Wright MR - Empedocles The Extant Fragments - 1981 - Searchable PDF

EMPEDOCLES: T H E E X T A N T FRAGMENTS
EDITED, W I T H AN INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, CONCORDANCE, BY
AND
M. R. W R I G H T
NEW
HAVEN AND LONDON
YALE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
Contents
I . INTRODUCTION . Life a n d W r i t i n g s Copyright 1981 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Dating Empedocles' Life Politics, R h e t o r i c , a n d M e d i c i n e T h e M a n n e r of E m p e d o c l e s ' D e a t h W o r k s A t t r i b u t e ^ to E m p e d o c l e s 2. Physics E a r | h , Air, Fire, and Water Lovie a n d Strife M i k i n g a n d Separating \ Designed by James J . Johnson and set in Monotype Baskerville type. Printed in the United States of America by Edwards Brothers Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. Kaiharmoi a n d Physics 57 57 63 Common Ground Crirrie, P u n i s h m e n t , a n d Responsibility E m p e d o c l e s as D a i m o n
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
x 1
3 3
6
i5 i7
2 2
22 3 34 4 49
T h e P l a n of the Physics <Monsters and M e n
Empedocles. Empedocles, the extant fragments. English and Greek. Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Philosophy of nature. 2. Gods, Greek. I . Wright, M . R . I I . Title. B218.A4E6 1981 182'.5 80-17923 ISBN 0-300-02475-4 II.
4. T h e A l l o c a t i o n o f the F r a g m e n t s 5. T h e T i t l e s o f the Poems \ 6. C o n c o r d a n c e of the O r d e r i n g o f the F r a g m e n t s
77
8
87
TE/T 7. (fragments 1101)

J
93 34 49
0 370
i
/3
8.
(fragments 102133)
9. A d d e n d a (fragments 134152)
10
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
C O N T E N T S
III.
TRANSLATION 10. 1 1. 12. Physics Katharmoi Addenda
AND
COMMENTARY
153 155 264 293

2 g g
Bibliography Index Fontium Index Verborum Index Locorum I n d e x N o m i n u m et R e r u m
31' 3!9 347 357
Acknowledgment
I t is a pleasure to give credit to those w h o have assisted this w o r k at different stages, to Professor G . E . L . O w e n , Professor P. H . J . L l o y d - J o n e s , the C e n t e r for H e l l e n i c Studies a n d its director, Professor . M . W . D r . Moorhead Wright. K n o x , to M r . E . L . Hussey, Professor A . P. D . Mourelatos, M s . S h a r o n Slodki, a n d in primis
Vll
1. Life and Writings

D A T I N G E M P E D O C L E S ' L I F E 8jih
E m p e d o c l e s ' dates are u n c e r t a i n . Apollodorus sets his floruit i n the
O l y m p i a d ( 4 4 4 - 4 4 0 B . C . ) , but as this period connects w i t h the foundation of T h u r i i i n 444 B . C . , w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s w a s said to have visited soon after it was established, the notice is suspect. 1 A c c o r d i n g to the chronology of Eusebius, E m p e d o c l e s was b e c o m i n g k n o w n together w i t h P a r m e n i d e s i n the 81st O l y m p i a d ( 4 5 6 - 4 5 2 B . C . ) , a n d w i t h D e m o c r i t u s i n the 86th O l y m p i a d ( 4 3 6 - 4 3 2 B . C . ) . A u l u s Gellius puts the floruit of E m p e d o c l e s ' philosophical activity between the defeat o f the F a b i i at C r e m e r a (477 B . C . ) a n d the establishment o f the D e c e m v i r a t e (451 B . C . ) . 2 O n the a u thority o f Neanthes, Diogenes relates that w h e n there were signs o f the beginning of a t y r a n n y i n A c r a g a s , E m p e d o c l e s persuaded the people to p u t a n end to their rivalries a n d to adopt a democratic form o f government. T h i s w o u l d have taken place some time after the expulsion of T h r a s y d a e u s , the last tyrant o f Acragas, i n 472 B . C . 3 N o more c a n be concluded from these accounts than that Empedocles' working life covered a period between 477 a n d 432 B . C . Aristotle states that E m p e d o c l e s w a s younger t h a n A n a x a g o r a s , a n d a c c o r d i n g to T h e o p h r a s t u s E m p e d o c l e s was born not long after Anax-
1. Apollodorus ap. D . L . 8.52, 74; Glaucus of Rhegium quoted by Apollodorus on the visit to Thurii ap. D . L . 8.52; cf. the mechanical dating of Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Zeno in connection with the foundation of lea in 540 B . C . : D . L . 9.20, 23, 29, and of Protagoras with Thurii: D . L . 9.50, 56. 2. Eusebius Chron. O l . 8 t , 86; Gellius . Att. 17.21.14. 3. Neanthes ap. D . L . 8.72; for the expulsion of Thrasydaeus by Syracuse and the establishment of democracy at Acragas cf. Diodorus Siculus 11.53. 3
I N T R O D U C T I O N
L I F E
A N D W R I T I N G S
agoras. 4 I f the date of A n a x a g o r a s ' b i r t h is accepted as c a . 500 B . C . , 5 then 495-49

i s a
that E m p e d o c l e s is said to h a v e adopted is also attributed to the influence of A n a x i m a n d e r . 1 1 O t h e r teachers assigned to E m p e d o c l e s m a y be discounted. H e r m i p pus, for example, asserts that E m p e d o c l e s followed not P a r m e n i d e s b u t X e n o p h a n e s a n d spent part of his life w i t h h i m . I n the Suda w a s a p u p i l of Pythagoras a n d w a s expelled, like Plato, for Archytas logoklopia. is given as the teacher o f E m p e d o c l e s . T i m a e u s reports that E m p e d o c l e s Neanthes agrees w i t h this, w i t h the correction that E m p e d o c l e s w a s a p u p i l not of Pythagoras but o f some u n k n o w n P y t h a g o r e a n ; he adds that no reliance should be p l a c e d on the letter attributed to T e l a u g e s , w h i c h claims that H i p p a s u s a n d B r o n t i n u s taught E m p e d o c l e s . A further d u bious tradition makes E m p e d o c l e s the p u p i l o f this T e l a u g e s . 1 2 E m p e d o c l e s is also said to h a v e been the teacher o f G o r g i a s . 1 5 I j ^ this is correct it w o u l d suggest that E m p e d o c l e s was older t h a n G o r g i a s by at least ten years. G o r g i a s ' b i r t h is generally agreed to be c a . 4 8 3 B . C . , 1 4 a n d so a n earlier date i n the p e r i o d 4 9 5 - 4 9 0 B . C . w o u l d be a p p r o priate for E m p e d o c l e s . E v e n i f the t e a c h e r - p u p i l relationship is based m a i n l y o n a passage from Plato's Meno, seniority is still p r e s u p p o s e d . 1 5 A c c o r d i n g to Aristotle, as quoted b y Apollodorus, E m p e d o c l e s d i e d at the age o f sixty. T h i s notice is m o r e reliable t h a n the evidence for the v a r i a n t s o f seventy-seven a n d one h u n d r e d a n d nine years. T h e first comes from the same source as the dubious account o f E m p e d o c l e s ' d e a t h as the result of a b r o k e n thigh, a n d the second is a n obvious confusion w i t h the age of Gorgias at his d e a t h . 1 6 F r o m a n assessment o f the a v a i l a b l e w h e r e a theory o f pores a n d effluences derived from E m p e d o c l e s is attributed to G o r g i a s , E m p e d o c l e s '
possible range for that of E m p e d o c l e s . A n d this i n t u r n agrees the A t h e n i a n s ( i n 4 1 5 B . C . ) , as some suppose,
w i t h the r e m a r k o f Apollodorus that E m p e d o c l e s could not h a v e fought w i t h S y r a c u s e against because he w o u l d then h a v e been d e a d o r a very old m a n . 6 F u r t h e r support for this d a t i n g o f E m p e d o c l e s ' b i r t h comes from his c o n n e c t i o n w i t h the E l e a t i c s . H e is said b y T h e o p h r a s t u s to h a v e a d m i r e d P a r m e n i d e s a n d to h a v e i m i t a t e d h i m i n his p o e m s . 7 T h i s need not m e a n that Empedocles w a s personally acquainted with Parmenides, a n d T h e o p h r a s t u s here finds c o m m o n g r o u n d i n the fact that they both wrote i n hexameters. B u t E m p e d o c l e s gave careful consideration to the w o r k o f P a r m e n i d e s , a n d his o w n theory is i n p a r t a later reply to it. A c c o r d i n g to A l c i d a m a s , E m p e d o c l e s w a s a p u p i l o f P a r m e n i d e s at the same time as Z e n o was, a n d i n the Suda Melissus, E m p e d o c l e s , a n d Z e n o are c o n t e m p o r a r i e s . 8 T h e a p p r o x i m a t e dates o f P a r m e n i d e s a n d Z e n o c a n be c a l c u l a t e d from Plato's Parmenides, about sixty-five "where P a r m e n i d e s is said to have been years o l d a n d Z e n o n e a r l y forty w h e n they m e t the
y o u n g Socrates i n A t h e n s . 9 S i n c e Socrates' death at seventy was i n 3 9 9 B . C . , i f h e is taken to h a v e been a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty years old a t the time of this meeting, P a r m e n i d e s ' b i r t h w o u l d be c a . 515 B . C . , a n d Z e n o ' s c a . 490 B . C . ; this w o u l d fit w e l l w i t h the hypothesis that E m p e d o c l e s w a s b o r n between 495 a n d 4 9 0 B . C . H o w e v e r , the reliability o f A l c i d a m a s ' a c c o u n t as given b y Diogenes is vitiated b y the addition that, after h e a r i n g Parmenides, Empedocles became the p u p i l of both A n a x a g o r a s a n d Pythagoras, i m i t a t i n g the former i n his physiology a n d the latter i n the dignity of his life a n d d e m e a n o r . 1 0 T h e affectation o f c h a r a c t e r a n d dress
4. Aristotle Metaph.
984311; Theophrastus ap. Simplicius in Phys. 25.19.
5. Cf. Apollodorus and Demetrius of Phalerum ap. D . L . 2.7; on Anaxagoras' chronology generally cf. A. E . Taylor CQ. 1917, pp. 81-87; J . S. Morrison CQ_ 1941, p. 5, n. 2,
J . A. Davison CQ. 1953, pp. 3 9 - 4 5 ; W. K . C . Guthrie History of Creek Philosophy pp. 322-23; D . O'Brien JHS 1968, pp. 93-113. 6. Apollodorus ap. D . L . 8 . 5 2 ; cf. F . Jacoby Apollodors Chronik p. 273. vol. 2,
Empedocles' birth back to 521 B.c. Even on this unwarranted assumption Empedocles could not have attended courses by Anaxagoras and Pythagoras after hearing Parmenides. 11. Diodorus of Ephesus ap. D . L . 8.70. 12. Hermippus ap. D . L . 8.56; Suda s.v. Archytas; Timaeus and Neanthes ap. D . L . 8.54-55; Telauges as Empedocles' teacher: D . L . 8.43, Eusebius 10.15; on the hexameter line supposedly addressed by Empedocles to Telauges cf. below, n. 94.
13. Satyrus ap. D . L . 8.58; cf. Quintilian 3.1.8, Olympiodorus Plat. Gorg. proem. 9,
7. Theophrastus ap. D . L . 8.55, and cf. Simplicius loc. cit., who adds that E m pedocles was even more a follower of the Pythagoreans; for Empedocles as a favored pupil of Parmenides cf. also Porphyry ap. Suda s.v. Empedokles. 8. Alcidamas ap. D . L . 8.56; Suda s.v. Meletos. Melissus' work, however, is probably later, for D K 30 6 7 ( 3 ) and B8 look like a reply to Empedocles; cf. Guthrie HGP vol. 2,
pp. 115-16.
Suda s.v. Gorgias, Empedokles. 14. Cf. [Plut.] Vit. Xorat. 8326 and the discussion by E . Wellmann, F I T s.v. Gorgias
(8).
15. Plato Meno 76c, and cf. Empedocles as the founder of rhetoric: D . L . 8.57, Sextus Empiricus adv. math. 7.6. 16. Aristotle (and Heraclides if Sturz's emendation is accepted) ap. D . L . 8.52, 74; Neanthes ap. D . L . 8.73, and cf. J . Bidez La Biographie d'Empedocle p. 64; for 109 years for Empedocles and Gorgias cf. D . L . 8.74, 58.
9. Plato Parmenides 127b.

10. F . M . Cleve, The Giants of Pre-Sophistic Greek Philosophy vol. 2, pp. 332-33, accepts
Alcidamas' report in its entirety but can do so only by following G.F. Unger in putting
L I F E
testimony, therefore, it m a y be c o n c l u d e d that E m p e d o c l e s ' dates a r e approximately 494-434 B . C .
E m p e d o c l e s w a s a favorite subject- for the detailed elaboration o f the H e l l e n i s t i c biographers, a n d v e r y little o f the evidence for his life that comes from this source c a n be considered reliable. I t does seem, however, that E m p e d o c l e s played some part i n the political activities o f A c r a g a s . T h e r o n died i n 473 B . C . ; his p e r i o d o f power h a d p r o v e d beneficial a n d popular, a n d h e w a s a w a r d e d a hero's honors after his death. H e w a s succeeded b y his son T h r a s y d a e u s , a violent a n d lawless tyrant, w h o w i t h i n a y e a r was d r i v e n from A c r a g a s b y S y r a c u s a n troops u n d e r H i e r o n and later c o n d e m n e d to death. Peace a n d d e m o c r a c y were restored to A c r a g a s , b u t there w a s still m u c h tension, a n d ten years later civil strife broke out i n a l l the S i c i l i a n d e m o c r a c i e s . 2 3 I t is credible that a family of wealth a n d standing, as that o f E m p e d o c l e s w a s said to be, w o u l d be involved i n these changes i n the city. M a n y of the details o f this involvement come from T i m a e u s ; his statements are carefully reported from the original book b y Diogenes, a n d his information o n S i c i l i a n politics m a y preserve a n authentic t r a d i t i o n . 2 4 T w o facts, however, throw som" suspicion on the i m p o r t a n c e o f E m p e d o c l e s ' role i n politics. T h e first is that Diodorus does not m e n t i o n E m p e d o c l e s at a l l i n his S i c i l i a n history a p a r t from quoting a line from fragment 102(112) to illustrate the hospitality o f A c r a g a s ; 2 5 the second is that T i m a e u s does report a deal o f nonsense about E m p e d o c l e s , a n d it is difficult to estimate his reliability on a n y one p o i n t . 2 6 After the death of E m p e d o c l e s ' father, a c c o r d i n g to Neanthes, of t y r a n n y became noticeable in Acragas; Empedocles signs then himself
P O L I T I C S ,
R H E T O R I C ,
A N D
M E D I C I N E a n d grandson of
E m p e d o c l e s w a s a native o f A c r a g a s , son o f M e t o n and
E m p e d o c l e s . T h e family w a s said to have been w e a l t h y a n d distinguished, this is borne o u t b y the grandfather's victory i n horse r a c i n g at O l y m p i a i n 496 B . C . 1 7 I t is reported that E m p e d o c l e s himself w a s r i c h a n d that from his resources h e p r o v i d e d dowries a n d m a i n t a i n e d a t r a i n o f attendants, b u t s u c h details a r e most p r o b a b l y elaborations o f his o w n words i n fragment 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) . 1 8 E m p e d o c l e s is credited w i t h a brother, C a l l i c r a t i d e s , a sister, a son, a n d a daughter, a n d , b y the daughter, a g r a n d s o n w h o w a s also c a l l e d E m p e d o c l e s . 1 9 Most authorities give M e t o n as the n a m e o f E m p e d o c l e s ' father, but i n the letter o f T e l a u g e s it is said to b e A r c h i n o m o s ; a c c o r d i n g to S a t y r u s the father w a s E x a e n e t o s , a n d E m p e d o c l e s h a d a son o f the same n a m e . T h e Suda has M e t o n , w i t h A r c h i n o m o s a n d Exaenetos as a l t e r n a tives.20 Karsten suggests that A r c h i n o m o s w a s a cognomen magistratus of M e t o n a n d w a s later mistakenly assumed to be the n a m e o f E m p e d ocles' f a t h e r . 2 1 A s for the second v a r i a n t , a n E x a e n e t o s o f A c r a g a s w o n a n O l y m p i c victory for the stadion i n the 91st a n d 9 2 n d O l y m p i a d s (416 and 412 B . C . ) , a n d a double confusion seems to h a v e arisen. F i r s t , E m p e d ocles w a s m i s t a k e n for his grandfather as a victor i n horse r a c i n g , a n d second, the later victory of E x a e n e t o s i n r u n n i n g w a s attributed to the son of Empedocles. Moreover, tradition, that the confusion o f E m p e d o c l e s w i t h his Empedocles went to O l y m p i a a n d , grandfather, E m p e d o c l e s the O l y m p i c victor, is likely to have been the basis o f another because o f fragment 118(128), that h e there sacrificed a n ox m a d e of
persuaded the people to p u t a n e n d to their seditions a n d to observe political e q u a l i t y . 2 7 H i s p r o d e m o c r a t i c outlook is preserved i n a fragment of Aristotle, '
Exaenetos who was said to be Empedocles' son was in wrestling according to Satyrus, and according to Heraclides Lembus, in running: D . L . 8.53; for Empedocles as victor, and for the bloodless sacrifices cf. Athenaeus 1.3, Suda s.v. Athenaios, D . L . 8.53, p. 5, suggests that Philostratus Vit. Ap.i. 1.2, Eustathius ad Od. 1454.20; Karsten, EAcr
honey a n d barley m e a l . 2 2
17. Empedocles, son of Meton: Timaeus, Hermippus, Hippobotus, Apollodorus ap. D.L. 8 . 5 1 , Aetius 1.3.20; Empedocles' grandfather of the same name: Timaeus, Hippobotus; horse training: Heraclides Ponticus; Olympian victory (71st O l . ) : Aristotle (quoted by Eratosthenes), Apollodorus; his fame: Timaeus, Hermippus; cf. D . L . 8.51-52. 18. Cf. D . L . 8.73. 19. Cf. Favorinus, Satyrus, Aristotle, Hieronymus ap. D . L . 8.53, 57; Suda s.v. Empedokles ( 2 ) . 20. D . L . 8.53, Suda s.v. Empedokles.
21. S. Karsten Empcdoclis Agrigentini carmina reliquiae p. 4 , n. 5.
Exaenetos was the name of the great-grandfather and of the uncle of Empedocles.
23. from Diodorus Siculus 11.53.1-5, 7 2 - ' - 2 > Times vol. 2, p. 345.
a n
8 c l - E - A. Freeman The History of Sicily
the Earliest
24. E.g., Diogenes quotes from books 15, 9, 18, 11, and 12 of the Histories of Timaeus
at 8.51,54,60,66; cf. F . Susemihl Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur vol. 1, p. 5 7 1 , n. 258.
25. Diodorus Siculus 13.83.1. 26. Cf. Timaeus on Empedocles as a pupil of Pythagoras, and the anecdote of the skins: D . L . 8.54,60; Timaeus is called , Diodorus Siculus 13.90.6. 27. Neanthes ap. D . L . 8.72. Suda s.v.; cf. Plutarch Nie. 1.2-4,
22. Exaenetos' victories: Diodorus Siculus 12.82.1, 13.34.1, 82.7; the victory of the
8 a n d this is elaborated i n X a n t h u s to a refusal
L I F E
A N D
W R I T I N G S
, o f the k i n g s h i p . 2 8
the other against t y r a n n y , given after the death o f M e t o n . Y e t neither o f t h e m should be accepted unconditionally, for the first serves to introduce a n e p i g r a m that is almost certainly spurious, a n d the second rests only o n the dubious authority o f N e a n t h e s . 3 5 If, however, E m p e d o c l e s d i d w o r k for democracy, a n d w i t h some success, persuasive oratory m a y h a v e contributed to this success; nevertheless, no quotation from a n y w o r k i n prose b y E m p e d o c l e s is e x t a n t , 3 6 a n d there is n o means of assessing h i s competence as a rhetorician. I t is also difficult to come to a decision about E m p e d o c l e s ' m e d i c a l skill: was he a genuine healer o r a c h a r l a t a n ? T h e tradition is elaborate and confused, a n d it is w e l l to start from E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n words. T h e fragments contain several observations o f a n elementary c h a r a c t e r o n a n a t o m y a n d physiology, a n d not necessarily presupposing professional knowledge. T h e functions o f seeing a n d breathing, for e x a m p l e , a r e e x p l a i n e d analogically by the o r d i n a r y m e c h a n i s m o f the l a n t e r n a n d the clepsydra. T h e structure o f bone is represented b y a simple ratio of four parts fire to two e a c h o f e a r t h a n d water. T h e alignment o f the m a l e to the w a r m ( a n d left) side o f the w o m b , a n d of the female to the cold ( a n d r i g h t ) , seems more a n y b i t r a r y disagreement w i t h P a r m e n i d e s t h a n a m e d i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n . 3 7 F u r t h e r information is supplied b y the doxographers about E m p e d o c l e s ' accounts o f nourishment, growth, sleep, a n d d e a t h , as well as such details as the cause of tears a n d sweat, a n d the c o m position of nails a n d sinews; a c c o r d i n g to one authority Empedocles also h a d a n explanation for some mental d i s o r d e r s . 3 8 B u t these accounts, like that of sensation b y means of pores a n d effluences, need not be the result o f deduction from c l i n i c a l experience; the conclusions could e q u a l l y w e l l have been r e a c h e d by reasoning from a physical theory that a i m e d to be a l l - e m b r a c i n g . E m p e d o c l e s seems to have h a d a p a r t i c u l a r interest i n embryology,
35. D . L . 8.65; '.
Diogenes quotes three incidents from T i m a e u s w h i c h show that E m p e d ocles w a s actively d e m o c r a t i c . 2 9 T h e first, w h i c h is said to m a r k the b e g i n n i n g o f E m p e d o c l e s ' political career, is a curious tale o f his prosecuti n g t w o state officials for signs of i n c i p i e n t t y r a n n y i n their d o m i n e e r i n g m a n n e r to their guests. T h e guests h a d been kept w a i t i n g , a n d w h e n the w i n e w a s finally brought they w e r e o r d e r e d either to d r i n k it or to have it p o u r e d over their h e a d s . 3 0 I n the second story the p h y s i c i a n A c r o n petitioned the Boule for some l a n d for a m e m o r i a l to his father. E m p e d o c l e s , speaking , caused the petition to be rejected. Empedocles' third a c t i o n w a s to b r e a k u p a n o r g a n i z a t i o n c a l l e d the " T h o u s a n d , " three years after it h a d been established. N o t h i n g is k n o w n o f this o r g a n i z a t i o n ; it m a y h a v e been a f o r m a l senate similar to the senate of a thousand at R h e g i u m o r a n aristocratic conspiracy o r c l u b . 3 1 A notice of P l u t a r c h that m a y be referring to this dissolution also shows E m p e d o c l e s taking measures against l e a d i n g citizens w h o h a d a n t i d e m o c r a t i c a i m s . 3 2 W h a t e v e r the t r u t h o f these anecdotes, the tradition presents E m p e d o c l e s as a c h a m p i o n o f the people, c a p a b l e o f firm a n d independent action. The contrast between the c h a r a c t e r h e revealed i n political life a n d the on.33 p r o u d attitude he adopted i n his poetry was r e m a r k e d Empedocles , invented rhetoric. S a t y r u s
I n a fragment of the Sophist preserved i n Diogenes, Aristotle states that too calls E m p e d o c l e s b u t the only evidence g i v e n i n support o f this is that Gorgias
was h i s p u p i l . 3 4 I n the reports o f E m p e d o c l e s ' political activity two speeches o n equality are mentioned, one i n reply to A c r o n ' s request, a n d
28. Aristotle and Xanthus ap. D . L . 8.63; cf. a similar refusal reported of Heraclitus: D . L . 9.6.
29. D . L . 8.64-66.
30. T . S. Brown, Timaeus of Tauromenium p. 52, suggests that the story presents a caricature of Empedocles, originating perhaps in one of the comedy writers, and not to be taken seriously. 31. Cf. Freeman History of Sicily vol. 2, pp. 349, 560; also Xenophanes fr. 3 and, on the Assembly at Mytilene, D. Page Sappho and Alcaeus p. 178.
32. Plut. adv. Col. 1126b: . .
D . L . 8.72. For the epigram cf.
below, . 94; for an assessment of Neanthes' merits as a historian cf. Jacoby, F. Gr. . IIa, pp. 144-45, and on his bias and powers of invention, Bidez Biographie pp. 65-67. 36. With the possible exception of Empedocles' comment on the luxury at Acragas,
from Timaeus at D . L . 8 . 6 3 : ' , .
33 Timaeus ap. D. L . 8.66; cf. Empedocles' comment on the luxurious life at Acragas, quoted below, n. 36, and Favorinus' description of Empedocles' own dress and retinue, D . L . 8.63 and 73, but these details in Favorinus are almost certainly a later elaboration. 34. Aristotle ap. D . L . 8.57; Satyrus ap. D . L . 8.58; cf. D . L . 9.25, Sextus Empiricus
ado. math. 7.6, Suda s.v. Zeno, Qpintilian 3.1.8.
37. F r s . 8 8 ( 8 4 ) , 9 ' ( ) . 4 8 ( 9 6 ) > 5 7 ( 6 5 ) . 5 8 ( 7 ) ; and cf. Aristotle Part. An. 6 4 8 3 2 5 - 3 1 ;
G. E . R. Lloyd (3HS 1964, p. 102) suggests that male and warm were related as intrinsically superior to female and cold. 38. Aetius 5.27.1, Soranus Gynaec. 1.57 ( D K 31 A 7 9 ) ; Aetius 5.24.2, 25.4, 2 2 . 1 ; Caelius Aurel. Mori, chron. 1.5 ( D K 31 A 9 8 ) .
L I F E
AND
W R I T I N G S
b u t this is i n the Presocratic tradition, for the subject was also treated by P a r m e n i d e s ( i n the Doxa), a n d b y A n a x a g o r a s a n d Diogenes of A p o l l o n i a . S o m e dates E m p e d o c l e s gives i n this connection a r e quite precise. I t m a y h a v e been from observation that he decided that the development of the fetus began o n the thirty-sixth d a y a n d w a s completed o n the forty-ninth d a y , a n d that the m i l k w a s formed o n the tenth d a y of the eighth m o n t h . 3 9 Y e t the correlation of nine a n d seven m o n t h births w i t h the e a r l i e r cosmic days of nine a n d seven months' d u r a t i o n suggests that E m p e d o c l e s w a s attempting to find a connection between the developm e n t of m a n a n d the growth of the w o r l d , r a t h e r t h a n putting forward a m e d i c a l theory based o n personal p r a c t i c e . 4 0 I n a w e l l - k n o w n fragment, doctors a r e set w i t h prophets, minstrels, a n d leaders as belonging to the highest stage of h u m a n life; it is probable t h a t E m p e d o c l e s considered the four careers to be united i n himself. O b v i o u s l y he w o u l d be ecies a n d c u r e s . 4 1 M o r e o v e r , w i l l l e a r n of pedocles' a n d , a n d he claims that i n the towns people flocked to h i m i n thousands, expecting of h i m both p r o p h E m p e d o c l e s promises Pausanias that h e a n d , w h a t was obviously thought to be
E m p e d o c l e s , Pythagoras, a n d D e m o c r i t u s as
(in the
s t a n d a r d tradition of philosophers l e a r n i n g their w i s d o m from travels i n E g y p t a n d the E a s t ) but adds that they d i d not practice the techne of the m a g i . 4 6 O n the other side the three names are given by Celsus as the most famous of those skilled i n the a r t o f m e d i c i n e ; a c c o r d i n g to Satyrus E m p e d o c l e s w a s a p h y s i c i a n a n d r h e t o r i c i a n , a n d G a l e n speaks o f Philistion, E m p e d o c l e s , Pausanias, a n d their as I t a l i a n p h y s i c i a n s . 4 7 H e r a c l i d e s Ponticus also c l a i m e d that E m p e d o c l e s w a s a p h y s i c i a n a n d prophet, but this c l a i m is based admittedly o n E m p e d o c l e s ' address to the people of A c r a g a s . 4 8 F o u r beneficial actions are recorded o f E m p e d o c l e s , o n the border line between m e d i c a l a n d m a g i c a l cure. T h e authority for t h e m is questionable, a n d they are usually regarded as elaborations on E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n words. First, it is said that E m p e d o c l e s allayed a y o u n g lyre, a n d that the y o u n g m a n afterward became Empedocles' man's most murderous rage against his host, A n c h i t o s , w i t h a soothing m e l o d y o n the famous p u p i l . 4 9 T l ^ r e m a y be some confusion here between this person a n d Pausanias, son of Anchitos, to w h o m E m p e d o c l e s addresses his physi c a l poem, a n d also a n attempt of soul a n d body w i t h m u s i c . 5 0 S e c o n d , there are various versions of E m p e d o c l e s ' control of the winds, w h i c h brought h i m the epithets a n d T h e simplest account is i n P l u t a r c h a n d C l e m e n t . 5 1 A powerful w i n d w a s blowing onto the plain of A c r a g a s through a m o u n t a i n cleft, bringing diseases a n d m a k i n g the w o m e n b a r r e n . E m p e d o c l e s checked the w i n d by blocking the cleft. T i m a e u s a n d the Suda give the additional detail o f E m p e d o c l e s Empedocles is said to have ordering the skins o f flayed asses to be h u n g stretched on the headlands to a c t as a w i n d b r e a k . I n Philostratus stopped a storm cloud from o v e r w h e l m i n g the people of A c r a g a s . 5 2 T h e to link E m p e d o c l e s w i t h the Pythagaffections oreans, for Pythagofas too was said to have been able to soothe
u n a t t a i n a b l e , defense against old age a n d restoration to l i f e . 4 2 B u t E m words o n healing a r e ambiguous, , for the c o u l d be a genuine cure or a more dubious r e m e d y , 4 3 a n d the m e d i c a l advice or a n incantation.
T h e r e is a report from Satyrus that quotes Gorgias as saying .44 T h e expression is not c o m p l i m e n t a r y , a n d D i e l s has tried to show that it could not have been used by G o r g i a s o f E m p e d o c l e s but that it p r o b a b l y c a m e from a dialogue o f A l c i d a m a s . 4 5 H o w e v e r , no such dialogue is k n o w n , a n d Gorgias m a y w e l l h a v e b e e n present at the type of scene described i n fragment 102(112) a n d h a v e regarded the proceedings w i t h some suspicion. Philostratus gives
39. Aetius 5.21.1 and fr. 59(68); cf. Aetius 5.15.3.
40. Aetius 5.18. .

41. fr. Frs. 132(146), 102(112). 1 0 - 1 1 ; and cf. the commentary on 101(111). 1-2, 9 : . . . under ' / 132(146). 42. Cf. Empedocles' fr. ' Symp. and Horn. Hym. Apoll. . 101(111) with , , cf. Plato Crat. 405a -b, and the 192-93:
46. Philostratus Vit. Ap. 1.2, and cf. Pliny HN 30.2.9. 47. Celsus proem. 2.11 ( D K 68 B 3 0 0 . 1 0 ) ; Satyrus ap. D . L . 8.58; Galen meth. med.
1.1 ( 1 0 . 6 K ) , and cf. Suda s.v. Parmenides.
48. Heraclides Ponticus ap. D . L . 8.61 withfr. 102(112). 49. Iamblichus Vit. Pylh. 113. 50. Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 30 and cf. 32-33, Cicero Tusc. 4.3; but cf. also Plato Charmides
157b, Laws 51. 802-03, and R. C . Lodge Plato's Theory of Education, especially pp. 166, 299. Plutarch curios. 515c, adv. Col. 1126b; Clement Strom. 6.3.30, and cf. Eustathius
'
43 Suda s.v. introduces fr. 203d of Eros, definitions in Suda s.v. .
ad Od. 1645.43, Porphyry Vit. Pylh. 29, Iamblichus Vit. Pylh. 135.
44- Satyrus ap. D . L . 8.59. 45. Diels, "Gorgias und .," SPAW 1884, p. 344, n. 1.
52. Timaeus ap. D . L . 8.60, Suda s.v. apnous and Empedokles; Philostratus Vit. Ap.
8.7.8.
12
L I F E
A N D
W R I T I N G S
detail o f the asses' skins is p e r h a p s derived from H o m e r ' s portrait o f Aeolus a n d goes against E m p e d o c l e s ' w a r n i n g o n the treatment o f a n i mals. T h e incidents a r e c l e a r l y i n v e n t e d as a b a c k g r o u n d to E m p e d o c l e s ' promise to P a u s a n i a s that he w i l l be able to check the force of h a r m f u l winds.53 E m p e d o c l e s is also said to h a v e c l e a r e d Selinus of a plague caused b y a n evil stench from the r i v e r , w h i c h w a s k i l l i n g the citizens a n d affecting c h i l d b i r t h . A t his o w n expense he d r e w off channels from two neighboring rivers, a n d so sweetened the w a t e r a n d stopped the p l a g u e . 5 4 T h r e e coins d a t e d c a . 4 6 6 - 4 1 5 B . C . c l e a r l y refer to deliverance from a plague c o n nected w i t h the r i v e r Selinus, but it is impossible to say w h e t h e r E m p e d ocles h i m s e l f was i n s t r u m e n t a l i n the c u r e or i f his n a m e was i n t r o d u c e d l a t e r . 5 5 D i o d o r u s o f E p h e s u s , w h o is the source o f the story o f E m p e d ocles' a c t i o n here, is not m e n t i o n e d a n y w h e r e else b y Diogenes, a n d he c a n n o t be dated except insofar as his account of E m p e d o c l e s ' death is i n c l u d e d w i t h that of H e r m i p p u s a n d H i p p o b o t u s a m o n g those rejected by T i m a e u s . D i o d o r u s states that, after E m p e d o c l e s e r a d i c a t e d the plague, the people of Selinus rose from a feast w h e n he a p p e a r e d a n d worshiped him as a g o d ; to confirm their belief he leaped into the fire.56 These details, together w i t h the m e n t i o n o f E m p e d o c l e s ' e m u l a t i o n of A n a x i m a n d e r ' s dress a n d deportment, t h r o w doubt o n D i o d o r u s ' authority. I t c a n only be said that there a r e coins i n d i c a t i n g a plague at Selinus i n E m p e d o c l e s ' lifetime, a n d n e a r his town of A c r a g a s ; the diversion of the rivers seems a sensible remedy, a n d E m p e d o c l e s h a d the w e a l t h to c a r r y it out. T h e incident is not so obviously based o n fragment 101 (111) as is that of the w i n d checking, a n d it c o u l d w e l l be true. L a t e r it w a s attached rather carelessly to the t r a d i t i o n of E m p e d o c l e s ' leap into E t n a . The had fourth story concerns a w o m a n i n a trance a n d is first found i n
the doctors h a d despaired o f reviving h e r . 5 7 H e r a c l i d e s ' writings w e r e k n o w n to both P l i n y a n d G a l e n , w h o give further details, b u t w i t h o u t mentioning Empedocles. A c c o r d i n g to P l i n y a w o m a n h a d been for seven days, a n d the cause w a s conversio volvae;66 exanimis i n G a l e n she is said to
h a v e resembled a corpse, except for some b r e a t h at the center o f the b o d y . 5 9 I f these accounts are taken together w i t h E m p e d o c l e s ' interest i n respiration a n d embryology, a n d his theory that sleep is the p a r t i a l a n d death the complete c h i l l i n g of the w a r m t h i n the b l o o d , 6 0 the incident c a n be m a d e plausible: E m p e d o c l e s explained to Pausanias the c o n f i r m a tion of his physical theory a n d showed how the w a r m t h could be fully restored, but to the people he appeared to have performed a m i r a c l e . Nevertheless, it is likely that H e r a c l i d e s invented the tale, or at least m a d e concrete a vague legend of E m p e d o c l e s raising the d e a d , w h i c h i n t u r n originated from the line ' ' -61 T h e incident is c o m b i n e d w i t h the leap into E t n a , a n d T i m a e u s rejected the whole as a fabrication, c a l l i n g H e r a c l i d e s a u t h o r of Ancient Medicine, 62 A n y m e d i c a l pretensions of E m p e d o c l e s come u n d e r fire from the w h o considers E m p e d o c l e s ' work, together w i t h the physical speculations of a l l previous philosophers a n d doctors, to be irrelevant to medicine. T h e treatise is a deliberate attempt to divorce m e d i c i n e from philosophy a n d is substantiated by a c l a i m that m e d i c i n e alone, if conducted along the right lines, w o u l d lead to a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of n a t u r a l philosophy. I t is directed against the methods of transferring philosophy to medicine, w h i c h was already a n established techne, founded on observation, experiment, a n d r u l e . 6 3 E m p e d o c l e s is no doubt singled out for attack because he is a w e l l - k n o w n e x a m p l e of a philosopher attempting to base medicine a n d physics o n similar p r i n c i p l e s . 6 4 E m p e d o c l e s m a y , however, author of Sacred Disease.65 be exonerated from the attack of the I n that w o r k there is a violent d e n u n c i a t i o n of
H e r a c l i d e s Ponticus. H e relates that E m p e d o c l e s revived a w o m a n w h o been for thirty days w i t h o u t sign of b r e a t h i n g or pulse ( ); E m p e d o c l e s revealed the facts of the case to Pausanias, a n d
57. From the of Heraclides: D . L . 8.60, 6 1 ; 6 7 ; cf. Suda s.v. apnous; Hermippus ap. D . L . 8.69. 58. Pliny HN 7.52. 59. Galen de toe. ajf. 6.5 ( 8 . 4 1 5 K ) .
60. Aetius 5 . 2 4 . 2 : . iv , ) .
a m o n g the people he b e c a m e famous for h a v i n g sent a dead w o m a n a w a y alive. H e r m i p p u s gives the n a m e o f the w o m a n as P a n t h e i a a n d adds that
53. Empedocles fr. 101(111). 3 - 4 , Homer Od. 10. ig -22. 54. Diodorus of Ephesus ap. D . L . 8.70. 55. For a description of the coins and a discussion of their interpretation cf. . V .
Head Historia Numorum p. 168; Karsten EAcr pp. 22-23; Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 133,
6.
Empedocles fr. 101(11 i).g.
62. Timaeus ap. D . L . 8.72; for the pueriles fabulae of Heraclides cf. Cicero ND 1.13.34, Plutarch Camillas 22.3.
63. 65.
n. 2; A. H . Lloyd, "The Coin Types of Selinus and the Legend of Empedocles," NC

1935. 73-93 56.
Cf. VM 1-2, 15, 20. 64. Cf. Festugiere ed. VM p. 58, n. 69, Jaeger Paedeia vol. 3, p. 296, n. 40 on VM 20.
Morb. Sacr. 2.1-32, and cf. the attacks on superstition Aer. 22.
D . L . 8.70.
>4 -
15 T H E The M A N N E R O FE M P E D O C L E S '
L I F E
those w h o c l a i m to eyre the sick
D E A T H
S u c h c h a r l a t a n s are represented as saying that they c a n b r i n g d o w n the m o o n , cause eclipses o f the s u n , b r i n g r a i n o r fine weather, a n d m a k e the e a r t h b a r r e n at w i l l . T h e y attach diseases i n a n absurd w a y to deities, m a k i n g no prayers o r sacrifices but prescribing cleansing w i t h blood; a n d there a r e various taboos, especially connected w i t h food a n d w a s h i n g w i t h water. Despite the m e n t i o n oikatharmoi a n d power over the weather, it m a y be a r g u e d that n o reference to E m p e d o c l e s is i m p l i e d since he is against a l l bloodshed, approves o f sacrifice o f a bloodless k i n d , a n d reco m m e n d s purificatory a b l u t i o n . 6 6 T h e taboos a n d food prohibitions i n the account i n Sacred Disease suggest a base form of Pythagoreanism, but this cannot be established. E m p e d o c l e s ' position w i t h regard to medicine c a n n o w be s u m m a r i z e d . H i s views o n physiology a n d a n a t o m y m a y to some extent have been conclusions based o n observation, a n d a place was found for them i n his p h y s i c a l theory. T h i s theory a i m e d to be all-inclusive, extending from the structure of the cosmos to the simplest forms of life, but E m p e d o cles also h a d a n interest i n some o f the details for their o w n sake. None, however, presupposes specialized m e d i c a l knowledge. A l t h o u g h E m p e d o cles r a n k e d h e a l i n g as one o f the four highest careers, promised remedies, a n d was expected to provide them, it need not be assumed that he p r a c ticed m e d i c i n e as a techne. T h e place he was later given i n the history o f m e d i c i n e as a doctor o f repute is p r o b a b l y due to the direct influence his p h y s i c a l theories h a d o n m e d i c a l s c i e n c e . 6 7 O n the other h a n d , E m p e d o cles c a n be c l e a r e d o f charges o f w i z a r d r y . H i s promises are explicable as the power that is expected to come from knowledge o f n a t u r a l forces, a n d the requests o f the people m a y have arisen from exaggerated hopes based o n these promises, c o m b i n e d w i t h the confidence E m p e d o c l e s ' popularity and a s s u r a n c e inspired. I t is impossible to know whether gratitude for specific benefactions was involved or not. r e m a i n i n g details o f E m p e d o c l e s ' activities w h i c h are recorded i n the biographers connect w i t h the accounts of his death a n d m a y be assessed w i t h them. S o m e of the m a n y widely different versions of the w a y in w h i c h he died m a y be dismissed i m m e d i a t e l y as mere guesswork b y u n reliable authorities. D e m e t r i u s of T r o e z e n , for example, states that E m pedocles hanged himself; F a v o r i n u s , that he fell from a carriage while traveling to Messene, broke his thigh, a n d died from the resulting illness; the letter of T e l a u g e s , that, w h e n a n old m a n , he lost his b a l a n c e o n board ship a n d w a s d r o w n e d . 6 8 M o r e important, since it was later a c cepted as the true version, is the leap into E t n a . T h e story is first found i n H e r a c l i d e s P o n t i c u s . 6 9 After the c u r e o f the , E m p e d o c l e s is said to have offered sacrifice w i t h some friends near the field o f Peisianax. H e stayed a t the table after the others h a d retired but at daybreak was missing. Someone c l a i m e d to have seen a brilliant light a n d to have h e a r d a voice calling aloud E m p e d o c l e s i n the night. Pausanias asked the people to start a search b u t later stopped them, for events h a d h a p p e n e d , a n d E m p e d o c l e s w a s n o w to be honored as a god. T h e voice from the sky a n d the bright light, c o m b i n e d w i t h the sudden disappearance, indicate a n apotheosis, b u t from T i m a e u s ' objections to H e r a c l i d e s ' account it seems that H e r a c l i d e s explained the disappearance by saying that Empedocles h a d leapt into the c r a t e r . 7 0 F u r t h e r elaborations are found i n later authors. H e r m i p p u s gives the n u m b e r of those present a t the sacrifice as eighty. A c c o r d i n g to H i p pobotus, E m p e d o c l e s j u m p e d into the crater i n order to confirm the r e port that he h a d become a g o d ; as evidence for this, one of his sandals was found, w h i c h was c l a i m e d to have been t h r o w n u p b y the volcano. D i o d o r u s of Ephesus sets the scene not at A c r a g a s b u t at Selinus, where the people at a feast rose a n d revered E m p e d o c l e s as a god, a n d i n c o n firmation on,
66.
APh-
of this he leaped into the fire.71 F r o m the second century B . C .
the leap into E t n a superseded a l l other accounts o f E m p e d o c l e s '
Cf. Empedocles frs. 107(115), 118(128), 129(143).
67 E.g., for birth and death as the mixing and separating of elements cf. Reg. I 4 , 3-7) Nat. Horn. 3-4; for health, temperament, and intelligence depending on their balance and proportion cf. Reg. I 4, Aer. 24, Anon. Lond. 20; for their connection with cosmic forces cf. Aer. 1, Nat. Horn. 7, Aph. 3.3, Reg. I 2, and with the humors of the body cf. chap. 2, n. 28. For the development of Empedocles' theory of pores and effluences as an explanation of nutrition, respiration, and cognition cf. Reg. 1 23, Anon. Lond. 26, 34;
cf. further W. H . S. Jones Philosophy and Medicine in Ancient Greece pp. 10-13, and J .
death. I t is found, for example, i n H o r a c e a n d O v i d ; L u c i a n , m o c k i n g the story of the volcano a n d the sandals, suggests that E m p e d o c l e s was
68. Demetrius and Telauges ap. D . L . 8.74; Favorinus (or perhaps the authority here is Neanthes, cf. Bidez Biographie p. 64) ap. D . L . 8.73.
69. Heraclides ap. D . L . 8.67-68, 71-72.
Jouanna, "Presence d'E. dans la Collection Hippocratique," AGB
1961, pp. 452-63.
70. Timaeus ap. D . L . 8.71. 71. Hermippus, Hippobotus ap. D . L . 8.69; Diodorus ap. D . L . 8.70.
16
L I F E
d r i v e n to suicide b y m e l a n c h o l y , a h u m o r first attributed to h i m i n the A r i s t o t e l i a n Problems.12 Empedocles' death in Etna is found also i n G l a u d i a n , a n d it provided the C h r i s t i a n fathers w i t h m a t e r i a l for sermons o n the follies of c l a i m i n g to be a g o d . 7 3 Nevertheless, this version o f E m p e d o c l e s ' death m a y be discounted. First there a r e the objections that T i m a e u s brings against H e r a c l i d e s ' a c c o u n t . 7 4 Peisianax was a citizen of Syracuse a n d h a d no l a n d at A c r a g a s , so the feast c o u l d not have t a k e n place b y his field; Pausanias d i d not set u p a n y shrine o r statue to E m p e d o c l e s as a god, although, being a r i c h man, h e c o u l d easily have done s o ; 7 5 E m p e d o c l e s h a d nothing to say about craters i n his p o e m s ; a n d , i n short, this is a typical invention o f H e r a c l i d e s . Second, there is the disagreement about the location. A c r a g a s , Selinus, a n d Syracuse a r e the various places given for E m p e d o c l e s ' last hours, a n d i n addition F a v o r i n u s claims that E m p e d o c l e s ' tomb w a s i n M e g a r a . T h e later elaborations, s u c h as the increase i n the n u m b e r o f people present a n d the discovery o f the s a n d a l , a r e obvious and fictions. A c c o r d i n g to fragment 107(115) the d a i m o n is cast into fire from earth, this w o u l d be sufficient basis for a story of E m p e d o c l e s leaping into for anyone to cover the fire after a life o n earth. F i n a l l y , because of the geography of M o u n t E t n a it w o u l d have been extremely difficult distance to the foot o f the m o u n t a i n , to m a k e the c l i m b o f over ten t h o u sand feet, a n d then to survive the intense heat long enough to a p p r o a c h the m o u t h of the crater.76 E m p e d o c l e s left Sicily p e r m a n e n t l y for the T i m a e u s claims that
L i t t l e is k n o w n of his travels a b r o a d apart from the visit to T h u r i i a n d , from his o w n words, his tour o f prosperous t o w n s . 7 8 T i m a e u s reports that he m a d e a memorable impression at O l y m p i a , b u t reasons have alreadybeen given for suspecting the accounts of his victory a n d offerings t h e r e . 7 9 A c c o r d i n g to the Suda, E m p e d o c l e s w a s i n Athens at the same time as A c r o n , b u t this seems unlikely. A c r o n w a s k n o w n as a p h y s i c i a n i n A c r a g a s a n d it w o u l d be assumed that he worked there w i t h E m p e d o c l e s . H e is said to have practiced at Athens d u r i n g the plague, a n d so a story that E m p e d o c l e s a c c o m p a n i e d h i m could easily have been started, especially i f the version of E m p e d o c l e s ' cure of the plague at Selinus were k n o w n . B u t the date is too late, the story has no support elsewhere, a n d according to T i m a e u s , E m p e d o c l e s ' attitude thetic.80 Most probably, therefore, T i m a e u s is correct i n saying that the m a n ner o f Empedocles' death was u n k n o w n . I t is likely that E m p e d o c l e s did travel i n Sicily a n d southern I t a l y , a n d perhaps crossed to the Peloponnese. H i s political activities could w e l l have m a d e h i m u n p o p u l a r w i t h a section of the c o m m u n i t y at A c r a g a s , so that his r e t u r n w a s prevented, but nothing further was told o f the end of his life. T h e biographers w o u l d not accept such a l a c u n a and invented ways i n w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s m i g h t have d i e d ; the most d r a m a t i c a n d popular, a n d i n keeping with h i s poems, was the suicide on E t n a . 8 1 to A c r o n w a s u n s y m p a -
Peloponnese. E l s e w h e r e it is said that w h i l e E m p e d o c l e s was absent from A c r a g a s the descendants o f his political enemies opposed his r e t u r n . 7 7
W O R K S On
A T T R I B U T E D
T O E M P E D O C L E S wrote
the authority o f Aristotle, Diogenes states that E m p e d o c l e s political works, a , a n d a
tragedies,
72. 73. Horace Ars P. 4 6 4 - 6 6 , Ovid Ibis Cf. Claudian Paneg. Theod. 597-98, Lucian Dial Morl. 6.20.4, Fug. 2,
-82
H e adds that H i e r o n y m u s c l a i m e d to have met w i t h forty-
[Arist.] probl. 953327. 72, Tertullian De Anim. 32; Lactantius Div. Inst.
three of the tragedies, a n d Neanthes w i t h seven w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s h a d written i n his youth, but that H e r a c l i d e s ( L e m b u s ) m a i n t a i n e d that these tragedies were the work o f some other writer. Since their authorship is thus disputed a n d there is no further trace of tragedies by E m p e d o c l e s ,
3.18, Gregory Ad Nem. 281, and others quoted by Bidez Biographie p. 96. 74. Timaeus ap. D . L . 8.71. 75. Hippobotus ( D . L . 8.72) counters this objection, however, with the assertion that there were two statues of Empedocles, one at Acragas showing him veiled, and another, unveiled, which was removed to Rome. 76. Cf. Strabo's detailed description of Etna, and his demonstration of the impossibility either for Empedocles to have leaped into the crater or for a sandal to have been thrown up by the fire (6.2.8). Etna is about seventy miles from Acragas and a hundred from Selinus.
77. D . L . 8 . 6 7 : ^, )
1964, and translated by R. D. Hicks, Loeb 1925, "when Agrigentum came to regret him," can hardly be right. 78. D.L. 8.52, Empedocles fr. 102(112).7. 79. Timaeus ap. D . L . 8.66. 80. Cf. Suda s.v. Akrn, Plutarch de Is. et Os. 383d, Pliny HN 29.4, D . L . 8.65. 81. Cf. the versions of the deaths of Heraclitus and Diogenes of Apollonia: D . L .
9 . 3 - 4 , 6.76-77. 82.
, so reads Bignone B P E C 1941, p. 106, and for the participle cf. Sophocles OT 998; }, printed by . S. Long, O . C . T .
D.L. 8.57.
18
L I F E
they need not be taken into consideration h e r e . 8 3 T h e political writings a t t r i b u t e d to E m p e d o c l e s m a y also be dismissed. T h e only hint o f works of this k i n d is the m e n t i o n o f two speeches w h i c h are attributed to h i m . I f they w e r e delivered, then versions o f them m a y have a p p e a r e d later, b u t the speeches a r e suspect, a n d no quotation from a n y prose w o r k b y E m p e d o c l e s is k n o w n . 8 4 T h e P e r s i a n w o r k has some support i n the manuscripts o f the Problemata, w h e r e fragment 49(34) is quoted as iv , . T h i s fragm e n t is also quoted i n the m a n u s c r i p t s o f the Meteorologica reads .85 Because the context i n the Problemata o f Aristotle as a n d the Mete-
T h i s set of four groups of writings allotted to E m p e d o c l e s i n Diogenes need not therefore be considered i n a n ordering o f the fragments. N o direct quotation is extant w h i c h comes i n d u b i t a b l y from a n y one of them, a n d even i f these works are accepted as authentic because Diogenes claims Aristotle as his authority, the evidence tells against their s u r v i v a l into the fourth century. K a r s t e n suggests that E m p e d o c l e s m a y well h a v e written on a l l four subjects i n his youth because they are themes likely to appeal to a prolific writer o f E m p e d o c l e s ' temperament a n d wide interests, but the suggestion c a n be no more than s p e c u l a t i o n . 9 0 T h e r e is no reliable evidence that E m p e d o c l e s composed epigrams, or that a n y of the extant fragments a r e assigned to such writings. T h e are almost certainly epigrams attributed to E m p e d o c l e s b y Diogenes
w i t h the exception of the excellent m a n u s c r i p t w h i c h
orologica connects the fragment w i t h the m i x i n g of d r y a n d wet ingredients, it could h a v e come from a simile i n the physical p o e m o r from a description of the p r e p a r a t i o n of food on c a m p a i g n . H o w e v e r , the story, reported by Diogenes on the authority o f A r i s t o t l e , 8 6 o f a sister o r daughter o f E m p e d o c l e s deliberately b u r n i n g the w o r k because it was unfinished, shows that there was little or no trace o f a diabasis by E m p e d o c l e s i n the fourth century. S i n c e there is no other quotation attributed to such a w o r k , a n d no m e n t i o n o f it elsewhere, it c a n be discounted as a possible source for the extant fragments. T h e Prooimion to Apollo is m o r e interesting. A c c o r d i n g to and Ammonius,87
spurious. T h e first, on Pausanias, looks suspiciously like a n elaboration o f the ninth line of fragment 101 ( 1 1 1 ) ; moreover, it is attributed to S i m o n i des i n the Anthology.91 I n addition, the authorship of the second epigram, a p u n n i n g couplet on A c r o n , is disputed. Simonides is also credited with this couplet, a n d the first four words a p p e a r anonymously i n Eustathius. A n alternative to the second line was k n o w n . 9 2 T h e r e is also a n isolated hexameter verse addressed to Telauges, w h i c h is referred to E m p e d o c l e s b y H i p p o b o t u s . 9 3 I t seems possible that this fragment originated w i t h the later tradition w h i c h assigned to Pythagoras a son called T e l a u g e s a n d then attempted to establish E m p e d o c l e s as a successor of Pythagoras b y citing this Telauges as his t e a c h e r . 9 4 N o other extant writer before D i o g enes attributes epigrams to E m p e d o c l e s . I n addition, Diogenes credits E m p e d o c l e s with a n a p p r o x i m a t e l y six h u n d r e d lines, a n d tributed to h i m i n the Suda.95 of are a t -
E m p e d o c l e s rejected the traditional a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c mythoi o f the gods substituted, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case o f Apollo, a logos w h i c h he fitting. T h e use o f s u c h a method is supported b y M e thought m o r e -88
n a n d e r , w h o testifies that E m p e d o c l e s , like Parmenides, m a d e use of M e n a n d e r gives as one e x a m p l e a h y m n to Apollo, w h i c h of the sun. I f the Prooimion existed it w a s i n fact a n account o f the physis
P l i n y states that E m p e d o c l e s a n d H i p p o c fires;96 this too suggests that
m a y s i m i l a r l y have been couched i n allegorical terms, but a separate work o n A p o l l o b y E m p e d o c l e s is not otherwise k n o w n . T h e tale o f the a c c i d e n t a l destruction of the Prooimion makes its existence also s u s p e c t . 8 9 83. According to the Suda s.v. Empedokles ( 2 ) , Empedocles' grandson was a tragedian, and his tragedies numbered about twenty-four.
84. 85. Cf. D . L . 8.65,72. [Arist.] probt. 9 2 9 8 1 6 - 1 7 , Mete. 38231; cf. also Alexander in Mete. 199.4-7,
rates give a n explanation i n various places of the w a y i n w h i c h some epidemics c a n be alleviated b y lighting Empedocles wrote a m e d i c a l work. S o m e editors have accepted such a
90. 91.
Karsten EAcr
pp. 63-67.
D K 31 B156 from D . L . 8 . 6 1 , Anth. Gr. 7.508.
Olympiodorus Mete. f r - 49(34) 86. D . L . 8.57.
297.18-19,
Empedocles fr. 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 4 ) and the commentary on
87. Ammonius in Int. 249.1 -11. 88. Menander Rhetor 1.2.2, 5.2 (DK 31 A 2 3 ) ; he gives as another example the representation of Hera as air and Zeus as heat; cf. the commentarv on fr. 7(6). 89. Cf. D . L . 8.57.
92. D K 31 B t 5 7 from D . L . 8.65, and cf. Suda s.v. Akrn, Eustathius ad Od. 1634.12. 93. D K 31 B155 from D . L . 8.43. 94. Telauges is not in the list of Pythagoreans in Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 267 (although he does appear in par. 146 and Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 4 ) ; nor is he in the Pythagorean notices of Aristotle, Aristoxenus, or Dicaearchus, which suggests that the verse was introduced in the later embroidery on Pythagoras' life. 95. D.L. 8.77, Suda s.v. Empedokles. 96. Pliny HN 36.69.202.
20
21 T h r e e books for the Physics first and Katharmoi
L I F E
w o r k b y E m p e d o c l e s composed i n verse a n d were confident enough to p r i n t fragment knowledge () as en -91 Nevertheless it has been s h o w n that the evidence for E m p e d o c l e s h a v i n g specialized m e d i c a l or skill is not d e f i n i t i v e . 9 8 T h e tradition that he wrote o n m e d i c i n e m a y have developed for the same reasons as a n d along w i t h his reputation as a doctor. T h e r e w a s the influence that his w o r k h a d o n subsequent m e d i c a l theory, the elaborations o f his o w n words a n d the anecdotes w h i c h they gave rise to, as w e l l as the attack directed against h i m i n Ancient Medicine. example, B u t a separate m e d i c a l work w a s u n k n o w n , for to A r i s t o t l e 9 9 a n d his commentators, a n d to P l u t a r c h a n d
is supported b y Tzetzes, w h o quotes from the
t h i r d . 1 0 5 Diels, however, argues that Tzetzes understood the as the third book o f the Physics, a n d accordingly he prints 134 fragments. Y e t T z e t z e s also quotes from the first book as the third a n d the assumption that he r e a d the Katharmoi
w i t h the Katharmoi of the Physics,
book o f the same w o r k is u n w a r r a n t e d . T h e confusion is more likely to be i n the Suda, but i n a n y case the division into books w o u l d not have are n o w a t t e s t e d . 1 0 6 T h e length of the been definitive, or indeed E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n . T w o books for the Katharmoi w o r k as a whole, however, is i n dispute, for i f Diogenes' figure o f for the two poems c o m b i n e d is taken together w i t h the Suda the Katharmoi w o u l d be three exaggerating,107 total of two thousand lines for the Physics, and
Sextus E m p i r i c u s . M o r e o v e r , no quotation from such a work is given i n a n y of the authorities for E m p e d o c l e s , a n d so this title also has not b e e n t a k e n into account i n ordering the fragments. The evidence for a p h y s i c a l p o e m b y E m p e d o c l e s is indisputable. ,100 T h e work is listed b y Diogenes a n d the Suda u n d e r the title ,
thousand lines long. Diogenes or his source is probably
a thousand could well h a v e been a r o u n d n u m b e r for the lines of a a n d two o f the Katharmoi could average five to six percent
book, even i f the exact total was m u c h less. O n the H o m e r i c model, three books of the Physics h u n d r e d lines e a c h , giving a total o f two a n d a h a l f to three t h o u s a n d . 1 0 8 T h i s means that the fragments comprise sixteen to twenty of the t o t a l . 1 0 9 S i n c e E m p e d o c l e s admittedly repeats h i m s e l f , 1 1 0 a n d
a n d various quotations, expressly said to come from it as or are given b y S i m p l i c i u s , Aetius, a n d T z e t z e s . 1 0 1 I n addition, is k n o w n to Diogenes; h e a n d Katharmoi, a p o e m w i t h the h e a d i n g oi and
T h e o n S m y r n a e u s give fragments that they say are from the
H i p p o l y t u s lists part o f the subject matter of such a w o r k . 1 0 2 T h a ^
there are no important theories reliably attributed to h i m that are not to some extent illustrated b y the r e m a i n i n g fragments, a nucleus of the original is available for a reasonably confident m a i n points o f E m p e d o c l e s ' work. reconstruction of the
there were genuine writings o f E m p e d o c l e s k n o w n b y these two titles need not therefore be doubted, although the titles themselves m a y not have been his o w n . 1 0 3 A c c o r d i n g to Diogenes the Physics and a n d the Katharmoi add u p to about five thousand lines, a n d i n the Suda the Physics is said to be i n two books
to total approximately two t h o u s a n d lines. B u t the best Suda m a n u f,10i a n d the C o d e x M a r c i a n u s has 0-
scripts, A a n d F, lack the relevant passage o n the n u m b e r of books, the first editors p r i n t e d
97.
E . g . , Karsten EAcr
p. 148, F . G . A . Mullach Fragmenta
Philosophorum
Graecorum
vol. 3, p. 14. 98. Cf. above, pp. 9-14. 99. Karsten, however, suggests {EAcr p. 71) that there is a reference to an ' by Empedocles at Aristotle Poet. i 4 4 7 b i 6 - 2 0 . 100. D . L . 8.77, Suda s.v. Empedokles.
101. Simplicius in Phys. 3 2 . 1 , 157.27, 300.20, 331.10, 381.29; Aetius 1.30.1; Tzetzes ex. It. 53.20.
105. Fr. 7(6) from the first book of the Physics: the third book: Chit. 7.514.
106. . iv '
Tzetzes ex. It. 53.20; fr. 97(134) from

. . . . The
fragment is published by . Hunger: "Palimpsest-Fragmente aus Herodians '

'," Byz. Jarh. 1967, p. 5; cf. also M . L . West Maia 1968, p. 199, and F . Las-
serre M H 1969, p. 82, and below on fr. 152. 107. Cf. the large number of lines Diogenes allocates to the various works of Epimenides, including a Theogony and Curetes lot , , D . L . 1.111.
102. D . L . 8.54, Theo Sm. 104.1, Hippolytus R H 7.30.3-4; cf. also D . L . 8.63 on the recitation of the Katharmoi at Olympia. 103. See chap. 5. 104. Surely with some MSS. support; they are unlikely to have been misled by Tzetzes as the first edition of the Chiliades was produced later; cf. the discussions by Diels SP AW 1898, p. 398, and C . Horna WS 1930, pp. 6-7.
to8. The Iliad averages 654 lines a book and the Odyssey 505 lines. Diels suggested
SPA W 1898, p. 398.
109. Four hundred and fifty lines and ten phrases are extant.
to. Cf. fr. 17(25), and the repetitions of fr. 8(17). 7 - 8 , 10-13 at fr. 16(26). 5-6, 9-12.
P H Y S I C S
Terms used by Empedocles for the four Fragment

7(6). 2-3 8 ( 1 7 ) . 18 14(21). 3 - 6 25(22).2 27(38)-1-4 53(62).4-6 60(71).2 7 7 ( 1 0 9 ) . 1-2
roots earth ^
fire * " () "
dir "* , * ()* , '
2 Physics
E A R T H , A I R ,F I R E , A N D W A T E R is the assumption o f four eternally
8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 1-2 0
, TV
1 9 / 2 1 ( 2 7 ) . 1-2 31(37)" 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 1-3 6 2 ( 7 3 ) . 1-2
Basic to E m p e d o c l e s ' philosophy
3(54)1 33(39)-" 84(85)." 88(84). 7 . 9 - I O
existing " r o o t s , " the a r r a n g e m e n t a n d r e a r r a n g e m e n t o f w h i c h account for a l l genesis a n d olethros, a n d for the p a r t i c u l a r a n d changing c h a r a c teristics o f thneta. A t their first a p p e a r a n c e i n the Physics these roots are given the names of gods a n d goddesses, b u t there is no attempt to establish a t e c h n i c a l o r even consistent v o c a b u l a r y for a n y of them. T h e y are variously designated b y the terms fire, a i r , earth, a n d water, b y the manifestations i n the names o f divinities, a n d b y their most obvious
"3(9)-' 64(78). 2 69(76). 3 91(100). 5,7,18,24 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 11,15,21 91(100). 12,18 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 13
physical w o r l d . E m p e d o c l e s ' use o f different expressions for the same root is recognized b y Aristotle, a n d explained b y Simplicius i n these w o r d s : , 1 , ,
Note: For the placing of words marked by an asterisk cf. the commentary on the relevant fragments. privilege Hades.3 E m p e d o c l e s also calls the elemental fire a n d a n d the root o f water H i s general identification of the four roots with the a n d allotment o f power enjoyed b y Z e u s , Poseidon, a n d
T h e terminology is set out i n the table below.
I n c a l l i n g his roots b y d i v i n e names E m p e d o c l e s is showing that they are the n e w gods; he sets t h e m u p as worthy, because of their eternal a n d u n c h a n g i n g nature, o f the respect a n d w o n d e r w i t h w h i c h the O l y m p i a n s w e r e traditionally viewed. I t is said to have been his a i m to replace the traditional myths w i t h a more seemly logos about the gods, 2 a n d i n this he is i n line w i t h the w o r k o f X e n o p h a n e s , H e r a c l i t u s , a n d Parmenides. E m p e d o c l e s ' description o f the i n d i v i d u a l timai o f the roots a n d their equality o f power recalls directly H o m e r ' s language o n the equality o f
great visible masses of earth, a i r , fire, a n d water is i n a c c o r d w i t h his o w n admonition that the evidence provided b y the different senses is a basis for u n d e r s t a n d i n g . 4 T h e observable earth, sky, s u n , a n d sea are at one with the four roots, a n d the various terms for each root a r e interchange-
. Aristotle GC 3 1 5 3 1 0 - 1 1 ; Simplicius in Phys. 159.10-12, and cf. in Phys. 32.3-4.
3. Cf. fr. 8(17). 27-29 and Homer //. 15.187-93, 209, and also fr. 51(59). 1. 4.
2. Menander Rhetor 1.2.2, 5.2 ( D K 31 A 2 3 ) , Ammonius in Int. 249. 1-21. 22
Cf. fr. 5(3) 5-8.
24
25
P H Y S I C S
able, because the present manifestation o f the roots as w o r l d masses reveals their eternal characteristics as the basic m a t e r i a l for thneta.5 O n two occasions Aristotle states that E m p e d o c l e s posited four basic roots but treated t h e m as i f they were only two, opposing fire to a i r , earth, a n d w a t e r . 6 S u p p o r t for this statement is found i n the extant a n d i n the doxography. fragments Philoponus gives as one reason for the contrast is ,8 acting o n the
parts o f the root of fire that are i n the composition o f the m i r r o r are said to " s e t " the from the object into the observed r e f l e c t i o n . 1 4 I n addition to these various w a y s o f acting o n other elements, fire b y itself is a powerful force. I t is the u p w a r d thrusting o f the fire i n the e a r t h that caused the genesis o f the , a n d the growth o f trees w a s first due to the same cause, for they were pushed u p b y the heat i n the e a r t h . 1 5 F i r e also exerts force i n the form o f the heat that thrusts a i r o u t of the body w h e n the e m b r y o takes its first b r e a t h ; a n d the fragments contain the notice that the characteristic physical strength o f m e n is a result of their h a v i n g been conceived i n the w a r m e r part of the w o m b . 1 6 A final indication o f the importance o f fire i n E m p e d o c l e a n theory is the essential part it plays i n the preservation o f life. Sleep results from the p a r t i a l separation o f the fiery element from the body, a n d the complete separation brings about the death of both and .11
the fact that fire is hot a n d the other three c o l d , 7 b u t this is too superficial. I n E m p e d o c l e s ' cosmogony a n d biology fire other elements i n various ways. F o r e x a m p l e , ^ ! the beginning of the formation of this w o r l d , a i r was the first root to be separated out, b u t fire then h a r d e n e d p a r t of the air into the s u r r o u n d i n g c r y s t a l . 9 T h e moon is said to be air that was c u t off b y fire a n d also h a r d e n e d . 1 0 T h e motion o f the hemispheres r o u n d the e a r t h started as a result o f the pressure exerted by the a c c u m u l a t i o n o f fire i n one of them, a n d the first i n c l i n a t i o n of the poles w a s d u e to the a i r y i e l d i n g to the force of the sun.11 Empedocles' fragment 62(73) describes K y p r i s , i n the formation of thneta, giving the m i x t u r e o f e a r t h a n d w a t e r to fire to h a r d e n , a n d i n another fragment the surprisingly large proportion of fire used to m a k e u p bone m a y have been r e q u i r e d to account for its h a r d n e s s . 1 2 A n o t h e r obvious e x a m p l e of the h a r d e n i n g property o f fire is i n the theory of the solidification of s a l t . 1 3 A n d also of interest is the a c c o u n t of reflections i n mirrors, i n w h i c h the
T h e s e examples show that, although E m p e d o c l e s w a s careful at the beginning of the Physics to m a k e clear the b a l a n c e d equality o f privilege a n d power held by the four roots, i n w o r k i n g out the details of the p h y s i c a l scheme he saw i n fire a solidifying agency capable o f w o r k i n g o n the other roots either individually or m combination, as w e l l as a power responsible for the genesis o f plants a n d a n i m a l s , a n d necessary for the preservation of l i f e . 1 8 I t is sometimes assumed that E m p e d o c l e s took over the four basic opposites of hot, cold, wet, a n d d r y from the Milesians a n d m a d e t h e m the
5. Cf.fr. 25(22). 1-3

totle's Criticism , ,
substances of his four r o o t s . 1 9 S u c h a n exclusive tetrad o f opposites c a n not, however, be attributed to A n a x i m a n d e r or A n a x i m e n e s o n the extant evidence. I n the surviving fragment o f A n a x i m a n d e r , dike a n d tisis could refer to the l a w governing a n y n u m b e r o f perceptible oppositions, although hot, cold, wet, a n d d r y m a y have been the most obvious. At the genesis o f the w o r l d , a c c o r d i n g to A n a x i m a n d e r ' s scheme, there seems to have been a m u t u a l reaction between fire a n d the a i r , or mist,
and the description of the fire in the eye as , fr. 88(84).7. . Cherniss (Arisof Presocratic Philosophy p. 372) accuses Aristotle of misapprehension and
prejudice in identifying Empedocles' roots with the visible masses of earth, air,fire,and water, but Aristotle's commentary is supported by Empedocles' own words here.
6. Aristotle GC 3 3 o b 2 0 - 2 i , Metaph. 9 8 5 8 1 - 3 , and cf. Alexander in Metaph. 33.4-5 34.6-10. 7. Philoponus in GC 227.21-23, and cf. Asclepius in Metaph.
8. Cf. Aristotle Metaph. 98486-8, which W. D . Ross, in his commentary on the passage, refers to Empedocles. g. Aetius 2.11.2. 10. [Plut.j Strom, ap. Eusebium P E 1.8.10 ( D K 31 A 3 0 ) . 11. [Plut.j loc. cit., Aetius 2.8.2. 12. Empedocles fr. 48(96); Simplicius (in de An. 68.11-12) says that the large amount of fire gives bone its dry, white character, but hardness could well be an additional result. 13. Empedocles fr. 45(56); cf. also the petrifaction caused by heat, [Arist.j probl. 937314-16, and the effects of fire working in the earth, Seneca Q_Nat. 3.24.1, Plutarch
de prim. frig. 953c
14. Aetius 4.14. . 15. Empedocles fr. 53(62), Aetius 5.26.4. 16. Aetius 4.22.1, Empedocles fr. 58(67), contradicting Parmenides on this point, cf
Aristotle Part. An. 6 4 8 3 2 5 - 3 1 .
17. Aetius 5.24.2 and 25.4. 18. Whether or not there is Heraclitean influence here, there was a later conflation of Empedocles with Heraclitus and the Stoics as assuming and a divine , cf. Hippolytus RH 1.3.1 ( D K 31 A 3 1 ) , Clement Strom. 5.14.103.6.
19. Cf. J . Burnet Early Greek Philosophy p. 228; G. S. Kirk and J . E . Raven The Presocratic Philosophers pp. 119, 329; Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 142.
26
27
P H Y S I C S
a r o u n d the e a r t h , this b e i n g e x p l a i n e d i n the terms o f the doxographical t r a d i t i o n as the p r o d u c t o f ' - S i m i l a r l y , i n the accounts o f A n a x i m e n e s ' cosmogony, the opposi-
into line w i t h the humors, a n d w i t h the seasons of the year, i n the following s c h e m e : winter (cold a n d wet) spring (wet a n d hot) s u m m e r (hot a n d d r y ) a u t u m n ( d r y a n d cold) in the elements b y connecting : : : : phlegm blood yellow bile black b i l e . 2 6
tion o f hot a n d cold is likely to h a v e been a later interpretation o f the w a y i n w h i c h fire, c l o u d , water, e a r t h , a n d stones were p r o d u c e d b y the t h i n n i n g a n d thickening o f a i r . 2 1 N o r is the view that four opposites were a l r e a d y s t a n d a r d i z e d i n the e a r l i e r Presocratics adequately supported b y fragment , 126 o f H e r a c l i t u s : , , H e r a c l i t u s is giving four obvious a n d
T h e next step, w h i c h m a y have originated w i t h D i o c l e s , 2 7 w a s to b r i n g a i r a n d cold w i t h phlegm, water a n d wet w i t h blood, fire a n d hot w i t h yellow bile, a n d earth a n d d r y w i t h black bile. T h i s scheme of elements a n d humors, w i t h the more subtle pairing o f opposites established b y Aristotle, became the standard formula.28 E m p e d o c l e s therefore probably d i d not a r r i v e at his theory o f four roots b y a d a p t i n g a n already recognized tetrad o f opposites, although he did contribute to the subsequent formulae of elements based o n the opposites of hot, cold, wet, a n d dry. I t is also doubtful whether he simply conflated previous views o n the basic constituents of the w o r l d . O n two occasions Aristotle denies that a n y o f the physicists posited e a r t h as a n arche; it was E m p e d o c l e s w h o a d d e d e a r t h to water, fire, a n d a i r , w h i c h each already h a d their several supporters. B u t elsewhere E m p e d o c l e s is said to have added water to fire, earth, a n d a i r , whereas i n the Physics passages Aristotle is adopting of the four elements is assumed to have h a d its c h a m p i o n . 2 9 I n these the historian's point of view, b u t it is unlikely that E m p e d o c l e s w o r k e d i n this w a y , a n d the different versions given b y Aristotle indicate that E m p e d o c l e s w a s not so formal. I t m a y have been that he acted as he instructed Pausanias to d o , 3 0 a n d looked about h i m . I n a coastal town like A c r a g a s one could clearly see l a n d , water as sea a n d r a i n , the a i r ( w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s could show to be just as corporeal a n d forceful as w a t e r ) , a n d firein the sky as the s u n , a n d c o m i n g from the volcanic earth. T h e r e was no obvious fifth mass, nor could a n y o f these four be dispensed w i t h . 3 1 E a r t h , a i r , fire, a n d water
b a l a n c e d examples o f the successive changes o f opposites i n general into e a c h other, a n d i n other fragments the tensions of further opposites are supposed.22 E m p e d o c l e s h i m s e l f does not use four opposites exclusively; i n c h a r a c t e r i z i n g his roots he introduces bright a n d d a r k as well as hot a n d c o l d . 2 3 Aristotle states that E m p e d o c l e s assigned diaphorai and to the roots, b u t the only e x a m p l e s he gives a r e of the s u n as white a n d hot, o f water as cold d a r k , a n d o f e a r t h as heavy a n d h a r d . 2 4 E m p e d o c l e s m a y have des c r i b e d i n greater detail the ethos o f e a c h root, i n c l u d i n g those obvious characteristics that p l a y e d a p r o m i n e n t part i n the M i l e s i a n cosmologies, but, w h e t h e r or not he d i d do so, the e c o n o m i c a l theory of just four roots, whose combinations c a n account for the observed differences i n p h e n o m ena, is a p p a r e n t l y E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n . T h e l i m i t i n g of basic opposites to four a n d their correlation to the roots is first found i n m e d i c i n e . A l c m a e o n w o r k e d o n the assumption of a n indefinite n u m b e r o f opposites, 2 5 b u t it was E m p e d o c l e s ' theory that the m e d i c a l w r i t e r s later took over a n d a d a p t e d to a fixed n u m b e r of powers, and then o f h u m o r s , i n the body. Philistion i n a simple w a y listed four ideai o f the body, relating hot to fire, cold to air, d r y to earth, a n d moist to w a t e r . I n the H i p p o c r a t i c Nature of Man the four opposites were brought
20.
[Plut.] Strom. 2 ( D K 12 A 1 0 ) ; cf. Aristotle Phys. 187320, Simplicius in Phys. 2 4 . 1 7 -
25 (where the reference to the four elements is an obvious anachronism) and 150.22-25; the pairs wet and dry or hot and cold are suggested in Plato Soph. 242d. C . H . Kahn, Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmogony, posits eight opposites for the Milesianshot, dry, bright, and rare vs. cold, moist, dark, and dense, cf. pp. 159-62. 21. Hippolytus A H 1.7.3 ( D K 13 A 7 ) .
22. Cf. Heraclitus frs. 57, 62, 67, 88, i n , and G . S. Kirk Heraclitus, The Cosmic Fragments pp. 150-54. 23. Empedocles fr. 14(21). 3,5, and cf. fr. 75(90).
26.
Philistion ap. Anon. Lond. 20.24; Hat. Horn. 7. Intr. pp. 74-93, and Diocles
27. Cf. M . Wellmann Die Fragmente der Sikelischen Arzte,
fr. 8, p. 119.
28. Cf. Aristotle GC 32986-330329, and . E . Sigerist History of .Medicine vol. 2, pp.
318-25. There is a simpler version in (Hippocrates) Cam. 2, with aiihtr as hot, earth as cold and dry, air as hot and wet, and (water) as wet and thick; cf. Kahn Anaximander p. 127.
29. Aristotle De An. 40568, Metaph. Horn. . Cf. fr. 14(21). - 6 . 30. 9 8 9 3 6 - 9 , GC 32933, Phys. 193322; cf. also Nat.
24. Aristotle GC 314820 (from Empedocles fr. 14(21).3,5) and 315310-11. 25. Cf. Alcmaeon ap. Aristotle Metaph. 986331-34, Aetius 5.30.1, and also (Hippocrates) VM 14.
31. Cf. fr. 8(17). 30; Theophrastus seems first to have pointed out that fire could not be
28
29
P H Y S I C S
w e r e r e m a r k e d as distinct, b a l a n c e d , a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d ; E m p e d o c l e s a r g u e d that together they comprise a l l that there is, a n d he constructed the w o r l d from t h e m . T h e epic tradition, however, m a y have h a d some influence. I n the H o m e r i c dasmos the divisions a r e sky, sea, a n d , w i t h earth a n d O l y m p u s c o m m o n to a l l ; the areas of e a r t h , sky, a n d sea appear a g a i n as the first workings b y Hephaistos o n A c h i l l e s ' shield. E a r t h a n d sky, together w i t h Styx, m a k e up the form of the oath of the gods, a n d s u c h a n oath is used i n H o m e r a n d i n the Homeric Hymn to Apollo to confirm the assignment of a divine p r o v i n c e . 3 2 H e s i o d i n the Theogony gives the genesis of the gods from earth, sky, sea, a n d d a r k night. B u t he also transfers the epithet to earth, a n d T a r t a r u s night, the formula then $ being: , -33 replaces
have their generation from e a r t h a n d w a t e r . 3 8 H e r a c l i t u s perhaps supposed that m a n is i n some w a y m a d e up o f fire, water, a n d earth, w h i c h separate at death, but this is not a direct anticipation o f E m p e d o c l e s ' assertion that individuals come into existence as the result of a n a r r a n g e m e n t of a fixed n u m b e r of basic t h i n g s . 3 9 T h e first occurrence of elements i n this sense seems to be i n P a r m e n i des' Doxa, the , i n the positing o f universal Further, fire a n d night. T h e Doxa presents these two as the constituent elements i n a l l things: i n the words -40 a n d ' .41 , the equality a n d independence attributed to fire a n d night i n the Doxa ' are found i n E m p e d o c l e s ' description of the roots:
T h e r e c a n be no doubt that E m p e d o c l e s w a s a w a r e of P a r m e n i d e s ' w o r k a n d that it w a s a major influence i n shaping his o w n physics. M o r e important t h a n the Doxa Aletheia, were the conclusions of P a r m e n i d e s ' some of w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s assumed as basic postulates for his
'
T h e order of the generation of these masses is clear. After C h a o s there arose e a r t h a n d misty T a r t a r u s . T h e first c h i l d of e a r t h w a s sky, a n d later she brought forth sea w i t h o u t philotes.34 Nevertheless, as K a h n has a r g u e d , a careful consideration of these epic terms shows that the classic theory could not have developed directly out of them. T h e ouranos is not fire, a n d aer not a i r b u t According mist.35 A n a x i m a n d e r thought that the first T h e r e are also some r e l e v a n t points i n the earlier p h y s i c a l theories. to the doxographers, l i v i n g creatures c a m e from w a r m e d e a r t h a n d w a t e r . 3 6 F o r A n a x i m e n e s w i n d a n d stones are listed e q u a l l y w i t h e a r t h , a i r , fire, a n d water, a n d he says that from a l l of these everything else a r i s e s . 3 7 T h e expression, however, is vague, as a r e X e n o p h a n e s ' statements that a l l things begin a n d e n d i n earth, that they are composed of e a r t h a n d water, a n d that m e n
theory of roots, a n d others he adapted or modified. P r i m a r i l y E m p e d o c l e s was persuaded b y the arguments of Parmenides that denied , a n d he seized o n the first deduction from this, that there is n o genesis or olethros, for these entail nonexistence. W h a t exists cannot be added to42 or subtracted from i n a n y w a y ; 4 3 birth a n d death, c o m i n g to be a n d passing a w a y , are names used b y m e n mistakenly, for they do not describe w h a t is t r u e . 4 4 F r o m here E m p e d o c l e s began to reason independently of Parmenides. N o t h i n g c a n be added to or t a k e n from what exists, but w h a t exists, i n E m p e d o c l e s ' theory, is not u n i q u e but comprises four "things"the four roots. T h e s e are w i t h i n the range of the senses, a n d the perceptible w o r l d is reinstated. B u t after assuming these four roots, E m p e d o c l e s then conceded, ' tap \ ' ' , in deference to Parmenides' assertion,
a primary body equal with the other three, because fuel is necessary for its survival, cf.
Ign. 4.
32. Homer I I . 15.187-93,

phy pp. 22-24.
209>
"8.483; the oath of Hera: Homer //. 15.36-37; of Leto:

to Philoso-
Horn. Hym. Apoll. 3 . 8 4 - 8 6 ; cf. Pindar Ol. 7-55, and F . M . Cornford From Religion 33. Hesiod Theog. 106-07, 736 _ 37> 8 0 7 - 0 8 , and cf. 847. 34. 36. Hesiod Theog. 116-33.
38. Xenophanes frs. 27, 29, 33 39. Cf. Heraclitus frs. 3 1 , 36. 40. Parmenides fr. 9.3.
41. 42. Parmenides frs. 9.4, 8.57-58, Empedocles fr. 8(17). 27-28. Parmenides fr. 8.7: ; , ; ; Empedocles fr. ; 8(17).33: 13(9).5. and cf. fr. 104(11).2-3. Empedocles fr. 8 ( 1 7 . 3 2 ) : roro ' -
35. Kahn Anaximander p. 152.

C e n s o r i n u s 4 . 7 , Aetius 5.19.4, Plutarch quaes!, con. 730 ( D K 12 A 3 0 ) ; cf. in Hesiod
43 Parmenides fr. 8.19: ' ' ;.
the creation of Pandora from earth and water, Frga 60-64, Fheog. 571-72. 37. Anaximenes ap. Simplicius in Phys. 24.26-31, and cf. Hippolytus R H 1.7.1-3.
9 ( 1 2 ) . 2 : '
44- Parmenides fr. 8.38-39, and cf. frs. 8.53, g. 1; Empedocles frs. 12(8).4,
3 T h e E l e a t i c a r g u m e n t for self-consistency, ; moreover, ,
3"
P H Y S I C S
-45
is c o n t r a r y to Aristotle's o w n v i e w ) , a n d second w h e n h e compares E m p e d o c l e s a n d A n a x a g o r a s w i t h the M a g i , since it is true of t h e m a l l that Physics -51 R e l a t e d to E m p e d o c l e s ' this w o u l d m e a n that L o v e is good insofar as she is the efficient
w a s g i v e n a n e w application. E a c h root has its p a r t i c u l a r a n d a n d the roots are to its like ( In )-46 denying spatial discontinuity Parmenides claimed that ), as does for P a r m e n i d e s
left to themselves they r e a c h e a c h ( there
cause of good, h e r agency resulting i n a desirable state of affairs, whereas the consequences of the w o r k i n g o f Strife are deplorable, although i n evitable. A similar contrast is m a d e b y P l u t a r c h w h e n he states, () -52 scheme . .
c a n n o t be more of w h a t exists i n one place t h a n i n another, / , n o r c a n a l l the i n t e r v e n e a n d prevent w h a t is from r e a c h i n g its like. E m p e d o c l e s r e i n terpreted these points first b y asserting that the roots o c c u p y a v a i l a b l e place, ' , a n d then b y equating w i t h .41 I n sum,
Aristotle further complains that according to E m p e d o c l e s '
L o v e a n d Strife a r e equally destructive aitiai, for there is a destruction both w h e n the m a n y are brought into one b y L o v e a n d w h e n Strife separates the m a n y from one. T h i s gives Aristotle reason to criticize E m p e d o c l e s ' lack of economy i n positing two motive causes w h e n one could do the w o r k of b o t h . 5 3 T h e r e is, however, a fundamental difference between the two'destructions. T h e phthora caused b y Strife brings about the disintegration o f , w h i c h is the u n i t y o f a l l things i n the sphere, b u t that of L o v e is a necessary step t o w a r d the h a r m o n i o u s r e u n i o n . 5 4 I n E m p e d o c l e s ' theory both L o v e a n d Strife are needed to account for the r e c u r r i n g generations. A s Aristotle himself observes, i f Strife d i d not exist a l l things w o u l d be o n e , 5 5 a n d i f there were no principle of L o v e the roots w o u l d be i n a state of p e r m a n e n t separation. fights56 I t is the antagonism ofthneta. o f two opposed principles as e a c h for control over the roots d u r i n g the times of transition of power
kenon. T h u s there is no empty place to i n t e r r u p t or alter the consistency o f the roots: E m p e d o c l e s attributed to his four roots the spatial a n d temporal c o n t i n u ity, the changelessness, a n d the homogeneity of P a r m e n i d e s ' . T a k i n g this as his starting point he then set out to e x p l a i n everything perceptible to the senses as a n a r r a n g e m e n t of parts of these roots, i n w h i c h the proportion of the parts accounts for the perceived <4iaracteristics.
L O V E
A N D S T R I F E
I n a d d i t i o n to the four roots E m p e d o c l e s assumes the existence of L o v e a n d Strife. L i k e the roots these a r e divine a n d eternally e x i s t i n g , 4 8 a n d they a c t o n the roots, L o v e b r i n g i n g them into a unity a n d Strife sepa r a t i n g t h e m . B u t L o v e is described as n a m e s a r e J o y a n d A p h r o d i t e , a n d b y h e r agency , . a n d is also k n o w n as a n d , m e n her ,
that gives rise to the w o r l d
E m p e d o c l e s w a s l e d to posit his theory o f L o v e a n d Strife as cosmic forces from the observed fact that these have the greatest influence on the behavior of m e n , causing t h e m to a p p r o a c h e a c h other a n d act together i n friendship or s h u n a n d destroy e a c h other i n e n m i t y . 5 7 T h e line of reasoning is similar to that w h i c h a r g u e d for the existence o f the four roots a n d their characteristics from the visible w o r l d masses o f earth,
Strife o n the other h a n d is , 49
I n the first book o f the Metaphysics he assumes that
Aristotle observes that E m p e d o c l e s evil.50 Later theory, first when he criticizes
is t r y i n g to say that L o v e is the cause of good, a n d Strife of this is E m p e d o c l e s '
E m p e d o c l e s for supposing that evil, that is, Strife, is indestructible (which

51. Metaph. 1 0 7 5 6 6 - 7 , 1 0 9 i b 8 - i 2 , and for Aristotle's theory of evil ci. Metaph. 1051317
45. Parmenides fr. 8.36-37, Empedocles fr. 8(17).30.

46. Parmenides fr. 8 . 4 6 - 4 7 ; Empedocles frs. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 8 , 3 5 ; 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 6 47. Parmenides fr. 8.44-45; Empedocles frs. 8(17).33, 10(13); and cf. 9(12).3. 48. F r . 11(16). 49 Cf. frs. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 3 - 2 4 , 47(35). 13, 116(122).2, and Plutarch de I s . et Os. 3 7 0 d - e ; also frs. 8(17). 19, 77 (iog ).3, 25(22).8, 26(20).4. 50. Aristotle Metaph. 98534-10, and cf. g 8 8 a t 4 - i 6 . 107(115).i4, u6(i22).2, and the of
21.
52. Plutarch de Is. et Os. 37od -e, and cf. Alexander in Metaph. 6 3 . 8 - 1 1 .
53. Aristotle Metaph. i o o o a 2 6 - b i 2 , 985321-29. , . 54. Cf. Philoponus in GC 264.30: . ,
55- Aristotle Metaph.
iooobi -2.
56. Cf. Aristotle GC 315316-17.

57. Cf. Aristotle Phys. 252327-31.
32
33
P H Y S I C S
sea, s u n , a n d sky. T h e consistency i n the action o f L o v e a n d Strife at a l l stages o f the cycle, from the vast cosmic movements to the i n d i v i d u a l events i n h u m a n life, is s h o w n i n the extant fragments. I n the great sweep of the u n i v e r s a l v i e w the roots a r e d e s c r i b e d : ' , .
tion o f Strife, means " m a t c h e d (to the roots) i n every d i r e c t i o n , " as i n H o m e r Pylaimenes is ", a n d Odysseus , the reference being not to weight b u t to p o w e r . 6 4 L i k e P a r m e n i d e s , E m p e d o c l e s is m a k i n g a point about uniformity a n d b a l a n c e , not b u l k and weight.65 T h i s is brought h o m e w h e n E m p e d o c l e s tells Pausanias o f the to look at the s u n , sky, sea, a n d e a r t h , for these a r e
' '
four roots, b u t insists that the n a t u r e o f Philotes cannot be understood b y sitting a n d looking. L o v e a n d Strife do not exist as things i n the w a y that the roots d o i n this case the eyes a r e useless witnesses, a n d one must use nous i n s t e a d . 6 6
W h e n the roots a r e b e g i n n i n g to m i x a n d thneta to be formed the language is s i m i l a r : And , -
'
I n support of the c l a i m that L o v e a n d Strife a r e as c o r p o r e a l as the roots, B u r n e t quotes two passages. O n e is from T h e o p h r a s t u s , 6 7 stating that E m p e d o c l e s sometimes gave a n efficient power to L o v e a n d Strife a n d sometimes put them o n a level w i t h the four roots. B u t T h e o p h r a s t u s ' distinction is clear. H e interprets L o v e a n d Strife as h a v i n g , their agency, b u t lines 1 7 - 2 0 of fragment unchanging, 8 ( 1 7 ) show that Love and b u t the sincie the roots are brought into one a n d separated into m a n y by w i t h the roots. T h i s is so insofar and indestructible,68
this tallies w i t h the descriptions o f love a n d hate i n i n d i v i d u a l s . 5 8
T h e study o f h u m a n b e h a v i o r enables one to u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e of the cosmic principles. P a r m e n i d e s h a d a r g u e d that, as there is no genesis or olethros, w h a t is is h e l d fast b y the bonds of A n a n k e . E m p e d o c l e s c l a i m s that his roots a r e , b u t only insofar as the c h a r a c t e r o f e a c h is i n v a r i a b l e a n d unending.59 A t the time o f change -60 determined the rotation of the roots from unity to separation, a n d from separation to unity, is u n a l t e r a b l e a n d by the o a t h , the roots begin to move from one state to the other, a n d so they c o m m e n c e the p r o d u c t i o n o f ply to P a r m e n i d e s ' d e n i a l o f kinesis. language for the spatial I t is L o v e a n d Strife that E m p e d o c l e s gives as the cause o f this change a n d as the r e L i k e the roots, these principles have of what is continuous existence i n t i m e , 6 1 a n d control them alternately. T h e E l e a t i c uniformity is t a k e n over b y E m p e d o c l e s for this .62
Strife c a n also be regarded as as a l l six a r e ungenerated,
power o f L o v e a n d Strife c a n extend over a l l the roots, for they a l l come into u n i t y u n d e r L o v e a n d are separated b y Strife. T h e second passage is a notice o f Aristotle to the effect that E m p e d o cles, , posits L o v e both as m o v i n g cause a n d , because it is part o f the m i x t u r e , as m a t e r i a l c a u s e . 6 9 G e n e r a l l y , w h e n Aristotle is discussing E m p e d o c l e s ' theory, he represents the four roots as predecessors of w h a t
extension of L o v e a n d Strife over the roots. Philotes is for t h e m a n d Neikos
64. Homer II. 5.576, a. 169. 65. Cf. G . E . L . Owen CQ_ i 9 6 0 , p. 99, on Parmenides fr. 8.43.
66. C f Empedocles frs. 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . ! , 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 1 - 2 6 . D. O'Brien, CQ_ 1967, pp. 36-37, ECC
T h i s does not, however, i m p l y , as is generally a s s u m e d , 6 3 that L o v e a n d Strife a r e as m a t e r i a l as the roots, , the descrip-
pp. 138-39, assumes from fr. 8 (17). 19-20 that Love is a solid sphere and Strife a hollow one, i.e., "an even spherical layer surrounding Love." But as a description of a hollow sphere cannot be deduced from comparisons with a shield (Homer II. 12.294), Prometheus' liver (Hesiod Theog. 524), and Parmenides' line, fr. 8.49. And if
58. Cf. frs. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 7 - 8 , 14(21). 7 - 8 , 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . i - 5 , 25(22 ).i-g.
Love is a solid sphere, not equal to all the elements taken together (p. 36), what place is there for the elements, and how is to be explained? In any case O'Brien (p. 36, n .6) admits the possibility that fr. 8(17). 19-20 means that Strife is everywhere equal, and Love equal in length and breadth, to all the elements taken together. 67. Burnet loc. cit., Theophrastus Phys. Dox. fr. 3 (Diels Doxographi Aristotle GC 314a 16-1 7. 68. Simplicius, in Phys. 159.6-8, includes Love and Strife in Empedocles fr. 8(17).27 because they are without beginning and end in time.
69. Aristotle Metaph. I075b3-
59. Fr. 8(17). 9-13, and cf. the commentary on these lines.
60. 61. Cf. frs. 23(30), 47(35). 16-17, 1 4 ( 2 0 - 6 - 1 4 , Cf. fr. 11(16). 1-2. 16(26).3-7.
62. Parmenides fr. 8.44, 49; Empedocles fr. 8(17). 19,20. 63. E . g . , by Burnet E G P p. 232: "The fragments leave no room for doubt that Love and Strife were thought of as spatial and corporeal"; Kirk-Raven PP p. 3 3 0 : "Empedocles is still unable to imagine any form of existence other than spatial extension, and in consequence Love and Strife are still represented as if they too were material."
Graeci p. 478); cf.
34
35
P H Y S I C S
he w o u l d c a l l m a t e r i a l cause, a n d L o v e a n d Strife as a m o n g the first recognitions o f efficient c a u s e . 7 0 A n d his suggestion that L o v e might be the logos of the different m i x t u r e s of the roots i n the formation o f the body also shows that he v i e w e d L o v e as basically different i n function from the c o r p o r e a l e l e m e n t s . 7 1 H o w e v e r , o n occasion he is i n c l i n e d to argue that, since L o v e is the cause of a l l things c o m i n g into one, it could be said to be unity. T h i s u n i t y is the arche from w h i c h the w o r l d has its genesis, a n d so L o v e might be v i e w e d as .72 Therefore i n saying that L o v e is a p a r t o f the m i x t u r e Aristotle need not be interpreted as m e a n i n g that it is a m a t e r i a l p a r t i n exactly the same w a y as fire, a i r , earth, a n d water. He m a y have h a d i n m i n d E m p e d o c l e s ' phrase .73 L o v e is " i n " the roots i n that it is the power w h i c h d r a w s t h e m together, i n contrast w i t h Strife, w h i c h is p u s h i n g a n d holding t h e m a p a r t . F i r e c o u l d never be " i n " w a t e r i n the same w a y that L o v e is " i n " both fire a n d w a t e r w h e n they are u n i t e d . 7 4 I f this interpretation is correct then L o v e a n d Strife are to be viewed as powers w i t h e x p a n d i n g a n d contracting areas o f application, a n d difficulties c o n c e r n e d w i t h the question of w h e r e L o v e a n d Strife " g o " become i r d u r i n g the times o f the d i m i n u t i o n o f their respective timai
pletely one i n the sphere? Aristotle links this p a r t o f E m p e d o c l e s ' scheme with A n a x i m a n d e r ' s apeiron a n d Anaxagoras' theory o f the original followed b y a stage state o f the c o s m o s . 7 5 T h e three assume a stage o f some k i n d o f m i x t u r e , w h e r e elements or opposites a r e undifferentiated, of separating out w h i c h makes t h e m distinct. E l s e w h e r e , i n suggesting a w a y i n w h i c h precedent might be found for his o w n theory o f potentiality a n d actuality i n change, Aristotle proposes that these " m i x t u r e s " w o u l d be better expressed as , ' '-76 T h e process o f separating out o f opposed substances is the c o m m o n feature o f the three systems. " M i x t u r e " is used loosely for the stage p r e ceding the separation, for, from Aristotle's point of view, there must have been some sense i n w h i c h the ingredients w e r e i n existence before the separating, a n d the best w a y of putting it w o u l d be to say that they existed potentially. In the De Generatione et Corruptione, however, Aristotle shows that E m p e d o c l e s ' d e n i a l o f generation a n d destruction for the roots is i n c o m patible w i t h their u n i t i n g . 7 7 W h e n the roots are brought into one they e a c h lose their i n d i v i d u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , 7 8 but E m p e d o c l e s was not a w a r e that this uniting involves their v i r t u a l destruction. Aristotle's argument runs as follows. T h e diaphorai become diaphorai, o f the roots come into existence w h e n Strife breaks u p the o n e ; sun white a n d hot, a n d e a r t h heavy a n d h a r d , then discernible. T h e roots are only distinguishable n o w b y their a n d since the diaphorai come into existence they c a n also be
r e l e v a n t . Strife takes u p less place as its power subsides, i n that less a n d less o f the root masses a r e held apart. Conversely, L o v e takes u p more p l a c e insofar as more a n d more parts o f roots are brought together a n d m i n g l e further. L o v e a n d Strife are manifest i n the pattern of b a l a n c e a n d m o v e m e n t o f the roots, a n d they a r e contained w i t h i n the same limits as t h e m .
taken away. Consequently the roots are destroyed into the one a n d generated from it, a n d so they are generated from each other; this is i n c o n sistent w i t h E m p e d o c l e s ' basic assumption that the roots are ungenerated and indestructible.79 Philoponus restates Aristotle's argument i n more dogmatic H e says that the sphere under L o v e is
75. Aristotle Phys. 187320-26. vol. 2, pp. 350-52.
M I X I N G
A N D
S E P A R A T I N G
terms.80
T h e type o f m i x t u r e that the roots form i n their unitings a n d separatings presents some difficulties. First, h o w are e a r t h , air, fire, a n d w a t e r c o m -
a n d
76. Aristotle Metaph. 1069621-23, 3nd on the sense snd punctustion here, cf. W. D.
70. 72. 73. 74. ' E . g . , Aristotle Phys. Cf. Metaph. F r . 8 ( 1 7 ) . 20. Cf. Alexsnder in Metaph. 62.15-16: ' , and 2 2 4 . 8 - 1 0 , 718- 8-15; also Aristotle's 189324-26, GC 314316-17, 333622-24, Metaph. 1053615-16, snd slso Metaph. 988333-34. io6gb2i-22, Ross Aristotle's Metaphysics
71. Aristotle De An. 408323-24.

