A Presocratic Primer II

Looking further at the Presocratics and the ramifications of their thought.

The Atomistic Need

I

Those who feel themselves compelled to embark on a journey of truth-finding should beware of blind alleyways, dead ends and the prospect of hostile ambush. As Democritus of Abdera (fl. 420 BC) said:

"In reality we know nothing - for truth is in the depths."

Truth to this atomist was not of the 'exalted' kind; it was rather something subterranean, something occult. But it was there all the same. To Democritus, truth had not been deconstructed out of existence, as in the philosophy of Gorgias of Leontini (5th century BC) who held that nothing exists, and even if it did, we wouldn't be able to comprehend it, and even if we could, we wouldn't be able to communicate it.

A relativistic nausea continually re-surfaces in philosophy. It says with Nietzsche, for example that there are 'no truths, but only interpretations'. Equally ubiquitous, the response that "logic cries out against this, for if is it true? Well only if there are no truths, in other words only if it is not true," [Roger Scruton 1996] is implied in the ancient liar paradox.

One often hears of a debunked theory - which had once enjoyed truth-currency - being described as retaining some 'poetic truth'. Not only that, but such a disproven theory may in the future, be resurrected as an unconditional truth. Similarly, a theory once considered 'physics' could become re-categorised at another juncture as 'metaphysics' and vice versa.

The presocratic atomic theory of Leucippus (fl. 450 BC) and his pupil Democritus is a case in point. In the past two and a half thousand years it has infused theological, philosophical and scientific discourse under a number of guises, being variously disputed. refuted, or else even crowned as the precondition of all progress in the realm of knowledge.

To the Greeks of the 5th century BC there was no distinction between the scientific and the philosophic; observation and speculation were interwoven into a seamless web of enquiry. Specialisation had to wait for a later, less innocent, age.

Despite Mach's principle of 1863 that:

"Every statement in physics has to state relations between observable quantities", the scientist often has to hypothesise and speculate before he know what to observe and where to look for it. Mach himself later admitted this in 1903 when he said, "there is no pure experimental research for, we actually always experiment with our thoughts."

Quantum physics, that bastard son of physical atomism, has shown that the observer can affect the outcome of any so-called objective experiment, while Einstein has said that science advances from the observable and concrete towards the ever more abstract. Clearly, the distinction between metaphysics and physics is as blurred for us today as it was for the ancient Greeks.

We assume that metaphysics deals with the levels of ultimate reality which lie untouched by science, those 'truths' in the 'depths.' Physics may deal with the observable, the world of appearances, but metaphysics takes on the deeper underlying structure of reality. Philosophers sceptical of metaphysics, such as the Logical-Positivists state that the difficulty lies in making this deep reality intelligible; although this rather begs the question: physics cannot describe in total the profundity of existence - nor can it debunk it. And mankind's quest for metaphysical truth will go on until it does.

II

 A positivistic version states that "Atomism is not an arbitrary idea which man has imposed on his image of nature, nor is it (yet) a fully objective reflection of structural facts. It is a method of investigation which can be continually improved because it corresponds to features present both in objective nature and in the human mind." [1]This is of course an instrumentalist [theory that scientific laws and theories are instruments for predicting observable phenomena, and are therefore to be judged by their usefulness and not classified as propositions which can be true or false. Dict. Philos.] and respective overview: to the early Greek atomists, the atom was purely an object of speculation. The case is put by Barnes, when he says that "the discipline at Abdera was the study of 'onta', of beings qua being. Atomism, in its ancient form, begins with metaphysics." [Barnes, J. The Presocratic Philosophers]

In fact there is no evidence to suggest that ancient atomism was posited hypothetically, but was rather considered a necessary truth, being the underlying reality which eluded ordinary perception just as the ocean depths cannot be seen from the surface waves. [2]

But is Abderite atomism really as 'pure' as Eleatic monism? If it is seen as the attempt to square Parmenidean Being with the apparent world of coming-to-be and passing-away, does not that  betoken an 'impure' compromise which could have served as the piece of grit which caused the germination of physical, as opposed to metaphysical, atomism? Besides, the suspicion persists that pure unalloyed reason logically logically leads to the nihilism of a Gorgias. [3]

