Epicurus on Void, Matter and Genesis: Some Historical Observations

Author(s): Friedrich Solmsen
Source: Phronesis, Vol. 22, No. 3 (1977), pp. 263-281
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182022
Accessed: 04-03-2015 02:26 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phronesis.


This content downloaded from on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Some historicalobservations


Forty years ago a new historicalperspectivewas introducedinto
the study of Epicurus and his philosophy. In 1936 Ettore Bignone
in his massive two volumes L'Aristoteleperduto e la formazione
filoso/ica di Epicurol directed attention to Aristotle's exoteric writings.
As these works had been restored to life in the preceding decade
and were thought to have been far more accessible than the treatises,
it was natural to look to them as sources of inspiration. However in
the same year Iolfgang Schmid,2 while studying remains of flepl
yu=Xa and concentrating on passages critical of the Timaeus and its
mathematical construction of elements, discovered in this criticism
arguments borrowed from De generationeet corruptione.Today few
scholars would question Epicurus' acquaintance with Aristotle's
treatises - to think of them as unknown outside the Lyceum looks in
retrospect rather unrealistic. Anyone inquiring into the origins and
formative influences of Epicurus' system will be concerned about the
proper balance between the Abderite and the Aristotelian (or Peripatetic) components of this system; within the latter the additional
necessity of distinguishing between "exoteric" and "esoteric" sources
remains - in principle at least - even if the treatises have progressively
moved to the fore.3For the sake of completeness it should be observed
that Plato too is given increased consideration; and in his case again
not only the dialogues (of which the Philebus is the favorite) but his
esoteric teachings are also scrutinized for clues to the origin of Epicurus' tenets.4
Although researchhas been lively in these areas, a number of philo1

Florence, 1936.
a Epikurs Kritik der platon. Elementenlehre (Leipzig, 1936) 16 ff.
a Particularly important are articles by C. Diano in Giornale critico di filosofia
ital. esp. 21-22 (194041). See also David Furley, Two Studies in the Greek
Atomists (Princeton, 1967) 115 ff., 194 ff. Fuller information is found in J. M.
Rist, EPicurus. An Introduction (Cambridge, 1972) which includes a "Bibliography."
"For the Philebus see Diano, SIFC 12 (1935) 61 ff., 237 ff.; Rist 107; for
esoterica (of Plato and his successors) H. J. Kramer, Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie (Berlin, 1971), 171 ff., 199 ff., 288 ff.


This content downloaded from on Wed, 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and. 3) 56." whereas "place" (r'6oq) indicates a concern with "the area occupied" by atoms or their clusters." which causes distortions. To escape this objection. thus bringing down on themselves the wrath of Aristotle. t8 6v tv oa-%tavet). et corr. Here too it is in reaction against Parmenidesthat they developed their tenets. I 8. we read (a 26 ff. Epicurus avoids the term non-being and speaks of void as though it were a substance" but a "substance of a very peculiar kind .6 my reservations and my disagreement relate to the explanations. '6 rs xcv'ov [0] U xcl roVO cit. Leucippus. 1928. Bud6 I. Aristotle when alluding to the Abderites in Physics I 3. and elsewhere) discusses "space" instead of "void. 6 Robin goes farther in the right direction (Lucr&cede la nature. Commentaire ex6g6tiqueet critique par Alfred Ernout et L6on Robin. who remarks in the Physics that some people gave in to the Eleatic arguments and said that non-being (r6 u d6v) exists. The reason why the Abderites took this step is stated by Aristotle more precisely in de gen. 293 ff. but hope that the suggestions offered here point in the right direction. agreed with those building up the One: Wgoux iv xCvwmvOSaxv &vcuxevo5. Oxford. to quote Rist once more: "some 'places' contain atoms and others void!" There is much in this account that I accept as factually correct. 325 a 23 ff..29 on Wed.. 1925) ad I 329-397 where he refers to Aristotle. It seems convenient to begin with the "void. rv'a gv. (n.. which he would have regarded as merely semantic. "Space" (X6'po)when used for the void suggests "empty spaces between atoms and groups of atoms. Bailey (The Greek A tomists and Epicurus. IV 6 and 9 as helping Epicurus to "pr6ciser et compl6ter" the Abderite account of the void. other thinkers of the generation following Parmenides recognized a plurality of physical objects . Rist in his recent Epicurus presents a fair and conscientious account of the present status quaestionis: "Earlier atomists had run into logical puzzles by calling the void non-being (oiux6v or tu 6v). 264 This content downloaded from 143. leaving no room for a plurality of things. Phys. an untouchable substance (&vacpJcouato). Op. le may not be able to achieve complete clarity on every aspect of their origin.and indeed of principles . As we know and as Aristotle knew. 187 a lf. M.)." J.107. "Places" are not always filled.without admitting the void as . Paris.sophical topics and among them central ones like those named in our title have so far been by-passed.5Actually matters are more complex.. suggests they posited a pm 6v because Parmenidean being was "one" (.252. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." Rist next refers to terminological problems.% 6v or by any other name.

