Pagei

TheoriesofWeightintheAncientWorld
FourEssaysonDemocritus,PlatoandAristotle
AStudyintheDevelopmentofIdeas
VOLUMEONE

 Pageii

PHILOSOPHIAANTIQUA
ASERIESOFMONOGRAPHS
ONANCIENTPHILOSOPHY

EDITEDBY
W.J.VERDENIUSANDJ.C.M.VANWINDEN

VOLUMEXXXVII

D.O'BRIEN
THEORIESOFWEIGHTINTHEANCIENTWORLD
I

 Pageiii

DemocritusWeightandSize
AnExerciseintheReconstructionofEarlyGreekPhilosophy

By
D.O'Brien

ChargdeRecherche
auCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,Paris

Cetouvrageatpubliavecleconcours
duCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique

 Pageiv

VOLUMETWO

PLATOWEIGHTANDSENSATION

TheTwoTheoriesofthe'Timaeus'

VOLUMETHREE

ARISTOTLEWEIGHTANDMOVEMENT

'Decaelo'BookFour:AReconstructionofAristotle'sTheory

VOLUMEFOUR

ARISTOTLEWEIGHTANDMOVEMENT

'Decaelo'BookFour:AnInterpretationofAristotle'sTheory

ISBN9004061320

9004061347

Copyright1981byE.J.Brill,Leiden,TheNetherlands

Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedortranslatedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,microficheoranyothermeans
withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher

PRINTEDINGREATBRITAIN

 Pagev

sedisapientiae
sacrum

 Pagevii

CONTENTS

AvantPropos xi

Introduction xiii

Abbreviations xxi

PartOne
PrimaryEvidence

I.Aristotle'sGeneralCriticismoftheAtomicTheory 3

1Orientation 3

2TheDistinctionofRelativeandAbsoluteWeight 6

3ClassificationoftheWeightofAtoms:ApproximationtoAbsoluteWeight 15

4ClassificationoftheWeightofAtoms:IdentificationwithAbsoluteWeight 23

5'RelativeWeight'and'AbsoluteWeight'inAristotle'sCriticismofHis 32
Predecessors

II.Aristotle'DeGenerationeetCorruptione' 41

1'Preponderance' 43

2'RelativeWeight':ConfusioninCherniss 49

3WeightandTemperature 57

4TheSequenceofArguments 69

III.Aristotle'DeCaelo' 80

1IndividualAtoms 80

2CompoundBodies 100

3Aristotle'sCriticism 106

IV.Theophrastus 115

1StatementoftheTheory 115

2CriticismoftheTheory:The'Necessity'ofMovement 132

3CriticismoftheTheory:'Physis'and'Hyle' 142

 Pageviii

PartTwo
SecondaryEvidence

V.Simplicius 153

1TheWeightofAtoms 153

2WeightandMovement:'DeCaelo' 161

3WeightandMovement:'Physics' 166

VI.SimpliciusandtheCurrentCompromise 174

1TheNatureofWeight:WeightExpressedAsMovementDownwards 174

2TheNatureofWeight:WeightExpressedAsForceofImpactandAs 182
SpeedofMovement

3WeightandVoid 192

VII.DiogenesLaertiusandAlexander 203

1DiogenesLaertius:TheTimeSequence 203

2DiogenesLaertius:TheMeaningof 207

3Alexander:The'Parts'ofAtoms 211

4Alexander:TheGenesisofError 217

VIII.AetiusandCicero 223

1Aetius:TheExplicitDenial 223

2Aetius:TheImplicitDenial 229

3Cicero 239

 Pageix

PartThree
TheConciliationoftheEvidence

IX.TheNatureandDistributionoftheEvidence:PrimaryEvidence 251

1SourcesfortheHistoryofEarlyPhilosophy 251

2Theophrastus 253

3Aristotle 260

X.TheNatureandDistributionoftheEvidence:SecondaryEvidence 267

1Simplicius 267

2The'Parts'ofAtoms:Simplicius'PowersofIntellectualConsistency 270

3TheNatureofSoul:Simplicius'InformationonDemocritus 279

4AetiusandtheSizeofAtoms 282

5Aetius'DependenceonTheophrastus 298

XI.IndirectEvidence 303

1Aristotle'OnDemocritus' 303

2MovementandDifference 311

3Aristotle'Physics':SpeedandWeight 315

4SpeedandSize 323

XII.TheWeightofAtoms 330

1TheMinimalConclusion 330

2TheProbableExtension 335

3Summary 345

XIII.Perspective 347

1ModernScholarship:TheprogressofError 347

2EarlyGreekConceptionsofHeavyandLight 364

Bibliography 385

IndexLocorum 402

RsumenFranais 412

 Pagexi

AVANTPROPOS
Cetouvragereprsentelapremiredequatretudesportantsurlesthoriesdelapesanteurdansl'antiquit.ElleestconsacrelathoriedeDmocrite,chezlequel
lapesanteurseraitfonctiondelatailledesatomes.LadeuximeaurapourobjetleTime,oPlatonaeul'ide,lepremier,monsentiment,decomprendresa
thoriedelapesanteurdanslecadred'unethoriedelasensation.Latroisimeetlaquatrimetraitentdelathoried'Aristote,pourquilaconceptiondelapesanteur
faitpartieintgrantedecelledumouvement.

Certes,cestroisauteursn'puisentpointtoutcequ'aputrel'apportdelaculturegrcoromainesurcettequestion,commelelaissedevinerconfusmentplusd'un
vestige.Ilsnousenlivrentpourtantl'essentiel:avantDmocrite,aucunpenseurnemesembleavoircherchintgrerlanotiondepesanteurunsystmeaussibien
philosophiquequescientifiqueaprsAristote,cequenoussavonsdelascienceantiquenenouslaisseguredistinguerdethoriedelapesanteurquinesoitcalque
danssesgrandeslignessurcellesdel'AcadmieouduLyce.Enrevanche,lacritiqueparPlatondelathoriedmocritennedelapesanteur,ainsiquelarepriseetla
refontedecettecritiqueparAristote,nousfontpercevoirchezcesauteurs,traverslacontinuitmmedeleurspenses,uneoriginalitcertainesibienquel'historien
desidestrouvechezeux,surcethmeprcis,uneoccasiontoutfaitprivilgied'observerunexempledegenseetd'volutiondesidesdansletemps.

Evidemmentonnesauraitentreprendreunerecherchedecettedimensionsansdisposerdeconditionsdetravailexceptionnelles.JelesdoislagnrositduCentre
NationaldelaRechercheScientifiqueet,danscecadre,j'aieuleprivilge,galement,depouvoirfrquenterlessminairesorganissauCentreLonRobin,la
Sorbonne.MonsieurleProfesseurP.M.Schuhl,membredel'Institut,quiadirigceCentredurantdelonguesannes,nem'ajamaismesursabienveillance
attentive,etj'aitoujoursentenduavecleplusgrandintrtsesaperusetsesrapprochementsstimulants,puisslasourced'unevasterudition,etpropres
renouvelerl'ardeurdelarecherche.Monsieurle

 Pagexii

ProfesseurP.Aubenque,quiluiasuccdladirectionduCentreLonRobin,ainsiqueMonsieurleProfesseurJ.Brunschwig,quiabienvouluaccepterd'assurer
monparrainageauprsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,ontmanifestlemmesouciqueluidem'assureruneentirelibertintellectuelle,toutenme
faisantbnficier,commelui,desressourcesdeleursavoir,etdetoutl'acquis,notamment,rassemblparlatradition,sculaireParis,desrecherches
aristotliciennes.

Jedoisgalementexprimericimareconnaissancepourlacordialitdeleuraccueil,ainsiquepourlesnombreusesremarquesetlesinformationsqu'ilsm'ontsi
amicalementapportessurdiverspoints,mescollguesparisiens,etnotammentMonsieurleProfesseurJ.Ppin,etMonsieurDenisetMadameFranoise
Zaslawsky.Jetiensgalementexprimermesplusvifsremerciementsdesamisanglaisouamricainsquiontbienvoululirecertainespartiesduprsentouvrageet
mefairepartdeleursobservations:MadameK.M.Burnett,MonsieurleDocteurG.E.R.Lloyd,MessieursJ.H.Prynne,A.PughetW.Stewart,del'Universit
deCambridge,MonsieurleProfesseurJ.McGovern,duDpartmentd'Histoiredel'UniversitdeIllinois,MonsieurS.V.Keeling,DocteursLettresde
l'UniversitdeMontpellier,MonsieurleProfesseurJ.A.Scott,del'UniversitdeNewfoundland,MonsieurleProfesseurJ.B.Skemp,del'UniversitdeDurham
enfin,MonsieurleProfesseurW.J.Verdenius,del'Universitd'Utrecht.Queceluicitrouveicil'expressiondemagratitudetouteparticulirepouravoiracceptde
publiermonouvragedanscettesriedontilassumeladirection,etquiluivautlareconnaissancedetousceuxquitudientl'histoiredelaphilosophieantique.

PARIS
ILESAINTLOUIS1971,PALAISROYAL1978

 Pagexiii

INTRODUCTION
Muchlabourandsomeingenuityhasbeenspentondisentanglingtheliterarywreckageoftheancientworld,andonreconstructing,sofarastheevidencewhichhas
survivedwillallow,theintellectualexperienceofantiquity.Thisandthethreestudieswhichfollowareacontributiontothisend.

Naturally,IshouldnothavewishedtopublishthemifIdidnotthinkthattheycamenearerthetruththanearlierconclusionshavedone.ButthisdoesnotmeanthatI
claimtoofferanyradicallynewevidence,noranymethodsofanalysisthatareidiosyncraticororiginal.TheprincipaltextsthatIhavedrawnfromareallwellknown:
TheophrastusDesensibus,Plato'sTimaeus,AristotleDecaelo,thecommentariesofSimplicius.ThemethodsIhaveemployedfortheinterpretationofthesetexts
arethetraditionalones:scrupulousphilologicalexegesisofindividualpassages,coupledwithanecessarilymorespeculativeaccountoftheirrelationtotheircontext,
andtoeachother.

AndyetonereasonforthelengthofmyenquiryisthatIdohopetoisolate,andinthisinstancetocorrect,onemajordeficiencyinthemodernstudyofancientthought:
unthinkingsubmissiontothecontinuinginfluenceofAristotle.

RecognitionoftheoverwhelminginfluenceofAristotleontheevidenceforourknowledgeofthephilosophyofthefifthcentury,andrecognitionalsoofthepotential
prejudicethatisintroducedtherebyintooursecondarysourcesforphilosopherswhowerethemselvesignorantofAristotle,isalessonthathasbeenwelllearnt,
perhapstoowell.WhathasnotbeenrecognisedisthecontinuinginfluenceofAristotleonourownideas.Potentially,weareasmuchatthemercyofAristotle'sideas
aswerethehistoriansandphilosophersofpostAristoteleanantiquity,andaswasAristotlehimself.Thedifferenceisthatsomeoneelse'sprejudiceiseasiertorecognise
andtoanalysethanone'sown.TherecanbenosingleworkfortheeradicationofmodernprejudiceinthestudyofancientphilosophyequivalenttoeitherofCherniss'
monumentalworks,Aristotle'scriticismofPresocraticphilosophyandAristotle'scriticismofPlatoandtheAcademy.Itisonlyrepeatedstudyoftheindividual
instancethatcanmakethescholar

 Pagexiv

awareofthepotentiallydisruptiveeffectofhisownAristoteleanandpostAristoteleanconceptionsuponhisinterpretationofthePresocraticphilosophers,andof
Plato.Andyetifwearetoclarifyourknowledgeofthepasttothefurthestlimitsoftherestrictionsimposeduponusbytheavailabilityandthenatureoftheevidence,
thentheonelessonisnolessimportantthantheother.ItisasessentialtouncovertheAristoteleanprejudiceinAristotleandinSimpliciusasitistouncoverthe
modern,andlargelyAristoteleanprejudiceinChernissandinourselves.

Itisintheareaofontologyandepistemologythattheeffectofanachronisticassumptionandconceptionis,Ibelieve,atitsmostrampant.Butthehumblerstudyof
earlyideasofheavyandlight,althoughthesearecloselyrelatedtoearlyideasofrealityandofperception,makestheinterplayofancientandmodernprejudiceupon
theevidenceforthePresocraticsandforPlatomoremanageableandmorenearlydemonstrable.

ThusthepresentstudyattemptstoreconstructthetheoryofweightthatwasadoptedbyDemocritus.Theevidenceiscomplicated,butthereasonwhyithasbeen
misunderstoodliesnotonlyintheintrinsicdifficultyofthetexts,butequallyinthedifficultythatmodernscholarshaveinfreeingthemselvesfromcertainsettledhabitsof
thought.'Wemayherepausetoconsiderwhatweightmeans',writesonescholarinhisaccountofDemocritus.1Thedefinitionwhichhegiveshastheauthorityof
Zeller,andtheconcurrence,perhapslesswelcome,ofBurnet.Itbetraysnonetheless,allunwittingly,anAristoteleaninfluence,whichIshallattempttoshowisonly
marginallyrelevanttothewaysofthinkingofphilosophersinthefifthcentury,andwhichisonlypartiallyrelevantevenforPlato.

Itistruethatthemoderninterpretationcanfindancientevidencetosupportit.Butthisconfluenceofideasisnotaccidental.TheancientevidencewhichZellerand
whichBurnetselecttosupporttheirinterpretationofDemocritus'theoryofweightshowssigns,oncloseinspection,ofcontaminationatpreciselythepointswhich
renderitmostpalatabletomodernprejudice.Insteadofadoptingtheevidencewhosecategoriesofthoughtcanbethemosteasilyassimilatedtoourownwaysof
thinking,weneedtoappreciatethattheevidencewhichinthisinstanceis
1
G.S.Kirk,ThePresocraticphilosophers(Cambridge,1957)415.

 Pagexv

historicallystrongerrequiresarealignmentofourhabitualconceptions,ifwearetoreaditslessonaright.

Soitisalsowiththesubjectofmysecondessay.TheinterpretationofPlato,nolessthanthatofDemocritus,hasbeendrawnintothecircleofAristotelean
preconceptions.Atfirst,thisissurprising,sincePlato'sworkonphysicalphilosophy,theTimaeus,hassurvivedcomplete.Thefactthatevenwiththesurvivalofthe
textAristoteleanideashaveinfiltratedintothemoderninterpretationofPlato'stheoryofweight,nolessthanintothatofDemocritus,isastrikingindicationthatthe
dominatinginfluenceofAristotleonourunderstandingofthephilosophyoftheancientworldisnotsolelytheresultofourdependenceuponAristoteleansourcesfor
philosopherswhoseoriginalwritingshavebeenlost.

TheTimaeusisforthemostpartfreefromtheaporeticandfromthedramaticqualitieswhichsometimesfortunatelyhamperanysimplereductionofPlato'sideas
toanondialogueform.ButtheextremelyintricateandenigmaticcharacteroftheTimaeus,coupledwiththe'mythical',orperhapsoneshouldsaytheanalogical,
natureofmanyofPlato'sleadingconcepts,leavesplentyofscopefordisagreementandmisunderstanding.TheinterpretationofPlato'sanalysisofheavyandlightI
thinkprovidesanextremebutnotauniqueexampleoftheoverridinginfluenceofAristoteleanideasonmoderncommentatorsMartin,ArcherHind,Taylorwho
thinkthattheyaresimplyrepeatingPlato'stheorywhenallunconsciouslytheyareinfactclothingPlatoinAristoteleanideaswhichcertainlyinthiscasedestroythe
intricacyandthebalanceofPlato'soriginalintention.

LatentAristoteleanpreconceptionshavesofar,Ibelieve,concealedtherealnatureofPlato'stheoryofheavyandlightfromthemodernreader:paradoxically,itis
Aristotle,rightlyunderstood,whohelpstoprovidethecure.'AristotleinhiscriticismofPlato'stheory...simplyignoresthewholepointofitfrombeginningtoend':
sowritesArcherHindwithakindofrighteousimpatience.1Buthiswordsapplyonlytohimself.Aristotleisnotofcourseimpartial.Plato,orPlatonism,isforhiman
activerival.HecriticiseswhatheseesasthefatalflawinPlato'stheory,and
1
R.D.ArcherHind,The'Timaeus'ofPlato,editedwithintroductionandnotes(LondonandNewYork,1888)2289.

 Pagexvi

ignoresmuchoftherest.ButthePlatowhomAristotlecriticisesisatleastdistinctfromhiscritic.ThePlatowhomArcherHindpresentstousisinlargepartthe
productofArcherHind'sownAristoteleanimaginings.AndthatiswhyAristotle'scriticismsseemtoArcherHindandtoChernissandtoSolmsentomissthe
mark.Thetargethasbeenplacedtooclose.Aristotle'scriticismsareaimedfartherafield:hecouldnoteasilyhavecriticisedthefigmentthatArcherHindhasplaced
beforehimwithoutinflictingfatalinjuryuponhimself.

ThecriticismswhichTheophrastusmakesofPlatohavesufferedinthesameway.WehavetoreconstructDemocritus'theoryinpartfromthesummaryandcriticism
whichTheophrastusprovidesofitintheDesensibus.ForPlato,wehavetheoriginalexpressionofthetheory,aswellasthesummaryandthecriticismwhich
Theophrastussupplies.Itisalarming,andchastening,tofindthat,evenwhentheoriginaltextsurvives,Theophrastus'criticismshavebeen,asIbelieve,misunderstood.
Thereason,Ishallargue,isthesameasinthecaseofAristotle.TaylorunconsciouslyadoptsaheavilyAristoteleanisedinterpretationofPlato.Hetherefore
misconstruesTheophrastus'attackuponPlatoasexegesisandnotascriticism.ThecriticalconstructionswhichTheophrastusadvancesareintendedasarefutationof
Plato'stheory.TheyaretakenbyTaylorasexegesis,asadirectstatementofthetheoryitself.ForTaylorisunabletoseehowanyonecouldnotthinkasAristotle
does.ThepointsofAristoteleantheorywhichTheophrastusoffersasarefutationofPlatoTayloristhereforeunabletoseeexceptasadirectstatementofPlato'sown
theory.TaylordoesnotseethathisownAristoteleanisedversionofPlato'stheoryleavesnoroomfortheradicalcriticismofPlatowhichTheophrastusrepeatsfrom
Aristotle.

Thiscomplexityinpartexplainsthelengthofmyenquiry.MystudyofPlatohastoincludefourchaptersdevotedtoananalysisofthecriticismswhichAristotleand
whichTheophrastusmakeofPlato.Iincludethesepartlyofcoursefortheirownsake.ButIalsoconsiderasconfirmationoftheinterpretationwhichIofferofPlato
thatitaffordsthecriticismswhichAristotleandwhichTheophrastusmakeofPlatoaproperfootholdinthetextoftheTimaeus.Weneedtobeabletoreadthe
TimaeuswiththeeyesofAristotle,ifonlyinordertoavoidreadingintoitareflectionofAristotle.

 Pagexvii

Byasignificantparadox,itisnotonlyPlatoandthePresocraticswhoarevictimsofthedistortinginfluenceofAristotle,intheancientandinthemodernworld.
Aristotlehimself,asmythirdandfourthessaysIhopewillmakeclear,suffersasaresultoftheAristoteleanwaysofthinkingthatweunconsciouslycastuponhis
predecessors.ThecloserourinterpretationofthePresocraticsandofPlatoisdrawnintoanAristoteleanframeofreferenceandofassumption,thelessroomthereis
forAristotle'sownideastotakeontheirproperscopeandbalance,andthemoredifficult,indeedimpossible,itbecomesforustodiscoverthealignmentofinterest,
andthepolemicalintent,ofAristotlehimself.

FortheextendedanalysesandcriticismswhichAristotleprovidesofhispredecessorsandofPlatoarenotpurelyhistoricalordoxographicalintheirpurpose.Even
whenAristotlepresentsearlierideasasinradicaloppositiontohisown,carefulanalysisshowsthatnonethelessAristotle'sownideashavetakenonasignificantpartof
theirformandtheirpurpose,notonlyfromthecommongroundthatstillinevitablyexistswithearlierwaysofthinking,andwithPlatoinparticular,butnolessfromthe
attemptsthatAristotledeliberatelymakestocircumventthefallaciesthatheseesintheideasofhispredecessors.1

HereagainitisinthemorespeculativefieldsofAristotle'sepistemologyandontology,inhisconceptionofactivemindandtheunmovedmover,thatthiscommerce
withtheideasofhispredecessorsmostradicallyaffectsthefinalformofAristotle'stheory,andyethasprovedopaque,Ibelieve,tomodernmethodsofanalysisand
interpretation.ButhereagainAristotle'sconceptionofheavyandlight,portrayedatlengthinthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,illustratestheprinciplethatIhavein
mindinamorerestrictedbutalsoinamorenearlydemonstrableform.TheprecisecontentofAristotle'scriticismofDemocritusisintegraltoAristotle'sown
attemptedestablishmentofcriteriaofdifferentiationforelementswithabsoluteandwithrelativeweight.ItisnoaccidentthereforethatintheDecaeloAristotle
criticisesDemocritusandPlatoatsomelength,afteraswellasbeforetheexpositionofhisowntheoryofweight.Foritisintheattemptto
1
TherearesomeusefulgeneralremarksonthissubjectbyP.Aubenque,'Physiquearistotlicienneetlangage',Archivesdephilosophie31(1968)12532,esp.1267.

 Pagexviii

distinguishhisownideasfromthoseofDemocritusthatAristotleisdrivenfurthestintheapplicationofhisowncriteriaofweightanditisasaresultoftheattemptto
rescuehisownideasfromthecriticismsthathehasmadeofthatversionofDemocritus'ideaswhichheseesasmostnearlyapproachinghisownthatAristotleisled,
orsoIshallargue,toabandonweightasaquantitativecriterionforthedifferentiationofthefourelements,andtoadoptinsteadaconceptionofweightwhichleadsto
qualitativedifferentiations,ofthekindthatwefindemployedasthefoundationforhistheoryoftheidentityoftheelementsintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.

Thisaddsafreshcomplicationtothemethodicalstudyoftheevidence.ThehazardsofapproachingthestudyofthePresocraticsthroughastudyofAristotleare
compoundedbytheneedforaclearunderstandingofPresocraticandPlatonicideasinordertoappreciatepreciselythedriftofideasinAristotle.Thisexplains,andI
hopewillinpartjustify,thesequenceofargumentinmystudiesofDemocritusandofAristotle.MystudyofDemocritusbeginswiththreechaptersdevotedto
Aristotle.MyreconstructionofAristotle'stheorywillconcludewithaseriesofchaptersdevotedagaintoAristotle'scriticismofDemocritus.Theinevitablecircularity
inthepresentationoftheevidencecouldobviouslyleadtoacircularityintheargument.IhopethatIhaveavoidedthis.IfIhavenot,thenithasnotbeenthroughany
lackofconsciousnessofthedanger.

Afinalreasonforthescope,andforthelength,ofmyenquiryisthatIhavetriedtoaddtoitanelementofinterpretation,asdistinctfromsimplereconstruction.The
labourandthehazardsofanenquirywheretheevidenceisfragmentary,enigmaticandcircuitousaffordanobvioustemptationtostopshortattryingtoestablishwhat
individualphilosopherssaidandthought.Itmayseemaworkofsupererogationtotrytointerprettheresults:andinanycasehowarewetodoso?

Thereis,Ithink,somethingnaive,andunpalatable,inseekingtointerpretortocriticisephilosophersofthepast,inanydirectsense.Iremember,stillwithafeelingof
vicariousembarrassment,atalkonPlato'sPhaedobyanewcomertoaCambridgechair,whodrewflatteringtittersfromanundergraduateaudiencebylistingthe
deficienciesthathe,asamodernphilosopher,sawinPlato'sconceptionofformandoftheself.Thisisnotthekindof

 Pagexix

interpretationthatIwouldaimat,althoughIcanseetheadvantageoftreatingPlatoandAristotleasphilosophersintheirownright,whoseinterestsstilltosomeextent
coincidewithourown.1

Atthesametime,Ifinditfrustratingtotreatthehistoryofideasasepisodicallyasonemighttreatthehistoryofevents.Democritus'ideasarenot,Ithink,appreciated,
ifheisseenassimplyonememberofasuccessionofearlyphilosophers,norifhisideasareseenasa'brilliantanticipation'(Gomperz'sphrase)ofthesupposed
discoveriesofmodernscience.2Tousearatherfoolishlyquantitativeformofexpression:thehistoryofideasseemstometobemorethanhistory,andlessthan
philosophy,orlessthanscienceinamodernsense.

ButperhapsIhavedugmyowngrave.Iammoreconsciousoftheneedforsomeelementofinterpretation,thanIamconfidentofmyownabilitytoprovideit.No
doubtthereareotherandbetterwaysofapplyingthehumanmindtounderstandingthehistoryofideas.ThecourseIhaveadoptedissimplytotrytopresentthese
threetheoriesofweightastypifying,onhoweverminusculeascale,thedevelopmentaswellasthemeresuccessionofideas.Thereisasense,itseemstome,inwhich
Aristotle'sconceptionofweightisindeedpresentimplicitlyintheearlierDemocriteanconception,andequallyasenseinwhichDemocritus'conceptionlingersin
Aristotle,whilePlatoholdsthetwoideasinsuspension,asitwere,thenewandtheoldskilfullyheldinoppositionbytheparticularconceptionthatPlatohasofthe
relationbetweenreasonandnecessity,andbetweenperceptionandreality.

ThisfinallyisthereasonfortheparticularattentionthatIhavegiveninmystudytotheinfluenceofAristotle.Ifalaterideacanproperlybedescribedasimplicitin
someearlierconception,thenclearlyoncetheideahasbeenmadeexplicitthereisthedangerthatitwillseemtoloomlargerinitsinitialappearance,andthenthe
furtherdangerthatinretrospectitwilltherebycometooust
1
Cf.P.Wilpert,FestschriftfrAloysWenzl(MnchenPasing,1950)57:'...auchdieganzGrossenihrekleinenFussangelnhaben,berdiesiestolpern.Dempiettlosen
SptgeborenenisteseinbilligesVergngendarberzulcheln,wennauchbeiihmvielleichtschonderSohndiedickenTauesieht,berdiederVatergestrauchelt'.
2
T.Gomperz,GriechischeDenker,eineGeschichtederantikenPhilosophie4thedni(1922)305.

 Pagexx

theconceptionswithwhichitwasinitiallyassociated,andtowhichitwasoriginallysubordinated.ThekindofevidencethatIhavehadtoconsiderintheseessays
thereforetendstoobliteratepreciselythosefeaturesthataremostnecessaryforasuccessfulreconstructionofthedevelopmentofideas:fortheevidencetendsto
obliteratepreciselythosefeatureswhichareleastfamiliartothelaterhistoriansofantiquity,andtoourselves.

Reconstructionandinterpretation,atleastofthekindthatIhaveofferedhere,arethereforelessseparablethanmightatfirstappear.Ineithercase,itisthedominating
influenceoflaterideaswhichdisruptsourreconstructionoftheevidence,andwhichkeepsusfromaproperanalysisofthedevelopmentofideas,asaprocesswhich
isatoncemorethanthesimplesequenceofideasasevents,andyetwhichisindependentofwhetherweourselvessupposetheideasinquestiontobetrueorfalse.

 Pagexxi

ABBREVIATIONS
AnyreferencestomodernworksthatarenotimmediatelyclearmayberecoveredfromtheBIBLIOGRAPHY.Ingeneral,Ihavegivenafullreferencethefirsttimea
workisreferredto,andthereafterIhaveusedtheauthor'snamewithanabbreviatedformoftitle.Theshortestandthemostcommonoftheseabbreviationsare:

BurnetEGP J.Burnet,EarlyGreekphilosophy,1stedn1892,4thedn(areprint
ofthe3rdedn)1930.

ChernissACP H.Cherniss,Aristotle'scriticismofPresocraticphilosophy,
1935.

ChernissACPl H.Cherniss,Aristotle'scriticismofPlatoandtheAcademy,
1944.

Cornford, F.M.Cornford,Plato'scosmology,the'Timaeus'ofPlato
Cosmology translatedwithrunningcommentary,1937.

Diels,Dox. H.Diels,Doxographigraeci,1879.

Guthrie,History W.K.C.Guthrie,AhistoryofGreekphilosophy,currentlyappearing
inseveralvolumes,vol.i1962.

Taylor,Commentary A.E.Taylor,AcommentaryonPlato's'Timaeus',1928.

Zeller,ZN E.Zeller,DiePhilosophiederGriecheninihrergeschichtlichen
Entwicklung,1stedn1844,6thednofTeiliHlfte12byW.
Nestle191920.

Twootherworksarecommonlyreferredtoinanabbreviatedform:

DK H.Diels,FragmentederVorsokratiker,1stedn1903:the
paginationisunchangedfromthe5thednbyW.Kranz,19347.

LSJ AGreekEnglishLexiconbyLiddell,ScottandJones,9thedn
1940.

Referencestoperiodicalsaregiveninanabbreviatedforminthefootnotes,andinafullformintheBIBLIOGRAPHY.

TheINDEXLOCORUMspecifiestheeditionsusedofancienttexts.Afterthefirstfullreference,Ihaveusedtheauthor'soreditor'snamealoneforsomecritical
workson,andforsomeeditionsortranslationsof,Plato'sTimaeus,AristotleDecaeloandTheophrastusDesensibus.

 Page1

PARTONE
PRIMARYEVIDENCE

 Page3

ChapterOne
Aristotle'sGeneralCriticismoftheAtomicTheory

1
Orientation

(i)

AlargenumberofwritingswereattributedtoDemocritusintheancientworld,butamongthefragmentsthatsurvivethereisnomentionofweight.

Initially,wehavetomakedothereforewithinformationthatcanberecoveredfromthosewhohadreadtheworksofDemocritus,orofhisimmediateassociate
Leucippus,andwhotranscribe,andcriticise,theirtheories.ChiefamongtheseareAristotle,andhispupilandsuccessorasheadoftheLyceum,Theophrastus.Both
AristotleandTheophrastushadclearlyreadthewhole,oralargepart,oftheworksofDemocritus,andbothrefer,insomedetail,totheatomictheoryofweight.1

ButeventheworksofAristotleandofTheophrastusdonotsurviveintheirentirety.Inparticular,amonographwhichAristotledevotedtoDemocritushasbeenlost,
exceptforasingleextracttranscribedbySimplicius.Theophrastus'detailedaccountsofthePresocratics,includinghishistoryTheopinionsofthephysical
philosophers,havebeenmostlylost.Thelongestcontinuousportionwhichsurvivesofsuchwriting.Onthenatureofthesensesandontheobjectsofsensation,
doescontainanaccountoftheatomictheoryofweight.ButthefragmentsquotedfromTheophrastusbySimplicius,concerningearlieropinionsonthefirstprinciples
ofphysicalphilosophy,donotmentionthisfeatureoftheatomictheory.
1
DiogenesLaertiuslistsseventytitlesinhisLifeofDemocritus,ix469(DK68A1).Ausefullistofreferencestotheseandotherworksthat,rightlyorwrongly,wereattributedto
DemocritusinantiquityisprovidedbyLouisLiard,DeDemocritophilosopho(Parisiis,1873)1525,andbyLopoldMabilleau,Histoiredelaphilosophicatomistique(Paris,
1895)15267.Mabilleauadds,16771,aninstructiveschemaofpassagesinAristotleonancientAtomism.

 Page4

AncientauthorswhoinonewayoranotherdependonworksofAristotleandofTheophrastusthatarelosttousthereforerepresentasecondstratumofpotential
informationonthetheoriesoftheAtomists:chiefamongthese,onthequestionofweight,areSimplicius,AetiusandCicero.1

(ii)

Intheseconditions,itseemstomeimpossibletoattemptanydistinctiononthisquestionbetweenthetheoriesofthetwoatomistphilosophersofthefifthcentury,
LeucippusandDemocritus.

CyrilBailey(whoseaccountofAtomisminthefifthcentury,althoughithasalltheappearanceofacarefulandjudicioussurvey,isinfactfarinferiortohisanalysisof
thelaterversionofAtomismadoptedbyEpicurus)appearstosupposethatDemocritusintroducedweightintothesimpleratomictheoryofLeucip
1
ThemostrecentresearchonTheophrastus'doxographicalwritingsconcludesthatthePhysicorumopinioneswasputtogetherfromaseriesofmonographsonindividual
philosophers,andwasinturnrewrittentoformpartofTheophrastus'ownanalysesofphysicalphilosophy.Onthisinterpretation,thelongfragmentDesensibusandthe
quotationspreservedbySimpliciusarederivednotfromtheoriginalPhysicorumopiniones,asDielshadsupposed,butfromalaterrehandlingofthesamematerial.SeePeter
Steinmetz,DiePhysikdesTheophrastosvonEresos,intheseriesPalingenesiaBandi(BadHomburgV.D.H.,1964)esp.pp.33451Beilage'TheophrastsPhysikundihrVerhltnis
zuden .'
AlthoughthenatureofTheophrastus'doxographicalwritingundoubtedlyrequiresmuchmoreintensivestudythanithassofarreceived,itseemstomethattheconclusionwhich
Steinmetzreachesturnsonaverytenuousdistinction:theclaim,ineffect,todistinguishbetweentwo,ifnotthree,differentversions,ordifferentuses,ofthePhysicorumopiniones
asaseriesofmonographs,asasinglework,andasapreliminarytoTheophrastus'ownphilosophy.
Inparticular,Steinmetz'streatmentoftheDesensibushas,Ithink,beenrightlycriticisedbyO.Gigon,whorepeatstheview,whichhadbeenheldbyDielsandothers,thatthis
fragmentispartoftheoriginalPhysicorumopiniones,'Die derVorsokratikerbeiTheophrastundAristoteles',SymposiumAristotelicum4(Heidelberg,1969)117.Unfortunately,
Gigon'sownthesis,thatthePhysicorumopinioneswaspriorto,andwasusedbyAristotlefor,thedoxographicalaccountsthatprefacethePhysicsandtheMetaphysics,seemstome
veryquestionable,asapparentlyitdidalsotosomeofthosewhowerepresentattheSymposium,seeI.Dring's'ZurEinfhrung'13.
Throughoutthispresentstudy,IhaveadoptedagenerallytraditionalviewoftherelationbetweenAristotle,TheophrastusandthePlacita,whiletryingtoleaveopenthepossibilities
forcorrectionbyfutureresearchonpointsofdetail:cf.especiallypp.281and299302below.

 Page5
1
pus,aspartoftheideathatDemocritus'makesfargreaterusethanLeucippusofdifferencesinsize'.

ButBaileyismisledbyhisuncriticalacceptanceofevidencethatDemocritusbelievedthattheatomswere'infiniteinsize',andthattherecouldbe'anatomasbigasa
cosmos'.BothpiecesofevidencerundirectlycountertoAristotle'sassertionthattheatomsweretoosmalltobeperceived.Theoriginoftheerrorcanwithfair
certaintybetracedtoaconfusedapplicationofprincipleswhichEpicurusintroducedintotheearlieratomicsystem,inordertocountercriticismsthatAristotlehad
madeoftheoriginalformofthetheory,andwhichbyacommondoxographicalfailingwerethenreadbackintotheoriginaltheory.2

Oncewehavediscountedthesetwopiecesofevidence,anyimpressionthatDemocritusmade'fargreateruse'ofsizethandidLeucippusarisessolelyfromthefact
thatthereistentimesmoreevidenceforDemocritus,orforDemocritusandLeucippustogether,thanthereisforLeucippusonhisown.

IdoubtmyselfthatanyusefuldistinctioncanbedrawnbetweenDemocritusandLeucippusonthequestionofsize,andstilllessonthequestionofweight.Ifanysuch
distinctionweretobeattempted,itwouldinanycasehavetobesubsequenttoananalysisoftheevidencecontainedinthepresentessay.

(iii)

Iturnthereforedirectlytothequestionwhichisthesubjectofmystudy:whether,orinwhatsense,theatomsofDemocritus,orofDemocritusandLeucippus,had
weight.

TwopassagesinAristotlearedirectlyrelevanttothisquestion,fromtheDecaeloandfromtheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Theinterpretationofthesetwo
passageshasbeenmuchdisputed,andIdonotbelievethateitherpassagehasbeenproperlyunderstood
1
TheGreekAtomistsandEpicurus(Oxford,1928)1259,cf.144.AmorelimitedmoveinthesamedirectionismadebyAdolfDyroff,Demokritstudien(Leipzig,1899)32.
Bailey'sworkonfifthcenturyAtomismfollowedshortlyafterhisEpicurus,theextantremains,withshortcriticalapparatus,translationandnotes(Oxford,1926).
2
Forevidenceandargumentseebelowch.X4,pp.28298.

 Page6
1
hitherto.Inthetwochapterswhichfollow(chaptersIIandIII)Ishallthereforeconsiderthesetwopassagesindetail.

Weneedfirst,however,toconsideronebroaderproblem.ThisisthegeneralcriticismwhichAristotlemakesoftheatomictheoryofweightintheDecaelo,and
especiallyinthefourthbook,whereAristotleexpoundsatlengthhisowntheoryofabsoluteandofrelativeweight.

Inthesemoregeneralpassagesofcriticism,Aristotledealswiththeatomictheoryintermsofasimpleoppositionbetweenvoidandplenum,asopposedprimarilyto
thetheoryoftheTimaeus,whichinthefourthbookoftheDecaeloAristotlechoosesforthemostparttoregardasfoundedonthedenialofvoidandtheassertionof
trianglesorsurfacesasopposedtosolidorplenum.SomeunderstandingofthewayinwhichAristotleviewstheatomictheoryinthesemoregeneralpassagesof
criticismisessentialtoasolutionoftheproblemswhichconfrontusinthetwopassageswhereAristotledealsspecificallywiththeweightofindividualatoms,intheDe
caeloandintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.

TheremainderofthischapteristhereforedevotedtoapreliminarystudyofAristotle'sgeneralcriticismsoftheatomictheory,intheDecaeloandespeciallyinbook
four,bywayofprovidingthenecessarycontextforamoredetailedstudyofthetwopassageswhereAristotle,orsoIshallargue,writesspecificallyoftheweightof
atoms.

2
TheDistinctionofRelativeandAbsoluteWeight

Initssimplestform,Aristotle'stheoryofrelativeandabsoluteweightisthatfireislightabsolutelybecauseitmovesalwaysupwards,anddoessomorequickly,andis
thereforelighter,inthelargerquantityandthatearthisheavyabsolutelybecauseitmovesalwaysdownwards,anddoessomorequickly,andisthereforeheavier,in
thelargerquantitywhileairandwaterareeachofthemrelativelylightandrelativelyheavybecausetheymove
1
ThetwopassagesareDegen.etcorr.i8,325b36326a14(inpartDK68A60),seech.II,pp.4179belowandDecaeloiv2,308b28309a11(inpartDK68A60),seech.III,pp.80
114below.

 Page7
1
upwardsintheregionofearthanddownwardsintheregionoffire.

Itisacommonbelief,exemplifiednotablybyProfessorCherniss,thatAristotleviewstheatomictheorywithinthecontextofhisownbelief,insuchawaythatthe
atomscannotberegardedasheavyabsolutely,andmustthereforebeseenbyAristotleaspossessingonlyrelativeweight.2

Thetruth,Ibelieve,isjusttheoppositeofthis.IshallarguethatAristotleseestheatomsthemselvesaspossessing,orasapproximatingtothepossessionof,absolute
weight,andthatitisonlythebodiesformedfromtheatomswhichAristotleregardsaslimitedtothepossessionofrelativeweight.

'DeCaelo'BookFour

(i)

ChernisshasbeenledtohisconclusioninpartbyapassagefromtheopeningofbookfouroftheDecaelo,whereAristotlewritesthathispredecessorshadnot
spokenofabsoluteweight,iv .

'Nothinghasbeensaidbypeopleinthepastonthesubjectofelementswithabsoluteweight,butonlyonthequestionofbodies<whichareheavierorlighter>inrelationto
somethingelse.

'Forourpredecessorsdonotsaywhatitisthatisheavy<initself>andwhatitisthatislight<initself>,butonlywhatitisamongthingsthathaveheavinessthatisheavierand
<whatitis>thatislighter.'3.

1
ThissummarisesespeciallyDecaeloiv4,311a1529.
2
HaroldCherniss,Aristotle'scriticismofPresocraticphilosophy(henceforewardACP)(Baltimore,1935)979,esp.97n.412,and20913.ForafullerstatementofCherniss'position,
seebelowpp.46ff.
3
ForthenatureoftheseEnglishversionsparaphrasesandnottranslationsseethewarningattheheadoftheIndexLocorum.

 Page8
1
AccordingtoCherniss,thispassage'showsthatAristotledidnotmeantosaythatDemocritusattributedabsoluteweighttotheatoms'.

(ii)

However,thescopeofAristotle'sremarkisqualifiedafewlineslater,whenthesamesentimentsareattributedonlytoa'majority',iv2,308a34b3:
.
'Themajority,generallyspeaking,ofthosewhoearlierhaveappliedthemselvestothesubjectofourenquiryhavelimitedtheirremarksonbodiesthatareheavyandlightto
bodiesthataresointhesenseonlythatwhentwobodiesbothhaveheavinessoneofthemislighterthantheother.

'Byproceedinginthisway,theythinkthattheyhavegivenadefinitionwhichincludeswhatislightandwhatisheavyinanabsolutesense:buttheirargumentfailstomatch
<theirconceptionofit>.'

Therestrictionin ChernissobliteratesbyparaphrasingbothpassagestogetherasAristotle'scomplaintthat:'nooneofhispredecessors...had
consideredthequestionofabsoluteweight'(myitalics).2
1
ACP97n.412.AsimilarpointismadebyDyroff,Demokritstudien37,JohnBurnet,EarlyGreekphilosophy3rdedn(London,1920)(henceforwardEGP)343,andBailey,Greek
Atomists12933and1445.
2
ACP210:thatbothpassagesareintendedisshownbythereferencesinn.250.

ApeculiarityofEnglishmakesitimpossibletotranslate .
OnemightwellbepuzzledbytherathercuriousformulationwhichAristotleemploysatthispoint:hispredecessorshavespokenonlyofbodies'whichbothhaveheaviness,andof
whichoneislighterthantheother'.Thereasonforboth

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page9

(iii)

ButAristotle'srestrictionisnotanemptyformality,atleastnotwithregardtowhatisheavyabsolutely.ForlaterinhiscritiqueofearlierthinkersAristotlewritesof
therebeing'certainothers',apartfromhimself,'whoagreethatthereissomethingheavyabsolutely',iv4,311b1419:
.

'By''lightabsolutely"Imeanabodywhichissoconstitutedbynatureastotravelconsistentlyupwards,providedthatitisfreefromanyimpediment,andby"heavy"
<absolutely>abodywhich<inthesameway>travelsconsistentlydownwards.

'Forbodiesof<both>thesekindsdoexist,anditisnotthecase,assomepeoplesuppose,thatallbodieshaveheaviness.Forcertainothersagreethattheredoesexist<abody
whichis>heavy,andwhichtravelsconsistentlytowardsthecentre.

'Thepoint<whichtheyfailtosee>isthatinjustthesamewaytheredoesalsoexistabodywhichislight<absolutely>.'

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
bodieshavingheaviness,hereandinAristotle'searliergeneralisation,isthatwhilepeoplehaverecognisedtheexistenceofbodieswithheavinesstheyhavefailedtorecognise
theexistenceofabodythathaslightnessorthatislightabsolutely,aswelearninthepassagewhichIquoteimmediatelyafterthis,iv4,311b1419.Butwhy,inthissecond
generalisation,doesAristotlesingleoutonebodyasbeinglighter?
Theanswer,Isuspect,liesinthedefinitionimmediatelyprecedingofrelativelightnessasdeterminedbydifferencesinspeedofmovement,iv1,308a313.Thisdefinitionhasbeena
constantsourceofdifficultyIshallgivesometimetotheanalysisofitinmythirdessay.Initssimplestterms,thereasonforthispresentformulationItaketobethattwoportionsof
earthwouldbothhaveheaviness,whilethelargerwouldbetheheavierofthetwo:bothportionshoweverwouldbeheavyabsolutely.Ontheotherhand,ifonebodyislighterthan
theother,thenitcannotbeheavyabsolutely,whileequally,sinceithasbeendefinedas'havingheaviness',itcannotbelightabsolutely.ThusAristotle'sformulationisdesignedto
specifyaformofcomparisonwhichmustintroduceanelementwhichevenaccordingtothecriteriaofhisownsystemcannothaveabsoluteweight.

 Page10
1
Chernissidentifiesthe'certainothers'who'agreethatthereissomethingabsolutelyheavy'asPlatoand'probably'theAtomists. Butasitstandsthisisinconsistentwith
hisearlierassertionthat'AristotledidnotmeantosaythatDemocritusattributedabsoluteweighttotheatoms'(myitalics).2

Chernissisnotaloneinthisinconsistency.MorauxparaphrasesAristotle'sfirstpassage(iv1,308a913)asmeaningthat:'Personneneparatavoirsouponn
l'existenced'unlourdabsolu'.Butinthispresentpassagehetellsusthat:'L'existencedulourd...personnenemetendoute',whereinthecontexthemuststillmean'le
lourdabsolu'.3

ThetruthisthatinthelightofAristotle'slatercritiquewecannotassume,asChernissandMorauxhavedone,thatnooneofAristotle'spredecessorscanhave
introducedanentitythatAristotlewouldhaverecognisedashavingabsoluteweight,normoreparticularlythereforethattheatomscannothavebeenaccountedby
Aristotleasbeingheavyabsolutely.

Asitis,ifweexaminethecriticismswhichAristotlemakesoftheAtomists,inthecourseoftheDecaelo,wediscoverthatin
1
ACP209n.247.
2
ACP97n.412,cf.210.
3
P.Moraux,'RecherchessurleDecaelod'Aristote,objetetstructuredel'ouvrage',Revuethomisteanne59tome51(1951)190and191.
IhopethatitisnotunfairtosingleoutMoraux'searlierarticle.IntheaccountofthelaterpassageintheIntroductiontoMoraux'sBudeditionoftheDecaelo(Paris,1965),theredoes
seemtobeadistinctionbetween'lelourd'and'lelourdabsolu'(clvi).However,intheBudeditionthereis,Ithink,anerrorofanotherkind.Thelaterpassage(iv4,311b1419)Moraux
translates,147,'...d'autresaussil'admettent',andadds147n.2,'etnonpasuniquementceuxquicroientquetoutestpesant'.Thesamesenseisgiven,theotherwayround,inTricot's
translation(Paris,1949)170:'Enfait,cesphilosophes',thoselastmentioned,'sontd'accordavecd'autres...'.
Butiftherearetwodifferentgroupswhichnonethelessbothbelieveintheexistenceofabodywhichhasabsoluteheaviness,thenitisdifficulttoseewhatdistinguishesthem,unless
itisthatthesecondgroupdoessupposethatsomethingsarelight,whichwouldspoilthepointofAristotle'scorrection: .

Itseemstomemuchmorenaturaltotake thenmostnaturallymeansfortheseothersasalsoforAristotle:'somethinkthatallthingshaveonlyheaviness,forcertain
othersdoindeedthink,aswedo...'.ThisisthesensegivenbyGuthrie,Loebedn(London,1939)355:'Othersbesidesourselvesagree...'.

 Page11
1
Aristotle'sestimationtheatomsthemselvesdoinfacthave,oratleastapproximatetohaving,absoluteweight.

'DeCaelo'BookOne

(i)

ThegeneralorientationofAristotle'scriticismofDemocritusisperhapsmostclearlyindicatedinapassagefromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,whereAristotleargues
thattheatomshaveasingle .

'Ifthewholeisnotcontinuous,ifonthecontrary,asDemocritusandLeucippusclaim,<thewholeisineffect>partsdividedupbyvoid,therewillhavetobeasinglemovement
forallthings.

'For<ontheirtheory>allthings<i.e.allthepartsoftheuniverse,ineffectalltheatoms>aredistinguished<only>bytheirshapes,whereastheirnatureisone<andthesame>,or
sotheyclaim,justasifeach<partorpieceoftheuniverse>were<apieceofgold>goldwhichissplitupintopieces.

1
IshallarguelaterthatAristotle'scriticismsaretobereadinthelightofadistinctionbetweentheatomsthemselvesandbodiesformedfromtheatoms:Aristotleallowsthatthe
atomsthemselveshaveabsoluteweight,butdeniesthattherecanbeanydistinctionbetweenabsoluteandrelativeweightinbodiesthatareformedfromtheatoms.Ihave
nonethelessaccusedChernissandMorauxofinconsistency,sinceneithershowsanyawarenessofthisambiguityinAristotle'sclassificationoftheAtomists:certainlyin
Cherniss,thecontradictionisfairlyplainlytheresultofsheerinadvertence.Formyowninterpretationseeespecially5,pp.3240belowthewayinwhichPlato,asIbelieve,is
includedinAristotle'spresentcriticismwillbeanalysedinmysecondandthirdessays.

 Page12

'Irepeat,themovementofsuchparts<orpieces,havingastheydoallthesamenature,asseparatepiecesofgoldwoulddo>hastobe<oneand>thesame.

'<Thisfollowsfromacomparisonwiththebehaviourofearthandfire.>Takeasinglelumpofearth:whereverthattravelsto<ifyouletitfall,sothatitfollowsitsnaturalmotion>,
thatiswhereearthasawholetravelstoandinjustthesamewayasinglesparkoffireandfireasawholetraveltotheir<proper>place<whichisoneand>thesame<forapart
andforthewhole>.<Sotootherefore,forDemocritusandLeucippus,theatoms,iftheyaretohaveallthesamenature,likeseparatepiecesofgold,willhavetohavemovementall
intheonedirection.>

'Observetheconclusion:ifeverythinghasheaviness<andrememberthatonthistheoryeverythinghasthesamenature,andcanhaveonlyonenatureitcanbeonlyonekind
ofthing>,thennoneofthebodies<intheuniverse>canbe<ofadifferentkind,sothatnoneofthemcanbe>lightabsolutely.

'<Theargumentworkstheotherwayround,>if<yousupposethat>everythinghaslightness<andnotheaviness,theonlydifferencethenisthatinthatcasetherecanbe>
nothing<thatisdifferentinkind,andsothatcouldbe>heavy<absolutely>.'

Thepointofthiscriticismisthatiftheatomshaveallasinglenature,thentheymusthavemovementallinthesamedirection.Therearethereforetwopossibilities.

1.Theatomsmovedownwards,andarethereforeallheavy .

2.Alternatively,theatomsmoveupwards,andarethereforealllight .

 Page13

Fromthis,thenaturalimplicationisthattheatomsareinfactreckonedbyAristotleeitherasheavyabsolutelyoraslightabsolutely,butnotthereforeashavingrelative
weight.1

(ii)

AsimilarpointismadebyTheophrastus,inhiscriticismofDemocritus'theoryofweight.ThispassageIshallstudylater,inmyexaminationofTheophrastus'account
ofDemocritus.

ThepreciseformofTheophrastus'criticismdiffersfromthatofAristotleonacoupleofpointsofdetail.ButtheburdenisagainthatforDemocritusmaterialbodies
haveasinglenatureandmovementallinthesamedirection.Theobviousconclusiontheunspokencriticismisagainthereforethattherecannotbeanyradical
distinctionofheavyandlightinDemocritus'universe,ofthekindthatbothTheophrastusandAristotlebelievetobeanobservableanddemonstrablefeatureofthe
visiblecosmos.2

(iii)

LiepmanntakesTheophrastustobeinagreementwithAristotle,andwritesofhisargument:

'WenndieSchwereproportionalmitderMassewchst,dannkanneskeinabsolutLeichtes,oderabsolutSchweresgeben,sondernAlleswirdrelativschwer....'3

1
ForthetransitioninAristotle'sargumentbetweenatomsandthefourcosmicelementsseebelowpp.13941.
InmysummaryofAristotle'sargument,inthetwonumberedparagraphs,Iinsert'absolutely'onlywhereAristotledoes,eitherexplicitly,asintheconclusionofhisfirstargument,that
therewillbenothingthatislightabsolutely,orbyobviousandinevitableimplication,asintheconclusiontothesecondarmofhisargument,theconclusionthattherewillbenothing
thatisheavysc.absolutely.
Ihavenotaddedthisqualificationtothepremissofeitherargument,'ifeverythingisheavy','ifeverythingislight':thepointofmyargumentisthatthequalificationisnottherestated
explicitly,butthatitspresenceisimplied.ThecriticismItaketobeconstructedinsuchawaythatthepremissofeitherargumentisformedfromtheconclusiontothealternative
argument.
2
Desens.71(DK68A135):seebelowch.IV23,pp.13250.
3
HugoC.Liepmann,DieMechanikderLeucippDemocritschenAtome,unterbesondererBercksichtigungderFragenachdemUrsprungderBewegungderselben(Berlin,1885
Leipzig1886)(henceforwardMechanik)41.

 Page14

Thisgetsholdofthewrongendofthestickaltogether.TheargumentwhetherinAristotleorinTheophrastusisnotthattheatomsareneitherabsolutelyheavynor
absolutelylight.Aristotle'spointisthatiftheyaretheonetheycannotbetheother.Fromthis,thereisnoreasontoconcludethattheatomshaverelativeweight.

Onthecontrary,thenaturalimplication,itseemstome,ifwetakethetwopassagestogether,thatinTheophrastusandthatinAristotle,willagainbethaton
Aristoteleanprinciplestheatomsareinfactreckonedeitherasheavyabsolutelyoraslightabsolutely,butnotthereforeashavingrelativeweight.1

Conclusion

(i)

ChernissbelievesthatDemocritus'atomscannotbereckonedbyAristotleasheavyabsolutely,andthattheymustthereforebetreatedbyhimashavingweightinonly
arelativesense.

ButChernissfailstotakeaccountofthequalificationswhichAristotleintroducesintothegeneralisationswhichheprovidesoftheideasofweightinearlierphilosophy.
Aristotletellsusthatitisonlya'majority'ofearlierphilosopherswhichignorestheexistenceofelementswithabsoluteweight.'Certainothers',accord
1
ForthedistinctionbetweentheatomsandthefourcosmicelementsinTheophrastus'criticismseebelowpp.133ff.and139ff.ItmightbeobjectedthatAristotle'sargumentis
simplythatiftheatomshaveheavinessatalltheycannotbelightabsolutely,sincewhatislightabsolutely,inAristotle'sowntheory,cannotbeinanysenseheavyorheavier
(cf.iv4,311b269):andthatpremissandconclusiondonotthereforecorrespond.
Butnotethatintheparallelargument,fromtheendofbookfour,thesameexpressionisusedforboththepremissandtheconclusionoftheargument:ifthereexistsonlywhatmoves
alwaysupwards ,cap.7,276a56,p.11above)wouldseemtoimplythatinbothpremissandconclusiontheatomsarethoughtofashavingabsolute
weight,inthepassagefrombookoneasinthepassagefrombookfour.
Morespecificallyitmaybeobjectedthatthepremissintheargumentfrombookoneincludesbothrelativeandabsoluteweight:theatoms,itmightbesaid,movedownwardswith
differencesofspeed,andsomeofthemarerelativelyheavytherefore,whileothersareheavyabsolutely.

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page15

ingtoAristotle,doinfact'agree'thatthereexistsabodywhichisheavyabsolutely.WecannotaprioriexcludetheAtomistsfromthislatterclassification.

(ii)

Infact,inthefirstbookoftheDecaeloAristotledoestreattheatomsasapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteweight,sincetheatomsaretreatedashaving
movementalwaysinthesamedirection.ThenaturalimplicationofAristotle'sargumentrepeated,fromaslightlydifferentpointofview,byTheophrastusisthatif
theatomsareheavyabsolutely,thentherecanbenothingthatislightabsolutely,andviceversa.ThelessonofthiswouldseemtobethatinAristotle'sestimationthe
atomsdoinfacthaveoneformorotherofabsoluteweight.Theyareeitherheavyabsolutelyorlightabsolutely.Aristotle'spointsofaristhattheycannotbeboth
atonce.

3
ClassificationoftheWeightofAtoms:ApproximationtoAbsoluteWeight

Aristotle'scritiqueoftheatomictheoryofweightinbookfouroftheDecaelofollowsconsistentlyfromthepassagewhichIhave

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
Butforthisconclusiontofollow,weshouldhavetoarguethatatomsofequalsizemoveddownwardswithdifferencesofspeed:onlysowouldtherebeadifferencebetween
relativeandabsoluteweight(cf.thedefinitionofrelativelightnessatDecaeloiv1,308a313,whichIhavealreadyalludedto,andwhichIshallanalysefullyinmythirdessay).
Thiswould,Ithink,beadifficultandimplausibleconditiontoimposeatthispoint,anditisalso,Ithink,excludedbothbythegeneralprincipleandbytheparticularexample:the
atomshaveallthesamenature,andtheymoveallinthesamedirectiontherefore,asdodifferentquantitiesoffireorofearth.Thereisherenoobviousquestionofdifferencesof
speedand,evenifdifferencesofspeedwerehereinquestion,thesamequantityoffireorofearthwouldtravelupwards,ordownwards,withthesamespeedforiftwoquantities
offireorofearthofthesamesizetravelledupwards,ordownwards,withdifferencesofspeed,thentheirnaturewouldnolongerbe'one'andtheirmovementwouldnolongerbe
'thesame'.
Ihavenonetheless,indeferencetotheverysimpleformofAristotle'sargument,claimedonlythattheatoms'possessionofabsoluteweightheavinessorlightnessisa'natural'
implication,althoughinfact,ifwepursuetheconsequencesofhisanalysis,itis,Ithink,theonlyimplicationpossible.

 Page16

quotedfromthefirstbook,wheretheatomsarereckonedashavingasingle'nature'andasingle'movement'.

'EarthandFire'

(i)

Aristotle'sfirstdetailedargumentagainsttheAtomistsisagainpresentedintheformofanalternative.

1.Ifweightisdeterminedbytheamountofsolid,thenatinyquantityofearthwillhavelesssolidthanalargequantityoffire,andfirewillbeheavierthanearth.

2.Ifweightisdeterminedbytheamountofvoid,thenalargequantityofearthwillhavemorevoidthanatinyquantityoffire,andearthwillbelighterthanfire.

Inthisway,fireandearth,whichshouldhaveabsoluteweight,provenottodoso,sinceeitherfirewillfallbelowearth,onthefirstargument,orearthwillriseabove
fire,onthesecondargument.Theconsequenceofthefirstargumentisthatearthcannotbe(asitisinAristotle'sownphilosophy)heavyabsolutely.Theconsequence
ofthesecondargumentisthatfirecannotbe(asitisinAristotle'sownphilosophy)lightabsolutely.1

(ii)

Ofthisargument,orpairofarguments,ChernisswritesthatitisclearthatAristotle'wouldhavemaintainedthenecessityof
1
Decaeloiv2,309a33b4.Thepassageisquotedandparaphrasedbelowpp.1089.Themoreprecisegenesisofthisargument,andtheexpressionofit,arehoweversomewhat
complex,andIthereforereserveafullanalysisfortheearlierofmytwoessaysonAristotle.
Itmightbeobjectedthatlogicallytheconclusionoftheargument,asIhavestatedit,doesnotexcludefirebeingheavyabsolutelyandearthbeinglightabsolutely,andthatelements
withabsoluteweightdothereforehaveaplaceintheatomicsystem.Butthisobjectionwouldleadonlytothesameargument,andaninfiniteregress.Asitis,Aristotleiscontentwith
thedoubleabsurdity,thatthereissomethinglighterthanwhatislightabsolutely,andthat'whatalways<andonly>movesdownwardswillbelighterthanwhatalways<andonly>
movesupwards'(309b34).

 Page17

attributingweighttotheatomsifthecomplexbodiesweretohaveweight'.But,hecontinues,Aristotle'sobjection'isjustthattheAtomistsdidnotcallthecomplex
bodiesabsolutelyheavyorlightwhichinitselfimpliesthattheydidnotattributerealweighttotheatoms'.1

Inwritingthis,Chernissplainlydoesnotappreciatetheforceofthedistinctionbetweenatomsandbodiesformedfromtheatoms.IntheargumentwhichIhave
summarised,Aristotledoescomplainthatanybodyformedfromtheatomsandpurportingtopossessabsoluteweightcanbeshownnottodoso.ButAristotledoes
notsay,nordoeshiscriticismrequireorimply,thattheatomsthemselvesdonothave'real'weight.

Onthecontrary,Aristotle'sformofcriticismrequiresthattheatomsthemselvesdoapproximatetothepossessionofwhatAristotlewouldcallabsoluteweight.For
Aristotle'sfirstargumentturnsontheideathatifheavinessisdeterminedbytheamountofatomicsolidthenbothbodieswillalwaysmovedownwards,whilethebody
withmoreatomicsolidwillbeheavierthanthebodywithlessatomicsolid,whicheverofthefourcosmicelementsitmaybesupposedtoconstituteortorepresent,
justasonAristotle'sowntheoryabodywithabsoluteheavinesswillalwaysmovedownwards,whilealargerportionofsuchabodywillbeheavierthanasmaller
portion.

ThepointwhichunderliesAristotle'scriticismisthatontheatomictheorythedistinctionbetweenearthandfirecannotbea
1
ACP211n.253.ItispossiblethatIamdoingChernissaninjusticehere.Hewritesinfact:itis'clearfromthefollowingargument...'(myitalics).Whichargumentthisismeantto
beisnotwhollyclear,tome,fromthesequenceofCherniss'remarks.Inthecontext,the'following'argumentwouldseemtorefertothecontrastbetweenPlato'ssurfacesandthe
Atomists'solids(iv2,308b35309a2).ButthecontentofAristotle's'objection'seemstobetakenfromtheargumentwhichIhavequoted,andfromthesimilarargumentswhich
follow.
AtthispointthereforeItakeCherniss'remarktorelatetotheargumentwhichIhavejustsummarised.Later,pp.1023and11214below,Ishalltakethefirstpartofhisremarktocover
thecontrastbetweenPlatoandtheAtomistsonsurfacesandsolids.Oneortheotherargument,Ihope,willanswertoCherniss'intention.
ThedoxographicalevidencefromAetiuswhichChernissintroducesatthispointIamreservingforseparateconsiderationlater,ch.VIII12,pp.22339below.Thepassagewhich
ChernisscitesfromSimplicius,Decaelo295.520(=Arist.fr.208Rose),doesnotcontainanyexplicitmentionofweight,seebelowch.XI,pp.30329.

 Page18

distinctionofkind.Earthandfireareessentiallythesame,insofarastheyaremadeofthesamematerial,theatoms,andAristotlethereforesupposesthattheymust
havemovementinthesamedirection.Ifthismovementisdeterminedbytheamountofsolid,itwillbemovementdownwards.Ifitisdeterminedbytheamountof
void,itwillbemovementupwards.Ineithercase,thebodywithmoresolidorwithmorevoidwillbeheavierorlighterthantheother,irrespectiveofwhetherornotit
betakentorepresentearthortorepresentfire.

Thustheattempttoconstructabodywithabsoluteweightfromtheatomsfails.Butthisisonlybecausetheatomsthemselvesareenvisagedasapproximatingtothe
possessionofabsoluteheaviness.Theargumentisthatthebodywhichisinitiallysupposedtorepresentearth,andsotobeheavyabsolutely,canbeshowntobein
factlessheavythanabodywhichissupposedtorepresentfire,andsotobelightabsolutely,butwhich,inacertainquantity,willhavemoreatoms,ormore'solid',
andwillthereforeinfactbeheavier.

(iii)

ThebasisofAristotle'scriticismisthereforeessentiallythesameasthatofthecriticismwhichIquotedearlierfromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,withthedifference
thatinthislaterargumentAristotlemakesallowanceforthepresenceofvoid.
1.Intheearlierargument,theatomsareenvisagedasmovingeitherupwardsordownwards.

2.Inthepresentargument,theatomsareenvisagedasmovingonlydownwards,andvoidisintroducedtoallowforthepossibilityofupwardmovement.

However,inthepresentargumenttheAtomistsareallowedonlyoneofthesepossibilities:eitherabodymovesdownwardsbecauseithasmoresolid,oritmoves
upwardsbecauseithasmorevoid.Thestructureandtheassumptionofeitherargumentthereforeremainessentiallysimilar.

1.Intheearlierargument,fromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,eithertheatomsareallheavyabsolutely,inwhichcase

 Page19

therecanbenothingthatislightabsolutely,orelsetheatomsarealllightabsolutely,inwhichcasetherecanbenothingthatisheavyabsolutely.

2.Inthepresentargument,fromthefourthbook,theatomscannotbereckonedasconstitutingabodywhichisheavyabsolutely,sinceatthesametimetheywouldhaveto
constituteabodythatislightabsolutely:butalargequantityofthelatterbodywouldcontainmoreatomicsolidthanasmallquantityofthebodywhichpurportedtobeheavy
absolutely,andthebodywhichwaslightabsolutelywouldthereforeturnouttobeheavier,inacertainquantity,thanthebodywhichpurportedtobeheavyabsolutely.

Thusinbothargumentstheassumptionisessentiallythesame:thattheatomsthemselvesrepresent,orapproximateto,thepossessionofabsoluteweight,inthatthe
atomscanhavemovementinonlyasingledirectionwhileif,asintheversionIhavegivenoftheargumentfrombookfour,absoluteweightisspecifiedasabsolute
heaviness,thenthebodywithalargerquantityofatomicsolidwillbeheavierthanabodywithless.1
1
Ihavesimplifiedtheargumentinbookfourbypursuingonlythe'active'memberofthedefinitionforabodythatisheavyabsolutely.ThefullformofAristotle'sargumentimplies
twopairsofdefinitions:(1)abodyisheavyabsolutelyeitherbecauseithasmoresolidorbecauseithaslessvoid(2)abodyislightabsolutelyeitherbecauseithasmorevoid
orbecauseithaslesssolid.ButinpracticeAristotleemploysonlythefirstmemberofthefirstdefinitiontodeterminewhetherabodyisheavyabsolutely,andonlythefirst
memberoftheseconddefinitiontodeterminewhetherabodyislightabsolutely.Thereasonfortheelaboration,andfortherestriction,Iattempttoestablishinmyanalysisof
Aristotle'stheory.
TheessentialfeatureofthisformofAristotle'sargumentisthatsofarhedoesnotconsideratomsandthevoidasjointlydeterminingtheweightofabody.Hisargumentiscastinthe
formofanalternative:eitherweightisdeterminedbytheamountofsolid,oritisdeterminedbytheamountofvoid(309a334).ThismayseemtotrivialiseAristotle'sargument,orit
mayseemunfairtotheAtomists.Ishallarguenonetheless,intheanalysisoftheDecaeloinmythirdessay,thatthisdisjunctionisacrucialelementinthewholeofAristotle'scritique
oftheatomisttheory,andthatAristotle'sdifficultiesincriticisingtheatomisttheoryspringultimatelyfromthefactthatifhetakesatomsandvoidasjointlydeterminingtheweightof
abodythenhecomesclosetorecognisingthatasingleopposition,heavy/light,cannoteasilygeneratethedistinctionbetweenfourultimateandirreducible(althoughtransformable)
elements,asitisrequiredtodoinhisowntheory.

 Page20

'EarthandAir'

Sofar,Aristotlehasarguedthattheatomictheorycannotprovidefortwoelementswithabsoluteweight.InalaterargumentinthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,
directedjointlyagainsttheAtomistsandagainstPlato,AristotlearguesthatneithertheatomistnorthePlatonictheorycanprovideforthecombinationofanelement
withabsoluteweightandanelementwithrelativeweight.

(i)

Thislatestargumentisespeciallyinteresting,foritbeginsvirtuallybyrestatingtheargumentwhichIquotedearlierfromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo.Thisnow
appearsinthefollowingform,iv5,312b1928: .
'Itisessentialfortheretobeasmanydifferences<ofmovementtowardsanaturalplace>asthereareelementsinthecosmos.

'Thiswillbeplainfromthefollowingargument.

'Ifthereisasinglematerialprincipleforallthings,whetheritbevoidorplenumorextendedmagnitudeortriangles,theneithereverythingwillmoveupwardsoreverythingwill
movedownwards.Ineithercase,therewillnolongerbeany<natural>movementintheoppositedirection.

'Consequently,eithertherewillbenothingwhichislightabsolutely,ifeverythingtendstomovedownwardsmore<quicklyortosinkfurther>insofarasitismadefromlarger
bodiesorfromagreaternumberofbodiesorfrombodiesthathavenovoid...<oralternatively>ifeverythingismadeofvoidorofsomethingelsewhichisofakindtomove
alwaysupwards,thentherewillbenothingwhichwillmovealwaysdownwards.'

 Page21

(ii)

Aristotlenowextendsthisargumenttoincludeintermediateelements,312b2832: .
'<Itfollows>also<fromanyoneofthesetheories>thatsome<quantities>oftheintermediateelements<namelyairandwater>willbecarrieddownwardsmorequicklythanearth.

'Thusinalargequantityofairtherewillbemoretrianglesor<more>solidparticlesor<more>tinyparticles<thaninasmallquantityofearth>.

'<Fromthisitshouldfollowthatthelargerquantityofairiscarrieddownwardsmoreswiftlythanthesmallquantityofearth:>butweneverdoseeanyquantityatallofaircarried
downwards<morequicklythanearth>.

'Theequivalentargumentfollowsifweconsiderthequestionoflightness,andifonearrangesfortheretobemoreofwhatislightbywayofthematerialprinciple<inoneorother
element>.

'<Forinthatcasealargequantityofwaterwouldhavemoreofthematerialprincipleoflightness,saymorevoid,thanasmallquantityoffirehas,andthewatershouldthereforebe
carriedupwardsmorequickly.Butweneverdoseeanyquantityatallofwatercarriedupwardsmorequicklythanfire.>'

Therearesomedifficultiesofinterpretationhere.IfweadopttheconclusionwhichIshallargueforlater,inananalysisofthefourthbookoftheDecaelotakenasa
whole,thenAristotle'spurpose,inthefirstofthispairofarguments,isagaintoshowthatifairandeartharealikemadefromtheatoms,thenanyportionofeither
elementwithalargerquantityofatomicsolidwillbecarrieddownwardsmoreswiftlythananyportionwithasmallerquantityofatomicsolid.Butalargerportionofair
canhavemoreatomicsolidthanasmallportionofearth.Conse

 Page22

quently,airwouldhavetobecarrieddownwards,inacertainquantity,moreswiftlythanearth:andthatAristotleholdstobeimpossible.

Asbefore,Aristotleisineffecttreatingtheatomsasapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteweight,inthattheatomsareenvisagedashavingasinglemovement
downwards,whilethelargerquantityofatomicsolidmovesdownwardsfasterthanthesmallerquantity.1

Conclusion

InbookoneoftheDecaeloAristotlehasarguedineffectthattheatomsapproximatetothepossessionofabsoluteweight,insofarasthenaturalimplicationofhis
argumentthereisthatiftheatomsareheavyabsolutelythentherecanbenothing,heargues,thatislightabsolutely,andviceversa.

EssentiallythissameconceptionunderliesAristotle'scriticismoftheAtomistsatthebeginningofbookfour.Thedifferenceisthatnowtheatomsaretreatedasmoving
consistentlydownwards,andupwardmovementisattributedtothevoid.Aristotle'sargumentisthatalargequantityoffirewillhavemoreatoms,ormoreatomic
solid,thanasmallquantityofearth,andwillthereforebeheavier.Theconclusionisthatearththereforecannotbeheavyabsolutely.
1
Ihopethat,hereaslater,myuseoftheexpression'materialprinciple'willnotbefoundconfusing.Itwillbeusedtocoverboth asinthepresentargument(iv5,312b2032)
andintheargumentontheintermediateelementswhichIshallconsiderinthesectionfollowingthis(iv2,309b32,pp.235below).(Inthefirstargumentofthefourthbook,'earth
andfire',cap.2,309a33b4,Aristotleavoidsusinganyspecificterm.)

Ihaveresortedtothisperiphrasisbothinordertoallowforthecaseswhere ,forAristotle,isprimarilyextensionasopposedtobody,whileatthesametimeitisnotmerelyspace,
norisitofcourseonlyanabstraction,evenifitcanbeisolatedonlyabstractly.Butthesearewiderproblems:mychoiceoftheexpression'materialprinciple',hereandthroughoutthis
study,isintendedonlyasarecognitionofthesefurtherdifficulties,notasasolutionofthem.

 Page23

Inavariationofthesameargument,towardstheendofbookfour,Aristotlearguesthatalargequantityofairwouldhavemoresolidthanasmallquantityofearth,so
thatinthiscaseairwouldbeheavierthanearth.

Intheseargumentsfrombookfour,asintheargumentfrombookone,Aristotle'spremissisthattheatomsthemselvesdoatleastapproximatetothepossessionof
absoluteweight,sincetheymoveconsistentlydownwards,andsincethelargerquantityisinvariablytheheavier,twofeaturesbywhichearth,inAristotle'sownsystem,
isrecognisedasbeingheavyabsolutely.

4
ClassificationoftheWeightofAtoms:IdentificationwithAbsoluteWeight

ThethreeargumentsagainsttheatomictheorythatIhaveconsideredsofar,fromthefirstbookandfromthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,takeas,orincludein,their
subjectelementswhichshouldhaveabsoluteweight.

ThereremainanumberofcriticismsinthefourthbookoftheDecaelowhichhaveasimilarstructuretothatoftheargumentaboutearthandfire,orearthandair.The
differenceisthattheseotherargumentsturnontheexistenceoftwoelementswithrelativeweight,orofbodieswithcompositeweight.

InthecourseoftheseargumentsAristotlevirtuallyidentifiestheatomswithearthinhisownsystem.

IntermediateElements

IntheargumentsthatIhaveintroducedsofarfromtheDecaelo,Aristotletakestheatomicsystemasproviding:

1.Asinglematerialprinciple,theatoms:intheargumentfromthefirstbook.

2.Asinglematerialprinciple,atomsorthevoid:intheargumentsfromthefourthbookthatIhavecalled'earthandfire'and'earthandair'.

InabriefcriticismbeforetheexpositionofhisowntheoryinbookfouroftheDecaelo,AristotletreatstheAtomistsasprovidingtwomaterialprinciples,atomsand
thevoid.

 Page24

ThisformofargumentleadsAristotletowritemoreorlessexplicitlyoftheatoms'havingabsoluteweight,iv2,309b33310a3:
.
'Ifthereisasinglematerialprinciple,asthereisforthosewhomake<everything>outoftriangles,thentherewillnotexist<both>whatisheavyabsolutelyandwhatislight
<absolutely>.

'Thealternativetheory:ifthereareoppositematerialprinciplesasthoseclaimwhomakevoidandplenum<theirstartingpoints>,then<onthistheoryvoidandplenumcouldbe
countedasbeingrespectivelylightabsolutelyandheavyabsolutely,but>the<elemental>bodiesintermediatebetweenthingsheavyabsolutelyandlight<absolutely,namely
waterandairwhichareintermediatebetweenearthandfire>willhavenoreasonforbeing<(1)respectively>heavierandlighterthaneachother,or<forbeing(2)jointlyheavier
andlighter>thanthebodies<earthandfirewhicharerespectivelyheavyandlight>absolutely.'1

1
ItmaybeobjectedthattheAtomistsarenotsufficientlyidentifiedbytherubric, (iv5,312b33313a1).
Ithinkmyselfthatthisissufficientidentification(IshallarguethepointinmyessayonAristotle),butevenifitwerenot,thepointwouldbeonlyincidentaltomypresentargument,
formypurposehereisnottoestablishdirectlywhattheAtomistsbelieved,buttodeterminehowAristotlethoughtoftheirsysteminthelightofhisowncategoriesofabsoluteand
relativeweight.Ithinkitcanbefairlyarguedthatthedistinctionbetweenvoidandplenumwillatleastincludethedistinctionbetweenvoidandatoms,andthatthisissufficientfor
thepurposeinhand.

Idonotseehowtotellwhether ,ortheaccusative,whichseemstofitbetterwiththefollowingphrase,andwhichishowIhavetakenitinmyreadingofthe
text.Fortunatelythesenseisnotmuchdifferent.

 Page25

TheargumentturnsonadistinctionbetweenPlatoandDemocritus.
1.Ifthereisasingleundifferentiatedmaterialprinciple,asPlato'strianglesaretakentobe,thentherecannotbeadifferencebetweenwhatisheavyabsolutelyandwhatislight
absolutely,forthesamemattercouldnothavenaturalmovementinoppositedirectionsatthesametime.

2.If,ontheotherhand,therearetwooppositematerialprinciples,whichishowAristotlechoosesatthispointtocategoriseatomsandthevoid,thentherewouldbeabodywhich
washeavyabsolutely(madeofatoms)andabodywhichwaslightabsolutely(madeofvoid),buttherewouldbenowayofexplainingthedifferentiatedmovementsofwhatis
relativelylightandrelativelyheavy,foratomswouldmoveonlydownwards,andvoidwouldmoveonlyupwards.

TheformofargumentbroughtagainstPlatoisofcoursepreciselythesameasthatbroughtoriginallyagainstDemocritus,intheargumentswhichIanalysedearlier,
whereAristotleeithertreatstheatomsasbeingthesoledeterminantofweightortreatsatomsandvoidasalternativedeterminantsofweight.

Onthepresentinterpretation,atomsandthevoidaretreatedasoppositeandcoexistentmaterialprinciples.Theimplicationisquiteplainlythat,onthisinterpretationof
theatomictheory,atomsandthevoidarereckonedasrepresenting,orasconstituting,respectively'bodieswhichareheavyabsolutelyandbodieswhicharelight
<absolutely>': .

'AirandWater'

Inafinalargument,attheendofbookfour,Aristotlereturnstothenotionoftheatomicsystemasprovidingoppositeandcoexistentmaterialprinciples.

Aristotlewrites,cap.5,312b32313a6:

 Page26

'Iftherearetwomaterialprinciples<forallthings>,thenhowwilltheintermediatebodies<airandwater>beabletobehaveasairandwaterdo<infact>behave?

'Supposeoneweretoclaimvoidandplenum<asthetwomaterialprinciplesofallthings>.Thenfire<wouldbeequivalentto>void,andso<wouldmovealwaysandonly>
upwards,whileearth<wouldbeequivalentto>plenum,andso<wouldmovealwaysandonly>downwards.

'Thensupposethat<airandwateraremadefromamixtureoffire/voidandearth/plenum,insuchawaythat>airhasmorefire<orvoid>,andthatwaterhasmoreearth<or
plenum>.

'<Nowfromthisitfollowsthatairandwatercannotbehaveastheyareseentobehave.>

'For<(1)>therewillbea<quantityof>water<solarge>that<it>willhavemorefirethanasmallquantityofairhas.

'And<conversely(2)>alarge<quantityof>airwillhavemoreearththanasmall<quantityof>waterhas.

'<Butonthissecondassumption>itmustfollowthatacertain<quantityof>air<namelyalargequantity>willbecarrieddownwardsmorequicklythanasmall<quantityof>
water.

'Butthisisneverseentohappenanywhere,ever.'

(i)

Aristotle'spremissinthisfinalargumentisthatthereshouldbetwomaterialprinciples,voidandplenumrepresentedbyfireandearthrespectively.Thesuppositionis
thatofthetwointermediatebodiesairwillhaveapreponderanceoffire,andwaterapreponderanceofearth.

Theimpossibilityinthistheory,Aristotleargues,isthatalargequantityofwaterwillhavemorefire,ormorevoid,thanasmallquantityofair,whileconverselyalarge
quantityofairwillhavemoreearth,ormoreplenum,thanasmallquantityofwater.

 Page27

1.Inthefirstcase,Aristotle'sintentionisthatwaterwouldprovetobelighter,inthesensethatitwillbecarriedupwardsmoreswiftly,thanair.

2.Inthesecondcase,thepointisthatairwillbeheavier,inthesensethatitwillbecarrieddownwardsmoreswiftly,thanwater.

Aristotle'sowntheoryisevidentlythat,onthecontrary,anyquantityofair,nomatterhowsmall,willalwaysbecarriedupwardsmoreswiftlythananyquantityofwater,nomatter
howlarge,andthatconverselyanyquantityofwater,nomatterhowsmall,willalwaysbecarrieddownwardsmoreswiftlythananyquantityofair,nomatterhowlarge.1

(ii)

Althoughtheconsequenceisnowexpressedintermsofbodieswhichshouldhaverelativeweight,andalthoughthecriticismnowturnsonthequestionofdifferences
ofspeed,thestructureandtheassumptionofthisargumentisessentiallythesameasthestruc
1
TheprecisenatureofAristotle'sargumentatthispointhas,Ithink,beenmisunderstood.IpresentheretheprinciplerequiredbytheformofargumentwhichIclaimto
reconstructinmythirdessay.
IshallthereattempttoshowthatthisfinalargumentistheculminationofAristotle'scritiqueoftheatomictheoryinthathedoeshereattempttoanswertheproblemraisedbyatoms
andvoidasjointlydeterminingtheweightofabodybutIshallalsoattempttoshowthatthewayinwhichhedoessostilltreatsonlyoneorotherfactoratatimeastheactive
determinantofweight,sotospeak,sinceineitherbranchofhisargumentonefactorisneutralised,asitwere,bythenatureofthemediuminwhichthecompositebodyformedof
atomsandthevoidissupposedtoriseorfall.
Ianticipatethispointhere,onlylesttheacutereadershouldbedeterredbywhatmightotherwiseappearthelogicalinadequacyoftheargument,asIhavepresentedit.Mypresent
purposeissolelytoshowthewayinwhichAristotlethinksoftheatomsintheargumentswhichhedeploysagainstthetheoryinthecourseofbookfour.
Onefurthercaveat:whenIspeakof'more'fireorofa'quantity'ofwater,thescrupulousreadermayask'bywhatmeasured?'Insofarastheargumentisdirectedagainsttheatomic
theory,theanswerissimply'void'and/or'thenumberandsizeofatoms'.TospecifytheanswerintermsofAristotle'sowntheorywouldperhapsbemoredifficult,sinceitwouldrisk
rousingthewholemediaevalconceptionofquantitasmateriae.Buttheformeransweris,Ithink,sufficientforthepurposeinhand.

 Page28
1
tureandtheassumptionofthefirstargumentwhichIconsideredfrombookfour,onthecomparisonofearthandfire.

Asbefore,thelessonoftheargumentisthattheatomsthemselvesrepresent,orapproximatetothepossessionof,absoluteweight.
1.Aristotle'sfirstargumentturnedonthenotionthattheatomsmoveinasingledirection,andthatalargerquantityofatomswillbeheavierthanasmallerquantity.

2.Similarly,thepresentargumentturnsonthenotionthattheatomshaveasinglemovementdownwards,andthatalargerquantityofatomsmovesdownwardsmoreswiftlythan
asmallerquantity.

Ineithercase,Aristotle'spointisessentiallythatabody'earth'or'plenum'inthislaterargument,'solid'intheearlierargumentwhichapproximatestothe
possessionofabsoluteweightcannotprovideforthedistinctionbetweentwoelementswithabsoluteweight,norforadistinctionbetweentwoelementswithrelative
weight.Forineithercaseabodywithalargerquantityofplenumorsolidwillbeheavierthan,orwillmovedownwardsmoreswiftlythan,abodywithasmaller
quantityofplenumorsolid,irrespectiveoftheelementswhichthetwobodiesmaybesupposedtoconstituteortorepresentwhereasinfact,Aristotlesupposes,fire
inanyquantitywillbelighterthanearthinanyquantity,whileequallyanyquantityofair,nomatterhowlarge,willmovedownwardsmoreslowlythananyquantityof
water,nomatterhowsmall.

Thedifferencebetweenthetwoargumentsisthatsincetheconclusionofthepresentargumentturnsonthebehaviourofairandwater,elementswhichhaverelative
weight,thepremissoftheargumentisabletotreatatomsandvoid,orplenumandvoid,asidenticalwithearthandfireinAristotle'sownsystem,thetwoelements
whicharerespectivelyheavyabsolutelyandlightabsolutely.2
1
iv2,309a33b4,pp.1619above.
2
LestitbethoughtthiscomparisonbetweenAristotle'sfirstandlastargumentsagainsttheAtomistsinbookfouroftheDecaeloisundesirablysyncretistic,perhapsIshouldadd
thatingeneralmypurposeinthisopeningchapteristo

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page29

CompositeBodies

EssentiallythissameattitudetowardstheatomictheoryisexemplifiedintwopassageswhereAristotledistinguishesatomsandvoidnotfromelementswithrelative
weight,airandwaterinhisownsystem,butmoregenerallyfromcompositebodies,suchthingsaswoodandbronze.1

(i)

Towardstheendofhislongopeningseriesofcriticismsoftheatomictheory,Aristotlewrites,iv2,309b1823: .

'Butperhaps,onthecontrary,thepointofthetheoryisthatthevoidisinfactsoconstitutedbynatureastomoveupwards,whiletheplenumisbynaturesoconstitutedasto
movedownwards,andthat,invirtueoftheirnaturesbeingsuch,voidandplenumarecausesinotherthingsofmovementineitherdirection.

'Ifthatisthepointofthetheory,thenthepropercourse

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
stressthesimilarity,instructureandingeneralprinciple,ofAristotle'sdiverseargumentsagainsttheAtomists.InmythirdessayIshallaiminsteadtoisolateandtoexplainthe
differencesbetweenthesesamearguments,andtoestablishwhatIbelievetobetheprogressioninAristotle'sthoughtfromoneargumenttothenext.
ThesedifferencesIhavenarrowed,inmypresentanalysis,essentiallytothedistinctionbetweenargumentswhereAristotledeniesthattheatomscanaccountfordifferencesbetween
elementswhichhaveabsoluteweight,orfordifferencesbetweenanelementwhichhasabsoluteweightandanelementwhichhasrelativeweight(thetwoarguments'earthandfire'
and'earthandair'adducedin3ofthischapter)andargumentswhereAristotleallowsthatatoms,oratomsandthevoid,mayrepresentelementswhichhaveabsoluteweight,and
deniesthereforethattheycanaccountforthebehaviourofelementsbothofwhichhaverelativeweight(theargumentsadducedsofarinthissection).
1
Thischangeinthetermsofthecomparisonismorecomplexthanitmayseem,andImustthereforereserveafullanalysisofthesetwoarguments,andofthedifferencebetweenthem,
formythirdessay.

 Page30

wasnottotakecompoundbodies<formedfromatomsandvoid>astheprimaryfocusofone'senquiry,andtospendone'stimetryingtoestablishwhysomebodiesofthiskind
arelightandwhyotherbodiesofthiskindareheavy.

'<Thatwasnottheproperwayofgoingaboutthings.>Onthecontrary,thepropercoursewastoconcentrateonvoidandplenuminthemselves,andtoestablishwhyoneof
theseislight<initself>,whiletheotherpossessesheaviness.'

(ii)

Essentiallythesamepointisrepeatedseveralpageslater,iv4,311a29b1: .
'Otherbodies<apartfromthefourelements>arecharacterisedbythepossessionofheavinessandlightness.

'Itisevidentthatallthesebodiespossesstheircharacterisationinthisrespectasadirectresultofthedifferencethatexistsbetweenheavyandlightinthesimple,noncomposite
elements.

'Thepositionisthatthesimple,noncompositebodiesentertoagreaterorlessextent<intothemakeupofnonelementalbodies>,andaccordingtotheproportionofthesimple
elementsthattheremayhappentobeinanyparticularinstancethe<compositeornonelemental>bodiesareconstitutedaslightorasheavy.

'Theconsequenceofthisisthatitshouldbetheprimaryandnoncompositebodieswhichformtheproperobjectofourenquiry.

'Thepointisthatotherthingstaketheirorientationinthisrespectfromtheprimaryelements.Thissubordination,therefore,asIsaidearlier,shouldhavedeterminedtheprocedure
ofthosewhoclaimthatwhatisheavyissobecauseoftheplenumandthatwhatislightissobecauseofthevoid.'

 Page31

(iii)

Inthesetwopassages,Aristotleintroduceshisowndistinctionbetween:

1.Thefoursimpleelements.

2.Bodiescompoundedofmorethanoneelement.

Thisdistinctionhetakestobeparalleltothedistinctionbetween:
1.Atomsandvoid.

2.Bodiescompoundedofatomsandvoid,includingtherefore(ontheatomictheory)thefourcosmicelements.

Thisarrangementdoesnotleadsoclearlytoanidentificationofvoidandplenumwiththetwoformsofabsoluteweightpossessedrespectivelybyfireandbyearthin
Aristotle'sownsystem,forstrictlythepointisnowthatthetwoprinciplesoftheatomicsystemhavetododutyforallfourofAristotle'sownprimaryelements,airand
wateraswellasfireandearth.

Nonetheless,theformulationwhichAristotleemploysintheearlierpassagedoesIthinkmakeitreasonablyclearthathere,asinthepassagewhichIhaveanalysed
fromtheendofbookfour,onthecomparisonofairandwater,Aristotledoesthinkessentiallyofvoidandplenumasapairofprincipleswhichwillproducemovement
inoppositedirections,andwhicharethereforeobviouscandidatesforthetwoelementswhichhaveabsoluteweightinhisownsystem.Thiswillbetrue,evenifthat
candidatureisratified,asitwere,onlywhenAristotlespeaksofvoidandplenumasopposedtohisowntwointermediateelements,andthereforeasidentifiedwithfire
andearthinhisownsystem.

Certainly,itwouldbetotallywrongtotakeAristotle'saccountofweightincompositebodiesasinanywayimplyingthatatomsandvoid,orplenumandvoid,should
beidentifiedwiththeintermediateelementsinhisownsystem,totheexclusionofelementswhichhaveabsoluteweight.Takenstrictlybythemselves,thetwopassages
whereAristotletreatsofcompositebodiesinrelationtotheatomicsystemareperhapsmarginallyambiguousforourpresentpurpose.Butsuchambiguityastheremay
beisresolvedinquitetheoppositesensetothatrequiredbyChermiss'interpre

 Page32

tation,wheninhisaccountoftheintermediateelementsAristotlespecificallyidentifiesvoidandplenumwithfireandearthinhisownsystem,thetwoelementswhich
arelightandheavyabsolutely.

Conclusion

InthisandintheprecedingsectionIhaveoutlinedthecriticismswhichAristotlemakesoftheAtomistsinthecourseofthefourthbookoftheDecaelo.

AtnopointinAristotle'scriticismoftheAtomistsisthereanygroundforconcluding,asdoesCherniss,thattheatomsthemselvesarereckonedasbeingonlyrelatively
heavyorashavingonlyrelativeweight.

Onthecontrary,Aristotle'sargumentsrequirethattheatomsthemselvesshouldbethoughtofasatleastapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteweight,inthat
theyarerepresentedasmovingconsistentlydownwards,andthelargerquantityasbeinginvariablytheheavier,thetwofeaturesbywhichearth,inAristotle'sown
system,isrecognisedasbeingheavyabsolutely.

IndeedinhisfinalargumentagainsttheAtomistsinbookfouroftheDecaelo('airandwater',cap.5,312b32313a6)Aristotlewritesexplicitlyofatomsandvoid,or
ofplenumandvoid,asidenticalwithearthandfireinhisownsystem,thetwoelementswhicharerespectivelyheavyabsolutelyandlightabsolutely.

5
'RelativeWeight'and'AbsoluteWeight'inAristotle'sCriticismofHisPredecessors

(i)

Thereremainsapotentialconflict.

IquotedearliertwopassageswhereAristotleassertsthathispredecessors,oratleasta'majority'ofthem,ignoredtheexistenceofwhatisheavyabsolutelyandwhat
islightabsolutely,andspokeonlyof'whatwasheavierand<whatwas>lighteroutofthingsthathaveheaviness'orof'bodiesthatareheavyandlightinthesenseonly
thatoftwobodiesbothhavingheavinessoneortheotheristhelighterofthetwo'.1
1
Thetwogeneralisations,iv1,308a913andiv2,308a34b3,pp.78above.

 Page33

HowdoesthissquarewiththeconclusionthatinAristotle'scriticismoftheatomictheorytheatomsthemselvesarereckonedashaving,oratleastasapproximating
towardsthepossessionof,absoluteheaviness?

(ii)

ObviouslythesimplestexpedientwouldbeformetorelyontherestrictionthatIemphasisedearlier,wherebyinthesecondofthetwoopeningpassagesofcriticism
Aristotle'sgeneralisationislimitedto'amajority'ofhispredecessors,andwherebyinalaterpassageAristotlesinglesout'certainothers'who'agree'thattheredoes
existabodywhichisheavyabsolutely.1

Buttodosowouldnotbealtogetherhonest.Forthetruth,Isuspect,isthatAristotledoesintendtheAtomiststobeincludedundertheearliergeneralisation,aswell
asbeingincluded,fromadifferentpointofview,amongthe'certainothers'who'agree'inhavingabodywhichisheavyabsolutely.

'RelativeWeight'

ThusifwereflectonthefirstdetailedcriticismthatAristotlemakesoftheatomictheoryinbookfouroftheDecaelo,thenweseethatitdoesinfactcorrespondtothe
termsofAristotle'sopeningandmoregeneralcriticismsofhowpeoplethoughtinthepast.2

ForthepurposeofAristotle'sfirstargumentagainsttheAtomistsistoshowthatifearthandfirearemadefromtheatomstheneithertherewillbeabodywhichis
lighterthanfire,ortherewillbeabodywhichisheavierthanearth.Ineithercase,therefore,abodywhichshouldpossessabsoluteweightturnsoutnottodoso.

Thisconclusionconformspreciselytothecriticismthatinthepastpeoplehavespokennotofbodiesthatareheavyabsolutelyandlightabsolutely,butonlyofbodies
thatareheavierorlighterinrelationtosomethingelse.3
1
Thesecondgeneralisation,iv2,308a34b3,p.8above'certainothers',iv4,311b1419,pp.911above.
2
Thefirstdetailedcriticism,'earthandfire',iv2,309a33b4,pp.1619abovetheopeningcriticisms,iv1,308a913,andiv2,308a34b3,pp.78above.
3
Cf.iv1,308a913,pp.78above.

 Page34

Moreparticularly,thisfirstargumentagainsttheAtomistswouldseemtoillustrateAristotle'scomplaintthat,inspeakingofbodieswhereoneislighterthantheother,
peopleinthepasthavethoughtthattheyweredefiningbodiesthatwereheavyandlightinanabsolutesense,butthattheirdefinition'failstomatch<theirconceptionof
it>'.1

ForinthecourseoftheDecaeloAristotleofferstheatomictheorypreciselyaspurportingtoprovideforadistinctionbetweenearthandfire,asrespectivelyheavy
absolutelyandlightabsolutely,andasbeingunabletodoso.

'AbsoluteWeight'

Atthesametime,Aristotle'scriticismoftheatomictheoryrequiresthattheatomsthemselvesshouldbereckonedashavingabsoluteweight,atleastinthesensethat
theyhavemovementallinthesamedirection.ForonlysoisAristotleabletoarguethatalargerportionofatomicsolidwillbeheavierthanasmallerportion,andto
concludethereforethatifearthandfirearebothmadefromtheatomsthenalargerquantityoffirewillbeheavierthanatinyquantityofearth,contrarytohisown
beliefthatnosubstancecanbeheavierthanearth,orlighterthanfire.

ThisfeatureoftheatomictheorycomestotheforewheninhislatercriticismintheDecaeloAristotlespeaksofatomsandthevoidasrepresentingoppositeformsof
absoluteweight,andoftheatomsascorrespondingtoearthinhisownsystem.ThisisthesuppositioninthoseargumentsdirectedtoshowthattheAtomistscannot
accountforthedistinctionbetweenearthandair,orbetweenairandwater.Itisalso,Ihaveargued,essentiallythissameassumptionwhichunderliesAristotle'smore
generalcomplaintthatthedistinctionbetweenatomsorplenumandvoidhasnotbeenproperlyexploitedtoexplainthedifferencesofweightincompositebodies.2

WhenAristotlecriticisestheatomictheoryintheseterms,thenIthinkitislikelythattheAtomistscanbe,andthereforeproba
1
Cf.iv2,308a34b3,p.8above.
2
'Earthandair',iv5,312b1932,pp.203above.'Airandwater',iv5,312b32313a6,pp.258above.'Compositebodies',iv2,309b1823andiv4,311a29b1,pp.2932above.

 Page35
1
blyare,includedamongthe'certainothers'who'agree'thattheredoesexistabodywhichisheavyabsolutely.

TheTwoClassifications

(i)

ThusIconcludethatfromdifferentpointsofviewtheAtomistscanbe,andprobablyare,includedinboththeclassificationsthatInotedearlier.

1.InhisfirstcriticismoftheAtomistsinthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,Aristotlecomplainsthattheatomscannotproducebodieswithabsoluteweight,earthandfire:bodies
formedfromtheatoms,whichshouldhaveabsoluteweight,provenottodoso.

2.Inthelatercriticismsinbookfour,Aristotledeniesthatatomscanproduceelementswithrelativeweight,inhisowntechnicalsense,andcomplainsthattheyhavenotproperly
beenexploitedtoexplainbodieswithcompositeweight:forthesepurposes,Aristotletreatstheatomsashavingabsoluteweight,andasbeingequivalenttoearthinhisown
system.

1
'Certainothers',iv4,311b1419,pp.911above.
IconcludethatiftheAtomistscanbeincludedinAristotle'scriticism,thentheyprobablyareincluded,becauseIsupposethatPlatoandtheAtomistsaretheprincipal,ifnotthe
only,targetsofAristotle'scriticismthroughoutthefourthbookoftheDecaelo:butthisconclusionImustleavetobeestablishedinmythirdessay.
InattemptingtosummariseAristotle'scriticisms,Ihaveruntogether(1)theargumentwheretheatomscannotaccountforthedistinctionbetweenanelementwithabsoluteweightand
anelementwithrelativeweight,and(2)theargumentwheretheatomscannotaccountforthedistinctionbetweentwoelementswhichbothhaverelativeweight.(1)Inthefirstcase
('earthandair',iv5,312b1932),theatomsconstituteearth,but'earth'isthenshownnottohaveabsoluteweight.(2)Inthesubsequentcriticism('airandwater',iv5,312b32313a6),as
inanearliercriticism('intermediateelements',iv2,309b33310a3),theatomsareidentifiedwithearth,buttheclaimof'earth'toabsoluteweightisnotrefuted,forthecriticismnowturns
ontheinabilityofthetheorytoexplaintherelativeweightoftheintermediateelements.

 Page36

ThefirstpointofviewissufficienttoincludetheAtomistsamongthe'majority'whomAristotlecriticisesattheopeningofbookfourashavingfailedtodistinguish
elementswithoppositeformsofabsoluteweight.

Atthesametime,thetreatmentoftheatomsinthelatergroupofcriticismsjustifiestheinclusionoftheAtomistsamongthe'certainothers'who'agree'thattheredoes
existabodywithabsoluteheaviness,butwhodonotappreciatethattheremustalsoexistabodywhichislightabsolutely.1

(ii)

ThisdoubleattitudetowardstheAtomistsisperhapslessoddthanitmayseematfirstsight,ifwerecognisethefeaturethatiscommontobothsetsofcriticisms.

Aristotle'spointinhisopeningpairofcriticismsisultimatelythatearlierthinkershavefailedtoprovideadistinctionthatwillincludetheexistenceofanelementwhichis
lightabsolutely.Forthedistinctionbetweenheavyandlightinearliertheoriesisadistinctionthatfallswithin'bodiesthathaveheaviness',andwherethereforethere
cannotexistanelementwhichislightabsolutely.Therestrictioninearliertheoriesistheresultofnoone'shavingrecognised,asaradicalalternativeto'bodieswhich
haveheaviness',abodywhichwouldbelightabsolutely,asisfireinAristotle'sownsystem.2
1
ItmightbeobjectedthatiftheAtomistsaretobeincludedamongthosewhoreckonthatthereissomethingheavyabsolutelyinvirtueoftheidentificationofatomswithearth,
thenequallytheyshouldbeheldtohaverecognisedtheexistenceofanelementwhichwaslightabsolutelyinvirtueoftheidentificationofvoidwithfire.
Butthisisnot,Ithink,thekindofconsistencythatweshouldlookforinAristotle'scriticism.Atomsandvoidcan'standin'forearthandfire,asitwere,forthepurposeofone
criticism('intermediateelements',iv2,309b33310a3,'airandwater',iv5,312b32313a6),andinasimilarfashionvoidcanbetreatedasa'materialprinciple',bymeansofwhichthe
Atomistspurporttoestablishanelementwhichwouldbelightabsolutely(iv5,312b21ff.):inbothcasesvoidistreatedasoneofapairwithplenum,orwithatoms,inordertoprovide
aconceptualrivaltoAristotle'sowntheories.Butthevoidisstillthevoid,sotospeak.Inhismoregeneralcriticism('certainothers',iv4,311b1419),itis,orsoitseemstome,both
possibleandnaturalforAristotletoignorethe'void',takenonitsown,asaseriousrivaltohisownconceptionoffireaslightabsolutely.
2
Cf.iv1,308a913,andiv2,308a34b3,pp.78above.

 Page37

ThisisthesameasAristotle'scomplaintagainstthe'certainothers',whoarealsounawareoftheexistenceofabodywhichislightabsolutely.Thedifferenceisthatin
thiscasethepeoplewhomAristotlehasinminddospecificallyrecogniseabodywhichhasabsoluteheaviness.1

Thedifferencebetweenthetwogroupsthereforeisthatthe'majority'dealsonlywithbodiesthatare'lighter'or'heavierandlighteramongbodiesthathaveheaviness',
while'certainothers'recogniseabodywhichisheavyabsolutely.Whatbothgroupshaveincommon,istheirfailuretorecogniseabodythatislightabsolutely.

Itisthissamefailurewhich,inAristotle'seyes,characterisesthebehaviourofatomsintheatomistsystem.Theatomsthemselvesmusthavemovementallinthesame
direction.InthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,Aristotleiswillingtoallowthatthismaybemovementineitherdirection,upordown.Butinthecriticismsoftheatomic
theoryinthefourthbookupwardmovementistheeffectofvoid,andtheatomsthemselvesarerecognisedonlyasmovingdownwards.

(iii)

Atthesametime,hereaselsewhere,thereisanambiguityinAristotle'sattitudetowardstheatomsas'elements'.
1.TheatomsmaybetreatedaselementspriortoAristotle'sowncosmicelements,includingfireandearth.

2.Alternatively,atoms,oratomsandthevoid,maybeidentifiedwithAristotle'sownelements,usuallywiththeextremeelements,earth,orearthandfire,andtreatedthereforeas
prioronlytotheintermediateelements,ortothecompositebodieswhichinAristotle'ssystemareformedfromtheelements.

ThisexplainswhytheAtomistscanbeincludedinbothcriticisms.

Fromthefirstpointofview,wheretheatomsareaccountedaselementalparticlespriortotheformationoffireandearth,then
1
Cf.iv4,311b1419,pp.911above.

 Page38

fireandearthcanbeshowntohavelessthanabsoluteweight,fortherecanalwaysbeacertainquantityofatomicsolidwhichisheavierthanwhatissupposedly
absolutelyheavy,orlighterthanwhatissupposedlyabsolutelylight.

Alternatively,Aristotle'scomplaintisthattheAtomistscannotaccountforthedistinctionbetweenoppositeformsofrelativeweight,andinthisprocesstheatoms
themselvesareallowedtobeequivalenttoearthinAristotle'sownsystem.

Thedistinction,however,isadistinctionofattitudeandemphasis,andnotofsubstance.Eveninthefirstcriticismitisonlybodiesformedfromtheatomswhichare
provednottohaveabsoluteweight,whiletheatomsthemselvesaretreatedasatleastapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteweight,inthattheymovealways
downwards,andinthatthelargerquantityisinvariablytheheavierwhileinthelatercriticismtheatomsareidentifiedwithearthandarethereforespecificallytreated
as'movingalwaystowardsthecentre'.

Bothattitudestowardstheatomictheoryarethereforemanifestationsofasinglecriticalimpulse.Ineithercase,thepointisthattheatomshaveallthesamenature,and
thattheycannotthereforeaccountforthedistinctionsofheavyandlightthatarerequiredinAristotle'sownphilosophy.1
1
IamnotaimingheretogiveanexhaustiveaccountofAristotle'sgeneralcriticism.IshouldperhapsaddhoweverthatIdobelievethatPlatoisincludedamongthe'certainothers'
who'agree'thatthereisabodywhichisheavyabsolutely,andindeedIsuspectthatitisPlato'spresenceherewhichmayhaveencouragedAristotletothinkofbothearlier
theories,thatofPlatoandthatofDemocritus,asbothalikeprovidinganessentiallymonistictheory,whichwillallowfortheexistenceofabsoluteheaviness,butnotforthe
existenceofabsolutelightness.FordespitethefactthatinPlato'ssystemearthtravelsbynaturetothecentre,andfiretothecircumference,Aristotlenonetheless,orsoIshall
argue,treatsthetriangleswhichconstitutebothelementsasheavyabsolutelyinTheophrastus'expression(Desens.88),Plato'sdefinition'appliesonlytosubstancesofan
earthynature'.
AndyetPlato'striangles,orsoIshallalsoargue,areincludedintheargumentwhichprovesthatairisheavierthanearth(iv5,312b1932).Hencetheambiguity.Fromonepointof
view,noonehasrecognisedtheexistenceofelementswithabsoluteweight(cf. ,iv1,308a10).Forthephilosopherswhodorecogniseanelementwhichisheavy
absolutelyarethesameasthosewhofailtodoso,onlylookedatfromadifferentpointofview.
However,Aristotle'scriticismofPlatohas,Ibelieve,beenevenmoreradicallymisunderstoodthanhashiscriticismofDemocritus,andImustthereforeleavetheconjunctionofPlato
andDemocritusformysecondandthirdessays.

 Page39

Conclusion

MydecisiontoincludetheAtomistsinbothAristotle'sgeneralcriticisms,againstthe'majority'andagainstthe'others',isinfluencedbytheconclusionthatIshallargue
tolater,intheearlierofmytwoessaysonAristotle,thattheonlytwoexplicitlyphilosophicaltheoriesofweightknowntoAristotlewerethoseofPlatoandthe
Atomists.ThereforealthoughAristotle'sopeningstatementsinbookfourcouldbetakenasdirectedonlyorprimarilyagainstthosewhohave'used'heavyandlight,
andnotagainstthe'few'whohave'definedtheirpowers'torepeatthedistinctionwhichAristotleintroducesintheopeningsentencesofhistreatise(308a34)
nonethelessIamreluctanttothinkthatoneofAristotle'stwomainadversariesshouldhavebeenexcludedfromhiscondemnationof'howpeoplehavethoughtinthe
past'.

Asitis,itseemstomethatincriticisingearlierthinkersforconsideringonly'whatisheavierand<whatis>lighteramongbodiesthathaveheaviness'Aristotlewillin
factmostlikelyincludetheAtomistsinhiscalculation,butonlyinvirtueofthebehaviourofbodiesthatareformedfromtheatoms,i.e.insofarastheatomspurportto
provideadistinctionbetweentwoelementswithabsoluteweight,orbetweenanelementwithabsoluteweightandanelementwithrelativeweight,andnotinvirtueof
thebehaviouroftheatomsthemselves.

Forinhislatercriticismoftheatomictheory,asunabletoprovidefortheexistenceandbehaviourofelementswithrelativeweight,andasnotaccountingforthe
weightofcompositebodies,Aristotlereckonstheatomsthemselvesashavingabsoluteheaviness,andascorrespondingtoearthinhisownsystem.Fromthispointof
view,theAtomistscanbe,andprobablyare,includedamongthethinkerswho'agree'withAristotlethattheredoesexistabodywithabsoluteheaviness,butwhofail
toseethattheremustalsoexistabodywhichislightabsolutely.

Odd,therefore,thoughitmayseematfirstsight,IconcludethattheAtomistscanbe,andthereforeprobablyare,includedbothamongthe'majority'whoignorethe
distinctionbetweenelementswithoppositeformsofabsoluteweightand,fromadifferentpointofview,amongthe'certainothers',whorecognisetheexistenceofan
elementwhichdoeshaveabsoluteheaviness.

Thereasonforthisseeminganomalyisthattheatomsmaybe

 Page40

regardedeitheraspriortothecosmicelements,orasidenticalwithearthinAristotle'sownsystem:inthefirstcase,Aristotle'scriticismisthatearthandfireinthe
Atomists'systemcannothaveabsoluteweightinthesecondcase,thecriticismisthattheAtomistscannotaccountforrelativeweight.Inbothtypesofcriticism,the
assumptionisthattheatomsthemselvesmayberegardedaspossessing,orasapproximatingtothepossessionof,absoluteheaviness.

Thereisthereforenoground,itseemstome,forconcluding,asChernisshasdone,thatintheDecaelotheatomsthemselvesaredeprivedofabsoluteweight.Onthe
contrary,Aristotle'sgeneralclassificationofearliertheories,ifitincludestheAtomists,willapplyonlytobodiesthatareformedfromtheatoms,whilethedetailed
criticismswhichAristotlemakesoftheatomictheory,throughouttheDecaelo,requirethattheatomsthemselvesshouldberegardedashaving,oratleastas
approximatingtothepossessionof,absoluteheaviness.

