254 Journal of Philology. o-a>uara)i>, dnadfj ptv i <pvacv avrd, to fie dpepes clvt&v irapc t'XeTO, cos 5m tovto dirb tov ' AptoroTeXovs eXeyxopcvav. Notwithstanding the precision and minuteness of this account, in another part of the same commentary (p. 18 a. 1. 15), strange to say, he asserts that the atoms of Democritus have parts and extension, but are in- destructible on account of their perfect solidity and fulness ; the very doctrine of Epicurus and Lucretius. In) to adialperov noa- ^wr, he says, otov to pqira> dirjprjpevov olov re fie diaipedfjpat . . . rj to pop hi pkv *X 0V * a * peyeOos, airaOts fie hv fita oreoe o>7ra <a vaarTdTijTa, Kadcartp eKaonj t5>v ArjpoKpiTov aropcav. Here too he employs DemO- critus' own word vaoroTrjs. What are we to believe then ? Indeed my perplexity was increased on meeting with another passage in his commentary to the de Ccelo (p. 56 b. 1. 16. Ed. Aid.), in which he appears to deny parts not only to the atoms of De- mocritus, but also to those of Epicurus, ol n-ept ArjpoKpiTov, he Says, Kai Aivkittitov oi irpb avTov ycvoptvoi Ka per avrbv 'EnUovpos . . . TKeyov ras dpxas drreipovs elvai r<5 7tXt;0, a Tiva Kai aropovs Kai d8t- aipcra wovro Ka anadrj fita to orepea ko.1 dpeprj (ivai k. t. X. But the Aldine edition of the commentary on the de Cozlo is, as is well known, a spurious version; and luckily the corresponding passage of the true text is printed in Brandis* extracts (p. 484 a. 23), tos oi ircpl AevKtmrov Kai AnpoKpirov vrrtTiOcvro irpb avrov ycyovdres Ka per avrbv 'EiriKOvpos. ovtoi yap cXcyov dndpovs etvat ru TrXr^et ras dpxds, as Ka drdpovs Ka ddiaiperovs ivopiov Ka diradeU fita rb vaaras civai Ka dpoipovs rod kcvov. Here the word dpcpfj fortunately does not appear at all, and Simplicius is saved from the charge of con. tradicting himself in regard to Epicurus. As to Democritus, I can only conjecture that the ambiguity of some of his expressions on so obscure a point deceived Simplicius, just as Lucretius has misled his commentators, and that Democritus in reality held the same opinion as Epicurus ; for a still higher authority than Simplicius, Alexander of Aphrodisias, the commentator par ex- cellence, in his treatise on the Metaphysics (p. 27. 20 Ed. Bonitz) most distinctly attributes to Leucippus and Democritus the pre- cise doctrine of Lucretius. Xe'ye* ptv, he says, ircpX AevKimrov tc Kai ArjpoKpiTov ovroi yap . . . oifie yap to n66tv rj ftapvnjs iv Tats dropois Xeyovar ra yap dpcpfj rd emvoovpcva rals dropois Kai pepij 8vra avrav dfSapr) <paav ft pat- e'*c 8e dftapav crvyKUpivatv nws av ftdpos yevrirai* ',
- This passage, compared with Arist. Theophr. d. Sera, et SensU. 63, will
d. Gen. et Corr. I. 8, p. 326 a. 9, and surely prove that Democritus, as might
