This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
175-193 Published by: BRILL Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182149 . Accessed: 26/11/2012 06:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.216 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Two Conceptions of Vacuum
1. The question
Writerson ancient philosophy have always been impressedby the early in introducingvacuum, or void, as an atomists'conceptualbreakthrough intelligiblenotion. But discussionof the concept itself has been rare and, on the whole, disappointing.It is as if the doctrine were so obviously correctand sensiblethat no one had paused to askwhetherit reallyis quite My contentionis that it raisesconsiderableconceptual so straightforward. difficultiesof its own, and that these graduallyemerged,and were tackled, over a long period. I shall be concerned primarilywith the theoretical aspects of void, and not with its cosmological role or with the empirical argumentsfor and againstits existence. Void, Tox?v6v, is literally'the empty'.Does that mean emptyspace?So it is regularlyassumed.In the index to CyrilBailey'sTheGreekAtomistsand for example, the entryunder 'void' simply reads'see space'. But Epicurus, xevov there is, as a matterof Greek usage, at least one other thing that Tor could mean, and that is 'emptiness'.Viewed as emptiness,void would not be a kind of space or place. Rather, a portion of void would be the emptinessin such and such a place. And as an occupierof place, it might even be consideredcapable of locomotion. There should be nothing intuitivelyabhorrentabout the idea of someoccupyingplacesand moving thingwith a purelynegativecharacterisation - a gap in the traffic,for example. When you carryyour thermosflask to work,you would do well to think of the vacuumin it as movingfromplace to placewith it. If you insistinsteadthatthe vacuumin it is emptyspace and thereforeincapable of moving in space, you may have to conclude that throughoutyour journey the vacuum in your flask is being replacedin a constantstream. These considerationsare not meant to tell decisively in favour of the of void, but to show that that interpretation interpretation space-occupier is not too implausible to be entertained. Whether or not a particular will depend partly thinkeractuallyadoptsit, consciouslyor unconsciously, on other features of his system. For example, if he considers void an element,capableof being partof a compoundbody and of movingaround with it, he is more likely to think of it as a negative substanceoccupying
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.82.216 on Mon, 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
we should not be too surprisedif we find them retainingat least some of their inheritedconceptual framework.. It is widely recognisedthat the EleaticsParmenidesand Melissus had posed a challenge to the logical coherenceof void. for Anaxagoras. puts its entirely negative characterbeyond doubt. My contention will be that the formerview is characteristic of early Greek thought. he may be satisfiedwith the conceptionof it as emptyspace.' It would be pointlessin the presentcontext to probe the precisemeaningof this startlingdoctrine. as we shall see. then.Leucippusand Democritus.2 corporeality Absolutevacuumis somethingwhichfallsrightoutside ordinaryhumanexperience.and we shouldnot be surprised if it was at first insufficientlydistinguishedfrom the least substantialstuff familiarto the senses. But insofar as their theory is likely to have evolved as a modification and refinementof earlier assumptionsabout vacuum.in whosecosmology the world is said to inhale void from the infinite surroundingbreath.but that a transitionto the latter can be discernedin the fourth and thirdcenturies. Theforerunners of atomism It is generallyagreed that the notion of absolutevacuum was firstput on the map by the earlyGreekatomists.C.probably writingbefore the emergenceof atomism. The earliest fumbling attempt to come to terms with void must be attributedto the Pythagoreans of the 6th centuryB.I shall maintain that the status of void as a spaceoccupieris an exampleof this. we might hope to throw light on the atomistic conception of void.space.and I mentionit merelyto point out how easilyvoid was assimilatedto an insubstantial-seeming occupant of space.But their work grew out of a backgroundof theoreticaldebate. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . which we cannot afford to overlookif we are to understandtheirconceptualframework.found it an adequaterefutation of void (as understoodby his contemporaries) to demonstratethe of air. it would be certain that at least one early conceptionof void was as somethinglike thin air. 2.216 on Mon.B.C. I shall not suggestthat Leucippusand Democritusare themselvesto be saddledwith a comparablyprimitivenotionof vacuum.whereasif he introducesit only in orderto provideroom for bodies to move.82.168. Even without this explicit evidence.Theirterminology. Here too. air. by asking precisely what it was that they were 176 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. and that the atomists' achievement must be understood at least partly as a response to that challenge. Reflection on the English idiom 'vanish into thin air' may help confirmthis.
or 'the non-existent'.even if the Parmenidean ancestryshould be doubted. Aristotle. he observed. is entirelyhomogeneous.is equatedwithbody. supposition would. quite properly. discreditedmonism as a cosmologicaltheory by suggestingthat no differentiations of any kind were possiblein a worldso conceived.I thereforeconfine myself to outlining one possible interpretation. there is sufficientindependentevidence that the early atomiststreatednot only body but also void as an element (the word they would probablyhave actually used is 'principle'. does not exist. because notbeing. Parmenides'scheme was.Parmenides.216 on Mon. make good sense of Parmenides' rejection of cosmology as conceptuallymuddled. one which sees a very directParmenidean ancestryfor the atomisticdualismof body and void.Indeed. If there is any truth in this derivation of atomistic dualism from the dualism dismissivelysketched by Parmenidesin his Way of Seeming.4 The very clear and numerousreportsto that effect mightbe suspectedby some of forcing atomisminto an ill-fittingdoxographicalstraitjacket. its significancefor present purposesis as follows.Of these. But since Epicurusis in one report distinguishedfrom his atomist predecessors on 177 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. with enviable simplicity. qua being. At least one reader. of being and not-being.understoodas a dualism of two elements. homogeneousin itself but distinctfrom the firstelement.Unfortunatelythereis too little agreementon the interpretation of Parmenides' poem to make this a very promisingproposal. a self-refutingconcept.whateverwe take to be his own philosophicalpurpose.with void.In the second half of his poem he went on to demonstrate that the minimum condition for the rehabilitation of cosmologywas an unacceptableone. Thus the atomistic universe consists. The atomistsdecided that they could work with a dualistic scheme such as Parmenideshad hypothesisedand rejected. if nothing else.attemptingto rescuefrom the Eleaticelenchus. Hence anyone equatingvoid with one of these elementsshould be predisposedto treatit as a movable entity capable of occupyingwhateverplaces are occupiedby the compoundobjectsof which it is part. or 'theexistent'. cosmologiststendedto count monisma virtue:if all phenomenacould be reducedto manifestations of a single primal substance.being.&pxiq).3got the impression that there was some between these two elementsand what Parmenideshad in correspondence the Way of Truthcalled respectively'being'(ror ?eov) and 'not-being'('orpij That iov). Thejob of cosmologywas to reducethe worldto the simplestpossibleset of constituentprinciples. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . the introductionof a second element. after all.because being.82. not-being. the extreme of conceptual economy had been reached.168.by holding that not-being was not.BeforeParmenides.
of the atomists' Perhaps the strongest challenge to my interpretation vacuumwill be based on Melissus. (a) And nothing of it is empty.it must somehow The standardinterpretation which by a regularlinguistic (and hense also XwpeLv. but is full.7 (b) Nor does it move. 6LOiwVrT3L tVXV@o. XLV. the standardreadingof Melissus30 B 7. on ignore it must in 7.and void does not exist? Surely then. &XXair Txiv koi.Et 8E isirreXwPtd Tl * ELcb&XVroat. xvi :&paLov XPI 1OL1UMOL (9) xpLoLV & Tovv orrxvo.V. There is no need to imagine an external void into which what exists would transportitself. is mistaken. For it cannot give way at any point. Well. rare 8. EL ls?V OVVX. this.216 on Mon. the Melissan challenge which the atomistswere answeringhad alreadyidentifiedvoid as emptyspace. TOiVVV (10) &V61yXn 1TX\EV EIVOL. .it is ful. OUa8tL.V. it has no point at which to give way. what is nothing could not very well exist.82. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .no 8E pi E6VTOS EtS 70b XEV6VXEVOO av iMT oxpAUIeL.) (c) [summary]So (a) it must be full. but since there is not such thing as empty. 'it has nowhereto retreat' as an irrelevant intrusion. For if there were such a thing as empty it would give way into what was empty.is the signsof whichareabilityto give wayand absorbency. if there is no such thing as empty.given his demonstration What he is denying is an internaladmixtureof void. For what is rarecannot be as full as what is dense. To &pLov yE XZVE?MTOV yLVETaL TO rb TXEi( nXOToV TOV 1 O.First. In my view. El EV yap XEVEOV xivrLTav v'OXWp7lOaL yap ovx 'xeXL (8)'VvxvovbE OUxEX?LbXtiM.7-10. 1XEWV I 'nX&. it does not move. Second.Did Melissusnot arguethatwhat exists is immobilebecause if it moved it would moveinto void. it will be argued. &XX' TO yap &poa6v o'vx&vvTOv iTXEwV E'LVaL oix av E?vj. and so (b) if it is full. For accordingto 8-9 the 'empty'is characterised His claim. ov'rXfVw. For what is empty is nothing. EL8iXeTtl.pet L 'rrXi.168. Third. &JTLV. Hence if something gives way or accommodates. E 'roivuv Et X?VOV Rh WaTLV. simpleverb of locomotion:hence the ratherpuzzled-sounding and dense. (7) ov& oV6Ev. which would make at what exists rare or spongy and thus enable it to 'give way' ((MoXwpeiv) by rareness. 178 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.then. it is not full.6A translationwill help to explainwhy. some point. construe 'rroXwpetv convention will retain the sense of the precedingcompound form) as a translation. (Dense and rarecould not exist. it cannot easily explain why the immobilityof what exists arisesfromits being full. but if it neither gives way nor accommodates. Oi68 fjV. FLAVrE . And that is the criterion for distinguishingbetween what is full and what is not full. but what is rarealready thereby becomes emptier than what is dense.5there seems good reasonto trustthem.this very point. faces three objections.TO yap XEVE6V CGTLV XEV?0V o68Ev kaTLV OV'x &v oVv Etq TO yE ujqv. Why should Melissusconcern himself about anythatwhatexistshas no boundaries? thingexternal.
and both he in the fragments of his work On Democritus(fr. and if an atom is a filled space it will become extremelyhardto see how it can move.and 'the existentand the non-existent'. Simplicius' attribution is derived from Aristotle's. the atomists'own nomenclaturefor void. 179 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. 213b 31) assertsthat the proponentsof void regardit as unoccupiedplace.can only be understoodas designationsof thatwhich occupiesspace.and he now seizes the opportunityto tar void with the same brush (especially 214a16-22). But on closer inspection this evidence crumbles. But to call the occupantof a pocket of space 'nothing'or 'non-existent' would be to asserton the contrarythatthereis such a thingas empty space.82. and 'the full and the empty'(To ITXipEsxxt T xev6Ov). because he has alreadydefined place in such a way as to depriveit of independentexistence.To call empty space itself 'nothing'or'non-existent'would indeed be to deny that thereis such a thing.g.body and void. 3.216 on Mon.'the thing and the nothing'. is at least as compatible with the 'emptiness' interpretation as with 'emptyspace'.that the non-existence of void makes what exists internallyimmobile more like a stack of bricksthan a sponge. And that.And Aristotle's suits him to treat void as place. Theseare 'theexistentand the non-existent' xai TO [L Ov).But elsewhere (215a11) he is just as happy to treat void instead as a kind of negative substance (pa ov TL).where this will afford him a furthergroundof refutation.9 I thereforeconclude that Aristotle'sevidenceon this questionis of little historicalvalue. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .168.and is therefore not assertionis itselfof dubiousvalue. Three interchangeablepairs of terms were adopted for the twin principles of (T ov atomism.'the thing and the nothing'('orBEvxai Tbotr#v).'0 and I prefer to settle the matter by relyingon our one secure item of evidence.It independentevidence. 208 Rose) and Simpliciusin his commentaryon the Physics8attributethe same view to Democritus by name. Void is envisagedas that which must be mixed in with a substanceto make it less than totally dense. The firsttwo pairsof terms. And the symmetricallooking pairing of To rrXpesand To x?vOv suggests that if To x?v6v is empty space then Tb rXiipesis filled space. So thereis everyreasonto expectTo xev6vtoo to designate not empty space but the negative substancewhich occupies empty space. as far as I can see. The early atomists Aristotlein his discussionof void in PhysicsIV severaltimes (e. or privation. but To'Xipes is in fact identified with atoms. and that is what the atomists wanted to assert.