 Page41

ChapterTwo
Aristotle'DeGenerationeetCorruptione'
Iturnthereforetothetwopassages,fromtheDecaeloandfromtheDegenerationeetcorruptione,whereAristotlewritesnotsimplyofplenum,orofplenumand
void,butmorespecifically,orsoIshallargue,oftheweightofindividualatoms.ItakefirstthepassagefromtheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Thispassageoccurs
inaseriesofargumentsdesignedtoshowthattheatomscannottrulybewithoutthecapacitytoactortobeactedupon.

AristotlewritesthatPlatoandtheAtomistsbothexplaincomingintobeingbytheuseofelementsthatareindivisibleandthataredefinedonlybytheirshapes,withthe
twodifferences,firstlythatPlato'sindividualelementsaresurfaceswhilethoseoftheAtomistsaresolids,andsecondlythatforPlatocontactistheonlywaybywhich
thingscanbegeneratedordissolved,whiletheAtomistshavetwomethodsattheirdisposal,contactandthevoid.Plato'sversionofthetheory,Aristotleadds,has
alreadybeencriticised.ItisnowtheturnoftheAtomists.1

OnlythefirstsectionofAristotle'seriesofcriticismsisrelevanttoourpurpose,i8,325b36326a14(inpartonlyDK68A60):
1
ThissummarisesDegen.etcorr.i8,325b2436(inpartDK67A7).

 Page42

.1

Theconfusionthatsurroundstheinterpretationoftheseseeminglysimplewordsisnotuntypicaloftheconfusionthatseemstobeingrainedinthewholequestionof
atomicweight.OnemaywonderwhethertwohundredyearsofscholarshiphavedoneanythingtolessentheforceofTiedemann'scomment,thattheinterpretationof
Aristotle'sremark'heischtfastmehralseinenOedipus'.2

AgeneraldifficultyisformulatedbyDyroff:'JedesAtomkanndochnichtschwererseinalsdasandere'.3Twomoreparticulardifficultieslieintheinterpretationof
:inwhatsenseiseachatom'heavier'accordingtoits'preponderance'?

InthefirstsectionofthischapterIshallconsideronlythesimplerofthesetwomoreparticularproblems:theimmediatesense,inthiscontext,of .

Thequestionssurroundingthemeaningof willrequireustodrawontheconclusionofmyprecedingchapterforthewayinwhichAristotlewrites,and
thinks,oftheatomictheoryinrelationtohisownconceptionofheavyandlightwillprovide,Ibelieve,anessentialcluetowhatAristotlemeansbysayingthat'each'
atomis'heavier'thananother.
1
MyrenderingoftheGreekisgivenaftertheanalysis,pp.779below.Forthereading (326a12)seebelowpp.646.
2
DieterichTiedermann,GeistderspekulativenPhilosophiei(Marburg,1791)268.LonRobinwritesofDemocritus'theoryofweightas'unequestionparticulirementpineuse',
which'resteensommeindcise','L'atomismeancien',Revuedesynthse6(1933)211(=Pensehellnique745).PaulMoraux,intheIntroductiontohisBudednoftheDecaelo,
cxlv:'Leproblmeest,vraidire,fortcomplexe,surtoutcausedescontradictionsdenossources....contradictions,quiontfaitnatreunelittratureassezconsidrable'.
3
Demokritstudien33n.2.

 Page43

1
'Preponderance'

IturnfirstthentothesimplerofthetwomoreparticularproblemsthatInoted:themeaning,inthiscontext,of .

(i)

Itranslate .

Ihavedeliberatelyavoidedthecommontranslation'excess',usedforexamplebyBurnetandrepeatedbyProfessorKirk,since,astheinstructiveuseoftheverbin
Plato'sPhaedomakesclear(102BD),theideaisprimarilythatthereismoreofonething,andnotnecessarilythatthereistoomuchofit.Simmiasistallerthan
Socrates,andPhaedoisthetallestofthethree.ButthereisnoimplicationthatSimmiasorPhaedoisinanywayundulyor'excessively'tall.1

Thepointmayseematrivialone,butthemistranslation,thoughslight,easilyleadstothenotionthatthereissomenorm,abovewhich,orinexcessofwhich,anatom
acquiresaspecialkindofweight,whichistheassumptionmadeexplicitinBrieger'sinterpretation,notedimmediatelybelow.

Asitis,mypointisnotofcoursethat (iv8,216a1116)meanssimplythatabodywillmovemorequicklyorlessquickly
accordingasitismoreheavyorlessso,morelightorlessso.AsinthePhaedo,thereisnoconnotationofthebodyin
1
Burnet,EGP342.GeoffreyS.Kirk,ThePresocraticphilosophers(Cambridge,1957)414.Theuseoftheverb'exceeds',asinHaroldH.Joachim,translationoftheDegen.etcorr.
inTheworksofAristotletranslatedintoEnglishii(Oxford,1930),perhapsavoidsthisdifficulty,butmakesitatrifledifficulttokeepclosetoAristotle'sownformula.

 Page44

questionbeingunduly,orevenunusually,fastorslow,heavyorlight.

Similarly,wheninthefourthbookoftheDecaeloAristotleremarksthat'achangeinsomethingsusceptibleofgrowthleadstoanincreaseofsize', (iv3,
310b201),hedoesnotmeanthattheobjectbecomesinanywayundulyor'excessively'large,simplythatitbecomeslargerthanitwasbefore.Equally,inthe
presentcontext,thereneedbenoconceptionofa'norm'ofheaviness,beyondwhichanythingthatisheavierisso'inexcess'theassumptionreflectedinKirk's
rendering,andpresentexplicitlyinBrieger'sinterpretation.1

(ii)

Brieger,inthelaterofhistwostudiesoftheatomictheoryofweight,claimsthattheatomsareheavierthanwhatiscompoundedoftheatoms:

'FrdieAltenwardasGolddasschwersteMetall.SeinspezifischesGewichtbetrgtbekanntlich19,35,dasGewichtdesAtomswrdealso19,35+xsein.Diesxistdie
desAtomsgegenberdemGolde.'2

1
Ausefulcorrectivetotheassumptionthat areusuallytranslatedwithapejorativesense,Jarkhoconcludesthatthisis'neithertheoriginalmeaningoftheseadjectives,nor
thatthemostfrequentlyobserved....Thepejorativemeaningwasnotinherentintheadjectives,adverbsorparticiplesassuch...'(fromtheEnglishsummary,p.86).
EveninlaterGreekthenotionof'excess'isbynomeansinvariable:awiderangeofexamplesfromfifthandfourthcenturyauthorsisincludedinGerhardDelling,'Zumsteigernden
GebrauchvonKompositamit beiPaulus',Novumtestamentum11(1969)12753.
2
AdolfBrieger,'DieUrbewegungderDemokritischenAtome'(henceforward'Urbewegung'),Philologus63n.F.17(1904)5856.Brieger'searlierworkisDieUrbewegungderAtome
unddieWeltentstehungbeiLeucippundDemocrit(henceforwardUrbewegung),inJahresberichtdesStadtgymnasiumszuHalleA/SvonOstern1883bisOstern1884.

 Page45

Apartfromtheanachronismoftheexampleandthecomplexityoftheconcept,thisinterpretationseemstomeexcludedbythecontext.Theconclusionofthe
argumentisthattheatomsareacteduponbyeachother( ),whichindicatesthatthepremisshastobethatoneatomisheavier,orhotter,thananother,
andnotthattheatomsareinsomewayheavierorhotterthanthesubstanceswhichareformedfromthem.1

(iii)

Oneothereccentricinterpretationof isperhapsworthrecalling.CharlesRenouvierwrites:

'Laseulepesanteurquiappartienneauxcorpsindivisibles,c'estlapesanteurparexcs( ),c'estdirelaforcequirsultedel'impulsionparunvolume
suprieurd'unvolumemoindre,quivienttreabordparlui.'2

WhiletheremaybesometruthinRenouvier'sgeneralconceptionofatomicweight,IthinkthatthisisagaintoomuchtoreadintothecontextofAristotle'sphrase.3

(iv)

Thatthesenseofpreponderancedoesnotinitselfrequireanyveryelaborate,orexotic,interpretationisperhapssufficientlyindicatedbyAristotle'suseofthesame
expressioninhisaccount
1
AsimilarconsiderationexcludestheinterpretationwhichisperpetuatedinBonitz'sIndexAristotelicus(Berolini,1870)134a1718,wheretheorderofwordsimpliesthateach
compoundbodyisheavieraccordingtothe'preponderance'ofatomswhichitcontains.Butnotonlyisitimpossiblefor
(325b36326al),asisrightlynotedbyO.Hamelin,'Lapesanteurdel'atomedanslesystmedeDmocrite',AnnalesdelafacultdeslettresdeBordeaux(1888)198n.1.Itisthe
individualatoms,andnotthesubstancesformedfromthem,whicharethetargetofAristotle'scriticismthroughoutthepassage.
2
Manueldephilosophieanciennei(Paris,1844)2456.
3
FortheplaceIgivetoRenouvier'sgeneralconceptionofweightseebelowpp.34850.

 Page46

ofPlato'stheoryofweight.InPlato'stheory,Aristotletellsus,'eachthingisheavierdependinguponitspreponderanceofequalparts',Decaeloriv2,308b9:
.

TheimmediatedifferencebetweenthisformulationofPlato'stheoryandAristotle'saccountofDemocritusisthatthesubjectofPlato'stheoryisacompoundbody,
andnottheindividualprimaryparticlesorparts.

WecannotthereforeapplytheformulawhichAristotleusesforPlatodirectlytoDemocritus:forsinceDemocritus'atomsdonothave'parts'itwouldobviouslybe
impossibletoexplainAristotle'sexpression,inthecaseofDemocritus,asapreponderanceofthenumberof'equal'oridenticalparts.1

ButDemocritus'atomsdodifferinsize.2 ,wemaywishtoconcludetherefore,willmean,forDemocritus,apreponderancenotofthenumberofidentical
parts,butofthesizeofeachindividualparticle.

(v)

Thisisinfactthecommonestmoderninterpretation.Forexample,ProfessorGuthrietranslates:

'Eachatomisheavier,thebiggeritis.'3

ButagainstjustsucharenderingChernisshasrightlyarguedthat takesitsmorespecificreferencefromthecontext,andthatsinceinAristotle'sargument
thereisnomentionofsizetheexpressiondoesnotnecessarilymean,andcannotthereforein
1
Onthequestionofthe'parts'ofatomsaconceptionintroducedintotheearliertheorybyEpicurusseefurtherpp.21314and2709below.
2
Aristotle, ,ap.Simpl.Decaelor295.78(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).Cf.Phys.iii4,203a33b2(DK68A41).
3
WilliamK.C.Guthrie,AhistoryofGreekphilosophyr(henceforwardHistory)ii(Cambridge,1965)503.

Amongotherswhotake inthiswayInotethefollowing:FriedrichW.A.Mullach,DemocritiAbderitaeoperumfragmenta...(Berolini,1843)347,Brieger,Urbewegung5,
HaroldH.Joachim,inthenotestohiseditionoftheDegen.etcorrr.(Oxford,1922)165,andinanotetohisOxfordtranslation,thoughnotinthetranslationitself,Bailey,Greek
Atomists130and144,Kirk,Presocraticphilosophers414.

Thereisadifferencebetweentaking tomeaninitself,andofitsown

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page47
1
itselfwhateveritmayimplyproperlybetranslatedas,'excessmagnitude'.

Chernisshimselfarguesthat .Hethentranslates:

'Democritussaysthateachandeveryatomhasrelativeweightwhencompared(withanyother).'2

(vi)

TherearehoweveranumberofdifficultiesinCherniss'owntranslation,ofwhichIconsider,forthemoment,onlythedifficultyrelatingtoCherniss'translationof
.

Intranslating topreponderance,ordeficiency,specificallyandexclusivelyofweight:
'Eachandeveryatomhasrelativeweightwhencomparedwithanyother(sc.inrespectofweight).'

Butwehavescarcelymorerighttocontract tomean'inpreponderanceofweight',whichadmittedlyhasspecificreferencetothecontext,butisotiosein
sense,thanwehavetoexpandittomean'inpreponderanceofsize',whichisnototioseinsense,buthasnospecificreferencetotheexistingcontext.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
rightasitwere,preponderanceorexcessofsizeorbulk,whichIthinkiswhatalltheauthorscitedsofarintendandsupposingthatinthelightofotherevidencethisisthesense
thatmaybeaddedto ,inthecourseofhiselaborationofAristotle'sargument.
InneithercasehaveIdistinguishedbetweenthosewhowriteofapreponderanceofbulkormassandthosewhowriteofapreponderanceofsizeorvolume.
1
ACP97n.412
2
ACP97n.412.For asanabbreviation,Chernisscitestwopairsofpassages:Hist.anim.i1,486a21b17withiv4,528b1314,andDepart.anim.i4,644a1623withi5,
645b226.

 Page48

(vii)

Thetruth,Isuggest,isquitesimplythattheparticularnatureoftheatoms''preponderancy'ishereleftopen. neednotlookback,tautologically,toweight
norneeditreferspecificallytosize,althoughthereisofcoursenothingtoprecludethislatterimplication.

Admittedly,if doesnotmeanmerely'comparison',thenwemightwellwonderwhatkindofpreponderanceordifferenceitcouldimplyinthiscontext,ifnot
thatofsize.Moreover,sinceotherevidencewillshowthatforDemocritustheweightofatomswasinfactproportionatetotheirsize,andthatAristotleknewthis,then
todisallowthatconnotationinthetranslationofthepresentpassagemayseemunnecessarilyscrupulous.

Butforthesakeofaccurateexegesisitisaswell,eventhoughavoidingCherniss'owntranslation,toaccepthisnegativepoint,that neednotinitselfmean
preponderanceofsize,whileaddingthecaveatthatsuchanimplicationisinnowayexcluded.1

Conclusion

Myfirstconclusionistherefore,Ihope,innocuousenough.Aristotle'sstatementintheDegenerationeetcorruptione,that'eachoftheatomsisheavieraccordingto
itspreponderance',hasbeenaconstantsourceofconfusionandofcontroversy.ThesimplerpointinAristotle'ssentence,themeaningof'preponderance',canbe
settledreasonablyeasily.Thetermshouldnotbereducedtomerecomparisonofweight,asinCherniss'interpretation,norneeditinitselfnecessarilymean
'preponderanceofsize',althoughinthelightofotherpassagesthatimplicationmaynotbeprecluded.Inthepresentpassage,thenatureoftheatoms''preponderancy'
isquitesimplyleftopen.
1
TheinterpretationwhichChernissgivesofthispassagehasalreadybeenextensivelycriticisedbyWillemJ.VerdeniusandJanH.Waszink,Aristotleoncomingtobeand
passingaway,somecomments,intheseriesPhilosophiaantiquai,2ndedn(Leiden,1966)(henceforwardComments)423.Theircriticismcoincidesinpartwithmyown,
especiallyonthepointthatCherniss'translationof provides'aratherawkwardpleonasm'.Seealsop.100n.1below.

 Page49

2
'RelativeWeight':ConfusioninCherniss

AsecondandmoreseriousdifficultyinCherniss'interpretationliesinhistranslationof therefore,ifitistobeinterpretedintermsofAristotle'sowntheory,
cannotbutmeanthattheatomshaverelativeweight.1

Atthesametime,thetranslationof as'relativeweight'touchesoffaseriesofmoreparticularmisunderstandings,atonceconceptualandexegetical.These
moreparticulardifficultiesalsoneedtobeconsideredinsomedetail,sincetheremovalofthedifficultiesexemplifiedbyChernissisessentialnotonlyforaproper
graspofthepresentpassage,butnolessforaclearunderstandingofAristotle'sevidenceonweightasawhole.

(i)

Thustojustifythesenseof'relativelyheavy'for ,inthepassagewhichChernisscites,doesnotinfactmean'whatisrelativelylight',ashesupposes.

AdetailedstudyofthepassageIshallleaveformylateressayonAristotle.Briefly,Aristotlewritesthatwhatislightabsolutelyisalwayslighter,butthat'whatis
lighter'isnotalwayslightabsolutely.Hispointisthattheuseofthecomparativemaydesignateeitherwhatisabsolutelylight,orwhatisrelativelyso.Grammatically,
mustthereforeembracebothwhatis
1
ACP979,esp.97n.412,and20913cf.pp.67above.Ihavemyselfaddedthestipulation,'ifitistobeinterpretedintermsofAristotle'sowntheory'forCherniss,this
stipulationistooobvioustoneedstating.Aswillbeseen(3,pp.5769below),Idothinkthatthereissometruthintheassumption,inthisinstance.
2
ACP97n.412.Aristotle,Decaeloiv2,309b6.

 Page50
1
absolutelylightandwhatisrelativelyso:itcannotmeanonly'whatisrelativelylight'.

(ii)

Butthisisonlyapreliminarydifficulty.'Heavy'isambiguous.Itmaymean'heavy'asopposedto'light',oritmaybeaneutralterm,whichcoversbothheavyandlight,
equivalentthereforeto'weight'.Thereisthesameambiguityinseveralothertermsofmeasurement,inGreekasinEnglish:speed,length,breadth,depth.2

ThisambiguityconcealsapotentialdiscrepancybetweenCherniss'argumentandhisconclusion.

1.Fromthecomparisonwith means'relativelyheavy'.

2.Ontheotherhand,inhistranslationChernisswritesof'relativeweight'.

Theshiftfrom'relativelyheavy'to'relativeweight'atonceopensCherniss'translationtotwointerpretations.

1.Eachatommayhave'relativeweight'asdistinctfromhaving'absoluteweight'.

2.Eachatommayhave'relativeweight'inthesenseofbeing'relativelyheavy'asdistinctfrombeing'relativelylight'.

ThefirstwayoftakingCherniss'translationresolvesthedifficultynotedbyDyroff,forthemeaningnowisthateachatomhas'relativeweight',inthesensethatitmay
beheavierorlighterthananother.Butthistranslationdoesnotfollowfromtheallegedcomparisonwith .

ThesecondwayoftakingCherniss'translationfollowsfromtheallegedcomparisonwith ,butitdoesnotmake
1
Thisandasecond,morecomplex,passage,alsoquotedbyCherniss,Decaeloiii1,299b14,areconsideredatlengthinmythirdessay.
2
Aristotlenotestheambiguity,Met.I1,1052b2431.Ihavetouchedonthistopicinacontribution,'Aristote:quantitetcontraritunecritiquedel'coled'Oxford',forthcomingin
Conceptsetcatgories(ed.P.Aubenque).

 Page51

senseinitself.Forifwekeeptotherestrictedmeaningofrelativeweight,whichistheonlymeaningwhichfollowsfromCherniss'argument,thenweareatonce
trappedinDyroff'sdifficulty,althoughthiswaswhatChernisshadsetoutexpresslytoavoid:

'Eachandeveryatomhasrelativeweight(i.e.isrelativelyheavy)whencomparedwithanyother.'

(iii)

Moreparticularly,thissecondmeaningfor controvertsthewholesenseofAristotle'sdistinctionbetweenrelativeweightandabsoluteweight.

AsIhavealreadynoted,Aristotle'stheoryofrelativeandabsoluteweight,initssimplestform,isthatfireislightabsolutelybecauseitmovesalwaysupwards,and
doessomorequickly,andisthereforelighter,inthelargerquantityandthatearthisheavyabsolutelybecauseitmovesalwaysdownwards,anddoessomore
quickly,andisthereforeheavier,inthelargerquantitywhileairandwaterareeachofthemrelativelylightandrelativelyheavybecausetheymoveupwardsinthe
regionofearthanddownwardsintheregionoffire.1

Fromthisitfollowsthatwhatis'relativelyheavy',inAristotle'stheory,issomethingthatwillmovedownwardsinrelationtoonething(airorwaterinrelationtofire)
butnotinrelationtoanother(airorwaterinrelationtoearth).Butifeachatomis'relativelyheavy',i.e.movesdownwards,'whencomparedwithanyother'(my
italics),asinthisversionofCherniss'translation,thenitwillbeabsolutelyheavyandnotrelativelyheavy.

'RelativeWeight'and'AbsoluteWeight'

Thetruthis,Isuspect,thatChernisshasseizeduponthemeaningof'relativelyheavy'orof'relativeweight'for inpartbecauseheisuncertain,inhisown
mind,astothemorepreciselimitationsoftheAristoteleantheory,sothathefindsit
1
ThissummarisesDecaeloiv4,311a1529cf.pp.67above.

 Page52
1
easierthanintruthitistochanceupontheAristoteleanconceptionofrelativeweight.

(i)

ThusinthefirstplaceChernisshasbyimplicationconfused'absolutelyheavy'and'relativelyheavy',inAristotle'ssense,withthesimplepositiveandcomparative,
'heavy'and'heavier'.ForChernisswritesofabsoluteheatandrelativeheatasindistinguishableinstatusfromabsoluteweightandrelativeweight.2

ButthetruthisthatAristotlehasnospecialtheoryofabsoluteandrelativeheat.Somethingwhichhasabsoluteheatistherefore,inAristotle'sphilosophy,nodifferent
inprinciplefromsomethingwhichismerelyhot,whilesomethingwhichis'relatively'hotisnodifferentfromsomethingwhichismerelyhotterthan,or'inrelationto',
somethingelse.

Clearly,oncethisconfusionhasbeenallowedtoenter,thenanythingwhichis'heavier'maybedeemed,withoutmoreado,tobe'relativelyheavy'.3

(ii)

Secondly,Chernisshasevidentlyconfusedthenotionsofabsoluteheavinessandmaximumheaviness.
1.OnAristotle'stheory,earthhasabsoluteheavinessbecauseitsnaturalmotioncarriesitalwaystowardsthecentre.Thisdoesnotpreventearthhavingdifferencesordegreesof
heaviness,foralargerquantityofearthwilltraveldown

1
Inwhatfollows,Ihaveassumedthattheexpressions'relativelyheavy'and'relativeweight'inChernissareintendedtorepresentAristotle'stechnicalsenseofrelative,asdistinct
fromabsolute,weight.ThisseemsfairlyclearfromthecontextofCherniss'discussions,ACP978,20913.
Itmightperhapsbeargued,onbehalfofCherniss,that'relative'weightmaybeusedtodescribeanycomparisonwhereonebodyis'related'toanotherintermsofweight.Butsucha
usagewouldneedtobemarkedexplicitly,ashavingonlyaweakersenseandsomeotherexpressionwouldhavetobeintroducedtodescribeAristotle'sconceptionofrelative,as
opposedtoabsolute,weight.
2
ACP978,esp.98n.413.
3
Theconfusionisinfactworsethanitappears.ForhavingfailedtoappreciateAristotle'spointaboutthedistinctionofmeaningin (ACP97

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page53

wardsmoreswiftlythanasmallerpiece,andthelargerquantityisthereforeheavierthanthesmaller.

2.However,ChernisscomplainsatonepointthatAristotleshouldnothavealloweddifferencesofweightbetweendifferentvolumesofanelementwhichisheavyabsolutely.1

ThiscriticismbetraysthatChernisshasconfused,inhisownmind,absoluteheaviness,inAristotle'ssense,andmaximumheaviness.
1.Theantithesisofabsoluteweight,inAristotle'ssense,isrelativeweight,whichisconstitutedbyanelementhavingnaturalmovementintwodirections,inthemannerthatI
havedelineated.

2.Theantithesisofmaximumweightissimplyanythingwithlessthanmaximumweight,anythingthereforewithdegreesofweight.

Ifabsoluteweightisconfusedwithmaximumweight,thenanythingwithlessthanmaximumweight,anythingwithdegreesofweight,willbeconfusedwithrelative
weight.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

n.412,cf.Decaeloiv2,309b6),Chernisssupposesthatthecomparative willmeanrelativelyhotevenwhenitisusedtodescribeabodywhichishotabsolutely.
ThushewritesthatsinceAristotle'hasadmittedthatsome(sc.atoms)haveheatabsolutely,eachandeveryatommusthaverelativeheatincomparisonwithanyother'(ACP98
n.413).ButthisconceptionofabsoluteandrelativeheatcannotcorrespondtoAristotle'sconceptionofabsoluteandrelativeweight,asatthispointChernissplainlyintendsthat
itshould.ForitisclearthatinAristotle'stheoryabsoluteandrelativeweightaremutuallyexclusivecategories.Anelementwhichisheavyabsolutelyis'heavier'thananother,but
itdoesnotthereforepossesswhatAristotlemeansbyrelativeweight.
ItistruethatindenyingthatAristotlehasanytheoryofabsoluteandrelativeheatIamslightlysimplifyingthequestion,forintheDegenerationeetcorruptioneAristotledoes
distinguishwhatis (ii7,334b820).InmyessayontheinterpretationofAristotle'stheoryIshallreturntothispassage,andattemptto
showtheradicaldifferencethatthereisbetweenAristotle'stheoryofthemixtureofhotandcoldandhisconceptionofwhatisrelativelyheavyandlight.
Meanwhile,IhopethatIamnotbeingunfairinleavingthispassageoutofaccountinmycriticismofCherniss.IthinkitisfairlyclearthatinfactChernisshasbeenledtotalkofthe
distinctionbetweenabsoluteandrelativeheatonlythroughhismisunderstandingoftheconjunctionoftemperatureandweightinthepresentpassage:onthispointseefurther
pp.5861and649below.
1
ACP212n.255.

 Page54
1
Adifferenceofheavinessintheatomswillthenofitselfappearsufficienttodesignatesomeoftheatomsasbeing'relativelyheavy'orashaving'relativeweight'.

(iii)

Finally,Chernisshasevidentlyconfused'relativelyheavy'and'comparativelyheavy'.

Tosupporthismeaningof'relativelyheavy'for tomean'verhltnismssigjnger','fairlyyoung'or'comparativelyyoung'oreven(butnotnecessarilyin
Aristotle'stechnicalsense)'relativelyyoung'.2
1
ThesameconfusionhasaffectedBailey,whowrites,GreekAtomists131:Aristotle'neverassociateswithDemocritustheconceptionofabsoluteweight,butonlyspeaksof
atomsas''heavier"or"lighter"thanoneanother'.
ExceptintheargumentfrombookoneoftheDecaelo(cap.7,275b29276a6,cf.pp.1115above),Aristotledoesnotinfactspeakofoneatomaslighterthananother.Inthefourth
book,itisonlyinthecomparisonofgroupsofatoms,whicharetakenasrepresentingdifferentelements,andinconjunctionwiththeuseofvoid,thatAristotlewritesofonegroupas
beinglighterthananother,asintheargumentfromthecomparisonofearthandfire,Decaeloiv2,309a33b4,cf.pp.1619above.Oneatombeingmoreheavyorlesssothananother
doesnotpreventtheatomshavingabsoluteweightinAristotle'ssystem.Itappearstodoso,onlyifweconfuseabsoluteweightandmaximumweight.
ItistruethatincriticisingChernissonthispointIhaveagainslightlysimplifiedmyaccount,forChernissmakeshisremark,ontheimproprietyofallowingdifferencesofweightfor
differentvolumesofanelementwhichhasabsoluteweight,inthecontextofdifferencesofspeed.IshallargueinmythirdessaythatAristotlehasessentiallytwocriteriaofweight,
speedanddisplacement.Cherniss'remarkwouldbetrueofweightasdefinedbydisplacement,foronthiscriterionanyandeveryparticleofearthhasheavinessinthesamesenseand
tothesamedegree.Butitisnottruewhenweightismeasuredbyspeed,foronthiscriteriondifferentvolumesordifferentquantitiesofthesameelementdifferinweight.
IngeneralthepointremainsthatAristotle'sconceptionofabsoluteweightdoesnotexcludetherebeingdifferentdegreesofweight.Allearthhasabsoluteheaviness,eventhough
(judgedbythecriterionofspeed)alargerportionofearthwillbeheavierthanasmallerportion.Whatisexcludedbythedefinitionofearthasheavyabsolutelyisthepossibilityof
anyportionofearthbeingreckonedas'light'or'lighter'.Itwouldseemtobeanobscure,andconfused,recognitionofthisdisjunctionwhichhasledBaileytooppose'absoluteweight'
tothenotionoftheatoms'being'"heavier"or"lighter"thanoneanother'.Onthispointseefurtherpp.636belowafullanalysismustawaitmythirdessay.
2
ACP97n.412.ForthisuseofthecomparativeseeKhnerGerth,GriechischeGrammatikii2,306(citedbyCherniss).

 Page55

NowIdothinkthatthiscomparisonpointstooneelement,andanimportantelement,inAristotle'sconceptionofrelativeweight.Foritistruethatthecolloquialuseof
thecomparativeandtheuseofthecomparativeinAristotle'sdescriptionofrelativeweightarebothalikedistinctfromthesimplecomparativeinthatneitherisintended
asanintensifiedformofthepositive.Tosimplifythepoint:

1.Theelementwhichis .1

2.Sotoo,thepersonwhois .

Fromthisitfollowsthatinbothcasesthereis,atleastbyimplication,adoublereference:thepersonwhois 'comparativelyyoung'issoinrelationbothto
'young'and'old',inthesamewaythatanelementwhichis'relativelyheavy'issoinrelationbothtowhatislightabsolutelyandtowhatisheavyabsolutely.

Butthetwousagesarenotthereforeidentical.

1.Anelementwhichis'relativelylight'or'relativelyheavy'inAristotle'ssensemustbesoinrelationtoanelementofanotherkind.

2.Butanelementwhichis'comparativelyheavy'or'comparativelylight'needbesoonlyinrelationtoalargerorsmallerquantityofthesameelement.Thusaquantityofwater
whichis'comparativelyheavy'or'comparativelylight'needbesoonlyinrelationtoalargerorsmallerquantityofwater.2

1
Thisisexemplifiedbytheuseof inthepassagealreadyquoted,Decaeloiv4,311a1529.
2
IshallargueinmyessayonAristotlethatthemoreordinaryintensiveuseofthecomparativemayormaynotdenoteanelementwhichhasrelativeweightinAristotle'ssense(airis
lighterthanwater,butfireisalsolighterthanairwaterisheavierthanair,butearthisalsoheavierthanwater).
TherewillthereforebetworeasonswhythecolloquialornonintensiveuseofthecomparativeisnotsimplyidenticalwithAristotle'sconceptionofrelative

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page56

Conclusion

(i)

ThusatonetimeoranotherChernisshasconfusedthedistinctionbetweenabsolutelyheavyandrelativelyheavy,inAristotle'ssenseofthoseterms,withvariously:
1.Thedistinctionbetweenthesimplepositiveandcomparative,'heavy'and'heavier'.

2.Thedistinctionbetweenmaximumheavinessanddegreesofheaviness.

3.Thedistinctionbetween'heavy'(or'light')and'comparativelyheavy'(or'comparativelylight').

(ii)

Theseconfusionsmakeitdeceptivelyeasyfor totakeonthemeaningof'relativelyheavy'.
1.Onthefirstcount,anatomcanbereckonedas'relativelyheavy'simplybecauseitisheavierthan,or'inrelationto',another.

2.Theconfusionbetweenabsoluteandmaximumweightwillagainallowatomswithdifferentdegreesofheavinesstobeautomaticallydesignatedas'relativelyheavy'.

3.Thecolloquialuseofacomparativesuchas istakentojustifythistranslationevenoutsidethecontextofabsoluteheaviness.

(iii)

Theconfusionisnotthenatanend.

1.'Relativelyheavy'actsasasteppingstonetothesuperficiallysimilarsounding'relativeweight'.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

weight.(1)Thenonintensiveuseofthecomparativewillrepresentrelativeweight,onlyifthecomparisonliesbetweenelementsofadifferentkind.(2)Evenso,Aristotle's
conceptionofrelativeweightisnotdesignatedexclusivelybythisuseofthecomparative.

 Page57

2.Thistranslationcanthenmeaneitherthat'eachatomisheavierthansomeatomsandislighterthanothers'orthat'eachatomisrelativelyheavywhencomparedwithanyother'.

TheformerinterpretationdoesnotfollowfromthecomparisonthatChernissofferswith ,anexpressionwhichhehasinanycasemisunderstood.The
latterinterpretationmakesnonsenseinitself,andinparticularitcontrovertsAristotle'swholetheoryofthedistinctionbetweenrelativeandabsoluteweight.

3
WeightandTemperature

IreturnthereforetothepassagewhichItranscribedatthebeginningofthischapter,fromtheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Inthatpassage,thetrueinterpretation
of ,Isuggest,isindicatedpartlybytheassociationofatomswithabsoluteweightwhichwefindintheDecaelo,andwhichIhavealreadyanalysedinmy
firstchapter,andmoreimmediatelybytheaccountoftemperature,whichweightisintendedtoestablishandexemplify.

Inanargumentprecedingtheintroductionofweight,Aristotleclaimsthatheatis'handedout'toroundatoms,andthatthereforetheoppositeofheat,whichiscold,
should'belong'tosomeothershapeofatom(i8,326a36).Somuch,atleastintheshortterm,isclearenough.ButwhydoesAristotle,amomentortwolater
(326a911),seektoarguefromtheadmissionthatanatomis'heavier'totheclaimthatanatommustthereforealsobe'hotter'?

(i)

Aristotledoesnotthinkthatheavyandlightcanactorbeactedupon,arestrictionwhichdoesnotapplytodifferencesoftemperature,Degen.etcorr.ii2,329b18
26: .

 Page58

'Oppositionswhichfallwithinthedomainoftoucharethese:hotandcold,dryandwet,heavyandlight....

'Ofthese,heavyandlightareneitheractivenorpassive,insofarastheyaresaid<tobewhattheyare>,notinvirtueoftheiractinguponsomethingelse,norinvirtueoftheir
beingacteduponbysomethingelse....

'Hotandcold,bycontrast,anddryandwet,aredistinguishedassuchbytheirabilitytoact,ortobeactedupon.'1

Fromthisdifference,itfollowsthatAristotlecannotconcludehisargumentbyassertingthat'whatislessheavycannotescapebeingacteduponbywhatismoreso'.
Weighthastoactasapreludetotemperature.Theargumentisthatiftheatomscanbecharacterisedindividuallyas .Theargumentcanthenhappily
concludethat'whatislesshotcannotescapebeingacteduponbywhatismoreso'.Fromthisitfollowsthattheatomsarenotinactiveorimpassible.

(ii)

PhiloponusbetraysprettyclearlythathehasmissedthepointofAristotle'sdistinctionbetweenweightandheatwhenheseekstoconcludeofbothjointly,Degen.et
corr.167.1516:
1
Thereareotherandmoresubtlewaysofexpressingthisdifference,butthesimplestconsiderationisthatifalumpofleadfallsonmyfootitcrushesit,andinthatsense'acts'
uponit,butitdoesnotmakemyfootanyheavier,whereashotandcoldorwetanddry'act'uponsomethingbymakingitshareintheirownqualities.
Ifpercontrawethinkofadditionoradmixturethenitwillofcoursebepossibletoassimilateheavyandlighttohotandcold,wetanddry,asPlotinusdoesatonepoint:'whatislight
makesthingslight,byitsaddition<tothem>andbyitspresence<inthem>,and<similarly>whatisheavymakesthingsheavy'(Enn.iv7[2]4.267).Butthisideawouldnotmatchthe
contextintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Aristotlebelievesthatfortheretobeachangeofweightinanyotherthanamerelyincidentalsensetherewouldhavetobeachangeof
substance.Thuslead,addedtoanothersubstance,wouldmakethatsubstance'heavier',butinamerelyincidentalsenseAristotledoesnotbelievethattheadditionofleadwould
effectanyrealchangeinthesecondsubstance,northereforethateithersubstancewouldhave'acted'or'beenactedupon'.Thechangewouldbeachangeincompositeweight,nota
changeinelementalweight.

 Page59

'Ifatomsaretobehotterandheavier,howisitthattheyareabletorefrainfromactinguponeachother,andfrombeingacteduponbyeachother?'

Indeeditis,Ithink,largelybecausetheyfailtoappreciatethedistinctioninAristotle'sphilosophybetweentheinactivityandtheactivityrespectivelyofextremesof
weightandextremesoftemperature,andthereforetheneedfortheconclusionoftheargumenttobeexpressedintermsoftemperature,thatChernissandJoachim,as
wellasPhiloponus,allinonewayoranotherattempttomakethetemperatureoftheatomspreciselycomparabletotheirweight(inallrespectsexcept,asIshall
suggest,theonewhichreallyhelps):Chernissbysupposingthat'eachandeveryatommusthaverelativeheatincomparisonwithanyother'PhiloponusandJoachim
becausetheysupposethatthelargeranatomis,thehotteritwillbe.1

Neitherinterpretation,itseemstome,properlyanswerstoAristotle'spreoccupationinthispassage.
1.Aristotle'sargumentdoesnotrequirethat'eachandeveryatom'shouldbehotter,orshouldhave'relativeheat'.Intheargumentimmediatelyprecedingtheconjunctionof
weightandoftemperature,Aristotleclearlylimitsthepossessionofheattosphericalatoms,326a35: .Itisthereforeeitheranoversight,or
excessivelyrestrictive,whenChernisscomplainsagainstJoachimandPhiloponus,that'thereisnomention'byAristotle'ofsphericalatoms'.2

Theideathatsphericalatoms(alone)arehotisclearlyintendedtobecarriedoverfromoneargumenttothenext.Theexampleofweightismeanttoshow,notthat'eachandevery
atom'ishotorhotter,butthatatomswhichareindividually .

1
Cherniss,ACP98n.413(thelastwordinthethirdlineofthisnoteshouldbe'hotter'andnot'heavier').Philoponus,Degen.etcorr.167.1117,esp.1314.Joachim,inthenotesto
hisedition,1657.
2
ACP98n.413.

 Page60

2.Atthesametime,notheoryofhowoneatomishotterthananotherneedbeimpliedin,orcanbeinferredfrom,thispassage.Aristotle'sargumentdoesnotimplythatlarger
sphericalatomsarehotterthansmallerones,northat'Aristotlethoughtalargespheremoresphericalthanasmallerone'.1

ThetruthisthatonlytwogenuinepiecesofatomictheoryareintroducedbyAristotleintothisargument.
1.Heatis'handedoutto'(morestrictly,istheproductof)sphericalatoms.

2.Eachatomis .

FromthesetwopiecesofinformationAristotleseekstodrawtheinferencethatatomswhichareindividually :sothathecanthendrawthepolemical
conclusionthatwhatislesshotcannotescapebeingacteduponbywhatismoreso,aconclusionwhichheseesascontrovertingDemocritus'claimthattheatomsare
inactiveandimpassible.

Inthecourseofthisreasoning,Aristotlegivesnosignthatheintendstodrawthecomparisonbetweenweightandtemperatureanytighterthanisneededtoshowthat
iftheatomshavedegreesofweightsothey,orsomeofthem,musthavedegreesoftemperature.Thereneedbenoimplicationthat'eachandeveryatommusthave
relativeheat'(Cherniss,myitalics),northatthereisapreponderancyinvirtueofwhichtheatomsareheavierwhichisthesameasthepreponderancyinvirtueofwhich
theyarehotter(PhiloponusandJoachim).

Indeedthereasonwhy isprobablyintendedasnomorethanapassingreminderofthemannerinwhichDemocritusattributed
1
IquoteCherniss'attempttotrivialiseJoachim'sargument,ACP98n.413.VerdeniusandWaszink,Comments43,alsosupposethat'theattributionofheatcannotberestrictedtoa
specialclassofatoms',withtheideathereforethatthereshouldbe'differencesofheatamongallatoms'.ButAristotle'sargumentwillbesufficientlycogentifhecanshowthat
someatomsareopentoactionandpassionhedoesnotintheimmediateargumenthavetoshowthatallatomsaresubjecttoalterationinrespectofanoppositionof
temperature.

 Page61

weight,anddifferencesofweight,totheatoms.FornothingmoreisrelevanttoAristotle'sargumentthanDemocritus'claimthattheatomsarecharacterisedby
differencesordegreesofweight.ThisAristotleaccountssufficientjustificationforhisconclusionthatifanatomis .Thewayinwhichtheatomsare
characterisedbydegreesofweightisirrelevanttoAristotle'sargument,sinceitisthefactonly,andnotthecauseoraccompaniment,ofdegreesofweightwhichneeds
tobecarriedoverintotherealmoftemperature.1

(iii)

Atthesametime,withoutwishingtoexpandAristotle'sargumentunduly,theonecomparisonbetweenweightandtemperaturewhichcan,Ithink,validlybedrawn
fromAristotle'sargumentisonewhichChernissandJoachimfailtodraw.

InordertoavoidDyroff'sdifficulty,Ithinkitisfairtoclaimthat isintendedtobe,oratleast
1
IwouldthereforeconstrueAristotle'sargumentatthispoint(326a1011)ascontainingtheellipse:... .
Cherniss,ACP98n.413,seekstosupporthisinterpretation(that'eachandeveryatommusthaverelativeheat')byquotinganargumentfromtheDecaelowhereAristotleclaims,iii8,
307a1315: .
Butthisargumentisintendedasareducioadabsurdumoftheatomictheory.Aristotleconcludes,307a1819:
.Inmyopinion,itwouldnotbeatalltypicalofAristotle's
styleofpolemictostoreupthiskindofcriticismfromonecontexttothenext.
Hereandthroughout,inwritingof'degrees'ofheat,asinwritingof'differencesordegrees'ofweightorofheaviness(cf.p.52above),IdonotofcoursemeanthatAristotlehasany
notionofameasuredscaleforthecomparisonof(whathesupposestobe)qualitiesIusethewordthereforeinalooserandmoregeneralway,tomeananonquantitativecomparison
ofintensitiesthoughofcourseeventhisformulationisanachronisticinthepresuppositionswhichitbetrays.Asalways,thevocabularyweuseforthedescriptionofancient
scienceorofancientphilosophyisriddledwithanachronisms,andyettobetoozealousinrootingthemoutleadstoanimpossiblepedantry.(Thenonquantitativeuseoftheword
'degree'isinfactdatedtoMiddleEnglishbytheOxfordEnglishDictionarybutinthecontextofweightandoftemperaturethisearliersenseofthewordisofcourselikelytobe
displacedforthemodernreaderbythelatertechnicalandscientificusage.)

 Page62
1
leavesroomforimmediateinterpretationas,onehalfofanimpliedantithesis.

Theobviouspairto initselfactuallymeans,orisanabbreviationof,thedualexpression.

Theequivalentpairto ,sothatthecompletedformoftheimpliedantithesiswouldrun:
'Eachatomisheavier<orlighter>invirtueofitspreponderance<ordeficiency>inrelationtoanother'.

Inthatcase,Aristotle'saccountoftheAtomistsintheDegenerationeetcorruptionewillbealmostpreciselyparalleltotheaccounthegives,intheDecaelo,of
Plato.IhavealreadyquotedthesentencewhereAristotlewrites,ofPlato'scompoundbodies,that'eachoneisheavierdependinguponitspreponderanceofequal
parts'.2Thissentencefollowsalmostdirectlythedoubleformulationthat,onPlato'stheory,'abodywhichisconstitutedfromalargernumberofidenticalpartsis
heavier,whileonewhichisconstitutedfromasmallernumberoflikepartsislighter',iv2,308b56: .

Butintheparallelaccountoftemperature,intheDegenerationeetcorruptione,Aristotletreatsnotofhotandcold,butofwhatismorehot,orlessso,i8,326a11
12: .

IthinkthatweshouldthereforesupposethatinfacttheimpliedantithesisinAristotle'smindisthat:
'Eachatomismoreheavy<orlessso>invirtueofitspreponderance<ordeficiency>inrelationtoanother.'

1
Thiswillbesoevenif,ormoreespeciallyif,weadoptsomeversionoftheEnglishformula,'themoreanatomisx,themoreitwillbey'(cf.Guthrie'stranslation,p.46above).In
translatingthus,weatonceimplythat'thelessitisx,thelessitwillbey'.Dyroff'sinterpretationhasbeennotedp.42above.
2
Decaeloiv2,308b9,pp.456above.

 Page63

'MoreHeavyorLessSo'

(i)

Acriticmayobjectthatthisisadistinctionwithoutadifference:whatislessheavymustbelighter.

ButthisisnotinfactsoforAristotle.
1.WheretherearetwoelementswhichbothhaveheavinessAristotlewillgrantthattheoneislighter,or'morenearlylight',thantheother,Decaeloiv2,309b68:...
.Thisisbecauseifitfindsitselfintheplacebelongingtoearth,waterwillrise.

2.Ofearthwhichisabsolutelyheavy,Ithinkitisclear,Aristotlewouldallowonlythatasmallerpiececouldbelessheavythanalargerpiece,notthatitcouldbeinanywaylight
orlighter,sincethereisneveranycircumstanceinwhichanyportionofearthwouldtravelnaturallyupwards.1

Thedistinctionbetween'heavierorlighter'and'moreheavyorlessso'isthereforeforAristotlearealone.Itisalsoadistinctionwhichwillapplytothepresentcontext
if,asinthepassageswhichIhavequotedfromtheDecaeloinmyfirstchapter,thedistinctionbetweenvoidandsolid,intheatomictheory,istakentomatchthe
distinctionbetweenabsolutelylightandabsolutelyheavy.Foroncetheatomsarethoughtofashavingabsoluteheaviness,asearthhasinAristotle'sownsystem,thenit
willbenatural,andindeednecessary,forthedifferencesofweightbetweenthemtobeexpressedintermsnotofheavyandlight,butofmoreheavyorlessheavy.2
1
Thetwodistinctions,thatbetween'lighter'and'morenearlylight',andthatbetween'lighter'and'lessheavy',areexploredinmythirdessay.
2
ItmaybeobjectedthatbythesamereasoningAristotleshouldnotrefertoPlato'strianglesasproducingabodywhichisheavieror'lighter',ashedoesinthepassageIhavejust
quoted(Decaeloiv2,308b56),oratleastthatthisisinconsistentwithmysuppositionthatPlato'striangles,likeDemocritus'atoms,arethoughtofbyAristotleasapproximatingto
thepossessionofabsoluteweight(cf.p.38n.1above).Buthere,aslaterinthepassage(308b22,b25), isintroducedonlyasmarkingPlato'sclaim.Theargumentofthe

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page64

(ii)

AseconddifficultyistoknowwhetherinfactAristotlewritesofwhatismorehotorlessso,orwhetherhewritesofhotandofcold.

ForthetextIhavetranscribedabove,whichisthatadoptedbyJoachimandbyMugler,reliesononlyonemanuscript(F),supportedbyPhiloponusandbyAsulanus'
Latintranslation.Theotherfourprimarymanuscripts(EHJL)have .1

Chernissclaimsthatwithhisinterpretationofthepassage'itisnolongernecessarytochangetheMSSfrom .2

Butevenifweoverlooktheexaggerationofcallingamajorityofthemanuscripts'the'manuscripts,primafacietherewouldseemnomorereasonfor ifit
means'relativelyhot'thanifitmeans'hotter'.

Possibly,byhisreferencestorelativeheat,Chernisshasentangledhimselfinthesameambiguityandequivocationthatwehavealreadyuncoveredinhisuseofthe
expression'relativeweight':'relativeheat'isintroducedasatranslationof ,butisthentransposedtomeanthat'eachandeveryatommusthaverelative
heat',inthesensethatitwillbebothhotterthansomeatomsandcolderthanothers.

However,evenifwediscountCherniss'claim,wemaystillwishtoarguethatpreciselybecausethereisnotechnicaldistinctioninAristotle'sphilosophybetween
relativeheatandabsoluteheattherecanthereforebenorealdistinctionbetweenbeinglesshotandbeingmorenearlycold:thedifferencebetween

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
passage(308b328)ispreciselythatthetriangles'behaviourisinconsistentwithPlato'sdescriptionofthem,oroftheirproducts,as'lighter'inthepositivesensewhichthatterm
hasinAristotle'sowntheory.ItistheconclusiontoanequivalentcriticismwhichIsuggestisimplicitinAristotle'suseof inhisaccountofDemocritus'theoryinthe
Degenerationeetcorruptione.
1
ItakethemanuscriptreadingsfromJoachim'sedition(Oxford,1922).ForAsulanus'translation,hereasbelowp.75,seetheBibliography.ThepeculiarpositionofF(codex
Laurentianus87.7saec.xiv)inthemanuscripttraditionischaracterisedasfollowsbyMoraux,inhisIntroductiontotheBudednoftheDecaeloclxxxi:'Si,danslaplupartdescas,F
neprsenteriendebienoriginal,illuiarrived'offrir,etl,desleonsd'ungrandintret,quiluisontparticulires.Ellespeuventtreissuesdeconjecturesouavoirtinspirespar
lescommentateurs,maisiln'estpasexcluqu'unanctredeFaiteuaccs,Dieusaitcomment,unetraditionanciennetrangreaetb(thetwomainfamiliesofmanuscripts,headed
respectivelybyEandbyJ).
2
ACP99n.414.

 Page65

,wemightthenclaim,isfairlyarbitrary.

ButinfactitstrengthensAristotle'simmediateargumentconsiderablyifitiscastsolelyintermsofdegreesofhotness,i.e.ofwhatismorehotorlessso,andnotin
termsofwhatishotterorcolder.Forinthefirstargumentofthisseries(326a36)AristotleclaimsthattheAtomiststhemselveswentnofurtherthantocharacterise
sphericalatomsashottowhichAristotleaddsbywayofcriticismthattheoppositeofhot,whichiscold,should'belong'tosomeothershapeofatom.

IfthereforeAristotleintroduceshotandcoldintothepresentargument,hewilldetractfromitscogencybecausehewillbefoundinghisnewconclusionnotonsome
admitted,oralleged,featureoftheAtomists'owntheory,butonaconclusionthatcomesmerelyfromhisattemptedrefutationofthetheory.1

(iii)

Indeeditisthedesiretoexpresstheargumentsolelyintermsofwhatismorehotorlessso,andnotintermsofhotandcold,thatexplains,Iwouldsuggest,Aristotle's
conjunctionofweightandtemperature.

Fortheprecedingargument,thesecondoftheseries,containspreciselytheassertionthathotandcolddobelongtotheatoms,326a67:
.IfthereforeAristotlehadwishedtoconcludesimplythatwhatishotmustactuponwhat
iscold,hecouldpresumablyhavedonesodirectly,withoutthemediationofweight.

Theaccountofdifferencesinweightisintroducedpreciselyinordertoexpandthenotionofheatsimply tothatof
1
Ihavealreadynotedthatthereisinfactasenseinwhich,intheDegenerationeetcorruptione,Aristotlespeaksofwhatis'absolutely'or'altogether'hot(ii7,334b820,cf.p.52
n.3above).Butitisnonethelesstruetosay,Ibelieve,thatinAristotle'sphilosophythereisnodistinctionbetweenabsoluteandrelativeheatofthekindthatthereisbetween
absoluteandrelativeweight.Theantithesistowhatisabsolutelyhotorabsolutelycoldliesinameremixtureofhotandcold:thereisnodistinctionbetweenrelativeand
comparativeheat,inthewaythatAristotleattemptstodistinguishbetweenrelativeandcomparativeweight.Ireturntothispointintheopeningchapterofmyfourthessaysee
alsothefootnotefollowingthis.

 Page66

degreesofheat ,sothatactionandpassioncanbeattributednottocoldandheatjointly,buttoonehalfonlyofthatopposition,namelyheat,because
AristotlebelievesthattheAtomiststhemselveshaveadmittedheatasbelongingtotheatoms.

Thusitisapparent,Iwouldclaim,notonlythat ,isinfactahighlydesirable,ifnotanessential,featureofAristotle'sargument.
1.TheformerdistinctionaloneanswerstoAristotle'scritiqueintheDecaelooftheatomsasheavyabsolutely,inthesensethattheymoveconsistentlydownwards.

2.Thatsamedistinctionaloneprovidestheproperanalogyfortemperature,ifthepresentargumentistostandindependentlyoftheargumentwhichprecedesit.1

1
FromthisitfollowsthattheparallelthatIamarguingforbetween'moreheavyorlessso'andbetween'morehotorlessso'springsnotfromAristotle'sowntheoryof
temperature,butfromthepolemicalconsiderationthatIhaveremarkedupon.ForinAristotle'sowntheorywhatislesshotwillbemorenearlycold,asdistinctfromthe
comparisonbetweendifferentportionsofearth,whichmaybemoreheavyorlessso,butnoneofwhichwilleverbeinanypositivesenselightorlighter.
ThecomparisonofweightwithtemperaturedoesnotfollowthereforefromanyintrinsicsimilaritybetweenweightandtemperatureinAristotle'sowntheory,asChernissappearsto
suppose,butfromwhatAristotleseesasthelimitationintheAtomists'theory,inwhichhotnessisalignedwith,orexplainedby,roundatoms,butinwhichnoequivalentexplanation
isgivenofcoldness,norevenofdegreesofhotness.Thustheconjunctionofweightandtemperaturearisesaccidentally,asitwere,fromthepurposesofAristotle'spresentcriticism.
ItisnotaconsequenceofadistinctioninAristotle'sownphilosophybetween'absolute'and'relative'heat.
Ihavewrittenhereoftwo'independent'argumentsinthefinalsectionofthischapter,pp.6976below,Ishallseektoshowthattheargumentsarelinked,insofarasthepremissto
theargumentfromweightcorrespondstopartoftheconclusiontotheprecedingargument.

VerdeniusandWaszinkendorseCherniss'choiceof (326a12)isneededpreciselybecausetheinteractionissupposedtoliewithinonehalfonlyoftheopposition.
Anoppositionbetween

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page67

Aristotle'sArgument

Thusinordertoappreciatethegenesis,andtheconstruction,ofAristotle'sargument,itisnecessarytograsptherathersubtlerelationbetweentheatomictheoriesof
weightandoftemperature,asAristotlepresentsthemtous,andthemannerinwhichAristotleemploysthesetwotheories,forthepurposesofhisattackonthewhole
notionofAtomism,andinparticularonthenotionoftheatoms'beinginactiveandimpassible.

(i)

Theatomictheoryoftemperature,atleastaspresentedbyAristotle,hastwolimitations.

1.TheAtomistsdonotexplainhowtherecanbedegreesofheat.Thusheatisexplainedby,orissomehow,accordingtoAristotle,identifiedwith,sphericalatoms.Butthereisno
immediatereasontosuppose,noranyobviouslyconvenientwayofarguing,thatalargersphericalatom,forexample,willbehotterthanasmallerone,orviceversa,orthatone
atomcouldbehotterbecauseinsomeway'morespherical'thananother.

2.TheAtomistsexplainedheataloneintermsofshape.Theydidnot,apparently,giveanequivalentexplanationofcold.1

(ii)

Atthesametime,therearetwoelementsinAristotle'sownthinkingwhichareessentialtotheformofhisargument.

1.Theoppositionofhotandcoldisopentoactionandpassion,butnotsotheoppositionofheavyandlight.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
hotandcoldwouldbesufficienttorequireaninteraction,withoutmoreado,sotospeak.Itis,Iwouldsuggest,becausethelargerimplicationswhichIhavesoughttooutline
requiretheinteractiontobelimitedtowhatishotthatAristotleneedstoemphasisethedifferencebetweenthetwoextremesofwhatishotonly.
1
ForthissecondpointseeDecaeloiii8,306b29ff.,esp.307b59cf.pp.713below.

 Page68

2.Whateverhasabsoluteweightcanbedescribedonlyas'moreheavyorlessso'(ifithasabsoluteheaviness)oras'morelightorlessso'(ifithasabsolutelightness),butthe
partsofasingleelementwhichhasabsoluteweight(whetherheavinessorlightness)cannotbedescribedasbeing'heavierorlighter'.

(iii)

Fromthefirstlimitationintheatomictheoryoftemperature,andfromthefirstelementinAristotle'sownthinking,itfollowsthatweightandtemperaturehaveeachan
advantage,forthepurposesofAristotle'sargument,andadisadvantageoravirtueandadefect.
1.WeighthasthevirtueofbeingexpressedbyDemocritus,orasbeingeasilyexpressibleonhistheory,intermsofdegreesofweight,ordegreesofheavinessbutithasthe
defectofnotbeingopentoactionandpassion.

2.TemperaturehasthevirtueofbeingopentoactionandpassionbutithasthedefectthatDemocritus'theoryofheatdoesnotinitselfleadtotherebeingdegreesof
temperature,ordegreesofhotness.

Aristotleasitwerecrossfertilises,orcrossmatches,weightandtemperature,sothatthevirtuesarejoined,andthedefectscanceleachotherout.Hearguesthat
becauseoneatomis .

Temperaturenowhasthetwovirtues:

1.thatitisopentoactionandpassion:thisisthevirtuethatithadalreadyinAristotle'stheory.

2.thattherearedegreesoftemperature:thisisthevirtuethattemperaturenowacquiresfromthecomparisonwithweight.

(iv)

Thesecondlimitationintheatomictheoryoftemperature

 Page69

requiresthat atthispointmustrepresentnotwhatishotterorcolder,butwhatismorehotorlesshot.

Thisrestriction,however,answersneatlytothesecondelementinAristotle'sownthinking,namelytohisconceptionoftheatoms,intheDecaelo,asapproximatingto
thepossessionofabsoluteweight,sothatdegreesofweightareproperlyexpressednotasdifferencesbetweenwhatisheavierorlighter,butasdifferencesbetween
whatismoreheavyorlessheavy.

ThustherestrictionintheatomictheoryoftemperatureanswerspreciselytotherestrictionwhichAristotle'sownconceptionofabsoluteweightintroducesintothe
atomictheoryofweight.Ineithercase,degreesoftemperatureanddegreesofweightareexpressedintermsofonehalfonlyoftheoppositionbetweenhotandcold
andbetweenheavyandlight.
1.Oneatomismoreheavy,orislessheavy,thananother.

2.Oneatom(itisargued)ismorehot,orislesshot,thananother.

(v)

ThusthefinalformofAristotle'sargumentisthat:
'Sinceoneatomismoreheavy,orislessheavy,thananother,sotooifanatomishotitmustbemorehot,orlesshot,thananother.'

ThisenablesAristotletoconcludethatanatomwhichismorehotmustactupononewhichislessso,andthereforethattheatomsarenotinactiveorimpassible.

4
TheSequenceofArguments

The'Denial'ofWeight

Thereremainsadifficultyinthepreciseturnofthoughtat .

Presumablypursuantuponhissuppositionthattheatomscannotbeaccountedashaving'real'weight,Chernisswritesthat:

 Page70

'Democritushasparadoxicallydeniedweighttotheatomsalthoughhehasendowedsomeatomswithheat.Yet,havingdeniedthattheatomsareheavyorlight,heassertsthatin
comparisonwithoneanothertheyhaverelativeweight.'1

Thisisinaccurateatonceinitsreproductionofthecontentofwhatissaid,andinitsattributionofthedifferentpartsofwhatissaid.

ThereisnodenialbyDemocritusthattheatomsareheavyorlight.Aristotle'sfirstpointisthat:

'Itwouldbestrange ifheavyandlightarenotgoingtobelongtotheatoms.'

Aristotlethenadds:

'AndyetDemocritusdoessay .'

Thusthelackofheavinessandlightness,asanextremeformoftheatoms'lackofsensiblequalities,isadvancednotbyDemocritus,butbyAristotle,andevensoonly
asapotentialabsurdity.Democritusisintroducedasinfactmitigatingthatabsurdity,byhisadmissionthateachatomis .

ThesisandRefutation

However,toseethispointinperspective,weneedtolookbacktothepassagewhichIquotedatthebeginningofthischapter,toseeAristotle'ssequenceofargument
asawhole.

(i)

Aristotlefirststatesthethesis,orthepairoftheses,whichheintendstocontrovert.

(1)Noatomiscapableofreceivingany'affection'(i8,325b36326al),and

(2)noatomiscapableofproducingany'affection'( ,326a23).

1
ACP98n.413,cf.211n.253,quotedpp.1617above.

 Page71

ThefirstthesisAristotleclaimstoestablishfromtheprinciplethatfortheAtomistsaffectionoralterationcantakeplaceonlythroughthepresenceofvoid(326a12).
Theimplicationisthatvoidisexcludedfromthe'indivisibles'.Notonlyisthisobviousenoughinitself'void'and'contiguity' )intheatomictheory(325b29
33),andasexcludedthereforefromtheinternalstructureoftheatoms.

ThesecondthesisAristotledoesnotseektojustifyindependently.ButthejustificationforitisagainobviousinthelightofAristotle'sprecedinganalysis,wherehehas
soughttoshowthattheprimarymovingcausemayactwithoutbeingactedupon,butthatthisisnotpossiblefortheproximatemovingcause,whichcannotactwithout
itselfbeingactedupon(cf.i7,324a24b24).
'Forexample,thehealingartproduceshealthwithoutbeingaffectedbythebodythatisbroughttohealth,butfood,whenitproducesaneffect,isitselfsubjecttoanaffectionit
growshot,orgrowscold,orisaffectedinsomeotherway,attheverytimewhenitactsuponthebody<whichhasingestedit>'(324a35b3).

Itfollowstherefore,forAristotle,thatifanatomcannotitselfbe'affected'(thefirstthesis),thenitisalsoincapableofactingastheproximatecauseofan
'affection'(thesecondthesis).

(ii)

TheremainderofthepassageIhavequoted(326a314)ismostsimplytakenasaseriesoffourrelatedargumentsdesignedtocontrovertthetwinthesesthatAristotle
hasattributedtotheAtomists,andtodosobyexploitingconcessionswhichtheAtomistshavethemselvesmadetowardsthenotionofan'affection'fortheatoms.1

Thusthefirstargumentclaimsthatifheatistobeattached('handedout',cf. 326a4)toaroundshape,thentheoppositeofheat,whichiscold,shouldbe
attachedtosomeothershape(i8,326a36).
1
The'four'arguments:i8,326a36,a68,a912,a1314.

 Page72

IntheDecaeloAristotledevelopsamoreelaborateargumentagainstthosewhoattempttoexplainfireasasphereorasapyramid,thetwoviewsrespectivelyof
DemocritusandofPlato(iii8,306b29ff.,esp.306b33,cf.Tim.56AC).IntheDecaeloAristotlearguesinparticularthatalthoughhotandcoldare'oppositeintheir
power'itisimpossibletofindashapetoassigntocoldsince'whatisassigned'wouldhavetobeopposite,andthereisnooppositetoashape(307b58,again
307B89).

Itisthisconclusion,Iwouldsuggest,whichexplainstheargumentintheDegenerationeetcorruptione:heathasbeenexplainedbyroundatoms,buttherehasbeen
noequivalentexplanationofcold.

(iii)

ThereishoweveracrucialdifferencebetweentheDecaeloandtheDegenerationeetcorruptione.

IntheformertreatiseAristotlearguesineffectthattherecannotbeanequivalentexplanationforcold,andthat'therefore' PlatoandDemocritus('everyone')
have'omitted'thispoint.

Bycontrast,intheDegenerationeetcorruptioneAristotleimpliesonlythemoreparticularpoint,thattheAtomistshaveinfactfailedtogiveanexplanationofcold,
andnotthatitisimpossibleforthemtohavedoneso.Forthefollowingargument,thesecondoftheseries,startsfromthepremissthathotandcoldcouldberegarded
asbothofthem'belonging'totheatoms,andseekstodemonstratefromthisafresh'absurdity'.ThisatleastItaketobetheimplicationofthepremiss,326a67:
.

Thisdoesnotofcoursemeanthatthereisanyrealinconsistencybetweenthetwoarguments,thatoftheDecaeloandthatoftheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Itis
howeveressentialtoappreciatethedifferencebetweenthetwoarguments.

1.IntheDecaelo,AristotlearguesthattheAtomistsandPlatohavenot,andcannot,provideanexplanationofcoldnesstomatchtheirexplanationofheat.

 Page73

2.IntheDegenerationeetcorruptione,AristotleagainimpliesthattheAtomistshavenotprovidedanexplanationofcoldnessbuthispointisnowthatevenif(bysome
unspecifiedmeans)theywereabletodosotheirtheorywouldleadtofreshabsurdities.

(iv)

ThisdifferenceisessentialtoanappreciationofthesequenceofthoughtintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.

Aristotle'ssecondargumentisthatifhotandcoldareto'belong'totheatomsthenitisoddthatotherpairsofoppositesshouldnotalso'belong'(326a68,
).TheadditionaloppositionswhichAristotlespecifiesareheavyandlight,hardandsoft.

Thepointtonoteisthatjustastheconclusiontothefirstargumentoftheseries('thereshouldbeacold,aswellasahot,atom')hadbeenemployedasapremissto
thesecondargument('ifhotandcolddobelongtotheatoms,thenotherpairsofoppositesshouldbelongaswell'),sonowpartsoftheconclusiontothesecond
argumentareusedasapremissnotforone,butfortwofurtherarguments,whichareattachedsuccessivelytotheoppositionofweight(326a912:thethird
argument)andofdensity(326a1314:thefourthargument).

Thissubordinationisperhapsmostclearlyseenintherelationofthesecondargumenttothefourth.Thesecondargumentconcludesthathardnessandsoftness
shouldalsobelongtotheatoms,ifhotandcoldaretobelong(326a68).Thefourthargumentclaimsthatifanatomishard,itwillalsobesoft,butthatwhatissoftis
definedbyitspassivity,sincewhatissoftiswhatisyielding(326a1314).

Thusthefourthargumenttakesasitspremisspartofonehalfoftheconclusiontothesecondargument,inmuchthewaythatthesecondargumenthadtakenasits
premisstheconclusiontothefirstargument.

Iftheatomsaretobehottheyshouldbecoldaswell(theconclusiontothefirstargument)supposethattheycouldbebothhotandcold...(thepremisstothesecond
argument).

Theatomswouldthenhavetobehardandsoft(halfof

 Page74

theconclusiontothesecondargument)butifanatomishard...(thepremisstothefourthargument).

Therelationbetweenthesecondargumentandthefourthis,Ibelieve,exactlyparalleledintherelationbetweenthesecondargumentandthethird:
Theatomswouldhavetobeheavyandlight(theotherhalfoftheconclusiontothesecondargument)butanatomwhichisheavier...(theinitialpremisstothethirdargument).

(v)

Theparallelwithdensityhelps,Iwouldsuggest,toexplaintheintricacyoftheargumentfromweight.

Theconclusiontothesecondargument,thatbothhardnessandsoftnessshouldbelongtotheatoms,leavesitselfopentotheobjectionthattheAtomistswouldnot
havedeniedthattheatomswerehard,indeedthathardnessor'solidity'hadbeenintendedpreciselyasameansofrenderingtheatomsimmunetodivision.1

Itis,Iwouldsuggest,inordertocircumventthisobjectionthatAristotleattempts,sotospeak,toshifttheconclusionofhisargumentfromhardandsofttaken
togetherinthesecondargument,tothemorespecificconclusion,inthefourthargument,thatanatommustbesoft,andcannotthereforebeimpassible.

Asimilar,butmorecomplex,preoccupationunderliesthethirdargument.Theotherhalfoftheconclusiontothesecondargument,thattheatomsshouldhave
heavinessandlightness,isagainopentotheobjectionthattheAtomistsadmittedthatoneatomwasheavierthananother,andthatinanycasethepossessionof
weight,onAristotle'sowntheory,doesnotdirectlyentailactionorpassion.2

AgainthereforeAristotleseekstoreinforcetheconclusiontothesecondargument,butthewayinwhichhedoesso,inthethirdargument,ismorecomplexthanitis
inthefourth.ForsinceinAristotle'sowntheoryneitherheavinessnorlightnesswilladmit
1
ThefirstpointItaketobeobvious.Forthesecondpointseethepassagesquotedbelowp.245n.1.
2
Forthissecondpointseethepassagequotedabove,pp.578,Degen.etcorr.ii2,329b1826.

 Page75

ofactionorpassioninanydirectsenseAristotlecannotsimplyshifttheobjectofhisdemonstrationtoonememberintheoppositionofheavyandlight,ashewilldo,
fortheoppositionofdensity,inthefourthargument.InsteadAristotleusesthecomparisonofheavinessintheatomstoestablishacomparisonoftemperature,inthe
waythatIhavedelineated,soastoarriveattheconclusion,notthatanatomwhichisheavierwillactupononewhichislessso,butthatanatomwhichismorehot
willactupononewhichislessso.

(vi)

IturnthereforetotheexpressionattheendofAristotle'sopeningstatementoftheAtomists'twintheses,thewords: (EL).OnceagainIhavepreferredthe
readinginAsulanus'Latintranslation:calidum...frigidum.

Obviously,thealterationhastobeconjectural.Ihaveadoptedit,becauseitconformstothesequenceofthoughtintheremainderofthepassage,wherebythepremiss
toeachargumentispickedupfromtheconclusiontotheprecedingargument.Thiswillalsobethecaseforthefirstargument,ifAristotlehasspecifiedtheopposition
ofhotandcoldastheillustrationofthethesiswhichheattributestotheAtomists.
Theatomscannotbehotorcold(326a3:theexampletothethesis)andyetheatisattachedtoaroundatom...(326a35:thepremisstothefirstargument).

Indeed,onthisreconstructiontherelationbetweentheexampletothethesisandthepremisstothefirstargumentwillcorrespondpreciselytotherelationbetween
theconclusiontothesecondargumentandthepremisstothethirdargument:ineachcase,Aristotleusestheformula ,326a9).

Iconcludethatthestructureofthefourargumentsmaybepresented,inaverysimplifiedform,asfollows:

 Page76

Thesis:theatomsareinactiveandimpassible.

Example:theatomscannotbehotorcold.

Firstargument

Premiss:ifaroundatomishot

Conclusion:whatshapebelongstoacoldatom?

Secondargument

Premiss:iftheatomsarehotandcold

Conclusion:theyshouldalsobeheavyandlightandhardandsoft.

Thirdargument

Premiss:butanatomwhichisheavier

Conclusion:wouldleadtoanatomwhichwashotter.Butifatomshavedifferencesofheat....

Fourthargument

Premiss:ifanatomishard

Conclusion:theremustalsobeasoftatom.Butwhatissoft....

(vii)

BrieflythereforeIreturntoCherniss'understandingofthepassage:thebeliefthatDemocritusishereaccusedofinconsistency.

Thepointwillperhapsbeplainerifweconsideragainthetwoinstancesof ,usedtointroducethefirstandthirdarguments(326a34and326a9).In
neithercaseisAristotle'smeaningthatDemocritusdeniesthattheatomsarehotandcold,orheavyandlight,andthereforethatDemocritusisinconsistentinasserting
thattheymaybehotorheavy.Inbothcases,Aristotle'spointisthatDemocritus'theoryshouldexcludetheoppositionoftemperatureandofweight,butthat
Democritusdoesmake(some)allowanceforonememberofeitheropposition:aroundatomishoteachatomisheavier.FromthesetwoadmissionsAristotlethen
seekstoderivetheabsurdity,firstlythatthereshouldbeashapeforacoldatomaswellasforahotatom,andsecondlythattheadmissionofanatomwhichismore
heavy<or

 Page77

lessso>wouldrequiretheadmissionofanatomwhichwasmorehotorlessso.

Ifweconsiderallthreeoppositions,oftemperature,weightanddensity,thenineachcaseAristotle'sdenialthattheatomscanbehotandcold(326a3),orhave
heavinessandlightness(326a78),orhavehardnessandsoftness(326a78),ispresentedasAristotle'sownconceptionofaconsequencewhichtheAtomistsshould
accept,whiletheassociationwhichAristotle,directlyorbyimplication,attributestotheAtomiststhemselvesisineachcaserestrictedtoonememberonlyofthe
opposition:namelythattheatomsare,ormaybeassociatedwith,whatishot(326a35),orheavy(326a910)orhard(326a13).1

Conclusion

Ithereforeparaphraseourfirstpassageasfollows:2

Thesis

'Since<ontheAtomists'owntheory>the<atomsor>indivisibleswouldbeabletoundergochangeoralterationonlythroughthemediationofvoid<andsinceatthesame

1
Atboth326a3and9(thefirstandthirdargumentsrespectively)Iadopttheadversativesenseof 326a8).
Itshouldbenotedthatinthiscombinationofparticlesthemeaningof isemphatic,notrestrictive.Thereisnoimplicationthatanatomis'atleastheavier<butnotheavy
absolutely>'.Themeaningis:'andyetonthispointheavinessDemocritusdoessay...'.SeeDenniston,Greekparticles564,cf.1201.Itishoweverdifficulttoconveythis
inflexion,eveninaparaphrase:asoften,writtenEnglishsimplydoesnotprovideforapreciserenderingofthenuanceoftheGreekparticles.
2
Degen.etcorr.i8,325b36326a14,quotedpp.412above.OnthenatureoftheseEnglishversionsparaphrasesandnottranslationsseethewarningattheheadoftheIndex
Locorum.

 Page78

timeeachatomisbydefinitionplenumandnotvoid>,thereforetheAtomistsmustmaintainthateachofthe<atomsor>indivisiblesisincapableofundergoingchangeor
alterationofanykindandthat<bythesametoken>itis<equally>incapableofproducinganykindofqualitativechangeoralteration<inanotheratomorindeedinanythingelse
atall>.

Example
'For<example>itis<orshouldbe>impossible<foranyoneoftheatoms>tobehotorcold.<Forinthatcasetheatomswouldbeexhibitingacertainqualitativeaffection,which
wouldrequirethemtobecapableofcausing,orofundergoing,changeoralterationofthekindentailedbythataffection.>

Refutation:

Firstargument

'AndyettheAtomistsdohandoutheat<asitwere>totheroundshape<ofatom>.

'Buttostopthereisillogical.Itmustfollowthattheopposite<ofheatwhichis>colddoesequallybelongtosomeothershape<ofatom>.

Secondargument

'<Buttheabsurditydoesnotstopthere.>Itwouldbeequallyoddifthesethingsdoindeedbelong<totheatoms>,Imeancoldnessandheat,whileatthesametime
heavinessandlightness,andhardnessandsoftness,arenotgoingto<becountedas>belong<ing>.

Thirdargument

'AndyetthefactisthatDemocritusdoessaythateachoneofthe<atomsor>indivisiblesismoreheavy<orlesssothananother>invirtueofitspreponderance<ordeficiency>.

 Page79

'Hencebythesametoken anatom<whichishot>mustclearlybemorehot<orlessso>.

'Butoncetheatomsarecharacterisedthus<bydegreesofhotnessinthesamewayasbydegreesofheaviness>,theycannotescapebeingaffectedbyoneanother.

'Forexample,whatismildlyhotisnotgoingtoescapebeingaffectedbysomethingoverwhelminglyhotter.

Fourthargument

'Andthereisan<equivalent>objection<inthecaseofdensity>:ifanatomisgoingtobehard<asonemightexpectittobe,andastheAtomiststhemselvesobviouslyimagined
thatitwouldbe>,then<itmustbe>softaswell:<foritisimpossibletohaveoneoppositefromapairofcontrarieswithouttheother>.

'Butwhatissoftisatoncedefinedassuchbyitsabilitytoundergoacertainkindofchange:for'soft'is<precisely>whatiscapableofbeingcompressed.

'<Onceagainthereforeitisimpossibleinfactfortheatomnotbetosubjecttosomeformofchangeoralteration.>'1

1
Forafinalnoteonthemeaningof lookingbackfromthevantagepointoftheparallelpassageintheDecaeloseebelowp.100.

 Page80

ChapterThree
Aristotle'DeCaelo'

1
IndividualAtoms

(i)

ThesecondAristoteleanpassagefromwhichwemayhopetorecoverDemocritus'theoryisatoncemorecomplex,atleastinitsimmediatecontext,andmore
informative.ItoccursinAristotle'sprimaryanalysisofweightinbookfouroftheDecaelo.

Welearnmorehere:bothbecauseAristotleisnotnowconcernedwiththeatomictheoryofweightonlyinpassing,asonestepinanargumentwhoseinterestis
focussedelsewhere,aswasthecaseintheDegenerationeetcorruptioneandprobablyalsobecauseAristotleisnotatthispointconcernedwithdisparagementof
theAtomists'theory,wrongthoughhethoughtthattheorytobe,but,initiallyatleast,withitsshorttermadvantagesvisvisthetheoryoftheTimaeus.

Ontheotherhand,thefactthatAristotle'scritiqueoftheAtomistsisstilltiedinatthispointwithhiscritiqueofthePlatonictheorymeansthatwestilldonotseethe
Atomists'theoryfullfaceon,asitwere,asweshalldoinTheophrastus,andthattheinterpretationofthepassagestillhastobehandleddelicatelytherefore.

(ii)

AftercriticisingaconsiderablysimplifiedversionofthetheoryofweightadvancedintheTimaeus,Aristotlecontinuesasfollows,iv2,308b28309a11(inpartDK
68A60):

 Page81

(iii)

Chernissbelievesthatthewholeofthispassage,andinparticularthephrase, ,concernscompoundbodies.Heconcludes:

'Consequentlythispassage,whichisoneofthetwoinwhichAristotleissupposedtoattributeweighttotheatoms...saysnothingofthematter.'1

ProfessorGuthrie,whohadnottakenthepassagethiswayinhistranslationoftheDecaelo,nowagreeswithCherniss:

'IthinkChernisshasshownconclusively...thatthesewordsrefertocompounds.Theimmediatelyfollowing makesthisseemunnatural,butthewholeof
Aristotle'sargumentdemandsit,anditisnotthefirsttimethathehasbeencaughtoutincarelessorinelegantcomposition.'2

1
ACP211n.253,cf.97n.412.
2
Historyii403n.2.LoebednoftheDecaelo(1939)335.(ThereferencetoChernissinProfessorGuthrie'sHistoryshouldbecorrectedtoconformtothefootnoteprecedingthis.)
JohnL.Stocks,inhistranslationoftheDecaeloinTheworksofAristotletranslatedintoEnglishii(Oxford,1930),tookthephrasetodescribeindividualatoms,asProfessorGuthrie
hadoriginallydone.Otherrecenttranslatorscontinuetotakethepassageinthisway,forexampleOddoneLongo,inhiseditionandtranslationoftheDecaelo(Firenze,1961)263,and
Moraux,Budedn139butwhetherinignoranceof,orindisagreementwith,Cherniss,onecannottell.

 Page82

Thepassageisadmittedlysomewhatcomplex,atleastinitscentralportion,butacarefulexaminationofthoughtandargumentmakesitreasonablyclear,itseemsto
me,thatonthecontrarythereishereadistinctionbetweenindividualatomsandcompoundbodies,andadifferenttheoryofweightforeach.

Thiswillinfactprovetobepreciselythesamedistinction,andthesametwotheoriesofweight,thatwefindinTheophrastus'Desensibus,inapassagewhichwillbe
analysedlaterinthisessaybutforthesakeofclearexegesisitis,Ithink,advisabletostartbyanalysingAristotle'sevidenceindependently.1

PreliminaryAnalysis

(i)

ThefirstpartofAristotle'sargumentisfairlystraightforward.

ThePlatonistsarethosewhoseviewshavejustbeenoutlined provetobetheAtomists.

Aristotle'sargumentbeginswithastatementoffact ,whichhepresentsasthestartingoffpointfortheAtomists'speculations:oftwobodiesofdifferent
sizes,thesmallermaybetheheavier.

Fromthisfact,Aristotleargues,onbehalfontheAtomistsasitwere,thatitis'inadequate' forweighttobedeterminedsimplybythenumberofequal
primaryelementsinabody,forinthatcasetwobodiesofthesameweightwouldhavethesamenumberofprimaryelements,andtheywouldtherefore,ifnoother
factorisintroduced,havethesamevolume.

Theimplicationofthisisthatanyincreaseordiminutionofweightcouldthenbeattainedonlybyanincreaseordiminutionofvolume,sothatthesmallerbodywould
alwaysbethelighter,contrarytothefactnotedattheoutset,thatoftwobodiesofdifferentsizesthesmallermaybetheheavier.

Theviewwhichis'inadequate'isthatofthePlatonists.

1. (sc.theAtom
1
Desens.612,cf.ch.IV1,pp.11531below.

 Page83

ists) .

2.Whatis'inadequate', .1

(ii)

BecauseAristotlepresentstheAtomists'theory,withdeliberateanachronism,asanadvanceuponPlato,heisledtoturnasideatthispointtoaddanadditional
refutationofthePlatonicview.Insodoing,hepostponesthecompletionofhisaccountofhowtheAtomistsadvancedfromtheinadequacyofthePlatonicviewto
theirownimprovementuponit.

Theprimarybodieswhichhadbeenpresentedasmakingupthetwobodieswhichwouldhavebeenatonceequalinvolumeandequalinweightarefurtherqualified
asindivisible .
1
ProfessorW.J.VerdeniussuggeststomeadifferentinterpretationofthismomentinAristotle'sargument,wherebytheconcludingsentenceofthisfirstpartofAristotle's
criticism,308b35, ,wouldmean:'Andthiswouldmakethemequalinvolume<only,andnotguaranteeanequalweight>'.Fortheellipseof'only'a
numberofpassagesarequotedbyhimin'CriticalandexegeticalnotesonDecaelo',SymposiumAristotelicum4ed.I.Dring(Heidelberg,1969)2712(adi7,276a6).
Thedisadvantageofthisinterpretation,itseemstome,isthatifPlato'sprimaryparticleswereabletoproducetwobodiesthesameinvolumeanddifferentinweightthenPlatowould
behalfwaytoexplainingthediscrepancybetweensizeandweightwhichAristotleherepresentsaspreciselythepointwherePlato'stheoryfails,andasthejumpingoffpoint,soto
speak,fortheAtomists'theory.Ihavethereforepreferredtoconstruethesubjectat308b35as ...,308b32).

 Page84

Twogroupsoftheoristsaredistinguishedwithelementsofthiskind.

1.Therearethoseforwhomtheprimaryandindivisibleelementsaresurfaces .

2.Therearethoseforwhomtheprimaryandindivisibleelementsaresolids .

ThedistinctionisthesameasthatwhichInotedearlier,inthepreliminariestothepassagequotedinmysecondchapter,fromtheDegenerationeetcorruptione.
ThefirstgrouparePlatonists:theothersaretheAtomists.1

(iii)

OfthePlatonicviewAristotlewrites: .

The'absurdity'whichAristotlealludestoisentailedbytheconjunctionof ,andhadbeenspeltoutseveralpagesearlier(iii1,299a25300a19).
Conceptually,therefore,the'absurdity'ofthePlatonicviewliesforAristotleinthediscontinuitybetweensurfaceandsolid,ormorespecificallyinthediscontinuity
betweensurfacesand'bodieswhichhaveweight'.

Formally,therearetwopossibilities.

1.Itisperhapspossiblethatthediscontinuitybetweensurfaceandsolidaloneprovidestheobjectof .

2.Butitis,Ithink,perhapsrathermorenaturaltoaddtothisnotionastheobjectof .

1
Degen.etcorr.i8,325b2436(inpartDK67A7),p.41above.Thesamedistinctionisrepeatedbrieflyafterthepassageconcerningweight,326a214(notinDK).

 Page85

Inthatcasethepointofthesentencewillbe:
'FromequalprimaryelementswhicharesurfacesitisridiculousforthePlatoniststoproducebodiesofequalweight,frommoreofthemheavierbodiesandfromfewerofthem
lighterones.'1

(iv)

Adoptionofthissecondelementintheobjectof .

Puttheotherwayround,theobjectof ,aswewouldexpectthemtobefromthegeneralparallelismbetweenthetwosentences.

1.'ItisridiculousforthePlatoniststoproduce...bodieswherethelargerisnecessarilytheheavier.'

2.'TheAtomistsdoinsteadhavesomerighttosay...that''thelargeristheheavier".'

Initself,however,thisdegreeofsimilaritybetweentheobjectof isnotnecessarilyanindicationthatwhatislargerandwhatisheavierwillbethesameinthe
twocases.

Forthetwoformulae,althoughsimilar,arenotidentical.
1.ThePlatonicformulanecessarilyreferstocompound

1
Thesetwowaysoftakingtheobjectof donotseemtohavebeenconsideredexplicitlyhitherto.Stocks,inhisOxfordtranslation,apparentlytakesthereferencetobe
merelyinternal,asitwere,andLongo,inhistranslationandedition,certainlydoesso,263:'Quantoallepartiprimeeindivisibili,sesiaffermachedisuperficichesonocostituitii
corpidotatidipeso,sidiceuneassurdit'.Mosttranslators,ontheotherhand,takethepassageasIhavedone,includingMoraux,Budedn139,andGuthrie,whotranslates
neatly,Loebedn335:'Thestatement'aboutbodiesofequalweightetc.'isindeedridiculousfromthosewhopostulatesurfaces...'.

 Page86

bodies: .

2.Theatomicformulaneednotdoso: .

Fromtheimmediatecontextanduseoflanguagethereforetheatomicformulamayrefereithertoprimaryelementsor,likethePlatonicformula,tobodiesformed
fromtheelements.

Tothatchoicewemustreturnattheendofourpreliminaryanalysis.1

(v)

Forthemoment,thepointwhichweneedtoappreciateisthatAristotle'sinvocationoftheargumentfromhisearlieranalysis,onthequestionofthediscontinuity
betweensurfaceandsolid,isnotessentialtohisoriginalcritique.

ThePlatonists'inabilitytoexplainhowthelargerbodycanbelighteriswhatinitiallydistinguishesthemfromtheAtomists,andisalsoreckonedasthestartingoffpoint
fortheAtomists'moresophisticatedtheory.ThePlatonists'radicalinabilitytoproducebodieswhichhaveweightatall,isadiversionfromAristotle'soriginalargument.

Indeedsomuchsoisthis,thatinthesentenceimmediatelyfollowinghisremarksabout'primaryandindivisibleelements'Aristotlehasvirtuallytorepeatthetwopoints
fromtheearlierpartofhisargumentbeforehecancontinuehisoriginaltrainofthought.
1.Herepeatsthepointthatthelargerbodyisnotalwaystheheavier.

2.Herepeatsthepointthat,onthecontrary,theheavierbodyisoftenthesmaller.

Thesecondpointisrepeateddirectly.

1.Aristotlefirstwrote: .

2.Henowrepeatsthisas: .

1
Pp.8893below.

 Page87

Thefirstpointisrepeatedrathermoredeviously.

1.Aristotlefirstwrote: .

Thislatterformula,asIhavenoted,carriesthesenseof: arethetwosides,sotospeak,ofthe
samePlatoniccoin.

2.Aristotlenowwrites: .

Theexpression ,andthereforeineffectresumesthesenseofAristotle'searlierformula.

Somuchisthisanewstart,thattheAtomistshavevirtuallytobeintroducedafresh.

1.Aristotlefirstwrote: .

2.Aristotlenowwrites: .

Aristotle'sneedtoresumeinthiswaythepointsofhisearlierargumentshowsclearlythattheinterveningmaterial,on'primaryandindivisibleelements',isbywayofan
interludein,oradigressionfrom,hisprimaryargument.

Thusthetwosentences, ...,arenotprimarilydesignedtofurtherthecontrastbetweenPlatonistsandAtomistsinexplainingdiscrepancybetweensize
andweightincompoundbodies.Rather,theyformasubsidiaryargument,whichturnsonthenatureoftheprimaryelements.

(vi)

Afterthisinterlude,Aristotle'sargumentisagainplainsailing.

Aristotleresumesbrieflythestagesofhispreviousargument,asIhavenoted.

 Page88

ThedifferencebetweenPlatonistsandAtomistsisthenpointedbyachangeinexample.

1.ThePlatonistshadbeenabletodealplausiblyonlywithbodiesthatwereatoncelargerandheavier,308b78:
.

2.TheAtomistsareabletocopewithdiscrepanciesbetweensizeandweight, .

TheAtomists'trumpcardliesintheuseofvoid( ).Forinsuchcasesvoidexplainsthelargervolume,withoutaddingtotheweight:thenumber
ofsolidatomsmaybethesameorless.

ThusAristotlearrivesatthegeneralconclusion( )thatineverycasethepresenceofalargerquantityofvoidisthe
causeofonething'sbeinglighterthananother.1

TheDoubleArgument

(i)

Thusinthepassageasawholethereprovetobetwodisparatelinesofargument.
1.Thefirstargumentturnsonthequestionofhowitisthatthelargeroftwobodiesmaybethelighter.Theanswer,fortheAtomists,liesinthepresenceofvoidincompound
bodies.

Thepreliminarystatementofthisproblemcontinuesas

1
Aristotle'srecapitulationoftheatomisttheoryhasledsomecommentatorsRivaudandElderstosupposethatthetheoryintroducedafterthedigressionontheprimary
elements(309a2ff.)isnolongerthesameasthetheorywhichiscontrastedtothatofPlatoatthebeginningofthepassagethatIhavequoted(308b28ff.).Insofarasthisnotion
restssimplyonthefailuretoappreciatethesequenceofthoughtandargumentthatIhavealreadyoutlineditneednot,Ithink,intrudefurtheratthispoint.InDr.Elders'case,the
tendencytomultiply

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page89

faras (309a2)andthesolutiontotheproblemintermsofvoidoccupiestheremainderofthepassagewhichIhavequoted(309a211).

2.Inbetween(308b35309a2),thereisaseparateandsecondaryargument,whichturnsonthenatureoftheprimaryelements.

Thisdivisionofinterestisinitselfenoughtoshowthat,simplyfromthepointofviewofcontext, neednotreferdirectlyto
compoundbodies,forthepairofsentencesinwhichthatphraseoccursisnotdirectlypartofAristotle'sprimaryorinitialargument,andneednotthereforecontinue
theinterestincompoundbodiesonwhichthatargumentiscentred.

(ii)

ThuspreliminaryanalysisofAristotle'sargumentshowsthat neednotrefertocompoundbodies.Furtherreflectionshowsthatit
cannotdoso.

If arecompoundbodies,thenontheatomictheorytheyshouldbebodiesmadeupfrombothsolidandvoid.Butsequenceoflanguageandsequenceof
thoughtalikemakeitimpossibletointroducethedistinctionbetweenatomsandbodiescomposedofatomsandvoidinthispresentcontext.

1.Bodiescomposedofatomsandvoidareintroducedforthefirsttimeinanexplicitlyrecognisableformat tolookforwardtosomethingwhichhasnotyetbeen
mentioned.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

thenumberoftheoriesthatAristotlehastocriticisespringsfromhismisunderstandingofanumberofpassages,whichIshallconsidertogetherintheearlierofmytwoessayson
Aristotle.
ThereisanevenmoreobviouserrorinCarteron,whowrites,Lanotiondeforcedanslesystmed'Aristote(Paris,1923)40n.141:'C'taitlasuprioritdeDmocritesurPlaton(2,
309a12)depouvoirexpliquerqueleplusgrandestlepluslourd'.CarteronhastakentheconcessionthepointonwhichPlatoandDemocritusagreeastheprincipalpointofthe
passage.Thetruthisjusttheopposite.Itisinthecaseofcompoundbodies,wherethelargerisnotalwaystheheavier,thatDemocritusproveshissuperiorityoverPlato.

 Page90

2.Evenif couldsomehowbetakentomean'bodiescomposedofatomsandvoid',itwouldruintheforceofAristotle'sargumentifsuchbodieswereintroducedatthis
juncture,outsidethesequenceofthoughtwhichleadstovoidastheexplanationofthelargeroftwobodiesbeingthelighter.

Thusif aretobecompoundbodiesatall,atthisjuncturetheywillhavetobebodiesmadesolelyofatoms.Thepointwouldthenbethatfromsolidprimary
particlestheAtomistscould,withmorejustificationthanthePlatonists,haveproducedcompoundbodieswherethelargerwastheheavier.

Butthiswouldbeanomen,orratherasententiavacui.ItwouldbeanaccountnotofwhattheAtomistsdidinfactdo,butofwhattheycouldhavedone,ifthey
hadmadeuseonlyofatoms,andiftheyhadadvancednofurtherthanthePlatonicformulathat'theheavieristhelarger'.

(iii)

Itisfarsimpler,therefore,andmoredirecttosupposethatthepointofthesentenceisnotthatthesolidsmakeupotherbodiesofwhichthelargercanbetheheavier:
butthateachsolidisitselfabodywhichhasweight,andofwhichthelargeristheheavier.

Onthisreading,thepointoftheargumentwillbethatthePlatonicprimaryelements,sincetheyaresurfaces,areuselessforgeneratingbodieswithweight,ofwhichin
anycasethelargerwouldhavetobeheavierandthesmallerlighter.TheAtomists'primarybodiesareatleastsolids:andtothesethereissomepointinapplyingthe
Platonicformulathatthelargeristheheavier.Itiswhenweturntocompounds( )thattheformula'largerandheavier'breaksdown,anditishere
thattheAtomistsintroduceanewanddifferentfactor:thevoid.

Apartfrommakingimmediatesenseofthepassage,thisinterpretationhasthecrucialadvantagethatitgivesproperforce,andsense,to immediatelypreceding.

 Page91

Iconcludethereforethatfrom Aristotlerevertstohisoriginalargument,wheretheAtomists'inclusionofvoidintheircompoundbodiesenables
themtosolvewhatAristotlehaspresentedasthePlatonicdilemmaofhowthelargerbodycanbethelighter.Inthepairofprecedingsentences,Aristotleisconcerned
tocontrastnotcompoundbodies,butprimaryelements.
1.ThePlatonicprimaryelementscannotproperlyproducebodieswhichhaveweightnorthereforecantheyjustifyadequatelyeventhelimitedtheoryofweightwheretheheavier
bodymustalwaysbethelarger.

2.TheAtomistsstartofffromsolidbodieshavingweight:andatthisleveltheyhavesomerighttoapplytheformulathatwhatislargerisheavier.Themoredifficultquestion,of
howthelargerbodycanbelighter,theysolvebyhavingcompoundbodieswhereatomsarejoinedwithvoid.

TheTwoEquivalents

(i)

Inanearlierargument,IcommentedontheambiguityintherelationoftheatomstoAristotle'selements.TheatomscanbethoughtofascorrespondingtoAristotle's
ownelements,includingfireandearth,ortheycanbethoughtofaselementalparticlespriortotheformationofearthandfire.1

Thepresentpointisperhapsclearer,ifagainwereflectthattherearetwopossibleequivalentsintheatomicsystemtothePlatonicdistinctionbetweensurfacesand
'bodieswhichhaveweight'.

Fromonepointofview,the'bodieswhichhaveweight',inthePlatonicsystem,arebodiesmadeupfromtheelements(surfacesortriangles)andsowillcorrespond
tobodiescompoundedofatomsandthevoid.Onthisreckoning:
1.Platonicsolidscorrespondtobodiescomposedofatomsandthevoid.

1
Pp.378above.

 Page92

2.Platonicsurfacesthereforecorrespondtoatoms.

However,fromanotherpointofview,surfacesandsolidsarecontrasted,andthereforeatomsareequivalentnottosurfaces,buttothethreedimensionalbodies
which,onthePlatonicsystem,aregeneratedfromsurfaces.

Fromthispointofview:
1.Platonicsolids,composedofsurfaces,correspondtotheatoms.

2.Platonicsurfaceshavenodirectequivalentintheatomicsystem.

ThusthereisacertainambiguityintherelationofatomstothePlatonicsystem.
1.Fromonepointofview,atomscorrespondtosurfacesandarethereforedistinctfromthethreedimensionalbodieswhichonthePlatonicsystemaregeneratedfromsurfaces.

2.Fromtheotherpointofview,atomsaredistinctfromsurfacesandcorrespondtothethreedimensionalbodieswhichareformedfromsurfaces.

Thepointcanperhapsbestbeappreciateddiagrammatically.

Plato Atomicequivalence(1) Atomicequivalence(2)

surfaces atoms ______

(astheprimaryelements)

solids bodiescompoundedofatoms atoms

andvoid (assolidparticles)

__ ______ bodiescompoundedofatoms
andvoid

 Page93

(ii)

Inhismainargument,Aristotleisconcernedwiththefirstequivalence,sinceitisatthislevelthattheAtomistsareabletoexplain,bytheirintroductionanduseofthe
void,howthelargercompoundbodyisthelighter,whilethePlatonistsarecondemnedtohavingthelargercompoundbodyalwaystheheavier.

Thesecondequivalencewouldbeuselessforthispurpose,forifatomscorrespondtoPlatonicsolidsthenbodiescompoundedofatomsandthevoidhavenodirect
equivalentinthePlatonicsystem,andthepointofthecontrast,betweenPlatonicsolidbodies,wherethelargerisalwaysnecessarilytheheavier,andtheatomic
compoundbodies,wherethelargerbodycanbelighteristhereforelost.

Ontheotherhand,inhisparenthesisontheprimaryelements,Aristotlestartspreciselyfromthecontrastofsurfaceandsolid,anditislikelythereforethathewill
intendthesecondequivalencewheninthiscontexthewritesthat'thelargeristheheavier'.

ForthepointisthattheAtomistsareabletoescapefromthenecessaryconjunctionofweightandvolumeintheiraccountofthecompoundbodies,whiletheyretain
thatconjunctionontheleveloftheprimaryelements.

Ontheleveloftheprimaryelements,theAtomists'advantageoverPlatoliesnotintheirabilitytoaccountfordiscrepanciesofsizeandofvolume,butintheirchoiceof
solidbodiesasdistinctfromsurfaces.

Toresume:Platonicsolids,composedofsurfaces,canbeseenasequivalenteither(1)tobodiescompoundedofatomsandthevoidor(2)totheatomsalone.Inthe
firstcase,theAtomistsescapefromthenecessaryconjunctionofweightandsizebytheiruseofvoid,whichallowsthelargerbodytobelighter.Inthesecondcase,
theAtomists,likePlato,arerestrictedtotherulethatthelargerbodyistheheavier,andthedifferenceliesonlyinthepointthatfortheAtomiststheprimaryelements
aresolidsandnotsurfaces.

 Page94

OtherInterpreters

GuthrieandCherniss

(i)

NeitherChernissnorProfessorGuthrieappearstoshowanyrecognitionofthetwostrandsinAristotle'sargumentation,northereforeanyawarenessthatthetwo
sentenceswhichinoneguiseoranothercontaintheformulathatthelargeristheheavierarenotdirectlypartofAristotle'sprimarysequenceofthought.Consequently,
theyrecogniseonlythefirstequivalence,andattempttoapplythistothewholepassage,andsotoforceadistinctionbetween .

ThisleadsthemtoassumethatthesimilaritywhichInotedinthecourseofmypreliminaryanalysisbetweenthePlatonicformula(
)entailsanidentityofobject,andmustthereforeindicate,forPlatoandfortheAtomistsalike,compoundbodies,asdistinctfrom
Platonicsurfacesoratomicsolids.

(ii)

This,atleast,ishowIinterpretCherniss'processesofthought.ForifwelookbacktodiscoverhowChernisshas'shownconclusively'(asProfessorGuthrietellsus)
thatatomsarenotintendedby ,wefindinfactlittlemorethanbriefparaphraseandbareassertion.

TheonlysentencesofferedbyChernisswhicharedemonstrativeinformrunasfollows:

'Thosewhomaketheelementscorporealcanwithgreaterreasonsaythatthelargercompoundbodyistheheavier.Thisneithersaysnorimpliesthatthelargeratomisheavier
thanthesmaller,fortheexplanationwouldhavetoholdalsofordifferentvolumesofthesamekind,i.e.consistingofadifferentnumberofatomsofthesamesize.'1

1
ACP211n.253,cf.pp.812above.

 Page95

IamnotentirelyclearwhatpreciseargumentativeforceCherniss'observationsareintendedtodisplayatthispoint.Chernissseemstoassumeashispremissthat
compoundbodiesareintendedby ,andtoconcludefromthisthatcompoundbodieswhichareheavierandlargerneednotrequiretheatomswhichformthem
tobeheavierandlargeraswell,sinceonecompoundbodycouldbeheavierandlargerthananotherbecauseitwasconstitutedofagreaternumberofatomsofthe
samesizeastheatomswhichconstitutethesmallercompoundbody.

Thisconclusionistrue,butthetruthoftheconclusiondoesnotprovethetruthofthepremiss:noreasonisgivenforsupposingthatcompoundbodies,andnotatoms,
areinfactthesubjectofAristotle'sformula.

Essentially,ChernissandGuthriefailtoshowanyrecognitionofthehiatusinAristotle'smainlineofthought,causedbythecontrastofPlatonicsurfacesandatomic
solids,noranyappreciationoftherebeingtwopossiblesetsofequivalentswhichwillembracetheAtomists'primaryelementsandthoseofPlato.

Simplicius

Asitis,Cherniss'mostpowerfulargumentliesnotinanydetailedanalysisofAristotle'sreasoning,butinhisclaimthatSimplicius'interpretationofthepassageagrees
withhisown.1

Butthisclaimprovestobeillfounded.

(i)

Simplicius,itistrue,inhiselaborationofAristotle'scritique,doesmakeatomsthecauseofcompoundbodies'beingheavierandlarger,Decaelo685.1317:
.

'Sincethefactsofexperiencedonotaccord( )withthebeliefthateachofthecompoundbodiesobeysthisrule,namelythatthelarger<body>isinvariablythe

1
ACP211n.253.

 Page96

heavier...itfollowsthatatoms<alone>cannotbeheldresponsible<forthedifferencesthatweobserveintheweightofbodies>,foratoms<alone>doofnecessitymakethe
larger<body>heavier.'

Simpliciuswritesthus,becauseheadoptstheformulathatatomsarecauseofheavinessandthatvoidiscauseoflightness,sothatatomscausethelargerbodytobe
heavier,whilevoidcausesthelargerbodytobelighter.1

(ii)

ButthisdoesnotmakeSimplicius'interpretationthesameasthatofCherniss,forSimpliciusstartsoutpreciselybyacknowledgingadifferenceofweightintheatoms,
andbyparaphrasinginthissenseAristotle'sformula,that'thelargerofthemistheheavier'.Hewrites,Decaelo685.911:
.

Itranslate:

'Thosewhostatethattheprimaryelementsaresolids,asdoDemocritusandhisassociates,areentitledtoclaimthatthelargeristheheavier.Forthethingsfromwhichbodiesare
compounded( ).'

(iii)

Correctlyinterpreted,therefore,Simplicius'commentaryservesonlytoreinforcetheinterpretationthatIhavegiven.

Intheearlierpassage(685.911),SimpliciusemploysAristotle'sformula,wherebythelargeristheheavier,asadescriptionoftheatomsor'solids'.Simplicius
explainsthatthelargeratomor'solid'canbetheheavierbecausetheatomswhichmakeup
1
Decaelo684.1922,cf.685.224.TheplaceofthisinterpretationinAristotle'sanalysisoftheatomictheoryasawholewillbetakenaccountofinmythirdessay.

 Page97

bodiesarethemselvesbodieswhichhaveweight,unliketheweightlesssurfacesofPlato'stheory.

Inthefollowingpassage(685.1317),Simplicius'pointisthatevenatomswhichhaveweightcannotexplainthediscrepancybetweensizeandvolume,wherebythe
largercompoundbodyisnotalwaystheheavier.AtthispointthereforeSimpliciusdoesemployAristotle'sformulatodescribecompoundbodiesbuthedoessoonly
inordertopointupthelimitationoftheatomictheory,ontheleveloftheprimarysolids,andtheneedthereforeforanadditionalfactor,void,inordertoexplainthe
discrepancybetweensizeandvolumeamongthecompoundbodies(cf.685.17ff.).

Inthepassageasawhole,therefore,Simplicius'point,asAristotle'spoint,isthatbytheintroductionofvoidtheAtomistsescapefromtheruletowhichtheyare
boundintheiranalysisoftheweightofindividualatoms.FortheAtomists,therulewherebythelargeristheheavierappliesonlytotheindividualatomsor'solids',and
nottobodiescompoundedofatomsandvoid.1

'ItisPossibletoSay...'

Thereremainsafinaldifficulty.Aristotlewrites: ....ItmaybeobjectedthatthismeansthattheAtomistscouldhavesaid,notthatthey
didsay.

ThedegreeofobjectivityinAristotle'saccountoftheatomictheory,particularlyinthelightofhisuseofthetheoryaspartofhiscriticismofPlato,willbegivensome
attentioninthefollowingtwosectionsofthischapter.ForthemomentIconsideronlythemoreimmediateimplicationof .

TheambiguitythatIhavenotedcannotperhapsberesolvedconclusively.NonethelessitseemstomethatifAristotlehadintendedtocontrastanactualbeliefofthe
Platonistswithahypo
1
Itisinterestingtonotethatwhen,inthelaterpassage(685.1317),Simpliciuswritesthatatomsaloneareinadequateasanaccountoftheweightofcompoundbodies,hecomes
closetotheideawhichInotedearlier(pp.8990)ofabody'compounded'ofatomsalone.Simplicius'commentarymakesclearthatthisisanentirelyhypotheticalconstruct,
designedsolelytohighlighttheimpassewhichtheAtomistsavoidedbytheintroductionofvoid.Itisonlyinthecontextofthishypotheticalandultimatelyimpossibletheory
thatthelargercompoundbodywouldbe,fortheAtomists,invariablytheheavier.

 Page98

theticalconsequenceoftheatomictheoryhewouldmorenaturallyhavewritten .Asitis,theplainuseoftheindicative,inthe
presenttense,willIthinkmostnaturallymeanonlythattheAtomists'dohavesomerighttosay,astheydo...'.

Ifthesentenceistakeninthissense,thenthequalificationcontainedin ).1

Conclusion

Iparaphrasetherefore:2

ContrastbetweentheAtomistsandPlato
'TherewerethosethenwhoexplainedanddefinedheavyandlightinthewayIhavedescribed.

'Othersdidnotconsiderthatthedistinctionanddefinitionofheavyandlightontheselineswasadequate,andalthoughtheybelongedtoanearliergenerationtheirideasonthe
subjectofourpresentenquirywerenovelandmoreuptodate.

'Theobviousfactisthatsomebodiesaresmallerinbulkthanothers,whilebeingheavierthanthem.

'Fromthisitplainlyfollowsthatitisnotgoodenoughto

1
Fromthispointofviewitisimportanttonotethatthemeaningof '.
IntheseparagraphsIanticipatetheconclusionofmystudyofAristotle'scriticismofPlato'stheory,takenaccountofinmysecondessay,whereIarguethatAristotle'sexposition
doesrepresent,fromhisownpointofview,theessentialfeaturesofPlato'sbelief.
2
Decaeloiv2,308b28309a11,quotedpp.801above.

 Page99

claimthatbodiesofequalweightarecomposedofequalprimaryelements.Forthiswouldmakebodies<thatareequalinweight>equalinvolume,<andanincreaseordiminution
ofweightcouldthenbeachievedonlybyanincreaseordiminutionofvolume>.

ParenthesisonthePrimaryElements
'Inbothsystems,theprimaryelementsareindivisible.

'Theonegroupmaintainsthattheyaresurfacesandthatfromthesesurfacesarebuiltupbodiesthathaveweight.<Onthisbasis,>theirclaim<toexplainweightevenintheway
thathasbeendescribed>isabsurd.

'Theothergroupaccountstheprimaryelementsassolids.Theydo<therefore>insteadhavesomerighttoclaim<astheydo>thatthelargeroftheseistheheavier.

ContinuationoftheContrastbetweentheAtomistsandPlato
'Withcompoundbodiesitisdifferent.

'Itisobviousthateachofthecompoundbodiesdoesnotfollowtherule<thatthelargeristheheavier>.

'Onthecontrary,weseethatmanycompoundbodiesareheavier,andyetsmallerinbulk.<Asmallpieceof>bronze,forexample,<isheavier>than<apileof>wool.

'Toaccountforthis,somepeoplereckonthatforcompoundbodiestheremustbeadifferentcauseofweight,andtheyexpressthemselvesaccordingly.Theyclaimthatitisvoid
thatgivesbodiesbuoyancybygettingtrappedandshutupinsidethem.

'Thisitis,theyclaim,thatbringsitaboutthattherearetimeswhenlargerbodiesarelighter.Thereasonisthattheyhavemorevoid:thatiswhysomebodiesarelargerinvolume
thansomethingelse,althoughtheyareoftenmadeupofanequalnumber,orevenfewer,solidpiecesthantheotherthing.

TheAtomists'DefinitionofhowOneThingisLighterthanAnother

'Asageneralrule,then,andineverycasetheyclaimthat

 Page100

thecauseofonething'sbeinglighter<thananother>isthefactthatthereismorevoidpresentinsideit.'

2
CompoundBodies

(i)

IntheDegenerationeetcorruptionewearetoldthatDemocritus'atomsdifferinweightaccordingtotheir'preponderance'.FromtheDecaelowelearn,Ibelieve,
thatthisdifferenceinweightoftheatomsisinfactcorrelatedwithadifferenceofsize,sothatthelargeranatomistheheavieritwillbe.

Fromthisvantagepoint,therefore,itispossibletolookbackattheexpression doesnotinitselfmeanalargersize,itisnowpossible,inthelightofmy
analysisofthepassagefromtheDecaelo,toseethattheimplicationoftheexpressionfromtheDegenerationeetcorruptionewillbevirtuallythesameasthe
meaningoftheexpressionfromtheDecaelo.
1.IntheDecaelo:'thelargerofthem<theatoms>isheavier'(iv2,309a2).

2.IntheDegenerationeetcorruptione:'eachoftheindivisiblesisheavieraccordingtoitspreponderance<ofsize>'(i8,326a9).1

1
Forthedisputeoverthemeaningof seepp.438and612above.Fromthissamepointofview,wemayacceptthesuggestionofVerdeniusandWaszink,Comments
42,thatthesentenceintheDegenerationeetcorruptione'maybeexplainedasacontaminationoftwoideas,''eachatomhasweight"and"anatomistheheavierthelargeritis".'I
preferhowevernottobasetheinitialinterpretationofthepassageintheDegenerationeetcorruptionedirectlyonthenotionofsize,andthereforeIwouldretainastheprimary
implicationofthepassagemyconclusionwherebythe'otherhalf'ofthecomparisonisthateachatomwillbe'moreheavy<orlessso>'accordingtoits'preponderance<or
deficiency>',cf.pp.612above.
FortheplaceoftheDegenerationeetcorruptioneinasummaryoftheevidencefrombothAristotleandTheophrastus,seebelowp.150.