Hyle (Berlin-New York. al. I 2. 34.8 With genesis back in honors and Being itself no longer monolithic but a plurality. For potentiality see 8.u 6v.yet someone operating on a different set of first assumptions might find the definition more positively useful.10A prior condition for his study of both place and void in purely physical termnswas the demotion of ?67roofrom the far 7 30 B 7. 214 a 16 f.). b 9 ff. Aristotle has first of all to clarify the nature of the void. 8. 9. b 31. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . multiform and hierarchically articulated. . Metaph. 8 It would be more accurate to speak of the substratum in the state of privation. From Melissus we learn7 how closely movement.252..192 a 3 ff. on the categories see pp. if it has any meaning at all. These are played off against Parmenides at Phys. IV 1-5). must for Aristotle be some kind of place.u' 6v or. What kind of thing would it be if it were real? He provides a definition which to his own mind only points up the error of positing such a concept . Pac6&repov. 265 This content downloaded from 143. with references to H. in Physics 1 7 f.. See Heinz Happ. esp. see I 7 pass. Ch. for the void too.. IV for a very substantial account..185 a 20 ff. we find that he has his own version of the v ov as well as his own way of restoring it to philosophical validity.29 on Wed.. see further 213 a 15. Aristotle criticizes Abderite non-being in Physics I 7 but his perfunctory strictures there are less significant for our purpose than the close examination of the void in Physics IV (6-9) which results in a rejection of it as &X1 xevov216 a 26 f. behind XeLp6&vpov. (cf. where he even vindicates genesis from non-being. he thinks of non-being chiefly as privation (aetp-aLq) but is also preparedto identify it with potential being as distinct from and opposed to actual being. * Another articulation is according to categories.107. r 2 and pass. 45. Still. J.).7 D-K. his entire discussion of the concept rests on this view. to expose the fallacies in question. Phys. 10 See his observation in a passage as early as 208 b 25 (where 'place' is still the subject): ot r6 xev6v 9&pxovfe elvcaLr6nov X&youaLv. Kramer and others.191 b 27-35 (with Simplicius' and modern commentaries). 327 ff.9 Parmenides was not as formidable an authority as he had been for Leucippus and Democritus. When we now turn to Aristotle's own system. a product of fallacious reasoning and a potential source of confusion.uJ 6v qpatv eIvaL. 1971). 48). void and non-being are linked to one another and how natural it was for anyone working in the shadow of Parmenides to treat the void as . 191 a 34 ff.6vtoq o6&6v . Aristotle's examination of the void forms the sequel to his disquisition about the reality and peculiar nature of "place" (TO6ioq. later in his argument. In Parmenides I would not find the void lurking behind the %aaov(B 8. For noaoXx X6yecxLtb 6v see esp.

Bailey adopted it. 7r&v'Vcc tvlv 'nrt6v s7r6ov. b 12 ff.. Metaph.p. (Plato's view). 49 a-52 c (for 'r67oqsee 52 a). B 8.6'aV 9X'n'6v 6yxoV o06 8Cx'rLx6v Earmv. Parm.29 on Wed. 6 f. Is seclusi. Cf.ontological may be the word . CZ0a being in the context of this argument characterized as "tangible.. Aristotle's interest in xxpa is slight. cit.nobler . Happ. 214 a 5 f. where by contrast XiyouaL . I' This is Usener's restoration.41). 209 a 8..I need not deal with Aristotle's comments on the alleged necessity of the void for movement and for contraction and expansion.. and for the &cq (&tnr6v)motif 213 b 34 f. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . its existence being taken for granted.. . For Aristotle "void" is a place which happens not to be occupied by a body but could be occupied by one (in which event it would no longer be void but only place): olov yocp-67ov 'rtv& xal O&yy?tovr6 xev6v XC8OXCL8i 7CXvpCq . For o6atocacjmdrLx see ibid."12 and we see how much fuller and how circumspect his own investigation of it is. 111 and nn." oi6a[ co0asLx'.position assigned to it in the Timaeus. 'r 8'CtVOL ot6roZ4 ov ro ferently expressed. xev6v. 14 Cf. 127 ff. Theophr. 214 a 16 f.Cop)cooperates with the Forms to bring about genesis.107.. 266 This content downloaded from 143. 12. New York.?'v 6v xMvOv [x0Ct 6v. esp. but Giussani's alternative proposal <ac'Omaxodxcv6v>has carried the day. a report on Plato's esoteric doctrines. Aristotle himself names Plato as the only one who inquired into the nature (the 'T{ FocL) of "place. 6'av 8i a'=epv$jj. (213 a 15-19). while "place"is necessary for the subsistence of physical objects (whose being in a place sets them apart from the Forms). Thus if the similarities between him and Epicurus are close enough we need not hesitate to draw our conclusion. Difi0Xipec]18 xol '6nov.or no longer of interest as . The xzv6vmust be devoid of any "corporealsubstance. complicates.252. where "space" (y.15 nor can we base "I Tim.-"14 For Epicurus' new use of '6rtogwe cannot rest our case on a conjecture . We have still to prove our suggestion that Aristotle's conception of the void as a kind of place was accepted by Epicurus. 1961) 118 ff. Cf. 8-11. 6a 23-b 5.in the well known passage of ad Herodotum(37) 'r67rxv&aL <a4O'[LM'a xaalT6to0>. 12 209 b 16 f.... op."1 Correspondingly"place" could help Epicurus in his definition of the void only after the latter had lost its ontological status and was no longer . my Aristotle's System o/ the Physical World (Ithaca. 4 b 32).dubious and by now out of favor . 8oxz-L8! ' xcv6v tr67roqelvaL iv tq86v ZCaLV (213 UOV:LV ot Xe'yOv'.Li ClVLX.i 6v. This means that references to "place" are frequent (cf. We note a few references in the chapters on "place": 208 b 7. cl S'o cc&r6 .. but does not invalidate our opinion. 131.

libri sex. 208 b 25 ff. 21 ff. I 13. Lucreti Cari De rer.Turning from him again to his faithful disciple we take note of a passage where the basic difference between body and void is defined in a manner which will presently engage us and where the void itself is said to praeberelocum (I 444) and by its nature to make possible in eo res esse gerique'l (442). vol. nam corpora sunt et inane. Giussani.3 (A 37 D-K) on which Guthrie (II 391 n. he says in a passage(adHerod. C. nat.29 on Wed. Guthrie HGP II 147 n. 214 b 23 f. where reality once more = sa6umarm xocl xcv6v. Democritus may have had to oppose the notion of "circular thrust" (cf.""Fuller information is provided by Lucretius. in which case Aristotle would refer to it as "filled". Cf.rmeare).it on a doxographer'stestimony: 'E7rdxoupoc OV60MMaL7t0pOc rTTLV XeV6& ?6lov x?pcx(Stob.107.40) where the word 'r67oqis not even used but Xc'opca and avoccpacp'M appear as alternative designations of xev6v.I8 The words sita esse specify the function of locus. " I regard geri = LvelcOmL.that could not go back to the original proponents of atomism. At in de caelo 295. 318. 18 I 426 f. 1S Jackson Hershbell draws my attention to adv. 13 Bailey). Without it oux &v elxc -oc acoaocT 67oU~v ou &L 0 oi &v-CLro c ... 187 f.252. 129 ff. is a clear case of "interpretation. There is nothing here (vv." which should fortify us for 213 a 15 ff.. The doxographer knows that Epicurus varied his expressions. Simplicius is no independent witness. T... 3) relies. we may accept this without suspicion (even though such use of TU'Mqand 6vrt in another thinker would give us pause)... but when Plutarch quotes Epicurus as declaring * scov6vmrcav &a'L xaot cp saRMOcLsCk 'r6noq(adv. Ecl. 1 (Torino 1896)." Somewhat different in import are two passages of which it will suffice to present one. 335-397) .)./ haec in quo sita sunt et qua diversa moventur (the first two lines are strikingly like Plutarch's quotation of Epicurus' own words). 17 About the polemical section (vv.. he may indeed think of bodies not so much as "filling" but as being in the void. 267 This content downloaded from 143. 337-397) I ought perhaps to be less positive. 1. Note also vv.at least no essential thought .4 p.. 1112 E = frg. 419 ff. Epicurus may not go so far with him. Void is found not only between bodies but is also occupied by them. tumporro locus ac spatiumquodinane vocamussi nulum forethaudusquamsita corporapossentesse (neque. To credit Democritus with the equation of void and place is an error caused by Aristotle's habit of reading his own theories into earlier thinkers. . Phys. In his first reference to the void: quapropterlocus est intactus inane vacansque (I 334) he supports its existence by arguments relating to movement and to difference of weight and texture. Diels Doxogr. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Col. where he speaks of this notion as present "in the mind" of Empedocles). he quotes Aristotle. 1114 a. omnis ut est igitur per se natura duabus constitit in rebus. Col.