Ancient atomism is without doubt a theory of first principles, a metaphysical ontology describing the ultimates of Being. It is also an epistemology:

"The phenomenal world reveals a vast range of qualities not included in the list of atomic characteristics. But those qualities exist only 'by convention': they are mind-dependent, and their existence is to be explained in terms of the fundamental atomic traits." [4]

Could we then interpret atomism as a theory of physicalism? i.e., "the doctrine that everything in the real world contains nothing but matter and energy, and that objects have only physical properties such as spatio-temporal position, mass, size, shape, motion, hardness ..." [5]

Democritus is hailed as the father of materialism, influencing his ideological successors Epicurus (341-270 BC) and Lucretius (98BC-55AD) as well as the physical, quantitative atomism of the Age of Reason. Democritus is said to have offered reductionist materialist explanations for spiritual phenomena: witness the following:

"Democritus has a theory to explain subjective religious experiences, especially dreams and visions in which even gods as the poets describe them can appear: these appearances are not just nothing, nor are they heralds of some higher reality. They are 'eidola', phantoms, contingent configurations of atoms which have separated themselves from real figures and perhaps have also changed their shapes ... they contain nothing which transcends the level of normal reality, of nature in general, their appearance of meaningfulness in vain." [6]

A similar physicalist explanation of 'the psyche' is given when Democritus "compared the movement of atoms in the soul to that of motes in a sunbeam when there is no wind." [7]

There is more than a suggestion of primal randomicity in the atomist conception. The neo-Platonist Simplicius (fl. 500AD) imputes to Democritus an omnificity by the agency of chance. It is, though, undeniable that atomism relied upon mechanical rather than divine laws which through their seemingly haphazard fluxions, were able to produce the apparently ordered kosmos. This paradoxical outcome will be explained later when we examine later when we examine the technicalities of the theory. There is another contradiction to be laid bare meanwhile, which is this: despite being 'the first materialists', the Abderites boldly stated the existence of 'the empty', i.e. the non-corporeal void. With this startling dualism of atom/void they found a way of challenging the logical monism of Parmenides and of finding a way to explain the world of appearances which had been abandoned by him.

Notes:
1. Whyte
2. Hypothetico-deductive method: Scientific method whereby science should set up testable hypotheses and then try to falsify them, rather than trying to confirm them directly by accumulating favourable evidence.http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/.../hypothetico-deductive-method.php
3. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/greek/plato/gorgias.html http://www.iep.utm.edu/g/gorgias.htm
4. Barnes
5. Oxford Companion to Philosophy
6. Burkert Greek Religion

7. Russell History of Western Philosophy

III

Atomism carried forward some of the main strands of ancient Mediterranean thought embodied successively in the pre-philosophical mythology,(eg.,of Hesiod and Homer,both probably 8th century BC)the Ionian natural philosophy (c.6th century BC)and Eleatic ontology (c.5th century BC).

The latter strand was a revolutionary development which caused a drastic re-think and re-assessment of all positions both prior to and in the light of it.
This became fertile ground for a new metaphysic.

Mythology had sown its rich tapestry of tales around the basic essentials of nature. Certain features of the Greek cosmogonies show a strong resemblance to the more ancient Babylonian myths, (the Sumerian 'Epic of Gilgamesh' c. 3,000 BC) in their depiction of the elements being 'separated out' from primordial Chaos;symbolic nature elementals,such as Gaia, (the Earth) were accordingly deified.

When the Ionian philosophers applied reason to such elementary first principles,they sought a holistic foundation. The complexity of the universe must derive from the 'One'(usually presented as a elemental).

Such speculation became the way of natural philosophy until the Eleatics argued that the 'One',as a child of pure reason,could not 'Become',nor could it change,nor move,nor be 'what is not'. At once Ionian material monism seemed to be discredited.

Philosophers in the wake of this vertiginousness,like Empedocles (c.490-430 BC) looked back to the various elements:
"Fire and water and earth and the endless height of air".
[Empedocles,quoted by Simplicius]

And described their first principle as a plurality:
"Double is the generation of mortal things,double is their passing away".[ib.]

At once reverting to the chthonic cults (one of Empedocles's books was known as 'Purifications') while at the same time projecting forward to the developments of Atomism,by demonstrating,via experiments with the clepsydra,(ancient time-measuring device worked by flow of water)the corporeality of air,thus giving rise to the plausibility of asserting the void as an existent.

Empedocles was also a Pythagorean,and the point patterns of number - although immaterial - professed by that school may have inclined some minds toward the discrete, i.e.,separate,individually distinct,discontinuous, particles.

Another post-Eleatic pluralist, Anaxagoras, (c.461-431 BC) drew on mythological conceptions; his omniscient,omnipotent principle of 'mind' (Greek nous) being a secularisation of the all powerful 'noos' of Zeus in myth.

More significantly for atomism,he adopted the first principle of 'seeds'. Seeds of life,grains of dust, are cosmological features in ancient Sumerian and Egyptian myths which have obvious atomistic implications.
Anaxagoras brought this idea to the brink of neo-Ionianism:
"There are present in everything that is combining many things of every sort and seeds of all things having all kinds of shapes and colours and savours".

The Atomists Leucippus and Democritus carried this pluralistic enterprise forward by creating a strictly dualistic metaphysic:
"By convention colour,by convention sweet,by convention bitter:in reality atoms and void".[Democritus]

A new synthesis had been created out of the thesis of Ionian science and the antithesis of Eleatic logic;
"The atomistic theory was indeed a scientific one in the old Ionian fashion,but its foundations were solidly metaphysical".
[8]

Note:

8. Barnes

IV

As far as the technicalities of Greek atomism go we have few direct fragments from Leucippus and Democritus. The former is represented by only one short fragment which alludes to necessity, and while Democritus' collection is more extensive, the bulk of the fragments are on ethics and include, it must be said, some rather trite maxims. We have Aristotle - not an atomist himself, of course - to thank for a fairly detailed articulation of the theories of the atomists, although it is somewhat unfortunate that a monograph he wrote on democritus has not come down to us. Luckily a passage from it had been preserved in late antiquity by Simpliciius who also himself makes some references to atomism elsewhere.

 The term atom (Greek ατομοσ, the indivisable) means literally that which cannot be 'cut', and so thereby presupposes the existence of matter, and indicates that this matter has a point of irreducibility, which is its solid essence.

The nature of this indivisibility is described lucidly by Aristotle in a passage from 'On Generation and Corruption'. There he asks that, if a body is the infinitely divisible, then "what will there be that escapes the division?" i.e., What is left once the 'final' division is made; will it be 'a magnitude'?;- No, because that too should, according to this view, be divisible. If a body is said to be divisible to the point of nothingness, this too is wrong, because bodies cannot be composed of nothing. Therefore, bodies are not infinitely divisible, there must logically be remnants of bodies which are indivisible and have magnitude.

Being indivisible they contain no void in them. They share with the Parmenidean One an immutability which makes them eternal, ungenerable and indestructible. However, the full Eleatic arguments cannot apply to atoms because they are not One, but many. In fact, they are infinite in number and promiscuous in behaviour. Infinite because, being the building blocks of all things, they need "to account for all properties and substances and for how and by what cause they come into being. That is why [the atomists] say that only those who make the elements infinite produce a reasonable account of things." [Simplicius]

Another reasoning is based on the given that the void [the place where atoms commingle] is infinite; therefore atoms must also be infinite in number, otherwise there would be 'no good reason' for them to be 'here' rather than 'there'.

Atoms are said to have an infinite repertoire of shapes among them - the reasoning for this is similar to that stated above; there is 'no more reason' for them to be one shape rather than another, ad infinitum. The shapes of atoms are crucial as it allows them to interlock with one another in a myriad of configurations.

The theory is meant to explain the difference between appearance and the underlying metaphysical reality ['truth is in the depths']. The shapes are necessary to show how that when forming compounds which make up the objects of the world, they thereby evoke the different sensory perceptions in animals like humans for example. his is because, while atoms themselves are qualityless, the 'conventions' of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch are brought about by the variations in texture of atomistic compounds.

Aristotle mentions that the atoms vary in magnitude, and so - unlike the physical conception of atoms - the metaphysical atom can vary from the microscopic to the gigantic.

The Abderites did not go as far as apportioning different weights to them, as Aetius records, "Democritus specified two [basic properties of atoms]; size and shape, and Epicurus added weight as a third."

As stated previously, the void is as important an atomic invention as the atom itself. the void was also a logical assumption; movement is not possible in a plenum, but movement definitely occurs, therefore there must be empty space, or void.

Aristotle says in his Metaphysics:

"The full and the void are elements ... the one Being and the other Non-Being ... and these are the material causes of the things that exist."

The void is then the presence of Non-Being.

Because atoms cannot meld - "it is utterly silly to think that two or more things could ever become one" [Aristotle] - it is necessary for void to be between all atoms like a negative honeycomb. Having said that, the void being empty, the void being empty, cannot prevent atoms from colliding and sometimes entangling with one another. In fact this dynamism is necessary to explain the compounded hierarchical congeries of atoms which make up the apparent world.

Aristotle criticised the atomists on this point:

"As for motion, [whence and how existing things aquire it] they ... negligently omitted to inquire into."

Russell viewed this point rather differently, saying that it made the atomists:

"More scientific than their critics, causation must start from something, and wherever it starts, no cause can be assigned the initial datum."

The sceptic Sextus Empiricus [2nd century AD] informs us that Democritus favoured the 'like recognises like' position as a motive force, which presumably in bringing things together [shades of Empedoclean love and strife, by this interpretation] also causes them to clash and ricochet, in a never ending perpetuation. Simplicius quotes Aristotle's work on Democritus thus:

"The atoms struggle and are carried about in the void because of their dissimilarities ... they collide and are bound together in a binding which does not genuinely produce any other single nature."

In answer to the criticism that such immutable, qualityless units such as atoms could not conceivably produce the great variety of things in the world. It was said that "there was no difficulty in supposing that a fresh arrangement of the atoms might transform bread into flesh and blood, just as a fresh arrangement of letters of the alphabet could transform a tragedy into a comedy." [9]

Note:

9. Farrington, paraphrasing Aristotle

V

"That school which is most accused of atheism." [10]

The combination of materialism and chaotic self-ordering in the atomic theory has long made it a target for charges of atheism:

"The atoms hold on to one another and remain together up to the time when some stronger necessity reaches them from their environment and shakes them and scatters them apart." [Aristotle]

The Greek polis just as much as the nation-state was founded on the unifying principle of an established religion. theism therefore was tantamount to sedition. In fact the state no doubt regarded the philosophical critique of belief as more subversive than the preaching of any heresy. Philosophico-scientific theories such as atomism, the heliocentrism of Copernicus, or Darwinian evolution, have always met with ruthless opposition from establishment and theological correctitude [The Church condemned astrology and witchcraft as well, not just the rational beliefs]. With the Greek philosophers begin the catalogue of martyrs to knowledge, the most famous being Socrates. Earlier we see the Pythagoreans being driven out of Croton in the 6th century, while in the 5th century we hear of Zeno being tortured and Empedocles suffering exile. Anaxagoras too was prosecuted for impiety in Athens at about 430BC due to his "assertion that Helios, like other heavenly bodies, is a glowing lump of metal, as the fall of a meteorite in 467BC had proven to him. Now such doctrines were [c.438BC] to be forbidden by the state." [11 ]

A Christian polemic against atomism, delivered in 200AD by St. Dionysus of Alexandria, railed against the theory's 'lack' of 'an intelligent artist to put the atoms together.' With the revival of classical learning in Europe, atomism once again became an object of study. By the 17th century a 'crusade' had begun to denounce the theory as anti-Christian. In 1624 the Paris parliament decreed that its teaching was punishable by the death penalty. The attitude shown by J. Glanvill in 1670 was typical:

"The corpuscularian hypothesis, the opinion of the world's being made by a fortuitous jumble of atoms is impious and abominable."

This hysteria actually marked an overwhelming growth in the study of physical atomism, and adverting to my earlier discussion of truth, it seems likely that the imposition of overt censorship on any theory will impart a certain 'truth value' to it!

Likewise, the general history of atomism after its Greek beginnings is relevant to the central question of this essay, ie.e., whther the theory should be seen as a physical of met-physical one. While Abderite atomism is undoubtedly a metaphysic, by the age of the European Enlightenment it had become considered as a cornerstone of 'hard' science.

"The degree of similarity between the theory of Democritus and that of Dalton entitles the ancient speculation to be described as a wonderful anticipation of the conclusions of later experimental science." [12]

Barnes reinforces this position:

"It would be absurd to deny the link between ancient and modern atomism: conceptually, there are narrow ties, historically an unbroken [if curiously circuitous] line reaches from Leucippus to Rutherford."

The next section (drawing largely on Whyte's book) will plot a few of the points on that line suspended between antiquity and the beginning of the present century.

Notes:

10. Bacon, Essays 1597

11. Burkert
12. Farrington

VI

The foremost presocratic atomist, Democritus [fl. 420BC], set up a school in Abdera. One of his pupils was Nausiphanes who became a teacher himself, passing on the atomic doctrine to Epicurus [341-270BC]. In 306BC Epicurus set up his own school in Athens known as 'the Garden'. He expanded atomism into areas of psychology and ethics, creating the famous Hellenistic philosophy of Epicureanism which survived well into Roman times despite hostility towards it from emergent Christianity. The greatest Epicurean must have been the Roman Lucretius [98BC-55AD] whose philosophical poem 'De Rerum Natura' [50AD] was the time capsule which preserved the doctrine of atomism into the modern era.

Book III of De Reurum opens with a paean to Epicurus:

"You, who out of black darkness were first to lift up a shining light, revealing the hidden blessings of life - you are my guide, O glory of the Grecian race. In your well-marked footprints now I plant my resolute steps."

Lest we should think atomism a purely Greco-Roman phenomena at this time, it is worth remarking that certain Hindu writings, particularly of the Jain cult speculated on atomism. Reciprocal influence between the two cultures is possible.

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the West and the Northern barbarian invasions, atomism became moribund, preserved only in monastic libraries [i.e., Lucretius' poem, Aristotle's works and various commentaries], and the writings of those in the Arabic and Jewish world. The Arab alchemist and physician Rhazes [865-924AD] adopted an atomistic philosophy, as did one Arab school of philosophers. Such ideas gradually filtered through to Moorish Spain via philosophers like Maimonides [1135-1206AD].

It wasn't until 1400 that the West rediscovered Lucretius' poem, which was printed in 1473 to great interest. In 1500, the great Polish astronomer Copernicus [1473-1543] wrote:

"The minimal and indivisible corpuscles, which are called atoms are not perceptible to sense ... but can be taken in such a large quantity that there will be enough to form a visible magnitude." The great figures of the emergent science such as Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, all showed a keen interest in atomism. Sir Francis Bacon [1561-1626] noted that "the theory of Democritus relating to atoms is, if not true, at least applicable with excellent effect to the exposition of nature."

Thus began the rise of the physical atom, the theory being applied also to chemistry and mechanics. The 'hard atom' was now to be quantified, as Gassendi [1592-1655] and others attempted to describe the minimum size for ultimate atoms. And by 1660, the chemist Boyle looked forward to a 'universally applicable atomic theory'. Staying on the right side of religion, in 1700 Newton wrote, "it seems probable to me that God in the Beginning form'd matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable movable particles." [Opticks]

Philosophers such as Descartes [1596-1650], Hobbes [1588-1679], and Leibniz [1646-1716] were all influenced in various ways by atomism. The last named developed a non-physical atomistic doctrine called a Monadology [1714] describing the 'monads' as "metaphysical points: they possess a certain vitality and a kind of perception." A mathematical theory of atomism was expounded in 1758 by Boscovich [1711-1787] in his Theoria, in which the atoms are not 'pieces of matter, but persisting physical points.'

Nietzsche wrote that "Boscovich has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that 'stood fast' of the earth - the belief in 'substance', in 'matter', in the earth-residuum, and particle-atom: it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth." [13]

The concept of hard and permanent atoms was favoured by Dalton [1766-1844] who 'formulated the principle that each chemical element is composed of identical atoms ... Dalton had studied Newton's atomic derivation of Boyle's Law [14]

The 19th century saw atomic ideas abound in all areas of  science and mathematics, including the molecular currents of Ampère [1825], the Brownian motion of small particles of the botanist Robert Brown [1827], Faraday's units of electricity [1840], and the First Electron Theory of Weber [1850]. In 1869 the elements were classified in the Periodic Table by Mendeleyev; "the discovery of Radioactivity [Becquerel, 1896] and of the Electron [1897] marked the culmination of a century of dramatic empirical advances in the realm of atomism." [15 ]

However, in the 1970's, after the discovery of the periodical table, Kelvin and Spencer emphasised that chemical atoms were not necessarily indivisible or eternal. With the development of Relativity [Einstein 1905], and Quantum Theory [Planck 1900], all the classical categories became undermined.

Notes:

13. BGE 12
14. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyle's_law ] , and thus had inherited the great tradition of atomic ideas in its Newtonian form.'
15. Whyte

VII

The foregoing is meant to show how the attempt to quantify the atom created a procedure which served scientific progress to great effect. The 'atom' though, did not survive the process, and once 'split', being no longer indivisible and therefore by definition not the atom of Greek philosophy, it passed out of its physical phase, returning to its home of metaphysics.

In 1881, "Stallo protested that the concept of atoms arose merely from the reification of the concept of cause'." [16] At about the same time, Nietzsche had written in his notebook:

"Against the physical atom: to comprehend the world, we have to be able to calculate it; to be able to calculate it we have to have constant causes. Because we find no such constant causes in actuality, we invent them for ourselves - the atoms. This is the origin of atomism.

Using an analogy, Nietzsche says:

"How much of a piece of music has been understood when that in it which is calculable, and can be reduced to formulas has been reckoned up?"[17]

He then went on to compare the atom theory with "the famous old ego, our oldest article of faith", saying "the atom is a subjective fiction, precisely this necessary perspectivism by virtue of which every centre of force - and not only man - construes all the rest of the world from its own viewpoint." [ib.]

The atom then was part of the 'metaphysical falsification of the world' as seen by Nietzsche:

"One must declare war ... against the 'atomistic need' which still leads a dangerous after-life in places where no-one suspects it, just like the more celebrated 'metaphysical need'; one must also, first of all, give the finishing stroke to that other and more calamitous atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest, the soul atomism." [18]

Before we start to hear once again the absolute relativism of a Gorgias, we must remember that Nietzsche adhered to the Pythagorean theory of eternal recurrence of the same, and showed a 'metaphysical need' in his 'first principle' of the will to power. Indeed, the mistake of 'the older atomism' was according to Nietzsche that it "sought - besides the operating 'power', the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates - the atom." [19]  In other words the theory of power is enough:'atoms' and what not are superfluous encrustations.

But we should dwell here once more on the shifting of the 'tectonic plates' of truth in terms of typifying theories;- i.e. atomism was long considered atheism par excellence. But to Nietzsche, the self proclaimed 'anti-Christian', atomism was a disguised 'soul swindle', sneaked in through the back door of science in order to prolong the death-throes of God.

All in all, atomism has shown itself to be the most powerful metaphysical of the Presocratics, having far more 'truth' than Ionianism or Eleaticism. Russell summed up as follows:

"By good luck, the atomists hit on a hypothesis for which, more than 2,000 years later, some evidence was found, but their belief, in their day was none the less destitute of any solid foundation."

But it is precisely here that the controversy rumbles on: to Russell, solid foundation equals scientific foundation, not philosohical. But is physics any more 'solid' than metaphysics?

Notes:
16. Whyte
17. WP
18. BGE 12
19. BGE 17

Bibliography:
Farrington, B. Greek Science, Penguin 1961
Nietzsche, F. Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, (1886) BGE
Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power, a Transvaluation of All Values, (1889) WP
Whyte, L.L.,  Essay on atomism: From Democritus to 1960, Harper and Row 1963 . On Line:

http://www.archive.org/stream/essayonatomismfr006336mbp/essayonatomismfr006336mbp_djvu.txt - 

Additional Links:

Ancient Atomism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atomism-ancient/

Nietzsche's Brave New World of Force. by K. A. Pearson
Thoughts on Nietzsche's 1873 'Time Atom Theory' Fragment
www.warwick.ac.uk/philosophy/pli_journal/pdfs//ansell_pearson_1_pli_9.pdf
[Nietzsche's 'Time Atom Theory' can be found in Unpublished Writings from the Period of the Unfashionable Observations trans. Gray, Stanford]