Camera obscura?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Ok but back then The Simpsons was still good
-
Poochie had access to a time machine!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They had computers so maybe
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A mechanism? No way. Lucretius describes successive still images being perceived by the mind so as to appear to move, but not by means of a magic lantern or anything.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
More plausible than “the ancient Greeks couldn’t see blue”
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
no, this is silly. Lucretius' was speaking of astrophysics and whatnot, but animation in the modern sense is a stretch.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope for speculative discussion of related devices long ago. Could have been done, and would have made the kind of show elites would pay up for.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'll bet someone has found a Vedic text that can be misread as a description of animation too!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As someone who works on Lucretius, I can pretty safely say that no, he does not. He's an atomist, so he thinks that objects do emit little mote images of themselves that go into our eyes, which is how we see, but that wouldn't amount to an animation device.
-
The closest thing to the passage you cite might be in book 4 of the DRN, where Lucretius seems to talk about light changing color after it passes through fine cloth that has been dyed, and so projects the color on whatever it hits afterward, but again, not animation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.