q8v. it is occupied by something. Every point in space is either occupied or unoccupied. All that would have beenjeopardizedif only one of the elementshad been an occupantof place while the other had been a speciesof place itself. Besides.By makingboth of theirprimaryelementsoccupantsof space they It seemsclearenough were able to make them into formalcontradictories.as their contemporaryZeno of Elea mischievouslytriedto do. I do not myself feel does speaking.e. By selectingas elements a pair of formalcontradictories came up with an ontologicalschemeof the utmosteleganceand economy.82. to sort itself out into one or other of their pair of contradictoryelements or into a complex of the two. Epicurus seems to have thoughtso. historically should of place not requirethat any theorisingabout the natureor status have been done.they would probablyhave thought it ill-conceived.It may be felt that in that case the atomistswere unwise to hypostatise this mysterious negative occupant of space. that thing is existent. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . are higher-order no more pertinentto the cosmologicalsystemof the atomiststhan to those of Anaxagorasand Empedocles.even if they had faced up to the challenge.To makethe samedemandof placeitselfwould be to initiate an infinite regress . or. given their conceptualbackwas and place-occupier ground. The Law of the Excluded Middle would ensure that nothing escapedclassificationunder they the scheme. if it is occupied by nothing.216 on Mon. as we will see in the next section. that the nothing (o IUi?v) exists.if it is unoccupied.and can be called 'emptiness' plausibleand widespreadassumptionthat to exist is to occupya place. on an alternative version. i.Biv.the view of vacuum as a quasi-substance simply the naturalassumptionfor the atomiststo make. it is in danger It maybe objectedthatthe schemeas I proposeto interpret of hypostatisingplace as a thirdkind of existingthing. Of course it is well known that Leucippusand Democritusbought this scheme at a price. So by relyingon the (ror non-existent. any occupant of place.11Questionsaboutthe statusof place. If it is occupied.a realone. I have tried to show that. p. assumedto existin a place.the atomistscould comfortablysit back and allow any existingthing.12 180 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. The body-void dualism was their answer to the question and any candidatefor this role would be 'Whatis there in the universe?'.But for the time being I shall stick to showing the enormous advantagewhich it conferred on their system. and can be called 'fullness' (rorArpes). The interpretation that the dangeris.as also that questionswhich should be thought metaphysical of time.it is occupiedby nothing. the priceof declaringthat the non-existentexists(to pil ov etvac). that the three pairs of termswere chosen with this object in mind. If it is occupied by something.168. its occupant is xmvOv).
By 'the non-existent' the atomists intendedthe firstof these two senses. how the atomists argued that since there is a world here there must be worlds elsewhere. Often a 'no more' (ov [a&XXov) clause behaves as a self-evidentpremiss for some argument:no more (i.13 it is so regularlylisted along with his otherdesignationsof body and void that it is hardto doubt that it was one of his own technicalterms.The paradox must.15But 'the existent no more exists than the non-existent'could hardlyfunction in that way.and 'x exists' in the sense of 'there is x'.82. 8E'v would be a humorouscoinage like 'couth'or 'ept'.e.e.By sayingof this that it 'exists'they meant 'Thereis that which is unreal'. make with referenceto numbers. But how did the atomiststhink they could get awaywith such a bare-faced self-contradiction?How can they have supposed that by announcing that the non-existent exists they were doing anything more than reassertthe Eleaticrefutationof void? One type of solution takes it as a purely humorousad hominemmove. . therefore. have receivedsome theoreticaldefence. which a non-platonistmight. This is.i.whose argument againstvoid was preciselythat. invented to embarrass an opponent.but Democritusis also reportedto have expressedit as 'The thing('r6 This latter Uv) no moreexiststhan the nothing(Tr RqUiv)'. On this interpretation problematic'. formulationcould be thoughtto have a rhetoricalforce: 'You deny that To T'o Uv.He and Leucippus were. The slogan is most commonlycited in the form'Theexistentno moreexists than the non-existent'. 181 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. Jonathan Barneshas recentlyproposed the much more promisingsuggestion that we understand 'The non-existent exists' in terms of the Fregeandistinctionbetween' x exists'in the sense of'x is a real thing'. there is far more reasonfor the existent to exist than the non-existent.by askingwhat morereasontherewas for the one to be truethan the other. for example. . but p: thereforeq. On the face of it.it did not exist. 'thereis no more reason for it to be the case that. ') p than q. but actually its contradictory. being the nothing and the non-existent.But even if the wordis likely to have been an unfamiliarone to Democritus'readers.arguably. for example.the vcwvvpov argument. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 'thatwhich is unreal'.168.These paradoxicalslogans are the legacy of the Eleatics.the firstphilosophersto develop a technicalterminology.14whichrests on the observation that there are some things in the world for which languagehas failed to supplya name: To'8Ev could be meantas an example of a missing name. It is temptingto connect this fact in turn with one of his four argumentsfor the non-naturalcharacter of language.216 on Mon.a perfectly intelligible claim. sounds if anythingmore W#9?vexists.
