Proem of Empedocles’ Peri Physios

Citation preview

T H E PROEM OF E M P E D O C L E S ' PERI PHYSIOS TOWARDS

A NEW EDITION OF ALL THE

FRAGMENTS

T H I R T Y - O N E FRAGMENTS E D I T E D BY N. van der Ben

B . R . G r ü n e r bv - Publishers Amsterdam 1975

PREFACE T h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n

under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n o f P r o f e s s o r

J.C. Kauerbeek and s u b m i t t e d as a d o c t o r a l t h e s i s t o t h e Fac u l t y o f A r t s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Amsterdam. I should

l i k e t o e x p r e s s my s i n c e r e t h a n k s

Kamerbeek, P r o f e s s o r

H.J. D r o s s a a r t

t o Professor

R u i j g h who have a i d e d me i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s I am v e r y much o b l i g e d t o Ms. Judy S c h a v r i e n , carefully

J.C.

L u l o f s and P r o f e s s o r C.J. study.

Ph.D., who

checked t h e E n g l i s h o f t h e g r e a t e r p a r t o f my book

b e f o r e h e r r e t u r n t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I t has been my e x p r e s s wish

t h a t she s h o u l d

n o t e'ndeavouz'' t o c o n c e a l

the fact that the

book was n o t w r i t t e n by a n a t i v e speaker o f E n g l i s h . I hope t h a t my t e x t w i l l

however a c h i e v e

t o say. The r e m a i n i n g

i t s aim o f c o n v e y i n g

C h r i s t i n e Ahlheid according

t o t h e same p r i n c i p l e and w i t h

c a r e . For a l l f a u l t s and i n e l e g a n c i e s I a l o n e I am g r e a t l y

indebted

t o Ms. Marjanke D r o s t

c a r e , t y p e d t h e whole t e x t as i t i s here

ISBN 90 6032 047 6

what I have

p a r t o f t h e t e x t was c o r r e c t e d by Ms. equal

am r e s p o n s i b l e . who, w i t h u n f a i l i n g

reproduced.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

7

I

The purpose o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y

7

II

Empedocles'

7

III

The t r a d i t i o n a l t i t l e s

IV

The number o f books o f t h e two poems

11

V

The a s c r i b i n g

16

VI

The e d i t i o n s o f S t e i n and D i e l s

VII

The proem o f t h e P.phys.

VIII

The proem's r e l a t i o n

IX

P r i n c i p l e s of the present e d i t i o n

62

X

Notes

67

works o f t h e P.phys.

o f fragments

and t h e Kath.

t o t h e proem o f t h e P.phys.

38

A summary

t o t h e P.phys.

9

54 as a whole

59

SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS

100

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

106

APPARATUS CRITICUS

113

CRITICAL NOTES

128

INDEX OF EMPEDOCLEAN FRAGMENTS

227

INTRODUCTION I. The

The purpose

aim of t h i s study

7

of the present

study

i s to p r e s e n t an e d i t i o n of those

thirty-

one fragments out of the whole body of fragments a s c r i b e d t o

Em­

pedocles which, a l l t h i n g s c o n s i d e r e d , seem to me more l i k e l y than not to have been drawn from the proem of the P.phys.

I of­

f e r them i n a newly c o n s t i t u t e d t e x t t o g e t h e r w i t h a f u l l

cri­

t i c a l apparatus

c o n t a i n i n g v a r i a n t r e a d i n g s and a q u o t a t i o n s -

r e g i s t e r ; I f u r t h e r p r o v i d e them w i t h a t r a n s l a t i o n i n order f a c i l i t a t e a q u i c k f i r s t o r i e n t a t i o n , and, to account

f o r a l l d e c i s i o n s I have had

to

f i n a l l y , I endeavour

to make w i t h r e g a r d to

the c o n s t i t u t i o n of the t e x t , the arrangement of the fragments notes.1

and t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a s e r i e s of c r i t i c a l

I n the i n t r o d u c t i o n I d e a l e x t e n s i v e l y w i t h the evidence

on

which the arrangement of the fragments has to be based, as w e l l as w i t h the r e a s o n s I see f o r t o t a l l y r e j e c t i n g D i e l s ' s

edition

on t h i s s c o r e . S i n c e D i e l s a s s i g n e s t h i r t y of t h e s e t h i r t y - o n e fragments to the Kath. , I d i s c u s s p r i m a r i l y h i s e d i t i o n of what he c o n s i d e r e d to be the Kath.

I am c o n f i d e n t t h a t , although

the

arrangement of o n l y a p a r t of the fragments i s d i s c u s s e d h e r e , the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s on which I i n t e n d to e d i t the whole c o r ­ pus w i l l be apparent

i n the II.

end.

Empedocles'

works

L i k e p r e v i o u s e d i t o r s ( f o r D i e l s , see SBA. take i t t h a t a l l e x t a n t fragments belong Kath.,

although

1898,

396ff.) I

to the P.phys.

and

t h e r e i s the h a r d l y more than t h e o r e t i c a l

the

possi­

b i l i t y not only t h a t Empedocles wrote other poems i n hexameters but even t h a t one

or two

l i n e s have been p r e s e r v e d from them.

We hear about the t i t l e s of two 8.57,

such works: Diogenes L a e r t i u s ,

mentions a poem on the P e r s i a n War

Περσικά) and a Hymn to Apollo

(Ξέρξου διάβασι,ς or

(προοΐμιον είς

Απόλλωνα), both

of which, however, a r e s a i d i n the same account

t o have been

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES1 PERI PHYSIOS

8

b u r n t by Empedocles' s i s t e r o r , a c c o r d i n g t o Hieronymus o f Rho­ des, d a u g h t e r , who d e s t r o y e d t h e f o r m e r poem because i t was u n f i n i s h e d , and t h e l a t t e r u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y .

9

INTRODUCTION

left

I n t h e same r e p o r t

F i n a l l y , t h e r e a r e two epigrams (156 and 157 DK.) a s c r i b e d t o Empedocles - i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s , 8.61 and 8.65. A l t h o u g h

Diels

was n o t y e t c o n v i n c e d o f t h e i r s p u r i o u s n e s s i n 1 884 (SBA. 1 884 ,

we a r e f u r t h e r t o l d t h a t Empedocles w r o t e b o t h t r a g e d i e s and po­

362, n . 1 ) , he r i g h t l y p l a c e d them as ' f a l s a ' i n h i s e d i t i o n o f

litical

the

d i s c o u r s e s . Now a l l t h e s e n o t i c e s a r e s a i d by Diogenes

f r a g m e n t s ; b o t h epigrams were a l s o a s c r i b e d t o Simonides i n

L a e r t i u s t o have been drawn f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s Περι ποιητΐδν, and

a n t i q u i t y and t h e y were a s s o c i a t e d w i t h Empedocles p r o b a b l y mere­

the

l y because o f t h e o c c u r r e n c e

passage has i n d e e d been a c c e p t e d as A r i s t o t e l i a n by Rose (=

Fr.70 Rose), Ross, and o t h e r s . I t i s c l e a r , however, t h a t t h e

vCr)v

i n them o f , r e s p e c t i v e l y , Παυσα-

( c f . 1 DK.) and ' ΑκραγαντΧνον. I n any c a s e , we a r e s a f e i n

m e n t i o n o f t h e t r a g e d i e s goes back t o Hieronymus and N e a n t h e s . 2

assuming t h a t no s u r v i v i n g l i n e i s d e r i v e d f r o m an o r i g i n a l

The πολιτικούς

pedoclean

but,

( s c . λόγους) w o u l d o b v i o u s l y have been i n p r o s e ,

even i f i t i s assumed t h a t Empedocles a t any t i m e h e l d po­

litical

d i s c o u r s e s , i t i s p e r h a p s n o t v e r y l i k e l y t h a t t h e y were

w r i t t e n down a t a l l .

3

The m e n t i o n o f t h e poem on t h e P e r s i a n War

and t h e Hymn t o A p o l l o 1 * seems s u s p e c t because o f t h e odd anec­

Em-

epigram.

We may s a f e l y c o n c l u d e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t a l l t h e Empedoclean f r a g m e n t s we possess b e l o n g e i t h e r t o t h e P.phys.

III.

d o t e a b o u t t h e s e c o m p o s i t i o n s h a v i n g been b u r n t (by a woman) and because o f t h e f a c t t h a t , h e r e t o o , t h e name o f Hieronymus i s

or t othe

6

Kath.

The t r a d i t i o n a l

titles

of the P.phys.

and the

Kath.

I have no c o n t r i b u t i o n t o make t o a s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m

i n v o l v e d . I t i s h a r d t o b e l i e v e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t any o f t h e s e ·

of

t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t i t l e Περί φόσεως. I c o n f o r m

n o t i c e s r e s t s upon t h e a u t h o r i t y o f A r i s t o t l e ;

It

i s t r u e t h a t Περί φύσεως i s n o t known t o have been used as

i f indeed they

have been drawn f r o m a work Περι ποιητ&ν, i t i s r a t h e r , so i t

a title

would

the

seem t o me, f r o m t h e work o f Lobon ( f o r whom see below

and e s p e c i a l l y n . 1 2 ) , o r some s i m i l a r a u t h o r . Diogenes L a e r t i u s , 8.77, and t h e Suda, passages, t o g e t h e r f o r m

s.v. Εμπεδοκλής

(both

work on m e d i c i n e t o Empedocles ( e n t i t l e d Ιατρικός λόγος i n t h e f o r m e r case,

and Ιατρικά καταλογάδηνin t h e l a t t e r ) .

I f genuine,

the

work was a p p a r e n t l y i n p r o s e , and no p r o s e f r a g m e n t s

the

name o f Empedocles have come down t o u s ; w h e t h e r

invented t i t l e to ter

under

m e r e l y an

o r an a c t u a l p s e u d e p i g r a p h i c w o r k , i t s a s c r i p t i o n

Empedocles may w e l l be based e i t h e r on t h e ' m e d i c a l ' o f some o f t h e passages o f h i s P.phys.

o f , o r means o f r e f e r e n c e t o , Empedocles' poem b e f o r e

4 t h c e n t . B.C. Moreover, f r o m t h e 4 t h c e n t , onwards Περι φύ­

σεως i s a s t a n d a r d t i t l e

'Lobon f r . 1 9 Crönert') a l s o a s c r i b e a

charac­

o r , r a t h e r , on l a t e r

to tradition.

f o r many o t h e r p r e - S o c r a t i c w o r k s ,

t h o s e o f Xenophanes, H e r a c l i t u s , Parmenides, M e l i s s u s σεως η περί τού δντος), G o r g i a s

like

(περί φύ­

(περί φύσεως η περι του μη δν-

τ ο ς ) , and o t h e r s . On t h e o t h e r hand, however, i t i s q u i t e p o s ­ sible that the t i t l e

was c o n v e n t i o n a l as e a r l y as i n t h e 5 t h

c e n t . , and i f i n d e e d i t was, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y r e m a i n s used by t h e s e p h i l o s o p h e r s t h e m s e l v e s . v e r y papyrus tifiable or

t h a t i t was

As a m a t t e r o f f a c t , e¬

r o l l must, f r o m t h e b e g i n n i n g , have been made i d e n ­

i n one way o r a n o t h e r , be i t e i t h e r by means o f a l a b e l

a title

p r o p e r , g i v i n g n o t o n l y t h e a u t h o r ' s name and h i s o r i ­

a p o c r y p h a l s t o r i e s such as t h e one a b o u t Empedocles and t h e X-

gin

πνους woman i n t h e Περί νόσων o f H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s

seems t o be no r e a s o n f o r ' p r e c l u d i n g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t i n

(Diogenes

b u t a l s o some i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e work. There

L a e r t i u s , 8.60). Lobon's c o u n t i n g i n επη i n no way p r e c l u d e s

the

5 t h c e n t , t o o i t was t h e a u t h o r h i m s e l f who d e t e r m i n e d

what

the

was t o be w r i t t e n on such a ' l a b e l ' . Empedocles may, i n my

opi­

c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e work was i n p r o s e

(see f u r t h e r on Lobon

n . 1 2 ) ; so K a r s t e n and M u l l a c h were c e r t a i n l y wrong i n c o n s i d e r ­ ing

t h e f r a g m e n t 111 DK. as drawn E M τδν Ί α τ ρ ι κ δ ν . 5

n i o n , w e l l have ' l a b e l l e d ' t h e poem as b e i n g

'about n a t u r e ' . T h i s

h y p o t h e s i s , however, l e a d s d i r e c t l y t o t h e vexed q u e s t i o n o f

10

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

INTRODUCTION

w h e t h e r t h e word φύσις was c u r r e n t i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sense as

proved t h a t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t i t l e

e a r l y as i n t h e t i m e o f Empedocles. I t may. be h e l p f u l h e r e t o

of

11

s h o u l d not possess an e l e m e n t

a u t h e n t i c i t y - and I t h e r e f o r e adhere t o i t . An a d d i t i o n a l a r ­

compare t h e use o f t h e word i n H e r o d o t u s , Empedocles' somewhat

gument may p e r h a p s be based on t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t i t l e

younger, i f r a t h e r u n p h i l o s o p h i c a l , contemporary. A c c o r d i n g t o

o t h e r poem, Καθαρμοί, w h i c h has a more p e r s o n a l r i n g a b o u t i t

P o w e l l ' s Lexicon,

t h a n Περί φύσεως. I f Empedocles p r o v i d e d t h e f o r m e r poem w i t h a

H e r o d o t u s uses i t 17 t i m e s o f t h e nature

of

phenomena l i k e a c o u n t r y , a r i v e r , t h e sea, a l l k i n d s o f a n i m a l s

title,

and o f c o u r s e man. I f φύσις was i n common u s e " t o d e n o t e t h e 'na­

l a t t e r . Unfortunately, too l i t t l e

t u r e ' o r 'being'

to

(cf.

( A t t i c : ούσία) o f i n d i v i d u a l n a t u r a l phenomena

a l s o , e.g., Odyssey,

Parmenides,

10.303, H e r a c l i t u s , f r s . 1 , 1 0 6 , 1 1 2 DK.,

f r s . 1 0 , 1 6 DK.), i t w o u l d seem t o be b u t a s t e p t o

an e x t e n d e d , o r g e n e r a l i z e d , a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e word t o t h e s e

of the

i t becomes more p l a u s i b l e t h a t he d i d t h e same w i t h t h e remains o f t h e P u r i f i c a t i o n s

p e r m i t us t o j u d g e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f i t s t r a d i t i o n a l

title

and t h e r e w i t h t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f i t s b e i n g a u t h e n t i c . Of

c o u r s e , i n t h e case o f t h i s t i t l e tion.

t o o we c a n o n l y a c c e p t

I n any c a s e , i f we use t h e t r a d i t i o n a l t i t l e

tradi­

o f t h e phy­

phenomena as a w h o l e , t h e word t h u s a c q u i r i n g t h e meaning o f 'na

s i c a l poem, we s h o u l d , I t h i n k , a l t e r i t s e x c l u s i v e l y A t t i c f o r m

t u r e as a w h o l e ' ,

and w r i t e Περί φύσιος, t h e f o r m o f t h e I o n i c d i a l e c t i n w h i c h

not

' a l l there i s ' .

To be s u r e , t h i s meaning i s

f o u n d i n H e r o d o t u s , who, however, uses t h e word r a t h e r ab­

stractly

the

i n t h e p h r a s e κώς φύσιν εχει, 'how c a n i t be?', i n 2.

45. As t o Empedocles h i m s e l f , he uses t h e word constitution

o f t h e human

(110.5 DK.); and i t a l s o o c c u r s i n t h e famous s t a - •

tement-'φύσις ούδενός έστιν απάντων θνητών (8.1 DK.), w h i c h I t a ­ ke t o mean 7

' t h e r e i s no ( i . e .

substantial) being o f a l l t h e

poem i s w r i t t e n . 8 I s h a l l a l s o r e f r a i n f r o m t r y i n g t o c o n t r i b u t e a n y t h i n g new t o

the

q u e s t i o n o f t h e y e a r s o f Empedocles' b i r t h and d e a t h ; I am

c o n t e n t w i t h a c h r o n o l o g y o f 492-432 B.C., on w h i c h d a t e s t h e r e e x i s t s v i r t u a l l y communis o p i n i o .

(For t h e r e l e v a n t d e t a i l s t h e

r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d t o any s t a n d a r d handbook.) I n any c a s e , we

l i v i n g beings t h a t are m o r t a l ' . I f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s cor­

can h a r d l y be f a r a s t r a y i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e poems must have

r e c t , we c a n e a s i l y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t Empedocles may have been c a ­

been w r i t t e n a r o u n d t h e m i d d l e o f t h e c e n t u r y - w i t h a s l i g h t l y

p a b l e o f e x t e n d i n g t h e meaning o f t h e word t o 'all t h e r e (For

is.'

such.a d e v e l o p m e n t a l s o A r i s t o t l e , P h y s i c s , 193a9-30, and

Metaphysics,

1014b26-35, may be compared.) A s i m i l a r

extension

g r e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y perhaps f o r t h e f i f t i e s

than the f o r t i e s .

