisely t ha t given by
Matthaei , wh o explici t ly quo tes from Galen.
Alexander. Giussani, of co urse , saw its
weak spot and thoug ht tha t the requi red
Above , n. 69, 184-5.
W . W.
Jaeger
reduction of the large idol too k place
argues tha t the so urce of Nemesius here was
during i ts rebuilding in t he ey e. On this
Galen (Ne mes ius won Eme sa (B erlin, 1914 ,
point he we nt bey on d ou r evidence. It is
p.
32 .
Galen, however , when ment ioning
relevant to t he discussion on t he redu ction
th e inadequac y in this area of Aristotle,
in size of idols to no te th at in Giussani s
Epicurus, and some unn am ed philosophers
opinion the reduction of entire large idols
(above, n. 69, pp . 638-9 suggests not hing
to the size of th e pupil was inconceivable
bett er . If he had had a theo ry of his own,
in Epicurean doctrine ( ibid.) .
-
8/10/2019 Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB
19/27
446 I V A R S A V O T I N S
However, neither h e nor an y ot he r source gives an explicit reason fo r this asser-
tion. Scholars as a rule assume th at a stead y stream of idols is required because
th e thin ness of a single idol prevents it fro m being perceived b y itself. This is a
reasonable explanat ion and is, perhaps, supp orted by th e rather unclear examples
in Lucretius 4.259-68. However , if we now tak e into account th e new informa-
t ion f ro m Alexander there is a dif ferent explanat ion possible for the need of a
stead y stre am of idols. As was discussed earlier in this paper, a steady s tream of
idols is required in the ac co un t of Alexander because, of each idol which
approaches th e eye, only a section t h e size of th e pupil can enter . A stream of
th em is needed t o supply al l the pieces required t o reconstruct in th e eye an idol
representing t he en t ire external object . Alexander makes n o mention whatso-
ever of th e interpretat ion prevalent today, th e on e that maintains th e need of a
stead y stream o f c omp lete and undivided idols if vision is t o ta ke place. What is
more, his acco unt def ini tely suggests that as soon as th ey are reconstructed in
th e eye, we see th e idols singly (i .e. a single idol is not to o thin to be perceived
by itself) . Theref ore, his state me nt ov
b d c e i63hou tp ;un~ oei
O
6pav cannot
be e x pl ai n ed in t h e t ra d it io n al f a s h i ~ n . ' ~n i t s con text i t can only mean th a t
vision cann ot occur at th e entran ce of on e idol because one idol leaves behind
on ly on e piece of itself w hereas we becom e conscious of seeing only a fter th e
eye has reconstructed the ent ire idol D e
sensu
60.5-6). If we continue to
accept th e prevalent explanat ion of th e Lucret ian passages, the n we have t o
assume th at the re were tw o dist inct s teps in th e atomist th eory of vision, each
warranting t h e sta tem en t 'we can no t see an idol in isolation. ' I t is, of cou rse,
no t ut ter ly impossible th at tw o, no t o ne, series of idols were required in the
atomist doc tr ine of vision. The f irst series, th e on e mentioned by Alexander,
could have consisted of idols each supplying on e piece towards t he reconstruc-
t ion of o ne complete idol . The second series, th e on e encountered in Lucretius,
could consist of t he reco nstructed idols; these reconstructed idols would convey
a perception t o th e eye only if being incessantly added to . The rate of produ c-
t io n o f t h e id ol s w as so r a p i d - y v e ~ i c T G U i s L j h ~ v
La
voqpa r i E p . Hdt . 4 8 )
- that there could have been an adequ ate supply of idols to carry ou t all these
manceuvres tha t preceded vision. Althoug h the two-series hypothes is may seem
t o explain so me parts of Lucretius be tter , irs compl exity is against it . Also, it
is difficult to believe th at identical-so
top related