Chapter V: Empedokles of Akragas (1)

[Sidenote: Pluralism.]

97. The belief that all things are one was common to the philosophers we have hitherto studied; but now Parmenides has shown that, if this one thing really _is_, we must give up the idea that it can take different forms. The senses, which present to us a world of change and multiplicity, are deceitful. From this there was no escape; the time was still to come when men would seek the unity of the world in something which, from its very nature, the senses could never perceive.

We find, accordingly, that from the time of Parmenides to that of Plato, all thinkers in whose hands philosophy made real progress abandoned the monistic hypothesis. Those who still held by it adopted a critical attitude, and confined themselves to a defence of the theory of Parmenides against the new views. Others taught the doctrine of Herakleitos in an exaggerated form; some continued to expound the systems of the early Milesians. This, of course, showed want of insight; but even those thinkers who saw that Parmenides could not be left unanswered, were by no means equal to their predecessors in power and thoroughness. The corporealist hypothesis had proved itself unable to bear the weight of a monistic structure; but a thorough-going pluralism such as the atomic theory might have some value, if not as a final explanation of the world, yet at least as an intelligible view of a part of it. Any pluralism, on the other hand, which, like that of Empedokles and Anaxagoras, stops short of the atoms, will achieve no permanent result, however many may be the brilliant _aperçus_ which it embodies. It will remain an attempt to reconcile two things that cannot be reconciled, and may always, therefore, be developed into contradictions and paradoxes.

[Sidenote: Date of Empedokles.]

98. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in Sicily, and his father’s name, according to the best accounts, was Meton.[501] His grandfather, also called Empedokles, had won a victory in the horse-race at Olympia in Ol. LXXI. (496-95 B.C.),[502] and Apollodoros fixed the _floruit_ of Empedokles himself in Ol. LXXXIV. 1 (444-43 B.C.). This is the date of the foundation of Thourioi; and it appears from the quotation in Diogenes that the almost contemporary biographer, Glaukos of Rhegion,[503] said Empedokles visited the new city shortly after its foundation. But we are in no way bound to believe that he was just forty years old at the time of the event in his life which can most easily be dated. That is the assumption made by Apollodoros; but there are reasons for thinking that his date is too late by some eight or ten years.[504] It is, indeed, most likely that Empedokles did not go to Thourioi till after his banishment from Akragas, and he may well have been more than forty years old when that happened. All, therefore, we can be said to know of his date is, that his grandfather was still alive in 496 B.C.; that he himself was active at Akragas after 472, the date of Theron’s death; and that he died later than 444.

Footnote 501:

Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), Apollodoros _ap._ Diog. viii. 52 (R. P.
162). The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a
careful criticism of the sources, by Bidez, _La biographie
d’Empédocle_ (Gand, 1894).

Footnote 502:

For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; R.
P. 162), who follows the _Olympic Victors_ of Eratosthenes, who in
turn appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his Περὶ νόσων
(see below, p. 233, _n._ 520), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a
“breeder of horses” (R. P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him as a
distinguished man in his Fifteenth Book.

Footnote 503:

Glaukos wrote Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν καὶ μουσικῶν, and is said to
have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros
adds (R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides,
Empedokles died at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however,
that the words ἔτι δ’ Ἡρακλείδης are Sturz’s conjecture, the MSS.
having ἔτι δ’ Ἡράκλειτον, and Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that
Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the other hand, if the statement of
Aristotle comes from the Περὶ ποιητῶν, it is not obvious why he should
mention Herakleitos at all; and Herakleides was one of the chief
sources for the biography of Empedokles.

Footnote 504:

See Diels, “Empedokles und Gorgias,” 2 (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884).
Theophrastos said that Empedokles was born “not long after Anaxagoras”
(_Dox._ p. 477, 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno
under Parmenides, and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, n.
5). Now Gorgias was a little older than Antiphon (_b._ Ol. LXX.), so
it is clear we must go back _at least_ to 490 B.C. for the birth of
Empedokles.

Even these indications are enough to show that he must have been a boy in the reign of Theron, the tyrant who co-operated with Gelon of Syracuse in the repulse of the Carthaginians from Himera. His son and successor, Thrasydaios, was a man of another stamp. Before his accession to the throne of Akragas, he had ruled in his father’s name at Himera, and completely estranged the affections of its inhabitants. Theron died in 472 B.C., and Thrasydaios at once displayed all the vices and follies usual in the second holder of a usurped dominion. After a disastrous war with Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven out; and Akragas enjoyed a free government till it fell before the Carthaginians more than half a century later.[505]

Footnote 505:

E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterth._ ii. p. 508.

[Sidenote: Empedokles as a politician.]

99. In the political events of the next few years, Empedokles certainly played an important part; but our information on the subject is of a very curious kind. The Sicilian historian Timaios told one or two stories about him, which are obviously genuine traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years afterwards; but, like all popular traditions, they are a little confused. The picturesque incidents are remembered, but the essential parts of the story are dropped. Still, we may be thankful that the “collector of old wives’ tales,”[506] as sneering critics called him, has enabled us to measure the historical importance of Empedokles for ourselves by showing us how he was pictured by the great-grandchildren of his contemporaries.

Footnote 506:

He is called γραοσυλλέκτρια in Souidas, _s.v._ The view taken in the
text as to the value of his evidence is that of Holm.