Of c o u r s e , t h e r e i s no means o f e s t a b l i s h i n g w h i c h poem came first.

A modern e d i t o r , however, w i l l

not hesitate t o print the

may be o b s e r v e d i n h i s use o f αΙών; t h e word commonly d e n o t e s

P.phys.

an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l i f e t i m e

s u r v i v e s : some 450 as a g a i n s t some 20 l i n e s , o r p a r t l i n e s ,

( c f . 110.3 DK. and 129..6 DK.), b u t i n

b e f o r e t h e Kath. , s i n c e so much more o f t h e f o r m e r poem

16.2 DK. Empedocles seems t o use i t as 'all t h e t i m e i n w h i c h

p e c t i v e l y i n t h e arrangement t h a t i s proposed i n t h e p r e s e n t

there i s l i f e '

study.

g e n e r a l l y . A p o i n t i n case may be a l s o t h e e x t e n ­

res­

ded use o f κόσμος as ' t h e whole w o r l d , t h e w o r l d - o r d e r , t h e u n i ­ v e r s e ' , w h i c h meaning i s a t t e s t e d f o r Empedocles i n 134.5 DK. To be s u r e , t h e e a r l i e s t o c c u r r e n c e s o f φύσις i n t h e r e q u i r e d

IV.

The number

of books

of the two poems

The a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e f r a g m e n t s w h i c h a r e a s c r i b e d t o Empe­

sense w o u l d appear t o be i n E u r i p i d e s , Troades , 8 8 5 f . , and F r .

d o c l e s must t a k e as i t s p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e Diogenes

91 ON.; so i f we w i s h t o c r e d i t Empedocles w i t h t h i s use o f t h e

8.77, τά μόν οδν Περί φύσεως αύτψ και οΐ Καθαρμοί είς επη τ ε ί -

w o r d , we must be p r e p a r e d t o d a t e t h i s usage a b o u t 3 5 y e a r s e a r ­

νουσι πεντακισχίλια, δ δΐ Ιατρικός λόγος ε'ις επη εξακόσια, περί

lier.

δΐ τών τραγωδιών προειρήκαμεν

I am w e l l aware t h a t t h i s t i m e - g a p i s g e n e r a l l y v i e w e d as

a f a t a l o b j e c t i o n t o such an a s s u m p t i o n . S t i l l ,

i t c a n n e v e r be

(i.e.

Laertius,

i n 8.57-58), and t h e Suda,

s.v. Εμπεδοκλής, καΐ έγραψε δι' έπών περί, φύσεως τών όντων β ι -

Β

gs auoß SAcq Kern aq gBqg puB uaggBUi aqg go uaqeg aABq

ABUI

ΛΘΤΛ

pBOuq uaqgBU

sagoopaduig gBqg Moqs s g o a f q n s aqg ' (guauiaßuBU

­aoggguoBS Αροοχς go uoggsanb aqg pus 'paddgqsuo« aq og gqßno

­XV

Aui ug ggB ug saugg SZ) aßsssBd aqg go sugeuiau aggggg qßnoqg

-ιέ

spoß aqg A B M aqg 'uogggpuoo gBqg go paAgudap aua« uaui Aq« uoseau aqg ' , aßy uapgos, aqg ug pugyuBui go Auogsgq Aguea aqg '»;|ΛθΑθ3£ aqg 'ugßguo ugaqg se sgoaCqns qons qggM ggeap osga Agguauadda gg gnq

'(·χα ζ\.' \.Z

U

T

noioidjib i c i i i n

33Am;j »Xn yog aq og pgBs a j p

oqM) spoß aqg go suaMod aqg pua sngegs augAgp aqg go uoggdguosap

Ζ

gsugg aqg og aouauagau aqg 'puooas ·AgaAggoadsaz si[ooq ε P " ^ gou j a q g B j gnq ' \, puB ^

U3A3

sdsquad το 'z

ε

SUBBUI

sgqg

uogsgAgp Agaqgg gsoui aqg uo .'sifooq aAgg pasgadmoo uaqgaßog 'ygcy puB ­sHyd­d aqg geqg agou ,sngguaBq sauaßoga sg aaaqg

'gsjgj

•sazgazg go aAggoadsauug qooq pugqg aqg go uoggduinssB aqg og pag aABq gqßgui qogqw aouapgAa uaqgung sg auaqg gnq 'auogn s a z g a z i Aq Riq.tDT.idxs

pauogguaui sg qooq pugqg aqg 'Agpaggguipv "sazgazg,

uo puadap R^aa­isniDxa

'gg aABq pgnow sgaga S B 'gou saop ­sR­yd­d

aqg go x o o q pugqg aqg go uoggduinssB aqg gBqg anßuB og auaq aogg gBAOuiau s g q AgggsnC og pagduiaggs aq qogq« Aq sguauinßuB s, sgaga

Aq papxAOjd uoggEuiuogug aqg pus ­χα 8 Z I uioug uagug og u a q g u n j

puB) - ^ a 1?Z\, go

Β Aquo gou paujBguoo aABq gsnui aßsssed aqg 'uoqgns ßuggonb sgg

­gns gg gaq 'ygry aqg og (sguauißBug uaqgo

ρθΜοχχΒ S T gg g i ­ggasgg Aq qgßuag agqBuapgsuoo AuaA go uaaq aABq gsnui aßBSsed Β qons geqg p a z g g e a j sg gg gg Agaygg auoui aqg sauioo ­aq

uogsngouoo sgqj, ­,umuoap eungsu ap, Β U O J

pgnoo uioou syooq o«g asaqg ug gBqg Agaqggun puB '­χα 9Z­LI

pauads uaaq aABq

KUBA

sg gg '(·>ια 0 0 1

-sgp

qggw AgageuoqBga tEl-OEl-

'

3

AUBUI

gaap ggaqs ι «ogag · (OOt ' 8 6 8 1 'V9S) „ f M a

' Τ ] aguauißBuj uaguqBMua uap ßunupuouv aßggnBgpuBg agp

pun >(gsAqd uap saqong uagggup sauga auiqBuuv aßguaqsgq agp gqnuaq sazgazg, uagßggqonuaq sap zggoN uaßgzuga uasagp gnv„ :ggs gB qooq

·ί>·Β ssaugg«) uogggsodxa sgq sazguagoeuaqo qogqM

ssausnogdoo aqg puB syooq o«g gsugg aqg ug sagoopaduia Aq passno

pugqg Β aABq gou pgp ­sRifd­d ­qguoA S B suoggBogpug

uaaq aABq og u«ouy sogdog go uaquinu geauß aqg go «agA ug

•χα 96 saofaq

aqg gBqg pauinssB uaAa gnq 'ssag

.sazgazg pagoaCau Aguo gou aq 'uaAoauow

·>ια Z9 paoegd aq gaqg gosg aqg U I O U J suBaddB.SB

geauß qggiA saoggou asaqg pagBaug sgaga 'UMOuq gga« sg s v Άζηκηο

Β ggasgg ug sg goeg sgqg ' ­ s R y d ­ d aqg ug spoß aqg gnoqs aßas

'saoggou .sngoggduigs og pagggrauioo g a a j uaAa gou pgp 3H 'gsnggsgp

'uog i q o o q pugqg Β uaaq aABq gsnui auaqg gaqg uoggaogpug ßuougs Β sen paapug auaqg gg

­sad

' « O N0 I ­ v ? n y

uanau gqßno sgaga pus gqnop puoAaq sg

'auogauaqg

'­χα izi

-'(ACQ S^

ABUI

aqg ug gg paoegd aABq og

­sRyd­d

-αφ Λ(τ;χ A l j d i

aqg og paußgsse aq og

'auogauaqg 'guauißaug aqg, ­uiaod auiBS

uoggBogpug

aqg qggm ·Ηα tZl sagonb oqw sazgazg

Aq pagsaggB sg qooq pugqg Β paugeguoo osgB

-^ώτΐ») spoß aqg go gBqg og (Amp d3Ti

­Ud)3) sßugaq gBguoui go guauigsaug aqg uioug uogggsuaug aqg suiuog Aguaago guauißBug qogq« '­χα i£i Aq papgAoud sg aouagsgxa sgg go uoggauiug guoo ­aßessed Β qons go , guauiaounouuB, ue og gunoui og uaqeg aq Agagas

-B

•Λζ2·κΐοcf> ; d s n Amua

t

ig

3r|>DdX3

:,suiaui nu auiaui np gnus un, puB , uognagagogouioq, qßnouqg gsog

S B « augg Β gpqg uoggduinssB agqgsnpgd aqg Aq sgdguosnuBiu aqg ug punog sg gg S B gxag aqg u o j pagunoooB syooq go uaquinu auiBs aqg puq vpns (LZZ

' 3Uoydasu3d

ίς9ε

­go

aq .'sngguaeq sauaßoga S B

aqg go gxag g B ugßguo aqg gaqg

'[ς961]

8 1 3ufisouiauN)

pagsaßßns Ag

­ßugougAuoo AuaA aq puB pagoadsns aq og sg gpqg vpns

P

UB

zgunz ' aAgsngouooug

­ s f i H d ­ d aqg go qooq pugqg aqg

paugeuiau gduiagga s, sgaga aougs

j o aouBuaAOud aqg og pupbau qggM uoggaogpug

,sazgazg, ug

-ggupd u i -sfiyd'd

aqg og nooq pugqg ou sg auaqg gaqg gugod

sgq agegguegsqns og p a q g a j Agauggua

(ε01--96ε '8681-

'MagA j o sgugod gaogqdEußoaBgBd pus oggsggAgs aqg aqg j o asgMuaqgo uo sgguaui aqg uaAageqM gaqM

S B «

DTY3XDTK»IA3M

DiAjiu gaqg paungoaCuoo

­

UIOUJ

* V8S)

UJEUI

sgaga

aungoafuoo

agou« sngguaeq sauaßoga

, sgdguosnueui aqg UBqg uaqgBU D n y j X o i d i sgaga 'uouua geqguos Β S B U O J

pagunoooB

aq og auogauaqg peq sngguaeq sauaßoga ug uaAgß uaqumu aqg aougs •Agaqggun AgsnogAqo sg qogq« ' ­ y q v y aqg u o j pagdaooB aua« sqooq aauqg j o uaquinu Β ssagun ' sifooq a A g j pasguduioo uaqgaßog suiaod qgoq gaqg uoggeuiuojug

, sngguaeq sauaßoga qgxtt agqggaduiooug Ag

­ugeguao gsouiga sg ­s'fiyd­d

aqg u o j S5[ooq o«g j o uoggduinssB aqg, aqg j o 5[Ooq pugqg aqg

•aAgssauduig gnq ßugqgAua sg '­sfiyd­d

og a o u a u a j a u asgoaud Β saq auogB oqM 'sazgazg, j o Agguoqgna aqg 'pugqg

·sifooq o«g ug S B M

­sfiyd­d

aqg gaqg sagags

314 'puooas ­guasqe paapug S B M

(aAoqa pagonb)

'gsugj

J O aouagsgxa aqg u o j aouapgAa guapuadapug

aqg j o nooq puooas Β

vpns

­yqvy

gB auaM sguaumßue aauqg ­auo ug ­yqvy ug S B M

­sfiyd­d

aq S B qons

­ gBSodsgp sgq

aqg pus Aguo s i p o q

OMg

aqg gaqg aAOud og axougs aq 'uiaod aqg paAgaouoo ­yqvy

aqg u o j ·>ια bZi papaau Agagauadsap aq 'aas

gggM 3 M S B 'aougs ·ορ og asoqo sgaga gBqM gou S B M sgqg gaqg 'uäxa ­Moq 'UMOug ggaM sg g i ­yqvy

aqg j o qooq puooas Β J O aouagsgxa

aqg og apngouoo oggBuiqggua agduigs Aq os puB

­sfiyd­d

aqg j o sqooq

aauqg og s a o u a u a j a u aqg pua syooq a A g j j o uogguaui ,sngguaeq sau ­aßoga gdaooB og S B M Aggggqgssod snogAqo auo ­'uigq og uado spaou OMg auaM auaqg ' ­yqvyi aqg j o qooq puooas Β U O J aouapgAa

guapuad

­apug j o Mouq gaA gou pgp sgaga aougs 'os ­uiaod geqg j o ßuguugß ­aq aqg sg ­χα Ζ II 4 B 1 4 PT°4 auB aM aougs

' ­yqvy

aqg j o auo g s u g j

aqg sg a o u a u a j a u asgoaud goß aABq Θ Μ qogqM og i[Ooq q g u n o j aqj,

aqg go gxag

aqq 'gT qoog zgunz 'uaqgau S B M g i ­uapuo ug sg sngguaeq sau ­aßoga go gxag aqg gaqg panßup pagdaooB

•guauinßup agqpugsuoui ­ap go gaAag aqg og suoggasnooB sgq asgpu og agqpun S B M aq pus "Χα ϊΖΙ

gsnugsgui sgq AgggsnC og gduiagga sgq ug paaoons gou pgp aq uagno 5T

•yooq puooas aqg ogug pauiuiauo uaaq aABq pgnoqs gg geqg uaqg ' ­ s f i y d ­ d aqg j o qooq pugqg aqg asao geqg ug ­a­g 'yooq auggua U B pagdnooo aABq og Agaygg auoui qonui sg aßessed aqg gaqg a u o j a u a q g apngouoo 1

(­oga 'aupsjuBM 'sgua 'uogßggau 'aßanßuaq S B

aqg 'aungqnoguße 'uoggazguBßuo qegoos sogdog qons ßugpngoug ' i S H - S Z 6 ' S

'snggauonq j o gaqg a^gg ,uogg

­BsgggAgo j o Auogsgq, a paugeguoo aAaq sdaquad

gi)

ABUI

·sgoaCqns

pagagau j o qeap pooß a qggM uaqgaßog gg gaaug og qgßuag gaauß

NOiionaoxiNi

S0ISAH3

1X33

,S3T00aadW3 30 W30X3 3 H I

16

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS INTRODUCTION

g r a t e f u l t h a t t h e a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f t h i s b a s i c f a c t no l o n g e r d e ­ pends on t h e s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m o f what Diogenes L a e r t i u s ' s o u r c e f o r t h e f i v e books was, and i n what r e s p e c t t h i s s o u r c e d e s e r v e s o u r c o n f i d e n c e . Whoever t h e i n f o r m a n t w a s 1 2 , we now know h i m t o be r i g h t , s i n c e we possess a p r e c i s e r e f e r e n c e t o each o f t h e f i v e books. V. The a s c r i b i n g In

of fragments

to the proem

of the

P.phys.

t h e f o l l o w i n g pages I s h a l l r e v i e w t h e i n d i c a t i o n s I have

seen f o r t h e a s c r i b i n g o f t h e s e 31 f r a g m e n t s t h e P.phys.

t o t h e proem o f

T h i s i s t h e more n e c e s s a r y because i n t h e e d i t i o n o f

Empedocles t h a t has u n i v e r s a l l y been used ever s i n c e i t s f i r s t appearance i n 1 9 0 1 , t h a t o f Η. D i e l s i n h i s i n v a l u a b l e Philosophorum

Fragmente

these fragments

(reproduced

Poetarum

i n h i s VS. and i n DK.), a l l

- w i t h t h e s o l e e x c e p t i o n o f f r . 2 (30 DK.) -

have been a s s i g n e d

t o t h e Kath.

I n Diels's edition the physical

poem i s n o t g i v e n a proem a t a l l . Fr.1

was s t i l l

4 1 1 ) : " B e i einem p l a t o n i s c h e n T h e o l o g e n und Daemonologen

wie P l u t a r c h i s t d i e B e z e i c h n u n g des Sühngedichts a l s φιλοσοφία volkommen selbstverständlich. Denn d i e P h y s i k des Empedokles, so g u t e r s i e kennt," lässt i h n w i e a l l e N a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t l i c h k a l t ; dagegen erfüllen d i e Probleme d e r T h e o l o g i e , c h a t o l o g i e , auch d e r Askese s e i n e n

i s the beginning o f

t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d by S t u r z , K a r s t e n ,

schon ganz n e u p l a t o n i s c h g e -

u n i v e r s a l l y accepted

as t h e f i n a l one on t h i s q u e s t i o n seems t o

be e x c e p t i o n a b l e on many s c o r e s .