99637-8, 1001312-14, GC 3 1 5 3 1 9 - 2 1 .
77. Aristotie GC 31534-19. 78. Cf. Empedocles fr. 21(27). 1, 3nd Eudemus' comment, Simplicius in Phys. 1183.2.
7g. Cf. Aristotle's comment on fr. 8 (175 .27 at GC 3 3 3 3 1 6 - 2 9 : if the
. ,
phrase means that the roots are comparable in amount a common unit of measure would be supposed, and if in power, a common faculty; in either case the roots could change into each other. For Aristotle's assumption that the roots for Empedocles are
absolutely basic (contra Cherniss ACPP Metaph. iooobi8-20. p. 96, n. 405) cf. Cael. 3 0 5 6 1 - 3 , GC 333316-18,
discussion of the different wnys in which "in" is used, Phys. 210314-24. The suggestion put forwsrd here does not preclude the fact th3t Empedocles, like Psrmenides, still hsd to make use of material terms, e.g., , fr. 47(35). 13
80. Philoponus in GC 19.3-20.4.
36 w i t h none o f the roots i n d i v i d u a l i z e d . H o w e v e r ,
37
P H Y S I C S
if the roots have their o w n characteristics, so that for example a part o f fire but o f none o f the other elements occupies a given place, then the sphere is not adiaphoros; i f o n the other h a n d the roots a r e not i n d i v i d u a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d i n their u n i o n i n the sphere, then they change into e a c h other. S u c h arguments suggest that E m p e d o c l e s w a n t e d to say both that the roots a r e i n d i v i d u a l a n d i m m o r t a l a n d that i n the sphere u n d e r L o v e there is a m i n g l i n g o f m i n u t e particles o f the component roots s u c h that no one root could i n a n y p a r t be p i c k e d out as distinct from L a t e r it w a s recognized that one of these two assumptions would u n i o n of a l l things w o u l d be a complete f u s i o n . 8 1 Aristotle, then, m a y still l e g i t i m a t e l y 8 2 classify E m p e d o c l e s as both monist a n d p l u r a l i s t . 8 3 T h e one is elemental i n being prior to the n o w recognizable distinction o f earth, a i r , fire, a n d water caused b y the action of Strife, the m a n y a r e e l e m e n t a l andl;pp 84 i n that the one comes into existence derivatively, as a result o f the c o m b i n i n g of the roots. T h e processes eternally a l t e r n a t e , 8 5 a n d E m p e d o c l e s ' scheme m a y be v i e w e d as monistic o r pluralistic a c c o r d i n g to the p a r t i c u l a r stage o f the theory u n d e r consideration. S e c o n d , there is the question of the nature of the parts of the roots into w h i c h Strife breaks u p the m i x t u r e u n d e r L o v e . A s a result o f Strife's w o r k i n g , e a c h root g r a d u a l l y becomes distinct, a n d the process continues u n t i l the elements a r e separated a n d Strife is d o m i n a n t . Aristotle describes the E m p e d o c l e a n theory o f a separating out of one element from another as a n a p p a r e n t r a t h e r t h a n a n a c t u a l genesis, as i f from a vessel a n d not a n u n d e r l y i n g . I t is " a process o f excretion from a body o f w h a t w a s i n it a l l the time, so that it involves no change o f a n y t h i n g . " 8 6 A further elaboration o f this process is given b y Philoponus, w h o compares 8 1 . Cf., for example, the medical theory of pep sis, which is a complete fusion with no particular dynamis perceptible, VM 19, and Galen's contrast of a fusion of elements for Hippocrates with their "touching" in Empedocles' theory, Hipp. ml. horn. 15.49K (DK 31 A 4 3 ) . 82. Despite the criticisms by Cherniss, ACPP pp. 36, 5 1 , 110. The point made here and in the two preceding paragraphs on the roots in the sphere was first put forward in my thesis, "An Interpretation of Empedocles" (Oxford, 1963) pp. 147-49; J . Longrigg's article "Roots," CR 1967, pp. 1-4, is based on this.
83. 84. Cf. Aristotle Phys. 187321-22, 0 0 3 1 5 3 1 9 - 2 4 . Cf. GC 315325, 3 3 3 b 2 i .
the squeezing o f the roots from e a c h other to the shooting out o f fruit pips from between the fingers.87 T h i s suggests that one root is pushed o u t from another i n s m a l l parts, w h i c h w o u l d be built u p into other bodies. T h e s m a l l size o f the parts o f the roots is confirmed b y two notices of Aetius. T h e first gives E m p e d o c l e s ' assumption of , -88 , in a n d a c c o r d i n g to the second, T h e mention the o f elements Timaeus,89
another. h a v e to
m a y be derived i n Aetius from Aristotle's criticism the De Generatione et Corruptione but
of Empedocles
be sacrificed, for E m p e d o c l e s ' conditions would m e a n i n effect that the
a n d the contrast with
the notion o f minuteness occurs again i n G a l e n ' s c o m p a r i s o n of
the parts o f the roots to the fine powder resulting from the g r i n d i n g d o w n o f various m e t a l s . 9 0 T h e s m a l l size m a y be accepted as a u t h e n t i c E m p e d o c l e a n theory, for there is a similar assumption of extreme s m a l l ness o f parts i n the description o f the pores a n d m e m b r a n e s of the nose a n d eye, a n d of extreme fineness i n that of the versally given off. 9 1 T h e s m a l l parts o f roots are not, however, to be viewed as a t o m i c ; this point is brought out b y Aristotle i n the De Caelo,92 where, in tabulating the possible analyses of elements he says that the process w i l l b e either infinite or finite. I f it is finite the last m e m b e r of the division w i l l be either a t o m i c or, as E m p e d o c l e s seems to have intended, . A contrast is then d r a w n between this theory as ; w h i c h are u n i -
and that of the atomists. S i m p l i c i u s ' c o m m e n t a r y enlarges on this notice of A r i s t o t l e . 9 3 H e represents the E m p e d o c l e a n elements they do not change into each other a n d they are indestructible, b u t not i n the same w a y as the atoms o f D e m o c r i t u s , for the division o f the elements in E m p e d o c l e s ' theory never reaches to a n u n d i v i d e d last m e m b e r . P h i loponus has a similar mention of nonatomic stoicheia for E m p e d o c l e s . 9 4 T h e s e reports use Aristotelian terminology, b u t they show that E m p e d o cles' theory was distinguished from that o f the atomists; his roots a r e to
87. Philoponus in Phys. 8 8 . 1 1 - 2 3 . 88. Aetius 1.13.1, 1.17.3.
89. Aristotle GC 325623-24.

90. Galen Hipp. 91. , nat. horn. 15.32K ( D K 31 A 3 4 ) . 8 8 ( 8 4 ) . 7 - 8 , 73(89);
a n
Cf. frs. 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 3 - 4 , Sens. 44133-6.
d Theophrastus Sens.
7; Aristotle
describes the kinds of tastes in water, according to Empedocles, as

92. Aristotle Cael. 30531-6. 93. Simplicius in Cael. 6 2 8 . 6 - 1 3 .
85. Cf. Aristotle Phys. 187324.
86. Aristotle Gael. 30561-5, trans. J . L . Stocks.
94. Philoponus in GC 24.26-29.
38
39
P H Y S I C S
be v i e w e d as c a p a b l e of being b r o k e n into v e r y small, b u t nonatomic, "bits." T h i r d , these s m a l l parts o f the different roots a r e p u t together b y L o v e to form a n o r g a n i s m , yet it is c l e a r that they do not lose their identity i n the process. Aristotle infers such a c o m p o u n d m i x t u r e as the basis of E m p e d o c l e s ' theory o f the constitution of the bodily parts i n the words ' , , ,
s i v e . 9 8 I f a different shade w a s needed, a coat of one color w a s put o n top of a coat o f another, r a t h e r t h a n the two being m i x e d , a n d the extant pigment o n sculptures indicates that the m e t h o d w a s that o f " a few flat washes effectively correlated to produce r i c h a n d g a y c o m p o s i t i o n s . " 9 9 T h e general practice, then, i n p a i n t i n g w a s a p p a r e n t l y to fill i n a n outline w i t h a simple color a n d to achieve the r e q u i r e d effect b y j u x t a position of the different washes. A c c o r d i n g l y , w h e n the analogy of the painter's colors is applied to the elements, it c a n be c o n c l u d e d that E m p e d o c l e s d i d not see i n d i v i d u a l organisms as a complete fusion of the constituent roots b u t as the juxtaposition o f s m a l l parts o f the roots i n a pleasing a r r a n g e m e n t , a product of L o v e ' s c r a f t s m a n s h i p . 1 0 0 T h e a n d the lines , '
95
T h e i n d i v i d u a l o r g a n i s m is a synthesis o f the component
" b i t s " of roots w h i c h t o u c h b u t do not fuse. S i m i l a r l y , i n the c o m p a r i s o n previously m e n t i o n e d , G a l e n speaks o f a body built u p o f elements as like a p o w d e r composed o f different met<Js finely g r o u n d , a n d elsewhere he contrasts this " s i d e b y side t o u c h i n g " w i t h the H i p p o c r a t i c fusion of elements. Notices i n A e t i u s a n d A l e x a n d e r a r e i n the same t r a d i t i o n . 9 6 E m p e d o c l e s h i m s e l f p e r h a p s d i d not use the figure given b y Aristotle of b r i c k s a n d stones l y i n g side b y side to form a w a l l , b u t the important simile w h i c h h e does i n t r o d u c e is evidence thneta is i n the m a i n correct. I n fragment that the interpretation by Aristotle a n d the c o m m e n t a t o r s o f the w a y the elements are built u p into 15(23) E m p e d o c l e s shows h o w it is possible for only four roots to m a k e u p the countless variety o f thneta observable i n the w o r l d b y alterations i n the proportions of the constituent parts, i l l u s t r a t i n g the m e t h o d from the t e c h n i q u e o f a painter w i t h his Pharmaka. things. N o w the m i x i n g of colors of w h i c h E m p e d o c l e s is speaking i n the simile is almost c e r t a i n l y not a b l e n d i n g to p r o d u c e further shades but the setting of pigments of one color side b y side w i t h those o f another i n a n a r r a n g e m e n t to give the effect o f a f a m i l i a r object. F r o m the scanty evidence a v a i l a b l e it seems that, t h r o u g h most o f the fifth century, painters limited themselves to black, w h i t e , r e d ochre, a n d yellow ochre, eschewing blue a n d the greens a n d violets that c o u l d b e m a d e from m i x t u r e s . 9 7 A c c o r d i n g to P l i n y this w a s the case, a n d Apelles i n the fourth c e n t u r y w a s still w o r k i n g w i t h only four colors, more exotic ones being rare a n d expenT h e painter, using only a few basic colors b u t i n different proportions a n d v a r i o u s a r r a n g e m e n t s , is able to reproduce likenesses o f all
'
should s i m i l a r l y be interpreted as referring to the shifting mosaic or "shuffle" of small parts o f roots, the arrangements a n d rearrangements of w h i c h produce the variety o f thneta.101
O t h e r similes illustrate the w a y i n w h i c h parts o f the elements a r e brought together. W h a t e v e r the context, Aristotle quotes fragment 4 9 ( 3 4 ) , , to show h o w w e t a n d d r y ingredients
m u t u a l l y react, e a c h w o r k i n g as a k i n d of glue o n the o t h e r . 1 0 2 T h e H o m e r i c simile o f fragment 6 1 ( 3 3 ) , ? ' ' -
98. Cf. Pliny 35-3 2 5> 369 2 > Cicero Brutus 18.70; the Alexander mosaic reproduces a four-color original, cf. P. Devambez Greek Painting p. 32. Where green appears it was, it seems, not a mixed color but produced from green chalk, so Vitruvius 7.7. Plutarch, glor. Ath. 346a, says that Apollodorus was the first to discover nat
, where is a technical term for 725c,
393c, cf. G . Richter Greek Art pp. 275-77. At Plato Tim. 68d only god can blend colors and resolve them. [Arist.] Col. 7g2a -b deals mostly with black, white, red, and yellow; variations are due to the different proportions of light and shade. For early artists deliberately restricting the number of colors used in order to simplify experiments with
form, cf. V . J . Bruno Form and Colour in Greek Painting chap. 6, esp. p. 64.
99. Cf. G . Richter, "Polychromy in Greek Sculpture," A J A 1944, p. 322, and L . F . Hall's reconstruction of sculpture coloring in plates 7-11 of this volume.
100. 85(86), Cf. frs. 15(23).4-5, 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 3 - 5 , 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 12-17; cf. also the use of the verb io6(i5).4, and the phrases 47(35)-17, 86(87). ,
"to fit together," as of the work of a carpenter or shipwright: frs. 7 0 ( 7 5 ) . ! , 78(107).!, 95. Aristotle GC 334327-31. 96. Cf. Galen Hipp. nat. horn. 15.32, 4 9 K ( D K 31 A 3 4 , 43) snd sbove, n. 8 1 . Aetius
359.17-21. 1.24.2, Alexander in Metaph. ().$, '
97. Cf. M . Robertson Greek Painting p. 96; for 3 light blue wssh on panels, cf. p. 13.
. Frs. 12(8).3, 14(21). 13-14; c f J o a c h i m ' s commentary on Aristotle GC 3 3 4 a 2 6 - t > 2 102. Aristotle Mete. 381631-38232; cf. the reference to a hard substance resulting from two soft ingredients, GA 747334-66.
40
41
P H Y S I C S
is referred b y P l u t a r c h to the unifying effect of P h i l i a . 1 0 3 and
alternation o f a l l the roots c o m i n g into one through L o v e a n d s e p a r a t i n g into m a n y t h r o u g h Strife; d u r i n g e a c h process there is a genesis a n d a destruction o f thneta. T h e lines a r e : , ' ' ' , , .110 ,
F r a g m e n t 7 4 ( 9 1 ) , o n w a t e r m i n g l i n g w i t h w i n e a n d resisting oil, is quoted as a n illustration of s y m m e t r y a n d a s y m m e t r y o f a n d 104 shows E m p e d o c l e s ' interest i n the m u t u a l reaction o f the components of v a r i o u s types of m i x t u r e . T h e text o f fragment 76(93) o n the dyeing of l i n e n is i n doubt, b u t from its context i n P l u t a r c h E m p e d o c l e s seems to be giving a n e x a m p l e o f a fast u n i o n resulting from a c o m b i n a t i o n o f dissimilar ingredients.105 L a s t l y , whereas L o v e puts together s m a l l parts o f roots i n tight j u x t a position to form a n o r g a n i s m , Strife breaks u p c o m b i n a t i o n s ; as a result of its a g e n c y parts o f the same root a r e d r a w n t o w a r d their like, but their m e t h o d o f u n i o n is obscure. I n fragment 73(89) E m p e d o c l e s states that there a r e from a l l things that h a v ? c o m e to be, a n d the context of this fragment i n P l u t a r c h includes e a r t h a n d sea, w h i c h w o u l d be roots in a n u n m i x e d , or c o m p a r a t i v e l y u n m i x e d , state. F u r t h e r , a c c o r d i n g to T h e o p h r a s t u s ' a c c o u n t o f E m p e d o c l e s ' theory o f sense perception, it is said that there a r e pores i n the different r o o t s . 1 0 6 E m p e d o c l e s m a y therefore h a v e thought that, i n their cosmic assembling, parts of the same root come together a n d fit o n the same p r i n c i p l e as their coincidence i n percept i o n ; b u t the point s h o u l d not b e pressed, a n d Aristotle found no clear e x p l a n a t i o n of the p r o c e s s . 1 0 7 H e does, however, c a l l the increase o f e a c h root b y its like a prosthesis a n d elsewhere describes the resulting mass as A l e x a n d e r also assumes that the root masses .108
'
' '
'
Between c o m i n g into one a n d separating into m a n y the roots a r e 'wholly united i n the sphere a n d completely controlled b y L o v e . S i m p l i c i u s quotes E u d e m u s o n the lines that describe this state, when the i n d i v i d u a l characteristics o f the roots a r e not discernible: ' ' 111
T h r e e periods c a n therefore be distinguished: (1) the roots come together u n d e r L o v e , (2) the u n i o n of a l l things results, (3) the roots u n d e r Strife. A n y attempt to divide one revolution of the must face the p r o b l e m of the possibility o f a stage antithetical to that o f the sphere u n d e r L o v e , i n w h i c h the elements a r e completely separated a n d Strife has universal control. Despite assertions to the c o n t r a r y , 1 1 2 the s u m o f separate
are built u p u n d e r Strife b y c o n t a c t :
Sicilian Muses, in contrast to those of Ionia, suppose that unity and plurality are successive and not simultaneous); Aristotle Phys. T H E P L A N O F T H E PHYSICS
, ' ), and cf. Metaph.
187320-24 (Empedocles is contrasted
with Anaxagoras in their theories of separation from mixture:

985323-29.
T h e activity o f the roots u n d e r L o v e a n d Strife follows a c e r t a i n r e petitive pattern. T h a t the pattern is repeated is shown by the use of the w o r d i n the phrases a n d , a n d
110. Fr. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 3 - 8 ; it is hard to see how Solmsen can interpret line 3 here as a destruction of compounds and genesis of the , and as a corresponding destruction of the and genesis of compounds (Phronesis individual organism (Hermes 1965, p. 140), or H lscher, as a reference to an 1965, pp. 31-32). Fr. 8(17) gives in outline the cosmic
it w a s so understood b y Plato a n d A r i s t o t l e . 1 0 9 T h e r e is a n unceasing
pattern of the roots uniting and separating, in each case causing a genesis and destruc tion of thneta; the application of the universal activity to individual organisms comes later, in frs. 25(22) and 26(20). For the text of fr. 8(17). 5 cf. the commentary on the line.
103. Plutarch amic. mult. 9 5 a - b ; cf. Homer It. 5.902. 104. Or and , Philoponus in GA 123.13-20; Aristotle uses and
111.
Eudemus ap. Simplicius in Phys. 1183.28-1184.1 quoting fr. 21(27).

Gomperz pp. 16-27; Tannery Pour pp. 175, 205; J . Bollack Empedocle vol. t'histoire 1, pp.
in a reference to the lines, GA 74766-8. 105. Plutarch def. or. 433a -b, and cf. the commentary on this fragment.
106. Plutarch quaest. not. g i 6 d , Theophrastus Sens. 7, 12-13.
112. E.g., by H . von Arnim Festschrift de la science hellene p. 319; Cherniss ACPP
108-10; H lscher and Solmsen loc. cit. In favor are F . Dmmler Akademika
35.21. 242d (the gentler
p. 217;
107. Aristotle GC 325622-23, and cf. GA 747b6 -io.

108. Aristotle GC 333a35~b3, 325622, Alexander in Metaph. 109. Empedocles frs. 16(26).!, 8(17). 13, 16(16). 12; Plato Soph.
Burnet E G P p. 234; F . M . Cornford Cambridge Ancient History vol. 4, p. 566; E . L . Minar

Phronesis 1963, p. 127; Guthrie HGP vol. 2, pp. 174-78. C. E . Millerd, On the Interpretation
of Empedocles pp. 54-55, suggests only two stages, the separating into many and the
42
43
P H Y S I C S
the evidence available does incline to the conclusion that E m p e d o c l e s envisaged a d o m i n a t i o n o f the whole b y Strife, following the destruction of a generation o f thneta. First there a r e E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n words. H e states quite clearly that there is a twofold destruction o f thneta: . , ' H e goes o n to s a y that one o f these destructions of thneta is ' ' From
this it m a y be said that Aristotle is sometimes careless i n his use o f e x a m ples to illustrate the points he is m a k i n g , a n d i f i n this case he uses a quotation concerned w i t h motion to illustrate E m p e d o c l e s ' theory o f motion a n d rest, it cannot be inferred that E m p e d o c l e s ' p o e m contained no lines describing intervening p e r i o d s . 1 1 7 Aristotle has not misrepresented Empedocles, for he is referring to the rotation o f the elements from m a n y to one a n d from one to m a n y , a n d to the p e r m a n e n c e of this rotation. S i n c e the are only i m p l i e d i n the first a n d third stages of the rotation o f ( m a n y ) , m a n y to one, (one), one to m a n y , Aristotle's citation of the lines m a y be criticized on the grounds o f i n a d e q u a c y but not of i n a c c u r a c y . 1 1 8 Aristotle supports the interpretation o f a separation o f elements b y Strife, corresponding to their u n i o n u n d e r L o v e , i n the following: ,
caused as the roots separate, a n d then adds that this separation is the w o r k o f Strife, fragment 4 7 ( 3 5 )
1 1 l s
k n o w n that w h e n the roots a r e u n d e r the control
of Strife they stay u n m i x e d a n d a r e not formed into c o m p o u n d s . 1 1 3 I n other fragments the function o f Strife is represented as b a l a n c i n g that o f L o v e . 1 1 4 T h e balance w o u l d be disturbed, a n d the fight a n u n e q u a l one, if the complete sway that L o v e en joys i n the perfection of the sphere were not m a t c h e d b y a c o m p l e m e n t a r y d o m i n a n c e of Strife. I n the Physics Aristotle represents the stages o f the complete control of L o v e a n d Strife as stages o f rest i n contrast to the w o r l d i n motion, w h e n the m a n y a r e c o m i n g into one, a n d a g a i n w h e n the one is separating into m a n y . T h e references to E m p e d o c l e s , , a r e : ' .115 in these -
-119
I t is also assumed i n two o f his criticisms of
Empedocles. I n the first, Aristotle asks h o w the earth could keep its position w h e n the elements were held apart b y Strife, for this could not have been explained b y the dine. T h e second is the passage where he states that E m p e d o c l e s omitted the genesis o f the cosmos and w h e r e he suggests a reason for the omission: , () explains , ,
. '
It is doubtful w h e t h e r v o n A r n i m is correct i n seeing a significant distinction between the use o f the singular a n d the p l u r a l o f passages o f Aristotle. T h e p l u r a l form most obviously refers to both
that the
E l s e w h e r e Aristotle concludes o f the ouranos, ' reference here is to E m p e d o c l e s . 1 2 0
a n d Alexander
intervals between the two stages o f motion, a n d the singular, to e a c h separate i n t e r v a l . M i l l e r d a n d C h e r n i s s argue that Aristotle's evidence is worthless here, for they c l a i m that he uses this quotation because he could find nothing better to support a period o f rest under Strife. T h e y conclude that he t h e n twisted the m e a n i n g o f the last l i n e ' to m a k e itfithis preconceived t h e o r y . 1 1 6 Against
Simplicius fills out these remarks of Aristotle. I n c o m m e n t i n g o n the Physics are passage he says that i n E m p e d o c l e s ' theory change a n d motion because, i n one respect eternal b u t i n another there is no change,
although there is a periodic move from m a n y to one a n d from one to m a n y , after each move there is a reestablishment of the eidos of the one and the m a n y respectively. T h e m i s t i u s agrees:
gathering of the many into one. Cf. also E . Bignone Empedocle, studio critico, and the summary by A. A. Long in The Pre-Socratics, ed. A. Mourelatos, pp. 397-425.
113. Fr. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 3 , 5 , 7 ; fr. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 8 - 9 , 12-14. 114. E . g . , frs. 11 (16). 1-2, 16(26). 5-6, 23(30). 2 - 3 , 26(20). 2-5.
115. Aristotle Phys. 250626-29 followed by a quotation of Empedocles fr. 8(17).9-13

(repeated fr. 1 6 ( 2 6 ) . 8 - 1 2 ) , and 25237-10. 116. von Arnim Fest. Gomperz p. 16; Millerd Empedocles p. 54, Cherniss ACPP Peri p. 175, Physios supported by H lscher loc. cit. p. 12, N . van der Ben The Proem of Empedocles' pp. 2 8 - 3 0 .
. Fr. 21(27) does refer to one of these periods. 118. This seems to be the point of Aristotle's comment following the quotation, Phys. 25134-5, and was so interpreted by Simplicius, in Phys. 1125.15-24; on the quotation
cf. G. A. Seeck Hermes 1967, pp. 30-36. 119. Aristotle Metaph. 592.31-32. 985325-29. 1050623-24, Alexander in Metaph. 120. Aristotle Cael. 295330-32, 3 0 t a i 5 - i 8 , Metaph.
44 121 A n d w i t h reference to from the present
45 beyond that.127
P H Y S I C S
T h i s follows the I o n i a n tradition a n d w a s c a r r i e d on
the De Caelo c r i t i c i s m , S i m p l i c i u s points out that w h e n the elements a r e a c t u a l l y separated b y Strife there is a different katastasis one, w h i c h is c o m i n g into existence u n d e r Strife.122 .123
through G r e e k philosophy; its v e r y obviousness m a y account for the lack o f surviving c o m m e n t o n s u c h a pattern for the massed roots i n E m p e d o c l e s ' s c h e m e . 1 2 8 S i m p l i c i u s says, however, that the katastasis of complete separation is not the one i m m e d i a t e l y present, a n d there is evidence for this elsewhere. T h e roots a r e not yet totally collected into their aggregates, for fires still b u r n beneath the earth, there a r e u n d e r g r o u n d streams, a n d also c o m p o u n d s of fire a n d a i r i n the control. F r a g m e n t s 19(27) to 22(29) state, but, as i n the Politicus
su
A passage from A e t i u s mentions the complete d o m i n a t i o n b y Strife, w h i c h involves the destruction of the w o r l d :
P l u t a r c h also definitely accepts a n absolute rule o f Strife a n d refers two lines o f E m p e d o c l e s to this t i m e . 1 2 4 I n the context o f the lines P l u t a r c h elaborates o n the state of the elements u n d e r Strife's c o n t r o l : , , , ' ,
ouranos.129
L a s t , it is not k n o w n for h o w long Strife, a n d L o v e , w o u l d have complete ggest

a
c e r t a i n period i n a settled
m y t h , there m a y have been only a m o m e n t
of e q u i l i b r i u m before the motion o f the cosmos s w u n g into r e v e r s e . 1 3 0 T h e r e has been m u c h controversy a m o n g lines , ' ' ' , 131 modern commentators
c o n c e r n i n g the place of the present w o r l d i n E m p e d o c l e s ' scheme. H i s
1 2 5 H e r e P l u t a r c h is i n agreement w i t h the previous
evidence i n his a c c o u n t o f the destruction o f the w o r l d , the d o m i n a t i o n by Strife, a n d the u n m i x e d state of the roots. N o r need he be contradicting Aristotle's assumption i n the Physics of after the roots have sepa r a t e d from one to m a n y . T h e present participles i n the quotation from P l u t a r c h w o u l d describe the tendency the elements have to move toward their o w n k i n d a n d a w a y from w h a t is u n l i k e t h e m i n e a c h case; this t e n d e n c y is realized w h e n Strife has control, a n d a l l the fire has m o v e d o u t w a r d , the e a r t h to the center, a n d the a i r a n d water between. T h i s t h e n gives the p a r a l l e l w i t h the state i n the Timaeus which Plutarch c l a i m s is found after the four kinds h a v e b e e n " w i n n o w e d " from their dissimilars into aggregates o f like elements, h a v i n g their p a r t i c u l a r places before being a r r a n g e d into a kosmos.126
assert that
there is a generation a n d destruction of thneta as the roots
move from m a n y to one, a n d a second generation a n d destruction as they separate from one into m a n y . S o far as these lines go, the present could be i n either transitional stage, b u t the available evidence inclines to the 127. C f Millerd Empedocles p. 56; Kirk-Raven PP p. 346; Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 177;
O'Brien CQ. 1967, p. 36, Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle p. 350.
128.
C f Anaximander ap. [Plut.] Strom. 2; Plato Phaedo 11 ia and 77m. 6 3 d - e ; Aristotle

953, Seneca QJfat. 3.24.1, Aetius
Mete. 3 4 o a i g - 2 2 , Cael. 311324-29, 31336-10, and De An. 415628-41632. 129. Empedocles fr. 32(52), Plutarch de prim frig.
T h e r e w o u l d then be some support for those w h o suggest that u n d e r Strife the roots a r e a r r a n g e d i n four c o n c e n t r i c " l a y e r s , " w i t h e a r t h s u r r o u n d e d b y water, w h i c h i n t u r n is enveloped b y a i r , a n d w i t h fire
2.11.2, 25.15, and also 1.5.2. The point is made against Solmsen, Phronesis 1965, p. 117, who maintains that complete separation has already taken place, cf. Long ed. Mourelatos, p. 406. 130. Plato Pol. 273a; O'Brien, CQ_ 1967, pp. 29-34, ECC pp. 59-69, claims that ArisPre-Socratics,
121. Simplicius in Phys. 5 3 2 7 - 3 . 1183.5-6.
1125.17-24 on Aristotle Phys. 250623; cf. Simplicius in Phys.
totle recognizes the unity under Love as the only stage of rest, and that this lasts as long as the other three stages combined. But rest under Strife is not disproved by Cael. 30131518, which relates only separated elements explicitly to Empedocles, or by 300627-31, which is a later stage after the reentry of Love. The phrase, Phys. 252331, '
refers not to the alternation of rest and movement but
122. Simplicius in Cael. 528.9-10 on Aristotle Cael. 295329.
123. Aetius 2.4.8 (Stobseus). 124. Plutarch fac. lun. g26e -f quoting fr. 19(27).1-2.
Farm. Comm. 8 4 9 : . . . . , 125. Cf. Proclus Plat.
to the times (1) of many to one and unity, i.e., of Love, (2) of one to many and separation, i.e., of Strife. The sentence following shows that the criticism is similar to
that made at GC 33437-9 and Metaph. 1000612-17.
. . ., and Cherniss on Plutarchfac. lun. (Loeb) p. 82, n. c. 126. C f Plato Tim. 53a -b; a "vibration" of the root masses is suggested, as they tryto shun each other, but, in the absence of void, cannot do so completely.
131. Fr. 8(17). 3-5; for the last two words as cf. the commentary on these lines.
47
P H Y S I C S
conclusion that it is i n the period of increasing Strife, w h e n the roots a r e separating from unity into their respective m a s s e s . 1 3 2 Aristotle, q u e r y i n g h o w the same state of the w o r l d c a n hold u n d e r L o v e , w h i c h initiates motion motion is , , a n d under Strife, whose says,
T h e evidence from Aristotle for the place of the present w o r l d i n E m p e d o c l e s ' scheme is supported b y Simplicius, w h o has two n o t i c e s to this effect. O n e has been previously mentioned, where Aristotle's p h r a s e ore .138 by Strife is e x p l a i n e d : coy about
-133
E l s e w h e r e he
T h e other is the statement that this w o r l d is b r o u g h t ( ) -139 ,
makes a s i m i l a r c o m p a r i s o n w h e n h e relates a n incorrect embryological theory to E m p e d o c l e s ' account of isolated parts of a n i m a l s i n the words , or , -134 , does not m e a n " w h e n L o v e is i n complete
A passage from T h e o p h r a s t u s m a y be a d d e d is a
here, for i n criticizing E m p e d o c l e s ' theory of effluences he writes, , showing that a
c o n t r o l " ( w h i c h i n E m p e d o c l e s ' scheme w o u l d be the state described i n fragment 21(27). 1 - 3 ) , for he assigns the genesis o f the a n i m a l parts to ' , is more p l a u s i b l e . 1 3 5 the same time. S i m p l i c i u s ' explanation of the phrase, ,
stage other t h a n the present o n e . 1 4 0 T h e p a r a g r a p h from Aetius w h i c h states that according to E m p e docles the m e n of today are as infants c o m p a r e d w i t h m e n of the past p u t s the w o r l d n o w i n a worse state than previously. A n d this is borne o u t b y the account of trees, w h i c h , w i t h their s y m m e t r i c a l m i x t u r e , w e r e the first living things to b e produced, before night a n d d a y were distinguished a n d w h e n there was heat i n the e a r t h to raise them u p . 1 4 1 I t w o u l d seem that E m p e d o c l e s shared Hesiod's pessimism i n seeing the w o r l d a s it is now degenerating from a better time i n the past, a n d i n the s c h e m e o f his Physics this is because the elements are separating out from o n e to m a n y under the inevitable increase of the baneful agency of S t r i f e . 1 4 2 A l t h o u g h there is no t e m p o r a l starting point for the cosmic phases, to be intelligible they w o u l d need to have been described i n a s e q u e n c e , allowing for some repetition a n d recapitulation of points a l r e a d y A t the beginning o f the Physics E m p e d o c l e s lists the four roots made. as the
F u r t h e r , it has been seen that Aristotle was inclined to link E m p e d o c l e s w i t h A n a x i m a n d e r a n d A n a x a g o r a s for supposing that the generation of this w o r l d w a s a separating out of its constituent parts from some sort of m i x t u r e , b u t this w o u l d be u n w a r r a n t e d i f E m p e d o c l e s h a d believed that the kosmos i n its present state w a s generated from the elements after they h a d been completely separated b y S t r i f e . 1 3 6 E m p e d o c l e s d i d not give a n account of the genesis of the ouranos , elements and Arisbe that totle suggests that i t w o u l d have been difficult for h i m to do so i f the were a l r e a d y separate. T h e conclusion then would Aristotle understood E m p e d o c l e s to have posited a stage of m a n y to one u n d e r increasing L o v e , a n d another o f one to m a n y under increasing Strife; some r e m a r k s o n a n i m a l life were included i n the account of the first, but a cosmogony biology.137
132. Cf. Simplicius in Phys. 1124.20-22:
w a s not given, whereas the description of the and
c o m m e n c e m e n t of his e x p o s i t i o n . 1 4 3 T h r o u g h o u t , i n the fragments dealing opposite motive principles, (2) confusing the issue by introducing chance and natural elemental movement, and (3) not accounting for .
138. Simplicius in Cael. 528.9-10 on Aristotle Cael. 295331, and cf. in Cael. 21, 293.20-23. 590.19-
second, the w o r l d as it is now, contained a detailed cosmogony
133- Aristotle GC 334 a 5~7134 Aristotle CA 722025-26.

135. 136. Simplicius in Cael. 587.24-25; cf. Aristotle Cael. 300630, GA 722619. Cf [Plut.] Strom. 10 ( D K 31 A 3 0 ) : . -
139. Simplicius in Phys. 1124.3;

cius in Cael. 528.21-22.
cl-
Alexander ap. Philoponus in GC. 268.8-13, Simpli-
140. Theophrastus Sens. 20; cf. Hippolytus R H 7.29.15, Millerd Empedocles p. 45. 141. Aetius 5.27. , 5.26.4.
142. ) Epiphanius adv. haer. , 3.19 (Dox. 5 9 1 ) , , , , be the ( only , seems to
137- C f Aristotle Cael. 301815-19; the greater detail and interest would obviously come with the account of the cosmos as it is now, and the "glaring contradiction" that Solmsen finds (Phronesis 1965, p. 130) can perhaps be mitigated along these lines. H lscher's "weak" interpretation at GC 33435-7 (Hermes 1965, p. 25) blunts the point of Aristotle's criticism of Empedocles for (1) having like states resulting from
passage suggesting that the present is in a world of increasing Love, but the account is very condensed and is perhaps a summary of the work Love is still able to achieve, cf.
frs. 8(17).23, 25(22). 1-5. 143. Cf. fr. 7(6). : .
48
49 M O N S T E R S A N D M E N
P H Y S I C S
w i t h the cycle, he says first that the roots come from m a n y into one, a n d then that they separate into m a n y from o n e . 1 4 4 T h i s suggests that E m p e d ocles started from e a r t h , a i r , fire, a n d water, a n d v i e w e d the unity of the sphere as derived from t h e m . T h e n a t u r a l movement of the roots is to separate from e a c h other a n d to gather to their l i k e ; the activity of L o v e is i n that i t compels the roots to break u p their family connections a n d c o m b i n e w i t h one another. T h a t the sphere u n d e r L o v e is d e r i v e d from the roots, r a t h e r t h a n being the logical starting point from w h i c h their separation follows, is also shown b y Aristotle's notice that E m p e d o c l e s ' four elements are T h e p l a n o f the Physics to g o d . 1 4 5 is then as follows. F i r s t there w o u l d be a b r i e f
T h e available evidence tends to show that the present generation of m e n a n d w o m e n occurs i n the period o f increasing Strife. T h e fragments also speak of separate limbs, monstrous formations, a n d " w h o l e n a t u r e forms," a n d it remains to consider their place i n the cosmic history. T h e most important testimony for the separate limbs comes from three notices of Aristotle, a l l o f w h i c h quote the first line of fragment 5 0 ( 5 7 ) . T h e y a r e : (1) , (2) " , first, , ' 50(57), ' ' ,
, ,
"
5
. . . "
$
s u m m a r y o f the cosmic history, starting w i t h a n outline statement of the roots i n separation, o f their c o m i n g together into the unity o f the sphere u n d e r L o v e , a n d of their b r e a k i n g u p into m a n y from this unity through the a g e n c y of Strife. T h e activity o f the principles as w e k n o w them is s i m i l a r to, a n d a n illustration of, their universal functioning. T h e n i n m o r e d e t a i l comes the formation o f the present w o r l d , w i t h references to the s u n a n d m o o n , a n d some meteorological p h e n o m e n a . I n his discussion of the genesis o f l i v i n g things, E m p e d o c l e s goes b a c k to the stage o f the progress from m a n y to one a n d gives a b r i e f account o f the creatures that existed at that time ; 1 4 6 he then continues w i t h a description of life i n this w o r l d i n the process from one to m a n y . H e has scope here to develop his biological theories a n d his e x p l a n a t i o n of growth, perception, a n d thought as r e l e v a n t n o w . T h e r e w a s a precedent for this method i n the p o e m of P a r m e n i d e s , w h e r e the p r o g r a m o f the a r g u m e n t w a s first s u m m a r i z e d a n d t h e n the various points e l a b o r a t e d . 1 4 7
'
" (3)
" 148
,"
T h e s e quotations show, i n fragment
that the heads, a r m s , a n d eyes mentioned
although u n a t t a c h e d , a r e ,
composed of bone a n d flesh a n d there-
fqre similar to the corresponding parts i n the present generation of m e n a n d w o m e n , a n d second, that these limbs were generated a n d then p u t together b y L o v e . , w i t h the former state , taken w i t h I t has been concluded that Aristotle's comparison o f the kosmos now, lines 3 - 5 of E m p e d o c l e s ' fragment 8(17), puts the w o r l d as it is n o w i n the time of increasing Strife; w o u l d then be the complem e n t a r y stage, that generated u n d e r the power o f increasing L o v e , w h e n the elements come from m a n y to one. A n d so S i m p l i c i u s : , <
144. Cf. frs. 8(17). 1-2, 3 - 4 , 7 - 1 0 ; 1 6 ( 2 6 ) . 5 - 6 , 8 - 9 .
145. Aristotle GC 3 3 3 b 2 i ; for the paradoxical character of Love's activity cf. GC

333b27-33.
, -
'
E a r l i e r , after quoting lines 10-13 o f fragment ""
47(35), which
146. Cf.fr. 47(35). 1-2. 147. This ordering of the fragments, starting from the roots rather than the sphere, answers some of Solmsen's objections to a cyclic theory (Phronesis 1965, pp. 124-48). The following points may also be made against his argument: (1) one would expect Love's work, that of uniting, to be consistent throughout; (2) it is not Strife's work to create a zoogony, for Strife separates and Love combines; (3) the roots are not yet in a state of complete separation, and so Strife has not yet reached its acme; (4) the mixtures now achieved by Love are in very few cases "perfect," for Love is fighting a losing battle against Strife; (5) Simplicius' quotation of fr. 47(35) does riot put it necessarily in the same context, "to wit the present ," as 60(71); ( 6 ) a strained sense is given to fr. 8(17).3, cf. above, note no. Similar objections tell against H lscher (Hermes 1965, pp. 7-35) Cf.
describe the g r a d u a l a d v a n c e of L o v e a n d corresponding retreat of Strife, he h a d explained, -149 T h e monstrous formations mentioned i n fragments 140(60) a n d 52(61) w o u l d then come into existence w h e n L o v e increases h e r control at the
Long loc. cit. p. 412, and van der Ben Proem pp. 28-30, who follow Solmsen and Hlscher.
148. Aristotle Cael. 3 0 0 6 2 7 - 3 1 , CA 722617-20, De An. 430327-30. 149. Aristotle GC 33435-7; Simplicius in Cael. 587.24-27, 18-19.
5 A r i s t o t l e , 1 5 0 explains that the , " -
5" time under Strife. T h i s results i n the strained explanation as .154
P H Y S I C S
expense
o f Strife. S i m p l i c i u s , following
o f
monsters come after the stage of separated limbs, o c c u r r i n g later i n the kosmos started b y the entrance o f L o v e : " ,
S i m p l i c i u s ' version is likely to be more reliable t h a n those of A l e x a n d e r a n d Philoponus, for h e alone o f the commentators gives further independent quotations from E m p e d o c l e s ' p o e m to illustrate his i n t e r p r e t a tion, a n d it is likely that he was the only one to w o r k w i t h a text o f E m pedocles before h i m . 1 5 5 I t m a y therefore be assumed that h e is o n the whole correct i n following Aristotle a n d that his explanation o f a genesis of l i v i n g but unattached limbs soon after the separation of the e l e m e n t s b y Strife, a n d the c o m b i n i n g of these limbs as they seek u n i o n w i t h other under the increasing control o f L o v e , substantially E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n theory. I t is not k n o w n whether E m p e d o c l e s gave a n y account of the genesis of plants A c c o r d i n g to Aristotle, E m p e d o c l e s should have been consistent a n d extended his principle of monstrous c o m b i n a tions of a n i m a l parts to plants, w i t h such results as ,156 but it is not possible to say whether this is a n i m p l i e d objection each reproduqes
M o r e o v e r , S i m p l i c i u s says that the further m i n g l i n g of the 151 A n d it is as a result of this further m i n g l i n g ,
elements referred to i n fragment 5 1 ( 5 9 ) happens a n d the rising strength of L o v e , that the limbs combine.
T h i s a c c o u n t b y S i m p l i c i u s is the obvious interpretation of the A r i s totelian passages; it is not, however, i n agreement w i t h the views of either A l e x a n d e r o r Philoponus. A l e x a n d e r takes Aristotle's complete control o f L o v e , w h i c h is seen as a " "; phrase For to refer to the time w h e n the elements a r e united u n d e r the
this h e is criticized b y S i m p l i c i u s : m e n t a n d their combinings ,
for the w a n d e r i n g o f the limbs is a disorderly m o v e h a p h a z a r d . S i m p l i c i u s continues, ,
to a n y explanation that E m p e d o c l e s d i d give c o n c e r n i n g the genesis o f plant life w h e n L o v e ' s power was i n c r e a s i n g . 1 5 7 T h e phrase d e s c r i b i n g the thneta resulting from the g r a d u a l encroachment of L o v e over Strife, , , , does not neces-
, .152
sarily refer to limbs a n d monsters. I t is similar to E m p e d o c l e s ' w o r d i n g elsewhere o n the great variety o f living t h i n g s p l a n t s , a n i m a l s , a n d m e n t h a t are seen i n the present w o r l d . 1 5 8 T h e notice of Aristotle that the w o r l d was i n a similar state formerly, , as now, , suggests that there were m e n a n d w o m e n i n the period corresponding to the present one. F r a g m e n t 53(62) gives the genesis of m e n a n d w o m e n from " w h o l e - n a t u r e f o r m s " sent up b y fire as i t was separating, but this does not exclude the possibility that there was a h u m a n generation a t some other p e r i o d . I n the 154. Philoponus' contrast hetween the sphere under Love und this world under Strife is due in psrt to his wish to fit Empedocles' scheme into that of the circles of same snd
other of the Timaeus; cf. Philoponus in Phys. 24.12-17.
Philoponus also refers the limbs to the sphere, saying that i n it were m i x e d not only the elements b u t also the parts of a n i m a l s . T h e monsters o c c u r ' from the Philoponus' E l s e w h e r e he gives a n explanation of
that is inconsistent w i t h this c o m m e n t a r y
Physics.
H e holds that i n E m p e d o c l e s ' account the heads, hands, a n d other , .153
a n i m a l parts form combinations on the e a r t h ,
interpretation seems to be that the parts of a n i m a l s a r e contained i n the sphere; w h e n Strife enters a n d proceeds to w i n over the kosmos from L o v e the limbs a r e then put together. S i n c e Philoponus admits only two states, the sphere a n d this w o r l d , he has to find a place for the monsters i n the
155. Cf. the index fontium for the luck of independent quotstion in Alexsnder snd Philoponus. 156. Plsnts sre, however, included generally in Aetius' sccount (5.19.5) .
157. Phys. 158. , snd cf. Sim-
150. Aristotle GA 7 2 2 6 2 0 - 2 1 : ' ' 151. 153. . Simplicius in Phys. 3 7 ' 33"~35> "* Cael. 587.21 Philoponus in Phys. 314.6-25, in GA 2 8 . 9 - 1 4 .
, De An. 430330:
plicius in Cael. 586.9-11 quoted helow, n. 160, in the context of fr. 47(35).
Aristotle Phys. 382.25-31. Empedocles fr. 47(35). 16-17, snd cf. frs. 15(23).5, 107(115)-7199610-13, snd cf. Philoponus in Phys. 319.9-20, Simplicius in
52 Simplicius in Cael. 586.25-587.12, with Empedocles' frs. 50(57) 3nd 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 10-11.
52 from separation to unity E m p e d o c l e s found a figures like the
53 the further differentiation b y Strife of these ,104
P H Y S I C S
time o f the m o v e m e n t
whereby the parts
solution to the p r o b l e m o f the existence o f legendary
become articulated a n d sexual reproduction possible. L o v e continually strives to make the resulting ihneton as perfect as the m a t e r i a l allows a n d occasionally gains a striking victory, as i n the tongue of the orator or the h a n d of the craftsman, w h e r e the elements are i n the appropriate proportions. A s L o v e loses ground, however, such victories become increasingly rare i n the persistent battle between the two opposed p r i n c i p l e s . 1 6 5 I t is now possible to interpret Aetius' account of the four generations of l i v i n g t h i n g s . 1 6 6 T h e passage is a condensed s u m m a r y of various forms of life envisaged by Empedocles. I t does not give their place i n the cosmic scheme a n d says nothing about the passing a w a y o f each k i n d , nor whether there are one o r more occurrences o f e a c h generation at the different stages. T h e order need not be accepted as Aetius gives it, but w i t h the foregoing conclusions no change is necessary. T h e first generation is that of the single limbs described i n fragment 5(57)>
a n
M i n o t a u r a n d the C e n t a u r s . H e set the generation of such a population then, i n m u c h the same w a y as Plato p u t his ideal statesman i n a different stage of his cosmic cycle, as h a v i n g little relation to the present w o r l d . 1 5 9 I t w o u l d , however, also b e reasonable to suppose that as L o v e ' s and power increased better combinations w e r e effected, a n d that some of the h u m a n a n i m a l parts were j o i n e d i n a m o r e fitting m a n n e r , w i t h a result s i m i l a r to that w h i c h L o v e is still able to achieve. S u c h a conclusion is a c t u a l l y given b y C e n s o r i n u s , a n d S i m p l i c i u s supposes that E m p e d o c l e s envisaged some n o r m a l as w e l l as a b n o r m a l combinations o f the u n a t tached limbs d u r i n g the increasing d o m i n a t i o n of L o v e . 1 6 0 M o n s t r o u s births o c c u r r i n g n o w a r e a c c o u n t e d for, not by a n ill-fitting u n i o n of u n a t t a c h e d limbs, b u t b y some defect i n the seed or fault i n its m o t i o n . 1 6 1 A s u r v i v a l o f monstrous combinations into the present should not be r e a d into a notice of Aristotle c r i t i c i z i n g a v i e w that bodily parts are p r o d u c e d by necessity a n d not b y design. Aristotle gives his supposed opponents this c o n c l u s i o n : ', ' , , T h e
d given by Aetius as
[) ,
E m p e d o c l e s ' explanation, it has been suggested,
began w i t h the elements i n separation, sketched their c o m i n g into unity under L o v e , a n d later returned to this time w i t h the start of the account of - A t her first entry after the separation of the elements, L o v e g r a d u ally gains sufficient power to fashion i n d i v i d u a l limbs ( w h i c h m a k e u p this firit generation) but cannot overcome the discordant a n d disruptive activity characteristic o f S t r i f e . 1 6 7 the the separate limbs mentioned i n fragments 51(59) second generation is the monstrous unions of a n d 52(61), which
are a d d e d as
a n illustration of combinations not fit to survive, b u t this does not m e a n that the whole context reproduces E m p e d o c l e s ' theory of the rise of the h u m a n race. S i m p l i c i u s , i n his c o m m e n t a r y here, clarifies the interpretation, for h e gives E m p e d o c l e s ' standpoint first a n d then makes the general a p p l i c a t i o n for those w h o do not recognize a n a t u r a l t e l e o l o g y . 1 6 2 I n the extant fragment that is c o n c e r n e d w i t h the generation of m e n and w o m e n it is said that they w e r e preceded by These, h a v i n g a share of w a t e r a n d heat, s p r a n g from the e a r t h , sent u p by fire as it tended to r e a c h its l i k e ; their limbs w e r e not articulated, a n d they could not reproduce their k i n d . 1 6 3 T h e recognizable h u m a n forms result from
arise as the elements combine more a n d more but w h i c h then pass from the w o r l d as L o v e ' s power increases a n d more satisfactory unions are possible. T h e next generation, of a different kind, comes after the unity of the elements i n the sphere, w h e n they are separating out. L o v e still has p r e -
159. Plato Pol. 275a.

160. Censorinus 4.7 ( D K 31 A 7 2 ) , Simplicius in Cael. 5 8 6 . 9 - 1 1 : , . Cf. also the commentary on fr. 16(26). . . . .
164. 165.
Cf. Aristotle GC 3 3 4 a i ,
, and Simplicius' setting of fr. 53(62) .
C f Aristotle GC 3 1 5 a 1 617,
161. Cf. Aetius 5.8. .

162. Aristotle Phys. 198629-32, Simplicius in Phys. 371.33-372.11, and cf. O. Hameiin in W. D . Ross Aristotle's Physics p. 528.
, and Theophrastus Sens. 11.
66. Aetius 5 - t 9 - 5 l cf. Millerd Empedocles pp. 57-58, Guthrie HCP vol. 2, pp. 200-08,
and for a different interpretation, Bollack Empedocle vol. 1, pp. 194-207, Minar Phronesis
1963, 167. pp. 140-45, Solmsen Phronesis 1965, pp. 132-38. C f Empedocles frs. 26(20).5, 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 6 - 9 .
163. Empedocles fr. 53(62) quoted hy Simplicius in Phys. 381.31.
54
55
P H Y S I C S
d o m i n a n t control, b u t Strife's w o r k o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n a n d articulation is g a i n i n g hold. T h e m a n u s c r i p t s o f A e t i u s here r e a d , followed b y ' , T h e w o r d
before." E m p e d o c l e s , however, w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e been a w a r e o f s u c h a deficiency i n his account. H i s b r o a d oath is very like P a r m e n i d e s ' , i n v a r i a n c e o f the p a t t e r n . 1 7 3 T h e limits o f L o v e a n d Strife are r e a c h e d i n the c i r c u m f e r e n c e o f the sphere that persists t h r o u g h o u t , 1 7 4 a n d the d e n i a l of kenon puts a l l the movement of the roots w i t h i n the circumference, as the m o v e m e n t o f bodies i n a p l e n u m , i n a series o f minglings a n d shuffles. L o v e a n d Strife, as has been shown, do not take u p place i n the same w a y as the roots; their activity is continuous but c a n e x p a n d a n d contract. T h e complete process seems to h a v e been w o r k e d out along the following lines. A t one time the roots are completely separate u n d e r Strife, a n d L o v e lies inactive at the c i r c u m f e r e n c e ; then comes h e r rise to power, w h i c h is initiated b y h e r rush to the center. T h e relative positions o f the two principles here are given i n the lines , ' 17 pushed a b o n d , conceived almost i n literal terms, w h i c h ensures the
seems to
convey no m o r e t h a n the () be no m e n t i o n o f the
'
i n the fourth stage. S u c h
repetition is u n l i k e l y i n a b r i e f s u m m a r y , a n d , as there w o u l d otherwise , the editors are no doubt correct i n to .168 T h i s then adopting K a r s t e n ' s e m e n d a t i o n o f
gives the t w o types o f generation i n the present p e r i o d t h e e a r l i e r , o f w h o l e - n a t u r e forms c o m i n g from the e a r t h , a n d the later, w h e n the e a r t h ceased to generate spontaneously.169 T h e p a t t e r n of b a l a n c e a n d antithesis m a y be s u m m a r i z e d as follows: ( i ) T h e r e a r e the elements i n separation u n d e r the control o f Strife. (2) A s they begin to come together w i t h the entry a n d a d v a n c e o f L o v e , the u n a t t a c h e d l i m b s a r e formed. (3) T h e s e c o m b i n e i n various monstrous unions, except perhaps some w h i c h j o i n i n a m a n n e r fit to survive, giving in this w a y a generation o f m e n a n d w o m e n . (4) A s Strife decreases a l l life is absorbed w i t h the c o m i n g o f the elements into one u n d e r L o v e . (5) T h e e n t r a n c e of Strife into the m i x t u r e causes the roots to separate t o w a r d their like, a n d the w h o l e - n a t u r e forms result. (6) T h e s e forms, w h e n fully a r t i c u l a t e d , give the present generation o f m e n a n d w o m e n . T h e y i n t u r n pass a w a y w h e n (1) Strife succeeds once more i n h o l d i n g the elements apart.170 T h e p a t t e r n is continuous a n d self-repeating, a n d the times o f the alternate rise a n d fall o f L o v e a n d Strife a r e fixed a c c o r d i n g to a " b r o a d o a t h . " 1 7 1 Aristotle argues that this e x p l a n a t i o n is not adequate unless it is supported b y examples a n d analogous i n s t a n c e s ; 1 7 2 it is not sufficient to say " t h i s is the w a y things a r e , " or, w i t h D e m o c r i t u s , " i t h a p p e n e d so 168. Gf. Karsten EAcr p. 445. is possibly a corruption of from the following ' . It might then be argued that is similar in meaning to , which contrasts with the fourth stage and would still be a description of the whole-nature forms. For Karsten suggests ,
, and Diels .
G r a d u a l l y L o v e consolidates h e r position, a n d Strife is slowly
b a c k . 1 7 6 T h e interchanges between t h e m cause the rise o f a g e n e r a t i o n of thneta, b u t toward the circumference there are some parts o f roots that are still u n m i x e d , held b y Strife L o v e wins the battle, even-
tually b r i n g i n g a l l the elements into one a n d so generating the ,
i n w h i c h Strife has no p a r t . 1 7 7 B u t the i d e a l state comes to a n Strife strikes, as L o v e d i d , b y r u s h i n g i n to
e n d , a n d
c l a i m the center. T h i s causes the god to be d i s t u r b e d : -178
Strife then begins the process o f separation. First a i r is d r a w n out a n d flows r o u n d i n a circle. F i r e follows a i r u p w a r d , solidifying part of it into the ouranos a n d d r i v i n g part of it d o w n toward the center. T h e fire i n the hemisphere then causes a rotation, the force of w h i c h compresses the
173. Cf. Parmenides fr. 8 . 2 6 , 3 1 , and R. B. Onians Origins of European Thought pp. 332,
Reiske ,
Gomperz
457 n- 3
169. Cf. above, n. 164. 170. The "shoots" from which men and women come are , i.e., they sprang up before night and day were distinguished (Aetius 5.26.4). And a day for the first-born generation of men was ten months long; the men of today are as infants compared with them (Aetius 5 . 2 7 . 1 , 18.1). This tells against putting separate limbs immediately before the "shoots," or between the and the present generation.
171. Fr. 2 3 ( 3 0 ) . 3 , and also 107 ( 1 1 5 ) . . iooobi2-i7. 172. Aristotle Phys. 252331-35, Metaph.
174. , used in fr. 47(35) 10 of place as in fr. 16(16). 1 of time, shows that the round shape continues. 175. Empedocles fr. 47(35)-3-4, and cf. the commentary on these lines. 176. , "to run on ahead," used of Strife, fr. 47(35) 12; the metaphor is of an enemy army in retreat, cf. the commentary on the fragment.
177. Cf. Aristotle Metaph. 100062-4: , ' , GC 3 1 5 a 6 - 8 , and Simplicius in Cael. 529.16-20.
178. Empedocles fr. 24(31).
56
e a r t h a n d exudes the water from i t . " 9 A s Strife still held some parts of the roots aloft a n d u n m i x e d i n the c o m p l e m e n t a r y generation o f thneta, so i n the present w o r l d it is to be expected that L o v e has not yet relinquished her h o l d o n the parts of the roots nearest the circumference, b u t keeps t h e m i n t h e i r former state. B e y o n d the ouranos but w i t h i n the sphere some of the o r i g i n a l a m a l g a m u n d e r L o v e is still p r e s e r v e d ; 1 8 0 i n h e r t u r n , L o v e w i l l b e d r i v e n b a c k once m o r e she rises to c l a i m her prerogatives. eventually, until ,
3. Katharmoi and Physics

1 ] C O M M O N G R O U N D to the Physics is p r o b l -
T h e question of the relationship of the Katharmoi
ematic, a n d it is often thought that the two poems represent i n c o m p a t ible, or even contradictory, positions taken u p b y E m p e d o c l e s either simultaneously or successively. 1 I n this section it w i l l be argued the two poems are not irreconcilable, that the theory of the Katharmoi I accord w i t h that of the Physics, by the Physics on several key points. that is i n
and that it is supplemented a n d clarified
It is p l a i n that a n y interpretation must be based firmly o n the fragments themselves. T h e r e is very little external evidence that is relevant a n d trustworthy, a n d a n y attempt to tie E m p e d o c l e s to a p a r t i c u l a r set of religious cults, beliefs, or practices has no adequate basis. T h e contexts of the fragments a n d the comments o f ancient authors have to be used with caution. Aristotle, for example, admits that he is p u z z l e d about how . On "hopeless contradiction" between the poems cf. E . Rohde Psyche pp. 382-83,
Millerd Empedocles pp. 8 9 - 9 4 , Burnet EGP p. 250, W. Jaeger The Theology of the Greek Philosophers pp. 132-35, Vlastos PhilosQ Early 1952, p. 121. For the Physics as a youthful
scientific work, and the Katharmoi the product of a later "conversion" to religion, cf. Diels SP AW 1898, p. 406, Wilamowitz SP AW 1929, p. 655, and for the opposite ordering cf.
Bidez Biographie Long AJPh pp. 160-71, Kranz Hermes 1935, pp. 111-19, and his Empedokles passim.
Some attempts to reconcile the poems have been made by Bignone Empedocle chap. 1 ; H . S.
1949, pp. 142-58; C . H . Kahn AGPh i 9 6 0 , pp. 3-35; Kirk-Raven PP pp. 3 5 7 - 6 1 ; G . Zuntz Persephone p. 269; S. M . Darcus Phronesis 1977, pp. 175-90; and an ex-
planation of the daimon in terms of the elements has been put forward by H . Reiche 179. Cf. Aetius 2.6.3, [Plut.] Slrom. 10 (DK 31 A 3 0 ) .
,8a ' Cf. Aetius 1.5.2: . , , , . Empedocles' mixture, Eudoxan astronomy and Aristotle's connate pneuma pp. 5 0 - 5 4 ; S. Souilhe
ArchPhilos 1932, pp. 1-23; . E . Barnes C J '9 6 7> PP- ' 8 - 2 3 . This chapter is a fresh attack on the problem. 57
58
59
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
E m p e d o c l e s w o u l d define the soul, b u t although i n his arguments h e quotes extensively from the Physics he does not m a k e use of the Katharmoi.2 T h i s m a y or m a y not be deliberate, but it makes for one-sidedness. Some later c o m m e n t a t o r s t r y to find support i n E m p e d o c l e s for p r o - P y t h a g o r e a n p r o p a g a n d a o r skeptical ways o f thinking, a n d others tend to interpret h i m i n N e o p l a t o n i c terms. I t is best therefore to keep as m u c h as possible to E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n words, w i t h two caveats: first, that it is u n c e r t a i n to w h i c h of the two poems a n u m b e r of the fragments should be a l l o c a t e d , a n d second, that the order of the composition of the poems is not definitely k n o w n . 3 I t is a p p r o p r i a t e to start w i t h the four roots. W h e n , i n fragment 107(115), E m p e d o c l e s says that the might o f aither pursues the d a i m o n into sea, sea casts h i m onto e a r t h , e a r t h into s u n , a n d sun a g a i n into the eddies o f aither, there c a n be little doubt that the areas chosen a r e not a r b i t r a r y b u t are references to the masses of the four elements as given i n the Physics. and T h e r e is the most c o m m o n w o r d for the root o f fire, , , is the u s u a l t e r m for the root of air, ,
N o w boy, bush, b i r d , a n d fish8 a r e obviously examples o f t h e
that the d a i m o n assumes as he goes from one h a r d w a y o f life to
another, a n d they are lives i n different e l e m e n t s . 9 T h e passing f r o m one element to another c a n therefore be seen as exchanging a life i n o n e element for that i n another, u n d e r the l a w o f necessity; a n d w h e n E m p e d ocles says that he has been at some time boy, bush, b i r d , a n d fish h i s words c a n be interpreted i n the light o f fragment 107(115). E m p e d o c l e s supposes that, according to necessity a n d the u n i v e r s a l l a w , c o m i n g u n d e r Strife results i n b i r t h as thneton; so, finding himself as p r o p h e t , leader, minstrel, a n d healer at the highest stage of the he w o u l d suppose that the l a w h a d r u n its course i n his case. I t w o u l d be n a t u r a l to infer that he h a d passed through the r e q u i r e d births a s thneta, a n d since this involves different elements i n t u r n , previous lives w o u l d be as b i r d , fish, plant, a n d h u m a n . T h i s need not i m p l y that E m p e d o c l e s r e m e m b e r s being i n these states; it is a n inference from the l a w that the d a i m o n o f necessity takes o n a variety o f forms. L i k e the four roots, the L o v e a n d Strife of the Physics in the Katharmoi, have t h e i r place a n d it is the account o f their nature a n d function i n the the names for L o v e are Philotes, G e t h o s u n e , A p h r o Kathar118(128) a n d
Nestis a r e interchangeable for water, a n d earth is obviously a n d i n the
a n d
i n both p o e m s . 4 T h e c h a r a c t e r , activity, a n d p r i m a r y i m p o r Katharmoi
physical work that helps i n the understanding o f their role i n t h e other poem. I n the Physics moi.10 dite, H a r m o n i a , a n d K y p r i s , the last two o c c u r r i n g also i n the T h e influence o f K y p r i s , elaborated i n fragments 119(130) of the Katharmoi
tance o f the four roots are e x p l a i n e d i n the Physics, areas o f b a n i s h m e n t for the d a i m o n .
the four a p p e a r , u n d e r the n a m e s f a m i l i a r from the physical work, as the T h e four roots c o m b i n e i n countless ways to give the variety o f thneta k n o w n i n the w o r l d . T h e w o r d E m p e d o c l e s uses i n the Physics different shapes a n d kinds o f thneta is , -5 , (of K y p r i s ) , as for example in for the ,
as resulting i n universal sympathy, tallies w i t h I n addition, h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for as one o f h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , is
that o f P h i l i a / K y p r i s i n the Physics. found i n the Katharmoi sway.11
friendly thoughts, given i n the Physics
a n d i n the simile o f the painter, .6
i n the prevalence of friendly thoughts u n d e r h e r is the p r i n c i p l e o f f r i e n d -
T h e same t e r m is found i n the Katharmoi a n d also '
M o r e o v e r , the phrase for the w h e n the i m m o r t a l again for the .1 are at is given
A s L o v e , i n the Physics a n d i n the Katharmoi,
" c h a n g i n g o f the p a t h s " of the roots i n the Physics puts o n m o r t a l forms, ,
ship a n d unity a n d thus works for good, so Strife is the c o m p l e m e n t a r y 8. Cf.fr. 108(117). 9. Aristotle Mete. 38236-8 relates the material of which an animal is made to its environment. Life in fire is denied here but accepted at HA 5521310-17; at GA 7 3 7 a i - 5 heat, not fire, is said to be responsible for some forms of life, and fire animals are relegated to the moon, 7611313-22. On texts relating to lives in different elements cf. A. S. Pease on Cicero ND 2.42, p. 639.
10. Cf. fr. 8(17).24, and for Kypris frs. 6 2 ( 7 3 ) . : , 70(75).2, 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 3 , 8 7 ( 9 5 ) . ! from the Physics and 118(128).3 from the Katharmoi; 11. , for Harmonia frs. 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 4 (and cf. 21 (27).2) . , and 9(3)-2
d a i m o n s w h e n they too change their paths:
2. Cf. Aristotle De An. 408318-24; the only quotations from the Katharmoi
Poet. I 4 5 7 b i 3 - I 4 (on metaphors) and Rhet. 13731116-17.
3. Cf. chap. 4 and, on the order of composition of the poems, n. 23. 4. Cf. the list of terms for the roots set out above in the second chapter of the introduction.
5. Frs. 6 0 ( 7 1 ) . 3 , 6 2 ( 7 3 ) . 2 , 15(23).5; cf. also 0ut 6. Frs. 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) 7 , 130(125). , fr. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 7 .
and 116(122).2; cf. also Plutarch de Is. el Os. 3 7 o d : Cf. frs. 25(22).4~5> .
1'9(13)-1
. Frs. 47(35) 15, 107(115). 8; the change in both cases is from "immortal" to "mortal," but it refers in the Physics to separate elements assuming various shapes as they come into unity, and in the Katharmoi, to the different forms of life adopted after separation.
8(17).23
6 Neikos is as
6l Katharmoi Physics,
K A T H A R M O I
A N D
P H Y S I C S
p r i n c i p l e o f h a t r e d , enmity, a n d separation. I n the Physics described as -12 a n d , of this i n the first a p p e a r a n c e o f Neikos i n the Katharmoi
they a r e the final a n d most honorable stage i n a series of lives i n the Katharmoi, w o u l d be a
a n d there is a n immediate r e m i n d e r it is said that bodies " a r e torn apart the tearing apart of limbs described
that includes plants a n d a n i m a l s . T h e repetition of the phrase from the a n d of the same verb, , r e m i n d e r o f the position held by these gods i n the physical p o e m , where they a r e represented not as beings totally different from the h u m a n race but as having the same origin as m e n a n d parts of the same roots i n their composition; they are superior only i n that there is a longer t e r m to their existence i n the same f o r m . 1 7 M o r e o v e r , the end of the series of lives i n the Katharmoi of its beginning, that .18 at the are almost certainly the
F u r t h e r , i n the Physics
by evil strifes," a n d i n the Katharmoi
i n fragments 118(128) a n d 124(137) is to be understood as the w o r k of Strife, w h e n K y p r i s is no longer i n c o n t r o l . 1 3 T h e representation of this w o r l d as the m e a d o w of A t e , the T h e Physics , reinforces the theory of Physics.14 i n rejecting t r a d i the degenerate age of increasing Strife given i n the also prepares the w a y for the Katharmoi
a n d there the phrase of the
Physics
tional mythology a n d r e q u i r i n g some rethinking of w h a t it means to be a god. L i k e X e n o p h a n e s before h i m E m p e d o c l e s combats the notion that god looks like a m a n , a n d he denies h i m h e a d , a r m s , legs, a n d genitals. I t is the roots that have O l y m p i a n n a m e s Z e u s , H e r a , H e p h a i s t o s a n d they enjoy the privilege a n d eternal life generally associated w i t h the O l y m p i a n s . S i m i l a r l y , i n the Katharmoi is r e p l a c e d i n the lines , " , H o m e r i c a n d H e s i o d i c theology
pinpoints the length (but not eternity) of the life of
the gods is echoed i n the description of the daimons as
T h i s erasing of the dividing line between m e n a n d gods, w h i c h i n the epic tradition was fixed a n d , except i n rare cases, impassable, has two effects. O n e is to reduce to some extent the status of these gods by showi n g t h e m superior only i n h a v i n g a longer a n d h a p p i e r existence than other forms of life. T h e second is to raise the status of the life o f plants, animals, a n d h u m a n s by recognizing i n them a nature like that of the honored gods; but they have a shorter a n d less fortunate t e r m of existence as p a r t i c u l a r arrangements of parts of roots. A l l forms of life have esis,19 the theory of the Physics, phrona n d a l l are subject to the alternating control of L o v e a n d Strife. So w h i c h removes the traditional distinctions beas e n d u r e d by the
-16
I n the Physics
the four roots a n d the sphere under L o v e are truly god,
but a p l a c e is found for " l o n g - l i v e d gods, highest i n h o n o r " ; these are m a d e u p , i n the same w a y as p l a n t , a n i m a l , a n d h u m a n life, from temp o r a r y combinations o f the roots. T h e superiority of s u c h gods rests m a i n l y o n the fact that the p a r t i c u l a r a r r a n g e m e n t of roots w h i c h give t h e m their c h a r a c t e r lasts for a longer time, before its dissolution, t h a n that o f other forms of life. T h a t the a r e as m u c h thneta as p l a n t a n d a n i m a l kinds is s h o w n b y fragment 14(21), w h e r e a l l things, past, present, a n d future, a r e said to come from the roots: "trees s p r a n g from them, a n d m e n a n d w o m e n , animals a n d birds a n d watern o u r i s h e d fish, a n d long-lived gods too, highest i n h o n o r . " 1 6 T h e i n the Physics are last i n a list of forms of life a p p e a r i n g as a result of various combinations of the roots, a n d i n the
12. Frs. 8(17). 19, 77(109).3, and 107(115). 14. 13. Cf. fr. 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . 4 ' . is repeated at fr. 114(124).2
tween life as god, m a n , a n i m a l , a n d plant, makes less startling the t r a n sition from one to another described i n the Katharmoi daimon. T h e Physics a n d the Katharmoi break down the division between m e n a n d long-lived gods, a n d between plants a n d a n i m a l s a n d m e n , a n d as a corollary to this they question the accepted frontiers of birth a n d death. A t the beginning of the Physics E m p e d o c l e s criticizes others for the n a r rowness of their outlook: "After observing a s m a l l part of life in their lifetime . . . they are c o n v i n c e d only of that w h i c h e a c h has experienced . . . yet a l l boast of finding the w h o l e . " 2 0 T h e s e m e n m a k e rash generalizations about based only on their o w n experience i n this present life; rather, they should view this life not as beginning w i t h birth
as characterizing the present generation.

14. Fr. 113(121); cf frs. 112(118), 114(124), 123(145). 15. Fr. 118(128). 1-3.
17.
Cf. frs.
14(21). 10 and 100(110). 10 and
132(146).3. 15(23).8. 81(103).
18. Frs. 132(146).3, 107(115).5, 14(21).12, 19. C f frs. 20. Fr. ( 2 ) . 3 - 6 .
16. Fr. 14(21).9-12, and cf. fr. 15(23).5-8, where the list is repeated.
62
63
K A T H A R M O I
A N D
P H Y S I C S
a n d e n d i n g w i t h death b u t as a mens o f a broader scheme. F r a g m e n t 106(15) elaborates o n this: , , , '-21
prohibition is elaborated o n three counts. F i r s t , the shedding o f b l o o d is given as one of the causes for the exile of the d a i m o n from h a p p i n e s s ; second, the age o f K y p r i s was c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y the absence o f a n i m a l sacrifice; a n d t h i r d , the continued shedding of blood, the i n the n a m e o f religion, is represented as grounds for the c o n t i n u i n g misery o f h u m a n l i f e . 2 4 T h e t r a d i t i o n a l G r e e k a w e a n d h o r r o r a t the crimes of homicide a n d c a n n i b a l i s m a r e reinforced b y the r e m i n d e r from the Physics that these are a destruction of the work o f L o v e , a n d so a
, A n d i n the Physics
'
',
()
'
a r e the supporting ( E l e a t i c ) arguments, that nothing
comes from nothing a n d that w h a t is c a n n o t cease to be. S i n c e this is so, b i r t h a n d death must be reinterpreted, a n d for t h e m are substituted the m i n g l i n g a n d separating o f eternally existing roots. W h e n parts o f the roots a r e a r r a n g e d i n the form of a n a n i m a l , this is w h a t m e n c a l l birth, a n d w h e n the a r r a n g e m e n t is broken up, this is w h a t is k n o w n as d e a t h . 2 2 I t therefore comes as no surprise to l e a r n i n the Katharmoi that a m a n is i n some w a y , a n d meets w i t h good a n d i l l , before a n d after his present life; b i r t h is not to be considered as generation from w h a t d i d not exist before, nor death the a n n i h i l a t i o n of that w h i c h at present is. T h e r e is one more point o f connection between the Physics Katharmoi. 23 I n fragment 94(105) E m p e d o c l e s says, T h e o p h r a s t u s interprets: a n d the
" t r u s t i n g " i n Strife. S o far, then, the two poems a r e not d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed, Physics has prepared the w a y for the Katharmoi a n d the
o n several issues. T h e
theory o f the four roots helps to e x p l a i n the exchange o f lives o f the d a i m o n i n air, earth, sea, a n d s u n , a n d the account of the cosmic a c t i v i t y of L o v e a n d Strife is necessary to show h o w the d a i m o n c a n c o m e u n d e r these powers, a n d the consequences of this. M o r e o v e r , the Physics argues that the frontiers of birth a n d death a r e u n r e a l a n d also that t r a d i t i o n a l theology must be r e e x a m i n e d . Plants, animals, m e n , a n d gods h a v e a c o m m o n origin a n d nature, a n d there are no fixed boundaries m a r k i n g off the kinds of life. F i n a l l y , reasons are put forward for the special significance of blood.
I n E m p e d o c l e s ' theory, then, blood is o f p r i m a r y i m p o r t a n c e
C R I M E ,
P U N I S H M E N T ,
A N D R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y god a n d m a n , m o r t a l a n d a n d i n the i n t e r v e n i n g times are born become
because it is the instrument of t h i n k i n g for m a n , h a v i n g its parts i n a l most e q u a l proportion. T h e arrangements of the roots that m a k e u p thneta a r e d u e to the activity of L o v e , a n d the best arrangements, those c o m i n g most closely to a 1 : 1 ratio of the ingredients, a r e possible where L o v e is least h i n d e r e d by Strife. W h e n L o v e h a d power i n the sphere a n d Strife w a s inactive, the roots were perfectly m i x e d a c c o r d i n g to this r a t i o ; the c o m b i n a t i o n o f elements that comes nearest i n this w o r l d o f d e creasing L o v e to the perfect c o m b i n a t i o n achieved w h e n L o v e h a d c o m plete control is found for m e n i n the blood a r o u n d the heart. T h e i m p o r t a n c e of blood as the instrument of thought a n d best w o r k of A p h r o d i t e , as e x p l a i n e d i n the Physics, immediately illuminates the This prohibition against bloodshed set out so forcefully i n the Katharmoi.
Both poems give a n alternation between i m m o r t a l . I n the Physics held separate by Strife they are , they take on the forms of as , -25
the elements united u n d e r L o v e are god, w h e n T h e daimons i n the Katharmoi
a n d i n their t u r n the
B u t there is a difference. I n the Katharmoi
the a l t e r n a t i o n o f
the states of " i m m o r t a l " a n d " m o r t a l " takes o n a v i v i d l y personal tone. Notions of wrongdoing, banishment, a n d final r e t u r n to happiness give i n d i v i d u a l histories to gods a n d mortals, w h i c h at first sight seems h a r d to square w i t h arrangements a n d rearrangements of roots. E m p e d o c l e s m a y perhaps have worked out his theory as follows. B e fore the present state of the w o r l d a l l things were united u n d e r L o v e ; this was a n ideal state, a n d our present one is a degeneration from it. I n physical terms the roots were perfectly blended, held fast i n h a r m o n y ,
21. Cf. also fr. 104(11) and chap. 4 for the suggestion that frs. 106(15) and 104(11) should be allocated to the
22. Fr. 13(9). 1-5 23. Theophrastus Sens. , 10, and also 11: ' Iv .
Katharmoi.
24. Cf. frs. 107(115).3, 120(139),
118(128).8-10, 122(136), 123(145), 132-33(146-47).
124(137).
25. Cf. frs. 21(27), 24(31), 47(35) "4. ' 5 ( " 3 ) 2 ,
7('5)7
64
65
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
a n d Neikos, the p r i n c i p l e of enmity a n d separation, h a d no control. F o r the. people o f A c r a g a s this w o u l d be e x p l a i n e d as a n age w h e n the d a i mons w e r e h a p p y . T h e n , at a fixed time, there c a m e a n e n d to the ideal state. Strife entered the sphere a n d m a d e the god tremble, the elements began to be separated, a n d the different forms o f life resulted. I n the l a n g u a g e o f the Katharmoi Strife g a i n e d control of some o f the d a i m o n s a n d s e p a r a t e d t h e m from their fellows, causing them to b e b o r n i n different forms o f life. T h a t this is the same process v i e w e d i n two w a y s is confirmed b y the m e n t i o n o f the oath at the appropriate m o m e n t i n e a c h p o e m : i n the Physics a n d i n the Katharmoi the time for the end o f the rule o f L o v e , for the rise to power o f Strife a n d the consequent generation o f m o r t a l things, is " h e l d s e c u r e " b y the b r o a d oath o f necessity. 2 6 I n fragment 107(115), however, E m p e d o c l e s says that a d a i m o n w h o adopts m o r t a l form has previously, i n error, polluted himself, a n d this is c o n n e c t e d , i f not explicitly, w i t h the shedding o f blood. Slaughter, as has been shown, takes o n a d d e d significance because of the noetic i m p o r tance g i v e n to blood i n the Physics, b u t it is likely that Empedocles r e l a t e d this c r i m e to the d a i m o n because it was traditionally punishable b y e x i l e ; for it w a s the l a w i n A t h e n s a n d S p a r t a , a n d a c o m m o n p l a c e g e n e r a l l y , that the h o m i c i d e should be banished. T h e r e are several exa m p l e s i n H o m e r o f a person l e a v i n g the country after killing a m a n , a n d Plato i n the Laws a n c i e n t mythos.21 states that this penalty for homicide is a revered a n d W h e n E m p e d o c l e s sees that he is living i n a w o r l d o f i n -
assumes that perjury is a second c r i m e that brings w i t h it the consequences o f separation a n d w a n d e r i n g . 2 9 B u t it is the same c r i m e from a different aspect: the d a i m o n is represented as bringing miasma o n h i m self, a n d i n so doing he transgresses the oath that binds h i m . 3 0 T h e r e m a y even be a sense i n w h i c h m u r d e r , perjury, a n d trust i n Strife are the same event from three points o f view. T h e violence c a n be thought o f as a b r e a k i n g o f the bond imposed by L o v e , 3 1 as w e l l as a manifestation of acting u n d e r the domination of Strife. T h e r e is, moreover, the H e s i o d i c precedent for p u n i s h i n g perjury, like bloodshed, w i t h exile. I n the Theogony it is said that w h e n e v e r one of the alhanaioi swears a false oath by S t y x he lies anapneustos for a great year, a n d then for a further nine years is b a r r e d from the c o m p a n y a n d feasts of the gods, returning to t h e m i n the t e n t h . 3 2 E m p e d o c l e s is almost c e r t a i n l y influenced by H e s i o d here a n d even adopts some of his phrasing. A m o n g other similarities, E m p e d o c l e s ' line reflects Hesiod's ' .33 ' ,
F o r one o f the athanatoi to be forced from the c o m p a n y o f his fellows for a time o f exile, a n d eventually to r e t u r n to them, is basic to E m p e d o c l e s ' theory o f the d a i m o n ; borrowing from H e s i o d , he gives a n act o f perjury as a cause for the exile. I n addition, tragedy in the fifth c e n t u r y provides instances where those guilty o f bloodshed a n d perjury a r e thought unacceptable to the elements. O e d i p u s , for example, is sent indoors by C r e o n because, convicted of p a r r i c i d e a n d incest, he is u n w e l c o m e to the sun, a n d " n o t earth or
c r e a s i n g strife a n d sorrow, h a v i n g c o m e from a former h a p p i e r state, it is n a t u r a l for h i m to posit as the cause o f such a banishment the c r i m e that i n this w o r l d brought w i t h it the penalty o f e x i l e . 2 8 Diels's r e a d i n g of line 4 o f fragment 107(115) is usually accepted. T h i s
26. 27.
Cf. frs. 23(30).3, 107(115).2. C f , for example, Homer //. 13.696, 16.573, 23 8 5> Od. 13.258, 15.272, Xenophon
An. 4.8.25, Plato Laws 865d -e; for homicide laws being unchanged, the oldest, and reverting to Draco, cf. Antiphon 6.2, Ath. Pol. 7 . 1 , and Demosthenes 20.158, 23.51, 47-7 'i cf. further on the Homeric examples G . Glotz La Solidarite de la Familie pp. 50-52, and for the tradition covering all Greece G . Calhoun The Growth of Criminal Law in Ancient Greece p. i n . For the Greek interest in error in criminal cases cf. D. Daube Aspects of Roman Law
pp. 1 4 7 - 5 1 .
29. E.g., Kirk-Raven PP p. 3 5 1 : "whenever one of these demi-gods . . . has sinfully defiled his dear limbs with bloodshed, or following Strife has sworn a false oath"; Burnet E G P p . 222, Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 251; for other views cf. the commentary on this fragment. 30. Cf. the commentary on the line. This would account for Hippolytus' omission of line 3 and Plutarch's of line 4. It would be arbitrary to leave one out if the two lines represented genuine alternatives, but not if they are to be understood as two versions of the same event.
31.
28. When the distinction between unintentional and intentional homicide came to be made, banishment was generally decreed for the first and was available in the case of the second if the defendant left before the final two speeches of the trial, cf Glotz, loc. cit., pp.
4 2 5 - 4 2 , D. M . MacDowell Athenian Homicide 255-57 Law in the Age of the Orators pp. 110-29 and especially pp. 177-21 on I G t ! 115, and J . W. Jones Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks pp.
Cf. fr. 21 (27). 2
32. Hesiod Theog. 793-806.
33. Cf. fr. 107(115). 12 and Hesoid Theog. 800; the Hesiodic passage begins at line 782 with ' /cat iv , which again connects perjury with strife.
66
67
K A T H A R M O I
A N D
P H Y S I C S
holy r a i n or l i g h t " w i l l receive h i m . I n E u r i p i d e s , J a s o n is a p p a l l e d that M e d e a should still be looking o n s u n a n d earth after m u r d e r i n g h e r c h i l d r e n . Pylades, i n the Orestes, takes a n oath for earth a n d r a d i a n t d a y to reject h i m i f he deserts his friend, a n d H i p p o l y t u s prays that i f he is forsworn i n the p r o c l a m a t i o n of his innocence, taken i n the n a m e of ", neither sea n o r e a r t h m a y receive his b o d y . 3 4 I n G r e e k legal a n d poetic tradition, therefore, bloodshed a n d perjury c a n result i n exile, a n d the m a n w h o has so acted is abhorrent to the elements. I t is i n these terms that E m p e d o c l e s describes the d a i m o n ' s dep a r t u r e from the c o m p a n y of his like, a n d his birth i n , a n d rejection by, one element after another. Y e t present-day commentators speak of the Katharmoi as a theory about " t h e p r i m a l sin a n d fall of m a n , " concerned w i t h purification from the taint o f original sin a n d w i t h the subsequent salvation.35 T h i s sort of language is of course at v a r i a n c e w i t h the theory a n d it is a m i s t a k e n interpretation o f G r e e k ethics i n
i t y ; A g a m e m n o n w i l l p a y for his act even though he could not h a v e acted o t h e r w i s e . 3 6 C l y t e m n e s t r a i n the Oresteia is i n a s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n . S h e o f the c l a i m s that it was Alastor i n female form w h o killed h e r h u s b a n d ; the chorus replies that n o one w i l l bear witness that she is anaitios m u r d e r , a n d she answers, w i t h whatever sincerity, that i n c o n s e q u e n c e she is ready to give u p the kingdom. Orestes admits that he k i l l e d his mother by order of Apollo, but he accepts the responsibility, not " b l a m i n g " the god, since it was his o w n h a n d that slew h e r . 3 7 S i m i l a r l y w i t h the O e d i p u s of Sophocles. Apollo is said to be the cause of the p a r r i c i d e a n d incest, but O e d i p u s committed them a n d is therefore atheos. A n d i n the Coloneus he gives as his apology: ' ' -38
of the Physics,
Perjury seems to have w o r k e d i n m u c h the same w a y . H e c t o r , i n Iliad 10, swears a false oath w h e n he promises D o l o n the horses o f A c h i l l e s , even though his intention is to fulfill his promise, a n d the events p r e v e n t ing its fulfillment are beyond his control; there is really no a l t e r n a t i v e " t r u e " oath he could have sworn. B u t H o m e r ' s language m a k e s n o distinction between this a n d the intentional false o a t h ; epiorkon is the term for unintentional as well as deliberate perjury, a n d it is adopted b y E m pedocles.39 T h e case of the epic a n d tragic heroes helps i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Empedocles. T h e y acted i n ignorance or as the result of e x t e r n a l c o m pulsion, but they are ready to accept personal liability for the i n e v i t a b l e consequences. T o quote again from Professor D o d d s : "Thyestes and O e d i p u s are m e n w h o violated the most sacred of nature's laws, a n d thus i n c u r r e d the most horrible of a l l pollutions, but they both d i d so without , for they knew not w h a t they d i d i n Aristotle's a n d not a n -"40 are words used in the Katharmoi quasi-legal and terminology it was a
C h r i s t i a n terms that distorts E m p e d o c l e s ' w a y of thinking. T o e x p l a i n further. E a r l y examples o f G r e e k theory a n d practice c o n c e r n i n g c r i m e a n d p u n i s h m e n t show the interest to have centered on the act alone. O n c e a c r i m e is committed the consequences follow, a n d the i n d i v i d u a l bears the responsibility for w h a t he has done, whether or not he could have avoided b e h a v i n g as he d i d ; a n d he might not have been able to a v o i d the act if he h a d come u n d e r the power of a god. I n epic a n d tragedy a pattern c a n be t r a c e d : divine agency compels a m a n to act i n a c e r t a i n w a y , the deed is done, a n d the m a n must then face the consequences. F u r t h e r , the " c r i m i n a l " i n such a case does not usually give divine agency as a n excuse for evading the penalties; he recognizes that he was i n the power of forces beyond his control, a n d he recognizes w i t h e q u a l clarity that he must m a k e amends. S o m e instances of this. T h e obvious one in H o m e r is A g a m e m n o n ' s apology, where A g a m e m n o n says, c o n c e r n i n g his theft of Briseis: ' , ,
i n connection with the d a i -
36. Homer //. 19.137-38, and c f the complete commentary on this passage by E . R. Dodds The Greeks and the Irrational chap. 1.
37. Cf. Aeschylus Ag. 1500, 1505-06, 1569-77, Earn. 588-96; also Dodds, loc. cit., pp.
A s Professor D o d d s has pointed out, this is not a n evasion of responsibil-
34. Cf. Sophocles OT 1424-28, Euripides Med. 1327-28, Or. 1086-88, Hipp.
1029-31;
39-40, and H . Lloyd-Jones, "The Guilt of Agamemnon," CQ. 1962, pp. 187-99.
38. 07" 1329-34, 1360, OC 266-67; cf- . M . W. Knox Oedipus at Thebes pp. 33-38. 39. C f Homer It. 10.332 with 3.279, 19.260 and 264.
in particular the man who has shed blood is repugnant to the sun and sunlight, cf. Euripides HF 1231, I T 1207, Or. 819-22. 35. E.g., Jaeger T E C P p. 145; Kirk-Raven PP p. 3 5 1 ; Guthrie HGP vol. 2, pp. 123 and 2 5 1 ; "the fallen spirits" Kahn AGPh i960, pp. 20-21 and passim; Long CQ 1966, p.
274.
40. E . R. Dodds, "On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex," GA 1966, p. 39, and also pp. 43 and 48 on the horrorand innocence of Oedipus' acts, "Hamartema does not originate
in vice," c f Daube loc. cit. on Aristotle Rhet. 1374b, EN 11 i o b i 8 , 1113021, U35ai5.
68 Empedocles states that h e c a m e under the
69
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
m o n . 4 1 W h e n , therefore,
D e m i u r g e ) that causes the soul to leave its home a n d k i n d r e d a n d to take o n mortal form. T o s u m m a r i z e : Empedocles views life o n earth as a n exile f r o m a n earlier a n d more ideal state; i n h u m a n terms exile results from shedding blood a n d swearing falsely, a n d these are given as the acts c o m m i t t e d b y the d a i m o n , resulting i n his present banishment. H e has taken o n a series of mortal forms a n d has lived i n one element after another, w h i l e , like the m a n w h o has committed homicide or perjury, he is abhorrent to these elements. Nevertheless, although the d a i m o n has come u n d e r the p o w e r of Strife a n d so is said to have " d o n e " a wrong act, this need not i m p l y w r o n g intention or power o f choice o n the part of the d a i m o n ; Strife " h a d " to take control.
p o w e r o f Strife a n d suffered as a result he probably should not be taken as m e a n i n g that this w a s a deliberate intention, o r that a n alternative, such as trust i n L o v e , w a s available. " T r u s t i n Strife" is a stage i n the necessary course o f events i n m u c h the same w a y as the curses a n d oracles "had" to be w o r k e d out. Empedocles, like Oedipus a n d Orestes, sees himself as the i n d i v i d u a l involved, w h o accepts the responsibility a n d suffers the consequences. T h e r e is further help from Plato. T h e account i n the Timaeus does not assume that the s o u l 4 2 is guilty o f a n original " s i n " that l e d to its " f a l l . " Thneta a r e brought into being "so that the whole might be complete," a n d the souls are necessarily implanted i n bodies. 4 3 T h e nature o f the life subsequently led conditions the next move, whether a r e t u r n to the " c o n sort s t a r " i n w h i c h the soul was once temporarily set or to a second a n d inferior life o n e a r t h . B u t there is no w a y i n w h i c h the first incarnation ( i f the sequence c a n be thought o f as h a v i n g a starting point) c a n be chosen or avoided b y the soul. Subsequently, because o f the m a t e r i a l used i n its composition, a n d the use m a d e of the material, the soul m a y be " a cause o f evil to i t s e l f . " 4 4 A similar line is taken i n the Phaedrus i n the account o f the series o f births: " H e a r n o w the ordinance of necessity. Whatsoever soul has followed i n the t r a i n of a god a n d discerned something of truth, shall be kept from sorrow until a n e w revolution shall begin, a n d i f she c a n d o this always she shall r e m a i n always free from hurt. But w h e n she is not able so to follow, a n d sees none of it, but meeting with some mischance comes to be burdened w i t h a load o f forgetfulness a n d kakia, a n d because of that b u r d e n sheds her wings a n d falls to the earth, then thus runs the law. I n her first birth . . . " F o r Plato, therefore, i n these myths it is not the " f a u l t " of the soul but the necessary working of the law (or the will o f the
E M P E D O C L E S
A S
D A I M O N
Empedocles gives the account of the wrongdoing a n d banishment o f the d a i m o n as his o w n personal history. H e says that he c o m m i t t e d the e v i l deed o f eating (flesh) a n d became a n exile a n d a w a n d e r e r . H e w e p t a t being born o n earth, a n d since then he has lived through a n u m b e r o f lives. N o w he is poet a n d prophet, giving a mythos that is true, a n d he goes among the people as a n i m m o r t a l g o d . 4 6 W h a t m e a n i n g c a n be g i v e n to the eg that is used b y Empedocles at each stage of the d a i m o n i c c y c l e ? I t has been shown that Empedocles' assertion that he h a s b e e n b o r n as boy, girl, plant, b i r d , a n d fish need not imply a personal r e m e m b r a n c e o f such states but is rather a n inference from the universal l a w o r d a i n i n g that the daimons be born i n a l l elements as different kinds o f thneta.41 Nevertheless, Empedocles' use of eg at each stage of the history of the d a i m o n seems to imply some constant factor, a n d this w o u l d be i n c o m patible with the theory of the complete dispersal at death of the p a r t s o f the roots that make u p the i n d i v i d u a l . Y e t the d a i m o n w o u l d have to b e related to the sphere, the four roots, and L o v e and Strife, since a c c o r d i n g
41. Empedocles fr. 107(115/3-4, and cf the commentary here.