We read, then,[507] that once he was invited to sup with one of the “rulers.” Tradition delights in such vague titles. “Supper was well advanced, but no wine was brought in. The rest of the company said nothing, but Empedokles was righteously indignant, and insisted on wine being served. The host, however, said he was waiting for the serjeant of the Council. When that official arrived, he was appointed ruler of the feast. The host, of course, appointed him. Thereupon he began to give hints of an incipient tyranny. He ordered the company either to drink or have the wine poured over their heads. At the time, Empedokles said nothing; but next day he led both of them before the court, and had them condemned and put to death—both the man who asked him to supper, and the ruler of the feast.[508] This was the beginning of his political career.” The next tale is that Empedokles prevented the Council from granting his friend Akron a piece of land for a family sepulchre on the ground of his eminence in medicine, and supported his objection by a punning epigram.[509] Lastly, he broke up the assembly of the Thousand—perhaps some oligarchical association or club.[510] It may have been for this that he was offered the kingship, which Aristotle tells us he refused.[511] At any rate, we see that Empedokles was the great democratic leader at Akragas in those days, though we have no clear knowledge of what he did.

Footnote 507:

Timaios _ap._ Diog. viii. 64 (_F.H.G._ i. p. 214, fr. 88 a).

Footnote 508:

In the first edition, I suggested the analogy of accusations for
_incivisme_. Bidez says (p. 127), “J’imagine qu’un Jacobin aurait
mieux jugé l’histoire” (than Karsten and Holm); “sous la Terreur, on
était suspect pour de moindres vétilles.”

Footnote 509:

Diog. viii. 65. The epigram runs thus:

ἄκρον ἰητρὸν Ἄκρων’ Ἀκραγαντῖνον πατρὸς Ἄκρου
κρύπτει κρημνὸς ἄκρος πατρίδος ἀκροτάτης.

On Akron, see M. Wellmann, _op. cit._ p. 235, n. 1.

Footnote 510:

Diog. viii. 66, ὕστερον δ’ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ τὸ τῶν χιλίων ἄθροισμα
κατέλυσε συνεστὼς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία. The word ἄθροισμα hardly suggests a
legal council, and συνίστασθαι suggests a conspiracy.

Footnote 511:

Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his _Sophist._
Cf. Diog. viii. 57.

[Sidenote: Empedokles as a religious teacher.]

100. But there is another side to his public character which Timaios found it hard to reconcile with his political views. He claimed to be a god, and to receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity. The truth is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman; he had a good deal of the “medicine-man” about him. According to Satyros,[512] Gorgias affirmed that he had been present when his master was performing sorceries. We can see what this means from the fragments of the _Purifications_. Empedokles was a preacher of the new religion which sought to secure release from the “wheel of birth” by purity and abstinence; but it is not quite certain to which form of it he adhered. On the one hand, Orphicism seems to have been strong at Akragas in the days of Theron, and there are even some verbal coincidences between the poems of Empedokles and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar addressed to that prince.[513] There are also some points of similarity between the _Rhapsodic Theogony_, as we know it from Damaskios, and certain fragments of Empedokles, though the importance of these has been exaggerated.[514] On the other hand, there is no reason to doubt the statement of Ammonios that fr. 134 refers to Apollo;[515] and, if that is so, it would point to his having been an adherent of the Ionic form of the mystic doctrine, as we have seen (§ 39) that Pythagoras was. Further, Timaios already knew the story that he had been expelled from the Pythagorean Order for “stealing discourses,”[516] and it is probable on the whole that fr. 129 refers to Pythagoras.[517] It would be very hazardous to dogmatise on this subject; but it seems most likely that Empedokles had been influenced by Orphic ideas in his youth, and that, in later life, he preached a form of Pythagoreanism which was not considered orthodox by the heads of the Society. In any case, it seems far more probable that his political and scientific activity belong to the same period of his life, and that he only became a wandering prophet after his banishment, than that his scientific work belonged to his later days when he was a solitary exile.[518]

Footnote 512:

Diog. viii. 59 (R. P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas. Diels
suggests (_Emp. u. Gorg._ p. 358) that the φυσικός of Alkidamas was a
dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker. In that case, the
statement would have little historical value.

Footnote 513:

See Bidez, p. 115, n. 1.

Footnote 514:

O. Kern, “Empedokles und die Orphiker” (_Arch._ i. pp. 489 sqq.). For
the _Rhapsodic Theogony_, see Introd. p. 9, _n._ 10.

Footnote 515:

See below, note _in loc._

Footnote 516:

Diog. viii. 54 (R. P. 162).

Footnote 517:

See below, note _in loc._

Footnote 518:

The latter view is that of Bidez (pp. 161 sqq.); but Diels has shown
(_Berl. Sitzb._, 1898, pp. 406 sqq.) that the former is
psychologically more probable.

We hear of a number of marvels performed by Empedokles, which are for the most part nothing but inferences from his writings. Timaios told how he weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging bags of asses’ skins on the trees to catch them. He had certainly said, in his exaggerated way, that the knowledge of science as taught by him would enable his disciples to control the winds (fr. 111); and this, along with the fabled windbags of Aiolos, is enough to account for the tale.[519] We are also told how he brought back to life a woman who had been breathless and pulseless for thirty days. The verse where he asserts that his teaching will enable Pausanias to bring the dead back from Hades (fr. 111) shows how this story may have arisen.[520] Again, we hear that he sweetened the pestilent marsh between Selinous and the sea by diverting the rivers Hypsas and Selinos into it. We know from coins that this purification of the marshes actually took place, but we may doubt whether it was attributed to Empedokles till a later time.[521]

Footnote 519:

I follow the wilder form of the story given by Diog. viii. 60, and not
the rationalised version of Plutarch (_adv. Col._ 1126 b). The
epithets ἀλεξανέμας and κωλυσανέμας were perhaps bestowed by some
sillographer in mockery; cf. ἀνεμοκοίτης.