I nthe f i r s t

p l a c e , as f a r as

P l u t a r c h i s c o n c e r n e d , i t i s a m a t t e r o f h i s t o r i c f a c t t h a t neop l a t o n i s m was s t i l l

t o come i n P l u t a r c h ' s age and t h a t t h e p l a -

t o n i s m P l u t a r c h adhered t o s t i l l

possessed c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s -

t i c s o f s c e p t i c i s m i n t r o d u c e d i n t o i t by A r c e s i l a u s ; i t i s c e r t a i n l y p o s s i b l e , as i s g e n e r a l l y done, t o l o o k upon P l u t a r c h as one

o f t h o s e who r e p r e s e n t f o r us t h e l o n g p e r i o d o f e m b r y o n i c f o r neoplatonism

preceding P l o t i n u s , but a d e s c r i p t i o n o f

P l u t a r c h a s , e s s e n t i a l l y , a ' t h e o l o g i a n and d e m o n o l o g i s t ' Bergk

inner-

d e r Es-

s t i m m t e n G e i s t . " Now, t h i s judgement w h i c h seems t o have been

growth

(115.1-8 DK.). T h a t t h i s f r a g m e n t

t h e P.phys.

1898,

17

c i d e d l y t o o l i m i t e d . A much more b a l a n c e d

i s de-

appreciation of Plu-

and M u l l a c h on a c c o u n t o f P l u t a r c h ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n a t 607c, δ 6'

t a r c h emerges f r o m D.A. R u s s e l l ' s Plutarch

Εμπεδοκλής έν άρχρ της φιλοσοφίας προαναφωνήσας,

p r i e s t and a man o f l e a r n i n g , t h e t h e o l o g y o f p r o p h e c y was c e n -

(in

t h e Loeb t r a n s l a t i o n )

ich

means

'Empedocles, however, when b e g i n n i n g

the presentation o f h i s philosophy it

w h

says by way o f p r e l u d e . ' And

i s i n d e e d v e r y l i k e l y t h a t P l u t a r c h w i t h ή φιλοσοφία meant

t h e P.phys. confirmed t h e Kath.,

r a t h e r t h a n t h e Kath.

This i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s f u r t h e r

by t h e f a c t t h a t we possess t h e 'προαναφώνησις' o f 112 DK. 1 3 , so t h a t by προαναφωνήσας t h e proem o f t h e

o t h e r poem must be t h e one r e f e r r e d t o , προαναφωνώ meaning 'say by way o f p r e f a c e ' , P l u t a r c h had f o u n d

' u t t e r as p r e l u d e ' t h e fragment

(LSJ.). I f , t h e r f o r e ,

i n t h e p o s i t i o n i t i s occupying

t r a l tohis interests"

( 1 9 7 3 ) : "As a D e l p h i c

(p.37). ButRussell also stresses

phy, of

p h y s i c s , botany,

z o o l o g y , m a t h e m a t i c s , grammar a r e a l l p a r t s

h i s u n i f i e d l e a r n i n g " ( p . 4 3 ) . "The c e n t r e o f g r a v i t y o f P l u -

tarch's philosophy

l a y i n e t h i c s . P h y s i c a l s c i e n c e and t h e o l o g y

s u b s e r v e d m o r a l ends, as t h e y u s u a l l y do i n H e l l e n i s t i c

r i o u s l y P l u t a r c h t o o k demonology i s a r a t h e r s c e p t i c a l one: l o g y ' t o P l u t a r c h . L i t e r a r y and p h i l o s o p h i c a l t r a d i t i o n , dom o f t h e E a s t ,

proem b u t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f t h e ' d o c t r i n e ' i t s e l f to

" I t

must, I t h i n k , be wrong t o a t t r i b u t e any f i r m system o f 'demono-

i n D i e l s ' s a r r a n g e m e n t , he w o u l d never have r e f e r r e d t o i t w i t h

we s h a l l see) D i e l s i n t e n d e d i t t o be u n d e r s t o o d .

thought.

But he d i d n o t n e g l e c t them" ( p . 6 9 ) . R u s s e l l ' s v i e w o f how s e -

προαναφωνήσας, f o r t h e f r a g m e n t

w o u l d have been i n t h a t case no

that

" P l u t a r c h ' s r a n g e was e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y w i d e . H i s t o r y , p h i l o s o -

the wis-

t h e p o p u l a r b e l i e f s o f H e l l a s , were a l l known

- as i n d e e d (as

to

h i m . They p r o v i d e d m a t e r i a l f o r c o n j e c t u r e and a d a p t a t i o n .

I nh i s attempt

If

he e v e r came t o a d e f i n i t e a p p r o v a l o r r e j e c t i o n , i t was on

r e a s o n away P l u t a r c h ' s t e s t i m o n y , D i e l s , o f c o u r s e ,

has e x ­

p l o i t e d t h e a m b i g u i t y o f t h e t e r m φιλοσοφία. Thus he says (SBA.

the ground o f moral

'probabilities'"

u n l i k e l y t h a t P l u t a r c h was n o t r e a l l y kalt')

i n t h e P.phys.;

(p.78). Further, i t i s very interested

('innerlich

even D i e l s had t o a s c r i b e a b o u t 50 c i t a -

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

18

t i o n s made by P l u t a r c h t o t h e P.phys. to

t h e Kath.

as a g a i n s t some .13 o n l y

( P l u t a r c h w r o t e a book, now l o s t , a b o u t Empedocles,

l i s t e d as 43 i n t h e s o - c a l l e d L a m p r i a s c a t a l o g u e

19

INTRODUCTION

( T r e u ) , Εις

b e l o w . ) I n my o p i n i o n , t h e word n o t o n l y r e f e r s t o t h e proem b u t t o t h e v e r y f i r s t words o f i t , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h i s

case

where i t i s s u p p o r t e d w i t h έν άρχ^. The combined e l e m e n t s προ-

Έμπεδοκλέα βιβλία ι'.11* I n v i e w o f h i s g r e a t number o f q u o t a ­

ανα-

t i o n s f r o m t h e P.phys.15

by a r e v i e w o f προανα- compounds i n LSJ. ( q . v . ) , o f w h i c h I

volumes o f h i s w o r k

i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t P l u t a r c h i n t h e 10

s h o u l d n o t have d e a l t e l a b o r a t e l y w i t h t h e

p h y s i c a l poem as w e l l . ) In

D i e l s ' s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f b o t h poems i s e q u a l l y When D i e l s i m p l i e s t h a t t h e Kath. Theologie, fragments

i s about

s i n c e t h i s c o u l d n o t be i n f e r r e d f r o m

t h a t can be a s c r i b e d t o t h e Kath.

t h e P.phys.

unacceptable.

' d i e Probleme d e r

d e r E s c h a t o l o g i e , auch d e r Askese', he i s g u i l t y o f

112 DK. 1 6

viz.

with

those

any c e r t a i n t y ,

(+ 113 and 114 DK.). A l s o D i e l s ' s d e s c r i p t i o n o f

as ' N a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t '

even i n D i e l s ' s

interpretation;

i s m i s l e a d i n g f o r modern e a r s ;

( m i n i m a l ) e d i t i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l poem i t i s

t h i s i s confirmed

q u o t e a few i n s t a n c e s : προαναβάλλομαι ('say o r s i n g by way o f p r e l u d e ' ) , προαναζωγραφέω ( ' d e l i n e a t e f i r s t '

t h e second p l a c e , as f a r as Empedocles h i m s e l f i s c o n c e r n e d ,

petitio principii,

h a r d l y admit o f another

- a house b e f o r e

a c t u a l l y b u i l d i n g i t ) , προανακεφαλαίωσις ( ' a n t i c i p a t o r y summary'), προανακηρΰσσω ('announce b e f o r e h a n d ' ) , μαι ( i n Music esu

carnium,

προανακρούο-

' p l a y as a p r e l u d e ' ; m e t a p h o r i c a l l y , P l u t a r c h , De 996b, οϋ χείρον δ' 'ίσως και προανακροΰσασθαι και

προαναφωνήσαι τά τού Ε μ π ε δ ο κ λ έ ο υ ς 1 9 ) , and προαναφθέγγομαι ('say by way o f p r e f a c e ' ) . I t i s o f c o u r s e p o s s i b l e t o assume t h a t P l u t a r c h used έν άρχ^ προαναφωνήσας n o t w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e poem's v e r y f i r s t words b u t i n t h e l o o s e sense of'(somewhere) i n the proem';20

i n t h a t c a s e , i t w o u l d seem, t h e p o s i t i o n o c c u ­

c l e a r t h a t i t c o n t a i n s a very wide range o f s u b j e c t s which i s de­

p i e d by 115 DK. a f t e r 112 DK. i n D i e l s ' s e d i t i o n m i g h t

f i n i t e l y n o t covered

i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h P l u t a r c h ' s p h r a s e . I t s h o u l d be r e a l i z e d , how­

by t h e modern c o n c e p t o f ' N a t u r w i s s e n s c h a f t ' .

I c a n n o t t e l l w h e t h e r o r n o t φιλοσοφία w o u l d be a s u i t a b l e of

term

r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Kath. , s i n c e no more t h a n 20 l i n e s c a n w i t h any

ever* that t h i s

l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g w o u l d be c o m p l e t e l y

n o t be ineffi­

c i e n t as a d e f e n c e o f D i e l s ' s a r r a n g e m e n t o f t h e f r a g m e n t , f o r ,

c e r t a i n t y be a s c r i b e d t o t h a t poem - t o o few ( a b o u t 1 % o f t h e

as we s h a l l see, t h e a s c r i p t i o n o f 115 DK. t o t h e Kath.

o r i g i n a l ) t o g e t any i d e a o f t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t e n t o f t h e w h o l e

on an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e f r a g m e n t

of

t h e poem's t w o books; b u t t h e r e c a n be no d o u b t t h a t t h e t e r m

b e g i n n i n g o f what was supposed by D i e l s t o be t h e ' r e v e l a t i o n '

is

p e r f e c t l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e P.phys.17

There c a n be no ques­

('Offenbarung') p r o p e r

t i o n t h a t t a k i n g P l u t a r c h ' s φιλοσοφία as a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e

his

P.phys.

em o f t h e Kath.

w o u l d amount, as D i e l s seems t o i m p l y , t o i m p o s i n g an

o f t h e Kath.,

which places coming after

i s based

i t i n t h e very t h e proem; i n

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 115 DK. c o u l d n o t p o s s i b l y b e l o n g

t o the pro­

So t h e o n l y t h i n g D i e l s c o u l d do a b o u t P l u t a r c h ' s

o v e r l y n a r r o w meaning on P l u t a r c h ' s use o f t h e t e r m . On t h e c o n ­

i n d i c a t i o n was s i m p l y t o i g n o r e προαναφωνήσας. 2 1 As has been

trary,

g o t t e n a l l t o o o f t e n , t h e idea o f removing t h e fragment

Kath.

i t i s o n l y p l a u s i b l e t o assume t h a t t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e was more r e s t r i c t e d t h a n t h a t o f t h e P.phys.

- i n any c a s e ,

t h e p h y s i c a l poem was t h e more e x t e n d e d one i n s i z e and s t i l l p e r m i t s us t o see t h a t i t d e a l t w i t h a v e r y b r o a d

r a n g e o f sub­

j e c t s .1 8

of

o r i g i n a t e d w i t h S t e i n (see p.41 b e l o w ) , w h o s e e d i t i o n

Empedocles' f r a g m e n t s

c a n n o t be r a n k e d

w e l l .aware t h a t προαναφωνήσας t h e p o s i t i o n i n t h e Kath.

i s completely

he a d o p t e d

incompatible w i t h

( f r o m S t e i n ) f o r 115 DK.;

t h e word o u t o f a c c o u n t .

(See f u r t h e r p.43

(1852)

among t h e most e x c e l ­

l e n t e d i t i o n s o f a Greek t e x t . The p e r v e r s i t y o f method was imme­ d i a t e l y n o t i c e d by Th. Bergk i n h i s r e v i e w

As t o t h e words έν &ρχ^ προαναφωνήσας, D i e l s must have been

he t h e r e f o r e l e f t

Kath.

for­

to the

philologische

Schriften

( 1 8 5 3 ) , now K l e i n e

I I 59-66, f r o m w h i c h I q u o t e :

willkürlichen Hypothese zu L i e b e s c h e u t

"Jener

s i c h Hr. S t . n i c h t den

Worten d e r bewährtesten Zeugen o f f e n b a r e Gewalt a n z u t h u n ; wenn P l u t a r c h de E x i l .

607 s a g t : Εμπεδοκλής έν . I have l i t t l e

am l i k e ' , o r ' l o o k l i k e '

am l i k e ' , o r ' l o o k indeed t h a t

Ί

i s t h e meaning h e r e ; i t i s s t a n d a r d

meaning and makes good sense i n t h e c o n t e x t and must t h e r e f o r e

( a ) : T h i s p o i n t was s t r e s s e d p a r t i c u l a r l y by

(SBA.

23

p.72, n.2,

' l i k e a g o d ' , b u t 'as b e i n g a g o d " 1 ) , a i d by Z u n t z , p.190:

he had wanted t o say t h a t he was'honoured by a l l like

a god,'

be a d o p t e d .

M o r e o v e r , t h e r e a r e some p a r a l l e l s f r o m

similar

c o n t e x t s i n E p i c , where a s t r a n g e r who i s asked f o r h e l p i s com­ pared

( r i g h t l y or wrongly)

e s p e c i a l l y t h e Homeric

t o a god by t h e s u p p l i a n t ( s ) . C f .

Hymn to Demeter,

9 8 f f . and

Richardson's

commentary ad l o c , p p . 1 7 9 f f . and 3 3 9 f f . (= A p p . I l l ) , where he p r e s e n t s a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f e p i c scenes o f m e e t i n g .

From

many Homeric passages c o u l d have s e r v e d as m o d e l s 2 9 ; i n f a c t , no

Richardson's

more was needed b u t f o r t h a t u n e m p h a t i c ύμΧν t o g i v e way t o ώσ-

sey

περ."

a goddess, Άρτέμιδί σε έγώ γε, Διός xoüpij μεγάλοιο, | είδός τε

Though u n d e r s t a n d a b l e

from Zuntz's

p o i n t o f view, I

still

commentary I adduce t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t a n c e s :

Odys­

, 6 . 1 4 9 f f . , where Odysseus a d d r e s s e s N a u s i c a a as i f she were

f i n d t h i s r e m a r k e x t r e m e l y o d d , s i n c e i t i s f o r a l l t o see t h a t

μέγεθός τε φυήν τ' αγχιστα έίσκω' κτλ.; Odyssey,

ώσπερ was not l e f t o u t ; on t h e c o n t r a r y , i t i s i n t h e t e x t , and

Homeric

f o l l o w e d w i t h a w h o l e c l a u s e a t t h a t . B u t even i f t h e ώσπερ

θνητοΧσιν έοικας, | ού δέμας ουδέ φυήν, άλλ' άθανάτοισι θεοΧ-

c l a u s e were n o t t h e r e , i t w o u l d

be m i s t a k e n

r e a c h i n g c o n c l u s i o n s f r o m t h e absence

t o draw any f a r -

o f a ώς w i t h t h e p r e d i -

σιν,

Hymn to Apollo,

1 3 . 2 3 0 f f . ; and

4 6 4 f f . , ξεΧν', έπε! ob μέν γάρ τι κατα-

I κτλ. C f . a l s o Odyssey,

7 . 2 0 8 f f . , ού γ&ρ έγώ γε | άθανά-

τοισιν εοικα, το! ούρανδν εύρύν έ'χουσιν,

| ού δέμας ούδέ φυήν,

sgqg ug aßpagMOuq uno se ßuog se .'uogggsodoud Agaqgg gsoui aqg sg sgqg geqg sageogpug Agßuougs geguageui guBAagau aqg ggB 30 uoggeg ­auduagug pasBgqun puB gngaueo

'ΤΘΛΘΛΟΗ

"uaAoud aq ogßog gogugs

ug gouueo sgqg 'Agpaggguipq "uiaod sgqg go ßuguugßaq AuaA aqg sg guauißeug aqg geqg osgB gnq ­sfiyd­d •χα ζ I I geqg Agaqgg Agauiaugxa sg gg gBqg AgagngosqB

sg ­yqvy

uaAoud aABq 1 gBqg

aqg og

aqg og sßuogaq Aguo gou 'puooas 'puB agqeuagun

guauißeug aqg go uoggdguose aqg geqg

'gsugg 'adoq 1 'sguauißeug aqg go guauiaßueuue

A U B ug auogs­uauuoo Β asunoo go sg qogq« ' · χ α S i l 30 uogggsod aqg ßuguuaouoo

suiagqoud aqg go uogssnosgp ageuoqega sgqg qggM •auopun aq og SBq 'sgaga PUB ugags Aq panugsuoo

uaaq paq qogqM 'auogauaqg ­uoo aq pgnoqs ­gguBd u i -χα

'uegno

ßug«oggog pageaug uaaq aABq gqßgui sgoaCqns go 'Agguanbasuoo

­uapun aq gou pgnoqs saugg asaqg geqg auogauaqg apngouoo 1 aqgg qoog uigq aqeui agdoad gaqg