42. Significantly called the , Tim. 90a. 43. 7 i m . 41c, 42a ( a which has . . .). ,
to the physical poem these are the only things i n existence.
44 Tim. 4 2 b , 42; cf. R. S. Block, "The Phaedrus and Reincarnation," A J P 1958, pp. 156-64 and especially p. 163. 45. Phdr. 248c, trans. Hackforth (with "wrongdoing" for kakia). The Greek of the last
sentence is: , %, Phaedrus. . . . ,
46. Cf. frs. 120(139), 107(115).13, 108(117), 112(118), 103(1.4),
.02(1.2).4.
47. The argument that it would be no punishment to be incarnated in a lowly plant unless one could remember one's former existences (cf H . S. Long A Study of the Doctrine
of Metempsychosis in Greece from Pythagoras to Plato p. 105(f) has little weight. The notion of
punishment is misleading here; where there is no choice one cannot accurately speak of punishment for making the wrong choice. Even in myths that did interpret life on earth as a term of punishment for a wrong choice, the draught of Lethe was a necessary preliminary to that life.
. . . Cf. Kahn AGPh
i960, p. 25, . 6 7 for Empedoclean reminiscences in the
70
71
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
I n the Physics
the e t e r n a l a n d u n c h a n g i n g roots a r e c a l l e d gods, w h i c h , is the u n i o n o f these roots i n a perfect m i x t u r e brought Strife o n the
the d a i m o n ' s consequent a p p e a r a n c e i n this w o r l d , h e w a s i n the c o m p a n y o f the gods a n d u n d e r the control o f L o v e . I n the l a n g u a g e o f the Physics this is the state o f the sphere w h e n the m a n y a r e b r o u g h t into one, therefore w o u l d h a v e a n affinity to the d i v i n e m i n d , a n d so a n d the g o d that is holy m i n d results. T h e d a i m o n s , o r gods, o f the Katharmoi they a r e , o r h a v e , intelligence. A n d this intelligence w o u l d b e o f the highest, because the d a i m o n s a r e at the top o f the scale o f l i v i n g things, a l l o f w h i c h a r e said to h a v e a share -61 9 4 ( 1 0 5 ) , is t h e blood N o w for m e n , a c c o r d i n g to fragment
w h e n the t i m e comes r o u n d , adopt the form o f m o r t a l things. T h e a b o u t b y L o v e a n d resulting i n h o l y m i n d . thoughts. I n the Katharmoi,
o t h e r h a n d breaks u p good m i x t u r e , separates the roots, a n d blunts therefore, one w o u l d expect gods to b e s i m i l a r l y e x p l i c a b l e i n t e r m s o f the m i n g l i n g o f the roots, the a c t i v i t y o f L o v e a n d Strife, a n d the faculty o f thought. A d m i t t e d l y , E m p e d o c l e s speaks o f hearths a n d tables, b u t fragment ! 3 5 ( i 4 7 ) c a n h a r d l y be t a k e n literally. T h r o u g h o u t G r e e k a n d R o m a n r e l i g i o n the happiness o f the soul c o u l d be v i e w e d as the enjoyment o f a b a n q u e t , a n d the notion that privileged people w i n a d m i t t a n c e to the b a n q u e t s o f the gods is v e r y ancient. E v e n Plato, w h o c o n d e m n e d t h e e t e r n a l i n t o x i c a t i o n h e found d e p i c t e d i n O r p h i c eschatology, feast to the souls i n the Phaedrus figurative allowed a as they e n c i r c l e d the h e a v e n s . 4 8 " E n -
a r o u n d the h e a r t . T h i s suggests that the intelligence w h i c h the d a i m o n has o r is connects w i t h the h e a r t - b l o o d , a n d i n d e e d C i c e r o a n d M a c r o bius state that E m p e d o c l e s identified the soul w i t h b l o o d . 5 2 Nevertheless P l u t a r c h u n a m b i g u o u s l y asserts that the d a i m o n is n o t blood, a n d this is obvious, for blood is seen to disintegrate w i t h the rest o f the b o d y a t death.53 I f the d a i m o n then h a s o r is intelligence a n d is not blood, he m u s t be intelligence w i t h o u t blood, a n d that E m p e d o c l e s d i d envisage intelligence w i t h o u t blood is s h o w n b y the line , T h e r e is t h i n k i n g at a h i g h e r a n d a t a l o w e r level t h a n
l i g h t e n e d m i n d s accepted the o l d descriptions o f j o y o u s feasts o n l y i n a sense. A less_sarse c o n c e p t i o n o f i m m o r t a l i t y suffered t h e m to be looked o n as symbols or m e t a p h o r s . " 4 9 S o w i t h E m p e d o c l e s . A t the first stages the d a i m o n is said to h a v e b e e n forced from the c o m p a n y o f the blessed as the result o f pollution a n d p e r j u r y c o m m i t t e d u n d e r the p o w e r o f Strife, a n d a t the e n d the d a i m o n ' s r e t u r n to the gods is represented a n t h r o p o m o r p h i c a l l y as a rejoining o f the immortals at their feasts. I t is evident that the age o f K y p r i s described i n fragments 118(128) a n d 119(130) is to be t a k e n as a n a c c o u n t o f the e a r l y history o f m a n . T h e praise g i v e n for the bloodless sacrifices that w e r e then c u s t o m a r y is the c o m p l e m e n t o f E m p e d o c l e s ' o w n self-reproach, i n w h i c h h e gives bloodshed a n d m e a t eating as the causes o f his exile from a h a p p y state. T h e t i m e w h e n K y p r i s , not A r e s , w a s r e v e r e d corresponds, i n the cosmic s c h e m e o f the Physics, to the stage soon after the sphere u n d e r L o v e , w h e n
that of m a n . 5 4 A t the lowest level e a c h root has a p r i m i t i v e f o r m o f
w h e r e no m i x i n g w i t h other roots is involved. A piece o f fire, for e x a m p l e , is c a p a b l e of t h i n k i n g fire i n that it is a w a r e o f a n o t h e r piece o f fire a n d w i l l t e n d t o w a r d it w h e n not b r o u g h t into a m i x t u r e w i t h parts o f other roots b y L o v e . 5 5 A t the highest level o f t h i n k i n g there is h o l y where perfection is a c h i e v e d b y the constituent mind roots being so
exactly m i n g l e d that there is no v a r i a n c e i n the thought. A n d this is i n contrast to blood, w h i c h , a l t h o u g h a p p r o a c h i n g perfection, is still s u b -
51. 52.
Cf. frs. 8 1 ( 1 0 3 ) , 7 8 ( 1 0 7 ) , and ioo(uo).io. Cicero Tusc. 1.19, Macrobius Somn. Scip. 1.14.20, and cf. Aetius 4.5.8. . 8 . 2 8 6 : (.) Aristotle . . . seq.fr. ( ), . Aetius 4 - 5 2 : ,
Strife as yet h a d little c o n t r o l . T h e gains o f Strife m a r k e d the b e g i n n i n g o f d i s c o r d ; this e n m i t y continues to the present d a y a n d is o n the i n crease. I t is exemplified i n the Physics Love's influence.50 t h e n , before the " t r u s t i n S t r i f e " a n d i n the tearing a p a r t o f limbs, the as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a b s t e n t i o n from w h i c h is s h o w n i n the Katharmoi
53. Plutarch exit. 54.
Cf. Sextus adv. math. . .
, '
De An. 404812 on each of the elements being soul, and Philoponus in de An. 4 8 9 . 2 9 - 3 1 . All thingsanimals, plants, and elementsgive off emanations (Plutarch quaest. nat. g i 6 d on fr. 73(89). 1) and have pores (Philoponus in GA 123.13 on fr. 7 4 ( 9 1 ' ) . so that and converge, and at any particular point in the range it would be
O n the theory o f the Katharmoi,

48.
Cf. Rep. 3 6 3 d , Phdr. 247a, also Vergil Ed. 4 . 6 3 , Arn. 6 . 6 5 6 - 5 7 . in Roman Paganism p. 206; c f also pp. 2 0 4 - 0 5 and the discusamong the Greeks and Romans pp. iog -10; for the persistence
49. F . Cumont After Life sion in his Astrology 50.
impossible to distinguish between them; this in part accounts for the standard Peripatetic complaint that Empedocles identified perception and thought, and in particular for
Theophrastus' query (Sens. 1 2 ) : . ; 55- Cf. fr. 5 3 ( 6 2 ) . 6 :
and Religion
of the allegory of the feasts of the gods into Stoic eschatology cf. Epictetus Ench. xv.
Cf. frs. 1 1 8 ( 1 2 8 ) . 9 - 1 0 and 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . 4 - 5 .
72
73
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
j e c t to changes o f temperature a n d other variations. F o r menJblood is intelligence, the best mixture they have i n their constitution, but E m pedocles, as it seems, is .56 taken Empedocles' theory o f thinking is relevant here, a n d its interpretation is best begun with Parmenides. According to Parmenides' Doxa, w i t h Theophrastus' c o m m e n t a r y , 5 7 it is by means o f the constituent elements w i t h i n m e n that the like elements outside are perceived a n d known. F u r t h e r , perception a n d thought i n m e n are similar, i n the proportion of their parts, to the object that is perceived or thought. B u t Parmenides worked w i t h only two principles, light a n d night. F o r h i m the light a n d d a r k forms that a r e i n the composition of o u r frames think respectively the light a n d darkness i n the w o r l d i n separation, as i n the case o f the corpse, w h i c h knows only darkness, a n d i n varying compounds. T h i n k ing is dependent o n the mixture o f the two forms i n the body at a n y one time; as the mixture that gives the thinking changes, so does the quality of the thought, as well as the range of symmetrical contact with the external w o r l d . 5 8 Empedocles follows a n d develops this part of Parmenides' Doxa i n several ways. P r i m a r i l y , the physical basis o f cognition is clarified. T h o u g h t , w i t h w h i c h the daimon has been shown to be connected, is explicable i n terms o f the four roots; i n Aristotelian terminology it is , a n d the act o f thinking is a form o f contact.59 T h e nature of the contact, w h i c h is between the constituent part o f the body a n d its like i n the external w o r l d , is brought out i n the following lines: ' ' , , . . . ' , , .
of a simple unit o f its o w n k i n d ; plants a n d animals a r e m o r e
complex
and have correspondingly more complex perceptions. M a n is c o m p o s e d o f parts o f the four roots, a n d i n his heart-blood he has a p a r t i c u l a r l y good mixture o f them, so that he is able both to perceive simples a n d to t h i n k compounds. Beyond this is the perfect mixture, w h i c h too is c a p a b l e o f assimilation to its l i k e t h e process of highest ( a n d purest) t h o u g h t . 6 1 Further, a n d significantly, Aristotle quotes two fragments of E m pedocles alongside Parmenides' fragment 16. T h e first states that " m a n ' s wisdom grows according to what is present," a n d the second, that " i n s o far as (men) have changed i n their nature, so far changed thoughts a r e always present to t h e m . " 6 2 S o it m a y be assumed that E m p e d o c l e s , like Parmenides, believed that the mixture o f the bodily components reflects or represents whatever is thought about i n the external w o r l d , a n d that the continual physical changes i n the structure of the body alter the character of the t h i n k i n g . 6 3 B u t Empedocles brought out the corollary that the thought c a n be confused or dulled according to the state o f the mixture a n d the intention o f the thinker, o r correspondingly m a d e purer. Empedocles, however, says that he is superior to m a n , a n d i n h i m therefore there is present a mixture of elements, corresponding to that o f , w h i c h is perfect a n d invariant, no longer subject to the changes undergone b y the heart-blood, its closest equivalent in m a n . 6 4 E m p e d o c l e s expects to survive death a n d to rejoin the immortals w h o a r e his fellows and the god to w h i c h he is a k i n ; a n d it is this c o m p o u n d that w o u l d be the surviving Empedocles. T h e perfect phronesis, w h i c h survives death a n d w h i c h is a complete blending of the component parts of roots, would have no visible character. T h e notion of a characterless a n d u n v a r y i n g perfect mixture, given i n 6r. On the range of perception cf. the references given above in n. 54; for the lowest level of thinking cf. Hippolytus RH 6.11.1, where fr. 77(109) is taken closely with fr. 100(110). 10, and for the highest, cf. Aristotle's criticism of the omniscience of Empedocles' god, Metaph. 100083-6. l o o g b i 7 with sat
',

6 0
(}
It is clear that Empedocles supposed that the attraction of, a n d perception by, like for like covered the whole range of the forms of life. E a c h of the roots has a " s o u l , " that is, it is capable o f a r u d i m e n t a r y sensation
56. Cf. frs. 102(112).4-5, 105(113).2.
62. Frs. 79(106) and 80(108), introduced by Aristotle at Metaph. . .
63. Cf. also Heraclitus fr. 1 ig, Diogenes of Apollonia fr. 5, Regimen I .25 (on intelligence depending on the right blend of elements), and further, H . Reiche Empedocles'
Mixture pp. 53-56-
57. Parmenides fr. 16 and Theophrastus Sens. 3-4. 58. On this interpretation c f W . J . Verdenius Parmenides pp. 6-19, and G. Vlastos, "Parmenides'Theory of Knowledge," 1946, pp. 66-74. 59. Cf. Aristotle De An. 427326-27, Philoponus in de An. 489.27-31. 60. Frs. 77(109) and 78(107), which are surely consecutive, c f Theophrastus Sens. to.
64. The belter thought is not conditioned, as it seems to have been for Parmenides (and cf. Heraclitus frs. 30, 118), by a preponderance of one clement but by a balance ol the ingredients; and here Empedocles fills the gap in Parmenides' theory (of which Theophrastus complains, Sens. 4) concerning the state resulting from an exact equality in the mixture.
74
75
K A T H A R M O I
A N D P H Y S I C S
fragments 19 a n d 21(27) as a description of the sphere, a n d identifiable w i t h , is found several times i n Presocratic theory. I n the scheme o f Anaxagoras, for example, all things were together i n the original m i x ture, a n d consequently no color or other distinguishing feature could be picked out. A n a x i m a n d e r a n d Anaximenes earlier h a d made use of a n arche w i t h no perceptible c h a r a c t e r ; moreover, the arche i n a neutral a n d i n v a r i a n t state, w h e n not subject to rarefaction or condensation, is for A n a x i m e n e s the for m a n , a n d that w h i c h surrounds the world, as well as that w h i c h existed first of all a n d from w h i c h the w o r l d a r o s e . 6 5 Empedocles, like A n a x i m e n e s a n d the succeeding tradition through Aristotle a n d later, also has this link between the soul, or thinking faculty, a n d that w h i c h is a r o u n d the world. T h e restored daimons, who include Empedocles, go outward toward the circumference, where there still survives part of the original god under L o v e . I n fragment 47(35) it was shown that L o v e takes hold o f the center a n d extends h e r power outw a r d . 6 6 A n d i n the complementary period Strife consolidates its control from the center while L o v e i n turn is being d r i v e n ' - Hippolytus, w h o gives the only detailed c o m m e n t a r y on fragment 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) , 6 7 describes there the activity of Strife at this stage as a breaking u p of the unity brought about b y L o v e , resulting i n the generation of plant, a n i m a l , a n d h u m a n life. Conversely, L o v e is trying to pull back to herself out of pity the parts of the one that Strife is scattering into m a n y (or, in Aristotelian terminology, 6 8 the parts o f the mixture that Strife is destroying). T h e s e , from another aspect, are the daimons forcibly severed from their fellows a n d compelled to take o n mortal form i n the creation caused b y Strife, a n d L o v e w o u l d therefore be d r a w i n g them toward the circumference as she herself retreats toward it. Plutarch too supports this w h e n he speaks o f the after their e x i l e ; 6 9 the L o v e at the the daimons reach for the daimons would be with
were once integrated into the perfect a n d u n v a r y i n g unity o f a l l things under L o v e , w h i c h produced the holy mind.70 T h e n c a m e a change. Strife began to take over a n d to break u p the m i x ture. T h i s is seen as "trusting i n S t r i f e " ; there is a feeling that something " w r o n g " was done, a n d a penalty d e m a n d e d , but this does not i m p l y that Empedocles remembered w h a t happened or that a choice w a s open to h i m . T h e parts that are now himself have been used for a l l kinds o f thneta a n d have lived different forms o f life i n the different elemental masses. None of these inferior forms of life was satisfactory, because their mixtures were out o f p r o p o r t i o n , 7 1 or they were unable to become properly c o n stituted, or, i n the case of the boy a n d girl, their time was c u t off before they could become settled. I n this w a y the parts of the roots were thought o f as driven from one element to another, without a period of rest i n w h i c h to become developed. N o w at length Empedocles sees himself as a r e cognizable eg; he has attained the highest form of life on earth, he has the best mixture of elements, a n d his phronesis is p u r e . 7 2 H e , that is his intel ligence w h i c h now has d a i m o n i c status, escapes further disintegration by Strife. I n the Katharmoi E m p e d o c l e s earnestly encourages his fellow citizens
to follow his example. T h e y should hinder the work of Strife a n d promote that of L o v e b y ceasing from q u a r r e l i n g and slaughter, a n d i n their place restoring the universal friendliness characteristic o f a n earlier age. I n so doing they a n d their kindred m a y eventually be free o f the "joyless land."73 T h e Physics gives similar encouragement to Pausanias, b u t the details
are more exact. O n one level Empedocles hopes to train Pausanias i n healing, so that he will w i n through to one of the top lives a m o n g m e n . But this is dependent on the fundamental attitude. I f Pausanias thinks the right sort of thoughts, " w i t h goodwill a n d unsullied a t t e n t i o n , " 7 4 then
70. Cf. Aristotle Metaph. 100083-4, Empedocles fr. 97(134). 4.
It now becomes easier to see how the question of the continuity of the d a i m o n might be answered. F r o m his o w n position Empedocles looks back and recognizes that the parts of roots of w h i c h he is now constituted
71. Fish, for example, have too much fire in their constitution, cf. Theophrastus CP
1-21.5.
65. Gf. Anaxagoras fr. [, Anaximenes fr. 2, Aristotle Phys. 187.120-23, Simplicius in
Phys. 24.13L
66. Cf. the commentary on fr. 47(35). 67. Hippolytus RH 7.29.12-24.

68. Cf. Aristotle Metaph. 109286-7.
72. The failure to reach a satisfactory constitution may explain the simultaneous death of hody and soul at Aetius 5.25.4. Scxtus links fr. 77(109), on the perception of like ele ments by like, with fr. 105(113), and Empedocles' claim to divinity with both purity ol thought and the assimilation of the god within him to the god without {adv. math. 1.302); cf. Plato Phaedo .
73. Cf. frs. 122(136), 119(130), 113(121).
69. Plutarch de Is. et Os. 361c, cf. Hippolytus R H 1.4.3, and also Aetius '5 2
74. Cf. further the commentary on fr. 100(110). Democritus also seems to have believed that teaching alters the physical pattern of the soul, cf. his fr. 33, G . Vlastos
Phil. Rev. 1945, pp. 578-92, 1946, pp. 57-62, and C . C . W. Taylor Phronesis 1967, p. 9.
76
his mixture w i l l be i m p r o v e d a n d perhaps get properly constituted, a n d so not be dissipated at d e a t h ; b u t if, like most m e n , he thinks about petty things, his mixture w i l l get worse, a n d at death the thoughts w i l l disintegrate into their different parts o f roots, a n d these w i l l fly off to j o i n their respective families, the separating masses o f earth, air, fire, a n d water. T h i s section has a i m e d to show that the theory of the d a i m o n p u t forward b y Empedocles is not " m y s t i c , " contradicting h i s physical theory a n d outside the tradition of early Greek philosophy. T h e notion o f a characterless arche from w h i c h the present w o r l d arises is developed according to M i l e s i a n cosmogony; the connection of thinking w i t h the m i x i n g of the elements is a n elaboration of part o f Parmenides' Doxa, and the theory o f a perfect mixture being characterless is accepted by A n axagoras. T h e suggestion that the soul is of the same nature as the outer circle of the heavens is present before a n d after Empedocles. Notably it recurs i n Plato, especially i n the intelligent a n d invisible deity of the Timaeus at the , to w h i c h the daimon is related, a n d w i t h a relationship that c a n be strengthened by thinking the right t h o u g h t s . 7 5 I t is found i n Aristotle too, i n the encircling fifth element, eternal a n d invariant, w h i c h is a k i n to the dynamis of the -78 T h e poems of E m pedocles are a n integral part of this same tradition. T h e y put forward a theory w h i c h connects a n earlier, undifferentiated stage of the universe with a uniting o f the elements, recognizing god a n d m i n d there, a n d w h i c h further supposes that this divine intelligence still surrounds the cosmos a n d that the soul i n its best state has a n affinity with it. T h e method for allocation put forward here is to set out the fragments i n groups graded according to the certainty of their place i n either p o e m . 1 T h e first groups consist of fragments whose contexts are k n o w n , a n d those said b y ancient authorities to precede or follow them. I n the c e n t r a l groups are fragments less directly related to the first sets, o r for w h i c h w e a k e r criteria, such as the n u m b e r o f the imperative or s i m i l a r i t y o f subject matter, are the only clues available. T h e last groups comprise those lines for w h i c h there is no indication to assist the allocation. T h i s scheme of groupings has been presupposed throughout the i n t r o d u c t i o n a n d commentary, a n d the unsatisfactory state o f the evidence for d i v i d i n g a n d allocating the fragments that it reveals has served as a check o n a n y dogmatic conclusions derived from the original lines. G r o u p I consists o f fragments 1, 6, 8, 17, 62, 96, 98, a n d 103 i n D i e l s K r a n z ' s ordering, a n d these are certainly from the Physics. F r o m the first book Tzetzes quotes fr. 6, Aetius fr. 8, a n d Simplicius frs. 17 a n d 9 6 ; fr. 1 is said by Diogenes to be the address of the Physics to P a u s a n i a s . 2 F r o m the second book Simplicius gives fr. 62 a n d also sets frs. 98 a n d 103 i n the Physics, but without indicating the book. 3 Simplicius also supplies the evidence for connecting frs. 35, 59, 75, 8 5 , and 104 directly with those of group I . H e states that fr. 35 comes before fr. 98 with the words , and that fr. 104 is after fr. 103 w i t h
4. The Allocation of the Fragments
. The numbering in this chapter only is that of Dicls-Kranz. Elsewhere these 75. Cf. Plato Tim. 36c, 90a, and also Aristotle De An. 404hl 1-17, where Empedocles' theory is compared with that of the Timaeus because both construct the soul out of elements.
76. Cf. Aristotle Cael. 26ga32, 270810, GA 736830, 7 3 7 a i , EE 1248324-27.
numbers arc given in parentheses after the corresponding number of the new text and ordering.
2. Tzetzes ex II. 53.23; Aetius 1.30.1 ; Simplicius in Phys. 157-27, 300.20; D . L . 8.60. 3. Simplicius in Phys. 381.29, 32.1-2, 331.10.
77
78
79
T H E
A L L O C A T I O N
O F T H E
F R A G M E N T S
'
I m m e d i a t e l y before the quotation of fr. 104 here he groups
(and fr. 36 has a similar reference) describes the retreat of Strife a n d a d v a n c e of L o v e , a n d the contrasting stage of the a d v a n c e of Strife is likely to belong to the same poem. T h i s brings i n frs. 30 a n d 3 1 ; frs. 27, 28, a n d 29, w h i c h describe the state o f the sphere i m m e d i a t e l y preceding Strife's rise to power, w o u l d also belong i n the same work. F r a g m e n t 38 introduces a cosmogony, a s t a n d a r d Presocratic theme that w o u l d b e expected to
together a phrase from fr. 59, the second line of fr. 75, a n d fr. 85 w i t h the first line of fr. 98 (the place of w h i c h is fixed b y the earlier citation) i n the summary: ' 4 with rea
Because of their relation to group I I or o n c o m p a r a b l y strong grounds frs. 20, 21, 23, 26, 57, 61, 71, 73, a n d 111 c a n be set i n the Physics words ' ; sonable assurance. S i m p l i c i u s gives fr. 73 as c o m i n g after fr. 71 w i t h the both precede fr. 75 (from the above g r o u p ) , a n d a n d i n the s u m all three fragments a r e said to come closely together. H e also quotes fr. 57 w i t h frs. 35 a n d 5g as referring to the same katastasis, m a r y i n Aetius of the generations of living things the stage given i n fr. 61 follows that described i n fr. 57 a n d m a y be assumed to come from the s a m e p o e m as i t . 5 F u r t h e r , S i m p l i c i u s has fr. 26 after fr. 21 w i t h the i n d i c a tion , fr. 23 is said to be a paradeigma of fr. 21, a n d fr. 21 to develop further the theory of fr. 17, part of w h i c h is repeated i n fr. 26. E l s e w h e r e fr. 20 is given as a c o m m e n t a r y o n fr. 17.29, a n d so, because o f their c o n n e c t i o n w i t h e a c h other a n d w i t h the certain fr. 17, frs. 20, 21, 23, a n d 26 c a n be a d d e d . 6 F r a g m e n t 111 is included i n group I I I because the distinctive phrase i n the t h i r d line, ' , sanias a n d so belongs i n the Physics rather t h a n the Katharmoi.7 shows that this fragment is almost certainly addressed to P a u -
feature i n a physical work, a n d frs. 37, 53, a n d 54, w h i c h describe this cosmogony's first stages, a r e a l l quoted i n Aristotle's c r i t i c a l account o f E m p e d o c l e s ' physics a n d a r e best placed w i t h fr. 3 8 . 1 0 I n this set frs. 2 - 4 a n d n o m a y also be i n c l u d e d , on the grounds o f the relative certainty of their allocation. T h e imperatives i n lines 6 a n d 9 - 1 2 of fr. 3, a n d i n frs. 4 a n d 110, are i n the singular a n d most obviously addressed to P a u s a n i a s ; a c c o r d i n g to Sextus, E m p e d o c l e s ' fr. 2 ( w h i c h also includes a promise given to a second person singular) comes immediately before fr. 3 . 1 1 O t h e r fragments deal w i t h topics i n groups I I I a n d I V . F r a g m e n t s 84, 88, a n d 94 are concerned w i t h vision, the subject of frs. 86 a n d 87. F r a g ments 3 9 - 4 9 , 5 1 - 5 2 , a n d 5 5 - 5 6 on the nature of the s u n , moon, earth, a n d sea fulfill the promise of fr. 38 a n d are the obvious a n d traditional subjects of physical speculation. F r a g m e n t 22 is quoted b y Simplicius along with frs. 21, 23, 26, 17, a n d 8 as furthering the a r g u m e n t he puts forward for their interpretation. P l u t a r c h gives fr. 76 as a n example of the relative positions elements m a y be found i n , 1 2 the subject of the fragment is similar to that of fr. 75, a n d it is a n instance of the general scheme outlined i n fr. 71. I n addition, fr. 100 o n respiration, fr. 8g o n ' (with the simile illustrating m i x i n g by means of pores i n fr. g i ) , a n d fr. go on nutrition deal w i t h technical subjects related to what is k n o w n elsewhere of the content of the Physics. After group V the allocation becomes more doubtful, but frs. 33, 82, 83, 101, 102, a n d 105-09 h a v e some points i n favor of their assignment to the Physics. O f these P l u t a r c h quotes fr. 33 as a n illustration of the unifying power o f p h i l i a , 1 8 a n d this fragment, along w i t h the biological observations of frs. 82 a n d 83, perhaps connects with the description of the formation of a n i m a l s i n frs. 71 a n d 73. F r a g m e n t s 101 a n d 102 o n breathing a n d smell fit with fr. 100, a n d frs. 105-09 o n thought a n d perception a d d to the account of the functioning of organisms.
T h e fragments of group I V , w h i c h consists of 9, 12, 13, 16, 2 7 - 3 1 , 3 6 - 3 8 , 53, 54, 86, 87, a n d 95, w i t h 2 - 4 a n d 110, depend for their allocation o n a looser connection w i t h those of the first sets, or o n the fact that they d e a l w i t h subjects similar to those treated i n them. P l u t a r c h relates fr. 9, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r the fourth line, to fr. 8, a n d frs. 12, 13, a n d 16 develop the a r g u m e n t s of fr. 7 . 2 9 ~ 3 3 - 8 I n S i m p l i c i u s , fr. 87 follows fr. 86 w i t h the phrase ' o f fr. 86 is given as fragment a n d is itself followed by fr. 9 5 ; the subject ; fr. 95 l s referred to the
context of vision, a n d this a p p a r e n t l y is a subject w i t h w h i c h fr. 85 (a almost c e r t a i n l y from the second group) d e a l s . 9 F r a g m e n t 35
4. Simplicius in Phys. 32.11, 331.1-14, and cf. 32.1-6. 5. Simplicius in Cael. 5 3 0 . 1 - 1 1 , 587.1-26, Aetius 5.19.5. 6. Simplicius in Phys. 3 3 . 8 - 3 4 . 3 , 159.6-12, 27; fr. 26.1 and 8-12 repeat fr. 17.29 and 9-13-
10. Aristotle GC 333bi~334a5. 7. Karsten, EAcr, and Mullach, FPG, however, would put this fragment as
976826-27; Hippolytus RH 7.29.10. 11. Sextus adv. math. 7.124-25. 12. Plutarch quaest. com. 6i8b ,/flc. lun. 9276 and cf. Empedocles frs. 53-54. 13. Plutarch amic. mult. 95a.
;
8. 9.
see chap. 1.
Plutarch adv. Col. 1113a; MXC 9 7 5 b ' " 8 , Simplicius in Cael. 529.21-27.
T H E
A L L O C A T I O N
O F T H E
F R A G M E N T S
I t m a y be suggested o n grounds o f subject matter that frs. 6 3 - 6 8 , 72, 74, 7 9 - 8 1 , a n d 93 belong to the Physics, although there is no i n d i c a t i o n i n the authorities that this is the case. F r a g m e n t 72 introduces a n account o f trees a n d fishes, fr. 74 touches o n the latter (repeating E m p e d o c l e s ' u n usual w o r d ), a n d frs. 7 9 - 8 1 give some description of trees a n d F r a g m e n t 93 gives a n instance their characteristics. G r o u p V I I , like the other biological observations, w o u l d a p p e a r m o r e suitable for the Physics. m i x i n g i n the Physics,14 of a type o f m i x t u r e a n d p r o b a b l y belongs w i t h the other examples of b u t the text o f the line is obscure a n d the exact reference u n k n o w n . T h e r e are n o pointers for the allocation of frs. 6 3 - 6 8 , w h i c h d e a l w i t h r e p r o d u c t i o n a n d embryology, a n d a c c o r d i n g to the notice o f T h e o n there was some a c c o u n t o f the e m b r y o i n the Katharmoi. H o w e v e r , the s u m m a r y i n Aetius o f the four stages o f the generation of l i v i n g things, part of w h i c h is substantiated b y fragments almost certainly belonging to the Physics, shows that s e x u a l reproduction was referred to therefore, b u t w i t h some reservathere i n connection w i t h the fourth s t a g e . 1 5 T h o s e fragments, that are o n this subject m a y be kept i n the Physics, tions. T h e p l a c i n g o f the last group ( V I I I ) is quite u n c e r t a i n . F r a g m e n t s 77 a n d 78, like frs. 7 9 - 8 1 , a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h trees, b u t some editors argue that they belong to the account of the age of K y p r i s i n the Katharmoi.16 F r a g m e n t s 24 a n d 25 deal w i t h E m p e d o c l e s ' method o f exposition a n d c o u l d belong to either p o e m , b u t there a r e instances of repetition a n d divergence i n the Physics. the Physics O f the r e m a i n i n g fragments, 2 7 a is referred b y P l u t a r c h to the ideal p h i l o s o p h e r ; 1 7 this fragment has been allocated to i n the present text, although a case could be m a d e for setting either w i t h the fragments relating to the age o f K y p r i s it i n the Katharmoi,
Aristotle says of fr. 135 that it is -
T h e universal l a w , w h i c h is the subject o f this fragment,
is connected b y Sextus to the theory of the kinship of living things a n d the c r i m i n a l a c t of killing a n d eating a n i m a l s , a n d according to H i p p o l y t u s a prohibition against eating meat w a s one o f the themes o f the Katharmoi.26 T h o s e fragments, therefore, that a r e directly connected w i t h a w a r n i n g against the slaughter a n d eating o f a n i m a l s m a y b e allocated to the Katharmoi; these are frs. 136, 137, a n d 3 9 . 2 1 I n fr. 128 the abstention from blood sacrifice a n d meat eating is set u p as a n ideal that was realized in the age o f K y p r i s . F r a g m e n t 130 is a development o f this subject, for it describes the friendship that once existed between m e n a n d a n i m a l s , a n d a contrast w i t h the present slaughter is i m p l i e d ; it m a y therefore be put w i t h fr. 128 i n group I I . F r a g m e n t 114 is a n almost c e r t a i n allocation since it includes the address , to a p l u r a l audience. Because of the very title , whether due to E m p e d o c l e s or w h i c h appears i n fr. 112, the one F r a g m e n t 145 is also addressed indisputable fragment from the Katharmoi.
not, it w o u l d seem that the two phrases w h i c h are a p p a r e n t l y concerned w i t h purification a n d r i t u a l , n a m e l y frs. 138 a n d 143, should be allocated to the poem. T h e specific prohibitions of frs. 140 a n d 141, a n d the general one of fr. 144, m a y be added to group I I I on a similar basis. P l u t a r c h states that fr. 115 belongs for E m p e d o c l e s , A l t h o u g h there is a slight balance i n favor o f the Physics before the Katharmoi,23 fr. 115 belongs at the beginning o f the Physics. b u t this gives no clear i n d i c a t i o n from w h i c h p o e m it c o m e s . 2 2 being composed Katharmoi P l u t a r c h ' s notice does not necessarily m e a n that Perhaps the
or w i t h those describing the best forms of life. I t is possible that fr. 50 w a s not w r i t t e n b y E m p e d o c l e s . 1 8 A p a r t from fr. 153a a n d the n e w fr. 152, the only fragment quoted as definitely from the Katharmoi is fr. 112, from that is Diogenes.19
20. Hippolytus RH 7 . 3 0 . 3 - 4 , Aristotle Rhet.
1373b 14-17, Sextus adv. math. 9.127.
21. Porphyry, in the context of the quotation of fr. 139, de absl. 2.31, speaks of making amends for former misdeeds, but this is probably a reference to ritual purification rather than to Empedocles' poem.
22. Plutarch exit. 607c: < i ' . ) . . .
14.
Cf. frs. 33 and 9 1 .

, ; Aetius 5 ' 9 5
15. Theon Smyrnaeus 1 0 4 . 1 : .
6. C f , for example, Karsten EAcr p. 269, on his lines 366-67; for trees in the Kath. cf. fr. 152.
17. Plutarch princ. phil. 19. D . L . 8 . 5 4 : 777c. . . .
18. Cf. Tzetzes All. I I . O .85.
23. Anaxagoras seems to have heard of an argument of Zeno (cf. Zeno frs. 1 and 3, Anaxagoras fr. 3 ) , and in frs. 8 and 10 to be replying to Empedocles, whereas there is no trace in Empedocles of his having heard of Zeno's arguments; Zeno and Empedocles were probably working out their reactions to Parmenides at about the same time. Further, the twentieth chapter of Ancient Medicine mentions Empedocles as a well-known writer . All this suggests that the Physics was composed about 460-455 B . C . If the Katharmoi were prior it would be quite a youthful work, and this would make it difficult to account for the fame Empedocles claims for himself in fr. 112; cf. further the commentary on fr.
107(115).
82 (without
83
T H E
A L L O C A T I O N
O FT H E F R A G M E N T S
a p p e a r e d first i n P l u t a r c h ' s text, b u t the article w i t h )
assumption that Pythagoras w a s one of the few wise m e n whose thought r a n g e d w i d e l y a n d w a s not b l u n t e d b y I n this w a y he w o u l d from the third Katharmoi be h e l d u p as a n e x a m p l e of right t h i n k i n g for P a u s a n i a s to imitate. A c c o r d i n g to Tzetzes, fr. 134 comes from the Physics, book. Since Diels's reasons for supposing that T z e t z e s r e a d the has been restored to the Physics.29
is m o r e likely to m e a n " a s a starting p o i n t " for I f this is so then
E m p e d o c l e s ' philosophy; as s u c h it c o u l d give the grounds for the p r o hibitions that d o s e e m to belong to the Katharmoi. i n frs. 117, 127, 146, a n d 147. If, from fr. 115, life is n o w t a k e n to be i n some sense a n exile from a m o r e fortunate state, then frs. 118, 119, a n d 124, w h i c h refer to present sorrow i n contrast w i t h former happiness, c o u l d be p l a c e d i n group V . Also, the fragments that a p p a r e n t l y elaborate o n the notion of this w o r l d as a c a v e a n d m e a d o w o f A t e , that is, frs. 1 2 0 - 2 3 , should p r o b a b l y be a d d e d to t h e m . A n d P o r p h y r y explains fr. 126 as relating to a theory of i n c a r n a t i o n , 2 4 w h i c h w o u l d connect the fragment to those i n group I V . L a s t , there is a group of fragments ( V I ) for w h i c h no clues are p r o v i d e d to guide their p l a c i n g . T h r e e of these h a v e been left, as D i e l s prints t h e m , i n the Katharmoi. Sextus quotes fr. 113 after lines 4 - 5 of fr. 112, a n d perhaps it is the b e g i n n i n g of a n e x p l a n a t i o n for the confident tone of these lines. F r a g m e n t 116 is obscure, b u t s u c h a notice of L o v e ' s opposition to A n a n k e could be from either p o e m ; the same is true of fr. 125, except for the slight h i n t of C l e m e n t ' s quoting it after fr. 1 1 8 . 2 5 F r a g m e n t s 11 a n d 15 h a v e b e e n transferred from the Physics Katharmoi. after fr. 11 w i t h the words -26 to the T h e two fragments belong together, for P l u t a r c h puts fr. 15 P l u t a r c h quotes freely from this fragment brings w i t h it the references to the different lives contained
as the third book of the Physics are not altogether c o n v i n c i n g , the fragment F r a g m e n t 133 seems a n obvious p r e S i m i l a r l y , fr. 132 as a n decessor to fr. 134, a n d since there a r e no independent indications for its source it has been taken over w i t h fr. 134 to the Physics. could belong to either poem, b u t it has been allocated to the Physics
i n t r o d u c t i o n to the account of d i v i n i t y i n frs. 133 a n d 134. T h i s fragment also serves to link the preceding a c c o u n t of the p h y s i c a l structure of m a n ' s thought w i t h the e x o r d i u m o n h o w that thought should be used. F r a g m e n t 131 has been transferred to the beginning of the Physics. The Hippolytus context o f this fragment, w h i c h connects it w i t h the two kosmoi established by L o v e a n d Strife, suggests that it should be allocated to the Physics.30 a n T h e subject of the lines is a p r a y e r to the M u s e for help i n giving about the gods, a n d this comes most appropriately w i t h
the prologue i n w h i c h the M u s e is k n o w n to have been addressed, a n d before the revelation to P a u s a n i a s of the n e w theory of the true n a t u r e of the that is set out i n the sixth fragment. S o m e phrases printed b y D i e l s as full fragments are either so b r i e f or obscure, or the r e a d i n g so m u c h i n doubt, that they cannot intelligibly be accepted as giving E m p e d o c l e s ' original words or as contributing to the evidence for a discussion of his work. T h e s e phrases h a v e been printed separately as a d d e n d a , w i t h the omission of fr. 18. F r a g m e n t 14 has also been omitted, as it seems to be a c l u m s y c o m b i n a t i o n i n MXG of frs. 13 a n d 17.32. T h e position of fr. 34 h a s been discussed above, o n p p . 1 8 - 1 9 ; it is kept i n the Physics i n parentheses. T h i s scheme for the allocation of the fragments is s u m m a r i z e d i n the following list. G r o u p s I - V I I I Katharmoi o f the Physics fragments a n d I - V I o f the a r e i n descending order of certainty of allocation. T h e r e is no a n d V - V I of the Katharmoi should be
both poems w i t h o u t giving the source, a n d here the m e n t i o n of a n d i n fr. 15, w h i c h m e n a r e said to suffer before a n d after death, fits t h a n w i t h the more better w i t h the history of the d a i m o n s i n the Katharmoi F r a g m e n t 129 has been m o v e d to the Physics.
i m p e r s o n a l a c c o u n t i n the Physics of the arrangements of roots. I t does not at first sight fit into either p o e m , a n d some editors p r i n t it s e p a r a t e l y . 2 7 I f P o r p h y r y is right i n referring the fragment to P y t h a g o r a s 2 8 it is u n l i k e l y that, although he l i v e d i n the generation before E m p e d o c l e s , Pythagoras should be p l a c e d i n the golden age of the distant past, as Diels's setting of the fragm e n t suggests. I n the present text fr. 129 is p l a c e d before fr. 110 o n the
i n d i c a t i o n available i n the ancient authorities of w h e r e fragments i n groups V I I - V I 11 o f the Physics p l a c e d , a n d the allocation of the fragments i n the preceding group i n each p o e m is not assured.
24. Porphyry ap. Stobaeus Eel. 1.49.60.

25. Sextus adv. math. 1.302; Plutarch quaest. conv. 745c!; Clement Strom. 3.2.14.2.
26. Plutarch adv. Col. 1113c -d. 27. E . g . , Karsten EAcr under Varia, p. 150. 28. Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 30. 29. See chap. 1. 30. Hippolytus R H 7.31.4.
84 of the Fragments according to Certainty of Allocation
Summary of the Grouping
(Diels-Kranz's numbering) (a) from the Physics I II III IV V VI VII 6 8 17 62 96 98 103 35 59 75 85

i o
4
1 1 0
20 21 23 26 57 61 71 73; ( 2 S ) I I I 9 12 13 16 27-31 36-38 53 54 86 87 95; (as) 2-4 22 39-49 51 52 55 56 76 84 88-91 94 ' 33 82 83 101 102 105-09 63-68 72 74 79-81 93; ( T ) 131 133 134
5. The Titles of the Poems

W e r e the titles (or ) a n d given to his poems
V I I I 24 25 27a (34) 5 77 78; ( T ) 129 132 (b) from the Katharmoi I II III IV V VI 112 (153a) (fr. 152) 128 130 135 136 137 139; (2p) 114 145 138 140 141 143 144 115 117 127 146 147 118 119 120-24 126 113 116 125; ( T ) 11 15
b y E m p e d o c l e s himself? P r o b a b l y not, although the question is a vexed one. I n the doxography, a n d i n p a r t i c u l a r i n Diogenes L a e r t i u s a n d the Suda, most of the Presocratics a r e credited w i t h a work entitled e.g., A n a x i m a n d e r (Suda), (Suda). , X e n o p h a n e s (ad fr. 3 0 ) , H e r a c l i t u s unsupported was a c -
( D . L . 9.5), Zeno
T h i s presupposes that it w a s customary for
authors to give their works titles a n d that
cepted i n the fifth century as m e a n i n g " ( t h e whole of) n a t u r e . " Both o f these suppositions a r e disputable. P a r m e n i d e s ' w o r k was k n o w n as () , a n d that o f Melissus as , ,
(c) Addenda 5 7 10 19 32 58 60 69 70 92 97 99 142 148-53 Note: (2s) = 2 n d person singular, (2p) = 2 n d person plural, (T)
cf. S i m p l i c i u s in Phys.
70.17, 144.26, in Cael. 557.10, a n d a c c o r d i n g to
Sextus (adv. math. 7.65) Gorgias wrote
deliberately challenging Melissus. I n these last two cases ported b y S i m p l i c i u s , in Gael: 5 5 6 . 1 5 - 3 0 .
looks like a later addition u n d e r Peripatetic influence, a suggestion supF o r to m e a n " n a t u r e as a w h o l e " a l i m i t i n g genitive, such as or , seems to have been r e q u i r e d for the Presocratics, cf. A r c h y t a s fr. 1, Philolaus a p . Sextus adv. math. 7.92, Dissoi Logoi 8.1, D . L . 8.34, a n d X e n o p h o n Mem. 1.1.11 a n d 14. ( T h e absence of s u c h a genitive in H e r a c l i t u s fr. 123 has been s h o w n b y K i r k to be a fault i n the late tradition o f that fragment, see Heraclitus pp. 2 2 7 - 3 1 . ) L a t e r there could be a n explanatory phrase, such as , Plato Lysis 214b. M o r e important, w h e n Plato uses the phrase , at Phaedo 96a, he treats it as a n e w t e c h n i c a l t e r m a n d details its m e a n i n g : T h e r e a r e similar explanations at Philebus 5 9 a , Phaedrus enlarges o n Plato's 85
2 7 o a - d , a n d Laws 891c. T h e author of Ancient Medicine
86
interpretation,
. . .
VM 20, a n d cf.
also E u r i p i d e s fr. 910 N a u c k . T h e s e passages s u m m a r i z e the earlier w o r k of the Presocratics i n a concise f o r m ; , q u i r i n g exposition. F o r Aristotle the exposition is no longer necessary. H e calls the Presocratics , 01 or oi , or (Mete. a n d their works oi from , I n m u c h the same w a y as he refers he gives quotations 382a 1), as well as far from being a w e l l established title bestowed b y a n i n d i v i d u a l author, is a n i n n o v a t i o n r e -
to his o w n w o r k as E m p e d o c l e s as (Phys. i g 6 a 2 2 a n d cf. Metaph.
o r
i o o i a i 2 ) ;
is also the citation i n
6. Concordance of the Ordering of the Fragments

(The figures in parentheses in both tables give the numbering of the fragments according to the arrangement of Diels-Kranz, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. The third column of figures in the second table is that ofJ . Bollack, Empedocle vol. 2.)
S i m p l i c i u s a n d Aetius for frs. 12(8), 8 ( 1 7 ) , 5 3 ( 6 2 ) , a n d 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . ( T h e w h o l e question is w e l l treated b y E . S c h m a l z r i e d t i n his Peri Physeos.) T h e v a r i e t y i n the reference tells against a fixed, original title. philosophy b y those w h o m Aristotle c a l l e d oi , different from its being the title the i n d i v i d u a l later b e c a m e a t e r m used b y Peripatetic historians for a w o r k o n n a t u r a l b u t this is quite gave to his work.
G u t h r i e gives a comprehensive listing o f the meanings a n d uses o f the w o r d katharmos (HGP vol. 2, p p . 2 4 4 - 4 5 ) , b u t this does not justify the title () as E m p e d o c l e s ' . Aristotle knows his second p o e m as , Rhet. 1373^14;
11 1S
()
(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
4
I
(27a) (28) (29) (30)
98 22 22 23 24 138 61 49 47 20 3i 27 33 34 35 4' 38 36 39 40 37 42 43 44 28 32 29
(54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59) (60) (61) (62) (63) (64) (65) (66) (67) (68) (69) (70) '
30 46 45 50 '39 5' 140 52 53 56 54 57 55 58 59 141 142 60 63 62 68 70 69 64 64 65 66

;
(80
(82) (83) (84) (85) (86) (87) (88) (89) (90)
67 71
CO "^
Diogenes w h o uses compara n d books about them
(8.63), a n d T h e o n w h o cites 129(143) as a katharmos
2,5 6 34 7 35 12 3 136 104 9 10 106

I I
able to Plato's e d u c a t i o n a l syllabus, 15.7. Katharmoi
(30
(32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (40)
84 85 86 89 73 75 74 '43 76 90 87 48 '44 83 '45 9' 92 93 8r 82 94 79 78
are attributed b y Plato (Rep. 364) to O r p h e u s a n d M u s a e u s . P r o b a b l y E m p e d o c l e s ' pleas for the protection o f a n i m a l a n d p l a n t life w e r e later associated w i t h O r p h i c a n d P y t h a g o r e a n precepts, a n d a title appropriate for t h e m used for E m p e d o c l e s ' poem.
(,o)
(")
(12)
(90
(92) (93) (94) (95) (96) (97) (98) (99)
(3)
(14) (5) (16)
(40
(42) (43) (44)
()
(18) (19) (20) (2.) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) (27)
8 '37 26 4 25 '5 18 '7 16 21,19
(45)
(46) (47) (48) (49) (50)
(70
(72) (73) (74) (75) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80)
(too)
()
('02) (103) (104) (105) (.06)
(50
(52) (53)
(7)
87
88
(118) (119) (120) (121) (122) (123) (124) (125) (126) (127) 112
I I I
C O N C O R D A N C E 118 " 9 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129
O F T H E O R D E R I N G
O F T H E
F R A G M E N T S
(108)
80 77 100 101 102
(128) (129) (130) ('3') ('32) ('33) ('34) ('35) (136) ('37)
118 99 119 3 95 96 97 121 122 124
(38) ('39) (140) (4 ('42) ('43) ('44) ('45) ('46) ('47) 48)-('53a)
('9) (no) (in)

(112)
(128) ('3) ('39) ('35) ('36) (145) ('37) (38) (144) (140) (141) ('43)
130 '3' 132 '33 '34 '35 136 '37 138 '39 140 141
(125) (127) (146) (147) (5) (7) (10) (19) (32) (58) (60) (69) 25 66 59 402 406 49 53 603
2 127 128 146 '29 '26 '23 132 '33 '47"'5'
142 143 '44 '45 146 147 -151
(70) (92) (97) (99) ('42)
512 682 625 420 -
115 113 116 117 114 130 110 131
("3)
(114)
'5
103 107 109 108
(i48)-(i53a)
("5)
(116) (117)
cf.
152
384, 519,
400, 480, 609
(2) (3) ('3')
10 '4
(46) (42) (48) (49) (50) (56) (55) (35) (96) (34) (57) (59) (61) (62) (64) (66) (63) (65) (67) (68) (71) (33) (73) (72)
37' 374 34' 344 398 394 20, 462 452 495 222,
5
7Q 80 81 82 83 84 85 59 86 87 88 89 5' 9 9' 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
(106) (108) (103) (104) (98) (85) (86) (87) (95) (84) (88) (94)
536 537 529 53' 461 463 4 4 " 439 4'5 4'7 435
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
I I
4
42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 9 8 , 195 61 62 63
(
(3) (4) (6) ('7) (12) ('3) ('6) (8) (9) (21) (23) (26) (25) (24) (27) (36) (27) (29/28) (3) (3') (22) (20) (38)
3 '4 27 '5 3', ' 2 4 46 47, 9 6 8 53 56 63 64 68 20 22 92,17' 207
12 '3 '4 '5 6 '7 8 '9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 3' 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39
(100) 5 5 ' (101) 5 6 2 (102) 5 5 6
5' 622 6 641 647 66 68 45 49 454 479 58', 588 59' 595 627
4
(los)
('32) ('33) ('34)
52
(27a) 99 (129)
83, 126 121 231 6 320 142 220 224 140 227 24 360 337 328
(no) (in)
(112) ("4)
578, 699 12
102 583-84 3 4 '5 6 7 8
64(77/78) 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 (79) (80)
(")
("3) ('5) ("5) ("7) (6) (126)
57
(50
(53) (54) (37) (52) (39) (4) (4') (44) (47) (43) (45)
(80
(74) (76) (75) (82) (83) (89)
58 110
68
465 477 47' 554 68 543 685 522 523
log no
I I I
("9)
(8) (2) (124) (2) (22) ('23)
112 " 3 114 " 5 116 117
(90
(90) (93) ('9) ('7)
to
CO
365 368
i 7.
1(2) Sextus adv. math. 7.12a . ,
, .
, ' ioo't ' , (} ' , ,
'
'
^ , '
'
'
, ' '
('}
'
, . 5 D . L . 9.73 7-8
2 Procl. tn Tim. 175c

Plu. aud. poet. D.L.
4 Plu. de Is. et Os. 360c

9.73
93
T E X T
94
95
2(3)-6(4)
2 ' Emperius, Karsten : codd. : ' , Q. Procl. : ' Stephanus 3 Diels : Scaliger : ' Wilam., D K Scaliger : vel codd. 6 ' Bergk :
codd. add. Bergk, Diels : Stein : ' . Frankel 8
. , ,
Plu. D . L . : codd.
' add. Bergk
Karsten, Diels : . Frankel
D K (ex Anth. Gr. .508.1) : codd. (cf. D . L . 8.61.3, Iamb. Vit. Pyth. 113)
2(3) Sextus adv. math.
7.124 [post 1 ( 2 ) . 8 - 9 ]
7.125 [post 2 ( 3 ) . 1-5] ^
' , , ' . ' ' , , 5 ' , , , .

1-2
' , , 5
' ' '
'
' ' ' \'\
, ' , ,
'
' ' , ' .

Clem. Strom. 5593 3 Procl. in Tim. io6e, Plu. mult. am. 93b
1 Scaliger : codd. , ,
2 Stephanus :
3(131) Hippolytus RH 7 - 3 J - 3 . ... ... . , , ' ' , , , ,
2 ' ' Clem. : codd. 3 Procl. codd., Procl.: ( C 1 ) P l u . : Karsten: G.

Hermann, Diels 4 codd., corr. Bergk 5 Bergk, . Frankel : Ellis 8 ' Karsten : ' codd.
6(4)
Clement Strom.
5.18.4
' ,
( } ,
, -, .
1-2 Theodoret. Gr. off. 1.71
1 codd., corr. Miller 2 suppl. Wilam. : Diels 3 codd., corr. Schneidewin
4(1)
D . L . 8.60
' ,
, ,
1 codd., Theodoret. : Diels : Her-
T E X T
96 2 Theodoret. 3 Wilam. :
97
7(6)-8(17)
worden, D K
Diels 10
7(6) Aetius 1.3.20 - , , , ' , , ' ' " ' , ' ' , " , ' .
1-3 S . E . , adv. math. 9.362, 10.315, Stob. 1.1 . 11, Hippol. RH 7-29-4, 7 - 3 > Probus Verg. Buc. 11.4, T z . ex. I L 53.23, Eus. PE 14.14.6 1 Clem. Strom. 6.17.4, Phlp. in Phys. 88.6 2-3 D . L . 8.76, Athenagoras 22, Heraclit. Alt. 24 3 cf. Suda s.v. Nestis
15
20
' , ' ' . ( ) ' , , ' ' , ' , ' ' , ' ' , ' ' , , , ' , ' ' , , ' '' ' ' . , ' , ' , .
25
1 7- S . E . , Heraclit. : codd.
] Probus
2 S . E . , 30
Probus, D . L . , Athenagoras, Heraclit. : codd., T z . : Hippol. 10.7
(om. 7.29) 3 codd., S . E . , Heraclit. : vel Hippol. : ' Athenagoras : D . L . : Probus,

Suda
' ^ rtf
'
'
, ' ' , ; , ' ; ' ' , ' 35 .
8(17)
Simplicius in Phys.
157.25 1-2 ( = 1 6 - 1 7 ) Simp, in Phys. 161.6 7-13 (om. 9) Simp, in Cael. 141.1, 293-25 7-8 Simp, in Phys. 25.29, 1318.25, in Cael. 530.14, Stob. 1.10.11, D . L . 8.76 9-13 Arist. Phys. 250630 11 Simp, in Phys. 1124.23 12 13 Simp, in Phys. 160.20, 1125. 14 Stob. 2.31.6, Clem. Strom. 5.85.3 17-20 Simp, in Phys. 26.1 18-20 S . E . adv. math. 9.10 18 Plu. amic. 63d, Clem. Strom. 6.17.4 1' 20 Athenagoras 22 19-20 S . E . adv. math. 10.317, Hippol. RH 10.7.3 20-21 Plu. amat. 7566 21 Simp, in Phys. 188.26. Clem. Strom. 5.15.4 27 Arist. GC 333a 19, Phlp. in GC 258.4, 261.22 29 Simp, in Phys. 1184.7 32 MXG 975hl, cf. g76b25
. ' '' ' , , 5 ' ' ' ' , , ,
' '
T E X T
98
99
9(12)-12(8)
5 : Panzerbieter Scaliger 9 ex Arist. Phys. 25ob30 (cf. 16 (26)) 14 Bergk : codd. : Stob., Clem. 18 Plu., Clem. 20 S . E . 10.317, Athenagoras : Hippol. ] S . E . , Athenagoras, Hippol. 25 Brandis : ' ( F ) codd. 30 ' p ' F : ' ' Diels 32 ' MXG 976b : MXG 975b 33 Diels : codd. : ' Bollack
Aet. : () codd.
11(16) Hippolytus RH ,
y.29.10 -
. ,
. 1()
9(12) MXG 975*36 , ' \\ , ; . ;
' . ,
" .
( } 1-2 Hippol. RH 6.25.1
' , -
, 1 Lloyd-Jones : ( 6.25) codd. : Diels ' Miller : codd. 2 Diels : ( 6.25) codd.: Miller Miller : codd.
1-2 Philo aet. mund. 2
1 scripsi : codd. : Philo : ' Diels 2 ' Diels : codd. : Philo Diels : codd. : Philo Diels : codd. : Philo 3 ' Panzerbieter, Diels : Mullach : ' Wyttenbach
12(8) .
Aetius 1.30.1 , , .
'
10(13) MXG ,
976b22 , , , .
, ,
'
' ;
1 Aet. 1.18.2 Theodoret. 4
1-4 Plu. adv. Col. i i n f 1, 3-4 Arist. Metaph. 10150.1 1, 3 Arist. GC 3146 3 Arist. GC 333814, Simp, in Phys. 161.19, 180.30, 235.23, in Cael. 306.5, Phlp. in Phys. 840.8, 896.26, in GC 14.18, 15.8, 16, 263.21, Alex. Aphr. in Metaph. 359.19 3-4 MXG 97587 (cf. T z . ex. It. 54.25) 4 cf. Asel, in Metaph. 311.33
T E X T
100 2
5 '
'
13(9)-15(23)
1 ] Arist. Metaph., om. GC : Plu. codd. : Plu.
'
^4!
. , ',
'
13(9)
Plutarch, adv. Col. 1113a

' ( .) , 10 '
' '
' '
, , . 949t 10-13
' ' ,
"
' 3-12
'
' 5 ' , "\
'
''
()
' 33-8
"(
( } ' '
Simp, in Phys.
3-4 Plu. de prim. frig. 6.17.4
3, 5 Arist. GC 9-11 Asel, in Metaph.
314 b20 '97-33
3 Gal. simpl. med. 11.461K 9 Clem. Strom.
9-12 Arist. Metaph. 1 oooa29
' , ,
[Arist.] mund. 399826
, "
. " "" 2 Aid. : codd. 3 . . . Arist. : . . . Plu. : . . . codd., Gal. EL(Arist.), Plu. : F (Simp. 32) 4 ' D E , F (Sinip. 33) : ' Diels : ' Wackernagel 5 (-HL) Arist., Plu. exc. gX : codd., gX(Plu.) 6 E D 2 , F (Simp. 33) : Diels : Wilam. Simp. 33 9 scripsi : ' ' ( D, ' F) ' codd., om. Diels : Simp. 33 : ? ? & ' ' ' ' ' Arist. : ' ' Clem. 14 D, : Diels : conieci
. , " "
5 Plu. praec. reip. 82of, cf. adv. Col. n i 2 f
1 ' ' Diels : lac. vi-viii litt. codd. : Mullach 3 scripsi : lac. vi litt, codd. : Reiske, Diels : Xylander : Burnet 5 Plu. 820 : codd. : Wyttenbach, Diels : Wilam. ] codd. : Plu. 820
15(23) Simplicius in Phys.
159.27 [post 14(21). 1 - 1 4 ] , , ' , , '
14(21) Simplicius in Phys. , , '
159.10 [post 8 ( 1 7 ) . 1-35] ,
(' .) ' , ,
' ' 5
, '
, ,
, , ,
'
' ' ^^
'
T E X T
102 ' ' ' , , , .
103 ] Plu.
16(26)-20(36)
10
18(24) Plutarch de f . or. 418c

2 codd. : Aid. F 4 F , D E D 6 D 9 '] F Blass : D, F , 10 Diels ' 16(26) Simplicius in Phys. ' 5 33.18 [post 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . 1 - 1 2 ] . , ' , 2 ] Knatz, Diels : ' Lloyd-Jones , , , , 5-6 cf. 8(17). 7-8 19(27) Plutarch, fac. lun. g26d ' , , ' , , . ' ' \ ,
'
Tpf
' '
'
10
'
, ^ ' ' , ,
'
' -' , , ,
1-2 Simp, in Phys. 8-12 Arist. Phys.
160.16
1 Simp, in Phys. 1185.19
250820, cf. 8(17).9-13
, ' .
4 Sturz : codd. : Bergk 6 8(17).8 : codd. 7 , F , D : Aid. : ab Bywater
, cuy , ^voO^jcaiJ/o^
1 17(25) Schol. in Plat. . Gorg. 498 , . " ",
Karsten
2 Bergk : codd. :
Karsten
, ' " , ,
20(36) Aristotle Metaph.
iooobi , (-).
, , (
Plu.
s.v.s. . io3f
T E X T
IO4
'5 ,
21(27)-24(31) .
'
'
Asel, in Metaph. 198-1, Stob. 1.1 . 11 Stobaeus 1.15-2 '
suppl. ex Stobaeo
(} .
21(27) Simplicius in Phys. Toro " , ,
1183.24
2 ' 97('34)3 : ' codd. 2(27)-3 : ,"
3 add. Maas : Diels 4 (- ) codd.
'
'
, ,
23(30) Aristotle Metaph. '
iooobg , ' ' "
, , . '
'
' , , . 3 Asel, in
',
, .
'
1184.14
3 Simp, in Cael. 59'5> Procl. in Tim. iod, Ach. Tat Intr. Anon, in Aral. 1.6 (97.25), M. Ant. 12.3
Aral.
6 (37.13), 1-3 Simp, in Phys. Metaph. 198.33 2-3 Syrian, in Metaph. 43.34
, AM, ,
, F
, , F . , Procl. : Ach. : Anon. : F , D, codd. : Ach., Anon., Q, 1 Simp. : ' codd. A(Simp.), Diels Simp. Syrian.) codd. E T C b , Sturz 3 Asel. : F (Simp.) : 2 Simp. : ( G b I b , ' Diels : A b , Simp. : '
lac. iv litt. F : D E (in Cael.), AF, (in Cael.) 2 (in Cael.) (Procl.):
F (Simp.)
in Cael. :
SB b :
cet. codd. Procl.
22(29/28) Hippolytus RH 7.92.13 , (.) , , ,
1184.2 [post 21(27).3]
/ FM
',
] F
T E X T
106
107
25(22)-28(51)
25(22) Simplicius in Phys. 160.26 " , , ' . ' ' " ' (} ' , 5
' , , " ' ' ' . ' ' ' -
1 codd. , AF : Diels 2 cf. 8(17). 7 3 F M F : Karsten 4 Aid. : , F, 5 F, A, Diels 6 7 ' Schneider : ' AM, F , F
, , " ," , , . 6-7 ( . . . ) Thphr. Sens. 16
27(38) Clement Strom. 5-48-2 " , , . ' ' , ' ' 1 ' / ' conieci (' . Weil) : ' ' / ' Diels : Stein 2 codd. corr. Gomperz
1 F Diels : F, D E 3 D, E F 4 codd. 6 Thphr. : F, D E ' ' conieci : ' codd., om. Thphr. : (' } suppl. Diels 7 codd. 8-9 om. F 9 Scaliger, Karsten : Panzerbieter, Diels Diels : Karsten : conieci
28(51) Eustathius ad Od. 1.321 oi , . , - ' -
26(20) Simplicius in Phys. 1124.7 , - . '
Hdn. schem. Horn. (EM 311 D)
Hdn.
T E X T
108 ig6a2o , ' . . , '
tog '
29(53)-36(44) ,
29(53) Aristotle Phys. . . . .
1-3 MXG 976335
1 cf. Simp, in Cael. 522.11
2-3 Clem. Strom. 6.149.1
Arist. GC Simp, in Phys. 327.18, 330.35, 358.11, 1318.28, Phlp. in Phys. 261.22, Them, in Phys. 49.9
334a3>
2 MXG
) codd.,
Clem. : codd., MXG
Wilam.,
DK :
Clem. :
, Clem.
30(54) Aristotle GC 33434 [post 2 9 ( 5 3 ) ] , ' , , 34(40) Plutarch fac. lun. 920c . . . . ' , . Diels, cf s.v. '
31(37) Aristotle GC 333*35 ' , , ' ' ., '
Xylander
codd. : Hsch. : codd.
'
35(41) Macrobius , cet. codd. Apollo 32(52) Proclus in Tim. 141 ' ' , -' ' , EM, '
1.17.46 ut ait . . . .
appellatur
Suda s.v. helios
, ' ,
' EM : ' Suda : ' ( BPR, S) codd. ] EM
codd. corr. Sturz
36(44) Plutarch Pyth. 33(39) Aristotle Cael. 294321 , ' , . , '
or. 400b " .
. &
T E X T
I 10
111
PI
37(47)-43(49)
Gal. us. part. 3.182K
[]
Sturz : codd. : Gal.
] GaL ' , ' ' , . . . . 1 / Panzerbieter, Diels litt. , xxv 2 codd., lac. xvii
37(47) Anecdota Graeca (Bekker) 1-337.15 ' . .' . 38(43) Plutarch fac. lun. g2gd . . . , ] , . Philo proa. 2.70 quemadmodum .: "lumen accipiens lunaris globus magnus largusque mox illico reversus est ut currens caelum attingeret."
41(42) Plutarch fac. lun. 929c, cf. 934c! { ) ( ) . , ' , .
Xylander : codd.
1 Xylander : Bergk : Diels Xylander : ' Diels
39(45) Achilles Tatius Mr. Arat. 16(43.6) , , - ' , , .'
42(48) Plutarch quaest. Plat.
ioo6e
oi ' , , . -
'
Scaliger : Diels 40(46) Plutarch fac. lun. 952b ( ) , 43(49) Plutarch quaest. conv. 720 ' -
Sturz : codd.
T E X T
1 1 2
44(50)-47(35)
,
: codd. 5
Xylander, cf. Hsch. s.v. ,
, , , , ' . , ,
' '
44(50) Tzetzes All. II. 15.86

" 10 .
' '
'
'
'
' '
'
' ,
'
45(56) Hephaestio Enchir. 1.3.4 15 46(55) Aristotle Mete. 357a24 ,
, ,
''
'.
, ,
'. ),
, .
. Arist. Mete. 3 5 3 b " , Olymp, in Mete. 151.4, cf. 155.8, Alex. Aphr. in Mete.
3-17 Simp, in Phys. 32.13 5, 10-13 Simp, in Cael. 587.11.14 7 EM s.v. ethnos 14-15 Arist. Poet. 146^24, Ath. 10.423! 15 Plu. quaest. conv. 677d
67.14, 80.31, 81.16, Aet. 3.16.3 2 Bergk : codd. A 5 iv D E (in Phys.) : A : A (Cael. 587) : ' Bergk 6 ' F codd. : in Phys. 8 ' , ' ( F) D F (in Phys.) : ' Stein : ' Diels 9 F , 10 F , : Cael. 587, D E (in Phys.) : cet. codd. : Diels 12 F (in Phys.) 13 codd. : D E , F (in Phys.) A 14 Ath. 15 scripsi : codd. : Ath., Plu. : ( A c ) Arist. : Bergk : , Diels Ath. 17 D E
codd.
Olymp. :
Aet.
47(35). 1-15 Simplicius in Cael. , ' '
52.8.30;
1 6 - 1 7 ex in Phys. 3 2 . 1 3 . '
( )
'.
T E X T
II4
. ,
48(96)-51(59)
300.19 -
( '.)
' , ,
. . . ,
, "
'.
"
' '
'. ' , , ' , ' ' ,
1-3 Arist. De An. 4^4, in Metaph.
Alex. Aphr. in Metaph.
135.15, Asel, in Metaph. 2-3 Alex. Aphr.
; 1 Arist. Cael. 300630, De An. 430329, GA 722620, Simp, in de An. 250.23, in Cat. 337.2, Phlp. in de An. 545.19, in GC 27.35; Tz. ad Lyc. 507, 711, ad Alleg. IL 4.33
n a . i , Them, in de An. 33.12, Sophon. in de An. 32.15 828.8, Syrian, in Metaph. in de An. 176.30
188.17, cf. Simp, in de An. 68.5, Phlp.
1 L F Alex. Sophon., C Z Them. : E F , A Alex. 2 ] E S T U X Arist., (exc. ) Asel., Them., Sophon. : D E , W Arist., Alex., Syrian. : F , cet. Arist. : Steinhart, Diels D E , U V W Arist. A Alex., Them. 3 codd., T V W Arist. : ' cet.
1 codd., Arist. GA : om. Arist. Cael. : Tz. Simp. Cai. 2 , D,
pleri. A
51(59) Simplicius in Cael. 587.18 [post 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 10-13] 49(34) Aristotle Mete. , 381631 ( ) . 199.6, Olymp, in Mete. 297.19 , , , , , obv ""
'.
[Arist.] probt. 929816, Alex. Aphr. in Mete.
50(57) Simplicius in Cael. 586.7 , , , " , "
, .
'.
'
"
"
'.
2 Simp, in Phys. 327 20, 3 3 1 2
T E X T
"7 Bollack
52(61)-57(65)
1 om. A
2 ] in Phys.
52(61) Aelian A 16.299 '. , ' , ' ' , , ' , ' , '2 Arist. Phys. 198632, 199611; Simp, in Phys. 372.1, 380.20, 381.3,7,13, 383.
54(64) Plutarch quaest. nat. 91 ye '. '
uA, : ' { Karsten, ' Wyttenbach) Diels
4; Them, in Phys. 62.3; Phlp. in Phys. 314.13; Plu. adv. Col. 11236
55(66) Schol. in Eurip. Phoen. 18 '.
1 codd., emend. Karsten 2 codd., emend. Karsten 3 Simp, in Phys. 381.7 ' Karsten : ' codd. 4 Karsten : Bergk : Panzer6ieter : vel Diels
. AT, ,
53(62) Simplicius in Phys. 381.29 '- ' ' ', , , " , '" ' 5 ' '
3 cf. Arist. Phys. 199hg
56(63) Aristotle GA 764615 , ' , '- ,
Arist. GA 722612, Phlp. in GA 166.25, cf- Gal. sem. 4.616K
' add. Phlp.
57(65) Aristotle GA 723323 , '. '
l F 3 ' ' 5 Diels 8 ' F , ' , ' Aid. : ' Diels Aid. : Stein, Diels : '
T E X T
"9 ' '
58(67)-65(79)
1 Phlp. in GA 30.4, cf. Arist. GA 764a! ),
1 S
2 < '
add. Diels
' '- { . . . EC
58(67) Galen Hipp. ." '-
Ep. 17.1002 " , ' ab
. Diels : ' Sturz codd. ,
62(73) Simplicius in Cael. ' '
530.5 [post 60(71). 1-4]
'
Karsten :
1 '
59(68) Aristotle GA 777 a 7>
c f
- Philoponus in GA 208.9 , ' . '. ' codd.) {
63(72) Athenaeus 8.334b '.
. 64(77-78) Theophrastus CP 1.13-2, cf. Plutarch quaest. conv. 649c
60(71) Simplicius in Cael.
529-28 [post 8 7 ( 9 5 ) . ! ] ', codd. ' Wilam.
{ ),
' '.
'
'
'
'
, . Stein
4 '
' Karsten :
1 F , ' c
Plu. : '
versum Hermann., edd.
Scaliger :
61(33) Plutarch amic.
mult. 9 5 * ( ) .
65(79) Aristotle GA 73134 '.
T E X T
120
121 69(76) Plutarch quaest. conv. 6 1 8 b , vac . ' ""
66(80)-71(82)
' ,
. Thphr. CP 1.7.1,
' at
Phlp. in GA 63.11
' ,
PSY, Phlp.
66(80) Plutarch quaest. ' .
conv.
683d
2-3 Plu. fac. lun. 927
' ,
1 Diels ' 70(75) Simplicius in Cael. 5 3 0 . 8 [post 62(73)]
. . .
"" Karsten :
, codd.
' '' ,
33'9
'
67(81) Plutarch quaest. Plu. nat. 9 1 2 c , '- 2 quaest. nat. gigd, Arist. Top. \27a19, Alex. Aphr. in Top. 357.12, Anon. Theaet. 24.39 in Plat.
2 Simp, in Phys.
{- F)
codd. :
{ )
in Phys.
71(82) Aristotle Mete. Xylander , .
38764 ' ' ,
'
68(74) Plutarch quaest. '
conv.
685 .'
Olymp, in Mete.
.
33522
T E X T
122 Olymp. : Karsten
123 75(90) Plutarch quaest. conv. 663a
72(83)-77(109)
72(83) Plutarch fort. g 8 d ,
'. ' ,
[] ' ' (), Macrobius Sat. 7- 5 1 7 1 Vulcob. : codd. Vulcob. : , cet. codd. 2 W, -
73(89) Plutarch quaest. nat. g i 6 d , ' '.
1 om. Macr. 2 suppl. Macr. ' Macr. : ' Diels : ' Maas
76(93) Plutarch def. or. 433b ' ' ' . . , , , .
A ante corr. :
cet. codd.
74(91) Philoponus in GA , , ,
123.15 ,
Xylander ], , Gu ] om. FnB : Xylander : Wilam. Wyttenbach : Diels : Bennet
'
( '.)
, ,
'
77(109) Aristotle De An. 404138 ' , '. , , , , , , ,
()
Alex. Aphr. quaest. 72.26, cf. Arist. GA 723318
' , ,
'
, ^, -
'
codd., Alex. :
Karsten
1-3 Arist. Metaph. i o o o b 6 , S.E. adv. math. 1.303, 7.92, 121, Hippol. RH 6. I M , Phlp. in GC 268.17, Sophon. in de An. 12.22 1-2 Asel, in Metaph. 198.11, Gal. plac. Hipp. 5.627K, Stob. 1.51.7 1,3 Procl. in Tim. 233c;
T E X T
124
125
78(107)-83(98)
Phlp. in de An. 182.1 1 Phlp. in de An. 150.12, 180.21, 469.20, 489.27, 570.24, Them, in de An. 10.20 14.18, 34.8, Sophon. in de An. 26.16, Gal. plac. 'Hipp. 5.631
Arist. De An. 4 2 7 a 2 4 > A l e x - Aphr. in Metaph. 306.24, Asel, in Metaph. 277.17, Phlp. in de An. 486.16, cf. Simp, in de An. 202.30
2 ' S.E. 1.303 codd., Gal., Stob. : cet., om. Hippol. 3 codd. ] B b C b Metaph. : Hippol. : S. . 79 2 > P r d .
1 ' add. Diels : ' Sturz S T A b ] De An., Phlp. 2 {De An.) codd. : {De An.)
81(103) Simplicius in Phys. 78(107) Theophrastus Sens. 10 , ' ' 82(104) Simplicius in Phys. ' ' . 2 , < . , '
331.12 [post 70(75).2] ,
()
'
331.41
[post 81(103)]
' Scaliger : codd.
1 add. Karsten, lacunam xiv litt, indicat : Lloyd-Jones ' ' Karsten : codd.
79(106) Aristotle Metaph. .
1009b 17 .
83(98) Simplicius in Phys. 31.31 , , ' '. ' , . ,
, '
"
, ,
Arist. De An. 4 2 7 a 2 3 > Alex. Aphr. in Metaph. 306.18, Asel, in Metaph. 277.9, Phlp. in de An. 485.23, Them, in de An. 87.22, Sophon. in de An. 115.26
E T A b , Alex. 80(108) Aristotle Metaph. (') , ' 1009b 19 [post 79(106). 1] ' 5
'
, , , . .
'
1 Simp, in Phys. 33 ' 5
T E X T
126
127 5
84(85)-90(94)
3 D E 4 F Panzerbieter : ' Dodds 5 D, '' , ' F : Sturz
'
, ,
' , (') '
84(85) Simplicius in Phys. 331.3 " 10 . , ," [83(98). ] ,
' '
, . . 8 cf. Eust. ad Od.
'
, [70(75) 2]- '. 1-10 20.21 D, om. D F 3 85(86) Simplicius in Cael. 529-21 Alex
cf. Arist. Sens. 437814- Alex. Aphr. in Sens. 23.11
4 ' EMPYG*
5 ] EMPYG", add.
' '
8
. 5(86)]
supra il 7 L , W, E M , , G 8 add. ' Diels , , EMYGil EMYil, G", L , cet. codd. coni. Blass ex v. 5, incl. Diels post 8 9 Bekker : [ ) codd. 10 : cet. codd.
86(87) Simplicius in Cael. '
529-24 [ p o s t
89(88) Strabo 8.364.3 ' '. 87(95) Simplicius in Cael. 529.26 [post 8 6 ( 8 7 ) ] . Arist. Poet. 1458^5 ,
, () ' -
'. ' .
88(84) Aristotle Sens.
437b23 ,
codd. : ( B c ) Arist.
' , 90(94) Plutarch quaest. nat. 3 9 , cf. Aristotle GA 779I528 cui aqua in summa parte alba, in fundo vero nigra spectatur? an quod profunditas nigredinis mater est, ut quae solis radios prius quam ad earn
'
T E X T
128
129 25 ' ,
91(100)-92(101)
descendant, obtundant et labefactet? superficies autem quoniam continuo a sole afficitur, candorem luminis recipiat oportet, quod ipsum et . approbat :
et niger in fundo fluvii color exstat ab umbra, atque cavernosis itidem spectatur in antris.
cf. Michael in PN 124.15
91(100) Aristotle Resp. ,
473315 '. . . . . . . , , ,
, 5
"
, ' ' , . , ,
' '
' ,
1 N V n , M i l 3 M Z i l , vel cet. codd. V , M i l 4 GHLmo, cet. codd., Mich. M i l , cet. codd. 5 LQHf, pr.Z, cet. codd. 6 corr. i, pr.i, 1, p r . Z , L X G ' H ' m o , cet. codd. 8 Karsten : codd. Diels : codd. 9 Diels : vel codd. il, Diels, ' , ' S, Z M i l , ' cet. codd. 12 ' vel ' codd. : ' ' Diels, D K : Bollack 13 Stein, Burnet 14 Pfmo, pr.Z, il 15 M Z i l Mich. : vel codd. 17 GH"LQf, cet. codd. f, NPVno, , il, M i l 19 P S X Z , cet. codd. 21 M Z G ' i l n M Z i l , cet. codd. 23 { ) codd. : Stein, Diels 24 MZil, cet. codd. : Furley MZil 25 Karsten : Diels : codd. il, M S Z , cet. codd.
'
'
'
10
92(101) Plutarch quaest. nat. 917 ' al , '. , . . .
' ,
, , . , Alexander probl. 2 2 . 7 , , " , '., ,
' ' 15
'
'
'
' ,
, , '
' ,
'
20
' ,
'
I Plu. curios. 52of, cf. Anon, in Plat. ,
Theaet. 71.3
T E X T
130
131 96(133) Clement Strom. 5-81.2
93(102)-98(27a)
1 Anon. : [ ) codd. : J 1 , cet Plu. 52of Plu. 52of : codd. 2 codd. : ' ' Diels : ' ' D K : ' ' Pearson
, '
, .
93(102) Theophrastus Sens. 22 ' , , ' -
Theodoret. Gr. ff. 1.74
1 ' [, 2 codd. : Karsten V ) C V Theodoret.
Stephanus : codd.
97(134) Ammonius in Int. 249.1 < , ,
94(105) Stobaeus 1.49 53 " . . . .
3 EM s.v. ,
[ ,
,] , , . . 4-5 Tz. Chil.
',
cf. Censorinus 6.1, Chalc. Tim. 218 ""
1 Karsten
Grotius
2 ,
Scaliger :
1-5 Tz. Chit. 13.80 7-517
1 (1, 3-5 mg.) Olymp, in Gorg. 4.3
Heeren
95(132) Clement Strom. ,
54-5
1 Amnion., Olymp, mg. : Tz. ] Tz. 2 codd., corr. Schneider codd. : Stein, vers, seclusi 3 ] Olymp, mg. Tz. ] superscrip. A
'., , . . 98(27a) Plutarch prim. ' phil. 777c -
'
T E X T
132
133 ' '
99(129)-101(111)
. w,
'
codd. corr. Xylander
Meziriae :
10
' .
cet. codd.
10 Hippol. RH 6.12.1, 99(129) Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 3 0 '. ' , , . " " 1 scripsi :
S.E. adv. math. 8.286
codd. : ' Schneidewin 2 codd. : Schneid. 3 Schneid. :
'
codd. 4 {.) codd. : ' Diels : Bollack 5 Miller : codd. 6 '
codd. corr. Schneid.
7 codd. :
Schneid.
r' Diels :
'
'
' codd. Schneid. : codd. 8 ' Meineke : codd. Miller : codd. 10 S.E. : codd. : Hippol. 6.12
"" " .
"
101(111) D . L . 8.59
' ' ( ) '. . ,
1-6 Iamb. Vit. Pyth. 67
1-2 D . L . 8.54
'
' ' '
'
'
'
3 add. ' Wilam.
5 ' Cobet
Iamb. :
codd.
, ,
' ,
100(110) Hippolytus RH 7.29.25 " ' 5 ' ' , , . , ' ()' . , , ,
, .
' '
1-9 Suda s.v. ,
. Chit. 2.909
3-5 Clem. 6.30.2
4 ] Clem. Clem., . : codd. 5 ' , Suda, , : ' Clem. Suda 6 , (om. ) Clem. : , , Suda, . 7 B 2 F , 1 , , . 2 , . : B F P 1 , om. Suda 8 ' 1 , , , ' 2 : ' Suda : ' . : ' Diels : ' Wilam.
'
'
'
135
102(112)-105(113)
Anth. : codd. 6 F , {Anth.) Anth., codd. 7 ' , ' ' 2 : Wilam. : ' ' ' conieci 10 ' Clem. : codd. Clem. 12 Sylburg : vel Clem. Clem. corr. Bergk ' add. Bergk
103(114) Clement Strom. 5.9.1 " , 102(112) , 2 , 4 - 1 1 D . L . 8.6 (3 Diod. Sic. 13.83.2; 10,12 Clem. Strom. 6.30.3) " , , ,) , ' '' , ' , (' ). , , . Xylander : codd. "," 104(11) Plutarch adv. Col. . 1113c '., ' , . , , ' { '" 5 ' 10 1 ' Meineke : ' codd. 2 codd. corr. Sylburg ' .
8.
'
'
'
, ""
'
, ' ,
' \
3 :
1-2, 4-6 Anth. Gr. 9.569 1.302
1-2 D.L. 8.54
4 Plot. 4.7.10.38, Tz.
ex.11.
4-5
- 866>
- "dv.math.
29.24, Philostr. Vit. Ap. 1.1, Lucian.
105(113) Sextus adv. math. '
1.302 [post- 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) . 4 - 5 ]
laps. 2, Suda s.v. Empedokles, Pythagoras
'
2 Merzdorf : F , P {Anth.), BP 1 , PI {Anth.) 3 ex D.S. 13.83.2, fortasse falso inser. 4 ] Philostr., Suda, Luc. (exc. ): (Plot.), F (Luc.) 5 , A B V C R (S.E.) 134
. .
'- ',
T E X T
136 -
'37
106(15)-107(115)
Hippolytus RH 7-29.14 [post 2 2 ( 2 9 ) . 1-2, 4] , .' ,
ABCVR
13 , '.
() ,
106(15) Plutarch adv. Col. 1113d [post 104(11)]

civ , , , , ' , .
14 ""
,"
' ) . .
"( ,
()
4 5
, ',
. codd.
"" 6 "" 7 8 "
","
' ,
1 post codd. corr. Xylander 3 Bergk : 4 add. Reiske Xylander : ' codd.
107(115) , 3, 5, 6, 13 Plutarch exil. 6 0 7 c ; 1-2, 4 - 1 2 , 13, 14 Hippolytus RH 7.29.14-23
"" , .
1-2 Simp, in Phys. 1184.9, Stob. 2.8.42 6-7 Origen Cels. 8.53 9-12 Plu. de Is. el Os. 361c, vit. aer. 83; Eus. PE 5.5.2 13-14 Asel, in Metaph. 197.20; Phlp. in GC 266.4, in de An. 73.32, in Phys. 24.20; Plot. 4.8.1.19; Hierocl. in CA 54
"
. Plutarch exil. 607c , ', , , 9 , ' ' 11 12 .
'
'
' . 3 5 6 3 ,
'
""
. () ' , ' , , ' '
'
T E X T
138
139
codd. = Hippol.
7-29-'4> e x c v . 3 codd. = Plu. 607c
107(115)-108(117)
, , , ' , . ' '

11 12
' , ' ' L (') , -
'. , " " ' , ' . '. , '

2
1 Simp. : codd., Plu. Plu. : codd., Simp. , F M (Simp.) 2 Simp. : codd., Stob. 3 codd. : Stephanus, edd. 4 ] ' {) Diels : van der Ben : () temptavi Schneidewin : codd. 5 Plu. : codd. Plu. : codd. 6 pcv Plu. : codd. Origen, Plu. : codd. 7 Stein : codd. : Origen Origen
Bergk : codd., Origen
edd. :
codd. :
Origen
9 Plu. (om. ) 361c, 83of, Eus. : codd. 10 PlTjjo ] Plu. 3 6 1 : , J Plu. 830 11 ] ( zab 830) Plu. 13 Plu. : om. codd. : < ' Phlp.,
Asel. 14 Asel.
, ',
, ,
108(117) Hippolytus R H 1.3.1 '. , , ' , ' , . ,
"" .
107(115) fragmentum factum est hoc modo:
, , , ' , ', , . , ' , ' , ' ' ' , . , , ' '.
' ' . .
1- 2 Clem. Slrom. 6.24.3, Ath. 8.365a, D . L . 8.77, Them, in de An. 35.13, Phlp. in de An. 140.7, Sophon. in de An. 24.39, Eust. ad Od. 18.79, Olymp. in Phd. 58.17, Anth. Gr. 9.569, Cyrill. J u l . 872c, cf. Chalcid. Tim. 197 1 Philostr. Vit. Ap. 1.1, Suda s.v. Empedokles, Pythagoras 2 Proclus in R. 2- 333-8
10
1 codd. : ' Ath., Eust. codd. pier. Phlp. : ( Philostr.) R Phlp., Ath., T h e m . , Philostr., Eust., Cyrill., Suda 2 : Eust., Ath., Anth. Gr., Phlp.,
T E X T
I40
109(116)-114(124)
Sophon. : tlv Clem. : , var. Olymp. Clem. : codd., Ath., Phlp., Them., Sophon., Procl. : O.E., Anth. Gr. : vel Olymp. : Cyrill.
edd. : codd., Stob. : Clem., om. Hippol.
112(118) Clement Strom. 109(116) Plutarch quaest. , . conv. 745c! . . ]( . . .
3.14.1
(cf. Sextus adv. math. ,
11.96)
(2220).
'.
113(121) 1-2, 4 Hierocles in CA 54, 2 - 3 Proclus in Cra. 97.23 . , , , )
110(126) Stobaeus 1.49-60 (ex Porphyr.) ' Plu. esu. earn. 998c " Plu. : vel codd. : Karsten 111(119) Plutarch exil. " " ," 6 " [post 107(115). , 3 , 5, 6, 13] , , ^, '.
( .
. "
" " '.
'
2, 4 Procl. in R. 2.157-27 149.6
2 Philo Prov. (ap. Eus. PE 8.14.23), Theo Sm.
, ' , '
4 Procl. in Tim. 339b, Them. Or. 178a
. 2 Eus. : Theo, Procl. 3 ex Procl. in Cra. 97.23 fortasse falso inser. 4 Bentley : codd. : Procl. ] Procl.
'
. '
. Clem. Slrom. 4 3 > Hippol. RH 5-7-3, Stob. 3.40.5
114(124) Clement Strom. ,
3.14.2 [post 130(125)]
T E X T
142 .
143 ' '
115(120)-118(128) ,
2 Porph. abst. 3-27. Eus. 14.18.28
codd. corr. Scaliger codd. ]
' Porph.
Porph., Eus. : Porph. :
Eus.
3 , MXPlc, cet. codd. Bergk : MXPIc, b, V : Karsten vel codd.
115(120) Porphyry antr. '
nymph.
8 (cf. Plot. 4 . 8 . 1 . 3 3 ) '. at
118(128) Porphyry abst. ' '
2.20 ( 1 - 8 ) , 2.27 ( 8 - 1 0 ) . ,
. . . , '
. . . "
' '-,
' '
116(122) Plutarch tranq. , . ' ' '
an. 4 7 4 b " , '-, / 5
' ' ' , , , , ,
I ,"
'
, '
, , , -
' ' '
10
' '
2 cf. Plu. de Is. et Os. 3
4 cf. Tz. Chit. 12.509
' ' '
2 4
YhS 2 , : '
3 , NRS, ' G^XY1,
cet. codd.
' cet. codd.
1-7 Ath. 12.510c Jul. 76.9728
1-3 Eust. ad II. 22.116
8-10 Eus. 4.14.7, Cyrill.
117(123) Cornutus Comp.
17(30.3) . ' ",
. ,
2 ' . ' . codd. : . om. Eus. 4 Ath. 5 codd. 6 Ath. codd. 7 codd. 8 codd., Cyrill. : Eus. : Scaliger : Fabricius 9-10 ex abst. 2.27, Eus., Cyrill, inser. 9 Cyrill. 10 codd.
T E X T
144 Cyrill. : codd. : ( AH) Eus. : Vigier : codd., Eus., Cyrill. : Reiske ()
'45
^^_^^^,_
119(130)-124(137)
Diels
. . . '.
119(130) Schol. in Nie. Ther. '
453 '.
; '
'
, .
2
123(145) Clement Protr. '.'
2.27.3
'
1 , L : ' Karsten Sturz : codd.
'
120(139) Porphry abst. 2.31 ' , ' '. , ' .
9.129 [post 122(136)]
' '
' ' '

' .
2 . Frankel
'
'
'
,
121(135) Aristotle Rhet. ,
i373bl6 , ' . 171c, Origen Cels. cf. Chalcidius Tim. 197 ' ' ,
'.
' ,
'
'
1-2 Plu. superst.
5.49,
QYbZb
Y b Z b A c , ab cet. codd. 1 , W X N , , W, J 2 Dn (Plu.) 2 Origen, codd. L E , : ' Bergk : ' DK : Zuntz 3 ( ) codd. : Hermann : Wilam. Bergk : ' Diels 6 Karsten : codd.
9.119, cf. Chalcid.
Tim.
197 ,
oi '. .
T E X T
I46 1457613 ,
147 .
125(138)-133(147)
125(138) Aristotle Poet. '
Arist. Poet. 1457814
" "
[129(143)]' .
' { man. pr.) codd. { Bekker) Ar. exc. R : ' Diels
130(125) Clement Strom. SyIburg : codd.
3 1 4 2 [ p s t
112(118)]
126(144) Plutarch coh. ir. 446b '. , -
'
131(127) Aelian 12.7, cf. Schol. Aphth. ap. Hermanni Orphica 511 127(140) Plutarch quaest. conv. 646c! ' , , [] , . 1 Schol. : codd. 2 Schol. , . ' '. , '- " , , .
128(141) Gellius 4 - H - 9 ,
c f
- 411-2.
Geoponica
2.35-8
videtur autem de non esitato causam erroris fuisse, quia in E . carmine qui disciplinas Pythagorae secutus est, versus hic invenitur: , , : (- CH) Gp.
132(146) Clement Strom.
4-501
c f
- Theodoret. 8.36
' '
om. Gp.
vel
129(143) Theon 15.7, Aristotle Poet.
1457614 .
133(147) Clement Strom.
5-122.3, cf. Eusebius 13.31.49 , , , '
' , ,
T E X T
148 '. .
1 Eus. : codd. 2 ] Scaliger : Zuntz : ' van der Ben : post transposui codd., corr. Stephanus E u s . , codd.
9. Addenda
134(5) Plutarch quaest. conv. 728 . , ( () , .
'
Wyttenbach
135(7) Hesychius s.v.
' .
136(10) Plutarch adv. Col. 1113b

, , , . '. ,
137(19) Plutarch prim. , .
frig.
952b , ' ' .
138(32) [Arist.] lin. insec.
972b3 '. ( (. 149
T E X T
I50
5'
146(142) Voll. Here. . 2 c o l . i 8 . ,
A D D E N D A
139(58)-152
Diels
' '
' . " ][] [
139(58) Simplicius in Cael. obv
587.18 . ' ' ][ '] ' [
147(148-150) Plutarch quaest. conv. 683
140(60) Plutarch adv. Col. 1123b

' '. . ,
'
141(69) Proclus in R. 2.34-26 . . .
148(151) Plutarch amaf. 756

"" [') . '., ""
142(70) Rufus Ephes. '. .
229, p. 166.11 , 149(152) Aristotle Poet. 1457t 2 2 . '.
. . . ,
143(92) Aristotle GA 7 4 7 a 3 4 . ' , ' . ' . . 150(153) Hesychius s.v.
144(97) Aristotle Pari. An. 640a 19

'. .
151(153a) Theon 104.1

. , .
152 Herodian , ,
, ,
. ' -
145(99) Theophrastus , .
Sens.g \(
'
[]
[' ][]
III. Translation and Commentary
10. Physics
F R A G M E N T S I-6 T H ER I G H T A P P R O A C H
1(2)
The powers spread over the body are constricted, and many afflictions burst in and dull their meditations. ject to a swift After observing a small part of life in their lifetime, subdeath they are borne up and waft away like smoke; they are con-
vinced only of that which each has experienced as they are driven in all directions, yet all boast of finding the whole. will learn within the reach of human These things are not so to be seen or heard by understanding. men or grasped with mind. But you now, since you have come aside to this place,
Sextus quotes this fragment soon after 77 (109) to show that, although E . supposed that the external world can be known by means of the like elements of which we are constituted, there is evidence for the alternative view, that the criterion of truth resides not in the senses but in reason. Proclus, on 77m. 34c, quotes line 2 in support of Plato's statement that we are subject to chance and speak in a random way; according to E . we are exiles from god and open to the constant attacks of afflictions that blunt our vision of reality. Plutarch uses line 4 on the brevity of life to corroborate Plato's remark that human conceit is futile (cf. Laws and lines 7 - 8 [ . . . ) 7i6a-b), in conjunction with Xenophanes'
words ( D K 21 B 3 4 . 1 - 2 ) to show that truth is hard to come by. Diogenes Laertius, in his life of Pyrrho, puts the same quotation, together with line 5, with evidence from Archilochus, Euripides, Xenophanes, Heraclitus, Zeno of Elea, and even Homer as backing for skepticism. (For E.'s as155
T R A N S L A T I O N
A N D C O M M E N T A R Y
156
'57
P H Y S I C S
2(3)
similation later to the ranks of the Skeptics cf. Cicero Acad.

2 - 5 - I 4 . 23.74). : and
1.12.44,
the "devices" for understanding (cf. , 5(3)-4> 7) a

r e t b e
sense organs, with
"since you have shared my exile" (cf. Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 138, n. 4 ) . A less strained sense, "since you have come to me (to learn)," seems preferable and in accord with 100(110) and 101(111). L S J , s.v. , gives "stray from the straight path," but the opposite is implied, viz. "recoil (from error) to learn the truth." 9 : Karsten's emendation has been followed by Stein and Diels. H . Frnkel's is plausible on the interpretation that E . claims to be a and to have superhuman wisdom, but as Diels-Kranz points out, this does not accord with Sextus' introductory remark that truth can be reached ' . .'s attitude is more modest here, and the fragment should be taken in conjunction with 5(3) and 100(110). Men generally do not grasp the truth of things, but this does not mean that it is unattainable. I f Pausanias, under E.'s guidance, makes careful use of the evidence provided by his senses and brings in nous to supplement their deficiencies, then, within the given limitations, it is possible to achieve genuine understanding.
that of touch being spread over the whole body. The metaphor of the road to understanding is common in Parmenides (e.g., frs. 2.4, 7.2, 8.18) and is taken up again by E . in frs. 5(3). 4 - 7 and 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) ; cf. Lactantius 3.28.12 " E . angustas esse sensuum semitas queritur." : the line is quoted in the Epicurean Corpus (Vol. Here. V I I 2 f. 22, c. 29) with , the verb of gi (100).2. 2 :
explanation, 3
justified by Karsten from Aeschylus Ag. 187 and Proclus'

: T h e line is echoed in 100(110).7. by W i l -
corrected plausibly to ' , ': 6(5)2.
amowitz. Burnet (EGP p. 204, n. 3) adopts Scaliger's and

compares 4 ' Homeric phrasing, cf. //. 18.95, 45 8 >
23-100, Od. 1.266, and also Lucretius 3.455-56. The line obviously precludes individual survival after death.
6: cf. Heraclitus fr. 2 and . 33(39)-37-8 . : and are forms oi ,
2(3)
But turn from my tongue, 0 gods, the madness of these men, and from Muse, hallowed lips let a pure stream flow. And I entreat you, virgin well-reined chariot from the place of reverence. white-armed, of long
memory, send of that which it is right and fitting for mortals to hear, driving the
found only here in classical Greek; with cf. , Plato Tim. 28a. Diels translates, "So wenig lsst sich dies fr die Menschen sehen oder hren . . . , " and similarly Guthrie, "So little are these things to be seen or heard by men" (HGP vol. 2, p. 138). The sense seems to be that , the general subject, almost equivalent to , is not perceptible or understandable to the average man. Men usually are mistaken in method, attitude, and aim, and easily distracted (cf. 100(110). 6 - 7 ) ; they are also unable to go beyond their immediate experience, which they misinterpret and overrate. The contrast is one familiar from Heraclitus and Parmenides, between the man who knows and the run of mortals who learn nothing, a contrast E . makes again in 95(132), where he calls the man who has understanding , as against the who has only an unclear doxa. (Cf. especially Heraclitus frs. and 2 and Parmenides fr. 6.4-7.) 8 ' : this Homeric phrase has been interpreted as addressed to E . with the sense "since you have strayed (or come down) to this earth," or to Pausanias similarly; it has also been construed as
Sextus gives these lines in conjunction with 5(3) as coming on the preceding fragment, and he uses them to show that, having previously inveighed against the senses, E . still wishes to claim that their evidence can be reliable. The fragment has been divided after the fifth line, for the person addressed changes from the Muse to Pausanias, and a transitional passage is needed. That Sextus does omit a considerable number of lines from his quotations without indicating that he does so is supported by his citation of Parmenides earlier at 7.1 u . There frs. 7.2-6 and 8.1-2 of Parmenides run straight on from fr. 1.1-30, although it is known
from Plato [Soph. 237a, 258d) and Simplicius [in Cael. 557.25 to 5 5 8 . 1 - 2 )
that the lines were not consecutive. ': the mania has two aspectsthe futility of what is put forward and the impiety of transgressing the boundaries of themis in professions of knowledge. Referring to Sextus' phrase oi -
I58
'59 3(131)
If for the sake of any one of mortal men, immortal Muse, cares came to your attention,
P H Y S I C S
3(131)-4(1)
Diels gives Parmenides as an example of those whom
E . is criticizing, but from the careful consideration E . gives to Parmenides' work and the use he makes of some Eleatic arguments, this seems unlikely. As in the previous fragment, and in keeping with the Presocratic tradition, E.'s attack is a general one on all who put forward rash and ill-considered opinions. T h e ritualistic language of this fragment and shows how the edges
(it pleased you) unfolded.
that our
now once more, Kalliopeia,
answer a prayer, and
stand by as a worthy account of the blessed gods is being
Hippolytus understands the Muse addressed in this fragment to be an allegory for the , a principle described as an intermediary between Love and Strife but working with Love for unity. T h e interpretation is unwarranted, for the epithets given to the Muse in fr. 2(3).3 and the mention of her in fr. 6(4).2 show that E . is working within the framework of Pierian inspiration.
I_
makes it more than the stock poetic request for divine assistance; its general tone seems more suited to the Katharmoi blurred. 2 : 3 Stephanus' emendation. The metaphor from irrigation : Burnet and Guthrie translate the epithet as and Bignone "molto contesa." is used again in fr. 47(35)2. of a division between the two poems as religious versus scientific are
3 :
on the
cf. . Fraenkel
"much-wooed," Diels "vielgefeierte," ful,"
Philologus
1931, pp. 3 - 9 , and further references given by Lloyd-Jones,
Karsten, however, has "memor" and L S J "much-remembering," "minda sense, appropriate here, that is argued for by E . Fraenkel in his note on Aeschylus Ag. 821 (but Denniston and Page claim the passive "much-remembered," as at Ag. 1459). A play on the Homeric word is probably intended; cf. the different meaning E . gives to the Homeric
, , , , etc. in the next line is
J H S 1963, p. 83, n. 7. The structure of the appeal " I f ever in the past . . . come now" is a common one, cf. Sappho fr. 1.5-7 with Page Sappho
and Alcaeus p. 17, n. 3, and Lloyd-Jones JHS 1963, pp. 8 3 - 8 4 .
has been taken as masculine, as in 2 ( 3 ) 4 . Schneidewin (Philologus p. 167), followed by Stein, supposes
for , for , and supplies -
1851,
to be neuter, writes
It has then been
an example; in Homer it means "meet," usually with hostile intent, and it is first found with the sense "meet with prayers," "entreat," here in E . 4 - 5 : Sturz, Karsten, and Burnet put a stop after and take the chariot as object of , but does not seem to have been used
9 2 1 - 2 2 with an infinitive (cf. Euripides Andr.
argued that since E . is referring to an earlier work of his own, namely the Physics, the fragment belongs to the Katharmoi (cf. Diels SP AW 1898, p. 399). However, with a supplement on the lines suggested by Wilamowitz, the reference to a previous poem by E . fails. The sense is quite general: " I f in the past a poet's work has pleased you, come now and bring inspiration in answer to an appeal." (For as the repetition not of an action but of a type of action cf. Page Sappho and Alcaeus p. 13, n. 3, and for E.'s use of for "of men in general" cf. 96(133). 2.) Hipbrought polytus' mention, in the context of the fragment, of the the Katharmoi,
2(3)3_5) a n (
). Guthrie (HGP vol. 2, p. 127) omits
and sup-
plies an object for the verb, translating, "in so far as it is lawful for us creatures of a day to hear, escort me, driving the chariot . . . , " but this reads strangely. T o whom does the chariot belong? Karsten suggests that be taken with , comparing
Pindar Pyth.
Simonides
about by Love and Strife makes the lines more suited to the Physics than to and it is in the Physics i 'hat an that the Muse is addressed (cf. about the gods is revealed in detail
cf. ). 341-2
ar >d
148.10 (Bergk), and
10.65. Burnet sup-
poses that the Muse will drive E.'s chariot, but this would make the fragment contradictoryif E . was already at the shrine of Piety he would not be asking to keep within the bounds of ihemis. Parmenides (fr. 1) represented himself as driven in his chariot by the daughters of the Sun to the abode of the goddess, but E.'s prayer is rather for the Muse to come in her chariot, ' , to his assistance; so Aphrodite in a golden chariot from her father's house to Sappho, fr. 1.6-8. For the literary convention of a goddess coming in a chariot cf. the examples cited by Page,
Sappho and Alcaeus p. 7.
(cf. 8(17).26, where, after an account of the four roots and Love and
Strife, E . adds, ' 4 . : Xenophanes fr.
Parmenides 8.50-51 for their announcement of a new and personal logos; E . too has a new conception of -
4(1)
And you, Pausanias, son of wise Anchitos, hear me.
161
P H Y S I C S
5(3)
The line is one of the eight fragments quoted specifically from the Physics; the phrasing is Homeric, cf. II. 8.152, 11.197, 450. Nothing definite is known about Pausanias. Since the Physics was addressed to him he was assumed to have been Empedocles' devoted and favored disciple, and so he figures in the biographers (cf. the supposed intimacy between Parmenides and Zeno, D . L . 9.25). According to Heraclides Ponticus, Pausanias was present at the feast following the cure of the , and he organized a search for Empedocles on his subsequent disappearance; however, he later told the people that E . would not return and that they must sacrifice to him as if he had become a god (cf. D . L . 8 . 6 7 - 6 9 ) . The whole account is denied by Timaeus, who claims that if it were true, Pausanias, being a wealthy man, would have set up a statue or shrine to E . ( D . L . 8.71). Galen cites Pausanias, Philistion, and E . together as Italian doctors (meth. med. 1.1, 10. 6K, and cf. Heraclides Ponticus on E . explaining the problem of the to Pausanias, D . L . 8.60). Pausanias is also called a doctor and a native of Gela in the epigram quoted by Diogenes immediately after this fragment:
' , .
Clement mentions the (later) distinction that was made in the Pythagorean school between the and the genuine philosophers, and he claims that the Peripatetics similarly separated doxa from and truth; the first two lines of this fragment are then quoted anonymously, followed by evidence for the same distinction from Heraclitus, frs. 104 and 29, Demosthenes, de cor. 296, and Parmenides, fr. 1.29-30. Proclus, praising the caution Plato shows in the Timaeus (2gd) regarding the ability of mortal men to give an exact account of the gods and of the universe, complains that a similar hesitation was not found in Heraclitus, who contrasted his own knowledge with the ignorance of others, or in Empedocles, who guaranteed to reveal the truth, or in the Stoics. Plutarch quotes the second half of the third line, as a well-known phrase, to describe Meno's high opinion of his own training in argument. 1-3 . : because lines 4 - 8 are clearly addressed to Pausanias, and fr. 2(3) is addressed to the Muse, there would have been a break in Sextus' quotation, cf. the commentary on 2 ( 3 ) ; it is hard to see how lines 1-3 could be interpreted as spoken to the Muse, and Clement, Proclus, and Plutarch all put the lines in a context of human wisdom. I f some verses have been omitted by Sextus, then they would give the transitional passage and also perhaps provide a subject for ; this is preferable to supposing that the flowers themselves exercise compulsion, as is assumed by Diels-Kranz (cf. ' Od. 21.117). with the future indicative seems here to be used with a prohibitive force (cf. W. W. Goodwin Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the
Greek Verb p. 19, par. 70, but also B. L . Gildersleeve Syntax of Homer to Demosthenes Classical Greek from p. 2 7 0 ) , and the subject may well have
The epigram, however, as chapter 1 has shown, is almost certainly spurious. Anchitos, the father of Pausanias, is known elsewhere only in an anecdote told by Iamblichus (Vit. Pyth. calmed by E.'s music. 113), in which a young guest of Anchitos is about to avenge his father with an attack on his host but is
5(3)
And do not let (it) compel you to take up garlands of glory and honor from men, on condition that you speak recklessly, overstepping propriety, and so then sit on the high throne of wisdom. But come, observe with every power in what way each thing is clear, without holding any seeing as more reliable compared with hearing, nor echoing ear above piercings of the tongue; and do not keep back trust at all from the other parts of the body by which there is a channel for understanding, each thing in the way in which it is clear. but understand
been a general one, even , i.e., "what I am about to tell you." Karsten marks a lacuna after , takes as imperative, ends the line with , and translates, "aude, et sic in sapientiae culmen evolabis." This suits the contexts given in Clement and Proclus of the wisdom of the one who knows the truth as contrasted with general ignorance, but it goes against the more modest approach of the previous fragments. Perhaps the infinitive is a correct conjecture, with the general sense, "Do not be seduced by the glamor of a reputation for wisdom into putting my words to an improper use" (cf. Xenophanes' claim to honor because of his sophia, fr. 2.11-12). 5 : the dative is a syntactical oddity here, and the translation given by Diels-Kranz is unsatisfactory. Ellis's suggestion of meets with difficulty in the accusatives of the following
Sextus gives the lines immediately after 2(3) as a continuous quotation.
162
163
P H Y S I C S
6(4)
line; is better, and for the construction with the comparative cf. Od. 18.162. 6 : probably not "the clear instructions of the tongue" (Burnet), or "what the tongue makes plain" (Guthrie), but "the piercings of the tongue" by pores that account for the sense of taste, connecting with ' (rather than , a late verb), cf. 91 (100).3
-
and from the surface of the skin; it is likely that the blood channels convey sensations from the organs to the thorax, cf. further the commentaries on
91(100) and 94(105).
6(4)
It is indeed the habit of mean men to disbelieve what is authoritative, your breast. but do you within learn as the assurances of my Muse urge, after the argument has been divided
7 - 8 : the early editors, Sturz, Karsten, and Mullach, put a stop after and take the passage as a contrast between the deceptive evidence given by the senses and the true understanding reached by independently of them. But this is forcing the construction to give a skeptical slant which is at variance with E.'s position elsewhere, as for example 14(21).!, 26(20), and 77(109). E . rather is picking up the Eleatic distinction between perception and reason (cf. Parmenides frs. 7.4-5 and 6.6-7) a n 8 contradicting it; to a considerable extent the senses can help us to understand the structure and functioning of the universe. Perception of the familiar earth, air, sea, and fire, for example, reveals the qualities of the roots of which all things are composed; a sharp biological eye sees essential similarities in organic formations. But there is a limit to the senses, and then works independently, as in grasping the nature of Philotes (8(17).21) or of the god (96(133).1-3). It is less certain whether E . has Heraclitus in mind (cf. fr. 101a ), but the combination of perceiving with learning is in the Presocratic tradition, cf. Heraclitus fr. 55, Xenophanes fr. 24 (the god's seeing and hearing being without specific organs), and the Hippocratic Regimen 1.23, where seven senses are listed as the means to , a list that could serve as a commentary on of
lines 7 - 8 : ', , , , , ,
Clement interprets these lines as the general inclination of the , through distrust, to overcome the truth; E.'s own doctrine, however, carries conviction. The point of view is supported with reference to the Greek principle of learning like by like, and with quotations from Proverbs 26:5, Corinthians 1:22, Matthew 5:45, and Romans 3:2g. Theodoretus gives the first two lines as agreeing with Heraclitus fr. 34. A c cording to E . , disbelievers are , according to Heraclitus those without understanding are like the deaf. The theme is developed and brings in Parmenides fr. 4.1, Solon fr. 16, and E . again with 96(133). : a weak phrase. Diels suggested , translating, "mali homines gaudent diffidere eis qui optinent" (PPF p. 107), but later adopted : "doch Niedrigen liegt es nur zu sehr am Herzen, den Starken zu misstrauen" (Vors.3 p. 225). T h e datives are ambiguous. Both contexts understand as masculine and take it with the finite verb, here implying "slow-learning" (cf. Sophocles Ajax 964, 07" 545, Phil. 910), combined with a moral slur, may also be masculine, and opposed to , as "those who are superior in knowledge," including E . , but it is more likely to be neuter, equivalent to , which have the backing of the Muse. (On neuter references for cf. Mullach FPG p. 33.) The and contrast (which is avoided in Theodoretus' adaptation of the second line) seems to be between what the dodistrust the truthand what the of the Muse urgeattention to the logos (cf. 103(114).1-3). 2 : not "effata" (Karsten) or "arcana" (Bergk), but rather "the objective reliable signs that justify confidence" (cf. Verdenius
Mnemosyne 1948, p. 1 3 ) ; similarly , Aeschylus Eum. 214, and cf. Aristotle Rhet. 1376317.
- Alcmaeon thought of as channels stretching from the organ to the brain, Theophrastus Sens. 26, Chalcidius 77m. 279 ( D K 24 A 1 0 ) , but when E . calls each sense a , and eyes and hands the "highway of persuasion that leads to the for men" ( 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) . 2 - 3 ) , is he being as literal as Alcmaeon? It may be true that "coordinates and interprets the testimony of the senses into an understanding of the whole" (von Fritz CPh 1946, p. 20), but there are reasonable grounds for supposing that this works on a physical basis. Blood, the heart-blood in particular, is the organ of thought (94(105), Theophrastus Sens. 10), the channels of blood are stretched throughout the body, noticeably in the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and hand, and the blood moves to
3 : on in E . , where the meaning is shifting from "recognize an object directly by the senses" to "understand a thought"
164
165
P H Y S I C S
7(6)
(although to understand a thought is still to recognize and understand its object), cf. von Fritz CPh 1946, p. 17, . 1.
, like , 96(133).3, and ,
:
94( 0 5)3>
, (or ' )
refers to the part of the thorax that is the physical basis of thinking, where the logos is in some sense incorporated. T h e process of incorporation is not made clear in this fragment (and there is little help to be gained from passages like Plato Phdr. 265c and Vergil Aen. 8.20). It seems that, provided the recipient is in the right condition for assimilating the logos, there is a dividing and separating (cf. Parmenides fr. 7.5-6) or (if Diels's is accepted) a sifting of the logos in and around the heart; the thoughts thus received then increase and strengthen ; cf. further the commentary on 100(110).
quoted at Aetius 1.3-8, Sextus adv. math. 7.94, Porphyry Vit. Pyth. 20, and Iamblichus Vit. Pyth. 150. It is impossible to date the oath, but it does not appear in the earlier tradition, and the introduction of in this sense is suspiciously late. I f there is a connection, the Pythagoreans are more likely to have borrowed the unusual term versa (cf. also , from E . than vice 1 5 ( 2 3 ) . ) . The poetic word implies for E . Theo-
"foundation," "living source of increase and growth," and perhaps also "basic nature"; cf. the comprehensive use of and , phrastus HP 9.8 and also Lucretius 2.103 a 2 . ':
n 8
Proclus in Tim. 130c.
the allocation of the divine names to the dif-
F R A G M E N T S L O V E , A N D
7-1 I S T R I F E
B A S I C
P R I N C I P L E S :
F O U R
R O O T S ,
ferent roots was disputed even in antiquity. One tradition, which identified Aidoneus with air and Hera with earth, was put forward by the Homeric allegorists and applied to E . by Diogenes and Hippolytus (cf. Heraclitus All. 24, 41, Stobaeus 1.10.11, Hippolytus RH 7.29.4, D . L . 8.76, and for the connection, Diels Doxographi Graeci pp. 8 8 - 9 9 ) . ^ n Hippolytus,
7(6)
Hear first the four Aidoneus and Nestis, roots of all things: bright Jeus and life-bringing Hera and whose tears are the source of mortal streams.
Aidoneus as air is argued from the etymology,

,
'
and the epithet ,
applied by
. to Hera, is taken to refer to earth. But Aidoneus (i.e., Hades) is most easily understood as earth (cf. the arguments put forward by Millerd Empedocles p. 31), and , an epithet of earth in Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns, may well have been deliberately transferred by E . to the root of air, which in one form is the breath essential to life (cf. Aristophanes Nubes 5 7 0 : , ); this would
These lines on the listings of Presocratic ,
of . are given generally in
and the authorities quoting them are con-
cerned mainly with the allocation of the divine names to the different roots. But Sextus also allies the Stoics to E . as positing similar elements, Heraclitus claims that the lines are in imitation of Iliad divides the roots into earth 3.276-79, and air Clement gives them a Pythagorean context. Hippolytus at RH 7.29 and water, and and fire, but at 10.7 he takes all four as in contrast to the active
be in accordance with his custom of putting established phrasing in a newsetting. The "Homeric" line of interpretation should therefore almost certainly be rejected as a late rereading of E . Similarly the interpretation put forward by Knatz ("Empedoclea" pp. 1-9) and Thiele (Hermes 1897, pp. 6 8 - 7 8 ) , and approved by Burnet (EGP p. 229, n. 3 ) , which refers Zeus to aither, Hera to earth, and Aidoneus to fire, may be disregarded. This view has no support from the many ancient commentators on the lines, and the identification of Zeus with E.'s aither requires the rejection of all E.'s uses of for the element of air. The best tradition is the Theophrastean one, which gives Zeus as fire, Hera as air, and Aidoneus as earth, cf. Aetius 1.3.20, Philodemus piet. 2 ( D K 31 A 3 3 ) , and also Plutarch de Is. el Os. 363d. Hera as air appears in the Cratylus (404c), this view has support from Menander 1.5.2 ( D K 31 A 2 3 ) , and it was this interpretation of the names of the elements that was taken over by the
principles of Love and Strife. Clement adds 8(17).18 and 14(21).9 to the first line as a continuous quotation; in Stobaeus, 20(36) is appended to the fragment. Tzetzes refers it to the first book of the : .
"root clumps," literally of trees (cf. Theophrastus CP by Hesiod,

3536'
3.3.4), but used also of ancestry (Theodectes 3 ) , and in Aeschylus of the offspring (Sept. 413)- Nearer to E.'s meaning is the use of Erga
philosophers of old into ' ,
19 (and cf. Homer Od. 9.390), and by Aristotle of the inquiry of the
Mete.
The notable parallel is the Pythagorean oath
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
167
P H Y S I C S
8(17)
Stoics, cf. Cicero ND 2.66 and the long list of parallel references cited by Pease ND vol. 2, p. 716. For discussions of the question cf. Millerd Empedocles pp. 3 0 - 3 2 , Bignone Empedocle pp. 5 4 2 - 4 4 , Guthrie HGP vol. 2, pp. 144-46. 3 . . - : there are variant readings of this line, but the contexts in Aetius and Heraclitus confirm the phrase
among them, their equal in length and breadth. Contemplate her with the mind, and do not sit staring dazed; she is acknowledged to be inborn also in the bodies of men, and they work together, giving her and because of her their thoughts are friendly the name Joy, as well as Aphrodite. mislead. All these are equal and of like age, but each has a different prerogative, character, and they prevail in turn as the time comes round. and its Moreover,
No mortal has perceived her as she whirls
among them; do you though attend to the progress of my argument, which does not
I n Eustathius, Nestis is given as a Sicilian goddess (II. 1180.14), particular
but apart from the mention of her here and at 48(96).2 she does not appear in classical literature. T w o attempts to explain the name were given. One, originating from Simplicius (in de An. 6 8 . 1 3 - 1 4 ) , gives the derivation ) , the other, from Hippolytus (RH 7.29.4), connects her with = "fasting" (cf. 126(144)
nothing comes to birth later in addition to these, and there is no passing away, for if they were continuously perishing they would no longer exist. And what would increase this whole, and from where would it come? How would it be completely at different destroyed, since nothing is without them? No, these are the only real things, but as they run through each other they become different objects throughout forever the same. times, yet they are
and interprets, All agree that she
represents the root of water, and
Sturz suggested that as Aidoneus is earth, Nestis may be Persephone, the name referring to underground streams. I f Nestis was a Sicilian name for Persephone rather than an obscure water nymph, this would give a pointed contrast with the Olympian couple and balance the four (which are , 8(17).27) more exactly. This, however, is only conjecture, and E . did not have a strict terminology for the roots; see the table of terms in chap. 2.
This is the longest and most important of the extant fragments. It is quoted in full by Simplicius from the first book of E.'s Physics (in Phys. (in Phys. 157.27), and since Simplicius also describes the opening verses as 161.14-15); 'he fragment has been put earlier than it had been in Diels's arrangement. The contexts of the various lines quoted in a considerable range of sources give the substance of the fragment as follows: as Love and Strife alternately gain the ascen-
8(17) A twofold tale I shall tell: at one time it grew to be one only from many, and at another again it divided to be many from one. There is a double birth of what is
dancy over all things the cosmos is brought into existence and destroyed in unceasing succession (Simp, in Phys. 5 3 0 . 11 - 1 2 , D . L . 8.76; on Arist. Phys. 157.25, in Cael. 140.30, 2 9 3 . 1 9 - 2 3 , 2501^27-25135 and Simp, in Phys.
mortal, and a double passing away ; for the uniting of all things brings one generation into being and destroys it, and the other is reared and scattered as they are again being divided. And these things never cease their continual exchange of position, at one time all coming together into one through love, at another again borne away from each other by strife's to arise from repulsion. many} and many are produced from one as it is again being being divided, (So, insofar as one is accustomed but insofar as they never cease
1124.19-1125.24, cf. below on 1 6 ( 2 6 ) . 8 - 1 2 ) ; Love and Strife are motive principles working on the four elements of earth, air, fire, and water, and they are not perceptible to the senses but intelligible by (Simp. in Phys. 25.24, 188.23, D . L . 8.76, S . E . adv. math. 9.10, 10.317, Plu. amat. 756d, Hippol. RH 10.7.3, Clem. Strom. 5.15.4, 6.17.4); E . thought of the four elements as equal in some way, prevailing inevitably in turn; birth is explained by their uniting and death by their separation, for nothing can be added to or subtracted from their sum (Arist. GC 333a 16, Phlp. Simp, in Phys. 157.25, 161.13, 1184.5, MXG 976b22)in GC 257.32, 261.21,
to this extent they are born and have no abiding life; their continual exchange, so far
they are forever unaltered in the cycle.
But come, hear my words, for learning brings an increase of wisdom. Even as I said before, when I was stating the range of my discourse, a twofold tale I shall many from pernicious onefire and water and earth and measureless these, matched (to them) height of air, tell: at one time it grew to be one only from many, and at another again it divided to be with strife apart from in every direction, and love
975bl0>
1-2
(=16-17)
: the infinitives
are consecutive, cf. Goodwin par. 775. What is the subject of the finite verbs? Guthrie translates, "at a certain time one alone grew out
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
P H Y S I C S
8(17)
of many," but gives an alternative on the lines suggested above in a footnote (HGP vol. 2, p. 153). The unexpressed subject is probably (cf. below on line 4 and 14(21).7) or (cf. 1(2).6), the "twofold tale" being the two cosmic changes (1) from many to one, and (2) from one to many. When the lines are repeated at 16-17 and Strife are added. 3 - 5 tion to ' the abstract noun is unusual in epic and in its opposi(Parmenides' word is , fr. 8.21); normally the or Panzerbieter's for , changes (Thucydides, Demosthenes, Xenophon) with Scaliger's
t b e
coming into one through Love and separating into many through Strife. This is universal activity which later is to be found at work in individual organisms, in the same way as the materials that make up the individual are identified with the world masses. (For the attempts to deny any cosmic reference at all cf. note 110 in chapter 2.) 9 . . . ' the line has been supplied here from Aristotle
Phys. 250030 and Simplicius in Phys. 33.26; for this and the following
uniting and sepa-
rating totality is spelled out as fire, water, earth, and air, to which Love
four lines cf. the commentary on 16(26).8-12 with the Aristotelian context. 14 ' : one of several formulaic monitions to Pausanias found throughout the poem, especially when a new and
important point is to be made, cf. 4 ( 1 ) , 5 ( 3 ) 4 , 6(4).3, 15(23).! 1, 1 7 ( 3 8 ) . : , 5 3 ( 6 2 ) . I , I O O ( I I O ) . I O . Here the explanation of the nature and function
meaning is "desertion"
"failing" (of rivers or of the moon in Aristotle), , emendation of Simplicius' , balances to , to ; double ' - Karsten keeps ,
and (admittedly an unusually early use of the singular) but this is unnecessary surgery to remove the idea of a second or generation. Bollack tries ' , translating
of the four roots and Love and Strife gives body to the schematic outline of the first verses of the fragment, : , Stobaeus has and omits 222c), which has the support of Clement's paraphrase; Simplicius gives (which Sturz tried to justify by referring to Plato Lysis This would be the only occurrence of the .
'
"dispersant, se disperse." Other recent views on the lines are summarized by A . A . Long in The Pre-Soctatics, ed. A . P. D . Mourelatos, pp. 4 0 4 - 1 2 . "at valent but it (PPF p. 112). Sturz had under : Diels refers the two pronouns to , etiam mutatis mutandis de " stood the first pronoun as
changed by Bergk to .
noun, except for the Doric genitive in Hesychius: , For the literal increase that learning brings cf. 1 0 0 ( 1 1 0 ) 4 - 5 .
15 : cf. Homer I I . 23.350 of Nestor
and the second as ,
seems rather that both pronouns should refer to both nouns, the compact expression being elucidated by the verbs. There is a first generation and a "failing" of mortal things when are brought to birth and then are or destroyed by the many coming into one, and a second when sense; connected with"). 6 - 8 : like in line 3, which unite and separate, identified Ionic form; Stobaeus in line 18 as earth, air, fire, and water, : has . = "germinate" Thphr. CP 2.17.7, "intervene"
16-17: cf. lines 1-2. 18: previously the roots had been given under somewhat enigmatic divine names (cf. 7(6). 1-2), but they are now listed in familiar terms. The first threefire, water, and earthare straightforward. For the fourth Simplicius has , and Plutarch and Clement ; in Simplicius and Clement and Athenagoras, perhaps coming into the text from the epithet is Parmenides in Plutarch, Sextus, and
again reared and scattered as many "divide" (a distinctive Empedoclean "grow between" Hdt. 1.61, Thphr. CP 3.7.9, and later "be inseparably
8 . 5 6 - 5 7 ; for
cf. 121(135).2. Burnet (EGP p. 219, n. 3 ; p. 228,
n. 2) accepts here, denying that the element was ever called by . admittedly is the most common word for this root in E . , but
his terminology is not fixed (cf. 91(100).13, 25(22).2, 91(100).15, and the
Lines 6 - 8 add the information that the move from
many to one is the work of Love, and that from one to many is due to Strife; the alternation between the two is unceasing. The last two lines are repeated at 16(26).5-6, line 7 at 26(20).2, and line 8, with some variation, at 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 . The connection of likeness and unity with Love, and of enmity and separation with Strife, is found again at 2 5 ( 2 2 ) 4 - 8 . Lines 6 - 8 are part of the outline of E.'s cosmic scheme, as the first two lines of the fragment and the phrase show. He is concerned here with the eternal succession of the two phases of all things
table in chap. 2 ) . Elsewhere and refer to the same root, the former in its occupation of the lower atmosphere and the latter in that of the higher, cf. the commentary on 27(38).3-4. 19-20: the formal introduction of the uniting and separating agents, already mentioned briefly in lines 7-8. : cf. line 8. The baneful nature of Strife, and the innate hatred that
brings about separation, is emphasized from the start, giving Aristotle
I70
'7'
P H Y S I C S
8(17)
grounds for regarding it as a principle of evil, cf. Metaph. Plutarch de I s . et Os. 3 7 0 c :
98534-10,
various phenomena), (2) in the near repetition of lines 29 and 34 in 16(26), where the reference is to the elements, and (3) in the ancient commentaries on line 27. It is the four roots that are equal and of like age, and that make up the totality of the world mass, allowing for no addition or subtraction. Love and Strife are not "things" like the roots and cannot be compared with them; their control can extend over them, however, as was explained in lines 19-20, and the question of their eternity is taken up separately in 11(16). The roots are Parmenides fr. 9.4 of fire and night ), but (cf. Aristotle
"equal in every way,"
"uniform," as in Hesiod Theog. 524 and Parmenides fr. 8.44. It is not that Strife is materially equal in weight to each or all of the roots but that its power can stretch evenly and comprehensively over them all. 20 iv : alternatively , cf. line 25. No significant contrast need be made with in the previous line, except perhaps
: like
that Strife as a separating agency works apart, and Love from within,
cf. Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 154.
above, for Love's uniform extension over the roots.
queries what is meant by this. Granted that for E . the elements are absolutely basic and incapable of being transformed into each other (cf. GC 315a 15-16), then if they are quantitatively comparable there must be a common unit of measurement, which would deny their ultimate nature. This would also be the case if they were dynamically comparable, cf. Mete. 340314, and chap. 2, n. 79. But if the comparison is analogical, e.g., one is as hot as another is white, it is qualitative, and the elements should be called "similar," not "equal," cf. Aristotle GC 333320-34, Philoponus in GC 257.32-258.4, 261.21-25, Joachim on Aristotle GC, pp. 2 3 1 - 3 3 . E . was probably being straightforward and assuming that the roots were equal in age, honor, and power, and in their total sums (cf. lines 2 7 - 2 9 here, and also, e.g., the equal amounts and pressures involved in 91 (100).6-21). The basic argument against any one element predominating had probably been put forward already by Anaximander,
cf. Aristotle Phys. mander p. 186, . . 204028, Simplicius in Phys. 479.32, and K a h n Anaxi-
2 1 : the contrast between visual perception and intellectual recognition is clearly made, with a corresponding distinction in objects. Earth, air, fire, and water are visible, and their nature can be understood from observation (cf. 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . 1 - 6 ) , but Love is not a material entity like them and can be grasped only by , so Parmenides fr. 4.1 . There is also an underlying separation of subjects, familiar from Heraclitus and Parmenides, of the one who has reached true understanding from the ordinary masses, who in comparison are like people sleeping or stunned; cf. Heraclitus fr. 1, Parmenides fr. 6.7, and E . earlier at 1(2). 1-6. Like the nature of Love, that of the supreme god is not to be reached or understood by the senses, cf. 96(133). 1322 : changed by Karsten to on the grounds of the verse contradicting lines 2 5 - 2 6 , but the second reference is to the elements. Men recognize the presence of Philotes, or Aphrodite, well enough within their bodies and observe the effects on human thinking and action, but its universal working on the roots is not perceptible and has not been understood as the functioning of the same principle as that which powerfully influences themselves. 24 : Homeric, cf. II. 21.390 and also 13.29 (where "the cf. II. g .562. , ascription to nature of a distinctly human emotion is unique in Homer," Leaf ad loc.). : 25 : Brandis's correction for the unmetrical ' (Panzerbieter), '
28
. . . :
cf. Parmenides on fire and night, fr. 8 . 5 7 159.13, intro-
58. Each root has its own individual and inalienable nature, which is preserved throughout, as explained by Simplicius, in Phys. ducing 14(21) after this fragment. This assumption of permanent, inherent characteristics is essential to the idea of an element, and the emphasis E . placed on it is one of his important contributions to Greek science. Difficulties, however, arise with the positing of a stage of such mingling of the roots that these characteristics are not discernible; see chap. 2.
29
giving a reference to the roots, as in line 20. Other suggestions are ' (Sturz), ' (Ellis). : a direct challenge to Parmenides' depreca(Preller), and ' 26 27
the reference is still to the roots, cf. below on Maas accepts the elision of the iota of
doubtful variant for 107(115).! and
1 6 ( 2 6 ) . I , where the line is repeated with for 30 :

a
tion of his Doxa, fr. 8.52. : whether or not there is a lacuna after line 26, the subject of line 27 is the roots. This is clear (1) in the continuation in lines 3 4 - 3 5 (for it is the roots which in running through each other become the
here (Greek Metre, trans. H . Lloyd-Jones, pp. 73, 74), giving as parallels Theocritus 30.12, against which cf. A. S. F . Gow Theocritus, ad loc.
172
173
P H Y S I C S
9(12)-10(13)
Karsten emended to ap ' ', to , tius 2.296. 31 , : cf. SP AW
and Diels in some despair
1897, p. 1069. Professor H . Lloyd-Jones
has suggested in a personal communication ' ( = now, lately) For the sense cf. Parmenides fr. 8.36-37 and also Lucrecf. the emphatic statement of this Eleatic argu
the author are given in MXG, where the fragment is connected with 1 2 ( 8 ) - 3 ~ 4 a s supporting the assertion that since the roots are eternal, there is no absolute genesis or destruction, but an apparent genesis arises from their arrangements and rearrangements. : (MXG) . a suggested amalgam of
ment by Melissus, fr. 7(2)
and
(Philo), so Bollack: , but Parmenides usually : almost equivaand Analogy
Karsten suspects a missing line
Diels has '
after line 31, but
"non respondet alterum, quia alterum lemma here . takes over Parmenides' arguments '9_2) a n d ap-
negates with , cf. frs. 2.7, 7.1, 8.7, and 12, and he frequently has the article, e.g., frs. 2.7, 4.2, 8.32, 35, and 37.
pp. 4 2 3 - 2 4 . 2 : cf. Parmenides frs. 2.7-8, 8 . 8 - 9 , 8.17,
variata forma 1. 32 continuatur," Diels PPF p. 114. 3 2 - 3 3 : for the denial of birth and death to what is (cf. fr. 8.6-7,
lent to "is logically impossible," cf. G . E . R . Lloyd Polarity
plies them to the four roots, which have no temporal starting or stopping points. Further, Parmenides had claimed that could not intervene to prevent what is from reaching its like, nor could there be any variation in density or rarity, cf. fr. 8.23-25, 4 4 - 4 8 . E . reinterprets these points, first by asserting that the roots occupy all the available place ),
10(13).
and
Melissus fr. 2.
is Mangey's suggestion, adopted by Diels,
for Philo's ,
in Cael. read
which makes no sense here; there is a similar

for The of MXG may be an
corruption at Parmenides fr. 8.21, where the M S S D and of Simplicius attempt to make sense of 3 : For a defense of as the ,
('
and then by equating with ,
resulting in a
denial of empty place to interrupt or alter the consistency of the roots, cf. 33 ' ' 34 : picking up the of the previous line,
lectio difficilior cf. Bignone Empedocle pp. 3 9 8 - 4 0 0 .
Panzerbieter, followed by Diels, emends to '
which gives the line a rhetorical flourish. The subject is obviously , and the verse so read would make it clear that the preceding two lines had a double reference. There can be no genesis from what is not, nor destruction of what is, in any temporal or spatial sense; always exists, and as a plenum it occupies all available space, so that there is no time when nor place where it is not. ' has a slightly different meaning
at 1 0 0 ( 1 1 0 ) . .
the reference continues to be to the roots, cf. 14 (21). 13. : the Eleatic argument for self-consistency (cf. and , which are Parmenides fr. 8.46-48) is applied to the individual roots, completing the point made in line 28 each root has its own ments of parts in the formation of preserved inviolate through the various arrangements and rearrangeParmenides was led from the premise to conclude that his subject was unique (cf. G. E . L . Owen CQ_ 10 ( i 9 6 0 ) pp. 9 2 - 9 3 ) , but E . , in positing a mosaic shifting of four eternal roots in a plenum, retained their temporal and
10(13)
There is no part of the whole that is empty or overfull.
spatial continuity while allowing plurality and divisibility.
The line is quoted by Aetius under the heading and is listed 9(12)
It is impossible for there to be a coming into existence from that which is not, and for what exists to be completely destroyed cannot be fulfilled, when and where it is thrust, then and there it will be. nor is to be heard of; for
by Theodoretus among several theories on the theme. MXG gives it as the condition prevailing after the coming together into unity. E . is picking up Parmenides' argument on the spatial continuity and consistency of his subject (cf. fr. 8 . 2 2 - 2 5 ) : 'here cannot be different degrees of existence at different parts. For Parmenides there is no
Philo quotes the first two lines of the fragment anonymously, to show that nothing can come from or pass away into nothing. The three lines and
to interrupt the consistency, but E . moves one stage further and identifies in its spatial sense with an identification adopted by Melis-
'75 death, but there is only mixing, to these men give the name and separating
P H Y S I C S
11(16)-12(8)
sus and similarly used in his denial of variance, cf. Melissus fr. 7 - ( 7 ) - ( 8 ) , and also Anaxagoras, fr. 5. The invariance is most marked in the homogeneity of the sphere under Love (which may have induced the context in MXG) but always holds true; the roots are incapable of expanding or contracting, and they keep their character inviolate through the mosaiclike arrangements and rearrangements in the plenum. Diels prints as a separate fragment (B 14) the phrase just before this
verse in MXG: (') (} ' ;
of what has been mixed, and
"birth."
but this makes for needless repetition and may well be an imperfectly remembered conflation of 8(17).32 and 10(13).
The fragment is quoted by Aetius from the first book of the Physics. An appropriate place for it is after the general exposition of 8(17) and the related Eleatic arguments. For his next point, E . in this and the following four fragments turns to the world we know and the language we use, showing first that there is no real genesis or destruction of mortal things but only arrangements and rearrangements of their component elements. : the word is here taken by Plutarch to mean

in
11(16)
They are as they were before and shall be, and never, I think, will endless time be emptied of these two.
contrast (cf. Phys.
to :
. (adv. Col. 1112a and cf. 11 i 2 f ) .
This is the sense also given to in this context in Aristotle GC 314b 7

I 9 3 b i 2 ) , MXG 9 7 5 b 6 ; Philoponus in GC 14.14, 15.6-8, 15-17, 161.18, 180.25-30, 235.20 2 6 3 . 2 0 - 2 4 ; Simplicius in Cael. 306.3, in Phys.
Hippolytus gives as the subject of the fragment Love and Strife, at R H 7.29 attributing the lines to E . but at 6.25 to "the Pythagoreans." H e comments that the character of Love is peaceful and unifying whereas Strife is destructive and separates, and that the action of the two continues without beginning or end.
() : a suggestion made in a
personal communication by Professor H . Lloyd-Jones for the M S S

a n d I0('3) w i t h t h e folu" roots
The Homeric formula (e.g., II. 1.70) has the three tenses. After dealing in 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 7 - 3 5 , 9 ( 1 2 ) ; > denying them beginning or end in time, spatial variation, and the possibility of addition to or subtraction from their totality, E . then moves on to his motive principles and postulates for them an eternal existence. (Since they were probably not thought of as material bodies in the same way as the roots were, the question of spatial stopping and starting points for them does not arise; see chap. 2.)
2 3 ; in Alexander it is taken as equivalent to , in Metaph. 359.17-21. At Metaph. 1014635 Aristotle quotes the fragment, without the second line giving the required balance of to , to illustrate the meaning of as ' (and cf. GC 333611-14, though Joachim argues for as here, ad GC 3 1 4 6 7 - 8 ) . Although such a meaning, or something akin to it, must be implied in E.'s other uses of the word at 56(63) and 100(110).5, this fragment, quoted in its entirety by Plutarch, should probably be given his interpretation. The controversy has continued into modern times, cf. A . O . Lovejoy PhR 1909, p. 3 7 1 ;
Burnet EGP pp. 10-11, 3 6 3 - 6 4 , 205 n. 4 ; Ross Ar. Metaph.
297~98-
vol. 1, pp.
Opposed to these are W . A . Heidel Proceedings of the American

pp. 2 2 8 - 3 0 ; K a h n Anaximander p. 2 3 ; 1976, pp. 8 7 - 1 0 0 ; N . van der the variant reflects
Academy 1910, p. 9 8 ; Kirk Heraclitus J . Owens Canadian Journal Ben Phronesis
Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 140; and cf. G . A . Seeck Hermes 1967, pp. 3 6 - 4 1 ;
of Philosophy 1978, pp. 2 0 4 - 0 6 . :
a frequent confusion, cf. 8(17).8, 19 and 51 (59).2. 2 : Lovejoy, loc. cit., understands the phrase as (no) "end of death," i.e., never stop dying, but it is more likely to mean "end that is death," like the standard , e.g., Homer 11.
3-39> 5-553; I 6 - 5 0 2 , 8 5 5 , 22.361, and Aeschylus Sept. 906. E . seems sim-
F R A G M E N T S
12-15
M I X I N G
A N D
S E P A R A T I N G
12(8)
Here is another point: of all mortal things no one has birth, or any end in pernicious
ply to be saying that despite our normal way of speaking, are not really born, nor (paradoxically) do they die, because strictly speaking they are temporary arrangements of parts of immortal "roots." The
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
76
'77
P H Y S I C S
13(9)-14(21)
coming into such an arrangement is , and the dissolution of the arrangement marks the end of that individual as such. This is spelled out in the next fragment. 3 '- f r t b e assumption that the mixis of parts of roots to make an organism is a mosaiclike arrangement in which the pieces retain their character, and not a kind of "chemical" mixture, see chap. 2. 4 . : cf. line 5 of fr. 13(9). It would not seem that was a common word for E.'s contemporaries to adopt, but he may have had in mind the verbal usage, as in the next fragment. When a mixis is formed, there occurs what is termed (or ).
in the fragment. The subject, from the first line, consists of people in general, who speak inaccurately of birth when there is only mixis.
5 : the reading at 82of, but at
13(9)
When they have been mixed in the form form of a man and come to the air, or in the or of birds, then people say that this death; these of the race of wild animals, or of plants,
i i i 2 f . Attempts to make a satisfactory rendering include . Reiske, . Karsten, and ' . Wyttenbach (cf. D K 31 Bio). Stein suggested the conflation , , taking in a weaker sense and close to . But if is stressed as "right" (cf. 2 ( 3 ) 4 a n c l Hesiod Theog. 3 9 6 ) , a negative is obviously required. Wyttenbach had () for 82of, and Wilamowitz () (cf. Hermes 1930, p. 246). Diels adopts Wyttenbach's reading as the most reasonable suggestion, on the Homeric pattern with the dative. O n the inaccuracy of conventional naming cf. Parmenides fr. 8.38, Anaxagoras fr. 17.
is to be born, and when they separate they call this again ill-fated terms are not right, but I follow the custom and use them myself.
14(21)
But come, if the form of my preceding argument was in any way incomplete, sun with its warmth, heavenly bodies bathed in heat and and from earth issue firmly rooted take note of the witnesses of these to what I have said before: radiant shining solids.
The fragment comes, with 12(8), 104(11), and 106(15), in Plutarch's defense of E . against the charge put forward by Colotes, that E . , in abolishing generation, abolished life itself. As Plutarch points out, E . is not doing away with living creatures but showing that terms like birth and death, when applied to them, are misleading; organisms are formed by a mingling in a certain arrangement of parts of eternal roots, and they cease to exist as such when the arrangement breaks up. Provided it is recognized that the terms are not strictly accurate, that birth is really mingling and death separating, the conventional expressions may still be used.
' '' (): Diels's suggestion for the MSS
appearance and pervading light,
rain everywhere dark and chill,
Under strife they have different forms will be hereaftertrees
and are all separate, but they come together
in love and are desired by one another. From them comes all that was and is and have sprung from them, and men and women, and animals and birds and water-nourished fish, and long-lived gods too, highest in honor. For these are the only real things, and as they run through each other they assume different shapes, for the mixing interchanges them.
and a lacuna of 6 - 8 letters; he adds, "fortasse Byzantinorum more vocis explicandae causa superscriptum" (PPF p. 109). O n this reading the subject would be the roots, and the sense would be, "when parts of the roots have formed into an arrangement or mixture with human shape and come to the air." "Coming to the air" may be a poetic paraphrase for "being born" (cf. Lucretius 1.170) but could be more exact, for E.'s theory is that the fetus is and takes its first breath at birth, the intake of air compensating for a loss of moisture, cf. Aetius 4.22.1, 5.15.3. 3 ( ) : Panzerbieter's filling of the second lacuna
Simplicius quotes the fragment in full at in Phys. 159.13, after the whole of 8(17), as a continuation of the account of the roots, showing that each has its own character and is recognizable in a familiar form"sun," for example, is fire, "sky" is air, and "rain" and "sea" are water (cf. the table in chap. 2). At in Phys. 33.8 Simplicius follows lines 3 - 1 2 of this fragment on 47(35), there to point out that mixing results when both Love and Strife are at work. ' : the genitives are clumsy. Stein suggested for ', and Diels followed Wilamowitz with ', taking as masculine singular rather than neuter plural; but a number of phenomena will be pointed out by E . in support of the theory put forward, and the line should probably be left as in Simplicius.
I78
'79
P H Y S I C S
15(23)
2 : ,
"lacking wood," and so "feeble," "defective"; found but apparently not elsewhere, cf. used by Parmenides of fire and night (fr.
also at 6 0 ( 7 1 ) . applied to g i ( i o o ) . i . :
Love and Strife are active, as Simplicius explains (in Phys. 33.4), thneta result. 9 : I have accepted Aristotle's version of the line, but with for , as at 15(23).5 and 83(98).5. E . has adopted the common formula for past, present, and future, probably as a deliberate challenge to Parmenides' denial of tenses (fr. 8.5). The list that follows, comprising plant, animal, bird, fish, human, and divine life, is repeated at 15(23).6,
the significantly also appearing in the Katharmoi
8.53), but here the sense is "form of argument." T o express his meaning more clearly E . will offer as evidence of the existence and character of the four roots the familiar elemental masses around us. 4 ' : emended by Diels to ' and further cor1884, p. 366; Philologus rected by Wackernagel to ' (cf. SP AW
in Hesychius is ' , -
1931, pp. 134-35). T h e word is related to , and the definition

The are the moon
as the highest in the series of lives, cf. 132 (146).3. 13-14: line 13 repeats 8(17).34, but there is a change in the second line of the couplet. The emphasis in 8(17) is on the permanence and changelessness of the roots, here it is on their ability to produce all kinds oi thneta as they mingle with each other (cf. 47(35). 16-17). As against Diels's suggestion for the completion of line 14 a connection is required, and E . does not elsewhere use without a corresponding relative. Stein and Mullach independently argued for ,
and stars, the moon being composed of air shut in by fire, and the stars of fire squeezed out from the air (cf. [Plut.] Strom, ap. Eus. PE 1.8.10, Aet. 2.13.2). I f the reading is right, and the sense of heat uppermost, then in this line E . would be pointing to the (which is given in ) , and is indicated. (, are - -), and the form and sense of this as instances of a combination of fire and air; cf. 53(62).5, where heat rather than moisture 6 ' the vocabulary of lines 5 - 6 is uncommon word cannot be decided,
rearrangement of Karsten's suggestion from Simplicius' commentary on

12(8).3: (in Phys. , 161.20). I conjecture
(cf. 47 (35)-6) is inappropriate, and as a simple form of
(advocated by Karsten and Stein from the Suda and Favorinus)

(H- 954', 10.15, 13.130, and cf. O'Brien ECC
for the tmesis comparing Parmenides fr. 8.41.
unsatisfactory. Diels followed Sturz with ,

the Homeric
pp. 2 6 6 - 6 7 ) , but now in Hesychius: ,
is generally accepted from the definition At GC 315a 10, in an obvious reference to , but "close-packed" or "firmly rooted" associated in epic with the
15(23)
As painters, men well taught by wisdom in the practice of their art, decorate temple fitting from of some and less of othersthey produce offerings when they take in their hands pigments of various colors, and after them in close combinationmore
this fragment, Aristotle says of ., is not exactly . Also, the verb , Hes. Theog.
them shapes resembling all things, creating trees and men and women, animals and birds and water-nourished fish, and long-lived gods too, highest in honor; so let not error convince you in your mind that there is any other source for the countless revealed. perishables that are seen, but know this clearly, since the account you have heard is divinely
free flowing of rivers and streams (cf. II. 21.260, Od. 5.444, and especially 792), is difficult to understand with a subject of this kind. (cf. the reference in Simplicius' and stones brought Perhaps E . wrote no more than
introduction of the fragment), the weight and hardness mentioned by Aristotle both being implied in rocks posites cannot be fastened on E . from this fragment. 7 - 8 : the subject is the four roots, mentioned under familiar names and forms in the preceding lines, and the statement is a general one about their activity when influenced by the motive principlesunder Strife (only here in the Physics called ) they keep their individual forms in separated masses, in Love they come together into a unity. When both along by the water. I n any case the theory of an exclusive tetrad of op-
Simplicius quotes the lines as an illustration given by E . of the theory set out in 14(21), refers them to this present world in which plant, animal, and human life results from the activity of both Love and Strife, and connects them with 16(26). 1-2 and 11-12. For a discussion of the simile see chap. 2, pp. 3 8 - 3 9 .
2 : the duals (line 2 ) , (line 4 ) ,
1 0 1
P H Y S I C S
16(26)
and
(line 6) are puzzling; the earlier editors attempted to avoid (which is given in the Simp. M S F ) , respectively. Duals for plurals in Homer, e.g., at II. 3.279,
vol. 2, p. 2 8 ) , J . Waekernagel (Vorlesungen ber Syntax Grammatik pp.
The metaphor of , 7(6)..
with ,
for
the
source
them by reading , and

maire Homerique
appears in the Pythagorean oath by the tetractys, Aetius 1.3.8, and cf. 11 : is taken to refer (1) to E . himself as a god, e.g., by Bidez, Biographie
okles," Philologus
8.186, 16.371, and 17.387, have been discussed by P. Chantraine (Gram7 7 - 8 0 ) , and E . Schwyzer and A . Debrunner (Griechische vol. 2, GRBS
p. 102, and by W. Nestle, "Der Dualismus des Emped1906, pp. 545-57, comparing 102(112)4; (2) to
p. 4 6 ) ; more recently C . Segal has suggested a formal reason for the duals
in Iliad book 9 ("The Embassy and the Duals of Iliad 9 . 1 8 2 - 9 8 , "
Aphrodite/Philotes by Bollack, Empedocle vol. 1, p. 265, n. 2, and p. 310; and (3) to the Muse, by Karsten, Diels, Bignone, and others. (3) is surely correct. The of the physical poem comes from the Muse, addressed
i n
1968, pp. 109-14). T h e duals here may have resulted from the Simplicius MSS reading of for , or perhaps E . is allowing himself a striking flexibility in the forms, cf. 124(137).6. 4 : "mixed" colors are referred to in Theophrastus qgoa-b Sens. 7 7 - 7 8 (on Democritus), Plato Tim. 68d, and [Aristotle] Col.
2(3)4,
a n
specifically as Calliope in 3 ( 1 3 1 ) . 1 - 4 ; her
cf.
guarantee the truth of E.'s logos, as at 3 ( 1 3 1 ) 4 and 6 ( 4 ) . 2 - 3 , and mania condemned in 2 ( 3 ) . ! and 5 ( 3 ) . 1-3; cf. the commentary on 1(2).9.
Parmenides fr. 1.22-23. Self-reference here would be an example of the
and Mete. 37235. I n the introduction it was argued that the mixing of colors in "harmony" described in this fragment is not a blending to produce further shades but the setting of pigments of different colors side by side; the are the appropriate colors ready before the painters start on their pictures. Cf. also 4 8 ( 9 6 ) 4 , and J . B. Skemp's translation of Plato Pol. 277c: "because [the outline] has still to be painted in colours properly balanced with one another." It is uncertain whether a correlation is to be made between the four roots and the four simple colors of black, white, red, and "ochre" (cf. W. Kranz, "Die ltesten Farbenlehren der Griechen," Hermes 1912, pp. 12628). The correspondence is made for E . at Stobaeus Eel. 1.5.3;
f o u r
F R A G M E N T S T H E S P H E R E
16-22
M A N Y
T O
O N E
I N
T H E
COSMOS:
16(26)
They prevail in turn as the cycle moves round, and decrease into each other and at one time each increase in appointed succession. For these are the only real things, and as they run through one another they become men and the kinds of other animals, other by strife's coming into one order through love, at another again being borne away from
colors as canonic are attributed to the
Pythagoreans (Aet. 1.15.7, and cf. [Arist.] De Mundo 3 9 6 ^ 3 ) ; and they seem to be the ones generally used by fifth-century painters. The number of colors, however, is not as important as the fact that only a few are re quired in order to produce (in two dimensions) all kinds . 6 - 8 : this list was also given in 14(21).! 1-13. The same wide variety of comes from the four roots as the painter can reproduce in his art with a few colors. 9 :
:
hate, until they come together into the whole and are subdued. So, but
insofar as one is accustomed to arise from many, and many are produced from one as it is again being divided, to this extent they are born and have no abiding life; insofar as they never cease their continual exchange, so far they are forever in the cycle. unaltered
The fragment is quoted in full by Simplicius as coming soon after 14(21); , he refers it to the genesis of one from many under Love, of many from one under Strife, and of in this world . It is a rewording of the fundamental principle of the uniting and separating of the four roots by reason of the agency of Love and Strife. Lines 1, 3 - 4 , 5 - 6 , and 8 - 1 2 repeat 8(17).29, 3 4 - 3 5 , 7 - 8 , and 9 - 1 3 respectively. Lines 2 and 7 are new, filling in, in a striking manner, the processes involved; (line 1) and
8(17).29 and 7. .
established by Blass from Hesychius " .

Diels's emendation to
the only known appearance of the active form accepted; he compares the participle
metris causa is generally
in Pindar (01. 6.49), and Hesychius has 6 0 ( 7 1 ) 4 , and
E.'s forms elsewhere are
i o i ( m ) . i . The line is uncharacteristically stilted and perhaps
should be rearranged, e.g.,

(line 5) are important variants on the endings of
Commentators tend to complicate the simple explanatory structure
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
P H Y S I C S
16(26)
of the fragment. T h e subject is the four roots, the "many." As usual, E . starts his account with the roots in separation. At the appropriate time in the cycle they are in control. I n appointed succession they then move from many to one (their masses getting smaller as they mingle) and from one to many (their masses increasing). As they run through each other in both processes they become men and animals. They move from many to one through Love, and from one to many because of Strife, until, coming (again) into one they are subdued. The unity of the four roots described in line 7, which entails the loss of their visible individual characteristics, is the opposite state of affairs to that of line 1. I n going from many to one and from one to many they have temporary existences as men and other animals, but in persisting through the recurring exchange of position they are unaltered.
. : repeated from 8(17).29 with for
the real things" (cf. , L S J s.v. .), rather than "they are themselves" (O'Brien) or "lis sont, toujours meme" (Bollack). "There are just these" (Guthrie) shifts the emphasis slightly. The roots running through each other become different things at different times (8(i7)-35) things with different faces (14(21).14), and here, more explicitly, men and other animals. 5 : the roots run through each other producing men and animals, at one time when going from many to one, and at another when going from one to many, but they stop doing so when dominant and many or subdued and one. Coming into one kosmos in line 5 is the same process as coming into one whole in line 7, a more precise version here of at 8(17).7. Kosmos is used in the sense of "total world order" as it was by Heraclitus, fr. 30, and probably the Pythagoreans (Aet. 2.1.1) and Parmenides ( D . L . 8.48). For this sense of kosmos in the Presocratics cf. Kirk Heraclitus pp. 307-24, Guthrie HGP vol. 1, pp. 4 5 4 -
, (Od.
itself a refinement on the Homeric
59, and G . Vlastos Plato's Universe chap. 1. 7 : when used elsewhere by E . means "the whole," "the sum total," 8(17).32, 1 0 ( 1 3 ) . , 33(39)3> and so here, rather than an adverb, "completely." Nor should it be taken as the subject , and leaving involving an unwarranted change of subject from, and then back to, the four roots, unaccounted for. (O'Brien's elaborate metrical argument for as subject, ECC pp. 322-23, is incorrect, for it is not the case that all the following lines except 8 "have a third foot trochaic caesura dividing the line according to sense," and his translation, "until (the time comes when) they grow together as one and the whole is defeated," does not fit the text he prints.) therefore belongs with in the sense of the roots "coming together into the whole." The word before the participle is in doubt and is given variously as , , or ; Diels suggested (PPF p . 118). : would be more appropriate, and for the order cf. L S J s.v. , . the roots are "underneath" in the opposite sense to their prevailing (cf. line 1), because they are not separate and dominant masses but are in such a mixing of discrete particles that none of their characteristics is visibly distinct. Line 7 is a rewording of line 5 as line 1 is of line 6. 8 - 1 2 : quoted separately by Aristotle (Phys. 25ob2o) and repeated from 8 ( 1 7 ) . 9 - 1 3 . The lines are given to illustrate movement and rest in E . , movement when Love makes one from many or Strife many from one, and "rest" in the timesor timebetween. For the many to become one implies a time (of "rest") when they were many, and for the one to
1.16, and in the singular 11.248). The substitution is a deliberate
(and perhaps a pioneer) assertion that time is cyclical, as Aristotle observes later, "to say that things that come into being form a circle is to say that there is a cycle of time" (Phys. 2231330-34, Oxford trans.), in the first line, picked up by The subject of in the last, sets the fragment in the large-scale context of recurring time. here and in 8(17).29 is the four roots. E . uses singular and plural verbs with this subject, and also masculine and neuter adjectives. I n 8(17) the line is obscure and could perhaps refer to a Milesian world picture of warring opposites with regional and seasonal aggressions and compensations, but the context of 16(26) contrasts the time of domination with a time of getting smaller and bigger (i.e., of becoming one from many and many from one), and of complete subjection. T h e roots are subdued when they are together, and conversely, when they prevail they are separate. 2 : the roots have a turn at being dominant and separate, and also a turn at getting smaller and at getting bigger; this is explained in lines 5 - 6 as moving from many to one under Love and moving from one to many under Strife. Exchanging position either way involves "running through each other," and in running through each other the roots become men and other animals. They get smaller as their individual masses dwindle while mingling, and they get bigger as the bits return to their own kind. 3 : "for there are these very things," "these are
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
'85
P H Y S I C S
17(25)-19(27)
divide into many implies a time (of "rest") when there was the one. That Aristotle did not spell out the implications may be a fault, but he is free of the grosser error of deliberate concealment and misinterpretation, see chap. 2 and the discussions cited there. 10: the line sums up 12(8) and 13(9), as well as lines 2-6. The roots appear to undergo both genesis and an early death in their compound forms of men and other animals; this happens as they run through each other, getting "smaller" (going from many to one) and "bigger" (moving from one to many). Lines 11-12 give the contrast to line 10. T h e "exchange of position" results in temporary compounds, but the permanence of the exchange from many to one and from one to many in a circle (or cycle) of time ensures the permanence of the roots. (Long argues that the activity described in line 8 takes an extended period of time but that the one in line 9 is immediate; the activities also of lines 5 and 7 take an extended time whereas that of line 6 is immediate, Pre-Socralics p. 412. But the participles in lines 5, 6, 7, and 9 are all present, and it is perverse to read such an extreme time difference into the similar constructions.) is "unaltered" in a mainly temporal sense, cf. Parmenides fr. 8.26, 38, and Owen CQ. i960, p. 97.
general context. Here the reference is likely to be to the considerable repetition of 8(17) in 16(26), but the fragment may also imply advance notice of a more comprehensive reiterationan outline of the whole cosmology followed by detailed consideration of particular sections (cf. the commentary on 18(24)
a"d
Parmenides' program, fr. 8 . 2 - 4 ) .
18(24)
Joining one chiefpoint to another, so as not to pursue only one path of discourse.
is generally accepted by all but Bollack, who retains Plutarch's
reading, finding a parallel in 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 1 - 2 . The construction in both versions is strained and perhaps should be emended (in a personal communication Professor H . Lloyd-Jones suggested ' v), but the sense is clear, and the context in Plutarch refers to E . avoiding the exclusive pursuit of one argument. The fragment corroborates the suggestion that E.'s method is to give the main points of his argumentthe 8 ( 7 ) ' 5 )and (cf. then to develop in further
(but not exhaustive) detail the sections of especial relevance or interest. It expressly contradicts the claim advanced by Bollack, H lscher, and Solmsen that the Physics is an account of "a single linear development"
17(25)
For what is right is worth repeating.
(A. A. Long's phrase, The PreSocratics
p. 398).
The program that follows summarizes the cosmic stages, starting from the roots in separation, from which the strifeless sphere is derived. There is then the particular account of the entry of Strife, the articulation of the cosmic masses and the related meteorology, followed by a return, in the nature of a digression, to the complementary stage of the retreat of Strife and the resulting monstrous forms. Fragment 53(62) resumes the account with the full-scale zoogony and biology that logically follow the cosmogony given prior to the digression.
The line is given by the scholiast as the source of the proverb , and by Plutarch to justify a second refutation of Epicurus.
6 0 a , Laws 9 5 6 c Repetition of lines in whole or in part 16(26).1, 47(35)7
Except at Laws 754c, (with only), Plato uses the version,

Gorg. 498, Phlb.
in the extant fragments of E . are as follows: 8 ( i 7 > . i - 2 at 16-17, 6 at 12

and at 16(26). 11, 7 - 8 at 1 6 ( 2 6 ) . 5 - 6 , 9 - 1 3 at i 6 ( 2 6 ) . 8 - i 2 , 29 at 113(121).2; 19(27). at 16; 8 8 ( 8 4 ) . 5 a
t
34 at 14(21).13 and 16(26).3; 14(21).10-12 at i 5 ( 2 3 ) . 6 - 8 ; 1 6 ( 2 6 ) 4 at at 21(27).1; 2 2 ( 2 9 ) . 1 - 2 at 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) . 2 - 3 ; 9l(100)-7-8

a t 24~25l0'<
Repetition is so obviously
19(27)
There the shining form of the sun is not shown, nor the shaggy might of earth, nor sea.
a feature of E.'s method that attempts to alter the arrangement of the fragments solely to avoid it are unjustified. Repetitions, formally in the epic tradition, are used as summaries, reminders, and reinforcements, and minor differences are often significant, e.g., / at 8(17).29 and 16(26).1. Most often the repetition is a development or a particular application of what has been said previously in a
The meaning of ( tains , the retention of
is "frighten" or "fear," and Karsten's He also re-
is therefore generally accepted. Bollack, however, argues for with a sense related to . comparing 25(22).7 and 100(110).9, but the reference here
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
'87 107(115)9 implies
P H Y S I C S
20(36)-21(27)
is to the earth as we know it, cf.
was followed by Diels, Kirk-Raven, and Guthrie (HGP vol. 2, p. 178, n. 4 ) , but this attributes carelessness to Simplicius' quotation unnecessarily. The line helps to bridge the 19(27) and 21(27)
w i t h
strength and roughness, and cf. the analogues of hair, 71(82). The roots in separation provide a logical starting point for E.'s account of the cosmic stages. Plutarch's context sets the lines firmly in a description of the four elements completely unmixed under Strife, prior to their being brought into a harmonia by the power of Love. The is comparable to that described by Plato at Tim. 5 3 a - b . Even if Plutarch's quotations are not always accurate, it would be perverse to reject him as a key authority on E . and to refer these lines to an opposite state of affairs than that described by him. (Plutarch is said to have written a ten-book commentary on E . , cf. Hippolytus RH 5.20.6 and the discussion by O'Brien, ECC p. 33, n. 2. For the lines as a supposed reference to elements under Love, cf. the commentary on 21(27) below.) Sun, earth, and sea as we know them are not recognizable when the elemental masses are completely distinct ( in Plutarch's paraphrase) and in their "natural," i.e., logically prior, state. Earth is at the center (cf. Aristotle Cael. 2g5a3o), surrounded by water, air, and fire in concentric layers, each clinging to its own kind and shunning association with any other. Aristotle implies at Metaph. I050b23, g85a25, and Phys. 25ob26 that the separate elements are at rest, but at Cael. 3 0 i a i 5 that they are moving, and this is supported by the participles in the Plutarch context. Perhaps neither rest nor motion in an absolute sense is appropriate, for, according to Plutarch, both start with the increasing influence of Love, cf. 927a. I suggest there is a vibration (comparable to the uninterrupted shaking of the winnower) as the roots continue to try to shun each other but, in the absence of void, cannot do so completely a natural (and mindless) , subsequently resolved into the preferable and in the imposed by Philotes. (Cf. Simplicius in Cael. 5 3 0 . 1 7 - 2 0 : when the elements are separated by Strife and unmixed there is no syntaxis relation of sky to earth.)
the
transition from unmixed roots under Strife to mixed under Love. The verb takes the genitive in the sense of "retire from," "give up possession of" (cf. L S J s.v.
(cf. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . 1 0
I I ) , and
is accusative of end of motion

In Aristotle's truncated
).
version the sense is closer to "whenever everything came together, then Strife's position was at the extremity," and the immediate context is a carping criticism of the god for the comparative poverty of his knowledge resulting from his lack of acquaintance with Strife; fr. 77(109) is quoted to support the criticism. More important, Aristotle points out that Strife is a cause of genesis no less than Love, and Love a cause of destruction
.
21(27)
There the swift fast ness. limbs of the sun are not distinguished . . . in this way it is held stillin the close covering of harmony, a rounded sphere, rejoicing in encircling
Simplicius quotes from Eudemus in support of a time of rest between the initiation of movement and control by Love, and that by Strife; in the complete of Love all things come together. For E . 'this means that the minute particles of roots are so mingled that it is impossible to pick out any one and distinguish it from another. (On the mixing of the elements in the sphere, and Aristotle's commentary, see chap. 2. J . Longrigg's article, CR 1967, pp. 1-4, is a reworking of the Arundel thesis,
pp. 146-49.) I n 1 9 ( 2 7 ) . the eidos of the sun is not apparent because all
the particles of fire have come together, and here the particles cannot be discerned (except perhaps by Lynceus, cf. Aristotle GC 328a 16) because they are closely mingled with other minute parts of earth, air, and
water; cf. also the commentary on 16(26).2. (
20(36)
Strife was retreating from them to the extremity as they were coming together.
is probably spatial as in 69(76).3 and almost certainly 113(121).2 and 1 1 6 ( 1 2 2 ) . I . ) Partial repetition in the two lines does not mean that thev are to be conflated (cf. on 17(25) above), especially when they are referred to opposite states of affairs. 2 : surely not "Verliess" ( D K ) , "tenebres" (Bollack), or
Since the complete line is given in Stobaeus immediately after 7 ( 6 ) , refers to the four roots. Schneidewin was the first to suggest inserting the line in 47(35) in place of line 7 (which is repeated at line 16), and he
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
P H Y S I C S
22(29/28)
"obscurity" (Guthrie) for the rejoicing, intelligent god. The parallel is Parmenides 8.29-31. ., like Parmenides, has a metaphor of constraint for the uniform stability and changelessness which in this case are imposed by harmonia (another name for Philia/Aphrodite, and less personalized as a cohesive principle, 4 8 ( 9 6 ) 4 ) . 3 :
The fragment is here given as a conflation of Diels's 29 and 28. Hippolytus quotes the first two lines, and his version of what follows is an unmetrical summary, after a at previous warning that the quotation was not exact, ( Simplicius in Phys.
according to the scholiast on Aratus a masculine form of

for For the
1124.1 is unhelpful, is not given in F ; without preceding looks
coined by E . on the analogy of "
it there are not the additional complications of a tense change and a neuter form. Moreover,
the end of the sentence at in Phys.
seemingly redundant
cf. Parmenides 8.43 Simplicius has
but . may be deliberately emphasizing the shape, which was not the main feature of Parmenides' simile, :
here and
contradictory; the clause in Simplicius should perhaps be transposed to

1124.4.)
defended by O'Brien ECC 284, with inadequate parallels. Bollack reads

at 2 2 ( 2 9 / 2 8 ) 4 , but the change
Line 4 repeats 21 (27).3, and line 2, with one small change, is applied to the denial of human form to the of 97(134). The absence of Strife, which features here as a state of the cosmos under Love, is also applicable to the individual wise man, as at g8(27a), and M . Antoninus uses line 4 as a paradigm for the philosophic state. Furthermore, Hippolytus quotes 107(115) after this fragment, relating the entry of Strife into the sphere, and the consequent disruption, to the embodiment of the daimons in a variety of mortal forms. Intelligence and the absence of stasis result from the physical structure of component parts achieving homogeneous mingling through the activity of Love. Such is the character of the sphere here described; and the description connects with that of the wise man and shows how the daimon of the Katharmoi understood. : for the similarity of parts in animals and plants, cf. hair "shoot up," cf. Pindar Nem. 8 4 0 of is to be
in the line is weak and : ) EGP whether
unsuitable for the abstract noun or "solitude" (from p. 141, Burnet
For the joy of the god cf. Gethosune as another name for Philia, 8(17).24. means "rest" (from ) has been extensively discussed; cf. Jaeger TEGP
p. 210, Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 169, n. 3, O'Brien ECC pp. 2 2 vol. 3, p. 137, K a h n Gnomon 1969, p. 441. The strongly supports the sense "stillness" the
24, Bollack Empedocle
available evidence, however, Homeric , -
(Guthrie's translation), "absence of change or movement"cf. Eudemus, the main authority for the line, understood the word as
Xenophanes fr. 26 and Parmenides fr. 8 . 2 9 - 3 1 ; -
(Tyrtaeus 1.54, with Diehl's references, is arguable support.) "Re-
joicing in solitude" is not a Greek characteristic, and Plato has to defend the god's solitude as being no impediment to his happiness, Tim. 34b, but repose and freedom from disturbances feature as a desirable state of affairs in the mainstream of Greek thought from Homer (Od. 6.42-46) onward, would still have an aural association with , The combination, attributed however, and the unusual word was probably deliberately chosen for its ambiguity. to Heraclitus and Parmenides, of "a philosopher's interest in literal, original and paradigmatic meaning, with something of the poet's sensitivity to the psychological suggestiveness and acoustic associations of words" could be claimed for E . , cf. Mourelatos
The Pre-Socratics p. 347.
and leaves at 71(28). : deliberate (Hesiod Theog.
a tree, but also "move about rapidly," and the ambiguity is probably 150). The absence of arms, legs, and genera of 53(62), the prehuman tive organs also characterizes the
forms that arise at the beginning of the transition from Love's control to Strife's control. The denial of human form in this fragment may well be a development of Xenophanes fr. 23.2 (as Plato laterthe god has no need of hands for grasping or for self-defense, nor of feet for the movement appropriate to him, Tim. 3 3 d ) , but E . is involved in a more general and radical rethinking of what it means to be a god, elaborating a theory of cosmic divinity that was already adumbrated in Presocratic thinking (see chap. 3 ) .
22(29/28)
For two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet, no swift knees, without no organs of reproduction, but he is equal to himself in every direction, stillness.
():
() is supplied by P. Maas, and and
the
phrase is an obvious echo of
any beginning or end, a rounded sphere, rejoicing in encircling
at Parmenides fr. 8.49 and 57. . has copied Parmenides in the
concepts of uniqueness, uniformity, balance, and stability but has used
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
P H Y S I C S
23(30)-24(31)
them for a stage in a cosmic alternation; derived from and giving way to plurality and change. There is also a material content, and so Parmenides' simile of a sphere is now applied literally, fills out the physical description, for the sphere, even more than the circle, has no spatial starting or stopping point. There is also the implication that there are no internal frontiers dividing one element off from another, as is the case in the cosmos under Strife.
preposition is acceptable, as at 26(20).5, cf. P. Maas, Greek Metre p. 79. , like in the following fragment, refers to the frame or structure of the sphere, consisting, before the breakup, of the four roots perfectly harmonized. Strife is now "in" the frame in the sense that it is and will be active there. T h e reverse procedure, of retreat from the
, is given in 4 7 ( 3 5 ) . ! 1.
2 :
the language is violent, and the image is perhaps that
of a military attack. Strife, from the circumference of the sphere (cf. 2 0 ( 3 6 ) . ) , makes for the center, consolidates its position, and then
F R A G M E N T S T H E 23-46 O N E T O M A N Y I N T H E C O S M O S :
makes forays outward over more and more territory; the victorious outcome. 3 :
sums up
P R E S E N T
W O R L D
the time given to Love to dominate comes to an end
23(30)
But when great strife had grown in the frame by a broad oath and leapt upward to its honors as the time was being completed, a time of exchange for them, which has been defined
and is replaced by a time given to Strife. Bollack takes with it and translates "en lieu d'une large enceinte." A period of time cannot, however, be recompensed by a but only by a similar period, as letters (Hdt. 6.4) or invitations to dinner (Pindar Ol. 1.3g) are exchanged, or soldiers replaced (II. 1 3 ^ 3 ) , or keys fitted to doors (Parmenides fr. 1.14). That the predominance of Love must be recompensed by the predominance of its opposite is an application of the idea of cosmic justice and retribution worked out in time found in Anaximander's fragment, and of metra governed by logos in Heraclitus. The time has been "marked out," ,
This important fragment refers in strong poetical terms to the inevitable end of the dominion of Love and, with the increase of Strife, the beginning of movement as the one breaks into many. I n Aristotle's commentary on the lines (Metaph. iooobg -20) Love and Strife are both viewed as generative and destructiveStrife destroys the one but brings many into existence, and Love generates the one but destroys everything else. (But E . is praised for his consistency in keeping the elements permanent.) E . , however, gives no reason for the change apart from ananke, which itself requires explanation. Simplicius (in Phys. 1184) reiterates Aristotle's complaint, and in this context gives interesting parallels. That "this is the way things are and must be" is E.'s explanation for the cyclic time of 8 ( i 7 ) . 2 g , the beginning of movement in the sphere at 24(31), and the oracle of ananke, strengthened by broad oaths, which gives the time for the separation of the daimon from the gods. Asclepius summarizes the first line as (cf. Simplicius' setting of the paraphrases the second, and
by an oath, as a wall or trench is defined (cf. L S J s.v.

726 and Herodotus 1.146, 6.62).
I I I . 2 and esp. Hesiod Theog.
There is no need to wonder who swears the broad oath. Its function is to add solemnity and certainty to the necessary exchange of times of power for the cosmic forces, in somewhat the same way as Parmenides speaks of the necessity of invariance in terms of the bonds of Ananke, and as Plato brings in
(Pol. 272d6-e7).
for the reversal of the cycle in the myth
24(31)
For one by one all the parts of god began to tremble.
lines -
),
after quoting the third explains that the oath is called broad assumption of power by Strife as a recurring event.
It is quite clear that we have a reference to the
Strife's attack on the sphere destroys both its unity and its rest. Simplicius quotes the line after 21(27)
w
'
t b a
repeated :
at the commencement
again of Strife's dominion, then again there is movement in the sphere : cf. 5(59 ), rather than Aristotle's pedestrian version, "had grown," "had increased in size" (cf. II. ': "in turn," "one after the other," as at II. 15.137 and 22.240; for cf. //. 8.443 f Olympus shaking under the feet of Zeus. the long iota of the and the parts become articulated. but Aristotle's
2.661), and not (accepted by Bollack and translated "l'emporta"). is most obviously attributive, evi :
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
192
93
P H Y S I C S
25(22)
: the "limbs" are not personal, for this is denied
still be combined, and Love makes them similar to each other so that they want to come together; others, however, are incapable of such unions, and since they cannot come together as wholes, nor can their separate parts join with "their own dear kind" (cf. fr. 100(110).9), they have a wretched existence as a result of Strife's activity. The reference here is to thneta in general, with the particular application to the different forms of life in the following fragment.
2 - : in apposition to the subject -
at 22(2g) and 97(134), nor are they bits of elements that can be distinguished, for no section of the mixture can be picked out as having discernible characteristics (cf. 21 and 1 9 ( 2 7 ] ) ; they are the totality of spatial parts, like at 2 3 ( 3 0 ) . ! and 4 7 ( 3 5 ) is important as the only identification in the fragments of the sphere with god, though Ammonius
gives the reference of at 97(134).3 as -
That . ascribes divinity to the sum total of the four roots in a state of perfect mixture under Love is obviously relevant to an understanding of the nature of the daimon, cf. the commentary on 107(115). The discernible masses of the four roots are friendly with the parts of themselves ( 25(22)
For all thesesun and earth and sky and seaare one with the parts of themselves and feel mutual afthat have been separatedfrom fection. them and born in mortal things. In the same way, those
as the antecedent to )
that make up the conand

53(6 2 )6-
stituent portions of mortal things, for they have the same characteristics and are of the same family. With
( 10). g, and of fire
here cf.
,
3 : the pronoun, despite the Doric form, is probably not to be emended (e.g., to as by Stein) but to be taken generally"(the parts) which have strayed, as far as they (the subjects in line 2) are concerned, and have been cut off and born in mortal things . . . " 4 ' : one or more lines which would make the comparison more specific may have been lost between 3 and 4, but the point is that,
that are more ready to combine are made similar by Aphrodite
But such as are most different from each other in birth and mixture and in
the molding of their forms are most hostile, quite inexperienced in union, and grieving deeply at their generation in strife, in that they were born in wrath.
There is little help for the interpretation of this fragment from the two sources, for although Simplicius connects the lines with the general behavior of the roots in the cosmic changes of 16(26).1-2, 11-12, his Neoplatonism contrasts intelligible and perceptible worlds, and Theophrastus takes lines 6 - 7 out of context as an illustration of pain resulting from the interaction of opposites. O'Brien discusses the fragment at confusing and confused length (ECC pp. 3 0 5 - 1 2 ) , Bollack tries diagrams (vol. 1, pp. 181-83),
a n
as with the four roots, the cosmic behavior of Love and Strife is the same as that experienced now. refers back to be preferable to ) and "as many (separated parts) as are better adapted for mixing ( would are made like by Aphrodite (cf. 6 0 ( 7 1 ) 4 ) and are desired by one another." There are two processes in this outline: (1) Aphrodite brings separate parts of roots into mixtures where suitable proportions are available (cf. 4 8 ( 9 6 ) 4 ) , and (2) the mixtures combine as the result of the same form of attraction that brings about sexual union. The details of "molding," "gluing," and "nailing" of the parts into
ar)
d M . C . Stokes concludes that an analysis of fr. 22 supports
his supposition that "in talking about unity and plurality E . did not know what he was talking about" (One and Many in Presocratic Philosophy p. 172). But the basic argument in this and the following fragment is clear. E . is anxious to show (1) that earth, air, fire, and water have the same character in the parts of themselves that make up mortal things as in their discernible world masses, and (2) that the activity of Love and Strife, as we know them, is similar to, and a prime illustration of, their cosmic functions. Lines 1-3 make the first point: as Strife's control increases, the four roots come together as the sun, earth, sea, and sky we perceive, but the process is not complete; parts of the four roots are still mixed with each other as thneta, and over these Love and Strife are both active. Lines 4 - 5 give the working of Love, and 6 - 9 of Strife. Some individual mixtures can
wholes are given later, cf. frs. 6 0 - 8 7 , especially 60(71), 62(73),

6 ' ' : for the Simplicius line '
d 86(87).
-
my conjecture
is not given by Theophrastus, who starts his direct quotation Diels's addition (from Panzerbieter) of (' ) is harsh
unconnected with - is metrically
with -
and leaves
unpleasing, despite O'Brien's defense of it, FCC p. 310. A contrast is obviously needed between what can be mixed and is brought together by Love, and what cannot and is kept apart in enmity by Strife. 7 : Theophrastus refers the line to an explanation of pain by the interaction of opposites (whereas pleasure is explained
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
94
95
P H Y S I C S
26(20)
by an interaction of likes); this would seem to involve the theory of pores, since there can be no mixing where the pores do not fit (cf. the commentary on 77(109]). But even if he has taken lines 6 - 7 out of context there is still support for their reference, namely collections of parts of different roots that cannot come easily, if at all, into further combinations. They are incompatible because of the way they are (), portion in their composition (), the lack of proand their shape. Like mixtures
Love and move apart under Strife, and their mixing and separating in the seeming birth and death of thneta. We then have a more detailed account of the many in separation, their coming into one in the sphere, and the breakup of the sphere into many, with the subsequent emergence of the visible masses of sun, earth, sky, and sea. This large-scale uniting and separating can be illustrated by what is familiar among men, plants, fish, animals, and birds. E . continues with some meteorological details and then in 47(35) picks up the question of living things in general; in the many-to-one stage limbs and monsters arise initially, and in 53(62) we have the origins of man in the present movement of one to many. I n this context what is familiar and conspicuous among living organisms, and an illustration of uniting and separating on a larger scale, is of and subsequently disintegrating. Fragment 26(20) course birth and growth, and death, or as E . prefers to put it, parts coming
are brought together by Love, unlike ones stay separate; detailed references to what can and cannot mix come later. As well as the implications for sensation and knowledge, lines 6 - 8 provide a framework of medical relevance for the structure of living things, cf. Reg. 1.6.29
, '
9 : suggests
is impossible as it stands. Karsten, after Scaliger, from , in the Simplicius context.
together into a
is a fuller explanation (as Love and Strife are now seen to be involved), in more poetical terms, of 12(8), where it was said that there is no birth
or death for thneta, -
The sense would be passive"strife-generated"and preferable to the Panzerbieter-Diels which brings in a new notion, unknown to Simplicius' paraphrase. My suggestion explanation for the unusual .
Katharmoi, cf. 112(118), 114(124), and 123(145).
to resolve the corruption at the end of the line would give E.'s own The grief and anger at being generated in a world of increasing strife are personalized in the
' so Diels for . The reference would be to a more general statement of the activity of Love and Strifepossibly that given in the previous fragmentwhich is illustrated by something "outstanding" or "well known" in the body. 3 : what is well known is that the limbs which the body had and now holds as its portion (for the perfect cf. g 3 ( i o 2 ) . i ,
26(20)
This is well known in the mass of mortal limbs: at one time, in the maturity of love; a vigorous life, all the limbs that are the body's portion come into one under at another time again, torn asunder by evil strifes, shore of life. So it is too for plants, and for fish that live in the water, gulls.
107(115).5) are at one time coordinated and vigorous in the prime of life (which E . explains as due to Love) but at another lose their strength, wither, and decay.
4 5 : a variant of , for the spe-
they wander, each apart, on the and for
cific manifestations of strife among men in war and disease.

coco: cf. I I . 1.437, 8.501. The seashore is the border
wild animals who have their lairs in the hills, and for the wing-sped
line between land and sea, and the shore of life would be a border line The fragment is given only by Simplicius to show how Love and Strife prevail in turn among men and other living organisms. The lines have been variously interpreted as referring, for example, to sexual intercourse (Kranz), health and sickness (Bignone), life in the womb (Panzerbieter), the "fantastic situation" of 50 (57). 1-3 (Guthrie), and a hypothetical "third stage of increasing Strife" (O'Brien). But, as Stokes observes (One and Many p. 165), E . is using something conspicuous among men as an illustration of what is less obvious. So far in the poem E . has given an outline of the nature of the roots, the way in which they all unite under too, that between life and death, where one hovers when sick, or old, or wounded. The violence implicit in (cf. ) repeats that of the previous line, and there may be a link with . . perhaps wishes to cover both the loss of limbs in battle and the wasting of the body in illness as physical consequences of Strife's disruption, cf.
77m. 84c
related to Strife and the joyless land in 113(121), and also Plato
(quoted by Big-
none, p. 410). The separate limbs of 50(57) are not relevant here in the illustration of the less by the more obvious. Too much stress need not be
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
I96
97
P H Y S I C S
27(38)-29(53)
laid on in line 5 in a passage already rich in metaphor (cf. Stokes One and Many p. 166 and also Parmenides fr. 16.1); the word implies isolation and insecurity as well as physical movement. 6 - 7 : plants (more literally "bushes"), fish, animals, and birds complete the list of the forms of life affected, like men, by Love and Strife, and like them, strong and flourishing at one time, withering, disintegrating, and dying at another. The lines connect with the Katharmoi (1) when E . gives a sense in which he has experienced life as a thamnos, bird, and fish in 1 0 8 ( 1 1 7 ) , and (2) in the exhortation to refrain from violating plant and animal life (frs. 1 2 4 - 2 9 ) , which would promote Strife's disintegration of wholes. T h e recall of this list at 13(g) is support for line 5 here referring
to the of the roots ( ' , 1 3 ( 1 9 ) 4 ) at the time
tary on 31 ( 3 7 ) , 8 3 ( 9 8 ) , and the list of terms for the roots in chap. 2. The terms are used here in a cosmogonical context for the two obvious divisions of airthe mist close to the earth's surface, and the bright sky above, seen as the encircling , containing and confining the world within itself
(cf. 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 2 for as air; also Hdt. 1.131)-
of so-called death. 7 : the species of bird is probably not significant (e.g., as moving between sky and sea, so Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 1 0 7 ) ; the gull, a "headfirst diver" (if that is the sense from ) is the most obvious form of bird life in a harbor town.
The air has been hardened or "frozen" by the fire that is now running beneath it, an idea probably going back to Anaximenes, cf. Aetius 2.11.12, 14.3, and the doxography at D K 31 A 5 1 . There is no reason to suppose, as does O'Brien, ECC pp. 2 9 1 - 9 2 , that E . is so confused as to use aither for a mixture of two elements. Although Titan may later have been related to the sun (but I argued that "Titania astra," Vergil Aen. 6.725, is probably the sun and stars, PVS 1964, pp. 2 7 - 2 8 ) , here the connotations for air are the vast size and strength of an Atlas, needed to hold fast the cosmos.
28(51)
swiftly upward
27(38)
Come now, I shall tell you from and Titan what sources, in the beginning, and swelling fast. the sun and all sea, moist air, those others which we now see became distinctearth sky, whose circle binds all things
Eustathius says that the words in E . refer to fire. There is also the reference to fire in Et. . 31 id wtih the spelling , and the definition is
oi , I n Homer, Od. 1.320,
Clement quotes the lines with approval for showing aither as a containing and binding principle. I n the context of E.'s poem the fragment obviously marks a transition to a new section. After the identification of the visible elemental masses with the four roots in the previous two fragments, frs. 2 7-46 give details of how these masses came to have their present form and position in the cosmogony brought about by Strife's activity. Then, with 4 7 ( 3 5 ) , E . breaks off and returns to the many-to-one stage for the beginning of his account of thneta. : Clement's text is defective, and is probably out of position, for the sun cannot be the source of the other elements that are equal to it. Sturz and Karsten suggest a lacuna after the first line where the other three roots would have been listed, but this is unduly repetitive; and Diels's as a substantive is an unsatisfactory guess. Hence my conjecture, with the addition of something like ( ). 4 : and are both used for air, cf. the commen-
in ' is the hole in the roof to which the smoke from the fire ascends, cf. F . H . Witton AJP 1958, pp. 4 1 4 - 1 5 . I f the reference is to fire in E . , it would apply to the first movements of fire under Strife, when the parts of the roots begin to separate out and to move away from the center. Some air and fire were separated first, then the sea was sweated out from the earth, and the misty layer of air settled around the earth, cf. Aetius 2.6.3, Simplicius in Cael. 5 2 8 . 2 1 - 2 4 , [Plut.]
Strom. 10, Philo prov. 2.60.
29(53)
for it chanced to be running in this way then, but often in other ways
The line is quoted twice by Aristotle and is also in the commentators. The subject is air, called by Aristotle with reference to E . both and , and the context is the , when Strife begins to separate
the roots, , ' , GC 3 3 4 a l -
Aristotle's complaint is that air does not act systematically. Strife is directly responsible for the initial separating, but then seems to take over.
199
P H Y S I C S
30(54)-33(39)
At one time air goes upward, at another fire, and air moves downward (as in the next fragment) and, presumably from , in other directions too. Despite his criticism, Aristotle provides support for the present continuation of the separation, indicated in 31(37) and 32(52). O n the disorder following the initial separating, cf. Tzetzes ex. II. 42.17 ( D K 31
A 6 6 ) : ,
Aphrodite, and in the case of man a disciplined mental effort is needed, cf. 100(110). I9 Lucretius takes up the wording of the fragment in 2.1114-15. The line and its context is one of many counterexamples to O'Brien's explanation that aither for E . is always a mixture of fire and
air, ECC pp. 2 9 1 - 9 2 .
32(52)
And many fires burn beneath the surface of the earth.
30(54)
(Air) with deep roots sank down over the earth.
Like 29(53),
t b e
fragment shows that the separation of the elements into
four masses is not yet complete. All the fire has not yet gone "upward," Aristotle gives the fragment in the same context as the previous one. Sometimes air moves up, but at times fire does, cf. 53(62).6, and air moves down and covers the surface of the earth as mist, ( with the accusative is "on," "over," "throughout," rather than "down into," cf. L S J s.v. .1. 2.) According to Aristotle, E . says that the cosmos
is as , but Aristotle finds
but some still remains within the earth. Earlier, after the separation of the sea, fire in the earth warmed some of the remaining water to produce hot springs; it hardened parts of earth into rock and, as some of it moved up, produced trees, and then men and women, cf. [Arist.] probl. 937a 11,
Plutarch de prim. frig. 953, Seneca QNat 3.24.1, Aetius 5.26.4, and the
commentary on 53(62).1-2. The evidence for fire in the earth was at hand in the volcanic areas of Sicily and southern Italy, with Etna as a prime example.
no precise explanation for the cause of motion. It would seem that . ( 1) gave a general account of the beginning of movement brought about by Strife, as at 23(30) and 24(31), and then, (2) in explaining the formation of the visible masses, showed that the general tendency of the roots was to move to their own kind, cf. the next fragment; Aristotle's complaint is that a logical connection between (1) and (2) is required. T h e present state of affairs, until the movement of the roots is completed, Aristotle can ascribe only to chance. T h e vocabulary of the fragment recalls Hesiod
Erga 19; cf. the commentary on 3 3 ( 3 9 ) .
33(39)
If the depths of earth, and extensive air, are without limit, as has come foolishly from the tongue of the mouths of many who have seen but a little of the whole
The fragment contains a criticism of the simplistic but understandable view that the sky stretches upward and the earth downward indefinitely,
cf. ' I L 7 4 4 6 , Od. 1.98, Hesiod Theog. 187, and, on the
31(37)
Earth increases its own bulk, and air increases air.
depths of Tartarus Theog. 8 0 7 ; as in 1(2).1-6, however, E . has little sympathy with the limited scope of popular beliefs. Clement quotes the last two lines in a criticism of general ignorance about the nature of divinity, but Aristotle and MXG refer the three lines specifically to Xenophanes, and Aristotle complains of Xenophanes' laziness in positing a bottomless earth to save himself from having to think of a reason for its staying still. Simplicius did not know of a relevant passage from Xenophanes, but from Achilles Isag. 4.34.11 we have fr. 28, where it is said that the earth has an upper limit at our feet . ' For . the amount of earth, as of fire, air, and water, is limited;
The continuing collection of parts of fire, earth, air (and presumably water) into distinctive masses as described by E . is, for Aristotle, not a true (which involves a complete merging) but a prosthesis of the parts. The increase of the bulk of earth is due to the natural tendency of the roots, i.e., the way they act of their own accord, when not kept together by Aphrodite riveting, gluing, or nailing them. A n ordered arrangement of parts is the result, in nature, of constraint applied to the material by
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
200
201
P H Y S I C S
34(40)-36(44)
from his explanation of eclipses, and of the earth being held still by the rotation of the sky, it is clear that he envisaged it as spherical, cf. 4 1 ( 4 2 ) ,
4 2 ( 4 8 ) , Aristotle Cael. 2 9 5 3 1 7 , 3 0 0 8 3 , at Aetius 2.20.13, and
36(44)
he shines back to Olympus with fearless face
the explanation of tropic circles, 2.23.3. : 2 : is a form of unique to E .
is more likely to have been displaced by
than the other way around.
" is used in the sense of the extreme limit of the sky (as in Parmenides fr. 11), which E . sees in the Katharmoi as the home of the gods. Beneath it are air and fire. Plutarch quotes this line in the context of a seemingly absurd explanation of the sun as an anaklasis of the light of the sky. The surface of the sun facing the sky draws to itself parts of the fire in it, on the principle (1) of parts of the same element being primitively
34(40)
sharp-arrowed sun and kindly moon
aware of each other and coming together (cf. on 100(110).9), and (2) of a convex surface attracting light. Now the shape of the moon for E . , according to Plutarch, is , "lentiform" (Qtt. Rom. 2 8 8 b , D K 31
and , as a
The line is quoted by Plutarch as a pleasing distinction made by E . between the sun and the moon. After the separating of the roots into distinguishable masses, E . , in the Presocratic tradition, gives an account of
the sun and the moon, in 2 1 ( 2 7 ) is some support for
A 6 0 ) , and the comparison with a common object is typical of E . Aristotle,

Cael. 2 8 7 3 2 0 , uses , along with
standard shape, and the Latin word directly relates the lentil seed to the form of a lens, i.e., disc-shaped from the front view but an elongated double convex from the side (cf. Enc. Brit. 13th ed., Gray's Manual of Botany 1970, and OED s.v. lentil). No notice is extant on the shape of the sun for E . , but I suspect it was lentiform too, larger than the moon (cf. 3 7 ( 4 7 ] ) , with a diameter equal to that of the earth (Aet. 2.21.2). From E.'s known interest in reflections and the movement of light (cf. Arist. De An. 4 i 8 b Q 0 , Sens. 446326) and the knowledge of convex refraction at the time (cf. Theophrastus Ign. 73), this fragment, taken with 35(41) and 4 3 ( 4 9 ) , can perhaps be interpreted on the following lines. The lentiform sun moves round the spherical earth, and as it does so it attracts the fire from the ouranos into its upper convex surface, and then, through the lower surface, it transmits heat and light to the earth below. At night, when the sun travels under the earth, the bulk of the earth itself blocks off the light
but the contrast with the moon is not so obvious,
is
more appropriate and means "sharp-arrowed" rather than "sharpshooting," cf. "sharp-pointed" for the hedgehog, 7 2 ( 8 3 ) . 2 . The form , if the emendation is correct, is found only in E . ; it occurs again (but ' at II. in 8 4 ( 8 5 ) of for, probably, the fire in the eye. There the first two syllables are short, as one would expect from 1.583). Rather than a change of quantity here I suspect a half-foot lacuna before ', or the two phrases may come from different lines. The meaning of ), would seem to be both "kindly" and "pleasant" (cf. Plutarch's in contrast, in a Mediterranean climate, to the sun's harshness.
35(41)
but (the sun), after being collected together, moves round the great sky
from our part of the earth's surface. There is, however, a different account, found only in Aetius and the
Stromateis (Aet. 2.20.13,
E u s
- 8 . [ D K 3 1 A s 6 a n d 3 0 ] ) , but adopted
For Macrobius uncompounded sun.
is, exceptionally, equivalent to
and elaborated in modern commentators (cf., for example, the extraordinary diagrams in Bollack, vol. 1, pp. 188-89, vol. 3, pp. 259, 270, 2 9 1 , 299). It is a strange theory of two rotating suns, the one being the apparent sun, the other a semicosmos filled with fire, corresponding to a semicosmos of air mixed with a little fire (which was supposed to explain night). Thankfully this absurdity can be discarded: (1) it conflicts with the fragments, for (a) fr. 3 6 ( 4 4 ) does not fit it on any acceptable sense of Olympus, (b) fr. 4 2 ( 4 8 ) offers a reasonable and quite different explana-
and the subject is the sun, explained as a collection of parts of fire. T h e is used for people, especially soldiers, assembling, and here metaphorically for the parts of fire coming together to form the One would expect a complementary description of the moon to D . L .
n t b e
follow with - For E.'s sun as fire, cf. 8.77, and Aetius 2.6.3. O is not fire, cf. the next fragment.
Stromateis notice that the physis of the sun
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
2 02
203
P H Y S I C S
37(47)-41(42)
tion of night, and (c) all the sun fragments refer quite clearly to the sun we know; (2) there is no trace of such a theory elsewhereif it were genuine one would have expected some comment from Aristotle, the commentators, or Plutarch; (3) it is at variance with the main lines of Presocratic cosmology and the Greek tradition generally (and indeed what could E . have said that could be summarized in such anachronistic language as Aet. 2 . 2 0 . 1 3 ? ) ; (4) it is inherently absurd and contradicted by the simplest observation; and (5) confusions have often crept into the doxography by the time of Aetius and the Stromateis. E . may have spoken of something like "half of the sun, which is like a lentil in shape, collecting fire," which was incorrectly summarized as a hemisphere of fire and then taken as a hemisphere of the cosmos filled with fire.
is Parmenides' adaptation of the Homeric phrase, cf. II. 5.214, Od. 18.219, Parmenides fr. 14. The Homeric sense is "a man from somewhere else," and Parmenides, "a light from somewhere else." There can be no doubt that Parmenides, and E . after him, assumed that the moon took its light from the sun. The recognition of this, and that the moon moves round the earth, are two basic advances in selenology.
40(46)
as the course of the chariot turns round and back, round the summit she
37(47)
she contemplates the bright circle of her lordfacing her.
The line is quoted for the form , compounded in - This means "bright," "brilliant," for the sun at Parmenides fr. 10, and so it does here, rather than "pure," "holy," although the aural ambiguity is probably deliberate, cf. 21(27). No subject is given for this line, but the moon is obviously appropriate, cf. Parmenides again, fr. 15.
The text of this fragment is corrupt, but from Plutarch's context E . is comparing the moon to a chariot in the closeness of its rotation round the earth. With the reading (which scans oddly), the simile refers to the nave of the chariot wheel scraping the post on the turn, but perhaps Plutarch's text can be kept. The sense then is that the course of the moon round the earth is as close as that of the chariot round the post. The chariot traces a semicircle as it turns, whereas the moon traces a full circle round the earth. The point is the closeness to the "top" of the earth's surface ( ) on the turn, not an elliptical-shaped course. From the_context it looks as if E . related the phases of the moon, as well as lunar eclipses, to the extent to which the moon is overshadowed by the earth, but no further details are available. The distance of the moon from the earth is given as half that of the moon from the sun, Aetius 2.31.1.
38(43)
as the ray, after striking the broad circle of the moon
41(42) The moon shines because it reflects the sun's light. The discovery is attributed to Thales at Aetius 2.28.5 a n d is said to have been adopted by Pythagoras, Parmenides, E . , and Anaxagoras. Plato names Anaxagoras in this context (Cra. 409b), and Plutarch both Anaxagoras and E.,fac. lun. 929b and d, and cf. the next fragment. When the moon is struck on its convex surface by the sun's rays it collects the light, but since it is and made of compressed air it does not refract it; thus we see only a pale reflection of the sun, without its heat and brightness, cf. Plutarch's context here, and also Aetius 2.25.15.
She dispersed his rays to earth from the upper side, and cast on the earth a shadow equal to the breadth of the silvery moon.
39(45)
a circle of borrowed light moves swiftly round the earth
Again the text is corrupt, does not scan in the line, and the sense is strange. Diels's keeps the meter, but "uncover" (cf. 91 (100). 14) is the opposite to what is required; is preferable, "from the upper side," cf. Od. 10.353; a n b acavX probably contains a reference not to the earth, which comes in the second part of the line, but to the moon or skythe substitution of something like would give the required sense. In an eclipse of the sun the moon is directly between the sun and the earth. This would mean, according to E . , that the upper convexity of the mcon dispersed the sun's rays in the sky, and the dark undersurface cast a shadow on the
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
204
205
P H Y S I C S
42(48)-47(35)
earth equal to the moon's own breadth. The sun and the earth have the same diameter (Aet. 2.21.2), but the moon is smaller than both, and so it darkens only part of the earth. There is no need to suppose that E . influenced, or was influenced by, Anaxagoras in the explanation of eclipses. Their accounts are not the same (for Anaxagoras still seems to find a use for Anaximenes' "dark objects") and were probably reached independently, : Athena's epithet for the brightness of her eyes, and so here of the bright-faced or silvery moon (cf. L S J s.v. ) ; at 934d, when discussing the changing colors of the moon, Plutarch quotes E.'s for bluish gray.
is not usually associated with Iris, and as Zeus' messenger, and the bridge between Olympus and earth, she comes with rain not from the sea but from a bright sky. Here there may be a conflation with the more sophisticated view of moisture being drawn up from the sea, blown onto land, and then descending as rain, with the rainbow then linking the three areas of sea, air, and earth.
45(56)
salt was crystallized under pressure from the rays of the sun.
42(48)
and earth causes night by coming under the rays.
E.'s understanding of the cause of night is authenticated by this line and is therefore preferable to the "hemisphere of air" theory in the doxographical transmission from Aetius, cf. the commentary on 36(44). As the sun goes under the earth, the imposition of the earth's bulk prevents its light from reaching our surface. It is tempting to assume that E . realized that this meant it was daytime then for the antipodes. I n his astronomical observations E . may have used a measuring device such as the one described by Plutarch here.
The line is quoted as an example of lengthening in thesis (i.e., for ). With the aorist it may come in the context of the early formation of the world, when salt was crystallized by the sun in much the same way as parts of earth were hardened into rock by the fire in it, cf. the commentary on 32(52) and 46(55). Kypris makes use of the hardening properties of fire, 62(73).
46(55)
sea, sweat of earth
The kind of analogy in 71(82) is here used on a larger scale. Men perspire as the result of intense activity in the sun; in the same way, the salt water commenced to exude from the earth as it was put under pressure by the initial cosmic rotation and also heated by the sun, cf. Aetius 2.6.3, 3 16.3, and Lucretius 5.488. Aristotle dismisses this as poetic metaphor and an inadequate explanation for the saltness of the sea. Fresh water in the sea that provides nourishment for fish (cf. Aelian NA 9.64) may be explained b y 45(56) ' continued action by the sun crystallizes out some of the salt, leaving that part of the water salt free.
43(49)
of desolate, blind-eyed night
When the sun is beneath the earth the air on our surface is dark. The night is because it is without the eye of the sun (cf. the Cyclops, Od. 9.516), and because of the sense of vastness and solitude.
44(50)
and Iris brings wind or heavy rain from the sea.
F R A G M E N T S L I F E : L I M B S
47-52 A N D
M A N Y
T O
O N E
A N D
I N D I V I D U A L
M O N S T E R S
Tzetzes is not certain about the attribution of the verse to E . , because, as he goes on to say, he has only a summary and not the text. The line does not appear in the early editors, nor now in Bollack. The succession of dactyls is unpleasing and the meaning is not immediately clear. Wind
47(35)
But I shall turn back to the path of song I traced before, leading off from one argument this argument: when strife had reached the lowest depth of the whirl and
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
26
207
P H Y S I C S
47(35)
love comes into the center of the eddy, in her then all these things unite to be one only; not immediately, which strife as the furthest of the frame. still but coming together from different directions at will. alternating with And, those as they were being mixed, countless types of mortal things poured forth, restrained from above, stayed unmixed, which were combining, for it had not yet perfectly And, in proportion as it continually but many,
tion started at the separation of the four masses, cf. Aristotle Cael. 2 9 5 a ! 7, Simplicius in Cael. 528.20, Aetius 2.6.3. Strife has reached the "undermost depth" of the whirl in the sense that it has control of the whole rotation to the center. Earth, air, fire, and water at this stage are immortal (i.e., not made up into mortal things) and unmixed, cf. lines 14-15; and the cosmos as we know it has passed away, cf. Aetius 2.4.8, -
,
and completely stood out as far ran on ahead, a mild, immortal
limits of the circle, but part remained within and part had gone out what were formerly mixed,
and Simplicius in
onrush of perfect love was continually pursuing it. Immediately accustomed to be immortal became mortal, and formerly
Cael. 293.18. Then, and the metaphor is probably military, Love strikes at the center from her position at the turn to make a gradual retreat. With and gradually consolidates her hold on the field from there, compelling Strife in Love could not already be at the center (pushed there by Strife, as is assumed by Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 179, O'Brien ECC p. 117, and others) if she comes to be there. The subjunctive is probably acceptable for the recurring event, as Simplicius gives in his paraphrase at the I would maintain that Love stays during the increase of Strife, i.e., that at
unmixed things were' in a a wonder
mixed state, owing to the exchanging of their ways. And, as they were being countless types of mortal things poured forth, fitted with all kinds offorms, to see.
This is one of the most important fragments for an understanding of E . , and it is to be taken closely with 8(17) and 16(26). Fragment 16(26) contains the logos from which E . is going to draw off this new one (cf. his method at 18(24).1); there E . picked up from 8(17) the main cosmic movements of many to one under Love, and one to many under Strife. This was followed through from 19(27) to 24(31). Then, in 25(22) and 26(20), the characteristics of the four roots and of Love and Strife as experienced by men were shown to be consistent with them in their cosmic role. T h e main points of the cosmogony of our world followed, as the four roots, the many, separate out from their unity.
The first stages of ' '
the extreme circumference there is a band of elements m the state of perfect mixture that was enjoyed in the sphere, that this is regarded also as the abode of the gods, and that to it human thought in its best condition is related. I n Aetius this areathe subtraction of is called chap. 3 ) . 5 - 6 : a more elaborate version of what it means for the many to come into one, outlined at 8(17).7, 16(26).5, 26(20).2, and cf. the commentary on 2 0 ( 3 6 ) . . There is a contrast here between ); "volunteers" come to join from different parts. 7: cf. the commentary on 2 0 ( 3 6 ) ; there is no need to substitute that line for line 7 here, despite the repetition at line 16; such a repetition, of the details after the outline, is in E.'s style. 8 - 9 : with , ()' would be needed, and the tense sequence in line 10; perhaps the M S S can be accepted, as it is by Diels-Kranz, a description of Strife as acting "from is awkward but not impossible, cf. as an imperfect of Bollack, and Solmsen. : and (or Love does not gain the whole territory in one swoop, but from (1.5.2; cf. Aristotle on the existence of the divine, out-
side space and time, at the circumference of the world, Cael. 1.9; and also
have
been explained, and in this fragment we go back to

'
for further details, cf. 1 6 ( 2 6 ) . 5 - 6 ,
8 ( 1 7 ) . 7 - 8 , and Simplicius in Cael. 587 (which gives lines 10-13 here as an explanation of line 5, itself a rewording of 16(26).5). The details, however, are few, as Aristotle complained, Cael. 3 0 ^ 1 4 . There was perhaps little more than the general description of the rise of thneta given in this fragment, and of the formation of single limbs and monsters. Mythical creatures are firmly put in an era other than our own, and this is confirmed by Simplicius, in Cael. 587, who relates 50(57) and 51(59) to the
same katastasis as 35(47)5 and 1013.
2 :
"drawing off" of water into channels, and here of a
above" rather than "in suspense" (Guthrie's translation). Strife puts up a dogged resistance and, while Love is bringing the roots together, is able to keep parts of them separate even as it retreats.
10 ' : cf. 20(36) ,
minor theme from the main topic of the explanation of our present world. There are a number of unusual words in this fragment as a whole, which have caused confusion in the M S S tradition. 3 - 4 : the and the must both refer to the cosmic rota-
referring to the outer edge of the circumference, to which Strife retreats
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
28
209
P H Y S I C S
48(96)
when the many come into one, and which is now Love's last area during the separation into many; cf. the commentary on lines 3 - 4 . Aristotle is continuing the Presocratic tradition, of which E . is firmly a part, by describing the region in both physical and theological terms, Cael. 1.9. 11: with for the parts, or frame, of the universe, as in 2 3 ( 3 0 ) . ! , and cf. 24(31). Strife has control over some parts of the elemental masses, and elsewhere it has given up territory before the advance of Love. 13 '- the word does not give increased material status to Love and should not be translated "stream" (cf. L S J s.v.). The language is metaphorical, of the pursuer and the pursued, and the emphasis is on the effect for the four roots of the tussle between being held separate and being brought together, , by E . ) , and "gentle-thinking," "mild" (perhaps a coinage , in line 9, however, of Strife's are transferred from Philotes, who is also
The first three lines are quoted approvingly by Aristotle for showing that it is not the elements of which something is made that give it its character, but the logos of their combination. This understanding of explanation by form is elaborated by the commentators, and in a similar context in the De Anima Philoponus and Simplicius see Pythagorean influence. I n his commentary in in Phys. Simplicius quotes the four lines and says that they come from the first book of E.'s Physika. The fragment therefore belongs 47(35) as
is
before 53(62), which is from the second book. I n the first book this would seem to be the most suitable place for the fragmentafter
giving a detail of the formation of (and
repeated from line 17), and before the description of the individual limbs. The fragment is similar to 83(98), but because E . connects blood with human thought, 83(98) would seem to go better with the physiological fragments relating to life as we know it. : .), the masculine is not found elsewhere. It is glossed by Simwith as
"perfect," "without reproach."

