Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB

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 [email protected].

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


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.


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.


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 ~ [email protected]. 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


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


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 .


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 .


8/27

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


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


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 .


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


12/27


13/27

440


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 .


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


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 .


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.


17/27

444


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


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.) .


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

Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB

Documents

Transcript of Alexander Aphrodisiensis # Avotins (Alexander of Aphrodisias on Vision in the Atomists) BB