?
Греческий атомизм и алфавитное письмо: несколько замечаний
In the following notes, which grew up from the discussion about the role of alphabetic writing in origin of atomistic theory, the author (1) argues against J. Needham's hypothesis which explains the origin of atomistic theory both in India and China by the presence by alphabetical writing in both civilisations, and in favour of the view that (at least, for Greece) the sufficient explanation is provided by the development of philosophical views on divisibility by matter provoked by Parmenides; (2) discusses the textual difficulty of an example in Arist. Met. A 4. 985 b 2 which illustrates the differences in the position of atoms with the example of Z transformed in N, and which was suspected by Bernays and Wilamowitz as anachronistic and emended into (the old form of Z) - H, but untouched in the edition by Jaeger and, recently, by Primavesi; the author argues that (to the best of his knowledge) the available material of inscriptions and papyri does not provide any conclusive evidence that the new form of Z was already habitual in the household writing of Aristotle’s time; (3) the author surveys the use of stoiceon in its both meanings, ‘letters’ and ‘elements’, and comes to the conclusion, that the first meaning did not play the decisive role in the formation of the meaning ‘cosmic elements’, which appears only in Plato’s time; that the earlier atomists’ use of the analogy ‘letters – atoms’, does not imply anachronistic use of the word stoiceon for atoms; and, that Aristotle’s ascription of this analogy to them (but not of the term stoiceon) is reliable, especially in view of the use of this analogy in Epicurean tradition, which, remarkably, also avoids the use of stoiceon for atoms.