Β

gg 'pua aqg ug„ ' ( - q g ) -Egauduagug

ΜΘ

Τ

Λ

S

. zgunz u i ^ Ε · χ α 9 - f r ' m j o uogg

sgq uapgsuooau og uigq asnBO gou pgp guauiaßpnC punos

sgqg 'AgagBunguogun

„ - poß puB

UBUI

SABS

'AggBoguoug

uaaMgaq uoggouggsgp

aAgsngo

-xa aqg uaggoßuog aABq pgnoo ',spoß go ggng ßugqgAuaAa, « E S oqM 'aße sgq go sqaaus geqg «agA aqg UBqg snoauouua auoui aq pgnoo ßugqgou uog .'ßuggguBgs (···) sugBiuau AggugAgp sgq go uogguasse 8

Ώ μ

:gguipB og SBq 'ζ$Ζ'ά

'zgunz uaAa -sagoopaduia qggM snoauau

-oduiaguoo Agpuouq suoqgnB uioug. paonppB aq U B O AggugAgp og uigBgo geuosuad Β qggM agqBUBduioo Agagouiau ßugqgou 'sagoopaduia apgsgno sgaggeued agqgssod go uoggsanb aqg og sauioo gg uaqM osgB gna

'uoggoauuoo sgqg, ·χα Z U Π4Τ Λ pagoau

·χα Z U geqg gsaßßns og ßugqgou sg auaqg

zii

pugq geqM og S B uoggcogpug A U B apgAOud A B « A U B ug Aaqg op uou .guaguoo geoggaqdoud Agqßgq, go uaqggau auB Aaqg

•sagoopaduia go gued aqg uo AggugAgp og uigego gsuosuad Β S B poogs •uigq aAgaoau Aaqg qogq« qgg« sßugunouoq snogdoo aqg Aq poß

ε ε

paAOuiau aq og ggag

SBM

UBUI

· spoß aqg uioug

ueg Moq asga ßugqgAuB UBqg Agpagugod

auoui sassaudxa 'sdequad ' - χ α

l'ZZl

pue -χα fr·ε ug sasn sagbopad

­uia qogqM SoidjTHldi^ puoM aqg, ­uaguueq agqBuadnsug U B Aq spoß aqg uioug pagBUBdas sg

'UBUI

vnb

sagoopaduia uog gBqg gqnop ou aq

'UBUI

U B O auaqg 'saAgasuiaqg ug padogaAapun aABag og qßnoua pgdngs auB agdoad uouuuoo qogqM sagggggqB ­uig og agqB AggBgguagod

sg

AUBUI

UBUI

Β

augnboB og puB ggasuigq aAoud gBqg

·χα Z Z I pue ' - χ α

s-l'0,l\.

"Χα 621 '·β·β 'uioug UBago sg gg qßnoqggv

(0 ε ·•!?•) 'Χσ 9frl ' ( Z f J J )

­sa ' ·χα Ζ '·β·θ 'uioug Aguaago suBaddB sgqg .'auo agqeuasgui Β sg

'aqgg qoog 1 geqM Aggoexa sg poß Ε paapug puB 'gBguoui e uaßuog ou

•χα frei, ug pugui s, poß Β go aungogd aqg auaduioo aM gg Aggegoad

'sagoopaduia .­spuegueß qogu puB sgagggg qgg« UIB I S B pauMouo (auaM ι gg S B ) 'poß gBjuouiuig U B S E uaui ggB fiuouiB paunouoq ßugggaABug UIB I M O U aggqM 'Mouq gsnui noA ' U I B I , ßugMoggog aqg Aq paAaAuoo aq

ABUI

'gnoqB

suBuinq go uogggpuoo aqg gBqg sg sguauißBug guegxa aqg uioug sgaß

:uoggBgsuBug

'uaqg 'saugg aqg go asuas aqx

auo uogssauduig geuauaß aqg, ­uiaqg ssuduns og uapuo ug poß Β aq gou paau auo 'Agauns

,poß Ε ire ι ,

aqg MajA 30 gugod gEogßogoaqg aqg uioug

'SBapg snogßggau go Apoq aqg geqg sg auaq A B S og aABq 1

ggv

'gduiaggB s, zgunz uog

sgsBq gengxag ou sg auaqg geqg uMoqs ßugABH Β sg ­yqvy

­

:agdoad

ßuouiB gaoxa og uaggaui geauß

UOUIUIOO

ou sg gg geqg sagegs Agssaudxa aq aougs 'poß Β aq og ggasuigq

•pagdaooB aq gouuBO uogg ­egauduagug

osge os g j ­ p o g u a d aqg go aungBuaggg aqg ug gagguued gnoqggM aq

pauapgsuoo gaod aqg geqg gsaßßns aggnb -χα ε 1.1 saop I O N -»•}.

og am og suiaas 'uoggonugsuooau s, zgunz uioug saßuauia gg S B qons •gg ßugssnosgp uioug pasnoxa Agugeguao UIB Ι

PUB

SHAJITI

'pauguipe gg 'Aueugpuo

UB

SB

Ζΐ·5ς,όι.

aogApe go spugq gge

'gaod aqg 'Aueuguoo aqg uo .'poß Β aq

uog paqse sg 'Agguauedde

og ggasuigq gqßnoqg aq. geqg gsaßßns og z i - L saugg aqg ug ßugqg ­ou sg auaqg

uogßggau qaaug go

•yqvy

Auogsgq aqg go «agA go gugod aqg uioug pauapgsuoo auo agqgssod

'ggasgg ·χα ΖII

ug uaAa ­suaqgo aqg ueqg ssag ou

aqg og paußgssB sgaga qogq« asoqg 'sagoopaduia go sguaui

­ßeug ßugAgAuns uaqgo aqg ug guoddns gge sqoeg osge gnq 'MajA

aqg 30 uoggonugsuooau s,zgunz uaqgaqM ggasuigq uog

aßpnC og SBq auo AuaAa „"uogßggau qaauD go aouassa AuaA aqg go

go sgugod geogßog pue 'geogguBuias ' gBoggeuiuiBuß aqg uioug agqgs ­uagapug Aguo gou sg 'uaA3«oq ' u o g j e j a u d u a j u g

,poß Β UIB j , a q i

gdaouoo pauadaap Β uioug Mogg og saAOud [uigBgo .sagoopaduia ­ a ­ g ] •ATogogodä NOiιοηαοχίΝΐ

5Z

soisAHd

I X3J

10

.saaooaadKa

waoxa

I O I O X U A ^

3Hi

tz

27

INTRODUCTION

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

26

r e s p e c t w i l l not be extended by new or b e t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s or

t h e s e words too a r e g e n e r a l l y taken a s r e f e r r i n g to the Sphere;e.

the t u r n i n g up of new m a t e r i a l , i t w i l l remain more l i k e l y

we f i n d Raven (KR. p.350) q u i t e m i s l e a d i n g l y speaking of " A r i s ­

the fragment

stood o r i g i n a l l y

that

i n t h i s than i n any o t h e r p o s i ­

Fr.2

(30 DK.). T h i s i s t h e o n l y fragment among those I propose

to c o n s i d e r as a p a r t of t h e proem of t h e P.phys.

which had not

been a s c r i b e d t o t h e Kath.

i s generally

by D i e l s . The'fragment

taken t o d e s c r i b e t h e d i s r u p t i o n of t h e Sphere and a s such to belong t o a d e s c r i p t i o n of a phase i n t h e 'cosmic p e r i o d s ' a s they a r e c o n c e i v e d i n the s o - c a l l e d

'cosmic c y c l e ' t h e o r y .

Cf. p a r t i c u l a r l y D i e l s ' s arrangement

of t h e fragments 27-31 DK.

( a f t e r S t e i n ' s ) and a l s o , e.g., Ross who remarks i n h i s commen­ t a r y on A r i s t o t l e , P h y s i c s ,

252a7-9 (quoted below)

theory i s i m p l i e d i n t h e words of t h i s fragment. context

that

this

Simplicius'

( s e e a p p . c r i t . of f r . 2 ) , however, r a t h e r s u g g e s t s t h a t

the fragment was found i n t h e proem, s i n c e he quotes f r . 1 . 1 - 2 (115.1-2 DK.) immediately b e f o r e . I n s i d e of t h e fragment i t s e l f , t h e words πλατέος όρκου a l s o p o i n t s n a t u r a l l y to a c l o s e r e l a t i o n w i t h f r . 1 , e s p e c i a l l y v.2 (same metaphor) and v.4; j u s t as. t h e m y t h i c a l c h a r a c t e r of t h e fragment p o i n t s t o t h e proem g e n e r a l l y . Moreover, w i t h t h e swea­ r i n g of oaths personal Love and S t r i f e

gods a r e presupposed. But what oath c a n

(to whom S i m p l i c i u s took σφιν, v.3,. to r e f e r -

see below), or t h e A l l have sworn, and by whom? The mention of ΒεΧκος i n t h e fragment, of c o u r s e , a l s o p o i n t s to t h e A l s o A r i s t o t l e ' s c o n t e x t (Metaphysics

P.phys.36

, 1-000b12-17; s e e app.

c r i t . of f r . 2 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s fragment has been d e r i v e d from a passage i n which άνάγκη o c c u r s and we know of no o t h e r such passage

t o t l e ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e cosmic Sphere

( a t Met. B4, 1000b3)

as εύδαιμονέστατον, ' h a p p i e s t ' or 'most b l e s s e d ' , " as i f A r i s ­

t i o n and e d i t o r s should a c t a c c o r d i n g l y .

( c f . below p.32f.) than t h a t of f r . 1 (115 DK.).

A r i s t o t l e ' s words a r e g e n e r a l l y understood a s r e f e r r i n g to t h e Sphere, but t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y nothing about i t i n t h e words t h e m s e l v e s 3 7 and I am not t h e r e f o r e i n c l i n e d to a c c e p t t h i s i n ­

t o t l e himself

had i n t r o d u c e d t h e s e words a s a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e

cosmic Sphere. Now, i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e , b12-17 have nothing to do w i t h b3-8 which form c l e a r l y a p a r e n t h e s i s , a f t e r which A r i s ­ t o t l e c o n t i n u e s w i t h άλλ' δθεν δή δ λόγος, κτλ. I n t h e second p l a c e , t h e r e i s no h i n t t h a t A r i s t o t l e w i t h τδν εΰδαιμονέστατον θεόν

(or w i t h τδν θεόν - c o n t r a s t e d w i t h τά θνητά - i n De

410b4f., where he has t h e same remark) r e c t l y to Empedocles' 'the d i v i n e A l l ' ;

anima,

i sreferring either d i ­

Sphere or to h i s own δ θεός

s e e note 47) i n Metaphysics

(presumably

1000a29.

The ευ­

δαιμονία c a n be understood w i t h o u t d i f f i c u l t y and most p l a u s i b l y as t h a t of t h e gods a s , e.g., they appear i n t h e myth of t h e proem; see f r . 1 . 6 , μακάρων, and f r . 3 1 . I n the t h i r d p l a c e , τό νεΧκος ούκ "χει cannot p o s s i b l y be s a i d w i t h r e f e r e n c e to t h e Sphere, because however one c o n c e i v e s of t h e Sphere, i t must comprise t h e A l l and t h e r e f o r e i n c l u d e S t r i f e as one of t h e s i x e t e r n a l c o n s t i t u e n t s of t h e A l l . T h i s l a s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

also

a p p l i e s t o t h e words μέγα ΝεΧκος ένι μελέεσσιν έθρέφθη i n t h e fragment i t s e l f : All

an i n c r e a s e i n one of t h e c o n s t i t u e n t s of t h e

i s e x a c t l y what Empedocles

e x p l i c i t l y d e n i e s ; see 11-14 DK.

and 16 DK. A d e s c r i p t i o n of the cosmogony as " S t r i f e begins t o e n t e r i n t o t h e Sphere"

(Burnet, EGPh. p.236) cannot be c o r r e c t .

The four elements and Love and S t r i f e a r e unborn and e v e r l a s t i n g ; the whole i d e a of t h e e t e r n i t y of l i f e

(17.1-13 DK.) i s based

on t h i s p r i n c i p l e . A p e r i o d i c a l d i m i n i s h i n g or d i s a p p e a r a n c e of Love and S t r i f e , a s i s implied i n t h e 'cosmic p e r i o d s ' t h e o r y of which the i d e a of a cosmogony by S t r i f e forms a p a r t , d e s t r o y s the p o s s i b i l i t y of l i f e ' s being e t e r n a l . As to how A r i s t o t l e understood t h i s fragment, we must bear i n

t e r p r e t a t i o n here any more than a t 1000b3ff., διό και συμβαίνει

mind t h a t he s t a r t e d t h e passage

αύτω

complaining about t h e i n c o m p r e h e n s i b i l i t y of those who speak μυ-

( s c . Emp.) τδν εύδαιμονέστατον θεδν ήττον φρόνιμον είναι

(Metaphysics

, 1000a5ff.) by

των άλλων' ού γαρ γνωρίζει απαντα' τό γαρ νεΧκος ούκ "χει, ή

θικως w i t h o u t g i v i n g r e a l c a u s e s : o[ μόν ούν περι Ήσίοδον και

δέ γνώσις ταΧ ομοίου τψ δμοίω

πάντες δσοι θεολόγοι μόνον έφρόντισαν τοϋ πιθανοί) τοΏ πρδς αύ-

( f o l l o w e d by 109 DK.), although

-uia ug guauiaAoui go BuyuuyBaq ­aq

aqg uog paqoog aABq gsnui auo asnuo

osge uaddsq 03 ßugqg geungau Β S B M Auoaqg

­ug ßugggaß s , auaqds aqj, ^ pun uaggazggaM,

'uaqosggH

·03

' ( S 9 6 I.) Z6

samaaH

ivqaom

aq

sgqg ug paAgOA

ε

aqg saqsg snuiapna, uiagqoud qogqM uog

,, · (Λσμ.ΙΐΛ£)

sßu­i

, AUBUI

Sugouog Aq punog

sg ggv aqg, 'ssaooud aqg 30 auiaugxa uaqgo Β aggnb

5iD3AjA

Aq pasodoud uoggngos Β spuooau aq

go uoggsanb aqg og suung gsugg a H U B

5ψ

' sunu

pugg og ßugAug auaq

30 ssaooud aqg agnqguggB sagoopaduia

( 2 ) guiaod aqg ug »joUMKri pBau aggogsguv pgp Moq

auaqM ( l ) isßugqg OMg

uo

OqM

'auogauaqg

ΛΟΧΒΚΑΒΛ^)

P

U B

uog qoog og aABq ggg« spuoM U M O .sagoop

­aduig qggM sguauiagBgs s, aggogsguv agBugsnggg ­uigs aqgg

' g g v aqg

uo A B M auo ug 'paAOuiau uaaq aABq gsnui aggugs

sngoggduigs qogqM uog suoggsanb aqg Agasgoaud auB asaqg, i.Aggs pgp auaqM

sg S B .'asuaAgun aqg gnoqB gou aue 'uaAaMoq

­ßuguEaui sgqg pgagA og -χα ζ'Li z G

:8£snuiapna

'TSMSUE

sg

­saoau, og ydo^d) p u B

30 qgsap puB qgugq qggM ßugguap Θ Ι Ε saugg aqg 'auaqg

og paq

,^­suiuag ug uoggogpEuguoo

' D ^ O I M I H B

' , sngqAzsuaqaq

"η ' 3 = .'asuaAgun aqg 30 agegs Β qons

gnoqB ßugqgAuB Mouq suaqdBußoxop aqg op I O N ­aq

pagsgs Agggoggdxa '·Χα ε ΐ - Π Ι

aqg 'uMouq ggaM sg sv uioug 'uaqgouB

og saqsgM

'sngoggd

'aggogsguv go uogBguauuuoo ,γ • (51ιχλ­ρκν

.AuBSsaoau, g s n f sg aßuaqo gaqg puB

(A3und>ju

Smuno) .aungBU A q / o s auB sßugqg geqg gg qoog AgguauBddB 'Mag A uog aßueqo go ssaooud aqg go uoggBUBgdxa gasnao AuB ßugAgß gou

gegog go ssaooud aqg go pua aqg aq

qogqM

Auoaqg aqg os 'uaqg agags sgqg ug i g s a u gB uaqg ßugaq sguauraga sq4 gge 'anoq Aq uoggBogggun

s,aggogsguv ug 'sagoopaduia ­agqgsuodsau aus aggugs uog sagoopaduia sazgoggguo aggogsguv

og auaqds aqg ßuguinssB Aq UBqg uiaod , sagoopaduia ogug gsau puB guauiaAoui go uoggBuuaggB psau og Aggggqgssod uaqgo A U B AgpuBq sg auaqg uog 'Auoaqg