Footnote 520:

The Περὶ νόσων of Herakleides, from which it is derived, seems to have
been a sort of medico-philosophical romance. The words are (Diog.
viii. 60): Ἡρακλείδης τε ἐν τῷ Περὶ νόσων φησὶ καὶ Παυσανίᾳ
ὑφηγήσασθαι αὐτὸν τὰ περὶ τὴν ἄπνουν. It was a case of hysterical
suffocation.

Footnote 521:

For these coins see Head, _Historia Numorum_, pp. 147 sqq.

[Sidenote: Rhetoric and medicine.]

101. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the inventor of Rhetoric;[522] and Galen made him the founder of the Italian school of Medicine, which he puts on a level with those of Kos and Knidos.[523] Both these statements must be considered in connexion with his political and scientific activity. It seems to be certain that Gorgias was his disciple in physics and medicine, and some of the peculiarities which marked his style are to be found in the poems of Empedokles.[524] It is not to be supposed, of course, that Empedokles wrote a formal treatise on Rhetoric; but it is in every way probable, and in accordance with his character, that the speeches, of which he must have made many, were marked by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced to Athens at a later date, and which gave rise to the idea of an artistic prose. The influence of Empedokles on the development of medicine was, however, far more important, as it affected not only medicine itself, but through it, the whole tendency of scientific and philosophical thinking. It has been said that Empedokles had no successors,[525] and the remark is true if we confine ourselves strictly to philosophy. On the other hand, the medical school which he founded was still living in the days of Plato, and it had considerable influence on him, and still more on Aristotle.[526] Its fundamental doctrine was the identification of the four elements with the hot and the cold, the moist and the dry. It also held that we breathe through all the pores of the body, and that the act of respiration is closely connected with the motion of the blood. The heart, not the brain, was regarded as the organ of consciousness.[527] A more external characteristic of the medicine taught by the followers of Empedokles is that they still clung to ideas of a magical nature. A protest against this by a member of the Koan school has been preserved. He refers to them as “magicians and purifiers and charlatans and quacks, who profess to be very religious.”[528] Though there is some truth in this, it hardly does justice to the great advances in physiology that were due to the Sicilian school.

Footnote 522:

Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 g).

Footnote 523:

Galen, x. 5, ἤριζον δ’ αὐτοῖς (the schools of Kos and Knidos) ... καὶ
οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἰατροί, Φιλιστίων τε καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Παυσανίας
καὶ οἱ τούτων ἑταῖροι κ.τ.λ. Philistion was the contemporary and
friend of Plato; Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles
addressed his poem.

Footnote 524:

See Diels, “Empedokles und Gorgias” (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884, pp. 343
sqq.). The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple of
Empedokles is Satyros _ap._ Diog. viii. 58 (R. P. 162); but he seems
to have derived his information from Alkidamas, who was the disciple
of Gorgias himself. In Plato’s _Meno_ (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean
theory of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.

Footnote 525:

Diels (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1884, p. 343).

Footnote 526:

See M. Wellmann, _Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Ärtzte_, vol. i.
(Berlin, 1901). According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the _Timaeus_)
and Diokles of Karystos depend upon Philistion. It is impossible to
understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without
keeping the history of medicine constantly in view.

Footnote 527:

For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon’s _Iatrika_),
Φιλιστίων δ’ οἴεται ἐκ δʹ ἰδεῶν συνεστάναι ἡμᾶς, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐκ δʹ
στοιχείων· πυρός, ἀέρος, ὕδατος, γῆς. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἑκάστου δυνάμεις,
τοῦ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ θερμόν, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος τὸ ψυχρόν, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος τὸ
ὑγρόν, τῆς δὲ γῆς τὸ ξηρόν. For the theory of respiration, see
Wellmann, pp. 82 sqq.; and for the heart as the seat of consciousness,
_ib._ pp. 15 sqq.

Footnote 528:

Hippokr. Περὶ ἰερῆς νόσου, c 1, μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ
ἀλαζόνες. The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.

[Sidenote: Relation to predecessors.]

102. In the biography of Empedokles, we hear very little of his theory of nature. The only hints we get are some statements about his teachers. Alkidamas, who had good opportunities of knowing, made him a fellow-student of Zeno under Parmenides. That is both possible and likely. Theophrastos too made him a follower and imitator of Parmenides. But the further statement that he had “heard” Pythagoras cannot be right. Probably Alkidamas said “Pythagoreans.”[529]

Footnote 529:

Diog. viii. 54-56 (R. P. 162).

Some writers hold that certain parts of the system of Empedokles, in particular the theory of pores and effluvia (§ 118), which do not seem to follow very naturally from his own principles, were due to the influence of Leukippos.[530] This, however, is not necessarily the case. We know that Alkmaion (§ 96) spoke of “pores” in connexion with sensation, and it may equally well be from him that Empedokles got the theory. It may be added that this is more in accordance with the history of certain other physiological views which are common to Alkmaion and the later Ionian philosophers. We can generally see that those reached Ionia through the medical school which Empedokles founded.[531]

Footnote 530:

Diels, _Verhandl. d. 35 Philologenversamml._ pp. 104 sqq., Zeller, p.
767. It would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if
it could be proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope
to show that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean
doctrine (Chap. IX. § 171), which was in turn affected by Empedokles
(Chap. VII. § 147).

Footnote 531:

For πόροι in Alkmaion, cf. Arist. _de Gen. An._ Β, 6. 744 a 8;
Theophr. _de sens._ 26; and for the way in which his embryological and
other views were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian
physicists, cf. Fredrich, _Hippokratische Untersuchungen_, pp. 126
sqq.

[Sidenote: Death.]

103. We are told that Empedokles leapt into the crater of Etna that he might be deemed a god. This appears to be a malicious version[532] of a tale set on foot by his adherents that he had been snatched up to heaven in the night.[533] Both stories would easily get accepted; for there was no local tradition. Empedokles did not die in Sicily, but in the Peloponnese, or, perhaps, at Thourioi. He had gone to Olympia to have his religious poem recited to the Hellenes; his enemies were able to prevent his return, and he was seen in Sicily no more.[534]

Footnote 532:

R. P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.

Footnote 533:

R. P. _ib._ This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the
end of his romance about the ἄπνους.

Footnote 534:

Timaios took the trouble to refute the common stories at some length
(Diog. viii. 71 sqq.; R. P. _ib._). He was quite positive that
Empedokles never returned to Sicily. Nothing can be more likely than
that, when wandering as an exile in the Peloponnese, he should have
seized the opportunity of joining the colony at Thourioi, which was a
harbour for many of the “sophists” of this time.

[Sidenote: Writings.]

104. Empedokles was the second philosopher to expound his system in verse, if we leave the satirist Xenophanes out of account. He was also the last among the Greeks; for the forged Pythagorean poems may be neglected.[535] Lucretius imitates Empedokles in this, just as Empedokles imitated Parmenides. Of course, the poetical imagery creates a difficulty for the interpreter; but it would be wrong to make too much of it. It cannot be said that it is harder to extract the philosophical kernel from the verses of Empedokles than from the prose of Herakleitos.

Footnote 535:

See Chap. IV. § 85.

There is some divergence of opinion as to the poetical merit of Empedokles. The panegyric of Lucretius is well known.[536] Aristotle says in one place that Empedokles and Homer have nothing in common but the metre; in another, that Empedokles was “most Homeric.”[537] To my mind, there can be no question that he was a genuine poet, far more so than Parmenides. No one doubts nowadays that Lucretius was one, and Empedokles really resembles him very closely.

Footnote 536:

Lucr. i. 716 sqq.

Footnote 537:

_Poet._ 1. 1447 b 18; cf. Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 i).

[Sidenote: The remains.]

105. We have more abundant remains of Empedokles than of any other early Greek philosopher. If we may trust our manuscripts of Diogenes and of Souidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the _Poem on Nature_ and the _Purifications_ together as 5000 verses, of which about 2000 belonged to the former work.[538] Diels gives about 350 verses and parts of verses from the cosmological poem, or not a fifth of the whole. It is important to remember that, even in this favourable instance, so much has been lost. Besides the two poems, the Alexandrian scholars possessed a prose work of 600 lines on medicine ascribed to Empedokles. The tragedies and other poems which were sometimes attributed to him seem really to belong to a younger writer of the same name, who is said by Souidas to have been his grandson.[539]

Footnote 538:

Diog. viii. 77 (R. P. 162); Souidas _s.v._ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς· καὶ ἔγραψε δι’
ἐπῶν Περὶ φύσεως τῶν ὄντων βιβλία βʹ, καὶ ἔστιν ἔπη ὡς δισχίλια. It
hardly seems likely, however, that the Καθαρμοί extended to 3000
verses, so Diels proposes to read πάντα τρισχίλια for πεντακισχίλια in
Diogenes. It is to be observed that there is no better authority than
Tzetzes for dividing the Περὶ φύσεως into three books. See Diels,
“Über die Gedichte des Empedokles” (_Berl. Sitzb._, 1898, pp. 396
sqq.).

Footnote 539:

Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog. viii. 58) that he had met with
forty-three of these tragedies; but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on
the Persian Wars, which Hieronymos also refers to (Diog. viii. 57),
seems to have arisen from an old corruption in the text of Arist.
_Probl._ 929 b 16, where Bekker still reads ἐν τοῖς Περσικοῖς. The
same passage, however, is said to occur ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, in _Meteor._
Δ, 4. 382 a 1, though there too E reads Περσικοῖς.

I give the remains as they are arranged by Diels:—

(1)

And do thou give ear, Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise!

(2)

For straitened are the powers that are spread over their bodily parts,
and many are the woes that burst in on them and blunt the edge of
their careful thoughts! They behold but a brief span of a life that is
no life,[540] and, doomed to swift death, are borne up and fly off
like smoke. Each is convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon
as he is <<5>> hurried to and fro, and idly boasts he has found the
whole. So hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by the
ears of men, so hardly grasped by their mind! Thou,[541] then, since
thou hast found thy way hither, shalt learn no more than mortal mind
hath power. R. P. 163.

(3)

... to keep within thy dumb heart.

(4)

But, O ye gods, turn aside from my tongue the madness of those
men.[542] Hallow my lips and make a pure stream flow from them! And
thee, much-wooed, white-armed Virgin Muse, do I beseech that I may
hear what is lawful for the children of a day! Speed me on my way from
the abode of <<5>> Holiness and drive my willing car! Thee shall no
garlands of glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift
them from the ground, on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond
that which is lawful and right, and so to gain a seat upon the heights
of wisdom.

Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each thing is
clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as <<10>> compared with
thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear above the clear
instructions of thy tongue;[543] and do not withhold thy confidence
in any of thy other bodily parts by which there is an opening for
understanding,[544] but consider everything in the way it is clear.
R. P. 163.

(5)

But it is ever the way of low minds to disbelieve their betters. Do
thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse bid thee, dividing the
argument in thy heart.[545]

(6)

Hear first the four roots of all things: shining Zeus, life-bringing
Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis whose tear-drops are a well-spring to
mortals. R. P. 164.[546]

(7)

... uncreated.