says Aristotle. which others were ready to grant).). partners of the void in constituting "the all. 984 spatium summai totius omne (cf. Kiel 1965) 61 defines Aristotle's objective correctly: "dem r6noq die Selbstandigkeit abzusprechen" (scil.252. Aristoteles und der Raum (Diss.23We ourselves when examining the atoms.20We notice a difference between place (s'to'.. 11. 5) and Rist 56.: nisi corpora certa essent quae loca complerent quaecumque tenerent. 263 and the studies referred to in n. Xc'par of the ev 4. omne quod est spatium vacuum constaret inane. but about what was obvious and what was remote we may easily deceive ourselves. Despite Aristotle's protests. If there were no place. spatium) in Epicurus but it is not easy to decide how strictly and consistently he observed it. I 969 omne quod est spatium." shall find them invested with a new status and character traceable to Aristotle's physical scheme. 293 ff. that Lucretiushas faithwould. "nurse and receptacle of all genesis" is an utterly different conception. for "space" in Epicurus Bailey. gible" quality of bodies. I should entertain the idea of parallel developments more readily if this equation were the first instance in which Epicurus was found to share a doctrine with Aristotle. also II 92). (see above n. The difference between the two concepts may be illustrated by I 521 ff. when we are judging ex eventu. Atomists. represent the intervals between bodies as well as the infinite expanse of the universe. 268 This content downloaded from 143. 3. besides partaking fully preservedthe nuances of meaning.We may as well give Epicurus credit for some originality. But the area of agreement or closeness is by now considerable. 22 For Aristotle see above n. Moreoverone further designation that Epicurus applies to the void strengthens the case for Aristotle. We speak of the void. place is for Epicurus an irreducible reality. as I believe we may.g. haut unquam sita corporapossent esse (I 426 ff. 23 See above p. they may make us wonder whether for the conception of the void as place Epicurus really needed Aristotle's precedent. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . locus) and space (Xxpa. was "place" not the obvious candidate for a new understanding of the void? So it seems. Cf.). he thinks of place primarilyas the iv 4 of bodies.22and even if such new departures entail no substantive change in the atomist system. reminds us of his emphasis in Physics IV 7 on the "tanouacrLc xvaxpjc.21In thus using the word Epicurus again appears as innovator. Once the barriers preventing a truly physical approach to spatial concepts had been lifted. 21 E. Instead of accepting Aristotle's definition of r6to4 as a body's outer boundaries.107. as '20Wolfgang Raible. thoughts for which the influence of Aristotle has been proved or rendered probable are numerous.29 on Wed. The xpcx of the Timaeus (49 a ff. Assuming.

Graziano Arrighetti's comments in his edition Epicuro Opere (Torino." By applying it widely in his own work he demonstrated its usefulness.) If bodies are tangible. II 658-66 f. the void is intangible . Plato uses &." (214 a 6 f.but on that account no less real24 (just as for the Abderites non-being was real).30 We would render it by "food" rather than by "matter" and are not surprised to find cibus in Lucr.v. 1968) I 407 if. 247 c 7). 112). 1961) 393 if. the text is unfortunately in such condition that nothing can be inferred about the meaning.often ignored but no less a fact and an important one . 690. 269 This content downloaded from 143. 1947) Vol. In both instances it refers to the nourishment of the stars. SVF. Bailey comments: "Gk. see also Ernout and Robin (see n.252. 26 Bailey. Cf. also I 434-39 and note I 304: tangere enim et tangi nisi corpus nulla potest res. The terminological invention proved eminently successful. the passages are ibid.. U`Xrn."not filled by a body perceptible to touch.that Aristotle is the first thinker who uses UX. Seneca. 'I A recurrent motif of Hellenistic physics. 8. "Aristotle's word for matter" in Didascaliae."26 It did not occur to him to wonder about Lucretius' familiarity with this Aristotelian concept. 18.with which he deals pp.voap oLa(x to describe the Forms (Phaedr. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 12. 27 "first in Aristotle" LSJ s..28 May we say the same of Epicurus? In three passages of 7replq'aslco where the word i()< has been read.. are "introduced" in due form. 273 ff. = Kleine Schri/ten (Hildesheim. silva. Studies in honor of Anselm A lbareda (Rome.. If we insist on finding the opposition documented we need only turn to passages in Lucretius such as I 451 ff. al. 6) ad I 55 sqq. 17. where it may also be seen that Roman authors (Cicero. We know that the Stoics took to it. matter in the collective sense. 35. 11. 25 Cf. Happ in his incredibly learned and comprehensive Hyle (see n. 21973) 638.a word pointing toward Plato and Aristotle.: coniunctum est .as a technical term. V 524 where the topic discussed is 24 Note o'uacx. 6.29In ad Pythoclem 'U(I appears twice (93. which exists in the formnof innumerable atoms. II ad loc.107. On I 58. the passage in which materiesand a number of other technical expressions. 28 See SVF IV s. intactusinani.29 on Wed. Titi Lucreti Cari de rerum natura (Oxford. 29 Except that physical or psychological matters are treated. (2). For it is a fact .25 Astonishingly little attention has been given to Lucretius' use of the words materiesand materiato denote the atoms. (454) tactus corporibuscunctis. cf. cf. the coincidence is surely accidental.v. 9) distinguishes between the "Materieprinzip" of the Academy and the new word U'kq. falls considerably behind.) as a rule used materia to render the term. the only competitor.