-ad

­aqguaAaisi · (ofr agou

­go) sgqg uMouq aABq gsnui osgB

'sngoggduigs og squaqg

(saugg Agaugu auios ' g i a

sgg ug gsouigB

S U A I A I U S

'υίΛοοοργγ»

(

-Bumins aq 3°

'ssag

'auogauaqg sguaui

SZ-Li

paAguap

sg gg qogqM

9 j ) 3 3 9 ij asauqd sgq qggM

ABUI

C H Q 9 2 ßuggonb) aggogsguv

saßessed UBggagogsguv

5 Ή 5 2 - 9 2 < Ϊ 0 5 2

aggogsguv

SBM

' ss­isfxHi

­sfiyd

ί

'aggogsguv uodn ßugguauiuioo auaq sg

'auigg

B m e s

,agoAo oguisoo, aqg Aq«

aqg ga ggaqs B M 'ßugop os ug

'pagonb sg guauißsug sgqg qogqM ug aßassad

.sngoggduigs pUBgsuapun og Aug og M O U uapuo ug sg gg

4τη=Τ33ΤΡ

uo Agasgoaud paggapoui uaaq guad ug aABq

( · χ α οε) 2 ' u g puB

f u g qgoq geqg goBg aqg Aq uoggagauduagug

sg Aggggquqoud

uaqgunx

­uagoBUBqo gBuoggauug

P

(·χα

sgqg og guag

U B gBogqgAui ugaqg

Moqs og AgguBiugud sagoopaduia 30 saugg asaqg pagonb aABq og suiaas 'auogauaqg

'auaqds

go ßuguaAOO asogo aqg ug punoq S B M gsag os„ „pauuaosgp gou auB uns aqg go squigg

CLZ]

'fiuoßoayx

•zgA 'uagau og suiaas aggogsguv qogqM og aßassBd uaapogsau gBqg

5 9 I ßuggauduagug os Aq Aguo uoggoui snonugguoo­uou go Au u s n og agqB

„gsau gngAoC AuaA sgq ug ßugogoCau

V-Z'LZ] 6EaAOq

'gnq ' [ · χ α

3 Λ Ο

U ) iSMoggog S B pazgu

aauqg asaqg 'asodund guasaud q g g M S B ggaM S B quoM auiBS aqg

qggM uoggoauuoo asogo ug pagpngs aq gsnui aßes

­SBd qogqM O l - g e e g z

sngoggduigs ­pauopusqe aq og gqßno Auoaqg Agueago auoui aas 'adoq j ·' 8 I 'fr8i I - I Z ' Z8 11

'JJZ6L

auo uioug sgesuaAau og uagau og aureo aseuqd aqg gsqq ΌΐΛΟΰοργγ^) 9pg

ζ 1-8"92

8- I ' SH )

I f ] „uaqgouB uaggB auo uaq

guauiaAoui uaqg 'ugeßB uaMod sgq asgouaxa og sugßaq aggugs uaqM

SB

PUB

( 2 ) .'uaaMgaq gsau 30 spogu

Agduig qogqM suoggoui AuBuguoo S B aggugs pua aAoq go sassaooud

aqg saßasgAua

,agoAo oguisoo, paggBO­os aqg uaaq SBq sgqg

go auioogno gBungeu aqg, ­goaCqns U M O sgq og maqg pauuagau oqM

aqg uoa " L 1 - 2 IIOOO I ' so-isfiydoqapj

aggogsguv Aq uiaqg go apBui asn gngaouog aqg qggM spuoM , sagoopad ­uia aggouooau og Aug og paßggqo ggag sAeMga aABq suBgoqos OqM

­ßaug aqg) Agauggua

uioug aßessed aqg aougs

sgqg ueaui gou pgp sagoopaduia gsqg auns uog Mouq an ' M O N -uaaMgaq gsau go spoguad ßugAgduig snqg ' o g u a q g o aqg og guauiaAoui Auauguoo (

­oaqg sgq agaugsnggg og -χα

ι'Ι'Χα

­Bqs auaM poß aqg go squigg ggB uog„ :ugaßB sasguB auaqds aqg ug puB . ' [ - a a punou aqg aq

'SABS

'aggogsguv ' i g n e g geqg apBUi 'Agguagsgsuoo

gsoui quads

og uigq goadxa pgnOM auo qßnoqg 'aq uaAa gaqg ßugMoqs gxaN

­aduia og pauung aq

-χ 5 m Λογϋ,ρ Ά 3 ο » 6

gggMS aqg auaqM,, ' pagßuguiuioo uaaq aABq sßugqg ggB uaqM auaqds aqg og ßuguuagau S B AoBiuaudns s,aAoq ßugunp guauiaAoui go aouasqB

5»jßodäTbo H3 χυκ

5(43

­^χοχην

αοι

SsuAnoiou dig!

SOISAHd

53ΐΛοΑ?γ

'sagoop

»rlndm*! vxvrigi\q

%x vx

[ 9 6 Z . ' fiuoßoayx ' p o g s a H ­go] qv^ogtsi

ι»κ 5od»gKjA

5igXd» 5 B I

ΝΟίιοηαοχίΝΐ

62

1X38

Url vx

VK sriyonol 5ηο3η.

,S33D0a3XM3

νχΐχκ® ΛΏ3β.

'TDAJAOASX

.ΛΒβΙ^σιλιγφ

< 9

AUJTIU

'Snog

30 W30XX 3 H I

82

INTRODUCTION

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES1 PERI PHYSIOS

30

p e d o c l e s and t h e cosmogony c o u l d e a s i l y c o r r e c t l y ) be so i n t e r p r e t e d . n e c e s s i t a t e d y e t another

(Cf. Cherniss,

170-177, and e s ­

c o n j e c t u r e , v i z . t h e assumption o f a

cosmogony by S t r i f e . A l l t h i s can be c l e a r l y seen a l r e a d y w i t h Eudemus. As f a r as A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f i s c o n c e r n e d , I do n o t t h i n k

that

he h i m s e l f t h o u g h t t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e he imposed on t h e p h r a s e γ δε τ&δ' άλλάσσοντα i n P h y s i c s , 251a4-5, was a l s o t h a t o f Empe­ d o c l e s ; c f . h i s c a r e f u l εοικεν Εμπεδοκλής άν ε'ιπεΧν, 252a7. Moreover, h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f non-continuous motion a b s t r a c t a c h a r a c t e r t o make i t seem p r o b a b l e have e n v i s a g e d

i s o f much t o o

t h a t he s h o u l d

i t as cosmic p e r i o d s . S i m p l i c i u s c l e a r l y

indi­

c a t e s t h a t t h e cosmic p e r i o d s were s o l e l y Eudemus' s o l u t i o n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m posed by A r i s t o t l e ' s t e x t . 1 * 5

I ti s inter­

e s t i n g a l s o t o n o t e t h a t S i m p l i c i u s ' own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f o r w a r d i n a comment on t h e same p r o b l e m

brought

( p . 1 1 2 3 f . ) , o f a κόσ­

μος νοητός and a κόσμος αισθητός e s s e n t i a l l y p r e c l u d e s zation

periodi-

( c f . Hölscher, p . 8 f . ) and c o u l d h a r d l y have been m a i n ­

t a i n e d i f he had known a b o u t cosmic p e r i o d s . e i t h e r v i a A r i s ­ t o t l e o r f r o m Empedocles d i r e c t l y .

The same h o l d s good f o r t h e

s o l u t i o n o f t h e ακινησία p r o b l e m he p r e s e n t s on p.1124: την δέ άκινησίαν εοικεν δ Εμπεδοκλής ένορδν κατά την άίδιον ταυτότητα τής είς άλληλα τοΧ ένδς καΐ των πολλών μεταβολής. The 'cosmic c y c l e ' has a l s o been r e a d i n t o A r i s t o t l e , Metphysics

,

1000a27ff.

( q u o t e d i n n o t e 47) by t a k i n g εξω τοΐ> ένδς i n t h e same sense as πλην δ θεός,"

6

t h e r e b y making A r i s t o t l e say t h a t Love c r e a t e s

o n l y t h e Sphere b u t t h a t e v e r y t h i n g e l s e , t r e e s , b e a s t s , men and gods, a r e p r o d u c e d by S t r i f e and by S t r i f e a l o n e , w h i c h i s a very u n l i k e l y statement docles."7

As f a r , as a cosmogony by S t r i f e i s c o n c e r n e d , t h i s i d e a , as I

( a n d , i n a way, n o t i n ­

p e c i a l l y n.130.) B u t , a g a i n , t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e Sphere

t r i e d t o p o i n t o u t , i s t o be a c c o u n t e d f o r as a c o n j e c t u r e n e ­ cessary

f o rthe f i l l i n g

o u t o f t h e t h e o r y o f t h e cosmic periods..

S t r i f e as a cosmogonic f o r c e i s e n t i r e l y a b s e n t f r o m t h e e x t a n t f r a g m e n t s 5 0 ; a l l we do r e a d w i t h c e r t a i n t y i n Empedocles' ma v e r b a i s t h a t i t i s S t r i f e ' s work t o cause d e a t h

ipsissi-

and d e s t r u c ­

t i o n i n m o r t a l b e i n g s . Love and S t r i f e c o u l d s t a r t t h e i r

activi­

t i e s Only a f t e r t h e y had been s e t f r e e f r o m t h e p r e - c o s m i c s t a t e (see 35 DK.) and a cosmic o r d e r had been e s t a b l i s h e d . S i n c e t h e working

o f Love and S t r i f e appear t o be s u b s e q u e n t t o , and d e ­

p e n d e n t o n , t h e cosmic o r d e r , t h e i d e a o f Love and S t r i f e as cosmogonic f o r c e s seems t o be i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i r n a t u r e . I must c o n c l u d e , mistaken

t h e r e f o r e , t h a t A r i s t o t l e , De c a e l o , 2 9 5 a 3 0 , . i s

when he a t t r i b u t e s t h e cosmogony t o S t r i f e : δτε γάρ

τά στοιχεία διειστήκει χωρίς ϋπδ τοΧ νείκους, τίς ή α'ιτία τή 7]\ τής μονής ήν', ού γάρ δη κα! τότε α'ιτιάσεται την δίνην; mistake

(one w o u l d e x p e c t

This

h i m t o have w r i t t e n ύπδ τής δίνης r a ­

t h e r t h a n ϋπδ τοΧ νείκους) i s q u i t e a n a t u r a l one t o make i n speaking

a b o u t Empedocles, s i n c e t h e cosmogony i s a p r o c e s s o f

s e p a r a t i o n ; see, p a r t i c u l a r l y , Hölscher, 21 f . ,

who a l s o makes

t h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t t h a t A r i s t o t l e l o o k s upon Empedocles' c o s mogony

as a completed

process;

this interpretation i s i n fatal

c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o t h e 'cosmic c y c l e ' t h e o r y i n w h i c h i t i s h e l d (e.g. is

by D. O ' B r i e n , p.2 e t passim) t h a t t h e cosmos we now see

no more t h a n a t r a n s i t o r y s t a t e t h r o u g h w h i c h t h e e l e m e n t s

are passing

on t h e i r way t o a s t a t e i n w h i c h t h e y w i l l

find

t h e m s e l v e s under t h e c o m p l e t e r e i g n o f S t r i f e o v e r t h e u n i v e r s e a s t a t e i n which,

a l l e g e d l y , t h e y w i l l be s e p a r a t e d

i n t o f o u r c o n c e n t r i c spheres o f f i r e ,

a i r , water,

completely

and e a r t h .

F i n a l l y , t h e r e i s one c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h i c h by i t s e l f

even f o r A r i s t o t l e t o make a b o u t Empe­

I m a i n t a i n , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e t h e o r y o f t h e cosmic

31

alone

o u g h t t o have, s u f f i c e d t o r e d u c e t h e w h o l e i d e a o f cosmic p e -

p e r i o d s d i d n o t o r i g i n a t e w i t h A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f " 8 , b u t was d e ­

r i o d s i n Empedocles t o a f o o t - n o t e i n a h i s t o r y o f c l a s s i c a l

veloped

s c h o l a r s h i p : i t i s a c o m p l e t e p e r v e r s i o n o f Empedocles'

o u t o f , and r e a d i n t o , c e r t a i n passages o f h i s works by

o t h e r s , o f which, and

t o o u r k n o w l e d g e , Eudemus was t h e f i r s t o n e ,

D.O'Brien t h e l a t e s t , and i t must be hoped t h e l a s t one, t o

do s o . " 9

to

thought

r e p r e s e n t as t h e a i m and end o f t h e a c t i v i t y o f Love, t h e

one

responsible f o r l i f e

ful

in life,

itself

and a l l t h a t i s good and b e a u t i -

t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f i t s own work. A d e s c r i p t i o n such

THE

PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES1 PERI PHYSIOS

INTRODUCTION

33

as t h a t g i v e n by. D. O ' B r i e n i n h i s ' R e c o n s t r u c t i o n ' , pp.1-3,

upon t h e f r a g m e n t by A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f , Metaphysics,

of

The l a t t e r , however, as I t r i e d t o p o i n t o u t ( p . 2 7 f . a b o v e ) , p r o ­

a s t a t e i n which a l l t h e elements o f t h e u n i v e r s e are evenly

mingled, i n which there i s n e i t h e r l i f e

n o r m o t i o n , as a p e r i o d

of

h a p p i n e s s and b l i s s i s n o t o n l y , t o my m i n d , d e v o i d o f sense

in

itself

of

what Empedocles' poem i s a b o u t : l i f e

5 1

,

b u t also betrays a complete lack o f understanding in all its

aspects.52

We must t u r n now t o t h e second h a l f - o f S i m p l i c i u s ' passage,

b a b l y i n t e n d e d no more t h a n

1000b12-17.

t o i l l u s t r a t e h i s p o i n t t h a t a my­

t h o l o g i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e s t a r t o f a p r o c e s s does n o t a t all

amount t o a c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n 5 5 ; t h e e x t e n d e d

t i o n , however, t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t

interpreta­

' N e c e s s i t y ' and ' o a t h s '

should

d e t e r m i n e t h e a c t i v i t i e s o f Love and S t r i f e must be S i m p l i c i u s '

p.1184,5-18, where he t r i e s t o answer t h e second q u e s t i o n ( c f .

own. As was t h e case w i t h h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f f r . 1 . 1 - 2 , i t

p.28 a b o v e ) , ' w h e r e d i d Empedocles a t t r i b u t e t h e w h o l e o f change

must be i n c o r r e c t , f o r t h e o a t h o f w h i c h t h e f r a g m e n t speaks

(ή μεταβολή) t o n e c e s s i t y ? 1 w i t h έξ άνάγκης (Physics,

Of c o u r s e , A r i s t o t l e h i m s e l f meant

252a9; c f . Metaphysics

, 1000b16-17)

c a n n o t have been t a k e n by Love and S t r i f e ,

since t h a t

w o u l d mean ( i n m y t h i c a l t e r m s ) t h a t t h e r e was a cause on w h i c h

no more t h a n ' n e c e s s a r i l y ' and A r i s t o t l e ' s p o i n t was t h a t Empe­

Love and S t r i f e w o u l d have been d e p e n d e n t , v i z .

d o c l e s , s i n c e he gave no c a u s a l e x p l a n a t i o n , a p p a r e n t l y

the

d e r e d change t o be a phenomenon t h a t j u s t (οϋτως πέφυκεν) o r 'by n e c e s s i t y 1

consi­

' i s so by n a t u r e '

(έξ ανάγκης). S i m p l i c i u s , how­

e v e r , i n f e r r e d f r o m A r i s t o t l e ' s words t h a t Empedocles spoke o f ' N e c e s s i t y ' as a cause o f Love and S t r i f e

literally

( c f . -ανάγκην

τών γινομένων αί.τιδται, p . 1 1 8 4 , 8 ) . Empedocles, as a p p e a r s f r o m the

passage 17-26 DK. c o n s i d e r e d h i s Love and S t r i f e as u l t i m a t e

causes. S i m p l i c i u s , t h e r e f o r e , was u n a b l e t o f i n d in

'necessity'

t h e passage i n w h i c h Empedocles expounded h i s εν - πολλά

scheme (17 D K . f f . ) , b u t had t o have r e c o u r s e t o t h a t passage o f the

poem i n w h i c h t h e r e was q u e s t i o n o f t h e ' n e c e s s i t y ' o f t h e

u n i v e r s a l law f o r b i d d i n g bloodshed. S i m p l i c i u s f i r s t 1.1-2

(115.1-2 DK.) and comments: " f o r

quotes f r .