Barnes.Moreover. defending the paradox that the non-existent 182 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.who thought he could evade the Eleaticban on change by makingall cosmic change strictlycyclical(B 26.If this particular insightis one which they wereno more than feeling towards. There is a second objection. Void for them is not one of rarovTor.But I know of no evidence that he.C is such a thing as' void. and when one disintegratesmany are formed.to be fair.216 on Mon.odd language for someone who considersvoid unreal.unless they had a defence prepared. and suggestsonly that the atomistswere 'feelingtowards such an insight'. to that extent they are becomingand have no stable life. because only U 'TxL). but in reality ( . What comparable device can we attribute to him without I can only think of one: the move of explainingthat someanachronism? thing is true in one respect but not in another. it is true.168.I have two worriesabout this. At least. First. Void is a space-filler.recognisethatsome wordshave morethanone meaning. But that would hardly be enough. by conventionsweet.why should the atomistswant to call void 'unreal'? Barnestakesthis conclusionto follow fromthe premisses (I) that to be real is to be a space-fillerand (2) that void is not a space-filler. or what Democntus meant by his celebrated declaration.Now the distinctionwhichBarnesattributes to Democritusis more or less the one which the Stoicswere laterto make. to that extent they are for ever unmoved in a circle. to have isolated the existentialsense of the verb 'to be' but also to have found two distinctshades of meaningwithin it. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .I hope I have alreadyshown reasonto doubt the second of these premisses. 8-12): Thus insofar as (jL pv) one has learntto come into being out of many. But insofar as (f&8e) these things never cease from their continual change. I see no reason why Democritus should not have answered the Eleatic ban on void by a similar tactic. which means roughly'there bodies 'exist'.they needed some other insight there and then to offer to theiropponents. admits this.that is. This can be illustrated from Leucippus'contemporaryEmpedocles. it occupies some parts of space just as effectivelyas body occupiesothers. Democritusdid.'By convention there is colour.Void only 'subsists'((q.82. or anyone else until a much later date. if the atomistshad regarded void as unrealit would be hardto understand why theygave it the statusof an element alongside body. In declaringthat the non-existentexists they were blatantlyinvitingridicule. put this insight to work on the solution of philosophicalproblems. But it would be hopelesslyanachronistic to expect Leucippus or Democritusto have expressedany such distinction. by con) atoms and void'17 vention bitter.not merely. real existent things.
a'rT To &8&Xov T ' iV y&p AS FUTLV yi'aIp &VayxCLOV EA pa aV. bV xevov XTX. either by imagination or by analogy with what is imagined. and I must start with a defence of them.exists by explaining that in one respectvoid exists but that in anotherit Let us assumeonce again the equationof 'exist' does not. the totality of things is <bodies and void>. av Exe T&oaroTX bsov 'qv oVOE 0L' Ou XlVel'rO. There are two crucial emendationsto the text. as things graspedin termsof complete substancesand not as what we call accidentsor propertiesof these.rrp6O0EV e'L . c4. Hdt.216 on Mon. xevi Rh 's Tr& 1. did not exist. The atomists could then say that when a place is occupied by nothing. which we call 'void'. Epicurus For Epicurus'conceptionof void the principaltext is Ep. Most have preferredto follow Gassendi in retaining 'U?EJ?'rp npoevov TO 183 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.419-428.1.ITapt be oi'vo'V OVi?rE &vaX6ycs TOLS oVTe nEpLXi1iTrCos raDia MVxTOfL 'TEPAX1'TOLS O'8'bt'qVi"vaL f aoex6mr Wsxa0' bXocs ?ovwv ovRTuT'xaTa qfoausXaAf3sv6geva. bodies would not have anywhere to be or to move through as they are observed to move. is more controversial. 5.aTaxai orros> Usener 3. That bodies exist is universallyattestedby sensation itself. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 'OV XEVOV x xiX1 i(pcl XoyUY[L() TEX)aipE06aL XCXL &VfXqYIq)ULV6VvopL&oJ. 4. which I have adopted.Ovx 5. 'npOEvtoV. B': 'Wa'Trep 7rp6O0EEl Rh iV bV XEV'OV emendavit Usener: IlTx?Ep -npoEtv?ovTrb -fpOEV. and the supplement < uatwar xai XeV`v> is the obvious one to adopt.82. both because the same formula is attested for Epicurusin other and because it correspondsexactly to Lucretius'corporasunt et sources18 inane at the equivalent point in his version (1. Rh 'v 8 XEvOvwrX. &OX Riv xoL TO 'rT&v artL <awILaTaT aLUo0Ls i-'TL iTdXvTwv otprvpEL.xaotxrep qmiVe'raL XLVo0ULEVa. Et <be> ovW' Usener ovre Moreover. insofar as the occupant is nothing it does not exist. TO1TOOS bE Xal Xev6v>.i1 iv ov (&BB(TD) Z3 f ) xEv6v XT\. T6070 xrX. Fortunatelywe have a check on this text in a veryclosely The opening sentence is hopeless parallelpassageof Lucretius. 'room' and 'intangible substance'. In what respects? with 'occupy a place'. as it stands. but insofaras it occupies a place it does exist. in accordancewith which it is necessaryto judge by reason that which is non-evident.v. B' TO P Co FZ1:WosMep 'ITpOELITOV 8e eC 1 6v. aiii. in 3.420). Beyond these nothing can even be thought of.has been virtuallyignored by editors this century.168. and if place.xaO' iv $oGlTEp lTpOELVTOV. '71TEpf'rpOELITOV To . < a6RaraxaixEvov> Gassendi: <0au L.Usener's brilliant conjecture. 39-40:1. as I said above. The second emendation.
Usenerends the firstsentence at ffpodfTfov. Second. the resultant reading corresponds much more closely to the equivalent clause in Lucretius(1. and that is a quite separate task from that of arguingfor the existence of occupied place. First. It is for the controversial void intervalsthat Epicurusshould be arguing.19 But this will not do. Usener'stext requiresonly two lettersto be changedin the originalreadingof the best ms. I want to arguein what follows 184 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. The alternative emendationrequires four letters in B's original reading to be changed. Why have all these advantagesbeen overlooked?Perhapsit is because Usener'stext seems to makevoid and place straightsynonyms. and these can be said to have stable location.426-7). First. Second. in place of B.becausethey themselvesfollow upon the proof of void.Tbo lpo60ev is disturbingly redundant with ?rpoetlrov.with or without the emendationthe very same conflationof void with place is implicit at the end of the same sentence: '(Withoutvoid) bodies would not have anywhereto be or to move through. Void provides stable location as well as passage. Hdt.82.to make ed<8e> jLiliv 8 x?vOv ---.as the end of one sentence. Besides.168. whereas the void intervalsbetween those bodies clearly might be. The laws of atomicmotion cannot be assumedat this earlystage in Epicurus' argument. Although these difficultiesare real ones.so an emendationwhich gets rid of it is welcome. Several considerationsfavour this. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .becauseatoms are in perpetualmotion. the same treatmentof void as place recursat Ep. retaining ov with the best mss.which we call void'.216 on Mon. Moreover. if therewere not place and room. and emends To ffpo6ev to ro6'os8?.. the alternativereading leaves nothing in Epicurus'text to correspondto Lucretius'locus.'Then again.is thisconflationof placewith void a howler?Thosewho believe so might be tempted to argue that 'roIros. Third.The answerto this is twofold.the last threewordsof the sentence make it clear that Epicurushas not atoms but phenomenal bodies in mind. can hardlybe regardedas a second constituentof the universeon a par with the bodies which occupy it. 42 and severaltimes in Lucretius.Usenerdid not realise quite how stronglyit supportedhim).and in adding a connectivein the next rp6a00Ev sentence. the Borbonicus(the readingof B ante correctionem is frommy own autopsyof the codex . which no opponent would have denied.and editors have hesitatedto introducesuch an obvious howlerinto Epicurus' text by way of an emendation.as they are observed to move'. especially where the reference is only to the previous paragraph. occupied space. Giussaniand Baileytry to mitigatethe confusionby observingthat strictly speakingthereare no stable locationsin Epicureanphysics.