(8)

And I shall tell thee another thing. There is no coming into being of
aught that perishes, nor any end for it in baneful death; but only
mingling and change of what has been mingled. Coming into being is but
a name given to these by men. R. P. 165.

(9)

But, when the elements have been mingled in the fashion of a man and
come to the light of day, or in the fashion of the race of wild beasts
or plants or birds, then men say that these come into being; and when
they are separated, they call that woeful death. They call it not
aright; but I too follow <<5>> the custom, and call it so myself.

(10)

Avenging death.

(11, 12)

Fools!—for they have no far-reaching thoughts—who deem that what
before was not comes into being, or that aught can perish and be
utterly destroyed. For it cannot be that aught can arise from what in
no way is, and it is impossible and unheard of that what _is_ should
perish; for it <<5>> will always _be_, wherever one may keep putting
it. R. P. 165 a.

(13)

And in the All there is naught empty and naught too full.

(14)

In the All there is naught empty. Whence, then, could aught come to
increase it?

(15)

A man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in his heart
that as long as mortals live what they call their life, so long they
are, and suffer good and ill; while before they were formed and after
they have been dissolved they are just nothing at all. R. P. 165 a.

(16)

For of a truth they (Strife and Love) were aforetime and shall be; nor
ever, methinks, will boundless time be emptied of that pair. R. P. 166
c.

(17)

I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be one only
out of many; at another, it divided up to be many instead of one.
There is a double becoming of perishable things and a double passing
away. The coming together of all things brings one generation into
being and destroys it; the other grows up and is scattered as things
become <<5>> divided. And these things never cease continually
changing places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at
another each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife.
Thus, as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many, and
to become many once more when the one is parted <<10>> asunder, so far
they come into being and their life abides not. But, inasmuch as they
never cease changing their places continually, so far they are ever
immovable as they go round the circle of existence.

* * * * *

But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that increaseth
wisdom. As I said before, when I declared the <<15>> heads of my
discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew
together to be one only out of many, at another it parted asunder so
as to be many instead of one;—Fire and Water and Earth and the mighty
height of Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to
each, and Love among them, equal in length and breadth. <<20>> Her do
thou contemplate with thy mind, nor sit with dazed eyes. It is she
that is known as being implanted in the frame of mortals. It is she
that makes them have thoughts of love and work the works of peace.
They call her by the names of Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet
marked moving <<25>> round among them,[547] but do thou attend to the
undeceitful ordering of my discourse.

For all these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a different
prerogative and its own peculiar nature. And nothing <<30>> comes into
being besides these, nor do they pass away; for, if they had been
passing away continually, they would not be now, and what could
increase this All and whence could it come? How, too, could it perish,
since no place is empty of these things? They are what they are; but,
running through one another, they become now this, now that,[548] and
like things <<35>> evermore. R. P. 166.

(18)

Love.

(19)

Clinging Love.

(20)

This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the mass of
mortal limbs. At one time all the limbs that are the body’s portion
are brought together by Love in blooming life’s high season; at
another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander <<5>> each alone by the
breakers of life’s sea. It is the same with plants and the fish that
make their homes in the waters, with the beasts that have their lairs
on the hills and the seabirds that sail on wings. R. P. 173 d.

(21)

Come now, look at the things that bear witness to my earlier
discourse, if so be that there was any shortcoming as to their form in
the earlier list. Behold the sun, everywhere bright and warm, and all
the immortal things that are bathed in heat and bright radiance.[549]
Behold the rain, everywhere dark <<5>> and cold; and from the earth
issue forth things close-pressed and solid. When they are in strife
all these are different in form and separated; but they come together
in love, and are desired by one another.

For out of these have sprung all things that were and are and shall
be—trees and men and women, beasts and birds <<10>> and the fishes
that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that live long lives and
are exalted in honour. R. P. 166 i.

For these things are what they are; but, running through one another,
they take different shapes—so much does mixture change them. R. P. 166
g.

(22)

For all of these—sun, earth, sky, and sea—are at one with all their
parts that are cast far and wide from them in mortal things. And even
so all things that are more adapted for mixture are like to one
another and united in love by Aphrodite. Those things, again, that
differ most in origin, <<5>> mixture and the forms imprinted on each,
are most hostile, being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very
sorry by the bidding of Strife, since it hath wrought their birth.

(23)

Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men whom
wisdom hath well taught their art,—they, when they have taken pigments
of many colours with their hands, mix them in due proportion, more of
some and less of others, and from them produce shapes like unto all
things, making trees <<5>> and men and women, beasts and birds and
fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and gods, that live long lives,
and are exalted in honour,—so let not the error prevail over thy
mind,[550] that there is any other source of all the perishable
creatures that appear in countless numbers. Know this for sure, for
thou <<10>> hast heard the tale from a goddess.[551]

(24)

Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one path to the
end....

(25)

What is right may well be said even twice.

(26)

For they prevail in turn as the circle comes round, and pass into one
another, and grow great in their appointed turn. R. P. 166 c.

They are what they are; but, running through one another, they become
men and the tribes of beasts. At one time they are all brought
together into one order by Love; at another, <<5>> they are carried
each in different directions by the repulsion of Strife, till they
grow once more into one and are wholly subdued. Thus in so far as they
are wont to grow into one out of many, and again divided become more
than one, so far they come into being, and their life is not lasting;
but in <<10>> so far as they never cease changing continually, so far
are they evermore, immovable in the circle.