Empedocles means t h a t i t

i s because o f t h e n e c e s s i t y and t h e s e o a t h s t h a t b o t h

(έκάτερον:

Love and S t r i f e ) r u l e i n t u r n . " F o r t u n a t e l y , more o f t h e f r a g ­ ment r e m a i n s so t h a t i t i s beyond d i s p u t e t h a t t h e f r a g m e n t does n o t r e f e r t o Love and S t r i f e i n t h i s way. Next he q u o t e s fr.2

(30 DK.) and i n d i c a t e s t h a t he imposes t h e same i n t e r p r e ­

t a t i o n upon t h i s f r a g m e n t . I n v i e w o f t h i s we a r e a b l e t o i n f e r t h a t he p r o b a b l y t o o k t h e f r a g m e n t t o mean s o m e t h i n g l i k e

this:

'when S t r i f e has grown g r e a t i n t h e b o d y 5 3 and has s p r u n g up t o his by

rights a t the fulfilment

o f t h e t i m e w h i c h has been f i x e d

t h e b r o a d o a t h f o r Love and S t r i f e

(σφιν) i n a l t e r n a t i o n . 5 " '

S i m p l i c i u s f e l t e n c o u r a g e d p e r h a p s t o impose t h i s

interpretation

again

t h a t by w h i c h

o a t h s t h e n must have been sworn - s o , i n f a c t ,

Necessity.56

The r e a l i m p o r t a n c e o f S i m p l i c i u s ' passage f o r t h e s t u d e n t o f Empedocles l i e s i n what i t i m p l i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e p r o v e n a n c e of

t h e l i n e s quoted. I n the f i r s t

place, i ti s clear that

these

f r a g m e n t s a r e a l l d e r i v e d f r o m t h e P.phys. ; i t w o u l d be e x t r e m e ­ l y odd i f one o f them w o u l d b e l o n g t o t h e Kath. : why w o u l d any commentator have l o o k e d t h e r e f o r a s o l u t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m o f A r i s t o t l e ' s m a n i p u l a t i n g o f Empedocles' 26 DK.? I n t h e second p l a c e , s i n c e f r o m p.1184,5 onward S i m p l i c i u s i s n o t f o l l o w i n g Eudemus any l o n g e r b u t resumes h i s own comment, i t i s v e r y l i ­ k e l y t h a t 31 DK. i s n o t d e r i v e d f r o m t h e same passage as 30 DK. (fr.2).

As i s w e l l known, i n a l l p r e v i o u s e d i t i o n s t h e s e t w o

f r a g m e n t s a r e l i n k e d t o g e t h e r , b u t Eudemus' argument s u g g e s t s t h a t 31 DK. r a t h e r b e l o n g s t o t h e 'Sphere passage' and does n o t go w i t h 30 DK. ( f r . 2 ) ;

S i m p l i c i u s , as a l s o h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

shows, had i n s t e a d f o u n d 30 DK. i n t h e ' N e c e s s i t y passage'. I hope t h a t i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e above d i s c u s s i o n t h e r e a d e r w i l l a g r e e t h a t t h e r e may be some j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n my l o o k i n g for

a n o t h e r c o n t e x t f o r 30 DK. t h a n e i t h e r 17-26 DK. o r 27-31 DK.

I n my o p i n i o n , t h e f r a g m e n t c a n be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y in the context of f r . 1

interpreted

(115 DK.). Of t h e p l a u s i b i l i t y o f t h i s

v i e w , I i n v i t e t h e r e a d e r t o j u d g e f r o m my n o t e s ad l o c . We c a n now p r o c e e d w i t h t h e o t h e r Fr.3

fragments.

(119 DK.), f r . 4 (116 DK.), and f r . 5

(142 DK.) a r e most

THE

PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

l i k e l y to belong to the same passage as f r . 1 (115.1-8 DK.) the

in

l i g h t of which s c h o l a r s have g e n e r a l l y , i f v a r i o u s l y ,

under­

taken to i n t e r p r e t them. The f a c t t h a t P l u t a r c h , De e x i l i o , 607e, quotes f r . 3 s h o r t l y a f t e r h i s quoting from f r . 1 and f r . 7 may c o n s i d e r e d e x t e r n a l evidence f o r t h i s arrangement.

be

For f r . 4

to

the P.phys.

an important independent

fr.1

ascription

h i n t i s provided by the

mention made of the four elements i n f r . 6 and of Neikos The f a c t t h a t P r o c l u s , In P l a t o n i s Timaeum,

in fr.7.

I I p.116, i n the

v e r y s e n t e n c e i n which he r e f e r s to f r . 7 a l s o quotes 2.2 the P.phys.

DK.

That they a r e d e r i v e d from the P.phys. the

p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n s they c o n t a i n which symbolize our et O s i r i d e , 370, may

The to

DK.)

physical P.phys.

i n one s e n t e n c e .

' m y t h o l o g i c a l ' manner of t h i s c a t a l o g u e of names would seem p o i n t to the proem, w i t h whose 'myth' they may

be

connected

by ήσαν, f r . 8 . 1 . See f u r t h e r my notes ad l o c . The p l a c i n g of f r . 1 0 (153 DK.)

can of c o u r s e only r e s t

on

guesswork. See f o r my c o n j e c t u r e s my notes ad l o c . -The p l a c i n g of f r . 1 1 (121 DK.)

i s p r i m a r i l y determined

by

H i e r o c l e s ' i n t r o d u c t o r y words to h i s c i t a t i o n which seem to con­ n e c t i t w i t h f r . 7 (115.13-14 DK.)

as w e l l a s , perhaps, w i t h f r s .

8 and 9 (122-123 DK.). A l s o i t s c o n t e n t , a d e s c r i p t i o n of the n e t h e r w o r l d , seems to f i t the proem w e l l . I n p a r t i c u l a r the

phrase

(124 DK.)

to the n e t h e r w o r l d . f r . 1 4 (125 DK.), and f r .

a r e c l o s e l y l i n k e d together by Clement's

i n which they a r e connected w i t h no more than καΐ ετι πάλιν r e s p e c t i v e l y . F r . 1 5

(126 DK.)

i t s e l f w i t h f r . 1 4 (125 DK.), the q u e s t i o n of how

quotation and

κα!

n a t u r a l l y seems to a s s o c i a t e

j u s t a s , a c c o r d i n g to i t s most l i ­

k e l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , f r . 1 7 (120 DK.)

of

does w i t h f r . 1 6 (124

DK.).

t h e s e fragments can be i n t e r p r e t e d i n

also,

'Ate's meadow' f o r what i n Homer i s c a l l e d the 'as­

phodel meadow' seems to p o i n t to f r . 1 and f r s . 1 6 f f . , i f , t h a t i s , I am r i g h t i n i n t e r p r e t i n g i t i n the l i g h t of the crime of blood-

i s to be taken as the beginning

a speech to which a l s o f r . 1 7 (120 DK.)

seems to belong; i n

view of i t s most l i k e l y l o c a t i o n , the n e t h e r w o r l d , I t a k e the speech to be a ' p r e - b i r t h speech' t h a t a l s o may the

be adduced where he

quotes from f r . 8 as w e l l as from 17.19-2 0 DK.

notes

notes ad l o c . L e t i t s u f f i c e f o r the moment to s t a t e t h a t i n my

i s s t r o n g l y suggested by

world. As e x t e r n a l evidence f o r t h e i r a s c r i p t i o n t o the P l u t a r c h , De l e i d e

16

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f r . 1 6 (124 DK.) w i t h f r . 9 (123

suppo­

to be. See my

c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the o t h e r s as w e l l as each w i t h each, see my

See f u r t h e r the notes ad l o c .

I t i s only n a t u r a l to connect f r . 8 (122 DK.)

dead s e r v i n g as a guide on the v i s i t

As to the f r s . 1 3 - 1 7 , f r . 1 3 (118 DK.),

For

must s u r e l y be counted as e x t e r n a l evidence f o r i t s a s c r i p t i o n to

the o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n of the fragment

I would p r e f e r , v i z . t h a t the person r e f e r r e d to i s one among

have even been c o n s i ­

dered to form a s i n g l e p i e c e (115 DK.). As to t h e i r

fragment.

t h e r e a r e a b s o l u t e l y no i n d i c a t i o n s f o r

i t s p l a c i n g , which t h e r e f o r e t o t a l l y depends on what one

the

ad l o c . i s obvious t h a t f r . 6 and f r . 7 have to f o l l o w wherever

notes on the

As to f r . 1 2 (129 DK.)

ad l o c . f o r four p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s and the one among them

o r i g i n a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h f r . 1 . For the d e t a i l s see the notes It

shed. See f u r t h e r my

ses

t h e r e i s the o c c u r r e n c e of Ανάγκην which seems t o p o i n t to an

i s p l a c e d ; s i n c e S t e i n , the t h r e e fragments

35

INTRODUCTION

w e l l have been

s e t t i n g of the next fragments, f r s . 1 8 - 2 0 (135-137

Fr.18

(135 DK.)

DK.).

on the one hand and f r s . 1 9 - 2 0 (136-137

on the o t h e r have always been connected by the e d i t o r s ; bly 18

c o r r e c t l y , i n the l i g h t of A r i s t o t l e ' s i n f o r m a t i o n about f r . (which fragment

he quotes i n i l l u s t r a t i o n of what he means by

a common or n a t u r a l l a w ) ; Empedocles, he s a y s , was περί του to

DK.) proba­

speaking

μή κτείνειν τδ εμψυχον, which seems to p o i n t c l e a r l y

f r s . 1 9 - 2 0 , w h i l e S e x t u s ' phrase i n h i s i n t r o d u c t o r y words to

f r s . 1 9 - 2 0 , εν γάρ υπάρχει πνεΏμα τδ διά παντδς τοΧ κον ψυχής τρόπον τδ και ένοΧν ήμδς πρδς έκεΧνα

κόσμου

διή-

( s c . τά άλογα

των ζ(£ων) , seems d e f i n i t e l y to echo f r . 1 8 , n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the Stoic wording.57

For D i e l s ' s view of t h i s evidence and h i s con­

n e c t i n g t h e s e fragments w i t h 134 DK.

see below, p.44 f f .

I f i n d i t somewhat s u r p r i s i n g t h a t a l l e d i t o r s have a t t r i b u t e d these t h r e e fragments to the Kath. , i n c l u d e d those who c o n s i d e r e d fr.1

(115 DK.)

to belong to the proem of the P.phys.:

Sturz,

K a r s t e n , and M u l l a c h . B i g n o n e i s a l o n e i n e x p r e s s i n g some d o u b t ( p . 5 0 1 ) . My r e a s o n s f o r i n c l u d i n g t h e s e f r a g m e n t s i n t o t h e p r o ­ em o f t h e P.phys.

are the following.

(1) I t i s l i k e l y t h a t

f r a g m e n t s b e l o n g t o t h e same passage as f r . 1 t h i s e d i t i o n , t h e proem), DK.),

these

(115 DK.) ( i . e . , i n

f o r one e x p e c t s t h e l a w i n f r . 1 (115

w h i c h makes b l o o d s h e d

f o r b i d d e n t o t h e gods, t o be d e ­

c l a r e d i n a f o l l o w i n g f r a g m e n t as a p p l i c a b l e t o men a l s o . (2) The

speech w h i c h f r . 1 6 (124 DK.) and f r . 1 7 (120 DK.) l e d me t o

p o s t u l a t e seems t o be. a s u i t a b l e s e t t i n g f o r such a d e c l a r a t i o n , for

w h i c h h y p o t h e s i s t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f second p e r s o n

plural

f o r m s i n b o t h f r . 1 6 (124 DK.) and f r . 1 9 (136 DK.) may be t a k e n as a f u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n . 5 8

(3) The i d e a o f t h e u n i t y and k i n ­

s h i p o f a l l l i v i n g beings expressed Bignone r i g h t l y observes r e a d i n t h e P.phys. same e l e m e n t s ; of

by t h e s e f r a g m e n t s i s , as

(p.501), i n accordance

w i t h what we

, t h a t a l l b e i n g s a r e composed o u t o f t h e

see e s p e c i a l l y 21DK. (4) P a r t i c u l a r l y t h e i d e a

t h e sacredness

of l i f e

i s p e r f e c t l y a t home i n t h e proem t o

a work w h i c h d e a l s p r i m a r i l y w i t h what we s h o u l d c a l l

natural

history or biology. V e r y h e s i t a n t l y I have l i n k e d up f r s . 2 1 - 2 5 w i t h f r s . 1 7 - 2 0 . I n f a c t each o f t h e s e f r a g m e n t s i s 1 i n c e r t a e s e d i s ' w i t h t h e pos­ s i b l e exception o f fr.23

(145 DK.) whose second p e r s o n

plural

f o r m λωφήσετε seems t o p o i n t t o t h e ' p r e - b i r t h speech' t h e r my n o t e ad l o c ) .

I connected

fr.24

(see f u r ­

(1 44 DK.) w i t h

fr.23

(145 DK.) s o l e l y because o f t h e word κακότης w h i c h o c c u r s i n b o t h . I k e p t f r . 2 1 (138 DK.), f r . 2 2

(143- DK.), and f r . 2 5 (152

DK.) t o g e t h e r because t h e y a r e q u o t e d by A r i s t o t l e i n t h e s m a l l space o f P o e t i c s ,

1457b13-25. ( F o r t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s

i n the iden­

t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e s e t h r e e f r a g m e n t s see my n o t e s ad l o c . ) The common e l e m e n t

t h a t l i n k s frs.21-22 w i t h frs.19-20 i s t h a t they

are a l l concerned

w i t h bloody

sacrifices.

I am f a i r l y c o n f i d e n t i n a s s i g n i n g t h e q u o t a t i o n s i n A r i s ­ totle's Poetics

( f r s . 2 1 , 2 2 , and 25) t o t h e P.phys.

37

INTRODUCTION

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES1 PERI PHYSIOS

36

rather than

to

t h e Kath.

on t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

Aristotle

is

l i k e l y t o have been much more i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e P.phys.

in

t h e o t h e r poem; and he has, c a l l e d Empedocles φυσιολόγος i n

than

the

f i r s t chapter o f t h e Poetics

(although i n a very special

c o n t e x t ) . What c a r r i e s more w e i g h t however i s t h a t

Aristotle

s e v e r a l t i m e s shows h i s i r r i t a t i o n a b o u t t h e i n a d e q u a c y tic

physical ly

o f poe­

l a n g u a g e , e s p e c i a l l y m e t a p h o r i c a l l a n g u a g e , t o Empedocles' s u b j e c t s ; so he i s l i k e l y t o have remembered

t h e m e t a p h o r s o f t h e P.phys.

1 4 0 7 a 3 2 f f . , τρίτον μή αμφιβόλους

See, e.g., A r i s t o t l e ,

particular­ Rhetoric,

('the t h i r d r u l e i s t o a v o i d

ambiguous t e r m s ' ) . τοΧτο δ' άν μή τάναντία προαιρήται, δπερ ποιοΧσιν δταν μηδέν μέν εχωσι λέγειν, προσποιώνται δέ τι λέ­ γειν" ο'ι γάρ τοιοΐιτοι έν ποιήσει λέγουσιν ταΧτα, οίον Ε μ π ε δ ο ­ κλής" φενακίζει γάρ τδ κυκλι^) πολυ δν, καΐ πάσχουσιν οϊ άκροαταΐ δπερ οί πολλοί παρά τοΧς μάντεσιν" δταν γάρ λέγωσιν άμφίβολα, συμπαρανευουσιν - ΚροΧσος 'Άλυν διαβάς μεγάλην άρχήν καταλύσει. Cf. a l s o Meteorologica,

3 5 7 a 2 5 f f . , δμοίως δέ γελοΧον καν ε" τις

εΙπών ίδρωτα τής γής είναι την θάλατταν

[55 DK.] οΐεταί τι σα­

φές είρηκέναι, καθάπερ Εμπεδοκλής" πρδς ποίησιν μέν γάρ οδτως εΙπών ίσως εΐρηκεν ίκανώς

(ή γάρ μεταφορά ποιητικόν), πρδς δέ

τδ γνώναι την φΰσιν ούχ ΐκανώς. C f . a l s o Metaphysics ( p a r t l y ) q u o t e d above,p.27f. ertius,

, 1000a9ff.,

F i n a l l y we may compare Diogenes L a ­

8.57, έν δέ τί£> ΠερΧ ποιητών φησιν

(sc. A r i s t o t l e ,

fr.70

Rose) δτι και Όμηρικδς δ Εμπεδοκλής και δεινδς περι την φράσιν γέγονεν, μεταφορητικός

( B P a c : μεταφορικός F) τε ών καΐ τοΧς

άλλοις τοΧς περ! ποιητικήν έπιτεΰγμασι χρώμενος. I t i s f u r t h e r important t o r e a l i z e that A r i s t o t l e ,

i n h i s P o e t i c s , q u o t e s two

more f r a g m e n t s f r o m Empedocles, b o t h o f w h i c h b e l o n g to

t h e P.phys.,

88 DK. (1458a5)

As t o t h e arrangement

certainly

(1461a24).

o f t h e r e m a i n i n g f r a g m e n t s o f t h e proem,

f r s . 2 6 - 3 1 , I have p l a c e d f r . 2 6 to

and 35.15 DK.