 Page101

(ii)

Butthereisnowafreshproblem.IntheDecaeloAristotleaddsadefinitionoflightness:'...ineverycasethecauseofonething'sbeinglighter<thananother>isthe
factthatthereismorevoidpresentinsideit'(cf.iv2,309a1011).

Whatpreciselyisthemeaningofthisformula?
1.DoestheformulawhichAristotlehaspresentedmeansimplythatwecomparetheamountofvoidinonebodywiththeamountofvoidinasecondbody?

2.Ordoesitrequireustocomparetheproportionofvoidtosolidinonebodywiththeproportionofvoidtosolidinasecondbody?

Thereisarealdistinctionbetweenthesetwoformulae,forabodywhichhasmorevoidthananother,absolutelyspeaking,maynonethelesshaveasmallerproportion
ofvoidtosolidthanthesecondbodyhas.

NonethelessIshallsuggesteitherthattheAtomiststhemselvesfailedtochoosebetweenthetwoformulae,orthatforthemthiswasinpracticeadistinctionwithouta
difference.

This,Ibelieve,istheinferencethatcanbedrawnfromthecontinuationofAristotle'sanalysis.1

TheCorollary

InthepassagewhichimmediatelyfollowsthecomparisonbetweenDemocritusandPlatoquotedatlengthinthefirstsection
1
Here,asinmyparaphrase(p.100above),Ihavetakentheexpression'whatislighter'(iv2,309a1011)toimplyacomparisonbetweentwodifferentbodies.Itwouldbepossibleto
imaginetakingasinglebody,andincreasingtheamountofvoidinsideit,soastomaketheonebody'lighter'thanitwasbefore.Butthiswouldmeanthattheproportionofvoidto
solidinthebodyinitslaterstatewasgreaterthantheproportionofvoidtosolidinthebodyinitsearlierstate,andsowouldcoincideinitsresultwiththecomparison,between
differentbodies,oftheproportionofvoidtosolidineach.
Myparaphrasealsoexcludesthepossibilitythatabodyissaidtobelighterifithasmorevoidthansolid.WhenAristotlerepeatstheAtomists'formulahemakesitexplicitthatthe
onebodyhasmorevoid'thanotherbodiesdo'(cf.309a2930).

 Page102

ofthischapter,Aristotleaddsasignificantcorollarytotheatomictheory.

Itisnotenough,hetellsus,tospecifythatonebodywillbelighterthananotherinvirtueofhavingmorevoid.Theamountofsolidthatithasmustalsobeless.Forif
thebodywhichhasmorevoidwereto'oversteptheanalogy'thenitwouldnolongerbelighter.

Aristotlewrites,Decaeloiv2,309a1118: .

TheprecisenatureofAristotle's'analogy'hascausedmuchbewilderment.Thequestionisacomplexone,andIshallleaveafulldiscussionthereforeuntilthefirstof
mylatertwoessaysonAristotle.

TheconclusionIshallarguetothereisthatAristotlewritesexplicitlyofthecomparisonofvoidtovoidandofsolidtosolidbetweenonebodyandanother,whileat
thesametimehisanalysisrequiresacomparison,betweenthetwobodies,oftheproportionofvoidtosolidineach.
1.Thusthebodywhichwillexemplifytheanalogyisabodywhichislargerandlighterthananother.ThisisthebodywhichAristotlepresentsastheAtomists'answertoPlato.

2.Thedanger,the'overstepping'oftheanalogy,liesintheappearanceofabodywhichwillbelargerandheavier.ThisisthekindofbodythatthePlatonistscanproduce,even
withoutthehelpofvoid.

ThefirstbodyAristotlesupposeswillhavemorevoidandlesssolidthananother,whilefromthisitfollowsthatitwillalsohaveagreaterproportionofvoidtosolid
thanthebodytowhichitiscompared.

ThesecondbodyAristotlesupposeshasmorevoidandmoresolidthananother,whileatthesametimehetakesforgrantedat

 Page103

thispoint,orpossiblyoverlooks,thenecessityforitalsotohaveagreaterproportionofsolidtovoidthanthebodytowhichitiscompared.

Iparaphrasetherefore:

'Thatthenishowtheyexpresstheirtheory.

'Butwhenthedefinitionoflightnessiscastinthisform,wemustadd,notonlythatthebodyinquestion,ifitistobelighter,hasmorevoid,butalsothatthesolidithasisless.

'Forifthebodyinquestionoverstepsthisratio<sothatinsteadoftherebeingmorevoidandlesssolidthereismorevoidandmoresolid>,then<whileitwillstillbelarger>itwill
nolonger<necessarily>belighter.

'Taketheexampleoffire,whichtheysayislightestofallbecauseithasmostvoid.

'<Ifthatisalltheysay,>thenalotofgoldwillturnouttohavemorevoidthanalittlefire,andsowillbelighter,unlessitisgoingtohavemanytimesthequantityofsolidaswell.

'Sothis<thecomparisonofsolid>needstobespecified<aswellasthecomparisonofvoid>.'1

DifferencesofVolume

WhatissignificantformyimmediatepurposeisthatAristotle'scorollary,ontheneedtospecifythecomparisonofsolid,istrueonlywhenthebodiesbeingcompared
haveadifferentvolume.

(i)

Thusifonebodyhasmorevoid,orhaslessvoid,thananother,andhasadifferentvolume,thenfromthatfactalonewecannottellwhetheritwillhavemoresolid
thanthesecondbody,orless.

ThisitisthatprovokestheneedforAristotle'scorollary.InhisfinaldefinitionAristotletellsusthattheAtomistshavedefinedas
1
ThereisaslightanacolouthoninAristotle'sexpression,whichIhavecarriedoverintothesecondparagraphofmyparaphrase.Theoriginaldefinitionisthatthereshouldbe
morevoid,andwhatwe'add'toitthereforeisonlythatthereshouldbelesssolid.Thenotionof .

 Page104

lighterabodywhichhasmorevoidthananother(309a1011).
1.Abodywhichhasmorevoidthananothermayalsohavelesssolid,andinthatcase,accordingtotheinterpretationthatIhaveoutlined,Aristotlesupposesthatitwillbelarger
andlighter.

2.Butabodywhichhasmorevoidthananothermayalsohavemoresolidaswell,andinthatcase,accordingtotheinterpretationthatIhaveoutlined,Aristotlesupposesthatit
willbelargerandheavier.

ThepointtonoteisthatinthesecondcasetheinfringementoftheAtomists'formula,the'overstepping'oftheanalogy,ispossibleonlyifthetwobodiesdifferin
volume.Abodycanhavemorevoidandmoresolid,onlyifitisalsothelargerofthetwo.

(ii)

Iftwobodiesbothhavethesamevolume,thenanincreaseordiminutionofvoidcanbeattainedonlybyacorrespondingdiminutionorincreaseofsolidmatter.

Therewillbenoneedthereforetoaddexplicitlythattheremustbelesssolid,orthattheremustbemore.
1.Ifthetwobodiesarethesamesize,thentheonewhichhasmorevoidthantheotherwillnecessarilyhavelesssolid.

2.Similarly,ifthetwobodiesarethesamesize,thentheonewithlessvoidthantheotherwillnecessarilyhavemoresolid.

Inthefirstcase,therefore,itwillbesufficienttosaysimplythatthebodywithmorevoidinitisthelighter,sincefortheretobemorevoidtheremustbeeitherfewer
orsmalleratoms.

Inthesecondcase,itwillbesufficienttosaysimplythatthebodywithlessvoidwillbetheheavier,sincefortheretobelessvoidtheremustbeeithermoreorlarger
atoms.

(iii)

Aristotle'scorollary,ontheneedtospecifythecomparisonof

 Page105

solidmatter,willmostprobably,itseemstome,implythattheAtomiststhemselvesinfactdefinedonebodyaslighterthananothersolelywithreferencetotheamount
ofvoiditcontained.

Therearethereforetwopossibilities.

TheonepossibilityisthattheAtomiststhemselvesneglectedtoconsiderthecomparisonofvolumeintheirdefinitionofhowonebodyislighterthananother.

ThealternativepossibilityisthattheAtomists'ownformulationsabouttheweightofcompoundbodieswerecastexplicitly,orbyimplication,intermsofbodiesof
equalvolumes,sincethesearetheoneinstancewhereabodycanbedefinedaslighterorasheavierthananothersolelyintermsoftheamountofvoidwhichit
contains,withnoneedtoaddanycorollaryabouttheamountofsolidmatteralsobeingmoreorless:ifthetwobodiescomparedareequalinvolume,thenthe
comparisonofvoidwithvoidwillentailthecomparisonofsolidwithsolidandnolessthecomparison,betweenthetwobodies,oftheproportionofvoidtosolidin
each.1

Conclusion

IconcludethatmostprobablytheAtomists'definitionofhowonebodyislighterthananotherwillhavebeensufficientlyexpressedbytheformulathatalighterbody
willbetheonethathasmorevoid,eitherbecausethecomparisonofvolumeswasleftoutofaccount,orbecausethevolumesofthetwobodiesbeingcompared
werethoughtofasequal,sothatthebodywithmorevoidthananotherwouldalsonecessarilybethebodywhichhadlesssolid.Inthissecondcase,thecomparison
betweentwobodiesofvoidwithvoidwouldnecessarilyhavecarriedwithitthecomparisonofsolidwithsolid,andthecomparisonbetweenthetwobodiesofthe
proportionofsolidtovoidineach.
1
Itmaybenotedthatthecomparisonofvoidwithvoid,evenbetweentwobodiesthatareequalinvolume,doesnotentailanyinformationabouttheproportionofvoidtosolid
withintheonebody,i.e.wecannottellwhetherwithinonebodytherewillbemorevoidthansolidorviceversa.Thisandotherintricaciesarepursuedinmythirdessay,which
containsamuchmoredetailedanalysisofAristotle'scriticismoftheatomictheoryatthispoint.

 Page106

3
Aristotle'sCriticism

IhaveconcludedthattheAtomiststhemselves,intheirdefinitionoflightness,eitherleftthecomparisonofvolumesoutofaccount,orintendedtheirdefinitiontoapply
tobodiesthatwereequalinvolume.

Thisconclusionisconfirmed,Isuggest,ifwelookatAristotle's'corollary'totheatomictheory(iv2,309a1118)inthelightoftwootherpassages,firstthe
penultimatedefinitionoflightnessinAristotle'scomparisonoftheAtomistsandPlato,andsecondlythecomparisonofearthandfireinAristotle'scriticismofthe
atomictheory.

ThePenultimateDefinition

(i)

Thefinaldefinitionoftheatomictheoryoflightness,precedingthe'corollary',statesthat'asageneralruleandineverycasethecauseofonething'sbeinglighter<than
another>isthefactthatthereismorevoidpresentinsideit'(iv2,309a1011).ThisisthedefinitionwhichAristotleclaimsisincomplete,andtowhichtheAtomists
needto'add'thespecificationofsolid(309a1118).

ThepenultimatedefinitionwhichAristotleprovidesfortheatomictheoryoflightness,inthepassagewhichIanalysedearlier,isasfollows,Decaeloiv2,309a610:
.

Iparaphraseagain:

'Itisthevoidwhichgetstrappedinsidebodiesthatmakesthemlighter,orsotheyclaim,andthatbringsitaboutthattherearetimeswhenthelargerbodiesarethelighterones,
thereasonbeingthattheyhavemorevoidinsidethemthisishowitcomesaboutthattheyarelargerinbulkthantheothers,despitethefactthatoftentheyaremadeupofan
equalnumber,orevenfewer,solidpieces.'

 Page107

Thisdefinitiondoesspecifytheamountofsolid: .

Therefore,evenwhenAristotlewouldseemtobegivingtheAtomists'ownexplanationoflightness,infact,onhisownadmission,hecannotbedoingso.Forthe
penultimatedefinition,sinceitspecifiesthecomparisonbothofvoidandofsolid,cannotbeopentothecorrectionthat'thosewhodefinewhatislighterthus'(
,309a12ff.)mustaddthecomparisonofsolidtoadefinitionexpressedsolelyintermsofvoid.

Iconcludetherefore:
1.Thepenultimatedefinition(iv2,309a610)isinaccurate,historically,atonceinthedeliberateapplicationoftheformulatobodieswhichdifferinsize,andalsointhe
specificationwhichitthereforehastoprovideofthecomparisonofsolidmatter.

2.Thefinaldefinition( ,309a1011)willbehistoricallyaccurateinexpressingthedefinitionoflightnesssolelyintermsofthequantityorproportionofvoid,asaresult
eitheroftheAtomists'failingtoconsiderthecomparativesizeofthebodiesinquestion,oroftheirtakingforgrantedthatthetwobodiesbeingcomparedareequalinvolume.

(ii)

Byfarthemostlikelyreasonforthis,itseemstome,liesinthecontextofAristotle'scriticismofPlato.Aristotlehashimselfcasttheatomictheoryintoaformwhich
willputPlatoatadisadvantage.

Insodoing,Aristotlehasbeendrawnintoanelaborationoftheatomictheoryintermsofbodieswhichdifferinvolume,andhehasthereforebeenledtospecifythe
comparisonofsolidmatter.ForonlyinthiswaycantheatomictheorybemadetoworkasarefutationofPlato.

Fromthisitseemstomeclearthatonlythegeneralisingconclusiontotheatomicdefinitionofweight,namelythatthelighterbodyistheonewiththemorevoid,canbe
historicallyaccurate,309a1011: .

 Page108

Theprecedingdefinition,onAristotle'sownshowing,isinaccurateinthespecificationwhichitprovidesofthecomparisonofsolidmatter.

'GoldandFire'and'EarthandFire'

Byafortunatechance,thediscrepancybetweenweightandvolumeisrelevantnotonlytoAristotle'sinitialpresentationoftheatomictheoryinthecontextofhis
comparisonwithPlato,butnolesstohiscriticismofthetheoryinthefollowingpagesoftheDecaelo.

Theformwhichthislatercriticismtakesprovidesus,Isuggest,withrenewedreasonforsupposingthattheAtomists'ownformulationoftheirtheorywasnotcastin
theformofacomparisonbetweenbodieswhichdifferedinvolume.

(i)

AfterhiscontrastofPlatoandtheAtomists,Aristotle'sattitudechangescompletely.InsteadofsayingthattheAtomists,unlikePlato,wereabletocopewith
discrepanciesbetweenweightandvolume,AristotlenowclaimsthattheAtomistsare'caughtinthesamedifficulties'asarethose,likePlato,whoexcludethevoid.

TheturnsandtwistsofAristotle'sargumentatthispointaremorethanusuallycomplex.AgainthereforeIreserveadetailedanalysisformycommentaryonbookfour
oftheDecaeloasawhole,andproceedherefromtheconclusionswhichIshallarguetolater.1

TheargumentwhichAristotleeventuallyarrivesatrunsasfollows,iv2,309a33b4: .
1
Meanwhilecf.pp.1619above.

 Page109

Iparaphrase:
'...howwilltheydefinewhatisheavyabsolutely?

'Eitheritwillbebyitshavingmoresolid,oritwillbebyitshavinglessvoid.

'Ifthatisthedefinitiontheyoffer,then<onthefirstalternative>therewillbeacertainquantityofearthsotinythatinittherewillbelesssolidthaninahugequantityoffire.

'<Inthatcase,firewillendupbeingheavierthanearth.>

'Therewillbeanequivalentcircumstanceif<pursuingthesecondalternative>theyphrasethedefinitionintermsofvoid:<i.e.therewillbeacertainquantityofearthsolargethat
inittherewillbemorevoidthaninatinyquantityoffire.>

'Inthatcasetherewillendupbeingsomethinglighterthanwhatislightabsolutely.

'Indeed,whatisalways<andonly>bornedownwards<namelyearth>willbetheverything thatislighterthanwhatalways<andonly>movesupwards<namelyfire>.

'Thatisimpossible.'

(ii)

WhatisinterestingaboutthesecondmemberinAristotle'sargument,oncewehave,asitwere,unfoldeditfromitscocoon,isthatthecomparisonitenvisages
correspondsexactlytothecomparisonofgoldandfirewhichAristotleaddedaspartofthecorollarytohisearliercritiqueoftheAtomists.1
1.Inhisearlierpassage,Aristotlecomparedalargequantityofgoldwithatinyquantityoffire.

2.Inhispresentargument,Aristotlecomparesalargequantityofearthwithatinyquantityoffire.

Buttheresultsinthetwopassagesareexactlytheopposite.
1.Inhisearlierargument,Aristotlesaidthatitwasnot

1
Theearlierpassageisiv2,309a1118,paraphrasedp.103above.

 Page110

enoughforsomethinglargerandlightertohavemorevoid:itmustalsohavelesssolid.Foralargequantityofgoldcouldhavemorevoidthanatinyquantityoffire,andsowould
belighter,exceptthatithasmanytimesmoresolid,andsoisinfactheavierthanfire.

2.Inthepresentargument,alargequantityofearthhasmorevoidthanatinyquantityoffire,sothatearthislighterthanfire.

Theimmediatereasonforthisreversalisthatthedefence, ,whichAristotleprovidedintheearlierpassage,whenhewas
takingthesideoftheAtomists,asitwere,againstPlato,isprecludedinthelaterpassagebythepolemicaldecisiontotreateithervoidorsolidascauseofweight.

Becauseofthis,itcomesaboutthatAristotletreatsabodywithmorevoidandwithmoresolidthananother,inhisearlierargumentasbeingtheheavierofthetwo
(invirtueofitshavingmoresolid),andinhislaterargumentasbeingthelighterofthetwo(invirtueofitshavingmorevoid).

ThisduplicationandcontradictionstronglysuggeststhattheAtomiststhemselvesdidnotadapttheirtheorytoacircumstancewhereonebodycouldhavebothmore
voidandmoresolidthananother.

ThisinturnconfirmsmyearlierconclusionthattheAtomiststhemselveseitherfailedtoconsiderthecomparisonofvolumesoralternativelylimitedthemselvestobodies
ofequalsize,wheretheonecanhavemoresolidonlyifithasproportionatelylessvoidthantheother(andsoistheheavierofthetwo),orlesssolidonlyifithas
proportionatelymorevoid(andsoisthelighterofthetwo).

Aristotleisabletotreatthesamecircumstance,alotofgoldorearthandalittlefire,asproducingabodyindiscriminatelylighterorheavierthananother,only,I
suspect,becauseindealingwithbodiesofdifferentvolumesheisabletoexploitacircumstancenotcateredforbytheAtomists'ownexpressionoftheirtheory.1
1
ThecriticismwhichAristotlemakesmayseemtoustrivial.Bycomparingbodiesthatareequalinvolumeweestablishspecificweight:thentocomplain,asAristotledoesinthe
firstbranchoftheargumentIhaveparaphrased(iv2,309a34b2),thatalargerquantityofthelighterbodyisnonetheless'heavier'has

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page111

Conclusion

(i)

ThemoreparticularconclusionIwoulddrawfromthesepassagesisthatmostlikelytheAtomiststhemselveshadnotcasttheirtheoryintermsofacomparison
betweenbodiesthatweredifferentinsize,andthatAristotle'spresentationoftheAtomists'theoryspecificallyintermsofbodiesofdifferentvolumesisprobablythe
resultsolelyoftheexigenciesofhiscomparisonwithPlato.

BecausehehasdecidedtopresentPlato'stheoryatthispointasfailingbecauseofitsinabilitytoexplaindiscrepanciesbetweensizeandweight,andbecausehe
choosestopresenttheatomictheoryasanadvanceuponPlato,Aristotleisledtoportraytheatomictheoryasdesignedprimarilytoexplainhowonebodythatis
largerthananothercannonethelessbelighter.

Thisleadstotheanomalythatalthoughthepenultimatedefinitionoftheatomictheorydoesspecifythequantityofsolid(309a810),nonethelessthefinaldefinition
specifiesonlythecomparisonofvoid(309a1011),withtheresultthatinwhatIhavecalledhis

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
asmuch,andaslittle,point,wemaythink,astocompareapoundoffeathersandanounceoflead.
PossiblysomeappreciationofthedistinctionbetweengrossweightandspecificweightexplainswhytheAtomistswereabletotakethecomparisonofequalvolumesforgranted,if
thatiswhattheydid.ButinmyfourthessayIshallseektoshowthatthatdistinctionhasnoproperplaceinAristotle'sowntheory,andthatAristotleisthereforeableinparttoignore
whatweseeasthedistinctionbetweengrossweightandspecificweightinhisrefutationbothofPlato'stheoryandoftheatomictheory.
OtherpointsinAristotle'scritiqueoftheAtomistsinbookfouroftheDecaelo,andnotablyhisspecificationofthequantityofatomsbynumberandnotbysize(e.g.hespeaksof'an
equalnumber,orfewer,solidparts',iv2,309a910),Imustalsoleaveformysecondandthirdessays:IwouldnoteonlythatthepointIhavementionedalsosprings,Ibelieve,from
Aristotle'sassociationoftheAtomistswithPlato.
Inparticular,Ihaveleftaside,forthepresent,considerationoftheprimarythrustofAristotle'scritique,wherebyalthoughAristotleestablishestheAtomists'superioritytoPlatoin
termsofthediscrepancybetweenweightandsizeincompoundbodies(e.g.thecomparisonofwoolandbronzeativ2,309a2ff.)nonethelesshisfinalintentionistoestablishnot
merelythatsomecompoundbodiesarelighterandlargerthanothers,butthatinhisowntheoryanelement(notacompoundbody)whichislightbynature,andmoreespeciallyfire,
whichislightabsolutely,isinvariablylighterinthelargerquantity.

 Page112

'corollary'AristotleisledtocomplainthattheAtomistshavefailedtospecifythecomparisonofsolid(309a1118).

ThereisthenthefurtheranomalythatalthoughAristotle'scorollaryisdesignedtoreinforcetheAtomists'theory,byspecifyingthecomparisonofsolid(309a1118),
nonethelessthesamecomparisonislaterusedtocontroverttheatomictheory(309a33b4),byshowingthatextremediscrepanciesofvolumeundermineadefinition
ofweightintermsofsolidorvoidbyproducingcircumstancescontraryto(Aristotle'sowntheoryof)theelements'behaviourascharacterisedbyabsoluteweight.

Mysuggestionisthatbothanomalieshavearisenbecauseindeliberatelydealingwithbodiesthatdifferinvolume,inordertofurtherhiscritiqueofPlato,Aristotleis
exploitingacircumstancenotdirectlycateredforbytheAtomists'ownformulationoftheirtheory.1

(ii)

Verybriefly,therefore,IturntolookmoregenerallyatAristotle'sevidenceonbothpoints:theindividualatomsandbodiescompoundedofatomsandvoid.

ItissymptomaticofCherniss'attitudetowardsAristotlethat,havingarguedthatinthepassagefromtheDecaeloAristotledoesnotattributeweighttotheatoms,
Chernissnonethelessaddsthatevenifhehaddonesoitwouldhavebeenastheresultofamisunderstanding.Foronce,Aristotlehasnotmisunderstoodapieceof
Presocratictheory,ifonlybecausehehassaidnothingaboutitbutweareassuredallthesamethatifhehadsaidsomethingonthesubjecthewouldstillhavebeen
wrong!

Cherniss'argument,ifweleaveasidethedoxographicalmaterialwhichIshallconsiderseparatelylater,isthatAristotle'would
1
Inevitably,thispointhasbeenmissedordenied.MorauxtakestheAtomists'theorytohavebeenexpresslyintendedbyitsauthorsasanexplanationofthediscrepancybetween
weightandvolume,Budedncxliii:'LesAbdritains...n'ontpasseulementvouluexpliquerlesdiffrencesdepoidsentrelescorps,maisontsurtoutnotlefaitquecertains
corps,moinsvolumineuxqued'autres,peuventtrepluspesantsqu'eux.C'estparlaprsenced'unvideplusoumoinsabondantl'intrieurdescorpsqu'ilsontcrupouvoir
expliquercetteanomalie'.IthinkthatthisreadingofAristotle'stexthasarisenonlybecausethepointsIhaveadducedintheprecedingpageshavenotbeensufficientlyattended
to.

 Page113
1
havemaintainedthenecessityofattributingweighttotheatomsifthecomplexbodiesweretohaveweight'.

ThepreciseintentionofCherniss'observationisagainnotwhollycleartome,butthepointisevidentlythatthecontrastbetweenPlatoandtheAtomistsonsurfaces
andsolidswouldhaveledAristotletoattributeweighttotheatoms,evenifDemocritushadnothimselfdoneso.2

Quodgratisasseritur,gratisnegatur.IfIhaveinterpretedCherniss'argumentaright,thenwecanaswellarguethatAristotlewouldnothavepresentedhiscontrast
betweentheAtomistsandPlatointhisform,oratall,ifDemocritushadnotinfactdescribedhisatomsashavingweight.3

ButthepointIwouldmakeisnotonlyanegativeone.Idoofcourseagreethat,hereaselsewhere,Aristotle'spresentationofearliertheorieshasbeencolouredbyhis
ownideas.ButthecolouringismoresubtlethanChernissappreciates.Inparticular,preciselybecausewecanisolate,withreasonablecertainty,thenatureandsothe
probableextentofAristotle'smanipulationofinthiscasetheatomictheory,sothereforewecan,withmoreconfidence,itseemstome,claimtodiscernin
Aristotle'spresentationofthetheorywhatitisthatdoesnottakeitscolourfromAristotle'scriticism.

ThusdifferencesofvolumepersistentlydetermineAristotle'spresentationoftheatomictheoryintheDecaelononethelessthiswillnot,Ithink,vitiatethebonesofthe
theorywhichweareable
1
ACP211n.253.
2
ACP211n.253.OnthedifficultyoflocatingCherniss'argumentseep.17n.1above.
3
TheargumentthatAristotleattributsweighttotheatomsonlybecausethecomplexbodieshaveweight,appearsinfacttobeanunacknowledged(andperhapsunconscious)
adaptationofpartofSimplicius'commentaryonthispassageoftheDecaelo:'thethingsfromwhichbodiesarecompoundedarethemselvesbodies...andsodothemselvesalso
haveacertainweight'(685.1011cf.pp.957above).ButeveninSimpliciusthisargumentispresentedsolelybywayofclarifyingtheAtomists'position,andisinnowayintroduced
asrepresentingorimplyingthattheAtomiststhemselvesdeniedweighttotheatoms.Elsewhere,asweshallsee(ch.Vp.153ff.),Simpliciuswritesexplicitlythattheweightofatoms
waspartoftheoriginal,prePlatonicversionoftheatomictheoryandinanearlierpassageofhiscommentaryheputstheargumentexploitedbyChernisstheotherwayround,De
caelo269.1214(pp.1613below):'...astheatoms,theyclaimed,werefull<ordense>,theywereheavythemselvesandcausesofheavinessincompoundbodies'.

 Page114

todiscernintheDecaeloandintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.Itwillremaintruethatatomsdifferinweightandinsize,sothatthelargeranatomistheheavier
itwillbewhileforcompoundbodies,atleastforcompoundbodiesofthesamesize,orforcompoundbodieswherethedifferenceofvolumeisnotspecified,lightness
willbeinproportiontotheamountofvoidtheycontain.1
1
DespitethegeneralnatureoftheseremarksIamdeliberatelyleavingaside,forconsiderationinalaterchapter,amoregeneralevaluationoftheaccuracyofAristotle'sevidence,
andinparticularIamleavingasideatthisstagethequestionoftheinfluenceofAristotle'sownideasonthewayinwhichhethinksofthemovementoftheatoms:seech.IX3,
pp.2606below,esp.pp.2612.

 Page115

ChapterFour
Theophrastus

1
StatementoftheTheory

Orientation

Iturntotheonlyotherauthorinantiquity,apartfromAristotle,whowillhaveknownofDemocritus'theoryofweightatfirsthand,andwhowritesonitspecifically:this
isAristotle'spupil,Theophrastus.

Inthelongextractonthenatureofthesensesandoftheobjectsofsense,whichistheonlycontinuousportionthatsurvivesinanunabridgedformfromTheophrastus'
writingsonthehistoryofphilosophy,therearecontainedsummariesandcriticismsbothofDemocritus'theoryofweightandofthatofPlato,aswellassome
invaluableremarksonthenatureofweightinearliertheoriesmoregenerally.

EachofthesethreesectionsofTheophrastus'treatiseisthereforeofprimaryimportanceformypresentstudy.
1.Theophrastus'longcriticismsofPlato'stheoryhave,Ibelieve,beenradicallymisunderstoodbyearlierscholars:amisunderstandingwhichhascertainlyaddedto,ifithasnot
beenaprimarycauseof,whatIbelieveisthegeneralmisinterpretationofPlato'stheorybymodernscholars.

Theophrastus'criticismsofPlatowillthereforebegivenadetailedandextendedanalysisintheconcludingchaptersofmyessayonPlato.

2.Theophrastus'moregeneralremarksonearliertheoriesofweight,supplementedbysomeequallyvaluableevidenceinPlutarch,willlieatthecoreofmyattemptinthefinal
chapterofthisfirstessaytoreachbacktothewaysofthinkingaboutweightthatwerecurrentbeforeAristotle,andtoalesserextentPlato,drasticallyshiftedthescopeand

 Page116
1
thedirectionofpeople'sideas,hereasinotherandmoreimportantways.

3.ThetwoextractsonDemocritus,thefirst,theonlyattemptthatwehavefromAristotleorTheophrastustopresentDemocritus'theoryfreefromentanglementwithother
theories,andthesecondabriefcriticismofthetheory,Iconsiderinthisandinthefollowingsectionsofthischapter.

Theproblemwiththeearlier,andthelonger,extractliesprimarilyindeterminingtheimmediatesenseoftheforminwhichTheophrastuspresentsDemocritus'theory,
themoresoastherehasrecentlybeenanattempttochangeradicallythesensethathadtraditionallybeenattachedtothepassage.

Inthefollowingsections,theproblemwilllieratherintracingthepreciseideologicalaffiliationoftheideasthatTheophrastusintroduces,whenheturnsfromexegesis
tocriticismofDemocritus'theory.

'DeSensibus'612

InDiels'editionoftheDesensibusweread,cap.612(DK68A135): .

PF.

PF.

Burchard.

om.codexVossianus.2
1
Ch.XIII2,pp.36483below,esp.pp.3708.
2
DielswronglyarrogatestohimselfMullach'scorrectionto .
Bibliographicalnote.Throughoutthischapterauthors'namesalonearegivenforthefollowingworks,allofthemcontainingeditionsortranslationsoftherelevantchaptersofthe
Desensibus,andwhichIlisthereinchronologicalorder:HenricusStephanus,AristotelisetTheophrastiscriptaquaedam...(Parisiis,

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page117

(i)

McDiarmid,inanarticleonthispassagepreparatorytoaneditionoftheDesensibus,emendsthesecondsentencetoread:
.Thishetranslates:

'Forhesaysthatifeachone[i.e.eachuncompoundedbody]whenseparatedaccordingtoshapediffersinweight[i.e.fromothersofthesameshape],itdiffersinsize.'1

ThedistancethatMcDiarmidhastotravelfromthemanuscriptreadingmightperhapsbepartlyatonedforbytheingenuityofhisargument.Whatcannotbesoeasily
forgivenisthattheresultdoesnotmakesatisfactorysense.Forifweightistobedefinedordeterminedbysize,asTheophrastustellsusthatitisinthefirstsentence
whichIhavequoted,thentheconclusionmustbe:notthatatomsofthesameshapehaveadifferentweightiftheydifferinsize,andsopresumablythesameweightif
theyhavethesamesize,whichisthepurportofMcDiarmid'semendationbutthateveniftheydonothavethesameshapetheyarethesameweightiftheyhavethe
samesize,andadifferentweightiftheydifferinsize.

Notonlyisthisthemeaningneeded:itispreciselythemeaninggivenbythemanuscriptsbeforeMcDiarmid'sexcisions:

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

1557)IoannesG.Schneider,TheophrastiEresiiquaesupersuntopera...(Lipsiae,181821)JohannF.W.Burchard,CommentatiocriticadeDemocritiAbderitaedesensibus
philosophia...(Mindae,1830)LudwigPhilippson, ...(Berolini,1831)FelixPapencordt,Deatomicorumdoctrinacommentationisspecimenprimum...
(Berolini,1832)FriedrichW.A.Mullach,Democritifragmenta...(Berolini,1843)FriedrichWimmer,TheophrastiEresiiopera...(Didot,Parisiis,1866)HermannDiels,
Doxographigraeci...(Berolini,1879)PaulTannery,Pourl'histoiredelasciencehellne,deThalsEmpdocle(Paris,1887),2ndednbyA.Dis(Paris,1930)GeorgeM.
Stratton,TheophrastusandtheGreekphysiologicalpsychologybeforeAristotle(LondonandNewYork,1917).FullerreferencesmayberecoveredfromtheBibliography.
1
J.B.McDiarmid,'TheophrastusDesensibus6162:Democritus'theoryofweight'CP55(1960)2830.Thesquarebracketsandthewordscontainedwithinthemaretranscribedfrom
McDiarmid.Throughoutthissection,IhavenotthoughtitnecessarytogiveinternalreferencestoMcDarmid'sarticle.Amongsubsequentscholars,DavidJ.FurleyprintsMcDarmid's
textandfindshisargument'cogent',TwostudiesintheGreekAtomists(Princetown,1967)103n.38.

 Page118

.Itcannotberighttoexcisethissecondconditionalparticle,asMcDiarmidproposes,foritsremovalatoncemakesweight
seemtobedependentnotonlyuponsize,butuponshape.

Ifweretain ,withasubsidiaryconditionalclauseintervening.

Andoncethatisdone,thenwehaveineffecttheessentialsofwhatIshallcallthetraditionalreading:

'Ifeachatomweretakenonitsown,thenevenifitdiffersfromanotherinshape,itsweightwouldbedependentuponitssize.'1

(ii)

McDiarmid'sattackonthetraditionalrenderingturnsinitiallyontheuseoftheoptative, :
'...whywouldthesentencebeputinthisform?EvenifDemocritusexpressedhistheoryinsuchatentativeway,itis

1
Ihopethatitisdesirabletogrouptogetherthemainbodyofscholarsinthisway.The'traditionalinterpretation'asIhaveformulatedithereiscommontoSchneider,Papencordt,
Mullach,Wimmer,Diels(ifonemayjudgebyhistextandemendations,withnotranslation)andBrieger,Urbewegung5.
F.Lortzingproposesaratherelaborateemendation,whereheexploitsthetworeadings
.ButIthinkthat,withthis,heintendstoretainwhatIamcallingthetraditional
interpretation.Philippson,135,translateswithoutanynotionof'evenif',andoffersnofurthercomment.Theonlyclearexceptiontothetraditionalinterpretation,apartfrom
McDiarmid,isBurchard,seepp.11923below.
SincemymainpurposeinthisessayistodeterminethemoregeneralsenseofTheophrastus'remarks,andtobringtogethertheancientevidenceonweightasawhole,Ihave
deliberatelyleftasideforanotheroccasionthoseminutioraofthetextwhichdividetheadherentsofthetraditionalinterpretationonefromanother:seefurtherp.131n.1below.

 Page119

unlikelythatTheophrastus,whoisreportinghistheory,woulddoso.ThroughouttheDesensibusheregularlystatesthedoctrinesofhispredecessorsassimplefacts,andhe
usesthepotentialoptativestatementeitheraloneorwithaprotasisintheoptativeortheindicativewhenheiscriticisingthedoctrinesandshowingtheabsurditiesthatwould
followifthedoctrinesshouldbeaccepted.'

Thisargument,Ithink,overlooksthedegreeofsophisticationrequiredinconsideringtheatomictheory.Itisclearthatadistinctionisbeingmadebetweenindividual
atomsandgroupsofatoms.ItseemstomeperfectlyplausiblewhetherforDemocritusorperhapsmorelikelyforTheophrastustopresentastatementaboutan
individualatominan'unreal'formofcondition:'ifasingleatomweretobetakenonitsown...'.Forfairlyobviouslyitwouldinpracticebeimpossibletotakeany
individualatomandeithermeasureitorweighitsingly.

McDiarmid'sotherprincipalargumentagainstatraditionalreadingturnsontherelationbetweenweightandshape.McDiarmid'sreflectionsonthissubjectseemtome
tobeenmeshedinagooddealofconfusion,atonceconceptual,exegeticalanddoxographical,whichIshalldomybesttounravelasclearlyandasbrieflyasIcan.

(iii)

Althoughtheirreadingsofthesentencevariedquiteconsiderablyindetail,mostnineteenthcenturyscholarsunderstoodthesentenceinroughlythesameway:
'Ifeachatomweretakenonitsown,thenevenifitdiffersfromanotherinshape,itsweightwouldbedependentuponitssize.'

FormypresentpurposesIhaveventuredtodisregardthedifferencesofdetailandtocallthisthetraditionalinterpretation.1

AnexceptiontothistraditionwasBurchard,whoemendedthesentencetoread:
1
Thesamereferencesasintheprecedingfootnote.

 Page120

TheexplanationswhichBurchardprovidesofthis,inLatinandinGerman,arenotwithouttheirdifficulty,buttheintentionisevidentlythatthesubjectofthewhole
sentenceshouldbeheavyandlight,pickedupfromtheprecedingsentence,'ifheavyandlightareconsideredeachonitsown,withoutreferencetotheother'andthat
theconclusionshouldbethatheavyiswhatislargeandlightiswhatissmallwhilethestipulationin ...somehowmeans,'ifwetakeheavyandlightintheir
everydaysense,andwithoutreferencetoshapeortoapparentintrinsicweight'.1

McDiarmidconfessesinafootnotethathehasnotactuallyreadBurchard'swork,andthathehastakennoteofhisemendationfromMullach.Insodoing,hecan
perhapsbeforgivenforhavingfailedtomasterBurchard'sintentionsfromtheportionofLatinparaphrase,whichisallthatMullachquotesinhisnote.Consequently,
McDiarmidevidentlytakesBurchard'semendationtomean:
1
'TheLatinparaphraserunsasfollows,15:
'Si,quodquotidianoleviumetgraviumusuinsingularibusaestimandiscorporibusintelligisolet,audimus,necmutuaeharumnotionumconditionis,necformaevelponderisproprii
rationehabita,quodmaiusest,idplerumqueetiamgraviushabetur,quodminusspatiosum,idemleviussinveroalterumalteriadiungas,sivealterumadalterumreferas(
nisifortehaecetiamcorruptasunt,quodfacilemihipersuaseritaliquis),leviuserit,quodplus,gravius,quodminushabetvacui.'
TheGermanisasfollows,2930:
'berdasLeichteundSchwerelsstsichDemocritus...sovernehmen:WennmandieseBegriffeindemSinnenimmt,denihnendertglicheGebrauchgiebt,ohneihreRelativitt,
oderGestaltundmuthmasslicheseigenthmlichesGewichtzubercksichtigen,sopflegtman,jedesfrsichbetrachtet,imgewhnlichenLebendasSchweremitdemGrossen,das
LeichtemitdemKleineninVerbindungzusetzenbeziehtmanaberbeideBegriffeaufeinander...soistdasLeichteredas,wasmehr,dasSchwerere,waswenigerleerenRauminsich
schliesst.'
Burchard'sparaphrasehasperhapsinfluencedTannery'stranslation,369:'Dmocritedistinguelelourdetlelgerd'aprslagrandeur.Car,s'ilstaientabsolumentspars,quelleque
ftladiffrencedesformes,lagrandeurdtermineraitl'effetparrapportlabalance.'Here'heavyandlight'seemtobetakenasthesubjectofthesecondsentence,asBurchard
wishes.

 Page121

'Ifoneatomdiffersfromanotherinshapeandinweight,thenitdiffersalsoinsize.'

ThisMcDiarmidthencriticisesasfollows:
'Ifthingsarecharacterisedbyshape,size,andweightandifeachthingdiffersinbothshapeandweightfromthethingwithwhichitiscompared,thecomparisondoesnotpermit
anyconclusionabouttherelationbetweenweightandsize.'

ThiscriticismobviouslybearsnorelationtoBurchard'soriginalintention.

Theonepointwhichperhapsneedsreply,inBurchard'sinterpretation,ishiscontentionthatthesubjectofthesentenceisheavyandlight,andnottheatoms.

Thiscontentionisfairlyobviouslyruledoutbythecontrast,inthesentencefollowing,with ,whichwehavebeentoldinthesentencesimmediatelyprecedingis,
alongwithsize,positionandarrangement,aprimarycharacteroftheatoms.1

(iv)

However,toreturntoMcDiarmid.Tomisunderstand,andtherebytomisrepresent,Burchardisperhapsnogreatmatter.WhatislessvenialisthatMcDiarmidthen
attemptstoapplythesamecriticismtoothernineteenthcenturyscholars,whomakeupwhatIhavecalledthetraditionalinterpretation.Oftheseinterpretations
McDiarmidwrites:
'TakeninanyofthesewaystheclauseisopentotheobjectionalreadyraisedagainstthereconstructionofBurchard.Iftheatomsdifferinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight,the
sentencedoesnotestablishtherelationbetweensizeandweight,sincethepossibilityhasnotbeenexcludedthatdifferenceinweightisduetodifferenceinshaperatherthanin
size.'

1
Thiswillbeso,evenifthefirstclauseofthesecondsentenceistakentointroduceatomsonlyindirectlyasitwere.ThusStrattontranslates,121:'Ifweweretodivideeach
substanceintoits<atomic>units'.ThereisthesameapproachinSamuelSambursky,ThephysicalworldoftheGreeks(London,1956)120:'Ifanyobjectisdecomposedintoits
parts'.Itseemstomeinfactmorenaturaltotake asreferringdirectlytoanatom.Cf.p.225n.2below.

 Page122

'Iftheatomsdifferinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight...'.Whoholdsthisinterpretation?NotthescholarswhomMcDiarmidhaslisted,fortheyholdwhatIhave
calledthetraditionalinterpretation.Onthisinterpretation,theweightofanatomissaidtobeproportionatetoitssize.Inthismainclauseofthesentence,no
comparisonisexpressedbetweenoneatomandanother.

Whatismore,ifwedointroduceanexternalcomparison,byextendingthecomparisoncontainedin ,theresultisnotwhatMcDiarmid'scriticism
wouldrequire.Forifwebeginasentencebysaying'evenifonethingisdifferentfromanotherinacertainway',thenIthinkwearemostlikelytocontinue,'itis
nonethelessthesameasitinsomeotherway'.Inthisinstance:
'Evenifoneatomdiffersfromanotherinshape,itwillbethesameweightifithasthesamesize.'

Itistruethatifwearethendrawntoextendthecomparisonstillfurther,wemaywelladd:
'Evenifoneatomdiffersfromanotherinshape,itwillbethesameweightifithasthesamesize,andadifferentweightifitdiffersinsize.'

Whatisnotsoplausible,itseemstome,andwhatiscertainlynotanecessaryconsequenceofthetraditionalinterpretation,isthatweshouldchoosetoextendthe
impliedcomparisontoexpressonlyadifferenceofweightandsize:
'Evenifoneatomdiffersfromanotherinshape,...itwillbeadifferentweightifitdiffersinsize.'

HowthenhastheinterpretationarisenwhichMcDiarmidcriticises:'iftheatomsdifferinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight...'?Itcannot,Ithink,besimplya
diffusionofwhatMcDiarmid(wrongly)supposesBurchard'sinterpretationtobe,forMcDiarmidrealisesthatBurchardisaloneinwriting,
.Thetruthis,Ithink,thatMcDiarmidhasconfusedthetraditionalinterpretationwithhisown,

 Page123

andhashimselfconflatedpartofonewithpartoftheother.Tothetraditionalinterpretationofshape,'evenifoneatomdiffersinshape(sc.fromanother)',McDiarmid
hastackedonhisownconclusion,'itdiffersinweightifitdiffersinsize'.Heforgetsthattoachievethisrenderinghewillhavehadtoemendthesentencetoread,
.OnceagainthereforethebogeywhichMcDiarmidcriticisesisentirelyofhisownmaking.

(v)

Again,however,wemightbeinclinedtoforgiveMcDiarmidformisunderstanding,andtherebymisrepresenting,theopinionsofothers,ifhisowninterpretationmade
sense.ButevenwhenheturnsfromcriticismtoreconstructionMcDiarmid'sconfusionisnotatanend.AfterthecriticismwhichIhavequotedofthetraditional
interpretation,McDiarmidatonceturnstoprovidetheideologicalfoundationofhisowninterpretation.Hewrites:
'Ifshapeisbroughtintoanargumentfortheweightsizerelation,theargumentshouldbe:iftwoatomshavethesameshapebutdifferinweightandsize,weightmustberelatedto
sizeandnottoshape.'

IthinktheradicalconfusioninthisidealiesinMcDiarmid'sassumptionthatwehavetodoherewithanargument.Buttomakemypointclearitwillbebest,Ithink,if
wepausetoconsiderwhatinfactthepossiblecombinationsofshape,sizeandweightmaybe.
1.Oneatomcoulddifferinshape,sizeandweightfromanother.

2.Itcouldhavethesameshape,sizeandweightasanother.

3.Itcouldhavethesameshape,anddifferinsizeandweight.

4.Itcouldhaveadifferentshape,andbethesameinsizeandweight.

 Page124

Noothercombinationsarepossible,ifsizeandweightaretogohandinhand.

ThefirstcombinationistheonewhichMcDiarmididentifies(wrongly)withBurchardandwiththetraditionalinterpretation,andwhichhecriticisesaccordingly:

'Iftheatomsdifferinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight,thesentencedoesnotestablishtherelationbetweensizeandweight,sincethepossibilityhasnotbeenexcludedthat
differenceinweightisduetodifferenceinshaperatherthaninsize.'

Thesecondcombinationwouldpresumablybeopentoanequivalentobjection:
'Iftheatomsarethesameinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight,thesentencedoesnotestablishtherelationbetweensizeandweight,sincethepossibilityhasnotbeenexcluded
thatsimilarityinweightisduetosimilarityinshaperatherthaninsize.'

McDiarmidhimselfchoosesthethirdcombination,onthegroundthat:
'Iftwoatomshavethesameshapebutdifferinweightandsize,weightmustberelatedtosizeandnottoshape.'

Heapparentlydoesnotconsiderthatanequivalentargumentcouldresultfromthefourthcombination:
'Iftwoatomsdifferinshapebuthavethesameweightandsize,weightmustberelatedtosizeandnottoshape.'

Thisfourthcombinationispreciselywhatisprovidedbythetraditionalinterpretation,ifweextendthecomparisonimpliedintheclause inthewaythatIhave
arguedisthemorenatural:
'(Even)ifanatomdiffersfromanotherinshape,itsweightisrelatedtoitssizeandsoitwillbethesameweightasanotheratomifithasthesamesize.'

 Page125

Thisfourthcombinationrequiresmuchlessemendationofthemanuscriptsthandoesthethird.Thereisalsoasenseinwhich,itseemstome,itisperhapspreferable
conceptually.Foritconcludeswithapositivestatement:anatomisthesameweightasanotherifithasthesamesize.Thisseemstomeamorenaturalconclusionthan
thatanatomdiffersinweightfromanotherifitdiffersinsize.Indeedifwearepresentedwiththestatementthat'iftwobodiesdifferinweighttheydifferinsize',we
would,Ithink,need,oratleastfinditnatural,toconcludethat'theywillthereforehavethesameweightiftheyhavethesamesize'.

Ifwedoconcludetheargumentinthisway,thenthereisafurtherdisadvantagetoMcDiarmid'sinterpretation.Forifwearethinkingofatomsofthesameshape,ason
McDiarmid'sformulationweare,thenthisconclusionatonceleadstothesecondcombination,toatomswhichhavethesameshape,thesamesizeandthesame
weight,andwherethereforeweightwouldseemtoberelatedeithertosizeortoshape.Whatweneedtoconcludewithisthat:

'Evenifatomsdifferinshape,theywillhavethesameweightiftheyhavethesamesize,oradifferentweightiftheyhaveadifferentsize.'

Andthatofcourseispreciselytheimplicationofthetraditionalrendering.

(vi)

Nowitisimportant,Ithink,torealisewhathashappenedhere:theassumptionofmylasttwoparagraphshasbeenthatweareentitled,oratleastencouraged,to
movefromonestageinanargumenttothemoregeneralstatementofprincipleortheorywhichsuchanargumentmightconcludewith.Thisdistinction,between
argumentandconclusion,isessentialtoaconsiderationofMcDiarmid'sinterpretation.FortheassumptionthatunderliesMcDiarmid'sinterpretationisthatwehaveto
doherewithanargument:withthestatementofsomecircumstancewhichwillmakeitplausibleforDemocritustodefineheavyandlightintermsofsize.This
circumstancehastobeonewhichdoesnotcoverallinstancesoftherelationofweighttosize,butonein

 Page126

whichitismadeespeciallyapparentthatweightandsizearerelated.

Nowtheimmediatedisadvantage,itseemstome,inlookingforsuchanargumentinthepresentcontextliespreciselyinthefactthatbyitsverynaturesuchan
argumentdoesnotdealwithallcircumstancesconcernedwithweightandsize,butonlywithsomeofthem.Itwillneedtobecompletedtherefore:fromthestatement
ofparticularcircumstanceswhichmakeitespeciallyapparentthatweightandsizearerelated,wewillneedtoconcludetothesamerelationinallcircumstances,even
thosewheretheparticularcircumstancesdonotmaketherelationespeciallyapparent.ButofsuchfurtherstatementthereisofcoursenotraceinTheophrastus.

Whatwemustdoinfact,onMcDiarmid'sinterpretation,istreattheopeningsentence, ,ascontainingtheargumentenlistedinitssupport.

Nowwhetherthetwosentencesaretobetakeninthiswayornotturnsonthesequenceofthoughtconveyedbytheconnectingparticle thatwearetobe
treatedtoanargumentdesignedtosupport,ortojustify,theprecedingdefinition.Butwecouldofcourseequallywellexpecttobegivensomeexplanationor
elaborationofthedefinition.Whichinfactdowehave?

ThepeculiarityoftheAtomists'theoryofweight,aswealreadyknowfromAristotle,isthatthereisnotonetheory,buttwo:onetheoryforsingleatoms,whereweight
isdefinedintermsofsize,andanothertheoryforcompoundbodies,whereweightdependsonvoid.Sincehebeginsbythesimplestatement, .

Thisinitselfisperhapsenoughtoindicatethat ofjustification.Whatwearebeinggivenisnotanargumentinfavourofthedefinition,butaqualificationandan
explanationofit:

 Page127

'Democritusthusdefinesheavyandlight...,forinthecaseofsingleatoms...,whereasonthecontrary inthecaseofcompoundbodies....'

(vii)

Thissameorientation,Isuggest,anexpectationnotofargumentbutofexplanation,putsusintherightframeofmindtoappreciatethewordswhichfollowimmediately
theclauseintroducedby .

Inthechapterimmediatelypreceding,TheophrastushastoldusthatDemocritusexplainsthenatureofsensiblesbythesizeorshapeofatoms,orbytheirarrangement
andposition,cap.60(DK68A135): .
'Democritusdoesnotaccountforall<thesensibles>inthesameway:someheexplainsbythesizes<oftheatoms>,othersbytheirshapes,othersheexplainsbytheirposition
andarrangement.'

Twoofthesefactorsarefairlyobviouslyirrelevanttothepresentcircumstance.

1.Ifwearetoconsidertheintrinsicpropertyofasingleatom ,isclearlyirrelevant.

2.Thepositionofanatom ,itisfairlyclear,willbeequallyirrelevant,sincepositionisagainineffectamaterialfactoronlywhenatleasttwoatomsareconsidered
together.

Ifweightistobeintroducedasafunctionofoneoftheprimarycharacteristicsoftheatoms,itcanthereforeberelatedonlytoshapeortosize.SinceTheophrastus
tellsusthatDemocritus'intentionisinfacttorelateweighttosize,itthereforemakessenseexplicitlytosingleoutshapeaswhatwemightcallanirrelevantvariable:
'whatevertheshapeofanatom,itsweightisdependentuponitssize'.

 Page128

Nowitisatthispoint,Isuggest,thatweparticularlyappreciatetheformula:

'Iwillloveyou,evenifyouhateyourmother.'Theimplicationisobviouslysomethinglike:'Andofcourseifyoulikeyourmother,Ishallstillloveyou,orevenloveyou
allthemore'.Logically,theforceoftheformulaisthat'Ishallloveyouwhetherornotyouhateyourmother',buthumanly,asitwere,oneelementinthe'whetheror
not'isaccountedasmorelikelytoberealised,orasmorerelevanttothesituation,thantheother.

Sotoointhiscontext.Ifweightistobedefinedbysize,thentwoatomsthatarethesamesizewillhavethesameweight.Nowobviouslyifthetwoatomsarealsoof
thesameshape,therewillbenoadditionalfactorthatcoulddisturbthisequivalence.Itisonlyifthetwoatomsareadifferentshapethatwemightwonder:willtheystill
bethesameweight?Anditisonthispointthatweneedreassurance,asitwere:

'Eveniftwoatomsdifferinshape,theywillhavethesameweightiftheyhavethesamesize.'

ThustherearetwoelementsinthesentencewhichTheophrastusattachestotheAtomists'statementofweightintermsofsize.
1.Thedefinitionistrueonlyofindividualatoms,notofcompoundbodies.

2.Thealignmentofweightandsizeholdsgood,despiteanydifferenceofshape.

Bothelementsactasaqualificationoranexplanationofthedefinition,andnotasanargumentinitssupport.1

1
Iadvancethisargumentwithoutmeaningtoexploitanydifferencebetween merelyrepresentsthefulfilmentoftheconditionasimmaterial,withoutconveyinganyeffectof
climax'(Greekparticles299ff.),seemstometomatchexactlyTheophrastus'meaning.

 Page129

(viii)

ThisapproachclarifiesthestructureandtherelationofthetwosentencesIhavequoted.

Thetwofeaturesaddedasqualificationorasexplanationofthedefinitionareexpressedwhollyinthetwoprotases:
.

Atthesametime,theexpressionofthetwoprotasescreatesacertaintensionintheapodosis.

1.Inthefirstconditionalclause,Theophrastuschoosestospeakofindividualatomsinthesingular .Thisdistributionofsingularandplural
ispossiblynotessentialtothethought,butitisanaturalandobviouswayofexpressingthedistinction.

Indeed,notonlydoesthedistinctionbetweensingularandpluralprovideanaturalformofcontrast:thedistinctionisdirectlyrelatedtoTheophrastus'expressionoftheatomic
theory.Thesizeofanatom(ifwearenottooscrupulousaboutmoremodernnotionsofrelativity)canbeconsideredasacharacterintrinsictotheatomandmaythereforebe
expressedintermsofasingleatom,withnoexternalcomparison.ButtheweightofacompoundbodyisexpressedbyTheophrastusintermsoftherebeingmorevoidinone
compoundbodythaninanother,sothatonthisformulationanexternalcomparisonisunavoidable.1

1
Althoughtheuseof :onebodyis'heavier'or'lighter'<thananother>.ThereisanequivalentambiguityinAristotle'sinitialstatementoftheatomictheory,Decaeloiv
2,309a1011,wheretheambiguityisagainresolvedinfavourofanexternalcomparison,309a2930cf.p.101n.1above.

 Page130

2.Ontheotherhand,inthesecondconditionalclause,theirrelevancyofshapeisexpressed,atleastbyimplication,intermsofmorethanoneatom:'evenifoneatomdiffers(sc.
fromanother)intermsofshape'.

Thisdistributionofsingularandplural,betweenthefirstandsecondprotasis,affectsthesenseofthewordswhichhavetoactasapodosistobothconditionalclauses.
Theexpressionofthefirstprotasisrequiresthattheapodosisshouldspeakofasingleatom,whilethesecondprotasisrequiresthattheapodosisshouldcontinuethe
comparisonofoneatomwithanother.

1.Formally,theapodosisismostsimplytakenasfollowingtherequirementofthemajorandintroductoryprotasis,with :'ifeachatomistakenonitsown...thenthe
weight<ofeachatom>isrelatedtoitssize'.

2.Butinformallyandbyimplicationtheapodosiscanbetakentofollowthesenseofthesecondprotasis,ifweallowforcompletionintermsofmorethanoneatom:'...evenifone
atomdiffersinshape(sc.fromanother),itsweightwouldbedependentuponitssize(sc.sothatifoneatomhasthesamesizeasanother,itwillhavethesameweight,andifit
differsinsizeitwilldifferinweight)'.

Ihavealreadyremarkedontheneedtogiveprioritytothestatementofsimilarity,ifwearetoprovidethenaturalandappropriatecontrasttotheexpression:'evenifit
differs...'.

ItisfromsinglingoutoneelementonlyinthisinformalcompletionoftheapodosisthatMcDiarmidisledtoconfusethetraditionalinterpretationwithhisown:'ifthe
atomsdifferinshapeaswellasinsizeandweight...'.Fromthis,frommissingtheprecisesignificanceof'evenif',andfrommakingafalseassumptionaboutthe
natureoftheintroductory ,McDiarmid'stroublesarise.

Asitis,thesentenceprovidesaperfectlyunderstandablequalification,andexplanation,ofthedefinitionofheavyandlightasdependentuponsize.Thedefinition
appliestoindividualatomsonlyanditappliestothemirrespectiveoftheirshape.Formally,theconclusionofthesentencedoesnomorethanrepeatthe

 Page131

definition:theweightofanatomisdependentuponitssize.Informally,theexpressionofthesecondprotasisencourages,oratleastallows,theimplication:
'Ifanatomisthesamesizeasanother,itwillhavethesameweight,andifitdiffersinsizeitwilldifferinweight.'

Conclusion

Iparaphrasetherefore:
'Heavyandlightthen.TheseDemocritusdistinguishesbysize.Theideaisthatifeachindividual<atom>weretakenseparatelyonitsown,thenevenifitdiffered<fromothers>
withreferencetoshape,intermsofweightitsnaturewouldbedependentuponitssize,<sothatifithasthesamesizeasanotheratomitwillhavethesameweight,andifitdiffers
insizeitwilldifferinweight>.

'Thisisnotquitesohoweverasfarasmixedbodiesareconcerned.Ofthese,hesays,thelighterwouldbetheonecontainingthemorevoid.Theheavierbodyconverselywould
betheonecontainingthelessvoid.

'Hesoexpresseshimselfinanumberofplaces.Elsewherehesayssimplythatwhatisfinelytexturedislight.'1

1
Theophrastus,Desensibus612,quotedatthebeginningofthechapter.Forthefinaltwosentencesofthetranslationseebelowp.256n.3.

ItwillbeapparentthatIhaveleftasideinmyanalysismanypointsinTheophrastus'textwhichcryoutforamoredetailedinvestigation:theemendationof
(Diels).
ThesequestionshighlighttheneedforanewcriticaleditionoftheDesensibus,tomatchtheeditionsalreadyexistingoftheDelapidibus(ed.D.E.Eichholz,1965)andoftheDeigne
(ed.V.Coutant,1971),andalsoforcriticalstudiesofTheophrastus'language,suchasthatpioneeredbyL.Hindenlang,SprachlicheUntersuchungenzuTheophrastus'botanischen
Schriften(Strassburg,1910).
IhadmyselfhopedtomeettheneedforacriticaleditionIregretthatIhave

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page132

2
CriticismoftheTheory:The'Necessity'ofMovement

WhenTheophrastusturnstocriticiseDemocritus'theoryofweight,afteranaccountofothersensibiliaintheatomictheory,hewritesasfollows,Desens.71(DK
68A135): .

AsIhavenoted,thedifficultyhere,suchasitis,liesnotindeterminingtheimmediatesenseofthewords,butinappreciatingtheirideologicalaffiliation,andthe
significanceofthisforourenquiry.

TheimmediatesenseofthewordsIparaphraseasfollows:
'Andwhatismore,sinceDemocritusdefineswhatisheavyandlightbythesizes<oftheatoms>,itnecessarilyfollowsthatallthe<four>simplebodies<i.e.thecosmicelements,
earth,air,fireandwater>haveanidenticalimpulseofmovement,sothattheywould<all>be<made>fromasinglematerialprinciple,and<wouldallbe>ofoneandthesame
nature.'

TheobviousideologicalaffiliationofthesesentenceslieswiththepassagethatIquotedandparaphrasedearlierfromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,whereAristotle
complainsthatiftheatomsareallheavyabsolutelyforthat,Ihaveargued,isthenaturalimplicationofthepassagethentherecanbenothingthatislightabsolutely,
andviceversa.1

Inthecourseofthiscriticism,AristotlemakesbroadlythesametwopointsthatwefindrepeatedinTheophrastus.

1.Theatomshaveallasinglephysis, (cap.7,275b32276a1).

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

sofarbeenkeptfromrealisingthisproject.Intheabsenceofacriticaledition,Ihavejudgeditbest,inthepresentwork,tocontentmyselfwithseekingtoestablishwhatIbelieve
arethemainbonesofthetext,especiallyagainstMcDiarmid'seccentricreinterpretation,whilefullyrealisingthatlaterresearchmayrequireadifferentreadingofsomedetailsof
thetext.
1
Decaeloi7,275b29276a6,pp.1115above.

 Page133

2.Theatomshaveallasinglemovement (276b12).

Thereremaintwoparticulardifferences,intheexpressionandinthesequenceofthought:theseneedtobetracedwithsomecare.

'TheSimpleBodies'

ThemostobviousdifferencebetweenthetwopassagesisthatTheophrastusspecifiestheobjectofhiscriticismas ,'allthesimplebodies',whichmust
meanthefourcosmicelements,whereasAristotlewritesineffectoftheatoms,sinceheintroducestheatomictheoryasprovidingauniversalmaterialprinciplewhichis
'dividedbyvoid'and'definedbyshapes'(275b2932).1

(i)

Atfirst,thismayseemasignificantdivergence,forthedistinctionbetweentheatomsandtheatomicequivalentstoAristotle'sownfourcosmicelementsIhaveargued
iscrucialtothecriticismthatAristotlemakesoftheatomictheorylaterintheDecaelo.

Theatoms,Ihaveargued,accordingtoAristotlemovealways
1
AlbertGoedemeckemeyer,EpikursVerhltniszuDemokritinderNaturphilosophie(Strassburg,1897)10911,takes'thesimples'tobetheprimaryqualities('dieeinfachen
Sinnesempfindungen'),althoughthisobligeshimtoemend .AlbertRivaud,Leproblmedudeveniretlamatiredanslaphilosophiegrecquedepuislesorigines
jusqu'Thophraste(Paris,1906)166n.384,altersthisto'theatoms'.ThisseemsalsotobethemeaningintendedbyDiels,inhisIndex,Dox.s.v.(hequotesAet.i12.5cf.Arist.De
caeloiii4,303a12).
AlthoughthisreadingofthetextwouldbringTheophrastus'criticismevenmorecloselyinlinewiththatofAristotle,Iprefermyselftosupposethatinapassageofcriticismthe
expressionwillhavethemeaningwhichitregularlyhaselsewhereinthewritingsofAristotleandofTheophrastus.SeeBonitz,IndexAristotelicus76b1519fortheuseofthe
adjectivewithoutanoun( )andelsewhere(Decaus.pl.vi3.3Deodor.1and6).

 Page134

inasingledirection,andinthatsensemaybereckonedthereforeasapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteweight,whiletheelementalbodiesthatareformed
fromtheatoms,earthandfire,whichshouldhaveabsoluteweight,provenottodoso,sincetheremustalwaysbeaquantityoffirewhichwillhavemoreatoms,or
moreatomicsolid,andsowillbeheavierthanacertainquantityofearth.1

(ii)

However,thisdiscrepancybetweenTheophrastus'criticismandtheaccountthatIhaveofferedofthecriticismsthataremadebyAristotleismoreapparentthanreal.

TheophrastusisabletoignorethedistinctionsthatIhavestressedbetweenatomsandbodieswhicharemadefromtheatoms,becausehespecifiesallthesimple
bodiesashavingthesame'impulseofmovement',andthesamematerialprincipletherefore.

ThepointisthataccordingtoAristotlematerialbodies,fortheAtomists,whetheratomsorthebodiesformedfromthem,canhavemovementinonlyonedirection.
Thisisthereasonwhytheatoms,whicheverofthefourcosmicelementstheymaybesupposedtoconstituteortorepresent,cannotproduceanydifferencesof
movementthatarenotsimplytheexpressionofthesizeandthenumberofatoms.Forsincefireandearth,ontheatomictheory,aremadefromthesamematerial
substanceAristotlesupposesthattheymustbothmoveinthesamedirection,andwiththesamespeedforequalquantities.Thelargerquantitywillbeheaviertherefore
thanthesmallerquantityhowevermuchthedifferenceofquantity,incompoundbodies,maybedisguised,asitwere,bytheadditionofvoidwhicheverofthetwo
quantitiesissupposedtorepresentearthortorepresentfire.

Thisisthesamethereforeassayingthatallthefourcosmicelementshavethesame'impulseofmovement',ifwetakethisexpressiontomean,oratleasttoinclude,as
Ithinkitmust,movementinasingledirection.ForAristotle'spointispreciselythatontheatomictheoryitisimpossibletodistinguishoneelementfromanotherin
termsofweight:themovementofany
1
Seeespeciallych.I35,pp.1540above.

 Page135

element,ifitisdeterminedbythequantityofatomicsolid,will,inacertainquantity,outweighthemovementofanyotherelement,irrespectiveofwhicheverelementis
supposedtohaveabsoluteweight,ortohaverelativeweight.Alltheelementsthereforehavemovementinthesamedirection:andinsofarastheirmovementis
determinedbythesizeandbythenumberofatomstherecanthereforebenodistinctionbetweenthemofthekindthatAristotleholdsmustcharacterisethebehaviour
ofelementswithrelativeandwithabsoluteweight.

Inshort,theonlydifferencethatAristotleholdsisabletoobtainbetweendifferentelementsintheatomictheory,namelyanincreaseofspeedforthegreaterquantity,
isadifferencethatinAristotle'sowntheorywouldobtainbetweenthepartsofasingleelement.

FromthispointofviewthereforeIconcludethatAristotle'sargumentthatearthcannothaveabsoluteweight,sincefireinacertainquantitywillbeheavierthanearth,
andhisargumentthatairinacertainquantitywouldmovedownwardsmorequicklythanearth,arefaithfullyreflected,andsummarised,inTheophrastus'claimthatall
thefourelements,intheatomicsystem,musthaveasinglenatureandthesame'impulseofmovement'.

(iii)

Inwritingofelementsthathaverelativeweight,Ihaveassumedthatwemayincludethecriticismsofthefourthbook,aswellasthecriticismofthefirstbookoftheDe
caelo,asbeingimpliedintheDesensibus.

ThetwopointsofsimilaritythatIhavenotedbetweenthepassagefromthefirstbookoftheDecaeloandthecriticismwhichTheophrastusmakesofDemocritus
inclinemetobelievethatitisperhapstheargumentofthefirstbookwhichTheophrastushasprimarilyinmind:theatomswillbeeitherheavyabsolutelyorlight
absolutely,andiftheyaretheonethentheycannotbetheother.

Strictlyspeaking,however,itisonlyinthecriticismofthefourthbookthatAristotlespecificallybroadenshiscriticismtoincludethecomparisonofelementsthathave
relativeweight,witheachotherandwithelementsthathaveabsoluteweight.Weshallneedtoincludetheargumentsfromthefourthbookthereforeif

 Page136

wearetoprovideacompleteAristoteleanprototypefortheargumentthatalltheelementshaveasingle'impulseofmovement'.

ItistruethatinomittinganymentionofvoidinhiscriticismTheophrastusavoidstheparticularelaborationofAristotle'sfinalargumentinbookfour,wherevoidand
plenumaretakenascoexistentprinciples,representingrespectivelyfireandearth.

Butapartfromthiselaborationthereisnoideologicalbarriertocombiningthecriticismsfrombothbooks.Thegeneralmessageofthecriticismsinbookfouristhe
sameasthatoftheargumentinbookone:bodieswhichmoveallinthesamedirection,andwiththesamespeedforequalquantities,cannotprovideforadistinction
betweentwoelementswithabsoluteweight,norforthedistinctionbetweenanelementwithabsoluteweightandanelementwithrelativeweight.

IconcludethereforethatTheophrastus'criticismcorrectlyreproducestheessentialsofAristotle'scriticismoftheAtomistsinboththefirstbookandinthefourthbook
oftheDecaelo.Thedifferenceintheimmediatesubjectofthecriticism,'allthesimplebodies'insteadoftheatoms,is,fromthegeneralpointofviewofAristotle's
criticismofDemocritus,andofhisclassificationoftheatoms,adifferenceofpresentation,withnodivergenceofideology.HereaselsewhereintheDesensibus,
TheophrastusshowsthatfreedomofmanoeuvreandexpressionwhichcomesfromatotalunderstandingoftheprinciplesofAristotle'scriticism.

(iv)

VerybrieflythereforeIreturntotheclaimmadebyLiepmann,whichInotedinanearlierchapter,thatinthispassageTheophrastustreatstheatomicsystemas
providingonlyforbodieswhichhaverelativeweight,asAristotlealsodoes,accordingtoLiepmann,inthepassagefromthefirstbookoftheDecaelo.1

InAristotle'scase,Ihaveargued,theassumptionisjusttheopposite.Aristotle'sargumentisthatiftheatomshavemovementallinasingledirectionthentheywillbe
eitherheavyabsolutelyorlightabsolutely:thepointisnotthattheyareneither,butthattheycannotbeboth.
1
Liepmann,Mechanik41,p.13above.

 Page137

ThiswillalsobetrueforTheophrastus,ifweinterprethiscriticisminthelightofthepassageinAristotle,asIhavesuggestedthatweshould.

EvenifweextendtheimplicationofTheophrastus'criticismtoincludetheargumentswhichAristotlebringsagainsttheAtomistsinthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,it
innowayfollowsthatinDemocritus'system,accordingtoTheophrastus,'Alleswirdrelativschwer'.

Ratherthecontrary.Itistruethatnoindividualbodynoprivilegedgroupingoftheatomswillbeheavyabsolutely.Butthisisbecausealltheelementshaveasingle
natureandasingle'impulseofmovement'.Theywillthereforeapproximate,takenintheirtotality,tothepossessionnotofrelative,butofabsoluteweight.

MatterandMovement

AsecondandperhapsmoreseriouserrorintheinterpretationofthispassageliesinBailey'sassertionthataccordingtothe'suggestion'ofTheophrastus'weight'for
Democritus'isthecauseofmotion'.1

Ifitweretrue,thisassertionwouldcallintoquestionmuchoftheaccountthatIshallgiveofearlierideasaboutweightinthesucceedingchaptersofthisessay.

Atthesametime,Bailey'sclaimsymptomiseswhatIbelievetobethemostradicalalthoughalsooneofthemostobviouserrorsinthemoderninterpretationofthe
Desensibus:thefailuretodistinguishexegesisandcriticism.

(i)

IfwetakeonlythefirsttwoclausesofthesentencewhichIquotedatthebeginningofthissection,thenitisfairlyplain,asBriegerhadnoted,thattheopeningclause,
,alonepurportstorecord
1
GreekAtomists1301.BaileyaddspassagesfromCiceroandSimplicius.ThepassagefromCicero,Ishallarguelater,hehasalsomisunderstood,pp.2458below.Inadducing
theevidencefromSimplicius,Baileyfailstodistinguishproperlybetweenthemovementofatomsinthevoidandthedistinctionofheavyandlightbythedistributionofatoms
betweencentreandcircumferenceintheformationofacosmos:seebelowch.V,pp.15861.

 Page138

Democritus'ownview.Thewordswhichfollow, (276a12).1

Thisisconfirmedbythefactthatinanumberofplaceselsewhere,includingapassagelaterintheDecaelo,Aristotlearguesthattheoriginandthenatureoftheatoms'
movement werenotspecifiedbyDemocritus.1

Fairlyplainly,therefore,thenotionthattheatomsmoveinasingledirectionisAristotle'sowninferencefromthefactthattheatomshave'allthesamenature'like'gold
inseparatepieces'(275b31276al).

(ii)

Atthesametime,therelationofthefinalclausetotheprecedingclauseinTheophrastus'criticismbetraysasignificantdifferencebetweenAristotleandTheophrastusin
theconnectionofthought.

Aristotlearguesthatifthewholeisnotcontinuous,butisdividedbyvoid,thenallthingsmusthavethesamemovement(275b2931).Thereisthesamesequenceof
ideasinthesentencesimmediatelyfollowing.Iftheatomsaredefinedbytheirshapes,andiftheyhaveallthesamenature ,'asthougheachweremadefroma
separatepieceofgold',thentheymustthereforehaveallthesamemovement(275b31276a2).

Ontheotherhand,Theophrastusarguesthatthesimplebodies,forDemocritus,musthaveallthesame'impulseofmovement',andthattherefore .

Thuspremissandconclusionwouldappeartobereversedinthetwoaccounts.

1.ForAristotle,thenatureoftheatomsisidentical,andthereforetheyhavemovementallinthesamedirection.

2.ForTheophrastus,themovementofthe'simplebodies'isthesame,andthereforetheirnatureisidentical.

1
Brieger,Urbewegung6,cf.'Urbewegung'5889.
2
Referencesandargument,pp.237and2612below.

 Page139

(iii)

TheimmediatereasonforthisapparentreversalofpremissandconclusionliesinthedistinctionthatIhavealreadynotedbetweenatomsandthefour'simplebodies'
asthesubjectofthecriticism.
1.Aristotlearguesfromthenatureoftheatomsbeingsingletothenecessityoftheirmovementbeingone.

2.Theophrastusarguesfromtheidentityofmovementinthecosmostotheidentity,notoftheatoms,butofthecosmicelements.

Fromthispointofview,Aristotle'sargumentactsasapremisstotheargumentwhichTheophrastusadopts:(i)becausetheatomshaveasinglenature,thereforetheir
movementisthesame(Aristotle'sargument)(ii)<becausethenatureandthemovementoftheatomsisthesame>itfollowsthatthecosmicelements<whichare
formedfromtheatoms>haveasinglemovement,andasinglenaturetherefore(Theophrastus'argument).

(iv)

Atthesametime,whatIhavecalledtheAristoteleanpremisstoTheophrastus'argumentdoesfindaplaceinthepassagefromtheDesensibus:itisrepresentedby
thefirstclauseinTheophrastus'criticism,thatheavyandlightaredefined'bysizes'.

InthecontextoftheDesensibus,thisclauseactsasasummaryoftheaccountthathasalreadybeengivenofDemocritus'theory.Butideologicallythedefinitionof
weightbysizerepeatsineffectAristotle'spointthattheatomshaveasinglenature,withnodistinctiontherefore(inthefirstbookoftheDecaelo)betweenanelement
whichisheavyabsolutelyandanelementwhichislightabsolutely.ThepointisthatontheAristoteleantheoryadifferenceofsizecannotadduptoadifferenceof
nature:iftheonlydifferenceofweightbetweenthecosmicelementsliesintheirbeingconstitutedfromlargeratomsorsmalleratoms,thentherecanbenomore
differenceofnaturebetweenthefourelementsthanthereisbetweenonepieceofgoldandanother.

 Page140

Theophrastus'assertionthatheavyandlightaredefinedonlybysizeisequivalenttherefore,fromthepointofviewofAristotle'sphilosophy,totheassertionthatthe
atomshaveallthesamemovement,asseparatepiecesofgoldwouldhave.

(v)

Inarathermoreobliquefashion,thissameequivocationbetweentheatomsandthefourcosmicelementsfindsaplaceinAristotle'scriticism.

TheconclusionthattheatomshavethesamemovementAristotleillustratesbythebehaviourofearthandfire,i7,276a23:
.

WheninthefollowingsentenceAristotleconcludesthatno'body'( 276a5)thereforecanbelightabsolutely,ifeverythinghasheaviness,or
heavy<absolutely>ifeverythinghaslightness,itisnolongerpossible,norisitreallynecessary,toknowwhetherthe'bodies'inquestionareatomsorthefourcosmic
elements.The'grouping'ofatoms,eventheirconjunctionwithlargerorsmallerquantitiesofvoid,cannot,forAristotle,sufficetoestablishanydifferenceindirectionof
movement,fortheatomsorfortheelements,sincetheatoms,andtheelementstherefore,havebeencondemnedtothepossessionofa'singlenature'.

Thuswhilethesequenceofthoughtvaries,inAristotleandinTheophrastus,thecontentoftheircriticismsisvirtuallythesame.WhileAristotlearguesfromtheatoms'
havingasinglenature,andmovementthereforeinasingledirection,totheabsenceofanydifferencebetweenheavyandlightamongtheelementsoramongtheatoms
(dependingupontheprecisereferenceof ),Theophrastusargueswithpreciselythesameassumptionbutinthereversedirection.Theabsenceofany
distinctioninweightamongtheatoms,otherthanthatofsize,leadstomovementinthesamedirection,andtoasinglenaturetherefore,forthefour'simplebodies'.

(vi)

IfinthelightofthisanalysiswereturntoBailey'sinterpreta

 Page141

tionwecan,Ithink,seeatoncehowhollowthatinterpretationis.

InbothAristotleandinTheophrastusthe'necessity'bywhichtheatoms,ortheelements,havemovementinasingledirectionispresentedascriticismandnotas
exegesis.
1.ForAristotle,movementinasingledirectionfollowsfromtheatoms'havingasinglenature.

2.ForTheophrastus,movementinasingledirectionfollowsfromtheuseofsizeassolecriterionofthedifferencebetweenheavyandlight,sincesizecannotestablishany
differenceofnaturebetweentheatomsorbetweentheelements.

Inneithercaseisthe'necessity'bywhichtheatoms,ortheelements,moveallinthesamedirectionofferedasadirectstatementoftheoriginaltheory.1

Conclusion

(i)

TheophrastusrepeatsAristotle'stwopointsthatinDemocritus'systemthereisasinglematerialsubstance,andthatforDemocritustherecanbemovementinonlya
singledirection.

ThereisthedifferencethatTheophrastusspeaksofthecosmicelements,whereAristotlespeaksinitiallyoftheatoms.Thisinnowayfalsifiesthesubstanceof
Aristotle'scriticism,thoughitleadstoadifferenceinexposition,sincewhileAristotlearguesfromthenatureoftheatomstotheidentityoftheirmovement
Theophrastusarguesfromtheidentityofmovementtotheidentity,notoftheatoms,butoftheelements.

(ii)

Theophrastus'criticismofDemocritusinnowayimpliesthat'everything'inDemocritus'worldhasrelativeweight.ForTheophrastus,asforAristotle,the'single'
materialsubstanceoftheatoms,andoftheelements,willapproximatetothepossessionof
1
Noteespecially inTheophrastus,Desens.71(DK68A135).

 Page142

absoluteweight,preciselybecauseithasmovementalwaysinthesamedirection.

StilllessisittruethatTheophrastustakesDemocritushimselftohaveofferedweightascauseofmovementinasingledirection.Thisbeliefarisesfroma
misinterpretationofthepassageintheDesensibus,andmoregenerallyfromamisunderstanding,orneglect,ofthedivisionofmaterialinTheophrastus'doxography.
ThelaterpassageintheDesensibusisplainlyofferednotasadirectstatementofDemocritus'theory,butasacriticalinferencethatTheophrastus,undertheinfluence
ofAristotle,hashimselfaddedtothetheory.

3
CriticismoftheTheory:'Physis'and'Hyle'

AChangeinTerminology

ThereremainsonefeatureinthecriticismIhavequotedfromTheophrastusthatcanproperlybeviewedonlyfromaratherbroaderperspective.

WhereasAristotle,inthefirstbookoftheDecaelo,writesoftheatomsashaving'asinglenature'( .

Thereisherebothanhistoricalandanideologicaldistinction,markedbytheconjunctionofaword,physis,whichisusedbothbyAristotleandbythePresocratics,if
inadifferentconnotation,withatermwhichinitsphilosophicalusageisexclusivelyandspecificallyAristotelean,hyle.

(i)

Historically,asIshallseektoshowmorefullyinthefinalchapterofthisessay,the'nature'ofamaterialbodyinthethinkingofphilosophersofthefifthcenturywas
expressedprimarilybytheintrinsicnatureandpowersofthestuffthatathingwasmadeof.

Fromthispointofview,partofthewayinwhichtheatomicsystemispresentedinthepassagefromthefirstbookoftheDecaeloIbelieverepresentscloselyenough
theoriginalfifthcentury

 Page143

conception,asitwasadoptedbyDemocritus.ThecomparisonoftheatomswithpiecesofgoldcanhardlynothavebeeninfluencedbyPlato'suseofgoldatonepoint
inhisdescriptionof'thethirdgenos'intheTimaeus(50AB).Evenso,itsusehererightlydirectsattentiontothematerialfromwhichtheatomsaremade,toits
uniformityandperhapsalsotheadditionalfeaturewhichIsuspectmaybeintendedbythecomparisonwithgolditsdensityandsolidity.Thisnotionofasingle
uniformmaterialsubstance,andespeciallyonenotedforitsdensityandsolidity,wouldseemtoanswercloselyenoughtowhatweknowoftheoriginalfifthcentury
conceptionoftheatoms.1

(ii)

AradicaldeparturefromPresocraticwaysofthinkingmadebyAristotleliesinhisnotionof'nature'ormaterialsubstanceasdefinedbythemovementofabodyina
particulardirection,anditscomingtorestinaparticularplace,asagainsttheearlierconceptionwherebytheidentityofanobjectliesnotprimarilyinitsbehaviour,but
inthequalitiesorpowersintrinsictothestufffromwhichitismade.

ThusfortheAtomiststhemselvesthemovementoftheatoms,Isuspect,willhavestemmedfrom,orwillhavebeenassociatedwith,thealternativefactorinthe
descriptionwhichAristotlesuppliesfortheatoms,of'thewhole' atermthatcanbeparalleledinanumberofphilosophicalfragmentsfromthefifth
centuryas'dividedbyvoid'(275b2930).

Fromthispointofview,themovementoftheatomswillhavebeenaconsequenceatonceoftheexistenceofvoid,andofthegeneralassociationinthefifthcenturyof
unitywithimmobility,andofmovementwithseparationandplurality.2
1
Forreportsonthe'hardness'or'solidity'oftheatoms,asareasonfortheirindivisibility,seebelowp.245n.1.
2
Aristotle'smainaccountofthevarioussensesofphysis,andthedefinitionofphysisthatIhaveinmindas ,isgiveninPhysicsii12,192b8194b15,esp.ii1,
192b203.ThisdefinitionisrepeatedintheDecaelo,i2,268b1416andiii2,301b1622.
Thereisofcourseadifferencebetweenthephysisofanimatebodies,whichisAristotle'sprimary,thoughnothissole,preoccupationinthepassageIhavecitedfromthePhysics,and
thephysisofelements,whichwillaloneprovideformovementalwaysinaspecificdirection.

 Page144

(iii)

Thiswouldexplainthedivergenceoverthedirectionofmovement.

1.Originally,theatomsareinmovementbecausetheyareseparatedfromoneanotherinthevoid:butfromthepointofviewofthefifthcenturythereisnothinginthis
circumstancetodeterminethemovementoftheatomsinaspecificdirection.

2.ForAristotle,onthecontrary,movementinaspecificdirectionisadirectexpressionofmaterialsubstanceandofthe'nature'ofathing.Theatomsaremadeallfromthesame
material,theyhavethesame'nature',andsofarasAristotleisconcernedthey'must'thereforehavemovementallinthesamedirection.

Inthisway,Aristotle'sconceptionofthe'nature'ofmaterialsubstanceleadshimtoaddmovementinaspecificdirectionasa'necessaryconsequence'oftheatomic
philosophy,althoughbysoexpressinghimselfheatonceimpliesthatthiswasnotanoriginalfeatureofthesystem.

ThepointisthatfortheAtomistsmovement,butnotmovementinanyspecificdirection,isaconsequenceoraccompanimentofpluralityanddiversity,whereasfor
Aristotlemovement,andmovementinaspecificdirection,isadirectexpressionofthe'nature'oftheindividualbody,sothatifthis'nature'isthesameforseveral
bodiesthennecessarilytheymusthavemovementallinthesamedirection.

(iv)

ForTheophrastus,asforAristotle,thecosmosinfactexhibitsmovementinfourdirections,oratleasttofourregionsofthecosmos,correspondingtothefourcosmic
elements,andtothedistinctionbetweenheavyandlight,inbothanabsoluteandarelativesense.Itisthefailuretoprovideforthesedifferencesofmovementthatis
thefundamentalreasonforAristotle'srejectionbothofDemocritus'andofPlato'stheoriesofweight,asallowingfornaturalmovementinonlyasingledirection.

 Page145

Itistrue,Aristotledoesbelievethatthereisasingleunderlyingmaterialprinciple,forotherwise,hesupposes,theelementscouldnotbetransformable,ashebelieves
thattheymustbe,andareseentobe.Butthisprimarymaterialprinciplecanbedistinguishedfromthefourelementsonlyabstractly.Ithasnoindependentexistence,
orrather,itisnotitselfcharacterisedbyanyspecificformofweight,northereforedoesithavemovement,normovementinanyspecificdirection.Movementina
specificdirectionattaches,inAristotle'ssystem,nottotheprimaryunderlyingmaterialprinciple,buttoeachofthefourelements.

ItistruethereforethatforAristotlethereisinonesenseasingleunderlyingmaterialprinciple,hyle(e.g.Decaeloiv4,312a1221).Butfromanotherpointofview
therehastobeaseparatehyleforheavinessandlightnessandforeachofthefourelements(iv5,312a22b2).Fromthispointofviewthepresenceofasingle
materialprinciple,hyle,inthesystemofPlatoorofDemocritusisreckonedasasufficientrefutationoftheirsystem(iv5,312bf1932).

(v)

ThusfromthepointofviewofAristotleorofTheophrastus,thefallacyintheatomictheoryistohavesupposedthattherecanexistasthefundamentalmaterial
principleoftheuniverseasingleseparatesubstancewhichischaracterisedbyweightandwhichmustthereforehavemovementinonlyonedirection.Thepresenceof
suchasubstanceatoncepreemptsthepossibilityoftherebeinganyrealdistinctioninweightorindirectionofmovementamongthe'elements'whichmightbe
supposedtoderivefrom,ortobemadeoutof,thissinglesubstance.

ForaccordingtoAristotle'sprinciplestheelementscouldnotbecharacterisedasindividually,andindependently,havingoneofthetwooppositeformsofrelativeorof
absoluteweight,iftheunderlyingmaterialfromwhichtheelementswereformedwereitselftopossessweight,andmovement.

Insuchasystemtherecouldbenodistinctionbetweenthefourcosmicelementsandthecompositesubstancesthataremadefromthem.InAristotle'sownsystem,the
weightofwoodorofleadisdeterminedbytheproportionofeachofthefourelementswhichgointothemakingofwoodoroflead.Thereistherefore

 Page146

nonewexpressionofweightincompositebodies:onlyarearrangementandacombinationoftheweightofthefour'simplebodies'.Sotoo,intheatomicsystem,as
seenbyAristotle,ifthefourelementsaremadefromasinglesubstancewhichitselfhasweight,andthereforemovement,thentheycandonomorethanexpressin
theirbehaviouralargerorasmallerproportionoftheweighttheonekindofweightexhibitedbytheprimarysubstancethattheyaremadefrom.

ItisthiscriticismthatTheophrastussummarisesinhischargethat,fortheAtomists,thefoursimplebodiesmusthaveallthesame'impulseofmovement',andthatthey
mustthereforehaveallasinglematerialprinciple .1

ExegesisandCriticism

Ihavedweltonthispoint,despitethefactthattheconsiderationsthatitdrawsuponareofamoregeneralkindthanthosethatIhaveemployedinmyanalysisupto
thispoint,partlyinordertoclarifywhatIbelievetobethedirectimplicationofthesentenceinTheophrastus,butalsoinordertoestablish,fromthisbroaderpointof
view,themoregeneralpointthatIalludedtoearlier:thatthesentencefromtheDesensibusquotedattheheadofthesectionbeforethisisintendedascriticism,and
notasexegesis.
1
InthesesectionsIhavedeliberatelyanticipatedanumberofpointswhichwillbeconsideredmorefullyinlaterchapters.Fortheassociationofmovementwithpluralityand
diversity,seech.XI2,pp.31115below.Forthedisputeoverthedirectionofmovementintheatomicsystem,seebelowch.IX3,esp.pp.2612.OtherpointsIhavealludedto,
andinparticularthetreatmentofPlatoandDemocritusas'materialmonists',theexplanationof'compositeweight'inAristotle'stheory,andAristotle'sconceptionofprimamateria
inrelationtoweight,willhavetoawaitelaborationinmylateressays.
InordertoavoidundueproliferationIhavealsodeliberatelylimitedmyreferencesinsupportofthevariousconnotationsofphysisandhyle:myaccountisnotmeanttobe
controversial.Ihavealsoomittedthepointthatearlierinthefifthcenturyphysiscarriedconnotationsofmovementbutnot,Ithink,ofmovementalwaysandonlyinaspecific
direction,asinAristotle'saccountoftheelements.

 Page147

(i)

IntheDesensibusTheophrastusregularlydivideshisaccountofeachphilosopherintoastatementofthetheoriesheldandacriticismofthem.Obviouslytheattempt
todistinguishcriticismfromexegesisisnotuniformlysuccessful.Theexegesisispresentedwithaneyetointerestsandpreoccupationsthatdonotalwaysmatchthose
oftheoriginaltheory.InthecourseofhiscriticismTheophrastusdoessometimesadducepointsofdetailthathadnotfoundaplaceinhisoriginalstatementofthe
theory.

Nonetheless,theattemptedseparationofcriticismandexegesisisclearlymade,andthesentencewhichIhavequotedfromlaterintheDesensibusfallsclearlywithin
thesectionofcriticism.Thepreliminaryclause, ,mustbecritical.

Theproblemliesnotinestablishingwhetherthesecondandthirdclausesarecriticalinintent,butindetermininginwhatwaytheyareintendedtobeso.Inparticular,
howisitthatTheophrastuscanintroduce'asinglephysisandasinglehyle',notasasimplestatementoftheAtomists'theory,whichisthewayinwhichtheearlier
expressionisintroducedbyAristotle,butasa'necessaryconsequence'oftheAtomists'definitionofweight,whichcanbeleftasafinalandsufficientrefutationoftheir
theory?

(ii)

Theanswer,Ihopeitwillnowbeclear,liesultimatelyinthedifferentconceptionsofphysis:thefifthcenturyview,andtheAristoteleanconception.Thephysisofthe
atoms,thoughtofasthestufffromwhichtheatomsaremade,canactasapremisstothephysisoftheatoms,andoftheelementstherefore,thoughtofasan
expressionoftheirmovementinaparticulardirection.Thepossessionof'asinglenature',thoughtofinthefirstsense,isadirectstatementoftheatomictheory.The
possessionof'asinglenature',inthesecondsense,isaconsequenceoftheatomictheorywhichfromthepointofviewofAristotle'sownconceptionofthecosmos,
sharedbyTheophrastus,isalsoadirectrefutationoftheatomictheory.

 Page148

Thuswhenheturnsfromexegesistocriticismoftheatomictheory,Theophrastusfirstresumesthetheorythathehadoutlinedearlier:'heavyandlightaredefinedby
differencesofsize'.Hethendrawstworelatedcriticalconclusions.

1.Sincedifferenceofsizeistheonlydistinctionbetweenheavyandlightintheatomictheory,theatomswhich,accordingtoAristotle,aremadefrom'asinglenature',physisin
theDemocriteansenseandtheelementsthereforemusthavethesame'impulseofmovement',i.e.theywillhavemovementallinthesamedirection,withthesamespeedof
movementforequalvolumes.

2.Fromthisitfollows thatthefoursimplebodieswillhave'asinglenature',physisintheAristoteleansenseoftheword,andasinglematerialprinciple,hyle:i.e.theywill
failtoexhibitthedifferencesindirectionandspeedofmovementwhichAristotleholdstobeaprimaryandanessentialexpressionofthematerialsubstanceofeachofthefour
cosmicelements.

InthesecondcasetheconjunctionwithhyleunderlinestheAristoteleanconnotationofphysis,whereasinAristotlethecomparisonwithpiecesofgoldservestobring
outtheoriginalfifthcenturyconnotationofphysis.

(iii)

This,Ihope,explainsmoreclearlythefundamentalfallacyinBailey'suseoftheDesensibus.Baileyismistaken,notonlyontheparticularpoint,that'weight'shouldbe
givenbyTheophrastusas'causeofmotion'fortheAtomists,butmoreimportantlyinhisgeneralassumptionthatatthispointinhistreatiseTheophrastuscouldstill
intendtoofferanaccountoftheAtomists'originalphilosophy,insteadofhisowncriticismofit.1

Itistruethatthereisacertainoverlappingbetweencriticismandexegesis,apparentespeciallyintheshiftofconnotationinthewordphysis,whenusedbyAristotle,
andwhenusedbyTheophrastusinconjunctionwithhyle.Butthepointnonethelessisnot
1
GreekAtomists1301,cf.pp.13742above.

 Page149

that,accordingtoTheophrastus,theweightofatoms,intheoriginalDemocriteantheory,isthecauseoftheirmovementinasingledirection.Thepointisthatbecause
theweightoftheatomsisdeterminedsolelybysize,thereforeDemocritushasnomeansofaccountingforthedifferencesindirectionandspeedofmovementwhich
AristotleandTheophrastusholdtobeanobviousandanessentialfeatureofthecosmos.

ItisthissameconfusionofexegesisandcriticismintheDesensibusthatinmysecondessayIshallarguehasledTaylortoreadbackintoPlato'sTimaeusan
essentiallyAristoteleanconceptionofweight,andthathasblockedthewayforamodernunderstandingofPlato'stheory.ForagainTaylorhastakenasadirect
expressionofPlato'stheorythecriticalconstructionsthatTheophrastusoffersusafterhisexegesisofPlato'stheory,andthatareintendedasarefutationofit.

Conclusion

(i)

Fromthefactthatthe'nature'oftheatomswashomogeneous,Aristotlearguesthattheatomscanhavehadmovementinonlyonedirection.ThisAristotleseesasa
denialofhisownconvictionofthediversityofmovementsinthecosmos,andinparticularasadenialofhisownconvictionofthemovementofearthandfirein
oppositedirections.

ThisargumentTheophrastusisabletosummariseinanexpandedversionoftheformulausedtodescribethebasisoftheatomicsystem,becauseheaddstothe
originalatomicnotionofphysistheAristoteleanconceptionofamaterialprincipleasdefinedprimarilybymovementinaspecificdirection.

Fromthispointofview,theatoms'andthereforetheelements'possessionofasingle'nature'becomesinitselfarefutationoftheatomicphilosophy,foroncehyleis
addedtophysissothat'nature'carrieswithittheconnotationofmovementinaspecificdirection,thenthepossessionofasingle'nature'isatonceindirect
contradictionwiththeAristoteleanviewoftheuniverseascharacterisedbyadiversityofmovements.

 Page150

(ii)

ThisleavesusfreetosummarisetheevidencefortheatomictheoryofweightfromAristotleandfromTheophrastus.

Inbothhisinitialaccountoftheatomictheory,andinhiscriticismofit,TheophrastustellsusthatDemocritusdistinguishedheavyandlight'bysize'or'bysizes'.Inhis
initialaccountofthetheory,heexplainsthatthismeansthattheweightofeachindividualatomisdependentuponitssize,while'mixed'orcompoundbodiesare
heavierorlighterdependingupontheamountofvoidthattheycontain.

PreciselythesesametwofeaturesrecurinAristotle'sanalysisoftheatomictheoryintheDecaelo.Thelargeranatom,theheavieritis,whileforcompoundbodies,at
leastforcompoundbodiesofthesamesize,orforcompoundbodieswherethecomparisonofvolumehasnotbeenspecified,thelighterbodyistheonewhichhas
morevoid.

IntheDegenerationeetcorruptione,Aristotlesaysonlythattheweightof'eachoftheindivisibles'ineffectthesamespecificationasinTheophrastusisheavier
accordingtoitspreponderance.Inthecontext,thenatureofthepreponderancedoesnotneedtobe,andisnot,specified.Nonetheless,fromthepassageintheDe
caelo,andfromtheevidenceinTheophrastus,wecansafelysaythatAristotlewillhavehadinmindapreponderanceofsize.

 Page151

PARTTWO
SECONDARYEVIDENCE

 Page153

ChapterFive
Simplicius

1
TheWeightofAtoms

TheophrastusandAristotle,wehavenowseen,agreeinattributingweighttotheindividualatoms.AnentryinAetiusexplicitlydeniesthatDemocritusgavetheatoms
weight.ThesameimplicationhasbeenthoughttoattachtoasecondentryinAetius,andtosomeremarksinCicero.1

Theusualreactiontothiscontradiction,betweenAristotleandTheophrastusontheonehandandthePlacita,orCiceroandthePlacita,ontheother,hasbeento
attemptacompromise.Burnethasbeentheclearestandthemostforcefulexponentofthiscourseofaction,whileProfessorGuthrieisthemostrecentadherentto
whatisessentiallythesameview.2

Onthisinterpretation,whatAristotleandTheophrastussayistrueonlyofatomswithinacosmos,oratleastwithinthebeginningsofacosmos,wherelightandheavy
aredistinguishedastheaggregationofrespectivelysmallerandlargeratomsinavortex.WhatAetiusreportswillbetrueofatomswhicharenotcaughtintoacosmic
vortex,andwhich,inProfessorGuthrie'sphrase,are'floatingfreelyinthevoid'.Epicurus'innovationisthentohaveaddedweight,andsodownwardmovement,to
atomsexistingoutsideacosmos.3
1
Aet.i12.6,i3.18.Cicero,Defato20.46.AllinDK68A47.
2
Burnet,EGP3417.Guthrie,Historyii4004,cf.410.BurnetrepeatshisinterpretationinGreekphilosophypartIThalestoPlato(London,1914)96101.
3
Theevidencefortheseparationofheavyandlightatomsinavortexismorediffusethantheconfidentstatementsinmosthistoriesofthesubjectmightleadonetoexpect.

Theprocessof isresponsiblefortheseparationofheavyandbyimplicationoflightatoms,intheatomistcosmogonyrelatedatlength,butwithoutanauthor,inAet.i4
2(DK67A24).ThesameprocessisspecificallyattributedtoDemocritusbySimpliciusintwopassageswhichwillbequotedanddiscussedinthecourseofthischapter,Decaelo
569.59and712.2731(DK68A61),pp.15461and15761below.
Theseparationof'fine'atomsfrom'therest',inavortex,butwithoutspecificmentionoflightandheavy,isincludedinthedetailedcosmogonyattachedto

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page154

Thisinterpretationhastheadvantageofclarity,butitrests,Ibelieve,onamishandlingoftheevidenceandmoregenerallyonanumberofquestionablepresuppositions
aboutthebehaviouroftheatomsandthenatureofancientconceptionsofweight.

However,beforeturningdirectlytotheevidencefromAetiusandfromCicero,Ishallconsider,inthisandinthefollowingtwochapters,anumberofotherpassages
whichbear,orwhichhavebeenthoughttobear,ontheproblem:fromSimplicius,DiogenesandAlexander.

ItakefirstaseriesofpassagesfromSimplicius,twoofwhichProfessorGuthrieintroducesinsupportofhiscompromise.1

'DeCaelo'569.59

ThepassagewhichProfessorGuthriefirstcitesistakenfromSimplicius,Decaelo569.69(DK68A61): .

'...theysaythatalltheatoms,beingalikeintheirnature,haveheaviness,butinvirtueofsomebodiesbeingheavier<thanothers>,thelighteronesaresqueezedoutbythem

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
theLifeofLeucippusbyDiogenes,ix312(DK67A1),quotedpp.2045below.Adescriptionoftheformationoftheearth,intermsofheavyandlight,butwithoutspecific
mentionofadine,isattributedtoDemocritusinanentryinAetius,iii13.4(DK68A95),quotedbelowp.374.
TheattributioninSimpliciusandinDiogenes(andperhapsthatinthelaterofthetwoentriesinAetius)explainsAristotle'sunattributedreferencetothedistinctionofelementsby
,Decaeloi8,277a33b2(notinDK).SimpliciusatthispointcitesonlyStratoandEpicurus,267.30.EpicurusisjoinedwithDemocritusinthefirstofthetwolaterpassages
(569.59).Inthesecondpassage(712.2731)Democritus,orrather'theassociatesofDemocritus',arecitedalone.
ThefragmentofDemocritusrecordedbySextus,Adv.math.vii117(DK68B164),andfrequentlyquotedinthiscontext,describesonlythegeneralmovementofliketolike,although
mentionismadeatonepointofa .
1
Decaelo569.59(DK68A61):Historyii403.Phys.1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58):Historyii403n.3:seebelowpp.16673.
TheinterpretationthatIhavequotedfromBurnetandfromGuthrieisadoptedbymostinterveningwritersonancientAtomism,includingLonRobin,Lapensegrecque(Paris,1923)
1389,cf.141(althoughinhislaterarticle,quotedp.42n.2above,Robinwrotethat'laquestionresteensommeindcise'),Bailey,

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page155

<i.e.bytheheavierones>:asthe<heavier>onessettlebelow<thelighterones>,thelighterones<aretherebymadeto>travelinanupwarddirection:throughthisprocessthese
thinkersclaimthattheappearancearisesofsomebodiesbeinglightandothersheavy.'

(i)

OfthispassageProfessorGuthriewritesthatthe'context'inwhichSimpliciusattributesweighttotheatoms'putsitbeyonddoubtthatheisdescribingthestateof
thingswithinacosmicvortex'.1

Butthisisonlyhalftrue.Thesecondpartofthesentencedoesclearlydescribetheeffectofacosmicvortex.Butthefirstpart,equallyclearly,doesnot.Foritisplain
thatatomsdonotcometobeofauniformnatureonlywhentheyaredrawnintoavortex:andtherefore,onSimplicius'evidenceatleast,theydonotacquireweight
onlywithinavortex,forweight,inSimplicius'

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
GreekAtomists12348,cf.824,164,184,FriedrichR.H.Solmsen,Aristotle'ssystemofthephysicalworld,acomparisonwithhispredecessors(NewYork,1960)278,cf.281n.23,
andKirk,Presocraticphilosophers41416.
Therehaveofcoursebeenexceptions.Lwenheim(1914)adoptsanavowedlyNewtonianinterpretation,whichEnriquesandMazzioti(1948)attempttocombinewithBurnet'sview,
whileanothereccentricversionofBurnet'sviewisgivenbyBollack(1969):theseinterpretationsIhavenotedbrieflyintheBibliography,wheretheappropriatereferenceswillbe
found.
IhavealsonotedintheBibliographyasensible,butratherinconclusive,accountofweightbyRivaud(1906)whichappearedayearortwobeforethatofBurnet(EGP2ndedn1908),
andamorerecent,butagainratherinconclusive,moveawayfromBurnet'sviewbyAlfieri(1953),whoseconclusionistheclosestIknowtothatwhichIshalladopt.
Themostrecentstudyknowntome,sinceProfessorGuthrie'sHistory,isbyHansRegnell,Ancientviewsonthenatureoflife,threestudiesinthephilosophiesoftheAtomists,Plato
andAristotle,intheseriesLibraryoftheoria10(Lund,1967).Somequitepromisingpages,181204,entitled'Onatomistictheoriesofmotion,withparticularregardtotheproblemof
selfmobility',endupnonethelessadoptingBurnet'sview.Othermorerecentcontributions,byHahmandFurley(1976),areagainnotedintheBibliographyseealsop.347n.3below.
ThehistoricalgenesisofBurnet'sview,astheoutcomeofanattemptthatwasmadebyanumberofscholarsinthenineteenthcenturytoescapefromZeller'sinterpretationof
Democritus,isbesttakenasaseparatequestion,whichIshalltraceinalaterchapter,ch.XIII1,pp.34764below.
1
Historyii403.

 Page156

statement,istiedtouniformityofnature: .1

(ii)

Thispassageis,inanycase,unsuitableforProfessorGuthrie'spurpose,foritbeginsbycitingbothEpicurusandDemocritus,569.56(DK68A61):

OneofthecentralpointsofBurnet'soriginalthesiswaspreciselytodistinguishDemocritusandEpicurus,andtosupposethatonlyintheearliersystemweretheatoms
withoutweightbeforetheproductionofacosmos,whileforEpicurusweightwasaninvariablecharacteristicofatomicsubstance.

Notsurprisingly,therefore,ProfessorGuthriewritesthatthispassage'showsasomewhatuncriticaljuxtapositionofEpicurusandDemocritus',sinceSimpliciushere
attributesweightequallytotheatomsofEpicurusandtothoseofDemocritus.2

ButProfessorGuthrie'sremarkisillogicalinoneorotheroftwoways.
1.ItisinconsistentwithProfessorGuthrie'searlierremarkaboutthecontextofthestatementlimitingitsapplicationtotheformationofacosmos.ForonBurnet'sthesis,whichis
followedinitsessentialsbyProfessorGuthrie,thedifferencebetweenDemocritusandEpicurusliesintheiraccountoftheatomspriortotheformationofacosmos.Ifthepresent
statementreferredonlytoeventsortostateswithinacosmos,thentherewouldbenoreasontocomplainthatthe

1
The'cosmic'interpretationofthistextbeganasajustifiablereactionbyBrieger,Urbewegung7,againstZeller'sattempttoemploythepassageasevidenceoftheatoms'
movementinthevoid,DiePhilosophiederGriechenTeiliAbteilung26thednbyW.Nestle(Leipzig,1920)(henceforwardZN)1086n.2.Itseemstomethattheonlycorrect
interpretationistodistinguishthetwoelementsinthepassageasIhavedone.
Inhislaterwork,'Urbewegung'58990,cf.586,Briegerdoescomeclosetomakingthisdistinction,sinceheadvances,onhisownaccount,theargumentthatsincetheatomsare
'wesensgleich'theymustpossessweightevenpriortotheformationofacosmos.ButBriegerdoesnotconnectthiswithhisearlierinterpretationofthispassageinSimplicius,nor
doesheallowittoalterhisgeneralevaluationofSimplicius'evidence:seefurtherpp.3514andpp.3559below.
2
Historyii403n.3.

 Page157

juxtapositionofDemocritusandEpicuruswas'somewhatuncritical'.

2.Ontheotherhand,ifitis'uncritical'tojoinEpicurusandDemocritus,itmustbebecauseatleastpartofthestatementattributedtothemreferstothenatureoftheatomsin
themselves,andindependentlyoftheirbehaviourwithinacosmos.ButinthatcaseProfessorGuthrie'scomplaintthattheburdenofthepassageis'uncritical',andhisuseofthis
passagetoestablish,ortosupport,histhesis,becomesvirtuallyapetitioprincipii.ForSimplicius'juxtapositionofDemocritusandEpicuruswillbe'uncritical',onlyifwealready
supposethatEpicuruswasaloneinmakingweightanintrinsicpropertyoftheatoms,priortotheiruseintheformationofacosmos:andyetthatverysuppositionweareintended
toderive,atleastinpart,fromthissamepassage.

Conclusion

Theonlyconclusionwecanproperlydraw,fromthisfirstpassage,takenalone,isthat,forSimplicius,theatomsofDemocritus,nolessthantheatomsofEpicurus,
haveweightinvirtueoftheuniformityoftheirnature,andindependentlythereforeoftheirbehaviourwithinacosmos.

'DeCaelo'712.2731

NotonlyisProfessorGuthrie'sinterpretationofthisfirstpassageinconsistentinitself:theattempt,oratleasttheneed,ineffecttosplitupthepassage,sothatthe
earlierpartistrueexclusivelyforEpicurus,whilethelaterpartistrueforDemocritus,orforDemocritusandEpicurus,failswhenwefindlaterintheDecaelothat
whatarevirtuallythesamesentimentsareattributedexclusivelytoDemocritus,orinaconventionallyequivalentphraseto'Democritusandhisassociates',712.2731
(DK68A61):... .

 Page158

'...AristotlemeansthatDemocritusandhisassociatesarewronginthinkingthateverythinghasheaviness,andthatitisonlyinvirtueofitshavinglessheavinessthatfire
travelsupwards,doingsobecauseitispressedoutbythingsthatovertakeit,thewholeprocessmakingfirelookasthoughitislight.

'Anyhow ,thesearethethinkerswhoholdthatthereexistsonlywhatisheavy,andthatthis<namelywhatisheavy,sofarasitsnaturalmovementisconcerned,>moves
alwaystowardsthecentre.'

(i)

ThispassagehasbeenbadlymauledbyBailey.1

BaileyclaimsthatinthisasintheearlierpassageSimplicius'accountisrestrictedtotheformationofacosmosandtotheideaofweightasanappearanceonly.

ThusthefinalwordsofthepresentpassageBaileytranslatesas:
'Andtotheseotherthingsweightonlyseemstobelong,anditseemsalwaystobecarriedtowardsthecentre.'

ThistranslationBaileyusestosupporthisconclusionthatSimplicius'regarded''weight"'intheatomictheory'notonlyasaderivativepropertyoftheatomsbutevenin
somesenseasillusory'.

ButBailey'stranslationbetraysanelementarymisunderstandingoftheGreek:aconfusionof
.Thepointisnotthat'heavinessonlyappearstobelongtosome
things',butthat'Democritusreckonsthatwhatisheavyaloneexists'.