(27)

There are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun, no, nor
the shaggy earth in its might, nor the sea,—so fast was the god bound
in the close covering of Harmony, spherical and round, rejoicing in
his circular solitude.[552] R. P. 167.

(27_a_)

There is no discord and no unseemly strife in his limbs.

(28)

But he was equal on every side and quite without end, spherical and
round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.

(29)

Two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet, no swift
knees, no fruitful parts; but he was spherical and equal on every
side.

(30, 31)

But, when Strife was grown great in the limbs of the god and sprang
forth to claim his prerogatives, in the fulness of the alternate time
set for them by the mighty oath, ... for all the limbs of the god in
turn quaked. R. P. 167.

(32)

The joint binds two things.

(33)

Even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk....

(34)

Cementing[553] meal with water....

(35, 36)

But now I shall retrace my steps over the paths of song that I have
travelled before, drawing from my saying a new saying. When Strife was
fallen to the lowest depth of the vortex, and Love had reached to the
centre of the whirl, in it do all things come together so as to be one
only; not all at once, <<5>> but coming together at their will each
from different quarters; and, as they mingled, countless tribes of
mortal creatures were scattered abroad. Yet many things remained
unmixed, alternating with the things that were being mixed, namely,
all that Strife not fallen yet retained; for it had not yet altogether
retired <<10>> perfectly from them to the outermost boundaries of the
circle. Some of it still remained within, and some had passed out from
the limbs of the All. But in proportion as it kept rushing out, a
soft, immortal stream of blameless Love kept running in, and
straightway those things became mortal which had been immortal before,
those things were mixed that had been <<15>> unmixed, each changing
its path. And, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures
were scattered abroad endowed with all manner of forms, a wonder to
behold. R. P. 169.

* * * * *

(37)

Earth increases its own mass, and Air swells the bulk of Air.

(38)

Come, I shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of the
sun,[554] and the sources from which have sprung all the things we now
behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the damp vapour and the Titan
air that binds his circle fast round all things. R. P. 170 a.

(39)

If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a foolish
saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of many mortals,
though they have seen but a little of the All....[555] R. P. 103 b.

(40)

The sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon.

(41)

But (the sunlight) is gathered together and circles round the mighty
heavens.

(42)

And she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a shadow on
as much of the earth as is the breadth of the pale-faced moon.[556]

(43)

Even so the sunbeam, having struck the broad and mighty circle of the
moon, returns at once, running so as to reach the sky.

(44)

It flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance. R. P. 170 c.

(45, 46)

There circles round the earth a round borrowed light, as the nave of
the wheel circles round the furthest (goal).

(47)

For she gazes at the sacred circle of the lordly sun opposite.

(48)

It is the earth that makes night by coming before the lights.

(49)

... of solitary, blind-eyed night.

(50)

And Iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.

(51)

(Fire) swiftly rushing upwards....

(52)

And many fires burn beneath the earth. R. P. 171 a.

(53)

For so as it ran, it met them at that time, though often otherwise. R.
P. 171 a.

(54)

But the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots. R. P. 171 a.

(55)

Sea the sweat of the earth. R. P. 170 b.

(56)

Salt was solidified by the impact of the sun’s beams.

(57)

On it (the earth) many heads sprung up without necks and arms wandered
bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes strayed up and down in want of
foreheads. R. P. 173 a.

(58)

Solitary limbs wandered seeking for union.

(59)

But, as divinity was mingled still further with divinity, these things
joined together as each might chance, and many other things besides
them continually arose.

(60)

Shambling creatures with countless hands.

(61)

Many creatures with faces and breasts looking in different directions
were born; some, offspring of oxen with faces of men, while others,
again, arose as offspring of men with the heads of oxen, and creatures
in whom the nature of women and men was mingled, furnished with
sterile[557] parts. <<5>> R. P. 173 b.

(62)

Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused the night-born
shoots of men and tearful women to arise; for my tale is not off the
point nor uninformed. Whole-natured forms first arose from the earth,
having a portion both of water and fire.[558] These did the fire,
desirous of <<5>> reaching its like, send up, showing as yet neither
the charming form of women’s limbs, nor yet the voice and parts that
are proper to men. R. P. 173 c.

(63)

... But the substance of (the child’s) limbs is divided between them,
part of it in men’s and part in women’s (body).

(64)

And upon him came desire reminding him through sight.

(65)

... And it was poured out in the pure parts; and when it met with cold
women arose from it.

(66)

The divided meadows of Aphrodite.

(67)

For in its warmer part the womb brings forth males, and that is why
men are dark and more manly and shaggy.

(68)

On the tenth day of the eighth month the white putrefaction
arises.[559]

(69)

Double bearing.[560]

(70)

Sheepskin.[561]

(71)

But if thy assurance of these things was in any way deficient as to
how, out of Water and Earth and Air and Fire mingled together, arose
the forms and colours of all those mortal things that have been fitted
together by Aphrodite, and so are now come into being.... <<5>>

(72)

How tall trees and the fishes in the sea....

(73)

And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth,[562] after she had
moistened the Earth in water, gave it to swift fire to harden it....
R. P. 171.

(74)

Leading the songless tribe of fertile fish.

(75)

All of those which are dense within and rare without, having received
a moisture of this kind at the hands of Kypris....

(76)

This thou mayest see in the heavy-backed shell-fish that dwell in the
sea, in sea-snails and the stony-skinned turtles. In them thou mayest
see that the earthy part dwells on the uppermost surface.

(77-78)

It is the air that makes evergreen trees flourish with abundance of
fruit the whole year round.

(79)

And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs....

(80)

Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.

(81)

Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.

(82)

Hair and leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the scales that grow
on mighty limbs, are the same thing.

