Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/263

 On a point in the Doctrine of the Ancient Atomists. 253 logical absurdity of supposing particles so endowed to be in- capable of further subdivision. He affirms therefore that his atoms have parts, but that these parts are minima, the e'Xaxrra of Epicurus, so small as to be incapable of existing alone and for that reason necessarily existing in the atom from all eternity in unchangeable juxta-position : an argument which confirms rather than invalidates the proof that his atoms are " of solid singleness." That Epicurus held the same doctrine may be satisfactorily shown. In page 30 of the Journal an obscure passage, bearing on the question, was quoted from his letter to Herodotus (Diog. Laert. x. 58) ; and in the list of his principal writings given by Diogenes (x. 28) we find one with the title Trepl rfjs h rfj dropa ytovlas, which treated doubtless of the parts of an atom and of the cacumen of Lucretius. The Pseudo-Plutarch too (de plac. phil. I. 877 f) says, Ka eiprjrai aropos, ovx on eanv eXa^t'crr^, dXX' on ov dvvarai Tfirjdfjvai k.t.. thus distinctly pronouncing the atom not to be an ekdxurrov. But this might have been more clearly proved not only of Epicurus, but also of his predecessors De- mocritus and Leucippus, from Aristotle and his commentators, had not the editors of Lucretius chosen to neglect these for the eloquent commonplaces of Cicero and Seneca, whose purpose it would not have answered to dwell on points so obscure as the one in question. There is no ancient author extant who has preserved more notices and fragments of lost writers than Simplicius. As Aris- totle in his Physics and Metaphysics is constantly impugning the notion of a limit to the divisibility of things, and conse- quently the doctrines of Leucippus and Democritus, Simplicius takes frequent occasion to quote not only their opinions but also those of Epicurus. In a noticeable passage of his commentary to the Physics (p. 216 a. Ed. Aid. 6 lines fr. bot.) he distinctly attributes to Epicurus the theory in question, but denies it of Leucippus and Democritus. AevKimros pev /cat ArjpoKpiros, he says, ov povov t^i/ dnddeiav alriav rols npooTois awpam tov prj hiaipelaOat vopi- (ovcriv, dWd Kai to crpiKpbv Kai ape pes. 'iLiriKOvpos 5e vo*Tepov dpepfj pev ovx i/yeirat, aropa de avra 8ta ttjv dirddeiav elvai (prjai. ml 7roXXa^ou pev tj)p ArjpoKpiTov 86gav Ka AevKi7nrov 6 ApitrroreX^s 8ii]eygev, m 6V CKelvovs io-a>s tovs eXeyxovs npbs to ape pes evio-rapevovs 6 'EmKovpos varepov yevopevos, avpnadcov de rfj ArjpoKpiTov Ka Afv/ctWou Sogg irepl rwv irp<oT(ov