(ii)

Indeed,theselinesmustbeusedtoclarifytheintentionofthe
1
GreekAtomists1312Bailey'sreferences(p.131n.5)havesomehowgoneawry,butitisclearthatheintendstorefertothispassage.

 Page159

earlierpassage,569.89: .

FollowingthesamelineofthoughtthatBaileywaslatertopursue,Briegerwroteofthispassage:'deutetdas daraufhin,dassessichumdenBereichder
Erscheinunghandelt'.1

Butadistinctionisneeded.
1.Inthepresentpassage,thepointisthattheAtomistsdoreckonthateverythinghasheaviness.Thepointisthatwhatisheavyaloneexists:andthatlightnessonly'appears'to
be.

2.Intheearlierpassage,therefore,whatbelongstotheworldofappearanceevenifwearewillingtoallowforamomenttheproprietyofsuchapotentiallyemotiveparaphrase
isnotthattheatomshaveheaviness.Itistheconjunctionofheavyandlightthatonly'appears'tobe.

Thedifferencebetweenthetwopassages,therefore,anditisadifferenceofexpressiononlyandnotofsubstance,isthatwhat'appears'inthelaterpassageis
lightness,whilewhat'appears'intheearlierpassageistheconjunctionofheavyandlight.

Thepointtoappreciateisthatinneithercaseistheatoms'havingweightintended,bySimpliciusatleast,tobeinconsistentwith,orevenseparablefrom,thenotion
thatlight,orheavyandlight,'appear'intheformationofthecosmos.

Infacttheoppositeisthecase.Simplicius'pointisthatheavinessaloneisreckonedasanintrinsicpropertyoftheatoms,andthatbecauseofthephenomenonknown
toAristotleandthedoxographicaltraditionas someoftheatoms,ortheirproducts,appeartoriseandsotobelight,andthereforewhatisintruthonlya
differencebetweenheavyandlightinthesenseofmoreandlessheavyappearsasadistinctionbetweenheavyandlightintheAristoteleansenseofmovementin
oppositedirections.2

(iii)

Thereremainsthequestionofadifferenceofsubjectbetweentheearlierandthelaterpassage.Baileyappearstothinkthatin
1
Urbewegung7.
2
Forreferencesto seep.153n.3above.

 Page160
1
thefirstpassage(Decaelo569.59)Simpliciusspeaksonlyofatoms,andinthelaterpassage(Decaelo712.2731)onlyofcompoundbodies. But,asBriegerhad
noted,theantithesisbetween ,intheearlierpassage,couldmeanthatcompoundbodiesareintendedintheearlierpassageasinthelater.2

Ontheotherhand,Brieger'srefinementmaynotbenecessary.Epicurushimself,intheLettertoHerodotus,slipsfromthefeminineatoms ,evidentlywith
norealchangeinthereferenceofthesubject.3Simpliciuscouldhavedonethesame.

Thedistinction,betweenatomsandcompoundbodies,doesappearinthepassageIquoteatthebeginningofthesectionfollowingthis(Decaelo269.414).Butif
theinterpretationthatIofferofthepresenttwopassagesiscorrect,itmakeslittledifferenceinfactwhetherthe'appearance'ofheavyandlightattachestosingleatoms
ortogroupsoflikeatoms.

Ineitherpassage,thepointtoappreciateisthattheappearanceof'lightness'oroftheconjunctionof'heavyandlight'attachestotheatomsortheirproducts,whereas
intruth'allthings'(cf. ,569.6),haveonlyheaviness.Inneitherpassageisthereanyindicationofanintentiontolimitthepossessionofheaviness
tobodiesthatareformedfromtheatoms,totheexclusionoftheatomsthemselves.4

Conclusion

Itisimpossible,therefore,fromthesetwopassagesatleast,to
1
GreekAtomists1312.
2
Urbewegung7,'Urbewegung'589.
3
Ep.adHer.61,quotedpp.1845below.
4
ItisinterestingtonotethatinhiscommentaryontheLettertoHerodotusBaileyclaims,Epicurus217,thatthereisachangeofsubject,fromatomsto'bodiesingeneral'.Thisis
curiouslyatvariancewithhisassumption,GreekAtomists1312,thattheidenticalterminologyintheearlierpassageofSimplicius(569.59)refersexclusivelytotheatoms.Idoubt
myselfthatthereisarealdifferenceofsubjectineitherpassage.CertainlyinEpicurus(Ep.adHer.61)theargumentrequiresthatthelattersubject .

 Page161

useSimplicius'authoritytodriveawedgebetweenEpicurusandDemocritusonthequestionofatomicweight.

1.Inthelaterpassage,SimpliciusattributestoDemocritusonhisowntheviewthatheavinessalonebelongstotheatomsortheirproducts,andthatitisonlytheirbehaviour
withinacosmoswhichgivestheappearanceoftherebeinglightthingsaswell.

2.VirtuallythesametwoideasareattributedjointlytoDemocritusandEpicurusintheearlierpassage,wherethefactthattheatoms'weightistiedtotheirbeing makes
itincontestablyclear,itseemstome,thatweightisintended,bySimpliciusatleast,tobeanintrinsiccharacteroftheatoms,andnottiedexclusivelytotheirbehaviourwithina
cosmos.

Sofartherefore,SimpliciusaffordsnoevidencefordistinguishingEpicureanatomswhichhaveweightfromDemocritus'supposedlyweightlessatoms,noranysupport
fortheideathatweightlessatomscangivetheappearanceofweightwhentheyarecaughtintotheformationofacosmos.

2
WeightandMovement:'DeCaelo'

AthirdpassagefromtheDecaeloconfirmsthisconclusion,whileraisingafreshpointofinterest.Simpliciuswrites,269.414(notinDK):

'ThestudentshouldbeawarethatStratoandEpicuruswerenottheonlyonestoclaimthatallbodiesareheavy,andthattheir<only>naturalmovementismovementdownwards
<sothat>allbodiesaremovingagainsttheirnaturewhentheymoveupwards:Platotoowasawareofthis<opinion?>andhearguesagainstit....'

 Page162

TherefollowsanexplanationandaquotationofapassagefromtheTimaeus,62C58,wherePlatodeniesthattheuniversecanbedivided'bynature'intoopposite
placesthatare'up'and'down',andwherehedeniesinparticularthatbodieswhichmove'upwards'doso'unwillingly'.Simpliciuscontinues:
'<Thistextisexplainedbythepresenceof>thosewhobelievedinatoms<andwho>claimedthatastheatomswerefull<ordense>theywereheavythemselves,andthecausesof
heavinessincompoundbodies,justas<incompoundbodiesthecause>oflightnessisthevoid.'1

TheQuestionofWeight

TheAtomistswhomSimpliciuswritesofinthelastsentenceIhavequotedareclearlyintendedtobeAtomistswholivedbeforePlato,andaredistinguishedtherefore
fromEpicurus.(MyparaphrasemakesexplicittheconnectionofthoughtthatIbelieveisintendedintheGreek.)

TheatomsofDemocritustherefore,orofDemocritusandLeucippus,aresaidtobecausesofheavinessinotherthings,invirtueofbeingthemselvesheavy.Thisis
clearlytheintentionof: .

Atthesametime,theatomsaresaidtobethemselvesheavyinvirtueoftheirbeingsolid:

ThissentimentapproximatestoSimplicius'laterstatementthattheatomsareheavyinvirtueoftheiruniformityofnature,569.6:
.

Ineithercase,theimplicationisthattheweightofatoms,inbeingtiedtotheiruniformityofnatureandtotheirsolidityordensity,isanintrinsiccharacterofatomic
substance,andisnotdependentuponthepositionoftheatomswithinacosmos.

Sofar,therefore,thispassageconformsto,andinpartcon
1
Simplicius'simpledivisionbetweenvoidascauseoflightnessandatomsascauseofheavinesshasalreadybeenmetwith,p.96above,andistakenaccountofinmythirdessay.
Ishallconsiderinmysecondessaywhether,orhowfar,Plato'spassagerelatestotheAtomistsinwhatfollowsIamconcernedonlywiththeconnectionofthoughtinSimplicius.

 Page163

firms,thetwopointswhichwereestablishedbymyearlieranalysis.
1.Ifwecorrelatetheproductionofcompoundbodieswiththeactionofavortexwithinacosmos,orwithinthebeginningsofacosmos,thenhere,asinthetwopassagesnoted
earlier,thedistinctionofheavyandlightbodiesisdependentupontheatoms'beingthemselvesheavy:thereisnoquestionofsupposedlyweightlessatomsproducinga
distinctionbetweenheavyandlight.

2.AccordingtoSimplicius,theatomsareheavyintheirownright,insofarastheirweightistiedtotheirdensityandtotheuniformityoftheirnature.

TheQuestionofMovement

(i)

Inthisstudy,IadopttheviewwhichsinceBrieger'sandLiepmann'scritiqueofZellerhasbeenalmostuniversallyendorsed,andwhichissharedbyBurnetandby
Guthrie,thatinEpicurus'systemalonetheatoms'fall'downwardsintheprecosmicvoid,whereasintheearliersystemtheprecosmicatomsmovedatrandominall
directions.1
1
ThecontributionsbyBriegerandLiepmannhavealreadybeencited:seeintheBibliographyBrieger(1884and1904)andLiepmann(1885).ThisviewisadoptedbyBurnet,EGP
3446,andbyGuthrie,Historyii4004.
Zeller'sviewisfinallyrestatedinZN107699.Amongmorerecentwriters,G.CaponeBragaistheonlypersonIremembercomingacrosswhodeliberatelykeepstoZeller's
interpretation,'Aristotele,EpicuroeDiogenediEnoanda',AteneeRomaserie3anno8(1940)445.Cf.alsoFurleyintheBibliography.
ThemainargumentturnsonwhethertoaccepttheassumptionofdownwardmovementmadebyAristotleinseveralcriticismsofDemocritus,orwhethertofollowtheimplicationof
Aristotle'sotherrepeatedcriticism,thattheAtomistsfailedtospecifythenatureorthecauseofthemovementofatomsinthevoid:cf.pp.2368and2614below.

Asubsidiaryargumentturnsontheimplicationoftheatoms''whirlinginthevoid'( ,Diog.Laert.ix31=DK67A1,quotedpp.2045below).Zeller,
ZN10824and1096,takesthetwopassagesasalikedescribinganearlystageintheformationofthecosmosbutthetwocontextsarenotidentical,anditisatleastasnaturalto
understandtheformerpassageasageneraliseddescriptionofthebehaviouroftheatomsinaprecosmicvoid.

 Page164

ThequestionofmovementprovidesaparalleltestofSimplicius'reliabilityonthequestionofweight.

SimpliciusattributesweightequallytoEpicurus'atomsandtotheatomsofDemocritus.DoesSimpliciusattributedownwardmovementtoEpicurusandtoDemocritus
indiscriminately,ortoEpicurusalone?
1.IfSimpliciuscanbeshowntohaveconfusedDemocritusandEpicurusonthequestionofmovement,thenitwillbethemorepertinenttoarguethathemayequallyhavefailed
todistinguishtheatomsofEpicurus,whichhaveweight,fromthesupposedlyweightlessatomsofDemocritus.

2.Ontheotherhand,ifSimpliciuscanbeshownnottohaveconfusedEpicurusandDemocritusonthequestionofmovement,thentheinferencewillbethatSimplicius'attribution
ofweighttoDemocritus'atomsisthelesslikelytoresultfromconfusionofDemocrituswithEpicurus.

(ii)

InthepassageIhavequoted,EpicurusandStrato,likeDemocritus,aresaidtohavebelieved,ineffect,thatheaviness'alone'exists.

Atthesametime,EpicurusandStrato,inSimplicius'account,identifyweightwith'naturalmovementinadownward
direction': .

TheearlierAtomistsatfirstappeartobeintroducedashavingthesamesetofbeliefs:

Certainly,insofarastheearlierAtomistsareintroducedtoexemplifythepassagequotedfromtheTimaeus,theassumptionmustbethatwithinacosmostheatoms,
ortheproductsoftheatoms,movetowardsthecentre.Thisindeediswhattheatoms,ortheirproducts,aresaidtodointhepassagewhichIquotedfromtowards
theendoftheDecaelo,712.301: .

However,SimpliciusdoesnotsaythatoutsideacosmosDemocritus'atomsmovedownwards'bynature',nordoesheascribetotheearlierAtomiststhedistinction
betweennaturalandunnatu

 Page165

ralmovementwhichhedoesascribetoStratoandtoEpicurus.

(iii)

Theomissionissignificant.ForelsewhereSimpliciusinfactdeniesthatDemocritus'atomshavenaturalmovement.

1.TheatomsofDemocritusareinconstantmovement,butitismovementwhichisdetermined'byforce',Decaelo583.202(DK67A16): .'Theassociatesof
LeucippusandofDemocritusclaimedthatwhattheysupposedtobetheprimalparticles,namelytheatoms,wereincontinualmovement,intheendlessvoid,astheresultofforce.'

2.TheatomsofDemocritusaremovedbyforceofimpact,andtheyhavenonaturalmovement,Phys.42.1011(DK68A47):
.'Democritusclaimsthattheatomshavenonaturalmovementandheclaimsthereforethatthey
aremovedbytheforceofimpact.'1

FromthesetwopassagesitfollowsthatwhileSimpliciusenvisagesDemocritus'atoms,ortheproductsoftheatoms,asdrawntowardsthecentreofthecosmos,and
therebyasgivingrisetothe ofsmalleratoms,orgroupsofatoms,nonethelesshedoesnotenvisagetheatomsthemselvesasmovingdownwardsinthevoid.

Foriftheydid,theywouldhave'naturalmovement',liketheatomsofEpicurus,andthisSimpliciusexpresslydenies.

Conclusion

Thustherearethreeimportantconclusionstobedrawnfromthisneglectedpassage,andfromthepairofpassageswhichIconsideredinthesectionprecedingthis.
1
Onthemeaningofthephrase seebelowpp.2246.

 Page166

1.AccordingtoSimplicius,Democritus'atomsarebothheavyinthemselvesandcauseofheavinessinthesubstancesthatareformedfromthem.

2.Theyareheavyinvirtueoftheirdensity,andinvirtueoftheuniformityoftheirnature,andindependentlythereforeoftheirpositionorbehaviourwithinacosmos.

3.When,inthismostrecentpassage,SimpliciuswritesofEpicurus'atomsas'movingdownwardsbynature',passageselsewhereshowthathetherebyineffectdistinguishesthe
atomsofEpicurusfromthoseofDemocritusattheonepointwherewebelieveittohavebeennecessary:theassociationofweightandofmovementdownwards.

3
WeightandMovement:'Physics'

ApassageinthePhysicsraisesmoredirectlythequestionoftheassociationofweightwithmovement.SimpliciuswritesofDemocritus'atomsasmoving'becauseof',
orperhapsmoreloosely'inaccordancewith',theirweight,1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58): .

'Somuchfortheideasofthosewhosetupanefficientcauseintheforefrontof<theirtheoryof>thegenesisofthingsexistent<andwhodosoinsuchawayastoacknowledge
theprimacyoflocalmovement>.

'Othersdonotthinktoestablishanefficientcause,butintheirtheoryofmovementIamthinkingofthetheoryofDemocritusandhisassociates,wherevoidhasadetermining

 Page167

roletheystillthinkofthemovementof"physis"asalocalmovement.

'"Physis"inthistheorymeansthephysicalbodieswhichareprimaryandindivisible.ThesebodiesDemocritusandhisassociatescalled"physis",andtheyclaimedthatthese
bodieshavealocalmoment,wherebyinresponseto theheavinessthatisinthemtheymovethroughthevoidwhichgiveswaybeforethemandoffersnoresistance<to
theirpassage>,as,intheirownexpression,theprimaryparticles"dartabouthitherandthither".

'Indeednotonlydothesetheoristsofferthis<local>movementastheprimarymovement:itistheonlymovementthattheywillallowtotheelements<oftheirsystem,theatoms>
<all>othermovements,intheirtheory,belong<nottotheatomsorelementsbut>tobodiesthatareformedfromthe<atomsor>elements.Inotherwords,increaseanddecay,
qualitativechange,comingintobeingandpassingaway,<areallmovementsthat>theyclaimastheconsequenceoftheconjunctionandseparationoftheprimalbodies<the
atoms>.'

(i)

ProfessorSamburskyhasacutelyobservedthatwhenSimpliciusdescribesthevoidthroughwhichtheatomsmoveas'yieldingandunresistant'
.1

Thismightbemerelycoincidental.ButIthinkthatProfessorSamburskyisprobablyrighttotaketheexpressioninSimpliciusasanindicationthat,inthecontextofthe
passageasawhole,Plato'scontrastofwhatisvoluntaryandwhatisnecessaryis
1
S.Sambursky,'ADemocriteanmetaphorinPlato'sKratylos',Phronesis4(1959)14.The'yielding'natureofthevoid ,ascauseorconditionofmovement,isspecified
asafeatureofthetheorywhichAristotleattacksinbookfourofthePhysics,seeiv8,215a223,cf.214b1617and216a216.

 Page168

intended,atleastinpart,asacovertcritiqueoftheatomictheory.

Takeninthisway,thetwopassagescomplementoneanother.
1.TheattributioninSimpliciuspointstotheprovenanceofthetheorieswhichPlatoemploysasthebasisforhisetymology,andforhiscriticism.

2.TheoccurrenceoftheexpressioninPlatoaddsauthoritytoSimplicius'accountofearlyAtomism,andinparticularitreinforceshisclaim,inthesentenceimmediatelyfollowing,
toreproduceanoriginalexpressionfromtheatomisttheory: .1

1
ThequalificationwhichIwouldaddtoSambursky'sarticleisthatheappearstothinkofthemetaphorasoriginatingwithDemocritus:'...itstandstoreasonthatSimplicius
quotesliterallyeitherfromDemocritus'writingsorfromsomeworkusingametaphorwhichgoesbacktoDemocritus'(p.1).

SamburskyhasbeencarriedawaybythecontextoftheexpressioninPlato.Thereisnothingnecessarilymetaphoricalinspeakingofthevoidas'yielding'oras'unresistant'.
isappliedtomatter,orvoid,orwhen'yielding'and'unresistant'aretransferredfromatechnical,orsemitechnical,descriptionofmatterorvoidtoadescriptionofpersonsortheir
actions.Ratherinterestingly,thefirsttransition,initsnegativeform,occursinthepassageoftheTimaeuswhichSimpliciusalludestoinconnectionwithDemocritus(62C7,cf.Simpl.
Decaelo269.414,quotedatthebeginningoftheprecedingsection),wherePlatoattackstheideathatanybodywhichmovesupwardsdoesso'unwillingly'evenso,insteadof
beinginanywaydeliberatelymetaphorical,thisusageperhapsratherindicatestheanimismlatentintheideaswhichPlatoisattacking.Thereisnoindicationthatthesecond
transference,whichistheonethatProfessorSamburskyismoreinterestedin,hasoccurredoutsidePlato.
IndeedthepointofPlato'sreminiscenceintheCratyluswouldseemtometolieprincipallyinPlato'stranspositionoftermsthatinDemocritushadbeenusedlargelyorexclusivelyina
materialsense,tothecontextofignoranceanderrorthatwefindintheCratylusorifwefollowSambursky'sargumenttothecontextofreason,persuasionandnecessitythatwe
findintheTimaeus.
IfthereweretobeanonmaterialconnotationintheAtomists'originaluseoftheexpression,thenIwouldprefertofindit,notinthemoralisingcontextwhichPlatogivestotheterm,
butinassociationwiththevocabularyinthefragmentwhichSimpliciusquotesfromAristotle'streatiseonDemocritus,wheretheatomsare'atwar' seeLSJs.v.Forthe
collocationofthetwotextsinSimplicius,thepresentpassagefromthePhysicsandSimplicius'quotationofAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritus,seebelowch.XI1,pp.30310).

 Page169

(ii)

Iturnthereforetothereading .

Diels'emendationto .1

ButwhileMcDiarmidmayberightincastingdoubtonsomeotherinstanceswhere,withlittleencouragementfromthemanuscripts, haveperhapstoo
zealouslybeenrestoredtotextstouchingupontheatomictheory,yetinthiscaseMcDiarmid'sattempttofollowtheprincipleofthelectiofaciliorleadstoareading
whichhaslittleresemblancetowhatisofferedbythemanuscripts.

Moreparticularly,McDiarmidiswronginwritingthat'thecontextofSimpliciusoffersnodefinitecluetothecorrectreading'.2

ForwhatisatleastclearinthiscontextisthatwhileSimplicius'pointisthattheAtomistsreduceeverykindof'movement',inAristotle'ssenseoftheterm,exclusively
tolocalmovement,atthesametimeSimpliciusdistinguishesineffecttwokindsoflocalmovement.
1.Thereisfirstthesimplemovementofatomsinspace.

2.Thereisthentheirconjunctionwith,anddisjunctionfrom,eachother:their'mixture',sotospeak,andtheirseparation.

Thusthepointtobeappreciatedisthatinthiscontextlocalmovement, .

Itisthereforeinappropriatefor tobereplaced
1
H.Diels,ednofSimplicius'Physics(Berolini,1895)1319.1,and'Aristotelica',Hermes40(1905)3068.J.B.McDiarmid,'PhantomsinDemocriteanterminology: ',
Hermes86(1958)2918.
2
'Phantoms'295.

 Page170

by .

Indeed,itisimpossibleforSimpliciustowriteofonlyoneofthetwocontrastingformsoflocalmovementthatitisnotonlytheprimarybuttheonlykindofmovement
whichisattributedtotheatoms,ashewillhavetodoifweacceptMcDiarmid'semendation,1319.13: .

Onthecontrary,theformula,'notonlythefirstbuttheonlymovement',requiresthatwhateverreplaces .

Thiswouldbeachievedby ,whichDielsalsosuggested.

Butthesimplest,andthesmallest,alterationofthemanuscriptswillbetoadopt ,howevermuch,orhoweverlittle,supportitmaygainfrom
passageselsewhere.1

(iii)

Whatthenisthemeaningof ?

Hesychiusrecords .Thiscannotbethemeaninghere,althoughitisperhapsintelligibleasexplainingoneresultoflocalmovement.

Theuncompoundedverb, isusedmoregenerally,butoftenofthekindoffastandevenviolentmovementthatIshallarguelaterisappropriatetothe
movementofatomsinthevoid.3

Theprefix willaddthesenseof'roundandround'or'roundandabout'or'hitherandthither'.4Themeaningwillbe
1
Conscious,asever,ofthedangersofproliferationinthiskindofstudy,IhopethatthereaderwillnotfeelcheatedifIusethisformulatocutmyselfofffromdetailedexamination
oftheotherpassageswhichMcDiarmidquotes,someofwhich,Idoinfactbelieve,supporttheuseoftheterm.
2
LSJs.v.
3
LSJs.v.Seepp.17981below.
4
SeeLSJs.vv. .

 Page171

thereforethattheatomsare'scattered'or'tossedabout',orthatthey'dart'or'shoot'or'leaparound':preciselythemeaning,infact,whichisconveyedbyLucretius'
repeateduseofthetermiactariinhisaccountofthemovementofatomsinthesecondbookoftheDererumnatura.1

Movement

Iturnthereforetotheuseofthispassageasevidenceforthequestionofweight,withparticularreferencetotherelationofweightandmovement.

AsIhavealreadynoted,IadoptinthisstudytheviewwhichsinceBrieger'sandLiepmann'scritiqueofZellerhasbeenalmostuniversallyendorsed,andwhichis
sharedbyBurnetandbyGuthrie,thatinEpicurus'systemalonetheatoms'fall'downwardsintheprecosmicvoid,whereasintheearliersystemtheprecosmicatoms
movedatrandominalldirections.

Itisinterestingtoobservetheusewhichrepresentativesofthesetwointerpretationsmakeofthepresentpassage.

1.ZellerusesitasanimportantpieceofevidencethatforDemocritus,asforEpicurus,theatomsaremovedbyweightandsomust'fall'inthevoid.2

2.ProfessorGuthriewritesthatinthispassageSimplicius'showsasimilarconfusion'tothatinthepassagewhichhequotesfromtheDecaelo,inthat'theatomsaresaidtomove
throughtheunresistingvoidbyreasonoftheirweight(astheycertainlydidforEpicurus),butthismotionisthen

1
Lucretius,ii89,122,548.

SinceAristotle'sreadingatDecaeloiii4,303a8,isexplainedbySimplicius,609.245,asmeaning isthereadingtobepreferred,bothsinceitistheonlyreadingtooccurat
onceinthemanuscriptsofAristotleandinthoseofSimplicius,andbecauseitmakesexcellentsense.
J.BollackalsodefendsDiels'conjectureagainstMcDiarmid,withthesenseof'l'claboussement','Deuxfiguresprincipalesdel'atomismed'aprsAristote:l'entrecroisementdesatomes
etlasphredufeu',SymposiumAristotelicum4(Heidelberg,1969)3842,thesametranslationasinRobin,Lapensegrecque140('claboussemententoussens').
2
ZN1085n.3.

 Page172
1
describedbyawordwhichcannotapplytoaconsistentlydownwardfall'.

Thusinfindingonceagain'confusion'withEpicurus,ProfessorGuthrie,whileavoidingZeller'sconclusion,ineffectperpetuateshisassumptionthatmovement'by
reasonofweight'shouldbeexpressedbymovementdownwards.

Ifwedonotmakethisassumption,thenthelessonofthispassagewillbepreciselytheoppositeofthelessonwhichProfessorGuthrieseekstodrawfromit,andthe
sameasthelessonofthepassagewhichIlastquotedfromtheDecaelo.

Forifmovement'accordingtoweight'doesnotentailmovementdownwards,thenthenatureofthemovementattributedheretoDemocrituswillbedeterminedbythe
meaningof oritsvariant.

Ifthisterm'cannotapplytoaconsistentdownwardfall',thenitwillservepreciselytodistinguishthemovementofDemocritus'atomsfromthedownwardmovement
whichwastheexclusivecharacteristicofEpicurus'system.

Notonly,inthatcase,willSimpliciusnothaveconfusedDemocritusandEpicurus.Attheonepointwherewebelieveittohavebeennecessary,hewillagainineffect
havedistinguishedthetwo.

Conclusion

Simplicius'evidencehasbeenadducedinsupportofwhatIhavecalledthecurrentcompromise:namelytheviewthattheatomsofDemocritushaveweightonlywhen
theyarecaughtintoacosmicvortex,andthatevidenceinAetiusandCicero,whichdeniesthattheatomshaveweight,istrueofatomswhichare'floatingfreelyinthe
void'.

ButthetruthisthatastudyoffourleadingpassagesinSimplicius,onceanumberofobviouserrorsofmistranslationandoffalseinferencehavebeenclearedaway,
leadstotheoppositecon
1
Historyii403n.3.Guthrieisfollowingalongtraditionhere:Papencordt,Atomicorumdoctrina35n.2,Mullach,Democritifragmenta384,Brieger,Urbewegung78,VittorioE.
Alfieri,GliAtomisti,frammentietestimonianze,traduzioneenotediV.E.A.(Bari,1936)100n.232,Kirk,Presocraticphilosophers417n.1.ForGuthrie'suseofDecaelo569.59
seepp.1547above.

 Page173

clusion:thattheatomsofDemocritusdohaveweight,evenoutsideacosmos.

1.InapassageintheDecaelo,Simpliciuswritesthattheatomshaveweightinvirtueof'theuniformityoftheirnature',andso,onewouldsuppose,independentlyoftheirrelation
toacosmos.Itistrue,thisopinionisattributedbothtoDemocritusandtoEpicurus:butintwootherpassagesvirtuallythesamesentimentsareattributedtoDemocritusonhis
own.

2.Atthesametime,intheDecaelo,althoughSimpliciusattributes'natural'movementdownwardstotheatomsofEpicurus,heregardstheatomsofDemocritusasmoving'by
force'.TheimplicationismadeexplicitinapassageinthePhysics:theatomsofDemocritusaretherespokenofas'dartinghitherandthither'inthevoid'becauseof'or'in
accordancewith'theirweight.

Thiswillbetray'confusion'onlyifwesupposethatmovement'accordingtoweight'isnecessarilymovementdownwards.Ifwedonotmakethatassumption,thenthe
messagefromSimpliciusisclear:theatomsofDemocritusdohaveweight,eveninthevoid,buttheydonotthereforemovedownwardsinthevoid,astheatomsof
Epicurusdo.

 Page174

ChapterSix
SimpliciusandtheCurrentCompromise

1
TheNatureofWeight:WeightExpressedAsMovementDownwards

Thequestionwhichweareledtotherefore,fromourstudyofSimplicius,iswhether,orforwhom,movementbyweightentailsmovementdownwards.

Thisquestionliesattheheartofourenquiry,forinsupposingthatiftheatomshaveweighttheymustthereforefall,andinfindingtherebyaconfusionbetweenEpicurus
andDemocritusinthepassageIhavequotedfromSimplicius'Physics,ProfessorGuthriereflectstheinfluenceonhismindofapresuppositionwhichhaslainatthe
rootofmoderninterpretationsofDemocritus'theoryofweight.

ThispresuppositionisexpressedwithequalclarityandwithequalconfidencebybothZellerandBurnet.

'UnterderSchwerehat...niemandimAltertumetwasanderesverstandenalsdiejenigeEigenschaftderKrper,vermgenderensiesichnachuntenbewegen,wennihnendies
nichtdurcheinusseresHindernisverwehrtwird.'1

'Zellerrightlyargues...that,iftheatomshaveweight,theymustfall.'2

Whatshouldatoncearouseoursuspicion,evenapartfromthelackofanyevidencebeingoffered,isthattheadoptionofthisprincipleleadstodirectlyopposite
conclusionsforZellerandforBurnet.

1.ZellerarguesthattheprecosmicatomsofDemocritusdohaveweight,andthattheymustthereforefall.

1
ZN1084.
2
EGP345n.1.IcanseeonlyfreshconfusioninthefactthatearlierBurnetpurportstocontradictZeller'sdefinition,EGP343n.3,quotedbyNestle,ZN1084n.3.

 Page175

2.Recognising,rightly,withBriegerandwithLiepmann,thatZeller'sconclusioniscontrarytotheevidence,Burnetconcludesthatsincetheatomsdonotfalltheycanhaveno
weight.

Thisconflictneedsonly,Ithink,tobestatedclearlyforittobeatonceapparentthatinsteadofshootingoffinoppositedirectionsfromacommonprinciple,itistothis
principleitselfthatcriticalattentionshouldbedirected.Foritisonlythesupposedlyinviolableforceoftheentailmentbetweenweightandmovementthatleadstothe
suppositioneitherthattheatomshaveweightandthereforemovedownwardsorthattheatomsdonotfallandarethereforeweightless.

Theradicalalternativewillbetoabandontheentailmentofweightandmovement.Thiswillatonceenableustoembracetheonlytwoconclusionsforwhichthereis
sufficient,andsatisfactory,evidence.
1.TheprecosmicatomsofDemocritusdohaveweight.

2.Theydonotmoveonlydownwards.

'Weight'inBurnet

TheplacewhichweightandmovementinfactoccupiedintheconceptualfabricoffifthcenturyphilosophyIshallattempttooutlineinalater,moregeneralchapter.1

Forthemoment,itwillperhapsbesufficientformyargumentif,inordertopointtotheweaknessofthenotionthatweight,forthePresocratics,necessarilyentails,and
isdefinedby,movementinaspecificdirection,IdonomorethanpointoutthestepsbywhichBurnetarguesinitssupport.

Withevenmorethanhisaccustomedpanache,Burnetsetsouttoportrayearlynotionsofweight.
'Itisclearthatlightnessandweightwouldbeamongtheveryfirstpropertiesofbodytobedistinctlyrecognisedassuch.Thenecessityofliftingburdensmustverysoonhave
ledmentodistinguishthem,thoughnodoubtinacrude

1
Ch.XIII2,pp.36483below.

 Page176

form.Bothweightandlightnesswouldbethoughtofasthingsthatwereinbodies.NowitisaremarkablefeatureofearlyGreekphilosophythatfromthefirstitwasabletoshake
itselffreefromthisidea.Weightisnevercalleda''thing"as,forinstance,warmandcoldareand,sofaraswecansee,notoneofthethinkerswehavestudiedhithertothoughtit
necessarytogiveanyexplanationofitatall....'

Thecrunchcomesinthenextsevenwords:

...oreventosayanythingaboutit'(myitalics).

Burnet'swholeconstructionsuddenlycollapsesintoanargumentexsilentio.1

ButifthePresocraticssaynothingaboutweight,thenwecannotpossiblytellwhetherheavyandlightare,orarenot,distinguishedbythemfromsuchcommon
charactersaswarmandcold.

Whatismore,fromBurnet'sownadmission,weshouldratherconcludethattheywerenotsodistinguished.Forifitwouldbea'remarkablefeature'ofprimitive
thinkingforthestatusofheavyandlighttobedistinguishedfromthestatusofsuchoppositesaswarmandcold,thenintheabsenceofevidenceeitherway,itwould
bemoresoberandmorehonest,ifweweretocometoaconclusionatall,toconcludethatsuchadevelopmenthadnottakenplace,ratherthanthatithad.
1
EGP342.InsupportofthesentencewhichIhaveitalicisedBurnetwrites,EGP342n.2:'InAet.i12,wheretheplacitaregardingtheheavyandlightaregiven,nophilosopher
earlierthanPlatoisreferredto'.ThisisinfactthesectioninwhichitisstatedofDemocritusthathisatoms'havenoweight'(seech.VIII1,pp.2239below).Thismaybea
negativeplacitum,butitisaplacitumnonetheless.
SolmsenrepeatswithoutcorrectionBurnet'sremark,Aristotle'ssystem277n.8:Burnet'attachesimportancetothefactthatthePlacita(see,e.g.,Doxographi310)reportnodoctrines
aboutheavyandlightearlierthanPlato's'.Thechapterwhichbeginsonthepagequoted(Dox.310=Aet.i12)isagainpreciselythechapterwhichcontains(Dox.311.1822=Aet.i
12.6)theentrywhere'Democritussaysthatthefirstbodies...havenoweight'.ItisquiteextraordinarythatbothSolmsenandBurnetshouldinthiswaydenytheexistenceofthevery
evidenceonwhichtheydependfortheirbeliefthatoutsideacosmosDemocritus'atoms'havenoweight'(cf.p.154n.1above).

 Page177

Butworseistocome.WhenBurnetprocedestooutlinePlato'stheoryofweight,whereweightisassociatedwith,andinpartexplainedby,movementinaspecific
direction,heconcludesprecisely:'HerePlatoisreallygivingtheviewtakenmoreorlessconsciouslybyhispredecessors'.LateronthesamepageBurnetaddsthat
Plato'sview,initsimmediateeffects,issubstantiallythesameasthatadoptedbyAristotle.1Thuswhilesettingoutdeliberatelytoisolateearlynotionsofweight,Burnet
ineffectsaddlesthePresocraticswithpreciselythatentailmentofweightandmovementwhichwastheessentialcharacteristicofPlatonicandAristoteleanphilosophy.2

'FloatingAtoms'

HardlylesschimericalisthepicturewhichProfessorGuthrieprovidesofDemocritus'precosmicatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'.3

Ifthispictureisnotsimplytheproductofanimaginationcolouredbymodernnotionsofspace,thenithasperhapstakenitsrisefromthewordsofAristotlewhich
Burnetparaphrases,inthecontextofhisdiscussionofweight,as'thecomparisonofthemotionoftheatomsofthesoultothatofthemotesinasunbeamcoming
throughawindow'.Itispossible,Burnetadds,thatthis'isreallyintendedasanillustrationoftheoriginalmotionoftheatomsstillsurvivinginthesoul'.4
1
EGP3434.
2
Burnet'sobservationshaveclearlyinfluencedCornford'sremarksonthesamesubject,asisnotedbySolmsen:seeFrancisM.Cornford,Thelawsofmotioninancientthought
(Cambridge,1931)esp.379,cf.Solmsen,Aristotle'ssystem277n.8.Inparticular,CornfordadvancesthesamecloseassociationofAristotelean,PlatonicandPresocraticideasthatis
tobefoundinBurnet,thoughhedoessowithperhapsalittlemorejustificationthanBurnet,sinceCornford'spurposeisnotsomuchtoisolateearlierideasofweightastopresent
certainradicalcontrastsbetweenancientandmodernwaysofthinking.NonethelessIsuspectitmaybeCornford'stacitendorsementofBurnet'sideasatthispointwhichhas
encouragedlaterCambridgescholars,notablyGuthrieandKirk,toacceptBurnet'sideasonthesubject,andespeciallyhisinterpretationofDemocritus,withsuchlackofcritical
scruple(cf.p.154n.1aboveseealsopp.3478and3634below).
3
Historyii403.
4
EGP3456Burnet'ssuggestionisalsopickedupbyBailey,GreekAtomists133,andbyKirk,Presocraticphilosophers417.Aristotle,Deanimai2,403b31

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page178

However,considerablecautionisneededinhandlingAristotle'scomparison.

(i)

Inthefirstplace,theapplicationoftheimageofthesunbeamtoatomsotherthanthoseofthesouldoesnotoccurbeforeLucretius.1Itmaywellbepeculiarto
Epicureanism.

1.Theclinamenoftheprecosmicatoms,inthelatertheory,isascribedtoatomsofthesoul,toprovideforlibera...fatisauulsauoluntas.2

2.Itisverypossiblethatasimilarassociationofideashasled,butagainonlyinthelatertheory,totheimageofthesunbeamtravellingintheoppositedirection,sotospeak:from
illustratingthemovementofatomsconstitutingsoul,toillustratingthemovementofatomsingeneral.

(ii)

Evenifwedoconsiderthelattercomparison,itisessential,asintheuseofallsuchimages,topickoutcarefullythetertiumcomparationis.

Inthepsychologicalapplicationoftheimage,thepointofcomparisonwasperhapsthenotionofcontinuousandspontaneousmovement.Atleast,thiswasthesensein
whichtheideawasoriginallyused,Aristotletellsus,bycertainPythagoreans,forwhomthemoteswereinfactparticlesofsoul,andnotmerely,asforDemocritus,an
imageoftheatomsthatconstitutesoul.3

InLucretius,thecosmicapplicationoftheimageservestwopurposes.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
404a20(DK67A28+58B40).Thereisarecentstudyofthecomparisonoftheatomswithmotesinasunbeam,containingausefulcollectionofpassages,andincludingafragment,
hithertounknown,ofanArabicwork,byG.Strohmaier,'DemokritberdieSonnenstubchen',Philologus112(1968)119.
1
Lucretiusii11241.
2
Lucretiusii2567.
3
Arist.Deanimai2,404a1620(DK58B40).Iadd'spontaneous'todistinguishthePythagoreanswhotreatedsoulasthemotesthemselvesfromthosewhotreatedsoulas
.Inwritingthattheideawas'originally'

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page179

1.Itisfirstusedtoillustratethecollisionandrecoilofatoms.

2.Itisthenusedtoillustratehowthesesameturbulentmovementssecretlyunderlie,andarecontainedwithin,theobjectsapparenttosense,whichbyaprettytransferenceofthe
originalimageLucretiusdescribesasilla...insolisquaeluminecernerequimus.

ThefirstapplicationoftheimagewillbethatwhichcorrespondstoBurnet'ssuggestionoftheimageasillustrating'theoriginalmotionoftheatoms'.

Butinthatcasethelesson,thetertiumcomparationisoftheimage,atleastasitappearsinLucretius,isnotthatofatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'(myitalics).Itis
thatofthecollisionandentanglement(concilia)andtheseparationandrecoil(discidia)ofatoms.1

Thuseveninthelateremploymentoftheimagethereisnodeliberatenotionofatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'.

TheClashofAtoms

Butperhapsthenotionofatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'isnotintendedtobedependentupontheimageofmotesinasunbeam.

Ifnot,ithasnootherauthority.Forthefewpotentiallyauthenticallusionsthatsurvivetothenatureoftheprecosmicmovementoftheatomssuggestaverydifferent
picture.

1. inAristotle'saccount,recordedbySimplicius,hasalreadyaratherdifferentconnotationfromthepeaceful'floating'ofatoms.2

2. ,alsoinAristotle,canbeusedinapeaceful

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
usedbyPythagoreans,IamsimplyassumingthatthesePythagoreanswerepriortoDemocritus:thetheoryhasanarchaicring.
Ratherinterestingly,theanalogyrecurs,inadifferentconnection,inAlexander,Met.631.811,cf.p.276n.1below.ForSimplicius'criticismofAristotle'streatmentofthePythagoreans
inthispassageseebelowpp.27981.
1
SeeespeciallyLucretiusii11424.
2
Arist.ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.913(fr.208Rose=DK68A37),quotedbelowpp.3045.ForthegeneralmeaningseeLSJs.v.

 Page180
1
sense:butitisalsousedoftheattackofarmedmenandofwildbeasts.

3. orplaga,whichSimpliciusandCiceroattributetothemovementofDemocritus'atoms,mostlikelyincludingtheirprecosmicmovement,isawordthatisused
elsewhereoftheblowinflictedfromswords,axesandboars'tusks.2

4. areappliedtoDemocritus'atomsbyAetius,AlexanderandPhilo.

NeitherwordseemstoappearoutsidethecontextofAtomism.Theuncompoundednoun ,ismostoftenusedwithaconnotationofviolence,todescribetheactionofa
cluborhammer,orinbattletheblowofasword,spearorarrow.3

5.AccordingtoGalen,theatomsinthevoidthatdonotbecomeentangledwithoneanothertoformacosmos, .

canbeusedinnocentlyenoughofabouncingball.Itisalsousedhoweverofayoungmanhurlingweapons,andofbloodthathasbeendispersedbyablow
ontheskin,andthatthen'doublesback'toitsplaceandformsabruise.4

6.Theuncompoundedverb inDiogenesofOenoandamayreferto,oratleastinclude,theprecosmicmovementofDemocritus'atoms.

Thesimpleverbisusedtocoverawiderangeofactions,from'tapping'to'knocking'to'banging'.

1
Thesamereferencesasintheprecedingfootnote.
2
Simpl.Phys.42.11(DK68A47),quotedabovep.165.Cicero,Defato20.46(DK68A47),quotedbelowpp.23940.ForthegeneralmeaningseeLSJs.v.
3
Aet.i12.6(DK68A47),quotedbelowp.223.Alex.Met.36.215(DK67A6),quotedbelowpp.211212.Philo,Deaet.mundi8(=CWvi75.89).For seeLSJs.vv.
4
Galen,Deelem.sec.Hipp.i2=i418Khn(DK68A49).Aball:SextusEmpiricus,Adv.math.x73.Weapons:[Lucian]Amores45 .Blood:[Arist.]Probl.viii14,891a3.

 Page181

Thecompoundverb, ,fromGalen,islesscommon.Itisusedofbangingone'sheadagainstsomething,orinEpicurusofoneworldcollidingwithanother.Itisalso
usedbyPlatoaspartofthewildandturbulentimagerywithwhichhedescribesnewborncreatures,letlooseupontheworldbythelessergods,lurchingfromsidetosideand
'stumblingagainst'theelements.

isusedoftheclashofarms,therammingofships,ofcivilstrife,oftheattackofarmedmen.1

Takenasawhole,therefore,terminologygiveslittleencouragementtoanypictureoftheatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'.

Ratherthereverse:thepicturewhichisindicatedintheonlysourceswehaveisthatofforcefulandevenviolentmovement.Clearly,theatomsbangintooneanother.
AsProfessorGuthriewriteselsewhere,they'clash'and'recoil'.2

Conclusion:AlternativeExpressionsofWeight

Theparticularsignificanceforthepurposeofmyargumentofthispictureoftheatoms'movementinthevoidisthatitleavesroom,ifonlyconceptually,fortheatoms'
retentionofweight.

WhenBurnetaskshimselftacitlyhowtheatomscouldhaveexpressedtheirweight,outsidetheformationofacosmos,heassumesthattheycouldhavedoneso
onlybyfallingdownwardsinthevoid.FromthistherefollowsthenotionthatoutsideacosmostheatomsofDemocritus,sincetheydonotfall,havenoweight.Thisin
turnleadstoProfessorGuthrie'spictureofatoms'floatingfreelyinthevoid'.

Butifthemovementofatomsinthevoidisforcefulandevenviolentmovement,thenitispossible,atleastconceptually,thatweightwouldbesufficientlyexpressedby
theforcewithwhichtheatomscollide.

Morespecifically,differencesintheatoms'forceofimpactcouldleadtodifferencesintheirspeedofmovementordifferen
1
Alex.Met.36.22(DK67A6),quotedbelowpp.21112.DiogenesofOenoanda,fr.32col.ii9Chilton(DK68A50).For seeLSJs.vv.Add
IoannesMalala,Chronographiaxviii468(=PGxcvii681D).
2
Historyii404n.1.

 Page182

cesintheatoms'speedofmovementcouldbeeffecteddirectlybytheatoms'differencesofweight.

ThusatleastonthelevelofconceptualpossibilitythereisnoneedfortheatomstobeweightlessortohaveonlypotentialweightorPseudoschweresimplybecause
theydonotfalldownwardsinthevoid.1

CurtailmentoftheAristoteleanassumption,thatweightmustbeexpressedbymovementinaspecificdirection,leavesopenthepossibility,ifonlytheconceptual
possibility,thatevenwhentheatomsweremovingatrandominthevoid,differencesintheweightofatomscouldhavebeenexpressedbydifferencesintheirspeedof
movement,whetherdirectlyorasaresultoftheirforceofimpact.

InthesectionwhichfollowsIconsiderwhatevidencethereisthatsuchpossibilitieswereeverrealisedhistorically.2

2
TheNatureofWeight:WeightExpressedAsForceofImpactandAsSpeedofMovement

WeightAsForceofImpact

(i)

Thenotionofweightasafactorintheforceofimpactislittlemore,initially,thananapplicationofthequitegeneralassociationofweightwithforceorviolence.

ThusAristotlewritesthatanimalswithahuckleboneintheirhindlegsareabletousetheminselfdefence,becausethepresenceofahucklebonemakestheblowof
thehindlegs'heavier'
1
FortheoriginoftheexpressionPseudoschwere(Liepmann,Mechanik2830),seebelowp.352.
2
Inchoosingdifferencesinspeedanddifferencesinforceofimpactaspossibleexpressionsofweightfortheatomswhentheyaremovinginthevoid,Idoofcoursealreadyhavean
eyetowhatcanbeinstantiatedhistorically:thepointisthatfromthegeneralpictureoftheatoms'behaviourIamclaiming,atthisstageinmyargument,onlyaconceptualandnotan
historicalpossibility.Ileaveasideotherpossibleeffectsthatmightperhapsbethoughtoffortheatoms'differencesinweight,becausetherehappenstobenotraceofthem
historically.
Afurthercaution:themorepreciserelationbetweenweightandspeed,i.e.whetherthelighterortheheavieratomswouldmovethefaster,isaquestionIleaveforalaterstageinmy
discussion:seech.XI4,pp.3239below.

 Page183

,Il.i8890).

(ii)

Wemayperhapsdoubtwhetherthisnotion,ofweightasassociatedwithforceorviolence,canbetransferredtothemovementofbodiesinavoid.

Thatitcanbe,atleastinlaterthinking,isclearfromLucretius,whowrites,ii838:
namquoniamperinaneuagantur,cunctanecessest
autgrauitatesuaferriprimordiarerum
autictufortealterius.nam<cum>citasaepe
obuiaconflixere,fitutdiuersarepentei
dissiliantnequeenimmirum,durissimaquaesint
ponderibussolidisnequequicquamatergoibusobstet.

Intheselines,Lucretiusfirstpresentstheatomsasbeingcarrieddownwards'bytheirownweight',grauitatesua.Butthealternativetothis,thattheatomsare
propelledbyachancecollision,ictufortealterius,isthenexplainedonthetwogrounds,thatinthevoidthereisnothingbehindtheatomstostopthembeing
knocked'backwards'andthattheatomsarebothhardandheavy,durissima...ponderibussolidis.Weighttherefore,itwouldappear,iscause,or
accompaniment,bothofthedownwardmovementofatoms,andoftheircollisionandrecoil.

Theformerideareappearsinadifferentguiseafewlineslater,wheretheatomsareagainsaidtobemoveddownwards'bytheirownweight',ii21718:
corporacumdeorsumrectumperinaneferuntur
ponderibuspropriis...

Thusthetwoexpressions,ponderibuspropriis(ii218)andponderi

 Page184

bussolidis(ii88),neatlyepitomisethetwonotionsofweight:ascauseofmovementdownwardsandascause,oraccompaniment,ofcollisionandrecoil.

(iii)

ThesametwoideasareperhapstobefoundinEpicurus.Theatomstravelwiththesamespeed,Epicurustellsus,whether(1)theyaremovingupwardsorsideways,
iftheirtrajectoryistheresultofacollision,orwhether(2)theyaremovingdownwardsasaconsequenceoftheirownproperweight

Theimplicationin wouldappeartoconfirmLucretius'notionthatthealternative,movementresultingfromtheclashofatoms,isalsoreckonedasaconsequence
oftheweightofatoms:themovementofanatomisdeterminedbyits'ownproperweight',whichwillcarrytheatomsdownwards,orbythatofanother.1
1
TheearlierpartofthepassagefromEpicurusisquotedimmediatelybelow.Itwouldbepossibletotakethedisjunction'movementofeitherkind' asbeingeither(1)
thedisjunctionbetweenmovementupwardsandmovementsideways,or(2)thedisjunctionbetweenthesetwokindsofmovementandmovementdownwards.Ihavetakenitin
thislattersense,althoughthereisthentheslightillogicalitythatwhereas(1)acollisioncouldalterthecourseofanatomthatwasalreadymoving'upwardsorsideways',aswellas
ofanatomthatwasmovingdownwards,nonetheless(2)thereassertionofanatom's'ownweight'canapplyonlytoanatomthatwasmoving'upwardsorsideways',andnottoan
atomthatwasalreadymovingdownwards.
Theideathatweightcausesforceofimpactcouldperhapscarrywithittheconverseidea,thatweightwillcausedifferentdegreesofresistance.ThisideaFurley,Twostudies22733,
seekstoextractfromLucretiusii2889('pondusenimprohibetneplagisomniafiant/externaquasiui')and,wronglyasitseemstome,fromthepresentpassageintheLetterto
Herodotus.Epicurusdoessaythat'theweightofanatommaycounteracttheforceofablowfromanotheratom',not,however,inthesensethat'heavierobjectsarehardertobudge
thanlighterones'(Furley'sexpression,p.230),butonlyinthesensethatafteracertainperiodanatom'sownweightwillreassertitself,andleadtodownwardmovement.Bailey
interpretsthedistinctionmoreorlessasIhavedone,Epicurus218:'anewcollisionwillstartanimmediatechangeofdirection,whereasthetendencytomovedownwardswould
assertitselfgraduallyandcauseagradualdeflexion'.

Itisinterestingtonotethat'theforceofimpact' makes

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page185

WeightAsSpeedofMovement

(i)

Inthissamepassage,Epicurus'purposeistoattacktheideathatatomswouldtravelwithdifferencesofspeedinthevoid,whetherasanexpressionoftheirintrinsic
weight,orasaresultofthecollisionofoneatomwithanother.Hewrites,Ep.adHer.61: .
'Whatismore,theatomsmusthave<all>thesamespeed...heavyatomswillnotmovemorespeedilythandoatomsthataresmallandlight...norwillsmallatomsmovemore
quicklythanlargerones...norwilltherebeanyincreaseofspeedforatomsthataresentmovingupwardsorsidewaysastheresultofcollisions,orforatomswhoseownweight
sendsthemdownwards.'1

(ii)

TheideaisrepeatedbyLucretius,butwiththedifferencethatwhileEpicurusdoesnotsaythatanyonehadactuallyheldsuchanidea,Lucretiuswritesmore
personally,andalsoaddsthenotion(whichinamomentweshallfindagaininAlexander)thatbecausetheheavieratomsmovefastertheyovertakethesmalleronesin
thevoid,ii2259:
quodsifortealiquiscreditgrauiorapotesse

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

anappearanceintheatomistcosmogonyrecordedbyAetius,i42(DKDK67A24):themechanismof ensuresthat'theforceofimpact'growslessasthe'small,round,
smoothandslipperyatoms'aredrivenfurtherfromthecentrebytheactionofatomswhichare'largerandheavier'.Buttheexplicitmentionofthedinemakesitimpossibletouse
thisasevidenceinthepresentargument.
1
Forthepossiblechangeofsubjectinthispassage,fromatomsto'bodiesingeneral',seeabovepp.15960.Fortheinterpretationofthispassageseealsopp.3256below.

 Page186

corpora,quocitiusrectumperinaneferuntur,
incidereexsuperoleuioribusatqueitaplagas
gignerequaepossintgenitalisredderemotus,
auiusaueralongerationerecedit.

BaileysuggeststhatthisviewmayhavebeenadoptedbyEpicurus'immediatepredecessor,NausiphanesofTeosbutthissuggestionisratherweakenedbyBailey's
failuretoappreciatethatonlyinLucretius,andinAlexander,dothelargeratomscatchupthesmalleronesbecauseoftheirgreaterspeed.1

Sincewearereducedtospeculation,itseemsmorelikelyperhaps,ifLucretius'aliquiswereeveracreatureoffleshandblood,thathewassomeonelaterthan
Epicuruswhoattemptedtoavoidtheanomalyofthedeclinatiobythepostulationofdifferentspeeds,whileretainingadownwardmovementofatomsinthevoid.

Howeverthatmaybe,Epicurushimselfdoesnotrepresentdifferencesofspeedandweightastakingtheplaceofadeclinatio:wehavesimplythedenialthat
differencesofweightareexpressedbyanyincreaseinspeedofmovement,whetherdirectly,orasaresultoftheimpactofoneatomwithanother.2
1
GreekAtomists129.ItisonlytheunthinkingconflationofthepassagesIhavequotedfromEpicurusandfromLucretiuswhichleadsBaileytowrite,129n.1:

'SinceEpicurus...isconcernedtoargueagainstatheorythattheheavieratomscatchupthelighterintheirdownwardfallinthevoid,itisclearthattheideaofweightasthe
causeofdownwardmotionmusthavebeenintroducedintotheatomictheorybeforehistime.'
Itisquiteadifferentmattertoargue,asdoesZeller,ZN1089n.4:

'DennsolcheFragenselbstndigzubehandeln,gingweitberdasVermgendesrmischenDichters.'
Ishouldmyselfbereluctant,onthisground,toattributetoEpicuruseventhedetailsofargumentfoundinLucretius:butIdonotpursuethequestionasitisonlymarginallyrelevant
tothemaintenorofmyargument.
2
VittorioE.AlfierithinksthatEpicurus'andLucretius'argumentsaredirectedagainstDemocritushimself,asZellerhadalsosupposed,ZN1089,butatthesametimehedeniesthat
therewasdownwardmovementinDemocritus,withtheoddresultthatEpicurusissupposedtohavemisunderstoodDemocritus,

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page187

(iii)

Epicurus'owntheory,ofequalspeedsfortheatoms,looksverymuchasthoughitistheproductofargumentswhichAristotledeploysinthePhysicsagainstthe
possibilityofmovementinavoid,andsoagainsttheveryexistenceofvoid.

Aristotlestatestworeasonsfordifferencesofspeed,resistanceofamediumanddifferencesofweight.1Onthefirstpoint,hearguesatlengththatmovementthrougha
voidwouldbeincommensurablewithmovementthroughamedium:theimplicationoftheargumentisevidentlythatinavoidabodywouldtravelwithaninfinitespeed,
anideawhichAristotlewouldholdtobeimpossible.2AgainstthesecondpossibilityAristotlearguesmuchmorebrieflythatshapeandsizeorweightcouldhaveno
effectuponmovementinavoid,andthatinavoidbodiesofadifferentweightwouldhavetotravelallwiththesamespeed:equalspeedsforbodiesofdifferentweight
Aristotleevidentlyassumeswouldbeasufficientrefutationoftheexistenceofvoid,oratleastofmovementwithinavoid.3

Movementatamaximum,andthereforeauniform,speed,byatomswhichdifferinweight,ispreciselytheconsequenceofmovementthroughvoidadoptedby
Epicurus.4

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
Atomosidea,l'originedelconcettodell'atomonelpensierogreco(Firenze,1953)81:

'Epicuro(equindiLucrezio)hacosgrossolanamentefraintesoDemocritosuquestopunto,daattribuirgliunadottrinadicuinegliAbderitinonsivedetraccia:cheilmotodegli
atomifosseintesodaDemocritocomemovimentodicadutaversoilbasso,causatodunquedalpeso....'
Inhisearlierwork,Atomisti,93n.205,AlfierihaddeniedthatEpicurus'criticismwasdirectedagainstDemocritus,althoughtheseedsofthelaterinterpretationarealreadypresent,104
n.247.
1
Arist.Phys.iv8,215a259.
2
Phys.215a29216a12.
3
Phys.216a1221.Ireturninmyfourthessaytoacloseranalysisofthisandtheprecedingargument,andoftheassumption,ontherelationbetweenthemediumandtheobject
moved,whichIbelieveunderliesAristotle'sreasoning.Laterinthisessay(pp.31517)IreturntoconsiderwhetherAristotle'sargumentmaybedirectedspecificallyagainst
Democritus.
4
MyargumentherepresupposesthatEpicuruswillhaveknownatleastthecontentofAristotle'sargument,EttoreBignonedoubtsthatEpicurusknewtheesotericworksofAristotle,
L'AristoteleperdutoelaformazionefilosoficadiEpicuropartiiii(Firenze,1936),reaffirmedin'Ladottrinaepicureadel''cli

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page188

(iv)

Fromthisitfollows,rathercuriously,thatwhileadoptingoppositeconclusionsEpicurusandAristotlebothargueagainstthesametheory:theybothattackthenotion
thatinthevoidtherecanbevariationsofspeedresultantuponvariationsinweight.

ThisexplainsAlexander'sextensionofAristotle'sargument,toformarefutationofatoms'movinginthevoid,eitherwithdifferencesofspeedorwithequalspeed.1
1.Aristotleargues,againsttheideaofbodiestravellingatdifferentspeedsthroughthevoid,thattheywouldhavetotravelallatthesamespeed.

2.Alexanderarguesindependentlyagainstbothalternatives:thatbodiescannottravelatdifferentspeeds,andthattheycannottravelallatthesamespeed.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

namen",suaformazioneesuacronologia,inrapportoconlapolemicaconlescuoleavversarie,nuovelucisullastoriadell'atomismogreco',AteneeRomaserie3anno8(1940)
15998.
Bignone'sviewhasnotwongeneralacceptance,andwaschallengedsoonafteritspublicationbyV.E.Alfieri,'Laformazionedelpensieroaristotelicoelapolemicaepicurea',Sophia7
(1939)2245,andinAtomosidea82,andbyG.CaponeBraga,AteneeRomaserie3anno8(1940)3547.
However,forthepresentpurposethisdifferenceofopinionisonlymarginallyrelevant,sinceevenBignoneallowsthatthecontentofAristotle'spolemicagainsttheatomictheory
mayhavebeencontainedinhispublishedworkonDemocritus.Thepointisrelevantalsotothequestionofthe'parts'ofatoms,cf.pp.2709below.
InviewoftheprobabilitythatEpicurus'theoryhasbeendesignedtocircumventthecriticisminAristotle(tocircumvent,byadoptingasrationaltheconclusionwhichAristotle
regardsasabsurd),itseemstomedisingenuoustowrite,asCornforddoes,ofthe'truth'which'wasdivined,withoutexperiment,byEpicurus',LoebednofthePhysicsi(London,
1929)356n.b,ajudgmentalltoofondlyrepeatedbylaterwriters,e.g.LaneCooper,Aristotle,GalileoandthetowerofPisa(NewYorkandLondon,1935)58n.1,W.D.Ross,inhis
editionofthePhysics(Oxford,1936)591,cf.Guthrie,Historyi18.ThecoincidencebetweenEpicurus'beliefandthetheoryofmodernclassicalphysicsthatinavoidbodiesfallallwith
thesameaccelerationisinanycasebeliedbyEpicurus'furtherconclusionthatinthevoidalltheatomsmove'withthespeedofthought'( ,inthecontinuationofthe
passagequoted),aconclusionagainfairlyobviouslydesignedtocircumvent(byaccepting)theearlierargumentinthePhysics(iv8,215a259),whereAristotle'sassumptionis
evidentlythatinavoidmovementwouldhavetobeinstantaneous.
1
Ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1222.

 Page189

Aristotle'sargumentneednotperhapsbedirectedexclusivelyagainsttheAtomists.AsBriegerpointedout,againstZeller,thedefinitionofvoidagainstwhichthe
wholeseriesofargumentsisdirected,isthatadvancedby'DemocritusandLeucippusandmanyotherofthephysicalphilosophers'(Phys.iv6,213a34b1).1

Alexander'sargument,inhisownwords,quotedbySimplicius,isdirected'againstEpicurus,andpresumablynolessagainstDemocritusandLeucippus,andingeneral
thosewhoclaimatomsandvoidastheirstartingpoints'(Phys.679.1314: .

(v)

Logically,eitheralternativeinAlexander'sargumentisofequalforce.Nonetheless,fromthehistoricalgenesisoftheargumentwecouldperhapsarguethatasthe
alternativeofequalspeedshasbeenintroducedtotakecareofEpicurus,soitisthealternativeofdifferentspeedsthatisreckonedasapplyingmoreparticularly
.

Thenatureoftheargumentsagainsteitheralternativepointsinthesamedirection.
1.Againstthepossibilityofatoms'movingwithdifferentspeedsinthevoidAlexanderarguesasAristotlehaddone,thatsize,weightandshapecannotaffectspeedofmovement
inavoid,ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1617: .

2.Againstthepossibilityofatoms'movingallwiththesamespeed,Alexanderarguesthattheycouldnevercatcheachotherup,679.1718:
.

Ifatomscannotcatcheachotherupbecausetheyaretravellingallatthesamespeed,itmustbethattheyaremovingallinthesamedirection,astheydoinEpicurus'
system,ifweleaveoutof
1
Zeller,ZN10889.Brieger,Urbewegung910,'Urbewegung'5923.

 Page190

accountforthemoment,asdoesAlexander,theintroductionoftheclinamenforsomeatoms.

FromthiswecouldperhapsagainarguethatifoneofthealternativenotionsisintendedtoapplyspecificallytoDemocritus,thenitmustbetheothernotion,i.e.the
notionofatomsmovingwithdifferencesofspeed.

(vi)

WerethisattributiontobetrueinfactforDemocritus,wemightwonderthatDemocritus'nameisnotattacheddirectlytothisbranchofthealternative,ifnotby
Alexander,thenatleastbySimplicius,inreportingAlexander'sargument.

ButexaminationofSimplicius'behaviourshowsthatthereneedbenosignificanceinthisomission.

AgooddeallaterinthePhysics,SimpliciusremarksthatEpicurushadadoptedequalityofspeedfortheatoms,inordertocircumventAristotle'sargumentagainst
indivisibility.1ThusinthepresentpassageSimpliciusknowsthatitisEpicuruswhoadoptedequalityofspeedfortheatoms,buthedoesnotsayso.

ItisequallypossiblethatSimpliciusknew,orthoughtheknew,thattheearlierformofAtomism,fromwhichEpicurushaddeviated,hadmadetheatomsmovewith
differencesofspeed,butthattherewasnolateroccasionforSimpliciustoprovideaspecificattributionforthetheory.

Conclusion

Forthesakeofclarity,IhavefollowedthroughthisseriesofpassagesfromAristotle,Epicurus,Lucretius,AlexanderandSimplicius,withoutpausingtocalculatethe
precisevalueofeachitemofevidence.

Itisapparentthatthealternativeexpressionsofweight,asforceofimpactandasspeedofmovement,aremorethanconceptualpossibilities.Theyhavesomekindof
historicalreality:butwhenprecisely,andforwhom?
1
Phys.938.212.

 Page191

(i)

Thesimplernotion,ofweightasforceofimpact,istheeasiertolocate.

ForthelaterAtomists,atleastforLucretiusandperhapsforEpicurus,weightappearstobeexpressedequally,andindependently,bythedownwardmovementof
atomsandbytheirforceofimpact.

(ii)

Themoreprecisenotion,ofdifferencesofweightexpressedasdifferencesinspeedofmovement,appearsanumberoftimes,butfleetingly,andelusively.
1.InAristotle,itisimpossible,onintrinsicgroundsalone,totellwhetherthenotionthatbodiesinavoidwouldhavetomovewithgreaterorlessspeedaccordingtotheirweight
isintroducedonlyasameansofrefutingthenotionofmovementinavoid,orasanelementintheoriginaltheorythathasbeenselected,andisexploited,foritssupposed
vulnerability.

2.WhenEpicurusattacksthesameidea,itisagainimpossibletotellwhetherhedoessoonlyinorderthemoreclearlytoestablishhisowntheory,thatallatomsmovewith
absoluteanduniformspeed,orwhetherpossiblyhisintentionistomarkthedistancebetweenhisownformofAtomismandthatofhispredecessors.

3.InLucretius,thetheoryiscastinapersonalisedform,butitisimpossibletotellwhetherthisisintendedhistorically,orisonlyaliterarydevice.

Evenifitisintendedhistorically,Lucretiuspresentsthenotionofdifferencesinspeedaccordingtoweightasanalternativetothedeclinatio,sothathisaliquis,ifheever
existed,wouldseemtobesomeonewhosethimselfupasarivaltoEpicurus,andwhowouldnotthereforeantedateAristotle.

4.AlexanderdoesspecifyDemocritusandEpicurusasthetargetsofhiscriticism.Moreover,theonememberofAlexander'sargument,thenotionofdifferencesofspeed

 Page192

causedbydifferencesofweight,doesalignitself,bothconceptuallyandhistorically,withDemocritus.

Evenso,Alexanderwritesonly .BoththequalificationandthegeneralisationaretypicalofAlexander'sdisinclinationtotemper
purephilosophywiththefactsofhistory.

(iii)

Fromthissequenceofevidence,therefore,itisimpossibletoprovedirectlythatDemocritusorLeucippusheldthenotionofweightexpressedasforceofimpactoras
speedofmovement.

WhetherinthelightofalltheevidenceasawholeitmightbereasonabletoprojecteithernotionbackwardsfromAristotleintothefifthcentury,isaquestionIshall
considerlater.1

Forthemoment,IshalladoptthefarmorelimitedcourseofcompletingtheseriesofpassagesthatstemfromAristotle'sargument,byreturningtothepassagein
SimpliciuswhereDemocritus'atomsaresaidtomove'becauseof'or'inaccordancewith'theirweight.

3
WeightandVoid

(i)

IhavealreadynotedthatinthepassageintheDecaelowhereEpicurusandDemocritusarealikesaidtohaveattributedweighttotheatoms,Epicurusaloneissaidto
identifyweightwith'movementdownwardsaccordingtonature'.2

Democritus'atoms,welearnelsewhere,donothavenaturalmovementandtheimplicationthereforeisthattheydonotmovedownwards.3

(ii)

ThereisthesameimplicationinthepassageinthePhysics,
1
Cf.pp.21122below.
2
Decaelo269.414,pp.1616above.
3
Decaelo583.202,Phys.42.1011,pp.1656above.

 Page193
1
whichexplicitlydescribesthemovementofatomsinthevoid.

IhavealreadyarguedinfavourofDiels'emendationof .Theatomsare'tossedaround':they'shoot'or'dart'or'leapabout'.2

IfweretainDiels'reading,thenitbecomesvirtuallyimpossibletosupposethatintheclauseimmediatelyprecedingthisSimpliciuscanhaveintendedmovement'by
weight'or'inaccordancewithweight'tobemovementdownwards.

Aninconsistencyofthisorder,andwithoutanymentionevenofEpicuruswhichmighthelptoexplaintheconfusion,isunlikelyintheextreme.

(iii)

Ifthereforeweightisnotintendedasthecauseofmovementdownwards,onSimplicius'understandingofthetheory,thenwemusttrytofindwhatotherconnotation,
forSimplicius,thenotionofweight,andinparticulartheexpression ,islikelytohaveheldwhenqualifyingthemovementofatomsinthevoid.

Ifwedoso,wefind,Ithink,thatthetwomostobviousconnotations,inthiscontext,arepreciselythosethatIhavealreadyexplored.Ifweightisnotexpressedas
downwardmovement,thenitislikelytobeenvisaged,bySimplicius,asforceofimpactandasspeedofmovement.

WeightasForceofImpact

(i)

TheostensiblereasonforSimplicius'introductionofweightatthispointistoexplainhowtheatomscanmovewithoutanexternalagency,suchasAnaxagoras'mindor
Empedocles'LoveandStrife.

Fromthepointofviewoftheimmediatecontext,therefore, isintendedtobeinsomewayacorrelative,oranaddition,toAristotle'sassertion,in
thepassagewhichSimpli
1
Phys.1318.301319.5,quotedpp.1667above.
2
Pp.16771above.

 Page194

ciusiscommentingupon,thattheatomsmove (Phys.viii9,265b24).

TheotheroccasionwhenSimpliciusspeaksoftheatoms'moving'inthevoid',headdsthattheydoso ,itseemstome,areintendedtoberoughlyequivalent:
theatomsaremoved'byforce'becausethedirectionoftheirmovementisdeterminedbytheir'hitting'eachother,i.e.bytheircollisionandrecoil.1

(ii)

InotedearlierthatthereareineffecttwokindsofmovementdescribedbySimpliciusinthepresentpassage.
1.Thereistheprimaryand'only'movement:movementinspace,ormovementfromplacetoplace.

2.Thereareitsimmediateconsequences:theentanglementofatomsonewithanother,andtheirseparation.

Theprimarykindofmovement,Ihaveargued,isdesignatedbytheterm .

ButwhatisthereinSimplicius'analysistoexplaintheprefix ?

Iftheatomsdonomorethanmove'throughtheyieldingandunresistingvoid',thentherewillbenoobviousneedforthemtomove'roundandabout'or'fromplaceto
place' .

TheprefixthereforeItaketomeanthatevenbeforeSimpliciusspeaksoftheatomsasbecomingentangledwithoneanotherandasbeingseparatedfromoneanother
heprobablythinksofthemasincollision:hence(probably)thedifferentdirectionsoftheirmovement.

Hastherebeennothingthenintheprecedingsentencestointroduce,ortoexplain,thenotionofcollision?

Onlytheexpression .TheadditionalelementinSimplicius'description,themovementoftheatoms
1
Forthesetwopassagescf.pp.1656above.

 Page195

'hitherandthither'or'fromplacetoplace',isverypossiblyprovided,itseemstome,bytheprovisionthattheatomsaremovinginthevoid'inaccordancewiththeir
weight'.

(iii)

ThetwofactorsthatIhavespokenofcoincideintheireffect:theexpressionswhichSimpliciususeselsewheretodescribethemovementofatoms,andtheparticular
connotationoftheverbwhichdescribesthemovementofatomsinthepresentcontext.

1.'Inaccordancewithweight'seemstomemostsimplytakenasamoregeneralexpressionofwhatisexpressedelsewhereasmovementoftheatoms

2.Theatoms'darthitherandthither'or'shootthiswayandthat',becauseoftheforceofimpactoccasionedbytheirweight.

WeightasSpeedofMovement

Itispossiblehowevertobemorespecific.

InhiscommentaryonAristotle'sanalysisofvoidinbookfourofthePhysics,Simpliciusdetailshisownconceptionofweight,partlyinelaborationupon,andpartlyin
correctionof,Alexander.

(i)

Alexanderarguedthatequalspeedforalltheatomswouldmakeitimpossibleforthemtocatcheachotherup.1

Simpliciuscountersthatitis'easier'toarguethattheatomscannotmoveallwiththesamespeedbecausedifferencesofweightwouldhavetoleadtodifferencesof
speed,ifweightwerenottobealtogetherineffective,Phys.679.2432:
Ifsomeoneaskswhyabodythatismoreheavycannotmovewiththesamespeedasabodythatislessheavy,aneasieranswer<thantheonegivenbyAlexander>isthatifthe
additionalweightdoesnotmakethemovementany

1
Ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1222,esp.1718cf.pp.18890above.

 Page196

quickerthenweightcannotbetheoriginalcauseofdownwardmovementinthevoid.

'Foriftheadditionofsomethingdoesnotintensifyorinanywayincreasethemovementthensuchafactorcannotbethecauseofmovementoriginally.

'Butiftheweightofeachbodyisnotineachcasethecauseofitsmovinginthevoid,theninthevoidbodieswouldneverstartmovinginthefirstplace,sincebodieshaveno
causeofnaturalmovementotherthantheweightthatbelongstoeachofthem.'

Thecontextofthisargumentneedstobeconsideredcarefully.
1.Aristotle,asInotedearlier,arguesthatinthevoidtheatomscannotmovewithdifferencesofspeed,andwouldthereforehavetomoveallwiththesamespeed,aconsequence
whichAristotleholdstobeimpossible.

2.SinceEpicurussupposedthatinthevoidtheatomsdomovewiththesame,i.e.withamaximumspeed,Alexanderisledtoargueagainstbothpossibilitiesindependently:the
atomscannotmovewithdifferentspeedsnorallwiththesamespeed.

3.Simplicius,inthepassageIhavetranslated,arguesthattheatomscannotmoveallwiththesamespeed,onthegroundthatadifferenceofweightmustleadtoadifferenceof
speed.

BythisseeminglyslightcorrectionofAlexander'sargumentSimpliciushascomeclosetoreversingtheorderofargumentinAristotle.Forbymakingarefutationof
equalspeedsdependupontheassumptionofdifferentspeedsSimpliciusnolongerexcludes,asbothAristotleandAlexanderhaddone,thepossibilityoftheatoms
movingwithadifferenceofspeedinthevoid.

(ii)

Simplicius'changeofperspectiveisclarifiedinthecontinuationofhiscommentary.ForSimpliciusquotesfromAlexanderanadditionalargumentagainstEpicurus
whichturnsontheassumptionthatatomsinthevoidcannotmovewithadifferenceof

 Page197

speed:Simpliciusthenrepliesexplicitlythattheabsenceofamediumdoesnotprecludethepossibilityofadifferenceofspeed,Phys.679.32680.9:
'Alexanderalsoarguesthat:''(1)IftheEpicureansbelievethateverybodyhasweight,andthatbodiesmovethroughthevoidbecauseoftheirweight(2)butifthingswhichhave
weightinessasthecauseoftheirmovementare,asaconsequence,boundtoexhibitagreaterspeedofmovementastheeffectoftheirhavingagreaterweight(3)ifhoweveritis
impossiblefortheretobevariationsofspeedinthevoid:thenitfollowsthatitwouldnotbepossibleforbodiestobemovedinthevoidbecauseoftheirweight.Butifweight
doesnotmovethemthentheywouldnotmoveatall."

'Thisargumentobviouslyprovokesthereplythatifbodieshaveweightasthecauseoftheirmovement,andthegreaterweightasthecauseofafastermovement,thenwhy
shouldbodiesnotmovethroughthevoid?

'Forevenifsomethingdoeshavethepossibilityofbeingbothmoreeasilyorlesseasilydivided,andifthisthenactsasthemediumformovement,providing<bythegreateror
lesseaseofitsdivisibility>afasteroraslowermovement,nonethelessthepresenceofsuchabodycannotbeaccountedthecauseofweight.

'Thetruthisratherthatweightmaydiffer,andthatifitdoessothenboththebodythatiseasilydividedandthebodythatisnotsoeasilydividedaccentuatethedifferenceinthe
weightofthebodythattravelsaccordingtonature.

'<Thatistosay,adifferenceinthemediumaccentuatesthedifferenceofweight,butitdoesnotdeterminethedifferenceofweight:>forjustasotherqualitiesarealsoincreasedin
extentif,withnochangeofkind,theyarepresentinalargersubstrate,soalsothesameshouldfollowinthecaseofweight.<Ifthebodyinquestionhasheaviness,thenthelarger
portionwillbeheavierthanthesmallerportion,providedthatbothbodiesareofthesamekind.>

'Thusasageneralprincipleitisweightthatmakesabodyabletodivideamedium,itisnotthedivisionofthemediumwhichcausestheweight:<weightcausesdivision>whether

 Page198
1
ornotthemediumbeneaththemovingbody<infact>actstohinderitspassage.'

(iii)

ThesentencesIhaveattemptedtoparaphraseareremarkable,inSimplicius,fortheirlackoflucidity.Thegeneralpurport,however,isclear.Speed,orease,of
divisiondependsonlyinpartonthenatureoftheobjectdivided.Weightvaries,justasotherqualitiesdo,inaccordancewiththelargerorsmallerquantityofthe
materialavailable,andindependentlyofthedivisibilityofthemedium.

TheconfusiontothemodernreaderarisespartlybecauseSimpliciusstillconceivesofdifferencesofweight,asAristotlealsohaddone,asinvariablyexpressedby
adifferenceinspeedofmovement,andpartlybecausehestillclingstotheconceptionofmovementasthedivisionofamedium,eventhough,inthefinalsentencesthat
Ihaveparaphrased,thisleadsSimpliciustowriteofweightasthecauseofdivisionevenwhenthereisnoresistancefromthemedium.

Thisfinal,strangled,formulaisSimplicius'endorsement,ineffect,oftheobjectionthathebringsagainstAlexander.Bodiesareabletomovethroughthevoid,because
movement,still,paradoxically,conceivedofas'division',istheeffectofweight,independentlyoftheresistanceofamedium.

ThisthereforeisanimportantmomentinSimplicius'expressionofhisownideas.SimpliciusrarelytakesadirectstandagainsttheauthorityofAristotle,atleastofan
AristotleinterpretedinthelightofPlato.Heis,however,willingonoccasiontodivergefromAlexander'sinterpretation,despitethehighregard
1
InAlexander'sargumentIhavetranslatedboth carrieswithitaninevitableconnotationofmovement.

Similarly,inSimplicius'replyIhavetranslated (680.5)as'theweightofabodythattravelsaccordingtonature',sincetheexpressionclearlyincludesbothweight
andthemovementofabodyaccordingtonaturethatisdeterminedbyweight.Forthetextof680.14seethefollowingfootnote.

 Page199

thathehasforthemost'scrupulous'and'authentic'ofthecommentatorsonAristotle( Phys.80.15).Theparadoxisthatonthisoccasion,byventuring
toopposeAlexander,Simpliciushasinfactcomeroundtoadoptingapointofviewwhichis,onacrucialpoint,divergentfromthatofAristotle.

Aristotle,orsoIshallarguelater,seesmovementnotasthesimpletraversalofaspacebutastheovercomingofresistancebyaforce.Itisthisconception,orsoI
shallargueinmyfourthvolume,whichliesattheheartofAristotle'sargumentsagainstthepossibilityofmovementinavoid.Simplicius,inthefinalsentencesIhave
translated,takesup,byimplication,analternativestandpoint,wherebythepresenceortheabsenceofresistancefromamediumdeterminesnotmovementassuch,
butonlythespeedofmovement.Forbyallowingthecontinuanceofmovementintheabsenceofresistancefromamedium,andtherefore,byimplication,inthevoid,
andbyallowingweight,evenwithoutresistancefromamedium,toeffectadifferenceofspeed,Simpliciuscomesround,inpractice,toadoptingpreciselytheview
whichAristotlehadinitiallysetouttorefute:thepossibilityoftheatomsmovinginthevoidwithdifferencesofspeedaccordingtotheirweight.1

(iv)

ThusforSimpliciusmovementcontinuesinavoid,butwithoutoneofthefactors,differenceintheresistanceofamedium,whicheffectsdifferenceofspeed.Theother
factor,weight,remains,as
1
TheearlierpartofSimplicius'replyruns,680.14: .
Itisofcoursealwayspossiblethatadifficulttexthasbeencorrupted.Ifthatisnotthecasehere,thenisitperhapstoofancifultosupposethatSimplicius'adventurousbranchingout
fromhisdependenceonAristotle,andonAlexander,hasputhislanguageunderstrain?InaNotetomyfourthessayIshallsuggestthatSimplicius'positionhasbeenadoptedasa
concessiontoPhiloponus'criticismofAristotlethiswouldbeanadditionalreasonforSimplicius'unease.

 Page200

anindependentsourceofvariationsinspeed.

ThisaffectsradicallythecontextofSimplicius'accountofthemovementofatoms'accordingtoweight'inbookeightofthePhysics.

ItistruethatinthetwopassagesIhaveparaphrasedfromhiscommentaryonbookfourSimplicius'argumentiscouchedintermsofweightascauseofdownward
movement,sinceineithercasehiscritiquetouchesuponAlexander'sargumentagainstEpicurus.Simplicius'statementofprinciplecannotthereforeapplydirectlytothe
earlieratomictheory.

1.InSimplicius'critiqueofEpicurus, (679.31).

2.InthecaseoftheearlierAtomists,Simpliciushasspecificallyaffirmedthatthemovementofatomsinthevoidis'byforce',andthattheatomshavenonaturalmovement.1

Butbyallowingthatmovementmaytakeplaceevenintheabsenceofresistancefromamedium,andtherefore,byimplication,inthevoid,andbyallowingthatthere
maybedifferencesofspeedindependentlyofthepresenceofamedium,SimpliciushassofardepartedfromtheprinciplesofAristotle'sphilosophythattheexpression
'accordingtoweight'mayhavemeaning,Isuggest,evenoutsidethecontextof'natural'movement.

ForifwemakethenecessaryadjustmentoverthedirectionofmovementthenitseemstomethatSimpliciuscouldverypossiblyhaveappliedtheprincipleswhichhe
expressesinhiscommentaryonbookfourofthePhysicstohisdescriptioninbookeightoftheatomsmoving :sincethemovementoftheatoms
is'enforced'movement,theatomsdonotmovedownwards,butdifferencesofweightintheatomswillnonethelessstillbeexpressed,eveninthevoid,asdifferences
ofspeed.
1
Seethepassagesquotedpp.165and192above.

 Page201

Conclusion

(i)

Whetherornot,orhowfar,Simplicius'evidenceislikelytorepresentDemocritus'ownconceptionoftheatoms'behaviourisaquestionIleavetobeansweredin
considerationofthedistributionofevidenceasawhole.

Forthemoment,myconclusionissimplythatSimplicius'evidenceonDemocritus'conceptionofweightisallofapiece,withnoinconsistency,eitherinternallyoron
thequestionofmovement,thatneedbetrayconfusionwithEpicurus.

1.Theatomshaveweight,invirtueoftheirdensity,andaspartoftheuniformityoftheirnaturefromtheirpossessionofweighttherearises,undertheactionofavortex,the
distinction,ortheappearanceofadistinction,betweenheavyandlight.

2.Theatomsarealsosaidtomoveinthevoid'becauseof',orperhapsrather'inaccordancewith',theirweight.However,theyarenottherebythoughtofasmovingdownwardsin
thevoid.

Simplicius'earliercategorisationsofthemovementofatomsinthevoid,andtheideologicalpreferenceswhichhehasexpressedearlierinhiscommentaryonthe
relationofweightandspeed,verypossiblyindicatethatheseestheweightoftheatomsatthispointassufficientlyexpressedindifferencesofspeed,oratleastthathe
seestherandomdirectionsoftheirmovement,their'dartinghitherandthither',asdeterminedbythe'weight'oftheirimpact.

(ii)

FromthisitfollowsthatSimplicius,rightlyunderstood,offersnoindependentsupportforwhatIhavecalledthe'currentcompromise',namelytheideathatDemocritus'
atomsacquiredweightonlywithinacosmos,orwithinthebeginningsofacosmos,andthatinthevoidtheatomswerewithoutweight.

Indeed,itturnsoutthatSimpliciusisopposedtothatinterpre

 Page202

tation,bothimplicitlyinvirtueofthepassageswhereheattributesweighttotheatomsinaccordancewiththeirdensityorwiththeuniformityoftheirnature,and
explicitlyinthepassagewherehewritesofatomsasmovinginthevoid'inaccordancewiththeirweight'.

ThustheevidenceofSimpliciusisalignedwith,andindeedgoesfurtherthan,theevidenceinAristotleandinTheophrastus.
1.TheophrastusandAristotleattributeweighttotheatoms,withnoexplicitspecificationofwhetherornottheatomsinquestionarerelatedtoacosmos.

2.Simplicius,explicitlyandbyimplication,attributesweighttoatomswhichareoutsideacosmos.

 Page203

ChapterSeven
DiogenesLaertiusandAlexander

1
DiogenesLaertius:TheTimeSequence

IhaveexaminedthepassagesfromSimpliciuswhichProfessorGuthrieintroducesinfavourofwhatIhavecalledthe'currentcompromise'.Inthefirsttwosectionsof
thischapterIconsiderverybrieflyapassageinDiogenes,whichBurnetsoughttointroduceasfurnishingpositiveevidencethatatomsoutsideacosmoswerewithout
weight.

DiogenesLaertiusrecordsacosmogony,inhisaccountofLeucippus,whereatomsareseparatedintotheirdifferentkindsbecausetheycannolongermaintaintheir
previousstateofbeing .

InthefirstsectionofthischapterIconsideronlytheformerpoint.Burnetunderstands asBriegerhaddone,namelyasdescribingaconditionofthings
entirelypriortothebeginningsofacosmos.2

ButthisinterpretationprovestobehardlypossiblewhenwelookatthepositionwhichthisexpressionoccupiesinthedoxographicalmaterialwhichDiogeneshas
appendedtotheverybriefbiographicalnotewhichisallthathecansupplybywayofaLifeofLeucippus.3
1
EGP3445.Theorigin,andthenature,ofBurnet'sargumentherearediscussedfromabroaderpointofviewonpp.35963below.
2
Brieger,'Urbewegung'596:seefurtherpp.35960below.
3
Burnet'sinterpretationofthispointisadoptedbyBailey,GreekAtomists94.ItisquestionedbyAlfieri,Atomisti4n.13,andbyGuthrie,Historyii407n.1.Thereisausefulanalysis,
butmainlyofthelaterpartoftheentry,byJ.Kerchensteiner,'ZuLeukipposAl',Hermes87(1959)4418.

 Page204

(i)

Diogenes'accountcontainstwoblocksofdoxographicalmaterial,whichareeasilydistinguishable.ThefirstissosketchythatevenDiogenes,orhismoreimmediate
source,wasevidentlydissatisfiedwithit,andsoughtoutanother,andmuchbetterextract,joiningthetwotogetherwiththeapology,ix30(DK67A1):
.

Thisformulaservestogivesomesuperficialappearanceofliteraryformtothejuxtapositionofthetwoblocksofmaterialbuteventhemostcursoryinspectionshows
thatthedistinctionbetweenthetwoblocksofmaterialisnotpreciselythatclaimedbetweengeneral ,forbothblocksofmaterialaredividedintoaninitial
statementofprinciplesandthenanaccountofcosmogony.

1.Thefirstsourcewrites,ix30: .

2.Thesecondsourcewrites,ix31: .

Thetruedifferencebetweenthetwoextractsisthatinthelatertheaccountofthecosmogonyismuchricherandmoredetailedthanintheearlier.Itisindeedsuperior,
initswealthofdetail,tothecosmogonywhichDiogeneshasappendedtohisLifeofDemocritus.FromanextremeofpovertyDiogeneshasprovidedalmostan
embarrassmentofriches.

(ii)

Thephraseinquestionispartofthissecondextract,andclearlyfallsundertherubric'worldscomeintobeingthus',ix31(DK67A1): .

 Page205

'Worldscomeintobeingthus:amultitudeofparticles( ),ofallkindsofshapes,areslicedofffromtheendlessandaresweptintoalargeandemptyspace,wheretheyare
crowdedtogetherinsuchawayastobringabouttheexistenceofasinglewhirl.

'Undertheinfluenceofthiswhirl,theparticles,astheycollidewitheachotherandastheycirclearound( )invariousways,areseparatedintodifferent
agglomerationsoflikewithlike.

'Therearesomanyofthemhoweverthattheycannotcontinuetheircirclingmovement( ):consequentlyfineatomsaresievedout,asitwere,andmaketheirway
<back>intotheemptyspaceoutside<thewhirl>,whiletheatomsthatareleftbehindstaytogetherandastheybecomeenmeshedwitheachothertheymovearoundtogether,and
atthesamerateaseachother,soproducingthefirst<primitive>structuretohavetheshapeofasphere.'

Thepointtonoteatoncehereisthattheexpression isprecededbyanaccountoftheaggregationofatomsaftertheirseparationfromthevoidandtheir
'formationofasingledine'.

(iii)

Thusthefirstandessentialpointtonoteisthatthesentencecontaining fallswithintheaccountofthecosmogony.

Wecanbemoreprecise.Itisreasonablyclearthattheactionwhichisdescribedas .

Forthemovementofatomsdescribedinthelatersentenceisevidentlyaconsequenceofthedistributionofatomsdescribedintheearliersentence.

1.Inthefirstsentence,theatoms,orgroupsofatoms,aredescribedas'separatingtojoinlikewithlike': .

2.Inthenextsentence,'fine'atoms,orfinegroupsof

 Page206

atoms,flyoffintotheexternalvoid, .

Fromthis,andfromthesimilarphraseology,itfollowsthatthetypeofmovementwhichaccompaniestheseparationofatomstojoinlikewithlikewillbethesameas
thetypeofmovementwhichprecedesthedistributionofatomsbetweencentralcomplexandexternalvoid.

1.Theatomswhichseparatetojoinlikewithlikearedescribedas'circlingaround': .

2.Theatomswhicheventuallydividebetweencentralcomplexandexternalvoiddosobecausetheyare'nolongerabletobecarriedaroundinequilibrium':
.

Thepointtoappreciatethereforeisthat looksbackfurtherthantothesituationwheretheatomsare'circlingaround'andwherelikeisjoinedwithlike.

Thismomentissubsequenttothe'formationofasingledine',andissubsequentthereforetothetimewhentheatomsweremovinginavoidpriortothesequenceof
eventswhichconstitutetheformationofacosmos.

(iv)

AltogetherthereforewecandistinguishthefollowingstagesinDiogenes'account.
1.Thereisevidentlyastageantecedenttothecosmogonicalsequenceproper,whentheatomsarestillmovingindependentlyinthevoid.Thisisclearlyimpliedbytheexpression:
... .

2.Amultitudeofdifferentlyshapedatomsaredrawnintoagreatvoid.Thisisthefirstactofthecosmogonyproper.

 Page207

3.Theseatomsjointogetherandformasingledine.

4.Undertheinfluenceofthedine,likeagglomerateswithlike,anditisatthisstagethattheatomsaresaidtobe'circling'or'wheelingaround'
.

5.Eventually(cf. )thisprocesscomestoanend:thefineratomsorgroupofatomsescape,andreturntothevoidtheotheratomsstaybehindtoformasphericalmass.

6.Thisinturn,wearetoldinwhatfollows,formsthesubstanceoftheearth,andthen,underthecontinuinginfluenceofadine,drawsonfreshmaterialfromthevoidtoformthe
substanceofthestars.

Conclusion

Fromthissequence,itfollowsthat describesnottheatomswhicharemovingindependentlyinthevoid,butatomsatanearlystageintheproductionofa
cosmos,whentheyhavealreadybeendrawnintotheformationofadine.

Fromtheconditionoftheatomsatthistime,wehavenorighttoconcludethattheatomswereinthesameconditionpriortothesequenceofeventsleadingtothe
formationofacosmos.

2
DiogenesLaertius:TheMeaningof

ThediscrepancyinchronologythatIhavenotedbetweenthecontextofthephraseinDiogenesandBurnet'sapplicationofittotheprecosmicvoidiscompoundedby
Burnet'sconfusionoverthemeaningof .

Inhisthirdedition,Burnetwrites:

'Nowtheword isamereleaningorinclinationinacertaindirection,whichisthecauseratherthantheeffectofweight.'1

ThewiderinconsistenciesinBurnet'sprocessesofthoughtat
1
EGP3445.

 Page208

thispointIshalltouchuponlater.1Forthemoment,Iconsideronlythesenseof

(i)

Whatisessential,firstofall,isthatwhileBurnetseesthatthereissomeassociationbetween andweight,hedoesnotappreciatethatinaphilosophicalcontext
thisassociationturnspreciselyontheAristoteleanconceptionofweightasdefinedintermsofmovement.

ThusatthebeginningofbookfouroftheDecaeloAristotlewrites,cap.1,307b303: .
'Examinationofheavyandlightisproperlypartofourenquiryintomovement,insofarasheavyandlightaredesignatedassuchbytheirpotentialityfornaturalmovementof
somekind.

'Itistruethatequivalenttermshavenotbeenestablishedfortheactualisation<ofthesepotentialities>,unlessperhapsoneweretoclaimthat''impetus" isawordthat
servesthispurpose.'

Thispassageshowsatoncethat isweightenvisagedintermsofmovement.

Burnetdoesnotgraspthesignificanceofthispoint,becausehisideasonearlyconceptionsofweighthaveleftnoroomforanyradicaldifferencebetweenPlatonicor
AristoteleanandprePlatonicconceptionsofweight.2

Oncewemakeallowanceforthepossibilityofsuchadistinction,thenitisatonceapparentthattheexpression
1
Pp.35963below.
2
Cf.pp.17482above.

 Page209

entailsweightlessnessor'absenceofweight'onlyifweassociateweightexclusivelywithmovement,orwithinclination,'inacertaindirection',asdoesBurnet.

Thustheonlyweightwhichisheredeniedtotheatomsbytheuseof ,istheAristoteleanconceptionofweightasmovementinaspecificdirection.

Thereneedbenodenialofweightenvisagedasforceofimpactorasspeedofmovement.1

(ii)

Evenifweleaveasidethequestionoftherebeingalternativeexpressionsofweighttothatofmovementinaspecificdirection,itstillappears,ifweconsidermore
preciselythemeaningofthecompoundexpression shouldbeatomscontainedwithinatleastthebeginningsofacosmos.

PlatowritesinthePhaedoofthepositionoftheearth,butintheformofageneralisation,109A46: .

Plato'spassageexemplifiesthecasewhere willnottraveltowards.

'Abodywhichis ,placedinthecentreofauniformmedium,willhavenotendencytoinclineinanyonedirectionmoreorlessthaninanyother:itwillstayasitis,
uniformlyplaced,withoutincliningthiswayorthat.'

1
Aristotle'suseof hasnonecessaryimplicationofweightinGreek'?

 Page210

ThisdescriptionisparalleledinDiogenes.Theatomsare becausetheydonotyetmoveineitheroneoftwooppositedirections.

1.Theydonotyetflyoffintotheexternalvoid( ).

2.Thelargerorheavieratomshavenotyetsettledintoasolidballthatintimewillformtheearth .

Itisonlyinrelationtothisincipientdevelopmentofthecosmos,andthedistinctionthereinofcentreandcircumference,thatthedescriptionoftheatomsbeing
hasmeaning.

Iftherewerenopotentialcentretothedine,andifthevoidwerenot'thevoidoutside',thentheprecisemeaningof inthiscontext,asthenegationof
theselocalreferences,wouldbelost.

Thusevenifweallowtheconnotationofweightorofweightlessnessto thenevenso,theonly'weight'whichisheredeniedtotheatomsisnecessarily
thatofcentripetalandcentrifugalmovement.

Andthatdistinctionispossibleonlyintheearlystagesoftheproductionofacosmos.Itwouldnotbepossibleforatomsthatweremovingatrandominanendless
void.

Conclusion

ThecosmogonyrecordedbyDiogenesisamostvaluableanddetailedsourceofinformation.

Asevidenceforthelackofweightinatomsthatareoutsideacosmos,itfailscompletely.

1.TheatomsdescribedbyDiogenesarenotatomsthataremovingindependentlyinthevoid.

2.Theonly'weight'whichisdeniedtothemisthatofcentripetalandcentrifugalmovementwithinthebeginningsofacosmos.1

1
Mabilleau,Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique197,attributestoCiceroDenaturadeorum'I,ch.35'thenotionthat'lesatomesdeDmocritesonttousgauxenpoids,ceque
Diognetraduitparl'pithte ,quiconsacrel'interprtation'.

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page211

3
Alexander:The'Parts'ofAtoms

Sofarthereforeweareleftwithnopositiveevidenceforthenotionthatatomsoutsideacosmoswerewithoutweight.
1.TheevidencefromDiogenes,whichBurnetsoughttointroduceinfavourofthisview,provestobeirrelevant.

2.TheevidencefromSimplicius,whichProfessorGuthrieintroduces,proves,onacarefulexamination,tosupporttheoppositeview:thatatomsoutsideacosmosdidhaveweight.

InthischapterIconsiderapassagefromAlexanderofAphrodisiaswhichdoesexplicitlyraisethequestionoftheatomsbeingwithoutweight.

InthefirstbookoftheMetaphysicsAristotlewritesofDemocritusandLeucippus,cap.4,985b1920(DK67A6): .

Alexandercommentsonthisasfollows,Met.36.218(onlyinpartDK67A6):
Aristotle.'Butonthesubjectofmovementtheywereasspinelessastheothers,andquitefailedtotakeupthequestionofwheremovementistocomefromandhowitistobe
presentintheworldaroundus.'

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

ThereisnomentionofDemocritusinthepassagecited,nordoesthisideaappearintheaccountwhichCicerodoesgiveofweightinEpicurusandDemocritusintheDenat.
deorumi25.6926.73(belowpp.2403).IamfairlysurethatMabilleauhascopied,andconfused,afootnoteinPierreBenjaminLafaist,Dissertationsurlaphilosophicatomistique
(Paris,1833)72n.1.(AnotherinstanceofMabilleau'sunthinkingrepetitionofideasfromLafaistisnotedbelow,p.338n.3.)

 Page212

Alexander.'LeucippusandDemocritusarethetargetofcriticism.Thesetwophilosophersdospecifythattheatomsmoveaboutbybangingintoeachotherandbyknocking
againsteachother,buttheygivenoexplanationoftheoriginorprincipleofmovementinbodiesthatareconstitutedbynature<i.e.primarilythefourcosmicelements>.

'Thepointisthat <thedescriptionstheydogivecannotbeaccountedanexplanationoftheoriginorprincipleofnaturalmovementsince>movementbycollisionis
forceful,i.e.nonnatural,movement,andforcefulmovementissubsequent<logicallyandphysically>tonaturalmovement.

'Equallytheyfailtoexplainwheretheheavinessinatomscomesfrom.<Indeeditisimpossible,ontheirtheory,fortheatomstobeheavyatall,since>thepartless<elements>that
arerecognisedconceptuallyasbelongingtotheatoms,andthatarepartsoftheatoms,theyadmithavenoweight:buthowthen<onemayask>couldweight<orheaviness>
arisefromtheconjunctionofpartsthatarewithoutweight?

'ThispointisexploredinthethirdbookoftheDecaelo.'1

Thisistheonlypassageinancientliterature,otherthantheentryinAetiustobediscussedinthenextchapter,whichdeliberatelyindicatesthattheatomshaveno
weight.TheclippedandepisodicnatureoftheentriesinthePlacita,andthelackofanysingleauthorship,makeitparticularlydifficulttotracetheideological
backgroundoftheinformationthatisofferedthere.Thepresentpassageisthemoreinterestingthereforeinthatitprovidesasufficientcontextofargumentandallusion
forustobeabletodetermine,withreasonableclarity,theprocessesofthoughtwhichhaveledtotheconclusionthattheatomsorthepartsoftheatoms'haveno
weight'.

Nonetheless,thepassageisnotmentionedbyProfessorGuthrieorbyBurnet,forZellerhadrightlynotedthattheconclusionwhichitembodiesrestsonideological
considerationsthatprove
1
Here,aslaterinanentryinAetius(cf.p.229n.1below),itispossibletointerpret eitherspecifically,'weightasheaviness',orgenerically,'weightasheavinessorlightness'.
Theargumentcouldbepursuedineitherwaythedifferenceisnotreallyessentialtothesense.

 Page213
1
thepassagetobeunhistorical. Thisdoesnotmeanhoweverthatthepassageisofnovalueforourenquiry.Inmattersofdoxography,errorhasitsownsignificance.

(i)

ForthemomentIconsideronlythequestionoftheatoms'having'parts'.

IhavealreadyremarkedthatAlexanderismuchmoreconcernedwith'pure'philosophythanisSimplicius.2Inthisinstance,Simpliciustellsus,inaremarkablyclear
andincisivepassage,thattheatomsofDemocrituswerewithoutparts,butthat,inresponsetoAristotle'scriticismofthetheory,Epicurusintroducedthenotionof
conceptuallydistinguishableminimaas'parts'oftheatoms.3

IntheLettertoHerodotus,wefindEpicurus'ownargumenttowards,andconclusionthat,theatomshaveminimalparts,whichareonlyconceptuallydistinguishable,
asameasureoftheirsize.Epicurusconcludes,cap.59: .
'Finally,weshouldrecognisethesesmallest,andsimple,<parts>asmarkingpoints,whichstartingfromthemselvesastheprimalunitsaffordameasureoflengthsforthingsthat
arelargerorsmaller<thanoneanother>:thisweshouldrecognisebyourmentalreflectionupontheinvisibles.'4

TheseminimalpartsarewhataredescribedbyAlexanderas .If,therefore,wetrustSimplicius,Alexander's
argumentisat
1
ZN1068n.1.
2
P.192above.
3
Simpl.Phys.925.1322,quotedpp.2702below.
4
Thedativeinthefinalphraseshouldperhapsbeunderstoodaspurposiveandnotasinstrumental:'...ameasure<whichwecanuse>forourmentalreflectionupontheatoms'.But
this,andotherdifficulties,Ileaveaside,sincethepreciseinterpretationofthesechaptersfromtheLettertoHerodotusisincidentaltomypresentpurpose.

 Page214

onceprovedtobeunhistorical.Alexanderattributes'parts'totheatomsofpreciselythekindthatwefindinEpicurus,andthat,accordingtoSimplicius,were
introducedbyEpicurusinanswertoAristotle.1

(ii)

Alexanderclaimsthatthesepartsarewithoutweight.Forthisidea,heinvokestheauthorityofAristotle'inthethirdbookoftheDecaelo'.

TheonlypassageinthethirdbookoftheDecaelowhereAristotleexplicitlyconsidersthenotionthat'weightarisesfromtheaccumulationofelementswithoutweight'
isthepassagewhichIhavealreadycited,whereAristotlearguesagainsttheproductionofsolidbodiesfromsurfaces.2InthispassageAristotlearguesspecifically
againstthethesisnamedbyAlexander,cap.1,299b1415: .

ButAristotleisherecriticisingPlato.HowisitthenthatAlexanderappliesAristotle'scriticismtotheAtomists?

InthesectionofhiscommentaryimmediatelyprecedingthelinesIhavequoted,AlexanderexplicitlyequatesPlato'sproductionofbodiesfromtriangleswiththe
Atomists'productionofbodiesfrom'shapes',Met.36.1218: .

'Somemanuscriptshavethereading:"thesenamelyLeucippusandDemocrituspursuethesamepolicyasdothemathematicians".

1
ThesimplehistoricaldistinctionwhichSimpliciusdrawsseemstometosurvivethecontroversyoverthemoreprecisesenseinwhichtheatomsmaybesaidtohave'parts'orto
be'indivisible'.DifferingviewsonthisquestionaretakenbyLuria,Mau,VlastosandFurley:theprincipalargumentsareusefullysummarisedbyLeoSweeney,Infinityinthe
Presocratics,abibliographicalandphilosophicalstudy(TheHague,1972)1618,wheretheappropriatereferencesmaybefound.
2
Decaeloiii1,299a25300a19,abovep.84.

 Page215

'Ifthiswerethe<correct>reading,AristotlewouldbealludingtoPlato,andhispointwouldbetoestablishacomparisonbetweenPlatoandtheAtomists:Platoattemptstomake
bodiesarisefrommathematicalentities,andtodosoinsuchawaythatthenumberofthetrianglesandtheirdifference<inshape>shouldcorrespondtothedifferencesinthe
<sensible>bodies<thatPlatohopestoproducefromthetriangles>theAtomists,inthesameway,workingfromthedifferencesintheshapesoftheprimaryparticles<oratoms>
hopetoproduce<thedifferencesthatweseein>thethingsmadeoutoftheprimaryparticles.'

(iii)

However,wecanbemorespecific.Alexander'sowncommentaryontheDecaeloislost.ButSimpliciusquotesfromitgenerously.

Aristotle'ssecondargumentagainstthethesisIhavecitedfromtheDecaeloisthatthereisnoreasonforPlatonicsurfacestocombineinthewayrequiredbyPlato's
theory.Thesurfacescouldaswelllieflatontopofeachother,insteadofedgetoedge,whichistheonlywayinwhichtheycanbeimaginedasformingasolid.1

Simpliciusattachesquitesomeimportancetothiscriticism,sincehefindsitnecessarytodefendPlatoagainstAristotle'scriticism.Hethereforeincludespartof
Alexander'scommentary,sinceAlexander,hetellsus,attemptedtoattackPlato'stheory'onhisownaccount'(Decaelo575.278:
).

ThefinalargumentwhichSimpliciusquotesfromAlexanderispreciselythatPlato'stheoryisreducibleto'thetheoryofDemocritus',Decaelo576.1012:

'"Howthen",asksAlexander,"doesthetheorywhichclaims<togeneratebodies>fromsurfaces<i.e.fromtrian

1
Decaeloiii1,299b2331.

 Page216

gles>differfromDemocritus'theory,sincethis<Democritus'theory>alsoreckonstousedifferencesofshapeinordertoinvestphysicalbodieswith<differencesof>form?"'

ThuswefindherepreciselythenotionthatAristotle'scriticismagainstPlatoisapplicableequallytotheAtomists,andtheexplanationthereforeofAlexander's
referenceto'thethirdbookoftheDecaelo'.
1.PlatoisassociatedwiththeAtomistsbecauseheattemptstoderivethedifferencesinsensiblesubstancesfromdifferencesofshapeintheprimaryelements,asdothe
Atomists.

2.Theassociationofideasthenflowsintheoppositedirection,asitwere:theAtomistsarechargedwithhavingattemptedtogeneratebodieswithweightfromtheaccumulation
ofelementsthatarethemselveswithoutweight,inthewaythatPlatoisaccusedofhavingdone.

Byacommonfallacy,thecomparisonthatoriginallyleadsfromAtoBpicksupafreshassociationforthereturnjourneyfromBtoA.

Conclusion:TheDoubleError

Historically,therefore,thereisadoubleerrorinAlexander'saccountoftheAtomistsatthispoint.
1.Thedivisionofatomsinto'conceptuallydistinguishableminimalparts'istruenotofDemocritus,butofAristotle'scriticismofDemocritus,andisadoptedonlybyEpicurus.

2.Thecriticismof'weightbeingproducedfromelementsthatarethemselveswithoutweight'istransferredfromPlatototheAtomists,becauseDemocritus'notionofatoms'being
identifiableas'shapes'isheldtoapproximatehistheorytotheaccountintheTimaeusofthefourcosmicelementsbeingconstitutedfromtwokindsoftriangle.

Ispeakoferror,notofconfusion.TheconflationofthesevariousideasbyAlexanderistheresultnotnecessarilyofigno

 Page217

rance,andcertainlynotofanylackofconceptualclarity.Itisconsistent,anddeliberatepolicy.Alexanderseeshimselfasinterestedinphilosophy,notinhistory.

4
Alexander:TheGenesisofError

(i)

IhaveconcludedthatAlexander'sreferenceto'AristotleinthethirdbookoftheDecaelo'betraystheoriginofAlexander'sconflationofPlatoandDemocritus.
Simpliciusneatly,andsufficiently,refutesAlexander'sreductionofPlatonismtoAtomism.

TheAtomistsandPlatodohave'shapes'incommon.ButPlato'ssurfacesprovideasimpler,inthesenseofamoreradical,hypothesisforthenatureofphysical
phenomenathandotheatoms,whicharethemselvesbodiesandsofallintothesameontologicalcategoryasthephysicalphenomenawhichPlato'sconceptionofa
surfaceisintendedtoexplain.Plato'streatmentofthepropertiesofsurfaces,andofthedistinctionbetweenearthandtheotherthreeelements,isalsoforeignto
Democritus'formofAtomism.Simpliciuswrites,576.1219(immediatelyfollowingthequotationfromAlexandercitedabove):
.
'Ithastobeacknowledgedthatfromthispointofviewthereisnodifference....Thedifference,Isuppose,betweenthetwotheoriesisfirstthatPlatochoosessurfacesasthe
fundamentalstartingpointfortheproductionofbodiestheatomsarebodies,andasurfaceissimpler<andmorefundamental>thanabodysecondly,Platoseesinshapes<not
justgeometricalfiguresbut>symmetriesandanalogieswithcreativeforcethirdly,Plato'swholeapproachtotheproblemofearthisdifferent.'

Simplicius'methodical,ifslightlypedantic,correctionofAlexander'slooseassociationofPlatoandtheAtomistsistypicalof

 Page218

thewholedifferenceofapproachbetweenthetwocommentators.

(ii)

AristotlewouldhavebeennolessopposedtoAlexander'sconflationofDemocritusandPlato.