(139 DK.) a f t e r what I c o n j e c t u r e d

be t h e remnants o f t h e ' p r e - b i r t h speech', f r s . 1 6 - 2 5 , because

t h i s f r a g m e n t seems t o e x p r e s s a r e a c t i o n t o t h a t speech ( e s ­ p e c i a l l y f r s . 1 9 f . ) p o s s i b l y by one o f .the addressees

but rather,

I would t h i n k , by t h e ' I ' o f t h e myth who w i t n e s s e d t h e o c c a s i o n . (The p h r a s e πρδ ομμάτων ποιησάμενοι τδ δεινόν

i n Porphyrius'

i n t r o d u c t o r y words t o f r . 2 6 m i g h t r e f l e c t t h i s . ) connected με,

fr.27

(117 DK.) w i t h f r . 2 6

I have f u r t h e r

(139 DK.) s u p p o s i n g

that

f r . 2 6 . 1 , and έγώ, f r . 2 7 . 1 , may w e l l r e f e r t o t h e same person

38

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

INTRODUCTION

p o n d e r i n g h i s own c o n d i t i o n i n t h e l i g h t o f what he h e a r d i n

39

A p a r t f r o m t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e t r e a t m e n t o f 131-134 DK., we

t h e speech. The c o n t e x t s i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s , 8.76-77, and H i p

may s a f e l y say t h a t D i e l s ' s and S t e i n ' s e d i t i o n s o f t h e Kath.

p o l y t u s , R e f u t a t i o , 1.3, c o n s t i t u e e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e f o r t h e

a r e e s s e n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l , b o t h as f a r as t h e a s c r i p t i o n and as

P.phys.

f a r as t h e a r r a n g e m e n t

ascription of fr.27

(117 DK.), s i n c e t h e y a r e p a r a p h r a ­

ses

( w h a t e v e r t h e i r w o r t h o r t h e i r s o u r c e s ) o f Emnedocles'

aal

d o c t r i n e s . F i n a l l y , t h e f r s . 2 8 - 3 1 (127, 146, and 147 DK.)

seem n a t u r a l l y t o a s s o c i a t e t h e m s e l v e s w i t h f r . 2 7

phys

(117 DK.),

s i n c e t h e y bear upon t h e same s u b j e c t . My c o n n e c t i n g f r . 2 9 (140 DK.) w i t h f r . 2 8

(127 DK.) e n t i r e l y depends on t h e m e n t i o n

o f t h e l a u r e l made i n b o t h . ( I t i s o f c o u r s e c o n c e i v a b l e e i t h e r t h a t a l s o f r s . 2 8 - 3 1 belonged

t o t h e speech, o r t h a t t h e y were

spoken by t h e g u i d e , b u t I see no r e a s o n t o a d o p t e i t h e r p o s s i b lity.)

See f u r t h e r my n o t e s ad l o c . VI.

The e d i t i o n s

of S t e i n and D i e l s d e a l t w i t h so f a r

i t w i l l be h e l p f u l t o t r y t o a c q u i r e a deeper u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f ' t h e e d i t i o n o f H. D i e l s . Of c o u r s e I s h a l l c o n f i n e m y s e l f

here

t o t h e f r a g m e n t s D i e l s a s s i g n e d t o t h e Kath. F i r s t , however, we have t o go h a l f a c e n t u r y f a r t h e r back i n h i s t o r y , v i z . t o H. S t e i n ' s e d i t i o n o f Empedocles'

fragments

p u b l i s h e d i n Bonn i n 1852; f o r D i e l s was d e e p l y i n f l u e n c e d by t h a t e d i t i o n as f a r as t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Kath.

i s con­

c e r n e d . T h i s w i l l become i m m e d i a t e l y a p p a r e n t i f b o t h e d i t i o n s a r e compared i n t h i s r e s p e c t . I n S t e i n ' s e d i t i o n t h e Kath.

frag

ments a r e numbered f r o m l i n e 352 t o 451; t h e s e a r e t h e f o l l o ­ 114,

o f D i e l s ' s ' e d i t i o n : 112, 113,

115, 117, 118, 121.2-4, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 126, 148,

125, 128, 129, 130, 78, 135, 136, 137, 139, 127, 140, 1 4 1 , 143, 144, Kath.

145, 146, 147. So t h e r e i s o n l y one f r a g m e n t i n S t e i n ' s t h a t was n o t so p l a c e d by D i e l s , v i z . 78 DK. (423-24

Stein)

59

; on t h e o t h e r hand, D i e l s i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e Kath.

f r a g m e n t s t h a t S t e i n had a t t r i b u t e d t o t h e P.phys.,

60

some

v i z . 116 DK

(232 S t e i n ) and 150 DK. (243 S t e i n ) , b o t h i n P.phys.II e d i t i o n , and t h e f r a g m e n t s 131-134 DK. (338-351 ing t o P.phys.Ill i n Stein's e d i t i o n .

I n view o f t h i s s t r i k i n g resemblance, first,

we have t o i n q u i r e ,

i n t o t h e arguments S t e i n s t a t e d f o r h i s method o f p r o c e ­

d u r e , w h i c h so much d e v i a t e d f r o m t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e e a r l i e r e d i t i o n s ; a n d , second, i n t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t o what e x t e n t D i e l s a d o p t e d S t e i n ' s arguments j u s t as he d i d t h e a r r a n g e m e n t

of the

f r a g m e n t s w h i c h r e s u l t e d f r o m them. On pp.16-25 o f h i s i n t r o d u c ­ t i o n . S t e i n p r e s e n t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a o r arguments f o r t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e Kath.

fragments from those o f t h e p h y s i c a l

poem.

For a c o r r e c t a p p r e c i a t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m s

w i n g f r a g m e n t s i n t h e numbering

o f t h e fragments i s concerned.

Stein),

i n Stein belong­

(1) S i n c e t h e P.phys.

i s addressed

s a n i a s , and t h e Kath.

t o t h e c i t i z e n s o f Akragas,

fit

t o a s i n g l e p e r s o n , PauStein thought

t o a s s i g n a l l f r a g m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g a second p e r s o n

f o r m t o t h e Kath.

T h i s c r i t e r i o n d e c i d e d f o r t h e Kath.

ment o f 124 DK. (400-401 and 141 DK. (440,441

plural assign­

S t e i n ) , 136 DK. (428-9 S t e i n ) , 140 DK.

S t e i n , i n b o t h o f w h i c h f r a g m e n t s he r e a d

εχεσθε), 143 DK. (443 S t e i n ; S t e i n r e a d t h e f r a g m e n t w i t h άπορρύπτεσθε i n c l u d e d ) , and 145 DK. (445-6

Stein).61

(2) The v e r s e s 112.4-6 DK. (355-7 S t e i n ) c o n t a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o S t e i n , t h e key as t o what t h e whole o f t h e Kath.

was a b o u t :

" I n d e i g i t u r e x o r d i u m d i s p u t a n d i ducendum e s t . P r o f i t e t u r e i s se p o e t a ac g l o r i a t u r non iam i n t e r m o r t a l i u m gregem n u m e r a r i iamque ad d e i d i g n i t a t e m e v e h i . (...) A p r i n c i p i o i g i t u r

carmi-

n i s i t a p r o g r e s s u s s i t p o e t a necesse e s t , u t , quo o l i m deorum f a t o quoque f l a g i t i o

i n has t e r r e s t r i s v i t a e s o r d e s a t q u e angus-

t i a s d e l a p s u s , turn demum p o s t m u l t i p l i c e s c a s t i g a t i o n e s ad d e i r u r s u s locum

se e n i x u r u m

S t e i n connected

esse n a r r a r e t "

( p . 2 2 f . ) . I n o t h e r words,

115 DK. w i t h 112 DK. on a c c o u n t o f h i s i n t e r p r e ­

t i n g 112.4-6 DK. as meaning " I am a god' and δαίμονες i n 115.5 DK. as d e n o t i n g ' s o u l s ' . Empedocles was made t o d e c l a r e h i m s e l f t o be a g o d ; t h i s a l l e g e d d e c l a r a t i o n was t a k e n t o mean 'my s o u l i s now i n a m o r t a l f o r m f o r t h e l a s t t i m e , f o r a f t e r my d e a t h my s o u l w i l l

be re-embodied

i n t o a god.'

The w h o l e o f t h e Kath.

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

i+O

INTRODUCTION

was thus understood by S t e i n as an e x p o s i t i o n by which t h e poet taught

'suo exemplo omnium.animorum p r i n c i p i a atque f o r t u n a s "

(p.25) . (3) of

S t e i n adopted

(p.22f.) t h e n e o p l a t o n i s t s '

interpretation62

DK. ( χ ώ ρ ο ν ) 6 3 , 121.4 DK. ('Άτης έν λειμώνι), and 122.1 DK.

(ενθα) a s symbolic d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h i s q a r t h l y to

i m m o r t a l i t a t e denique doctrinam s i minus c o n t r a r i a m p h y s i c i s i p s i u s r a t i o n i b u s , a t c e r t e a prooemiandi o c c a s i o n e p r o r s u s abhorrentem."

t h e p l a c e s r e f e r r e d to i n 118 DK. (χώρον), 120 DK. (αντρον),

121.1

41

'vale of t e a r s '

which t h e d i v i n e s o u l had been banished. S i n c e t h i s

criterion

(5)

As f a r a s P l u t a r c h ' s i n d i c a t i o n έν άρχ^ τής φιλοσοφίας προ­

αναφωνήσας i s concerned. S t e i n pointed to t h e f a c t t h a t w i t h φιλοσοφία c o u l d r e f e r e q u a l l y w e l l t o t h e Kath. P.phys.;

Plutarch

as to the

nor d i d έν άρχ^ προαναφωνήσας p r e s e n t any problem t o

S t e i n , because, a c c o r d i n g to him, i t i s v e r y p o s s i b l e t h a t P l u ­

was a p p l i e d a l s o to 119 DK. and to 123 DK. ( i n v.4 of which he

t a r c h looked f o r t h e beginning of t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l

read Φορύη, ' S o r d e s ' ) , t h i s meant t h a t t h e whole group of 118¬

not

123

r a t i o " ) i n which t h e poet was supposed to t e a c h by h i s own ex­

DK. (385-99 S t e i n ) , which K a r s t e n had s t i l l

proem of t h e P.phys.,

a s s i g n e d to the

had to be removed to t h e Kath.,

because,

w i t h t h i s n e o p l a t o n i c i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e fragments were no

so much i n t h e proem

(i.e.

112 DK.) a s i n t h a t

ample t h e o r i g i n and f o r t u n e s of a l l s o u l s

(i.e.

what was supposed to have followed o r i g i n a l l y ) . '

exposition 'speech C o -

115 DK. and (p.24f.)

longer c o n c e i v a b l e i n an i n t r o d u c t i o n to t h e p h y s i c a l poem. S t e i n

(6)

The consequence of S t e i n ' s arrangement of t h e fragments was

l i n k e d t h e s e fragments w i t h 115 DK. (369-82 S t e i n ) by p l a c i n g

not

t h a t t h e p h y s i c a l poem was l e f t w i t h o u t a proem a l t o g e t h e r ,

117 DK. (383-84 S t e i n ) i n between. 6 "

s i n c e he f o l l o w e d K a r s t e n and Bergk i n c o n s i d e r i n g 2-3 DK. a s

(4)

F u l l c o n f i r m a t i o n of t h e Kath.

as he had c o n s t r u c t e d

was seen by S t e i n i n t h e passage De e x i l i o , Plutarch's quotation

it

6 5

(without a break) of 115.1,3,5,6,13 DK.

S t e i n w r i t e s , p.24: " C o n f i c i t u r autem r e s ,

belonging to t h e proem.

607d, which f o l l o w s s i qua d u b i t a t i o r e -

It

i s extremely i n t e r e s t i n g t o s e e which of S t e i n ' s s i x a r ­

guments, a l l i n v a l i d i n my o p i n i o n , D i e l s chose to adopt and which ones he d i d n o t .

s i d e a t , e i s quae P l u t a r c h u s v e r s i b u s i l l i s c o n t i n u a v i t quaeque,

As to S t e i n ' s f i r s t

argument, t h a t fragments w i t h a second

quamvis monente Wyttenbachio opusc. t . I I p.528 habere ea e x p l i -

person p l u r a l form belong to t h e Kath.,

catipnem progressorum ductam ex i p s i u s Empedoclis a l i i s

did

locis,

vulgo parum a t t e n d e r u n t i n t e r p r e t e s : ούχ εαυτόν, άλλ' άφ'

έαυ-

D i e l s , to my knowledge,

not adopt i t , n e i t h e r i n h i s a r t i c l e s nor i n h i s PPF. o r VS.,

except o f c o u r s e a s f a r a s 114 DK. i s concerned, i n which ώ φ ί ­

τοΧ πάντας άποδείκνυσι μετανάστας ένταΧθα καΐ ξένους και φυγά­

λοι i s i n f a c t most l i k e l y to r e f e r t o t h e A c r a g a n t i n e s . I t

δας ημάς δντας. "ού γάρ αίμα," φησίν, "ήμΧν ούδέ πνεΧμα συγκρα-

would indeed be v e r y odd i f 124 DK. ( f r . 1 6 ) and 136 DK. ( f r . 1 9 )

θέν,

ώ άνθρωποι, ψυχής ούσίαν καΐ άρχήν παρέσχεν, άλλ' έκ τού­

των τδ- σώμα συμπέπλασται, γηγενές κα! θνητόν," τής δέ ψυχής άλ-

had

λαχόθεν ήκούσης δεΧρο, την γένεσιν άποδημίαν ΰποκορίζεται τώ πραοτάτί^ τών ονομάτων, τδ δέ άληθέστατον, φεύγει και πλανάται, θείοις έλαυνομένη δόγμασι καΧ νόμοις, είτα, ώσπερ έν νήσι^ σάλον έχοΰσ^ πολύν, καθάπερ φησίν δ Πλάτων, "δστρέου τρόπον" ένδεδεμένη τψ σώματι διά τδ μή μνημονεύειν μηδέ άναφέρειν "έξ ο'ίης τιμής τε καΐ δσσου μήκεος δλβου" μεθέστηκεν κτλ. [ q u o t a t i o n marks not w r i t t e n by S t e i n , added by me]: quibus perspicuum e s t , e x p o s u i s s e Empedoclem suam de animarum n a t u r a , o r i g i n e ,

fatis,

been addressed to them; see my notes ad l o c .

D i e l s r e t a i n e d t h e Kath.

