Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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 support@jstor.org.
Classical Association of Canada is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Phoenix.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.166 on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
102
PHOENIX
OXFORD
P. M.
FRASER
METHOD.ByELIZABETH
EPICURUS'SCIENTIFIC
ASMIS.IthacaandLondon:
CornellUniversity
Press(CornellStudiesin ClassicalPhilology42).
1984.Pp. 385.
isknown
"EPICURUSIS WIDELY KNOWNAS AN EMPIRICIST .... Yetverylittle
aboutEpicurus'scientific
method.Indeeditis generally
believed
thatEpicurusdid not have a coherentmethodof scientific
inference"
(9). In this
and detailedstudyAsmissetsherself
thetaskof showingthat
important
hada coherent
methodofscientific
andthatheappliedit
inference,
Epicurus
hisphilosophical
The booksucceedsadmirconsistently
throughout
system.
ably,and illuminates
manyaspectsof Epicurus'thought
alongtheway.
Asmisreinterprets
theancientsourcesin lightof recentscholarship,
and
anelegant
andon thewholeconvincing
of
scienpresents
picture Epicurean
tifictheory.
The book is dividedintosix majorsections.The firsttwo treatwhat
AsmiscallsEpicurus'tworulesofinquiry(LettertoHerodotus
37-38): (1)
theinvestigator
musthaveconceptsthatcorrespond
to thewordsthatare
usedas a meansof judginga problem,and (2) theinvestigator
mustuse
observations
as
of
evidence
what
is
unobserved.
Asmis
empirical
explores
bothrulesin detail,and discussesmanyimportant
as
Epicureandoctrines
relate
to
them:
initial
the
of
utterthey
concepts(nTpoXELts), relationship
ancesto things,
ofdefinition,
standards
oftruth,
comrejection
perception,
the
and
notorious
doctrine
that
all
affections,
pacting,
Epicurus'
perceptions
aretrue.In section3 Asmisexamines
ofsignsas itrelates
Epicurus'theory
tohisscientific
andexplores
thedifference
between"theexpected"
method,
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.166 on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOOK REVIEWS/COMPTESRENDUS
103
(7d 1Tpouivov) and "the nonapparent"(7d 68rh-ov).Asmis discusses Epicurus'theoryof signsin itshistoricalcontext,and arguesthatscholarshave
confusedthe distinctionbetween70d rpouRivovand 76 d6Xhov.Sections4
and 5 show how Epicurusapplied his scientificmethodin his fundamental
theories(presentedin Letterto Herodotus38-44) and in his further
elaborationsof thesetheories.Asmistriesto show thatall of Epicurus'fundamental
theorieshave an empiricalbasis, and comparesEpicurus' treatmentwith
those of the early atomistsand Parmenides.The last section provides a
helpfulsummaryof Epicurus' scientificmethod. It argues that Epicurus
derivedmuchof his scientificmethodfromthe earlyatomists,and thatthe
earlyatomists,like Epicurus,made fargreateruse of empiricalarguments
thanhas been appreciated.
Asmistreatsmanydifficult
problemsof interpretation
conciselyand conThe
remainder
of
the
review
can
comment
on a fewof her
vincingly.
only
moreimportant
and controversial
conclusions.
Asmis'saccountof initialconceptsor presumptions
is inmpor(rpoki-i4ELt)
tantbut problematic.She rightlyobjectsto any interpretation
of rpof
OELt
as an intermediateclass between utterancesand objects, since ancient
sourcesmake it clear thatEpicurusrecognizedno such intermediate
class.
Asmis argues that WpoXiqiELs
are to be identifiedclosely with external
objects.Most ofheraccountis plausible,butshethinks(27-28) thatthereis in
effectno difference
betweenthe individualperceptionof an object and an
initialconcept formedfromindividualperceptions.This seems unlikely.
Asmis does not successfullyshow how, on her view, Epicurus could
accountforinitialconceptslike "man." Asmiswrites(64) that"The general
featuresthatone thinksof by presumptionare featuresthathave appeared
thesamefromone observedinstanceto another,"but whenone thinksof a
comes fromwithoutand entersthemind?
man,whatsortof image
(Ei8Xov)
It cannotsimplybe the memory
of a particularman or men one has seen,
and mustinvolvesome further
stageof thoughtor abstractionbeyondindividualperceptions.
Asmis's accountsof the criteriaof truthand the focusing(mrri3poij)
of
themindand sensesare balancedand persuasive,but she is less convincing
on the difficultconcepts of "compacting"(WrKvWRCo)
and the "residue"
(~KE'YKtTK'cXE()
ofimagesthesensesandthemindreceive
(LettertoHerodo-
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.166 on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
104
PHOENIX
is leftunexplained.
Asmis'streatment
smaller
ata distance
objectsappearing
ofthe"residue"ofimagesis also unconvincing.
She restricts
"residues"
to
thesenseseventhoughthemindcaneasilybe saidtoretain"residues"
inthe
senseofpatterns
of motionswhichmakeit receptive
to particular
images.
Asmishelpfully
adducesa passageof Lucretius
(4.706-721)to supporther
sheslightly
positionthatit is thesenseswhichcontainresidues(although
misreads
it [138]: Lucretiussaysit is lionswho areafraidof thesightof
shouldbe interpreted
as sayingthat
cocks,notviceversa).Still,Lucretius
remain
in boththeorgansofperception
and themind:hewrites
"residues"
of"openpathsthatremainin themind"(relicuastamenesseviasin mente
in 4.976. ThisbringsEpicurus'theorycloserto Aristotle's,
who
patentis)
talkedaboutresiduesin the senseorganswhichalso affectthemindin
anddreams.
recollection
Asmistacklesmuchmorein thisbook.Her treatments
ofEpicurus'doctrinethat"allperceptions
aretrue,"theEpicurean
useofdifferent
typesof
arguments("counterwitnessing"
[dvap'tTLVotpTnplois]
and
and
WALTER
G. ENGLERT
PORTLAND, OREGON
THE PHONOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF ANCIENT GREEK: A PANDIALECTAL ANALYSIS. By ViT BUBENiK. Toronto: Universityof Toronto
This content downloaded from 143.107.252.166 on Tue, 12 May 2015 02:18:28 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions