Author(s): Walter G. Englert
Review by: Walter G. Englert
Source: Phoenix, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring, 1986), pp. 102-104
Published by: Classical Association of Canada
Stable URL:
Accessed: 12-05-2015 02:18 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

Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.

This content downloaded from on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

relationship ancesto things."31..Pp. The book is dividedintosix majorsections. pacting.Indeeditis generally believed thatEpicurusdid not have a coherentmethodof scientific inference" (9). isknown "EPICURUSIS WIDELY KNOWNAS AN EMPIRICIST .107.ContraDiogneiton"shouldbe "ContraDiogeitonem." note34.166 on Tue.252. comrejection perception. ofdefinition. M. ALL SOULS COLLEGE. n. 41.) II ofPHib. spelling interrupted thought aloneareworthyofnote:theNicomachean cisms. Asmis empirical explores bothrulesin detail.ofwhichthefollowing to as the"Nichomachean Ethicsarerepeatedly referred Ethics. phraseto say thatit makesone think. produced. 27 aresimply to "11. 40.In section3 Asmisexamines ofsignsas itrelates Epicurus'theory tohisscientific andexplores thedifference between"theexpected" method.The firsttwo treatwhat AsmiscallsEpicurus'tworulesofinquiry(LettertoHerodotus 37-38): (1) theinvestigator musthaveconceptsthatcorrespond to thewordsthatare usedas a meansof judginga problem. "Lysias. "Demosthenes.."35.IthacaandLondon: CornellUniversity Press(CornellStudiesin ClassicalPhilology42). KcUO1YL.theapparent on thesamepagetheessential nounx.ByELIZABETH EPICURUS'SCIENTIFIC ASMIS.and (2) theinvestigator mustuse observations as of evidence what is unobserved. 1984.and illuminates manyaspectsof Epicurus'thought alongtheway. Le SecondLivrede L'Economique. the and notorious doctrine that all affections. 34. This content downloaded from 143. Epicurus' perceptions aretrue. Epicurus hisphilosophical The booksucceedsadmirconsistently throughout system.102 PHOENIX forthemostpart. In this and detailedstudyAsmissetsherself thetaskof showingthat important hada coherent methodofscientific andthatheappliedit inference. and anelegant andon thewholeconvincing of scienpresents picture Epicurean tifictheory..and discussesmanyimportant as Epicureandoctrines relate to them: initial the of utterthey concepts(nTpoXELts). n. not" ." ContraAphobos.and overwhichwe must itis nottherefore anempty continually ponderinthelightofnewevidence."and 97. 33 "ContraDionysodorus. ably. Yetverylittle aboutEpicurus'scientific method..It is a pitythatone's processesof andsolearesometimes mistakes. OXFORD P.. standards oftruth. FRASER METHOD. n. .no finalanswercan be given." on references to a (col. thetitleof Van Groningen's editionof Book2 oftheOeconomica is Aristotle. Asmisreinterprets theancientsourcesin lightof recentscholarship. de l'Economie.6xvovs hasfallenoutbetweenKUL'and minor flaws the Such book is well apart. 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . bymisprints. 385.