would be whether a use of the word U7Tfor food creates a presumptionfor its use also in the sense of materies.scil. The attributes of being that are preservedby the atomists include: 1. I 103841. *1 The specific subject is the blood.107. B 8. Metaph. To conceive of the atoms as "matter" means to abandon an essential part of the Abderite legacy. They are descendants of Parmenides' majestic 16vand heirs to some of its predicates. "final nourishment" since all that we con- sume is transformed into it. 1924). and as no Greek author before Aristotle is known or likely to refer to food as "timber. II 4. 270 This content downloaded from 143. a work for which Aristotle's interpretations were by and large canonical (John B. "s Cf.if question it may be called . but so significant a departurewould be unparalleled. II 3. McDiarmid. see further de part. DeLacy TAPA 79 (1948) 14 ff.close to ad Pyth. the void. 743 a 8 ff.32Everything consideredthe likelihood is great. The question that remains ." while Aristotle himself in his zoology describes food as 0 5Xvg(e. II 6 (e. we recall Aristotle's treatment of Presocratic "principles" as &v5)-q teLSC.29 on Wed. The only conceivable altemative would be the introduction of the term by a later generation of Epicureans. homogeneous (cf. matter conducive to the formation and sustenance of a body. an. Epicurus derived information about Presocratic doctrines from Theophrastus' OuaLx&v A6. B 8.: yap ?pomp {A).252. s When reading the Epicurean polemic against Heracitus' fire as materies rerum and against similar errors of others (Lucr. 2. Theophrast bei Epicur und Lucrez. Food is certainly some kind of matter .) . 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . they have. (note a 34 ff. one in the sense of continuity (syneches). Phillip H. I 635-920).21 Epicurus' familiarity with the Aristotelian term may be regarded as certain. HSCP61 (1953) 93 ff.). 983 b 6 ff. a departure and a sacrifice that could appear worthwhile because it brought the system into line with up-to-date conceptions of physical objects and processes.g.) and de gen. Parm. like other heirs of Parmenides jettisoned a part of their legacy and held on to another. 3). eternal (&y v-ov and &w?Ac4}pov. which in turn indivislble. for the atomists 985 b 4-10. I 3. More precisely.For the analogy of food and matter in an Epicurean text see Lucr. We have learned to credit them with some initiative. an." For what is involved is far more than a terminological innovation. See for Heracitus 984 a 7. the most essential of all. Parm.g.CaL (see Erich Reitzenstein. m 3. an. 93. Heidelberg. For Leucippus and Democritus the atoms were 6vra and as such the opposite and correlate of non-being. 651 a 14 f. 44-49). 650 a 3 ff. de part.

See for the Platonic Forms AJP 92 (1971) 62 ff..).107. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Instead of engagingin a lengthy disquisition I quote Metaphysics Z (3): yco 8&5kjv %xmW' ai)hsv '-r trq'-re noa6v Cus o sujai Xkessrct (b Tz6 6V . The reason is that while Empedocles' elements. the Platonic Forms and even Aristotle's entelechejaare all of them "real" (6vTo) and have their place in the tradition of Parmenides' Being. 33 b ff. the predicates of Parmenides' &6v attach to the highest.associated with a condition of absolute 34 For the admission of >* 6v cf. 3. etc. Plato's Cosmology 54. bright. HGP II 38 f. familiar subject we need not dwell on potentiality. 26. which to be sure need no longer be and as a rule are not spherical. 26. formlessnessor the "indefinite"as the fatal defects that keep hyle from its place in the Sun. Anaxagoras' homoiomere. Cxvvjtov(ibid.most notably in Anaximander's apeiron and in Empedocles' sphairos .4). 43). although this can hardly be considered an "attribute. encompassed by unchanging boundaries (ibid. it would become necessary to explain how qualitative indefiniteness. I am aware that the listing of some items needs justification but the purpose of this paper would not be affected by disagreements on one or the other. As we are dealingwith a xm'-qyo v)-1.. for atoms combine. It is a relief that we may dispense with these explications. 80 a f." ibid.. see below p. 38) in its qualitative meaning. ocrn (1029 a f.. for the Platonic Cosmos (Tim. whole (o?Xov.B 8. 272 (In Parmenides the qualities or in the "powers": dark. 271 This content downloaded from 143.29 on Wed.4. To save space I have also disregarded differences between Democritus and Leucippus. for if we embarked on them. 7. x=W'&aur6(B 8. Cf. 31 Where several levels of reality are set up..aECXc 20 8i rpe'roct.4). 23 f. for predicates of Par- menides &6vapplying to the atom ibid.34 Very few of the predicates here set forth are applicable to hyle. 2. 392.) and in Aristotle's Prime Mover and Cosmos have not yet been investigated.the atoms in the Abderite systems.252. 6.. once . 53 ff. quality-less.) Attributes that have been abandoned include: 1. 4.) Cornford. pLCUOL la pv y'p WmTcq O1. for some it even seems pointless to consider whether they could be applied to it.35 this would not be true of hyle. attach to the two ." we should recordhere that existence without a pi 6v as partner has also ceased. Guthrie. singleness (LouvoyrVw B 8. Guthrie HGP II 390 f. 47 f.' ol. Cxvjrov in the sense of locomotion. The Parmenidean motifs in the doctrine of soul in the Phaedo (78 c f..29). The history of "Parmenides' legacy" remains to be written. 5.uoppocE realm of "opinion.