if it is fire.And again. But in the void this is impossible.and it helps soften us up for the formal refutationof void which follows at 216a26b16:Also considered in itself the alleged void would appear to be a truly empty notion. For just as. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . So if it could actually be separated from all the other attributes. becauseit is not itself 185 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. starts with Aristotle'scriticismsof the notion of void. were not displaced by the wooden cube but completely penetratedit. only it is imperceptibleto the senses. What then will be the difference between the body of the cube and the equal void or place? And if there will be two such things in the same place. But it is clearlya loaded description. is different in respect of being from all its attributes. the same happens in air. 213alS5-19):Those who speak of void set it up like a sort of place and vessel. This assumptionallows him to raise a fundamentalconceptual difficulty(PhysicsIV.168.82.if its movement is downwardslike that of earth. why not any numberof things?This is one absurdand impossibleconsequence. be displaced in its natural direction of displacement. But the cube has a magnitudeequal to the void it occupies.that there is no simple oversight or confusion on Epicurus'part. it is clear that the cube will even when it is displacedhave this thing which all other bodies have too. although it is hot or cold or heavy or light.216 on Mon.whatever sort of thing be inserted in it.not as an argumentagainstit. it will occupy an equal void and be in the same place as the portionof place or void equal to itself. This descriptionis meantto introducethe notion of void for discussion. but a doctrine evolved to cope with conceptual difficulties first raised by Aristotleand still kept alive by scepticsin the Hellenisticera.The void cannotbe displacedby the body. even if not separable from them: I mean the volume of the wooden cube.and be neither heavy nor light. but the cube must be penetratedby an extension equal to that which previouslyexisted in the void .or upwards. so that if it is no differentfrom the place why should we make a place for bodies over and above each one's volume (if the volume is something without attributes)? It contributesnothingto suppose such a distinctequal extension belonging to it. The crucial question raised here is what happens to void when a body enters it? The first stage of the argumentis the importantpart for our purposes. but that Aristotlefor reasonsof his own tended to attributethe latterview to them. always either downwards.just as if the water. or in both directions. The story.or air. I have alreadysuggestedthat Leucippusand Democritus consideredvoid an occupantof place ratherthan a species of place itself. water equal in volume to the cube will be displaced. if someone puts a cube in water. Indeed. it is always the case with every body capable of displacement that it must. since it is not a body. as I reconstructit. They think that it is full whenever it contains the mass which it is fitted to receive. and this.but void wheneverit is deprived of it . unless compressed.as if void and plenum and place are all the same thing yet their essence is different.
the body-housing place is not body.a body. for that which is displaced from here to there is 186 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. But it is of interestboth becauseit sets out fairlystarklythe choice which Epicurushad faced. But if the void is displaced.it will be simultaneously void and full. and if two.82. or it is destroyed.can be seen to drawheavilyon the materialin Physics IV):For if there exists any body-housing place. the place will be in a place. But it is unthinkable to call the same thing both void and full. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .and I find everyreasonto think thatit was the firststage of the argumenttakenon its own thatcausedmost perplexityto the championsof void. however. with somejustification. But if the body-housingplace is void. I doubtif it impressedhis readersverymuch. void insofar as it remains. then when the body arrivesat it eitherthis void remains. it is either body or void. But this conception of place as the intervalor extensionfilled by a body is one he has alreadyrebutted(21lb 14-29).I think. more accurately.216 on Mon. Thereforethe void must remainand become completelycoextensivewith the body.24-36.that the atomistswould not have boughttheirway out of trouble at the price of making one of their two primaryelements perishable. the void will be body.it will be helpful to look at it in a later Hellenisticformulation. for if every body must be in a place. then we will be landed with two indistinguishable things in the same place.as presentedby SextusEmpiricus Of (M 10.and is probablyaimed in the first instanceat the Stoic concept of place.and the second stage of the presentargumentis really.Therefore the body-housing place is not a body. and we are expected to agree that the only sort of thing which a body can displace is another body. And if when the body arrivesat it it remains.this actualformulationpostdatesEpicurus. and so on ad infinitum.M 10. and also because it could well representa continuing traditionof criticism inspired by the Physics IV argument(the immediatelyfollowing arguments.justa reinforcement of thatrebuttal.20-3). Now.is to suppose that the void will survivein the guise of the body's place. or it is displaced. Aristotledoes not consider the possibility that on being filled the void perishes.168.Aristotle's own approach. full insofar as it houses the body.trilemma)Aristotle's argumentposed for Epicurus. The absurdity of a void coextensive with a body might have been thoughta sufficientrefutationof the void theory. Therefore the void does not remain when the body arrivesat it. the thirdin a fourth. then why not any number? Aristotle can only maintain this line of argument by ignoring his own earlier demonstrationthat strictlyspeakinga place cannot itself be in a place. course. If this extensionwhich the body comesto fill is somethingdistinctfromthe body's own volume. To see what sort of dilemma (or. and that place in a thirdplace. and place is body.perhapsassuming.