InhislongaccountofthegenesisoftheatomictheoryinthesecondchapterofthefirstbookoftheDegenerationeetcorruptione,Aristotledoesbeginby
categorisingtheAtomistsandPlatoasalikehavingchosen'indivisiblemagnitudes'astheirprimaryelements.1

ButAristotle'spurposeisthenpreciselytocontrastPlatoandtheAtomists,ontheverypointthatthePlatonists'overspeculativeapproachtowardstheirphysical
theoriesledthemtopositsurfacesasthefoundationofthematerialworld,whiletheAtomists,withtheirnosesclosertotheground,asitwere,chosesolidsastheir
primaryelements,preciselyinordertoavoidtheparadoxthatanyresolutionofsolidsintosurfaceswouldleadtothefurtherresolutionofsurfacesintopoints,andso
totheimpossiblerequirementthatextendedmagnitudesshouldbeproducedfromelementsthathavenoextension.2

Aristotledoesnotspeakhereexpresslyofweight.NonethelessthetenorofhisargumentisdirectlyopposedtoAlexander'sconflationoftheAtomistsandPlato.
Alexander'scritiqueoftheAtomistsintheMetaphysicsturnspreciselyonthenotionthattheAtomistslikePlatoarecommittedtotheproductionofbodieswhichhave
weightfromconstituentswhichhavenoweight,whileAristotlerepresentstheAtomistsashavingsetoutexpresslytoavoidtheproductionofextendedmagnitude
fromelementsthathavenoextension.

(iii)

IntheDecaeloAristotleappliesthissamedistinctiontotheAtomistsandPlato,specificallyonthequestionofweight.

ThecriticismthatthePlatonists'produceweightfromtheaccumulationofelementsthatarethemselveswithoutweight'is
1
Degen.etcorr.i2,315b2430.
2
Degen.etcorr.i2,315b30316a14.

 Page219
1
pickedupbyAristotleinbookfouroftheDecaelo,inthepassagethatIhavealreadyanalysedatlength.

Aristotle'spointinthefourthbook,aswehaveseen,istocontrasttheAtomistsandPlato,specificallyonthegroundthattheAtomists,unlikePlato,donotreduce
theconstituentsofthephysicalworldtoelementsthatarethemselveslackinginweight.

(iv)

EvenbythelaxstandardsofAristotle'scriticism,thelackofhistoricityinAlexander'saccountoftheAtomistsisthereforewhollyclear.Hiserror,nonetheless,remains
ofextremeinterest.

First,Alexanderdoesnotwriteexplicitlythattheatomswereinfactwithoutweight.Hisargumentfallsintothreeparts.

1.TheAtomistsdonotsayhowweightaccruestotheatoms: .

2.They'dosay'thatthepartsoftheatomsarelackinginweight: .

3.Iftheirconstituentpartsarelackinginweight,thenhowcantheatomsthemselveshaveweight?

Theimplicationintendedisclearlythattheatomscannot,anddonot,haveweight.Butitisanimplicationarrivedatbyargument,andexpressedintheformofa
rhetoricalquestion.

(v)

Asecond,andmoreimportant,point.IhavechartedthemoregeneralideologicalshiftsbywhichAlexanderarrivesatthisconclusion.Butwhatisthemoreparticular
preoccupationwhichhas,sotospeak,sparkedoffthislineofthought?

ItisAristotle'sbeliefthatviolentornonnaturalmovementmustbesubsequenttonaturalmovement.ThisbeliefunderliesmanyofAristotle'sarguments.Itisexplicitin
thePhysics,inhisattempttodemonstratethatmovementinavoidisimpossible.
1
Decaeloiv2,308b35309a2,abovech.III1,pp.80100.

 Page220

Thepremisstopartofthisdemonstrationisstatedasfollows,Phys.iv8,215al6:
'Allmovementiseithermovementbyforceornaturalmovement.Ifthereisforcefulmovement,theremustexistalsonaturalmovement.Formovementbyforceiscontraryto
natureandmovementthatiscontrarytonatureissubsequent tomovementthatisaccordingtonature.Itfollowsthereforethatwithoutanaturalmovementforeach
ofthebodiesthatareconstitutedbynature<i.e.primarilythefourcosmicelements>noothermovementwillexist.'

Alexanderusesthispremisstojustify,andtoexplain,theassertionintheMetaphysicsthattheAtomistsfailedtoprovideacauseofmovement.

1.ThusAlexanderfirstassertsthattheatoms'movementisdeterminedbytheircollisionandrecoil .

2.Sincethismovementisenforcedmovement,andsince(onAristoteleanprinciples,asenunciatedinthepassageIhavequotedfromthePhysics)enforcedmovementcanexist
onlysubsequentlyto,andrequiresasanantecedent,naturalmovement,AlexanderconcludesthattheAtomistshavefailedtospecifyacauseofmovement .

3.Finally,AlexanderconcludesthatjustastheAtomistsdonotspecifyacauseofmovement,soalsotheyfailtospecifytheoriginofweight .

Onthislastpoint,theveryparallelismofthephraseologyhelpstobetraytheideologicalmotivationoftheconclusion.

1.OfmovementAlexanderwrites: .

2.Ofweighthewrites: .

OncetheAristoteleancontextoftheargumenthasbeenmadeclear,thentheimplicationofthispassageisreasonablyclear,orsoitseemstome:becausetheatoms
havenocauseofmovement,ormorespecificallynocauseofnaturalmovement,Alexander

 Page221

supposesthatparipassutheatomscanhavenocauseofweight.Theassumptionisfairlyclearlythatweightwouldbeacauseofnaturalmovement,andconversely,
thatsincetheatomsmoveatrandominthevoid,theycanhavenonaturalmovement,andthat<therefore>theycanhavenoweight.1

Conclusion

Alexanderhimselfstopsshortofassertingunequivocallythattheatomshavenoweight.Indeedelsewhere,inhistreatmentoftherelationbetweenspeedand
movement,Alexanderdoesusetheatoms'possessionofweightasapremissforadifferentformofrefutationofatomicmovement,aswehaveseen.2Theimplication
ofthepresentargument,thattheatomshavenoweight,issolelyforthepurposeofthecriticismmoreimmediatelyinhand.

Nonetheless,Alexander'sargumentisimportantforourpurpose,preciselybecausehisinterestleadshimtoexploittheprinciplesofAristotle'skineticswithso
demonstrablyloosearegardforthefactsofhistory.Alexander'scritique,ifIhaveuncovereditspresuppositioncorrectly,willshowinanespeciallyclearandblatant
formtheprocessesofthoughtwhichcanleadtoadenialofweighttotheatoms.
1
IhavechosenthepassagefromthePhysicstoillustratethepointaboutthepriorityofnaturalmovement,becauseitisthemostexplicitandbecauseitwillhaveaparticularuse
laterforaparallelpassageinAetius(cf.pp.2323below)mypurposeisnottosuggestthatthisoranyothersinglepassageisnecessarilythesourceofAlexander'sargument.It
isworthnotingthattwiceelsewhereAristotlerepeatshispointthattheAtomistshavefailedtospecifythecauseofmovement,andthateachtimehisaccusationisattached,
directlyorbyimplication,tothe'priority'ofnaturalmovement:seeMet. 6,1071b314,andfortheimplicationthatnaturalmovementispriorcf.1071b347Decaeloiii2,300b8
11,forthepriorityofnaturalmovementcf.300b1116forbothpassagescf.p.237below.
Theabsenceofnaturalmovementfortheatoms,andtheassociationimpliedwithPlatobythereferencetotheDecaelo,seemtomeallthatisneededtoexplainthechargeof
weightlessness.D.Furleyattemptstointroducetheidea,whichheclaimstofindinEpicurusandinLucretius,thatthe'parts'ofatomsareinthemselvesincapableofmovement,
'AristotleandtheAtomistsoninfinity',SymposiumAristotelicum4(Heidelberg,1969)90n.5.ButAlexanderdoesnotwriteoftheatoms,ortheirparts,asbeingwithoutmovement:his
pointisthattheatomsdohavemovement,butthatitismovement'byforce'.Furleyfindsthepassage'otherwiseinexplicable',onlybecausehehasnotreflectedsufficientlyonthe
associationofweightwithmovementinAristotle'sphilosophy,andbecausehehasnotfollowedupAlexander'sreferenceto'thethirdbookoftheDecaelo'.
2
Ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1418,pp.18890above.

 Page222

'Iftheatomshadweight,theywouldhavenaturalmovement.Sincetheyhavenonaturalmovement,theycanhavenoweight.'

ThelessonofAlexander'sargumentistheeasiertoappreciatebecauseitsauthority,fromanhistoricalpointofview,isobviouslynil.

 Page223

ChapterEight
AetiusandCicero

1
Aetius:TheExplicitDenial

Iturnthereforetothegroupofthreepassages,fromAetiusandfromCicero,whichIalludedtoinmyfirstaccountofthe'currentcompromise',andwhichaloneare
lefttoprovideanypositivebasisforthenotionthatoutsideacosmosDemocritus'atomsarewithoutweight.1

ItakefirsttheentryinAetiuswhichexplicitlydeniesthatDemocritusgavetheatomsweight,i12.6(DK68A47): .
'Democritussaysthattheprimaryparticlesthe''fullones"astheywere<inhisphilosophy>havenoweight,butmovebycollisionintheendless.Hefurtherclaimsthatitis
possibleforanatomtoexistaslargeasaworld.'

Atthispoint,itisnotmyintentiontotrytodecidewhetherweshouldacceptthisstatementinAetiusascontradicting,oratleastasqualifying,theevidencewhichwe
havestudiedhitherto,fromAristotle,fromTheophrastusandfromSimplicius.

Inordertoclearthewayforthatdecision,allIwishtodohereistoindicatehowthekindofargumentthatwehaveseenalready
1
Aet.i12.6,i3.18,Cicero,Defato20.46(allDK68A47):cf.pp.1534above.Thethreepassagesaretakentogetherwithoutanydistinctionofmeaning,byDiels,Dox.21920,
Zeller,ZN1068n.1,Hamelin,'Lapesanteurdel'atome'196,Burnet,EGP3412,andothers.
OneotherpassageinCicero(Denat.deorumi26.73=DK68A51,'quidestinphysicisEpicurinonaDemocrito?')hasbeentakentomeanthatDemocritus'atomswerewithoutweight:
seebelowpp.2401.
LiepmanntakesthislatterpassageofCicero,togetherwiththetwoentriesinAetius,ashisprimaryevidencethattheatomshavenoweight,Mechanik313and49.Cf.pp.2401
below.

 Page224

atworkinAlexandercouldhaveoccasionedthedenialbyAetiusthattheatomsofDemocritushadweight.

(i)

ApartfromAlexander,theeffectofAristotle'sideologyofmovementonthedoxographyoftheAtomistsisperhapsmostplainlyseeninSimplicius.

InAristotle'sownphilosophy,thefourcosmicelementsmovealwaysandonlytotheir'natural'places,providedtheyare'lefttothemselves'asweshouldsay,i.e.if
theyaresubjecttonointerferencefromwithout:thusfiremovestothecircumferenceoftheuniverse,earthtothecentre,andairandwatertopositionsintermediate
betweenthesetwo.Aristotlearguesagainstearlierthinkers,specificallyincludingtheAtomists,thatinavoid,andespeciallyinanendlessvoid,therecanbenosuch
distinctionofplace,andthatthereforeinavoidnaturalmovementisimpossible.1

Simpliciustakesthiscriticismastepfurther.Since(ontheusualinterpretation)theatomsofDemocritusandLeucippusmoveinalldifferentdirectionsinthevoid,and
sincemoreparticularlythedirectionoftheatoms'movementinthevoidisdeterminedbytheircollisions,Simpliciusdrawsthetworelatedconclusionsthattheatoms
are'withoutnaturalmovement' .2

ThisdoesnotmeanthatSimpliciusholdsthattheatomsaresomehowatfirst'stationary'andarethenaremovedbyforce,whichishowBaileyappearstounderstand
hisformulation.3

Inwritingthattheatomsare'withoutnaturalmovement',Simpliciusappreciatesthatthisisalogicalconstructioncastuponthe
1
ThissummarisesPhys.iv8,214b12ff.,esp.215a114.Thewholeseriesofargumentsagainstthevoidcommencesativ6,213a12ff.DemocritusandLeucippusareincludedasthe
targetofcriticism,213a34b1,cf.pp.189above.
2
Phys.42.1011(DK68A47).Decaelo583.202(DK67A16).Cf.pp.1656and1923above.Forthisinterpretationofthemovementofatomsinthevoidcf.p.163above.
3
GreekAtomists131:Simplicius'maintainsthat"theatomswhicharenaturallystationary(!)aremovedbyablow"'(Bailey'sownexclamationmark).F.Pillonalsosupposesthatthe
atomsare'inertesparnature','L'volutionhistoriquedel'atomisme',L'annephilosophique2(1891)122n.2:seefurtherp.239n.1below.Thereisthesameimplicationin
Goedeckemeyer,EpikursVerhltnis122.
TheseauthorshaveperhapsbeeninfluencedbytheadditionalfeatureinAristotle'sargumentinthePhysics,iv8,215a46,thatwithoutnaturalmove

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page225

atomictheory,atleastinthesensethatheappreciatesthatwhiletheatomsarewithoutnaturalmovementtheyareneverinfactatrest.Forinthepassagewherehe
speaksoftheatomsasmoving'byforce',healsospeaksofthemasbeinginfactalwaysinmovement( ,Decaelo583.212).

ThissamefeatureofthetheorySimpliciusemphasisesatanappropriatepointintheDeanima.TheargumenthasbeenthattheAtomistsmaywanttoexplainthe
movementofthebodybythemovementsoftheatomsinsideit,buthowdotheythenexplainthebody'skeepingstill?Theycannotexplainitbythedepartureofthe
soulatomsfromthebody,forthatwouldbedeath,andtheycannotexplainitbytheatomsthemselvesbeingmotionless.Simpliciuscontinues,39.2831:
.
'ForDemocritusandhisassociatesdidnotthinkthattherewould<ever>bealackofmotionin<anyof>theatoms<onthecontrary,>theirpurposewastohavetheatomsalways
inmotionnormoreparticularlywoulditbepossible<ontheirtheory>toclaimalackofmotionforthesoulatomsinthebody,since<ontheirview>theonlymotionthatthe
animalhasisthemotionofthesoulatoms.'

ThusitistruethatinSimplicius'twoaccountsoftheAtomists,inthePhysicsandintheDeanima,thereisanappearanceofcontradiction.

1.InthePhysics,Simpliciuswritesthattheatomsare .

2.IntheDeanima,hedeniesthattheatomscanbesubjectedto .

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
menttherecanbenomovementatall.ThesameconclusionisreachedfromaslightlydifferentpointofviewintheDecaeloi7,276a10.Thisconclusion,asweshallsee,mayhave
influencedtheauthoroftheearlierextractinAetius:cf.pp.2323below.ButitisnotthisconclusionwhichisrepeatedbySimplicius.

 Page226

Butthisappearanceofcontradictionisanappearanceonly.Thepointtoappreciateissimplythat,forSimplicius,theatomsare'withoutnaturalmovement':the
featureofthetheorywhichSimpliciusisconcernedtoestablishinthePhysics.Thisdoesnotmeanthattheatomsareeverinfactatrest:thepointwhichSimpliciusis
concernedtoestablishintheDeanima.1

(ii)

SoilandseasonareripeforasimilarassociationofideastohaveinfluencedtheentryinAetiuswhichexplicitlydeniesweighttotheatoms.

TheentryinAetiusimmediatelyprecedingthedenialofweightconcernsEpicurus.Thefirstpartofthisprecedingentry,whichagainspeaksofweight,isunfortunately
toogarbledtobeusefullyreconstitutedforourpresentpurpose.However,inthesecondpartoftheentry,Aetiusdistinguishesthreekindsofmovementfortheatoms,
i12.5: .

Thesethreekindsofmovementfaithfullyrepresent,ifinasomewhatmechanicalform,thethreekindsorcausesofmovementthatdoinfactfindtheirplaceinEpicurus'
philosophy.

1.Epicurus'atomsmovedownwardsbecauseoftheirweight:thisismovement .

1
IcouldhavesimplifiedmydiscussionbyexcludingthepassagefromtheDeanima,onthegroundthatthattreatiseisnotbySimplicius.ThatwastheopinionofPiccolomini,
CommentariiinlibrosAristotelisDecoelo,ortuetinterituadiunctalucidissimaexpositione,intreslibroseiusdemdeanima,nuncrecensinlucemprodeunt(Moguntiae,
1608)10013.ThesamethesishasrecentlybeenrevivedbyF.BossierandC.Steel,'Tekststudie:PriscianusLydusendeIndeanimavanPseudo(?)Simplicius',Tijdschriftvoor
Filosofie34(1972)761822.
However,asMadameHadothasshown,inapaperdeliveredattheCentreLonRobinoftheSorbonneundertheauspicesoftheCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique,the
argumentsofBossierandSteelarenotconclusive,whethertakensinglyorasawhole.HerconclusionisnotthattheDeanimamustbebySimplicius:thequestionremainsanopen
one.
IhavechosentotreattheDeanimahereasagenuineworkofSimplicius,notbecauseIamconvincedthatitisso,butforthesakeofcompleteness,andbecausetheappearanceof
inconsistencythatIhavesoughttoexaminewouldinanycasestillexistbetweenthePhysics .

 Page227

2.Theatomsmustthereforeswerve,ifthereistobetheentanglementofatomsneededforacosmogony:thisismovement .

3.Becauseofthis,theatomshitoneanotherandrebound:thisismovement .

Thereishoweveroneslight,buttelling,difference.ForEpicurusthethirdkindofmovementleadsequallytomovementupwardsandtomovementsideways.Aetius
specifiesonlymovementupwards.1

Thereasonforthisslight,butsignificant,discrepancyisfairlycertainlythatonAristoteleanprinciplesmovementsidewaysisinvariablytheresultofforce,andthatfrom
anAristoteleanpointofviewthereforethepeculiarity,andtheanomaly,inEpicurus'theoryliesnotintheexplanationofmovementsideways,butintheuseofthesame
principletoexplainmovementupwards,whichinAristotle'ssystemis(forelementsthathavelightness)anexpressionofnaturalmovement.

(iii)

ForEpicurustherearethreekindsorcausesofmovement.ForDemocritusthereisonlyone.ForDemocritus,movementdownwardsaswellasmovementupwards
orsidewaysistheresultofcollision :andthereisthereforenoneedforaswerveofatoms.

FromanAristoteleanpointofviewthismeansthattheoneinstanceofnaturalmovementinEpicurus'system,movementdownwards,thefirstkindofmovementlisted
byAetius,hasbeenengrossedintothethirdkindofmovement,movement'byforce'.

Atthesametime,foranAristoteleanwriter,'natural'movementismovementthatiscausedbyweight.ThusforEpicurus,oratleastforLucretius,weightiscauseboth
ofanatom'sdownwardmovementandatthesametime,orsoitwouldseem,cause,
1
Forexample,inthepassagequotedearlier,Ep.ad.Her.61,pp.1845above,thedisjunctionliesbetweenmovementupwardsorsidewaysandmovementdownwards:'...norwill
therebeanyincreaseofspeedforatomsthataresentmovingupwardsorsidewaysastheresultofcollisions,orforatomswhoseownweightsendsthemdownwards'.

 Page228
1
oratleastaccompaniment,ofoneatom'scollisionwithanother. ButforanAristoteleanwriterweightorheavinesswillhavebeenassociatedexclusivelywiththe'fall'
ofatoms.AndthisispreciselythetypeofmovementthatinDemocritus'systemissuppressed.

ForDemocritus,therefore,theargumentoftheauthorofthePlacitainthisentrycouldhavebeen:
'Theprimarybodieshavenoweight<foriftheyhadtheywouldhavenaturalmovementandwouldmovedownwards,astheydoforEpicurus,butinfact>theymovebybouncing
offoneanother.'2

Ifthis,oranythinglikeit,hasbeenthegenesisoftheassertionthattheatoms'havenoweight',thenthatassertionisasvalueless,historically,astheequivalentassertion
inAlexander,andasvalueless,historically,asisSimplicius'milderassertionthattheatoms'havenonaturalmovement'.

ForinAlexanderasinSimpliciusthelackofnaturalmovement,andinAlexandertheadditionaldenialofweighttothe'parts'ofatoms,issimplytheexpression,in
Aristoteleanterms,ofthelackofdownwardmovement.

Conclusion

TheentryinAetiuswhichexplicitlydeniesweighttoDemocritus'atomsisprecededbyanaccountofEpicuruswhich,byaslightbutsignificanttouch,betraysthe
influenceofAristoteleanwaysofthinking:Epicurus'atomsmoveupwards'byforce'.Infact,Epicurushimselftellsusthattheymoveupwardsandsideways'byforce':
butitisupwardmovementalonewhichtotheauthorofthePlacitasignalisesthelackofAristotle'sconceptionoffireasmovingupwardsbynature.

HaveAristotle'sideasalsodeterminedthedenialofweighttoDemocritus'atomsintheentryimmediatelyfollowing?Aristotlehadarguedthatnaturalmovementina
voidisimpossible.Simpli
1
Cf.pp.1834above.
2
EssentiallythesameinterpretationofthisentryisgivenbyBrieger,Urbewegung1213,and'Urbewegung'596:'Mannschlossdanneinfach:WasimLeerennichtfallt,dashatkeine
Schwere'.ForthegeneralcontextofBrieger'sinterpretationseepp.3514below.

 Page229

ciusconcludesthatDemocritus'atomsare'withoutnaturalmovement'.Alexandertakesthesametrainofthoughtastagefurther.Theatomshavenonaturalmovement,
noranycauseofnaturalmovement.Howthereforecantheyortheir'parts'haveweight?

IfthissameassociationofideashasinfluencedtheauthorofthePlacita,thentheweight,ormorespecificallytheheaviness,thatisdeniedtotheatomswillbenomore
thantheweightorheavinesswhichwouldrequireatomstomovedownwardsinthevoid:conversely,theabsenceof'weight'inthissensewillbenomorethana
corollaryoftheatoms'randommovementinthevoid.1

2
Aetius:TheImplicitDenial

Intheentrythatwehavejustconsidered,thereisanexplicitdenialthatDemocritusgavetheatomsweight.Thissamedenialhasbeentakentobeimplicitinanearlier
entry,i3.18(inpartDK68A47): .
'Epicurus...followedinthefootstepsofDemocritus,insofarasinhisphilosophyheclaimedthattheprinciplesofexistingthingswerebodies<orparticles>thatcouldbeknown
onlybyaprocessofmentalinspection....

'Theseparticlesmovedinemptyspace,andthroughemptyspace:theemptyspace<throughwhichtheparticlesmove>isitselfendless<inextent>,andtheparticles<whichmove
throughthespace>areendless<innumber>.

1
Ispecify'weight' as'heaviness'itwouldofcoursebepossibletounderstandthetermgenerically,'heavinessorlightness',andinthatcasetheargumentIhaveoutlined
wouldhavetobemademoreelaborate,butinprincipleitwouldbelittledifferent.

 Page230

'Attachingtotheparticlestherearethreecharacters<oraccidents>:namelyshape,sizeandweight.TwoofthesewereintroducedbyDemocritus,namelysizeandshape.Tothese
Epicurusaddedthethird,weight.

'Epicurus'argumentwasthatthebodieshadtobemovedbytheblowfromtheirweight<otherwise>theywouldnotmove<atall>.<Henceweightisnolessimportantasa
primarycharacterofatomicsubstancethanisshapeorsize.>'1

Inthisentry,thedenialofweightisonlyimplicit,ifitexistsatall.Butatthesametimethereisarichercontextofargumentandallusion,fromwhichmoreofthewriter's
processesofthoughtcanperhapsbediscernedthaninthelaterandshorterentry.

WeightandMovement

(i)

Inthisearlierreport,theaccountsofDemocritusandofEpicurusareactuallyinterwoven,onewiththeother.

Inparticular,thestructureoftheargumentwhichAetiusappliesheretoEpicurusisverysimilartothestructureoftheargumentwhichSimpliciusemployswhenhe
writesofDemocritus'atomsasbeing'withoutnaturalmovement'.Thereisonlytheaccidentalvariationthatthetwoelementsintheargumentareputtheotherway
round.2

1.Aetius:

Simplicius:

2.Aetius:...

Simplicius: .

1
ThisentryisrepeatedinEusebius,Praep.evang.xiv14.5.Forearlierinterpretationsofthepassageseeabovepp.1534and223n.1.
2
Phys.42.1011(DK68A47),cf.p.165above.

 Page231

Therearetwodifferencesofsubstance.

1.Aetiusadds .

2.WhereSimpliciusarguesthatDemocritus'atomsaremovedbyforceandarethereforewithoutnaturalmovement,AetiuswritesthatunlessEpicurus'atomsweremoved
theywouldnotmoveatall.

(ii)

Thesetwodifferenceswill,Ithink,carrywiththemoneother.

WhenearlierinthesameentryAetiuswritesofEpicurus'atomsthattheymove'inthevoidandthroughthevoid',theduplicationoftheexpressionseemstomevery
likelytobeareferencetothedownwardmovementofEpicurus'atoms.

Ifso,thissamequalification,itseemslikely,willmostprobablybeinthecompiler'smindwhenhewrites,inthelatersentence, .
Themovementenvisagedwillbemovementdownwards,andthepurportoftheargumentwillthereforebethat:
'Theatomsmovedownwardsbecauseoftheforceorimpactoftheirweight.'

Thiswouldexplainthefirstdifferenceofsubstancebetweenthetwoarguments,thatinAetiusandthatinSimplicius.

1.'Force'or'impact',inSimplicius'accountofDemocritus,producesmovement,butnot'natural'movement.

2.The'force'or'impactofweight',inAetius'accountofEpicurus,producesnotonlymovement,but'natural'movement,i.e.movementdownwards.1

1
Theexpression inAetius,looksratherlikeadoxographicalformula,designedtohighlightatoncethesimilarityandthedifferencebetweenEpicurus'
theoryandthatofDemocritus:forDemocritus,theatomsaremoved'byimpact'forEpicurus,the'impact'istheimpactoftheatom'sownweight,actingfromwithinasitwere.On
theotherhand,theideaofweightasanimpactfromwithindoesperhapscorrespondsufficientlywelltotheteachingoftheLetterfromHerodotus,whereanatomcontinuesonits
pathuntil

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page232

(iii)

ButwhydoestheauthorofthisextractsupposethataccordingtoEpicurustheatomswhichwerenotmovedbyweightwouldnotmoveatallthesecond
differenceofsubstancebetweentheargumentinAetiusandthatinSimplicius?

Initially,theanswertothislies,Iwouldsuggest,inthethreetypesorcausesofmovementlistedinthelaterpairofentries(i12.56).Inthefirstentryofthispair,the
movementoftheatoms'bytheircollisionandrebound'islistedsubsequentlyto,andiscausallydependentupon,the'swerve'oftheatoms,andthisinitsturnislisted
subsequentlyto,andrequiresasapriorstage,a'fall'ofatoms.Toreversethesequence:the'fall'ofatomsisprimary,inthesensethatwithouta'fall'ofatomsthere
wouldbenoswerve,andthereforenocollisionorrebound.Fromthiswemightproperlyconcludethatiftheatomswerenotmoved'bytheblowoftheirweight',and
ifthereforetherewereno'fall'ofatoms,thentherewouldbenomovementatall.

Atthesametime,theconclusionthatwithoutweighttherewouldbenomovementmaybeseenasimplicitintheargumentthatIquotedfromAristotle'sPhysicsinmy
accountofAlexander.1InthePhysicsAristotlearguesthatifthereistobeviolentornonnaturalmovementtheremustfirstbenaturalmovement,forviolentornon
naturalmovementissubsequenttonaturalmovementfromthisAristotleconcludesthatifthereisnonaturalmovementthentherecannotbeanyothermovementatall
(iv8,215a16:noteespecially... ).2

Hence,orsoIwouldsuggest,theseconddifferenceofsubstancebetweentheargumentinAetiusandtheargumentinSimplicius.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
'knockedasideeitherfromwithoutorfromitsownweight<reacting>againsttheforceoftheatomwhichstruckit'
cap.61,cf.pp.1845above).
Verycuriously,BaileyuseswhatAetiussaysofEpicurusinordertoattributetoDemocritustheideaof'weightasakindofinternalblow',whileherejectspreciselythisimplicationof
theLettertoHerodotusinhisaccountofEpicurus(contrastGreekAtomists131,cf.134,andEpicurus219).
1
Cf.pp.21921above.
2
Thereisasimilarconclusion,Decaeloi7,276a10 .ForBailey'serrorinattributingthisconclusiontoSimplicius,seepp.2246above.

 Page233

1.SimpliciusrecognisesthathowevercontraryitmaybetotheprinciplesofAristotle'sphilosophytheprimarymovementoftheatomsforDemocritusismovement'byforce'the
atomsmoveinalldirectionsandaredeprivedonlyofnaturalmovement.

2.Aetius,Iwouldsuggest,adoptsamoreextremeinterpretationoftheAristoteleanprinciplethatnaturalmovementispriortomovementbyforce,wherebythecollisionand
reboundofatomsissubsequentto,andisdependentupon,theswerveandthefallofatoms:sothatifthereisno'fall'ofatomstherecanbenomovementatall.

(iv)

Ifthese,orsimilar,argumentsdoprovidethecontextfortheentryinAetius,thentheassociationofdownwardmovementwithweightcouldagainbearguedtohave
workedinthereversedirection,sotospeak,forthewriter'sideasaboutDemocritus:
'Iftheatomshaveweight,theywillfall,astheydoforEpicurus.<ButDemocritus'atomshavenonaturalmovementdownwards:theyarethereforenotmovedbyweight.>'

Ifthis,orsomethinglikeit,hasbeentheprocessofthoughtinthemindofthecompiler,thenanyimplicationthatDemocritus'atomshavenoweightwillagainbeas
valueless,historically,asisAlexander'sconclusionrelatingtothe'parts'ofatoms,andasvalueless,historically,asisSimplicius'milderconclusionthattheatomsare
'withoutnaturalmovement'.

Thestatusofweight

ButthereisperhapsanotherandmorespecificfactorwhichexplainsthedifferencebetweenthetwoentriesinthePlacita.

ThedifferencebetweenthetwoentriesisnotsimplythatintheoneentryDemocritus'atomsareexplicitlysaidtobewithoutweight,whileinthisearlierentrythelack
ofweightisonlyimplied.Forwhilethelaterentryisconcernedessentiallywithmovementandwithweight,whatisatissueinthisearlierentryisnotsomuchthe
existenceofweight,asthestatusofweight.

 Page234

'Therearethreecharacters thatappertaintobodies:shape,sizeandweight.Democritusclaimedtwoofthese:shapeandsize.TotheseEpicurusaddedthe
thirdaswell:weight.'

Ifwepursuetheimplicationofthisdistinction,andassociation,ofweightandsizeorshape,weshallseethatitisnotaquibbletoclaimthatwhenEpicurusissaidto
have'addedweight'totheatomsthisneednotmeanthatDemocritus'atomswerewithoutweight.

Democritus

(i)

AristotleregularlyspeaksofDemocritus'atomsasdifferingin'shape,positionandarrangement'.Itisclear,atoncefromthefrequencyoftheformulationandfromthe
terminologywhichAristotleattachestoit,thatthisformulationwaspartoftheoriginalexpressionofthetheory.1

Ontheotherhand,thereisanobviousconceptualdistinctionbetweenshape,asanintrinsiccharacteroftheatoms,andpositionandarrangementwhichcanbe
expressedonlyintermsoftherelationofonebodytoanother.Aristotlethereforefrequentlyspeaksoftheatomsasbeing'definedbyshapes'
.2

SizeappearsonlyinfrequentlyinAristotle'scharacterisationsofatomicsubstance.InthePhysics,atomsarereckonedtobe'asingleunderlyingsubstance,distributed
asparticlesdifferingin
1
Phys.i5,188a226(DK68A45).Degen.etcorr.i1,314a214(DK67A9),i2,315b615(DK67A9)and315b30316a10(onlyinpartDK68A123).Met.A4,985b1019(DK
67A6),H2,1042b1115(thetextisnotinDK).Positionandarrangementonly:Degen.etcorr.i9,327a1819(DK68A38).AlsoTheophrastusap.Simpl.Phys.28.1519(DK
68A38).
2
Decaeloi7,275b312(DK67A19).Degen.etcorr.i8,325b1719(notinDK).Forsimilarformulations:Phys.i2,184b202(cf.DKii115.7note),Decaeloiii4,303a1012(DK
67A15),Degen.etcorr.i8,325b259(DK67A7)and326a1415(notinDK).

 Page235

sizeandinshape' .1

Finally,intheDecaelo,aswehaveseen,sizeisattachedtoweight:'thelarger<atom>istheheavier'.2

(ii)

InTheophrastus'accountofDemocritusinhispreliminarysurveyofearliertheoriesofsensibiliaintheDesensibus,wefindtheregulargroupingofshape,position
andarrangement,whicharefamiliarfromAristotleastheprimarydifferentiaeofatomicsubstance.

Totheseisaddedsize,cap.60(DK68A135): .

OnlywhenTheophrastusturnstoindividualtheories,andfirsttoDemocritus'theoryofheavyandlight,dowefindweightaddedasaconsequenceof,oratleastasin
somewaysecondaryto,andderivativefrom,size,cap.61: .3

(iii)

Thisdistributionofmaterial,inAristotleandinTheophrastus,makesitsufficientlyclearthatweightwasnotaccountedbyDemocritusasequivalentinstatustosizeand
shape.

Itisclearthereforethatweareentitledtoexcludeweight,asaprimarycharacterofatomicsolids,sinceitisinsomesensereducibletosize.

Atthesametime,positionandarrangement,asIhavenoted,canbeexpressedonlyintermsoftherelationorcomparisonofonebodywithanother:theytoocan
reasonablybeexcludedthereforefromalistofwhatthewriterofthePlacitareckonsastheintrinsiccharactersorpropertiesofbodies,ineffect
.
1
Phys.iii4,203a33b2(DK68A41).Cf.Arist.ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.78(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).
2
Decaeloiv2,309a12(DK68A60),pp.80100above.
3
Formyparaphraseofthesetwopassagescf.pp.127and131above.

 Page236

ThecompilerofthePlacitaisthereforeentirelyright,ifwetakeTheophrastusandAristotleassufficientstandardoforthodoxy,tolistshape,orshapeandsize,asthe
onlyprimarycharactersofatomicsolidrecognisedbyDemocritus.

Epicurus

(i)

Epicurus,ontheotherhand,apparentlyraisedweighttothestatusofshape,foracharacterinoneofPlutarch'sdialoguesremarks,Adv.Col.1110F:
.
'Mypurposeisnottocontradicthisargument,butmerelytoobservethatthebeliefshehasquotedareasinseparablefromEpicurus'ownteachingsasweightandshape,orsothe
Epicureansclaim,areinseparablefromtheatom.'

Fromthisitappearsthatweightisnolongersimplyaconsequenceofsize.Itisnowreckonedtobeacharacteroftheatominitsownright,onthesamelevelas,orof
thesamestatusas,shape.1

Inthissense,therefore,thewriterofthePlacitaispresumablyagainrighttosaythatEpicurus'addedweightasathirdtosizeandshape'.

(ii)

Wecanprobablytellwhytherehasbeenthischangeinthestatusofweight.

Aristotle'smostoftenrepeatedandmostforcefulattackonDemocritusliesinhisassertionthatDemocritusandLeucippusfailedtostatewhattypeofmovement
belongedtotheatoms,orthecauseofit.
1
Shape,sizeandweightaregivenbyEpicurushimselfastheonly'qualities'oftheatoms,Ep.adHer.54.

 Page237

Met.A4,985b1920(DK67A6): .

'LeucippusandDemocrituswerenobetterthantherestofthemwhenitcametomovement:wheremovementistocomefrom,howitistobepresentintheworldaroundus,are
questionstheylackedthegutstograpplewith.'

Met. 6,1071b314(DK67A18): .

'Andsosomephilosophersdecidethatthereisalwaysactuality,asdoLeucippusandPlato,insofarastheyclaimthatthereisalwaysmovement.Butwhythereismovement,and
whatkindofmovementitis,theydonotsay,northereasonforitsbeingofonekindoranother.'

Decaeloiii2,300b811(DK67A16): .

'ThatiswhyLeucippusandDemocritus,whoclaimthattheprimaryparticlesarealwaysmovinginthevoidandintheendless,shouldexplainwhatmovementtheymean,and
whichmovementoftheatomsisanaturalmovement.'

Infact,theAtomistswillprobablyhaveseenthemovementoftheatomssufficientlyexplainedby,orperhapssufficientlytakenforgrantedas,aconcomitantoftheir
eternallypreexistingpluralityanddiversity,asIshallsuggestlater.Elsewhere,eternityofmovementisexpresslystatedbyAristotleastheAtomists'causeof
movementorperhapsratherastheirobviationofanyneedforacause.1
1
Arist.,Phys.viii1,252a32b5(inpartDK68A65),cf.Degen.anim.ii6,742b1735(notinDK):seebelowpp.3645.

 Page238

ButtheassociationofmovementwithpluralityanddiversityhadalreadylostitsvigourbythetimethatAristotlewaswriting,andtheambiguityonwhichtheself
explanatorycharacteroftheeternalrestsinDemocritus'argument,between asfirstbeginning,willhaveseemedtosomeoneofEpicurus'timeimpossibly
archaic.

TheanswerthereforewhichEpicurusprovidestoAristotle'scriticismis,asweseeinthisentryofthePlacita,thattheatomsmovedownwardsinthevoidandthat
theyareimpelledtodosobytheirownweight.Downwardmovementisintendedasananswerto .

Thisexplainsthechangeinthestatusofweight.
1.ForDemocritus,weightwasofsecondaryimportance,dependentupon,andderivativefrom,size.

2.InEpicurus'system,weightisananswertotherequirementforacauseofmovementanditisalsoadeterminantofthekindofmovementwhichtheatomshave:itistherefore
raisedtothelevel,asitwere,ofshape,andmadeaprimarycharacteroftheatoms.

Conclusion:The'Addition'ofWeight

(i)

IfweconsiderthestatusofweightinEpicurus,andtherelationinhisphilosophyofweighttomovement,thenitbecomestruetosay,ofEpicurus,boththathe'added'
weighttosizeandshapeas oftheatoms,andthatwithoutweighthisatomswouldnotmove,i.e.theywouldnotfall.

Atthesametime,itfollowsthatinthisentryfromAetiustheonlyimplications,withregardtoDemocritus,needbetrueimplications:thatforDemocritustheweightof
atomsisnotequivalentinstatustotheirsizeandshape,andthatweightisnotacauseordeterminantoftheatoms'typeofmovement,inthesenseonlythatweight
doesnotcausetheatomstofallinthevoid.

 Page239

(ii)

WhetherthecompilerofthisentryinthePlacitaintendedonlytheseimplicationsisanotherquestion.
1.HemayhaveconcludedthatDemocritushadnotattributedweighttotheatomsatall,asisstatedexplicitlyinthelaterentry.

2.Alternatively,hemayhaverecognisedthatDemocrituscouldhaveattributedweighttotheatomsinasenseotherthanthatadoptedbyEpicurus,oratleastsubordinatelyto
thecategoriesofsizeandshape.

Whichhedid,wecannottell,andisindeedofcomparativelittleadditionalsignificance.1

3
Cicero

(i)

Iturntothelastofthethreepassagesthatsupport,orthatmaysupport,thecurrentcompromise.

TowardstheendofthesurvivingpartoftheDefatoCicerowrites,20.46(DK68A47):

'''Declinat",inquit(sc.Epicurus),"atomus".primumcur?aliamenimquandamuimmotushabebant(sc.atomi)a

1
TheprocesswhichIhavesuggestedmayunderlythetwoentriesfromAetiuscanbeseenatworkinmodernwritersonthesubject.Pillon,in'L'volutionhistoriquede
l'atomisme',122,groupsSimpliciuswithCiceroandwithAetius(i.e.with'Plutarch'andStobaeus)preciselyinvirtueofthepassagewhere,asPillonbelieves,theatomsaresaidto
be'inertesparnature'(Phys.42.1011=DK68A47,cf.p.224n.3above).Goedeckemeyer,EpikursVerhltnis1213,rightlyprotestsatthisgroupingofSimpliciuswiththosewho
deny,orwhoappeartodeny,theexistenceofweightfortheatoms.NonethelessRivaudignoreshiswarning,Leproblmedudevenir161,andevidentlyundertheinfluenceof
PillonheincludesSimpliciusamongthosewho'affirmentcatgoriquementquelesatomesn'ontpasdepoids...'.Intheaccompanyingnote(p.161n.369)referencesaregivento
theotherauthorsnamed(Cicero,'Plutarch',Stobaeus),butnottoSimplicius.Thuswithinthespaceoflessthantwentyyears(Pillon,1891Rivaud,1906)Simplicius'denialthatthe
atomshavenaturalmovementisconstruedasadenialthattheatomshaveweight.

 Page240

Democritoinpulsionis,quamplagamilleappellat,ate,Epicure,grauitatisetponderis.'

ThedisjunctionbetweeninpulsioorplagainDemocritusandgrauitasetpondusinEpicurusrepeatsmoreorlessthedistinctionbetween inthelaterofthe
twopassagesinAetius(i12.6=DK68A47),andhasbeenthoughttocarrythesameimplication:thatforDemocritustheatomswerelackinginweight.1

(ii)

Thesameimplicationhasbeenthoughttoattach,foradifferentreason,toapassageintheDenaturadeorum,i26.73:
'quidestinphysicisEpicurinonaDemocrito?nametsiquaedamcommutauit,utquodpauloantedeinclinationeatomorumdixi,tamenpleraquediciteadem,atomos,inane,
imagines,infinitatemlocoruminnumerabilitatemquemundorum,eorumortus,interitus,omniaferequibusnaturaeratiocontinetur.'

TheabsenceofweightfromthelistofEpicurus''borrowings'hasbeentakentoimplythatweightcannothavebeenafeatureofDemocritus'originalsystem.2

(iii)

Thissecondargumentmay,Ithink,bedealtwithfairlysummarily.

Theabsenceofweightisnotreally,asLafaistwouldhaveusbelieve,an'omissionsurprenante',implyingthat,forCicero,weightwasnotpartofDemocritus'system.
Weightisnotonthesamelevelofgeneralityorimportanceaspluralworldsorinfinitespace.
1
Seeabovepp.1534and223n.1.
2
Lafaist,Philosophieatomistique72.ThereisthesameassumptioninLiepmann,Mechanik313and49,cf.p.223n.1above,andinPillon,'L'volutionhistoriquedel'atomisme'122
n.2.

 Page241
1
Adifferentlist,inSimplicius'Categories,doesinfactincludeweightalongwithotherpropertiesoftheatomscommontoDemocritusandEpicurus.

(iv)

ThereremainsthepassageintheDefato.

Theanalysisofthistextiscomplicatedbythefactthattwoearlierpassages,intheDefatoandintheDenaturadeorum,describethedeclinatioinawaythathas
beenthoughttocarrytheoppositeimplication:thattheatomsofDemocritusdidhaveweight,andthat,likeEpicurus'atoms,theymoveddownwardsinthevoid.

Theintentionoftheseearlierpassagesneedstobeclarified,ifwearetogainaclearviewofthepossibleimplicationinthepassagethatIfirstquotedofthedisjunction
betweeninpulsioorplagainDemocritusandgrauitasetpondusinEpicurus.2

The'Declinatio'

(i)

TheideasfromtheendoftheDefatoaregivenmorefullyin,andindeedseemtoberepeatedfrom,anearlierpassage,whereCicerowrites,10.223:

'sedEpicurusdeclinationeatomiuitarinecessitatemfatiputat.itaquetertiusquidammotusoriturextraponduset

1
Cat.216.31217.5.Weightisherejoinedwithshape,solidity,corporeality,surfaces,sizeandmovement,asopposedtocolour,taste,life,intelligence,natureandrationality,as
thingsthatontheatomictheoryaregeneratedonlyfromtheconjunctionofelements.
Ihavenotgivenmoreprominencetothispieceofevidence,partlybecausethedoubleattribution,toDemocritusandtoEpicurus,wouldmakeitdifficulttoarguespecificallyforthe
beliefsofDemocritus,andalsobecausethecontextisinanycaseahighlyintellectualisedone,inwhichitcouldwellbearguedthateitherthinkerisusedmainlyasapegonwhichto
hangaviewopposedtoSimplicius'own.
2
TheDefatowasplannedasasupplementtotheDenaturadeorumandtheDedivinationethesethreeworksweresubsequenttotheDefinibus,fromwhichIquotelater:seeDe
div.ii13.

 Page242

plagam,cumdeclinatatomusinteruallominimo....namquipotestpellialia(sc.atomus)abalia,sigrauitateferunturadperpendiculumcorporaindiuiduarectislineis,utEpicuro
placet?...

'hancEpicurusrationem(sc.declinationem)induxit...ueritus...ne,sisemperatomusgrauitateferreturnaturalietnecessaria,nihilliberumnobisesset....idDemocritus,auctor
atomorum,acciperemaluit,necessitateomniafieri,quamacorporibusindiuiduisnaturalismotusauellere.'

Inthispassage,thepluralexpression,naturalismotus,hasbeentakentocoverthemovementsindicatedbypondusetplagamjointly,andsoasascribingto
Democritusprimarymovementdownwards,asdeterminedbyweight.

Onthisinterpretation,thepointofthepassageisthat:
'Democrituswasunwillingtosacrificetothedeclinatiothe"naturalmovements"oftheatoms,ascausedbyweightandbyimpact.Hepreferredtoleavetheatomstobegoverned
bynecessity,andtofallendlesslydownwardsasanaturalandanecessaryconsequenceoftheirweight.'1

(ii)

ThereisacomparablepassageearlierintheDenaturadeorum,i25.69:
'Epicuruscumuideret,siatomiferrenturinlocuminferioremsuoptepondere,nihilforeinnostrapotestate,quodesseteorummotuscertusetnecessarius,inuenitquomodo
necessitatemeffugeret,quoduidelicetDemocritumfugerat:aitatomum,cumpondereetgrauitatedirectodeorsusferatur,declinarepaululum.'

1
ThisisBrieger'sargument,Urbewegung9.SinceBriegeralsobelievesthatinthelaterpassage,20.46,CicerointendstodenythatDemocritus'atomshaveweight,heconcludes
thatCicero'sevidenceisinconsistent:'Erzwingtuns,denAngabenCicerosberDemokrit,jaberdieAtomikerberhauptjedeauchnochsogeringeAutorittabzusprechen'.

 Page243

Thispassagehasbeentakeninasimilarway,asimplyingthatDemocritus,nolessthanEpicurus,neededadeclinatio,sotospeak,topreventhisatomsfromfalling
endlesslyinthevoid.1

Onthisreadingofthepassage,Democritusisstuck,asitwere,atthepointthatEpicurustakesofffrom.Democritus'atoms,likethoseofEpicurus,arecarried
downwardsbytheirweight.Thedifferenceisthatthe'escape'thatEpicurusfoundfromnecessityhad'escaped'DemocritusItakeitthattheplayonwordsis
deliberate.

(iii)

Ineithercase,theimplicationthatIhaveoutlinedispossible,itseemstome,ifthepassagesaretakenstrictlybythemselves,thoughineithercaseweareleftto
wonderhowCicerothoughtthatDemocritus'atomseverjoinedtogethertoformacosmosiftheystartedoffinthesameconditionasEpicurus'atomsfallingstraight
downwardsinthevoidwithnodeclinatiotoreleasethem.

Butevenifweanswerthatquestionbysomeconsiderationextraneoustothecontextdifferencesofspeed,forexampleitstilldoesnotfollowthateitherimplication
isatallanecessaryone.
1.IntheDenaturadeorum,theconnectionimpliedbetweenEpicurusandDemocritusbytheratherfrivolousplayonwordsthe'escape'fromnecessitythat'escaped'
DemocritusisfartootenuousfortheonlyimplicationtobethatthesituationthatDemocrituswasleftinwaspreciselythesituationthatEpicurusescapedfrom.

2.IntheearlierpassageoftheDefato,thepluralexpression,naturalismotus,couldaswellcoverpondusorplagamsinglyortogether,astypesofmovementwhich,whether
singlyorjointly,areatleastregularexpressionsoftheatoms'behaviour,asopposedtowhatarelatercalledthecommenticiaedeclinationes(20.48):theunnaturalandarbitrary
irruptionofamotiveforcewhichsorousedthescornofCicero,orhissource.

1
Thisclaimismade(fordifferentpurposes)bothbyBrieger,Urbewegung89and'Urbewegung'587,andbyZeller,ZN1090n.2.

 Page244

Inbothpassages,Cicero'spointisessentiallythatthedeclinatiohastobeinvokedinordertoescapefromthesimpledownwardmovementofatomsinthevoid.In
makingthispoint,Cicerosimplydoesnotletitbeseenclearlyintheimmediatecontextofeitherpassagewhetherhethinksthatthebackgroundtothisinnovation,
thedownwardmovementofatomsinthevoid,wasalsoaninnovationbyEpicurus,orafeaturethatEpicurushadtakenoverfromDemocritus.

(iv)

Thisambiguityis,Ibelieve,resolvedbyaslight,buttelling,phraseintheonlyotherpassagewhereCicerodealsatanylengthwiththedeclinatioandwithdifferences
betweenEpicurusandDemocritusonthenatureoftheatomsandtheirmovementsinthevoid.

InthefirstbookoftheDefinibusbonorumetmalorumCicerowritesofEpicurusandDemocritus,6.1819:
'...demateriadisseruerunt,uimetcausamefficiendireliquerunt.sedhoccommuneuitium:illaeEpicuripropriaeruinae.censetenimeademillaindiuiduaetsolidacorporaferri
deorsumsuopondereadlineam:huncnaturalemesseomniumcorporummotum.deindeibidemhomoacutus,cumilludoccurreret,siomniadeorsumeregioneferrenturet,utdixi,
adlineam,nunquamforeutatomusalteraalterampossetattingere,itaque(N.B.'insolensoratio',Madvig)attulitremcommenticiam:declinaredixitatomumperpaulum....quaecum
restotafictasitpueriliter,tumneefficit<quidem>quoduult,nametipsadeclinatioadlibidinemfingitur...etillummotumnaturalemomniumponderum,utipseconstituit,e
regioneinferioremlocumpetentium,sinecausaeripuitatomis.'

Ithasbeenacutelyobserved,byHirzel,thatinthefinalsentencethelittlephrase,utipseconstituit,betrayssufficientlyclearlythatCicero,orhissource,recognised
thedownwardmovementoftheatomsasaninnovationbyEpicurus.1
1
RudolfHirzel,UntersuchungenzuCicero'sphilosophischenSchriften,Theilii'Definibus,Deofficiis'Abtheilung2(Leipzig,1882)660n.2.

 Page245

Inthelightofthisphrase,theremainderofthepassageIhavequoted,andthepagesimmediatelyprecedingandfollowing,canbereadwithoutambiguity.In
Democritus'world,theatomsmovenulloaprincipioinspacethathasnecsummumnecinfimumnecmediumnecultimumnecextremum(i6.17),onboth
countsthereforedistinctfromthe'natural'movementofEpicurus'atoms,illummotumnaturalemomniumponderum...eregioneinferioremlocumpetentium.
The'errorspeculiartoEpicurus',Epicuripropriaeruinae,willincludeboththefallofatomsandtheswerve.Itisonlyafterthedeclinatiothatthetwosystemswill
coincide,inthedifficultyoftheturbulentaconcursioofatoms,inquoetiamDemocritushaeret(i6.20).1
1
ProfessorGuthrie,Historyii402,takesEpicuripropriaeruinaeassufficientindicationthatthefallofatomsispeculiartoEpicurus.ButasHirzelhadnoted,takeninitselfthat
phrasecouldreferexclusivelytothedeclinatio.ItisonlythelaterexpressionwhichfreesourreadingofCicero'spassagefromambiguity.
Bailey,GreekAtomists130,takesthebeginningofthepassageasproofthatDemocritus'atomsaremovedbyweight,i6.17(DK68A56):'ille(sc.Democritus)atomosquasappellat,id
estcorporaindiuiduaproptersoliditatem,censetininfinitoinani...itaferri'etc.Buthereproptersoliditatemwillpresumablyrepresentnot usedasanameorsynonymfor
theatomsseeSimpl.Decaelo242.19(DK67A14),Arist.Degen.etcorr.i8,326a10(DK68A60,abovep.41).Hardnessorsolidityisgivenasareasonfortheatoms'indivisibility,for
bothDemocritusandEpicurus,byDionysius,ap.Eus.Praep.evang.xiv23.3(DK68A43),andforDemocritusalonebySimplicius(?),Deanima62.24(notinDK).
Itistruethereisacertaindiscrepancyinthesourcesonthispoint.GalenmakesEpicurus'atoms'unbreakablebecauseoftheirhardness',andLeucippus'atoms'indivisiblebecauseof
theirsmallness',DeelementissecundumHippocratemi2=i41819Khn(DK68A49),whileSimpliciusmakesLeucippus'andDemocritus'elements'atomicbecauseoftheirsmallness
andsolidity',Decaelo609.1719.Anumberofotherpassagesbearonthequestion(notablySimplicius,Phys.81.3482.6,cf.pp.2736and2789below,Phys.925.1322=DK67A13,
cf.pp.2702below,Diogenesix44=DK68A1).Withoutwishingtodemonstratethepoint,IwouldnoteonlythatItakebothsmallnessandhardnessorsolidity(thetwoconnotations
attachto etc.,cf.LSJs.v.)tohavebeenoriginallythereasonsfortheatoms'impenetrabilityandindivisibility,andthatEpicurusabandonedtheargumentfrom
size,whetherinconnectionwithhisnotionthatatomshave'parts'(abovepp.21314),orperhapsasaconcessiontoAristotle'scriticismthatsmallatomshavenostrongerclaimto
beingindivisiblethanlargerones(Degen.etcorr.i8,326a249,notinDK).

 Page246

(v)

ItispossiblethatCiceroisinconsistent,inconsistenteitherinhisownconceptionofancientAtomism,ormoresimplyinconsistentinhisuseofsources.Itispossible
thereforethattheimplicationwhichHirzelhasnotedfromtheDefinibuscannotproperlybecarriedoverintoourinterpretationofthepassagesfromtheDefatoand
theDenaturadeorum.

Iamreluctantmyselftothinkthatthisisso.IhavecalledCicero'splayonwordsfrivolous.ButIdonotthinkthatCicerowasfoolish.Itseemstomelikelytherefore
thattheimplicationwhichHirzelhasnotedintheDefinibusexcludestheassumptionthatineitheroftheothertwotreatisesCicerodeliberatelyattributesdownward
movementinthevoidtotheatomsofDemocritus.
1.IntheDenaturadeorum,the'escape'thatEpicurusfoundfromnecessity'escaped'Democritus.ButthenecessitytowhichDemocritusremainedboundwasnot,therefore,the
'necessity'bywhichatomsinEpicurus'systemwerecarriedinexorablydownwardsbytheirweight.

2.Similarly,intheearlierofthetwopassagesfromtheDefato,the'naturalmovements'whichDemocrituswasunwillingto'snatch'fromtheatomswillhavebeenonlymovements
causedbythecollisionandrecoilofatomstheywillnothaveincludedthe'fall'ofatomsinthevoid.

Onthisconstruction,thepointtoappreciatethesolutiontothepuzzleisthatCicero'shostilitytothedeclinatiohascausedaradicalrealignmentinthenotionof
whatis'natural'.
1.ForAristotle,'natural'movementisopposedtomovementthatistheresultofforceorcollision.

2.ForCicero,thearbitrarycharacterofthedeclinatioisaloneunnatural,andmovementthatisindependentofthedeclinatioisthereforeseenas'natural'and'necessary',
includingboththe'fall'ofatomsandmovementsthataretheresultofcollision.

Thisleadstotheparadoxthatthe'naturalmovements'oftheDefato,themovementscausedbycollisionandrecoilwhichDemoc

 Page247

rituswasunwillingto'snatch'fromtheatoms,arepreciselythemovementswhichinAristotle'sphilosophyareopposedtothe'natural'movementoftheelements.For
Cicero,movements'byforce'are'natural'movements,becausetheydoatleastexcludethedeclinatio.

WeightandMovement

IreturnthereforetothepassagefromlaterintheDefatowhichIquotedatthebeginningofthissection.

ThesimilaritybetweenthepassagesthatIhavequotedhitherto,readintheirentirety,andthefactthatCiceronowhereelsetreatsofthesamesubjectswithanything
likethesamecircumspectionordiscrimination,allowus,Ithink,withoutunduescrupulosity,tocontinuetoreadthepagesfromlaterintheDefatointhelightofthe
distinctionthatIhavedrawnfromtheDefinibus,andthatIhaveappliedalreadytothepassageearlierintheDefatoandtothesimilarpassageintheDenatura
deorum.

Ifwedoso,thenwefindinCiceroessentiallythesamenetworkofideasthatIhavearguedwehaveinthetwoentriesinthePlacita.
1.Weight,grauitasetpondus,isattributedtoEpicurusexclusively,asalsoisthefallofatoms.

2.Democritus'atomsaremovedbyinpulsio,quamplagamilleappellat,preciselythetermwhichisrecordedinSimplicius,andarenotenvisagedasmovingdownwards.

AsinthecaseoftheearlierentryinAetiuswecannottellforcertainwhetherthisisintendedtoimplythatDemocritus'atomswerewithoutweight.

Thereispossiblylessreasontosupposethatitshoulddoso,sinceCiceroisinnocentofthestatementwhichwefindinthelaterentry,thattheatoms'havenoweight'.

Ontheotherhand,theregularassociationintheotherpassagesIhavequotedofpondusorgrauitaswithmovementdownwards,whichisspecificallystatedinthe
DefinibustohavebeeninstitutedbyEpicurus,perhapsmakesitmorelikelythatDemocritus'atomsarenotthoughtofashavingweight.

Butequallythisregularassociationofpondusorgrauitaswith

 Page248

movementdownwardsobviouslyleaveslittleroomfor'weight'thatwouldnotbethoughtofasmovementdownwards.

Thetwopointsthereforecanceleachotherout,asitwere.ThemorelikelyitisthatCicero,orhissource,willhavesupposedthatDemocritus'atomswerewithout
weight,themorearguable,andthemoreobvious,willitbethatthiswasnothingmorethanaconcomitantoftheatoms'freedomfromdownwardmovement.1

Conclusion

AdolpheFranckinhisDictionnairedessciencesphilosophiquesclaimsthat,againstthetestimonyofAristotleandofTheophrastus,thereare:

'milletmoignagescontraires,quinousmontrentlapesanteurdesatomescommeuneinnovationintroduiteparpicuredanslesystmedesonmatre'.2

Onamoresobercalculation,the'milletmoignages'shrinktoonlyone:asingleentryinAetius.3
1
Cicero'sevidencehasoftenbeenmisunderstood.PerhapsthemostextremeexampleisBailey.(1)AsIhavenoted,Baileymisunderstands,GreekAtomists130,thedescriptionof
theatomsasindividuaproptersoliditatem,attheopeningofthepassagefromtheDefinibus,i6.17(DK68A56)BaileyheretakesCicerotobedescribingamovementthatisthe
resultofweight,andthereforetobesayingthesameasTheophrastus,inapassage(Desens.71),whichhehasalsomisunderstood,seepp.13742andp.224n.3above.(2)This
errorleadsBaileytotakethepassagefromtheDefato,20.46(DK68A47),asprovidingan'identificationoftheDemocritean"blow"withEpicurus'notionofweight'(Greek
Atomists134),whereasinfactitisclearthatCicerointendstodistinguishatthispointbetweenthetheoriesofDemocritusandEpicurus.(3)However,Baileyalsobelievesthat
Democritus'atomsdonotmovedownwardsinthevoidhethereforeconcludes(pp.1345)that'Cicero'sstatementisalmostcertainlyfoundedonthefalseconceptionthat
Democritusassignedweightasthecauseofmotion'.(4)ButalthoughBaileythinksthatCiceroishereinerror,henonethelessseekstousehispassage(p.135)asatrue
descriptionofthe'derivativemotions',whicharecommontoDemocritusandEpicurus,andwhichare'logicallysubsequent'totheoriginalmotionoftheatoms.Butthisreadingof
thetextisplainlyatoddswithCicero'sintention,intheDefatoasintheDefinibus,tostartbydescribingthemovementofEpicurus'atomspriortotheirreleasebythedeclinatio.
2
Article'Dmocrite'inDictionnairedessciencesphilosophiquesii(Paris,1844)32=2ndedn(Paris,1875)356.
3
Franckisnotalone.Mabilleauwrites,Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique195:'Onpeutdirequelesopinionssepartagentendeuxcamps:Aristoteaffirmequelesatomesde
Dmocritesontpesants,presquetouslesautrestmoignagestendenttablirlecontraire'.Heconcludes:'Lenombre,ici,balancel'autorit...'.

 Page249

PARTTHREE
THECONCILIATIONOFTHEEVIDENCE

 Page251

ChapterNine
TheNatureandDistributionoftheEvidence:
PrimaryEvidence

1
SourcesfortheHistoryofEarlyPhilosophy

Theperversitiesofchanceandofhumanneglecthaveleftwhatarenowalmostcertainlyineradicablescarsonourpotentialknowledgeofthethoughtandexperience
oftheancientworld.Byasingulargoodfortunethethreemostoriginal,mostinfluential,andthemostdifficultpaganphilosophers,Plato,AristotleandPlotinus,have
survivedtouswithalargepartorevenwiththewholeoftheworkswhichtheythemselvescomposed.Otherwise,withthepartialexceptionofEpicurus,everyother
majorphilosophicalfigureofearlierpaganantiquityisknowntousonlyinfragmentsandatsecondhand.

ThelossoforiginalmaterialisespeciallycrucialforthecenturyorsobeforePlato.Notonlywasthisaperiodofintensephilosophicalactivity,ofthemostvariedand
themostfascinatingkind:itwasalsoatimesufficientlyprimitiveorarchaic,oratleast,ifthosetermsaretoocrudelyevaluative,sufficientlydifferentfromourownto
makeitparticularlydifficulttorecoverfromanyotherthananexceptionallysensitivesourcethetrueintentofathinkerofthisperiod:andoursourcesarenot
exceptionallysensitive,andareoftennotsensitiveatall.

Forthisearlyperiod,werelyonfourmainblocksofmaterial:(1)thefrequentallusionstoandanalysesofearliertheoriesscatteredthroughouttheworksofAristotle,
(2)theextensivetranscriptsfromParmenides,Anaxagoras,EmpedoclesandDiogenesrecordedbySimplicius,inhiscommentariesonAristotle,(3)directfragments
fromTheophrastus'accountsoftheearlyphilosophers,andespeciallythelongfragmentonthenatureofthefacultyofsenseandoftheobjectsofsense,andfinally(4)
laterdigestsandredactionsofTheophrastus'work,principallythosecontainedinthetwosurvivingversionsofAetius.

Thereremainsanenormousnumberofotherallusionstotheearlyphilosophersscatteredthroughalmostthewholeofsubse

 Page252

quentancientliterature.Thesevarygreatlyinvalue:but,withthepossibleexceptionofPlutarch,alloftheseothersourcestakentogetherhardlyexceedinvalueany
oneofthefourmajorsourcesofourknowledge,takenalone.

Fromthis,itisatonceapparenthowmuchweowe,directlyandindirectly,toAristotle:directly,becauseofthetimewhichhehimselfdevotestothediscussionand
refutationofPresocraticideas,andindirectlybecauseSimpliciusandTheophrastusaretherebyled,intheirdifferentways,totheirowninterestinearlyphilosophy.If
AristotlehadbeenasevasiveinhisattitudetothePresocraticsasPlatoinfactwas,ourknowledgeofPresocraticphilosophywouldhavebeenimmeasurably
darkened.

Ihaveaddedtheseverygeneralremarksatthebeginningofthissectionofmyargument,becauseinreviewinganylongstandingprobleminthehistoryofearly
philosophyIthinkonehasthedutytoconsider,ingeneralterms,whatchancesofsuccessareofferedbytheevidence,soastotrytomakesurethatoneisnotadding
wantonlytowhatmustseemattimes,toanyconscientiousworkerinthefield,thewearisomemountainofmodernscholarshiponthePresocratics,someofit
remarkableforitslearningandacuity,butmuchofitlooselyarguedandinconclusive,evenwhenitisnotdownrightunscholarlyorperverse.

Asitis,fromthepointofviewofthespreadofevidence,thepresentproblemshouldprovenomoreintractablethanmanyanotherprobleminthehistoryofearly
philosophy,foralthoughalltheevidenceissecondhandthereisatleastsomeexplicitinformationfromallfourmajorsources:Aristotle,Theophrastus,Simplicius
(althoughnotinthisinstanceasasourceofdirectquotation)andAetius,withoneortwootherauthorsprovidingusefuliftangentialinformation.

Whythenhasthesolutionoftheproblem,ifithasnotbeenfoundalready,provedsoelusive?

Tosuchaquestionthereisnosingleanswer.ButifImaygeneralise,thentheanswerisprobablythataseriesoflocaldifficultiesinthemaintextshasconspiredwitha
moregeneralconceptualdifficulty,thepossibledifferencebetweenPlatonicorAristoteleanandprePlatonicconceptionsofheavyandlight,soastomakeanysingle
synopsisoftheevidencemorethanusuallydifficultofattainment.

Ifinfactwestandbacktoconsiderthedistributionandrela

 Page253

tionoftheevidenceasawhole,takingnowforgrantedthemoreparticularquestionsofexegesisandinterpretationwhichhavebeenhandledintheprecedingsections,
thentheformofthequestionthatweneedtoaskdetermines,almostofitself,theanswerthatweshouldgivetoit.
IsoneentryinAetiusabletooverruleanumberofpassagesinSimplicius,andtoeffectamajorqualificationofevidenceprovidedbyTheophrastusinhisDesensibusandintwo
placesbyAristotle?

Theanswer,intermsofgeneraldoxographicalprobability,isthatitmaybeabletodoso,butthatitisunlikely.

Itwillbelessunlikely,onlyiftheevidenceinAristotleandinTheophrastusencourages,oratleastleavesroomfor,thequalificationrequiredbyAetius.

Morespecifically,thequestionwhichweneedtoconsideristherefore:
IsthereanyindicationthatwhenAristotleandTheophrastuswriteoftheatoms'possessingweighttheyarethinkingonlyofatomswithinacosmos,oratleastwithinthe
beginningsofacosmos,sothatAetius'denialofweighttotheatomscanbeappliedtoatomsbeforeoroutsidetheformationofacosmos?

TothisquestionIaddressmyselfinthefollowingtwosectionsofthischapter.

2
Theophrastus

Atthispoint,IconsidertheevidenceinTheophrastusbeforethatofAristotle,sincefromthepresentpointofviewTheophrastusisperhapsthemoreusefulwitnessof
thetwo.ForTheophrastusdoesrecordDemocritus'theoryofweightforitsownsake,andasawhole.OnbothpointsthereforehediffersfromAristotle,whose
allusiontothetheoryintheDegenerationeetcorruptioneispartofamoregeneralargument,andwhoseaccountofDemocritus'theoryintheDecaeloistied
closelytohiscritiqueofPlato.

 Page254

(i)

Itistrue,thereisthefearthatsinceTheophrastus'criticismofearliertheoriesisheavilyindebtedtoAristotle,sotoohisaccountofthesubstanceofPresocratic
theoriesmayalsobecolouredbyAristoteleanism.

Infact,myownimpression,forwhatitisworth,isthatthispossibilityisquitelargelycounterbalancedbythedeliberatedivisionwhichTheophrastusmakesbetween
prcisandcriticism.Forintheprciswhichhegives,Theophrastusdoesattempttowrite,asweshouldsay,objectively.Thusintheintroductiontothesecondpartof
hisDesensibus,onthenatureoftheobjectsofsense,hewrites,inrelationtoPlatoandDemocritus,cap.60(DK68A135):
.
'Itisnotourimmediateconcerntodecideonwhichsidethetruthlies.Ourpresentpurposeistotrytoconveytothereaderhowfareachthinkerwentintacklingtheproblem,and
thenatureofhisconclusions,afterfirstsketchingoutthegenerallineofapproachthateachofthetwophilosophersadopted.'

Inthiscircumstance,itseemstome,Aristotle'sinfluenceonthesubstantiveelementsofTheophrastus'historyislikelytobeapparent,ifatall,notsomuchinwhatis
included,asinwhatisomitted.

AnotableandhithertounrecognisedexampleofsuchomissionIshallattempttodemonstrateinaparallelstudytothis,onthenatureofearlytheoriesofperception
andintelligence,withparticularreferencetoEmpedocles'theoryofintelligentperceptionbyblood.IshallthereattempttoshowthatundertheinfluenceofAristotle
TheophrastushasfailedtospecifytherleofdifferencesoftemperatureinhisaccountofEmpedocles'theoryofvariationsinperceptionandintelligence,notablyatDe
sensibus1011(DK31A86).1
1
ThisworkisduetoappearinPhilosophiaAntiqua,andisprovisionallyentitledThoriesprsocratiquesdelaperceptionetdel'intelligence,tudiesd'aprslatradition
biographiqued'Empdocle.Seealsopp.3423below.

 Page255

But,itmaybeobjected,thisispreciselythephenomenonwhichthemoderninterpretationofDemocritus'theoryofweightwouldhaveusfearinthepresentinstance:
theomissionofaqualification,restrictingthetheoryofatomicweighttoatomsthatarecaughtwithintheformationofacosmos.

(ii)

Infact,itseemstomethatseveralconsiderationstellagainstthis,ofwhichthesimplestandperhapstheclearestisaffordedbythestipulationwhichTheophrastus
attachestohisinitialdefinitionofweightintermsofsize,cap.61:

Ihavealreadynotedthatthementionof ishereanatom.1Iftheneachatomistobe'takenseparatelyonitsown',itwillfairlyclearlybeirrelevantwhether
wehave'takenit',sotospeak,fromacosmicvortexorfromaprecosmicvoid.

ThestipulationrequiredbyBurnet'sreconstructionofthetheorywouldbeineffecttheoppositeofthis:

'Iftheatomsareconsideredinrelationonetoanother,whentheyhavebeendrawnintoavortex....'2

(iii)

Moregenerally,thescrupulosityofTheophrastus'accountisshownbythesentenceswhichconcludehisinitialstatementof
1
Cf.ch.IV1,esp.p.121above.
2
IhavealreadynotedthetranslationofTheophrastus'stipulationas'ifweweretodivideeachsubstanceintoits<atomic>units'(Stratton,121)oras'ifanyobjectisdecomposedinto
itsparts'(Sambursky,ThephysicalworldoftheGreeks120).Inthistranslation,Theophrastus'stipulationwouldintroducetheatomsonlyindirectly,asitwere.Butthiswouldnot
reallyweakenmypresentargument.ForeveninthisformTheophrastus'stipulationwouldnotcoincidewiththestipulationrequiredbyBurnet'sinterpretation.InStratton's
translation,Theophrastusspecifiestheseparationofacompoundbodyintoitsindividualatoms,whicharethenthesubjectofthedefinition.OnBurnet'sinterpretation,Theophrastus
shouldspecifytheatomsashavingweightonlywhentheyaredrawnintoacosmicvortex,andthereforeonlywhentheyarealreadybeingbroughttogetherascompoundbodies.

 Page256

1
Democritus'theoryofweight,cap.612:

ThemorepreciserelevanceofthisremarkIshalltrytouncoverlater,inconsideringthegeneralPresocraticbackgroundtoDemocritus'ideas.2Whatissignificantat
themoment,issimplythefactthatTheophrastuswasaliveto,even,onemightventuretothink,onthelookoutfor,potentialdiscrepanciesinDemocritus'theory,and
thatforthispurposehewasable,andwilling,tocomparedifferentpartsofDemocritus'writings.

ForthestatementinAetius,thattheatoms .IfthereforetherehadbeenanythingapproximatingtoAetius'statementinDemocritus'ownwritings,thenwemay
wellexpectthat,inthiscircumstance,itwouldnothaveescapedTheophrastus'attention.3

(iv)

Itmightperhapsbeargued,againstthis,thatTheophrastus'horizonsarelimitedtothediscussionofsensibilia,andthatthenature,orthebehaviour,ofatomsinthe
void,beforetheformationofacosmos,necessarilyfallsoutsidethispurview.4

Butthisargumentprovestobetwoedged.

Theophrastus'primarycriticismofDemocritus,andofPlato,isthattheyconfuseprincipleandpractice.
1.Platoclaimedtotreattheobjectsofsenseasexistentintheirownright,butinfacthereducedthemtoalterationsofthefacultyofsense.

1
Formyparaphraseseeabovep.131.
2
Pp.3728below
3
Thetwospecifications PaulTanneryfirsttranslatedas'pourcertainscorps'and'pourd'autres',Pourl'histoiredelasciencehellne(Paris,1887)359.ButDisrightly
correctedthisinthesecondedition,(Paris,1930)369,to'encertainsendroits'and'end'autres'.
4
Dyroff,Demokritstudien32:'Theophrastoslsstklarerkennen,dassdemDemokritos''SchwereundLeichtigkeit"Sinnesqualittenwaren,nichtEigenschaftenderursprnglichen
Atome'.Cf.pp.3569below.

 Page257
1
2.Democritusclaimedinprincipletoreducetheobjectsofsensetoaffectionsofthefacultyofsense,butinpracticehedefinedthemasentitiesexistingindependently.

Fromthispreliminaryorientation,Theophrastusarguesthatheavyandlightinparticular,andhardandsoft,areineffectmade intheirownright,asopposed
especiallytotemperature,which,onDemocritus'theory,isnomorethananaffectionofthefacultyofsensewhenitissubjectedtoaprocessofalteration.The
repetitionofthiscriticismdemonstratesitsimportanceforTheophrastus.2

Thusinthecaseoftemperatureorcolourorflavouritwouldberighttoclaimthattheeffect,andindeedthepoint,ofDemocritus'theoryisthat'hot'or'red'or
'sweet'comestoexistonlywithintheconditionsofacosmos,orindeed,morenarrowly,comesto'exist'onlywithintheexperienceofasensiblepercipient.

ButTheophrastus'distinctionshowsthatwecannotarguefromtheformulationofDemocritus'theoryinthecaseoftemperaturetoanequivalentformulationinthecase
ofweight.ForaccordingtoTheophrastus'categorisationweightisa'nature'initsownright,andisnotsimplytheexpressionofanalterationofthefacultyofsense.

(v)

Heaviness,itmightstillbeargued,ispairedwithlight,andthetwoaregroupedwithhardandsoft:allofwhichappearonlyascharactersofcompoundbodies,and
canthereforeappearonlywithinacosmos.

TopursuethisissuefullywouldentailconsiderationofthewholeofDemocritus'theoryofsensibleperception.

Briefly,itistruethatthequestionmaynotbeassimpleforhardasforheavy.Forinthecaseofhardnesswecandistinguishwhatonemightperhapscallanontological
condition,theconditionoftheatomsrepresentedas ,andtheeffectofthiscondi
1
Desens.601(DK68A135).
2
Desens.63,68,71(DK68A135).

 Page258

tionuponthefacultyofsense.Thislatterconditionalone,Democritusmightclaimiswhathemeansbyhardness.

Thequestionisagaindifferentinthecaseoflightness.ForwhileTheophrastusbeginsbysayingthatbothheavyandlightaredefinedbysize,hethengoesontogivean
alternativedefinitionoflightnessasdeterminednotintermsofsizesimply,butofvoid.

Lightnessinthissecondsense,lightnessasdeterminedbyvoid,isnecessarilyrestrictedinitsapplicationtotheformationofcompoundbodies,andtherefore,wemay
perhapsallow,toconditionswithintheformationofacosmos.1

However,neitherqualificationcanbeappliedtothedefinitionofheavyandlightintermsofsize.Heavinessisattachednottoacertaindistributionofatoms,nortoa
certainproportionofsolidandvoid,butquitesimplytothesizeofindividualatoms.Primafaciethereforethereisnoreasonforheavinesstoberestrictedtothe
interactionbetweenatomsandthefacultyofsenseortoappearanceswithinacosmos.

Theonlypointwhichinfact,itseemstome,couldconceivablytellinfavourofwhatIhavecalledthe'currentcompromise'isthatthewordwhichTheophrastushas
employedinhisaccountoftheindividualatom,theterm ,isdrawnfromtheuseofapairofscales,andso(itmightbeargued)canapplyonlytomovementin
aspecificdirection,andthereforeonlytomovementwithinacosmos.

(i)

Atfirstglance,theremightconceivablyappeartobesomesubstanceinthisargument.Butamoment'sreflectionshowsittobemeagreintheextreme.
1
Idonotfindanydiscussionofwhetherinfacttransitorycompoundbodiesotherperhapsthanthebodiesofthegodscanbeformedoutsideacosmos.

 Page259

TherearethreeexpressionswhichTheophrastuscouldhaveusedforthenotionofweight:

1.

2.

3.

1.Theophrastusdoesemploy,inhisopeningsentence(cap.61),thecompositeexpression, ,ofwhichneitherterm,atleastinitsimmediatesignification,
requiresthenotionofmovement.

2.Hedoesnotemploytheterm ,whichwouldnecessarilyentailthenotionofweightexpressedasmovement.

3. isemployedintheaccountoftheindividualatom,andisintermediateinitsconnotation.

Thematerialreferenceistothemovement,orbalance,ofapairofscales.Butthetermisusedsogenerally,throughoutGreekliterature,thatespeciallywhenitisused
adverbiallyithasclearlycometoretainonlyanotionalrelationtoanyactualactofweighing.

(ii)

Ifweconsiderthematterfurther,evensuchresidualornotionalconnotationasatfirstsighttheremaybeoftheideaofmovementseemstomeeffectivelyprecludedby
theforminwhichTheophrastushaschosentocasthisstatementaboutweight.

Theophrastus'purposeistogiveacompletesketchoftheatomictheoryofweight.Fromthestartthereforehehasoneeye,sotospeak,onthedefinitionoflightness
intermsofvoid.Thisheexpressesintermsofthecomparisonofonebodywithanother,andmorespecificallyintermsofapluralityof'mixed'bodies:
.

Averynatural,ifstrictlyunnecessary,senseofantithesisleadsTheophrastustothinkofthealternativedefinition,ofweightintermsofsize,asapplyingtoasingleatom:
.

ThisantithesisleadsTheophrastustocasthisfirstdefinitionofweightinahighlyartificialform:'ifone<atom>weretobetakenonitsown...'.Nooneinfact,inany
literalsense,isgoingtotake

 Page260

holdofasingleatomandmeasureitorweighit:hencethefully'unreal'formofconditionalsentence,with intheprotasis.

Thisdegreeofartificiality,orperhapsoneshouldsaymorekindlythisdegreeofsophistication,seemstometoprecludetherebeinganyliteralconnotationintheuseof
.Thatterm,Iwouldsuggest,isusedinthiscontextasaconventionalexpressionfor'weight',withonlythemostnotionalandresidualattachmenttoanyactof
'weighing',andthereforewithoutanynecessaryconnotationatallthattheweightofanindividualatomwouldnecessarilybeexpressedintermsofitsmovementina
specificdirection,andthereforeintermsofitsbehaviourwithinacosmos.

3
Aristotle

'DeGenerationeetCorruptione'

IntheDegenerationeetcorruptioneAristotleislessscrupulousthanTheophrastus,inthathetreatsheat,nolessthanweight,asacharacteristicofanatominits
ownright,andnotsimplyasaproductoftheinteractionbetweenacertainshapeorsizeofatomandasensiblepercipient.

ThismaybesimplybecauseAristotlewantstomakeaquickbreachinDemocritus'theoryoftheimpassibilityofatoms.Itmayalsobethatthenumberoftimes
Democritusreferredtothetheoryleftoccasionswhentheexpressionofthetheorywasvulnerabletoan'objectivist'interpretation:
(Theophr.,Desens.68=DK68A135).1

Itisperhapsastrawinthewindthatthementionofweightisdifferentontwocountsfromwhatissaidofheat.

1.Heat,i8,326a35: .

2.Weight,326a910: .

1
Zeller'semendation,ZN1076n.1,of (Schneider)iscertain,despiteitsomissionbyDielsinhistextinDoxographigraeci:cf.Brieger,Urbewegung6n.1.

 Page261

Thecriticalcontextofbothassertionsissimilar,veryroughly:

1.'Theatomsaresupposedtobeinactiveandimpassible,andyettheydohaveheat.'

2.'Itwouldbeoddiftheatomswerecharacterisedbyanoppositionoftemperaturebutlackedotheroppositionsandyeteachatomismoreheavy<orlessso>.'

Buttherethesimilarityends.
1.Thepointaboutheatisitselfenvelopedincriticism'itisoddtomaketheatomshaveonlyheat'andtheexpressionisloose'tohandoutheattoacertainshape'.

2.Thepointaboutweightisexpressedfreefromimmediatecriticism,andtheattributionisgivendirectly:'Democritussaysthat...'.

InthislatterinstancethereforeformandimmediatecontextleavenoobviousopeningforanyqualificationoftheideaattributedtoDemocritus.

'DeCaelo'

(i)

ThestateofaffairsintheDecaeloismorecomplexthanthatintheDegenerationeetcorruptione.

InanearlierchapterIarguedthattheexpositionoftheatomictheoryintermsofbodiesdifferinginvolumewastheresultofAristotle'sownpresentationandcritiqueof
thetheory.1AnequallystrikingfeatureinAristotle'streatmentoftheatomictheoryistheconceptionoftheatomsasmovingconsistentlydownwards,andinthatsense
asapproximatingtothepossessionofabsoluteheaviness.

ThisconceptionisofcoursenosurpriseforZeller,forwhomitisindeedoneofthemainindicationsthattheatomsdidinfactfallinthevoid,forDemocritusasfor
Epicurus.

However,Zellerwasorshouldhavebeennolessembar
1
Ch.III23,pp.10014.

 Page262

rassedbyAristotle'sassertion,intheDecaeloaselsewhere,thatthekindofmovementbelongingtotheatomswasneverspecified.

BriegerandLeipmann,Iamreasonablysure,wererighttotakethesecondsetofpassages,thosenamelywhereAristotledeniesthatthenatureoftheatoms'
movementwasspecified,asdoxographicallyprior.Forinthesepassageswehavethe'tag'ofpersonalisedassertion,orwhatisalmostaseffectivefroma
doxographicalpointofview,thestatementthat'theyfailedtosay,butshouldhavedone'.1

Thecredentialsoftheopposingstatement,thattheatomshaveasinglemovement,bywhichAristotlemeansprimarilymovementinasingledirection,areentirely
different.Theatomshaveasinglenature,andtherefore'itisnecessary'forthemtohaveallthesamemovement.2

Thereisafurtherpoint.Wecanactuallyseetheevolution,withintheDecaelo,ofAristotle'sassumption,fromthenotionthattheatomsmusthaveasinglemovement,
tothenotionthatthissinglemovementmustbemovementdownwards.

1.Inthefirstbook,themovementthattheatoms'must'haveiseitherupordownwhichitis,doesnotmatter,providedthattheyhaveonlyone.

2.Inthecriticismofthefourthbook,theassumptionisconvenientlythatinfacttheatomswouldhavedownwardmovementonly,andwhereAristotlewishestomakeplaywith
thenotionofupwardmovementheintroducesvoidasrepresentative,orasconstitutive,ofanelementthatwouldbelightabsolutely.3

1
Met.A4,985b1920(DK67A6),note .Thesethreepassageshavebeenquotedandparaphrasedabove,p.237.ReferencestothedisputebetweenZellerontheonehand
andBriegerandLiepmannmaybeobtainedfromtheBibliography:seealsopp.3509below.Onthequestionofmovementespecially,seeLiepmann,Mechanik338.
2
Decaeloi7,275b29276a2: b31anda2.Thepassageisquotedinfullandparaphrasedpp.1112above.
3
Decaeloi7,275b29276a6iv2,309a33b4etalibicf.pp.1119above.Iwriteof'evolution',whichwillbetrueofcourseonlyonthetraditionalorderingofthebooksoftheDecaelo.
Ishouldperhapswriteonlyofinconsistency.ButeveninconsistencyisagoodsignthatAristotleisinventing.

 Page263

(ii)

ThissecondconceptionoftheatomictheoryofweightleavesitselfopentothecriticismswhichIhavequotedearlier,andwhichareallessentiallyreducibletothe
formulationwhichAristotleoffersattheendofthepenultimatechapterofthefourthbook.Theargumenthereisthatifairandwaterarebothcomposedofasingle
materialprinciple,oriftheybothcontainedtwoconstituents,onewithabsoluteheavinessandtheotherwithabsolutelightness,thentherewillbealargequantityof
waterwhichwillcontainmoreofthelightelementthaniscontainedinasmallquantityofair,andalargequantityofairwhichwillcontainmoreoftheheavyconstituent
thaniscontainedinasmallquantityofwater,sothatair,inacertainquantity,willbeheavierthanwater,andwater,inacertainquantity,willbelighterthanair.1

ThepointofthiscriticismisthatAristotlewillallownoescapefromtheconclusionthateachofthefourelementsmusthaveitsownnaturalplace,andthattheir
observablebehaviourcannotthereforebereducedeithertooneortotwosimpleconstituents,foritcanalwaysbearguedthatthiswillleadtoadisturbanceofthe
naturalmovementsandstratificationoftheelements.

ThetheorythereforewhichAristotlecriticisesatlengthinbookfouroftheDecaeloisadmittedly,inlargemeasure,aconstructionofhisown.Grantedthattheatoms
haveasinglenature,theymust(onAristoteleanprinciples)havemovementallinthesamedirection,whichsooncomestobeenvisagedasmovementdownwards:how
farthen,ifatall,cantheatomsbeusedtoexplainthemovementofthefourelementstowardstheirnaturalstratificationwhichisanobservable,andforAristotlean
indisputable,featureofthecosmos?

(iii)

IconcludethereforethatinAristotle'spresentationandcritiqueoftheatomictheorytherearetwopersistentfeatureswhichwecanreasonablyinferhaveintruded
themselvesintotheoriginalformofthetheory.
1
iv5,313a1013:thedetailofthisformulationisanalysedinmythirdandfourthessays.

 Page264

1.Thedefinitionoflightnessasdependentuponatomsandvoidispresentedintermsofbodieswhichdifferinvolume.

2.Thedefinitionofweightasrelatedtosizeispresentedasrequiringtheatomstomoveconsistentlydownwards.

Incuttingawaysogenerousapoundofflesh,howmuchoftheatomictheorycanwehopewillhavesurvived?Isthereanyhopethatinpeelingawaytheaccretionsof
Aristoteleanassumptionandterminologytherewillbeleftanyresidualcoreofpossibleorprobablehistoricaltruth?

Asbefore,IthinkthatifweisolateaccuratelythedistortionswhichAristotlehasintroducedintohispresentationofthetheorywecaninfer,withreasonablecertainty,
inthisinstanceatleast,whatthereisoftheoriginaltheorythatdoesnotderivefromAristotle'spresentationofit.

AsInotedearlier,onthequestionofthedefinitionoflightnessintermsofvoid,thereissufficientcontradictionwithinAristotle'sownpresentationandcritiqueofthe
theoryforustobeabletoinfer,withreasonablecertainty,thattheAtomists'ownformulationoftheirtheoryeitherleftthecomparisonofvolumesoutofaccountor
alternativelywaspresentedintermsofbodiesequalinvolume,wherethereforethecomparisonofvoidwithvoidisasufficientindicationofweight.1

Thesameprinciple,Ibelieve,canbeappliedifweconsiderAristotle'sassertionthattheweightofatomsisdependentupontheirsize,inthelightofAristotle's
treatmentoftheatomsasneedingtomovedownwards.

(iv)

ThusBaileyarguesthatAristotle'sremarksaboutatomicweightintheDecaeloareorientatedexclusivelytowardsthebehaviourofatomswithinacosmos,withthe
conclusion,therefore,thatAristotle'sanalysisleavesthewayopenforadenialofanyprecosmicorextracosmicweighttotheatoms,asonBurnet'sthesis.
1
Cf.pp.105and11114above.

 Page265

'Throughoutthediscussion',intheDecaelo,Baileywrites,'Aristotleisthinkingofweightinaformedcosmosandregards"heaviness"asatendency"downwards",thatis
towardsthecentre,andlightnessasatendencyupwards,thatis,towardstheoutside.'1

Nowitistrue,aswehaveseen,thatinhiscritiqueoftheAtomistsAristotledoesrequirethereader,orthelistener,toenvisagehowtheatomswouldbesupposedto
behavewithinacosmos.AnditistruethatinsodoingAristotleisnotdescribingatheoryofatomicweightwhichDemocritushimselfexpressedasapplyingtothe
behaviourofatomswithinacosmos.

ForDemocritus'owntheoryofcosmicweighthardlyimpingesatallonAristotle'scriticism.Thattheory,asweknowfromSimplicius,andaswecaninferinpartfrom
Aristotlehimself,wasthatheavyandlightinacosmicvortexdependupontheactionof ,withtheexpulsionofsmalleratoms,orgroupsofatoms,towards
thecircumferenceofadine.ThattheoryistoucheduponhardlyatallinbookfouroftheDecaelo,andonlyonceintheprecedingbooks,whenitisbrieflyrefuted.2

ButfromthisitdoesnotfollowthatAristotle'sinitialstatementoftheatomictheoryofweight,asdependentuponsize,isdeterminedbyhiscriticismoftheinabilityof
atoms,orofatomsandthevoid,toexplainthediversemovementsandstratificationoftheelements.

WeneedtolookagainatthecontextoftheinitialstatementwhichIsingledoutforanalysis,Decaeloiv2,309al2: .3

LaterinbookfouroftheDecaeloAristotlewillclaimthat
1
GreekAtomists145.
2
The isfirstmentionedatDecaeloi8,277a33b2.AristotledoesnothererefertoDemocritusbyname.TheattributionhastobesuppliedfromSimpliciusandfromother
authors,seeabovep.153n.3.

Inthefourthbook,cap.2,310a10,thetheoryofan isintroducedbrieflyintoanaccountofthedefinitionofweight'bylargenessandsmallness',adefinitionwhichIshall
argue,inmythirdessay,isprimarilyintendedtorepresentIonianwaysofthinking,butwhichislooseenoughtoincludefeaturesfromtheothertwomaintheoriesofweightthatare
criticisedinbookfour,thetheoryofPlatoandthatofDemocritus.
3
Seech.III1,pp.80100above.

 Page266

PlatoandDemocritusareinthesameboat,andhewillapplytobothequallythecriticismwhichIhaveoutlined.ButatthispointAristotlehasnotyetsubjectedthe
AtomiststothesameformofcriticismasPlato.Aristotle'spointhere,ifmyearlieranalysisiscorrect,isthattheAtomistsavoidtheimmediatenavetofasimple
equationofsizeandweightbytheirintroductionofvoid,althoughthatsimpleequationdidinfactapplyontheleveloftheprimaryelements,wherethelargerisalsothe
heavier,andwithmorejustificationfortheAtomiststhanforPlato,sincefortheAtomiststheprimaryelementsareatleastsolids,andnotmeresurfaces,fromwhich
nobodycaneverbegenerated.

IhaverepeatedAristotle'spointinallitscomplexity,toshowhowfarAristotleisatthispointfromanyimmediateconcernwithacosmosorwithmovementwithina
cosmos.Itisonlylater,whenAristotletreatsPlatoandDemocritusasalikehavingfailedtoexplainthestratificationofheavyandlightelements,thatAristotle
persistentlyrevertstothenotionoftheatomshavingdownwardmovementwithinacosmos.Inaloosersense,wemayperhapsallowthatthenotionofcompound
bodiesinthedefinitionoflightnessintermsofvoid,andthecomparisonofgoldandfireinwhatIhavecalledAristotle's'corollary',rendersthecontextofthat
definitionacosmicone.ButattheprecisepointatwhichAristotletreatsoftheatomsthemselvesashavingweightproportionatetotheirsizeitistheprimaryelements,
whethersurfacesorsolidparticles,whicharetheobjectofattention.Atthisjuncture,Aristotleisnotconsideringhowsuccessfultheirperformancemightbein
explainingthestratificationofelementswithinacosmos.Thecontextisnotthereforeacosmicone,inanyactivesense.

Itisthereforeunreasonable,itseemstome,ifnotimpossible,toexplaintheattributionofweighttotheatoms,atthispointinAristotle'sargument,assolelytheproduct
ofhisenvisagingtheatomsasconstituting,orasrepresenting,thestratificationofelementswithinacosmos.

 Page267

ChapterTen
TheNatureandDistributionoftheEvidence:
SecondaryEvidence

1
Simplicius

AsIhavenoted,Simplicius'extensivetranscriptionsoffifthcenturytexts,which,howeversurprisingitmayseem,werestillavailabletohimlongaftertheyhadceased
toformpartofthecurrent,orevenoccasional,readingofmostotherlearnedmenoflateantiquity,placehimamongthemostimportantindividualsourcesthatsurvive
forthereconstructionofearlyGreekphilosophy.

However,byanunfortunateconjunctionofcircumstances,thecharacterandintentionsofSimpliciushimselfhavebeenlargelyneglectedbymodernscholars.Thisisin
partbecauseSimpliciushasbeenthevictimofhisowngenerosity.SoconscientiousandsoliberalisSimpliciusinhisquotationsfromearlywritersthatverbatim
quotationscanbeextractedfromhiscommentarieswithlittleattentiontothecontextfromwhichtheyhavebeentaken.Atthesametime,Simplicius'attempttoreduce
theprePlatonicphilosopherstoconformitywiththeessentialprinciplesofhisownformofPlatonismfallsfoulofthefrequentmodernEnglishlackofinterestin,and
evendislikeof,allformsofthePlatonismoflateantiquity,nomatterwhatmoreparticularguisetheymayappearin.Theconsequenceisthatanythingmorethanthe
mostsuperficialdippingintothesentenceswhichimmediatelyprecedeorfollowSimplicius'quotationsfromtheearlyphilosophersseemstobeconsideredataskas
unworthyforthemoderncriticasitisunnecessary.

Suchanattitudeisnotunscholarlymerely.Itisintellectuallystultifyingandeveninconsistent.Forthehistorianofphilosophy,ifsuchthestudentofPresocratic
philosophyconceiveshimselftobe,shouldbeaswellabletoextendhishistoricalsympathiestothelatestastotheearliestphilosophersofGreekantiquity.

Oncewedoso,wefindthatSimpliciusoccupiesinfactadistinctiveandanhonourablepositionamonghiscontemporaries.

 Page268

Forthesyncretismwhichheattemptstocastuponthewritingsoftheearlyphilosophersistheresultnotofanymereintellectualflaccidity.Itisanattempt,well
meaningenoughinitspurpose,howevermisguideditmaybeinthemeanswhichitadopts,torescuethePresocraticsfromthecontemptandridiculeofthoseofhis
contemporarieswho,hetellsus,absorbedwiththeologicalnicetiesandwithsectarianbickeringsthemselvesonoccasiondippedintotherecordsofthefirst
philosophers,andwerescornfulofwhattheyfoundthere.

Thusaftertranscribingahistoryofthe .

'Thisthenisanabbreviatedsummaryofopinionsandbeliefsthathavebeenheldinthepastonthesubjectofthefirstprinciplesofphilosophyandontology.

'Thetheoriesinquestionhavenotbeenlistedinchronologicalsequence,butaccordingtotheintrinsicaffinityoftheviewsandopinionsheld.

'Itisimportantthattherecitalofsuchgreatdiscrepanciesonthesubjectofthefirstprinciplesshouldnotmisleadthereaderintothinkingthatthesereflectsomanyactual
contradictionsamongthosewhopractisedtheartofphilosophyinancienttimes.

'Thatistheimpressionwhichcertaincontemporaryscholarshaveformedoncomingacrossrecordsthatarepurelyhistoricalanddoxographical.Withoutunderstandingawordof
thespeculationsthatarethereinrecorded,theysetouttotrytoblametheearlyphilosophersfortheirwantofconsistency.

 Page269

'Thisisthemoreironical,inthattheythemselvesaresplitupintothousandsofdifferentsects,andaredividedbyasmanydifferencesofbelief.

'Notindeedthattheirbickeringstouchuponthefirstprinciplesofphysicalphilosophy:ofsuchstudiestheyhavenoteventhefaintestglimmering.Theirowndisputesturnonthe
scrupulouspurificationofthedivinetranscendence.

'Nonetheless,itisperhapsaswelltoturnasideforamomentfromthemaincurrentofourenquiryinordertodemonstratetothoseofourcolleagueswhohavemoreofatastefor
truelearning,howitisthat,despitetheappearanceofdisagreementamongthephilosophersofancienttimesintheirbeliefsandopinionstouchinguponthefirstprinciplesof
philosophy,intruththeydoagreeandtheirteachingsformaharmoniousandconsistentwhole.'

TheanalogybetweenthetreatmentofthePresocraticsbySimplicius'contemporaries,andtheattitudedisplayedtowardsSimpliciusandhiscontemporariesbysome
modernscholars,wouldbeamusingperhaps,ifitwerenotsosad.

Asitis,perhapsthemoststrikinginstancesofmodernantipathytowardsSimpliciusareprovidedbythequestionofweight.

ThusLiepmannwritesofSimplicius,inrelationtoawholerangeofsources,Alexander,Aetius,Cicero,Sextus,DiogenesLaertius,thatheis'vonalienanzufhrenden
ZeugenfrDemocrit'sLehrenderunglaubwrdigste'.1Thesentimentisechoed,ifsometimesinamilderform,byanumberofwritersonthequestionofatomic
weight.2

ThemoreimmediatereasonforthisantipathyisthebeliefthatSimpliciusmustintendtheatomstomovedownwardsinthevoid,
1
Mechanik39.
2
Goedeckemeyer,EpikursVerhltnis23:'Simpliciusberhaupt...keinsoeinwandsfreierBerichterstatterist,dasswirihmaufsWortglaubenmssten'.Rivaud,Leproblmedu
devenir162n.373:'LesindicationsdeSimpliciussontcontradictoires...Simpliciusadsuivredessourcesdiverses'.(ForRivaud'sloosehandlingoftheevidencefromSimplicius,see
p.239n.1above.)Bailey,GreekAtomists131,quotesLiepmann,andwrites:'WithregardtotheevidenceofSimpliciusitmightbeurgedthattosomeextentheputshimselfoutofcourt
byhisowncontradictions'.Theonlyqualificationintendedisthat'anargumentfrominconsistencyisneverfinallysatisfactory'.Briegerhadalsowritten,Urbewegung2:'Simplicius...
sichmehrfachaufdasdirektestewiderspricht'.

 Page270

invirtueofhisremarksaboutweight,andespeciallybecauseofhisassertionthattheatoms'movethroughtheyieldingandunresistingvoidinaccordancewiththeir
weight'.

Ihopetohaveshownthatthisconclusionismistaken.Simpliciusdoesattributeweighttotheatoms,including,expresslyandbyimplication,atomswhichareoutsidea
cosmos.Buthedoesnottherebyenvisagetheatomsas'falling'inthevoid.1

However,beforeturningtoconsidermorespecificallytherelevanceofthisreadingoftheevidenceinSimpliciustotheevidencefromTheophrastusandfromAristotle,
itwillperhapsbeaswelltoconsiderrathermoregenerallyanumberofpassageswhereLiepmannandothersseektodiscredittherangeofSimplicius'information
aboutDemocritus,andhispowersofintellectualconsistencywhendealingwiththeintricaciesofancientAtomism.

Thelatterquestionissomewhatcomplex,andneedstobetakencarefully.

2
The'Parts'ofAtoms:Simplicius'PowersofIntellectualConsistency

Briegeroffers,assufficientreasonfordisregardingSimplicius'accountofweightinDemocritusandinEpicurus,twopassages,fromtheDecaeloandthePhysics,
whichturnonthequestion,whetherornotDemocritus'atomshaveparts:

'AndereinenStellewerdendenAtomenausdrcklichTeilebeigelegt,anderandernebensoausdrcklichabgesprochen.'2

(i)

BriegerdoesnotrefertoapassagewhichIhavealreadyalludedto,fromlaterinthePhysics,whereSimpliciushandlesthisveryquestionwithassurance,andwith
penetration.3
1
Phys.1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58),seeabovech.V3,pp.16673.
2
Urbewegung7(forPhys.181b5read185b5)cf.'Urbewegung'587.ThetwopassagesareDecaelo612.1117,wheretheatomsare :bothpassagesarequotedbelow
pp.272and274.Furley,Twostudies945,explainsthepassageinthePhysicsasa'hastyreference'withoutconsideringthepassagefromtheDecaelo.
3
Cf.pp.21314above.

 Page271

DemocritusandLeucippus,Simpliciuswrites,foundedtheindivisibilityoftheatomsontheir .
'LeucippusandDemocritusrestedthereasonfortheirprimarybodiesnotbeingsubjecttodivision,notonlyontheirimpassivity,butequallyontheirsmallnessandontheirbeing
withoutparts.

'Epicurus,later,doesnotaccounttheprimarybodiesasbeingwithoutparts.Insteadheclaimsthatitisbecauseoftheirimpassivitythattheyare''atomic".

'OnmanyanoccasionAristotlecontrovertedthetheoryofLeucippusandDemocritus.ItispresumablyAristotle'srefutationsoftheatoms'beingwithoutpartswhichblockedthe
wayforEpicurusonthispoint.

'EpicuruswasinthepositionofworkingafterAristotleandyetofbeingingeneralsympathyandagreementwiththetheoryofLeucippusandDemocritusonthequestionofthe
primarybodies.Hethereforeretainedthenotionoftheprimarybodiesbeingimpassible,whileatthesametimeabandoningtheideaoftheirbeingwithoutparts.Heevidently
calculatedthatitwasthislatterfeatureofthetheorywhichhadleftthenotionofprimaryatomicbodiesopentorefutationbyAristotle.'

AftersoclearadistinctionbetweenEpicurusandDemocritusit

 Page272

ispossibleperhaps,butunlikely,thatelsewhereSimpliciusshouldhaveconfusedthepoint.ExaminationofthetwopassagesquotedbyBriegershowsthat,inall
probability,hehasnotdoneso.1

(ii)

InthepassagequotedbyBriegerfromtheDecaelo,SimpliciusispursuingAristotle'spointthatthenotionoftherebeingatomicallyparticulatesubstances'mustneeds
beatloggerheadswiththemathematicalsciences'( ,iii4,303a202).

InelaborationofAristotle'sargument,Simpliciuswrites,612.1117(notinDK):...
'Accordingtothemathematicians,nothingthatiscontinuousisindivisibleonthecontrary,everyextendedmagnitudeisdivisible,andindeedinfinitelyso.

'Consequently,iftheAtomists<believing,astheydo,in"atoms">doawaybothwithcontinuityandwiththeinfinitedivisionofbodies<sinceabodythatisnotdivisiblecannot
becontinuous>,thentheywillfindthattheyhavedoneawaywithdivisioninanyform,and<thereby>nolesswithsensation<orperception,andindeednolesswithself
perception>andconsciousness.

'<Continuityofthebodyisessentialtosensation:>forhowcouldwebeconsciousofsomefeelinginourfoot,ifourbodieswerenotjoinedtogetherandcontinuous?

'Atthesametime,<abodywhichiscontinuousmustbedivisible,andcomposedfromelementsthataredivisible,for>howcouldanythingthatisdivisibleandthathasparts

1
Forotherevidenceonthereasonfortheatoms'indivisibility,andinparticularfortheideathatEpicurusalsoretainedhardnessasareasonfortheatoms'beingindissoluble,see
abovep.245n.1.

 Page273

cometobeformedoutofelementsthatareindivisibleandthathavenoparts?'

Inthefinalsentenceofthispassage,SimpliciusspeaksofDemocritus'atomsas'withoutparts' .Butitisimportanttoappreciatethatinthispassage
Simpliciusdoesnotintendtoallowthattheatoms,iftheyexistedasextendedmagnitudes,couldinfactbe'withoutparts'.

Simplicius,andAristotle,agreewith'themathematicians',atleastwhenthetermsoftheproblemarerightlyunderstood,that'everyextendedmagnitudeisdivisibleto
infinity' ,inthesensethatitispotentiallydivisibleatanyoneofanindefinitenumberofpoints.WhenthereforeSimpliciusasks
'howfromelementsthatareindivisibleandwithoutpartscouldthereariseasubstancethatisdivisibleandresolubleintoparts?',heisineffectrepeatingthewell
knowntoposofAristoteleancriticism,whichwehavecomeuponanumberoftimesalready,totheeffectthat'noextendedmagnitudecanbeconstructedofpartsthat
arethemselveswithoutmagnitude'.1

Ineffecttherefore,inhisfinalsentence,Simpliciusis,asitwere,takingDemocritusathiswordandtreatingtheatomvirtuallyasthoughitwereapoint,whichinterms
ofhisownphilosophyitwouldhavetobeifitweretrulytobe'indivisibleandwithoutparts'.Hiscriticismisthenthatfromsuchan'atom'therecouldneverbe
constructedanysensible,orsentient,physicalmagnitude.

(iii)

ThusintheDecaeloandinthePhysicsSimpliciuswritesofDemocritus'atomsasnothavingparts.

InthepassagequotedbyBriegerfromearlierinthePhysicsSimpliciusspeaksofDemocritus'atomsasthoughtheydohaveparts.

SimpliciusispursuingAristotle'scritiqueoftheEleaticOne.Hispurposeistodistinguishthreesensesinwhichtheonemaybewithoutdivision .The
pointwillthenbetoshowthatnooneofthesesensescansatisfytheEleaticclaimtounity.
1
Aristotle'slongestdiscussion,Decaeloiii1,299a25300a19cf.pp.845and21415above.

 Page274

1.Whatisonemaybedivisible,butundivided.

2.Itmaybeindivisibleinprinciple,becausewithoutparts.

3.Itmayhaveparts,butbeindivisibleinpractice.

Thefirstpossibilityisexemplifiedbyanynormalcontinuousbodythesecondbyapointorunitthethirdby'anatomofDemocritus'.

Simpliciuswrites,Phys.81.3482.3(notinDK): .
'IfwhentheEleaticsclaimthatbeingisonetheymeanthatitisindivisible,thentheywillhavetomeanthatitisindivisibleinoneofthefollowingsenses,since"indivisible"isnot
atermthathasasinglemeaning:(1)the"indivisible"maymeanwhatisnotyetdivided,butwhatcouldbedivided,andinthissenseeverycontinuousbody<is"undivided"and
yetdivisible>(2)itmaymeansomethingwhosenaturerendersitincapableofdivision,incapablebecauseithasnopartsintowhichitcouldbedivided,forexampleapoint<in
geometry>oraunit<inarithmetic>or(3)itmaymeansomethingwhich<wouldbedivisible>insofarasitdoeshaveparts,andinsofarasitdoeshaveextension,butwhichis
<infactincapableofdivisionbecauseitis>impassibleinvirtueofitshardnessandsolidity,andthiswouldbetrueoftheindividualDemocriteanatom.'

Nowinothercircumstancesitwouldperhapsbequibblingtoclaimthat .Butinthisinstance,oncareful
reflection,Ithinknotso.

ForthecontextofthispassageisverydifferentfromthatofthecontextofthepassageintheDecaelo.

Thereareintruth,forSimpliciusasforAristotle,onlytwosensesofmaterial(asdistinctfromformal)unity.

 Page275

1.Thereistheunityofanextendedbodywhichisdivisibleinprinciplebutmaybeundividedinfact.

2.Thereistheunityofapointwhichisindivisibleinprincipleor,onemightsay,bynatureorbydefinition.

ThereforeonlythefirsttwosensesofunitylistedabovehaverealmeaningforSimplicius,orforAristotle.Thethirdsenseofunitymustinfactreduceitselftooneor
otherofthefirsttwosensesofunity.
1.Ifthe'atomofDemocritus'isallowedtohaveparts,thenitmustbepotentiallydivisible,likeanyotherextendedbody,andsoitwillfallunderthefirsthead.

2.Ifontheotherhandthe'atomofDemocritus'isallowedtobeindivisible,thenitcannothaveparts,anditmustbeidentifiedwithaunitorapoint,andsofallunderthesecond
head.

InthepassagethatIhavequotedfromtheDecaeloSimpliciusineffectadoptsthesecondstrategy.

Inthepresentpassagehetakesthealternativepath.The'atomofDemocritus'isengrossedunderthefirsthead,andthefirstandthirdsensesofunityareresolvedby
thesamecriticism,Phys.82.36(followingonimmediatelyfromthelinesquotedabove): .
'Ifbeingisoneinthesenseofwhatiscontinuous,thenitagainfollowsthatbeingismultiple,<asit>also<does>ifbeing<orwhatexists>isan"atom":itisofcourse<initself>
weirdanddisconcertingenoughifallthingsaretobeconstruedasasingle"atom"butthepointisratherthatthe"atom"woulditselfbecontinuousand<therefore>divisible
indefinitely,andforthatreason<whatexists>wouldbepotentiallymultiple.'

Thusthedistinctionofthefirstandthirdsensesofunity,adistinctionwhichisnotfoundinthecorrespondingpassageof

 Page276

Aristotle,hasbeenintroducedassomethingofajeud'esprit.ItisnotadistinctionwhichhasanypermanentplaceinSimplicius'analysis.Itisatypicalexampleinfact
ofthekindofrefinementandelaborationwithwhichSimpliciuslikestoenlivenhiscommentary.

Atthesametime,onceSimpliciusiscommittedtothisdistinction,howevertemporarily,itisdifficult,indeedIthinkprobablyimpossible,toenvisageanythingbutan
atomwhichcouldexemplifyunityinthethirdandfinalsense.Forwhatisneededhereisan'atom'whichisclaimedtobeindivisible,andsoisdistinctfromanynormal
continuousbody,andyetwhich'hasparts',andsoisdistinguishablefromapointorunit.1

(iv)

ThusinconsideringtheapparentcontradictionbetweentheDecaeloandthepassageearlierinthePhysics,thepointweneedtoappreciateisthatan'atom'occupies
anambiguous,andatrootaconceptuallyimpossible,positionwithinthephilosophyofAristotleandofSimplicius.