54 f.procrescerealique (II 544 ff.). Every atom has its shape. also I 684-89 and Epicurus' own statement commentary ad loc. but the thought has a larger bearing .107. materies est multa parata (for the formation of Cosmoi other than ours.29 on Wed. the quality-less condition of both derives from Parmenides'?6v and may even be traced to Anaximander's Infinite. 13.39While not in need of a special "form principle" to achieve reality. 39 ad Her.36What interests us is the appearance of this humble entity hyle among the titles carried by a scion of Parmenides' noble lineage. 38 Cf. Lucr. and in/inita . II 737: nullus enim colorest omninomateriai corportbusand to recall that after the absence of color has been proved by a battery of arguments a shorter section assures us that other qualities such as temperature. 44 whose content is above suspicion. The atoms. 17 D-K) and beyond him with Empedocles (31 B 27) and ultimately with Anaximander whose apeiron most probably was also qualitatively indefinite. II 1067).perfection. and other work listed by Michael Kaplan.38 As we have had occasion to mention. materiesut suppeditetrebusreparandis. faithful lover of "form. also his A tomists 290 ff. which constitutes our second link between atoms and hyle we think it sufficient to quote Lucr. sound. cf.progigni posset concepta. do ad Her.).37 To adduce evidence for an idea so basic to the Epicurean system may well be superfluous. Hermann Frankel.. 272 This content downloaded from 143. I 62 ff. Lucr. 61. ad Her. with Bailey's a7 Cf. has sunk so low. 42. taste. into which physical things break up.). 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 49 e ff. 3. 50 a f. 304. Both are the s' ouiof whatever comes into being. the atoms also dispense with an outside mover. must be eternal.a specific entity. must likewise of necessity be absent (II 842 ff.). we read in Lucretius (I 545 ff. and both are quality-less. creari non poterit neque. ou8'v 1v8nXov(50 e 9) furnishes a historical link with Anaxagoras' original condition of things (59 B 1. nisi erit vis materiai unde ea . Before we attempt an explanation we must consider how much or how little the Epicurean atoms and Aristotle's hyle have in common." dwelt on the shortcomings of the amorphous "mother and nurse of all Becoming" (Tim. since to be in movement is their natural condition. II 34. Wege und Formen 189 ff. See further the interpolation ("scholion") in ad Her.40 36 The decisive step was taken when Plato..Again. ad Her. GRBSt 16 (1975) 127 n. apoia. Against such agreementswe must set the equally or more important differences. II 333-521. Dichtung und Philosophie 341 ff.252. For the apoion. They are comparable in two respects.. etc.. quod superest. 54 f.

A 3 ff. vocareet semina rerumappellaresuemuset haec eademusurpare corporaprima . and their diversity becomes even more apparent when we consider their respective pedigrees.29 on Wed. if not devoid of initiative. if we wish for more light we may find it in two particularly significant passages in Lucretius: I 592 ff. Did Epicurus really not know better? He did. and I 545 f. From this point of view. Aristotle's discussion of the Presocratic &pxL under the heading of "material cause" (Metaph.a very probable inference. and from the homoeomertatof Anaxagoras.his referenceto them as apyo. And when Lucretiusin the proem of his work gives Memmius his first taste of the obscurarepertato be expounded.. does not differ in meaning from principia.41 ipxZ has just presented itself as their Greek equivalent..ae (ad Her.. primordia. For if his use of hyle as a term for the atoms is the result of inference . A motley crowd of technical terms surely. his promise is: rerum primordia pandam .107. 41)./quidnequeat. including entire Cosmoi. 273 This content downloaded from 143. On materiesenough has been said. 32. Commentary ad I 55 considers principia = &pXodand primordia as "not exactly represent(ing) any word in Epicurus' terminology. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Their movements in turn produce combinations with other atoms and cause the formation of more complex entities.252. is certain: ss pXaC." ' See above n. (quoted above) reads: materiesut suppeditetrebusreparandis. For this is clearly what he did.. These passages must do duty for a larger number including I 485 f. the background and the connotations of semina will be discussedlater on in this paper. The sequel to the affirmation of eternal primordiain vv. which supplies one more characteristic of the primordia: they are solidocorpore. "IBailey..as far as we can make out. nam si primordiarerum/commutari aliqua possent ratione revicta/incertumquoqueiam constetquidpossit oriri. we trust . Aristotle's hyle has no such capacities.... yet obey the bidding of Love and Strife.. (I 55-61).: esse immortali primordia corpore debent/dissolvi quo quaequesupremo temporepossint.a motif closely linked to their eternity. to designate them as maternes and treat them as such is to do them gross injustice. which.)42 may have encouraged Epicurus to consider the Abderite &py.as "matter" of all compound entities. In fact the possession of movement and creativity sponte sua distinguishes the atoms also from the four "roots" of Empedocles. I 545 f. quae nos materiem et genitalia corpora rebus . eTvaLaamtv 0v66ouc&vcxyzxcZov cpi.

Aristotle's intention was to expose the limitations of the Presocratic approach. We have pointed out (above pp. 218 ff. 38).6w'og (ad Her. and pass. 44 One hesitates to believe that Epicurus made no distinction at all between 8Xn on the one hand and &pXmt. On coming-to-be and passing-away Epicurus' position has an orthodox look: o386vy'4ve?aOLLx TOU [L.g. however. generally considered Lucretius' own addition). we feel bound to ask.. e. Robin (see n. quoted above p. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .I 164) and regularity (vv." Does Epicurus' attitude to Being parallel that to non-being? So far we have encountered a disregard of ' 6v only in connection with the void and before we push on to further conclusions we must pay attention to a phase of Epicurean physics where the pA'6v does retain its place. the ready change from materies to primordia in II 768 ff. human beings would arise from the sea. genesis from not-being (or nothing) patently absurd and '. 165 ff. Yet it is a far cry from the ontological axiom of the Eleatics to the physical law regardingthe preservation of matter. III 372. Note.a-roLXctm. etc. Is this really. but it is difficult to substantiate this belief since Lucretius. anything could spring up anywhere.252." But what are we to say of the argument which supports this axiom: &v pFatcdcv ye oi'giv 7rpoas86tcvov (ibid. the reason may be that individual atoms are essential to the argument. There are passages in him. 6) ad I 150 (it does not include divinitus. the authentic repudiation of genesis as we know it from Parmenides and Empedocles and partly know.)? n5&vyap ?X 7rav6v' iy&ver' Lucretius develops this thought by vivid illustrations. 274 This content downloaded from 143. The same is true of primordia principiorum in III 262 f. If they appear side by side in Epicurus' definition of the atom. (cf. Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. V 187 ff.29 on Wed. 273). From a historical point of view his presentation must be regarded as biased.).3See Cherniss. partly assume it for Anaxagorasand the early atomists? For them genesiswas something impossible.) what strange bedfellows a Presocratic arche with its an'stocratic aspirations and a humble creature like hyle are bound to make. fish be found on earth. 270ff.. questions of status must have counted for nothing and he cannot have been as sensitive to the meaning of Parmenides'&6vas the earlier atomists had been. our principal witness. 425 ff.107. and there would be a world without certainty (incertum. on the other. where primordia could not easily be replaced by materies. may not have preserved the nuances.43but Epicurus is not likely to have been aware of the bias. What he does need and insist upon is aeternamateries(= aeternacorporaprima). 4 For the orthodoxy cf. 1 545 ff..