15
movement, is closer to "perfectly," in the nonmoral sense of "completely."

' for the reading, and for the sense of
plicius as ,
as "unmixed," cf. my note in CR 1962, pp. 1 0 9 - 1 1 ; the objections raised by O'Brien, CR 1965, pp. 1-4, West, CR 1966, p. 136, and Solmsen, CR 1967, pp. 245-46, I find unconvincing. 16-17: the immortal and unmixed roots take on a variety of forms as they mix with each other under the increasing power of Love. Although the language of these lines could well refer to the many wondrous kinds of life around us, and 1 6 ( 2 6 ) 4 - 5 seems to imply a race of men arising as the many come into one, I do not think that E . described a world under increasing Love that is identical to the present one. He found in this part of his scheme a means of relegating to another era the hybrid creatures of myth and alien religion. At 53(62) he returns from his digression to the exposition of our world, which was left at 46(55), and describes the rise of human life after the cosmogony. Fragment 51(59) shows that the strange creatures arose as the roots were coming closer and closer together, whereas at 53(62).2 gives the generation of men and women when fire is separating out of the mixture.
(cf. in de An. 68.2-10 with II. 18.470 quoted). The earth is the like , is appropriate for mother earth, but the epithet
receptacle and also provides one quarter of the material, (is somewhat infelicitously transferred. There is an alternative, easier, reading, "well-made," but it is unsuitable for holes in the earth. 2 '- Steinhart's suggestion for (the majority), , and of the M S S . The neuter in line 3 makes the reading difficult, and . does not use elsewhere, : similar to
at 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . , and probably the basis for Aristotle's question whether Love is the cause of any chance mixture or only of mixture (De An. 4 o 8 a 2 i ) . Both seem to be involvedsections of the elements come together in the general many-to-one movement, and where the proportions are appropriate, Love makes an organic part. : the commentators take the phrase as referring to both water and air, and give the logos of bone as 4 parts fire : 2 earth : 1 water : 1 air; the radiance or bright transparency in the meaning of Air is included in 83(98) as , can refer to water or air. but the four elements, in
almost equal proportion in the heart-blood, are needed there to explain 48(96)
And the kindly earth received into its broad hollows brightness of Nestis and four of Hephaistos; marvelously held together by the gluing of Harmony. of the eight parts two of the bones, and these came to be white
the physical constitution of thought. There is no reason to suppose that all four are constituents of everything. Four parts fire : 2 earth : 2 water is a very simple logos, and it is unlikely that E . gave more intricate details of proportions than those for bone and blood, relying on the painting
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
210
211
P H Y S I C S
49(34)-50(57)
simile, 15(23), as a general guide. (The structure of sinews and nails is given in Aetius 5.22.1, and hands and tongue are mentioned by Theophrastus, Sens. 11.) E.'s achievement is in the understanding of the principle of proportions of elements in the formation of organisms, rather than in any sophistication in the principle's development. 3 : the excess of fire in the proportion accounts for the dryness and whiteness of bones (cf. Simplicius, Philoponus, and Sophonias on De An. 4091321) ; the hard and brittle quality would also be accounted for, cf. the commentary on 62(73). Sinews, according to Aetius (5.22.1), have twice as much water as they do fire and earth, and when they are hardened by air in this proportion they become claws and nails. T h e phrasing here is an adaptation of Homer's , IL 24.793; { he separateness of the bones picked up is recalled in this fashioning of individual bones that are not yet part of an organic whole,
cf- 50(57)
50(57)
Here many heads sprang up without necks, bare arms were wandering singly. without shoidders, and eyes needing foreheads strayed
4 : a name for Philia, as Simplicius explains (and the reference is reinforced by the rare word ), the artisan of living
forms and their parts, cf. 8 5 ( 8 6 ) , 8 6 ( 8 7 ) , 6 0 ( 7 1 ) , 6 2 ( 7 3 ) , 7o(75)- The
"gluing" does not imply an additional ingredient, but water is worked into the earth and the compound hardened by the fire (cf. the next fragment). T h e technique is like that of Hephaistos or Prometheus, cf. Hesiod
Theog. 571, Erga 6 0 - 6 1 , Ovid Met. 1.80-83.
49(34)
when he had glued barley meal with water
The heads, arms, and eyes in this extraordinary fragment seem to have been thought of as shooting up from the earth (as the result of the first mingling of the roots as they move from many to one) and then moving or floating aimlessly. Aristotle was interested enough to quote the first line three times: (1) as a mild joke with reference to the synthesis of truth and error, De An. 43oa27; (2) as an additional problem in the discussion of combinations resulting from disordered movement, Cael. 3001325; and (3) in dismissing the notion of separate parts coming together, GA 722b 17. Simplicius, on the Cael. passage, disagrees with Alexander's interpretation of the line as a on the grounds that the disordered movements belong with the many-to-one phase of 47(35).5. Philoponus (in GA 28 and in de An. 545) explains that at first Strife, not Love, was dominant, which is why the limbs were in isolated and disordered movement, and they would have continued so had Love not been able eventually to bring them together. Aristotle firmly puts line 1 in the passages cited in Cael. and GA; in the same section in Cael. he states that E . did not give a cosmogony (Cael. 3 0 i a i 6 and the context given at a 10), and further, at GA 7221325, he contrasts the world then, , with what is now the case. The evidence from Aristotle confirms the suggestion that E . used the manyto-one phase briefly, as a way of both accounting for, and dismissing from the present time, the hybrid creatures of myth. : "here," "on the earth," as at GA 722(025. : "sprang up," like shoots from the earth; the verb is used for the different forms of life at 14(21).10. This is the only known occurrence of in Greek. 2 : arms are "bare" because they are not attached to shoulders (or to hands, for Philoponus adds ai to the list of separate parts, and the phrase may conceal a direct quotation, in GA 2 8 . 3 ) ; cf.
also , Simplicius in Cael. 587.18, discussed at 139(58), and the
Aristotle quotes the fragment as an example of the mutual relationship between wet and dry ingredients, which bind each other, so that a compound body is formed from both. T h e words obviously belong in the context of the craftsmanship of Love in making living kinds, but the participle is masculine. I suggest that the fragment is part of a simile in which Love is compared to a baker, who kneads together wet and dry ingredients into a malleable dough, pats it into shape, and "gives it to fire to harden," cf. 62(73). R could well be an illustration of 48(96), with picking up the unusual . O n the other hand there is the faint possibility that the reading in probl. 929b 16 and Mete. M S is correct, and that the fragment refers to the preparation of food on campaign.
heads, hands, and feet at in Phys. 372.4. 3 : the eyes are not in pairs or fixed in sockets; and there were further weird examples of single limbsSimplicius adds after this line. E . indulges himself in the exotic vocabulary but firmly removes
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
212
213 bulls arose and again bull-headed men, (others)
P H Y S I C S
51(59)-52(61)
nature
creatures like the Cyclops from the consideration of life as we know it by putting them, and the parts of which they are made, in a different era. For separate limbs and parts as Peak Cult offerings, cf. B. C . Dietrich
Hist. 1969, pp. 2 5 9 - 6 0 .
with male and female
combined, and the bodies they had were dark.
The four lines are given by Aelian in a brief context of E . speaking of composite creatures, with two forms in one body, in line 2 became a well-known phrase for biform creatures, quoted twice
51(59)
But as god mingled further with god they fell together as they chanced to meet each arising. other, and many others in addition to these were continually
by Aristotle, and then by Plutarch and the Aristotelian commentators. : Karsten, followed by most editors, changed the infinitives
here and in the next line to imperfects. A large number of strange creaSimplicius sets the line in the same katastasis of becoming so, and there are still as 4 7 ( 3 5 ) - 3 ; Love and tures were continually being born and coming up from the earth (cf. the commentary on line 3 of the previous fragment), but from the contexts of 50(57) it seems they are also formed by combinations of the wandering single limbs; e.g., Aristotle, after quoting 5 0 ( 5 7 ) . ! , adds
{'. ), De An. 430330. in 50(57) 1
is the time when Love is not yet dominant but is in the process
Strife are related as potential victor and vanquished. Although
is used in Homer for hostile engagement (but, except for II. 4.456, with further qualification to give to the verb a definitely hostile sense), in E . the verb is constantly used of the roots combining, and so producing a mortal compound, cf. 12(8).3, 13(9).1, 47(35)7 and 16, and also '
at 8(17).34, 14(21).13, 16(26).3. there-
is more precisely the front half of the head or the temples (cf. II. 4 . 5 0 2 ) ; if two of these meet, a Janus-like, double-faced head results, and this would be the sense of There are precedents for such creatures in myth. Otus and Ephialtes were punished in Tartarus by being tied back to back on either side of a column, and this composite figure, like Janus, seems to be connected with a calendar symbol. (Cf. Hyginus/. 28, and Toepffer s.v. Aloadai PW; Culex 234 has the giants face to face, however. Plutarch uses of Janus, Num. ig .6) Similarly the two-headed dog, Orthros-Sirius, regarded the old and the new year, and the three faces of Hecate at the crossroads looked in different directions. Multiple-headed creatures were familiar in the representations of Cerberus, Scylla, and Hydra, and cf. the three-headed serpent , II. 11.40. : the double Ephialtes-
fore refers to the roots which are gods, cf. the commentary on 7(6). There is no conflict with the one other use of , 107(115).5, for there the in the Katharmoi at in their physical aspect are to be seen
as (perfect) combinations of their constituent earth, air, fire, and water, which are singly, and in perfect combination, "gods." (The conclusion of O'Brien's long discussion [ECC pp. 3 2 5 - 3 6 ] is that other.") 2 : the subject is still the roots. They first cause the genesis of : the clause is quoted on
a n
here
means "the pieces of Love in separate limbs [which] mix with one an-
Otus figure has two sets of breasts as well as two faces, but E . may have in mind a creature similar to the triform Geryon, with two upper parts from one waist. For Aristophanes' myth, cf. the commentary on line 3. 3 : the Minotaur was the most famous example (Plut. de I s . et of the bull-headed man. Dionysus had the epithet
single limbs as their parts come together, and then, as they mingle further, combinations of limbs,
its own by Simplicius, at in Phys. 327.19 with 2 9 ( 5 3 ) , d
a t m phys-
331.2, to illustrate in E . The disorder of the roots here, when the many begin to come into one, is like that of their initial separation when the one is becoming many, cf. the commentary on 29(53). I n both cases the disorder is temporarily controlled by Love in the production of thneta.
3 : with understood, cf. in 5 0 ( 5 7 ) . at 52(61).2 and 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 4 , as well as
Os. 364 f) and had representations with a bull's head or horns, as did the river gods, in particular Achelous, who took on this form in his fight with
Heracles (cf. , Soph. Trach. 12-13);
a n d
there
was "
and also Io. The bull-man biforms are exemplars of all
the composite creatures from Greek mythology, such as Centaurs, Harpies, Erynnes, and in particular from Hesiod's Theogony, Echidne and her children, the Chimaera and Sphinx; there are similar hybrids in the
52(61)
Many creatures with a face and breasts on both sides were produced, man-faced
religions of Egypt and Carthage. E . dismissed these creatures of myth
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
214
215
P H Y S I C S
53(62)
from the world as we know it and, while offering an explanation of their genesis, relegated them to a different era (as Plato later placed the nonreproducing earth-born men and animals in a different time cycle, in
the Politicus myth, 2713-^).
4
(cf.
': is used in Homer and E . , and generally, of the must refer to the color
, of the sea's surface, [Arist.] Col. 7 9 ^ 2 3 ) .
body as a whole. I f the reading is correct,
The creatures here are dark colored or swarthy, in the same way as men are described as at 58(67).2. The various emendations (cf. the ap. crit.) to give meanings like "warm," "sturdy," "lively," "sterile," or "hard" are unnecessary. All the creatures mentioned in this fragment pass away as the many come more and more into one, so Aristotle else. Metaph. i o o o b i 2 : in bringing the elements into one, Love destroys everything
It is an exaggeration to read Darwinism back into E . from the ancient comments on this line. Aristotle gives a counterargument to his own teleological principles when he says that some creatures have been preserved because they were put together
priate w a y , , (Phys. 1 9 8 6 2 9 - 3 2 .
in an appro need not refer
the quotation to the present; E.'s phrase is an examplefrom the past of the general principle). T o be consistent, E . should have extended his notion to plants and spoken of For Aristotle the mortality of the plained by a corruption of the seed (Phys. , which is absurd. would be exF R A G M E N T S L I F E : 53-72 O N E T O M A N Y A N D A N D I N D I V I D U A L H U M A N S , A N I M A L S , P L A N T S
199)05-10). I n E . we do not 53(62)

And now hear thishow shoots of men and pitiable First, whole-nature forms, fire, as it was being separated, brought up by night the informed. women, for the account is to the point and well
find an understanding of selection and mutation with divergence of parts of the species from the original stock, or new functions and organs developing out of old ones, with the passing on of heritable variations (except in the interesting case of the backbone being vertebrated because it had broken in the womb, cf. Aristotle Part. An. 640319). Instead, there are the simpler recognitions that (1) for survival a species or "animal-kind" must be able to reproduce itself, and (2) it must have appropriate organic parts fulfilling mutual needs, cf.

having a share of both water and heat, sprang up from or voice or language native to man.
the earth; fire, as it tended to reach its like, kept sending them up, when they did not as yet show the lovely shape of limbs,
and
Simplicius quotes the fragment from the second book of the
Physics,
Simplicius in Phys.
3 7 2 3 _ The Epicureans later countered
which, contra the D K ordering, obviously puts it after 48(96) of the first book. It has the appearance of a fresh start, emphasized by the request for particular attention, and after the digression on the many-to-one stage (with which frs. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) - 5 2 ( 6 i ) are concerned), it goes back to the present one-to-many separation to give the account of the rise of human life following the cosmogony,
the antithesis
this by denying the genesis of composite creatures in the first place, cf. Lucretius 5.878-924. : the participle brings in an additional set of creatures , without a connecting particle), rather (listed, like
than adding a further complication to the preceding ones. Androgynous forms belong with other hybrids in a different era from the present. The best known was Hermaphroditos, a private and public cult figure in the 4th century and probably earlier, cf. Theophrastus Char. 16.10, Anth. 2.102, 9.783; others include Agdistis and Phanes, and with a change of sex, Attis, Caeneus, and Teiresias. There are also the spherical creatures of Aristophanes' myth (Plato Symp. ; i 8 g d - i g o a ) . One of their kinds was the name survives but the type has disappeared, explains
, which initiates this stage, is

of 51(59)>
which produced the mythical creatures of the other era. That the present time is fundamentally an unhappy one is indicated here by and , as it is by other expressions in the Katharmoi fragments 112(118), 114(124), 123(145). Hesiodic pessimism is given a philosophical basis in the view of life increasingly dominated by a separative principle. : Aeschylus Pers.
I I . 4 4 3 8 , 10.420.
Aristophanes. His creatures double up human forms and are then halved. There is no way of knowing whether the notion was first suggested by these lines of E . , and then exaggerated and caricatured.
the passive sense "much-lamented," and so "pitiable," 674, Euripides Ion 869, and the passive ,
is earlier and more appropriate here than the active "tearful," cf.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
2l6
217 adjective: ' (Arist. Phys.
P H Y S I C S
53(62)
2 :
"by night," but also of the dead (cf. Soph. OC 1558), as 6 2 6 ) . The
19969, Simp, in Phys.
of bringing up from the dead (and cf. Hes. Theog.
382.15, and cf. Aristotle's use of for birds, where there is no distinction of thorax and abdomen, Part. An. 693325). The seem rather to be primitive shapes of warm, moist earth (cf. on line 5 ) . As such they recall the modeling of Pandora by Hephaistos (Hes. Erga 61, Theog. 571) and the spontaneous generation in the autochthonous myths, but the concept is firmly in the Presocratic tradition. It relates to the theory of the earliest forms of life in Anaximander (cf. Aet. 5.19.4), Xenophanes (frs. 27 and 2 9 ) , Anaxagoras, and Archelaus (cf. D . L . 2.9 and 17), and to the "embryos" in the (probably) Presocratic account
in Diodorus (1.7, and cf. A. Burton Diodorus Siculus I pp. 4 4 - 4 7 , for a
origin of human life, like the abode of the dead, is shrouded in darkness. The darkness may be literal in that the early forms of men and women come up before day and night are distinguished. From line 6 it is clear that some fire has already been separated out, but the sun may not yet have been articulated and its light shed around , as in the notice on the origin of trees, Aetius 5.26.4. (or probably ):
used especially of saplings (cf. fr. 152). With
this word E . relates human to plant life (cf. line 4, and also 65(79), 7 1 (82), and Aet. 5.26.4) and provides a nonmythical explanation for the autochthonous traditions as well as giving a new context to Homeric vocabulary (cf. II. 21.37-38 on Lycaon, with and ). : in the further movement of one to many, fire was sep-
survey of the evidence on the sources here), as well as providing a precedent for the Epicurean theory of "wombs" (Lucretius 5 . 8 0 5 - 2 0 ) .
5 : the have a due part (, cf. , Parm. fr. 12.2) of
arating from the earth and moving toward the fire already under the circumference of the cosmos, i.e., parts of fire were being picked out and becoming distinguishable because of the tendency of parts of the same root to converge when not brought into a compound by Love, cf. line 6 here and 100 (110).9. As fire is being separated it brings up the first forms of human life from the earth. 3 : an affirmation, in the introduction to this key topic, of the veracity
and authority of E.'s account, cf. 3( 131)-3, 6 ( 4 ) , 15(23).! 1, 103(114).1-2.
water and heat (for the sense of cf. the commentary on 1 4 ( 2 1 ) 4 ) ; they are sent up from the earth (sense and scansion connect with the verb, cf. " E . natos homines ex terra ait ut blitum," Varro fr. 27, D K 31 A 7 2 ) , which implies an accretion of earth to the other ingredients. Earth, moisture, and warmth provide the material for primitive life (cf. the commentary on line 4 ; the parallel with Genesis 2 : is obvious). From the last sentence of Aetius 5.19.5 it would seem that the aisa determined the kind of living creature that would developsome tending to water, some, with an excess of fire, flying into the air, and the heavier ones earthbound (cf. again the different kinds of life arising when the "membranes" break, Diod. Sic. 1.7.4-5).
6 : cf.
The first adjective is . and the second rare without a genitive. 4 : "whole-nature" or perhaps "whole-growing" in 52(61), is a forms; the adjective, like and
unique compound. These ( ) originate human life, (2) come up from the earth, (3) have a due amount of water and heat, and (4) have not (yet) any defined limbs or voice. Despite the hint in (line 2), their growth from earth, and their early genesis (Aet. 5.26.4), they are unlikely to be trees, which are self-reproductive and have articulate limbs. There is no suggestion of an evolution from trees to men (cf. Simp, in Cael. 586.23, Phlp. in Phys. 318.27); and, if they were trees, why should they be described in such an obscure way? Nor can they be compared with the first race of men in Aristophanes' myth (Plato Symp. iSgd), who have their limbs and sex clearly differentiated; only in is there an echo of E . , not of his "whole-nature" forms
ioo(tio)g. Parts of the same root are primitively aware
of and tend toward their like when not restrained into compounds by Love, cf. the commentary on 81(103). 7 : the as yet have no articulate limbs, nor flesh and blood (which require air, cf. 83(98).2 and 5 ) . The further articulation is due to the separative power of Strife, but the and the detailed structure of the organism are due to Love, in much the same way as Aphrodite adds charis to the shape made by Hephaistos, Hesiod Erga 65 8 : I prefer the Aldine reading of this line: ' ' after ), ' - Diels and most editors change to (with but the singular is rare and un-Homeric, and reads ',
but of one of the "wrong" combinations of unattached limbs (cf. the commentary on 52(61).3). In this context Simplicius criticizes Aristotle's suggestion that as the true , , is relevant here, and he adds a definition of the
oddly as referring to the "Schamglied." Bollack has ' and
which makes the vocal organ a - The point is surely that the are as yet mute (the have been dealt with in the previous line) and
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
218
o r
219
P H Y S I C S
54(64)-58(67)
cannot speak a particular language (cf. ' , - 4-437) even an inarticulate cry (cf. , II- 24 16).
make
54(64)
And on him desire too
Plutarch quotes the fragment in a context of the farrowing habits of sows. He wonders if the greater fertility of domestic sows can be due to the herding of the two sexes together, so that proximity "reminds" the male of copulation and provokes mutual desire, which according to E . is the case among human beings. The causal chain of proximity-memory-desire is partially confirmed by the Aetius notice (5.19.5) that the generation following the was self-reproducing, the stimulus for the male coming from female beauty. One would expect this line to refer to the three links in some way, and the commonly accepted version is '
, ' , cf. ap. crit. But this is illogical;
Aristotle quotes the fragment to criticize E . (with Democritus) for having the soma of the seed "torn apart," some in the male and some in the female (GA 7 6 4 h l 7), and elsewhere he explains that for E . the two parts are like a (722hl ) . Galen elaborates on this, adding that the separated parts are brought together in the union stimulated by desire (sem. 4 . 6 1 6 K ) . in the Aristotelian context shows that here must mean the actual substance or structure of the embryo, which is pulled apart and then put together again (cf. at 100(110).5 and
, Parm. fr. 16.3; however, is "birth" in 12(8), cf. the
commentary there). The line obviously continued with a reference to the female, and this is indicated in Aristotle and Philoponus. The Philoponus context (in GA 166.25) also shows that E . is thinking of each organic part being divided (rather than different "limbs" from each, although this is also suggested, in GA 27.4). This makes E . more modern than Aristotle here, and in line with recent findings on the nature of genetic material. "Each human cell has two sets of chromosomes. One group is provided by the male parent of an individual, and the other group by the female
parent" (Enc. Brit. Macr. 1974, 6.742).
it is not that desire reminds him through sight but that desire is reminded through sight, i.e., that sight reminds him and stimulates desire. Other suggestions are ' ' (Ellis CR 1902, p. 270) and Bollack's . T h e fragment is hopelessly corrupt, and as with other lines having Plutarch as the only source (e.g., 40(46], 41 [42], 76(93], and cf. 75(90]), it may be that his memory failed him. Perhaps the original was something like ' , with in the next line for the copulation following the desire.
57(65)
They were poured in pure places; some met with cold and became women
55(66)
the divided meadows of Aphrodite
From the context and the plowing metaphor in Phoen. 18, not being the more obscene, according to the scholiast. The
and
is the correct reading, E.'s reference to the female genitals
precede the generation of men and women; the fragments, therefore, dealing with human reproduction and embryology would appropriately come soon after 53(62).
The subject must be some neuter plural expression for semen. The "pure places" refer to the female receptacle, purified by the evacuation of the menses (cf. L S J s.v. I I ) . I n the context at GA 723324 Aristotle quotes the fragment as evidence that sex is determined at conception. Aristotle refers to it again at GA 76431-6, where E . is said to explain sex differentiation not by right and left, but by the temperature of the womb. This means, according to Aristotle (and cf. Philoponus in GA 166.8), that if conception takes place soon after menstruation the womb is warmer and the resulting embryo male; if later in the month, a "cold" womb causes the offspring to be female. This is in fact wrong (for the high temperature comes with ovulation at the middle and not the beginning of the menstrual cycle), but it need not be foisted on E . ; his words simply relate the temperature of the womb to the sex of the offspring, cf. the commentary on the next fragment.
58(67) 56(63)
But the substance of the limbs is separated, part in (the body of) the man For the male was in the warmer powerfully built, and hairier. . . . this is the reason why men are dark, more
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
220
221
P H Y S I C S
59(68)-60(71)
The whole context of this fragment is disputed. I f is accepted, the reference is to the early genesis of human life from the earth, when, according to Aetius 5.7.1-2, the first men appeared in the south and east, and the first women in the north, which aligns them with hot and cold respectively, , however, was suspected by Sturz but accepted by Galen Karsten; Diels's suggestion is
59(68)
On the tenth day of the eighth month it became a white pus.
Aristotle is in agreement with E . that milk is a form of blood (cf. GA 7 3 9 b 2 5 ; Kranz changed to in the present context, and Diels deleted it, but the sense is clear). But he criticizes him for supposing that it is decomposed or putrefied rather than concocted bloodeither E . has misunderstood or he is using an inappropriate metaphor. There is a metaphor like this in 67(81), for wine as "rotten" water. The general theory of an agent (here probably heat) acting on a liquid and causing a basic change is implied, and this was important in the medical theories of and . I n this fragment the language is influenced by the similarity to , and colostrum is an unpleasant-looking, puslike
quotes the fragment with Parmenides fr. 17 as linking the right side of the womb with the male, but the notice is abbreviated. He wants support for a Hippocratic connection of right, black, and hot; the first is related to male in the embryology of Parmenides, and the last two in that of E . Galen is surely not so confused here (as Longrigg argues, Philologus 1964, pp. 2g7 -gg) as to refer a fragment supposedly dealing with north and south parts of the earth to right and left in the womb. As Galen is the only authority for the line, it is sensible to accept his embryological context for it. I suspect that only the first line gives E.'s exact words, with the quotation possibly ending at ; of the distance from ). for in was then an attempt to finish The last two lines look like a summary, the line from the following (and any genitive is suspect there because is prosaic and an exact repetition from the is untypical and unpleasing. (Censorinus,
substance in the two or three days before the appearance of the milk. The tenth day of the eighth month is a precise date, and it is hard to see the reason why it is given. Mammary growth in pregnancy is an obvious indication of organic change, but there is no noticeable sudden alteration on or around the date given here. And by some process which is still obscure, it is the delivery that actually initiates lactation, so that milk is available even for the seven-month child. It can only be assumed that there is some other, irretrievable, significance in the numbers involved.
Hippocratic quotation Galen is defending; also, the succession of spondees 6.8.10, D K 31 A 8 1 , links male and female with right and left in E . and Anaxagoras, "but his interpretation should probably be ruled out" states G . E . R . Lloyd, J H S 1962, p. 60, n. 19; yet in Aristotle GA 764336 there is an imprecise reference on the sexes of twins which might support this link for E . The link could be accommodated by supposing that on E.'s theory males are conceived when the womb is warmer, and the resulting embryo later attaches itself to the right side of the uterine lining; the converse would be true for females. The interval before any attachment is in fact five days.) 2 : not necessarily a reference to Ethiopians, but a conventionis confusion in Homer;
60(71)
But if your belief about these things in any way lacked assurance, how, from the combining of water, earth, air, and sun came the forms and color of mortal which have now arisen, fitted together by Aphrodite things
Simplicius quotes 85(86), 86(87), 8 7(95)>
ar >d
then here gives the general
principle of the work of Aphrodite in this present world in producing the variety of life as we know it from the combinations of four elements. Two other fragments that show Kypris at work follow, 62(73)
a n
al contrast between swarthy men and pale women, Karsten's suggestion from the - 3 : is tautologous.
d 7 (75)
This fragment has therefore been put as an introduction to the biological and physiological section. I n the present world there is an increasing separation of elements, but Aphrodite is able to counteract this for a time by bringing together parts of the separating elements into temporary compounds, with the resulting variety oi thneta. : the adjective is unique to E . , cf. 14(21).2. E.'s appeal is
hair is the human analogue of leaves ( 7 i ( 8 2 ) . i ) , and to divinity,
growth in abundance is due to heat. Hairiness connects also with specific maleness in the denial of anthropomorphic attributes
97(34)3
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
222
223 85(86), 86(87),

8 7(95)>
P H Y S I C S
61(33)-64(77-78)
to reason. Any doubts Pausanias may still have about the reliability of the account of the different forms of life being produced from a mingling of four elements will be allayed by the evidence from phenomena observable now. 2 - 4 : the language recalls 15(23); the artist working with his colors in two dimensions is now seen to be an exemplar of Aphrodite creating a three-dimensional world from the four elements, recalls in line 4 at 1 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 and reinforces the notion that it is
6 o ( 7 i ) . and 7 0 ( 7 5 ) , all of which mention Aphro-
dite/Kypris as a craftsman responsible for forms of life and their organic parts; and, adds Simplicius, E . is speaking about this kosmos. The language here is of the potter and his clay shapes, moistened and then fired. is used by E . for the kinds of animate life, in the Physics
and cf. 15(23).5, 83(98).5, 25(22).7, and in the Katharmoi and 130(125). 2 : Stein suggested ' to bring in
60(71).3
107(115).7
not a chemical mixture which is involved, but a fitting together to make a whole, cf. of a boat, Euripides Hel. 233, and of the wooden on earth are de' , horse, Tro. 11 ; cf. also Galen's notice that for E . all produced from four elements
,
all four elements, but air is not an ingredient in the hard substance of bone, 4 8 ( 9 6 ) , or in the , For gous , 53(62), and emendation is unnecessary. 10.64,
a n
with an accusative, cf. Pindar Pyth. L S J s.v., I . :
8 the analo-
Hipp. nat. horn. 1 5 4 9 .
"strengthen," "harden," but in
cf. Parmenides fr. 8.41, Anaxagoras fr. 4 . 4 ; the form is possibly
91 (100). 19 "get possession of," "control"; for the sense here cf. Xenophon Lac. 2.3 and [Hippocrates] Fract. 7.
neuter plural, cf. D K ad 31 .
61(33)
As when the sap (of the fig tree) has riveted and set white milk
63(72)
How tall trees andfishes in the sea
The fragment is an example of an agent working on a liquid and solidifying it. Plutarch quotes the simile to illustrate the close bond of contrasted with divisive polyphilia. philia I n Homer the like-worded simile re-
The line is quoted by Athenaeus to show E.'s use of the rare word
for fish in general (cf. also 68(74). 1). This section gives scope to
E.'s wide-ranging biological interests and observations within the framework of the_ explanation oi thneta as combinations of earth, air, fire, and water.
lates to speed, II. 5 . 9 0 2 ; Aristotle makes the comparison for the action of semen, GA 7 7 ^ 2 3 and cf. 737314. is the sap of the fig tree used for curdling, but, in curdling, the juice also putrefies the milk, which makes the change like that in 59(68) and 67(81). ' L C (Plut.), and this is the verb used with in Homer loc. cit., and in Aristotle HA 5 2 2 b 2 ; for as "harden," "set," cf. [Hippocrates] Off. 17. The exact application of the simile is not known, but the use in 86(87), and Plutarch's connection with philia, suggest that it belongs in the general context of Aphrodite's work on the elements to produce specific compounds.
64(77-78)
( Trees ever-bearing leaves and ever-bearing fruit all the year due to the air. flourish) with fruit in abundance
A first line was made from and
and
in Theophrastus, ,
Plutarch's identification of
in E . with
quaest. conv. 649c. in line 2 fits the Theophrastean context, referring in particular to the climate, in this case temperate and springlike. There is no indication of the poem to which the fragment belongs, and Stein,
62(73)
And as, at that time, when Kypris was busily producing forms, she moistened earth in water and gave it to swift fire to harden
following Karsten, assigned it to the age of Kypris in the Katharmoi,
cf.
118(128). But there is no hint in Theophrastus or Plutarch that the reference is to a condition that no longer exists, and it is more appropriate to assign it to the group of fragments dealing with the nature of trees, but cf. the commentary on fr. 152.
The
fragment is quoted without comment by Simplicius, along with
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
224
225
P H Y S I C S
65(79)-67(81)
From Theophrastus and Plutarch here, and Aetius 5.26.4, E.'s explanation of nondeciduous trees, with the laurel, olive, and date palm singled out, can be pieced together. All trees, as the first , and therefore closer to the greater influence of Love, have a symmetry in the combination of their constituent elements (and so they combine the logos of male and female). The moisture in them, however, is evaporated by summer heat, which causes the leaves to shrivel and fall, and the nourishment taken in is not retained because of the funnel-like arrangement of their pores. But evergreens have an excess of moisture, which survives the summer evaporation, and a symmetrical arrangement of pores that admit regular nourishment. Generally, the temperate zone in which these trees grow balances internal with external symmetry, and so they remain constant. It is botanically impossible for trees to have fruit all year round in the same way as they do leaves (for the flower precedes the fruit), and the reference must be to a tree regularly bearing a heavy crop. The lines recall the orchard of Alcinous (Od. 7.114-18), where the fruit does not fail summer or winter, and this is because the temperate zephyr allows the trees to bear their fruit at different times. I n the orchard are pears, apples, pomegranates, figs, and olives, and E.'s interest in date palms was noted above (Aet. 5.26.4, where it is also said that fruits are the excess of water and fire in the plant). O f these the olive and palm are nondeciduous, extremely long-lived, and consistently have abundant fruit. The explanation of such fruitfulness is in the harmony between the krasis of the tree's constitution and that of the surrounding air or climate, which nicely blends heat and cold. I n the unique compound adjectives with - I suspect E . is making use of a mild pun on his own name.
with as an extended accusative (rather than a genitive singular, which would make a strange circumlocution, and the form would probably be ). The verb later became a technical biological term contrasted with - As Aristotle recognized, E . had the insight to see not merely a resemblance in their oval shape between an olive and an egg but a true analogy based on the functioning of the parts, and this in turn confirms the basic kinship between plant and animal life, which is a key point of the Katharmoi.
66(80)
This is why pomegranates come late in the season, and apples are exceptionally succulent.
65(79)
In this way tall trees produce olive eggs first
Aristotle praises E . for his vocabulary here, for a fruit is analogous to an egg in that each is a , with the seed surrounded by the nourishment necessary for its growth; in plants this is a consequence of their bisexual nature. Theophrastus elaborates on this comparison along similar lines. Philoponus, less plausibly, reads , taken as accusative with in apposition, and no subject specified; he says that the olive stones can be called eggs and olives and also small trees, because of their potential for growth. : cf. Od. 7.114 again of Alcinous' orchard, :
The discussion in Plutarch starts with Homer's (Od. 7.115) and then introduces this line. The explanation for the late ripening of pomegranates is clear. It is a question of the internal structure of the plant and the outside temperature (cf. the commentary on 6 4 ( 7 7 78), and 0:77p is again used in this connection). The pomegranate has relatively little moisture, and so it cannot reach the right consistency in the summer heat but waits until the air is cooler. Plutarch, however, does not understand what E . means by - He says that E.'s epithets are not ornamental but always explain some essential fact or function. Two suggestions are made. Either the prepositional prefix means "excessive," and - "freshness," "bloom," as in Aratus (Phaen. 335), or it means "outside"; the husk of an apple is the shiny covering of the seeds, and the edible part is therefore "outside the husk." Yet if the adjectives are not attributive, the same explanation has to cover both pomegranates and apples. Perhaps it is that outside cool air is in sympathy with and encourages the moisture within. For the pomegranate the late season gives its meager moisture a chance to develop, for the apple a temperate climate results in an excess of moisture and so a succulent fruit. : again a Homeric word is given a new context, and the tie between the plant and human world is strengthened in the application of the word for the men born later to the late fruit of the season, : Karsten's emendation, metris causa.
67(81)
Water from the skin, fermented in wood, becomes wine.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
226
227
P H Y S I C S
68(74)-70(75)
Like 59(68) and 61 (33), this is an example of a change in a liquid brought about by putrefaction. Aristotle dismisses the suggestion that wine is (of the genus) water; Plutarch concentrates on , identifying it with for E . in his first quotation of the line, and seeing it as a characteristic of wine in the second. I n the previous fragment seemed to refer to the (edible) part of the apple surrounding the seeds, and I suggest it has a similar meaning here, as the part of the grape surrounding the seeds. I n wine making, after the pressing, the juice and skins of the grapes are put into wooden casks or vats (which is surely the meaning of , for is wood cut and put to some use); fermentation is induced spontaneously by the (yeast) particles present in the grape itself, and especially on the skin. During the transformation of the grape juice into wine there is a "vigorous evolution of carbon dioxide giving the impression of boiling" (Chambers Enc. 1968, s.v. fermentation). The processes of concoction and putrefaction are closely related or even indistinguishable, and to their more obvious medical and physiological associations is here added a phenomenon from plant life.
it was argued that E . treated the many-to-one era in a digression to accommodate some creatures of myth; his main task is to account for the present world, when the many are being separated out. The mnoc sent up by fire from the earth go to the element to which they are akin, according to the character of their mixture, so Aetius 5.19.5; any excess of the opposite element is overcome by the surrounding "home" element,
cf. Aristotle Resp. 47701-478311 and Theophrastus caus. plant. 1.21.5.)
69(76)
For those with heavy backs who live in the sea, this (is found) skinned turtles. in mussels, and indeed you will notice that earth is on the top surface of the flesh of tritons and stony
68(74)
leading the songless tribe of prolific fish
The three lines are quoted by Plutarch in quaest. conv. in a context of the right criterion for seating guests, where it is suggested that affinity rather than rank should be considered. I n nature, fire is not always above earth, but the godPindar's who is Zeus, but for E . Aphrodite makes an arrangement in accordance with the function of the organism. Similarly, with the quotation of the last two lines in fac. lun., Plutarch argues against a "natural" position for earth and fire but says that their places are assigned as is appropriate or useful. : Diels changed the compound to and put a colon at the end of the second line, but E . surely is speaking of three different kinds of "hard-backed sea dwellers"mussels, which are completely enclosed in a hard covering, tritons (possibly including sea snails), and the reptilian turtles. The collection and hardening of earth on the back is an arrangement of elements achieved by Love for the protection of the organism, in defiance of the movement of the elements to their own kind under Strife. From a comparison with the following fragment it is fair to deduce that E . understood that the carapace is the turtle's bone structure "on top," in fact, the backbone and ribs joined by bony plates.
The point of Plutarch's quotation is that E . recognized that fish are prolific, more so than creatures of land or air. , Homer's adjective for "widespread men," was understood by Plutarch as "muchsowing," "fertile," and, characteristically, E . makes use of the ambiguity latent in the adjective. T h e general context in quaest. conv. is a discussion of salt as an erotic stimulant, and this is suggested as a reason for Aphrodite's birth from the sea and the numerous offspring of Poseidon and the sea gods. I f the feminine participle referred to Aphrodite one would expect Plutarch to mention this as corroborative evidence, but Nestis would be more appropriate for the subject as having command of the creatures in her element. The particular force of surely is that fish are bloodless and so are denied a sophisticated form of phronesis, one consequence of which is that they have no articulate voice. (The assertion that the line refers to Aphrodite leading fish from land to sea in another era, cf. O'Brien ECC pp. 190-94, nullifies the point of Plutarch's citation, for i f the fish are coming from land they would not be prolific because they live in the salt sea; and it would be extraordinary for E . to be talking about fish in another era, and not those we know. I n the commentary on 47(35)
70(75)
But of those which are compact within and loosely formed without, having on this kind of fiaccidity at the hands of Kypris chanced
Simplicius quotes these lines without comment as the last of six fragments,
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
228
229
P H Y S I C S
71(82)-73(89)
said to come fairly close together, which show Aphrodite/Kypris as a craftsman, fashioning the elements into organisms and organic parts, in Cael. 5 2 9 - 3 0 , and cf. the commentary on 60(71). The second line is quoted at in Phys. 331.9 as the fourth of seven examples (from many more, adds Simplicius) in E.'s Physics on the use of chance. This is given in the
verbs , 29(53), 5J(59)-2, 83(98).!, 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) , and ,
less and more advanced and articulate types, as well, perhaps, as showing the first awareness of biological analogy and homolog/'.
72(83)
but for hedgehogs sharp-pointed hairs bristle on their backs.
here and at 84(85), and in the noun , 81(103). ^ n fragment the combination of and the work of Kypris is like that of and Kypris for the production of blood and flesh, 83(98) and cf. 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) , and and Aphrodite for that of eyes, 84(85) and 85(86). Aristotle complains that E . uses without identifying it with Philia or Neikos and without giving any explanation of it (Phys. 196a 12-24 quoting 29(53]). R would seem that, as the four roots are moving haphazardly but in the general direction of separated masses, some of the parts are united into organic compounds by Kypris, as a potter, carpenter, smith, or sculptor works the material he "chances on" to a shape of his own design. '- the lengthened first alpha of this adjective is the point of the quotation of fr. 152. The reference to the "rare" or "loosely formed" covering would be to any flesh-covered creature, in contrast to those mentioned in 69(76).
The fragment is used by Plutarch to illustrate the well-worn theme that animals are better endowed than men for their own defense, whereas the compensation for man is his power of reasoning. This is unlikely to be the context in E.'s poem, which asserts that all things have phronens, 78(107) and 81(103). T h e fragment seems rather to belong to the previous one, adding another humble example to the list there, : the word for human hair, the mane of a horse or lion, and leaves (cf. L S J s.v.) is well chosen, in this setting, for the hedgehog's spines. (J. Longrigg's attempt to find a further analogue for E . in gills and lungs is unwarranted guesswork and fails to take into account Aet. 5.24.2, cf. "Empedocles' FieryFish," JWI1965, pp. 314-15.)
F R A G M E N T S
73-83
P E R C E P T I O N
A N D
T H O U G H T
73(89) 71(82)
As the same things, hair, leaves, the close-packed feathers grow. of birds, and scales on strong limbs There are effluences from all things in existence.
The fragment supports Aristotle's brief comment on bones, hair, and the like being analogous; it is recalled in HA 487b20 and imitated in Lucretius 5.788. I n a similar way E . related eggs and olives, 65(79) ', called the ear a "shoot," Theophrastus Sens. 9 ; spoke of the of men and women; and conversely called trees the first , 53(62) and Aetius 5.26.4. In more general terms all things "think" and feel pleasure and pain, cf. 78(107) and 81(103). This serves to break down the barriers between plant, bird, animal, and human life, and so makes it easier to understand the transition between them made by the daimon of the Katharmoi. The acute observation here of the connection between leaves, scales, feathers, and hair relates the forms of life in different elements and the structure of
This line is quoted in the course of a complex answer to the question, "Why does the octopus change color?" In addition to Theophrastus' explanation that it does so out of cowardice (and for self-defense, soil. an. 978), Plutarch suggests that minute particles detached from rocks and sprayed by the sea pass into the porous skin of the octopus; when the creature is frightened, it contracts its body so that the effluences are held on the surface of the skin and do not penetrate (cf. a similar explanation in amic. mult. g6f). This is considered as a particular application of E.'s theory, according to which all bodies have pores closely packed on their surfaces, and effluences are given off not only by the roots but also by compounds; these effluences are capable of entering the pores that are symmetrical, cf. Plato Meno 76c and Theophrastus Sens. 7. The theory is a general one of mixture (as in 14(21). 13-14 of the roots, '
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
23 , and Theobut
231
P H Y S I C S
74(91)-75(90) kvap-
'
is . . but an obvious correction for the unmetrical

8(17).23 and 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . ! . For the use of
phrastus Sens. 12,
),
cf. ,
here cf.
in practice it seems to have been restricted to explaining perception and growth, and various phenomena such as reflections (Aetius 4.14.1, Pap. Ox. 1609.13.94, D K 31 Bioga) and the attraction of the magnet (Alex.
Aphr. quaest. 72.26 on 74(91) and Plutarch quaest. nat. g i 6 d ) . Aristotle
Plato Soph. 252. Philoponus, like Plutarch in the context of the previous fragment, mentions the universal application of E.'s theory of pores and implies that he used the terms and , although they are not found in this sense in the extant fragments. There is evidence of three examples used in connection with the theory. (1) Here, as Philoponus explains, symmetry of and in water and wine accounts for their combining, and lack of symmetry for the inability of water to mix with oil. (2) Alexander applies the theory here to the working of the magnet. The effluences from the stone disperse the air obstructing the pores of the iron, then the effluences from the iron move toward the pores of the stone and, being commensurate, fit into them; the iron follows of itself. (3) Philoponus, paraphrasing Aristotle, also gives E.'s use of the theory to explain the sterility of mules. According to E . the semen of the horse and ass have commensurate and , and from the mingling of the two soft substances a hard (and sterile) compound results; Aristotle finds this explanation, like (1) above, unsatisfactory, cf. GA
747 a 35 - b >26 and the commentary on 143(92).
unfavorably contrasts E.'s explanation of -
and
by
means of pores and effluences with that of the atomists, whose postulation of indivisible solids interspersed by void allowed a more systematic and comprehensive account of all forms of change, GC 3241325-35. Further criticisms are that any explanation using pores and effluences is superfluous (since bodies adapted by nature for reciprocal contact will interact even without pores) and is also inconsistent with E.'s denial of void, GC 32565-1 , 3 2 6 0 7 - 2 8 , and cf. Theophrastus Sens. 13. It has been suggested that some light may be thrown on the question whether the pores are empty or full by referring to the original meaning of poros, a "ford," which can yield and allow entry to a body but which shows no gap before the body enters, cf. Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 234, n. 3 ; but this is to reinstate Aristotle's "divisible body," GC 326b26-28. From the account of the magnet it seefns that E . supposed the pores to be filled with air that is displaced by a concentration of effluences (cf. the commentary on the next fragment, and also Philoponus in GC 178.2). Alcmaeon was probably the first to have spoken of pores in an anatomical sense, but in his case they were channels leading from the sense organ to the brain, Theophrastus Sens. 2 5 - 2 6 ; E . perhaps had this in mind
in the phrase , 5(3)7
75(90)
So sweet seized on sweet, bitter rushed to bitter, sharp came to sharp, and hot coupled with hot.
speaks of
47(35) G
In this fragment it seems likely that in Macrobius is a simplification of a more unusual word in the original. Hesychius gives ,
for , and , , for
but in the extant fragments does not use the word for his description of pores in the body; instead he uses , 91 (100).3. His theory of pores and effluences was discussed and elaborated in the medical writers (e.g.,
Reg. I . 2 3 , Anon. Lond. 26, 3 1 - 3 4 , and cf. 3 6 ) , and was taken up especially
'
Diels therefore suggests
'
and Maas
(cf. D K vol. 1, p. 344 5)> f r the synizesis comparing
by Democritus and Epicurus for their account of "idols" (cf. Theophr. Sens. 50, Lucretius 1.309-28, 2.69, 4 . 4 6 - 1 0 9 ) . The theory seems to have originated with E . , for although Parmenides is cited with E . , Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Epicurus as explaining perception by symmetry of pores (Aet. 4.9.6), he is not mentioned elsewhere in this connection, and his name may well have been included from a misunderstanding of Aristotle's Metaph. 1009612-25.
I I . 24.769. This keeps the balance of the repetition of the quality (cf. 77(109]) and retains ' ' , from Macrobius. Bollack writes and Maas has three lines from a combination of the
two sources. The verbs with their forceful metaphors should probably be taken as past, rather than "gnomic," as Burnet and Kranz suggest, though the activity described still continues. According to Theophrastus, E. explained growth as well as mixture and perception by pores and effluences, and both Plutarch and Macrobius refer the fragment to nutrition, cf. Theophrastus Sens. 12 and Aristotle De An. 4 i 6 a 3 0 . It would
74(91)
( Water) combines more with wine, but refuses with oil.
seem that the food is broken up by a
in the stomach (cf. Galen
def. med. 99, 19.372K, Plato Phaedo g 6 a - b ) ; it then passes to the liver, where
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
232
233
P H Y S I C S
76(93)-77(109)
it is transformed into blood (cf.

, Simp, in Phys. 37 2 5>
,
,

Plutarch
quaest. conv. 683). The blood moves through the body and gives to each part what is necessary for its nutrition and growth, cf. Aetius
5.27.1.
attraction of elements in nutrition and perception, because Plutarch quotes the line as an example of a combination of ingredients that are and . His purpose is to give support to the theory that , having some affinity to the soul, fits into, fills, and holds fast its rarefied structure.
In Alcmaeon an indefinite number of opposite dynameis are cited as acting in the body, Aetius 5.30.1, and in Ancient Medicine the number is also indefinite, the example quoted including salt, bitter, sweet, and acid; special significance is denied to hot and cold. E . here gives the action of obvious dynameis in different kinds of food, but without connecting them specifically to the roots. After E . , when his doctrine of four roots prevailed in medical theory, the number of powers in the body was restricted to four, and the opposites were conflated with the humors, cf. VM 14, 16, and chap. 1.
77(109)
With earth we perceive earth, with water water, with air divine air, with fire destructive fire, with love love, and strife with baneful strife.
76(93)
And the gleam of bright saffron mixes in with the linen.
Many suggestions have been put forward for the interpretation of this line. Diels translates his text "Mit der Byssosfarbe aber wird des blauen Holunders Beere gemischt" and cites Hesychius to justify his interpretation of as the color. Yet the context in Plutarch refers the line to dyeing rather than to a mixing of colors, no parallel is offered for a mixing of this particular kind, and three initial spondees are heavy (77(109). 3 is exceptionally solemn). O n the same line is Wyttenbach's version followed by Karsten and Stein, and also by Millerd, but with for , and the translation "the brilliance of the scarlet dye mixed thoroughly with the grey cloth." This is unsatisfactory for there is still the metrical difficulty, and , which implies some brightness of color, should probably not be taken with , since it is important for the material which is to be dyed to be as neutral as possible, cf. Plato Rep. 42gd. With Bennet's reading, the only change required is in the gender of the adjective, can be used metaphorically to indicate brightness or penetration (cf. L S J s.v.), and saffron was well known as a dye, cf. Aeschylus Pers. 660, Ag. 239. The simile from an everyday craft is typical of E . , and an apt illustration of the affinity of certain substances and of the fast union resulting. The fragment's place in the poem is not known, but it may belong with the description of the forms produced by Kypris. It has been grouped with the fragments dealing with effluences and with the
These lines on are the most widely quoted from E.'s work. Aristotle, in De An. 404b 16, connects the lines with Plato's Timaeus, cf. Tim. 35a, 45b, and Sextus with Plato and Pythagoreanism, although he gives the theory as being of some antiquity (cf. Od. 17.218). There is a hint of the theory in Alcmaeon, cf. Aristotle De An. 405330, and after E . the attraction of like to like was important in the cosmogonies of Anaxagoras and Democritus, cf. Simp, in Phys. 27.11 and Democritus fr. 164. Galen explains the fragment by connecting a root with each sense, saying that sight involves fire, hearing air, touch earth, taste moisture, and smell "vapor," but this is a neat simplification; it is known from 88(84) that both fire and water are involved in vision, and Theophrastus remarks in Sens. 9 that E . did not deal with touch or taste, except under a general heading of perception by means of pores. E . explained perception in general terms by symmetry of pores and the attraction of similars. (Cf. Theophrastus Sens. 10 and 7, where asymmetry of pores in the sense organ and object explains why organs cannot distinguish each other's objectsthe pores are too wide or too narrow for contact.) Theophrastus also adds that for E . phronesis is the same or much the same as aisthesis. This is from Aristotle, who puts E . with Democritus and "almost everyone else" as identifying phronesis and aisthesis, and supposing this to be an (Metaph. 1 0 0 9 h l 2 ; cf. Galen's description of E.'s theory of perception as , Plac. Hipp.
Plat. 5 . 6 2 7 K ) . It is clear that E . supposed that the attraction of like for like covered a whole range, from the basic form of a part of one root being aware of another part like itself and moving toward it (cf. 53(62).6 and 100(110).9), through compounds that can sense and combine with similar compounds, to perfect mixtures that are assimilated to their like, the process of highest (i.e., purest) thought. It would not be possible to make a distinction, in Peripatetic terminology, between aisthesis and phronesis
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
234
235
P H Y S I C S
78(107)-79(106)
at any particular point along the scale, and as Theophrastus asks, Sens.
12, ; for on this
feeling pleasure and pain. Satisfactory perception and cognition, i.e., arising from a symmetry of subject and object, is pleasant, and the same holds true for nutrition, cf. Aetius 4.9.14. The animal is aware of its need for nourishment, and this, like perception, is based on the attraction of like to like, cf. the commentary on 7 5 ( 7 0 ) ; deficiency causes orexis, and pleasure arises from the replenishment. The other desire E . interprets is that of sex, again an orexis for a unity of likes, that brought about by Aphrodite, and for a return to a former harmony, cf. Aetius 5.19.5, E .
8 ( i 7 ) . 2 2 and 54(64).
theory nothing is inanimate or without sensation at however simple a level. Now if, with the fire within, we perceive the fire without, we increase the fire in our constitution (this notion is already in Parmenides, and probably Heraclitus; see chap. 3 ) , and so with earth, air, and water. Further, we have control to some extent over our perceptions and thoughts, and over the increase, for better or worse, of what is perceived and thought. But this control also applies to that which unites and that which separates the constituents, which on a moral plane means that we can increase the strength of Love or Strife in us by concentrating on its like in the outside world, cf. further the commentary on 100(110). 10.
2 dcov: cf. I I . 16.365, with as feminine in Homer, : the
Theophrastus says that E . explained pain by contraries, but pain relates to perception, which is by likes, Sens. 16. E.'s meaning, however, is likely to be less sophisticated than Theophrastus expects. The simple and general statement here covers a great number of instances and involves the six fundamentals. It could be illustrated by pain encountered in nutrition when the food absorbed cannot be assimilated to the body, in perception when there is a lack of symmetry as with the bright light or loud noise (cf. Sens. 8 ) , and in human relations when attempts at friendship turn to hostility because of incompatibility. A further implication made explicit by Theophrastus is that ignorance is painful, Sens. 23.
adjective, as probably in Parmenides fr. 10.3, is ambiguous here between "destructive" and "unseen." The two epithets in this line are reminders of the divine status of the roots.
78(107)
All things are fitted together and constructed out of these, and by means of them they
<?>: an informal suggestion made by Professor H . Lloyd-Jones in place of Karsten's commonly accepted ().
cf- 70(75), 85(86), 6 0 ( 7 1 ) 4 .
think and feel pleasure and pain.
almost a technical phrase of E.'s for the formation of organic compounds, From the Theophrastean context Stein was probably correct in attaching these two lines to 77(109), cf. Simplicius in de An. 27.34-37. The principle that all things have phronesis, in varying degrees according to their
a n
elemental structure, connects with 77(109) and also with 81(103) and pain.
100(110). 10; here it is also combined with an explanation of pleasure E.'s theory of pleasure is difficult to reconstruct, as there are only two brief notices in Theophrastus (Sens. 9, 16) and two in Aetius (4.9.15 and 5.28.1), the second of which is corrupt. Desire is said to arise from a deficiency in the constituent elements; and this deficiency, which needs to be remedied, is of something bearing a resemblance to the subject. Pleasure occurs with the action of like on like and the replenishment of the deficiency by a similar mixture; pain is caused by contraries, for dissimilar compounds are hostile to each other, Aetius 5.28.1, Theophrastus Sens. 9 and 16 quoting 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 6 - 7 . From this scanty evidence (and adding Sens. 23) it seems that, as with aisthesis and phronesis, all things, on however simple a level, are capable of
79(106)
For man's wisdom grows according to what is present.
This line is taken with the following fragment by Aristotle and the commentators; it is also related in Metaph. to Parmenides fr. 16, Anaxagoras, and phronesis is and an unknown Homeric phrase, and in De An. to Od. 18.136. The point made is that according to earlier thinkers aisthesis are not distinguished (cf. the commentary on 7 7 ( 1 0 9 ] ) ; both are smatikon and of like by like. Alexander gives the sense in which
to be taken: ,
in Metaph.
306.17 According to ., then, the external condition affects
the internal structure, and so the quality and quantity of the individual's wisdom; in Aristotle's summary, when men change their hexis they change their thinking, Metaph. ioogbig. It is worth noticing the connection
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
236
237
P H Y S I C S
80(108)-83(98)
Asclepius makes with medical theory. Following Aristotle he says that for
E . a change of hexis is a change of phronesis , in Metaph. 277.6. ,
A satisfactory
mixture of bodily
elements is a healthy state (and pleasant, cf. the previous fragment) and conducive to thought, which thrives in the appropriate environment. Specifically human understanding differs from animal perception in its complexity and in the extent to which it is in the individual's control,
cf. the commentaries on 80(108) and 100(110).
contexts, must be local, meaning "there" in the mixture of earth, air, fire, and water as it happens to be, for it is out of these that all things are constructed and by means of them that thought is to be explained, cf. the commentary on 78(107).
82(104)
And insofar as the finest happened to have fallen together
80(108)
Insofar as they have changed in their nature, so far changed thoughts are always present to them.
This fragment comes with the previous one in the two quotations by Aristotle and the commentators, and it emphasizes it. There it was said that the external condition affects the growth of the thinking, and here that an internal change of structure results in a change of thought. Simplicius and Philoponus relate the lines specifically to dreaming, to the effect that dreams at night are conditioned by a man's physical changes during the day, Simplicius in de An. 202.25, Philoponus in de An. 486.13, and cf. the reading of at Aristotle De An. 427325. Explanations of dreams are rare among the Presocratics, and E.'s is well accommodated to his general theory. I n the discussion Aristotle does not mention dreams but loss of consciousness (Metaph. ioogb25; the phrase on Hector is not in the extant text of Homer). I f the "Homeric" reference is relevant to E . , as suggests, there is here the extreme case of a blow to the physical system resulting in incoherent and uncharacteristic thoughts, comparable perhaps to the fantasies resulting from a modern anesthetic.
This is the last of the lines quoted by Simplicius on , coming, he says, shortly after the previous fragment, is used of random a n - d again, with reference to the movement in 29(53) a n d 5I(59)-2, elements, in the first line of the following fragment. The "finest" of the four roots are air and fire, and if the connection with the following fragment is correct, it is the amount of these, balancing to a more or less precise degree the amount of earth and water, that together with them are made by Aphrodite into blood, the organ of thought for men. It is not a defect in Love's workmanship but the quantity of the constituent ingredientsand this is a matter of "chance"which accounts for the thoughts of some men being inferior to those of others (but the individual can improve his own thought structure, cf. the commentary on ioo[i 10]). There is a similar explanation for other compounds; the coming together of the ingredients is fortuitous (cf. Aristotle GC 333b 10-11), but where the proportions in which they come together are appropriate, Aphrodite produces an organism or organic part, cf. the commentaries
on 60(71) and 70(75).
83(98)
And earth, anchored in the perfect harbors of Aphrodite, with them in almost equal quantities, forms of different flesh. with Hephaistos chanced to come together and rain and all-shining
air, either a little more, or less where there was more. From these came blood and the
81(103)
There by the will of chance all things have thought
The line is quoted with the following fragment without comment by Simplicius as an illustration of the use of in E . , cf. the commentary
on 7 0 ( 7 5 ) . : cf. the Homeric , I I . 19.9, Od. 7.214, in pessimistic
The first line is quoted by Simplicius in the list of fragments on (cf. the commentary on 70(75]), and the five lines in a general discussion of Love and Strife both being active in the present world, of Philia/Aphrodite as the craftsman, and here specifically of E.'s terminology for the roots; fire is called Hephaistos, helios, and phlox, water ombros, and air aither. The fragment explains the formation of blood, and it is the blood
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
238
239
F R A G M E N T S
P H Y S I C S
84(85)-86(87)
A N D S M E L L
around the heart that is the organ of human thought, cf. 94(105).3. Theophrastus gives the reason for this: (Sens. 10). Blood is composed of fire, air, earth, and water combined in a ratio approximating to 1 : 1 : 1 : 1. T h e exact proportion was present throughout the sphere under Love's complete control, and the combination which now comes nearest to that is found in blood. The importance of blood as the instrument of thought and the best work of Aphrodite, which is explained in the Physics, immediately illuminates the prohibition against bloodshed, set out forcefully in the Katharmoi. How well the organ functions depends on the proportion of the constituent ingredients in its physical structure. T w o further examples are given by Theophrastus in his notice that a particular skill is due to the in an organ the orator, who has a good mixture in his tongue, and the craftsman,
who has one in his hands, Sens. 10-11.
84-93
SIGHT,
R E S P I R A T I O N ,
84(85)
The gentle flame met with a slight portion of earth.
The verse comes after the first line of the previous fragment in the list of quotations by Simplicius illustrating E.'s use of , in Phys. 331.7. In the introduction to the previous fragment at in Phys. 32, phlox was listed with Hephaistos as one of E.'s terms for fire. It is not known to which of the the verse refers, but from the description of the constituent fire and the amount of earth it is reasonable to suggest the eye. : literally "short-lived" in Homer, cf. of Hector, II. 15.612, and men in general, Od. 19.328. The adjective is a reminder that the combination of ingredients that constitute the bodily parts is temporary, cf. 12 (8).
'. as in 48(96), earth gives a secure hold to the other elements, as well as being an integral part of their composition. 2 : for the variety of terms for the four roots cf. the table in chap.
2.
85(86)
Out of these the goddess Aphrodite fashioned untiring eyes.
3 : the metaphor of "perfect harbors" is unexpected. I n other comparable fragments Aphrodite/Kypris is active, fitting together, 6 0 ( 7 1 ) ; nailing, 8 6 ( 8 7 ) ; gluing, 4 8 ( 9 6 ) ; molding, 8 5 ( 8 6 ) ; working with her hands, 70(75) and 8 7 ( 9 5 ) ; a n 8 generally being busy, 62(73). 1 suspect that the reference here is to the womb, where the tissues are first formed, cf. Sophocles 07" 1208, and E.'s metaphor at 55(66). The harbor is "perfect," but the somewhat random coming together of the roots into it results in the imperfection; Kypris produces the best possible result from the given material, cf. the activity of the Demiurge, Plato Tim. 4 i d . 4 ': Professor Dodds suggested ' to me for this crux. The proportion is not perfect, cf. in line , and so the amount of earth does not exactly match the separate amounts of fire, air, and water, but may be a little more (with less of the other three) or less (where they are more). 5 : cf. Aetius 5.22.1 . The eidos is given by the proportion of the constituent ingredientswith less earth there is blood, and with more, flesh, cf. Hipp. Nat. Puer. 15 of the fetus: -
If the previous fragment refers to eyes a lacuna follows, as water and air are also in the eye, cf. Theophrastus Sens. 7. This line occurs with the two following fragments in Simplicius' list of examples of the work of Kypris/ Aphrodite on the roots to produce organic parts. For cf. the similar use of the verb at 70(75), 78(107), and also
106(15)4.
86(87)
Aphrodite, having fitted (them) with rivets of affection
The line is given by Simplicius as coming soon after the previous one, and presumably in the same context of the formation of eyes, , like , is for the work of a craftsman. The (cf. 61(33]), rather than nailing the eyes to the skull or connecting them with each other (cf. 89(88]), bind the constituent elements to each other (cf. Tim. 43a of the gods working on fire and water). They are bonds of affection in that Love brings the elements together and also makes them want to
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
24
241
P H Y S I C S
87(95)-88(84)
stay together, contrary to their tendency to stay with their own kind,
cf. 14(21).8 and 25(22).5.
lantern by lighting the wick, and then, since he was going out in bad weather, shielded the flame with screens of fine material attached to the frame (horn plates were also used for this purpose), is probably an independent genitive, the point being that, whatever the
87(95)
When they first grew together in the hands of Kypris
winds, the flame is safe because it is protected on four sides. 5 :

-
translated "more diffuse," but literally "longer" or
"more stretched out"; Alexander's paraphrase gives The line comes after the two previous fragments in the same context of Kypris/Aphrodite as the craftsman, but it is concerned with the specific reason why some see better at night and others by day. The subject of the verb would then be an expression for parts of fire and water, for eyes with less fire in their constitution see better by day, and those with less water, by night, cf. Theophrastus Sens. 8 and the commentary on the next fragment. 6 : not the sky, as Alexander paraphrases from the Ho-
meric threshold of Olympus, or a part of the lantern, but most obviously the threshold of the traveler's house, where he pauses a moment to find his way by the lantern's unfailing light (cf. 7 : , 85(86]). an obscure word which seems to mean "ancient," "born for the water of
long ago"; here, perhaps, from the contrast with therefore for the element of fire.
Styx (Hesiod Theog. 805), "without a known beginning," and appropriate 88(84)
As when a man who intends to make a journey prepares a light for himself, of fire burning through a wintry night; unfailing but the light that is more diffuse leaps through, and shines across the threshold delicate tissues, was then concealed in the round pupilthese ing deep water, but let through the more diffuse light. aflame with he fits linen screens against all the winds,
8 :
Guthrie accepts the reading
from Frster and
Ross, with the gynecologically peculiar sense "fire gave birth to," HGP vol. 2, p. 235. Burnet had kept with Aphrodite as subject and translated, "even so did she entrap the elemental fire, the round pupil," but Bollack understands "ainsi alors Aphrodite couchait . . . " (vol. 3, p. 325). But the verb is more likely to be middle, with the general sense that the fire "kept itself concealed" in the dark aperture of the pupilthere is still the poetic ambiguity of the little girl with her soft wrappings and the center of the eye with its protective covering, cf. the note below on the
whole fragment. The line () ' ,
beams. In the same way the elemental fire, wrapped in membranes and kept back the surround-
The fragment is given by Aristotle with a brief comment that E . at one time, apparently, explains vision by an issue of light from the eye and at another by effluences from the objects seen. Alexander paraphrases the fragment in his commentary on Aristotle here and refers it to Plato's exposition of E.'s theory in the Meno ( y 6 c - d ) . Eusebius mentions the adjective in as a poetic application of [Od. 20.19).
n d
which was made up by Blass from a reading in of line 5 (cf. ap. crit.) and inserted here, should be discarded, cf. also Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 327. The syntax of the relative pronoun is strange, the composition from the version of a line four verses earlier in is unwarranted, and it would be a physiological oddity to have , "funnel-shaped holes," in the protective membranes. (O'Brien seems unaware that the line on which he bases much of the argument of his article, J H S 1970, pp. 140-79, is an intrusion into the text.) I f anything is to be salvaged from the confused line in P, it is that there are pores in the fire. The structure of the eye as presented here is remarkably accurate. Seven extant fragments deal with the eyes; it is clear that E . was interested in and may well have examined in detail their composition and functioning (Alcmaeon is said to have dissected the eye, cf. D K 24 A 10). The conclusions appear to be as follows: the fiery part of the eye (i.e., the lens,
The whole passage is Homeric in vocabulary and rhythm, as well as in the simile form, cf. especially lines 1 and Od. 2.20, 2 and //. 12.279 a
3 and I I . 2.397, 4 a
n d
8.563,
E. 5.525, and 8 and I I . 18.595.
2 : journey. 3 :
"through the night," cf. I I . 2.57 and commonly in
Homer; here, for the time the flame burns rather than the extent of the the meaning is unclear, even to Alexander, but an apin line 8) from the famous Amor-
propriate sense is "linen" (cf.
gian flax, cf. Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 322. The traveler prepared the
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
242 Cogni-
243
P H Y S I C S
89(88)-90(94)
cf. Theophrastus Sens. 37 and J . I . Beare Greek Theories of Elementary
tion p. 10) is concealed behind the dark opening of the pupil and protected by membranes and tissues (in fact, by the colored membrane of the iris and by the ciliary processes and fibers). These are composed of earth and air (cf. Theophrastus Sens. 7, where Diels's addition of ( ) is unnecessary and confusing). Surrounding the membranes, and prevented by them from quenching the fire, is water (in effect in the anterior and posterior chambers, and there is also the vitreous body behind; the general correctness of E.'s account can be seen from a comparison withfigs.13.13
and 13.18 in Gray's Anatomy 1973, pp. 1045 and 1048). There are pores in
Sens. 8 ) . The main point of the lantern simile, moreover, is to show the function of the membranes, which keep the water in the eye from the fire but allow the fire to penetrate. (There is a faint possibility that E . understood the working of the lens to be comparable to that of the sun, cf. the commentary on 3 6 ( 4 4 ) : effluences are collected on the outer convex surface and then refracted from the inner convex surface to the back of the eye, in fact, to the retina. The fire in the eye would then be like a lantern, but with only two opposite sides emitting light. The light penetrates outside the organ to contribute to the light necessary for sight (and also probably to account for "flashing" eyes), but it also refracts the image of light-colored objects through the vitreous body to the back of the organ, in order to give the actual perception of the object. As well as receiving effluences into its pores, the eye, like any other object, gives off its own, cf. the commentary on 739])
the fire and in the water, and these "alternate" in that the water is on
either side of the fire (
, Thphr. loc. cit.; for a restricted sense of cf. ' , Aristoph. Nub. 9 8 3 ) . Vision occurs when effluences from objects fit into these pores, dark colors being seen when their effluences fit into the pores of water, and light colors when their effluences fit into the pores of fire (cf. Plato Meno 76c, Thphr. Sens. 7, Aristotle Sens. 438a4; 77(109) is a general statement of awareness and recognition, and not relevant for the detailed functioning of the eyes, cf. the commentary on that fragment). Eyes that have less fire, i.e., a smaller pupil and lens, see better by day, and those with more fire, by night (Thphr. Sens. 8 ; this is an obvious conclusion from the dilation of pupils in poor light). The former type of eyes are black or dark, the latter glaukos (a conjecture criticized by Aristotle, GA 779b 15). And, according to Theophrastus Sens. 8, the best eyes have equal proportions of fire and water (i.e., the amount of fire in the lens and the amount of water in the surrounding chambers are equivalent; the vitreous body would not come into the calculations). But in quoting the fragment in the De Sensu Aristotle says that at one time E . apparently explains vision by fire coming from the eye, as here, and at another by effluences from what is seen. (For a discussion of the two versions, cf. A. A. Long, CQ. 1966, pp. 2 6 2 - 6 4 ; W. J . Verdenius,
Studia Vollgraff 1948, pp. 1 5 5 - 6 4 ; D . O'Brien, JHS 1970, pp. 140-46 and
89(88)
from both (eyes) comes one seeing
The point of the fragment is not known, as it is quoted by Aristotle and Strabo only for the form instead of - And since the word is ambiguous, the sense may be either that the two eyes focus on a single subject or that one vision results from the impression on two eyes. The former is the version attributed to Pythagoras and Parmenides (for the rays from each eye embrace the object like outstretched hands, Aet. 4.13.9-10), but the latter is more appropriate for E.'s theory. Perhaps he adapted Alcmaeon's view, or saw independently, that a "path" from each eye joins at the point where the two impressions are combined (and this also explains why the two eyes move together, cf. Chalcidius, D K 24 A 10). T h e next stage for E . would be for the composite impression to be accepted by the blood and taken to the heart, rather than received in the brain.
the bibliography given, pp. 157-58.) There is no incompatibility here. From Plato and Theophrastus it is clear that for E . vision occurs when the effluences fit into the pores of the eye (cf. Meno 76c, Sens. 7), and there is no question of a coalescence of fire from the eye and light from the object, as in Plato 77m. 45b, Theaet. i$6d. But light from fire within the eye is as necessary for vision as external light, and the two are complementary (for eyes with less fire see better by day, and those with more, by night,
90(94)
And black color in the depths of a river comes from caverns. the shadow, and is seen in the same way in hollowed
The
fragment occurs in one of the eight "questions" from Plutarch's
quaest. nat., preserved only in the Latin translation of Gilbert Longeuil.
244
245
P H Y S I C S
91(100)
The "question" is, "Cur aqua in summa parte alba, in fundo vero nigra spectatur?" The first suggestion, for which E.'s lines are quoted in support, is that the surface is illuminated by the sun, but the force of the rays is diminished when they penetrate deep water. Now, E . held water to be black and fire white, and black to be perceived by the water in the eye, and white by the fire (Thphr. Sens. 17, and cf. the commentary on the previous fragment). Water, therefore, when it is out of reach of the sun's illumination, as in the depths of a river or in underground caves, appears black, cf. 14(21).5. The fragment and its context imply an interest on E.'s part in the nature and extent of the penetration of water by light. Gilbert Longeuil's translations from the Greek, where they can be checked, are not accurate, cf. F . H . Sandbach's introduction to the Loeb translation, Plutarch's Moralia X I , p. 142. I tentatively suggest the following as an attempt at restoring the original Greek:
' ' , .
length of the quotation, he criticizes E . on three counts: (1) for not explaining the purpose of respiration, (2) for not making clear the kinds of included in his theory, and (3) for supposing that nose-breathing is primary breathing. The lines are paraphrased somewhat ineptly by M i chael of Ephesus, and briefly summarized at Aetius 4.22.1. A n intimidating amount has been written on these twenty-five lines. Ancient commentaries are well summarized in Karsten EAcr pp. 2 4 5 - 5 1 , and in recent times the most interesting discussions are by J . U . Powell, CQ, 1923, pp. 172-74; H . Last, CQ_ 1924, pp. 169-73;
M
- Timparano Cardini, PP 1957,

i960, 1966, pp. 3 2 8 - 3 3 ; G . A. 1970, pp. 5 2 0 - 3 0 ; D .
PP- 2 5 0 - 7 0 ; D. J . Furley, JHS 1957, pp. 3 1 - 3 4 ; . B. Booth, JHS pp. 1 0 - 1 5 ; G . E . R. Lloyd, Polarity and Analogy Seeck, Hermes 1967, pp. 3 6 - 4 1 ; T . D . Worthen, Isis
O'Brien, J H S 1970, pp. 1 4 0 - 8 3 ; and cf. further his bibliographies on pp. 170 and 176, n. 177. The fragment as a whole is here discussed after the notes.
'
cf. 9 3 ( 1 0 2 ) ; a general theory of respiration is to be given, translated "bloodless" by Burnet, Kirk-
and, as Aristotle complains, we do not know exactly what types of life are included in it. : 91(100)
This is the way in which all things breathe in and out: they all have channels of flesh, which the blood leaves, stretched over the surface of the body, and at the mouth of these the outside of the skin is pierced right through with close-set holes, so that blood is contained, but a passage is cut for air to pass through freely. Then, when the smooth blood rushes away from the surface, a wild surge of blustering air rushes through, and when the blood leaps up, the air breathes out again. It is like a girl playing with a clepsydra of shining bronzewhen she puts the mouth of the pipe against her pretty hand and dips it into the smooth body of shining water, no liquid yet enters the vessel, but the mass of air pressing from within against the close-set perforations holds it back until she releases the compressed current, and then, as the when she has water in the hand, harsh-sounding air escapes, a due amount of water enters. Similarly,
Raven, and others, but it is said in lines 4 - 5 that there is blood in the tubes. Booth, Guthrie, and Bollack have "partly filled with blood," "containing little blood," and "pauvre en sang" respectively from Aristotle Resp. 473b2, but these do not explain the adjective and go ill with the language of "rushing" and "leaping" that characterizes the movement of this blood. The prefix is generally passive, "left by" and so "without," but it can be active, cf. Euripides Or. 1305, and the description of Heracles in Theocritus 13.73 as , i.e., "a sailor who leaves," are "channels "a deserter." From this it is possible that cf. also Sophocles Ajax 1412. 2 : "over the surface of the body," being
, I I . 13.616,
that the blood leaves," as they are filled alternately with blood and air;
hollow of the bronze vessel, and the neck and passage are closed by human the air outside, pressing inward, keeps the water in at the gates of the strainer, controlling the defenses, until the girl releases her hand; of the former processas and inward, a flooding
used not in the occasional late sense of "nethermost" but as in Homer for
"outermost," cf.//. 6.118, 18.608, and also
then, the reverse
of Menelaus' strike above "the outside top endi.e., the bridgeof the nose" between the eyes, which are dislodged by the blow. 4
ing
the air rushes in, a due amount of water runs out before stream of air at once comes pouring in, and when the blood
it. In the same way, when the smooth blood surging through the body rushes back leaps up, an equal amount (of air) in turn breathes back out again.
:
,
"the outer extremities of the skin," i.e., the is clinched by comparis genitive 21(27)4,
47(35) , the outside limit or circumference
epidermis above the cutis; the meaning of
of the cosmos. The great controversy over whether Despite Aristotle's interest in E.'s theory of respiration, as shown by the plural of ("skin") or of ("nose") is like that on ,
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
246
247
P H Y S I C S
91(100)
22(28)4,
a s
"rest" or "solitude." I n both cases the first is the meaning
9 :
Diels's emendation; the accusative would refer to a well-
appropriate to the context, but the ambiguity in the word chosen allows E . also to suggest the second, cf. Kahn's reference to "studied ambiguity in E . , " Gnomon 1969, p. 439. Other examples of such "studied ambiguity"
are , 77(109).2, , 53(62)., , 2(3)4,
known game. The clepsydra was a common household contrivance used for transferring small amounts of liquid from one container to another, and perhaps for measuring. It had a narrow opening at the top, which could be plugged by hand, and a perforated base, cf. the illustrations in Last, Cd 1924, p. 170, and Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 484. The clepsydra is used here in a simile in which the movement of air into and out of the openings of the body in respiration is compared to that of water into and out of the perforated base of the clepsydra; the fragment does not describe a controlled experiment of any kind. Worthen, his igjo, p. 527, aptly compares William Harvey saying that the heart is like a force pump; the clepsydra, like the force pump, is a basic model rather than an experimental device, : ' sydra are pottery. 13 (perhaps ) : the emphatic assertion of the corporeality of air matching the pressure of 15 [, line 2 1 ) : the genitive ab-
and ,
5 9 ( 6 8 ) . . I n the general theory, it would seem, E . supposed
that primitive animal types breathe in and out through pores in the skin (and perhaps there is an implication that plants "breathe" through their leaf surfaces), but in the higher animal types there are two particularly large "holes" in the surfacethe nostrilswhich are primary examples of pore-breathing. And this would account for Aristotle's second and third criticisms. For Aristotle primary breathing is not nose-breathing but involves the special apparatus of the arteria. If this interpretation of the lines is right, then the link between E.'s simple theory of nose-breathing as a form of skin-breathing with an oscillatory movement of blood and air, and the complexities of Plato's "circulation" of air involving skin, lungs, nose, and mouth (Tim. 79), may well be the medical emphasis on unimpeded cutaneous and nasal respiration in the healthy body, cf. Philistion Anon. Lond. 20.43-50. The account in Aetius 4.22.1 and 5 . 1 5 4 seems to mean that at birth the mucus in the body is ejected through the nose and mouththe process is hastened by holding the baby up by its feetas a preliminary to cutaneous and nasal inhalation of air. The instances of and in Homer are listed by O'Brien, J H S 1970, pp. 173-74 6 "from there," i.e., from the holes at the surface. For the movements of fire and air in lines 6 - 8 Bollack aptly compares the vocabulary in the to-and-fro fighting between Achilles and the river, Empedocle vol. 3, pp. 4 8 3 - 8 4 , and //. 21.233-71, especially 2 3 3 - 3 4 .
Bollack rejects the emendation and writes
on the grounds that the extant examples of a clep-
solutes on the movement of air correspond to the temporal clauses, lines 6 and 23, and 8 and 25, on the movement of blood, giving syntactical confirmation of the correspondence of air in the clepsydra to blood in the body, : cf. the same phrase in line 21. The "due amount" of water that enters and leaves the clepsydra is equivalent to the quantity of air it previously contained.
16 : corresponds to . . . , lines 10-11, the
girl being the subject of both verbs; in her game she first has air in the clepsydra, and then water. 19: air outside keeps the water in the clepsydra in a state of siege; the gates are the exit for the water, i.e., the perforations, through which it rushes at the first opportunity. T h e irregular gurgling made by the water entering and filling the strainer accounts for its being called . , interpreted as "of the neck end," is irrelevant in the preferable.
glossed by Michael, in PN 124.15, as
8 - 2 5 : the simile is in the standard Homeric form: (1) is the case, (2) it is as when_y, (3) even so is the case. (3) repeats the original state of affairs given in ( 1 ) , often in similar wording, cf. II. 35 8 7> 2 - 3 6 1 ' 22.138, 188, 306 of Achilles and Hector, and many others. So here lines 2 2 - 2 4 repeat the general sense of 6 - 8 ; there is no reason to suppose that E . would deliberately avoid the repetition of (1) in (3). T h e child "playing" is introduced because it allows a possible move with the clepsydra (immersing it full of air in the water) that would not be shown in its orthodox use. (A child today will play in a similar manner with a drinking straw and a glass of liquid; the straw has only one perforation at the bottom end whereas the clepsydra has many, but it works on the same principle.)
context, and the reading

22 : -
23: Homeric phrasing, cf. Od. 22.270 of the suitors retreating before Odysseus. This fragment gives the first extant Greek physiological theory to connect respiration with the movement of the blood. E . recognizes that the blood is in continuous motion as air is inspired and exhaled; the
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
248
249
P H Y S I C S
92(101)-93(102)
movement, however, is not circular but oscillatory, being to and from the body's surface in the same "channels." T h e details of the comparison with the clepsydra are set out below, and some explanatory notes added.
Respiration Breathing in: static: inhale: static: unplug: out: static: exhale: static: unplug: and the Simile of the Clepsydra
92(101)
Tracking with nostrils fragments of animal bodies (which they) left from their paws on the soft grass
It is not certain that the two lines are consecutive, but the immediate context in the sources suggests a close relationship. Plutarch quotes the first in a simile about hounds trained to concentrate on a single scent (curios. 52oe -f) and, under the heading of why spoors are difficult to track
in spring (quaest. nat. 917), as part of an explanation of how dogs keep
A(i) A(ii) a(i) a(ii)

Breathing
blood inside blood to center away from holes air inside air out up away from holes blood withdrawn at center blood to surface toward holes air outside air in down toward holes
(restraint of pores)
followed by
air outside, lines 4-5 air in through holes, lines 6, 23-24 water outside, lines 10-14 water in through holes, line 15 air inside
to a trail by picking up the distinctive odor at death. :
left by animals. The second line is
(air pressure)
followed by
quoted by Alexander in a question about the extinction of the body's
the first word was obviously puzzling, as the variants as "fragments," but
Plato Rep. 525, Tim. 6 2 a ) .
B(i) B(ii) b(i) b(ii)
show. There are only late parallels for

is well established (and cf. ,
follows
follows
air out through holes, lines 8, 25 water inside, iines 16-19 water out through holes, lines 20-21
specifically for "nostrils," was not used in the previous frag-
ment, but it was obviously available if an unambiguous reference to nasal breathing only were needed. 2 : for various suggestions for filling the lacuna, cf. the ap. crit. I f this line follows the preceding one, a neuter plural subject for the verb would be needed, relating to the previous genitives. Perhaps the original was
something like (') (') , cf.
Notes
. . .
Air in (a) and (b) is the analogue of blood in (A) and (B), and water in (a) and (b) is the analogue of air in (A) and (B); the correspondence is reinforced by the syntax of subordination, cf. the commentary on line 15. The detailed explanation of a(i) and b(i) establishes that a stream of air and a stream of liquid can occupy the same amount of space and exert equivalent pressures. Holes at the base of the clepsydra are analogous to pores in the skin (including, I suggest, the two big "pores" of the nostrils). There is some correspondence between the restraint of the pores at the surface of the body and the pressure of air at the perforated surface of the clepsydra in keeping the two elements separate at the "static" stage of A(i) and a(i). The deliberate unplugging by the child in a(ii) and b(ii) is analogous to the mechanical initiation of movement in the blood. The failure of the comparison, that air goes right outside the clepsydra through the top vent in a(ii) but blood does not leave the body, is diminished by concentrating on the movements in relation to the perforated surface in each case. There is no implication of void in E.'s theory of respiration. Line 23 refers to the area of the heart and lungs that expands with blood and air during inhalation and returns to normal during exhalation. It is not that a previous "void" is filled but that additional material is taken in, and the chest expands to accommodate it.
in
Plutarch's
paraphrase, quaest. nat. 917. Whatever the reading, it is clear that a physical explanation of smell is put forward. The odor is a series of effluent particles that meet the nostrils of the trained hound, and so indicate the trail, cf. the next fragment.
93(102)
In this way all things are apportioned breathing and smelling.
Theophrastus briefly summarizes E.'s theory of smell at Sens. 9 and criticizes it in some detail in 2 1 - 2 2 , where the quotation is given as the
climax of E.'s account. The context shows that (or ) is to be
understood as the sense rather than the object of smell, but the ambiguity, strengthened by the plural, persists; the emission of odors, as well as the ability, however primitive, to perceive them, is general. The point that leads to the climax of this line in Theophrastus is that smelling relates to
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
25 ,
P H Y S I C S
94(105)
breathing and is explicable by it:
Sens. g. Theophrastus counters this with examples of animals that do not breathe but have a sense of smell, and also by saying that if the keenest sense of smell accompanies the most vigorous breathing, then those with short or labored breath should be most sensitive to smells, which is not the case (Sens. 2 1 - 2 2 ) . For Theophrastus, breathing is not the of smell but is connected with it ; however, his excessive zeal in criticizing E . leads to inconsistencies in his own theory (cf. G . M .
Stratton Theophrastus and the Greek Physiological Psychology before Aristotle
pp. 3 9 - 4 0 ) . Odor, for E . , is the actual emanation from the object that stimulates the sense when it is symmetrical with the pores of the organ. I n man and developed forms of animal life the organ is most obviously the nostrils, and despite Theophrastus, it seems E . was aware that respiratory difficulties affect the sense of smell, cf. Aetius 4.17.2. It was argued in the commentary on 91 (100) that pores over the skin, including the nostrils, are involved in respiration, so it is likely that E . recognized the sensitivity to smell that extends over the body in lower forms of life and the wide application of both kinds of smelling is indicated by here, corresponding to that in 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 1. O n the modernity of E . here cf. Chambers Enc. s.v. "Taste and Smell," where it is said that the entry of odorous molecules into ultramicroscopic holes pierced in the outer covering of the body's structure is still the accepted explanation of the working of this sense, and Enc. Brit. Macr. I V , p. 188a, where the entry of odorant particles into special receptive "sockets" on the cell surface is put forward as one of the latest theories in the still unresolved debate over how smell works.
: Grotius's is generally accepted for , except by Bollack, who keeps the MSS reading, Empedocle vol. 3, p. 445. He suggests an adaptation of Homer's description of the four springs by Circe's cave (Od. 5.70-71) for the four elements centered around the heart. (Variations, however, on occur in the same fourth foot position six times in Homer, which may account for the reading here.) A subject is required, possibly (the heart being the first organ to be articulated in the embryo, Censorinus 6.1, D K 31 A 8 4 ) , rather than or , which would preempt in the following lines. (Scaliger's emendation of ()) could not be "leap to meet" (LSJ) but "leap up in turn," cf.' , II. 10.94, and of the blood in 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 8 , 25. Blood moves to and from the heart as it balances the intake and exhalation of air in respiration. 2 :
5(3)4-8
for thought by other means in the body cf. I ( 2 ) . I and

the suggestion is unsuitable, as
the movement of the blood for E . is oscillatory and not circulatory, and the verb is unknown. 3 : all things think (cf. 100(110). 10), and the quality of the thought depends on the constituent elements. For men these are best blended in the blood, but there is thinking inferior and superior to that of man, cf. chap. 3. : first attested here but taken up in medical writings and in the Aristotelian commentators, cf. Rufus Onom. 163, Galen us. part. 6.16, Simplicius in Phys. 392.24. The third line is quoted separately in the Etymologies and frequently paraphrased, e.g., Cicero Tusc. i . i g " E . animam esse censet cordi suffusum sanguinem," Macrobius Somn. Scip. 1.14 and Tertullian De Anim. 5 " E . a sanguine animam," Galen Plac. Hipp. 2.8. In the fifth century Greek medicine was divided on the question of the heart or brain being the center of intelligence. The context of this fragment shows the survival of the adducement of Homeric evidence for the connection of the heart with thinking. It is hard to assess the influence E . might have had in the debate, but his stand is echoed in some of the Hippocratic writings, in Aristotle, and in the Epicureans and Stoics. (In De Corde 10, for example, man's intelligence is situated specifically in the left chamber of the heart; this was thought to be filled with an airlike substance having some affinities to Stoic pneuma, cf. C . R . S.
Harris The Heart and the Vascular System in Ancient Greek Medicine pp. 9 4 ,
F R A G M E N T S A D V A N T A G E
94-101 O F
M I N D ,
H O L Y
M I N D ,
A N D
T H E
R I G H T
T H I N K I N G
94(105)
(the heart) nourished in seas of blood coursing to and fro, and there above all is what men call thought, because, for men, blood around the heart is thought.
The lines are quoted in Stobaeus from Porphyry's De Styge. The cognitive function of the concentration of blood around the heart is connected to Homeric evidence that the heating of the heart-blood in anger results in temporary loss of reason.
2 3 8 - 4 1 , and passim.) E.'s particular innovation, however, is to relate thought not to the heart but to the blood coursing around it, cf. Aetius
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
252
253
P H Y S I C S
95(132)-97(134)
4.5.8, Theodoretus 5.22. A detailed commentary giving evidence from observation on the connection of the constitution of the blood with intelligence is found in the Hippocratic Flat. 14, ending '
, ' , and cf. Reg. 1.25 and Anon. Lond. 1 on Hippias of Croton.
Clement quotes the fragment with Solon fr. 16 and John 1.18 on the divine as invisible. Theodoretus, no doubt copying him, connects it with 6 ( 4 ) . 1 - 2 (which supports the assignation to the Physics), Solon fr. 16, and Antisthenes fr. 24 in the context of relying on ' when the senses prove inadequate. (Solon's fr. 17 is even more relevant: ' .) The fragment contrasts knowledge
For E . it is the exact mixture of the four roots in the blood that accounts for thought, and also probably for the prohibition against bloodshed
given in the Katharmoi (cf. Theophrastus Sens. 10 and frs. 1 2 2 - 2 5 ) . It
also seems likely that blood played a physical part in bringing to the cardial nexus the understanding achieved by the spread over the body, 5 ( 3 ) 4 , 7, and cf. 1(2). 1. There is a concentration of blood in the individual organs, which accounts for their relative efficiency (cf. Theophrastus Sens. 24), and in respiration the blood in the vessels oscillates between the pores at the surface of the body and the area of the heart.
within the range of the senses (the senses, for example, perceive the characteristics and activity of earth, air, fire, and water) and knowledge outside the range of the senses, such as that of the nature of the divine, cf. the commentary on Philia, 8(17).21, 25-26. : the transitive use of the middle is paralleled in II. 17.341; for the meaning of the line cf. Diels Hermes 1880, pp. 171-72, with reference to II. 1.587, 3.306. 2 : Karsten's emendation has been retained, the relative referring to both sight and touch, which are the most convincing of the senses. The
"wagon road" exaggerates the of 5 ( 3 ) 4 , cf.
95(132)
Happy the man who has gained the wealth of divine understanding, wretched lie who cherishes an unenlightened opinion about the gods.
, 103(114).3 and Parmenides fr. 4.4. The road to understanding via the senses is direct and unimpeded, but it is not the way by which the divine is grasped.
The fragment is given by Clement in a series of "thefts" from Greek texts to parallel Christian writings, and he emphasizes the connection of knowledge with happiness, and ignorance with unhappiness. But there is also in the fragment the Parmenidean contrast between knowledge and light and doxa and darkness (and cf. , Democritus fr. 11). The fragment connects closely with the next two, which give part of the content of the required understanding, with 99(129) in the example of the man who did achieve understanding, and with 100(110), which shows how the individual will be term the connection, and the phrase ' or The physiological is actually in line 1 here, 99(129).2, 4, and 100(110). 1 strengthens
97(134)
For he is not equipped with a human head on a body, [two branches do not spring from his back,] he has no feet, no swift knees, no shaggy genitals, but he is mind thoughts. alone, holy and inexpressible, darting through the whole cosmos with swift
The five lines are quoted by Ammonius in a context of E.'s censure of anthropomorphic gods, where, in particular, Apollo is referred to, and in these lines, - Tzetzes, Chil. which are prefaced with . fragment to the Katharmoi)
Schriften
13.74-78, gives the five lines as . The Kleine

pp.
a summary of E'.s view of god, as well as lines 4 - 5 at Chil. 7.517-18, defense of Tzetzes against Diels here (and Diels's assignation of the has been taken up by Wilamowitz,
pp. 6 3 1 - 4 9 ; Zuntz, Persephone p. 4 9 8 ; Bignone, Empedocle
repeated at 99(129).2. The remaining fragments from here to the end of the Physics cohere and plausibly belong together in this position, cf. chap. 4. O n and thought cf. Hesiod Theog. 6 5 6 and the commentary on 100(110).
2 1 4 - 1 8 ; van der Ben, Proem pp. 4 4 - 4 6 ; and see chap. 3. The first line is given by Olympiodorus on E.'s anticipation of Plato's denial of anything to god, and the whole fragment without line 2 is in the margin. Following the marginalia I would write the fragment without the second line. It does not fit grammatically after the first, the point is made without including shoulders and arms with the other parts mentioned,
96(133)
I f is not possible to bring (the divine) close within reach of our eyes or to grasp him with the hands, by which the broadest path of persuasion for men leads to the mind.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
254
255
P H Y S I C S
98(27a)
and the fragment has elegance and balance as a quatrain. The line comes from 2 2 ( 2 9 / 2 8 ) . ! (and little rests on whether the active or middle form of the verb is read), where it starts a similar quatraintwo lines of denial of anthropomorphic organs and two of positive definition. The rhythm and details of the first couplet of this fragment recall Hephaestos wiping his face, hands, neck, and shaggy chest at IL 18.413-14 (which probably
accounts for the variants for , and for in line 3 ) .
Ammonius indicates that E . specifically criticized the traditional view of Apollo. Apart from a Proem to Apollo attributed to E . ( D . L . 8.57; see chap. 1 and the context of 35(41]), a connection between E . and Apollo is lacking, and an introduction of the Pythagoreans is unhelpful (cf. Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 256, n. 1). I f Ammonius is correct, two explanations for a connection* may tentatively be put forward: (1) as prophets, minstrels, and healers instantiate the highest type of life on earth ( 1 3 2 ( 1 4 6 ) . ! ) , the patron of these ways of life would be held in highest regard; (2) Apollo is to be explained as the intelligent source of heavenly fire and so accounts for Hippolytus' notice that E . identified
with , . . ()
4 '
6434> 7-3G
for the aorist of the verb with present sense, cf. II. 2.480,
0 d
- 21-397
5 ':
the Homeric use of the dative with
and com-
pounds is for rushing with a sword or spear, II. 8.88, 10.348, 11.361, or with horses, 17.460. E . here gives a striking adaptation of the epic construction, combined with the Homeric recognition of the speed of thought, cf. Od. 7.36. Ammonius and Tzetzes emphasize that the fragment is E.'s definition of god, and his own recognition of innovation here is seen in 3(131) and 95(132). He is giving an of the gods to counteract the dark doxa which makes men miserable. The true gods are earth, air, fire, and water, and Philia and Neikos, cf. 7 ( 6 ) , 51(59), 8(17).24, 11(16); traditional gods are combinations of the four roots formed in the same way as plants, animals, and men. But the sphere is a god, comprising the four roots, which have been brought together by Philia in balance, joy, and
stillness, cf. 21(27), 22(29/28), 24(31). The is surely to be
( R H 1.3, D K 31 31). The basic idea here
(in spite of confusion with Heraclitus and the Stoics), that everything has its origin and end in an intellectual but physically based principle of world dimensions, supports the contention that is derived from and will again identify with the god of 22(29/28). (S.M. Darcus, "Daimon Parallels the Holy Phren in E . , " Phronesis 22, pp. 175-90, analyzes the meaning of in terms of activity and shape and of the cognates and - The conclusions that the "sphere of Love" is one of the stages of the Holy Phren's activity and that the spherical shape persists are in agreement with the above argument, but the suggestion that the Phren has only two phrontidesLove and Hateis without foundation. Some clarification of phrontides, or at least a dual, is needed to support such a basic identification, but there is no hint in E . or the doxography that
, described as and , is a phrontis of god, and
connected with it, as the similarities between this fragment and 22(29/28) show. The four roots in proportion give thought; for man the best mixture is achieved in the blood, which is consequently the instrument of thought (cf. 94(105) and Theophrastus Senq. 10), but for the god the mixture is exact, a one-to-one proportion of ihe elements throughout. This means that the is physical (cf. used of the intake of air, 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) 4 ) but inaccessible to the senses, for perfect mixture has no perceptible qualities, cf. chap. 3, pp. 73-74. The would be that which now remains of the sphere-god after the shattering of its unity and rest by Strifeholding at the circumference and, in the form of swift thoughts, darting through the whole. The new sense of Heraclitus fr. 3 0 ) , emphasized by , (cf. broadens traditional views of
that half his thinking is concerned with hate. Aristotle expressly denies it, Metaph. iooobs,
a n d c E
further the commentary on 107(115].)
98(27a)
no discord or unseemly warring in the limbs
Bergk attributed the line, quoted anonymously in Plutarch, to E . The attribution is justified, for 116(122).2, tarch's context of and the description of the sphere in 21(27) is contrasted with in Plurepeats the phrase at 2 3 ( 3 0 ) . ! , and
god and opens the way to a new theology based on the denial of anthropomorphic features, the positive connection with thought, and the world dimension that has been adumbrated by Xenophanes, frs. 23-26. For the connection of this fragment with the daimons, cf. the commentary on
107(115).
is Empedoclean, cf. 119(130).2.