1.Insofarasitisreckonedastruly'withoutparts',theatomceasestobeanextendedmagnitudeandacquiresthesameconceptualconfigurationasapoint.

2.Insofarasitisreckonedasanextendedmagnitude,theatommust'haveparts',andsoceasestobetruly'atomic',inthatitbecomessubjected,atleastinprinciple,tothe
possibilityofdivision,andevenofinfinitedivision,withintheproperboundsofthenotionofpotentiality.

ThefirstwayoflookingatanatomisthatemployedintheDecaelo,wheretheideaisthatanextendedanddivisiblemagnitudecannotbeconstitutedfromelements
whichareindivisibleand
1
Inadifferentcontext,intheMetaphysics,631.811,Alexanderoffersasanexampleofthingsthatare'oneandundivided',otherthannumber,'<eachof>theflecksofdustthat
canbeseeninthesun'srays'.ThesameimagehadbeenusedbytheAtomistsasadescriptionoftheirsoulatoms(Arist.Deanimai2,404a1620,cf.pp.1779above).
Alexander'sindirectuseoftheatomictheorymayexplainSimplicius'useofthesameideainthepresentpassage(forSimplicius'criticismofthetextfromtheDeanimaseebelow
pp.27981).

 Page277

'withoutparts':onthisviewtheatomistreatedineffectasapointoraunit.

ThesecondwayoflookingatanatomisthatemployedintheearlierpassageofthePhysics,wheretheideaisthatanatomrepresentstheimpossibleclaimtoaunit
whichhaspartsbutwhichisundividedandindivisible:animpossibleclaim(forSimplicius,asforAristotle),becauseiftheatomhaspartsthenitbecomesextended,
andsomustbedivisibleatleastpotentially.

Thesetwowaysoflookingatanatomaresignalisedinthetwopassagesinquestionbytheconjunctionofthefirstwayoflookingatanatom,intheDecaelo,with
thenotionofindivisibility,andbytheconjunctionofthesecondwayoflookingatanatom,intheearlierpassageofthePhysics,withthenotionofanextended
magnitude.

1.IntheDecaelo,Simpliciustakestheatomastrulyindivisibleandtherefore'withoutparts': .

Fromthishearguesthattheatomcannotformthebasisofsensibleextendedmagnitudes.

2.IntheearlierpassageofthePhysics,Simpliciusallowsthenotionoftheatomasanextendedmagnitudeandthereforeas'havingparts':
.

FromthishearguesthatiftheEleaticunityisconstruedinthissensethenitcannotbetrulyimpervioustodivisionandmultiplicity.

Thepointisthatthetwocategorisations,thatofbeinganextendedmagnitudeandthatofbeingindivisible,arejoinedinDemocritus'conceptionofanatom,butfor
Simplicius,andforAristotle,theirconjunctionisconceptuallyimpossible.

Thus,fordifferentpurposes,theatomistreatedeitherasbeingtheonething,indivisible,andthereforeas'withoutparts',asitisintheDecaelo,orasbeingtheother
thing,anextendedmagnitude,andthereforeas'havingparts',asitisintheearlierpassageofthePhysics.1
1
ThedifferenceisnottheresultofachangeinSimplicius'owninterpretationofancientAtomism.OnlyapageortwobeforethepassagequotedfromtheDecaelo,Simplicius
takeswhatisvirtuallythepointofviewadoptedinthepassage

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page278

Conclusion

(i)

Itistruethereforethatthereremainsaformalinconsistency,inthatintheearlierpassageofthePhysicsSimpliciusallowsthattheatomsofDemocritus'haveparts',
whilehedeniesthishistoricallyinthelaterpassageofthePhysicsandconceptuallyintheDecaelo.

Infact,however,thelaterpassageofthePhysicsshowsclearly,Ithink,thatSimpliciusisnothimselfconfusedonthepointatissue,eitherconceptuallyorhistorically.

ItthereforeseemstomequiteprobablethatthesomewhatcuriousturnofexpressionintheearlierpassageofthePhysics,
,isintendedasanindicationthatthis'atom'isnottheimpossiblehybridconceptionofanatomwhichDemocritushimself
actuallydescribed,buttheatomasitwouldhavetobeonAristotle'sterms,i.e.an'atom'asanextendedmagnitudeandthereforeas'havingparts'.

Itwillinfactthereforebethesameas,oratleastonthispointequivalentto,theatomofEpicurus,althoughinconsidering,asheis,thefifthcenturyEleatics,Simplicius
fairlynaturallyturnstotheearliersystem.

(ii)

IfthisexplanationofSimplicius'behaviourisaccepted,thenasbeforeonthequestionofmovementthisissuewillturnouttoconveypreciselytheoppositelessonto
thatallegedbythosewhohavesoughttodismissortodiscreditSimplicius'evidence.
1.IconcludedearlierthatSimpliciusrecognisesthattheatomsofEpicurusfallinthevoid,whereasDemocritus'atoms'dartabout',asitwereatrandom.Simplicius'attributionof
weighttoDemocritus'atomsisthelesslikelythere

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

quotedfromthePhysics(81.3482.3).Theindividualatomsarehereallowedtobe'continuous',andtheAtomists''doingawaywithdivision'resultsnot,asinthelaterpassage
(612.1117),fromthefactthattheindividualatomsareincapableofdivision,butbecause'division'ismerelytheseparationofoneatom,orgroupofatoms,fromanother:seeDe
caelo609.1925.

 Page279
1
foretobesimplytheresultofconfusionwithEpicurus.

2.InowconcludethatifSimpliciuscandistinguishEpicurusandDemocritusasclearly,andasacutely,asIbelievehedoesonthequestionofthe'parts'ofatoms,thenheisagain
thelesslikelytohaveconfusedthetwoonthequestionoftheweightofatoms.2

3
TheNatureofSoul:Simplicius'InformationonDemocritus

LiepmannquotesfromMullachtheclaimthatinhisDeanimaSimpliciuswrites,inrelationtoDemocritus'theoryofthesoul'sactivityasmaintainedbybreathing,that:

'AristotelessprchesichberdenvorliegendenFallnichtganzklaraus'.3

Thisformulationblursanissuewhichiscrucialtoourenquiry.SimpliciusdoesnotcomplainthathecannotdiscoverthefactsofDemocritus'theory,whichIthinkisthe
implicationthatthesentenceIhavequotedfromLiepmannisintendedtobear,oratleasttheimplicationwhichitwillconvey.

WhatSimpliciuscomplainsof,isthathecannotdeterminewhetherthetheoryofsmallroundatomsasconstitutingsoulwasintendedbyDemocritusliterallyorwhether
thesphericityoftheatomswasintendedparadigmatically,asanillustrationofthe
1
Cf.pp.16373and192202above.
2
LestthereaderthinksthatIamofferingtooidealisedapictureofSimplicius'powersofintellectualconsistency,hemayliketorememberthatononecrucialpointIdobelievethat
Simpliciushashadtroubleinreconcilinghisideas:theeffectivenessofweightinavoid,andthenatureofmovementas'division'.ButinthiscaseIbelievethatSimpliciushashadto
grapplenotonlywithEpicurus'reformulationoftheatomictheory,inanswertoAristotle,butwithAlexander'sextensionofAristotle'sargumentasarebuttalofEpicurus,andalso
withPhiloponus'radicalattackuponAristotle'sconceptionofmotionadauntingprospect,whereSimpliciusisnotaloneinfailingtoseethewayclearly.Ipursuethispointinmy
fourthessaymeanwhileseeabovech.VI3,pp.195202.
3
Liepmann,Mechanik39.Mullach,Democritifragmenta11213.Cf.Brieger,Urbewegung34,andPapencordt,Atomicorumdoctrina22.Onthedisputedauthenticityofthe
commentaryontheDeanimaseeabovep.226n.1.

 Page280

soul'sintellectualsubstance.Foronsuchapoint,heargues,onecannotrelyonAristotle,whoinSimplicius'eyeswasnotoriouslyliabletotakeonlythesuperficial
senseofthewritingsoftheearlyphilosophers.

Simpliciuswrites,Deanima26.1119: .
'Wearenotinapositiontodeterminewhether,inadheringtothetheorythathasbeendescribed,Democritusintended<theheresyof>generatinglifefrommaterialsubstances,or
whetherhispurposewastoreveal thenatureofintelligiblesubstancethrough<hisemploymentoftheimageof>thesphere.

'OnsuchamatteronecannotrelyonAristotle'shistoricalwriting.Overthiswholefieldofenquiry,hedoesnomorethansetouttheobviousandthesuperficialsenseofthe
writingsoftheearlyphilosophers.

'ThisisapparentinthecaseofthetheorywhichhebringsforwardinconnectionwiththePythagoreans.

'HerecordsDemocritus'claimthattheelementsareanalogoustothemoteswhichoneseesinashaftofsunlight.HethenaddsthatcertainofthePythagoreansbelievethatmotes
seenintheairactuallyarethefundamentalparticlesthemselves.

'NomemberofthePythagoreanswouldeverhavethoughtsuchathing.Whattheymayhaveintended,wastoaffordanindicationofhowinthisworld thesubstanceof
soulissubjectedtoprocessesofdivision,whensheissuesforthfromthehigherworldintotheunfoldingandmanifestationofherpowersherebelow.'

ItistruethatfromthispassagewecandeducethatSimplicius

 Page281

doesnotlayclaimtoanyoftheoriginalwritingsofDemocritus,oratleastnottoanyoriginalwritingsonthissubject.Forinothercaseswherehedidhaveoriginal
texts,fromParmenides,Anaxagoras,Empedocles,Diogenes,notonlydoesSimpliciusquotefromthemextensively,butheisperfectlyhappytodecidethequestionof
their'true'meaning,andatleastinthefirstthreecasestocorrectwhatheseesasAristotle'sfalselysuperficialinterpretationbyrestoringtotheearlyphilosophersthe
intellectualidealismwhichtheirpoeticalandpicturesqueterminologyisabletorevealtotheeyesofaPlatonist.1

Simplicius'inabilitytodothesameforDemocritusshowsthathedoesnothaveDemocritus'originalwritings.Butitdoesnotshowthatheconsidershimselftobe
lackingininformationaboutwhatImayperhapscallthefactsofDemocritus'theory.

Thedistinctionisasignificantone,forelsewhereSimpliciusshowsthathehastohand(ifthatisnottoofancifulanexpressionfor'isabletoquoteatlengthfromandto
referto')Aristotle'streatiseonDemocritus,andanextensiveversioneitherofTheophrastus'Physicorumopinionesorpossiblyofalaterredactionofthesame
materialtakenfromTheophrastus'owntreatiseonphysicalphilosophy.

Withthesematerialstohand,SimpliciusnowherecomplainsofhisinabilitytodeterminethefactsofearlyAtomism.Whathecomplainsof,onthisoneoccasioninthe
Deanima,ishisinabilitytodetermineforhimselftheirtruepurport.

ItisSimplicius'possessionofthesetwoworkswhichwillprovide,Ibelieve,theturningpointinourenquiry,whenfinallyweconsidertheprobabilityofAetius'denial
ofweighttotheatoms.2
1
LeadingpassagesarePhys.20.2842.5,115.10121.25,133.30190.20,1183.11186.35,Decaelo556.1562.18,603.4609.12.SimpliciusnotesatonepointthatevenAlexanderis
'unimaginativeandlackadaisical'inhisattitudetowardsthePresocratics,Phys.80.1617: .
2
MyremarkaboutalaterredactionofthePhysicorumopinionesisintendedasaconcessionIthinkprobablyanunnecessaryconcessiontoSteinmetz'sthesis:seep.4n.1above.
Simplicius'quotationsfromTheophrastusareprintedinDiels,Doxographigraeci(Berolini,1879)47395.Simplicius'quotationfromAristotle'swork'OnDemocritus',Decaelo294.33
295.20(fr.208Rose=DK68A37),istakenaccountofinmynextchapter,pp.303ff.InwritingofSimplicius''possession'ofthesetwoworks,Idonotofcoursemeanthathenecessarily
possessedboth

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page282

4
AetiusandtheSizeofAtoms

ThecollectionofPlacitaattributedtoAetiusisthemostdifficultandtreacherousworkforanyoneseekingtodisentanglereliableevidenceforfifthcenturyphilosophy
fromthesilencesanddistortionsoflaterwriters.

Aristotle'sprejudiceshaveatleastacertainconsistency.ThecontinuoussurvivingportionfromTheophrastus'historymaycoveronlyalimitedrangeofsubjectsbut
Theophrastusdoesthereatleastattempttodisengagereportedfactfromcriticism.TheveryfreedomofSimplicius'platonisinginterpretationofthePresocraticsleaves
himwithlittleneed,orincentive,totamperwiththedetailsoftheirtheories.

Ineachofthesecases,therefore,thereissomethingtolightenthehistorian'stask.Bycontrast,inAetiusthepossibilitiesofconfusionarelegion.Forherewehaveto
contendwiththeprejudicesandtheignorancenotofoneauthor,butofseveralauthors,ofwhosepersonalitiesandbackgrounditisvirtuallyhopelesstotrytoform
anyindividualimpression.

Therearehowevertwotruths,andperhapsonlytwo,whichareworthretainingasguidelinestotheinterpretationofthewhole:first,Aetius'dependenceupon
Theophrastus,andsecondlytheconstantpossibility,throughoutthePlacita,ofgrosserror,particularlyinanyentrywhichtouchesuponanylargerquestionof
principle,wherethereisacorrespondinglygreaterpossibilityofideologicalinfluence.1

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

worksintheirentirety,onlythatheknewmoreofthemthanwedo:seep.300n.1below.
ThelistofAristotle'swritingsinDiogenesLaertiusrecordsbothaworkinonebook .
1
Dielswrites,Dox.219:'Theophrasticorpusnondubiumest,quininIonicisphilosophis...fonsfueritprimarius....verisimileestde...LeucippoDemocritoMetrodoroChio.
quamquamdeatomorumdoctoribusestquoddubites.nequeenimusquamtamsaepededitscriptorinscitiaepoenasquaminillorumdogmatis'.

 Page283

Itakeeachpointinturn,asitaffectsourpresentenquiry,andfirstthepresenceofgrosserrorinAetius'reportonDemocritus.

'AnAtomAsBigAsaWorld'

(i)

Intheentryweareprimarilyconcernedwith,thepossibilityofgrosserrorisexemplifiedbythewordswhichfollowdirectlythedenialofweightanditsrelationtothe
questionofmovement,i12.6(DK68A47): .'<Democritussays>itispossiblefortheretobeanatomasbigasa
world.'1

TheideaofverylargeatomsreappearsinEusebius,inthechapterswhereheisquotingfromDionysius,bishopofAlexandria.Dionysiusexplicitlydistinguishesthe
atomsofEpicurus,whichare'allverysmall,andforthatreasoncannotbeperceived',fromDemocritus'atoms,'someofwhichareverylarge'.2

Proof,ifproofisneeded,thatthisisfalse,isatonceprovidedbyAristotle.
1.IntheDegenerationeetcorruptioneAristotlewritesofLeucippus'atomsthattheyare'invisiblebecauseoftheirsmallness',i8,325a30(DK67A7):
.

2.InthefragmentwhichSimpliciushasrecordedfromthetreatiseOnDemocritus,Aristotlewritesthattheatomsare'sotinythattheyliewhollybelowthethresholdofour

1
Thewholeentryhasbeenquoted,p.223above.Itakethemeaningof tobe'asbigasaworld',asgiveninLSJs.v.,althoughnootheruseofthetermisthererecorded.
2
Eus.Praep.evang.xiv23.3(DK68A43).Itisusualtoquotethesetwopassagestogether,althoughiftheatomsvaryinsizesomewillinevitablybe'thebiggest'evenifalltheatoms
areverysmall.ButthecontrastwithEpicurusdoesmakeitlookasthoughDionysiushassomethingmorethanthisinmind.Diogenes'descriptionoftheatomsas'infiniteinsize'(
,ix44=DK68A1),istakenaccountofbelow,pp.28990.
Interestingly,Simpliciusatonepointalsoarrivesattheconclusionthatthewholeworld,or'allthings',wouldbe'oneatom',thoughbyaroutethatisperhapsunlikelytohavefound
itswayintoadoxographicalcollection:seePhys.82.5,abovepp.2756.

 Page284

perception',ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.6(fr.208Rose=DK68A37): .

(ii)

ItistruethatAristotle'sevidenceonthispointhasbeendiscountedwhenithasnotbeensimplyignored.

ThustheideathatDemocritusdidbelieveinverylargeatomshasbeendefended,notablyinaseriesofarticlesbyCharlesMugler.1InthefirstofthesearticlesMugler
writesthat:
'L'hypothsed'atomesdpassanttoutelimite(sc.degrandeur)estdoncnonseulementcompatibleaveclacosmologiegnraledespremiersatomistes,maiselleenconstitueune
desreprsentationsfondamentales.'2

Itissymptomatic,however,thatbothinthisarticle,andinhismostrecentcontributiontothesubject,Muglerstartshisargumentbyquotingthepassagefrom
Simplicius,butwithoutnotingthatitoccursinthecourseofaquotationbySimpliciusfromAristotle.3

ThisomissionpossiblyhelpstoexplaintheerrorwherebyM.Moraux,intheIntroductiontohisBudeditionoftheDecaelo,
1
C.Mugler,'Surquelquesparticularitsdel'atomismeancien',Rev.dephil.srie3,anneettome27(1953)14174,'L'isonomiedesAtomistes',Rev.dephil.srie3,anneettome
30(1956)23150,'LesthoriesdelavieetdelaconsciencechezDmocrite',Rev.dephil.srie3,anneettome33(1959)738,esp.913,and'L'invisibilitdesatomes,propos
d'unpassaged'Aristote(Degen.etcorr.325a30)',REG76(1963)397403.ThereisacertaincoincidencebetweentheviewsofMuglerandtheopinionbrieflygivenbySolomonY.
Luria,Outlinesofthehistoryofancientscience,Greeceinherprime[inRussian](MoscowandLeningrad,1947)1901.
2
'Quelquesparticularits'147.
3
'Quelquesparticularits'145.'L'invisibilitdesatomes'397,seealsop.400n.5.SinceMuglerfailstorecognisethepassagefromSimpliciusasaquotationfromAristotle,heisledto
reconstructanelaboratedifferenceofdoctrineforLeucippusandforDemocritus,'Lavieetlaconscience'9ff.ButsincethefragmentfromthetreatiseOnDemocritusrepeats,for
Democritus,virtuallywhatAristotlestatesforLeucippusintheDegenerationeetcorruptione,thispartofMugler'sthesisseemstomewhollyaberrant.Ihavealreadynotedmy
disagreementwiththemovesmadeinthesamedirectionbyBailey,GreekAtomists78ff.and125ff.,cf.pp.45above.

 Page285

attributestoAristotlehimselfthethesisthatforDemocritustherewere'verylargeatoms',p.cxlv:
'...ilesthorsdedoutequelesAbdritainsattribuaientauxatomesdesgrandeursdiversesetn'hsitaientpasenimaginerdetrsgros.Cettethse,rapporteparAristote,est
confirmeparlescritiquesqu'Epicureadressesesprdcesseurs'(myitalics).

SofarasAristotleisconcerned,thetruthisjusttheoppositeofthis.AristotledoessaythatDemocritus'atoms'differinsize'.1Butontheevidenceofthetwopassages
alreadyquoteditmustfollowthat,forAristotle,thesedifferencesofsizefallwhollybelowthethresholdofourperception.

(iii)

WhatofEpicurus?M.MorauxhasquotedtwopassageswhereheclaimsthatEpicurusintendstocriticisehispredecessors'beliefin'verylarge'atoms.2

InthefirstpassagequotedbyMoraux,Epicurusarguesthatiftherecouldbe'everysize'amongtheatomsthensomeatomswouldbevisible.Thishasfrequentlybeen
takenascriticismofDemocritus.3Butthereisinfactnothingtoshowthatthe'visible'atomsareintendedastherebuttalofabeliefactuallyheld,andnotsimplyasa
reductioadabsurdum.

ThepassagesalreadyquotedfromAristotleareclearenoughevidence,itseemstome,thatatthispointEpicuruscannotmeantocriticiseDemocritusdirectly,unless
wearetosupposethatEpicurushasmisunderstoodDemocritus,abizarre,andcertainlyinthisinstancenotanecessary,supposition,althoughonethatonotherpoints
somewritersdonotshrinkfrom.4
1
Phys.iii4,203a33b2(DK68A41)ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.78(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).
2
DecaeloBudedncxlvn.3:Ep.adHer.55and61.
3
Ep.adHer.556cf.Guthrie,Historyii395n.1,GrazianoArrighetti,Epicuroopere2ndedn(Torino,1973)507.
4
Alfieri'ssuggestionthatEpicurusmisunderstoodDemocritushasbeennoted,p.186n.2above.Guthrie,Historyii395n.1,repeatsBailey'ssuggestion,Epicurus204,whichisnotthat
EpicurusmisunderstoodDemocritus,butthat

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page286

(iv)

ThepositionisslightlymorecomplicatedinthesecondpassagequotedbyMoraux.Epicurusheredeniesthatlargeorsmallatomstravelwithdifferencesofspeed,and
concludesthatallatomstravelwiththesamespeed,nomatterwhattheirsize.IhavemyselfarguedthatinthispassageEpicurusmayintendtocriticiseDemocritus.1

ButthechapterisalsoastatementofEpicurus'ownbelief.Itisessentialtodistinguishbetweenthesetwofeaturesofthepassage.

1.Epicurus'criticismifsuchitiswillbearsolelyonthequestionoftherebeingdifferentspeedsfordifferentsizedatoms.

2.Theconclusionthatbothlargeandsmallatomstravelallwiththesamespeedisintended,notascriticism,butasastatementofEpicurus'ownbelief.

The'large'and'small'atomsarethesubjectbothofthecriticismandoftheconclusiontotheargument.TheymustthereforeincludeEpicurus'ownatoms.These
Epicurushasalreadytoldusfallwhollybelowthelevelofoursensibleperception.2

(v)

Thetruthisthatmostwritersseemtobesotakenupwiththeintellectualinterestof'verylarge'atomsthattheyquitefailtogivesufficientattentionoranyattention
totheconflictinthesourcesofourinformation.

Forexample,inthenotestohiseditionoftheDegenerationeetcorruptione,Muglerdoesadmitthat'Aristotesembleignorerque

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

Democritusfailedtoseetheconsequenceofhisownideas:Democritus'positedatomsinaninfinitevarietyofsizes',andfailedtoseethat'thiswouldinevitablyinvolvevisible
atoms'.Thisagainseemstomeaquiteunnecessaryhypothesis,sincethereisnogoodevidencethatDemocritusdidclaimhisatomsshowedan'infinitevarietyofsizes'.Guthrie
hasalsofailedtoseethepointthatan'infinitevarietyofsizes'doesnotinfactrequirethepresenceof'everysize'amongtheatoms,andneednotthereforeentailthebeliefin
visibleatoms:seefurtherp.289n.2below.
1
Ep.adHer.61,cf.pp.1845aboveseealsopp.3256below.
2
Ep.adHer.556.

 Page287
1
Dmocriteadmettaitl'existenced'atomesdetoutegrandeur'.

ButMuglerquitefailstoaskhimselfhowatheory,notknowntoAristotle,founditswayintoEusebiusandAetius.2

InthelightoftherepeatedevidencefromAristotle,itseemstomeunnecessarytomakeeventhemoremoderateconcessionstotheideaof'verylarge'orvisible
atomsthatarefoundinseveralwriters.3Forexample,thereislittlepoint,itseemstome,inwritingthatDemocritusmayhavebelievedinatomsthatwere
'comparativelylarge'.4NomerecompromisecanbridgethegapbetweentheevidenceinAristotleandtheevidenceinAetius.
1.AccordingtoAristotle,theatoms,whetherofDemocritusorofLeucippus,were'invisiblebecauseoftheirsmallness',and'sotinythattheyliewhollybelowthethresholdofour
perception'.

2.Aetius'assertionthatDemocritusbelievedinthepossibilityofanatom'asbigasacosmos'istherefore,itseemstome,plainlyinerror.

Thequestionwhichconcernsushereis:howdidthiserrorarise?Theanswertothisquestionprovestobesomewhatcomplex,butitis,Ithink,worthpursuing,forthe
sakeofthelightwhichitthrowsonthecloselyparallelproblemofAetius'denialofweighttotheatoms.

'InfiniteinSize'

(i)

Dielssuggeststhaterrorhasarisenfromconfusionwithgodsintheintermundia,whomCicerodescribesasbeingingentesquas
1
Budedn889.
2
GuthrierecognisesthedoxographicalweaknessofMugler'sthesis,Historyii395n.1.ButwhenMuglerlaunchesintoanelaboratedescriptionofthe'worldsizedatom'fallingupon,
anddestroying,aninhabitedcosmos('L'invisibilitdesatomes'399ff.),guthriefindshis'apocalypticvision...impressive'soitis,butonlyassciencefiction.
3
forexampleRobin,Lapensegrecque139,Bailey,GreekAtomists1258,Kirk,Presocraticphilosophers4089,Sambursky,thephysicalWorldoftheGreeks4089cf.11011,
Strohmaiter,'DieSonnenstubchen'13.
4
Kirk,Presocraticphilosophers408n.1:seefurtherpp.2934below.

 Page288
1
damimagines,tantasqueutuniversummundumcomplectanturextrinsecus(Denaturadeorumi43.120).

Thismightperhapsexplainthesize.Buthowdid'images'ofthegodscometobeidentifiedwithindividualatoms?Thereisnoobviousmotiveforthisconflationof
ideas.

Amorefruitfullineofenquiry,itseemstome,wouldbetosupposethaterrorhasarisenfromasimplificationoftheoriginaltheory.Aristotleoffersahostof
formulationswhichdescribetheatomsinvariouswaysas:

'infiniteinnumber,infinitelyvariableinshape,andvariable(butnotinfinitelyso)insize'.2

Itwouldbepossibleforthequalificationtofallout,soastoyieldthenotionthattheatomsare:
'infiniteinnumber,andinfinitelyvariableinshape...andinsize'.

Anextremeconsequenceofthissimplifiedformulationofthetheorycouldthenbehighlighted,forpopularconsumption,ratherliketheheadlineinamodern
newspaper:'Worldsizedatomapossibility'.3
1
Dox.219n.4.
2
'Infiniteinnumber'Decaeloiii4,303a56(DK67A15),cf.303a10b8,Degen.etcorr.i2,315b911(DK67A9),i8,325a30(DK67A7),ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.2(fr.208Rose=68A37).
'Aninfinitevarietyofshapes':Degen.etcorr.i8,325b278(DK67A7)cf.Theophrastus,ap.Simpl.Phys.28.47(Dox.,Phys.op.fr.8=DK67A8and68A38).'Infiniteinnumberand
shape',Degen.etcorr.i1,314a213(DK67A9).'Infiniteinnumberanddifferinginshape':Phys.i2,184b202(cf.DKii115.7note).'Differinginsizeandinshape':Phys.iii4,203a33b2
(DK68A41),ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.78(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).
3
Theomissionofaqualificationdistinguishingshapeornumberfromsizemayseemratherfarfetched.ButitisinfactoneofseveralglissementsthatappearinMugler'shandlingof
thesubject.Hewrites,'Quelquesparticularits'143,'Ilparatnatureldeprterauxatomistespourlagrandeurdesatomesdesconceptionsetdesraisonnementsanaloguesceuxpar
lesquelsilsjustifiaientlavaritinfiniedelaformedesatomes',and143n.1:'SicetmoignagedeSimpliciusn'affirmeriendeprcissurlamargedelavariationdegrandeurdesatomes,
ilsuggredumoins,parlevoisinagedu ,l'hypothsed'unevariationdegrandeuraussitenduequecelledelaforme'.Thehesitantnote('ilparat','suggre')soondisappears,
andaninfinityofnumber,shapeandsizeispresented,withnoqualification(p.147),as'lestroisaspects'of'physicalinfinity'

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page289

(ii)

Itistruethatthislineofenquirymayseemtotakeusfurtherthanweneed:evena'worldsized'atomisnot'infinitely'large.

Andyetsomethingakintotheideaof'infinitesize'doesappeartounderlythematerialrecordedbyDiogenes,inhisLifeofDemocritus,where'theatomsareinfinitein
sizeandinnumber',ix44(DK68A1): .

Thesewordshavebeenveryvariouslyinterpreted.Eveninadoxographicalcompilation,itisdifficulttobelievethat'theatoms'withoutqualification,''<all>theatoms'
therefore,shouldhavebeenthoughttobe'infiniteinsize'inthesenseof'infinitelylarge'.Andyetthemeaningcannotbethattheatomsare'infinitelysmall',asMiss
Freemansupposes,forthiswouldconflictwiththebeliefinindivisiblemagnitudes.1

Itseemspossiblethereforethatthewriterdoeshereintendtheatomstobe'infinitein<variationsof>magnitude'.Asbeforethisideacouldencouragethebeliefthat
someatomsare'verylarge',andthereforethattherecouldevenbeanatom'aslargeasacosmos'.2

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

forDemocritus.Butthetruthisthatthepassagequoted(p.143n.1:not'Phys.p.36'itmustbeDecaelo295.78,Arist.fr.208Rose=DK68A37)affordsnojustificationfor
Mugler'sconflationofshapeandsize.
1
KathleenFreeman,ThePreSocraticphilosophers,acompaniontoDiels,'FragmentederVorsokratiker'(Oxford,1946)299300.
2
Mugleris,Ibelieve,righttoclaim,'Lavieetlaconscience'9,that:'ilpeutyavoiruneinfinitd's pcesd'atomesdegrandeursdiffrentescomprisesentredeuxvaleursfinies'.This
neednotconflict,asGuthriethinks,Historyii394n.2,withadenialof'thenotionoftheinfinitelysmall',forintheseries1,1, ,etc.,itisonlytheincreaseinsizewhichisever
smaller,thetotalsizeofeachatomwillalwaysbegreaterthan1andlessthan2.Fromthenotefollowing,Historyii395n.1,itappearsthatGuthrie,asalsoBailey,Epicurus204,has
confusedtheideaofaninfiniteincreaseinsizewithEpicurusdenialthattherecanbe'everysize'amongtheatoms(Ep.adHer.556).TheEpicureannotionofthesmallest'part'ofan
atom(cap.59)wouldrequireaninfinitevariationinsizetoyieldanatominfinitelylarge.Butifthereisno'smallestpart'thentheamountofincreasecanbeeversmaller,sothatthere
couldstillbealimittothesizeofthelargestasofthesmallestatom.
Mypoint,therefore,isnotthatDiogenes'formulamustinfactentailatoms'verylarge'or'infinitelylarge',butthatwhatwaspermittedintheorymaywellhavebeenneglectedin
practiceasinfactitisbyGuthrieandbyBailey.Aninfiniteincreaseinsize,whichcouldinprinciplebecontainedbetweentwofinite

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page290

(iii)

AdifferentinterpretationofDiogenes'wordsisgivenbyZeller,whoendorsesBrieger'sexplanationoftheformula'infiniteinsize'as'einungeschickterAusdruck
dafr,dassdieGesamtmassederAtomeunendlichgrossist'.1

TherearetwodisadvantagestoZeller'sinterpretation.First,itcollapsestheusualdistinctionbetween asrespectivelydiscreteandcontinuousquantity.2
Secondly,evenifwedoagreetoconsiderthe'wholemass'ofatomsas'infiniteinsize',thisfactthenbecomesamereduplicationoftheclaimthattheatomsare
'infiniteinnumber'.

ButitisperhapspossibletoseeinZeller'sinterpretationanalternativesourceoferrortotheoneIhavealreadysuggested.Possiblythemeaningintendedisorwas,
atsomestageinthetransmissionofmaterialcopiedoutbyDiogenesthatthewholeagglomerationofatomsis'infiniteinextent',inthesensethatthespaceinwhich
theatomsaredisposedisinfinite.

Thetwowords( )arejuxtaposedwiththismeaninginAristotle'saccountofDemocritusandinAetius:theatomsare'infiniteinnumber'andthevoidorthe
placewhichtheyoccupyis'infiniteinextent'.3ThesametwoideasandthesameexpressionsrecurinEpicurus:'thewholeiswithoutlimitbothinthenumberofbodies
andintheextentofthevoid'.4

Icouldbelievethatfromtheseorsimilarexpressionsthedistinctionbetweenatomsandthevoidhasfallenout,leavingonlytheambiguous,andpotentiallymisleading,
assertionthattheatomsare'infinitein<sizeor>extentandinnumber'.

Thisformulationcouldeitherhaveencouraged,orhavebeenencouragedby,thebeliefthatDemocritus'atomswere'verylarge'andcouldbe'asbigasacosmos'.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

magnitudes,wasthoughttorequireanatominfinitelylarge,eitherthroughamistakennotionof'infinity'(aninfiniteseriesofsizesneednotinfactincludeeverypossiblesize),or
perhapsmoreprobablybecausetheEpicureantheoryofthe'smallestpart'excludedthepossibilityofaneversmallerincrease.
1
ZN1083n.2:Brieger,Urbewegung4.
2
Onthispoint,cf.C.Mugler,'PlatonicaIII','L'antiquityclassique'25(1956)2831.
3
Arist.,ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.13(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).Aetiusi18.3(DK67A15).
4
Ep.adHer.41.Bailey'smistranslation,Epicurus23,of as'theinfiniteisboundless'reducesthissentencetoatautology.

 Page291

Epicurusandthe'Parts'ofAtoms

(i)

However,wecandiscover,Ithink,anotherandyetmorecompelling,causeofconfusion.

Democritus'theoryisthatthereareinfinitevariationsintheshapesofatoms,andgradations,butnotinfinitegradations,insize.1

Epicurusallowsthattheatomsareinfiniteinnumber,butdeniesthattherecanbeinfinitedifferentiationsinshapeorinsize.2

Epicurus'adjustmenttotheoriginaltheorymightencourageadoxographicalwritertopolarisethefinalformulationsofthetwotheories.
1.ForEpicurus,theatomsareinfiniteinnumber,andvariable,butnotinfinitelyso,inshapeandinsize.

2.ForDemocritus,theatomsareinfiniteinnumber,andinfinitelyvariableinshapeandinsize.

Butwecangofurther.LucretiusconnectsthetwoelementswhichIhavequotedfromEpicurus,byarguingthatinfinitevariationsinshapewouldrequireinfinite
gradationsinsize(ii47899).

Lucretius'argumentprovidesuswithwhatisperhapsthemostprobablereasonfortheerrorinAetius.ThewriterinthePlacita,Iwouldsuggest,hasadoptedthe
argumentwhichLucretiusdeploys,andhasusedittotrytoincrease,ortoclarify,hisunderstandingofDemocritus.
1.Inordertovaryinfinitelyinshape,theatomsmustvaryinfinitelyinsize.

2.Democritusatomsdovaryinfinitelyinshape.

3.Thereforetheymustvaryinfinitelyinsize.

Therefore,anextremecase:'itispossiblefortheretoexistanatomasbigasaworld'.

1
Seethepassagesquotedp.288n.2above.
2
Ep.adHer.412(number),42(shape),559(size).

 Page292

(ii)

Significantly,whileEpicurushimselfinitiallyspeaksonlyoftheneedtoavoid'atomslargeenoughtobeseen',assufficientreasonfortherenotbeing'anyandeverysize
amongtheatoms',Lucretiusdeniesthattherecanbeanatomimmanimaximitate.ThisisjustthekindofexaggerationthatappearsinAetius.1

ItisstillmoresignificantifweconsiderthecontentofLucretius'argument(ii478ff).Lucretiussupposesthattheshapeofanatomisdeterminedbythearrangementof
its'smallestparts'.Hearguesthatthenumberofwaysinwhichthesmallestpartscanbearrangedislimited.Oncethislimithasbeenreached,afurthervariationin
shapewillrequireanincreaseinthenumberofparts,sothataninfinitevariationinshapewillrequireaninfiniteincreaseinsize.

Inthisform,Lucretius'argumentcannothaveappliedtoDemocritushimself.For,aswehaveseenalready,thenotionofsmallestorminimal'parts'toanatomwasan
innovationbyEpicurus.2NonethelessitseemstomeverypossiblethattheargumentwhichwefindinLucretiustellsusbywhatprocessofthoughtthewriterarrivedat
hisconclusioninthePlacita.

Ifthatisso,thenbyasignificantparadoxwemayseeinLucretius'argumentboththereasonwhyDemocrituswasthoughttobelievein'verylargeatoms'andproof
thatthis'reason'isunhistorical.Democritus'beliefinaninfinitevarietyofshapeswasthoughttoentailaninfiniteincreaseinsize,butthatentailment,atleastintheform
inwhichitappearsinLucretius,wouldbetrueonlyfortheEpicureannotionofanatomthathasparts.

ErrorAncientandModern

(i)

ItisimportanttorealisethattheprocessIhavedescribedleads,nottotruth,buttoerror.
1
Epicurus,Ep.adHer.556.Lucretiusii498.Epicurus,laterinhisargument(cap.569),andLucretius(ii482)doalsowriteagainstthepossibilityofan'infinite'increaseofsize.
MypointisthatLucretiusisaloneinprovidingthemiddlestage,asitwere:theatomneitherinvisiblysmall,nor'infinitelylarge',but'hugelylarge'immanimaximitate.
2
Forthequestionofthe'parts'ofatoms,seeabovepp.21314and2709.

 Page293

TheargumentthatinfinitevariationinshapeleadstoinfinitevariationinsizeappearsnotinEpicurus,butinLucretius.Furley,forexample,iswrongtoattributethis
conjunctionofideastoEpicurushimself,unlessofcoursewearetoattributetoEpicurusanythingandeverythingthatissaidbyLucretius.1

Itisthereforequitewrongtosuppose,asisfrequentlydone,(1)thatEpicurushimselfarguesthatinfinitedifferencesinshapewillrequireinfinitedifferencesinsize(an
unthinkingconflationofthepassagesthatIhavequoted),(2)thatthetargetofhiscriticismmustbeDemocritus(initselfapossible,butnotanecessary,premiss),and
(3)thatthereforeDemocritusmusthavebelievedinatoms'verylarge'oreven'infinite'insize(animpossibleconclusion,sinceitflatlycontradictstheevidencein
Aristotle).

Forexample,somesuchconcatenationofideasseemstohaveinspiredKirk'sobservation:

'Epicurusmaintainedthatinfiniteshapeswilleventuallydemandinfinitesizes,andindeedDemocritusmayhavesuggestedthatsomeatomsarecomparativelylarge.'2

TheargumentwhichKirkhasquotedisused,notbyEpicurus,butbyLucretius.InLucretius,theconclusionisnotthatsomeatomsare'comparativelylarge',butthat
therewouldhavetobeanatomimmanimaximitate(ii498)oreven'infinitely'large(cf.ii
1
Twostudies96(citingEp.adHer.55andLucretiusii481521)cf.p.186n.1above.Thesameconjunctionofideas,butwithoutexplicitmentionofthe'parts'ofatoms,doesseem
toappearinaratherobscurelywordedscholion,attachedtotheendofEp.adHer.42.ItispossiblyhisrecollectionofthisscholionwhichhasencouragedFurleytoreadthe
sameideaintothelaterpassage.Infact,inthelaterpassage(cap.556),Epicurusclaimsonlythat'theexistenceofeverysizeamongtheatomsisnotneededfor<anexplanation
of>thedifferencesinquality'.Thisexpressionhasapparentlybeenreadasmeaning'foranexplanationoftheinfinitevarietyofshapesintheatoms'.Butitcanaswell,andmore
naturally,betakentomeanthat'everysize'ofatomisnotneededtoexplainthequalitativedifferencesofsensibleobjects.
ThereisadetailedstudyofthescholionanditsmeaningbyE.Bignone,'Epicurea',Attidellar.AccademiadellescienzediTorino47(191112)67090,esp.68090.Beforethe
passagewasrecognisedasascholion,theideasthatwenowfindinthisscholionandinLucretiuswerefreelyattributedtoEpicurus,forexamplebyPierreGassendi,Animadversiones
3rdedni(Lugduni,1675)11314,cf.217.Butthishardlyexcusestheappearanceofthesameerrorinmorerecentauthors.
2
Presocraticphilosophers408n.l.

 Page294

482:infinito...corporisauctu).Thisconclusionisexcluded,forDemocritus,byAristotle'sassertionthatDemocritus'atomsare'sotinythattheyfallwhollybelow
thelevelofourperception'.

(ii)

Butthemodernerrorrepayscloserinspection.Inseekingtoendorsetheideaof'verylarge'atomsforDemocritus,Baileywrites:
'Logicallyofcourseinfinitedifferencesinshapeimplyinfinitedifferencesinsize:forwithinthelimitsofthesamesizetherecanonlybelimiteddifferencesofshape,andfurther
varietyofformcannotbeobtainedexceptbyincreaseinbulk.'1

Idonotmyselfseethatthisisso.Anyshape,itseemstome,couldinprincipleaswellbeembodiedinalargerasinasmalleratom.Variationinshape,therefore,
couldtakeplacewithoutanyalterationinsize.

Fromthereferenceswhichhegives,itisindeedfairlyplainthatBaileythinksashedoesonlybecausehehasmadehisowntheconclusionoftheargumentin
Lucretius.2ButLucretius'argumentderiveswhatcogencyitmayhavefromthesuppositionthattheshapeofanatomisdeterminedbythevariouscollocationsof
minimal'parts'.Ifwedonotthinkoftheshapeofanatomasbeingproducedinthisway,thenthereisnoreason,itseemstome,whyanyshapeshouldnot
theoreticallybeproducedinalargerasinasmalleratom:noranyreasonthereforewhyasinglesizeofatomshouldnotexistinanyshape.

Thetruth,Isuspect,isthatBailey'sargumentatthispointillustratestheprincipleIoutlinedinmyIntroduction:themoderncriticselectstheevidencewhichis
historicallytheweaker,becauseitreflectstheprejudiceofwhichheishimselfthevictim.3

Inthisinstance,Baileyfailseventomention(atthispointinhisargument)Aristotle'srepeatedassertionthatDemocritus'atomsweretoosmalltobeperceived,and
choosestobelieveinsteadthe
1
GreekAtomists1258,esp.127,cf.7782.
2
SeeespeciallyGreekAtomists127n.4.
3
Pp.xvixviiabove.

 Page295

evidenceinDiogenes,AetiusandDionysius,thatDemocritusthoughttherewere,orcouldbe,atoms'infiniteinsize'oratleast'aslargeasacosmos'or'verylarge'.1

BaileychoosestoignoreAristotle,andtobelievethelaterdoxographicalaccounts,becausetheargumentculledfromLucretius,thatinfinitevariationsinshaperequire
aninfiniteincreaseinsize,seemstohimlogicallyobvious(cf.'logicallyofcourse...').Andyetthisargumentismostlikelytheveryargumentwhichhascontaminated
thelaterdoxographicalwriters,andwhichhasledthem,asithasledBailey,totheconclusionthatDemocritusbelievedinverylargeatoms.

ThusBaileyfindsevidencetosupporthisconclusion,butfailstorecognisethattheevidencewhichhefindsconceptuallyappealingcanhaveverylittleclaimto
historicaltruth.FornotonlydoestheconclusionofthelaterdoxographicalwritersconflictwiththeevidenceinAristotle.BaileyfailstorecognisethatLucretius'
argumentturnsontheideathattheatomshave'parts',andthatthisideaatoncedeprivesLucretius'reasoningofanyimmediaterelevancetoDemocritus,since,as
Baileyhimselfrecognises,Democritus'atomswerewithoutparts.2

(iii)

IhavesingledoutBailey'sinterpretation,althoughthepresuppositionswhichitbetraysarehardlylessblatantinanumberofotheraccounts.

ThusalthoughSamburskyclaimstobewritingasaphysicistandnotasanhistorian,heisnolessconfidentthanBaileywhenitcomestolinkingvariationinshapeto
variationofsize.

'Thisdifference',betweenEpicurusandDemocritusonwhetherthenumberofshapesisfiniteorinfinite,'followsnaturallyfromavarianceintheassumptionsaboutthesizeofthe
atoms.Toeverygivensizeitispossibletoassignonly

1
Atoms'infiniteinsize',Diog.Laert,ix44(DK68A1).'Anatomaslargeasacosmos',Aet.i12.6(DK68A47).'Verylargeatoms',Dionysiusap.Eus.Praep.evang.xiv23.3(DK
68A43).ContrastAristotle,Degen.etcorr.i8,325a30(DK67A7),ap.Simpl.Decaelo295.6(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).
2
Baileyrecognises,Epicurus203,thatthe'parts'ofatomswereaninnovationbyEpicurus.

 Page296

afinitenumberofdistinctlydifferentshapes,andonceallthepossiblemutationshavebeenexhausted,afreshshapecanonlycomeintobeingthroughanincreaseinthevolume
oftheatom.'1

Althoughthisisagainofferedasaselfevidenttruth(cf.'followsnaturally'),withnoreferencetothe'parts'ofatoms,andwithnoimmediateacknowledgmentof
Lucretius,nonethelessoneisnotsurprisedtofind,afewlineslateronthesamepage,that:
'Lucretius...givesanextremelyvividillustrationofhowtheincreasingnumberofshapesislinkedwiththeincreasingsizeoftheatoms.'

Samburskydoesnotappeartoappreciatethatthe'parts'ofatomsinLucretiusarenotmerelya'vividillustration'oftheargumentwithoutthem,orsoitseemstome,
theprinciplewhichSamburskyputsforwardsoconfidentlyhasnovalidityatall.

(iv)

IconcludethattheerrorintheGreekdoxographershasprobablyarisenfromtheveryphenomenonwhichwecanourselvesnowwitness,withvaryingdegreesof
directness,inthepagesofourmoderndoxographies,ThePresocraticPhilosophers,TheGreekAtomistsandThephysicalworldoftheGreeks.

TheancientandthemoderncritichavealikeacceptedtheargumentwhichappearsinLucretius,thataninfinitevariationinshaperequiresaninfiniteincreaseinsize.
Thepremissoftheargumentthe'parts'ofatomsissilentlydiscarded.Democritus,itisthenassumed,sincehebelievedinaninfinitevarietyofshapes,must
thereforehavebelievedinatomsthatwereinfinitelylarge.

Thusthemoderncriticfindsancientevidencetosupporthim,butonlybecauseheappealstopreciselythosewritersoftheancientworldwhosharehisownprejudice,
andwhorepeathisownerror.
1
ThephysicalworldoftheGreeks111,cf.p.v.

 Page297

TheprinciplewhichwefindsoclearlyexemplifiedinthegrotesqueconclusionthatDemocritusbelievedinatoms'aslargeasacosmos':willthissameprincipleperhaps
provetobetruefortheideathatDemocritus'atomsaredeprivedofweight,sincetheyfailto'fall'inanendlessvoid?

Conclusion

(i)

Wehavetheinterestingpositionthattheideaofanatom'asbigasacosmos'deriveseitherfromadirectsimplificationoftheoriginaltheory,orfromamisguided
attempttomarkmoreclearlythedistinctionbetweentheearlierandthelateratomictheory,orperhapsmostprobablyfromapplyingtheEpicureanconceptionofan
atom,withminimal'parts',totheoriginalDemocriteanconceptionofanatom,andaddingtothisthelaterargumentthatinfinitevariationsinshaperequireinfinite
variationsinsize.

(ii)

InAlexanderwefoundasimilaroccasionoferror.Alexanderquestionedwhethertheatomcouldhaveweight,onthegroundthatthelogicallydistinguishable'parts'of
theatomsdidnothaveweight,whiletacitlycompoundingthiserror,orsoitwouldappearfromthesequenceofhisargument,withthelaterprinciplethatnatural
movementiscausedbyweight,sothatifabodyhasnonaturalmovementdownwardsitwillhavenoweight.1

ThuswehaveaverysimilarcircumstanceinAetiusandinAlexander.
1.InAetius,ifmysuggestioniscorrect,theatomsarethoughttohavepartsandthereforetohaveinfinitevariationsinsize.

2.InAlexander,theatomsagainhavepartsandarethereforearguedtobelackinginweight.

1
Alexander,Met.36.218(inpartDK87A6)seech.VII34,pp.21122above.

 Page298

(iii)

IsitthencoincidencethatinAetiustheerroneousideaof'aworldsizedatom',anideaderived,orsoitwouldseem,fromthenotionofanatomhaving'parts',stands
cheekbyjowlwiththeonlyotherexplicitdenialinancientliteraturethattheatomshaveweight,apartfromthedenialbyAlexander,whichisagainderivedfromthe
historicallyerroneousnotionthattheatomsofDemocritushave'parts'?

Apieceofevidencecannotnecessarilybecondemnedbythecompanyitkeeps.Nonetheless,thisproximitycanonlyencouragetheconclusionthatthedenialof
weightbyAetiusislikewisetheresultofapplyingtheEpicureanandAristoteleanconceptionwhichwefind,orwhichweappeartofind,inAlexander,thenotionof
weightascauseofmovementdownwards,totheoriginalDemocriteanconceptionofatomicmovement,whereweightwasnotnecessarilytiedtothenotionofafallof
atoms.

5
Aetius'DependenceonTheophrastus

ThesecondguidingtruthtoaninterpretationofthePlacita,whichhasbeenbrilliantlyestablishedbyDiels(whoisoneoftheveryfewmodernscholarsinthefieldof
Presocraticphilosophytowhoseworkonecanproperlyapplythatadverb),isthatthegreatbulkofmaterialonthephilosophersofthefifthcenturyderivesfrom
successiveabridgmentsofTheophrastus'greathistory.

TheparticularrelevanceofthissecondtruthtoourenquiryisthatitsetsAetiusinclearoppositiontoSimplicius,notonlyconceptuallybutdoxographically.1
1
Diels'conclusionsontheoriginsofthePlacita,thoughoftenignored(forexamplebyMugler,cf.pp.2867above),havenot,Ithink,beenseriouslychallenged.Unfortunately,
however,onthequestionofdependenceasdistinctfromthepossibilityof'grosserror'Diels'thesis,fromthenatureofthecase,doesnotlenditselftocorroborationbythe
studyofasingleinstance.ForwhatisatissueisthegeneralprovenanceofmaterialsinthePlacita,andIwouldnotofcoursedenythatespeciallyonmoretechnicalquestions,
andonpointsofdetail,therehasbeensomeinterpolationofinformationfromothersources:thepossibleinfluenceofEudemus,forexample,istakensomeaccountofinmystudy,
'Derivedlightandeclipsesinthefifthcentury',JHS88(1968)114127,esp.11415.ImportantthereforethoughitisformypresentthesisthatAetius'informationshouldingeneral
betakenfromTheophrastus,nonethelessIhave

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page299

(i)

Verybriefly,Irehearsethemainpointsoftheproblemasmyargumenthassoughttoestablishthemsofar.

ThepositioninitiallyisthatTheophrastus,AristotleandSimpliciusattributeweighttotheatoms.Aetius,inasingleentry,deniesthattheatomshaveweight.

Burnetandothersattempttoresolvethisconflict,byproposingthatwelimittheattributionofweighttoatomswithinacosmos,leavingthedenialofweightbyAetius
tobetrueforatomsthatareoutsideacosmos.

Weneedthereforetolookattheevidence,fromthispointofview.

1.Aetiuscouldbespeakingonlyofatomsthatlieoutsideacosmos,sincethedenialofweightisfollowedbyanaccountoftheatoms'movement .

2.TheophrastusandAristotledonotspecifyexpresslywhethertheatomshaveweightonlywithinacosmos.

However,theydonotleaveanyobviousopeningforsuchaqualification,andonthewholetheformandthecontentoftheirremarksappeartoprecludeit.

3.Simplicius,expresslyandbyimplication,attributesweighttoatomswhichareoutsideacosmos:byimplication,whenhetiestheweightofatomstotheirhardnessandtothe
uniformityoftheirnatureexpressly,whenhewritesofatomsmovingthroughthevoid'inaccordancewiththeirweight'.

ThusconceptuallySimpliciusisdirectlyopposedtotheentryinAetius,asglossedbyBurnet.

(ii)

ThepointwhichInowwishtomakeisthatSimpliciusisnolessopposedtoAetiusondoxographicalgrounds.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

hadtoleavethispointtorestontheauthorityofDiels,andontheveryconsiderableamountofmaterialwhichhehascollectedandanalysedinhiseditionoftheGreek
doxographers.

 Page300

Simpliciusletsitbeclearlyseen,intheDeanima,thathedoesnothaveanyoriginalwritingsfromDemocritusorLeucippus.

Ontheotherhand,intheDecaelo,hequotesonceatlengthfromAristotle'slostworkonDemocritus,whileinthePhysicshequotesseveraltimesfromportions,
otherwiseunknowntous,ofTheophrastus'accountofthefirstprinciplesofthephysicalphilosophers,includingalongishextractonLeucippusandDemocritus.1

TherearethereforetwoquestionswhichwemayaskofSimplicius.

Inattributingweighttotheatoms,andspecificallytoatomswhichareoutsideacosmos,isSimpliciuspossiblyrecallingsomelostportionofAristotle'sworkonDemocritusorof
Theophrastus'Physicorumopiniones?.

Alternatively,isSimpliciusdoingnomorethanhimselfjoiningtogetherpassageswhereAristotlesaysthattheatomshaveweightwithpassageswhereAristotleand
Theophrastussaythattheatomsaresolidandhaveallthesamenature,orperhapsevenexplainingsimplyinhisowntermshowitisthattheatomsmoveinthevoidwithoutan
extrinsicmovingcause?

Nowwhileitmayconceivablybepossibletodistinguishbetweenoneorotherofthesealternativeswithsomeshowofreason,inevitablythechoicewillbespeculative
andperhapseventoacertainextentsubjective.
1
Decaelo294.33295.20(fr.208Rose=DK68A37).Phys.28.427(Dox.,Phys.op.fr.8=DK67A8and68A38).OtherfragmentsquotedbySimpliciusfromTheophrastus'
PhysicorumopinionesarecollectedbyDiels,Dox.47395.
ItshouldbenotedthatIdonotsayhowmuchofAristotle'sworkonDemocritusorofTheophrastus'PhysicorumopinioneswasavailabletoSimplicius:butitseemstomereasonably
clearthatSimpliciusknewmorethanwedooftheseworks,anditisthisthatdeterminestheformofmyargument.Inparticular,Simpliciusprobablyshowsthathequotesonlyapartof
thetextthathehadbeforehimofAristotle'sworkonDemocrituswhenhewrites,Decaelo294.33295.1(DK68A37):
.AlaterscholarTzetzes,forinstancemightaddthiskindofdetailsimply
totrytoshowthatheknewmorethanhedidbutSimpliciusisquiteabovethatkindofsubterfuge.

 Page301

Itisessentialtoappreciatethereforethatevenifwecanansweraffirmativelyonlytothesecondquestion,thisanswerisnotwithoutitsvalue.

ForeveniftheattributionofweighttotheprecosmicatomsisSimplicius'ownconclusion,atleastitindicatesthatneitherinTheophrastusnorinAristotlehad
Simpliciusfoundanything,oratleastrememberedanything,tocontrovertsuchaconjunctionofideasbylimitingtheweightofatomstotheirbehaviourwithina
cosmos.

ThusSimpliciusisopposedtoAetiusnotonlyconceptually,butdoxographicallyaswell.1

Conclusion

Itis,Ithink,onthisgroundthatthedenialofweighttotheatomsbyAetiusfinallyloseswhatevershredsofprobabilityitmayhaveretainedhitherto.

Simplicius'attributionofweighttotheatomsshowsatleastthathehasfound,orremembered,norestrictionbyTheophrastusorbyAristotleontheattributionof
atomicweighttoatomsthatformpartofacosmos.

ButTheophrastuswouldhavebeenbyfarthelikeliestsourceofsuchinformationinAetius,ifithadbeentrue.
1
Theargumentwillbemorecogentifwebelieve,asIdo,thatSteinmetz,DiePhysikdesTheophrastos33846,isright,asagainstDiels,Dox.11213,inarguingthatSimplicius'
quotationsarenotderivedfromAlexander,butaretakendirectlyfromTheophrastus,oratleastsoSteinmetzarguesfromahandbookcontainingexcerptsfromTheophrastus
(apossible,evenprobabledistinction,butonewhichismuchmoredifficulttoestablishthanSteinmetzappearstosuppose).ThishadalsobeentheconclusionofKarlReinhardt,
ParmenidesunddieGeschichtedergriechischenPhilosophie(Bonn,1916)92n.l,andofO.Regenbogen,'Theophrastos',RealEncyclopdieSupplementbandvii(1940)1536.
Ontheotherhand,Steinmetz'sthesisslightlyloosensmyargument,sincehesupposesthatAetius'excerptsrepresentaversionofTheophrastus'earlierwork,thePhysicorum
opiniones,initsmiddlestateasitwere,whenithadalreadybeenputtogetherfromanumberofmonographs,whileSimplicius'quotations,hesupposes,derivefromTheophrastus'
ownlaterworkonPhysics.
ThispartofSteinmetz'sthesisseemstomerathertenuous(cf.p.4n.labove):butinanycasetheoriginsofSimplicius'informationandofthatinAetiuswouldstillbesufficientlyclose
forthepurposeofmyargument,sinceSteinmetzallowsthatthedoxographicalportionsofTheophrastus'ownworkonPhysicswillberewrittenfromtheearlier,morepurely
doxographicalwork.

 Page302

ThusnotonlydowehaveTheophrastus'ownaccountofDemocritus'theoryofweightfromtheportionofhishistorydealingwiththesensesandtheobjectsofsense,
wherethereisnohintofanysuchqualification,andwhereindeedanysuchqualificationwouldseem,atleastbyimplication,tobeexcluded.Onaproperreadingof
theevidence,wehaveareasonableguaranteefromSimpliciusthatnosuchqualificationwascontainedinthosepartsofTheophrastuswhicharelosttousbutwhich
werestillavailabletoSimplicius.

Wemusttherefore,Ithink,haverecoursetotheexplanationoferrorwhichalreadyliessoeasilytohand.

Onlyoneotherancientwriterdenies,oratleastquestions,theattributionofweighttotheatoms.ThereasonsforwhichAlexanderdoessoaredemonstrablyfalse.Itis
significantnonethelessthatheisfairlyclearlyledtohisconclusion,inpartbecausehefindsaninconsistencybetweenthepossessionofweightandtheabsenceofa
'fall'ofatoms.

MostlikelythewriterinthePlacitahasfallenintothesametrap.
1.Theatomsmovebyrecoilinthevoid,andthereforeatrandom.

2.Theatomshavenosingledownwardmovement,therefore.

3.Therefore,itissupposed,theycanhavenoweight.

Theclaimthattheatoms'havenoweight'willbeasvaluelessasthegrotesqueassertion,inthesameentry,thatDemocritusthoughttherecouldbeanatom'aslargeas
acosmos'.

 Page303

ChapterEleven
IndirectEvidence

1
Aristotle'OnDemocritus'

(i)

Atthispoint,Ishouldperhapsconcludetheargumentativepartofmystudydirectly,foralltheobvioussourceshavebeenransacked,andtheargument,suchasitis,
hasacertainconceptualsimplicity,whichanyfurtherandmorespeculativeconsiderationsmayserveonlytoblurandtoweaken.

However,todosowouldnotbealtogetherhonest.

Inargument,thereisoftenatemptationtodeployonlythosefactorswhich,onehopes,willstandupwelltocriticism,eventhoughtheymaynotinfacthavebeenthe
mostfertileinfluencesontheformationofone'sconvictionoropinion.

Soitisinthiscase.Thereremainsonepieceofevidencewhichascepticalopponentcouldeasilydismiss,butwhichIfindmyself,atleastinthelightofthemoreformal
argumentwhichhaspreceded,particularlypersuasive.

(ii)

SofarIhavesaidscarcelyanythingofAristotle'sworkonDemocritus,otherthanthatafairlylengthyextractfromitiscopiedoutbySimplicius.

Thisextract,however,dealspreciselywiththenatureandbehaviouroftheatoms,andthemanneroftheirmovementinthevoid.Clearly,thisispreciselythekindof
contextwhichwouldhaveprovidedSimpliciuswithhisnotionofatomsmovinginthevoid'accordingtoweight',ifthatconjunctionofideasisnotwhollytheproductof
hisownreflection.

Needlesstosay,thereisnospecificmentionofweightintheextractwhichSimpliciusquotes.1Iftherehadbeen,theextract
1
ContrastCherniss,ACP211n.253,cf.p.17n.1above.

 Page304

wouldhavebeengivenprideofplaceinourearlieranalysis.ButIthinkitpossiblethatthenotionofweight,andevenofmovementinsomeway'accordingtoweight',
isinfactimplicitinthefollowinglines,andwasperhapsknowntobesobySimplicius.

Decaelo294.33295.24(fr.208Rose=DK68A37): .

'ThetranscriptionofafewsentencesfromAristotle'streatiseOnDemocrituswillgiveusanideaofhowthesepeoplethought.

''Democritusconsidersthattheidentityofthingseverlastingissuchastomakethemtinysubstances,infiniteinnumber,andhethensupposes<that>forthese
<substancesisneeded>aplace,other<thanthemselves>,whichisinfiniteinextent....

"Thesesubstanceshereckonsaresotinythattheyfallwhollybelowtherangeofoursensibleperceptions.Theyhaveallkindsofshapesandallkindsoffiguresand
alsodifferencesinsize.

"Objectswhichwecananddosee,and<ingeneral>

 Page305

objects<ormasses>whichdofallwithintherangeofourperceptions,aremadeupdirectlyandwithoutintermediary(sc. )fromtheagglomerationsofthese
substances,which<therefore>havetheroleofelements<inrelationtothesensibleobjectswhichareformedfromthem>.

"Theoriginalsubstancesareinmovementinthevoid,theyareatwar,becauseoftheunlikeness<betweenthem>andbecauseoftheotherdifferences<ofshapeandof
size>alreadyspecified.

"Astheymove<aboutinthevoid>thesetinysubstancesknockagainst<oneanother>,andgetentangled<withoneanother>insuchawaythattheirentanglement
bringsthemintocontactandkeepsthemclosetooneanother....Theyhangtogether,withoneanother,andstaytogether,hereckons,forhoweverlongitmaytake
beforesomemorepowerful<influenceor>necessityintervenesfromthespacearoundthem,insuchawayastosmash<theatoms>apartandscatterthemindifferent
directions."

'Democritus'descriptionofhowthingscomeintoexistence,andoftheseparationthatistheoppositeoftheircomingintoexistence,coversnotonly<theproduction
of>animalsitincludesplantsand<whole>worldsinaword,itembracesallobjectsthatareperceptibletosense.

'Thelessonwemaydraw :ifthecomingintobeing<ofsensibleobjects>is<explainedas>aconjunctionofatoms,andifthedestruction<ofsensibleobjects
isexplainedas>theirseparation,thenitwouldfollowthatcomingintobeing,sofarasDemocritusisconcerned,wouldbe<reducedtowhatAristotlewouldcall>
alloiosis,<andisnotwhatwewouldrecogniseasproperlyachangeofsubstance>.'1
1
IhavetakenthedirectquotationfromAristotletoendat295.20thefollowingparagraphinmyparaphrase,295.202,Ihavetaken(perhapsarbitrarily)asmostlikelySimplicius'
rewritingofwhathefoundinAristotlethefinalparagraphofmyparaphrase,295.224,isSimplicius'ownjustificationforhisquotation.TheinterpretationthatSimpliciushas
chosenoftheatomictheoryallowsDemocritus,nolessthanEmpedocles,295.246,tobeenlistedagainstthe

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page306

Simplicius

(i)

ItisperhapsAristotle'spreoccupationwithasingleandeternalworldwhichhasledhim,itwouldseem,unliketheconventionaldoxographicalsourceswhichdealwith
Democritus,toruntogethereverykindofgenerationanddestruction,whetherofworldsoroftheindividualentitieswhichconstituteacosmos.

However,itisreasonablyapparent,itseemstome,thattheexpression referstomovementoutsideacosmos,notonly
becausethereferencetovoidismostsimplytakenasbeingtoanoncosmicvoid,butalsobecausethemovementdescribedbytheexpressionisfairlyclearlyintended
tobeatoncedistinctfromandantecedenttothetwokindsofmovementthatproduce,respectively,generationanddecay.

1.Ofthesethefirstisintroducedintheclauseimmediatelyfollowing: .

2.Thelatterisintroducedinthesentencebeginning: .

ThetwokindsofmovementarethensummarisedbySimpliciusasthepair .

(ii)

NowthisispreciselythedistinctionwhichwehavealreadyseenadoptedbySimpliciusinhiscommentaryonbookeightofthePhysics,wherehespeaksoftheatoms
as'movinginaccordancewiththeirweight'.

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

<Christian>theoryofaonceandforalldestructionofthecosmos,295.269.

IhavedepartedfromHeiberg'stextonthefollowingreadings: (ofsize,295.11).

 Page307

1.Thereisthe'primaryandonlymovement'whichislocalmovement,andwhichissaidtohavebeendescribedbytheAtomiststhemselvesas .

2.Subordinatelytothistherearethetwoformsofmovementwherebytheatomsarejoinedandseparated,whicharedescribedbythesameverbasinSimplicius'accountof
Aristotle,butwithdifferentprefixes, .1

(iii)

InSimplicius'ownaccount,threefactorsarespecifiedinrelationtotheprimarymovementoftheatoms.
1.Ittakesplaceinthevoid.

2.Itisdescribedbyapairofterms, .

3.Itoccurs'accordingtoweight': .

InAristotle'saccount,therearealsothreefactorsrelatingtotheprimarymovementoftheatoms.
1.Ittakesplaceinthevoid.

2.Itisdescribedbyapairofterms, .

3.Itoccurs'becauseofunlikenessanddifference': .

Thefirstfactorisidenticaltothetwoaccounts.

Thesecondfactorisremarkablysimilar.Ineithercase,thereiswhatonemightcallaneutralexpressionformovement, ,whichSimpliciusspecifies
asatermtakenfromtheoriginalexpressionofthetheory.2
1
Phys.1318.301319.5,abovech.V3,pp.16673.
2
Formydefenceandexplanationofthisreadingseeabovepp.16970.

 Page308

(iv)

Whatofthethirdfactor?

Ihavealreadysuggested,fromcomparisonwithothercontextsinSimplicius,thattheprefix mayberelatedtothequestionofweight.Theatoms'dartaround',
they'leaphitherandthither',becauseoftheforceofimpactgenerated,oroccasioned,bytheirweight.1

ThusinSimpliciusthethirdfactorwouldappeartoberelatedtothemoreidiosyncraticofthetwoexpressionswhichfallwithinwhatIhavecalledthesecondfactor.

1.Thereisnoparticularassociationthatspringstomindbetweenmovementexpressedas andthenotionofweight,unlessweassociateweightwithmovement
downwards,whichIhavearguedisnotSimplicius'intentionhere.

2.ButtheexpressionwhichSimpliciusspecifiesasdrawnfromDemocritushimselfcanbereadilyassociatedwithweight,inthemannerIhaveindicated.

ThereisaparallelassociationoftheequivalenttwotermsinAristotle.

1.Thereislittleassociationthatisimmediatelyapparentbetweenmovementexpressedconventionally,andcolourlessly,as andthenotionsofunlikenessand
difference.

2.Thereisanobviousconnection,ifonlyperhapsonapsychologicalplane,betweenunlikenessanddifferenceandthemuchmoreidiosyncraticexpressionwhichAristotle
coupleswith .

WehavetheninSimpliciusandinAristotlethefollowingconjunctionofideas.

1.InSimplicius,itappearsthattheatoms'darthitherandthither'or'shootthiswayandthat'becauseof,orinaccordancewith,theirweight.

1
Pp.1701and1925above.

 Page309

2.InAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritus,theatomsare'atwarwithoneanother'becauseofthe'unlikeness'andthe'differences'betweenthem.

(v)

AmongthedifferencesthatAristotlehasspecifiedascausing,oraccompanying,the'war'oftheatomsaredifferencesofsize .

FrompassageselsewhereinAristotleandinTheophrastusweknowthatinfactdifferencesofsizegohandinhand,fortheAtomists,withdifferencesinweight.

DoesthegeneralsimilarityofstructurebetweenthepassageinSimpliciusandAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritus,andinparticularthesimilaritybetweenthecontext
andfunctionof inSimplicius?

Canweperhapsconclude,fromthecollationofthesetwopassages,thatthetheoreticalequivalencebetweensizeandweightwasinfactintendedasanelementinthe
originaltheoryofthemovementand'strife'ofatomsinthevoid?

(vi)

Onefinalhintpossiblyhelpstoindicatethatwecan.

Ihavesaidthat .

However,intheclauseimmediatelyfollowing, )'attack'oneanother.

ThisnotiontakesusclosetotheideaofcollisionthatIhavesuggestedwemayhaveinthecollocationof inSimplicius.

The'unlikeness'andthe'differences'oftheatomsleadto

 Page310

'strife'betweenthem.InAristotle'saccountisitperhapsalsodifferencesofweight,andnotonlydifferencesofsize,whichdeterminetheforceofimpactwhenthe
atoms'fallupon'or'attack'eachother?

Conclusion

InotedinmyearlierdiscussionofthepassagefromSimplicius'Physicsthatthephrasewhichisappliedtothevoid,'yieldingandunresistant',isrepeatedinPlato's
Cratylus.Plato'suseoftheexpressionwouldseemtoconfirmtheantiquityofthematerialwhichSimpliciushashererecorded.1

ThislendsaddedauthoritytoSimplicius'descriptionoftheatomsinthevoidas'movingbecauseof'or'inaccordancewiththeirweight',andas'dartinghitherand
thither', ,averbwhichSimpliciusspecifiesastakenfromtheoriginalexpressionofthetheory.

Simplicius'accountoftheatoms'movementinthispassageinthePhysicsisparallelinseveralwaystotheaccountoftheatomisttheorywhichherecordsintheDe
caeloastakenfromAristotle'streatise'OnDemocritus'.

Simpliciusisnotamindlesscopyist.IcouldmyselfbelievethatthematerialwhichSimpliciusrecordsinthePhysicsisalsotakenfromhisreadingofAristotle'streatise
'OnDemocritus'.Butthatisonlysurmise.Whatremainssignificantisthatthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwopassagespromptthequestiontousenostronger
expressionwhetherwhenAristotlewritesoftheatomsas'attacking'oneanother .
1
Pp.1678above.

 Page311

2
MovementandDifference

AnaffirmativeanswertothesamequestionisperhapsindicatedforIhopeIhavealreadystressedsufficientlythatinthischapterwehavetodowithindications,and
notwithproofsfromquiteanotherangle,ifwetakeabroader,andadmittedlystilllooser,view,wherebythesesentencesinAristotleappearaspartofawide
complexofpassages,andoftheories,whichjoinunitywithrest,andmovementwithpluralityandvarietyordifference.

ThesepassagesIhavealreadygroupedinmystudyonEmpedocles.1AcoupleofpointswhichIrepeatareofaverygeneralnatureareperhapsrelevanttothe
presentenquiry.

EarlierThinkers

(i)

IfweconsiderthisalignmentandassociationofideasamongDemocritus'moreimmediatepredecessors,thereisawidespreadinthekindofvarietyordifferencewith
whichmovementisassociated.

ThusforParmenides(fr.8.401)theantithesistounityandrestisthatthingsshould'comeintobeingandpassaway,existandnotexist,moveaboutfromplaceto
place,andaltertheirbrightcolour'.

ForAnaxagoras(fr.4),theentitieswhichwillbereleasedfromtheprimal,andstatic,unity,are'thedampandthedry,thehotandthecold,theshiningandthedark,
muchearth,andseedsinfiniteinnumber,innowayliketooneanother".

ForEmpedocles,theequivalentassociationofideasisslightlycomplicatedbyhiscyclicaltheory.Thevarietyofelementswhichhavebeenunfoldedfromtheunity,and
immobility,oftheSphereisemphasised:thesunwhichisbrightandhot,waterwhichisdarkandshivering(fr.21).However,thevarietyandmultiplicityoftheworld's
presentexistencedoesnotrepresentatimeoftotal
1
Empedocles'cosmiccycle,areconstructionfromthefragmentsandsecondarysources,intheseriesCambridgeclassicalstudies(henceforwardECC)(Cambridge,1969)3845.

 Page312

separation.WhentheelementsarefullydividedbyStrife,thensun,earthandseaarenolongervisibleintheirpresentform.EvenatthetimeoftotalStrifethere
remains,however,thecollocationofmovementandofseparation.Eachelement'goesitsownway'withnoadmixtureofanyother.1

(ii)

AnaxagorasandEmpedoclesretainthenotionthatmuchofthevarietyofsensiblephenomenaisultimatelyreal.Certainly,themostfamiliartraditionalpairingsof
opposites,hotandcold,lightanddark,dryandwet,belongtotheelements,oraretheelements.

Inthesetheories,therefore,multiplicityisthesameasdiversity.Thedistinctionbetweenunityandpluralitycoincideswiththedistinctionbetweenuniformityandvariety.

NotsofortheAtomists.Theatomicsystemisevidentlydesignedtoeffectadrasticsimplificationofthevarietyofexistence.Aristotleisright:theatomshavealla
'single'substanceor'nature',inthesenseatleastthattheatomsarenotspecificallycharacterisedbydistinctionsfromthetraditionalpairingsofopposites.2Hotand
cold,wetanddry,lightanddark,arisefromtheconfigurationsofatoms(and,inastrictersense,fromtheirinteractionwithasensiblepercipient),butnoneofthe
atomspossessesanyofthesecharactersintrinsically.The'variety'oftheatomsisprimarily,andalmostexclusively,avarietyofshapeandofsize.

Thusintheatomicsystemthereisanextrememultiplicityindeedaninfinityofprimaryelements,buttheirvarietyisreducedtovariationsofshapeandofsize.

(iii)

Itisthemoreinteresting,therefore,that,ifwebelieveAristotleinthefragment'OnDemocritus',thentheAtomistsstillappar
1
Fr.26a,withtheaccompanyingparaphrasebyPlutarch,Defacie926D927A(onlyinpartDK31B27),quotedpp.36970below.OnthisfeatureofEmpedocles'system,andfor
thisdistinctioninthenumerationofthefragments,seeECC316and14954.
2
Arist.Decaeloi7,275b32276al(DK67A19),quotedabovepp.1112.

 Page313

entlywishedtoadopttheassociationofmovementwhichisprobablyalsotoalargeextentan'explanation'ofmovementwith'differences'and'unlikeness'.

Iftheydidso,itwouldseemtomeperhapslikelythattheywouldemploythefullrangeofvarietyallowedbytheirtheory:andthereforethatvariationsinsizeshould
entail,inthiscontext,variationsinweight.

Plato's'Timaeus'

Thissamecollocation,ofmovementwithpluralityanddiversity,isafairlyprominentfeatureofthecosmogony,andcosmology,oftheTimaeus.

OnamechanicallevelifthatisnottoomisleadinglymodernanexpressionPlatowritesoftheoriginsofrestandmovementasresultingfromtheconjunctionof
movedandmoverbutonthegroundthatmovedandmovercanneverbe'homogeneous'or'alike'(57DE).Theprominencegiventothedistinctionofmovedand
moverisperhapsspecificallyPlatonic,buttheconcludinggeneralisation,thatrestisdependentupon,orconsequentupon,homogeneity,whilemovementsomehow
belongstoheterogeneity,isthoroughlytraditional(cf.57E658A1: .

ThetwoprinciplesarerepeatedinseveralplacesintheTimaeus:intheaccountwhichPlatogivesoftwokindsofwater,ofwhichthemorefluidandthemoremobile
kindissobecausetheelementalparticleswhichitismadefromaresmallandunequalinsize,alsobecauseof'thenatureofitsshape',whiletheotherkindismore
nearlystaticbecauseoftheuniformityofitscomponentsandagainintheaccountofshivering,whichiscausedbythestrugglethatariseswhenlargerparticlesofwater
enterthebodyandeffectachange'frommobilityandlackofuniformitytouniformityandimmobility'.1

Onamorenearlycosmogonicallevel,thesameprincipleisappliedtothetransformationoftheelements.Whenthemaincosmicmassesareformedfromthevarious
combinationsoftheelementaltriangles,andmoveeach'totheirownproperplace',
1
Tim.58D4E7(noteesp.58D78: .

 Page314
1
theydosobecause'theyareunliketoeachother,andliketosomethingelse'.

Theearlierandmoregeneralstatementofthiscircumstancespecifieslackof'balance'asafactorresponsibleforlackofuniformity,52D4E5:
.
'Thenurseofbecominggrowswetandfiery,takesupimpressionsofearthandair...ismanyadifferentkindofsighttosee.

'Butsincethepowersitisfilledwitharenotofthesamekind,andarenotequallybalanced<inweight>thereforethereisnobalanceinanypartofitonthecontrary,swayed
unevenlyoneveryside,thenurseofbecomingisshakenbythepowers<thatfillit>andbytakingup<their>movementshakestheminreturn.'2

Conclusion

ThetextofAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritusdoesnotspeakexplicitlyofweight.Ontheotherhand,thecontextispreciselyofthekindwherewemightexpectto
findaplacefortheinclusionofweightasdeterminingthemovementofatomsinthevoid,ifthatconjunctionofideasisnotsolelytheproductofSimplicius'own
imaginings.Infact,comparisonwithSimpliciusindicatesthatthe
1
Tim.57B7C6.
2
Ijustifytakingthesetwopassagestogether(52D4E5and57B7C6)inmysecondessay.Ihavetaken .Seefurtherp.363n.1below.

 Page315

'strife'ofatomswhichAristotleassociateswiththeunlikenessanddiversityoftheirshapesandwiththeirdifferencesofsizemayequallybeassociatedwithdifferences
ofweight,andperhapsinparticularthattheatoms'forceofimpactisdeterminedbytheirweight.

Atthesametime,thereisinthefifthcenturyatraditionofunityanduniformitybeingassociatedwithrest,andofmovementleadingto,orstemmingfrom,pluralityand
diversity.If,asappearsfromAristotle,theAtomistsintendedtoassociatethemselveswiththistradition,thenitmaybethoughtlikelyforthemtohaveaddedweightto
sizeandshapeastheonlyultimatefactorsofdiversitywhichtheirsystemleavesroomfor.

Thesameassociation,ofrestwithunityanduniformity,andofmovementwithpluralityanddiversity,isasignificantfeatureofPlato'sTimaeus.IntheTimaeus,the
diversitythatisassociatedwithmovement,andmoreparticularlywithmovementonacosmogonicallevel,isinfactspecifiedasdiversityofsizeandof'balance'or
weight.

3
Aristotle'Physics':SpeedandWeight

Aristotle'sfragmentonDemocritushasonefurtheruse,inenablingustogainamorepreciseknowledgeofthebackgroundandimplicationsofthepassagewhichI
touchedonearlierfromthefourthbookofAristotle'sPhysics.

Aristotle'sargumentistheredirectedagainstthenotionofmovementinavoid.EarlierIleftitanopenquestionwhetherornotthemeansbywhichAristotleargues
againstthisideaweredrawnsolelyfromhisownreflectionsandtheories,orwereperhapsrelatedtooriginalfeaturesintheatomictheoryofmovement.Tothis
questionInowreturn.1
1
Phys.iv8,215a259and216a1121,pp.1879and1902above.IhavealreadynotedthatAristotle'sargumentsarenotdirectedexclusivelyagainsttheAtomists.Democritusand
LeucippusareintroducedasthetargetofAristotle'scriticismatthebeginningofhisanalysis,butincompanywith'manyotherofthephysicalphilosophers'(iv6,213a34b1,cf.
p.189above).

 Page316

Shape,SizeandWeight

(i)

Aristotle'saimistoconcludethatinavoidbodiesofdifferentweightwouldhavetomoveallwiththesamespeed.Thisistakenassufficientrefutationofthepossibility
ofmovementinavoid.

Aristotlearguesthattherearetworeasonsfordifferencesofspeed:differencesintheresistanceofamediumanddifferencesofweightinthebodymoved.

Aristotlefirstargues,atlength,thatavoidcannotprovidefordifferentlevelsofresistance,andtherefore,byafavouriteturnofargument,thatmovementinavoid
wouldbe,invariousways,infinitelyincommensurablewithmovementinamedium.

Aristotlethenturnstodifferenceswithinthebodymoved,inordertoargue,muchmorebriefly,thatnoneofthefactorswhichmight,orwhichdo,producedifferent
speedsofmovementinamaterialmediumcouldhavethesameeffectinavoid.

However,insteadoflimitinghimselftoweight,whichearlierhadtwicebeenspecifiedasthefactorwhichwouldbelikelytoleadtodifferencesofspeed,Aristotlein
factwritesofweight,ofsize,andofshape,iv8,216a1820:...
'Alargerbodydivides<themediumthroughwhichitpasses>morequicklyby<virtueofitsgreater>force:foritdivides<themedium>eitherbyitsshapeorbytheweight<and
impetus>whichthebodypossesseswhenitmovesorisreleased.'

(ii)

Shape,sizeandweightarepreciselythethreefactorsthatwehaverecoveredfromSimpliciusandfromthefragmentonDemocritus.

1.ShapeandsizearethetwofactorswhichaccompanymovementinAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritus.

2.Weight,aswehaveseen,isaddedbySimplicius.

 Page317

ThesesamethreefactorsAristotlehimselfbelievesaccountfordifferencesofspeedwithinamaterialmedium.AllthreerecurintheDecaelo.

1.AsInotedearlier,alargerportionofanelementmovesmorequicklytoitsnaturalplacethandoesasmallerportion,andisthereforeheavierorlighter,accordingtowhetherthe
movementistowardsthecentreortowardsthecircumference.1

2.Inthefinalchapter,Aristotleexplainshisowntheoryoftheeffectthatshapehasuponspeed,whichpossiblysignificantlyhesetsinoppositiontoatheoryofDemocritus
(cap.6,313a1415: ).

ItisbecauseallthreefactorsrecurinAristotle'sowntheory,andmoreparticularlybecauseinAristotle'sowntheoryweightandsizearecommensurateatthispoint,
thatfromtheformofargumentinthePhysics,takenalone,wecannottelldirectlywhetherthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentisintendedtohaveanyparticular
relevancetothetheoriesofDemocritus.

Butwhatwenowknow,fromthefragmentonDemocritus,isthatofthethreefactorswhichinthePhysicsAristotlesayscannotexplaindifferencesofspeedfor
bodiesmovinginthevoid,twodoinfactinsomesensebelongtoDemocritus'theoryofthemovementofatomsinthevoid,namelydifferencesofshapeandofsize.

Canweperhapsinferfromthisthatthethirdfactorinexplainingdifferencesofspeed,namelydifferencesinweight,mayalsoperhapsbetakenfromDemocritus'
theory?

'DeAnima'

Apassageelsewherepossiblyhelpstoindicatethatwecan.

(i)

ShapeandsizearespecifiedascausesofmobilityinAristotle's
1
NotablyDecaeloi8,277a279,andiv4,311a1821:acompletelistofpassagesisgiveninmythirdessay.Aristotle'suseofspeedasacriterionofweighthasalreadybeen
noted,p.54n.1,andisexploredinmythirdessay.

 Page318

accountintheDeanimaoftheatomswhich,forDemocritus,constitutemindandsoul,i2,405a813(DK68A101): .
'Democritus'utterancewasmoreprofound....Soulheclaimedwasthesameasmind,andsoulormindheclaimedwasoneoftheprimaryandindivisiblebodies,anespecially
mobileonethankstoitssmallnessandtoitsshape.Hisargumentisthatwhatissphericalisthemostmobileshape,andthat<theatomsof>mindandfirearethisshape.'

Itwouldbeprecipitate,Ithink,toarguedirectlyfromthispassageintheDeanimatothecalculationofAristotle'smethodsinthePhysics,sincethePhysicsdeals
withmovementinthevoid,includingtherefore,onemightsuppose,voidwhichisoutsideacosmos,whiletheDeanimadealswithmovementwithinthecosmos.

WiththemediationofthefragmentonDemocritus,Ithinkthatwehavesomerighttobridgethisgap.ForthefragmentonDemocritusestablishesthatthetwofactors
whichlendsoulitsespecialmobility,namelysizeandshape,arethesametwofactorswhichaccompany,oreveninsomesenseexplain,themovementofatoms
outsidethecosmos.

(ii)

However,thereisafurtherdistinctionbetweentheDeanimaandthefragmentonDemocrituswhichispotentiallysignificant.
1.InthefragmentonDemocritus,itisdifferencesofsizeandofshapewhichleadto,oraccompany,movement.

2.IntheDeanima,itisaspecificshapeandaspecificsizewhichareintendedtolendtheatomswhichconstitutesoulanespecialmobility.

However,thisdistinctionisnot,Ithink,enoughtodisallowthe

 Page319

conclusionthattheexplanationofmovementintheDeanimacanbecarriedovertothemovementofatomswhichareoutsideacosmos.

Onthecontrary,thisdistinctionperhapsserves,onreflection,toincreasethepossibilitythatthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentinthePhysicscoincideswith
Democritus'owntheories.

Forthegeneralinferencefromthedistinctionispresumablythatdifferencesofsizeandofshapeaccountformovementingeneral,whilecertainsizes,andcertain
shapes,ofatomsareespeciallymobile.

WhatwehavethereforeintheDeanima,whichwedonothaveinthefragmentonDemocritus,istheideathatshapeandsizenotonlyaccompanymovement,butare
relatedtovariationsinmobility.

AndthatisverynearlytheideawhichAristotleemploysintheargumentofthePhysics:differencesofshapeanddifferencesofsizeshouldcausedifferencesofspeed,
butinthevoidaccordingtoAristotletheycannotdoso.

'Bitter'and'Sweet'inTheophrastus''DeSensibus'

ApassageinTheophrastus'Desensibuspossiblytakesusastepfurtherinthissamedirection.

ForinDemocritus'theoryofbitterandsweet,theshapeandthesizeofatomsareassociatednotsimplywithmovement,norevenwithvariationsinmobility,but
specificallywithdifferencesinspeed.

(i)

Ireturnforamomenttothemobilityofsoul.

Thereason,oronereason,whyasphericalatomis .

'Oftheseatomsthesphericalshapedoneshesaysaresoul,becauseshapesofthiskindarebestabletododgeinandout

 Page320
1
throughanythingelse,andarebestabletomoveotherthings,beinginmovementthemselves.'

Presumablysomethingofthesamereasoningwillapplytosize.Thesmall,roundatomsthatconstitutesoulcandartinandoutamong,orperhapseventhrough,
conglomerationsofotheratoms,makingtheirwaythroughgapsthatwouldbetoosmallforlargeratoms,whileatthesametimetheyarefreefromthehooksand
projectionsthatwoulddelaythepassageofothershapesofatoms.

(ii)

EssentiallythesesameideasrecurintheaccountinTheophrastusofatomswhichcauseabittertaste.

Theseatomstoo,liketheroundatomswhichconstitutesoul,areable'toinsinuatethemselveseverywhere': ,oftheatomswhich
constitutesoulintheDeanima.

Thedifferenceisthattheatomswhichcauseabittertastearesmall,liketheatomswhichconstitutesoul,butinsteadofbeingroundtheyaresharporangular.

Presumablythereforetheideaisthatinsteadofmanagingtoslideinandoutbetweenotheratoms,orotheragglomerationsofatoms,asdotheroundatoms,these
angularatomsforcetheirwaythroughthings,throughthehumanbody,orifperhapsinthevoidthroughthewhirlingmassesofatoms,bycuttingapassagewiththeir
edges.

Thepointwhichisespeciallyrelevanttoourpurposeisthatinthisinstancethemovementofatoms,consequentupontheirsizeandshape,isspecifiedasbeing'fast',
Desens.65(DK68A135): .

'Atartflavourhesaysis<equivalenttoanatomthatis>angularandtwistedinshape,aswellasbeingsmallandthin

1
Aristotlenotesthat isDemocritus'wordfor'shape',Met.A4,985b1519(DK67A6).

 Page321

the'sharpness'makesitabletoedgeitswayquicklyinandoutofanywhere.'

(iii)

Theconverseideaappliestoatomswhichexplainthesensationofsweetness.

Wemaysupposethatitisbecause'bitter'and'sweet'areoppositesthatatomswhichcausethesensationofsweetnessmustbethe'opposite'shapeandsizetoatoms
whichcausethesensationofbitter.Theyarethereforeround,insteadofbeingangular,andtheyare'notparticularlysmall'.

Itispresumablybecausetheseatomsare'notparticularlysmall'thattheeffecttheyproduceis'notaquickone',althoughatthesametimeitispresumablytheir
roundnesswhichstillallowsthemto'slipthroughthings'( .
'Asweetflavourismadeoutofroundshapes,thatarenotparticularlysmall,whichiswhy...theydonotgetthroughalltheirworkquickly.Theydohoweverhaveadisturbing
effectontheotherflavours,becauseastheyslidethroughotherthingstheystretchandliquefythem.'1

Conclusion

(i)

Thepositionthenisthis:
1.InthePhysics,therearethreefactorswhichAristotlesayscannotexplaindifferencesofspeedinthevoid:shape,sizeandweight.

1
IntheDecausisplantarum,vi1.6(DK68A129),thereisasummaryofDemocritus'theoryofflavours,andtheatomsresponsibleforasweetflavouraretheredescribed
positivelyas .

 Page322

2.FromthefragmentonDemocritus,weknowthatintheoriginaltheorytwoofthesefactors,shapeandsize,doaccompanythemovementofatomsinthevoid.

3.FromtheDeanima,welearnthatthesesamefactorsnotonlyaccompanythemovementofatoms,butcause,orareassociatedwith,differencesinmobility.

4.Finally,fromTheophrastuswediscoverthatthesesametwofactorswerecorrelatedspecificallywithdifferencesofspeed.

ThepassagesintheDeanimaandintheDesensibusdonotinthemselvesdealwithnoncosmicmovement,asdothepassagesinthefragmentonDemocritusand
perhapsinthePhysics.ButthefragmentonDemocritusestablishesthatshapeandsize,thefactorsaffectingorcontrollingvariationsofmobilityandofspeedintheDe
animaandintheDesensibus,arealsoinsomewayassociatedwithmovementofatomsinthevoid.

(ii)

FromtheargumentinthePhysics,andfromtherelatedargumentinEpicurus,ZellerconcludedthatDemocritus'atoms,inmovingdownwardsinthevoid,didsowith
differencesofspeed.1

IhavealreadysaidthatIthinkZeller'scriticswererighttoabandontheideaofafallofatomsforDemocritus.2Iamnotsurethattheywererighttoabandontherefore,
astheydid,Zeller'suseoftheargumentinthePhysics,initsentirety.

Admittedly,fromAristotle'sargumentinthePhysics,takeninisolation,wehavenomeansoftellingwhethertheprincipleswhichheemploysaredrawnsolelyfromhis
owntheories,orwhethertheymayhavesomemoreparticularrelevancetotheideasofDemocritus,whomAristotlehasincludedamongthetargetsofhiscriticism.

ItisonlybecausewecandiscoverfromelsewherethattwoofthefactorsincludedinAristotle'sargument,shapeandsize,wereinfactemployedbyDemocritusinhis
accountofthebehaviour
1
Zeller,ZN10889.Arist.Phys.iv8,215a259and216a1121.Epicurus,Ep.adHer.61.
2
Cf.pp.1634and2612above.

 Page323

ofatoms,includingtheirbehaviourinthevoid,andspecificallyincluding(thoughinanothercontext)differencesofmobilityandofspeed,thatwemayhavesome
groundforsuspicionIamdeliberatelypitchingtheargumentativeelementinthisproposalnohigherthatthethirdfactorinAristotle'sargument,namelyweight,may
alsohavebeenreckonedbyDemocritusasaffectingthemovementofatomsinthevoid,andperhapsmoreparticularlyasdeterminingtheirspeed.

4
SpeedandSize

(i)

IhavebeencarefultodissociatemyselffromZeller'suseoftheargumentinAristotle'sPhysics,andoftheparallelpassageinEpicurus,asdirectevidencethat
Democritususeddifferencesofweightintheatomstoexplaindifferencesinspeed.1

Myreason,sofar,hasbeenthatwithouttheadditionalpassageswhichIhavecitedfromthefragmentonDemocritus,fromtheDeanima,andfromTheophrastus,
therewouldbelittlegroundforassociatingthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentwithDemocritus'owntheory.Itis,Ihaveargued,onlybecausetheseothersources
attributeshapeandsizeasdeterminantsofmovement,andevenofspeedofmovement,toDemocritus,thatwecanhavesomegroundforsuspectingthatthethird
elementinAristotle'sargument,weight,mayalsopossiblybelongtoDemocritus.

Thereisanadditionalreasonforcaution.ThealignmentofspeedorofmobilitywithsizeintheaccountofDemocritus'atomsintheDeanimaandinTheophrastusis
notthesameasthealignmentofspeedwithsizeandweightinAristotle'sargumentinthePhysics.
1.ForAristotle,thelargerbody,whetheritisheavierorlighter,movesthefaster.

2.ButinDemocritus'theory,accordingtoAristotle'sreportintheDeanima,theatomswhichconstitutesoulhaveanespecialmobility,notbecausetheyarelargebutbecause
theyaresmallandround.

1
Zeller,ZN10889.Arist.Phys.iv8,215a259and216a1121.Epicurus,Ep.adHer.61.

 Page324

ThereisasimilaralignmentinTheophrastus'accountofDemocritusintheDesensibus.Thesmaller,angularatomswhichproducethesensationofbitteract'quickly',whilethe
roundbut'notparticularlysmall'atomswhichproduceasweettastedonotworkquickly.

ThereforetheforminwhichAristotlepresentshisargumenthasevidentlybeencastintermsofhisownkinetics,whereabodyislighterorheavier,andsomoves
faster,ifitislarger:alargerquantityoffiremovesupwardsmoreswiftlythanasmallerquantity,andalargerquantityofearthfallsmorequicklythanasmaller
quantity.1

(ii)

Ipausethereforetotakestockofthestateofaffairssofar.
1.Size,shapeandweightarepresentedbyAristotleasfactorswhichmightbeexpectedto,orwhichdo,effectdifferencesofspeed,butwhichinavoid,accordingtoAristotle,
cannotdoso.FromanumberofpassageselsewherewediscoverthatsizeandshapewereinfactassociatedbyDemocrituswiththemovementofatoms,evenofatomsthatare
movinginthevoidmorespecifically,Democritusevenassociateddifferencesofsizeandshapewithdifferencesofspeed,thoughwhetherstillforatomsthataremovinginthe
voidwedonotknow.

FromallthiswemightbetemptedtosuspectthatthethirdfactorinAristotle'sargument,namelyweight,wasalsoafeatureofDemocritus'originaltheory,andthatthethree
factorswereusedbyDemocritustoexplainadifferenceofspeedforatomsthataremovinginthevoid.

1
ThisdifferencebetweenAristotleandDemocritushardlyimpingesonearlierdiscussions.ThusAlfieri,whosereconstructionIhavealreadynotedasclosetomyown,p.154n.1
above,unthinkinglyassumesthat'...ladifferenzadipesoavrebbefattosichegliatomipipesantisarebberostatipivelocideipileggeri'(Atomosidea81).Itisdifficultnotto
supposethatAlfierihasunconsciouslyselectedthisalignmentsimplybecauseitistheonethatisfamiliartohimfromhisreadingofAristotlealthoughevenforAlfieri'sformula
tobetrueofAristotleweshallhavetoconstrue'pileggeri'asmeaning'lighter'inapurelynegativesense,i.e.'lessheavy'.Seealsop.326n.1belowandp.328n.1below.

 Page325

2.However,fromthesesamepassageswelearnthatforDemocritussmalleratomsmovemorequickly,whileinAristotle'sargumentitisthelargerbodywhichmovesfaster,
accordingtotheprovisionsofAristotle'sowntheory,aselaboratedintheDecaelo.

Thisconsiderationtendstoundermine,ifitdoesnotwhollyoverthrow,anysuggestionthatthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentisrelatedspecificallytothetermsof
Democritus'owntheory.

Facedwiththissecondconsideration,wemightwellbeinclinedtowashourhandsaltogetherofanyproposaltoreadbackgenuineelementsinDemocritus'theory
fromanargumentinAristotlewhichisdemonstrablycastintermsofAristotle'sownprinciples.

IhavenonethelessventuredtoincludetheargumentinthePhysicsaspartofanetworkofevidencecentringontheaccountofDemocrituspreservedbySimplicius
fromAristotle,becausethereisafurtheranglefromwhichwecanapproachtheproposalthatIhaveoutlinedintheprecedingsectionandthisIthinkfeedsback,asit
were,intotheproposalsomeofthesubstancethatisnecessarilydrainedfromitbytheconsiderationthatthemannerinwhichsize,weightandspeedarealignedin
Aristotle'sargumentcannotbethesameasthemannerinwhichtheywouldhavebeenalignedbyDemocritushimself.

(iii)

Inthefirstplace,itisinterestingtodiscoverthatEpicurustakesaccountofbothalignments.Heavyatomsdonotmoveanyfasterthanatomswhicharesmallandlight,
nordosmallatomsmoveanyfasterthanlargeones,Ep.adHer.,61: .1

Thedenialoftheformerpossibility,thealignmentoflargeandfastatoms,makesitimpossibletotakeEpicurus'criticism,inthe
1
Thispassageisquotedmorefullypp.1845above.Forthesubjectofthesentence('atoms'or'bodiesingeneral')seepp.15960above.

 Page326

waythatZellerdoes,asorientatedspecificallyandexclusivelyagainstDemocritus.

ButarethetwopossibilitiespossiblyintendedrespectivelyasananswertoAristotleandasacriticismofDemocritus?

Oristhedisjunctionnomorethanalogicalalternative,withnoparticularhistoricalrelevance?1

(iv)

Inthesecondplace,thereisevidencethatthealternativealignmenttothatinAristotle,namelyofsmallandlightandfast,asopposedtolargeandheavyandslow,did
featureinpreAristoteleanphilosophy.

IntheTimaeus,inapassagewhichIhavealreadymadeuseof,
1
ItisperhapssignificantthatonlytheAristoteleanhalfofthisassociation,namelythattheheavier<andthereforethelarger>bodymovesthefaster,appearsintheequivalent
argumentinLucretius,ii2259,quotedpp.1856above.
AnumberofmodernwritersalsoattempttoexcludethenonAristoteleanassociation,bymakingEpicurusdenythatsmallatomsmovemoreslowly.ThusUsenerwrites,Epicurea
(Lipsiae,1887)18: .MargheritaI.Parente,OperediEpicuro(Torino,1974)1601,rejectsUsener'semendation,butsomehowmanagestotranslatethe
secondhalfofthesentence:'...naverrchecich'grandesimuovapivelocementedicich'piccolo'.Usener'semendation(retainedbyAlfieri,Atomisti104)producesa
tautologyParente'smistranslationmakesthesecondsentenceauselessrepetitionofthefirst.
JeanandMayotteBollackandHeinzWismann,Lalettred'Epicure(Paris,1971)121and21516,translatethesecondhalfofthesentencecorrectly,butthenreintroducethesame
suppositionthatwefindinUsenerandParentewhentheywriteintheirnotethatthephraseimmediatelyfollowing, ,'nepeutavoird'autrefonction,en
insistantsurlacommoditofferteauxatomespetits,quedecorrigerindirectementl'ideque,dansl'invisiblecommedanslevisible,lescorpslgerstomberaientmoinsvitequeles
corpslourds'.TheAristoteleanpresuppositionishereexplicit.

Thequalificationcontainedinthephrase etc.isdesignedtocorrectwillbethatsmallatomsmightmovemorequicklythanlargeonesjusttheopposite,therefore,of
theAristoteleansupposition,introducedbyM.andMmeBollackandbyM.Wismann,thatsmallatomswouldbeexpectedtomovemoreslowly.

 Page327

Platodistinguishestwokindsofwater,ofwhichthemoremobilekindissobecauseitisconstitutedfromsmallerelements,whilethekindwhichisheavyandmore
nearlystaticisconstitutedfromlargerelements(58D4E7).1

Admittedly,theTimaeusisatwoedgedswordwhenusedasevidenceforearlierphysicaltheories.Plato'streatisealmost,inmodernterms,aprosepoemisfairly
obviouslysaturatedwithelementsofPresocraticbeliefandterminologybutinthecompleteabsenceofanyspecificattributionitisimpossibletotell,incontextsofthis
kind,whetheranyparticularfeatureisdrawnfromearlierliterature,orisPlato'sowninvention,unlesswehavesomeotherexternalevidence.

(v)

Fortunately,inthiscasethereisoneotherpieceofevidenceofpreciselythekindthatisneeded.

ThePlatonicalignment,theideathatsmaller<lighter>bodiesmovethefaster,whilelargerandheavierbodiesmovemoreslowly,isineffectthealignmentwhich
Plutarchattributesgenerallytothefirstphilosophers.InapassagefromtheDeprimofrigido,Plutarchtellsusthatindistinguishingheavenlyandearthlyelementsthe
earlyphilosophersdividedwhatisslow .2

(vi)

WecanthenapproachDemocritusbyakindofpincermovement.

1.Aristotleemployssize,shapeandweightinhisargumentthattheatomswouldhavetomoveinthevoidwithdifferencesofspeed,whichAristotleholdswouldbeimpossible.

Democritus,weknow,didassociatedifferencesofsizeandshapewiththemovementofatomsinthevoid,anddidelsewhereassociatedifferencesofsizeandshapewith
differencesofspeed.

1
Cf.pp.31314above.
2
955BC:forthefurtheruseofthispassageseebelowpp.36672.

 Page328

2.ForAristotle,thelargerbodywillbeheavierorlighterandineithercasewillmovefasterforDemocritus,smalleratomsmovefasterandlargeratomsmovemoreslowly.

However,thesamealignmentasinDemocritus,butincludingweight,isrejectedbyEpicurus,recursinPlato'sTimaeusandisattributedgenerallyto'thefirstphilosophers'by
Plutarch.

ThuswedonothaveanydirectattributionoftheassociationofweightandspeedtoDemocritus,norcanthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentinthePhysicsapply
toDemocritus,directlyintheforminwhichitappearsinAristotle.

ButwedoknowthatalargepartofthemechanismofAristotle'sargumenthasparticularrelevancetoDemocritus'theoryofmovement,andinparticularwedoknow
thattherealignmentofassociationsthatwouldberequiredifthemechanismofAristotle'sargumentweretoapplyspecificallytoDemocritusdoescorrespondinfactto
ageneralpreAristoteleanandPresocraticbeliefthatwhatissmallandlightmovesquickly,whilewhatislargeandheavyisslow.1
1
Onefinalpieceofevidenceshouldperhapsbementionedhere,namelyAristotle'scriticism,inbookfouroftheDecaelo,ofatheorywherebyabodywouldbelighterinthe
senseonlythatitwaseither'squeezedout' ,referencesp.153n.3above),fromPlato,andfromwhatheimaginestohavebeenanIoniantheoryofweight:fromsuch
acontext,itisimpossibletoconfirmortodenytheattributionoffreshdetailtoDemocritus'theory,withoutindependentevidence.
Inhisowntheory,Aristotledoesonoccasionwriteofthe'smallerandlighter'bodyastheeasiertomove,Decaeloiii2,301b116.Buthere'lighter'isagainusedinanegativesense,
anddescribesnotthenaturalmovementofanelement,butmovementthatistheproductofforce:Ireturntothispassageinmyfourthessay.

 Page329

Conclusion

Theargumentsofthissection,asoftheprecedingsectionsinthischapter,arenotdemonstrativeinastrictsense.Theyareallusiverather.Thevariousconsiderations
thathavebeenadvancedareconvergent,butdonotnecessarilyconverge.

ThetextofAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritusdoesnotspeakexplicitlyofweight.Itisaquestionthereforeoftryingtocalculatethepreciseresonanceandimplication
ofthepassage,inpartbycomparisonwithSimplicius'treatmentofsimilarissuesinacloselysimilarcontext,andinpartbyattemptingtorelatethepassagetoother
textsfromAristotlehimself,fromthePhysicsandfromtheDeanima,andalsototextsfromTheophrastus.

ComparisonwithSimpliciusindicatesthatthe'strife'ofatomswhichAristotleassociatedwiththeunlikenessanddiversityoftheirshapes,andwiththeirdifferencesof
size,mayequallybeassociatedwithdifferencesofweight,andperhapsinparticularthattheatoms'forceofimpactisdeterminedbytheirweight.

ComparisonwiththeDeanima,whereshapeandsizelendtheatomswhichconstitutesoulanespecialmobility,andwithTheophrastus'Desensibus,whereshape
andsizeareassociatedwithdifferencesofspeed,possiblyindicatesthatintheargumentwhichAristotleemploysinthePhysicsagainstmovementinthevoidweight,
aswellassizeandshape,maybefeaturestakenfromtheoriginalatomictheoryofmovement.

IfDemocritushasadoptedthenotionofatomsmovingwithdifferentspeedsinthevoidaccordingtodifferencesofsizeandweight,thenhisconceptionwillhavebeen
thatsmaller,lighteratomsmovethefaster,whilelargerandheavieratomsmovemoreslowly.

ThisisnotthealignmentwhichappearsinAristotle,butitisoneofthealignmentswhichistakenaccountofbyEpicurus,anditisthealignmentwhichPlatousesinthe
Timaeus,andwhichPlutarchattributestothefirstphilosophersgenerally.

 Page330

ChapterTwelve
TheWeightofAtoms

1
TheMinimalConclusion

Whatthenistobeourfinaljudgmentontheevidence?

Itwouldbefalse,Ithink,topresentasingleandunqualifiedanswertothequestionwhichIaskedintheopeningchapterofthisessay:whether,orinwhatsense,the
atomsofDemocritus,orofDemocritusandLeucippus,haveweight.1Qualificationisneeded,notonlybecausecriteriafortheexpressionofweightneedtobe
specified.Thereisalsoneededastratificationofthekindoflikelihoodthatattachestodifferentelementsinouranswer.

Apreliminarydistinctionisneededbetweenthecertaintythatmayattachtotheanalysisofvariousitemsofevidencetakensinglyandthedegreeofprobabilitythatmay
attachtoanyevaluationoftheevidenceasawhole.Thisdistinctionmighthavebeenlessnecessary,ifanyoriginaltextfromDemocritushadsurvivedonthesubjectof
weight.Asitis,whileIthinkthatwecaninfactbereasonablycertainofthemeaning,andofatleasttheimmediateintention,ofthemaintextsthatIhaveanalysed
fromAristotle,fromTheophrastus,andevenfromSimplicius,itdoesnotfollowthatwecanbecertaininthesamewayabouttheoriginaltheoryofDemocritusto
whichthosetextsrelate.

Althoughthisdistinctionmayseemplainenoughwhenpresentedabstractly,inpracticeitisoften,Ifind,blurred.Ifthetextofapassageisreasonablysecure,andif
thereisawideenoughrangeofcontextandallusion,thenitseemstomethatmoreoftenthannottheimmediatesenseofthetextcaneventuallybeestablishedbeyond
doubt,howeverdifficultandcontroversialtheestablishmentofitssensemayprovetobeinpractice.Itdoesnotfollowthattheinterrelationoftexts,andtheirvarying
authority,canbemadeequallysecure.

Itisimportantnottoallowlegitimatedoubtonthismoregeneralleveltoseepbackintotheanalysisofindividualtexts.Itis
1
Cf.p.5above.

 Page331

equallyimportantthatone'scertaintyovertheinterpretationofparticulartextsshouldnotspillover,andseektoestablish,byitsownmomentumasitwere,amore
generalcertaintyonthewiderquestionstowhichthosetextsrelate.

Naturally,whenfacedwithsomeseeminglyimpossiblecruxinthemoregeneralinterpretationofsomeproblem,onemayexpectthesolutiontobefound,ifatall,only
throughthereinterpretationofindividualitemsofevidence.Butinprinciplethereisnoreasonwhythemeaningofindividualtextsshouldnotbeestablishedbeyond
reasonabledoubt,althoughtheirmoregeneralinterrelationandauthoritymayremainobscure.

Thedangeristhatlegitimatedoubtoversomegeneralcruxofinterpretationorofreconstructioncanalltooeasilyconspirewithadesiretobe,oratleasttoappear,if
onlytooneself,cautiousandconservative,sothatineffectoneshrugsone'sshouldersoverawholerangeofreferencestotheproblem,untilevenelementswhichin
themselvesmaybedecipherableareallowedtoslipintotheshadowsofuncertainty.

Ontheotherhand,alegitimateconfidenceovertheinterpretationofspecificitemsofevidencemayconspirewithamoredubioussenseofcertaintyaboutone'sown
intuitionsintotheintentionsofaparticularthinker,orintothenatureofarchaicthought,sothatargumentandanalysisveeroffintoidiosyncrasyanddogmatism.

Eitherfaultseemstomeequallyundesirable.

ThusinthepresentinstanceitseemstomethatnoreasonabledoubtneedattachtothemeaningoftheprimarytextswhichIhaveanalysed,fromAristotle,from
Theophrastus,andevenfromSimplicius.ButIdonotattachthesamelevelofcertaintytoourknowledgeoftheoriginalatomictheoryofweighttowhichthesetexts
relate.Theminimalposition,itseemstome,whichiscompatiblewiththeevidence,isthattheatomsshouldhavebeenendowedwithdifferencesofweightinvirtueof
theirdifferencesinsize,butthatnoexpressionoftheirweightshouldhavebeenspecified,otherthanthatofthedistributionofatomswithinadine,andthatoftheir
attachmenttothedefinitionoflightnessintermsofvoid.

Bothexpressionsofweight,itcanproperlybeargued,areinfactrestrictedtoatomswithinacosmos,orwithinthebeginningsofacosmos.

 Page332

1.InthecosmogonywhichherelatesforLeucippus,whichItoucheduponinanearlierchapter,Diogeneswritesofatoms'whirling'inthevoid,butatthesametimehemakesit
clearthattheaggregationofatomsinto'asingledine'leadstotheformationofacosmos.1

2.Thedefinitionoflightnessintermsofvoid,sinceitappliestobodiescompoundedofatomsandthevoid,canagainreasonablybearguedtoapplyonlytothebehaviourof
atomswithinacosmos.2

Fromthisitfollowsthatthispreliminary,andminimal,conclusiontomyargumentcoincidesinitsresultswithwhatIhavecalledthecurrentcompromise.Thereis
howeverthedifference,andIshallclaiminamomentitisacrucialdifference,thatIdonotsupposethattherecanhavebeenanyexpressdenialofweightforatoms
thatwereoutsideacosmos,sincetheexistenceofanysuchdenialseemstometobeexcluded,inparticularbythetextsthatIhaveanalysedfromTheophrastus,and
fromSimplicius.3

Forthemoment,however,itisnotthisdifferenceincontentwhichIwishtoemphasise,butthedifferenceinargumentandevidence.

InthestudyofPresocraticphilosophy,thenoveltyofaninterpretationislessimportant,itseemstome,thanthereasonsonwhichaninterpretationisfounded:the
selectionofevidence,itsanalysisandevaluation,anditsincorporationintoageneralschemeofreconstructionandofinterpretation.

Ihopethatitwillnotseempedanticthereforetopauseforamomenttoinsistthatthereasoningbehindeventhispreliminaryconclusionisverydifferentfromthatwhich
liesbehindwhatIhavecalledthecurrentcompromise.
1
ix301(DK67A1)ch.VII12,pp.20311above.
2
Aristotle,Decaeloiv2,308b28309a18ch.III,pp.80114above.Theophrastus,Desens.612(DK68A135)ch.IV,pp.11550above.
3
Theophrastus,Desens.612(DK68A135)ch.IV,pp.11550above.Simplicius,Phys.42.1011(DK68A47),1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58)Decaelo269.414(notinDK),569.59
(DK68A61),583.202(DK67A16),712.2731(DK68A61)ch.VandVI,pp.15373and174202above.

 Page333

(i)

Inthefirstplace,itseemstomeunlikelyintheextremethatthestatementinAetius,thattheatomshavenoweight,shouldbeanythingotherthantheproductof
doxographicalconfusion,inthekindofwaythatIhaveindicated.1

Totaketheextremecase:eveniftheatomsofDemocritushadinfactbeenstatedexplicitlyintheoriginaltheorytobeincertaincircumstanceswithoutweight,or
withouttheexpressionofweight,evenso,itseemstomeunlikelythatthestatementinAetiuswouldrepresentagenuinehistoricaltradition,giventhecombinationof
thekindofcontextinwhichitappears,thelackofanysignofasimilarstatementinthetextswhichsurviveofAristotle,ofTheophrastusandofSimplicius,andthe
particularbearingwhichthosetextsmusthaveontheoriginsoftheinformationcontainedinthePlacita.

(ii)

Secondly,andnolessimportantly,thecurrentcompromise,althoughtheconnectionisexpressedwithvaryingdegreesofexplicitness,seemsinvariablytogohandin
handwiththenotionthatweightforthePresocraticscanonlyhavebeenexpressedbyafall,bymovementdownwards.

HeretooitseemstomeunlikelyintheextremethatthenecessaryexpressionofweightintermsofmovementdownwardsthatwefindinAristotleshouldhaveapplied,
withanythinglikethesamerigour,inthefifthcentury.

Againtotaketheextremecase:eveniftheatomsofDemocritushadbeenexplicitlystatedtobewithoutweightoutsidetheformationofacosmos,itseemstomethat
itwouldnotnecessarilyfollowthatthereasonforthiswouldhavebeentokeeptheatomsfrom'falling'inthevoid.

(iii)

Finally,thispreliminaryconclusiondoesnotrequireusto
1
Aet.i12.6,cf.i3.18(DK68A47)ch.VIII12,pp.22339abovecf.ch.X4,pp.28298above.

 Page334

abandonSimpliciustothesimpleconfusionofDemocritusandofEpicurus.

IfthepositionisasIhavestateditsofar,thenthetextsofSimpliciuswhichIhaveanalysedwillstillstandasevidencethatnoexplicitdenialofweightfoundaplacein
AristotleorinTheophrastus,evenif,onthisminimalinterpretationoftheevidence,wethensupposethatSimpliciushasinfactbeenledtohisattributionofweightto
atomsoutsideacosmos,notbyanypositiveevidenceinAristotleorinTheophrastus,butasaresultofhisownreflections.

Fromthis,itneednotfollowthatSimplicius'reflectionshavebeendeterminedtoanysignificantextentbyhisknowledgeofEpicurus.Simpliciusiswellenoughableto
distinguishearlierandlaterformsofAtomismonthequestionofmovementandonthe'parts'ofatoms.ThetextsofAristotlewillhaveprovidedsufficient
encouragementforSimpliciustothinkthatweightwasanintrinsic,andthereforeapermanentcharacterofatomicsubstance.

Conclusion

Thuseveninthecontextofthisminimalandpreliminaryconclusion:

1.IdonotsupposethatAetiuspreservesoriginalinformation,explicitlydenyingweighttoatomsthatcanbeconstruedasbeingoutsideacosmos.

2.Idonotsupposethatlackofweightwasanecessaryconcomitantoftheabsenceofafallofatoms.

3.IdonotsupposethatSimplicius'evidenceisthesimpleresultofconfusionwithEpicurus.

Iemphasisethesepoints,notinordertotrytostakeoutapersonalclaimtosomemeasureoforiginality,buttotrytostaveoffthecrudificationthatIcanwellforesee
ofthispreliminary,andminimal,conclusiontomyargument.

1.Thepreliminaryandminimalconclusionwillbetakenastheprincipal,ifnottheonlyconclusiontomyargument.

2.Thedifferenceincontentbetweenthisconclusionandthecurrentcompromisewillbelostsightof,eitherbysup

 Page335

pressingthequalificationthattherecannothavebeenanyexpressdenialofweighttoatomsthatwereoutsideacosmos,orbyattachingthisqualificationtowhathasbeenthe
currentcompromise.

3.Finally,thispreliminaryandminimalconclusionwillbestrippedofthatstructureofargumentandevidencewhichalonecanprovideitwithanyhopeofpermanentsignificance
asacontributiontothereconstructionandtheinterpretationofPresocraticphilosophy.

2
TheProbableExtension

TheminimalandpreliminaryconclusionwhichIhaveoutlinedIregardasreasonablycertain.ThisdoesnotmeanthatIthinkitcontainsthewholetruth,noreventhatit
containsallthetruththatcanberecoveredfromtheevidenceavailable.Onthecontrary,Ihavepresenteditasaminimalconclusion,preciselybecauseitavoidsthe
moreproblematicalpartsoftheevidence.Theminimalconclusiongainsincertainty,becauseitlosesinscope.

Ihavealreadystressedthatthestructureofevidenceandargumentwhichliesbehindthepreliminaryandminimalconclusionissignificantlydifferentfromthatwhichis
usedtosupportwhatIhavecalledthecurrentcompromise.

Ifwearetogobeyondtheminimalconclusion,thenitisnolessimportanttostressthedifferenceofcontentbetweenthetwointerpretations.

1.Accordingtothecurrentcompromise,Aetiusisrightinhisdenialofweighttoatoms,iftheyareatomsthatareoutsideacosmos.

2.Theminimalandpreliminaryconclusionofthisessayisthattherecanhavebeennoexplicitdenialofweighttoatomsthatareoutsideacosmos.

Thisdistinctionisobviouslycrucialtoanyattempttoextendthepreliminaryconclusion.Onlyifweconcludefromaminimalinterpretationoftheevidencethattherecan
havebeennospecificdenialofweighttoatomsthatareoutsideacosmos,arewethenabletomoveontoconsiderationofwhetherabroader,ifless

 Page336

certain,interpretationoftheevidencewillallowus,withanyreasonabledegreeofprobability,todeterminewhatexpressionsofweightmayinfacthavebeenattached
toatomsthatwereoutsideacosmos.

(i)

ItistothisproblemthatInowturn.

ItwouldbeoutofplacetoattemptanysystematiccharacterisationofthethoughtofDemocritusinamonographwhich,howeverlong,isintendedtodealwiththe
reconstructionofonlyonefeatureofDemocritus'physicalsystem.

Ontheotherhand,itwouldbedishonestatthispointtoevadealtogetherthequestion:howlikelyisit,ongeneralgrounds,thatDemocrituswillhavesimplyfailedto
specifythepresence,ortheabsence,ofanyexpressionofweightforatomsthatareoutsideacosmos?

InmystudyonEmpedocles,Itoucheduponasimilarquestionofprinciple:howlikelyisitthatEmpedocleswillhavefailedtospecifythetemporaldimensionsofhis
cycle?ItislikelythatEmpedocleswillhavefailedtospecifythedurationoftheSphere,inrelationtothetimeoftotalStrife,ortotheworldsofincreasingLoveand
increasingStrife?1

OneofthedistinctionswhichIdrewthereisneededalsohere.Ithinkitisessentialforstudentsofearlyphilosophy(amongwhomIincludemyself)toappreciatethat
certaindistinctions,andnotablythatbetweenwhatonemayperhapscallmaterialandabstractorspiritualformsofexistence,wereintroducedonlywiththe
philosophiesofPlatoandofAristotle,ifindeedthen.Ontheotherhand,someatleastofthelaterPresocraticswere,Ithink,thoroughgoingintheexploitationofthose
categoriesandareasofthoughtwhichdoformpartofthefabricoftheirphilosophy.

OurbestandalmostouronlyguideonthiskindofpointisAristotle.Forwhatisinquestionhereisnotthecontentofsomeparticularbelief,butsomenotionofhow
vigorousandfarreachingthephilosophyofDemocritus,orofEmpedocles,mayhavebeenasawhole.Thisisaquestionwhichamerelydoxographicalsource,
almostbyitsverynature,isprecludedfrom
1
ECC715.

 Page337

answering.Itisalsoapointwheretheprejudicesandpreoccupationsoftheveryfewauthors,mostnotablyAristotle,whowillhavereadalargepartorthewholeofa
philosopher'swork,willbeattheirmostvirulent.

Ilimitmyselftotwopointsonly,onegeneralandonemoreparticular.

(ii)

MymoregeneralpointissimplythattowardsthebeginningofhisanalysisofgenerationandalloiosisintheDegenerationeetcorruptione,aftersomeremarkson
Plato,AristotleturnstoDemocrituswitharemarkwhichagainstthebackgroundofhisusualattitudetowardsearlierphilosophersisremarkableforitsgenerosity.He
writes,i2,315a34b1(DK68A35): .

'Generallyspeaking,noonehasappliedhimselftoanyoneoftheseproblems,beyondthemerestsuperficialities,withtheexceptionofDemocritus.

'Democritusseemstohaveappliedhismindtothewholerangeofproblems,aswellassinginghimselfoutfromhiscontemporaries byhismethod.'

IwillnotpursuethismoregeneralpointexcepttoaddthatinhisevaluationofearliertheoriesofthenatureofsensibiliaTheophrastusjoinsDemocritusandPlatoina
waythatisnotdissimilartothepassagethatIhavequotedfromAristotle.

Afterremarkingonthegeneralpaucityandthelimitationsofotherearliertheoriesinthefield,Theophrastuswrites,Desens.60(DK68A135):
.
'DemocritusandPlatoaretheonlyoneswhohavereallycometogripswiththesubject.Theyadvanceadefinitionforeachoneofthesensibles.'

WasDemocritusasthoroughgoingasthis,andobliviousto

 Page338
1
whetherornotatomsoutsideacosmosmanifestweight?

(iii)

Mymoreparticularpointemploysanargumentofatypewhichcanbeusedonlysparingly,andwithgreatcircumspection:itisanargumentfromsilence.

Theperilsofthisformofargument,appliedtoDemocritusandonthesamequestionofweight,areexemplifiedwithchillingclaritybyaremarkofMabilleau.Heis
attemptingtominimisetheforceofAristotle'sevidenceontheatomictheoryofweight,andwrites:
'Lesquatreoucinqpassages,ouAristoteexposeaulonglaphilosophiedeDmocrite,necontiennentriensurlapesanteurnisurlachaleurdesatomes,cequialieude
surprendre,quandils'agitd'unethoriedecetteimportance.'2

Thecomparisonwithheattellsall.Forwehappentoknow,fromTheophrastus,thattheexplanationofheatintermsofsphericalatomswasmentionedbyDemocritus
'often',Desensibus68(DK68A135): .3
1
ItistruethatTheophrastusconcludeshisaccountofDemocritus,'andsohefailstospecifysomepoints'(cap.83=DK68A135).ButthisrelatesonlytoDemocritus'theoryof
smell.Theanalysesthathavebeengivenofflavours(cap.657andofcolours(cap.738)amongthesensibiliahaveinfactbeenverydetailed.
Aristotle'sgenerosityisperhapslesscharacteristic.CertainlyhisjudgmentinafamouspassageoftheMetaphysicsisrathermoresevere:Socratesaloneprovidesananswertothe
Heracliteanfluxwithhissearchfor'generaldefinitions'(M4,1078b12ff.)Democritusishereagainsingledoutfrom'thephysicalphilosophers'(thePythagoreansareinadifferent
category),butonlyashaving'touchedalittleonthequestion',andashavinggiven'somesortofdefinitionofhotandcold'(1078b1920).Comparablepassages:Phys.ii2,194a201
(whereDemocritusisjoinedwithEmpedocles),andDepart.anim.i1,642a2431.FortheprioritygiventotemperatureinthepassagefromtheMetaphysics,seep.377n.1below.
2
Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique196.
3
Forthereading seeabovep.260n.1.Ratheramusingly,Mabilleau'sremarkisadirecttranscription(unacknowledged)ofasentenceinLafaist,

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page339

Surpriseisadangerousindulgence.TherecaninfactbenogoodreasonforsurprisethatAristotledoesnotelaborateupontheatomictheoryofweight,outsidethe
fourthbookoftheDecaelo.Ifweimagineforamomentthatwehadtorely,say,solelyontheevidenceofTheophrastus,inordertoknowthattherehadbeenan
atomictheoryofweightatall,thenitisonlyinthefourthbookoftheDecaelothatwecouldreasonablyhaveexpectedtofindadeliberateanalysisofthetheory:and
itwouldbeonlyfromitsabsenceinthatcontextthatanyargumentfromsilencewouldhavebeenworthitssalt.

ItiswithduediffidencethereforethatIadducethefollowing,verytentativeconsideration.

Atleastonquestionsofgenerationandalloiosis,Aristotletellsus,Democritus'seemstohavethoughtabouteverything'.

IhavealreadylistedthepassageswhereAristotlepointsout,withgreatemphasis,oneofthequestionswhichDemocritushadnotthoughtabout:thecauseandthe
nature(inAristoteleanterms)ofthemovementofatomsinthevoid.1

InthethirdbookoftheDecaelo,Aristotlearguesatlength,againstPlatoandagainst'certainPythagoreans',thattheconsequenceoftheirtheoriesisthattherewould
beelementswithoutweight.2

ThereisnocriticismonthissamescoreofDemocritus,and,aswehaveseen,itisvirtuallyonthispointthatDemocritusisinfactopposedtoPlatoinbookfourofthe
Decaelo.3

Iftheatomshadbeenleftwithoutanyexpressionofweightoutsideacosmos,wouldwenotperhapshavehadsomecriticismofthefactatthispoint,ofthekindthat
wedohappentofind(inwhat,historically,isanobviouslyerroneousform)inAlexander?4

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
Philosophieatomistique70:'LesquatreoucinqpassagesoAristoteexposeassezaulonglaphilosophiedeDmocritenenousprsententabsolumentriensurlapesanteuretla
chaleurdesatomes'.Therepetitionisworsethanitseems.LafaistwroteashedidwithonlytheevidenceoftheDegenerationeetcorruptioneinmind(cf.Philosophie
atomistique71).Mabilleau,withtheadvantageofZeller,hasjustquoted,195,therelevantpassagesfromtheDecaeloandfromTheophrastus.
1
Pp.237and2612above.
2
Decaeloiii1,299a25300a19cf.pp.845and214ff.above.
3
Decaeloiv2,308b35309a2(inpartDK68A60)cf.ch.III,pp.80114,esp.836above.
4
Alex.,Met.36.218(inpartDK67A6)cf.ch.VII34,pp.21122above.

 Page340

(iv)

ThereremainsoneothersidetothethoughtofDemocritus,whichtouchesmorecloselyontheevidencewehaveconsidered.

StudiesofthePresocratics,andmoreespeciallystudiesofAnaxagorasandofDemocritus,displayoftenastrongleaningtowhatIcanperhapscallpure
intellectualism:theattempttodrawouttheessentialsofasystembyaprocessofalmostapriorideductionfromwhatarethoughtofascertaincentralprinciples.

Thisisnotaltogetherareprehensiblepolicy.Attheendoftheday,wecannotperhapsdobetterthanattempttoreconstructtheessentialsofancientAtomismby
placingtheactualevidenceonaconceptualwebdesignedatoncetoholdthevariouspiecesofevidenceinplaceandtogivesomeideaofthelikelyconfigurationof
thepartsthataremissing.

ButthereisanextremeformofintellectualisminthereconstructionandtheinterpretationofideaswhichIthinkcompletelypervertsthehistoricalreality,eveninthe
caseofasystemasadvanced(foritstime)andassophisticated(withintheconceptuallimitsofitsgeneration)asthatofDemocritus.TheattitudeIhaveinmindis
perhapsmostacuteinstudieswhichtreatlaterandearlierformsofAtomismtogether.ItisperhapssufficientlyexemplifiedbyRobin,whoineffectexcludesthenotion
ofweightfromtheearlieratomictheory,almost,itseems,fornootherreasonthanthatitsintroductionwouldinterruptthelogicalsimplicityofthatversionoftheearlier
systemwhichRobinhasconstructedforhimself.

IhopethatthisisnottooextremeadescriptionofRobin'sarticle,'L'atomismeancien',andoftherelevantpagesfromthechapteronancientAtomisminLapense
grecque(pp.1369).AsIhavenoted,Robindoesrecognisethattheevidenceforweightis'unequestionparticulirementpineuse'.1ButIthinkitisfairtosaythatat
leastpartofthereasonwhyRobinleavesthequestionopeninhisarticle,andwhyearlier,inLapensegrecque,hetakestheattributionofweighttoDemocritusto
betheresultofconfusionwithEpicurus,isthathisextremelyabstractandintellectualanalysisoftheatomisttheoryleaveshimwithnoroom,conceptu
1
'L'atomismeancien'211(=Pensehellnique745)citedp.42n.2abovecf.p.154n.1above.

 Page341

ally,fortheatomstohaveweightinthevoid.ThusinLapensegrecquetheonly'dterminationspositives'whichRobinwillallowtotheatomsarethosewhichhe
conceivesofas'impliquesparl'tendue'(pp.1378).Weightisnotoneofthese,andisthereforenecessarilysuspect.
'Toutescesdiffrencessontproprementgomtriquesetanalytiquementliesal'tendue.Ilsembledoncdifficile,quoiqu'onenaitdit,d'yjoindrelapesanteur,enrelationavecla
grandeurdesatomes.'(Pensegrecque138)

ThesametendencyisstrikinglymarkedinLafaist'streatmentofweightinhisDissertationsurlaphilosophieatomistique(pp.1113and5879).Lafaist'streatiseis
asuperbpieceofclearandelegantFrenchprosewriting,butinitLafaistmakesvirtuallynoconcessiontothepossiblepresenceofprimitiveorarchaictraitsinancient
Atomism.LafaistdoesclaimthattheatomsofLeucippusare'gauxenpoids'(p.32),buttheideaofdifferencesinweight(pp.6875)hedismissespreciselybecauseit
wouldupsetthesimplicityandthesymmetryofthesystemthathehasconstructedfortheancientAtomists.ThusaccordingtoLafaistDemocritusretainedonly'les
propritsessentiellesdelamatire'(p.21).Forexample,'onneconoitpaslamatiresansforme,parconsquentlesatomespossdentcetteproprit'(p.22).But
weight,forLafaist,isnotoneofthese.Therefore,althoughherightlyopenshisdiscussionofweightinDemocrituswithananalysisofthepassagefromtheDe
generationeetcorruptione,heprefacesitwiththeremarkthatifwhatAristotlesaysistruethenDemocritus'aurafaitfaireunpasenarrirel'atomisme'(p.69),and
hefollowshisquotationofthepassagebyasking,70:

'Restesavoirsicesabsurdits,avancesparAristote,sontbienlgitimementmisessurlecomptedeDmocrite.'

Placedinthiscontext,theevidenceofAristotlehasnohopeofsurvival.1
1
TheCartesianismlatentinLafaist'sanalysisisexplicitinlaterFrenchinterpretations:seepp.34850below.

 Page342

(v)

ToattempttocorrectthisgeneralviewofancientAtomismwouldagainbebeyondthescopeofthisessay.Imentiononlyonedetail,whichIhopetoelaborateina
studyparalleltothis,onsomeearlyGreektheoriesofperceptionandintelligence.1

Inthisstudy,Iattempttouncovertwotraditionaltypesofexplanationofintelligenceandunintelligence:theone,amonisticexplanation,identifyingbothintelligenceand
unintelligencewiththesupremacyofasingleelementtheother,essentiallyapluralisticexplanation,identifyingintelligencewithabalanceofelements,andunintelligence
withthepredominanceofasingleelementareversal,atthispoint,ofthemonisticexplanation.

WhatisrelevanttomypresentpointisthatDemocritusoccupiesareasonablywellestablishedplacewithinthissecondtradition.

NowonacertainviewofDemocritus'philosophy,thiswouldbeunexpected.Democritus'theoryoftherelativismofsensibleperceptionisstrikinglyoriginal:andwe
mightwellhavethoughtthat,apartfromestablishingthegeneralprincipleofthedependenceofsensibiliaupontheinteractionofatomsandsensiblepercipient,
Democritus'energieswouldhavebeensufficientlyoccupiedintheextremeelaborationofthemechanismsofsensation,andoftheveryvarioustypesofatomthat
constitutethesourceofsensibilia,allofwhichareattestedtobythelongchaptersinTheophrastus'Desensibus(cap.657,738).

Butinfactwediscover,alongsidethisinnovationandelaboration,thatDemocritusfoundroomforIamtemptedtoadd'wasanxioustoinclude'atraditional
conceptionofintelligenceandofunintelligenceintermsderivingfromabalance,oralackofbalance,betweentraditionalpairingsofopposites.

RecognitionofthiskindofelementinDemocritus'thinkingisessentialifwearenottoscornthekindofconsiderationsthatIhaveattemptedtodrawfromAristotle's
fragmentonDemocritus.2

PerhapsIhaveexaggeratedthedegreeofanimismlatentin bytranslating'tobeatwar'and'to
1
Cf.pp.2545above.
2
Ap.Simpl.,Decaelo294.33295.24(fr.208Rose=DK68A37)ch.XI1,pp.30310above.

 Page343

attack'.Thatwasnotmyintention.ButitismyintentiontoseeinAristotle'sdescriptionoftheatomicsystematthispointamuchmoretraditionalcastofconceptand
associationthanwouldbeallowedintherigorouslyintellectualinterpretationoftheatomicsystemofthekindthatwefindinRobinandinLafaist.

(vi)

Thistraditionalelementisofcourseparticularlysusceptibletothewitheringwindsofsecondhanddoxography.

EventhemuchricherandmoreexoticconceptualisationsofEmpedoclestheblissfulSphere,rejoicinginitsimmobility,thebroadoath,Striferushingforwardtoseize
itshonourswhenitsturnisduequicklywiltinthebarrenairofdoxographicalabbreviations.Wehavenomore,often,thanasimpleoppositionofunificationandof
separation.1

Thepositionofsuchtraditionalelementsastheremayhavebeenintheatomictheoryisstillmorefragile:forDemocrituswroteprovincialproseinsteadofinspired
poetry,andSimpliciushasnotbeenabletorecordforustheipsissimaverba.NordoIintendthecomparisonbetweenDemocritusandEmpedoclestobealtogether
afairone.Itisintendedatonceasanextremereminderofhowmuchislost,oftraditionalelementsofthoughtandexpression,indoxographicalevidence,and
thereforeasanindicationoftheextremevalueofAristotle'sfragmentonDemocritus.

ForinthisfragmentwefindAristotlesettingout,asneverquiteagainelsewhere,torecordDemocritus'theoryinitiallyatleastforitsownsake,andthereforeasone
mightsayobjectively.Andboththevalue,andtheincipientweakness,ofthatattemptisverylikelysymptomisedintheconjunctionthatIhavealreadydweltuponof
thetwoverbsformovement: .2
1
Empedocles,frr.27.34,28,30.ContrastJustinMartyr(ob.circa165A.D.),CohortatioadGraecoscap.4(PGvi249A,cf.Dox.2867testimonia)[Galen,]Historiaphilosopha
cap.18(xix2434ed.Khn=Dox.610.1820)AchillesTatius(2nd3rdcenturyA.D.),IsagogainAratumcap.3(p.31.1418ed.Maass,cf.Dox.287testimonia)Hermias
philosophus(3rdcenturyA.D.?),Irrisiogentiliumphilosophorumcap.8(Dox.653.914)EpiphaniusConstantiensis(ob.403A.D.),Adversuslxxxhaeresesiii2:Defideix23(iii
506.259ed.Holl=Dox.591.812).NoneofthesetextsisincludedinDK.
2
Seepp.30710above.

 Page344

Democritusmay,orperhapsmorelikelymaynot,haveusedthelatterexpression.Butitsappearancehere,anditsepexegeticalrelationto ,indicate
clearlythepotentialreductionoforiginalfifthcenturyterminology,andthought,tothestandardisedvocabularyofAristotleandthedoxographers.

(vii)

Aristotle'sevidenceinthefragmentonDemocritusisthereforeofpeculiarimportanceasthenearestapproachthatwecanhopefornowtoDemocritus'own
expressionofhistheory.

ThereforetheextensionofDemocritus'theorytoincludeanexpressionofweightforatomsthatfindthemselvesoutsideacosmosdependsquitelargelyonhow
probableitisthatanysuchexpressionofweightshouldfindaplaceinthekindofcontextprovidedherebyAristotle.

Tothisquestionthereisnosimpleanswer.

Aristotlewritesofsizeandofshape.Hedoesnotwriteofweight.Thereisasenseinwhichhissilenceisfinal.Itprecludescertainty.

Ontheotherhand,againstthissilence,thereareanumberofconvergentpossibilities.

Inaverysimilarcontext,Simpliciuswritesexplicitlyofweight.Thiscouldbesimplytheexpressionofhisownideas.Ontheotherhand,Simpliciushadalmostcertainly
readthecontinuationofAristotle'saccountofDemocritusheprefaceshistranscriptionbysayingthatheisgoingtocopyoutonlyashortextract:andthatis
somethingthatwecannotdo.1

FromthefragmentonDemocritus,andfromtheDeanimaandfromTheophrastus'Desensibus,weknowthatshapeandsizewereassociatedwithmovement,and
effectedmodificationsofmobilityanddifferencesofspeed.2

ThemechanismofAristotle'sargumentagainstvoid,inthePhysics,isthereforeinpartDemocritean:andthereisaclearpossibilitythattheremainingelementin
Aristotle'sargument,theassociationofweightwithdifferencesinspeed,mayalsotherefore
1
Phys.1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58)cf.ch.V3,pp.16672above.Seealsopp.299302above.
2
Evidenceandargument,ch.XIesp.1and3,pp.30310and31523above.

 Page345
1
betakenfromtheoriginaltheory,asaresizeandshape.

Differencesofsizeandofweight,asfactorsaffectingpluralityandmovement:thereisthesameconjunctionofideasinPlato'sTimaeus.2Aperiloussource:awealthof
intricatedetail,muchofitheavilyarchaicintoneandcharacter,withvirtuallynoattribution.ThisconjunctionofideasintheTimaeuswillperhapsbesignificantonlyfor
thosewhobelieve,asIdo,thataveryhighproportionofthedetailedimageryoftheTimaeusisPresocraticinorigin,adeliberateattemptbyPlatototemperthe
rejectionofphysicalphilosophyputinto(orrecordedascomingoutof)themouthofSocratesinthePhaedo,andtoresumethewholecharacteroffifthcentury
physicalspeculationsinsubordinationtotheprinciplesofhisownepistemologyandmetaphysics.

(viii)

Arich,butatrickyterraintherefore.Thereisnotthedaylightofcertainty.Buttherearemoreelementsthancanconvenientlybeignored.

Therecanbenoquasimathematicalcalculationofprobability.TherangeofdetailinDemocritus'speculationsabouttheprecosmicmovementoftheatoms,the
presenceoftraditionalelementsinhisthinking,arenotpointsthatcanbeimposedbythesimplestatementofthem.

Myowncalculationofprobabilitiesisthatverypossiblyanexpressionofweightwasgiventoatomsinthevoid:thelargerandheavieratomsperhapsdistinguishedby
theirforceofimpact,thesmallerandlighteratomsdistinguishedbytheirgreatermobilityandspeedofmovement.

3
Summary

TheMinimalConclusion

Theatomshaveweightinproportionto,anddependentupon,theirsize.Largeratomsareheavier,andsmalleratomsarelighter.

Onebodyislighterthananother,ifitcontainsalargeramount
1
Phys.iv8,215a259and216a1121,cf.pp.1879,1902and315ff.above.
2
Evidenceandargument,ch.XI2,pp.31115,esp.pp.31314above.

 Page346

ofvoid.Thevolumesofthebodiesbeingcomparedareeithernotstated,orheldtobeequal.

Withinthecosmos,theweightofatomsisexpressedbythedistributionoflargerandsmaller,orheavierandlighter,atomsinadine,andasanelementinthedefinition
oflightnessintermsofvoid.

Thereisnoexplicitdenialofweighttoatomsthatareoutsideacosmos,andthereisnonecessaryassumptionthatweightmustbeexpressedasmovement
downwards,northereforethatatomswhichareoutsideacosmos,wheretheymoveaboutinalldirections,mustbeweightless.

TheProbableExtension

Theweightofatomsmovinginthevoidwasexpressedbyforceofimpactandbyspeed.Thelargerandheavieratomsperhapshaveastrongerimpact.Smallerand
lighteratomsarethemoremobile,andmovethemorequickly.

 Page347

ChapterThirteen
Perspective

1
ModernScholarship:TheProgressofError

Havingreachedthisconclusion,Iturnatoncetoasubjectthathaslainuneasilyatmysidethroughouttheprecedingchapters.

Afterconsiderableheartsearching,Idecidedtolimitmydiscussioninmostofthetexthitherto,andinthemajorityoffootnotes,toworkthathasappearedinthelast
seventyyearsorso,sincethefiftheditionofZeller(1891)andthesecondeditionofBurnet(1908).InhisfiftheditionZellerhadhadtheopportunityofconsideringthe
argumentsofBrieger(1884)andofLiepmann(1885)againstthetheoryofdownwardmovementforDemocritus'atoms,andhaddecidedagainstthem.1Inthe
secondeditionofhisEarlyGreekphilosophyBurnetputforwardthecombinationofviewsthathassincebeenmostfashionable:thattheatomsdonotmove
downwardsinthevoid,andthattheyhaveweightonlysubsequentlytotheformationofacosmicvortex.2Itis,Ithink,afairreflectionofcontemporaryopinionthatin
thesecondvolumeofhisHistoryofGreekphilosophyProfessorGuthrieadoptsessentiallyBurnet'sview,withZeller'sinterpretationofferedasthediscredited
alternative,andwithbriefacknowledgmenttoBriegerandtoLiepmanninafootnote.3

However,inreflectingcontemporaryopinionashedoes,ProfessorGuthriesymptomisesthatneglectofnineteenthcenturyscholarshipwhichinthisinstance,asoften,
hasledtoalackofflexibilityinresponsetothesourcesofourknowledgeofprePlatonicphilosophy,andtotheunreflectiveacceptanceofa
1
PhilosophiederGriechen5thedn86888=ZN107699.TheworksbyBriegerandLiepmann,UrbewegungandMechanik,havealreadybeencited:fullreferencesmaybe
recoveredfromtheBibliography.
2
EarlyGreekphilosophy2ndedn(1908)3949(=3rdedn3416).
3
History4004,seeespecially401n.1.Tworecentcontributions,byHahmandbyFurley,reachedmetoolatetobeincludedinthissurvey:detailsaregivenintheBibliography.Itis
howeversignificantthatHahmreproducesessentiallyBurnet'sview,whileFurleyadoptsaversionofZeller'sinterpretation.

 Page348

familiardistributionofevidenceforparticularproblems.Itwouldbesatisfyingindeedtothinkthatcertainpermanentgainshadbeenwonbythescholarlylaboursof
ourpredecessors,andthatfromthefirmbasisofcertainachievedpositionsonecouldadvancetomoreremoteortomoredetailedareasofreconstruction,ortomore
reconditeformsofinterpretationandanalysis:butonlyinafewcasesisthisso.Moreoften,neglectandignoranceofthevarietyofinterpretationsofferedbyearlier
scholarship,thetrustthatZellerorevenBurnetwillhaveskimmedthecreamfromearlierwork,leadseithertotheunconsciousrepetitionofearlierconstructionswhich
hadalreadyintheirdaybeensubjectedtoatleastpartialrefutation,asisinstancedbymodernnoncyclicinterpretationsofEmpedocles'cosmicsystem,oratleast,as
inthepresentcase,tothenarrowingofone'schoicetoalternativesthatseemattractiveonlybecausetheyrestonasimplificationofthedoxographicalevidence,and
oncriteriaofinterpretationthatrequirenofresheffortofthehistoricalimaginationinthetranspositionofourowncategoriesofthinkingtowardstheverydifferent
habitsofthoughtthatcharacterisedphilosophicalreflectioninthecenturybeforePlato.

InthemainbodyofthismonographIhavethereforerestrictedmycitationsanddiscussionofnineteenthcenturyinterpretationsofweighttotheoccasionalfootnote,
notbecauseIthinkthatmorerecentscholarshipisnecessarilybetter,butbecauseitismoreinfluential.ThefirstsectionofthisfinalchapterofmystudyofDemocritus
isintended,briefly,torightthebalance,andtoacknowledgethatseveralelementsessentialtomypresentinterpretationhadbeenmootedbyscholarsinthenineteenth
century,whileatthesametimeIshalltrytoexplainwhyinnineteenthcenturydiscussionsoftheproblemtheseelementswereneverbroughttogetherintoasingle
synthesis,norrelatedtoananalysisoftheevidenceasawhole.

(i)

InterpretationsfromtheearlierpartofthenineteenthcenturyarelistedandanalysedbrieflybyLiepmann.1Hislistdoesnot,
1
Mechanik1015.

 Page349

however,includeapotentiallyfruitfuldefinitionofweightthatappearedinanaccountofDemocritusbyRenouvier.
'Lepoidsnesubsistepasdansl'atome,maisilsemanifestedanslechoc,etonnedoitpasentendreparcemot,poids,uneforceuniqued'unedirectionconstante,maiscetteforce
gnrale,variabledegrandeuretdedirection,qu'exercetoutatomequesemeut,sans,pourcela,laporterensoicommeunequalitnativeetessentiellehorsdumouvementetdes
composs.'1

Unfortunatelyonlyoneelementinthisdefinition,andasithappenedthewrongelement,cametobetakenupbythoseofhisfellowcountrymenwhotooknoteof
Renouvier'swork.Insteadofreflectingonthepossibleexpressionofweightasforceofimpact,theyseizedinsteaduponthenotionofweightasafactorwhich,like
positionorarrangement,wouldcomeintoplayonlywhenonebodywasrelatedtoanother.ThisdeflectionofRenouvier'soriginalconceptionarosethrougha
comparisonwithDescartesproposedbyPillon.DescarteshimselfhadsoughttodistinguishhisowntheoryfromthatofDemocritus,onanumberofpoints,including
thequestionofweight:Democritus,heheld,hadattributedweighttotheatomshehimselfsoughttodenythattherewasweightinanybody,'entantqu'ilestconsider
seul,pourcequec'estunequalitquidpenddumutuelrapportqueplusieurscorpsontlesunsauxautres'(Descartes'ownitalics).2PillondeniedthatDemocritus'
atomshadweight,andthereforefounditeasytoidentifyDescartes'viewwiththeversionofDemocritus'theorythathadbeengivenbyRenouvier.3Thisconflationof
thetwoideas,thatofDescartesandthatofRenouvier,wasrepeatedbyMabilleau,whoconcludedofDemocritusandofDescartestogetherthat:

'Aucuncorpsn'estconsidrcommepesant,entantqu'ilestprisisolment.'4

1
Manueli246.
2
Principiaphilosophiaeiv202.AnaccountofDescartes'theory,andofitsfortunesamonghisimmediatesuccessors,maybefoundinPaulMouy,Ledveloppementdelaphysique
cartsienne16461712(Paris,1934).
3
F.Pillon,'L'volutionhistoriquedel'atomisme'1213.
4
Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique199.

 Page350

Onceexpressedinthisform,Renouvier'sinterpretationwasfatallyvulnerable,fornowitconflicteddirectlywiththestipulationinTheophrastus'accountoftheatomic
theoryofweight:'ifeachatomweretakenseparatelyonitsown...'.TheinevitabledeathblowwasdealtbyGoedeckemeyer.1

(ii)

ThepotentiallyfruitfulfeatureofRenouvier'sdefinitionhadlaininitsattempttogiveweightapositivemeaningotherthanthatofcauseofmovementinaspecific
direction.TheauthorslistedbyLiepmannwereforthemostpartconcerned,inhowevertentativeandconfusedafashion,toassertortodenythatweightwascauseof
theatoms'movement.ThispreoccupationwasgivenclearestandmostforcefulexpressionbyZeller,whoattributedtoDemocritustheideawhichisattackedby
Lucretius,andinaslightlydifferentformbyAlexander,totheeffectthattheatomsmovedownwardsinthevoid,withgreaterorlessspeedaccordingtotheirweight,
andthusbecomeentangledwithoneanotherwithoutanyneedforadeclinatio.2

Zeller'spursuanceofhisthesisexertedupontheinterpretationoftheevidence,andinparticularupontheinterpretationofthedoxographicalevidenceandof
Simplicius,whatcanIthinkbest
1
Goedeckemeyer,EpikursVerhltnis1213.EvenbeforeGoedeckemeyer'sfatalattack,thealternativeelementinRenouvier'sdefinitionhaddegeneratedintotheideathatthe
atomsaremovedby'impulsion'or'choc',asanalternativetotheirhavingweight,preciselyasintheentryinAetius(p.223above).ThisatleastishowthecaseappearsinFlix
Ravaisson,Essaisurlamtaphysiqued'Aristoteii(Paris,1846)8990,andinLiard,DeDemocritophilosopho434.InRenouvierhimselftheideaisthat'force'or'choc'isan
expressionofweightthisisamuchmoresubtleidea,howeverimplausiblemayhavebeentheinterpretationthatRenouvierthentriedtogiveoftheformulainAristotle.
(Renouvier'sinterpretationof hasbeenquotedabovep.45.)
Theuncertainty,whether'force'isanadmissionoradenialofweight,isneatlyillustratedbythewayinwhichanEnglishwriterrepeats(withoutacknowledgment)Renouvier's
formulation,GeorgeH.Lewes,ThehistoryofphilosophyfromThalestoComte5thedni(London,1880)102:

'Democritusalsodeniedthatatomshadanyweighttheyhadonlyforce,anditwastheimpulsiongivenbysuperiorforcewhichconstitutedweight.'
2
Zeller,ZN10668and107699.Lucretius,ii2259Alexander,ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1222cf.Epicurus,Ep.adHer.61seepp.185ff.above.

 Page351

bedescribedasagravitationalpullfromwhicheventhosewhohaveabandonedZeller'sconclusionshavestillscarcelybeenabletoextricatethemselves.ForZeller
claimedasprimaryevidenceforhisthesispreciselythosepassageswhereAristotleandTheophrastusattributeweighttotheatoms,andmoreparticularlythepassage
whereSimpliciusattributesthemovementoftheatomstoweight.1TheerosionofthetestimonyofAristotleandTheophrastushasbeenaslowandonlyapartial
process,takentoitsmostextremebyCherniss.2Simpliciushasbeenaneasiervictim.EvenwheretheyhavebeenabletodisproveZeller'sconclusionsonthe
downwardmovementoftheatoms,Zeller'sopponentshavebeenunwillingtorescueSimplicius'evidenceasawholefromthelimboofselfcontradiction,orofplain
error,wherealoneheseemsnolongerabletothreatentheirarguments.3

OfthetworefutationsofZellerbyLiepmannandBrieger,thatbyBriegerisatoncetheclearerandIthinkonthewholethemorecompetent:itisalsothemore
obviouslyatalossonthequestionofweight.Thusatthebeginningofhisessay,Briegerrejectstheattributionofmovement'byweight'totheatoms,astestifiedby
SimpliciuswhileattheendofthisfirstpartofhisessayheequallyrejectsAetius'denialofweighttotheatoms.4Simplicius'evidenceBriegerrejectsbecauseheseesit
astellinginfavourofdownwardmovement.Aetius'evidenceheseesaspossibleonlybecausetheatomsdidnotmovedownwards,andwerethereforesupposedto
beweightlessbuthetreatsthedenialofweightasnonetheless
1
Thesepassageshavebeenstudied:Aristotle,Degen.etcorr.i8,326a911(inpartDK68A60),ch.II,pp.4179aboveDecaeloiv2,308b35309a2(inpartDK68A60),ch.III,
pp.80114aboveTheophrastus,Desens.612(DK68A135),ch.IV1,pp.11531aboveSimplicius,Phys.1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58),ch.V3,pp.16673above.
2
ThusChernissclaimsthatofthetwopassageswhereAristotleissupposedtoattributeweighttotheatoms,theone(Decaeloiv2,308b28309a11)doesnotdescribeatomsatall,
whileintheother(Degen.etcorr.i8,325b36326a14)Aristotledoesnotattribute'real'weighttotheatoms.SeeACP979and20913fortheequivocationbetweenabsoluteweight
and'real'weight,esp.ACP211n.253:forthedenialofabsoluteweighttotheatoms,esp.ACP211n.253.Contrastpp.6ff.above(thedenialofabsoluteweight)pp.46ff.above(the
passagefromtheDegen.etcorr.)pp.81ff.above(thepassagefromtheDecaelo).
3
ForattacksonSimplicius'consistency,andintegrity,seeabovepp.269ff.
4
Urbewegung78and1213,cf.'Urbewegung'587and596.Simpl.Phys.1318.301319.5(inpartDK68A58),ch.V3,pp.16673above.Aet.i12.6,cf.i3.18(DK68A47),ch.VIII1
2,pp.22339above.

 Page352

mistaken,becauseoftheevidenceofAristotleandTheophrastus.ThusBriegerendsupassertingthattheatomshaveweight,butnotallowingtheirweighttohaveany
effectontheirmovementoronanyotheraspectoftheirbehaviour.HisthesisisthereforetotallyexposedtoBurnet'sobjection:

'Thisweight,sinceitproducesnoeffect,doesnotyetexist.'1

Liepmannattemptstobeadegreemorepositive,inspeakingofalatentweightorPseudoschwere,whichheseesasconsistingprimarilyinresistancetoforce.2Butin
attemptingtoexplicatethisnotionheisdriventowritesuchdesperate,althoughatthesametimesuchpromising,sentencesasthat:

'DieDemocritscheSchwere...ineinemSinneSchwere,undimanderenSinnedochnichtSchwerewar.'3

Brieger'sfailuretoattributesomepositiveexpressiontoweightisthemoreremarkableinthatheconcludesthefirstpartofhisoriginalessaywithsomeremarks,
admittedlyinaverytentativeform,onthepossibilityoftheatoms'movingwithdifferencesofspeedorwithdifferencesintheirforceofimpact.
'Wennwirnunfragen,wiewirunsdieUrbewegungderAtomedesnherendenkensollen,sosindwirfastalleinaufSchlssegewiesen,undzwaraufSchlsseauseinemusserst
drftigenMaterial....ObdasgrssereAtommitgrssererKraftstossen,dasmitgrssererKraftgestossenesichschnellerbewegensoll...dieseundanderenaheliegende
Fragenvermagichnichtzubeantworten.'4

Theideaofdifferencesofspeed,aswehaveseen,occursinbookfourofAristotle'Physics,whereitisofferedpreciselyasanexpressionofdifferencesinweight.5
Briegermakesnomentionof
1
EGP345n.1.
2
Mechanik2830,cf.42,47.
3
Mechanik323.
4
Urbewegung13.
5
Phys.iv8,215a259and216a1121,cf.pp.1879,1902and315ff.above.

 Page353

weight,andexpressestheideasolelyintermsofthesizeoftheatoms.Since,however,theweightofatomsisdeterminedbytheirsize,thedistinctionisonlyaformal
one,andBrieger'stentativequestionthereforecomesclosetoexpressingthetheorywhichAristotlecriticisesinthePhysics.

TheextremetentativenessofBrieger'sproposal,andhisavoidanceofweightatthispoint,areboth,Ithink,symptomaticofhisunresolvedattitudetowardsevidence
thathadbeenemployedbyZeller.ForZellerhadattachedthispassageinthePhysicstotextsinEpicurusandLucretius,andhademployedthewholeasprimary
evidenceforhisinterpretationoftheatomsmovingdownwards,withdifferentspeeds,inthevoid.1

InattemptingtoneutraliseZeller'semploymentofthepassageinthePhysics,BriegerhadarguedthatitwasnotdirectedspecificallytoDemocritus,orindeedagainst
anyparticularthinker.
'DasErgebnis,zuwelchemergelangt,dasssichnmlichimLeerennichteinesrascheralsdasanderebewegenknne,aberauchnichtallesgleichschnell,worausfolge,dass,
wenneseineBewegunggbe,keinLeeresexistiere,interessiertunshiernicht'(myitalics).2

IhaveitalicisedthefinalphrasebecauseitissoclearlyatoddswithBrieger'semploymentofvirtuallythisidea,minusweight,inhisfinal,tentativereflectionsonthe
natureoftheatoms'movementonlyapageortwolater.

ButthisisnotthewholeextentofZeller'sinfluenceonBrieger'sinterpretationofthispassage.Briegercontinues:
'Nurdaswollteichbeweisenundglaubeesbewiesenzuhaben,dasskeinGrundvorliegt,diewiderlegteAnnahmeeinesungleichschnellenFallesimLeereneherdemDemokrit
alsirgendeinemandernvondenNaturphilosophenzuzuweisen,jadassberhauptankeinbestimmtesSystemzudenkenist'(myitalics).3

1
EspeciallyZN10889.
2
Urbewegung910.
3
Urbewegung10.

 Page354

ButinAristotlethemovementthatisenvisagedinthevoid,andthatismadetheobjectofcriticism,containsnonecessaryconnotationofbeingmovementexclusively
downwards.ItseemssotoBrieger,onlybecauseZellerhadjoinedthispassagetothoseinEpicurusandLucretius,aspartofhisthesisofDemocritus'fallofatoms.
BriegerhasfailedtobreakawayfromZeller'sinterpretationandconflationoftheevidence,andsohasfailedtoappreciatethat,onhisowninterpretation,thepassage
couldaswellrefertoDemocritusasnot.1

(iii)

ThequestionofdifferencesofspeedisthemoreinterestinginthatitwassingledoutinaremarkablystraightforwardandperceptivepassageinareviewofBriegerby
Lortzing.2Inthecourseofasympathetic,andindeedflattering,review,Lortzingwrote:

'Inderhauptsachemssenwirdemverfasserbeipflichten,darinnmlich,dassallerwarscheinlichkeitnachdielterenatomikernichtdiefallbewegungderatomealsdieprimre
angesehenhaben.Eineanderefrageistdie,obsiedamitzugleichauchjedewirkungderschwereaufdieatomenbewegunggeleugnethaben.Eswredochwunderbar,wennsie
denurkrperneineausihremwesenresultierendeeigenschaftbeigelegthtten,dievlligunwirksamundlatentbliebe.OhnezweifelistnachDemokritdieursacheallerbewegung
derstossaberdiestrkediesesstossesunddamitauchdieschnelligkeitderbewegunghngtvonderungleichenmasseoderschwerederatomeab.'3

EveninLortzing,however,theinfluenceofZeller,inhisemploymentofLucretius,canbefelt,forLortzingcontinues:
1
Theonlyconnotationofmovementdownwardsorupwardsliesintheassociationofweightandsize:Aristotleassumesthatthelargerbodywilltravelthemorequickly,asin
hisowntheoryofthemovementofearthandfire.ThisinturnmeansthatthecorrelationofsizeandweightinAristotle'sargumentwillhavetobemodified,ifthemechanismof
Aristotle'sargumentistoapplydirectlytoDemocritus:seepp.3239above.
2
PhilologischerAnzeiger15(1885)57883.
3
PhilologischerAnzeiger15(1885)581:theGermanisprintedthusintheoriginal.

 Page355

'DenneineungleichheitderbewegungmussdochwohlDemokritangenommenhaben,daohnedieseeinaufeinandertreffenderatomekaumdenkbarwre.'

Adifferenceofspeedwillindeedbeneedediftheatomsaremovingdownwards,whichisasthetheoryappearsinLucretius,inAlexanderandinZeller:buttherewill
benonecessityfortheatomstohavedifferencesofspeed,inordertocatcheachotherup,if,asonBrieger'stheory,theyaremovingindifferentdirections.1

ThisblemishinLortzing'spresentationofhissuggestionmaypossiblyinpartexplainwhythewholeideaisignoredwhenBriegerreturnstothefraysometwentyyears
later.2Butthereis,Ithink,amorepowerfulinfluenceatworktoconfuseBrieger'spowersofreceptivity,eveninhislateressay.Inthefinaleditionofhisgreatwork,
ZellerhadrejectedBrieger'sandLiepmann'sinterpretation,forcefullyandatlength.3Eveninhislateressay,therefore,Brieger'swholepreoccupationisstillcentredon
counteringZelleronthenarrowfrontofdownwardmovement,whileleavinginabeyanceanyradicalrethinkingonthequestionofweight.Thusitisfascinatingto
observethatinhisrehandlingofthepassagefrombookfourofthePhysics,BriegersuccessfullydetachesthepassagefromitsidentificationwithEpicurusand
Lucretius,andrightlyarguesthattakeninitselfthepassageaffordsnoevidencefordownwardmovement.ButBriegerstudiouslyavoidsanyrepetitionofhisearlier
suggestion,despiteitsendorsementbyLortzing,thatdifferencesofspeedmighthavebelongedtotheatoms,anideawhichintheabsencenowofanyconnectionwith
downwardmovementshouldonlyhavebecomethemoreplausible.Instead,hearguesthatthepassageinthePhysicsiscouchedexclusivelyintermsofAristotelean
categories,andheconcludes,almost,onefeels,asarebuketohisearliertentativeintuitions:

'WelcherArtabernachatomistischerAnsichtdieUrbewe

1
Lucretius,ii2259Alexander,ap.Simpl.Phys.679.1319cf.pp.18590above.
2
AdolfBrieger,'DieUrbewegungderDemokritischenAtome',Philologus63n.F.17(1904)58496.
3
PhilosophiederGriechen5thedn(1891)86888(=ZN107699).

 Page356
1
gungimLeerenseinsoll,darausistausdieserStelledurchausnichtszuentnehmen.'

Thereason,Ithink,whyBriegercurbsinthiswayhisearlierintuitionsisthathehasfeltitnecessary,forthesafetyofhisthesis,toendorseZeller'sdefinitionofweight.
Inhisfinaledition,Zellerhadwritten:

'UnterderSchwerehat...niemandimAltertumetwasanderesverstandenalsdiejenigeEigenschaftderKrper,vermenderensiesichnachuntenbewegen,wennihnendies
nichtdurcheinusseresHindernisverwehrtwird.'2

BriegerrepeatspreciselyZeller'sformula:

'UnterSchwereversteheich...dieEigenschaft,dassdieAtomesichineinerbestimmtenRichtung,wirsagen:nachunten,bewegen,wennsienichtuntersttztwerden.'3

Clearly,onceweadoptthisdefinitionofweight,Democritus'atomscouldnotmovewithdifferencesofspeedaccordingtotheirsizeorweightwithouttheiralsobeing
atoncecommittedtomovementdownwards.

(iv)

Butthetruthisthatitisimpossible,asoftenasnot,tohiveoffoneelementonlyinthereconstructionortheinterpretationofapieceofearlyphilosophy,andhopeto
achieveadefinitivesolutiontothispoint,withoutaconsciousgraspoftheneighbouringconceptionswhichmightimpingeuponit.BriegerhopestodemolishZeller's
argumentonmovement,whileacceptingcarteblancheZeller'sconceptionofweight.ButZeller'sconceptionofweightisinfactdoublywrong.Thereisnosingle
ancientconceptionofweight.Weight,forthePresocratics,isnotprimarilyorexclusivelyexpressedbymovementinaspecificdirection.Butso
1
'Urbewegung'593.
2
PhilosophiederGriechen5thedn876(=ZN1084).
3
'Urbewegung'586.

 Page357

authoritativeisZeller'stonethatalthoughZelleroffersnoevidencetosupporthissweepingdefinitionnonethelessBriegeracceptshisdefinitionunflinchingly,althoughin
doingsohenotonlyabandonshisearlierintuitionsaboutdifferencesofspeed:inacceptingblindlyZeller'sdefinitionofweight,Briegerlayshiswholeinterpretation
opentooneorotheroftwofatalobjections.
1.Iftheatomshaveweight,theymustmovedownwards.

2.Iftheatomsdonotmovedownwards,thentheyhavenoweight.

ThesecondalternativehadalreadybeenadoptedbyDyroff:
'...DemokritosdenursprnglichenAtomenSchwereundLeichtigkeitnichtbeigelegthatte,sondern...erbeideEigenschaftenerstbeidenAtomenderErdeundbeiden
SinnesqualitteneineBetrachtungunterwirft.'1

Briegerwasabletowriteslightingly,inhislateressay,oftheideathattheearthshouldbelightaswellasheavy.2ButhisobjectiontouchesonlythesurfaceofDyroff's
idea.ByacceptingZeller'sdefinitionofweight,andbyleavingtheprecosmicatomsthereforewithoutanyexpressionofweightpossibletothemthatwouldnotleadat
oncetoZeller'stheoryofafallofatoms,BriegerinevitablyleftthewayopenforBurnettorestateDyroff'sinterpretation,whichhedidbyaddingseveralpagestothe
secondeditionofhisEarlyGreekphilosophy,substitutingonlyworldforearth.3EventhischangeislessimportantthanitmayseemfromBurnet'sbrief
acknowledgmentofDyroff.4Forinwritingoftheearthbeinglightaswellasheavy,andinlimitingtheintroductionoflightandheavytotheearth,insteadoftothe
cosmosatlarge,Dyroffwasdoingnomorethantrytofollowfaithfullythedoxographicalaccountsofhowtheworldgrowsfromtheseparationoflightandheavy
elementsfromwithinwhatiscalledtheearth.5Burnet'ssupposedcorrectionisasimplifica
1
Demokritstudien35.
2
'Urbewegung'586.
3
EGP2ndedn(1908)3948(3rdedn3416).
4
EGP2ndedn398n.1(=3rdedn344n.4).
5
EspeciallyAet.iii13.4(DK68A95)cf.p.153n.3above.

 Page358

tionofDyroff'sthesisitisinnowayanimprovementuponitwhileBrieger'sslightingreferencetotheexistenceofbothheavyandlightelementswithintheearth
simplyignorestherefinementofDyroff'sargument.

MuchmoretothepointwasBrieger'sargumentagainstDyroffthattheatomshaveallthesamenature,andcannotthereforedifferradicallyinhaving,orinnothaving,
weight,althoughthereisatouchofwilfulpolemicinBrieger'sobjectingthatitisimpossibleforsomeatomstohaveweightandforothersnotto,whileDyroff'sideais
clearlythatthesameatoms,atdifferenttimes,have,anddonothave,weight.Briegerwrites:
'Daraufistzuerwidern,dassdieAtomeabsolutwesensgleichsind,Aristot.decaelo.I7.275b29ff.,alsoknnennichtdieErdatomeSchwerehaben,whrenddiebrigen,d.h.die
nichtindieErdverbindungeingegangenenAtomegewichtlossind.'1

ItisamoreseriousfaultthatBriegerrefersonlytotheDecaelo.Indoingso,heshowsthatheisstilltooabsorbedincontroversytobeabletoexploittheevidence
independentlyoftheusethatZellerhadmadeofit.ForinthepassagereferredtofromtheDecaeloAristotlewritesonlythattheatomshaveallthesamesubstance,
andthereforemustbealleitherheavyabsolutelyorlightabsolutely.Fromthisitcouldperhapsconceivablybeargued(inDyroff'sfavour)thatinfactthereforethey
canhavebeensaidtobeneither.Farmoretothepoint,forBrieger'sargument,isSimplicius'statementthataccordingtoDemocritustheatoms'haveweightinvirtue
oftheuniformityoftheirnature'.Butinhandlingthispassage,BriegerisstillconcernedonlytoargueagainstZellerthatthedownwardmovementofbodiesthere
spokenofisthemovementofcompoundbodiesandnotofatoms,andismovementwithinthecosmosandnotoutsidethecosmos.2ThusBrieger'spotentiallymost
valuableally,Simplicius,islost.HispointagainstDyroffislefttostand,faultedatoncebyhisownpolemic,andunattachedtotheonepieceofancientevidencethat
supports
1
'Urbewegung'586.ForthepassagefromtheDecaeloseeesp.pp.1115above.
2
'Urbewegung'58990.Simpl.,Decaelo569.59,cf.pp.1547above.

 Page359
1
itmostclearly:Simplicius'statementthattheatomshaveweight,asitwereintheirownright.

(v)

BurnetignoresBrieger'sobjection.Hetakesinstead,insupportforhisrevisionofDyroff'stheory,Brieger'sfinalargument:the
1
IhavetracedtherouteZeller,Liepmann,Brieger,Dyroffwhich,tojudgefromthereferencesgiveninEGP,infactledBurnettohisinterpretation.
Analternativeroutelayopen.AnumberofwritersarguefromDemocritus'generaltheoryofthenatureofperceptionthattheatomsarewithoutanyqualities,suchasheatorflavour,
andthattheyarethereforewithoutweight.ThisistheargumentinLafaist,Philosophieatomistique735,andinJohannE.Erdmann,GrundrissderGeschichtederPhilosophie4th
edni(Berlin,1896)545,andwithsomequalificationinRenouvier,Manueli245.ItalsoappearsfleetinglyinthepassageIlastquotedfromDyroff,Demokritstudien35.
DespitesomesensibleandcogentremarksagainstthisviewbyLiepmann,Mechanik32,theideareappearsinHamelin,andtheretakesonaformveryclosetoBurnet'sinterpretation,
'Lapesanteurdel'atome'198:

'Ildemeureacquiseneffet...queDmocrite(cequiestd'ailleursbienconnu)niel'existencedesqualitsaffectivesdanslesatomesmaislesfaitdpendretoutefoisdes
propritsgomtriquesdesatomes:telestexpressmentlecasdelachaleurettelparaittrelecasdelapesanteur.'
Hamelincontinues,198n.3:

'Sicen'estpeuttreque,considrerlesatomesquifontpartied'unmonde,lapesanteuryexisteenellemmetellequ'ellenousapparat,parcequ'elleestuneforcedont
l'atomesetrouvealorsrellementdou,d'oqu'ill'aitreue.'
Morerecently,thisinterpretationseemstohavelapsed,thoughtheideathattheatomsarewithoutweightbecausetheyhavenosensiblequalitiesdoescropupinpassinginI.A.
Boricevskij,'DemokritundEpikurimKampfumdieGrundlagendesAtomismus'[inRussian],Archiveforthehistoryofscienceandtechnology[inRussian],series1,number8(1936)
125.SeealsoHahmintheBibliography.
Therelationof'subjective'(hot,red,sweet)to'objective'properties(round,small)isofcourseacrucialquestionintheanalysisofancientAtomism.Ihavetoucheduponthepoint
earlier,pp.2568andinthefinalchapterofmysecondessayIshallarguethattheinclusionofweightamongthe'subjective'propertieswasasteptakenonlybyPlato.ButIshallnot
attempttodealwiththeatomictheoryofperceptionasawhole:althoughitisalwaysdangeroustodealwiththeideasofanythinkerpiecemeal,Ithinkthatinthiscasetheevidence
forweightmustbeanalysedonitsownterms,beforethenotionofweightcanproperlyberelatedtothelargerquestionoftheAtomists'conceptionofmaterialbodiesandtheir
relationtohumanperceptionorintelligence.

 Page360

useof inDiogenesLaertius.1Briegerhadarguedfromthisthattheprecosmicatoms'imGleichgewichteschwebten'.2Burnetchanges'imGleichgewichte'
to'theabsenceofweight',althoughinadaptingBrieger'sargumenthefailstoappreciatethat,ashisowntranslationofthepassagefromDiogenes,copiedoutfromthe
firsteditionafewpagesearlier,hadmadereasonablyclear,thisdescriptionappliesnottoatomsoutsidethecosmos,buttoatomsthatarealreadycaughtintothe
beginningsofacosmogonicalprocess.3

ButifonlybecauseBurnetandBriegerareatthispointcompanionsinerror,itiseasiertoask:whatdifferenceofsubstanceisthereinBurnet'sandBrieger's
interpretationof ?

Burnet'svacillationsonthesubjectarechillinglyclear,ifwecomparethewordingofthesecondandthethirdedition.

'...theword isthereforethatinwhichthetendencyinonedirectionisexactlyequaltothetendencyinanyother,andsuchastateismorenaturallydescribedasthe
absenceofweightthanasthepresenceofoppositeweightsneutralisingoneanother.Thatwayoflookingatitmaybeusefulfromthepointofviewoflaterscience,butitisnot
safetoattributeittothethinkersofthefifthcenturyB.C.'4

'...theword isthereforethatinwhichthetendencyinonedirectionisexactlyequaltothetendencyinanyother,andsuchastateismorenaturallydescribedasthe
absenceofweightthanasthepresenceofoppositeweightsneutralisingoneanother.'5

1
ix301(DK67A1)seeesp.ch.VII2,pp.20710above.
2
'Urbewegung'596.
3
EGP3389,cf.345.
4
EGP2ndedn398.
5
EGP3rdedn3445.Ihavemarkedinitalicsthedifferencesbetweenthetwoeditions.

 Page361

Inthesecondeditionitfollowsnaturallyenoughperhapstoarguethat iscauseandnottheeffectofweight,whichishowtheideaappearsinthethirdedition.

Thenewpremissisinanycaseasophism.If isusedinthecontextofweight,thenthemovement,orthetendencytomovement,indicatedbythewordisquite
simplytheexpressionofweight:ithardlymakessensetochoosebetweensayingthatthemovementisthecauseoristheeffectofweight,outsidethecontextofa
particulartheoryofweightandifwewereforcedtochoose,thenitwouldevenseemmorenaturaltosayperhapsthatthemovementistheeffectofweight.1

ButtherealconfusionofBurnet'sargumentliesinhisattemptatoncetodisengage fromanyconnotationofweight,andatthesametimetoconcludethat
themeaningofthewordinDemocritusis'theabsenceofweight'.

1.If neednot,andinthispassagedoesnot,haveanynecessaryconnotationofweightthenwecanconcludeneitherthatitmeansofequalweightnorthatitmeans
withoutweight.

2.If,ontheotherhand,wearetomakethechoicebetween'imGleichgewichte'and'theabsenceofweight',thenitcanbeonlybecause inthiscontextdoesreferto
weight:whetheritthenreferstothecauseortotheeffectofweight,makeslittledifference.

1
ThedistinctionmakessomesenseinthecontextofDescartes'theory(cf.pp.34950above),wheremovementisprimaryandweightisinsomesensesecondary,sothatPillon
canclaim,forDemocritusasforDescartes,thatweight'estunrsultat,nonunprincipedumouvement'('L'volutionhistoriquedel'atomisme',122).MabilleaumisquotesPillon's
viewasthat'lapesanteuresticilersultatetnonlacausedumouvement'(Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique199).ItistemptingtoseeBurnet'sformula(1920)that 'is
thecauseratherthantheeffectofweight'assimplyareversalofMabilleau'smisquotation(1895)ofPillon(1891).Ifso,theoriginoftheformulawoulddemonstrateitsweakness.
TheassertionorthedenialofPillon'sformulahardlyhasmeaningoutsidethecontextofCartesianismorunlesswedistinguishbetweenweightandmomentum.

 Page362

Andintruth,ifhavingthreadedourwaythroughBurnet'sconfusion,wepausetoconsider,eithermoreparticularly,whether isthemorelikelytomean'of
equalweight'or'ofnoweight',ormoregenerallywhetheritisbettertosaythattheatomsoutsideacosmoshaveaweightwhichtheydonotexpressuntiltheyare
drawnintoacosmos,ortosaythatatfirsttheyhavenoweightandthatlatertheygainweight,thenwesoonrealise,Ithink,thatineithercasewearefacedwitha
distinctionwithverylittledifference.ForifthiswerethestateofaffairswhichtheevidenceforancientAtomismpresenteduswiththenthemostobviousconceptual
expressiontothesolutionwouldbetosaythattheprecosmic,orintercosmic,atomshavepotentialweight:andwhenitisthenpointedoutthatthedistinctionof
potentialandactualhasnofirmfootinginprePlatonicthought,itwillbeobviousthatthedistinctionbetween'noweight'and'noweightthatisasyetapparent'isfairly
arbitrary,andthattheattractionofchoosingthesimplerformulationlies,ifnotinitsnavet,theninthedesiretoaccommodatetheentryinAetiuswhichdeclaresthat
Democritus'atoms'havenoweight',onthecrudelysimplisticprinciplethatoneshouldfindaplaceinone'sreconstructionforasmuchoftheancientevidenceas
possible,nomatterwhatitsrelativeworth.

ButthefinalfallacyinBurnet'shypothesisdoesnotlieinhisfalsechoicebetweentheatoms'havingnoapparentweightandtheirhavingnoweightatall.Itliesinthe
suppressionfromhisthirdeditionofthesentencewhichconcludedhisoriginalanalysisofweight:

'Thatwayoflookingatit',namelyasthepresenceofoppositeweightsneutralisingeachother,'maybeusefulfromthepointofviewoflaterscience,butitisnotsafetoattributeit
tothethinkersofthefifthcenturyB.C.'

Thisfinalsentencecomesdangerouslyclosetoadmittingthat as'theabsenceofweight'insteadof'thepresenceofoppositeweights'.Nosuchsleightof
handcanmakeit'safe'totransposetothefifthcenturytheterminologyofthefourthcenturyorlater.

 Page363

Thetruthisthat symptomisesthewholenotionofweightconceivedprimarilyandnecessarilyintermsofmovementthatispeculiartoPlatoandto
Aristotle.ItisthisnotionthatBurnet,BriegerandZelleralike,unreflectinglytransfertothefifthcenturywhentheysupposeeitherthatbecausetheatomshaveweight,
theymustmovedownwards,orthat,sincetheatomsdonotmovedownwards,thentheycanhavenoweight,oratleastnoappearanceormanifestationofweight.1

(vi)

ItisthissamenotionofweightthatdeterminestheaccountofAtomisminthecurrentmanuals,andthatinsodoingshowshowlittlehasyetbeenlearntofwhatthe
Presocraticshavepreeminentlytoteachus:thedifficulty,thefascination,andtherelief,ofescapingfromunconsciouspresuppositions,andfromingrainedhabitsof
thought.

Anotherwisesensiblescholar(withthelimitationsaswellastheadvantagesimpliedinthatdescription)writesrecently,whenhecomestothequestionthathasbeen
thesubjectofthisessay:
'Wemayherepausetoconsiderwhatweightmeans:itmeansatendencytomoveconsistentlyinacertaindirection,whatwecall''downwards",andaresistanceto"upward"
movement.'2

1
TheconceptualerrorthatIhavesoughttouncovershouldnotblindustothedoxographicalusethatcanproperlybemadeofthetwoterms
canapply,orsoIhaveargued,onlytothemovementonatomsatanearlystageintheformationofacosmos(cf.pp.20311
above).
Fromadoxographicalpointofviewtherefore,theerrorinBriegerandinBurnetconsistsinattemptingtoapplythepositiveuseoftheterm ,impliedbyDiogenes,toatime
priortotheformationofthecosmos,asdescribedintheTimaeus.Theaccompanyingconceptualerrorconsistsinthesupposition(1)thatatomswhichareoutsideacosmos,and
whichdonotfall,cannothaveweight,and(2)that'balance'canproperlybeaccountedalackofweight.
2
Kirk,Presocraticphilosophers415.

 Page364

Ifonlythewriterofthesewordshadpausedtothink.Andifonly,inpausing,hehadtakentimetoreflectnotonwhatweight'means',asthoughmeaningsexistedin
themselves,norevenonwhatweight'means'forus,butonwhatweightmighthavemeantforthosefirstphilosophersofGreece,whosewaysofthinkingarerelated
to,butareremotefrom,ourown.

2
EarlyGreekConceptionsofHeavyandLight

(i)

IfwearetotrytoplaceDemocritus'theoryofweight,howeverbriefly,initspropercontextinthehistoryofearlyGreekphilosophy,andmoreparticularlyifweareto
correcttheinfluentialbutfacilepictureofearlynotionsofweightofferedbyBurnet,soastodistinguishclearlybetweentheAtomists'conceptionofweightandthe
necessaryentailmentofweightandmovementthatwaslateranintegralpartofPlatonicandAristoteleanphilosophy,weneedfirsttoreturntothenotionthat
movementandrest,forthePresocratics,formedpartofacircleofassociationsthatwhenAristotlewrotewerealreadyoutdatedasadeterminativeforcein
philosophicalthinking,andthateveninPlatoappearonly,Ithink,aspartoftheconsciousanachronism,instyleanddetail,oftheTimaeus.1

ForthePresocratics,restandmovementwereprimarilyassociatedwiththeoppositionbetweenunityandplurality,likenessanddifference.FortheAtomists,in
particular,themovementoftheatomswasprobablysufficientlyexplainedby,orperhapssufficientlytakenforgrantedasaconcomitantof,theireternallypreexisting
pluralityanddiversity.2

ForAristotle,thesesameassociationsarenolongerviable.Unityandplurality,samenessanddifference,insofarasthey
1
Cf.ch.XI2,pp.31115above.ForBurnet'sinterpretation(EGP3417),seeabovepp.1757and35963.
2
Eternity,insomesense,isexpresslystatedbyAristotleasthearcheofnaturalphenomenafortheAtomists,andinthatsenseasprovidingacauseorexplanation,orperhapsone
shouldrathersayasobviatinganyneedforacause:Phys.viii1,252a32b5(inpartDK68A65),Degen.anim.ii6,742b1735(amazinglynotinDK:perhapsoneofthemostimportant
passagesforanunderstandingofPresocraticnotionsofcausality),cf.Eus.Praep.evang.i8.7(DK68A39).

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page365

havenotbeenaltogetherabandoned,aresubsumedunderthenewoppositionsofformandmatter,andofpotencyandact.Fortheelements,andfortheinanimate
substanceswhichareformedfromthem,movementandrestarenowprimarilytheexpressionofweight,asdefinedbythetheoryofnaturalplacesfortheelements.
ThusattheveryoutsetofhisanalysisofweightinbookfouroftheDecaeloAristotlewritesofhisenquiryintothenatureofthingsheavyandlightasbeing'proper'
tothestudyofquestionsconcerningmovement,'sincethingsheavyandlightaresocalledbytheircapacityfornaturalmovementofsomekind'(307b28
32).

ThereisanolesssymptomaticprefacetothelongerofthetwoaccountsofheavyandlightintheTimaeus.Platostartspreciselybyclaimingthat'heavyandlightmay
beexplainedmostclearlyiftheyareexaminedinconjunctionwiththenatureofwhatis"above"and"below"'(62C34:

Platocontinues(62C563A6)byisolating,andrejecting,thenotionthatthereareintheuniversetwooppositeplaces'whichdividethewholebetweenthem',aplace
'below'towhichanythingmoveswhichhasanybodyorbulk,andaplace'above'towhichthingstravelonlyinvoluntarily.TheviewwhichPlatorejectshereisthat
expressed,manycenturieslater,bySimplicius,as :onDemocritus'theory,asseenfromthepointofviewofAristotle's
philosophy,'onlywhatisheavyisthoughttoexist'(Decaelo712.30).Inrejectingthisview,Platobetraysthatpreoccupationwithplacewhichdeterminesthe
orientationofhisownconceptionofheavyandlight,andthatofAristotle.ForthepurportofPlato'sowntheoryisthatearthorfirewillbeheavyorlightinsofarasa
largerorsmallerpartofeitherelementhasthetendencytoreturntowhatwemightthinkofasitsparentbody(cf.63A6E7).

Thusforallthecriticismofdetailandofexpressionwhich

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

Mypointhereisbrieflytoemphasisethatwhatiseternalisnolessimportantasprovidingasatisfactoryexplanationofmovementinthefifthcentury.
Again,Aristotlewritesofvoidascause,orperhapsmoreproperlyascondition,ofmovementinanatomisttheory,Phys.viii9,265b239(inpartDK68A58),cf.iv8,214b12215a24
(notinDK).Void,fortheAtomists,Iwouldseeasaconcomitant,andasanecessaryconditionof,plurality.

 Page366

AristotleheapsonPlato'stheoryintheDecaelo,Plato'stheoryisinitsessentialssimilartothatofAristotle,inthatbothphilosophersthinkofheavyandlight,notas
beingrestrictedtosomeintrinsiccharacterorquality,butasthetendencyofabodytomoveinacertaindirectionandtobelocatedinacertainplace.1

ThedifferencebetweenthisnewalignmentofinterestsandtheolderprePlatonicconceptionofweightisstatedexplicitlybyPlutarchattheendofhistreatiseOnthe
primalandessentialnatureofcold.Thequestion,whichofthethreeelements,otherthanfire,istheprimaryrepositoryofcoldness,lendsitselfeasilytothecitation
ofpiecesofPresocratictheorising,andfromPlutarch'spennotallofthisinformationislikelytohavebeenculledatsecondhand.Hisconcludingremarkstherefore,
despitetheloosenessoftheirattribution,carryconsiderableauthority,Deprimofrigido955BC: .
Wemustrecognisethatthewisemenandintellectualsofoldsetagulfbetweenterrestrialandcelestialbodies:theydidsohowevernotbecauseofthedifferentplaces<thatthose
bodiesoccupy>,asthough<weighingthem>onabalance,andexamining<theirmovements>upanddownonthecontrary,<inancienttimestheydistinguishedthetwokindsof
element>bythedifferenceintheir<intrinsic>powers.

'Bodiesthatarehotandshining,andswiftandlight,theyassigntothebeing thatisdeathlessandendless.

'Bodiesthataremurkyandcold,andslow<andheavy>,theydeclaretobethehaplesslotofcreatureswhodwellintheshadowofdeathbelow.'

1
IamtouchinghereuponthemesthatwillbeofcentralimportancetomylateressaysonPlatoandAristotle,whichwillincludeadetailedanalysisofAristotle'scriticismofPlato.
ForthecontextofthequotationfromSimpliciusseeabovepp.15760.

 Page367

TheseremarksofPlutarchareinthemselvessufficienttodispelBurnet'simaginings.NotonlydoesPlutarchevidentlyseenodifferenceinkindbetweenheavyorlight
andothertraditionalpairingsofopposites,specificallyincludinghotandcold.Hestatesexplicitlythatfortheearlyphilosophersweightwasseenasanintrinsic
characteror'power',andwasnotdefinedintermsof'places',asforAristotle,norregarded ,afairlyplain
allusiontotheuseofthebalanceintheexpressionofPlato'stheoryofweightintheTimaeus,inthepassagewhichIhavecited(62C363E7).

(ii)

Plutarch'sgeneralisationisconfirmedwhenweturntothefragmentsof,orreportson,individualphilosophers.Atthesametime,wecangleanfromtheseamore
preciseideaofwhatkindof'power'weightwasthoughttobe.

ThusParmenidesdescribesthetwoprincipleswhichformtheworldofappearanceasrespectively :weightistherebyalignedwithdensity.

VirtuallythesametwopointsrecurinEmpedocles.InacriticismofEmpedoclesattachedtohisownanalysisofalloiosisintheDegenerationeetcorruptione,
AristotleliststhepairsofcharacteristicswhichEmpedoclesattachedtofireandtoearth,i1,315a1011(notinDK):'firehesaysiswhiteandhot,earthisheavyand
hard' .Amomentortwobefore,Aristotlehashimselfquotedtheversesdescribingsun
andrain,orfireandwater.Byaratherremarkablechance,Simpliciushappenstoquote,inanothercontext,thewholesetofversescontainingEmpedocles'own
accountofthecharacteristicfeatures,orproducts,ofthe
1
Simpl.,Phys.31.47.

 Page368

fourelements.ThusweknowthatofearthEmpedocleshimselfwrote,fr.21.6:

Bothadjectivesareextremelyunusual. isagainawordwhichisdescriptiveofdensity.3

ThesametwofeaturesrecurwithAnaxagoras.ThanksagaintoSimplicius,wehaveAnaxagoras'ownaccountoftheoppositesthatareseparatedoutfromtheoriginal
mixture,fr.12subfinem: .

'Fromthethinlyspreadthereisseparatedwhatisthick,fromthecoldthehot,fromthedarktheshining,fromthewetthedry.'

InthedoxographicalcompilationtranscribedbyHippolytus,whatareessentiallythesamepairingsappearthus,Ref.i8.2(DK59A42):
.
1
Simpl.,Phys.33.8ff.,159.13ff.
2ECC2667,280.
3Inwritingthus,IhavesupposedthatAristotlereplaces etc.).ButthismaybetoorestrictiveaninterpretationofAristotle'sprocedure.PossiblyAristotle'stwo
adjectivesareintendedtocorrespondtoEmpedocles'twoneologisms,withoutbeingintendedtocorrespondexactlytoadifferenceinmeaningbetweenthem.

 Page369

'Andsothethickanddamp,thedarkandcold,andallthingsheavy,jointogetherinthemiddle...whileallthethingsopposedtothese,thehotandtheshiningandthedryand
thelight,hastenfarintotheaether.'

ThereisnosingleexpressioninAnaxagorasforthephrasewhichHippolytustacksontohisfirstlistofopposites: (inthefragmentquotedbySimplicius).Again
thereforethereductiontolaterterminology.Again,theassociationoralignmentofweightanddensity.1

(iii)

Ontheotherhand,inHippolytus'accountofAnaxagorastheseoppositesaretreatedcosmogonically,andarethereforealignedwithposition.Theaccountsof
Parmenides' .

1
Theadjectiveswhichdiffer,butwhichareobviouslyintendedtocorrespond,are: .Thesechangesaffordaneatinstanceof
thetransformationofgenuinefifthcenturyvocabularyintothestandardisedterminologyofthedoxographicaltradition:cf.pp.30710andpp.3434above.Fortheinclusionof
weightinDiogenes'reportonAnaxagoras,seebelowp.378n.3.

 Page370

'Watchout,myfriend:takeheedlestyoubringuponyourselfthevisionofthattimeofcosmiccatastrophe,thatterrifyingdiscordancythatwereadofintradition<forsoitwill
be>ifinoneplaceyousetapartallthatisheavy,andinanotherplaceyousetapartallthatislight."Thenthereisnotseentheshiningfaceofthesun,nonortheshaggyearth,
norsea",asEmpedoclestellsus.Earthhad<then>noshareinheatwaterhadnoshareinairofheavythingsnonewasaloft,andoflightthingsnonebelow.'1

Thisassociationofweightandmovement,oratleastofweightandposition,inAnaxagorasandinEmpedocles,mightperhapsseemtoundomyearlierconclusion,
drawnfromPlutarch'sremarksintheDeprimofrigido,andtoactasconfirmationofBurnet'sthesis,thatheavyandlightrelatetothebehaviouroftheelements,and
arenotanintrinsiccharacterofwhateverkindhotandcoldwerethoughttobe.Wehaveinfactanumberofseeminglydisparateconclusions.

1.InPlutarch'sDeprimofrigidothereisagroupingofheavyandlightwithothertraditionalpairingsofopposites,specificallyincludinghotandcold,andwithafairlysharp
denialthattheseopposites,forthe'intellectualsandwisemenofold',weredefinedintermsofplaceorofdirection.

2.Ontheotherhand,inEmpedoclesandinAnaxagoras,heavyandlight,inacosmogonicalcontext(ifwemayallowthattermtoinclude,forthemoment,Empedocles'timeoftotal
Strife)areinfactrelatedtoplace,andtherefore,atleastbyimplication,tomovementinaspecificdirection.

3.Atthesametime,heavyandlight(whethersinglyorjointly)areeitheralignedwithdensity,asinParmenides,or,inaccountsofAnaxagorasandEmpedocles,theyareofferedas
aparaphraseoftermswhichdescribedensity.

ThankstoTheophrastus,wecanseethateachoftheseseeminglydisparateconclusionshasaparttoplayinthePresocraticconceptionofweight.Whenheturnsfrom
hishistoricalaccount
1
FormyinterpretationofthispassageinrelationtoEmpedocles'systemseeespeciallyECC316and14754.

 Page371

oftheoriesofthefacultyofsensetogiveapreliminaryaperuofearliertheoriesofthenatureofobjectsofsense,Theophrastuswrites,Desens.59(DK68A135):
....
'Whenweturntotheobjectsofsensation,theothers<i.e.apartfromDemocritusandPlato>failtospecifythenatureofthesensiblesandthekindofthingthateachoneofthem
is.

'Takefirstobjectsofsensationthatfallwithintheprovinceoftouch:theirideasonheavyandlight,andhotandcold.

'<All>theysay,forexample,<is>thatwhatisrareandfineishot,andthatwhatisdenseandthickiscold:thatatleastisthefashioninwhichAnaxagorasdistinguishesairand
aether.

'Heavyandlighttheyalsoaccountforbymoreorlessthesesamefactors,andfurtherbymovementsupanddown.'

Inthispassage,Theophrastusstatesexpresslythatearlierphilosophersattributedheavyandlightto'moreorlessthesamefactors'asthosetowhichtheyattributed
hotandcold,namelyfineandrareandthickanddense,'andfurther'to'movementsupanddown'.Thisisperhapstheclearestandmostconvincinglyembracive
statementofthepositionthatwecouldhopefor.Heavyandlightwereassociatedwithmovement,althoughnotatallexclusivelyso.Foratthesametimetheywere
treatedlikehotandcold:thatis,theywererankedwith,andwereliabletobereducedto,differencesofdensity.1
1
Stratton,119,givesjusttheoppositesensebytranslating as'thatistosay',andsotreatingdifferencesindensityanddifferentdirectionsofmovementasasinglekindof
explanation.ButthatisclearlynotthemeaningoftheGreek.
TheverbthatistobeunderstoodinthefinalsentencethatIhaveparaphrased

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page372

Thismultiplicityofideasisreallynomore,andnoless,thanwemighthaveexpected.Therewasnosuddenandunseenrevolution,hiddeninthedarknessbeforethe
dawnofGreekphilosophy,asBurnetimagines.Heavyandlightwereseenasoppositesnotradicallydifferentfromothersensibleoppositionssuchashotandcold,or
brightanddark,andinparticulartheywereseenaspartlyreducibletodifferencesofdensity:whatisheavyisthickanddense,whatislightwillbefineandrare.Atthe
sametime,especiallyinacosmogonicalorinsomerelatedcontext,heavyandlightordenseandrarewereassociatedwithdifferencesinpositionandwithmovement
butthiswasinnowaythatinvariableandnecessaryentailmentofweightandmovementthatwastobeanessentialandadeliberatefeatureofAristoteleanand
Platonicphilosophy.

(iv)

Inthelightofthisconclusion,thefinalsentenceofTheophrastus'mainaccountofDemocritus'theoryofweight,whichIquotedearlier,gainsconsiderablyin
significance.'Inotherplaces'Democritus'sayssimplythatwhatisfine( )islight'.1

WhatItaketobeonepossibleexampleofDemocritus',orperhapsLeucippus',useof ishappilypreservedforusinthedoxographicalsources,ifwe
comparethefollowingtwoaccounts.

1.DiogenesLaertius,ix31(DK67A1): .

'Therearesomanyoftheparticlesthattheycannotcontinuetheircirclingmovementwithoutbeingdrivenoffinonedirectionoranother:consequentlyfineatomsaresievedout,

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)

isperhapsnotquiteclear.Itiseasiertopickup .Thedifferenceinmeaningismarginal.
1
Desens.62(DK68A135),quotedp.116aboveforthetranslationcf.pp.131and256n.3above.

 Page373

asitwere,andmaketheirway<back>intothespaceoutside<thewhirl>,whiletheatomsthatareleftbehindstaytogetherandastheybecomeenmeshedwitheachotherthey
movearoundtogether,andatthesamerateaseachother,soproducingthefirst<primitive>structuretohavetheshapeofasphere.'

2.Aetiusi42(DK67A24): .

'Whentheatomsclustertogetherinonespot,whicheverarethelargerandheaviestonessettledownbeneathall<theothers>,asopposedtowhicheveratomsaresmalland
roundandsmoothandslippery:thesearesqueezedoutbytheveryprocesswhichbringsthe<other>atomstogether,andarecarriedaloftintotheupperregion.'1

Thesearefairlyobviouslyintendedtobethesametwogroupsofatoms,althoughtheyarepresentedtheoppositewayround:skyandearthinDiogenes,earthandsky
inAetius.InAetiustheexpression inDiogenes.Atthesametime,Aetius'expressionindicatesfairlywellthattheopposinggroupofatomsshouldbe
1
FormyparaphraseofthepassagefromDiogenesLaertiusseeabovep.205.Thepointof Itaketobethattherearesomanyatomsshootingaroundthatthey
cannotavoidbecomingentangledwitheachother.

InthepassagefromAetiusIhavefollowedUsener,Epicureafr.308,andDK67A24,inwriting etc.asreferringtoatoms.Fortheequivalentdiscrepancyintexts
fromEpicurusandSimplicius,seepp.15960above.
ThecosmogonyrecordedfromAetiusisnotascribedtoanyspecificthinker,buttheformofmyargumentrequiresonlythat,atthispoint,theideasinitshouldcorrespondtothe
passagequotedfromDiogenes'LifeofLeucippusandthistheyobviouslydo.

 Page374

accountedaslight.InDiogenes'reporttheatomsintheopposinggroupareinfactdesignatedpreciselyas .

Thesameassociationsappearintheaccountofsmell.Herewhatisrareorfine( .

'Democritusdidnottroubletomarkoffaseparatedefinitionforsmell,excepttonotethatwhatisfinemakesasmellwhenitfloatsoffheavythings.'1

Theconverseassociation,ofheavinessand'thickening',appearsintheaccountoftheearth'sformation,inAetius,iii13.4(DK68A95):
.
'Democritussaysthatatthebeginningthesmallnessandlightnessoftheearthallowedittowanderabout,butthatitwasthickenedinthecourseoftimeandthatonceithadbeen
madeheavyitcametoahalt.'2

Thesepassagesadequatelyillustratetheremarkthat'inotherplaces'Democritus'saidsimplythatwhatisfineislight'.Buttheydomore.Fromhistone,Theophrastus
isevidentlynotquitesurewhethertheassociationoflightnesswith,oritsreductionto,densitywasintendedtobethesameasDemocritus'moresophisti
1
ThisconjunctionofideasisnotpeculiartoDemocritus.Theequivalentassociation,ofwhatisrareorfine( ).
2
Dyroffchanged ,Demokritstudien35n.8.Althoughthiswouldaddtomyargument.IthinkDielsisperhapsrighttotreatthechangeasunnecessary.

 Page375

catedtheoryoflightnessascausedbyapreponderanceofvoid.WhatTheophrastus'earlierremark(cap.59)shows,however,isthatDemocritus'association,or
identification,oflightnesswithdensityisessentiallyacontinuationofearlierwaysofthinking,towhichDemocritushasgivenmoreformalisedandmoresophisticated
expressionbyhisdistinctionbetweenatomsandcompoundbodiesandbyhisdeliberateadoptionofvoid.

(v)

ButperhapstheclearestillustrationofTheophrastus'remarkthat'elsewhereDemocritussaysthatwhatislightisfine'(cap.62)isprovidedbyTheophrastushimself,
nothoweverinhisaccountoftheatomictheoryofweight,butindirectlyinacoupleofremarksattachingtohisreportsonDemocritus'theoryofflavoursandcolours.

ApassagequotedearlierfromAristotle'sDeanimatellsusthatfire,forDemocritus,ismadefromsmall,roundatoms.1Aredcolour,TheophrastustellsusintheDe
sensibus,ismadefromthesameatomsaswhatishot,exceptthatforaredcolourtheatomsarelarger(cap.75).Thereishoweveradifference,Theophrastus
continues,betweenwhatisredandwhatisbrightorshining.Coloursthatare'brightest' ).

Thispassageneedstobecomparedwithadetailfromtheanalysisofflavours.IhavealreadyquotedDemocritus'explanationofatartorbitterflavour.2Thesmall,
sharpatomswhichproducethisflavouralsoproduceasensationofwarmth,Theophrastustellsus,'bymakingemptyspaces:forwhathasmostemptyspaceismost
inclinedtogrowhot'(cap.65: ).

Nowthislastexpression, ,exactlyrepeatstheformulawhichAristotleuses,intheDecaelo,to
1
Arist.,Deanimai2,405a813(DK68A101)cf.pp.31718above.
2
Desens.65(DK68A135)cf.pp.3201above.

 Page376

explainwhyfire,fortheAtomists,isthelightestelement,iv2,309a1516: .'Andthatis
whyfiretheysayislightest,becauseithasmostvoid.'1

Wehavethereforethefollowinghighlysignificantconjunctionofideas.TheformulawhichAristotleattributestotheAtomistsastheexplanationofwhyfireisthe
lightestelementisexactlyrepeatedinTheophrastus'accountofwhythingsgrowhot,inhisreportontheanalysisofflavourswhilelater,intheanalysisofcolours,what
ishotisidentifiedwithwhatis fortheformulawhichdescribeslightnessintermsofvoid.

ThusTheophrastushimself,inthecontinuationofhisreportonDemocritus,neatlyillustratestheambiguitywhichheremarksuponinhisaccountofheavyandlight,
betweenthedefinitionofweightintermsofvoidandthedescriptionintermsofdensitywiththedifferencethattheambiguityrecursinthedescriptionnotofweight
butoftemperature.

Butthistransposition,fromweighttotemperature,ispreciselywhatweareledtoexpectfromTheophrastus'earlierandmoregeneralremarkthatearlierthinkers
explainedheavyandlightby'moreorlessthesamefactors'asthosetheyusedtoexplainhotandcold:'whatisrareandfineishot,andwhatisdenseandthickis
cold'(cap.59).

Theonlysurprise,forthemoderncritic,isthatDemocritusandPlatohadappearedtobeexemptedfromthiscriticism,onthegroundthatthesetwothinkershadalone
'providedadefinitionforeachoneofthesensibles'(cf.cap.601).Butwhatweseenow,evenmoreclearlythanbefore,isthatDemocritus''definition'ofweightdoes
notexcludetheassociation,commontothosewhofailedtoprovideadefinitionofweight,wherebydifferencesofweightanddifferencesoftemperaturewerealike
ascribedtodifferencesofdensity.
1.TheambiguitywhichTheophrastusremarksuponin

1
ForapreliminaryanalysisofthecontextofAristotle'scriticism,seeabovepp.101ff.

 Page377

hisreportonDemocritus'theoryofweight(cap.612),betweenadefinitionintermsoftheproportionofvoidandadescriptionintermsofdensity,isexactlyrepeatedinremarks
whichTheophrastusmakesabouttheatomictheoryoftemperatureinhisanalysisofflavours(cap.65)andcolours(cap.75).

2.Theexplanationof'growinghot'whichTheophrastusprovidesinhisaccountofDemocritus'theoryofflavours(cap.65)exactlyrepeatsthedefinitionwhichAristotleattributes
totheAtomistsoffireasthe'lightest'body(Decaeloiv2,309a1516).1

(vi)

Thusthegeneralmessageisunmistakablyclear.Itisnottrue,asBurnetclaims,thatheavyandlightwerethoughtofasinsomewayradicallydifferentfromother
oppositions,includinghotandcold.Onthecontrary,heavyandlight,nolessthanhotandcold,forDemocritusasforotherPresocratics,werereducibleto,andwere
explainedby,differencesofdensity,atleastwithregardtothenatureofcompoundbodies.ThedifferencebetweenDemocritusandtheotherPresocraticswill
presumablylieinDemocritus'conjunctionoftheexplicitadmissionofvoidwithhisconceptionofasinglekindofmaterialsubstancetheatomswhichareinvariable
indensity.

Thisatleastwouldexplain,inpart,Aristotle'sremarkintheDecaelothat'someofthosewhodenythevoidgavenodefinitionofheavyandlight,asisthecasewith
AnaxagorasandEmpedocles'(iv2,309a1921).ThepointisnotthatDemocritus'predecessors
1
TheprioritywhichTheophrastusgivestothedefinitionoftemperature(cap.59)isreflectedinAristotle'sremarkintheMetaphysics,quotedearlier,whereDemocritus'
approximationtoadefinitionofhotandcoldissingledoutastheloneprecursor,amongthewritingsofthe'physicalphilosophers',toSocrates'searchforgeneraldefinitions(Met.
M4,1078b12ff.,esp.b1920cf.p.338n.1above).Theophrastus'claimthattheAtomiststreathotandcoldas presumablyreflectsthesameidea(Desens.71).Thepriority
ofhotandcoldinrelationtotheothersensiblesperhapshelpstoexplaintheleadingrlegiventotemperatureinAristotle'scriticismofDemocritusinthepassagefromtheDe
generationeetcorruptioneanalysedinmysecondchapter(i8,325b36326a14,seepp.57ff.above).

 Page378
1
failed'togiveanyexplanation'ofweight'atall,oreventosayanythingaboutit',asBurnetsupposes. Onlythefirstpartofthesentenceistrue.Anaxagorasand
Empedoclesfailedtodefineheavyandlight,butasAristotleremarksatthebeginningofbookfouroftheDecaelo'everyoneusesthepowers'ofheavyandlight
'althoughfewpeoplehavedefinedthem'(iv1,308a34).2

ThisisessentiallyTheophrastus'point.Anaxagorasisspecifiedashavingdistinguishedhotandcoldbyvariationsindensity(Desens.59).ButTheophrastusevidently
doesnotcountavariationindensityassufficientforanexplanationoradefinitionofhotandcold,forAnaxagoras'accountofhotandcold,inthischapteroftheDe
sensibus,isintroducedpreciselytoexemplifythosewho'failtospecifythenatureofthesensibles'.ThesamewillbetrueforAnaxagoras'useofheavyandlight.I
havealreadynotedthewayinwhichAnaxagoras'owndistinctionbetween'thick'and'thin'appearsinthedoxographicalsummaryrecordedbyHippolytusasa
distinctionbetween'thick'or'heavy'and'light'.PresumablythereforeAnaxagoraswillbeincludedamongthosewhomTheophrastuswritesofinthissamechapterof
theDesensibusasaccountingforheavyandlightby'thesamethings'thattheyusedtoaccountforadifferenceofhotandcold,namelyvariationsindensity(cf.
,cap.59).Butagaintheassociationofheavyandlightwithavariationindensityisintroducedpreciselytoexemplifythosewho'failtospecifythenature
ofthesensibles'.

DemocritusandPlatoareexceptedfromthiscriticism,bybothAristotleandTheophrastus.Butthisneednotmeanandthepointabout indicatesthatit
doesnotmeanthatDemocritusthereforehassomeradicallynewandexclusiveconceptionofthenatureofweight.Thepointwouldappeartoberatherthat
Democritus'essentialstepistoplacetheoldconceptionofheavyandlightasdistinguishedbydensityonwhatAristotleandTheophrastusrecogniseasanewandso
tospeakscientificorphilosophicalfooting.3
1
EGP342(myitalics),quotedincontextpp.1756above.
2
Thedetailedinterpretationofthispassagemustawaitmythirdessay.Meanwhilecf.ECC346.
3
IhavetakenAnaxagorastorepresentthe'old'conceptionofheavyandlight,despitetheaccountthatisgivenofhistheorybyDiogenes.InDiogenes'report,ii8(DK59A1),the
stringofoppositeswhichwefindinfr.12andinHippolytus(cf.pp.3689above)isreducedto'heavy'and'light',exemplified

(footnotecontinuedonnextpage)

 Page379

(vii)

Fromonepointofviewthechangehasbeenasimpleandanobviousone.ThematerialcomponentofDemocritus'world,theatoms,arenolongersubject,
individually,tochangesindensity.Ifoneatomcannolongerbeheavierorlighterthananotherbecauseitismoredenseormorerare,ifitisimpossible,sotospeak,to
stuffmorematerialintothesamevolume,thenanincreaseofweightcanonly,oratleastmostobviously,beachievedbyanincreaseofsize.Fromthispointofview,
theassociationofheavyandlightwithdenseandrareistransferred,intheatomicsystem,toanalignmentofheavyandlightwithlargeandsmall:weightbecomesa
functionofsize.

Butthatisonlypartofthestory.Thedirectassociationofheavyandlightwithdifferencesofdensitycontinues,intheaccountthatDemocritusgaveofbodies
compoundedofatomsandvoid.Fromthispointofview,wehavetoturntheevidenceonitshead,sotospeak.Ihavespentmostofthisessayattemptingto
disentangletheevidencefortheweightoftheindividualatoms:fortheevidenceontheweightofcompoundbodies,intheDecaeloandinTheophrastus,isless
controversial,exceptperhapsforthequestionofthedifference,orthelackofdifference,involumebetweenthebodiescompared.Butasoftenthedifficultyin
disentanglingtheevidenceisnotproportionatetotheimportanceofthequestion.WhenSimpliciuswritesthattheatomsare

(footnotecontinuedfrompreviouspage)
byearthandbyfire,withwaterandairofferedasintermediateelements,allpreciselyasinAristotle'sscheme.
ScholarshavesiezeduponthisreportasevidenceofAnaxagoras''anticipation'ofAristotle'sview,mostnotablyandmostrecentlyW.D.Ross,intheintroductiontohiseditionof
Aristotle'sPhysics,26n.2.This,Iamafraid,isnotuntypicaloftherathermechanicalfashioninwhichRossintroducesmaterialfromDieFragmentederVorsokratikerintohis
commentariesonAristotle.Forthetruthismuchmorelikelytobetheotherwayround:thatthetraditionallistingsofoppositeswhichwefindinfr.12,andwhichhavealreadybeen
partlyAristoteleanised,orsoIhaveargued,inHippolytus,havenowbeendresseduptolookwhollylikeAristotlebyDiogenesorhissource.Thisatleastwouldseemtobethe
conclusionindicated(1)byAristotle'sownremarkthat'someofthosewhodenytheexistenceofvoid,suchasAnaxagorasandEmpedocles,havegivennodefinitionofheavyand
light'(Decaeloiv2,309a1921),and(2)byAristotle'sstatementthatEmpedocleswasthefirsttousefourelementssimultaneously(Met.A4,985a313),coupledwithmyconclusion
thatAnaxagoraswrotebeforeEmpedocles(cf.'TherelationofAnaxagorasandEmpedocles',JHS88[1968]93113).

 Page380

'causesofheavinessincompoundbodies,justasvoid<iscause>oflightness'(Decaelo269.1314),hislanguageinpartreflectstheAristoteleannotionofheaviness
andlightnessasdistinctandoppositeprinciples.Buttheremarkthattheatoms'invirtueofbeingfull<ordense>dothemselveshaveheavinessandare<thereby>
causesofheavinessincompoundbodies'(269.1213)doesperhapscorrectlyreflectonepreoccupationintheoriginaltheory:theatomshaveheavinessinorderto
accountforthedensity,andtheheaviness,ofthecompoundbodies,whichalonefalldirectlywithinourperception.1

Andfromthispointofviewwearriveatthesameconclusion,onlybyadifferentroute,sotospeak.IfDemocritusistocontinuethetraditionalassociationofheavy
andlightwithdenseandrare,andmoreparticularlyifatomsaretoactwithvoidasacoordinatoroftheweightofcompoundbodies,thenadifferenceofsizeinthe
atomscannotbutfindexpressioninadifferenceofweight:moreandsmalleratomswillgivethesameproportionofsolidtovoidasfewerandlargeratoms.The
individualatommustthereforeagainbereckonedashavingweightinproportiontoitssize.

ButthiswayoflookingatDemocritus'theory,thoughIthinkinonesenselegitimate,inanothersenseactsonlytocasttheburdenofexplanationfromonefactorin
Democritus'theorytoanother.Itismoreimportant,Ithink,toappreciatethatthepreoccupationwithdensity,andtherebywiththesizeandwiththeweightof
individualatoms,isnotdependentuponanynotionofweightas,torepeattheexpressionofProfessorKirk,'atendencytomoveconsistentlyinacertaindirection'.2
Onthecontrary,iftheindividualatomsaretobedistinguished,apartfromtherolethattheyplayinthecompositionofcosmicbodies,bytheirspeedorbytheirforce
ofimpactinthevoid,thentheearlyconceptionofweightasrelatedprimarilytodensity,andonlyinpartto'movementsupanddown',willnotrequirethespeedof
atomsthataremovinginavoidtobeattachedtothenotionofmovementinaspecificdirection,norwillimpact,asinEpicurus'system,needtobesubordinated,soto
speak,toanynotionofa'fall'ofatoms.Fromthispointofviewtheessentialmovewillbe
1
ThepassageinSimpliciushasbeenconsidered,ch.V2,pp.1616above.
2
Presocraticphilosophers415,cf.p.363above.

 Page381

toridourmindsequallyofweightastiedprimarilytomovementinaspecificdirectionwithinacosmos,andofitsconverse,thenotionofweightlessbodiesina
vacuum.Ifheavyandlightarenotdefinedprimarilyintermsofmovementupanddownwithinacosmos,thenbodiesoutsideacosmoswillbeliabletoretaintheir
differencesofweightnolessthantheirdifferencesofsize.

(viii)

IreturnthereforetothepassageinTheophrastus:thenotionofdifferencesindensityandof'movementsupanddown'asthetwocriteriaofweightinearlyGreek
thought.InthisdisjunctionandassociationofideasIthinkweseemostclearlythecontinuityandthedifferencebetweenearlyGreekconceptionsofheavyandlight,as
epitomisedbyDemocritus,andthelaterPlatonicandAristoteleanconceptionsofweight.

DemocritusandPlatoaresingledoutbyTheophrastusashavingaloneprovidedanexplicitlyphilosophicaltheory,a'definition',ofthenatureofsensibilia,explicitly
includingweight,Desens.5960(DK68A135): .
'Theothersleaveoutanyaccountoftheobjectsofsense....DemocritusandPlatoaretheonlyoneswhohavereallycometogripswiththesubject.Theyadvanceadefinition
foreachoneofthesensibles.'

AsIhavenoted,thereismuchthesameimplicationintheequivalentremarkintheDecaelo,thatthosewhodeniedtheexistenceofvoid,Anaxagorasand
Empedocles,gavenodefinitionofweight.IfonlyinthelightofwhatTheophrastussays,wemust,Ithink,treatthetheoryofweightasdefinedby'largenessand
smallness'whichAristotleregularlyintroducesalongsidePlatoandDemocritusinthefourthbookoftheDecaelo,butwithoutattachingittoanynamedphilosopher,
asinlargepartAristotle'sownelaborationoftheassumptionsaboutweightwhichheheldtobeimplicitinthetheoriesofDemocritusandofPlato.1
1
Iexplorethispointinmythirdessay,whereIarguethatthe'third'theoryisalsoinpartAristotle'sextrapolationfromIonianideas.

 Page382

IfthereforewerestrictthefieldofearlydefinitionsofweighttoPlatoandDemocritus,wefindthatthephilosophicalexplicationofearlynotionsofweightfollowsa
typethatisatoncefamiliartothosewithaneyeforacharacteristicmodeinthedevelopmentofphilosophicalideas.Intheearlierfifthcenturytwoconceptionsof
weightexistsidebyside.
1.Weightisnodifferentintypefromhotandcold:likethemitisassociatedwith,oreveninsomesensereducibleto,density.

2.Atthesametime,lightandheavyareassociatedwiththebehaviourofthings:withtheirmovementandwiththeirposition.

Philosophicalreflectionsinglesoutfirstoneandthentheotherofthesetwoconceptions.
1.TheassociationofweightwithdensityisadoptedbytheAtomiststoformthebasisforwhatisprobablythefirstexplicitlyphilosophicalexplanationofweight.

2.ThelatterassociationisdevelopedintoaPlatonicorAristoteleantheoryofnaturalplacesfortheelements,withheavyandlighttiedtothenotionofmovementinaspecific
direction.

Admittedly,thesearenotexclusiveassociations,oneitherside.
1.MovementtowardsaspecificplacehasitsfootinginthetheoryofDemocritus.Largeatoms,anddenseagglomerationsofatoms,whentheyaredrawnintoacosmos,willmove
towardsthecentre,whilesmallatoms,andrarefiedagglomerationsofatoms,aresqueezedoutandforcedtowardsthecircumference,orbeyond.

2.Fromtheotherpointofview,althoughPlato'sdefinitionofweightasdeterminedbyresistanceisprecededbyasophisticatedanalysisofthenotionofplaceanddirection,
nonethelessPlatoalsoincludesinhistheory,Ishallargue,theolderconceptionofweightasdeterminedbysizeandbydensity.

3.Equally,inAristotle'stheory,thedifferencebetween

 Page383

heavyandlightinfactgoeshandinhand,welearninthePhysics,withadifferenceofdensity,althoughareadingofbookfouroftheDecaeloleavesnodoubtthatitisplaceand
positionwhicharethedeterminativeforcesinAristotle'sconception.1

Withthesequalifications,itremainstruethatdensity,orsizeanddensity,aretheprimarydeterminantsoftheearlierconceptionofweight,asexpressedmostdirectly
byDemocritus,whileforDemocritus,asforotherofthePresocratics,thedistinctionofplaceissecondaryandderivative,whereasforAristotleitisplaceandposition
thatareprimary.

Thequestionoftheorderinwhichthesetwoconceptionsofweightweredistinguished,whytheassociationwithdensityshouldhavedevelopedearlierthanthe
associationwithplace,veersoffintolargerquestionsofontology.Democritus,withnosinglenoreternalworld,wouldscarcelyhavebeenabletodefinetheweightof
hisultimateelementsintermsoftheirlocationwithinthetransitoryphenomenaofskyandearth.Theatomsthereforemustcontainwithinthemselveswhatever
characterispeculiartotheirexistence.Ontheotherhand,inaworldthatissingleandeternal,asforPlatoandforAristotle,centreandcircumferencearethemore
abletoactasapermanentreferencefor,andthereforeassufficientexplanationof,thenatureofthesubstancesthathabituallyfindthemselveslocatedthere.
1
Ileavethesetwopoints(cf.Phys.iv9,216b22217b20)foranalysisinmythirdessay.

 Page385

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ihavenotattemptedtoproduceacompletebibliographyofmoderncriticalworksontopicstoucheduponinthecourseofthisstudy.Thefollowinglistcontains
therefore(1)allworksthatforanyreasonhavebeencitedinthetextorinthefootnotes,and(2)afewotherworksthatIhaveconsulted,andthatIhavefound
significantorevenuseful,butthatIhavenothadoccasiontoreferto.SomebroaderworksonthehistoryofthesubjectIamkeepingfortheBibliographytomyfourth
volume,unlesstheyhappentohavebeenreferredtointhecourseofthepresentwork.

Ingeneralmyaimhasnotbeentodealexhaustivelywithpreviousliterature,buttotakeonlythoseinterpretationsthathavebeenmostinfluentialorthatseemedmost
worthyofconsideration,andthentodealwiththeseinterpretationsfairlyfully,atthecostofcuttingoutreferencestolesswellknownandtolessinfluentialworksof
criticism.Ihavehopedtherebytogaininclarityandincontinuityofthought,althoughitisnotwithoutsomeregret,andhesitation,thatIhaveabandonedthe
completenessofreference,anddetail,thatIhadaimedatinsomeofmyearlierpublications.

Entriesarearrangedalphabeticallyunderauthors'names.Ihavetriedtoincludealldetailsforthereprintingofarticles,butIhaveusuallyincludedthereprintingof
booksonlywhensignificantadditionsorchangeshavebeenmadetothetext.Whererelevant,referencesaregivenattheendofanentrytothepagesofthepresent
workonwhichtheitemsinquestionhavebeencited.

IhavesometimesaddedbriefcriticalnotesinoneortwocasesIhaveusedtheBibliographyasaplacetoexplainwhysomeitemsarenotdealtwithmorefullyinthe
text.

ALFIERIVittorioEnzo.GliAtomisti,frammentietestimonianze,traduzioneenotediV.E.A.Guis.Laterza&Figli,Bari.1936.Pp.xviii+410.

172n.1.186n.2.203n.3.285n.4.326n.1.SeealsoHAMMERJENSEN(1910)intheBibliography.

ALFIERIVittorioEnzo.'Laformazionedelpensieroaristotelicoelapolemicaepicurea',Sophia,rivistainternationaledifilosofiaestoriadellafilosofia[this
subtitlevariessometimesbetweendifferentissues]7(1939)22144.

187n.4.

ALFIERIVittorioEnzo.Atomosidea,l'originedelconcettodell'atomonelpensierogreco.FeliceleMonnier,Firenze.1953.Pp.vii+214.

Afteraratherwordyargument,withapartialandsomewhatunsystematicuseofevidence,8095,Alfiericoncludes,93:

'Ilpesooperanonqualeforzadicaduta,comefraintendevanoEpicuroeLucrezio,bensqualeforzavettoriale,versoquelladirezionechedeterminatadalrapportodelleforme
affiniedallalorovicinanza,econvelocitproporzionalealpeso.'

154n.1.186n.2.187n.4.285n.4.324n.1.

ARCHERHINDRichardDacre.The'Timaeus'ofPlatoeditedwithintroductionandnotes.MacMillanandCo.,LondonandNewYork.1888.Pp.vii+358.

xviixviii.

 Page386

ARRIGHETTIGraziano.EpicuroopereacuradiA.G.,intheseriesBibliotecadiculturafilosoficano.41.1stedn1960.'Nuova[2nd]edizionerivedutae
ampliata'.GiulioEinaudieditore,Torino.1973.Pp.liii+793.

285n.3.

ASULANUS.IhaveconsultedthetextofAsulanus'LatintranslationoftheDegenerationeetcorruptioneintheversionattachedtoAverroes'works,published
Venetiis1483.Thesameorasimilartranslationiscontainedinanearlieredition,Patavii1474.BothworksareintheBibliothqueNationale,Paris,respectively:Rs.
R355andRs.R357.

Theformerworkhasforcolophon:novetranslationilibrorumdegenerationeetcorruptioneabAveroiCordubensicommentate...finisimpositusest.
ImpensaatquediligentiaAndreedeasulaVenetiisimpresse.AnnosalutischristianeMCCCCLXXXIIIseptimocalendasoctobris.(Hain,Repertorium
bibliographicum1660.)

Thelatterworkhasforcolophon:novetranslationilibrorumdegenerationeetcorruptioneabAveroiCordubensicommentate...finisimpositusest.
NobilisvicentiniloannisphilippiAurelianietfratrumimpensa.Operavero:atqueingenioLaurentiiCanoziiLendenariensis.ImpressePataviiAnno
ChristioptimiMCCCCIIIIetLXXquartodecimokalendasIulii.(Hain,Repertoriumbibliographicum1691.)

645.756.

AUBENQUEPierre.'Physiquearistotlicienneetlangage',Archivesdephilosophie,recherchesetdocumentation31(1968)12532.

AusefulcorrectivetoWIELAND'sacountofthekindofanalysistobefoundinAristotle'sphysicalwritings.

xixn.1.

BAEUMKERClemens.DasProblemderMaterieindergriechischenPhilosophie,einehistorischkritischeUntersuchung.DruckundVerlagder
AschendorffschenBuchhandlung,Mnster.1890.Pp.xv+436.

ArepetitionofZeller'sview,823and945.

BAILEYCyril.Epicurus,theextantremains,withshortcriticalapparatus,translationandnotes.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1926.Pp.432.

45.160n.4.184n.1.231n.1.285n.4.289n.2.290n.4.295.

BAILEYCyril.TheGreekAtomistsandEpicurus,astudybyC.B.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1928.Pp.viii+619.

DespitethevirtuesofBailey'sworkonEpicurus,readersofthislaterstudy,andespeciallyofthepagesonweightandmovement,12348,cf.824,shouldbeon
theirguardagainstmisinterpretations,andevenmistranslations,oftheevidence,onlysomeofwhichIhavesingledoutforattentioninthecourseofmyessay.

45.8n.1.46n.3.54n.1.1378.1402.1489.154n.1.15861.177n.4.186.203n.3.2246.231n.1.232n.2.245n.1.248n.1.2646.269n.2.284
n.3.287n.3.2945.2967.SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

BALDESRichardWilliam.Aristotle'srelationtoDemocritusreconsideredandvindicatedasagainstthecriticismofHaroldCherniss.Dissertation...inthe
departmentofclassicalstudiesofLoyolaUniversity,Chicago.1972.Typescript,pp.332.

AusefulcheckonCherniss'treatmentofAristotle:theproblemofweightisnotdiscussed.

BEAREJohnIsaac.GreektheoriesofelementarycognitionfromAlcmaeontoAristotle.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1906.Pp.vii+354.

BIGNONEEttore.'Epicurea',Attidellar[eale]AccademiadellescienzediTorino47(191112)67090.

293n.1.

BIGNONEEttore.L'AristoteleperdutoelaformazionefilosoficadiEpicuro,intheseriesIlpensieroclassicono.4.'LanuovaItalia'editrice,Firenze.2parti,
1936.Partei,pp.xvii+410.Parteii,pp.633.

187n.4.

 Page387

BIGNONEEttore.'Ladottrinaepicureadel''clinamen",suaformazioneesuacronologia,inrapportoconlapolemicaconlescuoleavversarie,nuovelucisullastoria
dell'atomismogreco',AteneeRomaserie3anno8(1940)15998.

187n.4.

BOLLACKJean.'Deuxfiguresprincipalesdel'atomismed'aprsAristote:l'entrecroisementdesatomesetlasphredufeu',SymposiumAristotelicum4ed.I.
During(Heidelberg,1969)3250.

Thisstudycontainsseveralremarksonthenatureofweight.Bollackatfirststatesclearly,39n.39:'Lesatomesnepsentpas'.Laterhoweverheappearsto
qualifythisinthewaythatBurnetdoes.ThushavingquotedbothAetius'denialthattheatomshaveweight,andAristotle'sassertionintheDegenerationeet
corruptionethat'eachatomisheavieraccordingtoitspreponderance',hewrites,46n.77:'Danslemonde,lepluslourd,pourDmocrite,estleplusgranddonc
lesatomes,quandilstaientplusgrands,devaienttrepluslourds'.Inthefollowingnote,47n.78,hecontinues:'Lepoidssedgagedelagrandeurrelative,une
foislescorpsrassembls'.Later,48n.84,hequalifiesSimplicius'attributionofweighttotheatomsinvirtueoftheuniformityoftheirnature(Decaelo569.59,
pp.1547above)asapplying'danslemondedeschosesdevenues'.

IhavethereforethoughtmyselfjustifiedinspeakingofBollack'sinterpretationasaversionofBurnet'sview(p.154n.1above).

However,inthenotethatIfirstquoted,39n.39,Bollackcontinues:'Ilestcertainqu'aprslesanalysesd'Aristote...lagrandeurdesatomespeuts'exprimeren
poids.Lesatomesseraientpluslourds,sil'onpeutdire,dansl'ordreintelligible,quandilsexcdentparleurvolume'(myitalics).

ThephrasethatIhaveitalicisedisperhapsexplainedbyBollack'soddnotionthat'lesatomes,pareuxmmes,sontimmobiles'(p.46n.75).Thereisthesame
curiousnotioninPillonandBailey(seepp.2246above).WithBollack,theidearesultsfromtomymindablatantmisinterpretationofDegen.etcorr.i8,
325a216asanaccountofLeucippus'ownacceptanceofEleaticarguments,andnotasAristotle'saccountoftheimpasseinEleaticismfromwhichLeucippus
thoughthathehadfoundasuccessfulescape(cf.325a23b11:Bollack,3442).

ThislineofthinkingcomestotheforeinthefinalpagesofBollack'sarticle,promisinglyintroducedbytheremark,46:'Onalongtempschanglesargumentssur
cepoint,quiparaissaitobscur,delarelationqu'entretiennentlepoidsetlemouvementdesatomes'.ThesolutionwhichBollackoffersspringsfromafurther
misunderstandingofatextinAristotle,where (Decaelo310a10,cf.p.328n.1above)istakennotasalternativedescriptionsofhow,in
theatomistsystem,orelsewhere,accordingtoAristotle,thingsappeartobelight,butascomplementarydescriptionsofearthandfire,wherebyfire'semblelger
parcequ'ildlimiteetcirconscritlelourdqu'ilabandonnesalourdeur'(p.48).Thisleadstosomecharacteristicrhetoriconthesphereoffire,4950:
'D'unepart,ellereprsente,dansl'antithselatique,laplnitudedel'treenfaceduvide....Seule,elleestpleinementellemmefaceauxcorpsquil'entourent....Le
feuintroduitlapulsationrgulireetl'ordredutemps.Lecerclequilimitelesystemecosmiqueestissudesasphricit....

'Cequelasphrereprsenteentantqueformeetentantqu'ide,commandeunautreniveau,danslaphysique,cequ'elleaccomplitentantquecorps.Cettecohrence,
cescorrespondancesquistructurentetconfondentl'ordreintelligibleetlemondedescorpss'opposentabsolumentl'arbitraireetl'enchanementaveuglequedsigne
l'tiquettemcanistequel'onappliqueDmocrite.'

DespitethecriticismofmyconclusionsandmymethodsthathavebeenlavishedonmebyProfessorBollackandbyhispupilandcollaboratorM.Wismann,Ican
onlyhonestlyrepeatwhatIwroteinmyearlierstudyonEmpedocles(ECC161):thiskindoflanguageseemstomequiteunprofitablefor

 Page388

thestudyofaPresocraticevenEmpedocles,andperhapsmoreespeciallyDemocritus.

154.n.1.171n.1.

BOLLACKJean,BOLLACKMayotte,WISMANNHeinz.Lalettred'Epicure[i.e.theLettertoHerodotus,text,translationandnotes]inaseriesLesens
commun.Lesditionsdeminuit,Paris.1971.Pp.312.

326n.1.

BOLLACKMayotte,seeunderBOLLACKJean.

BONITZHermann.IndexAristotelicus,inAristotelisopera,ed.AcademiaregiaBorussica,vol.v.Berolini,typisetimpensisGeorgiiReimeri.1870.Pp.viii+878.

45n.1.133n.1.

BORICEVSKIJI.A.'DemokritundEpikurimKampfumdieGrundlagendesAtomismus'[inRussianwithanabstractinGerman],Archiveforthehistoryof
scienceandtechnology[inRussian],series1,number8(1936)11136.

359n.1.

BOSSIERF.andSTEELC.'Tekststudie:PriscianusLydusendeIndeanimavanPseudo(?)Simplicius',TijdschriftvoorFilosofie34(1972)761822.

226n.1.

BRIEGERAdolf.DieUrbewegungderAtomeunddieWeltentstehungbeiLeucippundDemokrit,inJahresberichtdesStadtgymnasiumszuHalleA/Svon
Ostern1883bisOstern1884.DruckderHeynemannschenBuchdruckerei,HalleA/S.1884.Pp.28.

Thisisacarefulandusefulwork,whichfailsfullytoresolvethequestionswhichittouchesuponbecauseofanoverpreoccupationwithrefutingthethesisofZeller
onthedownwardmovementofDemocritus'atoms.ThushavingshownthattheatomsdonotmovedownwardsinthevoidBriegerfailstoretracehisstepsandto
thinkthroughfullytheimplicationsofhisnewthesisfortheevidenceonweight.

Theworkisintwosections,(1)'DieUrbewegungderAtome'(pp.313),and(2)'Kosmogonie'(pp.1328).Theargumentsofthefirstsectionarerepeatedin
1904:seetheentryimmediatelyfollowing.

44.46n.3.Ch.IV1,11831.1378.156n.1.159.1601.163.1712.175.189.228n.2.242.243.260n.1.262.269n.2.Ch.X2,2709.279n.3.
290.Ch.XIII1,34764,esp.35160,3634.

BRIEGERAdolf.'DieUrbewegungderDemokritischenAtome',Philologus63n.F.17(1904)58496.

Thisisarehandlingofargumentsputforwardin1884,withoutanyreallyneworientationontherelationofweightandmovement.

435.1378.156n.1.1601.163.1712.175.189.203.228n.2.243.262.Ch.X2,2709.Ch.XIII1,34764,esp.35560,3634.Seealso
HAMMERJENSEN(1910)intheBibliography.

BURCHARDJohannFriedrichWilhelm.CommentatiocriticadeDemocritiAbderitaedesensibusphilosophia,underthesuperscriptionAdsollemnia
saeculariaScholaeMindensisantehosCCCannosinauguratae....Asecondtitle:DemocritiAbderitaephilosophiaedesensibusiisquequaesensibus
percipiunturfragmentaeTheophrastieiusdemargumentilibello,maximumpartemdeperdito,eruereetinterpretariconatusestJ.F.G.B.Mindae,typis
F.G.H.Muelleri.1830.Pp.41.

TheophrastusDesensibus612iscontainedin5,pp.1416and2930.

Ch.IV1,11631,esp.11921.

BURNETJohn.EarlyGreekphilosophy.1stedn1892.2ndedn1908.3rdedn1920.4thedn,areprintofthe3rdedn.A.andC.Black,London.1930.Pp.vii+
375.

Burnet'saccountofweightdoesnotappearinthefirstedition(1892).Itiscontainedonlyinthesecondedition(1908)394401,whenceitisrepeatedlargely
unchangedinthethirdedition(1920)3417.

 Page389

xvi.8n.1.434.46n.3.153ff.163.1712.Ch.VI1,17482,esp.1757.Ch.VII12,20310,esp.20710.Cf.21213.223n.1.255.264.299302,
314n.2.Ch.XIII1,34764,esp.35964.372.3778.SeealsoHAHM(1976)andHAMMERJENSEN(1910)intheBibliography.

BURNETJohn.GreekphilosophypartIThalestoPlato(nomorepublished).MacMillanandCo.,London.1914.Pp.x+360.

Thisrepeats,96101,essentiallytheaccountofDemocritus'theoryinEGP2ndedn394401(=3rdedn3417).

153n.2.

CAPONEBRAGAGaetano.'Aristotele,EpicuroeDiogenediEnoanda',AteneeRomaserie3anno8(1940)3547.

163n.1.187n.4.

CARTERONHenri.Lanotiondeforcedanslesystmed'Aristote.LibrairiephilosophiqueJ.Vrin,Paris.1923.Pp.xi+281.

88n.1.

CHERNISSHaroldFredrik.Aristotle'scriticismofPresocraticphilosophy.TheJohnHopkinsPress,Baltimore.1935.Pp.xiv+418.

InthesectionsofmystudydevotedtoAristotle,IhavetendedtoconcentratemycriticismontherelevantpartsofCherniss'work,96100and20413,both
becauseofthepotentialimportanceofitsthesis,andbecauseoftheinfluencewhichithaswon.InfactitseemstomethatCherniss'work,welcomethoughitisfor
itsaccumulationofmaterialandforitsexhaustiveness,isunsoundonmanypointsofdetail.ThisisnotofcoursetodenythatAristotle'saccountsof,andallusions
to,hispredecessorsareinfluencedatalmosteveryturn,bothconsciouslyandnodoubtonalessconsciouslevel,byhisowncategoriesandhisownideas:butthe
natureandtheextentofthisinfluenceisinmyviewoftenoversimplifiedbyCherniss,andsometimesgrosslyso.However,Iaddtheseremarkshereonlyasa
passingcaution:inthebodyoftheworkIhavelimitedmycriticismofChernissstrictlytothematterinhand.

xvxvi.Ch.I25,640,esp.711,1415,1618,40.468.Ch.II2,4957.Ch.III1,81100,esp.947.11214.303n.1.351.

CHERNISSHaroldFredrik.Aristotle'scriticismofPlatoandtheAcademy.TheJohnHopkinsPress,Baltimore.1944.Pp.xxvi+610.

xvxvi.xviii.

COOPERLane.Aristotle,GalileoandthetowerofPisa.CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,NewYork.OxfordUniversityPress,London.1935.Pp.102.

187n.4.

CORNFORDFrancisMacDonaldandWICKSTEEDPhilipH.Aristotlevolsivv,The'Physics'withanEnglishtranslationbyP.H.W.andF.M.C.,intheLoeb
classicallibrary.W.Heinemann,London.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.2vols,192934,vol.i'revisedandreprinted'1957.Vol.i,pp.xciv
+427.Vol.ii,pp.xii+440.

187n.4.

CORNFORDFrancisMacDonaldThelawsofmotioninancientthought,aninaugurallecturebyF.M.C.TheUniversityPress,Cambridge.1931.Pp.47.

177n.2.

COUTANTVictor.Theophrastus'Deigne',apostAristotelianviewofthenatureoffire,editedwithintroduction,translationandcommentarybyV.C.
RoyalVanGorcumLtd,Assen.1971.Pp.xxvi+72.

131n.1.

DELLINGGerhard.'ZumsteigerndenGebrauchvonKompositamit beiPaulus'Novumtestamentum11(1969)12753.

44n.1.

 Page390

DENNISTONJohnDewar.TheGreekparticles.1stedn1934.2ndedn1954,withcorrections1966.TheClarendonPress,Oxford.Pp.lxxxii+660.

77n.1.128n.1.

DESCARTESRen.Principiaphilosophiae,inOeuvresdeDescartes,publiesparCharlesAdametPaulTannery.LopoldCerfimprimeurditeur,Paris.12
tomes,18971910.Latinversion:tomeviii,1repartie,1905.Pp.xviii+348.Frenchtranslation:tomeix,[2mepartie,]1904.Pp.xx+358.

34950.Cf.341n.1.Cf.361n.1.

DIELSHermann.Doxographigraeci,collegitrecensuitprolegomenisindicibusqueinstruxitH.D.Berolini,typisetimpensisG.Reimeri,1879.Pp.x+854.

4n.1.Ch.IV1,11631.133n.1.223n.1.Cf.260n.1.281n.2.282n.1.2878.298.300n.1.301n.1.373n.1.374n.2.

DIELSHermann.EditionofSimplicius'Physics,inthecollectionCommentariainAristotelemgraeca,volsixx.Berolini,typisetimpensisG.Reimeri.18821895.
Vol.ix,pp.xxxi+800.Vol.x,pp.xiv+8011463.

16971.193.SeealsotheIndexLocorum.

DIELSHermann.DieFragmentederVorsokratiker,griechischunddeutschvonH.D.1stedn1903.Thepaginationisunchangedfromthe5thednbyWalther
Kranz.WeidmannscheVerlagsbuchhandlung,Berlin.3Bnde,19347.Bandi,pp.xi+482.Bandii,pp.416.Bandiii,pp.651.ThereareanumberofNachtrgein
thelatereditions.

378n.3.Cf.364n.2.Passageswithcrossreferencesto'DK'arenotrepeatedhere.

DIELSH.'Aristotelica',Hermes40(1905)30116.

16971.193.

DRINGIngemar(ed.)NaturphilosophiebeiAristotelesundTheophrast,Verhandlungendes4.SymposiumAristotelicumveranstaltetinGteborg,August
1966,herausgegebenvonI.D.LotharStiehmVerlag,Heidelberg.1969.Pp.292.

ApartfromareferencetoDring'sown'ZurEinfhrung',717,contributionsarelistedseparatelyundertheirauthors'names:seeBOLLACK,FURLEY.
GIGON.VERDENIUS.

4n.1.

DYROFFAdolf.Demokritstudien.Dieterich'scheVerlagsBuchhandlung,Leipzig.1899.Pp.188.

AlthoughDyroff'sdiscussionofweight,319,concludesbybeingundulynegative,itcontainsnonethelessmanyusefulpointsofdetail,andisespeciallynoteworthy
forattemptingtoplaceDemocritus'conceptionofweightinitshistoricalsetting.

5n.1.8n.1.42ff.50ff.612.256n.4.35760.374n.2.

EICHHOLZDavidEdward.Theophrastus'Delapidibus',editedwithintroduction,translationandcommentarybyD.E.E.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1965.
Pp.vi+141.

131n.1.

ELDERSLeo.Aristotle'scosmology,acommentaryonthe'Decaelo',intheseriesPhilosophicaltextsandstudiesno.13.VanGorcumandCompany,Assen.
1966.Pp.370.

88n.1.

ENRIQUESFederigoandMAZZIOTTIManlio.LedottrinediDemocritod'Abdera,testiecommenti.NicolaZanichellieditore,Bologna.1948.Pp.xxii+339.

Thesectionentitled'Pesoegravitazione',626,startsoffbyendorsingBurnet'sinterpretation,andthen,undertheinfluenceIthinkofLwenheim(whoisnot
acknowledged,butwhoisincludedinthebibliography),suggeststhatDemocritusmayhavebelievedintheuniversalattractionofmatter:

'NontroviamodatidelladossografiachepermettanodiattribuireaDemocritounataleipotesimanonsipuescluderecheeglisiaccostasseadunaqualcheintuizionedella
cosa'(pp.656).

154n.1.

 Page391

ERDMANNJohannEduard.GrundrissderGeschichtederPhilosophie.1stedn1866.4thedn'bearbeitetvonBennoErdmann'.VerlagvonWilhelmHertz,
Berlin.2Bnde,1896.Bandi,pp.xvi+682.Bandii,pp.xv+928.

359n.1.

FRANCKAdolphe.Article'Dmocrite',inDictionnairedessciencesphilosophiques'parunesocitdeprofesseursetdesavants,sousladirectiondeM.Ad.
Franck'.1stedn,6tomes,184452(withseparatepagination,excepttomesvandviwhicharepaginatedconsecutively).2ndedninonevolume.LibrairieHachette
etCie,Paris.1875.1stedn,tomeii(1844)pp.2836=2ndedn,pp.3548.Fortheauthorshipofthearticle,seethefinalpageofthevolume.

248.

FREEMANKathleen.ThePreSocraticphilosophers,acompaniontoDiels,'FragmentederVorsokratiker'.BasilBlackwell,Oxford.1946.Pp.xiii+486.

289.

FURLEYDavidJohn.TwostudiesintheGreekAtomists,studyIIndivisiblemagnitudes,studyIIAristotleandEpicurusonvoluntaryaction.Princeton
UniversityPress,Princeton,NewJersey.1967.Pp.viii+256.

117n.1.184n.1.270n.2.293.

FURLEYDavidJ.'AristotleandtheAtomistsoninfinity',SymposiumAristotelicum4ed.I.Dring(Heidelberg,1969)8596.

221n.1.

FURLEYDavidJ.'AristotleandtheAtomistsonmotioninavoid',inMotionandtime,spaceandmatter,interrelationsinthehistoryofphilosophyand
science,ed.PeterK.MachamerandRobertG.Turnbull.OhioStateUniversityPress.1976.Pp.83100.

Furley'scontribution,asalsothatofHahm,didnotreachmeintimetobetakenaccountofinthebodyofmywork.FurleyintroducesaversionofZeller's
interpretation,wherebyforDemocritus'weight,meaningatendencytofallvertically,isaprimary,irreduciblepropertyoftheatoms'(p.87).Furley'spromiseofa
fullerstudyoftheevidenceforthisview(n.20)has,sofarasIknow,notyetbeenrealised.Furley'spreliminarystatementofhispositiondoesnotaddsignificantly
toZeller'sanalysisoftheevidence.

154n.1.163n.1.347n.3.

GASSENDIPetrus.P.G....AnimadversionesindecimumlibrumDiogenisLaertii,quiestdevita,moribus,placitisqueEpicuri....1stedn1649.3rdedn.
Lugduni,sumptibusFrancisciBarbier,typographiregii.2tomi,1675.Tomusi,Indextitulorum+pp.611.Tomusii,pp.458+Indexrerumacverborumtotiusoperis.

293n.1.

GERTHBernhard,seeunderKHNERRaphael.

GIGONOlog.'Die derVorsokratikerbeiTheophrastundAristoteles',SymposiumAristotelicum4ed.I.Dring(Heidelberg,1969)11423.

Gigonargues,Ithinkratherimplausibly,thatTheophrastus'Physicorumopinionesispriorto,andwasusedbyAristotlefor,thedoxographicaldiscussionsatthe
beginningofthePhysicsandMetaphysics.

4n.1.281n.2.

GOEDECKEMEYERAlbert.EpikursVerhltniszuDemokritinderNaturphilosophie.KarlJ.Trbner,Strassburg.1897.Pp.157.

Inalengthydiscussion,1127and10724,oftheproblemsofweightandmovementinDemocritus,GoedeckemeyerismainlyconcernedtosupportBrieger
againstZeller,andtodemolishtheideaofadownwardfallofatomsinthevoid.OnthequestionofweightGoedeckemeyerconcludes,245,that'beiDemokrit
eineeinheitlicheAuffassungderSchwerenochnichtgesuchtwerdenkann'.

133n.1.224n.3.239n.1.269n.2.350.

 Page392

GOMPERZTheodor.GriechischeDenker,eineGeschichtederantikenPhilosophie.3Bnde,18961909.Therewereanumberofsubsequenteditionsofthe
variousvolumes:Bandifinallyappearedas'vierteAuflage,AusgabeletzterHandbesorgtvonH.Gomperz',thesonoftheauthor.VereinigungWissenschaftlicher
Verleger(WalterdeGruyter&Co.,etalii),BerlinundLeipzig.1922.Pp.x+499.

xxi.

GUTHRIEWilliamKeithChambers.Aristotle'Ontheheavens',withanEnglishtranslationbyW.K.C.G.,intheLoebclassicallibrary.W.Heinemann,
London.HarvardUniversityPress,Cambridge,Massachusetts.1939.Pp.xxxvi+379.

10n.3.812.85n.1.98n.1.

GUTHRIEWilliamKeithChambers.AhistoryofGreekphilosophy.UniversityPress,Cambridge.Currentlyappearinginseveralvolumes.Vol.i,1962,pp.xv+
359.Vol.ii,1965,pp.xvii+554.

MyfrequentreferencestoProfessorGuthrie'sHistorymayhaveobscuredthefactthatthemajorityofmycriticismsarelimitedtosomefourorfivepagesofhis
text(vol.iipp.4004)whichcontainabriefaccountofatomistnotionsofmovementandweight.MysinglingoutonepartofProfessorGuthrie'sworkinthisway
willnot,Ihope,bethoughtinvidious.MyintentionhasbeentouseProfessorGuthrie'sHistoryasrepresentativeofcurrentscholarlyopinion,andinsodoingto
hopetoachievegreaterclarityandunityinthepresentationofmyownexpressionofdissent.

467.62n.1.Ch.III1,81100,esp.945.Ch.V1,15361.163.1712.177n.2.1779.1812.187n.4.203.203n.3.Cf.21213.245n.1.285n.3.
285n.4.287n.2.289n.2.3478.

HADOTIlsetraut.Unpublishedpaper.Seenowthefollowingentry.

226n.1.

HADOTIlsetraut.LeproblmeduNoplatonismeAlexandri,HraclsetSimplicius,intheseriestudesAugustiniennes.tudesAugustiniennes,Paris.1978.
Pp.243.Appendice,pp.193202:'Aproposdel'articledeF.BossieretC.Steelsurle"Deanima"attribuSimplicius'.

HAHMDavidE.'WeightandlightnessinAristotleandhispredecessors',inMotionandtime,spaceandmatter,interrelationsinthehistoryofphilosophyand
science,ed.PeterK.MachamerandRobertG.Turnbull.OhioStateUniversityPress.1976.Pp.5682.

Iregretthatthisitem,asalsoFurley'scontributiontothesamevolume,didnotreachmeintimetobeconsideredinthebodyofmywork.Hahmendorses
Burnet'sinterpretationofDemocritus,pp.589,withtheriderthatheavyandlightrequirethepresenceofanobserver,asdootherofthesensibilia.Onthislatter
pointcf.p.359n.1above.

154n.1.347n.3.359n.1.

HAMELINO.'Lapesanteurdel'atomedanslesystmedeDmocrite',AnnalesdelafacultdeslettresdeBordeaux(1888)1949.

45n.1.223n.1.359n.1.

HAMMERJENSENIngeborg.DenaeldsteAtomlaehre,intheseriesStudierfraSprogogOldtidsforskningutgivneafdetphilologiskhistoriskeSamfund
no.77.Kjbenhavn.1908.Pp.180.

Theconclusionsofthisworkaresummarisedinthefollowingentry.

HAMMERJENSENIngeborg.'DemokritundPlaton',ArchivfrGeschichtederPhilosophie23n.F.16(1910)92105and21129.

Alfieri,Atomisti2n.4,writesofthisandoftheprecedingentrythattheauthor,byheranalysisofDiog.ix303(DK67A1)inconjunctionwithPlato'sTimaeus
esp.45B69A,'hadatolaverasoluzionealtormentatoproblemadellaUrbewegung,proseguendoperlastradaapertadalBriegeredalLiepmann,ma
riconoscendola

 Page393

funzionedelpesoinconnessionecolmovimentooriginario'.ThispromisedoesnotseemtoberealisedinHammerJensen'sarticle.Althoughtheauthortheredeals
withmuchoftheevidenceconsideredinthepresentvolume,sheappearstoconsiderthequestionofweightsolelywithinthecontextofacosmicdine.In
particular,HammerJensendoesnotrefertoBurnetherworkfallsinthelimbo,sotospeak,betweenBrieger's'Urbewegung'(1904)andBurnet'ssecondedition
(1908),andhersilenceonthequestionoftheprecosmicatomsisareminderthatforallhisotherfaultsBurnetdoesatleastdisplayacertainforthrightnessand
clarity.

HINDENLANGLudwig.SprachlicheUntersuchungenzuTheophrastsbotanischenSchriften,intheseriesDissertationesphilologicaeArgentoratenses
selectaevol.xivfasc.2.K.J.Trbner,Strassburg.1910.Pp.200.

131n.1.

HIRZELRudolf.UntersuchungenzuCicero'sphilosophischenSchriften.VerlagvonS.Hirzel,Leipzig.3Theile,Theiliiim2Abtheilungen,18771883.Theili,
pp.244.Theilii,pp.913.Theiliii,pp.576.

2445.

INHELDERBrbel,seeunderPIAGETJean.

JARKHO(orYARKHO)V.N.'Onthemeaningofepicadjectiveswithprefix '[inRussianwithanabstractinEnglish],Journalofancienthistory[inRussian]
117(1971.3)7886.

44n.1.

JOACHIMHaroldH.Aristotle,'Oncomingtobeandpassingaway'(Degenerationeetcorruptione),arevisedtextwithintroductionandcommentary'.
ClarendonPress,Oxford.1922.Pp.xxxviii+303.

46n.3.5961.64.

JOACHIMHaroldH.TranslationoftheDegenerationeetcorruptione,inTheworksofAristotletranslatedintoEnglished.W.D.Ross.ClarendonPress,
Oxford.Vol.ii,1930.Thereisnoseparatepagination.

43n.1.

JRSSFritz,MLLERReimarandSCHMIDTErnstGnther.GriechischeAtomisten.TexteundKommentarezummaterialistischenDenkenderAntike,aus
demGriechischenundLateinischenbersetztundherausgegebenvonF.J.,R.M.undE.G.S.,intheseriesReclamsUniversalBibliothekBand409.1stedn
1973.'2Auflage'.VerlagPhilippReclamjun.,Leipzig.1977.Pp.623.

Someratherconfused,butultimatelyconventional,remarksonthe'weight'ofatomsareincludedinthe'Einleitung',289.

KERCHENSTEINERJula.'ZuLeukipposAl',Hermes87(1959)4418.

203n.3.

KIRKGeoffreyStephenandRAVENJohnEarle.ThePresocraticphilosophers,acriticalhistorywithaselectionoftexts.UniversityPress,Cambridge.1957.
Pp.xi+487.

TherelevantchapterbyKirkcontainsacoupleofpagesonweight,41416,whichreproduceBurnet'sinterpretation.

xvi.434.46n.3.154n.1.172n.1.177n.2.177n.4.287.2934.2967.3634.380.

KRANZWalther,seeunderDIELSHermann.

KHNERRaphael.AusfhrlicheGrammatikdergriechischenSprache.1stedn1834.3rdedn,2Teile,jederTeilimzweiBnden,18901904.TeiliiBand2'in
neuerBearbeitungbesorgtvonDr.BernhardGerth'.HahnscheBuchhandlung,HannoverundLeipzig.1904.Pp.ix+714.

54n.2.

 Page394

LAFAISTPierreBenjamin.Dissertationsurlaphilosophieatomistique.L'imprimerieroyale,Paris.1833.Pp.118.

Thequestionofweightoccupiesmostofthesection,6875,'Propritsdesatomes':thesepagescontainalucidandforcefulpresentationofthethesisthatthe
atomswerewithoutweight.

210n.1.2401.338n.3.3413.359n.1.

LANGEFriedrichAlbert.GeschichtedesMaterialismusundKritikseinerBedeutunginderGegenwart.1stedn1866.2ndedn.VerlagvonJ.Baedeker,
Iserlohn.2Bcher,18735.Buchi,pp.xiv+434.Buchii,pp.xiii+573.Therewereanumberofposthumouseditionsandreprintings.

Iincludethiswork,becauseitisfrequentlycitedinnineteenthcenturydiscussionsofDemocritus,includingthequestionofweight.Langesupposes,2ndedni16
18,thattheatomsfallinthevoid,andcatcheachotherupbecauseoftheirdifferencesofspeed:thereisthenapassingidentificationofweightwithsize,andsome
briefremarksonweightinAristotleandEpicurus.

LEWESGeorgeHenry.Abiographicalhistoryofphilosophy.1stedn,4vols,18456.5thednunderthetitleThehistoryofphilosophyfromThalestoComte.
Longmans,GreenandCo.,London.2vols,1880.Vol.i,pp.cxiv+410.Vol.ii,pp.x+773.

350n.1.

LIARDLouis.DeDemocritophilosopho,followedbythenote'haecapudfacultatemlitterarumParisiensemdisputabatL.L.'.Versiliis,extypisCerfetfiliiedebat
ParisiisLadrangebibliopola.1873.Pp.61.

3n.1.350n.1.

LIEPMANNHugoCarl.DieMechanikderLeucippDemocritschenAtome,unterbesondererBercksichtigungderFragenachdemUrsprungder
Bewegungderselben.ThiswasfirstpublishedasanInauguralDissertationzurErlangungderDoctorwrdederhohenphilosophischenFakulttder
UniversittLeipzigvorgelegtvonH.C.L.BuchdruckereivonGustavSchade(OttoFrancke),Berlin.1885.Pp.69.Thesametextwaspublishedinthefollowing
year,1886,withthesametitle,butwithouttheadditionInauguralDissertation...,andwiththesamepagination,byGustavFock,Leipzig.

Especiallynoteworthyarepp.313,'berdasGewichtderAtome,alseinzigestreitigeEigenschaftderselben'.

1314.46n.3.1367.163.1712.175.182.223n.1.240n.2.262.26970.Ch.X3,27981.Ch.XIII1,34764,esp.3512,359n.1.

LONGOOddone.Aristotele'Decaelo',introduzione,testocritico,traduzioneenotediO.L.,describedasintheseriesClassicigrecielatini,contestoa
fronte,secondaserie,operediAristotele,sottoladirezioneeconlacollaborazionediCarloDiano.G.C.Sansoni,Firenze.1961.Pp.lxxiii+396.

81n.2.85n.1.

LORTZINGF.ReviewofBrieger,Urbewegung1884,inPhilologischerAnzeiger,alsErgnzungdesPhilologusherausgegebenvonErnstvonLeutsch,Band15
(1885)57883.

118n.1.3546.

LWENHEIM.'DerEinflussDemokrit'saufGalilei',ArchivfrGeschichtederPhilosophie7(1894)23068.

LWENHEIMLouis.DieWissenschaftDemokritsundihrEinflussaufdiemoderneNaturwissenschaft,herausgegebenvonLeopoldLwenheim.Druckund
VerlagvonLeonhardSimion,Berlin.1914.Pp.xi+244.Thefirst48pageswerealsoprinted,withthesametitle,asaBeilagetoArchivfrGeschichteder
Philosophie26n.F.19Heft4(1913)148.

Thiswasplannedasaworkinthreevolumes:therewerecompletedonlythepresentvolume,andasketchofthewholeinAGPhfor1894,aslistedabove.

Pp.3979,entitled'DieLehrevonderSchwereundvonderallgemeinenAnziehung',containalengthyandinplacesaveryinterestingdiscussionof

 Page395

Democritus'conceptionofweight.LwenheimconcluesthattheconflictintheevidenceistoberesolvedbytheNewtoniantheoryofgravitation,73:

'NachmeinerAnsichterklrtsichdasRtselaufdieeinfachsteWeise:DemokritdachtesichdieSachegenauebensowiewird.h.erbetrachtetedieSchwerealseinen
speziellenFallderallgemeinenAnziehung....DieserAnsichtstehtdieallgemeinherrschendeAnschauungentgegen,dassvorNewtonniemanddaran...denkenkonnte,
weilerstdieEntdeckungen,welcheKepleramHimmelgemachthat,dergleichenAnsichtennahezulegenvermochten.'

WhileitseemstomethatLwenheimconfusesconceptualandhistoricalsimplicity,hehasatleastmadeagenuineattempttoaskhimselfwhatexpressionof
weighttherecanhavebeen,inthelightoftheevidencethatoutsideacosmostheatomsdohaveweightanddonotmovedownwards.Lwenheim'sdiscussionof
theevidenceisalsomorecarefulandmorebalancedthanthatwhichleadstomanyasupposedlymoreorthodoxinterpretation,andhemakesnoattempttomask
themodernaffiliationsoftheideasthatheattributestoDemocritus.

Thework(withLwenheim'searlierarticle)remainsausefulintroductiontoGalileo'sknowledge,anduse,ofDemocritus.ItisagreatpitythatLwenheimdidnot
livetocompletehismajesticenterprise.

154n.1.

LURIA(orLUR'E)SolomonYakovlevich.Outlinesofthehistoryofancientscience,Greeceinherprime[inRussian],inthecollection,Academyofsciencesof
theU.S.S.R.,popularscientificseries[inRussian].PressoftheAcademyofSciencesoftheU.S.S.R.,MoscowandLeningrad.1947.Pp.402.

284n.1.

LUR'ESolomonYakovlevich,seeunderLURIASolomonYakovlevich.

MABILLEAULopold.Histoiredelaphilosophieatomistique.Imprimerienationale,FlixAlcanditeur,Paris.1895.Pp.vii+560.

'Lapesanteur',pp.194200.

3n.1.210n.1.248n.3.338.34950.361n.1.

MCDIARMIDJ.B.'PhantomsinDemocriteanterminology: ',Hermes86(1958)2918.

16971.

MCDIARMIDJohnB.'TheophrastusDesensibus6162:Democritus'theoryofweight',Classicalphilology55(1960)2830.

Ch.IV1,11631.

MARTINThomasHenri.tudessurleTimedePlaton.Ladrangelibrairiediteur,Paris.2tomes,1841.Tomei,pp.xii+428.Tomeii,pp.462.

xvii.

MARXKarlHeinrich.Doktordissertation:DifferenzderdemokritischenundepikureischenNaturphilosophienebsteinemAnhange.Thiscomprises:Erster
Teil:DifferenzderdemokritischenundepikureischenNaturphilosophieimallgemeinen.ZweiterTeil:berdieDifferenzderdemokritischenund
epikureischenNaturphilosophieimeinzelnen.[FragmentausdemAnhang]:KritikderplutarchischenPolemikgegenEpikursTheologie.Written1840
March1841:printedinKarlMarx,FriedrichEngels:Werke...ErgnzungsbandTeili.DietzVerlag,Berlin.1968.Pp.257373.

ThesecondchapteroftheZweiterTeil,'DieQualittendesAtoms',pp.28590,containsanotuninterestingaccount,wherebyforDemocritusweightisnota
primarycharacteroftheatomsbecause'wir...beiDemokritblossehypothetischeBestimmungenzurErklrungderErscheinungsweltfinden'(p.287),whereas
forEpicurus,'dieAtomesindselbstsubstantialeSchwerpunktewiedieHimmelskrper'(p.289).

 Page396

MAZZIOTTIManlio,seeunderENRIQUESFederigo.

MORAUXPaul.'EinigeBemerkungenberdenAufbauvonAristoteles'SchriftDecaelo',Museumhelveticum6(1949)15765.

ThereisalaterversionofthisarticleintheRevuethomistefor1951:thesubstanceofbotharticlesisincorporatedintotheintroductiontoMoraux'sBudedition.

MORAUXPaul.'RecherchessurleDecaelod'Aristote,objetetstructuredel'ouvrage',Revuethomisteanne59tome51(1951)17096.

Thesubstanceofthisarticleisresumed,withsomecorrections,intheintroductiontoMoraux'sBudedition.

1011.

MORAUXPaul.Aristote'Duciel',textetabliettraduitparP.M.,intheseriesCollectiondesUniversitsdeFrance,publiesouslepatronagedel'Association
GuillaumeBud.Socitd'dition'LesBellesLettres',Paris.1965/6.Pp.cxc+165(pp.1154double).

Pp.cxliiclvii,'Lapesanteuretlalgret',containananalysisofbookfour.

10n.3.42n.2.64n.1.81n.2.85n.1.112n.1.2846.

MOUYPaul.Ledveloppementdelaphysiquecartsienne16461712,intheseriesBibliothqued'histoiredelaphilosophie.LibrairiephilosophiqueJ.Vrin,
Paris.1934.Pp.x+343.

349n.2.

MUGLERCharles.'Surquelquesparticularitsdel'atomismeancien',Revuedephilologiesrie3,anneettome27(1953)14174.

2847.288n.3.

MUGLERCharles.'L'isonomiedesAtomistes',Revuedephilologiesrie3,anneettome30(1956)23150.

2847.

MUGLERCharles.'Platonica',L'antiquitclassique25(1956)2031.

290n.2.

MUGLERCh.'LesthoriesdelavieetdelaconsciencechezDmocrite',Revuedephilologiesrie3,anneettome33(1959)738.

2847.289n.2.

MUGLERCh.'L'invisibilitdesatomes,proposd'unpassaged'Aristote(Degen.etcorr.325a30)',Revuedestudesgrecques76(1963)397403.

2847.

MUGLERCharles.Aristote'Delagnrationetdelacorruption',textetabliettraduitparC.M.,intheseriesCollectiondesUniversitsdeFrance,publie
souslepatronagedel'AssociationGuillaumeBud.Socitd'dition'LesBellesLettres',Paris.1966(printed1965).Pp.xviii+101(pp.174double).

46n.3.64.2867.298n.1.

MULLACHFriedrichWilhelmAugust.DemocritiAbderitaeoperumfragmentacollegit,recensuit,vertit,explicuit,acdephilosophivita,scriptisetplacitis
commentatusestF.G.A.M.Berolini,sumptibusGuil.Besseri.1843.Pp.xvi+438.

Pp.21415and3468containtext,translationandnotesforTheophrastusDesensibus612.

46n.3.Ch.IV1,11631.172n.1.Ch.X3,27981.

MULLACHFriedrichWilhelmAugust.Fragmentaphilosophorumgraecorumcollegitrecensuitvertitannotationibusetprolegomenisillustravitindicibus
instruxitF.G.A.M.Parisiis,Didot.3vols,186081.Vol.iPoeseosphilosophicaecaeterorumqueanteSocratemphilosophorumquaesupersunt.Pp.xxvii+
575.

Democritus,i33082:p.361reproducesthetextandtranslationofTheophrastusDesensibus612,takenfromMullach'searliermonograph.

 Page397

MLLERReimar,seeunderJRSSFritz.

NESTLEWilhelm,seeunderZELLEREduard.

O'BRIEND.'TherelationofAnaxagorasandEmpedocles',Journalofhellenicstudies88(1968)93113.

378n.3.

O'BRIEND.'Derivedlightandeclipsesinthefifthcentury'.Journalofhellenicstudies88(1968)11427.

298n.1.

O'BRIENDenis.Empedocles'cosmiccycle,areconstructionfromthefragmentsandsecondarysources,intheseriesCambridgeclassicalstudies.University
Press,Cambridge.1969.Pp.x+459.

311.312n.1.336.368.370n.1.378n.2.SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

O'BRIEND.'Theearliesttheoriesofweight:''heavy"and"light"inDemocritus,PlatoandAristotle',Theclassicalbulletin52(1976)4950.

Anoteannouncingthepresentstudy.(Correctline16toread'atomsthatareinsideacosmos'.)

O'BRIEND.'HeavyandlightinDemocritusandAristotle:twoconceptionsofchangeandidentity',Journalofhellenicstudies97(1977)6474.

Anintroductoryoutlinetoallfourvolumesofthepresentwork.

O'BRIEND.'L'atomismeancien:lapesanteuretlemouvementdesatomeschezDmocrite',RevuephilosophiquedelaFranceetdel'Etrangeranne104tome
169(1979)40126.

Anintroductiontovol.iofthepresentwork.

O'BRIEND.'Aristote:quantitetcontraritunecritiquedel'coled'Oxford',inConceptsetcatgoriesdanslapenseantique,'tudespubliessousladirection
dePierreAubenque',intheseriesBibliothqued'histoiredelaphilosophie.J.Vrin,Paris.1981.Pp.89165.

50n.2.

O'BRIENDenis.Thoriesprsocratiquesdelaperceptionetdel'intelligence,tudiesd'aprslatraditionbiographiqued'Empdocle,forthcominginthe
seriesPhilosophiaAntiqua.

254.342.

PAPENCORDTFelix.Deatomicorumdoctrinacommentationisspecimenprimum,Dissertatioinauguralisphilosophicaphilologicaquam...in
UniversitateliterariaFridericaGuilelma...publicedefensurusestscriptorF.P.Berolini,typisNietackianis.1832.Pp.72.

TheophrastusDesensibus61,pp.534.

Ch.IV1,11631.172n.1.279n.3.

PARENTEMargheritaIsnardi.OperediEpicuro,acuradiM.I.P.,intheseriesClassicidellafilosofia,collezionedirettadaNicolaAbbagnano.Unione
tipograficoeditriceTorinense,Torino.1974.Pp.629.

326n.1.

PHILIPPSONLudwig. .Parsi:DeinternarumhumanicorporispartiumcognitioneAristoteliscumPlatonissententiiscomparata.Parsii:
PhilosophorumveterumusqueadTheophrastumdoctrinadesensu[withthreesubtitlesofwhichthefirstis]Theophrastidesensuetsensilibusfragmentum
historicophilosophicum,cumtextudenuorecognitoprimaconversiolatinaetcommentaria...scripsitetediditL.P.Berolini,sumtibusJ.A.List.1831.Pp.vii
+252.

Introduction,text,translationandcommentaryforTheophrastusDesensibus,pp.81229.

Ch.IV1,11631.

PIAGETJeanandINHELDERBrbel.Ledveloppementdesquantitschezl'enfant,conserva

 Page398

tionetatomisme,underthesuperscriptionCollectiond'actualitspdagogiques.DelachauxetNiestl,NeuchteletParis.1941.Pp.iii+344.

PICCOLOMINEUSFranciscus.F.P.Senensis.CommentariiinlibrosAristotelisDecoelo,ortuetinterituadiunctalucidissimaexpositione,intreslibrosde
anima,nuncrecensinlucemprodeunt.Moguntiae,excudebatIoannesAlbinus,impensisConradiMeulliicivisFrancofurtani.1608.Pp.360+1019.

226n.1.

PILLONF.'L'volutionhistoriquedel'atomisme',L'annephilosophique,publiesousladirectiondeF.Pillon,2(1891)67208.

224n.3.239n.1.240n.2.34950.361n.1.SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

RAVAISSONFlix.Essaisurlamtaphysiqued'Aristote.Paris.2tomes,183746.Tomei,L'imprimerieroyale,pp.vii+599.Tomeii,LibrairiedeJoubert
diteur,pp.vi+584.

350n.1.

RAVENJohnEarle,seeunderKIRKGeoffreyStephen.

REGENBOGENO.Articleon'Theophrastos',inPaulyWissowa'sRealEncyclopdiederclassischenAltertumswissenschaftSupplementbandvii(1940)
coll.13541562.

301n.1.

REGNELLHans.Ancientviewsonthenatureoflife,threestudiesinthephilosophiesoftheAtomists,PlatoandAristotle,intheseriesLibraryoftheoriano.
10.CWKGleerup,Lund.1967.Pp.267.

154n.1.

REINHARDTKarl.ParmenidesunddieGeschichtedergriechischenPhilosophie.VerlagvonFriedrichCohen,Bonn.1916.Pp.263.

301n.1.

RENOUVIERCharles.Manueldephilosophieancienne.Paulinlibrairiediteur,Paris.2vols,1844.Vol.i,pp.li+324.Vol.ii,pp.405.

Democritusonweight,i2456.

45.34850.359n.1.

RIVAUDAlbert.Leproblmedudeveniretlanotiondelamatirsdanslaphilosophiegrecquedepuislesoriginesjusqu'Thophraste.FlixAlcanditeur,
Paris.1906.Pp.488.

Pp.16075'Lepoidsdesatomes'containadetailedandonthewholeajudiciousaccountoftheevidence,andofpreviousinterpretationsofit.Inthefirstpagesof
thissection,1604,Rivaudconcludesthattheatomsdohaveweight.Hethenaskshimself,veryproperly,1645:

'Mais,silesatomessontpesantsquelleideLeucippeetDmocritesefaisaientilsdelapesanteur?Lapesanteurestellelacausedumouvementdesatomes?'

Inthepageswhichremain,16575,Rivaudfairlyclearlyanswersthesecondquestionnegatively.ButfromhisverydetaileddiscussionIcannotdiscoverwhether
Rivaudthoughtthattherewasanyalternativeexpressionfortheweightofatoms,andifsowhatitmayhavebeen.Itis,Ithink,forthisreasonthatapartfroma
passingreferenceinRobin('L'atomismeancien'211n.1=Pensehellnique74n.1),Rivaud'sworkseemstohaveremainedwithoutinfluenceonsubsequent
scholars.

88n.1.133n.1.154n.1.239n.1.269n.2.

ROBINLon.Lapensegrecqueetlesoriginesdel'espritscientifique,intheseriesL'volutiondel'humanit,bibliothquedesynthsehistorique.La
RenaissanceduLivre,Paris.1923.Pp.xii+480.[Reprinted]ditionsAlbinMichel,Paris.1948.Pp.xxi+504.Thepaginationuptobutexcludingthebibliography
(pp.457ff.)isunchangedinthisreprintingandin:

 Page399

'nouvelleditionavecunebibliographiecomplmentaireparPierreMaximeSchul',inthesameseries.ditionsA.Michel,Paris.1963.Pp.xxi+517.

154.n.1.287n.3.3401.

ROBINLon.'L'atomismeancien',Revuedesynthse,organeducentreinternationaldesynthse,fondation'Pourlascience'6(1933)20516.

ReprintedinLapensehllnique6780.

42n.2.154n.1.171n.1.3403.SeealsoRIVAUD(1906)intheBibliography.

ROBINLon.Lapensehellniquedesoriginespicure,questionsdemthode,decritiqueetd'histoire,intheseriesBibliothquedephilosophie
contemporaine.PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,Paris.1942.Pp.554.Thepaginationisunchangedinthe2ndedn,PressesUniversitairesdeFrance,Paris,1967.

ThisisacollectionofsomeofRobin'searlierarticles,including'L'atomismeancien'(1933),pp.6780.

RossWilliamDavid.Aristotle's'Physics',arevisedtextwithintroductionandcommentary.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1936,acorrectedreprint1955.Pp.xii+
750.

187n.4.378n.3.

SAMBURSKYSamuel.ThephysicalworldoftheGreeks,translatedfromtheHebrewofthe1stedn(1954)byMertonDagut.RoutledgeandKeganPaul,
London.1956.Pp.x+255.

121n.1.255n.2.287n.3.2957.

SAMBURSKYS.'ADemocriteanmetaphorinPlato'sKratylos',Phronesis4(1959)14.

1678.

SCHMIDTErnstGnther,seeunderJRSSFritz.

SCHNEIDERIoannesGottlob.TheophrastiEresiiquaesupersuntoperaetexcerptalibrorumquatuor[eventuallyfive]tomiscomprehensaadfidemlibrorum
editorumetscriptorumemendavithistoriametlibrosVIdecausisplantarumconiunctaoperaD.H.F.LinkiiexcerptasolusexplicareconatusestI.G.S.
SumtibusF.C.G.Vogelii,Lipsiae.181821.Vol.i,pp.xl+896.Vol.ii,pp.vi+630.Vol.iii,pp.843.Vol.iv,pp.873.Vol.v,pp.lxvi+549.

ThetextoftheDesensibusiscontainedinvol.i64785.Notes,commentaryandapparatusarethenscatteredthroughoutii61625,iv51534andvliilvand
1416,cf.233.

Ch.IV1,11631.

SCHWABOtto.HistorischeSyntaxdergriechischenComparationinderklassischenLitteratur,BandivofBeitrgezurhistorischenSyntaxder
griechischenSprache,herausgegebenvonM.Schanz.A.Stuber'sVerlagsbuchhandlung,Wrzburg.3Hefte,18935.Pp.viii523(alsopaginatedseparatelyfor
eachHeft.)

98n.1.

SOLMSENFriedrichRudolphHeinrich.Aristotle'ssystemofthephysicalworld,acomparisonwithhispredecessors,intheseriesCornellstudiesinclassical
philologyvol.33.CornellUniversityPress,Ithaca,NewYork.1960.Pp.xiv+468.

Chapter13'Heavyandlight',pp.27586.

xviii.154n.1.176n.1.177n.2.

STEELC.,seeunderBOSSIERF.

STEINMETZPeter.DiePhysikdesTheophrastosvonEresos,intheseriesPalingenesia.MonographienundTextezurklassischenAltertumswissenschafted.
RudolfStarkBandi.VerlagDrMaxGehlen,BadHomburgV.D.H.,Berlin,Zrich.1964.Pp.376.

EspeciallyrelevanttothisstudyistheBeilage,'TheophrastsPhysikundihrVerhltniszuden '(pp.33451).

4n.1.281n.2.301n.1.

 Page400

STEPHANUSHenricus.AristotelisetTheophrastiscriptaquaedam,quaevelnumquamantea,velminusemendataquamnunc,editafuerunt.Exofficina
HenriciStephaniParisiensistypographi.1557.Pp.168.

ThisincludestheeditioprincepsofTheophrastusDesensibus,pp.1746.

116.

STOCKSJohnLeofric.TranslationoftheDecaelo,inTheworksofAristotletranslatedintoEnglished.W.D.Ross.ClarendonPress,Oxford.Vol.ii,1930.
Thereisnoseparatepagination.

81n.2.85n.1.

STRATTONGeorgeMalcolm.TheophrastusandtheGreekphysiologicalpsychologybeforeAristotle.GeorgeAllenandUnwin,London.MacMillanand
Company,NewYork.1917.Pp.227.

ThiscontainsDiels'text,withatranslation,andnoteswhicharelargelyderivedfromcorrespondencewithA.E.Taylor.

xvixviii.Ch.IV1,11631,esp.121n.1.149.255n.2.371n.1.

STROHMAIERGotthard.'DemokritberdieSonnenstubchen,einneuesFragmentinarabischerberlieferung',Philologus112(1968)119.

177n.4.287n.3.

SWEENEYLeo.InfinityinthePresocratics:abibliographicalandphilosophicalstudy.MartinusNijhoff,TheHague.1972.Pp.xxxiii+222.

214n.1.

TANNERYPaul.Pourl'histoiredelasciencehellne,deThalsEmpdocle.1stedn,1887.2ndednbyA.Dis.GauthierVillarsetCie,Paris.1930.Pp.xxiv
+435.

'AppendiceI',pp.34880,containsatranslationofTheophrastusDesensibus.

Ch.IV1,11631,esp.120n.1.256n.3.

TAYLORAlfredEdward.AcommentaryonPlato's'Timaeus'.ClarendonPress,Oxford.1928.Pp.xv+700.

xviixviii.149.314n.2.

TAYLORAlfredEdward,seeunderSTRATTONGeorgeMalcolm.

TIEDEMANNDieterich.GeistderspekulativenPhilosophie.InderneuenAkademischenBuchhandlung,Marburg.6Bnde,17917.[Bandi]'VonThalesbis
Sokrates',pp.xl+391.

42.

TRICOTJules.Aristote,traitduciel,suividutraitpseudoAristotliciendumonde,traductionetnotesparJ.T.LibrairiephilosophiqueJ.Vrin,Paris.1949
(printed1948).Pp.xviii+204.

10n.3.

USENERHermann.Epicurea.Lipsiae,inaedibusB.G.Teubneri.1887.Pp.lxxviii+445.

326n.1.373n.1.SeealsotheIndexlocorum.

VERDENIUSWillemJacobandWASZINKJanHendrik.Aristotleoncomingtobeandpassingaway,somecomments,intheseriesPhilosophiaantiquavol.
i.1stedn1946.2nd[revisedandenlarged]edition.E.J.Brill,Leiden.1966.Pp.79.

48n.1.60n.1.66n.1.77n.1.100n.1.

VERDENIUSW.J.'CriticalandexegeticalnotesonDecaelo',SymposiumAristotelicum4ed.I.Dring(Heidelberg,1969)26884.

83n.1.

VERDENIUSW.J.Privatecommunication.

83n.1.

WASZINKJanHendrik,seeunderVERDENIUSWillemJacob.

 Page401

WICKSTEEDPhilipH.,seeunderCORNFORDFrancisMacDonald.

WIELANDWolfgang.DiearistotelischePhysik,UntersuchungenberdieGrundlegungderNaturwissenschaftunddiesprachlichenBedingungender
PrinzipienforschungbeiAristoteles.VandenhoeckundRuprecht,Gttingen.1962.Pp.354.

WILPERTPaul.'DieElementenlehredesPlatonundDemokrit',inNatur,Geist,Geschichte,FestschriftfrAloysWenzl.FilserVerlag,MnchenPasing.1950.
Pp.4966.

xxin.1.

WIMMERFriedrich.TheophrastiEresiiopera,quaesupersiwt,omniagraecarecensuit,latineinterpretatusest,indicesrerumetverborumabsolutissimos
adjecitF.W.Paristis,Didot.1866.Pp.xxviii+547.

ThisaddsaLatintranslationtoWimmer'sTeubneredition(3vols,185462):pp.xvi,xviiiand32140containtheDesensibus.

Ch.IV1.11631.

WISMANNHeinz,seeunderBOLLACKJean.

YARKHOV.N.,seeunderJARKHOV.N.

ZELLEREduard.DiePhilosophiederGriechen,eineUntersuchungberCharakter,GangundHauptmomenteihrerEntwicklung,laterDiePhilosophieder
GriecheninihrergeschichtlichenEntwicklung.1stedn1844.Finallyinvariouseditionsandwith'DreiTeile,jederTeilimzweiAbteilungen'.TeiliAbteilung2,6th
ednbyWilhelmNestle'mitUnterstutzungvonFranzLortzing'.O.R.Reisland,Leipzig.1920.Pp.viii+7831460.

OnweightandmovementinDemocritus,i2pp.10668and107699.

xvi.154n.1.156n.1.163.1712.1745.186n.1.186n.2.189.21213.223n.1.243.

260n.1.2612.290.322.323.3256.338n.3.Ch.XIII1,34764,esp.3567,3634.

 Page402

INDEXLOCORUM
TheeditionsspecifiedareintendedprimarilyasjustificationofthetextsIhavetranscribed,althoughwhereitdoesnotsignificantlyalterthesenseIhavefeltfreeto
changepunctuationandaccentuation,andonoccasiontoadoptareadingfromtheapparatus,withoutfurtheracknowledgementofthefact.Longerdiscussionsare
precededbyareferencetochapterandsection.

TheEnglishversionsofGreektextsaremyown.Exceptwhentheyarespecificallyintroducedastranslations,theyhavebeendeliberatelycastintheformofan
expandedtranslationorparaphrase.Thisisintendedasaneconomicalwayofmakingmyinterpretationofminorpointsimmediatelyclearitmeanshoweverthatthese
versionsmustbereadasacommentaryuponthetext,andcannotbeusedasasubstituteforit.

BT BibliothecaScriptorumGraecorumetRomanorumTeubneriana.

Bud CollectiondesUniversitsdeFrance,publiesouslepatronagede
l'AssociationGuillaumeBud.

CAG CommentariainAristotelemGraeca,editaconsilioetauctoritateAcademiae
LitterarumRegiaeBorussicae.

GCS DieGriechischenChristlichenSchriftstellerdererstendreiJahrhunderte.

LCL LoebClassicalLibrary.

OCT ScriptorumClassicorumBibliothecaOxoniensis(OxfordClassicalTexts).

PG Migne'sPatrologiaeCursusCompletus,seriesgraeca.

AchillesTatius

IsagogainAratum

ed.E.Maass,Berolini1898.

3,p.31.1418Maass343.

Aetius

Deplacitisphilosophorum

ed.H.Diels,Dox.267444.

Cf.[Plutarchus]Moralia:deplacitisphilosophorumed.J.Mau,BTvfasc.2pars1,1971.OccasionalcorrectionshavealsobeentakenfromDKandfromH.
Usener,Epicurea(Leipzig,1887).

i3.18=[Plut.]877EF1534.221n.1.223.224n.3.Ch.VIII2,22939.3336.351ff.

i42=[Plut.]878DE153n.3.184n.1.3724.

i12.5=[Plut.]883AB133n.1.2269.2323.

i12.61534.176n.1.1801.212.Ch.VIII1,2239.2323.240.248.Ch.X45,283302.3336.350n.1.351ff.

i18.3=[Plut.]883F290.

iii13.4=[Plut.]896AB153n.3.357.374.

Alexander

Metaphysica

ed.M.Hayduck,CAGi,1891.

36.121821415.

36.2181801.Ch.VII34,21122.2978.339.

631.811178n.3.276n.1.

 Page403

ap.Simpl.Decaelo

575.27821517.

576.101221517.

ap.Simpl.Phys.

679.12221856.18890.1912.1959.221.350ff.,esp.355ff.

679.3271979.

Anaxagoras

Fragmenta

DKii3244

431112.369.

123689.378n.3.

Archimedes

Opera

ed.C.Mugler,Bud3vols,19701.

Deplanorumequilibriis

i1sqq.209n.1.

Aristophanes

Comoediasquaeextantetfragmenta

edd.F.W.HalletW.M.Geldart,OCT2vols,[2ndedn]1906.

fr.488.45209n.1.

Aristoteles

Deanima

ed.W.D.Ross,Oxford1961.

edd.A.JannoneetE.Barbotin,Bud1966.

i2,403b31404a201779.276n.1.Cf.27981.31920.3213.3235.329.3445.

i2,405a81331719.3213.3235.329.3445.375.

iii1,424b30133n.1.

Decaelo

ed.D.J.Allan,OCT1936,reprintedwithcorrections1965.

ed.O.Longo,Firenze1962.

ed.P.Moraux,Bud1965.

i2,268b1416143n.2.

i7,275b29276a61115.20.223.54n.1.Ch.IV23,13250.2345.262.312.3589.

i7,276a10224n.3.232n.2.

i8,277a279317.

i8,277a33b2153n.3.265.

iii1,299a25300a1950n.1.84.21415.273.339.

iii2,300b816138.221n.1.2368.2612.

iii2,301b116328n.1.

iii2,301b1622143n.2.

iii4,303a56288.

iii4,303a8171n.1.

iii4,303a10b8133n.1.2345.272.288.

iii8,306b29307b961n.1.67n.1.723.

iv1,307b28332089.365.

iv1,308a3439.378.

iv1,308a91378.1011.1415.3240.

iv1,308a3138n.2.14n.1.

iv2,308a34b38.1415.3240.

iv2,308b328456.62.63n.2.83ff.

 Page404

iv2,308b28309a1156.17n.1.Ch.III1,80100,esp.801(text),98100(paraphrase).100.101.1034.1068.110n.1.11314.129n.1.150.202.
21819.235.Ch.IX3,2616.299302.332.338n.3.339.351ff.

iv2,309a1118Ch.III23,10114.332.3757.

iv2,309a19213778.378n.3.381.

iv2,309a2930101n.1.129n.1.

iv2,309a33b41619.223.278.312.3340.54n.1.10814.262.

iv2,309b684950.52n.3.63.

iv2,309b18232932.3440.

iv2,309b32310a322n.1.235.35n.1.36n.1.

iv2,310a710265.328n.1.SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

iv3,310b20144.

iv4,311a152967.51.55n.1.317.

iv4,311a29b1302.3440.

iv4,311b14198n.2.911.1415.3340.158.

iv4,311b26914n.1.

iv4,312a1221145.

iv5,312a22b2145.

iv5,312b193214n.1.203.3440.145.

iv5,312b32313a624n.1.258.312.3440.36n.1.

iv5,313a1013263.

iv6,313a1415317.

iv6,313a21b5281n.2.317.

Degenerationeanimalium

ed.H.J.DrossaartLulofs,OCT1965.

ii6,742b1735237.364n.2.

Degenerationeetcorruptione

ed.H.H.Joachim,Oxford1922.

ed.C.Mugler,Bud1966.

ForASULANUS'LatintranslationseetheBibliography.

i1,314a2142345.288.

i1,315a10113678.

i2,315a34b13378.

i2,315b6152345.288.

i2,315b2430218.

i2,315b30316a14218.2345.

i7,324a24b2471.

i8,325a216SeeBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

i8,325a23b112837.288.2945.SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)andMUGLER(1963)intheBibliography.

i8,325b17192345.

i8,325b243641.71.84.2345.288.

i8,325b36326a1456.Ch.II,4179,esp.412(text),779(paraphrase).100.11314.150.202.245n.1.Ch.IX3,2601.299302.338n.3.341.351ff.
377n.1.

i8,326a14152345.

i8,326a21484n.1.

i8,326a249245n.1.

i9,327a18192345.

ii2,329b1826578.74n.2.

ii7,334b82052n.3.65n.1.

 Page405

Departibusanimalium

ed.B.Langkavel,BT1868.

ed.A.L.Peck,LCL1937.

ed.P.Louis,Bud1956.

i1,642a2431338n.1.

i4,644a162347n.2.

i5,645b22647n.2.

iv10,690a19201823.

Fragmenta

ed.V.Rose,BT1886.

Fragmentaselectaed.W.D.Ross,OCT1955.

SomecorrectionsarealsotakenfromDKii934.

208Rose(=pp.1435Ross)17n.1.46n.2.168n.1.17981.2345.281.2837.288.288n.3.290.2945.299301.Ch.IX,esp.1,30310.316ff.329.
3425.

Historiaanimalium

ed.L.Dittmeyer,BT1907.

ed.P.Louis,Bud3vols,19649.

librosivi,ed.A.L.Peck,LCL2vols,196570.

i1,486a21b1747n.2.

iv4,583b131447n.2.

Metaphysica

ed.W.D.Ross,Oxford1924,acorrectedimpression1953.

ed.W.Jaeger,OCT1957.

A4,985a313378n.3.

A4,985b10192345.320n.1.

A4,985b1920138.211.2368.2612.

H2,1042b11152345.

I1,1052b243150n.2.

6,1071b317138.221n.1.2368.2612.

M4,1078b1220338n.1.377n.1.

Meteorologica

ed.F.H.Fobes,CantabrigiaeMassachusettensium1919.

iv4,382a816168n.1.

Physica

ed.W.D.Ross,Oxford1936,acorrectedimpression1955.

i2,184b2022345.288.

i5,188a2262345.

ii12,192b8194b15143n.2.338n.1.

iii4,203a33b246n.2.2345.285.288.

iv6,213a12ff.224.

iv6,213a34bl189.224.315n.1.

iv8,214b12215a24167n.1.21921.224.224n.3.2323.364n.2.

iv8,215a25216a21434.1879.1912.Ch.XI34,31529.3445.352ff.

iv8,216a216167n.1.

iv9,216b22217b203823.

viii1,252a32b5237.364n.2.

viii9,265b2391934.364n.2.

[Aristoteles]

Problemata

ed.C.A.Ruelle,recensueruntH.KnllingeretI.Klek,BT1922.

viii14,891a31801.

 Page406

Cercidas

Fragmenta

ed.J.U.Powell,CollectaneaAlexandrina,pp.20113,Oxonii1925.

ed.E.Diehl,Anthologialyricagraeca,BTfasc.3,editiotertia,pp.13952,1952.

fr.4.2937Powell=fr.1.1924Diehl209n.1.

Cicero

Dedivinatione

ed.A.S.Pease,intheseriesUniversityofIllinoisstudiesinlanguageandliteraturevi23(1920)andviii23(1923).

ii13241n.2.

Defato

ed.A.Yon,Bud1933.

ed.W.Ax,BTfasc.46,1938.

10.2232418.

20.4681534.1801.223.Ch.VIII3,23948.

Definibusbonorumetmalorum

ed.J.N.Madvig,editiotertiaemendata,Hauniae1876.

ed.J.S.Reid,Cambridge1925.

ed.A.Selem,Romae1962.

i6.17202448.

Denaturadeorum

ed.A.S.Pease,2vols,Cambridge,Massachusetts,19558.

librum1ed.M.vanderBruwaene,CollectionLatomus,Bruxelles1970.

i25.6926.73210n.1.223n.1.2408.

i43.1202878.

DiogenesLaertius

Vitaephilosophorum

ed.H.S.Long,2vols,OCT1964.

ii8369n.1.378n.3.

v26281n.2.

v27281n.2.

ix303153n.3.163n.1.Ch.VII12,20310.332.35963.3724.

SeealsoHAMMERJENSEN(1910)intheBibliography.

ix44163n.1.245n.1.283n.2.28990.2947.

ix4693n.1.

FortheLettertoHerodotus(x3583),seeEPICURUS.

DiogenesOenoandensis

Fragmenta

ed.A.Grilli,intheseriesTestiedocumentiperlostudiodell'antichitno.2,IstitutoEditorialeCisalpino,MilanoeVarese1960.

ed.C.W.Chilton,BT1967.

32col.ii9Chilton(=fr.30col.ii9Grilli)1801.

DionysiusBishopofAlexandria

Fragmenta:

ed.C.L.Feltoe,ThelettersandotherremainsofDionysiusofAlexandria(Cambridge,1904)12764.

1(=Eus.Praep.evang.xiv23)245n.1.283.2947.

 Page407

Empedocles

Fragmenta

DKi30874.

2131112.3678.

26a31112.36970.

27343.36970.

28343.

30343.

Forthedistinctioninthenumerationoffrr.26aand27,seeECC316and14954.

Epicurus

ap.Diog.Laert.Vitaephilosophorumed.H.S.Long,OCTvol.ii,1964.

EpistolaadHerodotum(=Diog.Laert.3583)

412290.2918.

47326n.1.

54236n.1.

55921314.2856.289n.2.2918.

61160.1848.1912.2278.231n.1.2856.322323.3256.3279.350ff.

OthertextsincludedinH.Usener,Epicurea(Leipzig,1887)havebeenlistedundertheauthorinwhichtheyappear.

EpiphaniusConstantiensis

Adversuslxxxhaereses

ed.K.Holl,3vols,GCS25,31,37,191533.

excerptaed.H.Diels,Dox.58593.

iii2:Defideix23=iii506.259Holl(Dox.591.812)343.

Eusebius

Praeparatioevangelica

ed.K.Mras,GCS43.12=EusebiusWerkeBandviiiTeile12,19546.

i8.7364n.2.

xiv14.5230n.1.

xiv23.3245n.1.283.2947.

xv32.2373n.1.

Galenus

ed.K.G.Khn,20vols,Lipsiae182133.

DeelementissecundumHippocratem

ed.G.Helmreich,Erlangae1878.

i2=i41819Khn1801.245n.1.

[Galenus]

Historiaphilosopha

ed.H.Diels,Dox.595648.

18=xix2434Khn(Dox.610.1820)343.

HermiasPhilosophus

Irrisiogentiliumphilosophorum

ed.H.Diels,Dox.64956.

8=Dox.653.914343.

HesychiusAlexandrinus

Lexicon

ed.M.Schmidt,5vols,Ienae185868.

(K.Latte'sedition,Hauniae195366,hasnotyetgotthisfar.)

s.v. 170.

 Page408

Hippolytus

Refutatioomniumhaeresium

ed.P.Wendland,GCS26=HippolytusWerkeBandiii,1916.

i8.23689.378n.3.

Homerus

Ilias

ed.T.W.Allen,Oxonii1931.

i8890183.

JustinusMartyr

CohortatioadGraecos

PGvi241312

4=PGvi249A343.

[Lucianus]

Amores

ed.M.D.Macleod,LCLviii,1967.

451801.

Lucretius

Dererumnatura

ed.C.Bailey,Oxford1947.

ii8381834.1912.

ii89171.

ii11241171.1789.

ii217181834.1912.

ii22591856.1912.326n.1.350ff.,esp.354ff.

ii25671789.

ii2889184n.1.

ii4785212918.

ii548171.

MalalaIoannes

Chronographia

PGxcvii64718

xviii468=PGxcvii681D1801.

Parmenides

Fragmenta

DKi22746.

ed.L.Tarn,Princeton1965.

8.401311.

8.5693678.

PhiloJudaeus

edd.L.CohnetP.Wendland,7vols,Berolini18961926.

Deaeternitatemundi

8=CWvi75.891801.

Philoponus

Degenerationeetcorruptione

ed.H.Vitelli,CAGxivpars2,1897.

167.111746n.3.5861.

Plato

ed.J.Burnet,OCT5vols,19007volsiii[2ndedn]190510.

Cratylus

420D1678.310.

 Page409

[Plato]

Deiusto

373E209n.1.

Plato

Phaedo

102BD434.

109A46209.

Timaeus

45B69ASeeHAMMERJENSEN(1910)intheBibliography.

50AB143.

52D4E531415.345.363n.1.

52E553A8314n.2.345.

56AC72.

57B7C631315.345.

57D58A131315.345.

58D4E731315.3267.3279.

62A6B631315.345.

62B6C3168n.1.

62C363E7162.164.168n.1.3656.367.

Plotinus

Enneades

edd.P.HenryetH.R.Schwyzer,3vols,Paris/Bruxelles/Leiden,195173.

iv7[2]4.26758n.1.

Plutarchus

AdversusColotem

ed.M.Pohlenz,BTeditioaltera,quamcuravitaddendisqueinstruxitR.Westman,vol.vifasc.2,1959.

edd.B.EinarsonetP.H.deLacy,LCLxiv,1967.

1110F236.

Defaciequaeinorbelunaeapparet

ed.M.Pohlenz,BTeditioaltera,addendaadiecitH.Drexler,vol.vfasc.3,1960.

ed.H.Cherniss,LCLxii,1957.

926D927A31112.36970.

Deprimofrigido

ed.K.Hubert,BTeditioaltera,addendaadiecitH.Drexler,vol.vfasc.3,1960

955BC3279.36672.

[Plutarchus]

Moralia:deplacitisphilosophorum

seeunderAETIUS

SextusEmpiricus

Adversusmathematicos

librosviixi(=Adversusdogmaticos,librosiv)ed.H.Mutschmann,BT1914.

vii117153n.3.

x731801.

Simplicius

Categoriae

ed.C.Kalbfleisch,CAGviii,1907.

216.31217.5241.

[Simplicius?]

Deanima

ed.M.Hayduck,CAGxi,1882.

26.1119178n.3.276n.1.Ch.X3,27981.300.

39.28312256.

62.24245n.1.

 Page410

Simplicius

Decaelo

ed.I.L.Heiberg,CAGviii,1894.

242.19245n.1.

267.30153n.3.

269.414113n.3.160.Ch.V2,1616.168n.1.1723.1923.2012.299302.3325.37980.

294.33295.29(=Aristotlefr.208Rose)17n.1.46n.2.168n.1.17981.2345.281.2837.288.288n.3.290.2945.299301.

Ch.XIesp.1,30310.316ff.329ff.3425.

378.21199.

556.1562.18281.

569.59Ch.V1,15361,esp.1547.1623.1656.1712.1723.2012.299302.3325.3589.

SeealsoBOLLACK(1969)intheBibliography.

575.27821517.

576.101221517.

576.121921718.

583.2021656.1923.1945.200.2246.3325.

603.4609.12281.

609.1719245n.1.

609.1925171n.1.277n.1.

612.1117Ch.X2,2709.

684.192296.162n.1.

685.911967.113n.3.

685.1317957.

685.17ff.97.

685.22496.162n.1.

712.2731Ch.V1,15361,esp.15761.1623.164.1656.1723.2012.299302.3325.3656.

Physica

ed.H.Diels,CAGixx,188295.

Cf.A.H.Coxon,'ThemanuscripttraditionofSimplicius'commentaryonAristotle'sPhysicsiiv',Classicalquarterlyn.s.18(1968)705.

20.2842.5281.

28.427(=Theophrastus,Physicorumopinionesfr.8)2345.288n.2.299301.

28.3029.5Ch.X1,26770.

31.47367.

33.8ff.3678.

42.10111656.1801.1923.1945.200.2246.2303.239n.1.3325.

80.15199.

80.1617281n.1.

81.3482.6245n.1.Ch.X2,2709.283n.2.

115.10121.25281.

133.30190.20281.

159.13ff.3678.

679.12221856.18890.1912.1959.221.350ff.,esp.355ff.

679.24680.9195202.

925.132221314.245n.1.Ch.X2,2709.

938.212190.

1183.11186.35281.

1318.301319.5154n.1.Ch.V3,16673.Ch.VI3,192202.26970.299302.Ch.XI1,30310.316ff.329.3325.3445.351ff.

 Page411

Theophrastus

Decausisplantarum

ed.F.Wimmer,BT3vols,185462Didot,Parisiis,1866.

librosiiiedd.B.EinarsonetG.K.K.Link,LCL1976.

vi1.6321n.1.

vi3.3133n.1.

Fragmentumdeigne

ed.V.Coutant,Assen1971

1133n.1.

8133n.1.

Fragmentumdeodoribus

ed.F.Wimmer,BT3vols,185462Didot,Parisiis,1866.

1133n.1.

6133n.1.

Fragmentumdesensibus

ed.H.Diels,Dox.497529.

ed.G.M.Stratton,TheophrastusandtheGreekphysiologicalpsychologybeforeAristotle,LondonandNewYork1917.

9374n.1.

1011254.

22374n.1.

593702.375.3767.378.

5960381.

60127.235.254.3378.

6012567.3767.

61235.

61282.Ch.IV1,11531,esp.116(text),131(paraphrase).150.202.Ch.IX2,25360.299302.3325.338n.3.351ff.3728.

632567.

6573203.3235.329.338n.1.342.3445.3757.

682567.260.338.

711315.Ch.IV23,13250.202.248n.1.2567.299302.377n.1.

738338n.1.342.3757.

82374.

83168n.1.338n.1.

87168n.1.

8838n.1.

Physicorumopiniones:fragmenta

ed.H.Diels,Dox.47395

8(=Simpl.Phys.28.427)2345.288n.2.299301.

Ageneralindextoallfourvolumeswillbeaddedattheendofvolumefour.

 Page412

RSUMENFRANAIS

Introduction

ThoriesdelaPesanteurdansl'Antiquit

Commentsedgagerdesprsuppossd'unepenseanachronique,eninterrogeantlestextesdel'Antiquit?Ceproblmeestcrucialpourquiveuttudierlesthories
delapesanteurexposesdansleTimedePlatonetdansletraitDucield'Aristote:l'uneetl'autrethoriefontdenosjoursl'objetd'analysesol'onvoit
transparatrel'influenced'idespostrieures,trangreslapensedel'AcadmieetduLyce.

Leproblmedevientencorepluscomplexesinousessayonsd'atteindrelathorielaquelles'opposrentAristoteetPlaton.LescritsdeDmocrite,nombreux,
avaienttrsttdisparubiendeshistoriensdel'Antiquitn'enontconnuladoctrinequ'traversdesidesforgesparAristotepourlarenverser.Ainsieneston
venuconfondantlacibleetletireurrapprocherlathoriedeDmocritedecelledesonadversaire.

Leshistoriensmodernesrenchrissentsurcetteerreur.Ilssonteuxaussitributairesd'Aristote,etpartagentsurplusd'unpointsamentalit:ilenrsultequeles
documentsimprgnsd'idespripatticiennesretiennentseuls,ouparprivilge,leurattention,sibienqu'aujourd'huiencoreoninterprteDmocritetraverslesides
d'Aristote,toutcommeoninterprteAristotetraverslesidesdespenseursduMoyenAgeetdelaRenaissance.

Pourporterremdecesinconsquences,ilfaudramettrenutoutautantlesprsupposspropresAristotequelesprsuppossquiluisonttrangers:ceuxci
altrentnotreexgsedelapensed'Aristoteceuxlobscurcissentnotreintelligencedelathoriequ'ilavoulurenverser.

Premirepartie:tmoignagesdirects

ChapitreI
CritiquegnraleparAristotedelathorieatomiste

CommenonsparAristote,etparsescritiquescontrelesAtomistesdansletraitDuciel.Onapensqu'Aristoterefusaitsesprdcesseurs,etplusparticulirement
auxAtomistes,leconceptd'unepesanteurabsolue,sibienqu'iln'auraitreconnuauxatomesqu'unepesanteurrelative,voireirrelle.Maissi,pourAristote,les
Atomistesappartiennenteneffetcettemajoritquiignorelanotiond'unepesanteurabsolue,ilsappartiennentaussiuneminorit,quireconnatdumoinsl'unedes
espcesdelapesanteur,nonpointlalgretabsolue,maislalourdeurabsolue.

Ceparadoxes'expliqueparladistinctiondesatomesetdescorpscomposs.L'airetlaterresontcompossd'atomesunequantitd'airtomberadoncplusvitesielle
estfaited'atomesplusgrosouplusnombreuxqueceuxd'unecertainequantitdeterre.Deuxconclusionspourraientalorss'imposer.L'airtantpluslourdquela
terre,cellecineseraitpas,pourDmocrite,d'unelourdeurabsolue,commeellel'estpourAristote.Maislesatomesquiconstituentcesdeuxlmentsn'ensontpas
moinsd'unelourdeurabsolue,dansl'exactemesureoplusnombreuxilstombenttoujoursplusvite.

 Page413

ChapitreII
LeDegenerationeetcorruptioned'Aristote

LanotiondepesanteurabsolueestessentiellelacritiqueexposedansleDegenerationeetcorruptione.Aristotes'lvedanscetextecontrel'impassibilitdes
atomes,enfaisantappelunedifferencedepesanteur:siunatomeestpluslourdqu'unautre,ildevraityavoirunatomepluschaudqu'unautremaisl'atomequi
l'emporteraitenchaleurnepourraitpasalorsnepasaffecterl'atomemoinschaudquelui.Lesatomesdoiventdoncptir,lesunssousl'effetdesautres.

Cettecritiquereposesurl'inactivitdelapesanteurdanslaconceptionduStagirite:silefeurchauffequandons'enapproche,enrevanchelapierrequicrasene
rendpaspluslourdencessens,elleestinactive.C'estdonclachaleuretnonlapesanteurquimetenevidencel'activitdesatomes.

Maislanotiondepesanteuresttoutaussiessentiellel'argument.Lalourdeurabsoluesupposequelesatomessontplusoumoinslourdslesunsquelesautres,sans
d'ailleursquel'atomemoinslourdsoitdecefaitplusleger.Latheorieatomistedelatemperatureestsurcepointanalogue:Democriterattachelachaleurala
rondeurdesatomes,maisiln'ensauraitexpliquerlafroideur,puisquelarondeurn'admetpasdecontraire.Aristotetirepartideceparalllisme:l'absenced'un
secondtermedanslesdeuxoppositions(froid/leger)luipermetderapprocherlachaleurdelalourdeurdesatomes.

Onsaisitdslorslenerfdecetteargumentation:ladiffrencedelourdeursupposeunediffrencedechaleurladifferencedechaleurrendlesatomesactifset
passibles(sujetsptir).

ChapitreIII
LeDecaelod'Aristote

Enquoiconsistelapesanteur?AristotelaisseentrevoirsapensecesujetdansuntexteduDecaelo,oilopposelatheoriedePlatoncelledesAtomistes.Platon
nepeutexpliquercommentlecorpsleplusgrosestparfoislepluslger:lestrianglestanttousd'uneseuleetmmeespce,uneaugmentationdevolumedansles
corpsqu'ilsconstituentdevraitncessairements'accompagnerd'uneaugmentationdepoids.Lecorpsleplusgrosseraitdonctoujourslepluspesant.LesAtomistes,
aucontraire,peuventaugmenterlevolumed'uncorps,enlegonflantdevide,sansaccrotresonpoids.Lecorpsleplusgrosdevientalorsparfoislepluslger.

Cecontrasteenappelleunautre.Ontombedansl'absurde,quandonchercheconstruiredescorpsmatriels,enutilisantdessurfaces.Enrevanche,lesAtomistes,
quiconsidrentlescorpsindivisiblescommedessolides,auraientdroitdedirequeleplusgrosd'entreeuxestaussilepluspesant.

Onaconfonducesdeuxcritiques,eninterprtantlaformuleleplusgros...lepluspesant.commevisantuniquementlescorpscomposs.Ilestaucontraireevident
que,sicetteformules'applique,danslapremirecritiqued'Aristote,auxcorpscompossdePlaton,ellenes'applique,danslaseconde,qu'auxatomes.Deladuvide
danslescorpscomposs,ils'ensuit,pourlesAtomistes,quelecorpscomposeprsenceleplusgrosestaussiparfoislepluslger(premirecritique)enrevanche,ce
sontlesatomesqui,plusgros,sontpluspesants(secondecritique).

Ondevine,certes,danscetexte,l'accentuationdedtailsquiattestelessoucisd'AristotepluttqueceuxdeDtmocrite.Parexemple,Aristoteobserve,danslasuite
desacritique,qu'enfondantlalgretdescorpscomposssurlapartdevidequiesteneux,lesAtomistesontngligdepreciserlapartdesolide.Maisla

 Page414

proportiondevidesuffiteneffetpourtablirunecomparaisonentredescorpsdevolumegal.Enngligeantlapartdesolide,lesAtomistesnecherchaient
probablementpascomparerdescorpsdevolumesingauxc'estAristotequiainflchiencesenslathorieprimitive,pourmieuxl'adaptersacritiquedePlaton.

Queconclure?Malgrlesrisquesd'anachronismeimputablelapolmiqued'Aristote,ilnoussemble,aprsavoirrapprochleDegenerationeetcorruptioneetle
Decaelo,que,selonDmocrite,ladifferencedepesanteurvadepairavecunedifferencedegrandeur.

ChapitreIV
Theophraste

LammethoriesefaitjourdansletraitSurlafacultdesentiretsurlesobjetsdessensdeThophraste:lapesanteurdesatomesestdfinieparlagrandeur,
toutediffrencedeformemisepartdanslescorpscomposs,lecorpslepluslgerseraceluiquiauradavantagedevide.

Onamalcompriscetexte,enconfondanttailleetfigure.Thophrasteeneffetneparlepasd'atomesdontlafigureseraitlammec'estlatailledesatomesquien
dterminelapesanteur,sibienque,mmes'ilsdiffrentparlafigure,deuxatomesdemmetaillesontaussidummepoids.

Pluscomplexeestlapartiecritiquedutrait.PourThophraste,commepourAristote,lapesanteursetraduitparunediversitdemouvementsetdenaturesdansles
corpscosmiques(l'air,l'eau,lefeu,laterre).Endfinissantlapesanteurparlaseulegrandeurdesatomes,Dmocriteauraitimposauxatomescosmiquesunmme
mouvement,doncuneseuleetmmenature.

Mouvementetnatureseretrouventdansuntexted'Aristote,cettedifferenceprsque,pourcedernier,lesatomesauraientuneseulenature,doncunseulet
mmemouvement.Cerenversementdestermesdelacritiquereposesurdeuxconceptsdifferentsdenature.LanaturedontparleAristoteestcellemmedes
Atomistes:c'estl'homognitdelasubstanceatomique.MaisAristotedduitdecetteidentitdenatureuneidentitdemouvement.Cetteconclusiond'Aristotesert
depointdedpartlacritiquedeThophraste:unmmemouvementtraduitunemmenatureunemmenature,ausensaristotlicienduterme,contreditdefaon
flagranteladiversitqu'AristoteetThophrasteprtaientauxcorpscosmiques.

Cettecritiqueinflueraprofondmentsurlatraditiondoxographiqueultrieure.Maiss'entenirauxseulstmoignagesdirectsdontnousdisposions,celuide
Thophrasteaprsceluid'Aristote,laconclusiondenotrechapitreIIIs'avreetseprcise:lesatomessontdotsd'unepesanteur,laquelleestproportionnelleleur
taille.

Deuximepartie:tmoignagesindirects

ChapitreV
Simplicius

Lagrandemajoritdesexgtesrepoussentlaconclusiondelatraditiondirecte.Danslatraditionindirecte,notammentchezAtius,lesatomesseraientprivsde
pesanteur.Pourconcilierlesdeuxtmoignagesd'Atiusetd'Aristote,onaproposdevoirdanslapesanteurundesproduitsdutourbilloncosmique:ainsilesatomes
neseraientpesantsqu'auseind'unecosmogonielesatomesnoncosmiques,eux,nesontpaspesants.

||Pourconfortercettehypothse,oninvoqueSimplicius,lequelaffirmerait,danssoncommentaireduDecaelo,quelapesanteurestunesimpleapparence,

 Page415

n'intervenantparconsquentquedansunmondestructur.Maiscetteinterprtationrsulted'unemprise.Simpliciusestenfaitsolidaired'Aristote:pourtousles
deux,cen'estpaslalourdeur,maislalgretquiestuneapparencedanslesystmeatomiste.Simpliciusexpliqueeneffetcommentletourbillon,quiimprimedes
atomesunmouvementverslehaut,faitapparatrelalgret.Maisilneconsidrepascommeadventicelalourdeur,danslamesureoill'attachelasoliditet
l'homognitdesatomes.

LecommentairedelaPhysiqueestencoreplusexplicite.Enparlant,sembletil,desatomesquinesontpasdansuncosmos,Simpliciusaffirmequ'ilssemeuvent
selonlapesanteurquiesteneux.Impossibledeconciliercetmoignageavecl'hypothsed'uneabsencedepesanteurdanslesatomesnoncosmiques.

ChapitreVI
Simpliciusetl'opinionreue

LetexteducommentairedelaPhysiquemetencauselerapportdelapesanteuretdumouvement.Aristotelaissepressentirdansplusieurspassagesquelesatomes
sedirigententoussensdanslevide.D'oladifficultdesavoircomment,pourSimplicius,lesatomessemeuventselonlapesanteurquiesteneux:lapesanteur
n'estellepascensesetraduireparunmouvementenunseulsens,dehautenbas?

Cettequestionfondamentaleaprovoqujusqu'icideuxrponsesdiamtralementopposes.Pourlesuns,notammentpourZeller,ondevraitadopterletmoignage
d'Aristotesurlapesanteur,maisrejetersontmoignagesurlemouvement.DanslesystmedeDmocrite,commedansceluid'picure,lapesanteurimprimeraitdonc
auxatomesunmouvementdehautenbasdanslevide.Lesautres,lasuitedeBurnet,ontenvisagl'hypothsecontraire:lesatomesnetombentpasdanslevideils
seraientparconsquentprivsdepesanteur,commel'affirmed'ailleursAtius.

Ceconflitnepeutsersoudrequesil'onselibreduprjugquifaitdelapesanteurunecausedemouvementenunsensdtermin.Lisonsencesenslecommentaire
deSimpliciussurlaPhysique.Celuiciparled'unclaboussementdesatomes,toutendonnantleurmouvementcommeconformelapesanteur.Detoute
vidence,dansl'optiquedeSimplicius,lemouvementenunsensuniquen'accompagnepasncessairementchezDmocritelapesanteur.Celleci,sil'oninvoque
d'autrestextes,apparatliedesphnomnesdechocoudevitessedanslemouvementdesatomes.

Simpliciusrenchritdoncsurletmoignaged'AristoteetdeThophraste:lapesanteurestunepropritinnedesatomeslemouvementdesatomesnoncosmiques
luiestenquelquesorteconforme,sanspourautantqu'elleleurimprimeunmouvementdehautenbas.

ChapitreVII
DiogneLarceetAlexandred'Aphrodise

Examinonsd'autrestmoinsdelatraditionindirecte.DiogneLarceparledel'quilibredesatomes,maisc'esttortqu'onacruvoirdanscetteexpressionune
allusionl'absencedepesanteurdanslesatomesnoncosmiques.Diognevoquelaformationd'unmonde,danslequellesatomesseraientaspirsparuntourbillon
lesatomesresteraientensuspension,avantdeserpartirentrelecentreetlapriphriedumonde.

PlusparlantestuntexteducommentairedelaMtaphysique,oAlexandre

 Page416

d'Aphrodises'interrogesurlespartiesdesatomes,enfaisantappelunpassagedutroisimelivreduDecaelo:commentpourraitonimaginerqu'uncorpsdou
depesanteursoitconstruitdepartiesquienseraientprives?Cetextesuperposeanachroniquementdeuxmprises.encroireSimplicius,cen'estpasDmocrite,
maispicurequipostulalepremierdespartiesconceptuelles,pouresquiverlescritiqueslaboresparAristotecontrel'indivisibilitdesatomes.Parailleurs,ce
n'estpasDmocrite,maisbienPlatonquiestvisdansletexteduDecaelocitparAlexandre.

Encommentantcetexte,AlexandremetenparalllelestrianglesdePlatonetlesatomesdeDmocrite.Cerapprochementexpliquel'erreurqu'ontrouvedansle
commentairedelaMtaphysique:legriefqu'AristotefaisaitPlaton,dansleDecaelo,d'avoirfondlapesanteursurdeslmentsquienseraientprivs,Alexandre
lereportesurlathoriedeDmocrite,contrelespartiesdesatomes.

Cetteerreurpremiren'atellepasengendrunesecondeerreur?DanslemmecommentairedelaMtaphysique,Alexandremetsurunpiedd'galitpesanteuret
mouvement:quelleseraitl'originedumouvement,silesatomesn'ontpasdemouvementnaturel?Quelleseraitl'originedelapesanteur,silespartiesdesatomesen
sontprives?Ceparalllismesuggreque,dansl'espritducommentateur,lapesanteurtaitcauseetseulecausedemouvementnaturelparimplicationrciproque,
absencedemouvementnaturelsignifiaitncessairementpourluiabsencedepesanteurdanslespartiesdesatomes.

ChapitreVIII
AtiusetCicron

Retrouvetonlemmeenchanementdeconceptschezl'auteurquimitladerniremainlaCollectiond'opinionsphysiques(lePhysicorumopiniones),dontles
originesremontentThophraste?PourAtius,lesatomesn'auraientpasdepesanteur,leurmouvementseproduiraitenvertudeleurchocmutuel.Cetteexpression
rappellel'oppositiondumouvementviolentetdumouvementnatureldanslesystmed'Aristote.L'absencedepesanteurneseraitelledonc,pourAtiuscomme
pourAlexandre,qu'unsimplecorollairedecechocmutuel,decetteabsencedemouvementnaturel?

LeconceptdemouvementviolentatrsprobablementdteintsurlanoticeprcdentedelaCollection,ol'auteurnumrelesmouvementssuccessifsdesatomes
danslesystmed'picure:lachute,ladclinaison,enfinlechocetlerebondissement.Pourpicureluimme,cechocetcerebondissementimprimentauxatomesun
mouvementlatraletunmouvementverslehaut.Atiusnefaitallusionqu'aumouvementverslehaut.Sonsilencetrahitl'influenceduLyce:pourpicurecomme
pourAristote,lemouvementlatralestunmouvementviolentenrevanche,ilappartientenpropreauseulsystmed'picurededterminercommeviolenttout
mouvementverslehaut.

UnenoticeantrieuredelammeCollectionprsentelapesanteurcommeuneinnovationd'picure,lesatomesdeDmocritenesedistinguantlesunsdesautresque
parunediffrencedetailleetdefigure.L'auteurpeutvouloirdire,icicommedanslanoticepostrieure,qu'picurefutlepremierparlerd'unepesanteurdesatomes.
Maissil'onsesouvientqu'entoutehypothselapesanteurn'apaschezDmocritel'importancequ'elleaurachezpicure,unesecondeinterprtationestpossible:
Epicureainnovenvalorisantlapesanteur,pourrpondreauxcritiquesd'Aristotesurl'originedumouvement.

UntmoignagedeCicronn'estgureplusclair.IlopposelechocdesatomesdanslesystmedeDmocriteleurpesanteurdanslesystmed'picure,sans
toutefoisnierlapesanteurdesatomeschezlepremier.

 Page417

Onaexaminlestmoignagesmarquantsdelatraditionindirecte.Contrairementcequ'asupposlamajoritdesexgtesmodernes,lesauteursnesontpas
unanimes.Atiusrefuseunepesanteurauxatomes.Simpliciuslaleurconcdeplusieursreprises,notammentdanssadescriptiondesatomesnoncosmiques.

Troisimepartie:conciliationdestmoignages

ChapitreIX
Valeurdestmoignagesdetraditiondirecte

Commentmesurerlavaleurrelativedecesdiverstmoignages?L'avisd'Atiusl'emportetilsurletmoignagecontrairedeSimplicius?Peutilmodifierletmoignage
detraditiondirecte,celuid'AristoteetdeThophraste?

Aristote,ilestvrai,inflchitsouventlesthoriesdesesprdcesseurs.Thophrastedemme,bienqu'ilspareenprincipeexgseetcritique,envientparfoisles
confondre.Doitoneninfrerquecesdeuxauteursontpungligerdeprciserquelesatomesnesontdousdepesanteurqu'l'intrieurd'uncosmos?Enfait,les
textescitsnelaissentvoiraucunetracedecettengligenceplusd'unindiceaucontrairesembleladmentir.

ChapitreX
Valeurdestmoignagesdetraditionindirecte

Simpliciusasubidesvrescritiquesdelapartdeshistoriensmodernes.Onletaxenotammentd'inconsquence:lesatomesquiauraientdespartiesselonle
commentairedelaPhysique,nelesauraientpasselonlecommentaireduDecaelo.Maiscen'estquemconnatrelessubtilitsdelapensedeSimplicius.Pourlui
commepourAristote,toutcequiesttenduest,parlmme,divisible.Sidonclesatomessontconsidrscommetendus,c'estqu'ilsdoiventavoiraussides
parties.Enrevanche,silesatomesn'ontpasdeparties,c'estqu'ilsnesontpastendusetnepeuventpasconstituerlescorpsmatrielsdumondesensible.
SimpliciusadoptelapremireperspectivedanssoncommentairedelaPhysique,etlasecondedanssoncommentaireduDecaelo.Aureste,ilreconnat
explicitement,dansunautretexteducommentairedelaPhysique,quelesdeuxconceptsd'extensionetd'indivisibilit,quipourluicommepourAristotesont
inconciliables,coexistaientdanslareprsentationprimitivedel'atomeselonDmocrite.

Toutautreestl'espritquianimelaCollectiond'Atius.FruitderdactionssuccessivesdescritshistoriquesdeThophraste,cerecueilprsentedemultiples
dformationsdelapenseprsocratique,particulirementdelapenseatomiste.Entmoigne,entreautres,accolelangationgnraledelapesanteurdesatomes,
cetteaffirmationquepourraitexisterunatomegrandcommeuncosmos.Aristoteaffirmeexpressmentquelesatomestaientsipetitsqu'ilsn'atteignaientpasle
seuildelaperception.L'affirmationcontraired'AtiussefondetrsprobablementsurunecomprhensionerronedelavaritinfiniequeDmocritepostulaitdansles
figuresdesatomes.Eneffet,selonLucrce,lafigured'unatomes'expliqueraitparladispositiondesesparties:unevaritinfiniedefiguressupposeraitpar
consquentunnombreinfinideparties,doncuneaugmentationinfiniedegrandeur.L'atomed'Atius,grandcommeuncosmos,estsansdouteissudumme
raisonnementquel'atomedeLucrce,dotd'uneimmensetendue.

Leshistoriensmodernes,quanteux,sonttentsparlamdiocritd'unjustemilieuentrecesextrmes,quesontd'uncotl'atomegroscommeuncosmosd'Atius,
etdel'autrelesatomesd'Aristote,imperceptiblesparleurpetitesseils

 Page418

optentainsipourdesatomesdegrosseurmoyenne.Enralit,aucuncompromisnepermetd'harmonisersurcepointletmoignaged'Aristoteetceluid'Atius.Il
fauttrancher.Atiusoul'undesesprdcesseurss'estempardeconceptsenl'occurrencetoutfaitanachroniques,sansdoutepourenrichirsesconnaissancesde
Dmocritelesaffirmationscontrairesd'Aristote,etl'allusionauxpartiesdesatomesdansleraisonnementdeLucrce,sontunepreuvepatentedelafaussetdesa
notice.

Laconclusionquis'imposequantlagrandeurdesatomess'imposegalementquantleurpesanteur.AtiusesttributairedescritshistoriquesdeThophraste,au
mmetitrequeSimplicius.SiSimpliciusnesaitriend'uneabsencedepesanteurdanslesatomesnoncosmiques,ilestfortpeuprobablequ'Atiusenaitpuisla
connaissanceleursourcecommune.Derriresontmoignage,l'historienn'apasdtecterunesourcenouvelle,maisbienuneerreur:cellemmed'Alexandre.
L'absenced'unmouvementnaturel,ausensaristotliciendeceterme,luifaitcroirel'absencedepesanteur.

ChapitreXI
Letraitd'AristoteSurDmocriteetsonexploitationparSimplicius

PeutoncernerdeplusprslesdocumentsdontseservaitSimplicius?LetexteducommentairedelaPhysique(lemouvementdesatomesselonlapesanteur)se
rapprocheparplusd'untraitd'unelonguecitationdutraitd'AristoteSurDmocrite,rapporteparSimpliciusdanssoncommentaireduDecaelo.Aristoteneparle
pasicidepesanteur:ilaffirmetoutefoisquelemouvementdesatomesdanslevideseraitlefaitdeleurdiffrencesdetailleetdefigure.Simpliciusatilpucroireat
ilpusavoir?quelesdiffrencesdetaillecomportaientdanscecontexteunediffrencedepoids?

Taille,figure,poids:aucundecestroisfacteursnesauraitentranerunediffrencedevitesse,selonlesargumentsdveloppsparAristote,danslaPhysique,contrela
possibilitdumouvementdanslevide.Unediffrencedetailleetdefiguredanslesatomestaitlie,pourDmocrite,unediffrencedemobilitetdevitesse:la
diffrencedepoidsl'taitelleaussi?Cestroisfacteursdansl'argumentationdelaPhysiqueviseraientilslathoriedeDmocrite?

Certes,danslaPhysique,lecorpsleplusgrosalemouvementleplusrapide.PourDmocrite,aucontraire,lesatomeslespluspetitssontaussiceuxquivontleplus
vite.Maislerapportvitesse/lgretseretrouvedansleTimeilfaitl'objetd'unecritiquedelapartd'picureencroirePlutarque,ilappartientaupatrimoine
commundeshommessagesdel'antiquit.FautilcompterDmocriteparmiceuxci?

ChapitreXII
Conclusion:lapesanteurdesatomes

Mmesicertainesdesquestionsposesauchapitreprcdentdoiventrestersansrponse,desrsultatsdfinitifssemblentdsormaisacquisautermedecette
enqute.Onnesauraiteneffetdouterqu'ilfailleaccorderplusdecrditauxexgsesd'Aristote,deThophrasteetdeSimpliciusqu'lanoticed'Atius.Nousen
tironsdeuxconclusions,quisesituentdesniveauxdecertitudediffrents.Conclusionminimale:s'iln'apasrefusunepesanteurauxatomesnoncosmiques,
Dmocriten'apastoutefoisprcislafonctionqu'illuiaccordait.Conclusionmaximale:lapesanteurdesatomesnoncosmiquess'expliqueraitparleurchocetleur
diffrencedevitesse,lesatomeslespluslgerstantaussilesplusrapides.

 Page419

Noussouhaitonsquecesdeuxconclusions,quelqueponctuellesetlimitesqu'ellessoient,puissentmettrelepointfinall'undesproblmeslespluspineuxdontsont
del'histoiredelapenseprsocratique.

ChapitreXIII
Nouvellesperspectivessurlesconceptionsdelapesanteurchezlesprsocratiques
Quelquesrflexionss'imposentautermedecettetude,etquidonnerontl'enqutemeneicisaportevritableetplusvaste.

suivrelecheminementdeshistoriensdelaphilosophieprsocratique,unedoubleractions'impose:nepasselaisserabsorberparlapolmique,nepasselaisser
obnubilerparleprinciped'uneautoritreue.Personnedansl'Antiquitn'aentenduparpesanteurautrechosequelapropritparlaquellelescorpssedirigentde
hautenbas,siriend'extrieurnelesenempche.C'estainsiqueZellerdfinissaitlapesanteur.OrcettedfinitionnecorrespondnilathoriedePlatonnicelle
d'Aristote.Zellern'acitaucundocumentpourl'appuyer.Etpourtantoncontinued'enfairelapierredetouchedetouteinterprtationd'unethoriedelapesanteur
selonDmocrite.Onvoitdslorsparquelparadoxeleshistoriensdelaphilosophieprsocratique,toutenpolmiquantcontreZeller,ontacceptsadfinitionsans
jamaislarvoquerendoute.

Unefoisdtruitceprjuge,onpeutdgagerdesdocumentsunetoutautreconceptionduphnomnedelapesanteur.Pourlespenseursprsocratiques,eneffet,la
pesanteurnesecaractrisaitpasprincipalementpardesdiffrencesdelieuoudemouvement,commeceseralecasplustardpourPlatonetAristote.Lelourdetle
lgerserangeaientpluttductdesautrespouvoirs,lechaudetlefroid,lelumineuxetl'obscur.C'estPlutarquequil'affirme,lequelavaitsurnousl'avantagede
possderunepluslargeconnaissancedespremiersphilosophes.

Certes,selonThophraste,lelourdetlelgersetraduisaientaussipardesmouvementsverslebasetverslehaut.Mais,selonlemmeauteur,cesdiffrencesde
mouvementtaientenquelquesortesubordonnesdesdiffrencesdedensit:sontpaislefroid,l'obscur,lelourdsontrares(=peudenses)lechaud,le
lumineux,lelger.

VoilretrouvlepointdedpartdeDmocrite.quelleestdoncsonoriginalit?Avecunemarged'interprtation,biens,maisens'entenantuneextrme
simplicitsignepuettred'authenticitonpourraitreconstituerainsisadmarche.Lescorpscomposs,enraisonduplusoumoinsdevide,varientendensit:
celuiquiavaitdavantagedevide,doncleplusrare,seraitaussilepluslger.Enrevanche,lesatomesprisisolmentnepeuventvarierendensitilsnepeuventtre
nipluspaisnimoinspaismaisilsvarientengrosseur:l'atomeleplusgrosestdonclepluspesant.Ladfinitiondelapesanteurentermesdemouvementne
verralejourqueplustard.Mouvementetlieunepeuventdterminerleconceptdepesanteurquedansunmondeuniqueetternel,ceseraceluidePlatonet
d'Aristote.

 Page421

PUBLICATIONSDUMMEAUTEUR

OUVRAGES

Empedocles'cosmiccycle,areconstructionfromthefragmentsandsecondarysources..DanslacollectionCambridgeclassicalstudies.UniversityPress,
Cambridge.1969.Pagesx+459.

PourinterprterEmpdocle.Danslesdeuxcollections,Philosophiaantiquavol.XXXVIIIetCollectiond'tudesanciennes.E.J.Brill,Leyde.LesBellesLettres,
Paris.1981.Pagesix+138.

ARTICLESPRINCIPAUX

SurlesPrsocratiques

Anaximander'smeasurements,dansClassicalQuarterlyn.s.17(1967)423432.

TherelationofAnaxagorasandEmpedocles,dansJournalofHellenicStudies88(1968)93113.

Derivedlightandeclipsesinthefifthcentury,dansJournalofHellenicStudies88(1968)114127.

Theeffectofasimile:Empedocles'theoriesofbreathingandseeing,dansJournalofHellenicStudies90(1970)140179.

TempsetintemporalitchezParmnide,dansLestudesPhilosophiques:leTemps(1980)257272.

SurPlaton

ThelastargumentofPlato's'Phaedo',dansClassicalQuarterlyn.s.17(1967)198231,n.s.18(1968)95106.

SurAristote

Aristoteetlacatgoriedequantit:divisionsdelaquantit,dansLestudesPhilosophiques:Aristoteetl'Aristotlisme(1978)2540.

Aristote:quantitetcontrarit:unecritiquedel'coled'Oxford,dansunouvragecollectif.Conceptsetcatgoriesdanslapenseantique,tudespublies
sousladirectiondePierreAubenque,danslacollectionBibliothqued'histoiredelaphilosophie.Paris:Vrin.1981.Pp.89165.

SurPlotin

Plotinusonevil:astudyofmatterandthesoulinPlotinus'conceptionofhumanevil,dansLeNoplatonisme:ColloguesinternationauxduCentre
NationaldelaRechercheScientifique(Royaumont913juin1969)113146.

Levolontaireetlancessit:rflexionssurladescentedel'medanslaphilosophiedePlotin,dansLaRevuePhilosophiquedelaFranceetdel'tranger
anne102tome167(1977)401422.el'medanslaphilosophiedePlotin,dansLaRevuePhilosophiquedelaFranceetdel'trangeranne102tome167(1977)
401422.