(83)

But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles on their
backs.

(84)

And even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a stormy night,
gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing fire, fastening to it
horn plates to keep out all manner of winds, and they scatter the
blast of the winds that blow, but the light leaping out through them,
shines across the threshold <<5>> with unfailing beams, as much of it
as is finer;[563] even so did she (Love) then entrap the elemental
fire, the round pupil, confined within membranes and delicate tissues,
which are pierced through and through with wondrous passages. They
keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil, but they <<10>> let
through the fire, as much of it as is finer. R. P. 177 b.

(85)

But the gentle flame (of the eye) has but a scanty portion of earth.

(86)

Out of these divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.

(87)

Aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love.

(88)

One vision is produced by both the eyes.

(89)

Know that effluences flow from all things that have come into being.
R. P. 166 h.

(90)

So sweet lays hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter; acid comes
to acid, and warm couples with warm.

(91)

Water fits better into wine, but it will not (mingle) with oil. R. P.
166 h.

(92)

Brass mixed with tin.

(93)

The berry of the blue elder is mingled with scarlet.

(94)

And the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from the shadow.
The same is seen in hollow caves.

(95)

Since they (the eyes) first grew together in the hands of Kypris.

(96)

The kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of gleaming
Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaistos. So arose white bones
divinely fitted together by the cement of proportion. R. P. 175.

(97)

The spine (was broken).

(98)

And the earth, anchoring in the perfect harbours of Aphrodite, meets
with these in nearly equal proportions, with Hephaistos and Water and
gleaming Air—either a little more of it, or less of them and more of
it. From these did blood arise and the manifold forms of flesh. R. P.
175 c.

(99)

The bell ... the fleshy sprout (of the ear).[564]

(100)

Thus[565] do all things draw breath and breathe it out again. All have
bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of their bodies;
and at the mouths of these the outermost surface of the skin is
perforated all over with pores closely packed together, so as to keep
in the blood while a free <<5>> passage is cut for the air to pass
through. Then, when the thin blood recedes from these, the bubbling
air rushes in with an impetuous surge; and when the blood runs back it
is breathed out again. Just as when a girl, playing with a water-clock
of shining brass, puts the orifice of the pipe upon <<10>> her comely
hand, and dips the water-clock into the yielding mass of silvery
water,—the stream does not then flow into the vessel, but the bulk of
the air inside, pressing upon the close-packed perforations, keeps it
out till she uncovers the compressed stream; but then air escapes and
an equal volume <<15>> of water runs in,—just in the same way, when
water occupies the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and
passage is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving to
get in, holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding neck,
pressing upon its surface, till she lets go with her hand. <<20>>
Then, on the contrary, just in the opposite way to what happened
before, the wind rushes in and an equal volume of water runs out to
make room.[566] Even so, when the thin blood that surges through the
limbs rushes backwards to the interior, straightway the stream of air
comes in with a rushing swell; <<25>> but when the blood returns the
air breathes out again in equal quantity.

(101)

(The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the beast’s
limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave in the soft
grass.[567]

(102)

Thus all things have their share of breath and smell.

(103, 104)

Thus have all things thought by fortune’s will.... And inasmuch as the
rarest things came together in their fall.

(105)

(The heart), dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in opposite
directions, where chiefly is what men call thought; for the blood
round the heart is the thought of men. R. P. 178 a.

(106)

For the wisdom of men grows according to what is before them. R. P.
177.

(107)

For out of these are all things formed and fitted together, and by
these do men think and feel pleasure and pain. R. P. 178.

(108)

And just so far as they grow to be different, so far do different
thoughts ever present themselves to their minds (in dreams).[568] R.
P. 177 a.

(109)

For it is with earth that we see Earth, and Water with water; by air
we see bright Air, by fire destroying Fire. By love do we see Love,
and Hate by grievous hate. R. P. 176.

(110)

For if, supported on thy steadfast mind, thou wilt contemplate these
things with good intent and faultless care, then shalt thou have all
these things in abundance throughout thy life, and thou shalt gain
many others from them. For these things grow of themselves into thy
heart, where is each <<5>> man’s true nature. But if thou strivest
after things of another kind, as is the way with men, ten thousand
woes await thee to blunt thy careful thoughts. Soon will these things
desert thee when the time comes round; for they long to return once
more to their own kind; for know that all things have <<10>> wisdom
and a share of thought.

(111)

And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence against ills and
old age; since for thee alone will I accomplish all this. Thou shalt
arrest the violence of the weariless winds that arise and sweep the
earth; and again, when thou so desirest, thou shalt bring back their
blasts with a rush. Thou <<5>> shalt cause for men a seasonable
drought after the dark rains, and again thou shalt change the summer
drought for streams that feed the trees as they pour down from the
sky. Thou shalt bring back from Hades the life of a dead man.

Footnote 540:

The MSS. of Sextus have ζωῆσι βίου. Diels reads ζωῆς ἰδίου. I still
prefer Scaliger’s ζωῆς ἀβίου. Cf. fr. 15, τὸ δὴ βίοτον καλέουσι.

Footnote 541:

The person here addressed is still Pausanias, and the speaker
Empedokles. Cf. fr. 111.

Footnote 542:

No doubt mainly Parmenides.

Footnote 543:

The sense of taste, not speech.

Footnote 544:

Zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after νοῆσαι,
thus getting almost the opposite sense: “Withhold all confidence in
thy bodily senses”; but he admits in his fifth edition (p. 804, n. 2)
that the context is in favour of Stein, who put only a comma at νοῆσαι
and took ἄλλων closely with γυίων. So too Diels. The paraphrase given
by Sextus (R. P. _ib._) is substantially right.