But I would not expect that to convince Epicurus. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . if it is displacedwhen the body arrivesat it. let us consider what possible responses Epicuruscould offer to Aristotle's conundrum.Epicuruswould have to agreewith this. as we have proved. The reasonwhy he cannot contemplatethe possibility of void's perishingis that his entire system is founded on the familiar principle that the universe will be unstable and unintelligible unless its ultimateconstituentsare permanentones. cannot act or be acted on (Ep. looks no more promising. Therefore it is not displaced either. But the generable and destructible thing which undergoes change and movement is body. Thus if place is neither body. has been almost totally neglected by modernscholarswhen discussingthe Epicureantheoryof void:187 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. but only undergoesredistribution.Butin the case of void neitheralternative was very palatable.which is again impossible. thereforewhen they approacheach otherthey must eitherperishor dodge each other. strictlyspeaking. since thatcould in no way be imaginedas existingin the same place as body. If neither alternativeis acceptable.body.that void withdrawson the approachof body. For if it is destroyedit undergoeschange and movement. no place can exist.of which only body is capable. it will no longer be housing the body. With these arguments. Democritus'conceptionof void as a negativesubstancewould no longerdo. 67). the only available move short of abandoningvoid altogetheris to allowthatvoid does afterall remainwhen a body enters it. The second alternative. extraordinarily.And on anotheroccasionEpicuruswas happy to agree.). and if it is destroyed it is generable.82.where it is observedthat some of these elements aremutuallyopposed.even body does not perish. It remainsthereforeto say that the void is destroyed.if only because he holds that. Hence Epicurushas no choice but to follow Aristotle'slead in conflatingvoid with place.I deduce this from one of Lucretius'argumentsagainst Empedocles'fourelement theory(1. But the only way in which it could coexist with a body wouldbe by becomingthat body'splace. as we have pointed out. Hdt.whathappensto void when it is approachedby a body? Plato had proposed the law that anything which is approachedby its own opposite must either withdrawor perish (Phaedo 102dff. nor void. But the void is not body. unlike body.216 on Mon.168. Sextus' argumentis that perishinginvolveschange and movement. and these constituents are body and void. Therefore the void does not perish either.in mind.2)which.760-2). and that too is absurd. Besides. that it perishes.Take the first alternative. when the body arrivesat it. How Epicurus handled this conflation is admirablyexplained by Sextus Empiricusin a passage(M 10. SextusechoesAristotlein commentingthat only a body can be displaced. since he rightly holds that void.
Epicurusinvents the technicalexpression'intangiblesubstance'for space in its broadestsense. 'place' and 'room'as being merelythe termsby whichwe referto it in specificcontexts:'void'when it is unoccupied. which I here translate'roam'). As Aetius puts it (1.by the majorityof the Platonistsand Stratoof Lampsacus(fr.e. occupiedspace.But genericallyit is called 'intangible substance'in Epicurus'school.of 'intangiblesubstance'.He then explains the familiarwords 'void'. Hdt. place and room is one of name. but in mayhave 'intangible substance' practicealwaysfilled with body. according to Simplicius.not of essence. "room" and "intangible substance" '.a very similar view was held.82. Epicurussays that the difference between void. philosophical training was in Platonism.an intangible substance.2 = fr. which we call "void".271 Usener). he does elsewhere fluctuate in his usage between 'void'. 'room'.20. working no doubt from Plato's first Epicurus' notoriouslyproblematicdepictionof space in the Timaeus.When bodies pass into and out of this. when occupied by a body is named 'place'.168. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . with x(pCLv.the names varying according to the different ways of looking at it. since the same substance when empty of all body is called 'void'. True to his word.and it may be that we would understandthe originsof his theoryof space betterif we knew moreabout the workof men like Xenocrates.'place' when it is occupied. since it lacks resistanttouch. it remains unaffected in all but name.Presumablythe justificationwould be that it is not the space itself which is tangible. To return to Ep. intangibleextension. whether occupied or unoccupied. some is named 'void'.60Wehrli). accordingto Epicurus.Thereforeone must grasp that. 40. some 'place'. as an probablyin annoucementthat he will use its variousnames indifferently.as he calls it.216 on Mon.when the body moves out of it the space itself will not offer it any resistance. But if anyone arrivedat the same notion before him.All threetermsname the same thing. 'place' and 'intangiblesubstance'without apparentdis188 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.21it is these Platonists of whom Simplicius speaks.These people spoke of space as in its own nature a void coextensive with the cosmos. I understandEpicurus'wording "'place". and when bodies roam throughit becomes 'room'. 'go'. It may be askedwhy he shouldcall place.i. orderto emphasizethat the differencebetweenthem is one of context. and 'room' when bodies move throughit (this last definition is backed up by an etymologicalassociationof -xpa.At any rate.but the body occupyingit . and some 'room'. Epicurus' a strong claim to be the first clear recognitionof geometricalspace as a three-dimensional extensionwhichpersistswhetheror not it is occupiedby body.
now that 'the empty' means empty space 'the full' would inevitablyimply 'full space'.e.i. And this is confirmedby his proofsof its existence:(a) it is needed to providelocation. and these are 'tangible' and 'intangible'. 'Thing and nothing'. Epicurus has jeopardised the antithesisof body and void whichhad been such a meritof the symmetrical early atomists' system. i.not only because they are semanticallypuzzling but also because they are. Hdt. nam quodcumque erit. sin intactile erit. so long as 189 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168. but he appeals to The them to show that body and void themselvesare true contradictories.It may seem odd that he The puts 'place'first. scilicet hoc id erit. As a result of this shift of position. 42). however.) He does.tinction. Beyond these there is nothing which you can call distinctfrom all body and separate from void. nulla de parte quod ullam rem prohiberequeat per se transiremeantem.e. but representsa coherentdoctrineevolved in responseto Aristotle'scriticismof the notion of vacuum. have anotherpair of contradictories which characterisebody and void respectively. as we saw. relevantargumentis preservedby Lucretius(1. and 'the existent and the non-existent'are unsuitable. corporisaugebit numerumsummamquesequetur.216 on Mon. to play the role of a third discoveredsubstance. esse aliquid debebit id ipsum augmine vel grandivel parvo denique.82. whetherlarge or small.not for space itself. For whatever will exist will have to be in itself somethingwith extension.(b) it is needed to allow motion. There is now none of Democritus'pairs of contradictoryterms which Epicuruscan use. quod quasi tertia sit numero naturareperta.As for 'the full and the empty'. 40 is not muddled.430-439):Praetereanil est quod possis dicere ab omni 430 corpore seiunctum secretumqueesse ab inani.ratherthan the masterconcept'intangiblesubstance'. 435 cui si tactus erit quamvis levis exiguusque. I thereforeconclude that Ep. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . dum sit. object is no doubt strategic:place is the least controversialof the four terms. 41.although'void' is certainlyhis favourite. (When Epicurususes it is as a predicatenot of bodyper se but of those portionsof body -nXipqs which contain no void gaps (Ep. there must be unoccupiedspace into which thingscan move. The range of alternativenames also serves to stress that at least some parts of space are occupied and at least some unoccupied.He never uses them in Democriteanfashion as the names of body and void. theremustbe occupiedspace.which is not a suitabledefinitionof an atom. Hdt. vacuum quod inane vocamus. names for occupantsof space.