Nonetheless,

a s c r i p t i o n of t h e s e f r a g m e n t s . 6 6

As t o t h e second of S t e i n ' s arguments, t h e one based on 112.4¬ 6 DK. and 115.5 DK. ( f r . 1 . 5 ) , t h e r e i s no doubt t h a t D i e l s a c ­ cepted i t . T h i s appears e.g. i n SBA. 1897, 1070, where he cha­ r a c t e r i z e d t h e Kath.

a s a r e l i g i o u s poem, " i n welchem d e r Pro­

phet den Sündenfall d e r göttlichen G e i s t e r of

115.5 DK. ( f r . 1 . 5 ) ] ,

[i.e.

t h e δαίμονες

i h r e allmähliche Reinigung und Erlösung,

i h r e Wanderungen und Wiedergeburten s c h i l d e r t . K r a f t

seiner

Sehergabe kündet e r den S t e r b l i c h e n d i e Wandlungen der eigenen

qBqq

STsTa

3°

9­fr*Zll

*ΖΤΛ)

suogqBqajdjaqug

apngouoo

g B g o n j o auios ug u g a q s poMoggog

qsnui Θ Λ '­yqvy

a q q go s u o g q g p a s , s g a g a

S , u g a q s uaaMqaq d g q s u o g q B g a j a q q a u g g a p oq A j q

MOU

ABUI

•qg uiojg Ι 3 Λ Θ

JO ­aqM

pBq

JoqqnE gBogssBgo

' j£ u i a o j d :pgoq

Β pBq

jaAau

fiuTATAins

squauißsjg

­sfiyd­d

s g q ug qBqq

puB

·ddd UMO

qg qooq

'oMq

s g q ug

aq

puB

3 M

(aAoqB

qBqq Jaqq

"AQ Ζ qou

' u g a q s qogqM

ug q q o q

'- aAoqB

ug

Β aqq

:SABS

puB

a o u a g p n B q d B j s g q oq s u j n q

uaqq

'pogjad

UBUIOM

a q q go

qqßuag

5 α θ ί \ κ . » oqq

go a p g s p a q

sagoopaduia aqq

qB p a S B j q d B J B d snouiBg

aqq q s paqBjqsuouiap

'(69­(Z)A9'8

s g qogqM) S n o A U »

s g q u i iggaM q x a q u o o

ßugqsajaqug

'sngqjaBq Ü. puB

map

UIOJJ

AgquapgAa

aqq

qoajgp

' i­u

puB

'puB

Apoq

Aq

qnoqB

pgnOM

Β uiojg ß u g q o n b

aqq saqsui

'uogqBqonb

' p u o o a s a q q ug

spjOM

sg

ajaq

' g ^ ' (5961) 'aguoq

­wi

Eqoaj ogqBjo .'paujaouoo s g

aqq S B j B g S B jnoABgg o g u o q B g d

'aoBgd q s j g g

a q q u i ­sagoopaduia ug

Agßuojqs

(sgsoqoAsd

g n o s a g q B J B d a s Β go a u g j q o o p a q q j o g a o u a p

ABUI

s g q ug a ß B S S B d

a q q uiojg

sxqg,

' oxq­ixa

"Μα

qugaqosja

'qsqgas a p j a SBM

paqgjosqns

ßugAEq

sauaßoga

sagoopaduia

. s a p g g o B j a H qgg

­ s n o g q u o j s a p g g o B j a H Aq a n ß o g e g p qeqq uogqsaßßns

Β

aqq

puB)

'uogqgpa

qoBg

­

ajgqua

89

­saugg

'aßBSSBd

aq

sgq

UBagoopaduia ( q s o g ) .go s.qojBqnga

qBqq

quauinß

ugBqjao AgjgBg sg q i

­ q g j o ­ d d B ug a q o u

q s a ggoopaduia "33 ,,­oqqons

'­add

qqpgu issguuiurepjaA J e p q J O u a p j a

I Zl]

qonjpsnv

'uaßgogjaA

oga„

UAOl

aqoxgqn qsuos

sapBH

jaqqoga

'squauinßjB

"V3S

uap

uaqosgqsgui

nz j a q g a M u q a q g n B g j a s s n g

'A681

agp

ajqg

aqogaM

'ß­s 3 3 S ­ s g a g a Aq

' 8 ' 1 1 Ά I'ε'ε I " s J g )

(6 puB

ßugpjBßaj auo aqq

aa

aqq

A g j B g n o g q j B d puB s a g o g q

U B q o j B q n g a a q q oq a o u a j a g a j ßuxqBUi j a A a u

a q AgagBS 'pt09

s , u g a q s p a q o o C a j s g a g a qBqq

»jud3JX) uo

a a p gnB u j a p u o s ' j a q u n [(U­Jg)

J a a ­gBqqjauiuiBr s g B u j a q x q d j o u a p agM

­gssad

9

' , s n q u o j j o s a p g g o B j a H ug Ajoaqg, gBogpaw,

asojd

SBq a ß B S S B d

snqq

oq qou q q ß g j A g u g B q j a o S B M s g a g a

aqq qdaooB

s g q ug a ß B S S B d

apja

'qßgaz

aqg

puB

q g a g u a q o s u a w uig uin ' u a g g B g q B j a q j a q s g a s u a u a g g B g a ß gnB

"MO S i l

AjBjoduiaq

j o g qg uiojg q u a s q B s g g n o s a q q aggqM aAggB ugBUiaj U B O Moq

'Ajoqs

Ajoqs

qojBqnga

81­uiaufq •qxaq

Toumd­e-AO ( J ' P U B A j ß U d )

qsaßßns

g n o s a q q go q u a u i q B a j q Β

­JB

pajjagug

qqjnog

l A o d f QX

snojo,,

ssBp

uogq

'asBjqd qBqMauios

(g) a a s -

a q q go paougAUOO A g a q n g o s q s

sg

jaqqgau

-aa 8ZI-811

s,ugaqs j o pjgqq

3°

aqq

oq

suaos osgv •8Z

"33

gnos

· · SA ug

„-qspuaggoA

sgq

'sgBqjoui ο 'aas

a g d g o u g j d a q q qBqq

SB a ß B S S B d

6 11 J B J O ­ a a S i l qB j a q q g a a q o n b u a A a qou pgp a q qBqq

uiojg

-JE

A9„­BJjaq

-asBjqd

qou Aq bvohiK

'squauißBJj a q q go

q u a g g s Agaqagduioo p a u g B u i a j

qnq

s,qojBqnga sg q i

AjaA

a q o u ug p a q o n b

Β a q A g q g s s o d qouuBO

· ·­qqEajq J O U poogq

puB

Β sg

asBjqdBJBd

uogqBogp a q uogq

qsnui s g a g a

qg ß u g q u g j d

—ΤAa

­gggg­d quaui

'paujaouoo

S B M 5»oü.AU)d>»A!0odu qqxM (ς)

5nßü.Am(bx>A»odu go

aABq

J O J „

PUB

gi

paqonb

aq

ζ)

­jBago

s , u g a q s OAoqB

q s g g q B q s a oq

s g u u a q a q q qBqq

pBq u g a q s S B a j a q M

puB

'ddd

qnoqB

s.qoJBqngg

spjOM

s,ugaqs j o ssauqoajjoo

asBjqd

oq ß u g q s a j a q u g

UBagoopaduia A U B go a S B j q d s J E d AUB qv

'aqBJ

gBgquassa

­uiaqaui go

q q x g s a q q oq s q

, s a g o o p a d u i a S B oq p a j j a g a j ­yq­oy

s g qg qBqq

'snonßgquiB

a q q qBqq

- a a ς g [. j o g paqdopB uaaq

'0^paoBds

'spjOM A j o q o n p o j q u g s . q o j B q n g x p a q o n b

pus

.'pjOM s g q q

' g g g, ' 868 1 ' V3S

p a s s n o s g p a q uaqM j o g - a o u a g o s u o o s g q p a s s B j j B q u i a oq uiaas

5x>£>UAmd>»Moodu 5 » •) ώ ο ΰ ο γ τ d) 5 [ g q I x d ^

an

s,sgaga SAjasqo

apnqgqqe

­saugg aqq

go a j n q s u

aqi

a q q go qogqM

a q q j o uia

f puB

aq A g q B q o j j

suogquaquoo pus suogquaqug s q u g o d a q q go q s a g

oq gBUiJOU a q g n b

auios oq quaM s g a g a

go augg

a q q go a J B M B

qoBg

pagßugs

' - SA ug

s g q ug o s g B

ßugqqou sg

q o B j a q q j o g qunoo

'MOuq ι S B j B g S V ­sfiyd­d

S B {­SA

s,sgaga

j qogqM Aq

q n q a u o p s q qg

a q q qBqq Aggsnba

a q q go u i a o j d Β j o g qgag

a q q go u o g q g p a

oq paqduraqqB a j a q M o u a q a q q oq ß u g ß u o g a q

'pgp u g a q s S B 'qou pgp

·χα ζ p j u ß a j apnqgqqB

pugg

qqßuag

papuaquoo

-pggBAug

s g q a g g o u o o a j oq p a j n o A B a p u a 'aAoqB

Aq ß u x u o s B a j

a q q qBqq

go q s a j a q q pgp a q S B

aqq

ou qBqq

uiaod g B o g s A q d

a q s u o g q g s o d o a d 'agqBqojduig

qouuBO Θ Μ o s

ggaq auaqq ­OB ­ojd puB sg

paSBjqdBJBd

• , Aqdosoggqd, aqq •go)

­ a q B q s a q q qqgM ggasuigq

»g ώ ο ρ ο γ η ώ pjOM a q q S B J E J s v

sg

quauiaßUBjJB

s ^ o j B q n g d qqgM agqgqBduiooug S B M

-ug

-gsod

- r o < b » A » o d u quo Agnp a q a j a q M -gpa

5 » o U A m < b » M > o d u qnoqqgM qg p a q o n b a q aqq

aABq

go ß u g o E g d SBM

spjBMoq 69

aßBSSBd aqq

sne

-aa 9-fr'ZU

uqBqgnBgjassng

'[(A-jg)

3° u o g q B g s u B j q s . s g a g a

ajqg

-go] u a p a g u a g q u a s s o q s a ß s n B a g s agM

SOISAHd

ΝΟίιοηαοχίΝΐ

30

[-aa 8 Z I - 8 U

osgB

quauiqBajq

j a q q g o j a p u a q a g uaßggas PUB

-aa H - C V S l l

1X38

-aa 9-fr'ZU

,S33D0a38W3 80 H30X8

uiap

- j o ] agaas

3H1

44

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES' PERI PHYSIOS

INTRODUCTION

DK., 115.5 DK., δαίμονες, and 118-123 DK.) b u t d i d n o t f o l l o w

q u o t a t i o n i n Tzetzes comprises

him i n o t h e r p o i n t s . I t i s p a r t i c u l a r l y r e m a r k a b l e t h a t D i e l s

one

did

άπα! νώτων γ ε 7 5

n o t a d o p t t h e argument S t e i n h i m s e l f c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e

t h e same f i v e v e r s e s as does t h e

i n Ammonius and Ammonius and T z e t z e s have t h e wrong r e a d i n g i n common, D i e l s i n f e r r e d t h a t T z e t z e s t o o k h i s

c o n c l u s i v e one, v i z . t h e one based on P l u t a r c h , 607d. The f a c t

q u o t a t i o n f r o m Ammonius; t h e r e f o r e , s i n c e Ammonius d i d n o t g i v e

t h a t in. s p i t e o f p a r t i a l d i s a g r e e m e n t

a book number, t h e one g i v e n by T z e t z e s must have been t h e l a t ­

ments

( e x c e p t 78.DK.) t o t h e Kath.

t h a t poem by S t e i n has t o be a c c o u n t e d f e r e n t , r e a s o n s . The f i r s t

D i e l s assigned a l l f r a g ­

t h a t had a l s o been p l a c e d i n f o r by t w o , q u i t e

ter

dif­

reason, I would suggest, i s o f a

1

It

s own i n v e n t i o n . 7

6

i s i n d e e d v e r y l i k e l y t h a t Ammonius and T z e t z e s d e r i v e d

t h i s f r a g m e n t f r o m t h e same s o u r c e , b u t i t i s v e r y u n l i k e l y

that

p s y c h o l o g i c a l n a t u r e 7 2 : t h a t , f o r more t h a n t w e n t y y e a r s b e f o r e

T z e t z e s t o o k i t o v e r f r o m Ammonius, s i n c e i n Ammonius t h e f i r s t

the

v e r s e b e g i n s w i t h ούτε γάρ άνδρομέ[), whereas T z e t z e s t w i c e quo­

p u b l i c a t i o n o f h i s own e d i t i o n o f Empedocles ( i n h i s PPF. ,

1 9 0 1 ) , i t had a l w a y s been S t e i n ' s e d i t i o n t h a t D i e l s c o n s u l t e d

tes

for

δρομέ-ρ i f he had f o u n d t h i s word i n t h e t e x t f r o m w h i c h he c o ­

t h e Empedoclean f r a g m e n t s . T h i s i s c l e a r f r o m t h e f a c t

he r e f e r r e d t o Empedocles 1 his In

Doxographi phys.

PPF.

graeai

that

f r a g m e n t s by S t e i n ' s l i n e numbers i n

(1879) and i n h i s e d i t i o n o f S i m p l i c i u s '

(1882 and 1 8 9 5 ) , a l t h o u g h i n t h e s e works (as i n h i s

and VS.) he a l s o gave K a r s t e n ' s n u m b e r i n g 7 3 ;

Stein's i n f l u ­

i t as ού μέν γάρ βροτέ^. Why would T z e t z e s have a l t e r e d

107

Empedocles of Acragas, On Nature, Book I .

1 "Εστιν Ά ν ά γ κ η ι χρήμα, θεών ψήφισμα παλαιόν,

άίδιον, πλατέεσσι κατεσφρηγισμένον δρκοις, εύτέ τις άμπλακίηισι φόνωι φίλα γυΧα μιήνηι,

1. There i s an oracle delivered by Necessity, voted f o r by the gods long ago,

δς κεν έπίορκον άμαρτήσας έπομόσσηι,

a law everlasting, sealed by broad oaths, t o the e f f e c t that whenever one of

δαίμονες, ο" τε μακραίωνος λελάχασι βίοιο,

them s i n f u l l y defiled his own limbs with blood, who by his crime breaks the

τρίς μιν μυρίας ώρας hub μακάρων άλάλησθαι,

oath he has sworn by Her ( i . e . Necessity), d e i t i e s whose l o t i s t o l i v e a

φυομένους παντοΧα διά χρόνον εΐδεα θνητών,

long time, - that these, during a t h r i c e countless number of seasons, must

άργαλέας βιότοιο μεταλλάσσοντα κελευθους.

wander away from the blessed ones, becoming throughout that period a l l manner of mortal beings who change one f o r another l i f e ' s p a i n f u l paths.

2 αΰτάρ έπε! μέγα ΝεΧκος έν! μελέεσσιν έθρέφθη, ές τιμάς τ' άνόρουσε τελειομένοιο χρόνοιο, 2. When then S t r i f e has grown great i n his ( i . e . a god's) limbs, and has

δς σφιν άμοιβαΧος πλατέος παρελήλαται δρκου

sprung up t o claim r i g h t s at the dawning of the time which has been measured 3 έξ οΐης τιμής καΐ δσου περιμήκεος δλβου

out t o him f o r the r e q u i t a l of the breaking of the broad oath, (then...)

4

3. from what state of d i g n i t y and honour and what extraordinary great b l i s s (sc. e.g. he was cast away)

στυγέει δΰστλητον

Ανάγκην

5 τδν δ' οΰτ' αρ τε Διδς ι τέγεοι δόμοι αίγίιόχοιο] ι τ' π[ω] ς 'Αίδεω δέί'χεται] ι κατά

[γ]ής τέγος

4. he hates Necessity, hard t o endure [δν]δ[ον] 5. Him neither the roofed palace of aegis-bearing Zeus, nor the house of

6 Αίθέριον μέν γάρ σφε μένος Πόντονδε διώκει,

Hades below the ground wishes t o take him i n at a l l

Πόντος δ' ές Χθονδς ούδας άπέπτυσε, ΓαΧα δ' ές αύγάς Ή ε λ ί ο υ άκάμαντος, δ δ' Αίθέρος εμβαλε δίνηις"

6. For mighty A i r chases him away t o Sea, and Sea spits him out t o Earth's

άλλος δ' έξ άλλου δέχεται, στυγέουσι δδ πάντες.

ground, and Earth i n t o the l i g h t of u n t i r i n g Sun, who casts him into the whirls of A i r . They receive him one from the other, but they a l l abhor him.

7 τών κα! έγώ vüv είμι, φυγάς θεόθεν κα! άλήτης, Νείκει μαινομένωι πίσυνος 8 ενθ' ήσαν Χθονίη τε κα! Ήλιΰπη ταναώπις

7. Of these I too am now one, an exile by the w i l l of the gods and a wanderer, r e l y i n g on raving S t r i f e

Δήρίς θ' αΐματόεσσα κα! Άρμονίη θεμερώπις Καλλιστώ τ' Αίσχρή τε Θόωσά τε Δηναιή τε

8. There were the goddesses Earth and far-sighted Sunshine, bloody Fight and

Κημερτής τ' έρόεσσα μελάγκουρός τ' Ασάφεια

Harmony with her unwavering look, Beautiful and Ugly, Qick and L o i t e r i n g , lovely I n f a l l i b l e and dark-pupilled Uncertain

10 8

THE PROEM OF EMPEDOCLES1 PERI PHYSIOS

9 Φυσώ τε Φθιμένη τε κα! Εύναίη κα! 'Έγερσις Κινώ τ' Άστεμφής τε πολυστέφανός τε Μεγιστώ κάφορίη Σωπή τ ε και Ό μ φ α ί η 10 Βαυβώ 11 άτερπέα χώρον, ενθα Φδνος τε Κότος τε κα! άλλων ένθεα Κηρών αύχμηραί τε Νόσοι κα! Σήψιες ΰδατι δευσταί "Ατης έν λειμώνι κατά σκότον ήλάσκουσιν 12 ήν δέ τις έν κείνοισιν άνήρ περιώσια είδώς, δς δή μήκιστον πραπίδων έκτήσατο πλούτον, παντοίων τε μάλιστα σοφών έπιήρανος έργων" δππότε γάρ πάσηισιν όρέξαιτο πραπίδεσσιν, βετ'

δ γε τών έόντων πάντων λεΰσσεσκεν έκαστα

TEXT AND TRANSLATION

109

9. Growing and Dying, Sleeping and Waking, Mover and Motionless, many-wreathed Fullgrown and I n f e r t i l i t y , Silence and