a n d
All editors accept without question the reference of this fragment to 22(29/28). The "limbs" are said to be those of the sphere given in 2 3 ( 3 0 ) . : and 24(31), and when the roots come together in Love, Strife obviously is absent. But Plutarch has
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
256
257
P H Y S I C S
99(129)
no hint of such a cosmic explanation. He is speaking of the man who comes to virtue through philosophy by means of "the speech in the mind"
( , ), which aims at philia. Such a man is full of ; the absence of stasis and deris is explained
ence is anonymous, what is the significance of an exceptionally wise but unknown person living then? Nor is it a solution to put Pythagoras in an age of heroes preceding the present age of iron (as Zuntz does, Persephone p. 209), for E . surely would not have believed in a distinctive heroic age only fifty years before his own time. V a n der Ben sees the as a netherworld guide, Proem p. 181. But these interpretations create unnecessary difficulties. I n 95(132) the man who has a treasure of thoughts is congratulated, and in 100(110) Pausanias is exhorted to increase his wisdom by his own effort and concentration. Between the two it would be appropriate to cite as a model the example of a man, perhaps Pythagoras, who did have a treasure of thoughts and wide-ranging wisdom (cf. the exercises in concentration which aimed to enhance the strength of the soul, Burkert
Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism p. 213).
as the absence of conflict between

(cf. the use of ,
and all
his parts are
i o o ( n o ) . 2 ) and (cf. the description
of the wise man in Horace Sat. 2.7.86, "in se totus, teres atque rotundus"). The line therefore probably belongs with the contrast, given in 100(110), between following E.'s philosophy and yielding to human desires, and with the example of the wise man in 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) i . e . , one who instantiates, as far as possible, divine intelligence in man. The observed behavior of earth, air, fire, and water, and of Love and Strife, reflects their cosmic activity, cf. the commentary on 2 5 ( 2 2 ) ; divinity and holy thought are explained in terms of the harmonious mixture of constituent parts (cf. the commentary on the previous fragment), and it would be observed in man that attention to the right kind of thinking results in the physical constitution of the individual being balanced and strifeless, cf. the commentaries on the next two fragments. T o this extent the individual is a microcosm.
cf.
. ,
Ion Eleg.
1.15, where
the of which Dionysus is master are drinking, playing, and thinking just thoughts. The phrase here covers understanding of different matters, and also perhaps the practical application of this understanding, especially in medicine, music, and prophecy, cf. 102(112).9-12 and 132(146). - 2 . An exaggeration of the skills that come from increased understanding is given in 101(111). Zuntz, following Stein, transposes
99(129)
And there was among them a man knowing an immense amount, who had acquired a great treasure of thoughts, master especially of all kinds of wise works; for whenever he reached out with all his thoughts, easily he saw each of the things that there are, in ten and even twenty generations of men.
lines 2 and 3, although 1 and 2 are quoted as a couplet in Diogenes. 4 : , recurring in this last group of fragments
and in the Physics at 9 5 ( 1 3 2 ) . ! , 100(110). 1, and 2 and 4 here, like
(cf. 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) 4 , 1 0 3 ( 1 1 4 ) 4 , 8(17). 14), is a reminder of the physical
basis of thought. The verb it is picked up by 5

4.1.
also has a physical connotation, and
in line 6 of the next fragment, which further , 103(114).2, tells against cf. Parmenides fr. p. 530 and
anchors this fragment to its present position. A reference to Pythagoras here is given in the source common to Iamblichus and Porphyry, and also in Diogenes Laertius (from Timaeus), who adds that some say that Parmenides is meant. This suggests that the person was anonymous in E . but easily assumed to be Pythagoras because of his proverbial wisdom, cf. Heraclitus frs. 40, 129, Herodotus 4.95. Parmenides is an attractive suggestion for the reference, and his influence on E . is pervasive, but the recognition of plurality and time implicit in the last two lines requires explanation. The meaning of iv , and so the context of the whole fragment, But the reason is is in dispute. Editors after Stein assign it to the "Golden Age" of 118(128). because of the repetition of insufficient. Pythagoras did not live in the distant past, and if the refer: a comparison with emendation here. For the metaphor in
6: for the reading of the line cf. Denniston Greek Particles
van der Ben Proem p. 185. Ten and twenty are alternatives, and the numbers are not to be taken precisely, cf. the gifts ten and twenty times as great that Achilles would disdain, II. 9 4 7 9 , 22.349. It would be unwarranted to suppose that this line refers to Pythagoras remembering twenty, or an indefinite number, of incarnations, as has been understood by the commentators, e.g., Sturz ad l o c , O'Brien ECC p. 335, n. 1, Burkert
Lore and Science p. 213, Guthrie HGP vol. 2, p. 251, and il has only
human connotations, the memory is of twenty incarnations as a man.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
258
259
P H Y S I C S
100(110)
This is unlikely. The fragment sets out to describe a wise man, to be an example, I would suggest, for Pausanias. The wealth of wisdom acquired is emphasized in each of the first three lines; the last three show that when this wisdom is applied there is understanding of a comprehensive range of topics, covering a considerable extent of time. The last line could refer to the future rather than the past, and more plausibly so, given 132(146). The line is an adaptation of the assumed range of the prophet's wisdom,
09 ' ' ' , I I . 7>
a n d c E E a r
I n Homer words are winged (II. 1.201, 2.7, 4.69, etc.), go past the barrier of the teeth (//. 4.350, 14.83, etc.), and are put by the listener into his
or her (Od. 1.361. 21.355);
c E
Hesiod Erga 274. So here. Pausanias is being urged to take the words that E . has spoken on the nature and activity of the four roots and Love and Strife, words which are themselves well constituted of the four roots, to put them deep down under his other thoughts, and in the language of
~
initiation rites, to contemplate them with the correct disposition, and with assiduous and uncontaminated attention. Such a physical representation of words and thoughts, found in Homer, continues through the work of other Presocratics (Heraclitus is an obvious example) to Plato (in such
menides 4.1, 1.28.
100(110)
If you push them firmly under your crowded thoughts, and contemplate them with unsullied and constant attention, life, and you will gain much else from should favorably assuredly all these will be with you through them, for of themselves they will cause each yourself which
passages as Tim. 71b, where thoughts are said to have reflections on the liver's surface), Aristotle (e.g., Metaph.
, sumption of as
I072b20
), and
the
Stoics' as-
(cf. S. E . adv. math. 8.12).
thing to grow into the character, according to the nature of each. But if you reach out for things of a different kind, for the countless trivialities straightaway these will come among men and dull their meditations, things have intelligence
2 : the initiation vocabulary of the line expresses Pausanias' meditation on E.'s words in terms of his being granted the final revelation after purificatory rituals, but this is to add solemnity to the poem's epilogue rather than to indicate "Orphic" or Pythagorean affiliations on E.'s part. (The language of the exordium is similar, cf. '
, 2(3)2.)
leave you as
the time comes round, longing to reach their own familiar and a share of thought.
kind; for know that all
indicates constant practice
This important fragment is given by Hippolytus, who significantly links

it with 107(115) and sees in it a reference to
and effort, as in athletic training, military duty, or rehearsing, cf. L S J s.v. 3 : the same reference as in line 1. The thoughts, with their physical basis, if rightly regarded, will stay with Pausanias through life; the additional bonus is given in line 5. The verse is Homeric, cf.
Od. 2.306.
other than Love and Strife. He gives the last line after 77(109) and applies it to parts of fire engaged in thought. This line is also quoted by Sextus, who takes it to include plants and animals. The fragment is discussed by H . Schwabl, WS 1956, pp. 4 9 - 5 6 ; A . A . Long CQ. 1966, pp. 2 6 8 - 7 3 ; and Bollack, Empedocle vol. 3, pp. 5 7 6 - 8 5 , who prints it as the last fragment of the poem. : )the is unknown, hence the correction to ' { ) object of
4 :
seems the best interpretation of a corrupt text,
preferable to a future perfect form or a future middle with passive sense, for which L S J gives only Plotinus as an example. 4 - 5 : as with in line 3, is probably transitive (cf. Long i.e., each appropriate CQ. 1966, p. 270, n. 1), and its object ,
throbbing, crowded thoughts in the thorax under '

' t h e
thought within the body. The words and thoughts of E . are combinations of earth, air, fire, and water, and, being wise words, are well-blended combinations. I f Pausanias takes them in and studies them, he will find that they will increase his like pieces of knowledge in the appropriate way . The process is cumulative, and so this increase in turn makes Pausanias more receptive to additional knowledge. : the noun is ambiguous. It might refer to the individual constituent parts of earth, air, fire, and water as at 8(17).28, and is so taken by Long, CQ_ 1966, p. 269: "the of fire would be fieriness"; but taking
which "they" are to be pushed (cf. 9 ( 1 2 ) 4 for the meaning of and then contemplated. (So Penelope speaks of I , Od. 19.516-17.)
w h a t d o e s
and ,
refer to? Answers include: "die Griindkraften
der Natur," Schwabl WS p. 5 4 ; "die Lehren des Meisters," Diels Vors. 31 10, "true statements about the world (conceived in physical terms)," Long CQ_ 1966, p. 2 6 9 ; "les puissances . . . sans doute les six," Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 577. These suggestions are all to some extent correct.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
260
261
P H Y S I C S
101(111)
in E.'s words is not going to increase the fieriness of the fire in Pausanias. Moreover, the thought is composite, and its activity as separate elements is the result of rejection, not assimilation. The could be that of each thought which is stimulated to grow in the appropriate way, but this is covered by the clause - Most probably refers to Pausanias' own character, i.e., his thinking self. The knowledge conveyed by E.'s thoughts and words, after being admitted and contemplated, becomes embedded in the heart area; it thus brings Pausanias closer to the condition of being a wise man both by causing the amount of right thoughts in the constitution to grow and by increasing his receptiveness to such thoughts. The basic idea was put forward by Parmenides in fr. 16 and was used previously by E . in 8(17).14, 79(106), and 80(108). Pausanias' control of the process brings lines 4 - 5 close to fr. 119 of Heraclitus, and also to passages like Sophocles' Ajax 595, where Ajax refuses to allow his to be educated, also may well be the specific reference for in the Hippolytus context, i.e., the well-blended combination of elements that has cognitive powers, observed in the cosmos as and in the individual as the thinking self, cf. the commentary on the daimons, 107(115). 6 - 7 : the lines deliberately recall 1(2). 1-2 in expression and content. At the beginning of the poem E . contrasts men of blunt thoughts and limited experience who claim knowledge of the whole with Pausanias, who will achieve genuine understanding. Now, on completion of his explanation, E . promises Pausanias that the understanding will be permanent, given good will and assiduous concentration, but if Pausanias allows himself to be distracted, the wise thoughts will leave and each of the constituent parts will become separate and drawn to its own elemental mass, and refer to the variety of particulars around us with which men busy themselves, but which, when they divert or intrude, impede our understanding of the real nature of the world, : cf. the similar phrasing in 8(17).29 and 16(26). 1 for the
and a tendency to move toward it when not held in a compound by Love. 10 : the particle shows that the elements are to be included in the that have ; for the form of primitive awareness that is the "intelligence" of the roots, cf. the commentary on line 9. I n plant and animal life the thinking becomes more sophisticated as elements in combinations are involved. Men, because of the special character of the heart-blood, are able to comprehend the simple and the complex. With E . (and with Pausanias if his disposition and attention are as they should be) the blending of the mixture in the organ of thought becomes exact, and the real nature of the world intelligible. At the highest level the individual would communicate with the , which itself is constituted of elements arranged in the same way, cf. Long CQ 1966, pp.
2 7 0 - 7 1 , the commentaries on 8 0 ( 1 0 8 ) , 81(103), and 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) 4 , and
chap. 3.
101(111)
You will learn remedies for ills and help against old age, since for you alone shall I accomplish all these things. You will check the force of tireless winds, which will sweep over land and destroy fields with their blasts; and again, if you wish, you for men, and too after summer dryness you will live in air), and you will leadfrom bring tree-nourishing
restore compensating breezes. After black rain you will bring dry weather in season showers (which Hades the life-force of a dead man.
time of the domination of the elements. The resolution of a well-blended combination of elements, which comprises a thought, into its parts, is a microcosm of the perfect mixture of the sphere separating into individual elemental masses. The for the individual must be his so-called death, and it contrasts with the of line 3 (cf. IL 16.453). If therefore Pausanias heeds E.'s teaching there will be a sense in which he survives death, cf. the commentaries on 107(115) and 132(146).
9 ' : the basic (cf. line 10) exhibited
by earth, air, fire, and water is an awareness of another part like itself
The fragment is quoted by Diogenes from Satyrus. E . is called a doctor, but Gorgias' claim to have witnessed E.'s "wonder-working" is added. The lines are given in support of this claim and are followed by an account from Timaeus of E . checking winds (and consequently being called ), and from Heraclides of E . curing the woman who was apnous. Both accounts are in the Suda in the context of the whole fragment, with and repeated. Clement has the wind-checking story as the basis for lines 3 - 5 , and he connects it with 102(112).12; the wind is described as noxious and causing sterility, whereas in Timaeus' account it is merely violent and damages the crops. It is checked by stretching asses' skins along hill (or possibly cliff) tops or, in Plutarch's account (curios. 515c), by blocking a gorge. It is likely that the various accounts go back to Timaeus, who made up the story from E.'s lines, using the connection between skins and weather magic (cf. Od. 10.19 and Guthrie's comments, HGP vol. 2, p. 134, n. 2 ) ; and perhaps there was some play on Pausanias' name. There is, however, a slight possibility
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
262
263
P H Y S I C S
101(111)
that . made a practical attempt at constructing a windbreak, in the same enterprising spirit in which he is said to have diverted a river; see chap. I . T h e main point is that E . expects that an understanding of the nature of earth, air, fire, and water alone and in combinations will bring with it the ability to manipulate them. This may well have been thought to extend to medicine, where a knowledge of respiration could lead to the restoration of the breathing mechanism, cf. the commentary on line 9. Bollack puts the fragment at the beginning of the Physics between 1 (2) and 2 ( 3 ) . This makes the promise of "wonder-working" the purpose of the exposition rather than some benefits added after the exposition has been grasped. Karsten and Mullach take it as a fragment . : that two items are mentioned here, (1) remedies for illnesses and (2) means of keeping off old age, is supported by the similar phrasing in
Horn. Hym. Apoll. 193. . confirms his success in (1) at 102(112).11-12,
mechanism in the apnous, and resuscitation could look like bringing the dead to life. For the details in Heraclides and an assessment, see chap. 1. The linking of medical practice to philosophical theory is condemned by the author of Ancient Medicine (20.1); the particular mention of E . there suggests that he did expect his knowledge to have practical application.
and (2) is an obvious extension of (1) in the practical application of the knowledge acquired. 2 : in the singular address, emphatic here as at the beginning of the poem, E . is in the tradition of Hesiod and Theognis. I n assuming a very limited audience capable of appreciating a complex philosophical argument E . follows Heraclitus and Parmenides. There is no need to suppose (from Plutarch quaest. conv. 728) that E . is being particularly Pythagorean. 3 - 8 : these six lines are devoted to showing how the balance of the elemental natural states should be maintained, with the expectation of eventually controlling the elements and achieving that balance, (line 5) is found elsewhere only at Od. 1.379, a n d ' n a n active sense; is - 8 ' : the future form of the verb, adopted with a query by D K , is unacceptable in form and sense. T h e come after summer drought, and this rules out versions with :. Bollack suggests ' and sees a reference to "fleuves du ciel," comparable to the fires in the earth of 32(52), as an example of the present composite nature of the elements (Empedocle vol. 3, p. 25). E . seems to be adapting the Homeric (of Zeus, //. 2.412) as well as indicating that the are rainfalls rather than floods. g: as with the account of wind checking, that of the apnous may have been fabricated from these lines, or E . may have been emboldened to write them as a result of some success on a particular occasion. The interest in respiration shown in gi (100) and a confidence in understanding the process may have encouraged E . to try to restore the breathing
265
K A T H A R M O I
102(112)
fragment is given only by Diodorus, to illustrate, in his context, the hospitality of the citizens of Acragas. 1-4 : : . greets his peers in Acragas from abroad
(as the present tenses in lines 5 - 8 show). He was perhaps on a tour of southern Italy (cf. D . L . 8.52), and while on his travels dedicates his poem and sends its message to his friends in his home town. Diels gratui-
11. Katharmoi
F R A G M E N T S OF A C R A G A S 102-106 E X H O R T A T I O N T O T H E C I T I Z E N S
tously understands him as being in exile and hoping for a recall through flattery and the account of his triumphs (SPAW 1898, pp. 3 9 6 - 9 9 ) . T h e exile is supported by Tucker (CR 1931, pp. 4 9 - 5 0 ) , who argues somewhat perversely, because of difficulties with 123(145), that E . is ironically addressing his enemies, and he emphasizes Lucian's rendering of as "farewell" (laps. 2 ) . But Lucian quotes the whole line as a parting consequent on apotheosis, comparable to the farewell to life of Euripides Phoen. 1453; this may be because the line was well known as an independent unit (cf. the sources for the fragment), and so used by Lucian for his own purposes. O n a possible conflict with 123(145) cf. the commentary on that fragment.
102(112)
My friends fortune), who live in the great town of the tawny Acragas, on the city's citadel, who care for good deeds (havens of kindness for strangers, greetings! men ignorant of misWhenever me in others,
with ,
cf. I I . 12.318, Od. 17.246, 21.346. T h e citadel,
named after its river below, was built on the natural fortification of a cliff overlooking the harbor, and the city wall followed the contours of the slope, cf. the map and description in Freeman Sicily vol. 2, pp. 2 2 2 3 2 ; according to Diodorus there were over 20,000 citizens (13.84). is the river Acragas, which gave the name to the city and which was colored the brownish yellow of lions, horses, and honey (cf. 118(128).7) a color epitomized in the name of the Trojan river
Xanthos, cf. Zuntz Persephone, in Greek Painting, p. 90. pp. 181-82, 186, Bruno Form and Colour
I tell you I travel up and down as an immortal god, mortal no towns I am revered by both men and women. They follow
longer, honored by all as it seems, crowned with ribbons andfresh garlands. I enter prospering countless numbers, to ask where their advantage lies, some seeking prophecies,
long pierced by harsh pains, ask to hear the word of healing for all kinds of illnesses.
From Diogenes' quotation of the first two lines at 8.54 ( )
it is clear that this is the beginning of the Kath-
armoi. At 8.61 Diogenes connects the fragment with the story of the apnous (cf. 101(111).9) and gives it as Heraclides' evidence for E . being
and . At 8.66, lines 4 - 5 ( ) are said
3: Diodorus gives the line on its own as a description by E . of the people of Acragas. Sturz and subsequent editors insert it here, but it was deleted by H . Frankel; Zuntz puts it later, in the second book of the Katharmoi, on the grounds that it is superfluous in this position and post The particular good work that pones the greeting to the fourth line. It does, however, make explicit the description the men of Acragas practice and are well known for is their hospitality, being active here"showing kindness," as in Aeschylus Supp. 28. Diodorus gives the example of Tallias, who kept open house and once fed and clothed 500 cavalry (13.83). I n the adjacent chapters he elaborates on the wealth of the citizens and the scale of their buildings is his description of the city, another way of saying
to be Timaeus' evidence for E . being that fragment with 10 and 12 here. I n Anth. Sextus (adv. math.
T h e con-
nection with 101(111) is found again in Clement, specifically lines 3 - 5 of Gr. 9.569, Suda, and Philostratus, line 4 is taken closely with 108(117). The line is explained by 1.302), not, according to the obvious assumption, as a boast but as arising from the conviction that E . had kept free from evil, and so, by means of the god within, apprehended the god without (
264
);
this interpretation is supported by
Plotinus, 4.7.10.38. T h e line commonly accepted as the third of this
266
267
K A T H A R M O I
103(114)
that the citizens were
They could afford to be generous line
Katharmoi Physics and
as giving a practical application to the wisdom which in the
because they were untouched (as yet) by life's misery. (Guthrie, HGP vol. 2, p. 246, n. 3, quotes a similar phrase from the Orphic Lilhica, 5) 4 :
Persephone,
he promised was in Pausanias' power to achieve, frs. 100(110) will help in effecting
101(111). I n particular, knowledge of the structure and functioning
of the human body, a key interest in the Physics, the dative is probably "ethic" (cf. Hdt. 5.30), not limiting,
p. 190. Help in explaining comes
cures. 11 : the phrasing is ambiguous, cf. chap 1, p. 10. It would seem, however, to be less likely to mean an incantation than an instant diagnosis and suggestion for a remedy, which would be all that the conditions of a crowded street surgery would allow. 12: the line was retrieved and completed by Bergk, for the noun comparing II. 5.399.
with the narrator and listener juxtaposed, cf. Zuntz on Wilamowitz, from 132(146). The four top lives which precede joining the ranks of the gods are combined in E . as prophet, minstrel, healer, and leader, and the apparent unanimous recognition of his qualifications by people of different towns confirms his expectation. Sextus' interpretation of the line as the apprehension by pure nousthe god withinof the god without, and Plotinus' description of E . in the same context as ( ) Physics, , point to a connection with the end of the ., like the Homeric heroes
103(114)
My friends, I know that there is truth in the words which I shall speak, but indeed it comes hard to men, and tlte onrush of conviction to the mind is unwelcome.
where it is suggested that pure mind, in contemplating wise
thoughts, can approximate to the . but in a new kind of way, is . 5 :
the Anth. Gr. reading is preferable to the personal
Clement sees the fragment as praise for pistis,
mentioning in the context and
form, which is not normally used parenthetically or without an infinitive expressed. And meaning "it is fitting" is "mostly with neg. and followed by inf.," L S J s.v. The obvious translation therefore is "as it seems," to be taken with the previous phrase. E.'s status as tion accorded him. 6: the people show how they honor E . by crowning him with ribbons (a sign of victory, celebration, or honor generally, cf. Alcibiades transferring them from his own head to that of Socrates, Plato Symp. 212e) and fresh garlands (Alcibiades, Symp. loc. cit., has them of ivy and violets; olive, myrtle, and laurel are other possibilities), cf. L S J s.v. 7 - 8 : for the crux I suggest ' ' ' , translating, "by all, by both men and women, I am revered, whenever I enter prospering towns." E . is not saying that an entourage accompanies him from town to town, but that when he approaches a populous town its inhabitants flock to greet him and put their questions to him. 9 : the thousands who greet him and walk with him want answers from
him in his roles of mantis and healer. The does not
Numa's temple to Fides as well as 1 Cor. 1 1 : 5 , Heraclitus fr. 28, and Plato Tim. 22c -e. The address sets the fragment in the Katharmoi, of cognition, however, is that of the Physics. the promise of truth puts it near the beginning of the poem. The language The words which E . speaks enter, as they are heard, into the mind of the listener as a "stream"
( here, at 2(3).2, and cf. 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) . 2 - 3 ) , and because they are
(cf.
the previous note) is confirmed by the apparently unanimous acclama-
true they bring with them conviction. So in 6(4) Pausanias is urged to learn by analyzing in his the of the Muse, and in 100(110) to contemplate and assimilate them. E . compliments his friends in expecting them to be, like Pausanias, receptive to and appreciative of the truth. Most men have "narrow" perceptions, impeded by distractions, and so find it hard to admit truth and be convinced, cf. 1(2). 1-5,
6 ( 4 ) . , 100(110). 6 - 8 .
metris causa,
2 :
the adjective goes with ,
rather than being held
in suspense until - The Homeric adjective for war, death, illness, fire, and eris (used in connection with the workings of Strife at 107(115).8) is applied by E . to the "hard" attainment of truth. 3 : according to L S J , the prefix - "destroys the good is cf. continues the sense of "invidious," sense of a word or increases the bad," but the adjective translated as "eager." The word, however, , meaning "disagreeable," "troublesome,"
refer to a particular, separate request"how can I make money?" but to a general one"what is the best way to proceed?"subdivided into the areas of prophecy and medicine. E . presents himself here in the
A N DC O M M E N T A R Y
268
269
K A T H A R M O I
104(11)-106(15)
Hesiod Erga
195. That the ordinary man resents new truths and does not
want to be convinced is a commonplace, cf. Heraclitus fr. 97 and the outstanding example in Plato Rep. 5150-5166 of the pain and vexation felt by the prisoner when first turned to the light.
in that, now possessing perfected nous and enjoying the highest form of life on earth, he is soon to join the gods and be free of death. All this is to be explained in the poem that follows. 2: is - . and ambiguous. It could mean that men
104(11)
Fools, for their meditations what formerly completely destroyed. are not far-reaching thoughts, men who suppose that dies and is did not exist comes into existence, or that something
are liable to death in many forms or that individual men die many times. Although editors adopt the former sense, the latter is preferable. Instead of a cliche, superfluous after , men, there is a pointed contrast between who go through many lives and deaths ("exchanging one hard
a n d
way of life for another," cf. 107(115).8), and E . , who no longer has to
do so; cf. the commentaries on 108(117) '33('47)
This fragment and 106(15) come close together in Plutarch, and although they are quoted from E . in support of the interpretation of 13(9) as a factual denial of generation from and destruction into the nonexistent, there is no indication of which poem they are from. They have been here transferred to the Katharmoi on the grounds that their emphatic affirmation of continuous existence, and for men in particular of life and experience before birth and after death, suits the subject matter of the Katharmoi and is appropriate as an introduction to 107(115). And the impatience with common belief sounded in the first word of this fragment follows easily on the difficulties the ordinary man has with the truth, as described in the previous fragment. The denial of absolute genesis and destruction is in Parmenidean language (cf. fr. 8.5-14) and reiterates the
basic argument of E.'s Physics, 13(9) cf. 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 0 , 9 ( 1 2 ) , 11(16), 12(8), and
106(15)
A man who is wise in such matters would not surmise in his mind that men are, and good and ill befall them, for as long as they live, for a lifetime as they call it, and that before they were formed, at all. and after they have disintegrated, they do not exist
For the context in Plutarch cf. the commentary on 104(11). A n appropriate place for these lines is before 107(115), which explains how it is that men exist and good and ill happen to them both before and after the life known here. As Plutarch says, E . affirms that those who have not yet been born, and the already dead, are in some way. According to the Physics birth and death are arrangements and rearrangements of parts of eternally existing roots, and this groundwork helps toward the understanding of this fragment and the next. : cf. the index s.v. . Wisdom comes with the assimilation, analysis, and contemplation of statements of truth in the heart region;
:
:
for the condemnation of thoughtless naivete cf. 124(137).2.

- , 14(21).12, 15(23).8, is a similar
coinage. For
being blunted, cf. 1(2).2 and 100(110).7.
105(113)
But why do I lay stress on this, as if it were some great achievement of mine, if I am superior to many-times-dying mortal men?
s a
for the complete phrase, cf. //. 1.107. 2: the subject of the verbs is, as in line 4, men; they use inaccurate terms, as at 13(19)-53 : is symmetrically superior to with , cf. Hesiod further instance of fr. i 6 4 ( D K 2 B 7 ) . 4 :
and 85(86).
The lines are quoted by Sextus after 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) 4 - 5 a
E . claiming to be a god, not, says Sextus, from boastfulness, but because he has been able to apprehend the god without by means of the god within, i.e., by pure nous. T o this could be added the specific superiority E . has
for the verb as an almost technical term in E . for the forma-
tion of organs and organisms from the elements, cf. 7 0 ( 7 5 ) . ! , 7 8 ( 1 0 7 ) . ! ,
270
OF N E C E S S I T Y
271
K A T H A R M O I
107(115)
F R A G M E N T S
107-108
E D E C R E E
rolls. (3)
phrase
does not have to refer "not only to the proem

(esu. cam. 996b) shows.
but to the very first words of it" (van der Ben Proem p. 19), as Plutarch's 107(115)
There is a decree of necessity, ratified long ago by gods, eternal and sealed by broad oaths, that whenever one in error, from fear, his error made false portionedhe the oath he sworedaimons wanders from (defiles) his own limbs, having by is apbeing to whom life long-lasting
Plutarch discusses for the length of nine Teubner pages the prohibition against meat eating before he hesitatingly makes a start on the principle underlying it. (4) We know Plutarch is not giving verbatim the opening of the Physics, as he promptly drops lines 2, 4, and 7-12. (5) The first , 7 ( 6 ) . , after an topic of the Physics is the four roots, cf.
the blessed ones for three times countless years,
born throughout the time as all kinds of mortal forms,
exchanging one hard way of sun, and sun into the
exhortation to Pausanias to listen, 4 ( 1 ) ; according to van der Ben's ordering these both come inexplicably late. (6) A prohibition against eating meat was one of the themes of the Katharmoi (cf. Hippol. RH 7 4 0 . 3 - 4 ) , Physicsreand the explanation for it surely belongs with it in the same poem (cf. chap. 4 ) . The openings of the poems are more likely to be: nias, and major theme, fr. 7 ( 6 ) ; Katharmoiaddress marks on limited human knowledge, prayer to Muse, address to Pausa-
life for another. For the force of air pursues him into sea, and sea spits him out onto earth's surface, earth casts him into the rays of blazing eddies of air; one takes him from another, and all abhor him. I too am now one of these, an exile from the gods and a wanderer, having put my trust in raving strife.
These lines are among the most crucial for an understanding of E . , but they are fraught with difficulties. Before coming to details of text and meaning, there are basic questions of how many lines make up the fragment, in what order they belong, to which poem they should be assigned, what they are in the most general way concerned with, and what the basic context might be. As can be seen from the text printed here, the fragment is an amalgam of Plutarch exil. 607c, where 5 lines out of 14 are given without any indication that there arc omissions, and Hippolytus (RH 7.29.14-23), who quotes 13 lines and in a different order (the last is first and the first two last), interspersed with commentary. The last line and a half, however, was well known as an independent quotation (called by Philoponus) but in three different versions.
, van der
to friends, remarks
on limited human knowledge, and major theme, fr. 107(115). After moving 28 fragments from their traditional position in the Katharmoi to the beginning of the Physics, van der Ben then interprets them as a katabasis myth. The first-person expositor is not, however, E . but "the of the myth," who tells of a visit he made while still alive to the realm of the dead in the far west of a flat (!) earth, to a meadow where the dead wait for a return to life. There a "perfect man" acted as a guide and led "the of the myth" to a cave where the dead put on flesh and blood and were addressed in a "prebirth speech" on the kinship of living creatures. Zuntz, in book 2 of Persephone, also interpreted fr. 107(115) as the introduction to a katabasis myth, which he claimed was the subject of the first book of the Katharmoi. I n his version the daimon E . , being guilty of murder, was led, probably by Hermes, to a place of horror in the Netherworld, the abode of Furies and monsters and the reception ground for exiles awaiting incarnation. From there he came to a cave and was addressed by a deity, probably Persephone, in a long speech explaining the law governing incarnations. However, the account given here of this and the next fragment rejects their incorporation into a katabasis myth of any kind as being unsupported by ancient testimony and requiring a biased reading of the text. The fragments are comprehensible on their own and in relation to the theories of the Physics, any such imaginative framework. All the main sources for the lines of this fragmentPlutarch, Hippolytus, Philoponus, Asclepius, and Plotinusagree that E . is here talking . Hippolytus and Philoponus in their contexts explain the and they do not need
O n the strength of the phrase with which Plutarch introduces his

selection of lines,
Ben reverts to the edition of Karsten and prints part of the fragment as the opening lines of the Physics; Physics. and then, because of their connection with this fragment, he moves 27 more fragments to the so-called Proem of the But Plutarch's phrase should not be given the strict meaning, " E . . . . , " for the following reasons: (1) would need the article to mean unambiguously "at the very
may refer either to the Katharmoi or the Physics;
set out as the first lines of the Physics
beginning of"; without it the sense could well be "as a starting point."
(2)
Plutarch could have taken either the account of the elements or that of the psyche (as he paraphrased the context here) as E.'s "philosophy" par "exceilence7 and either could have been read before the other in separate
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
272
273
K A T H A R M O I
107(115)
in terms of the four roots and as being influenced by Love and Strife; Asclepius adds to this that the language of "path up" and "path down" of the soul is used (in Metaph. 197.17). The purport is that the thinking soul, which in the Physics was shown to consist of elements in a good ratio instantiated in the heart-blood and, in the best ratio, characterless and akin to the , in the Katharmoi is spoken of in terms of a daimon who, because of the inevitable workings of necessity, is cut off from his origins. Hippolytus further explains the daimons as united by Love, then scattered by Strife, and the scattered parts brought together by Love: ) ( ' ( R H 7.29.24). The whole account is finally
said to make a mistake from fear. (For comparable to the phrase '
cf. 122(136).2.) I f is
is the correct verb to deduce from , then
of Plato Tim. 6gd, which
refers to pollution of the divine (i.e., thinking) part of the soul, cf. also Sophocles Ant. 1044. Separation from one's fellows is widely recognized as the consequence of miasma, and so it would be in these terms that the isolation of the daimon is expressed. Fear is an adequate motive, but if the noun is corrupt Panzerbieter's 3.24) would be a welcome reading.
4 : Diels's ' () with as
(as Pindar Pyth.
related to the Physics by an explicit connection with 100 ( n o ) . : is metrically inadmissible, cf. the commentary on : com
of Plato's Phdr. 248c, the logos of the
(and so printed by Kirk-Raven PP p. 351) is quite unacceptable; Strife enters with panache in line 14, and there is no justification in text or sense for an earlier intrusion. Zuntz, following Knatz and Wilamowitz, rejects the line outright, cf. the discussion by Hershbell, Phronesis 1973, pp. 91-93E u t a
8 ( 1 7 ) 4 0 , and unnecessarily dilutes the sense,

parable to the
clause on perjury is most appropriate here, for like miasma,

7 9 3 - 8 0 6 , and cf. Erga 282-85.
T h e
perjury brought with it exile from one's peers; the outstanding precedent
is Hesiod, Theog. daimon, involved
daughter of Ananke, Rep. 6, from
and the Vergilian "fata deum."
is unique here; the sense is "proclamation," "decree," the a ratification long ago
in miasma, is represented as having broken the oath with which necessity's decree was ratified; on both counts alienation and exile follow. From Hesiod Theog. 793, Homer II. 3.27g, and the full formula for perjury given in Aristophanes Ran.
' .
content of which is given in lines 3 - 8 . :
by gods who are represented as voting to accept and swearing to abide by what must inevitably happen. For the gods here cf. the commentaries
on 3 ( 1 3 1 ) 4 , 14(21).12, i 5 ( 2 3 ) . 8 , 9 5 ( i 3 2 ) . 2 , 1 3 2 ( 1 4 6 ) 4 , and on line 5
150, I suggest for the line

The participle
is admissible,
below. 2 : the unusual adjective recalls immediately the "broad oath" of 2 3 ( 3 0 ) 4 . The oath is the mark in both poems of the entry of Strife, the disruption of a state of unity and harmony, and the consequent generation of thneta. It is here reinforced by the "seal" metaphor of authenticity and approval. 3 : is the reading of the Plutarch M S S ; the line is not in Hippolytus. The emendation is that of Stephanus in 1572; Xylander's text (1574) and translation are innocent of it. W i t tenbach has Stephanus' text and Xylander's translation without noting the discrepancy, and from then on Stephanus' reading has been unquestioningly adopted, and with it the melodramatic picture of a bloodstained spirit, epitomized in Jaeger's translation, "Whenever a demon . . . shall sinfully soil his hands with murderous blood" (TEGP p. 145); cf. van der Ben Proem p. 56, "[Strife is] fed as it were with the blood on the god's hands like an Erinys." T h e moral for men from the account of the daimon is prohibition against bloodshed, but the explicit mention of gore on a god in this solemn first exposition can be discarded; the daimon is
given E.'s preference for a weak aorist for , 5(57 )-b

a n d
14(21)., in the in line 3. T h e
his occasional flexibility with forms, cf.
following line; and the participle picks up
daimon is alienated when there is a deviation, but this does not mean that "culpable sin" or even choice or free will is attributable to the daimon. 5 : antecedent to the relative clause and in apposition to the
indefinite of line 3 ; the anacoluthon is unexceptional, given that is metrically impossible. The daimons are the gods of line 1,
of 1 3 2 ( 1 4 6 ) 4 , and in the Physics of 14(21).12 and i 5 ( 2 3 ) . 8 , "long-lived"
but not immortal, being composed, like all other forms of life, of earth, air, fire, and water in combination. Their excellence is in the harmony of the combination. In the Physics the rejoicing god, which is the whole cosmos brought into unity, is infiltrated by Strife; the consequent spoiling of the proportion and rearrangement of the roots bring with it a world of mortal things. In the Katharmoi the process is seen as individual gods cut off from their peers and born as a series of forms of mortal life. None of this implies that the daimon is an immortal soul persisting as an
275
K A T H A R M O I
108(117)
identifiable individual, and it is not so taken by the sources, even by those who give the content of the fragment as , mentary on the next fragment, " has the orthodox form at 9 3 ( i o o ) . i . 6 : the time during which the daimon is represented as separated from his fellows is not an exact ten or thirty thousand years ( can be taken as a year or a seasona third of a year, cf. L S J s.v.) but is indefinitely expressed, for the individual, when constituted as a man, has some control over the length of the process, cf. the commentaries on i o o ( n o ) and 122(136) ff. For related times cf. Aeschylus PV 94, Herodotus 2.123,
1957, pp. 8 5 - 9 4 ) , Plato Rep. 546b, 615b, Tim. 3gd,
c E
then plant life on land, then a life in fire, and in air again, which with earth is likely to include animals and humans; on this cf. Aristotle Resp. 4 7 7 a 2 6 - 3 i and GA 7 6 ^ 1 3 . Life in fire (the meaning of here, for which is the more appropriate epithet) was recognized, e.g., the salamander, the "flies" in the furnace, Aristotle HA 5 5 2 b i 6 - i 8 , and perhaps forms of life seen on Etna. (Aristotle's notice, GA 7 6 ^ 1 8 - 2 3 . that life in fire can be only on the moon is due to his own cosmology, cf. Jaeger Aristotle pp. 144-48, A. L . Peck's note in the Loeb GA, p. 312,
classique 1949, pp. 287-301.) and W. Lameere L'Antiquite
tf>e com-
Hesychius; .
12 : the line is an adaptation of Hesiod Theog. 800. The strong language of the attitude of each elemental mass to the living things in it has its explanation in the Physics, where the differentiation of the elements is shown as the work of Strife, and each is attracted only to its own like parts, cf. 1 0 0 ( 1 1 0 ) 4 ; as such they could be looked on as the agents of Strife. So Hippolytus' commentary on the lines shows that the living things are hated and harassed by Strife and prevented from settling, but are pitied by Love, who tries to bring them back into their former unity. 13: Zuntz, Persephone p. 198, defends Plutarch's reading and translates, "this way I myself am now going"; but which way? Hippolytus' note is more appropriate (with supplied from Plutarch); the sense is that E . is one of the wanderers estranged from the gods now (but he expects soon to return). Proclus' paraphrase of the line in the context of 1(2), in Tim. 175c, supports the connection of the daimon's nature with the quality of thought. 14: E.'s "trust in raving strife" does not imply deliberate choice or the availability and rejection of an alternative "trust in Love." "Trust in Strife" is a stage in the necessary course of events preceding the generation oi thneta.
Pindar 01. 2.58-91 and fr. 127 (and the commentary on them by von
Fritz, Phronesis
Phdr. (Theog.
248, Pol. 2 72d -e, and the varying terms of banishment for dif7 9 3 - 8 0 4 ) the period of banishment by the Styx for perjury is nine
ferent kinds of homicide, Plato Leg. 8 6 6 - 6 9 ; in the Hesiod passage years (after one year's "coma"), cf. Homer II. 18.400 (on Hephaistos) and 8.404. O n the Ibscher papyrus for line 6 see M . L . West CR 1962, p. 120. 7: refers back to in line 3 and agrees with the participle in the following line, giving a particular description of what an indefinite number of daimons suffer; the plural reading is Hippolytus' adaptation of the line to his commentary, for the immortal taking on as the consequent
Theog.
mortal form, cf. 2 5 ( 2 2 ) 4 , 47(35) 14, and for

water, cf. 6 0 ( 7 1 ) 4 and 62(73).2. Sea :
(temporary) structures of arrangements of parts of earth, air, fire, and

cf. West on Hesiod
190. There is no call for an attempt to synchronize the time with that of the return of the elements to the unity of the sphere, as, for example, do Kirk-Raven, PP p. 352, and O'Brien, ECC p. 89. The "blessed god" survives through those vicissitudes of Strife which the Katharmoi describes in terms of daimons separated from and rejoining their peers. 8: the line is explained in 9 - 1 2 . T h e daimon exchanges one hard way of life for another when the "roots" of which he is constituted are rearranged over a period of time to be parts of different forms of mortal life in different elements. 9 - 1 1 : the terms for the individual masses in which the daimon takes on different forms of life deliberately recall the Physics, cf. the table of terms in chap. 2. The daimon, i.e., his physical structure, is spoken of as cast from one element to another because the conditions do not allow the parts to become properly constituted or settled, cf. chap. 3. The following fragment fills in some details but without exact correspondence. A form of life in air (as a bird) can be followed by that of a fish in the sea,
108(117)
For before now 1 have been at some time boy and girl, bush, bird, and a mute fish in the sea.
The fragment is widely quoted in late authors, which points to its survival in a compendium, independently of its context. This accounts too for the connection with Pythagoreanism found in many of the sources. Hippolytus has a more interesting confusion with the Stoics: the god that is the unity of all things is a thinking god (cf. , 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) 4 ) , but the separating from the god and returning to it is explained in terms of the Stoic ekpyrsis. This indicates that the ego of this fragment and of line
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
276
277
K A T H A R M O I
109(116)-111(119)
13 in 107(115) is to be understood as a part that has come from and will be reassimilated into the rather than as an individual surviving as such (e.g., as the "separate bundle of Love," Kirk-Raven PP p. 359, following Cornford CAH vol. 4, pp. 5 6 3 - 6 9 , H . S. Long AJPh pp. 1949, 142-48, and amplified by O'Brien, ECC p. 329, or as a "divine po-
Ananke here must surely have the same reference as 107(115).! (rather than being one of a pair of opposites following 116(122), as Zuntz maintains, Persephone bk. 2, p. 256). Ammonius (in Plutarch's context), in reply to the Peripatetic, fixes the reference by denying that "the necessity among the gods" is hard to bear. The other well-known instance of the adjective, at Aeschylus Ag. 1571 , is similarly applied to acceptance of a course of events that is "hard to bear," but Clytemnestra is willing to accept it on oath to the daimon of the house. Charis (who is Philia under another name, cf. Gethosune, 8(17).24, and the other titles, P l u . de I s . et Os. 37od) "abhors necessity"in terms of the Physics, become many, and in terms of the Katharmoi, because of the inevitable completion of a time (marked by an oath) when the one has to because of necessity's decree (marked by an oath), which requires the inevitable separation of daimons from their fellows, and these, as Hippolytus explains, she pities and tries to restore to their former unity (RH 7.29.21).
tency stripped, for an aeon, of his divine identity," Zuntz Persephone p. 271, or as a "separate entity, divine in nature, that expressed Love and Strife," S. Darcus Phronesis C. H . K a h n in AGPh 1977, p. 187; for a point of view explaining
n
daimons in terms of elements cf. . E . Barnes C J 1967, pp. 18-23, a
i960, pp. 3 - 3 5 ) . This fragment does not imply a
remembrance of the previous lives described, but it is an inference from the decree that the daimon be born in different elements as different kinds of living things. E . looks back and recognizes that the parts that now make up himself, a properly constituted eg, have been used for dif ferent kinds of lives in different elements, none of which was satisfactory or settled, cf. chap. 3.
: boy and girl cover both sexes (without any of the implications, common in reincarnation theories, that the female is inferior), but they are also examples of lives that are not properly settled, because they are cut off before maturity. 2 : the sources, although numerous, are interrelated, and the text of the end of the line is uncertain, in some form is an obvious omission (cf. 13(9).2, 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . I i , 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 ) , and attempts have been made to insert it, e.g., van der Ben suggests
110(126)
clothing ( ?the daimon) in an unfamiliar garment of flesh
The only appropriate feminine candidate for the participle is Ananke, interpreted by the sources as physis, i.e., what has to happen in the natural course of events, a mortal body, would provide the obvious accusative, perhaps is being a composite term for skin and tissues, and being the first word of the line following the fragment,
Exact cor as an al-
respondence is not necessary; and bush, bird, and fish are examples of
an anatomical metaphor (cf. L S J s.v., I V ) , used again as such in
lives in earth, air, and water. With reservation I accept

a
the context of E.'s fr. 142(70). Necessity or nature "putting around a mortal body" is a particular description of the way in which the daimon is born, i.e., his substance reconstituted as a form of living creature, cf. 107(115)4. The garment is "unfamiliar" ("unrecognized" or "unrecognizable," cf. Hdt. 1.85) because an alien and hard way of life is taken up by one who was represented as being previously a happy god, cf. the commentary on the "unfamiliar place" of 112(118).
as "in (or on) the sea (the noun indicating the bitterness of the enmute fish" (with to make articulate sound," the second
vironment, cf. Homer Od. 12.27) ternative form of "unable ocritus Syr. 18).
disadvantage of life as a fish; cf. the use of this adjective for Echo, The-
F R A G M E N T S I I I F O R T U N E
109-117
F R O M
G O O D
F O R T U N E
T O
T H E
O F L I F E
O N
E A R T H
111(119)
from what honor and from what great extent of happiness
109(116)
(she) abhors necessity, hard to bear.
Clement quotes the line as words spoken directly by E . on coming among mortals, Plutarch, on his being an exile and wanderer according to divine
278
279
K A T H A R M O I
112(118)-114(124)
laws, exchanging "sky and moon" for earth. H ippolytus has no attribu tion, and the line occurs in the discussion of a heresy of souls coming from a primal man or Adam, to be born here of clay. The disagreement be tween the soul "remembering" a former state in Hippolytus and "forget ting" it in Plutarch is due to the quite different contexts, the Naasene heresy in the former and the Platonic reference in the latter. It is not significant except in suggesting that neither context gave supporting evidence for E . speaking of the daimon in such terms. The main point to be deduced from the sources is that E . is speaking of himself as having been in a happy state previously, but now an exile, born in mortal form on earth as a consequence of the working of cosmic laws.
3 : I indicate my suspicions about the authenticity of the line by parentheses. It is not in Hierocles; Proclus has it with the previous line in connection with the healing powers of Apollo, but without attribution; for a possible home for it as part of a Chaldean oracle, cf. H . Saffrey RPh 1969, pp. 6 4 - 6 7 . Its meaning is obscure, but if it is genuine it would seem to be a list of diseases characterized by the excess of an element fever by fire (cf. 101(111).67), and consumption and dropsy (if that is the correct interpretation) by water. 4 : the change of subject in Hierocles points to a lacuna. Some editors suggest further lists, but we have them in 116(122) and 117(123), cf. the commentaries on them. : those who wander in the field are, in Hierocles' language, the "fallen," i.e., daimons who are born as mortal creatures. They move over the face of the earth, living out their
112(118)
I wept and wailed on seeing an unfamiliar place
hard way of life here, not in some mythical area located in Hades, so
Themistius, Or. 178: " -
- Dodds, Plato: Plutarch (soll. an. gqd) has a comparison similar to Clement's between Heraclitus and E . on their railing at nature. Sextus preserves a fragment of Epicurus relating the line to a baby's first cry upon exposure to air (adv. math. 11.96). The fragment continues in the context of the previous onethe contrast between the earlier happiness and the grief at being born as a mortal creature. The "unfamiliar place" is this world, as Plutarch stated emphatically on 1 1 1 ( 1 1 9 ) ; the former life has been ex changed for (The wording of the fragment looks like an adaptation of Penelope's grieffor her geese, Od. 19.541.) 114(124) 113(121)
/a joyless place) where (there are) slaughter and hatred and hordes of other violent and consumptions and ? dropsy) . . . they wander in deaths (and parching fevers darkness over the field of Ate. : apparently a variation on oi the
Gorgias p. 375, has shown that the "asphodel meadow"
of Od. 11-539 ' s 'he common source for fields that are (1) the home of blessed souls, as in Pindar fr. 114; Aristophanes Ran. 3 2 6 ; "Orpheus," Diod. Sic. 1.96.2; the "Gold Leaf" poem, D K 1 B 2 0 . 6 ; ( 2 ) the place of judgment in Plato's myths, Gorg. 52432, Rep. 6 i 4 e 2 . The "field of Ate" is E.'s deviation from the Homeric tradition. Whatever the exact meaning
of Ate (cf. Dodds GI pp. 2 - 8 , 17-18, 3 7 - 4 1 ) , it is an associate of
bringing catastrophe and ruin, and characterizing, with
darkness, a world coming under the domination of Strife.
Alas, poor unhappy race of mortal creatures, from were you born.
what strifes and lamentations
The lines are from Clement, quoted after 112(118) and 130(125) and followed by well-known lines from Theognis (Eleg. 1. 4 2 5 - 2 7 ) , Euripides (frs. 452 and 6 3 8 ) , Homer (//. 6.146), and others who take a pessimistic view of mortal life. Porphyry quotes the second line anonymously, and Eusebius includes it in a pastiche of satirical lines by Timon. The general sense of the previous three fragmentsthe pity for mortal creaturesis continued (for as an almost technical term in E . to cover plant,
47(35). animal, and human life, cf. 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 ; 1 2 ( 8 ) . 2 ; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) . 1 0 ; 2 5 ( 2 2 ) 4 ;
previous fragment. This suggests that the line beginning
follows immediately on that fragment as part of a description of life on earth (cf. in Hierocles' context) and in some measure explains it. The line recalls 1 4 ( 2 1 ) 4 of the Physics and also 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 - 5 . I n those fragments, in the process of one becoming many, Strife keeps men apart and is the cause of hatred and death among them; here too the world is presented as a place where hatred and violent death are rife.
7, 16; 6 0 ( 7 1 ) 4 ) . They are born of inasmuch as it is the power of Strife that brings about the generation oi thneta, cf. 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 ; Porphyry's
280
K A T H A R M O I
115(120)-117(123)
reading of
Physics.
for
reinforces the link with the Strife of the
an. 474b), and at de Is. et Os. 37od the second pair given here are identified with Philia and Neikos; the members of each pair, however, especially in the next fragment, are not all opposed as obviously good and bad. indicates the same provenance as frs. 112(118), 113(121), and 115(120),
115(120)
We have come under this roofed cave.
namely this world, the area for the interplay of a number of opposite conditions. There is no "impossible" conflict with 113(121), as claimed by van der Ben, Proem p. 159. The existence of oppositions within an overall structure of the domination of strife is Heraclitean. : the "nymphs" of Earth and far-seeing Sun give the setting for mortal life, which is on the earth and under the sun. (Zuntz, Persephone p. 256, claims yet another mythical region in the underworld, where these personages "condition the daimon's impending incarnate existence.") 2 : Plutarch identifies this pair with the Love and Strife of the Physics. It would be appropriate for them to be given prior mention here, after the basic scene of earth and sun, as the overwhelming influences in mortal life. 3 : the mother of Polyphemus, Od. 1.71. . seems to be using "long-lasting"is not clear; perhaps an etymological link with and - The point of contrast with the feminine of "long-lived," "Haste and Tarrying." 4 : the name occurs in the Homeric and Hesiodic list of contrasts Nereids, and it is an epithet of Proteus and Nereus. Truth it is "swift youth" versus "slow old age" rather than the conventional
Porphyry and Plotinus, the sources for the line, refer the cave mentioned here to this world, and so it should be understood. Although Zuntz assigns the cave to Hades, he admits that he "knows of no Greek instance" of a cave in the underworld, Persephone p. 2 5 5 ; for this world as a cave, though without any necessarily "Orphic" connotations, cf. Proclus in Tim. 29c,
TEGP , the discussions by Jaeger, p. 9 3 ; p. 149; Bignone, Empedocle p. 4 9 3 ; Millerd, Empedocles
Dodds, Gl p. 174, n. 114; and in detail J . H . Wright, "The Origin of Plato's Cave," HSPh 1906, 131-42. "A 'Cave' is not a Field'," as Zuntz says, p. 204, but this is not an argument against a highry metaphorical poet like E . , who can speak of "funnels" in the earth ( 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . ! ) and the "seashore of life" (26(20).5), describing life here both as on a gloomy field of Ate (he had already used "field" metaphorically in 55(66]) and as in a (gloomy) cave. The life of the gods compared to ours in brightness and joy is as this one compared to underground living, which gives the sources an obvious comparison with Plato Rep. 7. Little can be deduced from the anonymous and anachronistic plied. mentioned by Porphyry, especially since any connecting verb has to be sup-
with obscurity, certainty with "dark opinion," cf. 95(132).2. T h e color of the latter's hair is irrelevant, even if the derivation from can be justified; is with black, i.e., sightless pupils, so Mullach,
' of Plato Rep. 506c and van der
116(122)
There were Earth and Ugliness, and far-seeing Sun, bloody Discord and serene Harmony, Uncertainty. Beauty Speed and Slowness, lovely Truth and blind
FPG
vol. 3, p. 22, and cf.
Ben's discussion, Proem p. 162.
With the next fragment, which probably follows this, there is a list of pairs of feminine personifications, many of them unusual adjectival forms, and some perhaps coined by E . The Index Verborum shows ten words from the two fragments as . . I n the introductory and in the formation of the nouns and compound adjectives the list is closely modeled on the catalogue of the Nereids in Homer II. 18.39-49 and in Hesiod Theog. 2 4 0 - 6 4 , and cf. the Oceanids, 346-61. Plutarch contrasts the personificacations as spirits of good and evil accompanying men through life (tranq.
117(123)
Birth and Death, Sleep and Wakefulness, Movement and Rest, much-crowned Splendor and PVileness, Silence and Speech.
The lines continue the catalogue of female personifications in the previous fragment, which as Cornutus says, are "riddles" for
-
"Birth and Death" are probably the first pair, rather than the
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
282
283
K A T H A R M O I
118(128)-119(130)
conventional "Growth and Decay," cf. 1 2 ( 1 8 ) 4 .
(with y), like
and
in line 2, is - -, coined on the model of the "Splendor" of the prosperous man in his prime. I f this could give a contrast of wretched ',
a complete Hesiodic-type theogony into his poem; the description may cover just the first three lines of this fragment. '18.535;
E e
, II- 1 8 4 3 . Hesiod Theog. 248.
2 - 3 :
the first generations of men. Kydoimos accompanies
is difficult. is usually read, presumably connecting with the root of and -. 3 : divine. poverty with prosperity, it would be an obvious and appropriate one. Bergk's reading here gives the needed opposite from any speech, but especially one that is pleasing or, in Homer,
Ares and Enyo, //. 5.593, and is personified with Eris on Achilles' shield, i s the attendant of Polemos in Aristophanes' Pax. like the feminine in the next line, is attributive rather 2: ,
than predicative, cf. Horn. Hym. Cer. 358. The denial of a reign of Kronos counters Hesiod's golden race of men, Erga 111. 3 : for the identification with Philia in the Physics cf. 62(73), 70(75).2, 8 3 ( 9 8 ) 4 , 87(95). The polemic in these three lines directed against traditional theology would be particularly scathing to the people
F R A G M E N T S T H E
118-125 O F
M I S F O R T U N E B L O O D
I N T E N S I F I E D
B Y
of Acragas, where the line of new and magnificent temples to various deities stretched along the south wall, chief of them being the (unfinished) one to Zeus. (It is interesting to speculate whether the additional temple, attributed to Concordia and built some 50 years after the Olympeion,
S H E D D I N G
118(128)
They did not have Ares as god or Kydoimos, but queen Kypris. Her they propitiated of subtle fragrance and pouring figures, with perfumes nor king ffeus nor Kronos nor Poseidon, with holy images and painted animal and offerings of distilled on the earth libations slaughter myrrh and
i.e., ca. 430, could have been due to E.'s influence; on the details of the temples cf. . H . Waters, Anc. Soc. 1974, pp. 8-10.) 4 - 7 : Kypris is offered ( I ) agalmalapresumably representations of the goddess, (2) painted animal figures (as she would be the patroness of living creatures when they lived in friendship, cf. the commentary on the next fragment), (3) perfumes, frankincense, and myrrh (Matt. 2:11 is a striking parallel), (4) honey. For bloodless offerings generally as belonging to the early history of man, cf. Porphyry's context here, Plato Laws 782, and Pausanias 8.2.3.
E o r
sweet-smelling
frankincense,
of golden honey. of bulls, but this
Their altar was not drenched by the (? unspeakable)
was the greatest defilement among mento bereave of life and eat noble limbs.
The passage from Porphyry occurs in an extract from Theophrastus on early sacrifices. The first libations were of water, then of honey, oil, and wine; E.'s lines are given in support. The whole is set in the early history of m a n : "When friendship and a proper sense of the duties pertaining to kindred natures were possessed by all men, no one slaughtered any living being, in consequence of thinking that other animals were allied to him. But when strife and tumult (Ares and Kydoimos), every kind of contention, and the principle of war, invaded mankind, then, for the first time, no one i n reality spared any one of his kindred natures" (abst. 2.21, trans. T . Taylor, 1823). T h e connection with the Physics, description of the life of men (iv reinforced by the identification of Kypris with Philia, is clear. There is here a particular in line 9 is unambiguous) at the beginning of their generation, when Love was dominant over Strife, but now the positions are being reversed. It need not be assumed from the introductory phrase that . inserted
'he anecdote, obviously fabricated
from this fragment, of a bull of meal and honey offered by E . at Olympia, see chap. 1. 8 - 1 0 : cf. "the men of old who thought it unholy to stain the altars of the gods with blood," Plato Laws anias 8.2.3. : 782c, and the early Athenians, Pauscf. , Sophocles is a "unmixed blood" looks like a confusion
with line 6 ; in support of
E l . 203. For the violent language of line 10, cf. 124(137).6; there confirms here and an infinitive of . unique form but perhaps admissible for E .
119(130)
All creatures, both animals and birds, were tame and gentle to men, and bright was the fame of their friendship.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
284
285
K A T H A R M O I
120(139)-122(136)
The fragment, preserved only in the Schol., complements the previous one and perhaps followed it. Under the sway of Kypris men did not kill, sacrifice, or eat animals, and they in turn were gentle to men. The tameness of animals is a traditional feature of "Golden Age" literature, cf. Isaiah 11:6, Vergil Ed. 4.22, Orac. Sib. 3 4 9 1 - 9 3 ; for the opposite view, of the cruelty of animals to primitive man, cf. the ghoulish description by Lucretius, 5.990-98. 2: is obvious dittography, hence Sturz's emendation; the enmity of (some) birds to men is illustrated at Aeschylus Sept. 1020 and Sophocles Ant. 1082. For as the work of Love, cf. her introduction at 8(17).23, and for the contrast with Strife, cf. Homer II. 9.256-57. T h e commonplace metaphor of fire for the feelings aroused by Aphrodite has in this context a striking beauty.
Aristotle quotes the fragment with Sophocles Ant. 4 5 6 - 5 7 to illustrate universal law, a natural justice binding on all, the content of which for E . is a prohibition against killing living creatures. The lines are therefore an introduction to 122(136) and 124(137). The law recalls that of Heraclitus (fr. 114) and also that of Hesiod Erga 276-78, which has, however, a specifically human application: fish, animals, and birds devour each other because, unlike men, they have no dike. : "a stereotyped opening formula," Denniston, Creek Particles p. 366, in a discussion of Xenophon, and cf. the Homeric uses, p. 378. It is unnecessary and confusing to suppose that the particles indicate a contrast between a law in the sky and one on earth (as D K vol. I , p. 366, and others). There is a single universal law, the range of which extends from the surface of the earth to the boundary of the cosmos, that is applicable to all who breathe the air and live in the light of the sun. : rare as an adjective but used of the sea, personified in Poseidon at Pindar 01. 8.31. 2 : E.'s word for the element of air, see the table in chap. 2. : applied to the extent of air, 8(17). 18, and here to the light of the sun; not "boundless" (cf. 33(39]) but "measureless," cf. Hesychius
.
120(139)
Alas that the pitiless day did not destroy me first, before I devised for my lips the cruel deed of eating flesh.
The heinous crime of eating meat is tantamount, in E.'s theory, to cannibalism, because cf the kinship of living things, which is a consequence of their common structures and the way in which these structures are separated and re-formed into different kinds of mortal life. One of the most abominable of all acts in myth and tragedy, the eating of one's kin, E . sees perpetrated in the sacrificial meal, cf. 122(136). E . represents himself as having been guilty of this, not, I think, as a god (as if he had been tempted by steak after a diet of ambrosia, in . E . Barnes's vivid wording, C J 1967, p. 2 2 ) , but in human form. It is what he interprets as appalling human action that gives point to his warning to his fellow men. 2 : Frnkel's reordering of the line is to be commended, as it removes the unlikely and eliminates the problem of the meaning of the is then dative either of instrument with preposition here, finitive. For
122(136)
Will you not cease from the din of slaughter? Do you not see that you are devouring one another because of your careless way of thinking?
In Sextus this fragment is followed by its elaboration in 124(137). A c cording to his context, E . as well as Pythagoras and the other Italians believed in a kinship of man with the gods and with animals. The slaying and eating of animals is therefore the destruction of one's own family; for a contemporary philosophical defense of animal rights on similar lines cf. R . Knowles Morris and M . W. Fox, eds., On the Fifth Day:
Animal Rights and Human Ethics. The "law" of the previous fragment is
(in an active sense "of eating flesh") or of indirect object with the in cf. Od. 9.295 of Polyphemus' cannibalism.
interpreted as a pneuma pervading the whole cosmos, and this looks like a
Stoic version of the of 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) 4 .
121(135)
but the law for all extends throughout wide-ruling air and measureless sunlight.
: the Homeric epithet for war is deliberately recalled, cf. //. 7.395 and 11.590; killing an animal is comparable to killing a man in battle.
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
286 Homeric , IL
287
K A T H A R M O I
123(145)-125(138)
a variant on the
. 122, where Agamemnon denies that Menelaus is lazy or careless. The deficiency of the understanding of the ordinary man is a standard complaint with E . , as with Heraclitus and Parmenides. As in 107(115)4 the wrong action may be due to ignorance or carelessness, but this does not exempt one from the consequences.
123(145)
That is why, being distraught with bitter misfortunes, you will never lighten your hearts of grievous sorrows.
: "approximating in force to ," Denniston, Greek Particles p. 566, and cf. Aeschylus Supp. 654. This gives the connection with the previous fragment: "you do not stop slaughtering and devouring each other, and that is why your sufferings do not cease." The main difficulty in the fragment is the apparent inconsistency with 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) 4 , which, wherever it belongs, has the phrase of the men of Acragas (cf. the commentary on the line), who are here spoken of as distraught and never free of grievous sorrows. But it is a standard sermonizing tactic to show that apparent prosperity is built on shifting sands. The overall view of life in the Physics and the Katharmoi is one of Hesiodic pessimism as the domination by Strife increases, cf. Erga. 200-01 for phrasing similar to that here, and also the commentary on 114(124) ; a respite can be won only if there is a concerted refusal to further the work of Strife. The individual can by intellectual effort revert to his former status where he will be free of human sorrows, cf. 100(110) and 133(147)- A warning to the men of Acragas that despite their show of wealth and security they were not immune to misfortune may well have struck home, if they looked back into the past to the tyranny of Phalaris, reflected on the contemporary political unrest, and saw in the future a lethal threat from Carthage.
Sextus adds the fragment to 122(136) with , but Chalcidius puts it "alio loco." Plutarch's quotation, to illustrate those who unwittingly slay their kin, stops at . The whole fragment is a horrifying account of what the theory of the kinship of life implies in practice (Xenophanes made a joke of it in fr. 7). It is a description that recalls the great family murders of tragedy, and in particular is in the opening lines strongly reminiscent of Agamemnon's sacrifice of his daughter as told by the chorus in Aeschylus Ag. 218-47. E . shows the father engaged in the ritual of raising a victim at an altar and, after the customary prayer, slaying, carving, and eating it in a family meal. The outwardly pious act is most impious. (Heraclitus, without E.'s motivation, had felt revulsion at the proceedings, fr. 5.) However, even in E.'s terms, it would be a rare coincidence for the prematurely dead son to take on immediately the form of a sacrificial animal, but the extreme example is taken to reinforce the exhortation against any slaying of living creatures (and so furthering the work of Strife). 2 - 3 : for a comprehensive list of suggestions for the text of these lines cf. van der Ben Proem pp. 201-02, and for a detailed discussion cf. Zuntz Persephone pp. 220-26. It is clear that no definitive conclusion can be reached. I suggest Origen's future, , which gives the following stages of the narrative: (1) The father stands at the altar ready to carry out the sacrifice, but he is , totally and tragically unaware of disaster, as are Patroclus, II. 16.46, and Andromache, II. 22.445 ( a n d cf. 122(136).2). (2) The attendants bring on the remonstrating victim;
for cf. Iphigenia's pleas ,
Ag. 228. With a large animal, perhaps a calf (cf. line 4 ) , and a formal ceremony there would obviously be attendants, and so for the unacceptable a verb like is needed. (The line has an unusual lengthening, , cf. in the previous fragment.) (3) The father kills the victim, deaf in his turn to its cries (accepting Diels's ' ), and prepares the meat. 6 : for the dual cf. 15(23).2, 4, 6; it may be due here to the juxtaposition , recalling the matricide by Orestes and Electra. The line contrasts with the practice in the early history of man,
124(137)
The father pleads. will lift up his dear son in a changed form, and, blind fool, as he prays he will slay him, and those who take part in the sacrifice Pbring (the victim) as he But the father, deaf to his cries, slays him in his house and prepares an and children their mother, and having evil feast. In the same way son seizes father,
118(128).9-10.
125(138)
drawing off life with bronze
bereaved them of life devour the flesh of those they love.
288
K A T H A R M O I
126(144)-129(143)
The fragment comes with 129(143) in Aristotle as two citations from the same poet, and that this is E . is confirmed by Theon's quotation of the latter fragment and attribution to him. Both fragments seem to be concerned with ritual sacrifice and so are placed here in the as examples of that from species to species, for and for , Katharmoi. , Aristotle is discussing metaphor in general and gives the two quotations is used for the prosaic word for both being .
leaves to picking the leaves of all trees, because of the injury to them. In E.'s catalogues of living things (related because they share a common structure, cf. 13 (g). 2, 26(20).6, and also 12(8).2), , which refers to the larger forms of plant life such as bushes and trees, is included, and of these the laurel, or bay, is chief, cf. 131(127).2. The preservation of the tree unharmed, as with an animal, allows its constitution to become properly arranged and settled, and so a re-formation as a higher type of life is expedited. T h e selection of the laurel does not of itself imply a particular interest on E.'s part in Apollo (cf. the commentary on gy[ 134]) but would rather be a criticism of a cult involving leaves plucked from the tree. : I doubt that the infinitive is for the imperative and that E . is giving curt instructions to his friends. The context suggests with the infinitive, and the recommendation probably belonged with the passages warning against harming animals (rather than being one of a hypothetical list of rules supposed necessary to justify the title Katharmoi).
the only instance of the word in the fragments, is the principle of life and thought concentrated, in E.'s theory, in the blood around the heart. The official "takes away" the life, i.e., metaphorically "draws it off" or, nonmetaphorically, "severs" it with the sharp bronze sacrificial knife. The victim is bled to death by having its throat cut, and it is this wastage that E . emphasizes as both the ruination of the work of Love and the furtherance of that of Strife.
F R A G M E N T S
126-129
F U R T H E R
A D V I C E
128(141) 126(144)
to be empty of misfortune wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans
This appalling line should be rejected as a genuine quotation from E . Plutarch has high praise for this phrase, and it looks like a tag that he found appropriate to attach to his discussion of the restraining of anger, along with sex, wine, and lies. But this is not sufficient to give it a moral connotation in . for him is human misery generally, cf. the commentaries on the other instances at 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) 4 and 123(145).!. seems to mean "not to eat," "to be empty" of food; van der this mayBen, Proem p. 211, quotes Callimachus fr. 191.61-63 for another example of the verb with a genitive but be a parody of E . There is no reason to assume that there is an imperative here. "To be free of ill" is a description of the state that might be achieved if E.'s words are heeded (cf. the last two fragments of the Physics), it is in fact achieved by those who join the gods, cf. 133(147).2. 129(143) 127(140)
to keep completely from leaves of laurel cutting from five streams with a long bronze blade
In Geoponica it is attributed to Orpheus, and a similar phrase is ascribed to Pythagoras in Callimachus fr. 128. Gellius, who gives the Callimachus fragment as well as the attribution to E . here, is late and unreliable. The line is a parody of E . a pastiche of Od. 22.316 and fragments 127(140) and 114(124). does not appear again until the third century A . D . ; it would have been unacceptable to the addressees. A list of possible explanations for the Pythagorean taboo on beans is given by Guthrie, HGP, vol. 1, pp. 1 8 4 - 8 5 ; they (with the exception of the political interpretation) connect beans with sex, life or soul, or the dead. I f E . did accept such a taboo, the most reasonable one is the medical one that an excessive amount of beans is bad for the heart and blood.
and
For the context in Aristotle cf. the commentary on 125(138); Theon Plutarch in his context extends E.'s prohibition against picking laurel gives the attribution, and the first hand of the M S confirms the reading,
29
291
K A T H A R M O I
130(125)-132(146)
cf. P. Maas ByzZ
1936, p. 456. As van der Ben shows (Proem pp. 2 0 3 - 0 8 ) ,
the phrase is not concerned with some unknown ritual of collecting water in a container from five springs but, like 125(138), with drawing blood with a knife, is Homeric for the blade of a sword or ax or the point of a spear; according to Aristotle would be, less metaphorically, - The object therefore can only be a liquid, and the obvious liquid one "draws" with a long bronze blade is blood. T h e "springs" therefore must be metaphorical, and van der Ben suggests that "streams of blood" from five sacrificial animals are intended. Perhaps, rather, the "springs" are the five senses, the sources of sensation, which cease to function as the victim is bled. This may all be connected, as Theon's context suggests, with a ritual of purification by blood (which E . would inveigh against), cf. Heraclitus fr. 5.
reason to suppose that E . gave a more explicit and pedestrian list, including, for example, the dolphin as the best form among fish, the snake among reptiles, and the eagle among birds. (The late Roman Kore Kosmou fragment, Herrn, ap. Stob. fr. xxiii, Nock-Festugiere iv, pp. 13-14, enthusiastically adopted by Zuntz, Persephone pp. 232-33, is too remote and confused to be helpful for an elaboration of the lines here. T h e in Aelian's context is an anachronistic intrusion from Plato Rep.
10, 6 i 7 e . ) : the adjective occurs in the Physics at 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 (if
t E e
F R A G M E N T S
130-133
T H E H I E R A R C H Y
O F
L I V E S
130(125)
for from living creatures it set out dead bodies, changing the form
reading is correct) in the list of different forms of life, but apparently nowhere else. There is an interesting discussion of lions in chapter 12 of Aelian, including an account of their deification in Egypt, their connection with fire, with dreams and prophecies, and with the punishing of perjury. They are carnivorous but, unlike men, cannot change their ways. 2 ': the subject would be "mortals," i.e., those who have lived and died as temporary combinations of elements, ' a reminder from Physics 71(82) that hair and leaves are analogous parts. The choice of laurel would be particularly appropriate for its supposedly prophetic properties (cf. Hesiod Theog. 3 0 ) , without implying any particular honor to Apollo, cf. the commentaries on 97(134) and
127(140).
Clement quotes the line as a unit with 112(118), and with other famous lines of an extremely pessimistic nature, illustrating the misery and brevity of human life; for the list see the commentary on 112(118). The missing masculine subject is therefore probably something like , and the context not a piece of mythical mysticism but a straightforward reminder that the living die and their structure decomposes, cf. from the Physics 14(21).13-14. I f the death is abrupt or violent, the result of the work of Strife, then the reconstitution of the parts would be into inferior and even more temporary forms of life; the consequences when the opposite state of affairs prevails are given in the next three fragments.
132(146)
And at the end they come among men on earth as prophets, and leaders, andfrom minstrels, physicians, these they arise as gods, highest in honor.
131(127)
Among animals they are born as lions that make their lairs in the hills and bed trees as laurels. on the ground, and among fair-leafed
A list of the best types of human life starts with Homer, Od. 17.384-86. Hesiod singles out wise kings who are like gods among men, Theog. 9 1 - 9 3 . Pindar, fr. 133, has kings, athletes, and wise men, and in 01. 2 the favored are instantiated in Peleus, Cadmus, and Achilles and include those who abide by their oaths, 01. 2.120 and cf. 107(115)4. For Plato, philosophers are preeminent (Phaedo 114c), for Cicero statesmen (Somn. Scip. passim, but musicians and astronomers also qualify, chap 18), and for Vergil the number includes heroes, priests, and prophets headed by the priest/minstrel Orpheus and the minstrel/physician Musaeus, Aen. 6.642-68. And is a traditional title for Apollo and Asclepius, cf. Aeschylus Eum. 62, Supp. 263. It is probable that E . supposed all four types of life to be united in himself.
Aelian explains the fragment as a ranking of forms of mortal life. Best of all is human life, but among that of the lion is best, and among plants that of the laurel, is a comprehensive term, and there is no
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
292
2 : not the Homeric but the statesman and leader in peace; on E.'s political leadership see chap. 1. 3 : the description of the gods in Physics 14(21).12 and 1 5(23).8 is a reminder of the common basis of the two poems and of the status of gods as beings not totally different from men but as having the same origin and constitution as them, superior only in the longer term to their existence; and these gods at the culmination of the types of lives are again the given at the beginning of the Katharmoi, see chap. 3.
12. Addenda
FRAGMENTS 134-152
133(147)
With other immortals they share hearth and table, having no part in human unwearied. sorrows,
The lines follow closely if not immediately on the previous fragment as a more detailed description of the daimons, both before they are born as the different types of mortal life and again when the mortal becomes immortal. But "immortal" for E . is not an unending and unchanging state, as it is in Clement's Christian adaptation of the fragment, but one that alternates with "mortal"; there is no incompatibility with 107(115). 5. The description is not to be taken literally, but it puts into more comprehensible human terms that unity with divine thought proffered to Pausanias at the end of the Physics, in much the same way as the separation is described in terms of the wrongdoing which among men results in exile. : . -, if the reading is correct, cf. , Plutarch quaest. conv. 703. The most famous mortal to join the banquet of the gods was Herakles, cf. Homer Od. 11.602-04, Horace Carm. 4.30, and in general Hesiod Theog. 796, 802, Plato Phdr.
247a, Vergil Eel. 4 . 6 2 - 6 3 .
The group of quotations in this section contains single words from E . , phrases that are too meager to be treated as separate fragments, and lines in which the text is so corrupt that nothing positive can be said.
134(5) T h e question under discussion is Pythagorean abstention from fish. One of the speakers in the dialogue, another Empedocles, puts forward a secondhand etymology as a reason for respecting fish as keepers of silence. He adds that his namesake was speaking to Pausanias in his exhortation to cover the teaching in his ?silent heart. Both and here are conjectures, and the form itself is uncertain, cf. the commentary on 108(117).2. Even if Wyttenbach's emendation is accepted, and the translation "silent heart" along the right lines, Plutarch's Pythagorean implications are unjustified. An exhortation to take in E.'s words well and meditate on them is in the same tone as
6 ( 4 ) 4 and 100(11).1-2.
2 : postponing the participle until after saves the meter; for the phrase cf. , Pindar Pyth. 5.71. The "human sorrows" that the gods escape have been elaborated throughout
the Katharmoi, e.g., 107(115).8, 112(118), and 123(145).
135(7) It is unlikely that (or , the Hesychius reading) was used by E . as a noun. The singular as an adjective is in Parmenides fr. 8.3 contrasting with , and Hippolytus (not Heraclitus, pace L S J ) has the adjective in the introduction to Heraclitus fr. 50. Elsewhere in fifth-century authors the word means "not having happened" (e.g., Soph. Trach. 743), "baseless," "low-born," and at Sophocles
293
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
294
295
A D D E N D A
136(10)-143(92)
OC 973, "not yet born." E . could well have adopted the adjective in the Eleatic sense of "without birth or beginning" for the four roots and/or Love and Strife, cf. 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 0 - 3 4 and 11(16).
139(58)
47(35)
The sentence comes between the quotation of lines 10-13 of

i fr- 5 ' ( 5 9 ) - The katastasis that features the is de-
a n <
signated by Simplicius as that in which Strife is retreating before the advance of Love. Examples of the , called by Simplicius
, are given in 5 0 ( 5 7 ) ; the word is . and
136(10)
The quotation comes immediately after 13(9) and is a comment

, , and are repeated from the fragcf. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 4 , 16, and also
on it. , 1^)1!
probably E.'s coinage,
occurs also at 5 0 ( 5 7 ) 4 .
ment, and for
5(23)5, 1 2 ( 8 ) 4 , and 13(9).1. is the controversial word
140(60)
is from 52(61).2 and '
from 12(8).I, which Plutarch here too clearly takes as "birth," of the roots, as opposed to "death," their - is from line 4 of 13(9) and a variant on it and on the
of 12(8).2. It is uncertain whether ' is E.'s
adjective or Plutarch's alternative for , but the sense "wicked" holds in either case, as is used of Paris, II. 3.28, and of the suitors, Od. 20.121. Death, in a conventional sense, is a "wrongdoer" but hardly, in E.'s terms, an "avenger." A comparison with (Lyc. Alex. 936) is misleading, cf. Bollack Empedocle vol. 3, p. 100.
a cognate phrase, is an epithet of oxen"with rolling walk," "lumbering." is - -, defined in L S J as "with countless hands," a bizarre picture even in the present context. A more appropriate sense would be "with hands not properly articulated or distinguishable"; as the other phrase shows, the creatures are oxlike, with some crude human features. Both phrases belong in the general context of 52(61); Plutarch is using such creatures along with the Furies as absurd nightmare visions which the Epicureans are compelled to accept as true impressions. This is some confirmation that E . does not have such creatures in the present katastasis, cf. the commentary on 5 2 ( 6 1 ) 4 .
137(19)
occurs at 8(17). 19, and for the adjective cf.

Is . The context provides the
7 7 ( 1 0 9 ) 4 and 107(115).14.
sense of "binding" for the adherence of the parts of the compounds formed by Love, in contrast to the destructive function of Strife, cf. here and 4 8 ( 9 6 ) 4 , 49(34). Plutarch wants to identify Strife withfireand Love with water, despite E.'s regarding fire as a hardening or setting agent for the roots. That Plutarch did not suppose that E . identified Strife with fire and Love with water but found the opposition of Strife and Love as destructive and unifying forces useful for his own contrast between fire and water is shown by his earlier quotation of 1 4 ( 2 1 ) 4 - 4 at 949f; there fire and water have their obvious identification with sun and rain as elements.
141(69) : elsewhere "twin-born," "double," "twin-bearing," but here, from the Proclus context, "capable of two terms of childbearing," i.e., after pregnancies of seven or nine months' duration. Proclus elaborates E.'s observation of a gynecological detail in terms of Pythagorean/Platonic number symbolism, based on 35 as the sum of the numbers 2-8, 45 of 1-9, and their respective multiplication by 6.
138(32) The phrase and its context in lin. insec, listing differences between "joint" and "pivot," are corrupt. Even if Diels's Heraclitean reading of is acceptable, it does not fit the context, for it gives no reason for the joint being . The phrase may have been part of a medical simile for the work of Aphrodite on the elements, but E.'s use of at 8(17).22 does not have any technical sense. There is little to be extracted from this passage.
142(70) : the fine inner membrane enclosing the fetus, which breaks with the waters at birth. The word, with its ovine connection, is a typically Empedoclean combination of observation and analogy and has survived as the technical medical term; for the sense cf. the which Anaximander thought enveloped early man, Aetius 5.19.4, and the of 110(126). The general context of frs. 141-42 is with 55-59, but cf. the commentary on 151(1533).
143(92) The notice from Aristotle on E.'s theory of the sterility of mules may come either from the section of the Physics on reproduction or later, from that on types of mixture, cf. the commentary on 74(91). E.'s explanation, which Aristotle rejects, is that as the combination of two soft
A N D
C O M M E N T A R Y
296
297 (Diels); ()
A D D E N D A
144(97)-149(152)
(Bignone);
substances (copper and tin) produces a hard alloy (bronze), so the mixing of the soft secretions in the coupling of horse and ass results in a "hard" offspring, the infertile mule. I n both cases, and as with water and wine, the process is a fitting together of and in the two substances, the sexual connotation of probably also being involved here. The original phrase may have been
-
' '
(van der Ben).
144(97) A fragment can hardly be extracted from the word here, but the point, that the backbone is divided into vertebrae because it was broken originally by its twisted position in the womb, is significant for the interpretation of 52(61). The explanation is incompatible with teleology and the consequent immutability of species, and is therefore rejected outright by Aristotle. 145(99) deliberately links plant and animal organs, cf. the commentary on 71(821.1-2. E.'s theory of hearing, probably coming after the section on sight (frs. 8 4 - 8 9 ) , is given enigmatically in Theophrastus Sens. 9 and 21, and in Aetius 4.16.1. According to Aetius and Sens. 21 a sound like that of a bell is heard within, and this suggests that Sens. 9 here is an abbreviated versionthe mentioned is an inner extension of the "sprig of flesh" of the auricle. With the MS in the first line retained, and taken as echoes "equal to," i.e., "reproducing" the original sound, the theory might be reconstructed as follows: external sounds, which are emanations of air particles, enter the channel of the outer ear and, presumably because they fit the pores of the organ, reverberate as in a trumpet bell in what is now called the middle ear. (A modern general account of the process also uses a simile: "the central portion of the drum-membrane vibrates as a stiff cone in response to
sound," Enc. Brit. Macr. 5.1120-28, esp. 1125.) Theophrastus' question
seems preferable for the common verb, and the line scans if it starts with ' ' - Little can be done with the end. The overall sense is, "the house of aegis-bearing Zeus does not receive him, nor that of Hades." The context is probably the Katharmoi, the "him" being the daimon, and the meaning similar to the rejection of the daimon by the elements at 107(115).9-12. From 7(6).Q we know that Zeus is fire (especially and appropriately the fire in the heavens) and Aidoneus/ Hades earth.
147(148-50) Plutarch praises a point of E.'s style, that his adjectives are not merely decorative but give essential information, and he quotes three disconnected examples; their contexts can only be hazarded, "man-enclosing earth"perhaps connects with the of 110(126) or with the sent up from earth, 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 4 , or with the formation of living things by Kypris; whatever its placing, the Homeric adjective for a shield has been put to a new use. Some straightforward meteorological reference is perhaps behind the transference of Zeus' Homeric adjective to air. suggests that the physiological section was quite detailed. After the heart the liver is the most important organ, a repository of the lifeblood, with an essential part to play in digestion and embryolog)', and the source of blood and pneuma for the fetus, cf. Soranus, D K 31 A79.
148(151)
the Homeric epithet for the earth, usually inter-
preted as "grain-giving," with an etymological twist means "life-giving" here (from rather than ) and is applied to Philia/Aphrodite, cf. 14(21).8 11. Plutarch again commends E.'s choice of adjective. 149(152) The reference is to types of metaphor, and, in the same context as 129(143), Aristotle is describing metaphor by analogy; his second example is of old age being to life as evening is to day. Evening will then be called the old age of day (of which we have no examples), and old age the evening or sunset of life (which became a cliche, cf. Plato Laws 770a and other examples cited by A. Gudeman, Aristoteles Poetik p. 359). The text adopted here is that of P 2 (Gudeman), which quotes the last example as being from E . ; elsewhere 'E. comes after , giving a reference to a phrase of E . well known to Aristotle but unknown to us.
at Sens. 21, "How can we hear the internal sound?" is crucial, but E.'s failure to answer it should not be held against him. He is on the right track, and exactly how we hear the inner sound, i.e., how the mechanical vibrations are turned into nerve impulses, is still not fully understood.
146(142)
These two lines are quoted for the grammatical point of a
singular verb having both plural and singular subject. The reading of the first line can be accepted. For the second there are, among others, the
following suggestions: ' ' '
298
150(153)
a n obscure word, connected probably with "sleeping" T h e appropriate "cavity" would be
or "rocking to sleep" as -
where the unborn sleeps before birth, i.e., the womb, either that of the individual mother or, metaphorically, of the earth, cf. 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . ! and 5 3 ( 6 2 ) . 4 - 6 . F o r the likely connection of a figurine of the womb with the cult of Demeter cf. Bollack, Empedocle vol. 3 , pp. 4 0 1 - 0 2 .
151(153a)
A notice on the formation of the embryo would be expected in the context of frs. 55-59 There is, however, because of the subject Empedocle shows that there is not of flesh, 1 1 0 ( 1 2 6 ) , or the
to come from the Physics
no reason to doubt the attribution to the Katharmoi vol. 3 , p. 5 3 9 , following Wilamowitz). could belong with the putting on of the
Bibliography
Journal abbreviations are as in VArmee Philologique in Ancient Greek Philosophy.
matter (as Zuntz does, Persephone p. 2 3 5 , n. I , a n d Bollack,
a detailed exposition, and a brief mention of the growth of the embryo birth cry of 1 1 2 ( 1 1 8 ) . Whatever number theory may be involved here (cf. the commentaries on 5 9 ( 6 8 ] and 1 4 1 ( 6 9 ] ) , the time given happens to be correct. B y the end of the seventh week internal and external organs are articulated, "the stage of the embryo ends and 'fetus' is the preferred term." Enc. Brit. Macr. 6.74.
Anton, J . P., and Kustas, G . L . , eds. Essays
Albany, N . Y . : S . U . N . Y . Press, 1971. Arundel, M . R . ( = Wright) "Empedocles fr. 35, 1 2 - 1 5 . " CR 12 ( 1 9 6 2 ) :

109-11.
. " A n Interpretation of Empedocles." B. Litt, diss., University of 152 . T h i s fragment, L . West (Maia published by H . Hunger in 1967 (Jahrbuch
Gesellschaft
der
Oxford, 1963.
. "Principle 18-23. Beare, J . I . Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition. Oxford: Clarendon Caelum." PVS 3 (1964): 2 7 - 3 4 .
sterreichischen
Byzantinischen
1967, pp. 1 3 3 ) and discussed by
1968, p. 199), F . Lasserre (MH 1969, p. 8 2 ) , and pp. 1 5 1 6 , 18) is important for showing that there I t also breaks down further the longis concerned only with "nature" and the being transferred (cf. the previous
.
Barnes, . E . "Unity in the Thought of Empedocles." C J 63 ( 1 9 6 7 ) :
v a n der B e n (Proem
were two books of the Katharmoi. held view that the Physics Katharmoi
Press, 1906. Bennett, J . "Empedocles the Poet: His Style and Metre." Ph. D . diss., Trinity College Dublin, 1940. Bergk, T . Commentatio de Prooemio Empedoclis. Berlin: Kniglichen edited Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1839. Reprinted as "Commentatio de Empedoclis Prooemio" in his Kleine
1886.
with "religion," which led to one of only two other fragments
explicitly assigned to the Katharmoi

alpha, (or )
note). T h e quotation is given to illustrate an unexciting lengthening of and seems clear, and the gaps are here filled acapart"a mundane arboreal allusion. in the account of the
Philologische
Schriften,
cording to Lasserre. T h e sense is, "of those thriving with roots closer set branches spaced farther Perhaps it belongs toward the end of the Katharmoi
by R . Peppmller, vol. 2, pp. 8 4 3 . H alle a m Saale: Waisenhaus, Bidez, J . La Biographie Bignone, E . Empedocle: d'EmpedocU. Ghent: Clemm, 1894.
79(1958): 15664.
different forms of life and their highest exemplars. T h e contrast between compact and rare parts, as well as the actual wording, recalls 7 0 ( 7 5 ) . ! :
' ' , ' -
studio critico. T u r i n : Bocca, 1916.

and Reincarnation." AJ Ph
Bluck, R . S. " T h e Phaedrus
Blumenthal, H . J . "Empedocles fr. 1 7 . 1 9 2 0 . " GB 3 ( 1 9 7 5 ) : 2 1 2 9 . Bodrero, . II principio fondamentale del sistema di Empedocle. Rome: E .
Loescher, 1904. i
299
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
3OO
301
Bollack, J . "Die Metaphysik

3054 . " L e P r o m e du 15-16.
des Empedokles." Philologus

d'Empedocle." REG
101(1957):
72(1959):
. After Life in Roman Paganism.

1922.
New H a v e n : Yale University Press,
Darcus, S. M . "Daimon Parallels the H oly Phren in Empedocles."

Phronesis 22 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 1 7 5 9 0 . Law: Linguistic, Social and Philosophical Aspects. Edin Daube, D . Roman
-.
.
" L e s Zones de la Cosmogonie d'Empedocle." Hermes 9 6 ( 1 9 6 8 ) :

Empedocle. edition Vol. 1: Introduction l'ancienne physique. V o l . 2 : Les V o l . 3 , pts.
239-40.
burgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969. Davison, J . A . "Protagoras, Democritus and Anaxagoras." CQ .3 ( 1 9 5 3 ) :
3345 et traduction des fragments et des temoignages.
Origines,
and 2 : Ls Origines,
1969
commentaire.
Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1965,
Denniston, J . D . The Greek Particles,

1954
2 n d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
Booth, . . "Empedocles' Account of Breathing." J HS 8 0 ( 1 9 6 0 ) : 1 0 1 5 . . "Aristotle on Empedocles B i o o . " Hermes Brown, T . S. Timaeus of Tauromenium. 103 ( 1 9 7 5 ) : 3 7 3 7 5 . Berkeley: University of California
et de la haine. Paris: Seghers,
Detienne, M . " L a Demonologie d'Empedocle." REG 72 ( 1 9 5 9 ) : 117. Devambez, P. Greek Painting. Translated by J . Stewart. L o n d o n : Weiden-
Press, 1958.
Brun, J . Empedocle 1966. ou le Philosophe de I'amour
field & Nicolson, 1962.