as they had been for Leucippus and Democritus. that if a quantity of body is increasedby addition that which has been added to it is itself body.yet manypartsof spacearecompletelyoccupiedby body.-K. So the antithesisof 'tangible'and 'intangible'comes to the rescueand seems to make Epicurus''body and void' a neatly symmetricalpair of contradictories. The implicit conclusionis that it mustthen itselfbe body. so long as it exists'. 86).preciselythe essentialfunctionof void. but once Epicurus had identified void with place.The premisslooks like one used by Zeno of Elea (29 B 2 D.however light and faint. it will extend the measureof a body and be added to its sum. But underneaththe definitionalsymmetrytherenow lurksa strongontological asymmetry. increaseit.168.22 premiss: 'Whateverwill exist will have to be in itself something with extension. that somethingwithoutmagnitudecould not exist because when added to something else it could not increase that can safelyproceedto a thing'ssize.Thisis not in itself an absurdity:the Stoic principles.82.216 on Mon. it became stationaryand no longer available as an element of movable compound 190 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.). It will be seen now that the premissthat only spatially extended things exist is a necessaryone otherwise all sorts of impostors might get included under the heading 'intangible'.it exists.being a substancehoused in space. when added to a quantityof body. order a vital This gives Lucretius and takenaugmine(434) to mean 'extension'. spatially.23 He never makes the mistakeof regardinga compound body as made out of atoms and void in combination. Pyth. but I have retainedthe ms.as do body and mind in the view of many philosophers. With this premissestablishedLucretius dilemma: either this extended thing is tangible or it is intangible. and this followsprovidedthat we assume a furtherpremiss. being unable to resist moving bodies it will allow them to pass straight through. it will undoubtedlybe the emptiness which we call void. and unable to prevent anything from moving throughit at any point. Presumablythis means 'three-dimensional extension'. If it has tangibility.matterand God.even PlatonicForms.If it is tangibleit will. The void of the early atomists.Body and space are in some sense joint constituentsof the world. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Whereas if it is intangible.and used that name for atoms alone (Ep. The argument continues:if on the otherhand the extendedthingin questionis intangible. I thinkEpicurus was perfectlywell awarethatvoid as he conceivedit wasof a very different order of being from body. He resistedthe temptationto follow Leucippusand Democritusin calling it an element. whether large or small. could presumablybe an element of a compoundbody and move around with it. Mosteditorstransposelines 434 and 435. also coincide Even so.
(Lucretius existence of separate incapable for as attributes of body. 571.De caelo 302a1 ff.for a surveyof current interpretations. Luria. Mourelatos(ed. (= fr.. Barnes.phrasedas a criticismof currentusage in general. (= fr. Solmsen in Aristotle'sSystem of the Physical World(1960) 140-2. 176-92. D. characterisedas Fav6v. And that is because it exists even where body does not. H. Barnes. Phys. frs. oux . The first oMiv must therefore be adverbial. 309b 17 ff. events and properties. 31 Wehrli. Melisso. 1954). like 59 B 17. Plac. J.g.2 ff. Eudemus fr. where void is thoughtof as occupying a place. testimonianze Loenen (Parmenides. but it is not itself part of the compounds.25 ff. Why then does Epicuruspair body and void in the formula'the totality of thingsis bodies and void'?He does not mean by this that the universeis compounded out of them in the way that a house is compoundedout of bricksand mortar. testimonianze eframmenti(1970). 251 Luria).. 262.All othercandidatesfor can be accounted the title 'existent'.14-18. 422-5. 6 Cf.bodies. 163-4. Cf. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . and note 21 below. 173 Luria). 1. P. 190. 3 MetaphysicsI 986b27-987a2.24 Christ'sCollege. 8 E.. ovv . Denniston. and Loenen. 985b4 ff. 'Pythagoreanphilosophy before Plato'.and room for them to move.. G. Reale.It is certainlynot my 191 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.and add J. 10 The likelihood that Aristotle'sdepiction of void as place is unhistoricalis well noted by F. 250 Luria). as comparisonwith the closing sentence shows.22 ff.he means that they are the only two ordersof being that are requiredto accountfor the universe. op. Kahn. 394.3.Cambridge Aristotle. 75 Wehrli on Democritus(= fr..449-82). 397. fr.Aristotle's influence may also explain Eudemus' tendency to treatearly views of void in the same way: cf. 192. 173. not just of a specific doctrine. Physics IV 213b22-7.the intervalsbetweenthem. (= fr. 65 on Archytas(= 47 A 24 Diels-Kranz). R.cit. 2 59 A 68 Diels-Kranz..Space alone cannot. In defence of an early date for this doctrine.p. Particles(ed.. see C. 184. discernedby Reale. 487 in S.and fr. 254 Luria).Rather.Melissus.includingtime. But my translation is designed to bring out the word play of the first two clauses. 1. 2. 1. 4 According to Eudemus. Albertelli (Gli Eleati. 194. Some of have alreadybeen the weaknesseswhich I point out in the standardtype of interpretation eframmenti(1939)).82.168. Simplicius In Ar. 188-9. P. 7 The real subject of the first sentence is 'it' (what exists). 9 Cf. 5 Aetius. 285 Diels. The PresocraticPhilosophers(1979) I 217-9.Demokrit(Leningrad 1970). DoxographiGraeci(1879). No doubt the argumentwas. 264. CJrOLXELOV in the sense 'element' was firstused by Plato. and others. Gorgias(1959)). Compound bodies consist of atoms variouslyspaced out.216 on Mon. and ib. Space providesthe location of these atoms. where the atomists' void is not 'place' but an element. yE is the 1 so that the ovv has no inferential force: see J. D. The Greek negation of YoiBv. Met.). The Presocratics(1974). in A. where one of the possibilitiesconsideredis that void would be capable of locomotion..