Footnote 545:

There is no difficulty in the MS. διατμηθέντος if we take λόγοιο as
“discourse,” “argument” (cf. διαιρεῖν). Diels conjectures
διασσηθέντος, rendering “when their words have passed through the
sieve of thy mind.” Nor does it seem to me necessary to read χαρτά for
κάρτα in the first line.

Footnote 546:

The four elements are introduced under mythological names, for which
see below, p. 264, _n._ 583. Diels is clearly right in removing the
comma after τέγγει, and rendering _Nestis quae lacrimis suis laticem
fundit mortalibus destinatum_.

Footnote 547:

Reading μετὰ τοῖσιν. I still think, however, that Knatz’s
palaeographically admirable conjuncture μετὰ θεοῖσιν (_i.e._ among the
elements) deserves consideration.

Footnote 548:

Keeping ἄλλοτε with Diels.

Footnote 549:

Reading ἄμβροτα δ’ ὅσσ’ ἴδει with Diels. For the word ἶδος, cf. frs.
62, 5; 73, 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of
solidified Air, and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere. See
below, § 113.

Footnote 550:

Reading with Blass (_Jahrb. f. kl. Phil._, 1883, p. 19):

οὕτω μή σ’ ἀπάτη φρένα καινύτω κ.τ.λ.

Cf. Hesychios: καινύτω· νικάτω. This is practically what the MSS. of
Simplicius give, and Hesychios has many Empedoklean glosses.

Footnote 551:

The “goddess” is, of course, the Muse. Cf. fr. 5.

Footnote 552:

The word μονίῃ, if it is right, cannot mean “rest,” but only solitude.
There is no reason for altering περιηγέι, though Simplicius has
περιγηθέι.

Footnote 553:

The masculine καλλήσας shows that the subject cannot have been
Φιλότης; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles
introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take
illustrations from human arts.

Footnote 554:

The MSS. of Clement have ἥλιον ἀρχήν and the reading ἡλίου ἀρχήν is a
mere makeshift. Diels reads ἥλικά τ’ ἀρχήν, “the first (elements)
equal in age.”

Footnote 555:

The lines are referred to Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them _de
Caelo_, Β, 13. 294 a 21. See above, Chap. II. p. 137.

Footnote 556:

I have translated Diels’s conjecture ἀπεστέγασεν δέ οἱ αὐγάς, | ἔστ’
ἂν ἴῃ καθύπερθεν. The MSS. have ἀπεσκεύασεν and ἔστε αἶαν.

Footnote 557:

Reading στείροις with Diels, _Hermes_, xv. _loc. cit._

Footnote 558:

Retaining εἴδεος (_i.e._ ἴδεος), which is read in the MSS. of
Simplicius. Cf. above, p. 243, _n._ 549.

Footnote 559:

That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by
Aristotle (_de Gen. An._ Δ, 8. 777 a 7). The word πύον means _pus_.
There may be a punning allusion to πυός, “beestings,” but that has its
vowel long.

Footnote 560:

Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth months.

Footnote 561:

Of the membrane round the fœtus.

Footnote 562:

Reading ἴδεα ποιπνύουσα with Diels.

Footnote 563:

See Beare, p. 16, n. 1, where Plato, _Tim._ 45 b 4 (τοῦ πυρὸς ὅσον τὸ
μὲν κάειν οὐκ ἔσχεν, τὸ δὲ παρέχειν φῶς ἥμερον), is aptly quoted.
Alexander _ad loc._ understands κατὰ βηλόν to mean κατ’ οὐρανόν, which
seems improbable.

Footnote 564:

On fr. 99, see Beare, p. 96, n. 1.

Footnote 565:

This passage is quoted by Aristotle (_de Respir_, 473 b 9), who makes
the curious mistake of taking ῥινῶν for the genitive of ῥίς instead of
ῥινός. The _locus classicus_ on the subject of the klepsydra is
_Probl._ 914 b 9 sqq. (where read αὐλοῦ for ἄλλου, b 12). The
klepsydra was a metal vessel with a narrow neck (αὐλός) at the top and
with a sort of strainer (ἠθμός) pierced with holes (τρήματα,
τρυπήματα) at the bottom. The passage in the _Problems_ just referred
to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to Anaxagoras, and we
shall see later that he also made use of a similar experiment (§ 131).

Footnote 566:

This seems to be the experiment described in _Probl._ 914 b 26, ἐὰν
γάρ τις αὐτῆς (τῆς κλεψύδρας) αὐτὴν τὴν κωδίαν ἐμπλήσας ὕδατος,
ἐπιλαβὼν τὸν αὐλόν, καταστρέψῃ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐλόν, οὐ φέρεται τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ
τοῦ αὐλοῦ ἐπὶ στόμα. ἀνοιχθέντος δὲ τοῦ στόματος, οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐκρεῖ κατὰ
τὸν αὐλόν, ἀλλὰ μικροτέρῳ ὕστερον, ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ αὐλοῦ,
ἀλλ’ ὕστερον διὰ τούτου φερόμενον ἀνοιχθέντος. The epithet δυσηχέος
applied to ἰσθμοῖο is best explained as a reference to the ἐρυγμός or
“belching” referred to at 915 a 7 as accompanying the discharge of
water through the αὐλός. Any one can produce this effect with a
water-bottle. If it were not for this epithet, it would be tempting to
read ἠθμοῖο for ἰσθμοῖο. Sturz conjectured this, and it is actually
the reading of a few MSS.

Footnote 567:

On fr. 101, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.

Footnote 568: