PARADOXICAL OPINIONS ON MIXTURE IN ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS, <i>DE MIXTIONE</i>

Abstract In a problematic passage at the beginning of his treatise De mixtione (I, 1.9–16), Alexander of Aphrodisias judges Chrysippus’ theory of total blending to be more paradoxical than two other paradoxical claims on mixture. Scholars understand these two claims either as a unitary position or as two distinct positions. In the latter case, they maintain that an emendation is necessary to make sense of the first claim. Through textual and philosophical analysis, this article shows that the claims represent two distinct positions—the realist view and Democritus’ reductionist account—and that no emendation is necessary. The article defends the transmitted text by explaining how Alexander can characterize the realist view as paradoxical despite endorsing it himself. To do so, it illustrates the meaning of ‘paradoxical’ in light of Alexander’s use of common notions ( koinai ennoiai ) as evaluative criteria and thoroughly connects the passage to the wider dialectical framework of the De mixtione , thus reconstructing the rationale behind Alexander’s evaluation of each of these three positions as paradoxical.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Classical Quarterly
Published
2026-05-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1017/s000983882610127x
Primary Topic
Classical Antiquity Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

PARADOXICAL OPINIONS ON MIXTURE IN ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS, DE MIXTIONE

Lorenzo Zemolin, Andrea Araf
The Classical Quarterly
Classical Antiquity Studies
article

PARADOXICAL OPINIONS ON MIXTURE IN ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS, DE MIXTIONE

Lorenzo Zemolin, Andrea Araf
article en

Abstract

Abstract In a problematic passage at the beginning of his treatise De mixtione (I, 1.9–16), Alexander of Aphrodisias judges Chrysippus’ theory of total blending to be more paradoxical than two other paradoxical claims on mixture. Scholars understand these two claims either as a unitary position or as two distinct positions. In the latter case, they maintain that an emendation is necessary to make sense of the first claim. Through textual and philosophical analysis, this article shows that the claims represent two distinct positions—the realist view and Democritus’ reductionist account—and that no emendation is necessary. The article defends the transmitted text by explaining how Alexander can characterize the realist view as paradoxical despite endorsing it himself. To do so, it illustrates the meaning of ‘paradoxical’ in light of Alexander’s use of common notions ( koinai ennoiai ) as evaluative criteria and thoroughly connects the passage to the wider dialectical framework of the De mixtione , thus reconstructing the rationale behind Alexander’s evaluation of each of these three positions as paradoxical.

The Classical Quarterly
Roma Tre University (IT), University of Würzburg (DE), University of Tübingen (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Classical Antiquity Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.