.. 20 This text has been consistently overlooked because Usener included it only in the addenda to his Epicurus(1887): fr.168. 13 See Loenen. 12 (1962). in addition to Lucretius'support. see frs. Moorhouse. 78. and my own view is that on the contraryit makes excellent sense of it.507-9). who dismisses it as Stoic-contaminated. The same formula occurs at fr. I believe. 2-8. I. Hdt. 273-85.503-6 Lucretiussuggests that body and space cannot be coextensive. but is found as early as Alcaeus.ap. frs. But note that Lucretius quickly corrects this to empty space (1. I see no conflict between saying that void. 'LiEN in classical Greek'.ra XvL xevOv> also has good parallelsin frs. 281-2). Pugliese Carratelli(ed. 67). It is now discussedby Inwood (art. describethe relationshipof the MorningStarto the Evening Star in both ways without inconsistency. for example. 280-1. 70 for just this usage).. 11 29 A 24 Diels-Kranz. 188 Luria. cit. adequately met by what I say in the main body of this paper. For another.cit. Hdt. The Democriteanthesis that the only 'real'truthsare truthsabout atoms and void. At 1. 261 Luria. 25. My point is that the cardinalnotion of void. cf. and for all I can show to the contrarythey may have misleadinglyused r6xEv6vof these as well. Inwood's interpretation. 563 Luria 15 Fr. cit. however. 79. C. For one thing the view of void which I attribute to the atomists is more likely to have been an assumption than a worked-outtheory for which chapterand versecould be cited. 271 Usener (cited below): one might. The form is rare.purpose to question Aristotle's integrity in the matter. 320. op. 235-8. Brad Inwood. 'The origin of Epicurus'concept of void'. 76 Usener and Nat. and Barnes. Hdt. and would not want my disagreementon this issue to obscure that fact. pp. op. Studi Lucreziani(1896).on which Epicureanvoid comes out looking ratherlike Democriteanvoid as I have interpreted it.cf. place and room differ accidentally. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . cannot be of empty space. could only be established if it were shown to be at variancewith Epicurus'theory.althoughit is hard tojudge how far the conception 192 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. 21 The same notion of container space may already be implicit in Archytas 47 A 24 Diels-Kranz. 985b4 ff.7-9 Arrighetti. (see previousnote) suggeststhat Aristotlemay have appreciatedthis. 78.they no doubt also had occasion to speak of empty places. 194.on the account which I adopt. 185.. C.). 271. and still in Theodotion'sOld Testamenttranslation.de rerumnaturalibrisex (1947). This is technically incorrect.14. conflicts with at least three items of evidence (art. CP 76 (1981). 14 Fr.82. is regularly assumed to be shared by Epicurus.For attributions of it to Democritus as a regularterm. 17 Fr.Lucretius.g. 350-1. as at Ep. I have learnt a great deal from this marvellousbook. as featuredin theirdualism of atoms and void. Bailey. cit. 1 Luria.216 on Mon. II.s. and saying that (bfrtj3oX&s they are all names for the same thing. 40 and fr.De opif ii 1.a very Epicureanterm: cf. Only one item of evidence needs explaining away.as reportedby Eudemus.12. 12 E. And Inwood's other objections are.op. 172. 11 100-3. and A. 55 Luria. 1983). frs. II 653. Philop.-P.59.. Met. But Gassendi's <o ta. Giussani. This. 74-5 Usener. p. CQ n. 16 Barnes. 34. 280-1) as well as with Epicurus'principlethat void cannot be acted upon (Ep.or accordingto differentways of looking at the same thing .. L. 18 Usener's <alxm-Ta xai T0'r6os> has had an undeservedly bad press. 8rros 8e in what follows (on the readingsee below). and is suggested by a4uaTa pEV .. cit. XuvtrpIS Naples. 251-7. 19 C. 173.I argue against the assumptionin 'Epicurus'Refutationof Determinism'in G. never about phenomenal objects. Ep.
Brad Inwood. Rick McKim. John Cooper. and its demonstration that Epicurusread PhysicsIV closely (pp. it is to Brad Inwood'spaper (cited note 19 above) and to our extended correspondenceabout it.168. I benefited from the discussionson all four occasions. 23 Cf.for membershipduring the second term of that year.and to the Institutefor Advanced Study. perhaps rightly. Princeton.Above all. Aetius. Henry Mendell. 26 Nov 2012 06:01:43 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Princeton.of 'r6nosthere may reflect Eudemus' Aristotelian understanding of void (see note 8 above). cited note 5 above. It is a far richer paper than my foregoing criticisms may suggest.and owe particularthanks to Myles Burnyeat. 22 In this I am following Brieger's 1894 Teubner edition. that I owe the impetus to write on this subject. The reader can be safely referred to it for a wider-rangingdiscussion and fuller bibliography than I have provided here. Finally. Ian Mueller and ElizabethAsmis for their comments and suggestions. 24 Versions of this paper were read to meetings at London. Stanford and Chicago. 282-4) is so powerfulthat I have felt able to take this for grantedin my own paper. for the leisureto writethis final versionof the paper I am deeply indebted to the HumanitiesCouncil of PrincetonUniversityfor the awardof a visiting fellowship in the Fall Semester 1981-2. 193 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192. although he emends aliquid (433) to aliquo.82.216 on Mon.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?