but for the reason indicated I do not go farther. II 1. 169-74. I 19. 19 ff. anim. Epicurus' attitude strikes us as remarkably original. On mater (I 168) some commentators refer to II 707 f. the seed is also closer to form and purpose than to the material principle which the female partner supplies.6-15. 177 and pass. o86&ma=psua way to think of the seed as 5A.again certus . See also II 711-29. Xi 6ac kx 'r6'ux6v Ax'0ouruX6v'roa4tac'rog.): ou y&cp8i 6on g'rxcv E&x&acrou yTvvrc cme'plav)o. the appropriate genitalia corpora.1 (= MXG 974 a 1.48 Thileprincipaly the agent of motion ('6 xvrLx6v). Ihat we should bear in mind is broader developments.). yet in this instance it is better not to be too specific. On the Abderites see below.. and similarly materies certa is required for nourishment. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 203 f.). " Reference might also be made to De an.29 on Wed. provided it springs from semina certa. an impression which we may modify . 191.. 30 A 5. 275 This content downloaded from 143. doubtless following the master and reruminventor. 59 B 17. which looks trustworthy). genesis as such is quite logically no longer anathema. T6 8aVuIL?' oL6v8Casux.inconceivable. Comparedwith the later Presocratics who replaced genesis by composition or mixture and destruction by decomposition.specifies the limits and conditions within which genesistakes place.. The entire section I 159-214 has regularity and organic development for its subject. II 711 ff. If all that he rejects is spontaneous genesis. and growth (grandescerealique.107.252.when we take account of the changed philosophical climate in which he developed his theories. my recent paper AGPh 57 (1975) 123 ff. 11 f.it is not Aristotle's -rovg. needs auspicious general conditions and requires the period for growth that is normal and natural semine certo (I 180-189). 641 b 27 ff. 184. 31 B 8 f. Once more the influence of Plato and Aristotle is at work. 726 b 17 ff.oand to de gen.46 We refuse to believe that to any of them genesis from nothing meant genesis of everything out of everything or that the genesis they rejected was spontaneousgenesis.Y7Moreover every genesis has its specific and definite . v. For although we may quote Aristotle's definition of physis in De partibus animalium (I 1.. notably the rehabilitation of 4" The passages are well known: 28 B 8. from certae res which possess a secretafacultas.time or season.: r6B8m arip[?a xocl6 XaPn6. from mater (suggesting materies) certa. In the case of Epicurus we have to believe just this. 412 b 26 f. 47 Lucr. materiesrebusredditacertastgignundis e qua constat quid possit oriri (vv. cf.but hardly abandon . For Empedocles cf. increase. 1 167 f. Indeed it is acceptable and accepted. Lucretius..

(there is no reason for wonder) quod haec ignis tam certotempore praetereacur vererosam. 50 For Plato see Gorg.. 503 a ff. atoms whose behavior follows definite patterns... 30 a. = Kleine Schrilten I 476 ff.quia temporesemina rerum / cum nibus in rebus.II 4. 809 d. 188 a 31-34 and the passage just quoted from De part. true to his categorical denial of divine operations. 30 a ff. / semina confluereet solis calore." i. 648 b 18 ff.50The rm's in the celestial region is accepted by Epicurus (without enthusiasm. V 667 ff. Phys. pate/it quodcumque certo / arbusta et certo dimittunt creatur. metaph. Tim.frumenta possunt.). In the Phaedo (96 a ff./ vites autumnofundi suarepararenitorem. 732 ff... yet in the relevant sections of Book I we look in vain for a commitment to ordocertus. de gen. an. etc.107. Arist. et corr. I 3-5. Clearly to allow origin e nihilo must have been for Epicurus tanta'I See P1.52 Has the same recognition of ordo (ro'CL) that enters into Epicurus' doctrine of the heavenly phenomena inspired his affirmative and remarkablyoriginal theory of genesis? It is tempting to take this view. florescunttempore con/luxerunt.genesis in the Timaeus and in Aristotle"9and .but no number of individual passages can convey an adequate impression.) at(tx as such for the first time becomes a philosophical subject. We cannot ignore the similarity between passages in Book V that establish this ordo and some lines in our sections of Book I. 276 This content downloaded from 143. Tim. 52 See however Phys.252. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ..29 on Wed. II 10 (336 bll ff.the emphasis placed by both Plato and Aristotle on 'aLq. in particular on the ra'OLqof heavenly and meteorological processes. anim. 821 a ff. AJP 72 (1951) 16 ff.. I 6-9.5' To these major developments concerning genesis and order we may still add an increased awareness ever since Plato that definite causes have definite effects .. IV 10 . but how could he deny it?). de part. 9 ff.Still we must be close to this concept. A 10. for Aristotle de gen. 897 bff.since an attempt to substantiate this suggestion would requirea lengthy digressionI must be content to hope that such keener awareness is intrinsically probable. de gen. / si non certa suo enimquaecertotempore/iunt / om.something no less important . temporeflorem. Phileb. Cf./ multa videmus dente videmus. "1 The most instructive passages are Lucr. V 655 ff. I 174 ff. Legg.e.. I 5.. it seems fair to say. he locates the ordo certusin "seeds.). et corr. I 1. 48 b-53 c (note 52 d 2 ff. anim.