Diels, H . Doxographi
. "Studia
Graeci. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1879. Reprinted 1958.

Hermes 15 ( 1 8 8 0 ) : 1 6 1 7 9 .
Empedoclea."
. "Gorgias und Empedokles." SP AW L o n d o n : Thames & H udson,

73 and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Translated by E .
49 ( 1 8 8 4 ) : 3 4 3 6 8 .
Bruno, V . J . Form and Colour in Greek Painting.

977 Burkert, W . Lore
. " b e r ein Fragment des Empedokles." SP AW

.. " b e r die Gedichte des Empedokles." SPAW
62 ( 1 8 9 7 ) : 1 0 6 2
63(1898): 396 Diels, Kleine
Minar. Cambridge, Mass.: H arvard University Press, 1972.

Burnet, J . Early
Calhoun, G . M .
415. (The last three articles are reprinted in Hermann
Greek Philosophy. Siculus

The Growth
4 t h ed. L o n d o n : A . & C . Black, 1930.

Law in Ancient Greece. Berkeley:
Schriften,
ed. W . Burkert. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell

. Weil, pp. 1 2 5 3 0 , Paris:
Burton, A . Diodorus
Book I . L e i d e n : E . J . Brill, 1972.

of Criminal
schaft, 1969.) . "Symbola Empedoclea." I n Melanges
University of California Press, 1927.

Cardini, . . "Respirazione e clessidra." PP 12 ( 1 9 5 7 ) : 2 5 0 7 0 . . " L a zoogonie di Empedocle." Physis Chantraine, P. GrammaireHomerique.
Cherniss, H . Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic
A . Fontemoing, 1898.
. Poetarum 1901. . Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 r d ed., vol. 1, pp. 1 9 3 2 8 3 . Berlin: Philosophorum Fragmenta, pp. 7 4 1 6 8 . Berlin: Weidmann,
2 (1960): 513.
Philosophy.
Paris: C . Klincksieck, 1948.

Baltimore: T h e
Weidmann, 1912.
Diels, H . , and K r a n z , W. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. ioth ed., vols. 1
Johns H opkins Press, 1935. Classen, C . J . s.v. Empedokles, PaulyWissowa 47. Stuttgart: A . D r u c k e n m l l e r , 1970.
Cleve, F . . The Giants of PreSophistic Greek Philosophy. T h e H ague: M .
Suppl., vol. 12, pp. 2 4 1
and 2. Berlin: Weidmann, 1961. Dietrich, B. C . "Peak Cults and Their Place in Minoan Religion."
Historia 18 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 2 5 7 7 5 .
Nijhoff, 1965.
Cornford, F . M . From Religion Ancient History, to Philosophy. L o n d o n : E . Arnold, 1912.
Dodds, E . R . The Greeks and the Irrational.
Berkeley: University of C a l i
fornia Press, 1951.

. " O n Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex." G&R 13 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 37~49
. "Mystery Religions and Pre-Socratic Philosophy." Press, 1930.

Cumont, F . Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans.
Cambridge
vol. 4 , pp. 5 2 2 7 8 . Cambridge: Cambridge University
. Plato:
Gorgias.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.
D m m l e r , F . Akademika.
New Y o r k :
Glessen: J . Ricker, 1889.

Philosophorum Fragmenta."
Ellis, R . "Some Suggestions on Diels' Poetarum

CR 16 ( 1 9 0 2 ) : 2 6 9 7 0 .
G . P. Putnam's Sons, 1912.
302
303
Ferrari, S. Empedocle.
8 6 ( 1 9 3 1 ) : 1-17.
R o m e : G . Balbi, 1891. Philologus
. "Hippolytus' Elenchos as a Source for Empedocles Re-examined."

Phronesis 145-66. 18 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 9 7 - 1 1 4 , 1 8 7 - 2 0 3 . Timaeus." Phoenix 28 (1974): . "Empedoclean Influences on the
Fraenkel, E . "Der Zeushymnus in Agamemnon des Aischylos."

Freeman, E . A . The History of Sicily from the Earliest Times.
4 vols. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1 8 9 1 - 9 4 . Furley, D . J . "Empedocles and the Clepsydra." JHS

Gallavotti, C . Poema fisico e lustrale: Empedocle.
. " T h e Idea of Strife in E a r l y Greek Thought." The

77 ( 1 9 5 7 ) : 3 i - 3 4 55 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 2 0 5 - 1 5 . N . p . : Fondazione Lorenzo Homer to Demosthenes.
Personalist der
Hlscher, U . "Weltzeiten
und Lebenzyklus: eine Nachprfung

93 (1965): 7 3 3 .
V a l l a , 1975.
Gildersleeve, B. L . Syntax Glotz, G . La Solidarite of Classical Greek from dans
Empedokles-Doxographie." Hermes
H o r n a , C . "Empedocleum." WS 4 8 ( 1 9 3 0 ) : 3 1 1 .
New Y o r k : American Book Co., 1900.

de la famille le droit criminel en Grece. Paris:
Hunger, H . "Palimpsest-Fragmente aus

Jahrbuch der sterreichischen Byzantinischen
Herodians''"
Gesellscha 16 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 133.
A . Fontemoing, 1904. Reprinted, New Y o r k : Arno Press, 1973.

Gomperz, T . Greek Thinkers. Translated by L . Magnus. Vol. i , pp. 2 2 7 - 5 4 . L o n d o n : J . Murray, 1901.
Goodwin, W . W . Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. L o n d o n :
Hussey, E . The Presocratics.

Jacoby, F . Apollodors
L o n d o n : Duckworth, 1972.
Berlin: Weidmann, 1902. Reprinted New
Chronik.
Y o r k : Arno Press, 1973.

Jaeger, W . The Theology of the Early Greek Philosophers. Oxford: Clarendon
Macmillan, 1889. Reissued 1965. Gow, A . S. F . Theocritus. Press, 1950.

Gray, Asa. Gray's Gray, Henry. Gray's Manual of Botany. 8 t h ed. New Y o r k : V a n Nostrand
Press, 1947.
. Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development. Translated
2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
by R . Robinson. 2 n d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948.

Joachim, . H . Aristotle: On ComingtoBe and PassingAway. Oxford:
Reinhold, 1970.
Anatomy. 3 5 t h ed. L o n d o n : Longman, 1973. vol. 2. Cambridge:
System in Ancient
Clarendon Press, 1922.

Jones, J . W. The Law and Legal Theory of the Greeks. Oxford:
in Ancient Greece.
Clarendon
Bulletin
Gudeman, A . Aristoteles
Poetik. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1934. Cambridge

Medicine.
Press, 1956.
Jones, W . H . S. Philosophy and Medicine Suppl.
Guthrie, W . K . C . History of Greek Philosophy,
University Press, 1965.

Harris, C . R . S. The Heart and the Vascular Greek
of the History
of Medicine
8. Baltimore: T h e Johns H opkins Press, 1946.

of Anonymus Londinensis. Cambridge: C a m
. The Medical
Writings
L o n d o n : Oxford University Press, 1973.

H e a d , . V . Historia JVumorum. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911.
bridge University Press, 1947. Jouanna, J . "Presence d'Empedocle dans la Collection H ippocratique." AGPh
BAGB 20 (1961): 45263. arid the Origins of Greek Cosmology. New Y o r k : K a h n , C . H . Anaximander
Heidel, W . A . "Qualitative Change in Presocratic Philosophy."

19 ( 1 9 0 6 ) =333-79.
" :
A Study of the Conception of Nature among the

of the American Academy 45 (1910): 77-133
Columbia University Press, the Soul." AGPh

Essays,
i960.
Pre-Socratics." Proceedings American Academy
. "Religion and Natural Philosophy in Empedocles' Doctrine of

4 2 ( i 9 6 0 ) : 3 3 5 . Reprinted in Anton and Kustas,
PreSocratics. vol. 1. Gnomon 41 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 4 3 9 4 7 . reliquiae, de vita et studiis dis and in Mourelatos, The
. " O n Certain Fragments of the Pre-Socratics." Proceedings

4 8 (1913) 4 2 5 - 2 9 . of the Ancient Greek Maps, with a Discussion . The Frame
of the
Dis-
of the
. Review of J . Bollack, Empedocle Karsten, S. Empedoclis seruit, fragmenta 1838. Agrigentini
covery of the Sphericity
of the Earth.
New Y o r k : American
Geographical
carminum
Society, 1937.
Hershbell, J . P. "Empedocles' O r a l Style." CJ 6 3 (1968): 3 5 2 - 5 7 .
explicuit,
philosophiam
illustravit.
Amsterdam: J . M l l e r ,
. "Plutarch as a Source for Empedocles Re-examined."

92 ( 1 9 7 1 ) : 156-84.
AJPh
K i r k , G . S. Heraclitus:
The Cosmic
Fragments.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
305 Philosophers, pp. 320-61.
K i r k , G . S-, and R a v e n , J . E . The Presocratic
. "Empedocles' Fiery F i s h . " J W I 2 8 ( 1 9 6 5 ) : 3 1 4 - 1 5 .

. " ." CQ 15 (1965) ^ 4 9 - 5 1 .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957.

K n a t z , F . "Empedoclea." I n Schedae philologae H. Usener oblatae, pp. 1-9.
. "Roots." CR 17 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : i - 4 . . "Empedocles' Fertile F i s h . " J H S 9 4 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : i 7 3 . " T h e 'Roots of All Things'." I s i s 6 7 ( 1 9 7 6 ) 4 2 0 - 3 8 . Lovejoy, A . O . " T h e Meaning of in the Greek Physiologers." PhR
18 ( 1 9 0 9 ) : 3 6 9 - 8 3 . L t h , J . C . Die Struktur des Wirklichen im empedokleischen System. Meisen
B o n n : F . Cohen, 1 8 9 1 . K n o x , . M . W . Oedipus at Thebes. L o n d o n : Oxford University Press, and New H a v e n : Yale University Press, 1 9 5 7 . K r a n z , W . "Empedokles und die Atomistik." Hermes
126-40. . . " D i e Katharmoi und die Physika des Empedokles." Hermes 70
4 7 (1912): 18-42. 47 (1912):
. " D i e ltesten Farbenlehren der Griechen." Hermes
heim: H ain, 1 9 7 0 . Maas, P. "Eustathios als Konjekturalkritiker." ByzZ 3 6 ( 1 9 3 6 ) = 2 7 - 3 1 . . Creek Metre. Translated by . Lloyd-Jones. Oxford: Clarendon
Homicide Law in the Age of the Orators. Man
Lambridis, H . Empedocles:
A Philosophical
Investigation.
University: U n i
Press, 1 9 6 2 .
MacDowell, D . M . Athenian
versity of Alabama Press, 1 9 7 6 . Lameere, W . " A u temps ou Franz Cumont s'interrogeait sur Aristote."
L'Antiquite Classique 18 ( 1 9 4 9 ) : 279-324.
chester: Manchester University Press, 1963. Mansfeld, J . "Ambiguity in Empedocles 1 7 . 3 - 5 . " Phronesis
7-39-
( 1 9 7 2 ) :
Lasserre, F . "Trois nouvelles citations poetiques." MH 2 6 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 8 0 - 8 3 . Last, H . "Empedokles and His Klepsydra Again." CQ 18 ( 1 9 2 4 ) : 1 6 9 - 7 3 .
L e o n a r d , W . E . The Fragments of Empedocles Translated into English Verse.
Millerd, C . E . On the Interpretation Chicago Press, 1908.
of Empedocles.
Chicago: University of
Chicago: O p e n Court, 1 9 0 8 . Lloyd, A . H. " T h e Coin Types of Selinus and the Legend of Empedocles."
MC 15 (935):73-93
Minar, E . L . "Cosmic Periods in the Philosophy of Empedocles." Phronesis

8 ( 1 9 6 3 ) : 127-45. Morris, R . K . , and Fox, M . W., eds. On the Fifth Day: Animal Rights and
Lloyd, G . E . R . "Right and Left in Greek Philosophy." J H S 82 ( 1 9 6 2 ) :

56-66.
Human Ethics.
Fontwell, Arundel, Sussex: Centaur Press, 1978. Garden City, N . Y . : Anchor
Mourelatos, A . P. D . , ed. The Pre-Socratics. Press/Doubleday, 1974.

JHS 84 ( i 9 6 4 ) : 9 2 - i o 6 .
. " T h e Hot and the Cold, the D r y and the Wet in Greek Philosophy." 1966.
. Polarity
and Analogy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Mugler, C . "Sur quelques fragments d'Empedocle." RPh 2 5 ( 1 9 5 1 ) :

33-65 Mullach, F . G . A . Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum, vol. 3 , pp. xii-xxvii,
Lloyd-Jones, H . " T h e Guilt of Agamemnon." CQ 12 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 1 8 7 - 9 9 . . " T h e Seal of Posidippus." J H S 8 3 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 4 5 - 9 9 . Lodge, R . C . Plato's

or Materialism?"
1 - 8 0 . Paris: A . Didor, 1883. M l l e r , C . W . Gleiches zu Gleichem. Wiesbad en: . Harrassowitz, 1965. Munding, . " Z u r Beweisfhrung d es Empedokles." Hermes 8 2 ( 1 9 5 4 ) :
129-45
Theory
of Education.
L o n d o n : Kegan Paul, 1 9 4 7 .
Long, A . A . "Thinking and Sense-Perception in Empedocles: Mysticism

CQ 16 ( 1 9 6 6 ) : 256-76.
Nelod, G . Empedocle Pre-Socra545-57
d'Agrige n te.
Brussels: S. A . Ed iteurs, 1959. 65 (1906):
. "Empedocles' Cosmic Cycle in the Sixties." I n The Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1 9 7 4 .
Nestle, W . "Der Dualismus d es Emped okles." Philologus O'Brien, D . "Empedocles fr. 3 5 . 1 4 - 1 5 . " CR 15 ( 1 9 6 5 ) : 1-4. . "Emped ocles' Cosmic Cycle." CQ17 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 2 9 - 4 0 .
tics, edited by A . P. D . Mourelatos, pp. 3 9 7 - 4 2 5 . Garden City, . Y . : Long, H . S. " A Study of the Doctrine of Metempsychosis in Greece from Pythagoras to Plato." P h . D . diss., Princeton University, 1 9 4 8 . . " T h e Unity of Empedocles' Thought." AJPh Longrigg, J . "Galen on Empedocles (fr. 6 7 ) . " Philologus
300.
70 (1949): 142-58. 108 ( 1 9 6 4 ) : 2 9 7 -
. "The Relation of Empedocles and Anaxagoras." J H S 8 8 ( 1 9 6 8 ) :

93-113.
. Empedocles'
1969
Cosmic Cycle. Cambrid ge: Cambrid ge University Press,
306
307
" T h e Effect of a Simile: Empedocles' Theories of Seeing and

of European Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge
Seeck, G . A . "Empedokles B 1 7 . 9 1 3 , 8, Bioo bei Aristoteles." Hermes

95 (1967): 2 8 5 3 . Segal, C . " T h e Embassy and the Duals of Iliad 9 . 1 8 2 9 8 . " GRBS 10114. (1968):
Breathing." JHS 9 0 ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 1 4 0 7 9 .
Onians, R . B . The Origins

O w e n , G . E . L . "Eleatic Questions." CQ .10 ( i 9 6 0 ) : 8 4 1 0 2 . Owens, J . "Aristotle on Empedocles F r . 8 . " Canadian J ournal
suppl. vol. 2 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 8 7 1 0 0 .
of
Philosophy,
Sigerist, . E . History of Medicine,
vol. 2. New Y o r k : Oxford University
Press, 1961.
Solmsen, F . "Aristotle and Presocratic Cosmogony." HSPh
26582. . Aristotle's System of the Physical World. Ithaca, N . Y . : Cornell U n i
Page, D . Sappho and Alcaeus.

Pease, A . S. M.Tulli
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955.

in (1845) =88387, 8 8 9 9 3 . Cambridge, Mass.: De Natura Deorum.
63 (1958):
Panzerbieter, F . " Z u Empedokles." ATW Ciceronis
H a r v a r d University Press, 1955.

Peyron, A . Empedoclis thecae restituta, et Parmenidis fragmenta ex codice Taurinensis Biblio pp. 2 7 5 5 . L e i p z i g : I . A . G . Weigel, 1810.
versity Press, i 9 6 0 .
. "Nature as Craftsman in Greek Thought." JH I 2 4 ( 1 9 6 3 ) 4 7 3

96.
. "Love and Strife in Empedocles' Cosmogony." Phronesis

(1965): 10948. . " in Empedocles." CR 17 (1967) :245~46.
10
Powell, J . U . " T h e Simile of the Clepsydra in Empedocles." CQ 17

( 1 9 2 3 ) : 17274. Rathmann, W. Quaestiones Pythagorae Orphicae Empedocleae. H alle: E .
. "Eternal and Temporary Beings in Empedocles' Physical Poem."

AGPh 57 ( i 9 7 5 ) : i 2 3 - 4 5 -
K-linz, 1933.
Reiche, . Empedocles' Mixture, Eudoxan Astronomy and Aristotle's "connate
Souilhe, J . "L'enigme d'Empedocle." APhilos

Stein, H . Empedocles Agrigentinus, Fragmenta
9 (ig32):i-23.
disposuit, recensuit, adnotavit.
pneuma."
32233.
Amsterdam: A . M . H akkert, i 9 6 0 .
Richter, G . M . A . "Polychromy in Greek Sculpture." AJ A suppl. 1944:

. A Handbook of Greek Art. 6 t h ed. L o n d o n : Phaidon, 1969. Geneva: Skira, 1959.
Bonn: A . Marcus, 1852.

Stephanus ( = Estienne), H . Poesis Philosophica, pp. 17-31. Geneva: H .
Washington, D . C . : Psychology before
Stephanus, 1573.
Stokes, M . C . One and Many Stratton, G . M . Theophrastus in Presocratic Philosophy.
Robertson, M . Greek Painting.
Rohde, E . Psyche.
Translated by W . B . H illis. L o n d o n : Routledge &

Metaphysics. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924.
Center for Hellenic Studies/Harvard University Press, 1971.

and the Greek Physiological
K e g a n Paul, 1925.
Ross, W. D . Aristotle's . Aristotle's Physics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1936. 50 ( 1 9 5 2 ) : 2 3 3 0 .
Aristotle.
1917
London: George Allen & U n w i n ; New Y o r k : Macmillan,

Agrigentinus, de vita et philosophia collegit, recensuit. eius exposuit, car-
Rostagni, . " I I poema sacro di Empedocle." R F 1 ( 1 9 2 3 ) : 7 3 9 .

Rudberg, G . "Empedokles und Evolution." Eranos
gr. 1 8 5 3 . " RPh 43 ( 1 9 6 9 ) : 5 9 7 2 . Schmalzriedt, E . Peri Physeos, zur Frhgeschichte der Buchtitel. Muhich:
Sturz, F . G . Empedocles minum reliquias
ex antiquis
scriptoribus
2 vols. Leipzig:
Saffrey, H . O . "Nouveaux oracles chaldaiques dans les scholies du
Paris.
Goeschen, 1805.
Susemihl, F . Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur. 2 vols. L e i p z i g : B. G .
Teubner, 1891. Taillardat, J . " L e sens d' 'amorgos' et les lanternes dans l'antiquite."
REG 72 ( i 9 5 9 ) : n - i 2 . de la science hellene. 2 n d ed. Edited by A . O'ibs.
Wilhelm Fink, 1970.

Schneidewin, F . W . "Neue Verse des Empedokles." Philologus
15567.
6 (1851):
Tannery, P. Pour I'Histoire
Schwabl, H . "Empedokles, fr. n o . " IKS' 69 ( 1 9 5 6 ) : 4 9 5 6 .
Paris: Gauthier-Villars, 1930. Taylor, A . E . " O n the Date of the T r i a l of Anaxagoras." CQ 11 ( 1 9 1 7 ) :

81-87.
. " Z u r 'Theogonie' bei Paqnenides und Empedokles." WS 70

(1957): 27889.
Schwyzer, E . , and Debrunner, A . Griechische
Grammatik,
vol. 2. M u n i c h :
Taylor, C . C . W. "Pleasure, Knowledge and Sensation in Democritus."

Phronesis 12 (1967): 6 - 2 7 .
C . H . Beck'sche, 1950.
308
Thiele. G . " Z u den vier Elemente des Empedokles." Hermes 32 ( 1 8 9 7 ) :

68-78. T r a g l i a , A . Studi sulla lingua di Empedocle. van der Ben, N . The Proem of Empedocles' B a r i : Adriatica, 1 9 5 2 . Peri Physios. Amsterdam: . R .
Wellmann, . Die Fragmente der sikeluchen rzte. Berlin: Weidmann, 1 9 0 1 .
West, . L . "Empedocles on Papyrus." CR 12 ( 1 9 6 2 ) 1 1 2 0 .

" Maia in Empedocles." CR 16 ( 1 9 6 6 ) - . 1 3 5 - 3 6 .
Tucker, G . M . "Empedocles in E x i l e . " CR 4 5 ( 1 9 3 1 ) 4 . 9 - 5 1 .
"Notes on Newly-Discovered Fragments of Greek Authors."

20 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 1 9 9 - 2 0 0 .
Grner, 1975.
. "Empedocles' Fragments 8 , 9, 10 D K . " Phronesis
197-215
Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U . von. "Lesefrchte." Hermes 23 (1978):

3 2 6 - 2 7 ; 4 0 ( 1 9 0 5 ) : 1 6 5 - 7 0 ; 65 (1930) :245-50. ."Die Katharmoi des Empedokles." SPAW 94
37 ( 1 9 0 2 ) :
(1929):626-6i.
van Groningen, B. A . "Trois notes sur Empedocle." Mnemosyne 9 ( 1 9 5 6 ) :

221-24.
Reprinted in his Kleine

1935
Schriften,
pp. 4 7 3 - 5 2 1 . Berlin:
Weidmann,
. " L e fragment 111 d'Empedocle." C&M

. "Empedocle, poete." Mnemosyne His Psychological Some Doctrine
17 ( 1 9 5 6 ) 4 7 - 6 1 .
in Its Original and Tradi
Wilford, P. A . "Embryological Analogies in Empedocles' Cosmogony."

Phronesis 13 ( 1 9 6 8 ) : 1 0 8 - 1 8 .
2 4 (1971): 169-88.
Veazie, W . Empedocles:
Wilkens, K . "Wie hat Empedokles die V o r g n g e in der Klepsydra

e r k l r t ? " Hermes 9 5 ( 1 9 6 7 ) -.129-40.
tional Setting. New Y o r k : Columbia University Press, 1 9 2 2 .

Verdenius, W . J . Parmenides: Comments on His Poem. Groningen:
Wisniewski, B. "Quaestiones empedoclea." PP 29 ( 1 9 7 4 ) : 1 5 8 - 7 1 .

Witton, W . F . " T h e Word OPETEREU." J A Ph 79 (1958) 4 1 4 - 1 5 .
J . B. Wolters, 1942.
. "Empedocles' Doctrine of Sight." I n Studia 1 5 5 - 6 4 . Amsterdam: North-H olland, 1948. . "Notes on the Presocratics." Mnemosyne 4 ( 1 9 4 8 ) : - 4 Vlastos, G . "Parmenides' Theory of Knowledge."
66-74.
Vollgraff
oblata, pp.
Worthen, T . "Pneumatic Action in the Klepsydra and Empedocles'

Account of Breathing." Isis 6 1 ( 1 9 7 0 ) :52~3.
Wright, J . H . "The Origin of Plato's Cave." HSPh (1946): Zafiropulo, J . Empedocle d'Agrigente.
1953-
17 ( 1 9 0 6 ) : i 3 i - 4 2 .
TAPhA
77
Paris: Bude ("Les Belles Lettres"),
. "Equality and Justice in the E a r l y Greek Cosmologies." CPh

42 ( 1 9 4 7 ) : 1 5 6 - 7 8 .
Zeller, . Die Philosophie
der Griechen. Edited by W. Nestle. Vol. 1, pt. 2,
pp. 9 3 9 - 1 0 3 8 . Leipzig: O . R . Reisland, 1 9 2 0 .
. "Theology and Philosophy in Early Greek Thought."

2
PhilosQ
Zuntz, G . "De Empedoclis librorum numero coniectura."

18 ( 1 9 6 5 ) :365. . "Empedokles fr. 1 3 7 . " WS 79 (1966) .-38-44. pp.
Mnemosyne
(i952):97-i23-
. Plato's
Universe.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1 9 7 5 . Gomperz,
von Arnim, . "Die Weltperioden bei Empedokles." Festschrift pp. 1 6 - 2 7 . V i e n n a : A . Holder, 1902. von Fritz, . ", "'
. Persephone.
Bk. 2 : Empedokles'
Katharmoi,
1 8 1 - 2 7 6 . Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1 9 7 1 .
voecv, and T h e i r Derivatives in Pre-Socratic Philosoin Pindar's Second Olympian and Pythagoras'
2 ( 1 9 5 7 ) :85~94.
phy." CPh 4 1 ( 1 9 4 6 ) : i 2 - 3 4 -
Theory of Metempsychosis." Phronesis
Wackernagel, J . Vorlesungen ber Syntax,

1920.
vol. 1. Basel: E m i l Birkhaser,

86 (1931) :i33~40.
. "Orthographica und Verwandtes." Philologus AncSoc 5 (i974):i-i9.
Waters, . H . " T h e Rise and Decline of Some Greek Colonies in Sicily."

Wellmann, . s.v. Empedokles ( 3 ) , PaulyWissowa, vol. 5, cols. 2 5 0 7 - 1 2 .
Stuttgart: J . B. Metzler, 1905.
Index Fontium
Achilles: Isagoga ed. E . Maass, Comm. in Aratum Reliquiae, Berlin 1898 6(37-13) 6(43-6) Aetian: De Natura 12.7 16.29 Aetius: Doxographi Graeci ed. H . Diels, Berlin 1879 1.3.20 1.18.2 1.30. 3"63 7(6)
I0
Anecdota Graeca: Berlin 1814
ed. I . Bekker, 37(47)
2l(27).3 39(45) Animalium I3'(I27) 52(6i)
337-15
Anon. in Aratum: ed. E . Maass Comm. in Aratum Reliquiae, Berlin 1898 6(97-25) Anon. in Piatonis 21(27/3
ed. R. H crcher, Leipzig (Tb) 1864
Theaetetum
ed. H . Diels, Berlin 905 24.40 67(81) 92(101) 71-3 Anthologia Graeca: ed. H . Beckby, Munich 1958 108(117) 9-569 102(11 2). 1-2, 9569 4-6 Aristotle: Opera ed. I . Bekker, O. Gigon, Berlin i 9 6 0 Top. I27aig 67(81) Phys. 19a22 29(53) 52(61).2 tg8b32 99b9 iggbit 250030 Cael. GC 294325 30ob30
3i4b7 3i4b20
(t3)
12(8) 46(55)
Alexander Aphrodisiensis: Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. I. Bruns, M. Wallies, M . H ayduck, P. Wendland, Berlin 1891-1901, Problemata q.f. I I I ed. H . Usener, Berlin 1859 in Melaph. 35-I5 306.18 306.24 359-'9 828.8 in Top. in Mete. in Sens. quaest. probl. 357-> 2 99-6 23.11 72.26 22.7 48(96). 1-3 79(106) 80(108) 12(8). 3 48(96). 2-3 67 (80 49(34) 88(84) 74 (90 92(lOl).2
53(62).4 52(61).2 8(t7)-9-i3 = 16(26).8-12 33(39) 50(57)' 12(8).1, 3 4(2i)-3. 5 8(17/27 3'(37) 2(8/3 29(53) 31'
333a'9 Ammonius Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. A. Busse Berlin 1897 in Int. 249.6 95(>34) 333tn 333bi4 33433
I N D E X
F O N T I U M
312 30(54) 46(55) 49(34) 71(82) 77('og) 48(96). 1-3 79(106) 80(108) 50(57)' 88(84) 91(100) 144(97) 56(63) 50(57) 57(65) 65(79) 143(92) 57(65) 56(63) 59(68) 14(21).9-12 20(36) 77(109) 23(30) 79(106) 80(108) 12(8).!, 3-4 121(135) >25(!38) 129(I43) 49(l52) 89(88) 47(35)'4-15 14(21).9-11 49(34) 38(32) 9(12) 12(8). 3-4 8(17/32 33(39) 8(17/32 0(13) 277-9 277 ! 7 311-33 79(106) 80(108) 2(8/4
3'3 Diogenes Laertius: Vitae Philosophorum cd. . Long, Oxford 1964 8.54 102(112). 1-2 8.54 99(129).1-2 8.59 101(111) 8.61 4(1) 8.62 102(112). 1,2, 4-11 8.66 8.76 8.76 8.77 9.73 102(112).4-5 7(6). 2-3 8(17/7-8 108(117) 1(2/7-8, 5
I N D E X
F O N T I U M
Mete.
33435 357325 382a! 387b4 404613 4ioa4 427a23 427324 43329 437b26
XS CO
Hephaestio: Enchiridion ed. M. Consbruch, Leipzig (Tb) 1906 3-4 45(56)
De An.
Athenaeus: Deipnosophistae ed. G . Kaibel, Leipzig (Tb) 1887 8.334b 8.365c io .423f 12.510c 63(74) 108(117) 47(35) 14-15 118(128).1-7
Heraclitus: Quaestiones Homericae ( Al legoriae) ed. F . Oelmann, Leipzig (Tb) 1906 24 7(6/2-3 Herodianus: ap. Etymologicum Magnum 311 D 28(51) Hesychius: Lexicon ed. K . Latte, Copen hagen 1953 s.v. agenneta baub 135(7) 150(153)
Sens. Resp. Part. GA
CO
Anim.
723324 73135 747b3 76431 764bi7 777310 ioooa29 iooob2 iooob6 1000b14 1009b18 ioogb20 1015a! Rhet. Poet. 1373616 457bi3 I457bi4 457b25 145835 1461324 {mund.) (probt.) (tin. insec.) (MXG) 399626 929br6 972630 975bi 975b7 97561I 976335 976625 976b26
Athenagoras : Libellus pro Christianis ed. E . Schwartz. LeiDzie 18m 22 7(6/2-3 22 8(17). 18,20 Clemens Alexandrinus. Opera ed. . Sthlin, Berlin i 9 6 0 , 1972 Protrept. 2.27.3 23('45) Strom. 3.14.2 2(8) 3.14.2 '3(25) 3.14.2 4(124) 4.13.1 (9) 4.150.1 132(146) 5-9- 5'54 5.18.4 543 5593 58.2 5853 5-122.3 5!405 6.17-4 6.17-4 6.17-4 6.24.3 6.30.2 6.30.3 6.149' 103(114) 8(7).2 6(4) 27(38) 5(3) 1-2 96(133) 8(7).4 33('47) 95('32) 7(6). 8(7).8 '4(2).9 8(7)
( 0 -3-5
rt 0
Ci Ci Ci Ci
Etymologicum Magnum: ed. T . Gaisford, Oxford 1848 s.v. haima ethnos helios 94(I05)-3 47(35/7 35 (40 Evangelien ed. .
Hierocles: in Carmen Aureum ed. F. Mullach, Paris i860 54 54 7(5)'3-4 ii3(i2t).t-2,4
Metaph.
Eusebius: Praeparatio Mras, Berlin 1954 4.14.7 552 814.23 '3-13-49 14.146 14.18.28
Ii8(i28).8-I0 7(5)9-'2 3('2)2 '33('47) 7(6) 114(124/2
Eustathius: Comm. ad Homert Hindern et Odysseam cd. G. Stallbaum, Leipzig 1825-30 ad IL 22.116 118(128). 1-3 ad Od. 1.321 18.79 20.21 28(51) 108(117) 88(84).8
Hippolytus: Refutatio Omnium Haeresium ed. P. Wendland, Leipzig 1916 1.3.2 108(117) 5.7.30 111(119) 6.11.1 77(109) 6.12.1 IOO(IIO).IO 6.25.1 II(I6) 7-29.4 7(6) 7.29.10 11(16) 7.29.13 22(29) 7.29.14 107(115).1-2, 7.29.26 7.31.4 0.7.3 10.7.3 Iamblichus: De Vita 67 (Tb) 1896 2 (Tb) t963 1.17.46 7.5.18 Marcus Antoninus: Leopold, Oxford 1908 8.41 12.3 35(41) 75(90) Ad se ipsum ed. J . 21(27).3 21(27).3 102(112).4 4-14 100(110) 3(131) 7(6) 8(17).19-20 Pythagorae ed. L . 99(i29)
Galen: Opera ed. C. Khn, Leipzig 182133 us. part, sem. Hipp. Plat. 3.182 4.616 5.627 563' 11.461 17.1002 36(44) 56(63) 77(109/177(i09/i '4(2i/3 58(67)
02(2).0,2 33(39) 2-3
Deubner, Leipzig (Tb) 1937
Cornutus: Theologiae Graecae Compendium ed. C. Lang, Leipzig (Tb) 1881 7(303) 7(23)
Lucian: Pro Lapsu cd. C. Jacobitz, Leipzig
Asclepius: Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. . Hayduck, Berlin 18 in Metaph. 48(96/1-3 11 2.1 I97.2O 97-33 198.1 198.11 9833 107(115/13-14 14(21).10-13 20(36) 77(109). 1-2 23(3)3
simp. med. Hipp. ep.
Cyrillus: adversus Julianum ed. J . Aubert, Paris 1863 872c 972d 108(117) 118(128).8-10 ed.
Macrobius: Saturnalia ed. J . Willis, Leipzig
Gellius: Noctes Atticae ed. C. H osius, Leip zig (Tb) 1903 4.11.2 4.Ii.9 128(141) 128(141)
Diodorus Siculus: Bibliotheca Historica F . Vogel, Leipzig (Tb) 1895 13.83.2 102(112).3
Geoponica: ed. H . Beckh, Leipzig (Tb) 1895 2.35.8 128(141)
I N D E X
F O N T I U M
SM
166.25 208.9 56(63) 59(68)
3'5
917c 917 9>9d (39) 920c
CO
INDEX 54(64) 92(1 Ol ). I 67(81) 90(94) 34(40) 40(46) 19(27) 69(765.2-3 4'(42) 38(43) 4'(42)-3 4(2t)-3-4 37(i9) 110(126) 42(48) 7(25) 12(8)
13(9/5
FONTIUM
Olympiodorus: Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. W. Stve, Berlin 1900. Comm. in Piatonis Phaedo n em, Gorgiam e d . W.
Scholia in Aphthonii Progymnasmata ed. G . H e r m a n n , Orphica, Leipzig 1805 511 1327) in Euripidis Phoenissas ed. E. Schwartz, B e r l i n 1887 18 55(66) in Xicandri 1856 Theriaca ed. H . K e i l , Leipzig 452 119(13)
Norvin, Leipzig ( T b ) 1913, 1936

in Mete. 5!-4 55-8 297.19 335-22 58-I7 4-3 46(55) 46(55) 49(34) 71(82) 108(117) 97(i34)-i
Philostratus: Vita Apollon ii ed . C. Kayser,
Leipzig (Tb) 1870

1.1 1.1 102(112).4 108(117).
jac. lun.
926c 927I" 929c 929c 934d prim. 949f 952b esu earn. 998c quaest. Plat. i o o 6 f s.v.s. Ep. I I03f adv. Col. I I I if I I I2f 1113a 1113b 1113c 1113d I 123b I 123b frig.
in Phaed. in Gorg.
Plotinus: En n eades ed . P. Henry, H.-R.
Schwyzer, Oxford 1977

4.7.10.38 4.8.1.19 4.8.1.33 Plutarch: aud. poet. amic. amic. mult. Moralia 17c 03Q d e . 102(112).4 107(115).13-14 115(120) W. Paton, M.
Origenes: Con tra Celsum cd. P. Koetschau,
er
Leipzig 1899
5.49 8.53 124(137). 1-2 107(115).6-7
Pohlenz et alii, Leipzig (Tb) 1925-59

(2/7-8 8(17/18 5(3)-3 6i(33) 72(83) 124(137).1-2 '(2/4 I l6(l22).2 36(44) .8(24) 76(93) 126(144) 116(122) 92(101) ' 7 ( " 5 ) ' . 35-6, 13 '(9) 69(76) 127(140) 64(77) 75(90) 47(35)-'5 66(80) 147(148-50) 68(74) 43(49) 34(5) iog(i 16) 8(17).20-21 148(151) 98(273) '3(9/5
O
in Piatonis Gorgiam ed. \V. Greene, Pennsylvania 1938 498e 17(25) Sextus E m p i r i c u s : Opera ed. H . M u t s c h m a n n , J . M a u , Leipzig ( T b j 1914-61 adv. math. 1.302 102(112/4-5 1.302 5("3) 77(109) 303 7-92 7.121 7-123 7-125 8.286 9.10 9.129 9.129
CO CO
P h i l o : De aetern itate mundi ed . L . Cohn, B e r l i n 1905 9(12). 1-2 2 -5 P h i l o p o n u s : Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. M . H a y d u c k , H . V i t e l l i , B e r l i n 1887,
I93
in Phys
^4 20 88.6 261.22 3I4-I3 840.8 896.26 14.18 15-8,16 258.4 261.22 263.21 266.4 268.17 73.32 140.7 150.12 176.30 180.21 182.1 469.20 485-23 486.16 489-27 545-19 570-24 27.35 30-4 63.11 23.19
7\5)3 7 (6)
'4
29(53) 52(61).2 2(8).3 2(8).3 2(8).3 2(8/3 8(17/27 8(i7)-27 '2(8/3 I07(ii5).i3-i4 77(9) 107(115/13-14 108(117) 77(109).! 48(965.2-3 77(09) 77(9). 3 77(t09). 79 (i o6) 80(108) 77(109).! 5(57)-' 77(109). I 5o(57 )-i 57(65)' 65(79) 74(9')
936 95a jort. g8d superst. 171c de Is. et Os. 360c 361c 370d Pyth. or. 400 b de/, or. 418c coti. irn tranr^. an. exil. 433b 464b 474b 520f 607c
3(9) 136(10) 104(11) 106(15) 140(60) 52(61).2
77(i09) 77(>09) 1(2) 2,5(3)
in GC
607 quaest. conv. 618b 646d 649c 663a
P o r p h y r y : Opuscula ed. . Nauck, Leipzig ( T b ) i860 nbsl. 2.21 118(128). 1-8 2.27 118(128).8-10 2.31 120(139) 3.27 114(124).2 antr. nymph. 8 115(120) Vit. Pyth. 30 99(129) Probus: Comm. in Vergilii Bucolica cd. H .
II.4
too(i ro). 10
8(17).18-20 122(136) '24(>37) 7(6) 7(6) 8(17/19-20 112(118)
S i m p l i c i u s : Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. C. Kalbfleisch, H . Diels, J . H e i b e r g , M . Hayduck, Berlin 1882- 1907 ul Cat. in Phys. 337-2 25-29 26.1 32.6 32-'3 33-8 33-'9 158.1 59-'3 160.1 6.20 160.28
CO CO
-3'5 -3'7
CO
in de An.
7(6)
677d
683d 68 3 e 720e 728 antat. princ. phii. praec. reip. vit. aer. quaest. nat. 745d 756d 756
777C
CO
Proclus: Comm. in Piatonis Rempublicam Tiniaeum, Cratylum ed. \V. Kroll, E . Dichl, G Pasquali, Leipzig iTb) i 8 g g 1908 in Crat. 113(121).2,3 97.23 in Rep. 2.34.26 141(69) 113(121).2,4 2-I57-27 108(117).2 2-333- 8 in Tim. lo6e 5(3)-3 141 i6od 750 232c 339b
CA
8(17/7-8 8 ( 1 7 / 1 7 - 20 83(98) 47(35)-3- 7 14(21).3- 12 16(26) 8(17) 14(21) 5(23) 1 6 ( 2 6 / 1 - 12 8(17/12- '3 25(22) 8(.7).I-2 16-17
32(52) 21(27/3 1(2).2 77(i09/i,3 113(121)4
in GA
820f
8 3 of
912c gt6d
67(81) 73(89)
of
cn
I N D E X
F O N T I U M
316 2(8)-3 '2(8)-3 8(i7)-2i i2(8)-3 48(96) 29(53) 5i(5)-2 29(53) 5(5)2 83(98).i 84(85) 7o(75)-2 81(103) 82(104) 29(53) 52(61).2 52(61).2 52(61/2 53(62) 52(61).2 26(20) 8(i7/ii 8(17/12-13 21(27.1,3,4) 24 (30 8(17).29 I07(II5).I-2 23(30) 16(26/1 8(17/7-8 29(53) 8(i7)-7-i3 8(i7)-7-i3 12(8/3 33(39 )-i 47(35) 1-15 85(86) 86(87) 87(95) 60(71) 62(73) 70(75) 8(17/7-8 50(57) 50(57) 47(35)5.10-13 39(58) 5i(59) 21(27/3 48(96). 1-3 5(57 )-i Or. Themistius Comm. in Aristotelem Graeca ed. R. Heinze, H . Schenkl, Berlin 1899, Orationes ed. H . Schenkl, Leipzig (Tb) CO in Phys. in de An. 49-9 62.3 10.20 14.18 33-12 34-8 35-13 87.22 178a 29(53) 52(61).2 77(i09 )-i 77(109/1 48(96). 1-3 77(109).! 108(117) 79(106) 113(121).4 Sophonias: Comm. in Aristotelem Graeea ed. M. Hayduck, Berlin 1883 in de An. 12.22 77(109) 24-39 26.16 32-15 115.26 Stobaeus: Eclogae Berlin 1884 1.10.11 t.io.u i.io.ii 1.15.2 '49-53 1.49.60 1-51-7 2.8.42 2.31.6 3.40.5 Strabo: Geographica ed. Leipzig (Tb) 1866 8.364.3 ed. 108(117) 77(109/1 48(96) 79(io6) K. Wachsmuth,
317 Theodoretus: Graecorum Affectionum Curatio ed. J . Raeder, Leipzig (Tb) 1907 1.71 6(4). 1-2 1.74 96(133) 4.14 10(13) 8.36 132(146) Theon Smyrnaeus: Expositio Rerum Mathematicarum ed. E . Hiller, Leipzig (Tb) 1878 15.10 129(143) 104. I5i(i53a) 149.6 113(121).2 Theophrastus: De causis plantarum ed. F . Wimmer, Leipzig (Tb) 1854, De sensibus ed. H . Diels, Doxographi Graeci Berlin 1958 Sens. 9 10 16 22 145(99) 78(107) 25(22).6-7 93(102) cans, plant.
I N D E X
F O N T I U M
161.19 180.30 188.26 235-23 300.21 327.18 327.20 330- 35 331- 2 331-5 331-7 33'-9 331.12 33I-I4 358-11 372.1 380.20 38i-3,7.i3 38i-3i 3834 1124.1 2 1124.23 I i 25.1 1183.30 1184.4 1184.7 1184.9 1184.14 1185.19 1318.25 1318.28 Cael. 141.1 293-25 306.5 522.11 529-1 529.23 529-25 529-27 530.1 530-6 530-9 530 -I4 586.1 2 587-1 587.11,14 587.18 587.20,22 in de An. 591-5 68.5 250.23
1.7.1 1-13-2
65(79) 64(77,78)
7(6) 20(36) 8(17).7-8 22(28).3-4 94(105) 110(126) 77(109/1-2 107(115).1-2 8(17).14 111(119) A. 89(88) Meineke,
Tzetzes: Exegesis in Hindern ed. G. Hermann, Leipzig 1812, Alleg. Hiadis, ad Alleg. Hiadis ed. P. Matranga, Rome 1850, Chiliades ed. P. . M . Leone, Naples 1968, ad Lycophronem ed. E . Scheer, Berlin 1881 ex. I I . 29.24 102(112).4 53-23 54.25 Alleg. I I . 15.86 ad. Alleg. I I . 4.33 Chil. 2.909 7-517 12.569 adLyc. 3-74 507 ,7H 7(6) 12(8/4 44(5o) 5(57 )-i 101(111) 97(i34)-4-5 116(122).4 97(!34) 5(57 )-i
Suda: Lexicon ed. A. Adler, Leipzig (Tb) 1928 s.v. apnous ioi(m).i-9 Empedokles Empedokles helios JViJlis Pythagoras Pythagoras 102 (112). 4 108 (117). 2 35(41) 7(6). 3 102(112).4 1 o8( 117). 2 Graeca ed.
Syrianus: Comm. in Aristotelem
W. Kroll, Berlin 1902 in Metaph. 43.34 23(30). 2-3 188.17 48(96/2
Index Verborum
Words in the quotations under Addenda are not included. Asterisked words are found only in Empedocles.
, . . . 3 ( 3 ) 4 ! 102(112).2 , 8(28).4 . ' 91(100). 12 . 5(3)-4, 8 ( 7 ) 4 , 4(2 )-, 2 7 ( 3 8 ) - 1 , 5 3 ( 6 2 ) . ; ' ' ( 11)-9 . . . 68(74 )- *. . . . 3 7 ( 4 7 ) ! . . . . 19(27). . 13(9)- 2 . 4 ( 0 - 1 . ' 53(62).3 . . 27(38). 3; ' 64(78)-2; 8(17). 8 ; 91 (too). 13 , ' , ' 47(35)'45 3 3 ( ' 4 7 ) ' . 97(34)4 . . . . 3 7 ( 4 7 ) ' ; /. 5(3)4 1(2)3 . 48(96).2 . 77 ( 1 9 ) - 2 . ' ' toi(m).g . . . . 7(5)2 . 102(112).3 . ' ' 7(6)-2 . / 88(84).2 , 107(115)9 . . . . 27(38).4; . . . 30(54) ; . . . ' 3 ' ( 3 7 ) ' ; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) - 1 ; 91 ( ).7; ' . . . 9 1 (too). 18; ' '() 1 3 ( 9 ) ' ; . . . ' 7 7 ( 0 9 ) - 2 ; / 3!9
( ),
. 58(67)-2 ((
. 8(17).13 3 5 ; 9 ( , 2 ) - 3 ; 16(26).12; ' . . . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) - 1 2 ; g ( i 2 ) . 3 ; 8(8 ). . / 124(137)-'! .(2)-4 . 79(106). . 25(22).8 . . . . 88(84).4
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
32O
. *. 43/49)' . 24(37)4 . ' / 103(114)- 1 . '7("5)"3 . 5(23)5 . 35 ( 4 1 ) . ( ) . . 2(3). ; 5(3)4! 6(4 ); 8 ( 7 ) " 4 , 34! 12(8).3; 4 ( 2 ) ; 15(23) ; 22(28).3; 3 5 ( 4 ; 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 6 , ; 56(63)!; gi(ioo). 12; 97(134).4; 105(113).'; " 8 ( 1 2 8 ) . 3 , 9; 121(135)' . 8(17).6, 16(26). ; ' 124(137)' . / 122(136).2; /./. 6 (26).2; ' 8(17).34, 14(21). 13, 16(26/3; . . . ' 25(22).6; 14(21).8; 25(22)5 *. (26). /
321
, 39(45)' . 91(100/3 . 45(56)" . / 123 (45)" . . 4 9 ( 3 4 ) ' . 02 ( 2).|7, 8 , 96('33)3 . 0 7 ( " 5 ) - 4 . ( 2 ) . 2 , ( )7 . 47(35) ' 3 ! fr<" ' . . . . 102(112).4; 3 ( ' 3 ' ) ' ; ' ' (] 14 (2 1/4 . ' 130(125)" . . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " 3 ; / ' 47 (35) 9 , 9 ( 1 2 ) " . ' ' 47(35)8 , ' 23(30).3 . . . . 88(84). 3 . . . . 68(74)" .
2
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
60(71).2; . . . gi(ioo ).24; ' 107(115) 11; ' / 121(135).2; 83(98). 2; ' 9 ( ) 5 ; ' ]
7(5)6
( 11).8
. ' 83(98).5; gi(ioo ).6 } 22; . . . 9 4 ( 1 0 5 ) . ! , 3 . ' 6(22).2 . ' 124(137).5 . 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 0 ; ().; 16(26).2 . gi(ioo ).i5, 21 . . . . ' 22(29). , [97('34)2] . ' 6 ( 2 2 ) . 2 . 47(35) >4 . 8 ( 1 7 ) . , 6 ( 2 ) . ; ' j ( 6 ) . 2: ' ().3; ' ' 99(29). 6 ,
()3
2 6 ( 2 0 ) " ; (') 3(2).4 *. 132(146).3 . 53 (62). 2 . iog("6)"; 15(23) 107(115)" ,
. . . . ' 9 ( ) . 8 ; . . . ' gi(ioo ).25 . 5(3)-2 *. g8 (27a). 1 . . . . 3 7 ( 4 7 ) " . 53 (62).6 . ' gi(ioo)" *. 5 ( 5 7 ) ' . / ( ) /. 3 ( 3 ' ) 2 . 14(21).7, 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . j . /. '33('47)2 . 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) " *. 52 (6.).2 *. 5 2 ( 6 ) . 3 . ( ] 40(46) . ' 4 4 ( 5 ) " ; . . . , ' 88(84).3, 4 ; ( ) . 3 , ( ' ] . . . 124(137).3 . 9 (12).2 . 8(7).26, 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) " , 1 0 6 ( 1 5 ) " ; 5 6 ( 6 3 ) " , (11 r).g; 4 ( 2 ) . , 15(23).2, 58(67).2; 15(23).6, ().6; 5 2 ( 6 ) 3 , 5 3 ( 6 2 ) " ; ' ( 2 ) 7 , 53(62).8, 2 ( " 2 ) . 8 , 103(114)3 , 5 ( 3 / ' . . .
. 122(136).2 , 8(17). 13, 16(26). 12 . . 26(20).3 . (] ' / 5(3)5, 6 . 7(6). , 8(17).26; 2(3).4; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) ", ' / 0 2 ( 2 ) . , ' 8 ( 2 8 ) . 6 ; ' (] 8 ( 2 8 ) . 8 , , 91(100). ig; / 0 2 ( 2 ) . 2 ; ' (] 5(3)-3; 4(46)-2 . . . . 76(93) ' ! . . . 88(84). 6
. (23)9, 4 7 ( 3 5 ) - 6 . (') , . . . 8 (8). , 2; ( ).6 *. 14(21). 14 . ' /. 8(17).28; 83(98).5; /. ' 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) " 2 ; 2 ( 8 ) . ; 8(7)35 , ' 15(23/4; (/. ) 27(38). 2; ' 47(35)-6*> 5 ' ( 5 9 ) - 3 ; ' ( ) . 4; . . . 5(3)7; 113(121).2; 16(26/4; 3 3 ( ' 4 7 ) ' ; ' "9(53)' . 8(7)7, 2, 4
8
107(115)3
- 3 ( ' 3 ' ) 4 , ' 5 ( 2 3 ) 2 > 9 ' ( ' 0 0 ) " 9 > '

( 2 ) . 2
, 35: 16(26/5, 6; 26(20).
*. 88(84).9 . 35(41)" . 5 2 ( 6 1 ) " *. 5 2 ( 6 1 ) " . ' / ( 6 ) . 2; 53 (62). 5,' 89(88). . 8 ( 1 7 ) . 3 1 > 2 ( " 2 ) 7 > 6 ( 5 ) " . ' 102(112).2;
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
322
' 8(17) 3 . ' ! ] ' 8 ( 1 7 ) . 3 . 1 ( 2 / 4 . 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 3 . ' 107(115)"
323
vtov 2 ( 3 / 5 ; ( ! 40(46)" . .. . 7 8 ( 1 0 7 ) " . 116(122/2; 21 (27).2; 48 (96). 4; , ' 15(23).4 . () ( 111)4 .
5
INDEX
V E R B O R U M
, 16(26/4; 99(129).6, 5 ( " 3 ) . 2 ; 94 (05)3 ' ' ( ' " ) 7 ; 12(8). 4,' 7 9 ( 6 ) . , 94(5).2, 96(33)3. " 8 (i28 ).g, 1 1 9 ( 1 3 0 ) " , 132(146).2 . ' ' 78(107).2 . (5)" . . . . ' 23(30).2 . " 3 6 (44)" . . . . / 2(3).4 . 57(65)2 *. (( 94('5)" . ' 1 1 5 ( 1 2 0 ) " . ! gi (100).6 , 9 2 ( 0 2 . 125 (138)" . 97(34)5; 8(7)7 2 6 ( 2 ) . 2, 2 7 ( 3 8 / 2 , 4, 8 ( 3 ) . ; 2 ( 8 ) . ; 8(17). ig, 4 ( 2 ) - 3 > ' 4 (")3 , (23)9 , 8 ('7)26 , 102(112).3 , / 2 2 ( 2 8 ) . 3 ; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) " . 1 2 7 ( 1 4 ) " ; 1 2 8 ( 1 4 1 ) " . 6(4)" , 8 ( 7 ) " 8 ; ' 121 ( 1 3 5 ) - 2 . 22(29). 1, 2 5 ( 2 2 ) 8 , 5 2 (6)3> 67(81). ', [ 9 7 ( 3 4 ) . 2 ] , ( ) . 4 , 107(115).6, 29(43)' _ . '33(47)2 . ' , ' 13(9).4 . 92(101).2 /.:. , ' 15 '' ' 28
. 16(26). 2; 8 ( 1 7 / 1 4 ; 3 ' ( 3 7 ) " ; / ' 100(110/4; j 8 ( 1 7 ) " , 6 . 3 ( ' 3 ' ) 3 , 2 6 ( 2 0 / 4 . 1 3 ( 9 ) 0 ; a'k0 1(2).5; 8(7)34, > 4 ( 2 ' ) " 3 > 16(26/3, ( ) . 4; ioo(iio).g; 25(22).4J 26{2).6; 9 ' ( ) " 6 , 22; 124(137).5; 7 1 ( 8 2 ) " . 23(30) *. 133(147)1 . 3 ( 2 ) . 3 . ' /, . . . / ( ) . 6 , . 47(35) 6, ( ) . 8 , 6 4 ( 7 8 / 2 , ' . . . ' 8 5 ( 8 6 ) " ; 8 6 ( 8 7 ) " ; . . . i' 8 (17/24; . . . ' 5 5 ( 6 6 ) " ; ' 25(22).5; roW ' 6(7-4 . . 23(45)-2', 33('47)2
. 118 ( 2 8 ) . ; 124(137) 6 , ' 7 3 ( 8 9 ) 1 . (( 4'(42)2 *. 4 ( 4 2 ) 2 *. _ (62)3 . ' gi (100). 14 . at ' 88(84).9 . 2(3)" . . . . 88(84). 3 . ' , 9(12).2 . 6(5)-4; & 8 ( 7 ) - 3 0 , 8 ( 8 ) . . ' 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) " . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) - 1 7 ; 48(96).4 . () 3 (114) ; 107(115) 8 . 7(6).2; 4 ( 2 ' ) 4 . gi(ioo). 11 . 8(28). . 25(22)" , 8 ( 7 ) 2 2 . 2 6 ( 2 0 ) " . ' ' 8(17).23 53
'
8(67)" . 2 7 ( 3 8 ) " ' , '
116
, ' . . .
(122/4 . (! 5 2 (6)-4; 86(87). > . 11 ( 6 ) . 2 ; , . (( 15 (23)"0 '. ' " 7 (23).2 . : ; 0 2 ( 2 ) . ; 102(112).7 , 2 ( 8). , ' , 8(17/19 . 7 7 ( ' 0 9 ) 2 ; 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " , 5'(59) , 7 2 ( 8 3 ) " , 7 4 ( 9 " ) " , 9 ( ) " 4 . 36 _ (44)" _ . , 1 3 3 ( ' 4 7 ) - 2 ; ' 8 5 ( 8 6 ) " ; 88(84). 6 . 113(121)" . ' 113(121).4 , . . . 8 (2-).2; 102(112). g . 8 ( 7 ) 2 , 8, 17; '3(9)-4! 16(26).6; gi (100).20 . 3 8 ( 4 3 ) " i ' 121(135) 2; 4 ( 2 0 - 4 ; (] 4 ' ( 4 2 ) " ; ' / /. 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) " /.. gi (100). 10 '
, 3 3 ( 3 9 ) " . ' ' () 7 5 ( 9 ) 2 . / 102(112). . . . . gi (). 11 *. 69(76). , . 8
(28/3 _ _ . 118(128).2 . . . . 47 (35)3 ' ' 88(84). g; . gi (100). 16 . 88(84).6
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
324
13(9/2; 1 1 4 ( 1 2 4 ) " . 8 ( 1 7 ) " 8 ; ' 2 7 ( 3 8 ) . 3 ; 4 2 ( 4 8 ) " ; ' / () 7(5)"; 3 9 ( 4 5 ) " ; / , ' . . . 4 ( 4 2 ) 2; (iog).i; ( ) . 3 ; / 60(71).2; . . . 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " ; ' ( 5 8 ( 6 7 ) " ; ' (( 14(21).6; 19(27).2; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) " ; 4 6 ( 5 5 ) " . ' 8(17).24 , ( ) . , ' 8 ( 7 ) 3 5 ; 14 ( 2 ) " 4 ; 89 ( 8 8 ) " ; ' 16(26/4; 8 ( 7 ) " , 6 ( 2 6 ) . ; . . . (82).2; . . . 131(127).2; ' 1 0 8 ( 1 1 7 ) " ; . . . 114(124).2; ' 27(38).2; ' 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 3 ; ' 73(89) ; ' 8 3 ( 9 8 / 5 ; . . . / ' 6 0 ( 7 1 ) . 3 , 4! ' ( ) . ; (( 5 ( 2 3 ) " ; (( 6 (26). 7; . . . 47(35)4 < 1 0 4 ( H ) . 2 ; 9 ( 1 2 / 1 ; ( ) 3 ( 9 ) - 3 . 6(4)-3 (
325
. 4" (42) 3 , 75 . . .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
. . . . 5 ( 3 ) " . ' ( ( 1 ( 2 / 3 ; 26(20)3; PVTMlvi 26 (2)-5; 0 7 ( 5 ) 5 . , 106(15) 2; . . . 107(15)-8 . 106(15). 2 . ' 14(21). ; 5 ( 5 7 ) " . ' 120(139).2 . 52(61).2 . 5 2 ( 6 1 / 3 . 5 0 ( 5 7 / 2 . i (2 ).g; 7 ( 6 ) . 3 ; gi(ioo). 17; 26(20). . () ,, ' 6 ( 5 ) 4 . . . . 7 6 ( 9 3 ) " , . . . 8(28).8 .
(go)"
, 2 ( 3 ) . ; 5(3)6; j 3 3 ( 3 9 ) 2 , 86(87)" . ' ' 6 1 ( 3 3 ) " . , 22(29).2, g7 ('34)3 , / n8(n8/5 . ' 15(23)" . 53(62).8; i(a).i, 9 7 ( ' 3 4 ) ' ; .. . 2 1 ( 2 7 ) " ; 24(31) ; , 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . 3 ; 107(115)37 ) * "7 8 ( 2 8 ) . ; 5 ( 3 / 8 ; gi(ioo ).22; (( 52(61).4 , ' 50 (57/2 ". ' -
. ( 2 ) . 2 , 3, 6, | 8 ; 2(3).2; 4 ( ' ) ; 5(3) 8; 6 ( 4 ) . 2 ; 8 ( 1 7 / 2 , 3 (bis), 5> 8, 12, 3 , 17, 26, 28(bis) 29, 3 2 , 33, 34! 12(8). , 4; >3(9)"> 4(bis), 5! ' 4 ( 2 ) 4 , 5, 6, 7, 8, 3 ; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) " , 4; 6(26 )., 3 , 6, , 12; 2 ( 3 6 ) . ; 25(22).4; 26(20).4, 6; 27(38)"; 28(5).; 2 9 ( 5 3 ) " ; 3 ' ( 3 7 ) " (bis); 3 2 ( 5 2 ) " ; 4 1 ( 4 2 ) " , 2; 4 2 ( 4 8 ) " ; 4 4 ( 5 ) " ; 47(35)4, 7, 8, , 12, 4 , 6 ; 2 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " , 3(bis); 5(57)2; 5 ( 6 ) 2 , 4 ; 57(65)"; 6(7).; 61(33)"; 62(73)"; 6 5 ( 7 9 ) " ; 7(75 )"(bis); 7 5 ( 9 ) ' , 2; 76 ( 9 3 ) " ; 7 7 ( ' 9 ) " > 2, 3 ( b i s ) ; | 8 ( 8 ) . ; 8 3 ( g 8 ) . i ; 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " ; 8 8 ( 8 4 ) " , 5, 7, 9, ' ;
gi(ioo).i, 5> 8, 6, 8, 20, 22, 25; 95

(32).2; 99('29); ().6; ( 11), , 3, 6, 7, 9; 2 ( 2 ) . 4 , 8, ; 3 (114/2; 6 ( 5 ) 4 ; io7(ii5)"o(bis), 11, I2(bis); 118(128).8; 1 1 9 ( 1 3 0 ) " ; ' 2 4 ( 1 3 7 / 1 , 2, 3, 5; 3 ( 2 7 ) 2 ; 1 3 2 ( 1 4 6 ) " . 8 ( 7 ) 2 5 ; 5 ( 2 3 ) 2 . ' ' (( 1 9 ( 2 7 ) " , 2 3 ( 4 5 ) . 2 , ' 9 5 ( ' 3 2 ) 2 ! & 1 1 4 ( 1 2 4 ) " ; , 2 8 ( 4 ) ; ' \(). 2; ( ) . 7 ; 6 ( 5 ) 3 . , , 17(25)" . < ' ' 6 1 ( 3 3 ) " . ' ' 99(129).6 , 59 (68).. , 3 1 ( 3 7 ) " ; 53(62) 7; . . . gi (). 11 ". ( 11).8 . 4 ( 2 ) . , 15(23/6, 6 3 ( 7 2 ) " , 6 4 ( 7 7 ) " > 6 5 ( 7 9 ) " ; 131(127). 2 . 8 ( 1 7 / 2 1 ; 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " -
21(27).3, 22(28).4 . ' '' 6 ( 3 3 ) 1 . ( 2 ) . ; 3 ( 1 3 1 ) " ; 7 ( 6 ) " ! 8 ( 1 7 ) " , 4, 14, 15, 6 , 27, 3 U 9 ( 2 ) " , 3;
(6).;
4 ( 2 0 " 3 ; 16(26/3; 1 7 ( 2 5 ) " ; 2 2 ( 2 9 ) " ; 2 4 ( 3 ' ) " ; 25(22)"; 29(53)"; 37(47)"! 47(35)9; 53(62)3; 5 8 ( 6 7 ) " ; 7 7 ( ' 9 ) " ; 79(6).;94(5)3;97(34)";99('29). 4; ( ) " , 4, ; 104(11), ; 107(115/ 9 8 ( 7 ) . ; 130(125)" 7 5 ( 3 ) " , ' 3 ( 9 ) 3 , ' 5 ( 2 3 ) " , 22(28).3, 99('29)5, ().6, 03(4)-2, 8 ('28).4 . , ' 8(17).3 , 8(17).27; ( ) 9 ; . . . 25(22).7; . . . ( ( 25(22).9 *. 22(29).2 ,
I 52(61).4 . 14(21). ; 15(23).6; / 5 7 ( 6 5 ) " ; 53 ( 6 2 ) " ; 102(112).8 *.
8(28).5 . 119(130).2 , 5 ' ( 5 9 ) 1 ; 107(115)5 . 124(137/4 . 4 ( ' ) " . ' 7 (6). 3 . / 22(36).2 , 1 2 7 ( 1 4 ) " ; () ' 131(127)2 *. 3 3 ( 3 9 ) "
, ( 76(93)"
. ' ' (( 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . 4 ; . . .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
326
. ' 8 8 ( 8 4 ) " 0 . ' /. 25(22).6 , _ '- 5 ( 5 9 / 3 . ' ' 21(27)" . . . . gi (100).9 . ( 2 ) . 4 . I 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 4 ; 5 ' /. 107(115)"! , gi (100).5 . , ' 120(139)" . ' 8 5 ( 8 6 ) " ; 77(109).2 , ' 8()., 6 . , , '7(25)" . ' . . . ' ' 8 ( ; ) 8 , 19; ' 6 (26).6 . 7 ( 5 ) - 9 *. 4 ( 2 ) - 5 . , ' 8(17).3 *?.. 4(2)"2; 15(23).8 */.. 4 ( ) . . 9 5 ( ' 3 2 ) 2 . _ 30(54)" . 22
327
.
(23).
IN D
V E R B O R U M
118(128). 8 . ' ( 5 ) . 12 - 5(3) 3, 33(39)-2, 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 5 , 9 9 ( ' 2 9 ) 2 , 0 2 ( 2 ) " 2 , 104().2, 6(5)-2 , . . . 5 ( 3 ) 4 , 8; (( 15(23). ; (( 27(38).2 . 6 ( 2 2 ) . 3 . g8 (27a ).i; 0' 1 6(22),2 . . . . 2(2).2 . 58(67).2; 88 (84).2; 3 ( 3 [ ) 2 J ' 8 ( 7)-34> ' 4 ( 2 ) 3 , 16(26). 3 ; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) 2 ; (' 5 4 ( 6 4 ) " ; gi(ioo ).22; ' ( ) . 3 ; 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) ? ; "* ' / . . . ' 2 ( 3 5 ) - . 2 . ' '.> 88
'
. ' 5 7 ( 6 5 ) " . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " , ( ) . 2 , 102(112). 4 , 0 3 ( 4 ) - 2 , 0 7 ( 5 ) - ' 3 , ().; 120(139)" . 2 4 ( 3 7 ) - 6 : 8 ( 2 8 ) . . () /. 7 4 ( 9 - 2 ; ( ) 5 , cf. s.v. , 16(26).4; 47(35)-7, '6; 3 ( 2 0 - 2
2 2 2 7 ( 3 8 ) " ; 6(7).; 3(3')"; 4( ') ; ( ) . , 6; 1 0 5 ( 1 1 3 ) 2 ; Vv 1 0 1 (' ' 5 ) 5 . ' , 103(114)" j Ari 1 5 ( 2 3 ) " ! , ( ) . ; 99(129). (form), . . . 9 ( 2 7 ) ; . . . _ 6 ( 7 ) 3 ; 5 ( 2 3 ) 5 ! () 62(73)2; 8 3 ( 9 8 / 5 ; .. . 7 ( 5 ) - 7 ; ' 130(125)"; ' . . . 25(22/7
8 ( 1 7 ) 2 7 ; 25(22). 4 ; 7 3 ( 8 9 ) " ; 4 ( ) . ; 6 ( 5 ) - 3 : ' 106(15). 4 ; ' 8(17). 3, () ( 6 ) . ; 88(8 4 )-5, ; gg(\29). 1; ' 6 ( 2 2 ) . ; 118(128). ; ./, ' 118(128).9; 1 1 9 ( 1 3 ) " ; gg (129). 5; /. 104(11)-2; / ( 3 3 ( ' 4 7 ) 2 ; . . . ' 8 ( 7 ) " , , 6 , 17; . . . 5 ( 2 3 ) " ; . . . ' 47 (35) 5, '4 . . 33(39)" . 63(72)
( 8 4 )
. , ' 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " . 2(8),3 . 8 ( 7 ) " 2 ; 4 7 ( 3 ) " 5 . ( ! 4(2)"4 ". 14(21).7 . 8 ( 1 7 / 6 , 2 , 3 ; 16(26)" ; g > (100).4 . ( ! 8(17).5 . () 88(84).4 . 56(63)
/ gi(ioo ).i2:
88(84).7 . 8(17)7; 13(9)"; 16(26).2, 5; 2 3 ( 3 ) - 2 ; 26(20).2; gi (too). 11, t i 2 ; 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) 3; 100(110). 5; 3 2 ( 4 6 ) ; ? 4 ! ( 4 2 ) 2 ; 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " ; 0 2 ( 2 ) 7 ; 107(1 i5 )"o(bis); 118(128).7 . 8 9 ( 8 8 ) " ; 16(26).5 . . . 8 ( 2 4 ) . 2 ; 8 ( 7 ) " , 6 ; 4 7 ( 3 5 / 5 ; V 8 ( 7 ) - 7 , 2 6 ( 2 ) . 2 ; 8(). 9, 16(26).8; (( 16(26).7; ' &()., \; 8 ( 7 ) " 0 , 16(26).9 . ' . . . g\ (100). 12,15 . 16(26).7, 9 ' ( I O O ) " 4 > 2 0 . ( 3 8 ) . 2 ; I 122(136). . 8(17/31, 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 4 ( b i s ) . 2 ( 3 ) . 2 ; 8(i7 )- 2 (bis), 9, I7(bis); 9(12). 1; 4 ( 2 ) . 6 , g; 5 ( 2 3 ) 5 ; 16(26).8; 27 ( 3 8 ) . ; 4 4 ( 5 ) : 78(107)"; 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 5 ; 85(86)1; (111). 6, 7 , 9 ; ' 0 7 ( 5 ) " 2 ; iu(iig)"; . 114(124). 2 (bis); 130(125)" 5(3)4> 8; gg 1(2).5;
(heat). ! ! "' 4 ( 2 ) . 4 ; 53(62)5 , ' 99(29)6
'
. /. 6 ( 4 ) 3 ; ' 26(20).4 . ' 8 ( 7).2,17; ' 8 ( 1 7 / 1 0 , 16(26). g; 8(17).5 . . . . 6 2 ( 7 3 / 2
( 2 9 ) " , [ 9 7 ( 3 4 ) 2 ] ; ' / 48(96). 2 *?.. , 4 ( 2 4 ) - 1 . 1 3 ( 9 ) 4 . 3 ( 4 ) - 3 . gi (loo).ig; 122(136)" . log (116)" , 25(22).
, 107(1 15)" 2 ; . . . 2 ( 3 / 4 ; 5 ( 3 ) 7 ; , / ' . . . ( ' ( 9('2)"3; . . . 17(25)"; 94(105/3; ( ) 5 ; ' 8 ( 7 ) 3 4 , 16(26/3; / . . . / 12 (8 )., 4; ' ' ' . . . 1 4 (^) -9, '3! < " ) * 96(133)"; 107(115)"; ' 8 ( 7 ) " 3 > 16(26/12;
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
328
. , 3(3')4; 53(62). , 8(7).22 . t i ( 2 ) . 3 ; 8 ( 1 7 / 2 0 , 2g; 1 4 ( 2 0 . 2 , 5, 7, 8; 1 6 ( 2 6 ) " , 2; 25(225.3; 725(22).9; 26 ( 2 0 / 3 ; 47(35)4, 5; 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " ; 5 6 ( 6 3 ) " ; 58(67)"; 59(68)"; 62(73)"; 67(81)"; 6 9 ( 7 6 ) " ; 7(75)2; 83(98).3; t 8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 4 ; 8 7 ( 9 5 ) " ; 8 8 ( 8 4 / 7 ; 9 4 ( 1 0 5 ) " ; 96(133)1; g8(27a ).i; 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) " ; 118(128).9; 124(137/4; 1 3 1 ( 1 2 7 ) " ; ivi 6(4).3; 23 (30). 3(27)2 . 47(35)8 . . . . 3 7 ( 4 7 ) " *. () . . . 74(91) , ' 4 ( 1 3 1 ) " . ' 3 2 ( 5 2 ) " . / 47 (35) 3 . ( ( 25(225.9
329
. 47 . 07("5)4 ,
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
(rag).5; 100(110).5; 8(17).28, 100(110/5; 8(17).8, 16(26).6, 26(20).5, 5 1 ( 5 9 / 2 . ' ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " . ! 5 ' ( 5 9 ) 3 , 47(35)3; gg (rag)", 1 1 8 ( 1 2 8 ) " . ' ( ) . 8 *. ' . . . 25(22/7 . ' gi(ioo).i; ' 91(100).8, 25 *. ' 8 ( 1 7 / 1 0 , 16(26). g . 7 0 ( 7 5 ) " . 9)"8 . / 33(39)3 , 6 5 ( 7 9 ) " ; () () 7 4 ( 9 ' ) ' . ' ' ( ( 83(98).4; , ' 15(23) 4 . ' 2 3 ( 3 0 / 3 ; ' (2).6; ' 2(3)5 . 3 9 ( 4 5 ) " ; 8 ( 7 ) 2 5 . '5 *. 108(117).2 . 104(11).2 . ' ("5)" . ' ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " . ' ( 2 ) . 2 . 52(61).2, 9 ) . 2 ". () 64(77)" . 8(). 6(26). *. ( ' 64(77)" . 21 , gi(ioo).
(35/2 . 88(84).5, 1 .
102(1125.5 . '
. . . . , ().2 . ' ' /
("/5 . . . gi(ioo ).2 3 . ' ' ' 1 ( 2 / 7 . 25(225.4 . ' , , 8(17).32 . ( 2 ) . 8 , 8(7)33, 15(23)3, 2 3 ( 3 0 ) " , 47(35)3, 5 1 ( 5 9 ) " , 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " , ( ) . 2, 7 6 ( 5 ) 4 . 91(100).6, 14 . ' ' / 02 (2).8 . / 124 (37)2 . ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) ; ^ 75(9 ); &' 75(9)2; 9 ( ) . 3 ; ioo(no).g; ( ) . 3 ; 3 ( 4 ) 3 ; h' 5 ( 3 ) 2 ; ~' 5(3)3; 12(8/4; (8).; . . . 91(100/3, ; 02( 2).0 . ' ( ( 8().3 . ' ' (), . ' (!( 54 ( 6 4 ) " ; 4 7 ( 3 5 / 2 . 99 (29)3 . 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " . ' 105(113)" . ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " . 7("5)4 '. 13(9/5 . 72(83).2 . 132(146).2 . 53 (62).8 '
( ).6
. ( ' 75(90) 2 . 8(17/24 . 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 7 , 8 ( 1 7 / 2 3 ; i i 3 ( r a i ) . 3 ; ' 2 ( 3 9 ) 2 ; gg (129).3; 02 ( 12).2 . (( 9 ( 1 2 ) . 3 ; ( ) " . 9 2 ( 1 0 1 ) " , ' 8(17)-33; 4 3 ( 4 9 ) " . 5 ( 3 / 6 . . . . 4 (124/2; ' 26(20). 4 . ' 116(122).4 . ' . . . gi(ioo )"8; ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 9 ; 5 ( 3 ) 8 . 47 (35) ; ' ' 1 1 5 ( 1 2 0 ) " ; . . . 3 ( 3 2 ; 8(7)32; / 33(39)-2 . 106(15/3 , 2 ( 3 6 ) . ; ' 47(35) ; gi(ioo ).4 . 7 ( 7 5 ) " , 0 0 ) " 8 . gi (100). 13 ,
8(24).
. 1 9 ( 2 7 ) " , 2 1 ( 2 7 ) " , 69(76).3, " 3 ( l 2 l ) . 2 , 6(22). . 9 ( ) . 6 , 132(146).3 . () . . . ' 6 4 (78) 2 . . . . \ . / ' 53(625.8 . 53(62).2 *. 108(117).2 . ' I 52(61).2; 53 (62). 4 . 8(). 33; ' 9(12/2 . (3 ) . / 3 ( 14).2 . i o 2 ( i i 2 ) . g . 2 ( 3 6 ) . ; / ' 47(35) . 104(11) 3 24
( gi(ioo).
. ' 47(35)9 . 1 5 ( 2 3 ) 2 . . . . 5 ( 3 ) " . ' gi(ioo).io *. .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
33
( ).2; g6(i33)-2; 104(11). 3;
33'
, ' 19(27).2; 25(22).2; 4 6 ( 5 5 ) 1 ". 6 9 ( 7 6 ) " . 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . 3 . 102(112).6 . () (( / 6 4 ( 7 8 ) " , . . . ' 8 ( " 7 ) . 2 ; i 3 (g ).2; 26(20).6 , 12(8). 2 . 5(3)3 , 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " 7 . ' 8(17)-34, ' 4 (2)"3, (53)" , 16(26).3; 29
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
102(112). 11 . ' 2(3).5 . gi(ioo ).24 . 131(127).2 , . . . ().2 . ' 117 ( 2 3 ) - 1 . 5 ( 5 7 ) 2 . gi (100).5 . ' ()
t_'(2).g; 3(9)3 . ' ( ) . 8 71- 5(3)8; 8 ( 7 ) . 9 , 12; 3<9)5; ' 6 ( 2 6 ) . 8. " 5 0 ( 5 7 ) " . 7(6).2; 8 ( 7 ) . , 24; 4 ( 2 ) " ; 15 ( 2 3 ) . 6 ; i6(26 ).g; 25(22).2; 27(38)3, 4; 3 4 ( 4 0 ) " ; 78(107).2; 9 ' ( ) " 7 ; 02 (112).8 . ' ' 78(107).2 . 108(117)" . gi (100). 19 . ' 8(17). 28; / ' ()5 . ' 113(121).4 . 25(225.2 ". 6 ( 2 2 ) . , / ( ) ' 2 7 ( 3 8 ) " ; 3 4 ( 4 ) " ; 14(21).3; ' ' ( 19(27). ; . . . 2 1 ( 2 7 ) " ; 45(6). 1; 60(71).2; ' / 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) " . 8(175.27 . , ' 120(139)" , ' . . . 6 (4)2; 3 ( ' 3 ' ) . 2 ; / g6 ('33)-2 . 8(17).35! . . . 2(35)2 . 9 6 ( 3 3 ) 2 ". . . . 47(35)'3 ". " 7(6).2 . ' 8(17). 21 . "8(28). ", . . . ' 48(g6)-3; ' 83(98).2
(130).2; ' 1 5 ' 2 3 b 7 i r 3 ( 9 ) - 2 16 (26).4; ' 262).\ 131(127).2 . 92(101).
, 8().2; 5' / 102(112).45 ( ' , ' 47(35) 4 /. 5 ( 3 ) . ; , ' 8(17).3! / I 2 ( 8 ) . Q ; . . . 15(23)- ; 47(35)7> 16; . . . 6 ( 7 - 2 ; 05 ( 3)2: 107(115)7 ~ 114(124).!; 8 (7)22; 25(22).3 . (3)3 . 22(29).2, 9 7 ( 3 4 ) 3 ! @ 62 (73) 2 97(134)5 . 116(122).3 124 . ("37)-3 (surge), 91(400). 24 , 118(128). ; 124! 137) 6; y 1 (82). 1 ' 5
,'
( 2 )
,
6
. . . 41
(42)3 . ' / 121 (35)-1 , 3 8 ( 4 3 ) " , 118(128).4 . ' 2(3).5 . 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " . 3 ( 9 ) 4 9 ' ( ) 8 , , 25; f i 0 2 (112).7; 7()3 . ' () ( 2 ) . 6 ; . . . 3 ( 3 ' ) 3 , ' 3 ( 1 3 1 ) ; 2(3)4 . 9 6 ( 1 3 3 ) " . '' g i ( i o o ) " 6 ; ( ) . ; ' (( ' 5(3)5; 53(62).5 . / '72(83)" . 8(17).8, 16(26).6 , . . . () ' 25(22). 7 . 7(6).2; 118(128).2 . ( ( '(2) 3 . 3 (25 ); / 8(28).5 . 47 (35) "5 V- 5(3)5, 6; 13(9)-2 (bis); 4 4 ( 5 ) " 91 -
. . . 95
('32)" . . . . 53(62).6 . , /. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 6 . 116(122). 2 , 2(3).4; ( 13()5 . /. 107(115) '3 . ' . . . 2 ( " 2 ) . 4 ; 8 ( 2 8 ) . [ ; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) " ; 2 4 ( 3 1 ) " ; 2 ( 3 ) " ; 14(21 ) " 2 ; 15(23).8; 132(146). 3; 3 (13 1 * - 4; 95 ( 3 2 ) . 2 ; ("5)" . ^ ( ) - 7 , . . . 14(21)3; ^ ' -\ 75(9) \ /rar' 8 ^ ) 1 , 48(96).4 . ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) . , 119
(sacrifice),
23(45)2 , . . . ' 118(128).6 . ' 81128}.6 , I . . . 132 . . 17 . , 4 6 ( 5 5 ) 1 97('34)4 26(20).7 47(35)-
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
332
. ' 32(52)" . 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) " ; "' 5 ( 2 3 ) 9 , ( ) . 6 , 124(137) 4; . . . ( ) . ; 6 ( 4 ) " ; ' 26(205.4 . 102(112). 3 ; 1 2 6 ( 1 4 4 ) " ; 7. 1 2 3 ( 1 4 5 ) " . ( ] 13(9/5; ? , ' 6 ( 5 ) 2 ; 8(7)24 . 3 ( 1 3 1 ) - 3 . ' I 6(22)-3 , , , 7(25)" . 63(72)"; /. . . . 68(74)" , 1(2).4 . ' 28(50" , 64(78).2 , 6 ( 4 ) " . ( 2 ) . , 9 7 ( 1 3 4 ) " ; ' 5(3)5 8 ( 7 ) " 3 . 6 ( 2 6 ) " 2 ; . . . I ' 1 3 ( 9 ) " , 2 (bis), 3 ; 3 ( 5 4 ) " ; 5 ( 5 9 ) " ; ' 5 8 ( 6 7 ) " ; ' 64(78).2; ' 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) " ; 91(100/2; 9 ( ) " 6 ; ' ( ) . 6 ; 113(121/4; 88(84).6; 02 (12)" .
333
. 47(35/2 . . . . 7 6 ( 9 3 ) " */7?. 86(87)" . 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) 2 .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
. ' 102(112).7; ' ' ) 1 3 ( 9 ) " ; / 47(3)-3; . . . 5 3 ( 6 2 / 6 ; 100(110/9 ". 3 4 ( 4 ) " ; 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " . ' 118(1285.4 .
. 4 (0"> 8(17/14; / 53(62).3; 102(112). I I , 69(76)" 48(96).4
, ,.
( 11)9
. () 101(111/4 . s.v. .
. 4 9 ( 3 4 ) " . . . . 8 8 ( 8 4 / 8 ; ' 1 0 8 ( 1 1 7 ) " . 50(57)" , 1 8 ( 2 4 ) " , 16(26/5; '
8(3).
". ' 4 4 ( 5 ) " . () 22(285.3; 8 3 ( 9 8 ) " ; 8(17).2; 8(175.27; 91(1005.25 , ' . . . 108(117).2; 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " ! ; 15(23/7; 26(20).6 , 40(46)"
91(100/24
, ' 2(3).2; ' 5 7 ( 6 5 ) " ; ().2 . 41(42).2 <*1 2(3)3; 5(3)3! 8 ( 7 ) 6 . ", 5. i8 (ter), 20, 22, 23, 27, 3. 3 2 . 33. 35! 9(i2).2 (bis); ( 6 ) . ; I 3 ( 9 ) . ; 4 ( 2 0 2 . 3, 4. 6. 7. 8, g, , , 2 ; 5 ( 2 3 ) 6 , 7, 8; i6(26).2 (bis), 4, 10; 1 7 ( 2 5 ) " ; 22(28).3; 25(225.2, 7. 8; 26(20).6; 2 7 ( 3 8 / 3 ; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) " ! 5 2 ( 6 1 ) " ; 53(625.5; 5 4 ( 6 4 ) " ; 58(67)-2 (bis), 3; 6 0 ( 7 1 / 2 ; 6i(33)";63(72)"(bis);64(77)";66(8o). 1; 7 ( 8 2 ) " (bis), 2; 78(107).2 (bis); 80 (108).2; 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) " ; 83(98).2, 5; 91(100). ' . 3; 9 3 ( 1 0 2 ) " ; 97(1345.4; 99(129).6 (bis); 1 0 0 ( 1 1 0 ) " , 10; I O I ( I I I ) " , 5, 7; ' 3 ( " 4 ) 3 ; 104(11/3; i o 6 ( i 5 / 3 ( b i s ) , 4; 7 ( " 5 ) 4 > '3 (bis); 108(117).2; i n ( 1 1 9 ) " ; 1 1 2 ( 1 1 8 ) " ; 113(121).2, 3; 116 ( 1 2 2 ) " , 2; 117(123). i(bis), 3 (bis); 119 ( i 3 o ) . i ; 124(137).5; 132(146)" (bis), 2
. 8 ( 7 ) 3 2 , 33i 9 ( 2 ) 3 . ( ) . 6 . ' 6(4).2 . 47(35) 15; 107(115/8 . ' / ( 6 ) 2 , ( 3 ) " . 47(35) 15; ' ' 4 7 ( 3 5 / 8 , i o 2 ( i i 2 / g , 9 2 ( 1 0 1 ) " . / 91(100). 5 , 9 7 ( 3 4 ) " . 113(121).2 , 69(76).2 . 94(1055.2 . ' ' 117(123). 2 . / 60(71).3 */c7.tt(5<r<7iiv. gi (100).22 , 2 2 ( 2 9 ) " , [ 9 7 ( 3 4 ) - 2 ] . 112(118). , gi(ioo).g
104(11).3 . 91(100/7; . . . 97 ( 34)5
97(34)5 , 113(121/2; . . 14(21).7 , ' 1 0 8 ( 1 1 7 ) " . ( ) . 2 . ] ] 4 ( 2 ) " 4 ; 25(225.4; ' . . . 25(22).7 . 8(17/29, 6 ( 2 6 ) . ; 6 ( 4 ) " . gi(ioo )"9; . . . . 62(73) , 129(143)" . 53(62).2 , . . . 7 6 ( 9 3 ) " , 8(28).2 ". 7(6)3 , 2 (27/2 . 9 5 ( 3 2 ) ; 99(1295.2; /.' (} ().4 . 15(23/6 . 119(130)"
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
334 128 .. 1 4 ( 2 0 . 3 ; 5 9 ( 6 8 ) " ; 6 ( 3 3 ) ; . 48(96).3 .

2(3)3
335 . . . . 6 5 ( 7 9 ) " ; . . . 3 ( 5 4 ) " ' 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) 2 .. 25(22).8, ( ) . 3 ) 3(4)2; 25(22).4, 5 8 ( 6 7 / 3 , 7 4 ( 9 ) " ; 25(225.6, 8 3 ( 9 8 ) " , 9 4 ( 5 ) 2 , 99 ( 29). 3 . ' . 47 (35) 4 ' 8(7)9 16(26).8: . .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
('4') . " 8 ( 2 8 ) . , 8(17)-13 16(26).12; 6 ( 2 6 ) . ; ' 2 7 ( 3 8 / 4 ; . . . 3 7 ( 4 7 ) " ; 3 8 ( 4 3 ) " ; ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " . (27).3, 2228).4; 3 9 ( 4 5 ) " , 88(84).8 ". 26(20).7 . . . . 62 ( 7 3 ) " ; /. 8 ( 2 8 ) . 3; 7 ( 7 5 ) - 2 , 87 ( 9 5 ) " ; /. 8 3 ( g 8 ) . 3 . . 2 ( 8 ) .
. 99(12).5 . . . . 131(127)" . ' . 8 ( 7 ) . 6 , 16(26/11; 8(17). 12 . ' ( 2 / 8 . 8(28).6 ". . 69(76).2 . / 102(112). 3 ; . . . 83 (98). 3 ". . , 14(21).2; . . 6(7). . 124(137)-3 .. / gi (100). 1 .. . . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 2 ; . 3 3 ! ) 4 ; . 6(4)31 8(17).26 . . . . 88(84). 8 .. , / ] 25(22).8; . . . 7 7 ( 1 0 ) 3 . ) ., ' 106(15). 4 , . . . . 88 _ (84)" . 23 (45 )2 8(17). "
. \: 48(96).2; , .. 2 6 ( 2 0 ) . 3 ; . 9 3 0 0 2 ) " ; .. 0 7 ( 5 ( 5 .. , g6
033)-2
. , /. 88(84). 6 .. . . . . 8 8 ( 8 4 / 3 , 19(27/2 ,. . . . 5 8 ( 6 7 ) 3 ; 9 7 3 4 ) 3 .. ' 2 7 ( 3 8 ) " ; .' ' 8(17) , 6; 12 ',.; 8 ( 7 ) " 5 ! 5 ( 3 ) - 2 . '/ 32)4; . . . . ' _ 55(66)" .. ' /, gi(ioo ).i8 .. .' . 71 (82).2 , . 88(84).8 . -
2 ( 3 ) . , ' (75)" . . . . . . . 1 0 6 ( 1 5 ) " . 132(146)" . . 102( 12). . gi(ioo ).7 . 75 (go).i; 5 ( 2 3 ) 3 , 33(39) 2 . .: 124(137/4 , 2 3 ( 3 0 ) " ; 1 2 4 O 3 7 / 2 ; 3 5 ( 4 ' ) - 1 5 4 4 ( 5 ) " ; .!; 2 ( 2 ) . ; / 105(113)",' 83(985.4; 5 1 ( 5 9 ) " ; / 9 6 ( 3 3 ) 2 ; , . . . 118 (128). 9 ". \\ (123)2 . . ' .' .. . 8(17). 28 . : 9 ( ) 2 0 . . 51 ( 5 9 ) - 1 ; ' 5(23)4; 13 (9) ; ,//'. ' / 52(61).3; ' . 47(35)7, ' 6 ; . 12(8).3 ".. .. ' I 6(22)..| ,. . . 58(67)2
02( 12).2 .. ' 9 5 0 3 2 ) 2 , . 3 ( 3 2 ; ( ) . 2 . 8 ( 2 8 ) 7 , 5 6 ( 6 3 ) " ; 53(62). 7; 2 6 ( 2 0 ) " ; . 92( ). ; ' ' 4 7 ( 3 5 ) ; 71(82).2; . . . 2 3 ( 3 ) " ; . . . g8(27a ).i . ( 2 ) . ; 2 ( 3 / 1 ; 6 ( 4 ) " ; 8 ( 1 7 ) " , 4 7, 9, U , 6 ; 3 ( 9 ) " , 3', ' 4 ( 2 ) 3 ; 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 6(26)5, 8, ; 1 9 ( 2 7 ) 2 ; 2 5 ( 2 2 ) " ; 2 6 ( 2 0 ) " , 2; 31 (37) 3 5 ( 4 ! 37(47)"; 47(35)3, ; 5 (57); 5 2 ( 6 ) . , 3; 53 (62)4, 6; 5 6 ( 6 3 ) . ; 5 7 ( 6 5 ) " ; 6 9 ( 7 6 ) " ; 7 (7)"; 75 (9)"; 77 ( 9 ); 8 ( 3 ) . ; 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) " ; 88(84).4, 9; 9 ( 0 ) 4 , 6, , 6, 2 3 ; 9 3 ( 2 ) . ; [ 9 7 0 3 4 ) 2 ] ; ( 2 ) . ; 1 0 3 ( 1 1 4 ) " ; ' 6 ( 5 ) 2 , 3; 7 ( " 5 ) 9 ; 2 (3); I 3 ( i 2 5 ) " , 19(27) 2;
().
3
ioi(ni).g;
7(5)9 , 1 0 4 ( 1 1 ) " ; ' . . . . ( 2 ) . 2 , ( ) 7 , 1(2/3; 8(175.29, 6(26 ).; 16(26). 2; 48(96).2; 2 5 ( 2 2 ) " , . . 47(35)-4 . 102(1 12).5 ... 7("5)8 . 47(35)9 . , 8(8). . . . '
8(17) 25;
*-. (
4
oy( 115)- 1 4 . 3 ( 1 3 1 )-4? : 107(11)- . / coco 107(115)-5 , 63(72). ;
. 50(57) 3
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
336 . 9 2 ( 1 0 1 ) " . ' ' / 2 ( 2 ) 9 ; 107(115)6; 47(35)7> [ 6 ; ( )7 . . . . 8 ( 2 8 ) . 5 . ' n 8 ( i 2 8 ) . g . ' gi(ioo ).23 . 69(765.2 . ]' ] ( ) . 8 ; ' ' 2
337 , . . . 121(135)" , ' 13(9).5 . . . . 102(112). ; 3(2).3 . . 2 2 ( 3 6 ) . 2 ; 1(2).8; 8( 17). 21 . 3 ( 3 ' ) 3 , 27(38).2, 53(62). , 6 ( 7 ) . 4 , 7("5)"3 . 4 2 ( 4 8 ) " ; 88(84).2; 4 3 ( 4 9 ) " . 2 2 ( 2 9 ) " , [97(34)2]; / 72(835.2 , 2 ( 12) ; 118(128). 7 , 102(112). 3 . . . . - 67(8). . (article) ij 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " , 8 3 ( g 8 ) . i , 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " ; ( 2 ) . 6 , 8 ( 7 ) . 3 2 , 6 ( 2 6 ) . 7 , 5 8 ( 6 7 ) " , 8(8).2, 2 ( 3 5 ) " ; 7 9 ( 1 2 ) " , ( ' 3 ) " - 33(39)3; 4 8 ( 9 6 / 2 ; 5(3). 7, 48(96) 2, 99(129). 5 (demonstrative) 4 0 ( 4 6 / 2 ; . . . 8(17).2; . . . 8(17).25; ' ' 8 ( 2 8 ) . 4 ; 47(35)5; ] 4 ( 2 ) " 4 ; 8 ( 7 ) " 9 ; ' 4 ( 2 0 - 9 , ' 5 ( 2 3 ) 5 , 83(98).5; 8(7).2; 8(175.25; 8 ( 7 ) . 3 , 5 ' ( 5 9 ) 3 ; 2 ( 8 ) . 4; . . . 2 ( 2 ) . ; . . . 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 1 . . . 8(7)4, 5; 35(4') ! < " 5 6 ( 6 3 ) " ; 53(62).6; ' 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 . 5 7 ( 6 5 ) " ; 2 ( 3 ) " ; ' 7 ( ' 5 ) " , 2 4 (37)3,' 1 3 ( 9 ) 4 ; 5 4 ( 6 4 ) " ; 1 3 ( 9 ) " , 2 ( 2 ) . 8 , 2 4 ( 3 7 ) 2 ; 88(8 4 ).g; 48(96).3, 5 2 ( 6 ) 2 ; . . . 7 ( 7 5 ) " 2 0 ( 3 6 ) " , 47(35)7, 6 ; >7(>'5)"3 (relative) (35)2; ( ) 47
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
. g ( i 2 ) . i , 15(23/9, 18(24).2 . 5 ( 3 ) . , 8(17).21 . 22(29). 2; 97(34 )3 , 8(7)2;
106(15). 2,- /, 8(17/23; ' 1 ( 2 / 2 ; 2 6 ( 2 ) . 3 ; 2 7 ( 3 8 ) . 2 ; 4 7 ( 3 ) " 4 ; ] ( ) . 8 . ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " . 59(68). 07*05. 91(100). 3 ; . . . 26(20). . 115(120). ; 1(2/7, 16(26). " > 47(35)5, ( I M ) . 2 ; 8(17). 33. > 4 ( 2 0 " , 53(62 )3, 6 0 ( 7 1 ) " , ( 1 1 0 ) 4 ; 105(113)" ;. (' } 0 2 ( 2 ) . 2 . / (') 88(84). 8 . . . . gi(ioo ).7; 91(100).24 . ( 6 ) . . , ' 120(139)" oivof. oivof 67(81)",' () 7 4 ( 9 ' ) 1 . ( ) . 6 ; ( 9 ) . ; 114(1245.2 . ' ' 5(57 )3 , ' . . ' 108(117).2; ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " ! , 119(130).2; ' 15(23).7; . ' 13(9/3; 7 1 ( 8 2 ) " . 48(965.2 . . 9 5 ( ' 3 2 ) " ?. . . . 1 1 1 ( 1 1 9 ) " . ' /. 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 '. 3; ' 8 3 ( 9 8 ) 4 . ' () 33(39)
, 1 1 1 ( 1 1 9 ) " , 66(8 ). (particle). 69(76). 2 (month), 59(68)" .
. . .
4"(4 2 )3
. 88(84). 7 5(3) 5. 7 . ' 2 4 3 7 ) 5 . ' ' 120(139) 2 . i (2 ).g; 7 9 ( ! 6 ) ; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) 2 . ] ] . . . 07("5)3
. g i ( i o o ) " 2 , 107(115/6 . 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " . 12(8). 3 , 21(27). 3, 22(28).4 , 1(2/5; 8 ( 1 7 ) . , 6 ; 12(8).3; 47(35)5 " 9 7 ( I 3 4 ) - 4 i " ( 11). 2 , , 14(21). 2; ' 124(137)
( 12).2 . 69(765.3 . 8 ( 7 ) " 9 ; 2 0 ( 3 6 ) " ; . . . 2 3 ( 3 ) " ; -. / 47 (35)3; ' ' . . . ' 47(3)9; . . . 77 (iog )-3; ' 8(17).8, 16(26).6; I ] ] 25(22). g; 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) " 4
, ' 1 3 0 ( 1 2 5 ) " . . 4 . '
120(139)" ' 116(122). 12 4 ( 1 3 7 ) 2 ; ~
104(H)-
. i(z).y, 3 0 3 1 ) ; ' 6(4).2 . 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 3 ; 15(23)"!; ' . 8 ( 7 ) " 4 > ' 5 ; . . . 18(24).2; I 103(114)"
. 126(144)" . 0' 7(6).3; '> 4 8 ( 9 6 ) 2 . 5(3)7; ' 5 ( 3 ) 8 ; 88(84) 1 , , / 94(105). ( ) . . / 8(17) 22
13(9/3;
, !(2)-6 . 36(44) . ' . . . ' . . . 91(100). 12, 8 ; '
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
338 . -
339 . 8 ( 7 ) " 9 ; . ".