252.BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS 103 (7d 1Tpouivov) and "the nonapparent"(7d 68rh-ov).166 on Tue. Asmistreatsmanydifficult problemsof interpretation conciselyand conThe remainder of the review can comment on a fewof her vincingly. only moreimportant and controversial conclusions.107. on her view." Asmiswrites(64) that"The general featuresthatone thinksof by presumptionare featuresthathave appeared thesamefromone observedinstanceto another. 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .Most ofheraccountis plausible. since ancient sourcesmake it clear thatEpicurusrecognizedno such intermediate class.but she is less convincing on the difficultconcepts of "compacting"(WrKvWRCo) and the "residue" (~KE'YKtTK'cXE() ofimagesthesensesandthemindreceive (LettertoHerodo- tus50).This seems unlikely. Asmis does not successfullyshow how."but whenone thinksof a comes fromwithoutand entersthemind? man.Asmistriesto show thatall of Epicurus'fundamental theorieshave an empiricalbasis.holds thatthe images shrinkbetween the externalobject and the eye. It argues that Epicurus derivedmuchof his scientificmethodfromthe earlyatomists. shrinkage This content downloaded from 143.She rightlyobjectsto any interpretation of rpof OELt as an intermediateclass between utterancesand objects.made fargreateruse of empiricalarguments thanhas been appreciated.Sections4 and 5 show how Epicurusapplied his scientificmethodin his fundamental theories(presentedin Letterto Herodotus38-44) and in his further elaborationsof thesetheories. She does not show. and mustinvolvesome further stageof thoughtor abstractionbeyondindividualperceptions. however.and thatthe thistheoryof takingin an imagebit by bit accountsforobjectsof sightappearingsmaller at a distance. Epicurus could accountforinitialconceptslike "man.Anothertheory.The last section provides a helpfulsummaryof Epicurus' scientificmethod. and comparesEpicurus' treatmentwith those of the early atomistsand Parmenides.which Asmis rejects.Asmis discusses Epicurus'theoryof signsin itshistoricalcontext. On Asmis's (eooac) sincethis of theimagedoes notoccur.and arguesthatscholarshave confusedthe distinctionbetween70d rpouRivovand 76 d6Xhov.thephenomenonof Epicurus. Asmis'saccountof initialconceptsor presumptions is inmpor(rpoki-i4ELt) tantbut problematic.butshethinks(27-28) thatthereis in effectno difference betweenthe individualperceptionof an object and an initialconcept formedfromindividualperceptions. Asmis's accountsof the criteriaof truthand the focusing(mrri3poij) of themindand sensesare balancedand persuasive. She arguesthattwo passagesfromAlexanderof Aphrodisiasshow thatthecompactingof an imagein sensationtakesplace when"smallpartsof eidolaentersuccessivelyand combinein theeye to formthesinglepresentation of an object" (132). Asmis argues that WpoXiqiELs are to be identifiedclosely with external objects.whatsortof image (Ei8Xov) It cannotsimplybe the memory of a particularman or men one has seen.

OREGON THE PHONOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT GREEK: A PANDIALECTAL ANALYSIS. 1983.) detractfromBubenik's historical-dialectal of data (e. WALTER G.252."theEpicurean useofdifferent typesof arguments("counterwitnessing" and "no counterwitness- [dvap'tTLVotpTnplois] and and induction. Pp. herdiscussion the and are menides.Lucretius remain in boththeorgansofperception and themind:hewrites "residues" of"openpathsthatremainin themind"(relicuastamenesseviasin mente in 4. vowel contractions[65-74]. mentaldoctrines will consultthe book forcleardiscussions of thechief difficulties and attractive fortheirsolution. and of therelationship betweenParmultiple explanations. She restricts "residues" to thesenseseventhoughthemindcaneasilybe saidtoretain"residues" inthe senseofpatterns of motionswhichmakeit receptive to particular images.706-721)to supporther sheslightly positionthatit is thesenseswhichcontainresidues(although misreads it [138]: Lucretiussaysit is lionswho areafraidof thesightof shouldbe interpreted as sayingthat cocks. Epicurus important reading. interested in Epicurus'scientific and otherfundamethod.104 PHOENIX is leftunexplained. 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . 34 illustrations. 64 endeavor.976.166 on Tue. ThisbringsEpicurus'theorycloserto Aristotle's. Toronto: Universityof Toronto Press (Phoenix SupplementaryVolume 19). By ViT BUBENiK.Trivialconcernsabout taxonomicphonemicization(consistently misspelled)and a prioriassumptionsabout phonemicinventories(e. iv.unfortunately substi- This content downloaded from 143. Asmis'streatment smaller ata distance objectsappearing ofthe"residue"ofimagesis also unconvincing..The pandialectal ff.Not all willagreewithAsmison individual of buteveryone points interpretation. REEDCOLLEGE.g.One doesn'tlearnuntilpage 20 thatthestudyis primarily historical.notviceversa). deduction).g.This is a major suggestions contribution to Epicurean studies. earlyatomists.Her treatments ofEpicurus'doctrinethat"allperceptions aretrue. ENGLERT PORTLAND.Even the titleis misleading. Asmishelpfully adducesa passageof Lucretius (4.107. There are fewtrulynew or "different" analyses. Epicurus'use of ing"[oU'KdvTLV~aop1TpTrJL4]. on whichsee Peters presentation 1980and Threatte1980). recollection Asmistacklesmuchmorein thisbook. HAVING LONG BEEN AN ADMIRER OF BUBENiK'S WORK. I regret thatthisbook is not up to par. who patentis) talkedaboutresiduesin the senseorganswhichalso affectthemindin anddreams. 241.Still..epistemology.whileprovidingpossiblestagesin thedevelopment of dialectsforwhichhistoricalinformation is lacking.