V 310. quid nequeat (I 594 f.r4guarantee predictability both in the phases of nature that present themselves to our senses and in those below the threshold of vision. What Epicurus envisaged when he came to deal with the traditional topic of "no genesis from nothing" was the appalling condition of utter anarchy in nature. esp. About the degree of his originality no precise statement is possible.mount to denying all law and regularity in nature..." However as we cannot even decide what if any Epicurean term Lucretius rendered by foedera." we may remember the passages where Lucretius invokes foederanaturae.as we infer especially from I 584-598. while logically correct.107. It is a "limit. "4 Passages where a comparable appeal to the foedera is made are II 302. As for alte terminus haerens. III 416 strikes me as different. These foedera. A tomists 276. I 588) which we today would consider a natural law presents itself to Epicurus under the rather different aspect of a finita potestas: quid possit oriri.. It has been said that Epicurus "proves more than he need. ignores the historical situation and fails to grasp Epicurus' specific motivation. " See my paper cited above n. Genesis as such had been re-established and that genesis from something was no problem is shown by the readiness with which Lucretius avails himself of it throughout I 159-214 (as well as elsewhere). was created of substance which already existed.56we must be satisfied with the rather general impressions gathered from a few passages in his poem. 823 f."53 This opinion. However the regularity (nec commutatutrquicquam etc.perhaps unnecessarily .55 it is yet rather differently conceived. We should like to know more about the underlying idea. 109 ff. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . If we still .252. the illuminating discussion of "limit" in Epicurus by Phillip DeLacy. all it was necessary for him to show was that every created thing was sprung from an antecedent something. and at II 254 the swerve "breaks" the foedera. which are the domain of atomist science.). 51.hesitate to speak of ordo and on the other hand are reluctant to introduce a modern concept such as "law of nature. I am inclined to regard terminus = 8poS. 277 This content downloaded from 143. since it is not certain 53Bailey. Phoenix 23 (1969) 103 ff. If an approximation and (as seems probable) also a concession to Plato's and Aristotle's TOCLq.. 65 Cf. while not minimizing Lucretius' poetic contributions to the image.29 on Wed. The word =ctp[mwith its connotations and Epicurus' use of them for his version of genesis require no further comment.

uocroq yEyVrxL in Phys. 303 a 10-6. In De caelo 303 a 15 f. it is the Vui6v from which Epicurus allows no genesis. I admit." I' Phys. He similarly makes a determined stand against 0stpeaoL et sv [Li 6v (ad Her. &8L&Mroc. It consists of three "doxographic" passages in Aristotle. De an. I' No more than a step however. For Epicurus genesis and growth still come about by mixture and conglomeration.). 41). 67 A 15. that the Abderites actually used the word spermafor the atoms I should hesitate to infer. I 2. and his doctrines have nothing in common with "organic growth. 69 A 88 D-K).ff0Still someone ready to draw this inference might look upon Anaxagoras' spermata as a precedent and upon Epicurus' (presumably)fond and ready use of the same word as reflecting the habit of his principal authorities .not too bad a case. In passages of this kind where the atoms succeed to the hallowed titles of &racppc. but not good enough either to compel assent. prevent the "weakeningof all things and a breakingup" of & 6Bvrainto 'LZ6. Epicurus' innovation would be his insistence that a "seed" is a seed of something. 54).107. a 11 f. he speaks of the need for somethingto remainand persistas aTepe6vxal' aCiXUrov which "makes its changes not into non-being nor out of it but rather through regroupings. 196 a 31 f. he declares.Actually the evidence for =p.ua in the technical vocabulary of (Leucippus or) Democritus is not as good as one might wish.a word which the atomists took from Anaxagoras" is unwarrantably dogmatic. 39. 404 a 1 ff.) 'r?v cacv otov rvac7rep[v( &vrxdcvv 'r&vc'-OLX6(cov (cf. Still. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Here he does not depart from the Abderite scheme.59where Nature as conceived by the Abderites is likened to a panspermia. Dc caelo III 4. 'I The Abderites doubtless knew that each biological species had its particular sperma but I do not see what bearing such elementary information might have on the Epicurean use of semina certa (also outside the biological sphere). (59 A 45. And when withholding qualities and qualitative change from the atoms. is rightly or wrongly by Simplicius and Ross (ad loc. 203 a 19 ff. since atoms cannot grow. accretions and losses" (ibid. The choice of the word seems dictated by Aristotle's desire to give a vivid impressionof a large reservoiravailable for atoms of diverse shape. His atoms.? 6v (56). and a (41).) fathered on Democritus.252.urtv (obcrv codd..whether Leucippusand Democritus spoke of their atoms as =JpI?cr. In making this point he would have the support of Greek usage and habits of thinking and we might say that he made his step in the direction of "organic" processes68by exploiting the connotations of a word used by his precursors. we seem to regain contact with the " Bailey does feel sure but his comment on Lucr. I read: q oaotv a. I 59: "Gk. a7 p avra. 278 This content downloaded from 143. unfold or develop (as seeds normally would).67 If they did. I make bx&a'rou x this point because the thought: oiu y&p 6nt 'rxcv broi a7rip.29 on Wed.

To prevent such wholesale annihilation. Still nuances should not go unnoticed. u See 68 A 1. the physical substance of the world or indeed as Lucretius frankly admits.LvCLV (let alone his -tv?a) nor do Ta'&6uv' have the uniqueness of his &6v. 272 ff.authentic Parmenidean tradition.44. In Epicurus the void.64As for them the . materies. There can be no passing-away into non-being because the results of a total destruction would simply cease to be.). 54 twice)8' is not the same as Parmenides' .uouvoyevi B 8. 39). Bailey's comments ad 54. and when everything has disappeared no prospect would be left for a new formation of things (ad Her.4. not 6 larLv 8v 6vrca. Within limits this impression is correct.u&%vCLv (41. 279 This content downloaded from 143. room for altemative conclusions. the Abderites and whatever other Presocratics had the void in mind when referring to the [i 6v.x (Phaedr.82standing half-way between "realities" and "things" they are adequately rendered by Bailey as "things that exist. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 6v hark back to Leucippus and Democritus. This is Epicurus' line of reasoning. hard and solid. In Platonic language Epicurus' 6v-rmare of the type t5v hctlq vWv6vrcv xamoi3cv. Epicurus would merely continue this trend. to be sure.107. did they by these propositions exclude an origin from and a disappearance into the void? I know of no reason why this should not have been their meaning. atoms must be posited (ibid. and we can reconstruct the same argument for the necessity of atoms from Lucretius if we read I 540-598 as the sequel of I 215-249." The closeness is deceptive." There can be no doubt that the basic Epicurean propositions that nothing arises from. io. 3 See above pp. looking upon the intervening sec"1 Cf.252.ui 6v is the void. 65 There is. As he simply pits 6vagainst t 6vhe may appearto be closer to Parmenides than Melissus. being no longer equated with the t 6v.29 on Wed. and nothing passes into the ." What Epicurus wishes to keep intact is not "Being" in its original majesty and glory but something epe6v (54). i. Epicurus' treatment of phthora shows no innovation comparable to what we have found in his dealing with genesis. If (as might be argued) in the later Presocratics the on had with its uniqueness also lost some of its original Parmenidean majesty and aloofness. Something could also be said for the thesis that Epicurus by the new predicates he attaches to hyle raises it considerably above the level it has in Aristotle. 247 a 1 f. 41).11 (Epicurus 203). has lost these connections with genesis and passing-away. but enough has been said of the distance which separates him from the earlier thinkers.