'6(5)3
I N D E X V E R B O R U M
' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) 0 ; ' 4 4 ( 5 ) ; ' ( ) . 6 ; ' 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " ; '

83(98).2
4 7 ( 3 5 ) " 3 !
22(28)4;
2(8),2 53(62)4
83(98).2
0 3 ( 4 ) 3 . . . . . ()
127(140)"
8 3 ( 9 8 5 . 3 1(2).9; ' /
. ( 2 ) . 8 , 1 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 , 8 ( 0 3 ) " , 9 3 ( 0 2 ) . ,
. . .
8
/.
128(141)" 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 22(28)4 2 (2).6 -
. 1 0 3 ( 1 1 4 ) " ;
6 6 ( 8 ) . -
. . '
' '
' 85(86)"
8(17).
().4
. 75(9)"
33('47)" 2 : , . '. .
3
. 1 2 3 ( 1 4 5 ) 2 . /
. ,
() . . .
4 7 ( 3 5 ) 9 - ' , . . i (2).7 (bis), 8(7)25 26(2).,

'5(23)";
7 ( 5 ) 7 ; . . . 99(129)4;
8 8 ( 8 4 ) 4 ;
5(7)3;
. 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 2
. 2; 9 5 ( 1 3 2 ) " , ' 99(129).2, "
25(22)2; 35(4')" 8;
21(27)";
'
t7('5)4; 88(84).
19(27)";
(2).;
47(35)" 7
] '
8(7)35;
7(6).3; 17(25)", 22(28).3; 95(32) 5(3)2; 15(23)-3, 4> ' ( ) 3 > 1 0 4 ( 1 1 ) . 2 , 7 ( 5 ) 5 ; 2(3)4, 27(36), 85(86)"
5 3 ( 6 2 ) 4 , 8(bis) , 8 ( 7 ) 3 2 , 2, 6 9 ( 7 6 ) " ,
27, 25(22).; 34; 1 4 ( 2 < ) " 3 ;
. . . ]
24(37)3
53(62).6 ' 117(123).
. 58(67) 8().6,
6(26)3;
'
'
2 ( 3 ) 4 ; '
25(22)0
8 8 ( 8 4 5 . 9 ; * ( ) . 7 ! 3 ( 4 ) 2 ; . , . . . . 5(3)2 2(3)2
8 ( 2 8 ) . 9 ;
5'(59)2;
. . . 6 ( 4 ) 2; ' ' .
3;
8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 8 ;
15(23).;
106(15)4
100(110)4,5;
2 3 ( 3 0 ) 4 ;
(6)2,
8(17)9,
2
78(107)";
83(98)" 16(26).8,
21(27).
3 ( 1 4 ) " 0
'
78(107).2; 1(2)4, 2;
().
. .
72(83).2
' 12(8)4
9 3 ( 1 0 2 ) . '
. 4 ( 4 2 ) 3 > 8 2 ( 1 0 4 ) " , 88(84).5,
5(23)9,
9(53)",
65(79)"
79(6). , . 2 ( 3 ) 4 8(8).2; 3('3')3 '8(17)42, 16(26)4;
3 4 ( 4 ) " ;
; 4 7 ( 3 ) 1 2 ,
8(8).;
25(22).
, . . 6(15)-2
96(133)"
( 9 ) " ;
4, 60(71)4, 5(23)"0,
14(21).9(bis),
7(75)";
14(21)4, 73(89)",
. ' '
~. 9(12)4, ( 12). 9
7 5 ( 9 ) - 2
100(110)4, 02
25(22).3, 47(35)9,
' 2(3).2 5 ( 3 ) 5;
'(59)2
( I
).
1(2). 5
, .
8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 2 ;
. . . 88(84)., '
54(64)"
8 9 ( 8 8 ) . 66(8). ] (
( 6 ) . ;
.
. . .
14(21).9, '
g().25 88(84)"
. ' 4 8 ( 9 6 5 . 3 gi(ioo ).8 . 3 ( 9 ) . , 6 ( 3 3 ) " , 8 7 ( 9 5 ) > ,

gi ( 1 0 0 ) . 16 . . ; 25(22).9, 120(139)" 16(26). i(2).g; 8 ( 1 7 ) " ! , 2 6 ; 1 " 3 ( 9 ) 5 ; 2 2 ( 2 9 ) " , 2(ter); 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 6 ; 1 0 4 ( 1 1 ) " , 2;
104(11). 2

'
]]
|(2).6;
/. .
.
4;
47(35)";
5(3)
' ' 6(33)- 53(62)"
5(3) 7
9
(3)">
3 3 ( 3 9 ) 3 ; '
07(5)"2; 9;
2
8().
.
9'(')9
27; 4 ( 2 ' ) 7 ,
(35)4; ()4, ;
4(3')";
5 ( 2 2 ) - ' i 47
93(2)"; 119(130)";
15(23)",
)6
9
53(62).3;
64(785.2; 78(107)-1; ().2;

9
, . .
3;
9().23,
9(29)4
74(9)2; 96(133)'; 97('34)[2],

g8(27a).i; (128).8; ob. ] 120(139)"; 122(136).
3(ter);
118 (bis)
106(15)";
. / /. gi(ioo). 8; ' ' 124(137) 5 107(115) ,
7(6).,
. . .
8(4).4,
'(
1 0 0
)";
99('29)5,
73(89)",
(iog).i;
47(35)"7; ] 6 9 ( 7 6 5 . 3 ; 2(8).;
33(39)3
14(21).
22(2g).2;
4 1 ( 4 2 ) "
2(35);
102(112)4;
14(21)4,
'5(23)5> . . . 5
' 25(225.9 26(20). 2 3 /,
. 8 ( 1 7 ) . 6 ,
2; 6(26)" ' 7(5)";

2
. ' 3 2 ( 5 2 ) " ;
, . . . 5(3)4

121(135)"
, . .
'
1 1 8 ( 1 2 8 5 . 7 (8).2,
53(62).3, 97(i34)",
( 2 ) . ;
7(75)2; 87(95)"
'
124(137)",
. 8 ( i 7 ) . 3 ( b i s ) , 1 0 ( 1 3 ) " ( b i s ) ,
ig (27).2 (ter),
. 20; ; 8 ( 1 7 ) 5 , 'i ()-5
gi(ioo ).8, 47(35)
().3; 122(136)" ,
. ".
7; .
99(129)4 ' 131(127)" . . .
98(27a).i, , . , .
12(8)"
1 1 8 ( 1 2 8 ) . (bis), 2(ter)
'6(26)9;
. . . ,
. . . 1 ( 2 ) 4 ' 4 ( 0 " 91(100)4 1 ( 2 ) 4 / -
'
8 ( 1 7 ) 4 3 , 1 0 6 ( 1 5 ) 4 ; tg1,100)"2 ' (6). 8(17)-31, 102(112)4
'. .
'
/ . . .
9().23
( 3 ) . 3 ;
107(115)-2
( 111).5
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
340
7 ( 7 5 ) " ; * . . . 78(107)" , ' 75(9)" . '().7 4(42)3>
9
34'
. ' ' 102(112).2 27(38)4
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
. '5 '. (' . . .
96('33)-3 8(17).
29(53)-1
14(21).6 . ' 3 6 ( 4 4 ) " ; 53(62).6;
. 53(62)" . .. 2(3)3 , 5(57);
79(106)"; zpdf
i o 2 ( i i 2 ) . g ; 5(3)2; 1(2).2, . . . 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 , 5 ' ( 5 9 ) 3 . 1 8 ( 2 4 ) " , 1 1 9 ( 1 3 ) " . 1 2 0 ( 1 3 9 ) " . -
02(2)"2 '
96(133) 3;
44(5)
82(104)"
32(52)", 47(35)8, ().4; ] 8().2,
94(105)" 96(133)" 6(4)", 10(13)"; 14(21).7, 14(21).2,
( ) " 3 ; ' . . . ' . . .
51(59)4, 5 2 ( 6 ' ) " >
. ] . . .
33(39) 2 6 ( 2 6 ) . 9 ;
9
(2).g, 5 ( 3 ) 2 , 5; , 17; 8(7)-2, . . , 17; 6(26).8;
60(71)";
15(235.4; 25(225.6
'( 2 )5
. . . . 3 6 ( 4 4 ) " , 47(35) 2; ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " ; . 7 ( 6 ) " , 6 5 ( 7 9 ) " ; , 53(62).4, 8 7 ( 9 5 ) " ". (2).7 . 14(21).2 27(38). 26
6 7 ( 8 1 ) " ; 132(146).2; . . . , .
. . .
8 3 ( 9 8 ) . 4 ; 68(74)-
5 8 ( 6 7 ) " , 5 9 ( 6 8 ) " , 6 ( 7 ) " , 97('34)-4 ' 5(57)3 129(143)" 95 40(46) 2;
5(3)5, 8 ' 3("4)3
. . .
2 4 ( 3 1 ) " 2(3)5 . . .
15(23)4
117(123). 2 ". . , 105(113).2
6(4). 2 7(75)2 26(20). 5(57)3 23(30)4; -
71(82)"
27(38).4!
39(45)"; . .
60(71)";
(132) 2;
26(20)4;
7("5)"4 . 8(.7)"5_ ". . 5; ' '
/.
' '
2 7 ( 3 8 ) 4 ; . ] .
, ' 7 ( 7 5 ) " ; ^ ~ 7 1 ( 8 2 ) " ;

9
92(101).2;
, / 114(124)"
14;
2(39)2 105(113)2 8(17). 21(27)4, ' 22(285.4 '
107(115).9,
( ) . 3 ;
. . .
' ' '
91(100)4; 21 (27).2 ;
9
9().
5(57)2 . , , 8 ( 1 7 / 2 0
. . . 29, 6(26). ,
]
9().,
124(137)- 2 5(3) 7 17

9().2
. . .
, ? . ,
()"9 \ ] . .. -
94(5)-3 1(2).8
7("5)2 ,
47(35)";
. . . 91(100/17 15(23)4 118(128).2 13(9/4
1(2).g; (),2;
/ ().8;
9 5 ( 1 3 2 ) - r ; 99(129). 2 .
9
/ -
'/
2;
88(845.4; . ..
. . 108(117)"
101(111)4
' ()
02( 1 2 ) " . .
10(13)" 110(126)" 99(129)" . . . ' '
()"5,
5 9 ( 6 8 ) " 8 ( 1 7 ) 1 8 ;
. ". 02( 12).6 . .
. .
. , 93(102)"; .
99
22(29). 2, 97 95(132)",
. (11)4
( 3 4 ) 3 ; ' 92(101).2 ( 2 9 ) . 2 ;
53(625.2; 53(62).6; 88(84).2, 7, '; ' . . . . . . '
92(101).2
' . . .
99(129/4; . . . 8(7)"5; '5("3)" ()"
.?- 5(3)-4, 8 ( 7 ) . 3 3 . ' 2(3).2;
' 8(17)42 14(21).8;
( 9 ) . 2 ; ( ) '5; 62(73/2;
ioo(uo).g 54(64)" 62(73).2
5(23)" 4 5 ( 5 6 ) " ; ' 85(86)";
, ' ] . 15(23)"
/ '132(1465.2 47(35)"4, 9'()
32(52)1
106(15/4; '
20; 106(15) 4; 2 0 ( 3 9 ) 2 , 8 8 ( 8 4 ) . 1 . ' \\
. 53(62)7 . 6(7)-2, 63(72). . 102(112)4
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
342
gg . ' 25(22)4 ". ' . . . 14(21).6 . , 102(112).6 . ' ' 4 7 ( 3 5 / 8 . I 21(27). 2 , (82). 2 , 8(17). 26 , ' . . . 2(3). 2; /. /, /. / 3 3 ( 3 9 ) 3 . . 9 ( ) . 3 . 114 (24).2 , () ('9)3 /. 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 4 . 107(115/12; 109(116)" . ( 2 ) . 8 ; 4 ( 0 " ; 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 , 26; ( ) . 6 ; 5 ( 3 ) " , ' ( 2 3 ) 9 , ( ) . 8; 6 0 ( 7 1 ) " , ( ) . 3 > ( ) . 2 (); 2 ( 3 ) 4 () . 25 (22).8 . 2 9 ( 5 3 ) " , 5 ' ( 5 9 ) 2 > 8 ( 9 8 ) ; 82(104)" 3 . ' , 14 (2.).8 . , 6 5 1 ( 5 9 ) 2 . fevf 16(26).7; 1 8 7 ( 9 5 ) ' . '
343
. . ". .
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
! . . . .
('29)5 , . . . 91(100).24; ().8
24(37)2
gi(ioo ).2 /
5 ( 3 ) 2 ; 5 4 ! ( 4 2 ) 3 ; 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " ; 0 1 ~ 15(23)4, 88(84/4. 1 0 1 ( ) . 3 ; 9 4 ( ' 5 ) 2 ; " g 6 ( i 3 3 ) - 2 ; ()7 . ' 7 ( 6 ) 4 . ' 8 (17/21 . . . . 2 ( 3 5 ) 2 ; 91(100).2 . (65)" . 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 3 /.. 2 3 ( 3 ) 2 /.. . 8 3 ( 9 8 ) 4 . ) 12(8).2 ?. 132(146)" . . . ' 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) 4 ; , 129(143)' . gi(ioo ).6, 22; . . . 91 (). 11 . 9 ( ) . 4 , ' /, 47 57
, 113(121). 3 . 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 ". ' 1 4 ( 2 1 ) 4 . . . . 3 0 ( 5 4 ) " , 7 ( 6 ) " . . . . 4 5 ( 6 ) " . 8 ( 2 8 ) . 7 . 9 ( 100/4 . 9 ( ) . 4 .

8
21(27)4, 22(28/4
. . .
' 9 ( ) . 2; . 110(126). . ' ' , . . . 102(112).8 , 88(84). 2 , 3 4 ( 4 0 ) " ;

124('37)6;
3(98)4;
124(137) 4 . ( ) " , 0 7 ( ) 9 ; ioo(no).g; 8 ( 1 7 ) " , 16(26). , 2 5 ( 2 2 ) . 9 , 8 ( 8 ) . ; 2 3 ( 3 ) 4 > 9 ' ( ) . 3 , 1 0 4 ( H ) " , 106(15)4; < 2 5 (22)4 . 3 ( 3 7 ) " . 2 7 ( 3 8 ) 4 /. ' i 2 o ( i 3 9 ) - 2 , ''~7? 5 ( 6 6 ) ' . , 2 6 ( 2 0 ) 4 ; gi(ioo ).2 . 117(123)4 , 102(112).
/. 38(43)
. 6 7 ( 8 1 ) " . 3(2).3 . 66(8). . ] 52 (6).4 . (32).2 95
6 . 129(143)" . () 88 (84)4" ". 116(122). , . . . 8 ( 2 8 ) . 8 . 8 ( 7 ) " 3 , 16(26/12 . 7(6)2, 3 ; 8 ( i 7 ) - 4 ( b i s ) , " > ' 9 , 20(bis), 23, 27; 9(12).2; 11(16).1; i2(8 ). 3 (bis); 14(21)44, 5(bis), 6, g(bis), 10, 11 (bis), 12; 15(23).6, 7 (bis), 8; 16(265.4, 10; 23(30).2; 25(22).2 (bis), 7(bis); 26(20). 7; 2 7 ( 3 8 ) 4 2 , 3; 3 3 ( 3 9 ) " ; 4 1 ( 4 2 ) 4 ; 47 (35)7, (bis), 15, 16; 5 0 ( 5 7 ) 4 ; 5' ( 5 9 ) - 2 , 3; 53(62 )"(bis), 5; 60(71 ).2(bis), 3(bis); 66(80). 1; 6g(76).2 (bis); 77(109). 3; 83(98).2 (bis), 5; 8 8 ( 8 4 ) 0 8; 93(102). 1; 98(27.1)"; 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) 4 , 6(bis); 100 ( 1 1 0 ) 4 , 4 ; 102(112).6 (bis); 104(11)4; 106(15).2, 4; 108(117). i(bis), 2(bis); 111(119)"; 112(118)"; 113(121). 2(bis), 3 (bis); 114(1245.2; 1 1 6 ( 1 2 2 ) " , 2, 3 (quater), 4(bis); 117(123). 1 (bis), 2(tcr), 3; 118(128).5 (bis), 6(bis), 7; 119 (i 3 o ).2 (ter); 121(135)", 2; 132(146)" (indef.) ( 2 ) . 2 , | ( ) . 8 ; '
(35)' , 7 ( 6 ) " ; . . . ' 48(96)4 . /. . . . gi(ioo). 3 , 15(23/2 . 8 ( 7 ) " , 16(26/10, 94(105).2; . . . 5 2 ( 6 1 ) 4 , 4 . 8 ( 3 ) " . 102(112).7 . 4 2 ( 4 8 ) " ; j , . . . i o i ( n r ) . , ; 130(125). ; ' ] 9 ( 1 2 ) 4 ; ' gi(ioo). 10 . ' 8(7)4 . 02 ("2)5 . . 5 ( 3 ) " i ' /., /. 8(17)28;
, 113(121). 4 . . . . ' 118(128).6 , ' ] 5(3) 3 , 106(15)"; 9 9 ( 1 2 9 ) 4 /,. 6 ( 4 ) 4 , 118(128). . . . . /, 9 8 ( 2 7 a ) . i . . . . ( 2 ) .
(74 . 47 (35)5; ' 8 ( 7 ) 7 , 26(20).2; 16(26). 5; 2 ( 3 6 ) . . ' 47 /35/6 , ' 8(17).4
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
344
() / () 6 7 ( 8 1 ) " ; 2 ' ; ' 9()"5, 9 r ( i o o ) . i 6 ; () 7 4 ( 9 1 ) " ; () ' 7 7 ( ' 9 ) " ; 5 3 ( 6 2 ) 4 ; / 60(71) 2; ' 88(84).9; . . . 9 ( ) . ; 49 (34)" . q(i).i; . . . ' 1 2 4 ( 1 3 7 ) " , 5 . ' 102(112).4 . / 132(146)" . .. . ..
345
132(146)4; 15 (23)8 . , ' 8 ( 7 ) 3 ' . 117(123)" . 16(26). 2 , . 1 0 2 ( 1 1 2 ) " , 1 0 3 ( 1 1 4 ) " ; 1 2 4 ( 1 3 7 ) " ; /. ( ) . 9 ; 124(137/6; ' 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 3 ; 107(115)4 . , 8 ( 1 7 / 2 0 ; . . . / 47(35)4, ' 3 ! ' 8 (17)-7, 26(20). Q; 16(26). 5; ' 14(21).8 . (130).2 iig
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
'
iii(ng).i;
23(30/2;
14(21).2,
5(23)8,
132(146)4 . ' 8 ( 7 ) 3 2 ; ' 105(113)" . 9 ( 1 2 ) 4 , ' 2 ( 8 ) . 2 , 8 8 ( 8 4 ) " , 99 ( 2 9 ) . , 1 0 7 ( 1 1 5 ) 4 , 118(128). ; 5 ( 3 ) 4 ; 5 ( 3 ) 7 , 8 ( ' 7 ) 3 , ' ( ' 3 ) ' , 4 ( 2 ) . 2 , 53(62).7, 6 ( 7 ) " , 104(11). 3, 1 0 5 ( 1 1 3 ) " ; 3 ( 3 0 " . ' 2 7 ( 3 8 / 4 . 3 ( ' 3 < ) 2 > 8 ( ' 7 ) " 4 , ' 2 ( 8 ) " , 2 7 ( 3 8 ) " . 123(145)" . 7 ( 7 5 ) 2 , 1 0 6 ( 1 5 ) " . ' 1 5 ( 2 3 ) " , 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " 2 , 8 ( 8 ) . ; 4 1 ( 4 2 ) 4 ; 60(71).4 . 5 ( 3 / 3 , ' 3 ( 9 ) 4 , 2 9 ( 5 3 ) ' , 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " , 88(84).7, 9 ' ( ' 0 0 ) 2 . . . . 8 ( 1 7 ) " , 2, ' 6 , 17 . . . . 1 0 6 ( 1 5 ) 4 ". 5 (3)6 . 2 3 ( 3 ) . ; . 8 ( 1 7 ) 4 ; ] 94(105)" , 9 ( ) . 3 . 107(115/6 . 8 4 ( 8 5 ) " ; ' / () 103(114) 2; 7 ( 7 5 ) 2 . /. . . . 53(62).4 . 38(43);' .
, 4 7 ( 3 5 ) " . gi(ioo). 21 . ' , 4 7 ( 3 5 ) 1 2 . ] 16(26). 7 . 5 ( 3 ) 6 . 6 9 ( 7 6 ) 4 ". 66(8 ). . /. ' ' 115(120). ; 15(23). 2; ( ) " . ' ' 115(120)"
, 6 7 ( 8 1 ) " . 8 4 ( 8 5 ) . , ] 107(115)4 , 3 ( 2 ) . 2; 9 ( ) ' 4 ; 122(136). ; ' ] 8 ( 2 8 ) . 8 . ' 8 ( 7 ) 8 , 16(26).6 ". / 117(123)4 . 9 7 ( ' 3 4 ) 4 : 5( 2 3)-9 9 6 ('33 )41 103(114)4; 8 ( 1 7 / 1 4 ; 106(15)" . 8 ( 1 7 ) . 2 3 ; 78(107).2; 8 ( 3 ) . ; 8(8),2 .
9 7 ( 3 4 ) 5 , 107(115) '3 . ' 4 7 ( 3 ) " 4 ; ' 5 2 ( 6 1 ) " ; 25 ( 2 2 ) 4 ; . 8 ( 7 ) 9 , 16(26).8; 107(1 )7 . . 7 1 ( 8 2 ) " ; 127(140)" . 68(74). , / . . . / , ' 1 2 ( 8 ) " , 4; : 5 6 ( 6 3 ) " ; ' , ( ) 5 ". 117(123)" . 1 3 ( 9 ) " . 3 9 ( 4 5 ) " ! ' 8 8 ( 8 4 ) 4 ; , 42(48). . . . . . 102(112).4 , / /, 72(83)" , (' ) 2 ( 2 ) " 2 ; /. 1 2 3 ( 1 4 5 ) " , . . . . . . 9 ( ) . 9 , 6 ; 1 2 5 ( 1 3 8 ) " ; . /. 1 2 9 ( 1 4 3 ) " -
. , 4 2 ( 4 8 ) . : . 8 ( 1 7 ) " 8 . / ("5)" . ( ) '3(9/3 . '
131(127)" . . 2(39).2 (), ; ,
88(84,1.2 '
8(3).
, 2 7 ( 3 8 ) 4 ". 14 ( 2 ) . ; 15(23/7 ". 26 (2).6 . 8 ( 1 7 / 1 8 ; . . .
. . .
1 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 ;
(./
. ' ' 44(5)' . " 7(6)2 . 1 4 ( 2 1 ) " 2,
( ),
. . . . 3 ( 3 ) 2 ; . . .
47(35)7, ' 6 . ' . . . , gi(ioo).io, 20; 1 2 8 ( 1 4 1 ) " ; . . . 1 5 ( 2 3 ) 4 ; 0 2 / . . . 9 6 ( 3 3 ) 2 . 69(76) 2
I N D E X
V E R B O R U M
346 , 107(115)
. ' 6(22). . , 25(22). 2; 3 r ( 3 7 ) " , * 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " ; 8 3 ( 9 8 ) " ; . . . 3 ( 4 ) " ; . . . 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " ; 6 9 ( 7 6 ) 4 ; 53(62). 4; ' 107(115)" . ( 2 6 ) . . 4 8 ( 9 6 ) " . 9r(IO)"7 , 105(113)"; 107(115)" . 02( 12). . . . . 6
. 125(138).
, / 57(65)-2 . , , 1 1 4 ( 1 2 4 ) ! ; 2 ( 2 ) . , 103(114). . 88(84) 7 . ( 2 ) . 8 , 9 ( ) . , 9 3 ( 1 0 2 ) " . -
<' 4 5 ( 5 6 ) ' . 1(2).4 . . . . 21(27)-' . 5 ( 5 7 ) 2 . /. 107(115)6 . / 65(79)-' . 6 ( 4 ) . 2 ; 8 ( 7 ) " 5 ; 1 1 ( 6 ) . ; 1 5 ( 2 3 ) - " 25(22).4; 26(2).6; 33(39)2; 6 1 ( 3 3 ) " : 6 2 ( 7 3 ) " ; 8 8 ( 8 4 ) " ; 9 ( ) " 6 , 22; 6 (15).2; 24(37)5 . 3 8 ( 4 3 ) ' , 7 5 ( 9 ) ' , 8 8 ( 8 4 ) . 7 . 1 0 5 ( 1 1 3 ) ' . 4 0 ( 4 6 ) . ! , 9 ( ) . 8 , 102(112).5 . / , ' 9 ( ) - 4
Index Locorum
ACHILLES
Isagoga 1-15-7 1-17-3 ..24.2 1.30.1 2.1.1
CO
180 !7n88 J 1 """ 38096 20 1, 182 77112
5.'9-5
AELIAN
4(34-")
'99
" (70-3
, 8 ( 1 7 ) 2 9 , ( ) , 8 ; /. 23(30)2; 107(115)-7 . 69(76).3; gi(ioo )"7 , 2 ( 8 ) . ; 113(121).!
AESCHYLUS
De Natura Inimalium 205 9-64 Agamemnon 187 56 232, 28/ 2.8-47 82. '58 1459 1500-06 671137 1569-77 6-37, 277 Eumenides 291 62 214 588-96 67II37 Persae 232 660 674 215 Prometheus Vinctus
Ol CO
2.6.3 2.8.2 2.1 1 .2 2.13.2 2-14-3 2.2O.I3 2.21.2 2.23.3 2.25.15 2.28.5 2.3I.I 3.16.3 4.5.12
in
44" J' I 1611I7O. 1Q7. 2 0 0 , 2 0 5 , 207 24111 I 24I1Q, 4111129. * t 197 "71 U Z1 78 97 200, 201, 202 201, 204 200 4511129, 202 202 203 205 711152, 251-52
5.21.1 5.22.1 5-242 j .25-4 5.26.4
5.27. 5-28 .I 5-3 1
51.1156, 53i 6 6 , 7805. 801115, 217, 218, 227. 235 101139 gn 3 8, 210, 238 91138, 131160, 2 5 1 7 , 229 91138, 2 5 . I I 7 , 75172 255, 471141, 5411170, 199. 2 i 6 , 224, 228 91138, 4711141. 5 4 m 70, 232 234 261125,
2
*-
AETIUS
.-3-8 1.3.20 1.5.2
274 94 Septem contra Thebas .64 4'3 906 '75 284 .020 Suppliers 28 291 263 286 654 165, 181 6n>7, 165 4 5 n i 2 9 , 56" 8o, 74.169, 207 371188
CD
CO CD
ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS
in Metaphysica 24116 34.6-10 40108 35-21 62.15-16 34"74 63.8-11 31152 224.8-10 34174 306.17 235 359 ' 7 - 2 1 38196,175 592-3'-32 4 3 i i 2 7.8.8-15 34174 in Meteorologica 181185 '99 -4 -7 Qjiaestiones 72.26 230
7'n54 230 496 4-9-14 235 4-9-'5 234 4 " 3 9 - ' 243 4"4" 25114, 2 3 4.16.1 296 250 4.17.2 251116, 176, 4.22.I ST-'-2 5-8.1 5-15-3 5.18.. 5"9-4 245,246 220 5211161 101139, 176, 246 101140, 541170 281136, 217, 295
,n
AMMONIUS
in De Intcrprctationc 249.1-21 181187, 22112 347
1.13.1
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
348
ooohon ju
349 6g3a25 217 De Generatione Animalium 219 722hlI 722b17- 46 134, 4626 135, 491148, 500150, 211 219 723224 7 3 6 b 3 o - 5919, 76176, 222 37214 220 739b25 39mo2, 401747234104, 40 107, b26
23I
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
ANAXAGORAS fr. 74n65 fr. 3 81023 fr. 4.4 222 fr. 5 174 frs. 8, 10 811123 fr. 17 177 ANAXIMENES fr. 2 74165 ANONYMUS LONDINENSIS I 252 141167, 271126, 20 230, 246 476 26 14067, 230 31-34 230 36 ANTHOLOGIA GRAECA 2.102 214 7.508 igngi 9.569 264 9-783 214 ANTIPHON 6.2 64027 ANTISTHENES fr. 24 253 ARATUS 335 225 ARCHYTAS fr. 1-2.4 85 ARISTOPHANES Nubes 570 165 983 242 Ranae 150 273 326 279 ARISTOTLE Physica 18732026n20, 35075, 26 361183, 3685, 4 i n i o g , 74n65 i8ga2434170 26 193322 27029 ig3bi2 175 196a12- 86, 228 24 198029- 52 162, 214 32 ' 9 9 b g - i 3 5 i n i 5 7 , 214, 216 204628171 29 2I03I424 34074
182 182 4 2 m 15, 4 4 i ~ 121 186 167, 169 43I I 4 2 m 15 3 ' n 5 7 , 451*3' 0417 761176 6 6 207) 2 0 o 201 200, 207 4.30120, w122, 4 7 " 138, 86 ^ R n11i0' Q O >/i_6n*tO oo> 148, 211 99 4 . 130, 4 6 n i 3 7 , 186, 211 37192 35179, 36186 45 128
1
34 250b20 2500239 250027 5ia5 251 a .4-5 25237- c 252327

00
2
333220 34 333a35b3 333bi34a9
171 40 o8 34170, 36184, 45 130, 46n133, 461137, 481145, 491149, 531164, 791110, 175,
iogib83H5i 12 i o g 2 b 6 - 7 74n68 Ethica Eudemia I 2 4 8 a 2 4 - 76076 27 Rhetorica 137381417 1376a17 Poetica 1447b1620 I457bl3-
CHALCIDIUS in T imaeum 237 162, 243 (P- 279) CICERO Academica 1-44 155 2.14, 74 155 Brutus 18.70 39098 De Natura Deorum 1.34 131162 2.42 59ng 2.66 166 Somnium Scipionis 18 291 Tusculanae Disputationes 1.19 71152, 251 4.3 11150 CLAUDIAN /71 consulatum T heodori panegyris 72 i6n73 CLEMENT Stromateis 3.14.2 8225 5.14.103 2 5 n i 8 5-15-4 6.3.30 6.17.4 167 11151 167
58n2, 8 i n 2 o , 86 163 2ongg 58n2
De Caelo
*uyrtji
32 27obio
97, 237 33422738195 b2 Meteorologica 340219 45128, 171

2 2
76ibi323 76431-6 764236 764817 77ib23
5919,275 219 220 219 222 242
287320
2QRai7
22
Vi 0
300025 2I 301a15 19
301031 82a2 382a6-8 De Anima 404hl 405330 45b8 408a18-
,R, Ks,
353bi 372a5
164 i8o 18085, 391102, 86 5919 7 i n 5 4 , 76175, 233 233 27129 34171, 5812, 209 210 451128
779bi5 Metaphysica 984aII 414 g84b6-8 2408 g85a4 -io 30050, 170 9 8 5 3 2 1 - 3 i n 5 3 , 410109 4 3 m ig, 186 29 985b1-3 24n6 26025 g86a3i34 988a14 16 9883333on50
Athenain Politeia 7.1 64027 [ARISTOTLE] De Mundo 396b13 180 De Coloribus 791223 215 792a -b 39ng8, 180 Problemata g2gbi618085, 210 17 937au24013, 199 16 953227 16072 De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia 9 7 5 b i - i o 78n8, 167, 175 9 7 6 b 2 2 - 78n8, 167 27 ASCLEPIUS in Metaphysica 33-3-5 2407 197.17 272 277.6 236 ATHENAEUS Deipnosophistae l. 3 e 722 CAELIUS AURELIANUS De morbis chronicis I -5-145 9138 CALLIMACHUS fr. 128 289 fr. igi .61 288 -63 CELSUS Medicinae proemium 2.Ii.7 11047 CENSORINUS 4.7 2 8 n 3 6 , 52 160 6.1 251 6.8 220
30531 -6 35bi-5 3"a2429 3 i 3 a 6 - i o 451128 De Generatione ei Corruptione 31421617 3i4b7 3i4b20 33167, 34170
175 261124 2 2 m , 26n24, 31524-25 31156, 3 4 1 72, 35177, 36083, 3684, 531165, 551177, Ufr 78 3 2 4 6 2 5 - 230 26b28 3 2 5 0 2 2 - 37n89, 40 107, 401108 24 328ai6 187 27029 32923 329b627028 30229 33obQO- 24n6 21 333216- 35179, 167 29
24 409821 415628i6a2 4i6a3o 231 4i8b20 201 42722372159, 236 28 4 3 o a 2 7 - 490148, 50150,211, 2 I 30 De Sensu 242 43824 44'23-6 379 446a26 201 De Respiratione 4732157429 477226245 275
34170 34 98936-9 27129 99627-8 34172 i o o o a 2 6 - 31153, 31155, b20 35i79> 4 5 1 130, 541172 551177, 731 61, 75n7> 190, 215, 255 i o o i a i 2 - 34072, 86 14 1009b1225 7 3 n 6 2 , 230, 233, 235, 236
DEMOCRITUS fr. 11 252 fr- 33 75174 fr. 164 233 DEMOSTHENES 20.158 64027 23.51 64027 47.71 64027 DIOCLES fr. 8 27027 DIODORUS SICULUS 1.7 217 1.96 279 Ii-53 313,7123 11.72 7123 12.82 6n22 13.34, 82 6n22 13.83-84 7125, 265 13.90 7n26 DIOGENES APOLLONIATES fr. 5 73163 DIOGENES L A E R T I U S I.III 207 2.7 2.9, 17 415 217
31 477bi227 78a! 1 Historia Animalium 487820 228 522b2 222 5 5 2 b i o - 5919, 275 18 De Partibus Animalium 640a19 214 648325- 9 n 3 7 , 2 5 n i 6 31
i o i 4 b 3 5 75 1050623- 43120, 186 24 I 0 5 i a i 7 - 31151 21 1053b15- 34172 16 i o 6 g b 2 i - 34172, 35176 23 i072b20 259 107583-7 31151, 33169
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
350
8- 77 ' 9 1 9 5 , 2on100, 200 171181 85 8n28 31' 81134, ' 6 o 311 3111
35'
.131
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
(continued) 6.76-77 8-34 8-43 8.48 8.51 8.52
GALEN
De defeclu medendi 19.372K 231 in Hippocratis De natura hominis '5-32K '549 371190, 381196 36181, 38196, 222 De locis ajfectis 8.415K 359 De methodo medendi 10.6K 111147, 160 De placitis Hippocratis et PLatonis 5.283K 251 5.627K 233 De semine 4.616K 219 De usu partium 616 251
171181 85 5 1 2 , 191193 183 6 m 7, 71124 3 , 4116, 51116, 61117, 171178, 265 6 n i g , 61120, 71122 5 12, 71124, 7 26, 2002, 8 o n i g , 264 417, 4 0 8 , 5n12 51115, 6 n i g , 81134, 17182, 181186, 1889, 255 5113, 51116, 8n34, 11147 10044 71124, 71126, 11152, 130 57, 7712, i6o 1148, 13057,
igngi, 264
9- 3-4 9-5 9-6 9-20, 23 9-25 9-29 9-5, 56
2.1 23 4-95 5-3 6 a 6.62 HFSTOD L I S O 11 ' 1 ' Erga 9 60-64

6R D 5
'97 '9' 27/1 256 266

IQI 1 y1
8-53 8-54
104? ' 9 281136, 21 0, 2I7 268

*oy
EPICTETUS
Enchiridion 15 70149
8-55-56 8-57
EPIPHANIUS
Adversus Haereses 3.19 471142
EURIPIDES
Andromache 921-22 Helena 158
'95 274 276-78 282-85 Theogonia 30 9'-93 106-07 '50 187 190 240-64 346-61 396 524 571-72 626 656 726 736-37 782 792 793-808
CO CO
De atibus 14 252 De fracturis 223 7 De morbo sacro 2 13165 De natura hominis I 271129 14067 3-4 14067, 27026 7 De natura pueri 238 15 Ad qfficinam 222 '7 Regimen 14067 12,4
2.661 3.28 3.276-79 3-a79 3.306

o-o"y
190 294 164 67039, 180, 273 253 '75 259 259 218 215 212 213 203 267 240 175 33164 283 400103, 222 245 279 254 254 285
IQQ
4.350 l-llu 4.456 4.502 5-214 5-399 5.525 5.553 5.576 5-593 5-902 6.118 6.146 6-434 7-3' 7-395 7.446 ho
CO CO
28^
I 6 I 23
'94 14067, 162, 230
8.58 8-59 8.60
GELLIUS
Noctes Atticae 17.21.14 3112
2Q I 291 28n34
I8Q
233 222 Hercules Furens 1231 661134 Hippolytus 1029-31 661134 Jon 86g 215 Iphigenia T aurica 1207 Medea 1327-28 Orestes 819-22 1086-88 '305 Phoenissae 18 1453 Troades Fragmenta 452, 638 910 661134 66n34 66n34 661134 245 218 265
73163, 252 I25 De veteri medicina 13063 1-2 26025, 232 '4 15 16 '9 20 13163 232 36n8i 13063, 81023, 8 5 - 8 6 , 263
8.61 8.63
8.64 8.65
5.66
71124, 81129, 81133, ' 7 1 29, 264 3 n 5 7 , 15169, i 6 n 7 7 , 160 151169, 160 3157, 15171, 160 5 1 1 1 , 121154, 12056, 5171 15169, 15170, i 6 n 7 4 , 160 313, 71127, 9135, 13162, 151169, 16-
65133 178 28033, 651132, 65^33. ' 9 9 . 273. 274. 275. 292 241 '99 281133 269
7-29-4 7.29.10 7.29.1224 7-30-3-4 7-3'-3-4 10.7
5"
8n28, 81133, 91136, 20102, 86 8n2g 8129, 91135, 171180, 180 84, 191192
HERACLITUS (PHILOSOPHUS) fr. I 156, 170 fr. 2 156 fr. 5 287, 290 fr. 28 267 fr. 29 161
fr. 30 fr. 31 fr. 34 fr. 36 fr. 40 fr- 5 fr- 55
frs. 57, 62
'99 74 280 282 280

2
177 1 / / 0nfifi
HIPPOLYTUS
I 7
8.67 8.68 8.69 8.70
73164, 183, 254 291139 163 291139 256 293 '62

2022
281136, 210, 2I7 216 252 19I 2833
Refutatio omnium haeresium 2518, 255 1.3.1 74069 1-4-3 2 6 0 2 1 , 28037 1-7-1-3 186 5.20.6 6.11.1 73161 '74 165, 166 7808, 164, 174 470140, 74067, 270, 272, 277 200102, 8 m 2 0 , 271 83030 164, 167
8.152 8.186 8.404 8-443 8.501 8.563 9.182-98 9.256-67 9-377-79 9-54' 9-562 10.15 10.94 10.122 10.332 10.348 10.420 11.40 Ii.197 11-36' 11.450 "590 12.279 12.294 12.318 13-29 13-130 13-587 13.616 13.696 '3-793
254 160 180 274
yy
191 95 240 180 284 257 178 17 178 251 281 67039 254 215 213 160 254 160 285 240 33166 170 178
279 86
EUSEBIUS
Chronica 01. 8 1 , 86 3112 Praeparatio Evangelien . 8.10 241110, 178, 201 10.14.15 51112
frs. 67, 88 261122 268 162 161 fr. I i i 261122 fr. 114 285
fr. 97 fr. 101a fr. 104
805 807 847 Fragmentum 164
HOMER
Rias 1.70 1.107 1.201 1-437
CO CO UO
8.71 8.72
fr. 118 fr. i g fr. 123 fr. 129 Allegoriae 24 41 1.61 '85
73164 731163, 260 85 256
CORPUS HIPPOCRATICUM
De aere, aquis et locis 141167 I Aphorismi
174, 258 269 259 '95 200 253 259 240 33i64 240 262 254
EUSTATHIUS
ad liiadem 1180.14 166 ad Odysseam 1454.20 71122 1634.12 19192 l645-43 "151
HERACLITUS
'65 165 168 277
8-73 8.74 8.76
8133, 15168 3 m , 51116, I5n68 ' 6 5 , 167
HERODOTUS
3-3. 7 De cor de 10 De carnibus 2
14067
2
5'
271128
2-397 2.412 2.480
245 641127
191
CT)
75, 18184 5 n i 6 , 61118,
13165
'587 2-7 2-57 2.16g
to
to
Kl
to
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
352
5.70-71 5-444
2
353
in Platonis Gorgiam Proem. 9 5013
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
itinued)
4-83 536-37 5-'37 5.187-93 5.209 5.612 6.46 6-365 6-37' 6-453 6.502 6-573 01 7-34' 7-387 7.460 8-39-49 8-95 8.400 8.413-14 8.458 8.470 8.483 8-535 8-595 8.608 9-9 9.137-38 9.260-64 21.37-38 21.233-71 21.260 21.361 21.390 22.138, 188 22.240 22.306 22.349 22.361 22.445 in
CO CO CN
259 28032 191 23113, 281132 2303, 28032 239 287 234 180 260 175 64027 '75 253 180 254 280,282 156 274 254 56 209 28032 240 245 236 671136 67039 216 246 178 246 170 246 191 246 257 175 287 64027 156 169 218 231 210 182 281 199 156 197 259 262 240 259
CO CO
51 ,78 8 78 ,
267
19094 Elegiaca 257
fr. 16
ION
Fragmenta ''5
7 254 / 26 3 7-114 _ 18 224, 825 7.214 236 284 9-295 164 9-39 204 9-5'6 10.19-22 12053, 261 203 0-353 11.248 182 "539 11.60204 12.27 13-258 15.272 17.218 17.246 17.384-86 18.136 18.162 18.219 19.328 19.516-17 9-541 20.19 20.121 21.117 10 279 292 276 64027 64027 233 265 291 235 162 203 239 258 278 240 294 161 265 259 254 247 289
OVID
Ibis 597-98 16072 Metamorphoses 1.80-83 210
fr. . 7 PAUSANIAS
8.2.3
72057, 196, 219, 235, 260 220 283
6 AO 7 RR
8.3I
180 281132 285 189 273 2Q2 *y* 223 158 2/9 274 291
LACTANTIUS
Divinae 3.18 3.28 Institutiones 16073 156
PHILO
De Providentia 2.60 197
Xemea 8.40 Pythia 3-24 5-7' 10.64 Fragmenta 114 127 133 0
PHILODEMUS PARMENIDES fr. 157. 158 fr. 1.14 191 fr. 1.22- 181 fr. 1.2830 fr. 2.4 fr. 2.7-8 fr. 4. 23 161, 258 156 73 163, 170, 257, 258 73 253 156, 162, 170 De pietate 2 165
LUCIAN
Dialogi Mortuorum 6.20.4 16072 Fugilivi 2 16072 Pro Lapsu 2 265
PHILOPONUS
in De Anima 486.13 236 489.2771154. 72159 31 545 211 in De Generatione Animalium 27.4 219 28.3 211 28.9-14 500153 211 23-134 i ' 4 71154 166.8, 25 219 in De Generatione et Corruptione 14.14 15.6-8, 15-17 19 3-20.4 24.26-29 178.2 227.2123 2573258.4 261.2125 263.20-24 264.30 268.813 in Physica 24.12-17 27.4 88.11-25 314.6-25 318.27 319.9-20 175 175 35180 37094 230 2417 167, 171 167, 171 175 31154 471139
PLATO
Charmides
I57b
I 50
LUCRETIUS
De Rerum Natura 1.170 176 1.309-28 230 2.69 230 2.103 165 2.296 172 2.1114-15 199 3 4 5 5 - 5 6 156 4.46-109 230 5.488 205 5.788 228 5.805-20 217 5.878-924 214 5.990-98 284
fr. fr. fr. fr. fr.
21-355 21-397 22.270 22.316
OD
HYMNI H O M E R I C I
ad Apollinem 84-86 28032 192-93 10042, 262 ad Cererem 358 283
Alexandra 936
294
95 6e Lysis
er
to
LYCOPHRON
MACROBIUS
Somnium Scipionis 1.14.20 71052, 251
173 156, 157, 162, 164 fr. 8.1-4 157. 185. 293 fr. 8.5-14 29042, 172, 173. 179. 268 fr. 8.17 173 fr. 8.18 156 fr. 8.19- 29043, 168, 21 172, 173 fr. 8 . 2 2 - 550173, 172, 26 173. 184 fr. 8.29- 5 5 n i 7 3 . 173, 188 32
fr.
4.2 4.4 6.4-7 7., 7.2-6
Cratylus 404c 405 a-b 409 b Gorgias

Oi
165 143 202 184 279 '55 184 297 283 111150 641127 274 85 184 85 169 5015, 229, 240, 242
4 ng
Leges 716a -b 754 770a 782

CT CO
865d -e 866-69
to
HORACE
Ars Poetica 464-66 16072 Carolina 4.30 292 Satirae 2.7.86 256
23.IOO
23350 24.160 24.769 24-793 Odyssea 1.16 1.71 1.98 1.266 1.320 1.361 1.379 2.20 2.306
MELISSUS fr. 2 fr. 7(2) fr. 7(3) 1>. 7 ( 7 ) (8) fr. 8 1.2.2 1.5.2
8.3539
173 172 408 174 408 18088, 2202 18088, 2202, 165
8.41 fr. 8.43 fr. 8 . 4 4 49

fr.
29144. 30145. 1-2, 173. 177, 184 179, 222 33065, 188 3OO46, 3OO47, 32062, 33066, 170, 172, 29044, 159,
222c Meno y6c -d Parmenides 127b Phaedo 79d g6a -b 111 a 114c Phaedrus 247a 2480? 265 270a -d Philebus 59a 60a Politicus 27ia-c
CO CD
511154 219 37187 500153 216 510157
HYGINUS
Fabulae 28 213
MENANDER R H E T O R
75172 85, 231 4511128 291 70048, 292 68045, 2 7 2 ,

2
fr. 8.5055 fr. 8 . 5 6 58 fr. 9
MICHAEL EPHESIUS IAMBLICHUS

De Vita Pythagorica 113 11049, 160 135 111151 146 19094 150 . 165 in Parva Naturalia 124.15 247
OLYMPIODORUS
in Meteora 297.18 18085
U O , 178 29041, 169, O L 189 29040, 29041, 29044, 171 fr. 10.2-3 202, 234 fr. 11 201 fr. 12.2 217 fr. 14 203 fr. 15 202
PHILOSTRATUS
Vita Apollonii 1.1.2 7022, 11046 8.7.8 11052
.64 85
74
PINDAR
Olympia 1-39 2.58-91 2.120 19' 274 291
214
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
354
35-32.50 35.36.92 36.69.202 391198 391198 191196 929b, d 934d De primo 94gf 953C De sollertia g64d 978e I 112a I 1 I2f I 113a 1113C-d 1126b Camillus 22.3 Nicias 2-4 Nurna 19.6 71126 213 131162 202 204 frigido 294 241113, 4 5 12g, 99 animalium 278 229 175 I75> 177 78.18 821126 81132, i n 5 i
355 SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

adversus mathematicos I. 3 0 2 - 0 3 7.6 7-65 7-92 7-94 " 7.124-25 8.12 8.286 g .10 9.127 10.317 I I .96 75172, 821125, 264 5 15, 8 r i 3 4 8
5
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
(continued) 272d-e 273a 275a 277c Respublica 363d 701148 86 232 281 280 268 249 274 279 274 2 7 2 , 291 157 2 6 n 2 0 , 4011109 231 57 214, 216 043 266 242 267 '56 161 189 188 233 /61175 274 45130 5259 i8o
773, 7 8 n 4 , 239 33.4 70.17. 144.26 150.2025 157.2527 159.6-28 7 8 n 6 , 1 6 9 , 177, 179 85 26120 2 0 1 0 , 772, 167 2 2 m , 33n68, 7 8 n 6 , 171, 77 161.1320 180.2530 188.23 235.2023 300.20 327.19 33I.I-I4 167 175 2010, 772 212 20, 77113, 78114, 2 1 2 , 228, 239 371-3372.1 I 381.29 381.31 382.15 382.2531 392.24 4 7 9 32 1124.1- 4 1124.1925.24 "53-2730 1183.2- 6 1183.2884.4 1184.518 167, igo 351178,4411121 41m II 251 U i 4739, i 8 g 4311118,4411121, 4611132. 167 4411121 501U51>52nl 6 2 , 21 l , 214, 232 2011101, 77113 520163 217 5 1 157 1 6 7 . 1 7 5 . 179 175
Electro 203 266-67 973 1558 Oedipus 545 998 28 1329-34 1360 1424-28 Philoctetes 910 Trachiniae 12-13 743 213
2
283 671138 294 216 Tyrannus 163 677 238 671138 671138 66n34 163
PLOTINUS
4 7.10.38 2 6 4
Oedipus Coloneus
PLUTARCH
De amieorum multitudine 95a-b g6f 288b De gloria 346a 36 ic 363d 3646 370d-e 4 0 1 0 3 , 791113 229 201 Atheniensium 3gng8 741169 165 213 301149, 311152, 5 9 n i o , 170, 2 7 7 , 281 383d 171180 De apud Delphos 393C 391198 De defectu oraculorum 433a-b 474b De 515c 5Qoe-f De exilio 711153, 811122, 270 Quaestiones comitates 618b 649c
CO CO CO
85 165 157 79ml 259 7in54 167 8in20 167 278
42gd 506c 5 H
a
Quaestiones Romanae
Adversus Colotem
5i5c~ 5i6e 525c 546b 6l5b 617d-e Sophistes 237a 242d 252 00 0.
)
De Iside et Osiride
SIMONIDES fr. 148 158 SIMPLICIUS

in De Anima 27-34-37 234 68.2-10 209 68.1 1 - 1 4 202.25 in De Carlo 140.30 293.1823 306.3 528.9-10 528.2024 529.1628 530.1-20 5561530 557-10 5572558.1-2 586.9-11 586.2387.27 5111156, 5211160 4611135,4911149,5011151, 5011152, 78115, 2 0 6 . 211, 216 590.194711138 371193 261120,281137, 74n65 4'M> 4 n 7 , 167 233 200, 22111, 21 628.6-13 85 !57 167 4711138, 1 6 7 , 207 175 4 4 122, 4711138 4 7 139. " 9 7 , 207 55111/7. 78119. 22878115, i 6 - , 1 8 6 , 228 85 241112, 1 6 6 236
93
SORANUS
Gynaecia 1-57 9n38
[PLUTARCH]
Vitae decern oratorum 832 Stromateis 2 26n2o, 45128 4611136, 5 6 7 9 . 197 51114
STOBAEUS
Eclogae 1.5.3 1.10.11 1.49.60 180 165 821124 161176 171180, 19192 85 101143, 1 H 1 5 2 . 131157 Archytas 5 12 Athenaios Empcdokl'es (1) Empedokl'es (2) goeteia Gorgias Meietos 253 Pannen id es Timaios Zjnn 71126 8n34, 85 10043 5 13 4118 1 11147 4117, 51113, 6n20, 1 i n 5 2 , 191195, 2000 6111g, 181183 71122
Symposium i89d190a 203d
4 0 105 animi 280 11051, 261 249
De tranquillitate curiositate
2I2e
Theaetetus
Ol
STRABO
6.2.8
PORPHYRY
De abstinentia 2.21 2.31 4 20 29 30 32-33 " 282 811121 19"94 165 111151 111150,821128
n
SUDA
s .v. Akrn Anaxiinander apnous
Timaeus
22C-e
CO CI
6o7c-d
2gd 33d 34
b
Vita Pylhogorae
7 9 12 223 232 292 391198 262 281136 8225 67 cum principibus disserendum 8oni7
35 36
703 725c 728 73oe 745d Amatorius as
39d 2/4 4 1 c , 4 2 a - 681143, 681144
5 0
PROCLUS
in Piatonis 849 in Piatonis 2gc 130c 75c Parmenidem 4411125 Timaeum 280 165 275
b, e
4id 43a 45b 53a-b 62a 63d-e 68d 6gd 71b 79a-e 84c 90a 238 239
CO CO CN CN
4411126, 1 8 6 249 4 5 128 3 9 n g 8 , 180 273 259 246 681142, 761175 Historia 131158 171180 111146
c.
Maxime 777C 82of
philosopho
Praecepta gerendae reipublicac 177 naturales 40 106, 754, 230 9'7e apparet 926e-f 927a 927! 4411124 186 7912 249 De facie quae in orbe iunae Quaestiones gi6d
QUINTILIAN
3.1.8 51113, 81134
SOLON fr. 16 163, fr. 17 253 SOPHOCLES

Ajax 595 964 1412 Antigone 456-57 1044 1082 260 163 245 285 273 284
'95
SAPPHO
fr-
PUNY
Naturalis 7-52-I75 29-4 30.2.9
1-5-7
159 158
fr. 1 . 6 - 8 SENECA
3.24.1
in Phystca 24.13-31 2519-24 27.11 32.I-I I
TERTULLIAN
De anima 5 32
2
Quaestiones Naturales 241113,451,129, 99
5'
i6"73
THEM1STIUS
I N D E X
L O C O R U M
35 6
8 235, 240, 242 43 228, 233, 234, 249-50, 296 721160, 1 6 2 , 233, 238, 252, 254 5311165,6223, 210, 238 12-13 4onio6, 7154, 2 3 0 , 231, 234 16 17 20 21-22 23 24 25-26 26 37 50 77-78 1.54 234, 235 244 47140 249-50, 296 234, 235 252 230 i6a 242 230 180 188
(continued) Orationes
178 15-7 104.1 279 86 2011102, 8 o n i 5
VERGIL
[Culex] IIA. Eclogae
4.22 4.62-63 213 284 70048, 292 7 0 0 4 8 , 291 197 164 391198
T H E O SMYRNAEUS THEOCRITUS
Idyllia
'3-73 30-12 245 171 276
9 10
Aeneis
6.642-68 6-725 8.20 7-7
-Ii
Syrinx
18
VITRUVIUS
THEODORETUS
Graecarum affeclionum curatio
5-22 3 252 164
THEODECTES THEOGNIS
Elegeia
1.425-27 2 7 9
XENOPHON
Anabasis
4.8.25 6427
Index Nominum et Rerum

Acragas: political activity in, 3, 7, 17; hospitality at, 7, 2 6 5 ; luxury at, 8 n 3 2 , 9 0 3 6 , 2 6 5 - 6 6 , 2 8 6 ; citizens addressed by ., 11, 6 4 , 75, 2 6 5 , 2 6 7 , 271, 2 8 6 ; plague at, 11; river of, 2 6 5 ; temples in, 2 8 3 Acron, 8 , 17, 19 Agamemnon, 6 6 - 6 7 , a 8 7 Aidoneus, 2 3 , 1 6 5 - 6 6 . See also Earth, terms for Air, 2 2 - 2 9 passim, 2 8 5 , 2 9 7 ; terms for, 2 3 , 5 8 , 1 6 5 , 197, 2 3 7 ; position of, 4 4 - 4 5 ,
186; in respiration, 176, 2 4 5 - 4 8 , 2 5 0 ; in
Respublica
2.3
Lacedaemoniorum
223
THEOPHRASTUS
De causis '25
2.17.7 3.3.4 3-7-9
Memorabilia
1.1.11,14 8 5
plantarum 75n7b
168 164 '68 214
227
XENOPHANES
fr. 2 . 1 1 12 fr. 3 fr. 7 fr. 2 3 . 2 fr. 2 4 fr. 2 6 fr. 2 7 fr. 2 8 fr. 2 9 fr. 3 3 fr. 3 4 . 1 - 2 8n3i 287 189 162 188 29038, 217 199 29038, 217 2gn38 155, 159 161
TYRTAEUS TZETZES
Allegoriae
0(i5).85
Characteres
16.10
Hiadis
8om8 2 i n i 0 5 , 253
frs. 2 3 - 2 6 2 5 4
Historia
9.8
plantarum
165 271131 201 331167 721157, 731164 37n9!> 4onio6, 229, 233, 239. 242
Chiliades
7.514-18 13.74-78 2 5 3
De igni
4 73 fr. 3
Exegesis in Homert Iliadem

42.17 53.20 53-23 198 200, 205 77112
Physicorum opiniones De sensibus

3-4 7
VARRO
Eumenides
fr. 2 7 217
ZENO
frs. i , 3 8in23
in compounds, 2 0 9 , as climate, 2 2 3 - 2 4 ; in perception, 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 - 3 4 ; a n c ^ hearing, 2 9 6 . See also Aither; Elements; Life, forms of Aithers as term for air, 2 3 , 5 8 , 169, 197, 199,
197-98; 223, 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; 285
cosmogony,
status of, 6 1 , 6 3 ; perception and thought in, 7 3 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 1 ; and men, 8 1 , 2 8 4 ; similar to plants, 189, 2 2 8 - 2 9 , 2 9* 2 9 8 ; respiration in, 2 4 5 - 4 6 ; scent of, 2 4 9 . See also Kinship; Life, forms of Aphrodite. See Love Apnous: the comatose woman, 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 5 , 160, 2 6 2 - 6 3 , 2 6 4 ; fetus as, 176 Apollo, 2 5 3 , 2 5 5 , 2 8 9 , 2 9 1 ; Prooimion to, 18, 2 5 5 ; and Oedipus, 67 Apples, 2 2 4 - 2 6 passim Archelaus, 2 1 7 Archinomos, 6 Archytas, 5 Ares, 2 8 3 Asclepius, 291 Ate, meadow of, 6 0 , 8 2 , 2 7 9 Atomists, 3 7 , 2 3 0 . See also Democritus Beans. See Prohibitions Biology, 4 6 , 4 8 , 8 0 , 2 2 3 - 2 9 Birds, 5 9 , 6 9 , 195, 196, 2 7 4 , 2 7 6 ; as
"whole-natured," 2 1 7 ; feathers of, 2 2 8
Alcmaeon, 2 6 , 162, 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , 2 4 3
Allegory, 18, 2 3 , 1 6 5 - 6 6
Ambiguity, 188, 2 0 2 , 2 2 6 , 2 3 4 , 2 4 1 , 2 4 3 ,
2 4 5 - 4 6 , 249, 259, 267, 2 6 9
Analogy, 9 , 2 0 5 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 9 , 2 4 8 , 291, 2 9 6 , 297. See also Metaphors Ananke, 3 2 , 8 2 , 190, 191, 2 7 2 , 2 7 7 Anaxagoras: chronology of, 3 - 4 , 8 i n 2 3 ; compared with E . , 3 1 , 3 5 , 4 i n i 0 9 , 4 6 , 74, 76, 174; philosophy of, 177, 2 0 2 ,
204, 217, 222, 233, 235
Anaximander, 5 , 12, 2 5 - 2 6 , 2 8 , 3 5 , 4 6 , 7 4 ,
76, 191, 217
2 9 ; and men, 2 8 4 . See also Life, forms of Birth: as mixing of elements, I 4 n 6 7 , 2 2 , 2 9 , 6 2 , 167, 175, 176, 1 9 5 ; as a name, 2 9 , 176, 1 7 7 ; in both poems compared, 6 1 - 6 2 , 6 4 ; existence before, 2 6 8 , 2 6 9 ; personified, 2 8 1 . See also Generation. Blood: shedding of, 14, 6 4 - 6 6 , 6 9 , 7 0 , 2 9 0 ; as instrument of thought, 6 2 - 6 3 , 7 1 - 7 3 ,
162-63,
2
3 8 > 2 5 0 - 5 2 , 254, 261, 272, 2 8 8 ; 163,243,252;
Anaximenes, 2 6 , 2 8 , 7 4 , 7 6 , 197 Anchitos, 11, 160 Animals: respect for, 12, 8 6 , 196, 2 8 5 ;
conveys perceptions,
structure of, 2 0 9 , 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; and nutrition, 2 3 2 , 2 9 7 ; and respiration, 2 4 5 - 4 8 , 2 5 1 ; 357
I N D E X
I U
E T
R E R U M
358
359
Equality: of elements, 2 2 2 3 ,
3579, 167, 1 7 1 ; 3 2 " 3 3 . 174
2
I N D E X
N O M I N U M
E T
R E R U M
(continued)
oscillation of, 2 4 7 , 2 5 1 5 2 . See also H eart; Prohibitions; Sacrifice Bone, 9 , 2 4 , 4 9 , 2 0 9 1 0 , 2 2 7 B y . 5 9 . 69> 75. 276 Bush, 5 9 , 196, 2 7 6 Callicratides, 6
Cannibalism, 6 3 , 2 8 4 , 2 8 5 8 7
Dionysus, 2 1 3 Disease, 195, 2 6 2 , 2 6 7 , 2 7 9 . See also Medi cine

Doxa, 156, 161, 2 5 2 , 281
5 . 28. 3.
of Love and Strife,
Grapes, 2 2 6 Growth, g, 4 8 , 2 3 0 , 231

Hades, 2 3 , 2 9 6 9 7
Dreams, 2 3 6 , 291 Dual number, 1 7 9 8 0 , Dyeing, 2 3 2
287
Etna, 12, 1 3 , 1 5 1 6 , 1 9 9 , 2 7 5 Evil, 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 2 8 6 , 292. See also Strife Exaenetos, 6 7 Exile: as punishment, 6 4 6 6 , 2 7 3 7 4 , from the gods, 6 9 , 7 0 , 8 2 , 155, 2 7 5 ,
27778 Eye, 2 4 0 5 , 3 7 , 1 6 2 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 9 4 3 , 2 5 3
Hair,
292;
186, 189, 2 2 0 , 2 2 8 2 9 , 291
Hands, 5 3 , 1 6 2 , 2 1 0 , 2 3 8 , 2 9 5 Harmonia, 59 10, 1 8 8 , 21 o, 2 2 2 . See also Love
Cave; this world as, 8 2 , 2 8 0 ; in myth, 271 Chance, 1 5 5 , 1 9 7 9 8 , 2 1 2 , 2 2 8 , 2 3 6 3 9 Charts. See Love Clepsydra, description of, 2 4 7 . See also Respiration; Similes Clytemnestra, 6 7 , 2 7 7 , 2 8 7
Color, 3 8 3 9 , 1 8 0 , 2 2 2 , 2 4 2 4 4 passim
Ear, 162, 2 9 6 Earth, 2 2 2 9 passim, 4 7 , 5 6 , 1 9 9 , 2 1 1 , 2 7 5 , 2 8 0 ; in compounds, 9 , 2 0 9 , 2 2 2 , 2 3 7 3 8 , 2 4 2 ; terms for, 2 3 , 5 8 , 1 6 5 ; character of, 2 6 , 3 5 3 6 , 2 9 7 ; and perception, 4 0 , 2 3 3 ; at rest, 4 3 , 2 0 0 ; position of, 4 4 4 5 , 186, 2 2 7 ; and whole-nature forms, 5 2 , 2 1 6 . See also Elements; Life, forms of
Eclipses, 2 0 0 , 2 0 3 0 4
Fermentation, 2 2 6
Fetus, 10, 176, 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 , 2 9 8
Concordia, Temple of, 2 8 3 Cosmos, 2 0 7 ; under Love, 4 3 4 7 passim, 4 9 5 2 , 2 0 6 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 7 3 ; under Strife, 4 3 " 4 7 passim, i g 7 . See also Ouranos; World
Crime, 6 3 6 9 , 2 7 2 7 3 , 2 8 4 8 5 , 2 9 2
Fig trees, 2 2 2 , 2 2 4 Fire, 2 2 2 9 passim; in compounds, 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 9 1 0 , 2 3 7 4 4 ; terms for, 2 3 , 5 8 , 1 6 5

6 6 , 2 3 7 , 2 3 9 ; functions of, 2 4 2 5 , 1 9 9 ,
205, 210, 223, 2 9 4 ;
Effluences, 5 , 2 5 , 3 7 , 4 0 , 7 1 0 5 4 , 7 9 , 2 2 9 3 1 i and vision, 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 ; and smell, 2 4 9 5 0 ; and hearing, 2 9 6 . See also Pores Eggs, 2 2 4 2 5
Eg, 6 9 , 75, 2 7 5 7 6
position of, 4 4 4 5 , 186, 197, 2 2 7 ; in earth, 4 5 , 4 7 , 1 9 9 ; and
whole-nature forms, 5 1 , 5 2 , 2 1 5 1 7 ;
separation of, 5 5 , 1 9 7 9 8 , 2 0 8 ; and perception, 7 1 , 2 3 3 3 5 , 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 6 0 ; life

in, 2 7 4 7 5 ; and fever, 2 7 9 . See also
Cycle: stages in, 4 1 4 4 , 1 9 1 ; of worlds, 4 3 , 1 8 2 ; of time, 4 0 , 5 5 , 184, 1 9 0 ; of time in Plato, 5 2 , 6 8 , 2 1 4 ; daimonic, 6 9 , 7 0 , 2 7 4 Cyclops, 2 0 4 , 212, 2 4 0 Daimon, 6 9 7 6 , 1 8 9 , 192, 2 1 2 , 2 7 1 9 2 passim; rejected by elements, 16, 6 6 , 2 7 5 , 2 9 7 ; exchanging lives, 5 9 , 6 1 , 6 3 , 6 9 ,
2
Healer: E . as a, 11, 5 9 , 2 6 2 6 3 , 2 6 6 6 7 , 2 9 1 ; highest life as, 2 9 1 . 5 also Medicine Heart: area of thought, 71, 164, 238, 2 5 0 5 2 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 9 ; center of perception, 2 4 3 ; in respiration, 248, 2 5 1 ; in embryo, 2 5 1 . See also Blood Heat, 5 2 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 2 0 , 2 2 4 2 5 Hector, 6 7 , 236 Hedgehogs, 2 0 0 , 2 2 9 Hephaistos, 2 3 , 2 8 , 6 0 , 2 1 0 , 217, 2 3 7 , 2 5 4 . See also Fire, terms for Hera, i 8 n 8 8 , 2 3 , 2 8 0 3 2 , 6 0 , 1 6 5 6 6 . See also Air, terms for Heraclitus: compared with ., 8 n 2 8 , 2 5 18, 22, 2 6 8 , 2 7 8 , 2 8 6 , 2 8 7 ; philosophy of,
2 2 , 2 6 , 2 9 , 1 8 3 , 191, 2 3 4 , 2 6 0 , 2 8 1 , 2 8 5
Elea, 3 m Eleatic. See Parmenides Elements ("Roots"), 2 2 3 0 passim, 3 3 3 4 , 1 6 4 6 6 , 1 6 7 7 2 passim, 1 8 1 8 4 ; mixing and separation of, 1 4 0 6 7 , 3 2 , 3 4 4 0 , 4 4 4 8 , 5 5 , 6 2 , 176, 179, 2 2 1 , 2 6 9 ; terms for, 2 3 , 5 8 , 1 6 5 6 6 , 1 7 7 , 2 3 7 ; eternity of, 2 9 ,
3 2 , 3 3 . 3 5 . 3 7 . 6 3 , 17273. 182, 184;
Elements; Like to like; Sun Fish,

5 g , 6 9 , 7 5 n 7 l , 196, 2 2 3 , 2 7 4 7 6 , 2 9 3 ;
prolific, 2 2 6 2 7 ; scales on, 2 2 8 2 9 . See
Herakles, 292 Hermaphroditos, 2 1 4 Hesiod: compared with E . , 2 8 , 6 5 , 2 7 5 ,

2 8 0 8 2 , 2 8 5 ; pessimism of, 4 7 , 2 1 5 , 2 8 6 ;
also Life, forms of Flesh, 2 3 8 , 2 7 7 Friendship, 75, 2 3 5 , 284. See also Love Generation: double,
2
golden race in, 2 8 3 Hieron, 7 Homeric adaptation: of phrasing, 156, 160, no

174, 1 8 2 , 2 0 3 , 2 1 0 , 2 5 8 , 2 6 2 , 2 6 9 , 2 8 4 ,
7 4 7 6 ; as god, 6 0 6 1 , 6 4 , 7 3 , 2 1 2 , 2 7 3 ,
moved by Love and Strife,
3 2 3 3 , 34,
41, 1 6 7 6 9 , 1 8 2 8 4 ;
exile and, 6 3 , 6 5 6 6 , 6 9 , igo, 2 7 2 78 passim; trusts in Strife, 6 3 , 6 9 , 2 7 5 ; becomes mortal, 6 3 6 4 , 2 7 4 8 0 ; and "wrongdoing," 6 5 6 6 , 6 9 , 2 7 2 7 3 ; E . as,
292; 6975.
2
4 1 4 5 . 5 0 . 5 3 5 4 . 170, 179. 18182, 1 9 2
absolute, 1 7 1 7 3 , 1 7 5 7 6 , 184, 2 6 8 , 93~94
9 4 , 2 7 5 ; characteristics of, 3 5 3 6 , 167,

1 7 0 7 2 , 174, 17778, 1 9 2 9 3 ;
7 5 . 278, 292
Darwinism. See Survival Day: of nine and seven months' duration, 10, 54 1 7 0 ; seeing by, 2 4 0 , 2 4 2 ; in analogy, 2 9 7 Death: cause of, 9 , 13, 2 5 ; E.'s manner of, 12, 1 5 1 7 ; as separating of elements,
I 4 n 6 7 , 2 2 , 2 9 , 62, 167, 1 7 5 7 6 , 195, 2 6 9 ;
of, 3 7 3 8 , 3 9 , 4 0 , 2 2 2 ; thought in, 4 0 , 7 1 7 6 , 2 0 1 , 2 1 7 , 2 3 3 3 7 , 2 5 1 , 2 5 4 , 2 5 9 , 2 6 1 ; in separation, 4 1 4 8 ,

5 3 . 5 5 . 7 9 . 8 2 , i 8 6 , 2 0 7 ; movements of,
4 4 2 6 , 1 7 2 , 1 8 6 , 1 9 6 9 9 , 2 0 7 ; in pro
small parts perception and
portion,
2
5 3 , 6 2 , 75, 194, 2 0 9 1 0 , 2 1 7 ,
3 7 3 8 , 254, 272, 2 7 3 ;
and the daimon,
5 8 5 9 . 6 5 6 6 , 6 9 , 75, 212, 273, 2 7 5 7 6 ;
as a name, 2 9 , 1 7 6 ; in both poems com

pared, 6 1 6 2 ; as destructive, 1 9 5 9 6 , 2 9 0 ,
2 9 4 ; existence after, 2 6 8 6 9 ; personified, 2 8 1 . See also Destruction Democritus, 11, 3 7 , 7 5 0 7 4 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 3 , 2 5 2 Desire, 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 , 2 3 4 3 5 Destruction: double, 4 1 , 1 6 7 6 9 , 1 8 2 8 4 ;
no absolute, 1 7 1 7 3 , 1 8 4 , 1 9 5 , 2 6 8 6 9 Dine, 4 3 , 2 0 6 0 7
and colors, 1 8 0 , 2 2 2 ; in unity, 1 8 7 , 2 0 7 ; and words, 2 5 8 6 0 ; and soul, 2 7 2 . See also Air; Earth; Fire; Like to like; Love; Mixture; Separation; Sphere; T hneta; Water Embryology, 10, 13, 2 5 , 8 0 , 2 1 9 2 1 , 2 3 8 , 2 5 1 , 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 . See also Fetus Empty place (kenon), 3 0 , 5 5 , 172, 2 2 9 3 0 ,
248
Girl, 5 9 , 6 9 , 7 5 , 2 7 5 7 6 God: E . as a, 12, 15, 6 9 , 1 5 7 , 160, 181, 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 6 9 ; a s union of elements in sphere, 3 1 , 4 8 , 5 5 , 6 0 , 6 3 6 4 , 7 0 , 7 1 , 1 8 7 9 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 7 3 ; power of, over indivi dual, 6 6 6 7 ; and perfect tnought, 7 3 7 6 , 2 5 4 5 5 . 2 7 5 ; account of, 8 3 , 159, 2 5 2 , 2 5 4 , 2 7 4 ; grasped by nous, 162, 1 7 0 , 2 5 3 , 254, 2 6 4 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 8 ; ignorant of Strife, 187, 2 5 5 ; not anthropomorphic, 2 5 3 5 5 . See also Daimon; Mind, holy Gods: elements as, 2 2 2 3 , 6 0 , 7 0 , 2 1 2 , 2 3 4 ,
2 5 4 ; made up of elements, 6 0 6 1 , 6 3 , 179,
286, 2 9 0 ; of adjectives, 158, 2 1 5 , 2 2 5 , 2 2 6 , 2 3 9 , 2 6 6 , 2 6 7 , 285, 2 9 7 ; of nouns, 169, 170, 188, 197; of scenes, 2 1 8 , 2 2 4 , 2 4 5 , 2 4 6 , 2 4 7 , 2 5 4 , 2 7 8 ; of similes, 2 2 2 , 2 4 0 , 2 4 6 ; of an unknown phrase, 2 3 6 ; of ideas, 2 5 1 , 2 5 9 , 2 7 9 , 2 8 0 8 1 , 2 8 4 8 7 ; of syntax,
2
53.
54 30, 17274
Homicide, 6 3 , 6 4 6 6 , 6 9
Homogeneity,
18990
passim,
187,
Homology, 2 2 9 Humors, 1 4 0 6 7 ,
27, 232
Ignorance, 2 3 5 , 2 5 2 , 2 8 6 Intelligence. See Thought; Wisdom Janus, 2 1 3 Joy. See Love

Katharmoi: as title, 2 0 , 8 6 , 2 8 9 ; number of
212, 2 5 4 , 2 7 3 , 2 9 2 ; becoming mortal, 6 3 ,

2 7 3 7 4 , 2 7 7 , 2 9 2 ; feasts of, 6 5 , 7 0 , 2 9 2 ;
and "wrongdoing,"
288
65, 2 7 2 7 3 ;
abode
of, 2 0 1 , 2 0 7 0 8 ; happiness of, 2 7 8 , 2 8 0 ,
Epigrams, attributed to E . , 19
Gorgias, 5 , 8 , 8 5
books in,
2021, 298
I N D E X
N O I N' U
E T RRU
360 90, 192, 254; uniting, 4 1 , 79, 168, 174, 178, 181, 186, 193, 294; set against Strife,
42, 4 8 n i 4 7 , 1 9 4 - 9 5 , 2 0 6 - 0 8 , 2 1 1 , 2 3 7 , 2 8 0 - 8 1 ; advance of, 4 6 , 4 7 0 1 4 2 , 79,
361 260, 26, 272, 276, 285, 292. See also

Nous
I N D E X
S O M I X l ' M
E T
R E R l ' M
Kenon. See Empty place Kinship: of all living things, 8 1 , 228-29, 271, 284; of plants and men, 216, 225, 289 ; of plants and animals, 225, 296; of animals and men, 284-87 ; of gods and men, 285, 292 Knowledge. See Wisdom
Krasis, 222, 224. See also Mixture
206- 08, 211, 295 ; cosmogony under,

4 6 - 4 7 , 167-68, 181-83, 186-87, 211; as
Minotaur, 52, 213 Minstrel, 10, 59, 266, 291 Mirror reflections, 24-25, 230 Mixture, 34-40 passim; of elements for
birth, 1 4 0 6 7 , 2 9 , 6 2 , 174-76, 179, 195,
Necessity, 32, 54-55, 64, 272-73; Pytha gorean, 164-65, 181. See also Perjury Octopus, 229 Oedipus, 65, 67-68
Old age, 1 0 , 2 6 1 - 6 2 , 2 9 7
Kronos, 283 Kydoimos, 283 Kypris, age of, 60, 63, 70, 80, 8 1 , 256,
282-84. $ ee
als0
Love
cause of destruction, 48, 187, 190,215; extended over the elements, 54, 167, 170; and the daimons, 65, 74, 272, 275, 277; not corporeal like the elements, 162, 170, 174, 208 ; and wisdom, 189, 234, 256 ; and chance, 228. See also Kypris; Mixture;
Thneta
212; of elements by Love, 31-33, 193,

210; characterless, 35-36, 73-76, 187, 191-92, 207, 254; of colors, 38-39, 179-
Olives, 224-25; oil of, 231 Olympia, 6, 17 Olympus, 28, 201, 241 One, dividing into many, 41-45, 168, 18284, 190, 212, 227, 277, 278 Opposites, 25-27, 178, 182, 193, 231-32, 2 8 0 - 8 2 ; in the womb, 9, 219-20
Lactation, 10, 221 Lantern, simile of, 9, 240-43

Laurel, 2 8 8 - 8 9 ,
29-9t
8 0 ; of wet and dry ingredients, 39, 21 ; of dissimilar ingredients, 39-40, 193, 227; of two soft ingredients, 39 102, 231, 295-96; and thought, 72-76 passim,
233-37. 2
Orestes, 66, 68 Orpheus, 86, 289, 2gi

Ouranos, 28, 43, 45, 46, 55-56, 68n42, 76.
Law: universal, 59, 68-69, Bo, 285; on homicide, 64-66 Leader: E . as, 10, 59, 266, 2 9 1 ; highest life as, 2 g i Leaves, 189, 220, 223-24, 228, 289, 291 Lens: sun as, 2 0 1 ; in eye, 243 Leto, 28n32 Life: restoration to, 10, 12-13, 262-63; forms of, 59-64 passim, 69, 74-75, 82,
181-84, ' 9 5 . 2
I
Magi, 11,31 Magnet, 229-30 Male: sex determination of, 9, 25, 219-20; characteristics of, 220, 224 Many, coming into one, 41-45, 168, 182-84,
207- 08, 209, 212, 227
5 ' . 2 5 4 . 2 5 6 . 2 5 9 - 6 o ; by pores
and effluences, 229-33. See also Birth; Love, forming an organism; Proportion
Monsters, 4 9 - 5 3 , 208, 212-15, 2 9 5
See also Sky; Sphere, circumference of Pain, 193, 234-35 Painting. See Color Pandora, 28036 Pantheia, 12 Parmenides, 85, 158, 178, 183, 191, 262, 286, 293; chronology of, 3 m , 4 ; com pared with E . , 9, 29-30, 32-33, 48, 55,
170-74 passim, 177, 179, 188, 189,268;
Moon, 24, 178, 200, 201, 203-04 Motion: causes of, 24, 32-33; and rest,
42- 45, 183-84; disordered, 185-86,
Medea, 66 Medicine: E.'s expertise in, 9-14, 19-20,

160, 261-63, 2 6 6 - 6 7 ; theory of, 2 6 - 2 7 , 3 6 n 8 i , 38, 194, 221, 230, 231-32, 250-52,
295
197-98, 211, 212, 237; personiBed,

281-82
7 . 2 7 4 - 7 6 , 284, 2 9 2 ;
brevity of, 155, 290; best forms of, 179, 255, 266, 269, 289, 290-92; primitive forms of, 217-18; hard way of, 274-75, 2 77> 2 7 9 ; s u l as, 288 Light: refraction of, 201, 202 ; of sun and moon, 201-04; of lantern and eye, 2 4 0 43; in water, 244; and knowledge, 252 Like to like: as natural movement of separate elements, 30, 44, 48, 197-99, 217, 240, 275; Strife and, 40, 54, 197, 227, 275; in perception and thought, 40,
7173, 76, 163, 2 0 1 , 233-36, 260; of
Megara, 16 Melissus, 4, 85, 172, 174 Memory: of former lives, 69, 75, 257, 27576, 2 78 ; and desire, 218 Men: present compared with past, 47, 54,
2 8 2 - 8 4 , 2 8 7 ; generation of, 49, 5 1 - 5 4 , '76, 194-95. ' 9 9 .
2
8 , 2 1 5 - ' 7 . 2 8 8 , 283;
Mules, 231, 295-96 Musaeus, 86 Muse: prayer to, 83, 157-58, 159, 161,271; epithets of, 158, 159; chariot of, 158; assurances of, 163, 181 Music, 11, 257 Mussels, 227 Mysteries, 258. See also Ritual Myth, 18, 22, 52, 60, 69, 213-15, 2 7 1 ; in
Plato, 6 8 - 6 9 , 191, 214, 216. Seealso
on perception and thought, 72, 73064, 234, 235, 243, 252, 260; and the light of the moon, 203 ; as the wise man, 256 Pausanias, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 160, 267;
addressed in the Physics, 75-76, 79, 156,
thought in, 72-73, 250-53, 255-56,
159-61, 169, 2 7 1 ; advice and encourage ment to, 157, 258-63, 292 Peisianax, 15, 16
Pepsis, 3 6 n 8 i , 221, 226
260-61, 286 ; limitations of thought in,

156-58, 176-77, 199-200, 260, 267-69, 271, 285-86
Monsters Nails, 9, 210 Necessity, 52, 5g, 68, 272, 277. See also Ananke; Oath Neikos. See Strife
Nestis, 23, 165-66, 208-10, 226
Perception, 23, 40, 47, 48, 79, 194; by pores

and effluences, 9, 71054, 229-30, 233; and thought, 71-73, 162, 170, 233-37,
movement of fire, 52, 198, 200, 215-17; in pleasure, 193, 234-35 Limbs: separate, 46, 49-52, 5 4 n t 7 0 , 206, 211-12; tearing apart of, 60, 70, 283; of the universe, igt, 208; in the body,
I94~95' 2 5 5 " 5 6 ;
substance of, 219
Linen, 232, 240-41 Lions, 291 Liver, 231-32, 297 Logos, 159, 164, 209
Love, 3 0 - 3 4 , 4 9 - 5 6 passim, 5 9 - 6 0 , 192-93,
Menstruation, 219 Metaphors: glue, 39, 210 ; road, 156, 162, 253; chariot, 158; water, 158, 180, 206; constraint, 188; army, 191, 207-08, 247; seashore, 195-96; sweat, 205; plant shoots, 211,215-16, 296; field, 218, 279; putrefaction, 221, 226; rivets, 222, 239; pottery, 223; verbal, 2 3 1 ; harbor, 237; seal, 272; tunic, 277, 298; cave, 280; fire, 284; from species, 288, 290. See also Analogy; Similes Method of exposition, 184-85, 194-95,
205-06
Night, 28, 201, 204, 216 ; seeing by, 240,

242
206-08; forming an organism, 24, 38-39,

53, 198, 209-10, 221-23,
22
7 - 2 8 , 237-38,
297 ; and the sphere, 4 1 , 48, 63, 70, 189-
Meton, 6 Milk, 221, 222 Mind, holy, 71-76 passim, 192, 253-54,
Nostrils, 37, 162, 245-50. See also Respira tion Nourishment, 9, 79, 224, 231, 235, 297 Nous: apprehending Love, 33, 162, 167, 170; and understanding, 157, 162-63; apprehending god, 162, 170,266, 268; careless, 285-86. See also Thought; Wisdom Oath, 65-66, 190-91, 2 9 1 ; by Styx, 28; of
253; and blood, 163, 243, 252; of like by like, 217, 233-34. $ee Lo Senses Perjury, 65-66, 67, 69, 70, 273. See also Oath Persephone, 166, 271 Person (grammatical): second singular, 79. 262; second plural, 8 1 , 267 Pessimism, 277-80, 286, 290. See also Hesiod, pessimism of Philia, Philotes. See Love Philistion, 11, 26, 160 Phronesis. See Thought
Physics ( ): as title, 20, 8 5 - 8 6 ;
number of books in, 20-21

Physis, 85-86, I 75, 219, 277, 294 Pislis, 161-62, 163, 253, 267
I N D E X
IU E T R R U
362 Reincarnation. See Daimon; Life, forms of; .Myth Repetition, 21, 181, 184-85, 187, 207
Reproduction, 53, 80, 214, 218-20 Respiration, g, 13, 79, 244-48, 249-51
363 35-36, 4 1 , 48, so, 181-84; a

s
I N D E X
X O M 1 X U
E T RRU
Place, 30, 173 See also Empty place Plague, 12, 17 Plants, 196, 225, 226; in time of increasing Love, 51, 214; status of, 61, 6 3 ; perception and thought in, 73, 258, 2 6 r ; respect
god, 3 1 , 48,
55, 60, 70, 254-55; persisting, 55, 274;

circumference of, 55-56, 74-76, 2 0 7 - 0 8 ;
for, 86, 196 Pleasure, 234-35 Plenum, 172, 173-74 Poles, inclination of, 24 Politics: E.'s role in, 3, 7-9, 16, 17; works on, 17, 18. See also Leader Pollution, 67, 272-73 Pomegranates, 224, 225
Pores, 5, g, 14067, 7g, 194, 224, 2 3 1 ; and
passim
Responsibility, 6 6 - 6 g , 272-75, 286
perfect mixture of, 62, 174, 238. See also Love: Mind, holy Spine, 214, 296 Stars, 178
Strife, 30-34, 41-48, 53-56, 5 9 - 6 0 , 174, 186-87, 192-96, 2 0 6 - 0 8 ; and separation, 36, 40, 4 1 , 43-45, 7 , 168, 169-70, 174,
Rest: earth at, 43 ; stage of, 43-45, 183-84, 186; god at, 188; personified, 281 Rhetoric, 5 15, 8 - 9 , Ritual, 8 1 , 286-88, 290 ; language of, 158,
259
Wisdom "Thousand," the, 8 Thrasydaeus, 3, 7 Thurii, 3, 17 Time: of rest and motion, 42-45, 184, 187: continuous, 173, 174 ; tenses for, 179; cyclical, 181-84, 190; exchange of, 1 9 1 : and the individual, 260; and the daimon,
274, 2 7 7
178, 182; and present world, 49, 51, 16869, 192. 197-98, 2 7 8 - 8 1 , 286; and whole-
Roots. See Elements Sacrifice, 15, 282-83; bloodless, 6, 14, 70; animal, 286-88, 290. See also Blood, shedding of; Ritual Salt, 24, 205, 226 Sea, 23, 28, 66, 186, 192 ; as name for water, 2 3> 1 77; and the daimon, 58, 63, 274-76; separated from earth, 196-97, 205; creatures of, 227 Seasons, 27, 223-25 passim, 274 Seed, 52, 2 1 4 , 2 1 6 - 1 7 , 2 1 9 , 2 2 2 Selinus. 12, 15, 16 Sensation, sense perception. See Perception
Senses, 29-30, 155-57, 161-63, 2 5 3 - See
respiration, 14067, 244-48, 252; universal, 754, 2 2 9 - 3 0 ; senses as, 162-63;
and vision, 242-43 ; and smell, 250 ; and hearing, 296. See also Effluences; Perception Poseidon, 23, 282, 285
Powers (dynameis), 26, 231-32, 258
nature forms, 53-54, 217; trust in, 63, 65, 68, 70, 75, 275; destructive, 63, 174, 190, 255, 286, 290, 294; and the daimons, 64, 70, 74-75, 272, 275; cause of enmity, 64,
70. 169-70, 193-94; and the sphere, 64,
Titan, 196-97 Tongue, 53, 157, 162, 210, 238 Touch, 156, 233, 253 Trees, 25, 47, 199, 216. 223-25, 289, 298 Tritotis, 227 Truth: criterion of, 155; attainment of,
156-57, 2 1 6 , 2 5 8 - 6 1 , 269; distrust of.
189, 190-92, 254, 273: cause of generation. 190. 196, 215, 279; perception of,
2 3 3 - 3 4 ; alliance with, 286-88. See also
163, 267, 268: personified, 281. See also Wisdom Turtles, 227 Vision. See Eye Voice, 217-18, 226 Void. See Empty place Volcano. 27, 199. See also Etna Water, 22-29 passim. 371191, 56. 279, 294: terms for. 23, 58, I 76; and mixtures, 39. 22 1. 222, 226, 231 ; position of, 44-35, 186; and whole-nature forms, 52, 216-1 7;
in compounds, 209-10, 223, 2 3 7 - 3 8 ; in
Like to like; Love; Separation Styx, 28. 65, 274

Sun, 23, 24, 27, 48. 65-66. 192. 244, 281,
Pregnancy, 10, 221, 295 Prohibitions: against bloodshed, 62-63, 86, 238, 272-73, 282-85; against meat eating, 69-71, 271, 284-87 passim; against bay leaves, 81, 288-89; against beans, 81, 289 Prophet: E . as, 10, 11, 59, 69, 264, 266-67, 291 ; wisdom of the, 257-58; highest life as, 291 Proportion of elements: in bone, 9, 209-10;
in compounds, 14067, 30, 75, 193-94,
285; as name for fire, 23, 177; account

of, 26, 35, 196-97, 2 0 0 - 0 5 ; and the
also Ear; Eye; Nostrils Separation, 34-37 passim; of elements at death, 141167,62. 176, 195-96; of elements by Strife, 31-33. 185-86, 194:111
daimon, 58, 63. 274-75; not perceptible, 185, [87, 2 16; and salt, 205 Survival, of thefittest,52, 54. 213-14 Sweat, 9, 205 Syracuse. 3113, 4, 7, 16 Taboos. See Prohibitions Tartarus, 28, 199 Taste, 162, 233 Telauges, 5, 6, 15. 19 Teleology, 52, 214 Themis. 158, 177 Thcron, 7 Thneta: made of elements, 22, 24, 31-32, 38, 175, 192-93, 195, 221. 274; as work of Love, 38. 51. 52, 208, 212, 223; in painting, 38-39, 180; generation and
destruction of, 4 1 , 45. 55-56, 167-69,
7. 2 7 3 ; in tongue and hand, 53, 210, 238; in blood, 62, 237-38, 254; and thought, 72, 254, 2 72 ; in trees, 224-25; in eyes, 242. See also Love, forming an organism; Sphere Psyche. See Daimon; Soul
21
cosmogony, 40, 186, 197-98. 207; of the constituenis of thought, 260: of the
daimons, 273-74, 277-78, 292. See also
trees, 224-25; and perception, 233-34; and vision. 239. 241-43; and the clepsydra. 247-48. Ser also Elements; Life, forms of: Rain: Sea Whole, the, 61, 156, 183 Whole-nature forms, 25, 49, 51-54, 21518,
227
Punishment, 6 4 - 6 5 , 6 6 - 6 9 . See also Exile
Purification, 66, 8 1 , 86, 290. See also Ritual Putrefaction, 221, 222, 226 Pythagoras: connected with E . , 4, 71126, 11, 19, 202 ; as wise man, 256-58 Pythagoreanism, 14,86, 161, 183, 259, 262; and colors, 180; and proportion, 209; and perception, 233; and vision, 243; and reincarnation, 275 ; and beans, 289; and silence, 293; and numbers, 295. See also Oath Rain, 23, 27, 66, 178, 204-05, 237, 294 Rainbow, 204-05
Like to like; Strife, and separation Similes: baker, 18, 210: painter, 38-39, 179-80; chariot, 203 ;figjuice, 222; dye, 232 ; lantern, 240-43 ; clepsydra, 244-48; trumpet, 296. See also Metaphor Sinews, 9, 2to Skepticism, 155 Skin, 245-46, 250 Sky, 23, 28, 201
Sleep, 9, 13, 25
Wind, 1-12, 28. 261-62 Wine. 40, 226, 231, 282 Wisdom. 157, 161, 194; human. 161, 235
36; increase of, 256-57, 2 5 8 - 6 1 , 269 Wise man. 156-57, 161-62, 170, 189, 252,
255-58,
26g, 271
Smell. See Nostrils Socrates, 4 Soul: and mortallife, 68, 270, 273-74; ' n the elements, 71 n54, 72 ; and thought, 74, 76, 271-72; and blood, 2 5 1 ; as life, 288. See also Daimon Space. See Empty place Sphere, 187-92 ; as unity of all things, 31,
181-84, 272 ; daimons as, 59, 63, 69, 73, 274. 279: gods as, 60-61 ; in the 'Timaeus, 68. See also Life, forms of; Proportion Thought, 71-76 passim, 83, 235-37, 255-61 passim, 267-68, 272 ; universal, 6 1 , 234,
236-37, 251, 2 6 1 : blood and, 62, 237-38.
250-52, 288; blunted, 156, 260, 268, 286; highest, 207, 233, 254, 260-61, 266. See also Daimon; Mind, holy; Perception;
Wizardry. 10-14 passim Womb. 13, 25, 217. 238, 298: sex determination in, 9,218-20 Women, 9, 51, 54, 215, 218 Words, 258-60, 267, 293 World, present. 44-47, 49, 208; formation of. 24, 34, 47, 56, 76, 196-200; Strife in, 63, 194. 279-80; generation and destruction of, 167-69; character of, 278-82
I N D E X
I U E T
R E R U M
Xanthos, 265
Xenophanes, 3m 22, 28-29, 6> '99> 254 Zeno, 3 m , 4 , 8 i n 2 3 Zeus, 23, 33, 66, 282-83, 2 9 7
fire, 888, 23, 6 0 , 165-66
a s
name for

Wright MR - Empedocles The Extant Fragments - 1981 - Searchable PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wright MR - Empedocles The Extant Fragments - 1981 - Searchable PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMPEDOCLES: T H E E X T A N T FRAGMENTS

EDITED, W I T H AN INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, CONCORDANCE, BY

HAVEN AND LONDON

T h e P l a n of the Physics <Monsters and M e n

4. T h e A l l o c a t i o n o f the F r a g m e n t s 5. T h e T i t l e s o f the Poems \ 6. C o n c o r d a n c e of the O r d e r i n g o f the F r a g m e n t s

TE/T 7. (fragments 1101)

TRANSLATION 10. 1 1. 12. Physics Katharmoi Addenda

153 155 264 293

Bibliography Index Fontium Index Verborum Index Locorum I n d e x N o m i n u m et R e r u m

31' 3!9 347 357

1. Life and Writings

E m p e d o c l e s ' dates are u n c e r t a i n . Apollodorus sets his floruit i n the

agoras. 4 I f the date of A n a x a g o r a s ' b i r t h is accepted as c a . 500 B . C . , 5 then 495-49

possible range for that of E m p e d o c l e s . A n d this i n t u r n agrees the A t h e n i a n s ( i n 4 1 5 B . C . ) , as some suppose,

984311; Theophrastus ap. Simplicius in Phys. 25.19.

9. Plato Parmenides 127b.

testimony, therefore, it m a y be c o n c l u d e d that E m p e d o c l e s ' dates a r e approximately 494-434 B . C .

E m p e d o c l e s w a s a native o f A c r a g a s , son o f M e t o n and

8 c l - E - A. Freeman The History of Sicily

8 a n d this is elaborated i n X a n t h u s to a refusal

D . L . 8.72. For the epigram cf.

37. F r s . 8 8 ( 8 4 ) , 9 ' ( ) . 4 8 ( 9 6 ) > 5 7 ( 6 5 ) . 5 8 ( 7 ) ; and cf. Aristotle Part. An. 6 4 8 3 2 5 - 3 1 ;

40. Aetius 5.18. .

43 Suda s.v. introduces fr. 203d of Eros, definitions in Suda s.v. .

Empedocles fr. 101(11 i).g.

n. 2; A. H . Lloyd, "The Coin Types of Selinus and the Legend of Empedocles," NC

those w h o c l a i m to eyre the sick

of this he leaped into the fire.71 F r o m the second century B . C .

the leap into E t n a superseded a l l other accounts o f E m p e d o c l e s '

Cf. Empedocles frs. 107(115), 118(128), 129(143).

Jouanna, "Presence d'E. dans la Collection Hippocratique," AGB

1961, pp. 452-63.

the authority o f Aristotle, Diogenes states that E m p e d o c l e s political works, a , a n d a

H e adds that H i e r o n y m u s c l a i m e d to have met w i t h forty-

w i t h the exception of the excellent m a n u s c r i p t w h i c h

P l i n y states that E m p e d o c l e s a n d H i p p o c fires;96 this too suggests that

D K 31 B156 from D . L . 8 . 6 1 , Anth. Gr. 7.508.

Olympiodorus Mete. f r - 49(34) 86. D . L . 8.57.

Empedocles fr. 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 4 ) and the commentary on

21 T h r e e books for the Physics first and Katharmoi

is supported b y Tzetzes, w h o quotes from the

w i t h the Katharmoi of the Physics,

thousand lines long. Diogenes or his source is probably

T h e o n S m y r n a e u s give fragments that they say are from the

H i p p o l y t u s lists part o f the subject matter of such a w o r k . 1 0 2 T h a ^

p. 148, F . G . A . Mullach Fragmenta

Tzetzes ex. It. 53.20; fr. 97(134) from

fragment is published by . Hunger: "Palimpsest-Fragmente aus Herodians '

Terms used by Empedocles for the four Fragment

fire * " () "

dir "* , * ()* , '

1 9 / 2 1 ( 2 7 ) . 1-2 31(37)" 4 8 ( 9 6 ) . 1-3 6 2 ( 7 3 ) . 1-2

Basic to E m p e d o c l e s ' philosophy

3(54)1 33(39)-" 84(85)." 88(84). 7 . 9 - I O

"3(9)-' 64(78). 2 69(76). 3 91(100). 5,7,18,24 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 11,15,21 91(100). 12,18 9 1 ( 1 0 0 ) . 13

T h e terminology is set out i n the table below.

. Aristotle GC 3 1 5 3 1 0 - 1 1 ; Simplicius in Phys. 159.10-12, and cf. in Phys. 32.3-4.

2. Menander Rhetor 1.2.2, 5.2 ( D K 31 A 2 3 ) , Ammonius in Int. 249. 1-21. 22

Cf. fr. 5(3) 5-8.

5. Cf.fr. 25(22). 1-3

[Plut.] Strom. 2 ( D K 12 A 1 0 ) ; cf. Aristotle Phys. 187320, Simplicius in Phys. 2 4 . 1 7 -

27. Cf. M . Wellmann Die Fragmente der Sikelischen Arzte,

32. Homer I I . 15.187-93,