tions as digressionsof explanatoryand pedagogicalintent.f7 However.): if there were complete destruction. ant. 1946) 10 ff. A tomisten. 2) commits the same or a similar fallacy when he makes things decrease to "no size. Aristotle on coming to be . there must be frangendi finis certa (I 561 f. 280 This content downloaded from 143. I share the cautious attitude of Cherniss. et corr. I take the future tenses in this section as marking the reductio and (in most instances) suggesting the absurdity. Berlin. everything would by now be so reduced that the origin and growth of any physical entity within a limited time would be inconceivable.). 6b See also Robin (see n. Where do we draw the line between terms and thoughts? If the style of reasoning is not altogether "typical" of Aristotle. A tomists 72 ff. also for bibliographical references. not least because experience shows that construction always takes more time than destruction. 6) ad I 231. I 2. Mau (Zum Problem des Infinitesimalen bei d." Lucretius develops some implications of this thought (I 225 ff.66 The final passing "into nothing" is a logical howler. the peculiar features do not necessarily make it Democritean. Philos.. is consulted with undue confidence that it is close to Democritus' own reasoning. In more recent accounts it is overshadowed by disquisitions as to the nature of the finis.. See further Guthrie II 503 ff. and De gen.. The sequence of thoughts thus recovered may well be close to the original Abderite argument for the necessity of atoms: since things cannot break up without end and finally pass into non-being.)... I cannot offer a conclusive proof for the Abderites as authors of this argument but that Epicuruswhen he established the principle "nothing passes into non-being" remained close to his forbears not only in doctrine but also in the reasons used to support it may be illustrated by another argument. 113 and sympathize with the disbelief of J. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . et corr. but was it diagnosed as such at the time? Zeno of Elea (B 1 extr.." So does Aristotle in a hypothetical reasoning which forms part of a reductioad absurdum(degen. Furley (Two Studies 83) admits in fairness that the argument is expressed in Aristotelian "terms".68In Epicurus we have just found the appalling reductio ad absurdum "all things would have perished. 316 a 13 ff. 316 a 25 ff. (Philosophia antiqua 1. Aristotle's Criticism of Presocr.252. 67 Against Joachim's change of the text see Verdenius and Waszink. for this basic postulate Bailey.107. how could living beings once more come into 66 Cf. we may settle for the Abderites on a less offensive argument in Lucretius (I 551-564): if by a progressivedivision. which drive a wedge between the premises and the conclusion. objects were to break up into smaller and ever smaller parts. Leiden.29 on Wed. if "dissolutioninto nothing" remains an unbearable affront to logic. 1954) 25 f.

frangendiagainst Zeno of Elea. 1916) 408. how could the world be replenished. This is natural enough. etc. who had as much interest as Empedocles. That Lucretius read Melissus I consider unlikely. questions concerning replenishments. makes the same points but he is not likely to have adapted Empedocles' actual reasoning. A straightforward assertion that a vanishing of T6 6v is inconceivable. 1 and for &ituaroqParm. Epicurus in turn would point back to the Abderites. 70 281 This content downloaded from 143. parallels Lucretius' unde.29 on Wed. 636). As a rule it is Epicurus' own new departures that mark the /inis Irangendi.2. 39 that there is nothing into which the all could change does not recur in Lucretius. At the beginning of this study we mentioned the need of separating Abderite and Peripatetic strands in Epicurus' thought. Our hope is that they have become more distinctly visible. once everything has perished? are easily recognized as a variation of the stock arguments against genesis. Bignone. 04 Mar 2015 02:26:06 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Here. 71). If as Bailey suggests. James Longrigg (Philologus 119 (1975) 147 ff. The similarities are striking and cannot be accidental.72 University o/ North Carolina 69 See E. 30-33). scil. they go back to a larger work of Epicurus. Nothing in ad Her. is found elsewhere in Empedocles (B 12..? It has been noticed that this argument is in essence identical with one used by Empedocles69for his proof that nothing truly real can perish (B 17. v. not the latter predicate.252. Empedocle (Torino.70Lucretius. if not more. Lucr. III 510-522 with Melissus B 7. as we said.existence. also Bailey (see below n.. and whence (7c&ev= unde.33) and is likely to have occurred in Democritus. very probably. cf.107. since when nothing is left genesis would be needed to lead from .21). too. Hershbel for a number of critical comments.) compares Lucr. B 8.j 6v to 6iv. as Bailey suggests. Empedocles may thereby have and filled a gap in the reasoning of Parmenides who makes &YeMyrov 0vAxsetpovrequirements of Being but in the cardinal passage of B 8 establishes only the former. It too has a parallel in Empedocles (B 17. Actually Empedocles' arguments: what could increase this all. I 227 ff. I should think of Democritus and Epicurus as intermediaries but would not exclude other possibilities. 71 Commentary ad I 216 (p.) could it have come. Conversely the argument in ad Her. Cf. Not surprisingly the separation here attempted has left some undivided and indivisible substance. nourishment be supplied. in while at the same time establishing a /inis proving the &vcArA*pov.7' his immediate source was Epicurus. 72 I am indebted to Jackson P.