'Roots'

Author(s): James Longrigg

Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1967), pp. 1-4
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/709575
Accessed: 03-05-2016 15:47 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press, The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to The Classical Review

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 03 May 2016 15:47:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Classical Review
NEW SERIES VOLUME XVII NO.I
(VOLUME LXXXI OF THE CONTINUOUS SERIES)

March z967

'ROOTS'

THERE is good evidence that Empedocles conceived of his 'roots' or elements

as being made up of minute discrete particles. Aetius, for example, in two
passages testifies to this belief, viz. i. 13. I:

'EEEOKhA ? r 5 7 v 7 E''i TT -pwv - oTXoEwV Opav'uja'ra ta acraXcra olovEl

o7ocXECaL 7Tpo TWv UrTOXElWv dCLOtzLEopq,

and i. 17. 3 (D.-K. 31 A 43):

'E. Kat ,EvOKpa-r?7 EIK , LKPOTE'pWOV OYKOv Td UaOELXocxTxVyaKpwClE, arTEp ETLrV

JA&XtwTa KaL OOVEl UTOLXELT OTOLXELWV.

The word dotoOZEp-q in the first passage asserts that the particles of each element
are qualitatively identical with one another and with the element as a whole.

as According
a result of to Empedocles,
the mixture ofthen, every individual
the elements. He seemsOvw-qrv
to have comes intoofbeing
conceived mix-
ture as a process of mechanical aggregation resulting in a compound whose
ingredients are imperceptibly small particles of the constituent elements which
lie side by side without any change in their nature. Aristotle clearly recognizes
that this was Empedocles' intention when he likens the element-particles in
a mixture to 'bricks in a wall' (cf. de Generatione et Corruptione B7 334a26 ff.,
D.-K. 3 A 43):
EKE OS TAE yap TErS AOVr WS r T7s ETm 7poTrog; avayK7 7'p a'vVOEaWv Elvat

KaOcL7rEp EK 7TCOWOV Kal Alwov T oXo"S Kal - TrO tz/Ea S E% T-ooTo EIK CTCOtZ/`VWOV t[LEV
EaTW
rvy o 7EKacTTOV.
AACwv ( TO~XECWv, tKaTa cpa E 7Trap' J ~A-avyKqLvwv" ow a~pW Cal
When mixed together, then, the element-particles are individually indistin-
guishable by the senses. The characteristic qualities of each particle, however,
are still existent. It is possible that Aristotle has this concept of mechanical
mixture in mind when he raises the objection that even if our eye can no
longer distinguish the ingredients in a mixture the eye of Lynceus could still
distinguish them and therefore mixture should not be relative to perception
(cf. de Gen. et Corr. 328a 14 ff.). For Empedocles' use of vision as a criterion
cf. fr. 27. 1 (for Anaxagoras' cf. fr. BI).
At de Gen. et Corr. 315 a4 ff., however, Aristotle criticizes Empedocles for
not having consistently regarded his roots as Cd'LErdaflrAa, and he argues that
on occasion the latter conceived of their mixture in a manner akin to a com-
plete fusion:

5'E8ITE1OKAi.g uV OiV 'QOLKEV EvavcWTa ByE Kata 7T T adotEva KaI irpg avlov
4598.1 B

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 03 May 2016 15:47:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
2 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

a, g.S. l pa C , pv ydp o' v~,law EEopoV E ETEpov yWcvEat O v TO-TOCXEoW V OEV,

dAAd TJAAa 7TT'vra EK TO70TV, pa 8'-rav y EI7 Elg cvvyayYq 7Ti. aVraUav 9UV tVL
70TV VElKCOUS, ETOK TO S V09 yLVEaCOat TaAV iKCaUToV. couT Ej ? 'V- TVOS 8iOq O7T

8tabopat~g Tli XWPpoO,'vEWV Kal' E rOEav y'VETro TO /L'v Swop TO 8E 7Tp, KaOGTEp AEyEC
r0V E pV 4"ALov AEVKOV Ka' OEp(LV, 7'V 8' yv ap' Kac aKcA7po'V. caLpovpvwv ov

TovTrwv -r v aSbaopcv (Elad ydp d.b'acpEat'yEvoELEvaC' yE) 8-jAov c avdyK7a ywvKEOaa

Ka y1v E~ SaroS Kal c8 1p E6K y)JE, CLOLWSK Ka iC-rv aAXwv EKaarov, o T dOE LdvOVl
adAA. Ka vvh, pLE-TaJaAAovTa -TOL lTaOEw. oV & M8' E! 0)EprlKE 8vvaf'pvEa rpo r-

ETC ovra E' qV TO rTav. asraAov 8E Kaa iroEpovapX' pxv av Ov ETEOV E V 1) - mTOAAa,
hatyw t8r7p roKa yV Kal r d inv'toa ovjeWvt. ~ a ydp A7 a gKELaL, fl 0 /TLETa-
,%AWov-a &dc T7-V IVl'77UWV ylvoyTat Y7_7 Kal ITV-p, TO' El' (rTOXEL'O j. 8ETOTO /EI) EK

caUVoraE'Ec ETvc avwowlTov EKEWMV, EKEvca 8'n EK 8taAVce e, rTOCXEw8Es TEpa

EKEWa Ka ,rpoTEpa T7Tv C-vaVW.
Here Aristotle contends that although Empedocles denied that the roots are
generated or destroyed, their aggregation into one by Love entails their virtual
destruction. He takes the phrase av'EpXLE" Ek El' g aav-a (fr. 17. 7) as meaning
that the roots are merged into an essential unity and argues as follows: 'The
characteristic 8taoopal of the roots come into existence when Strife breaks
up the One and the sun becomes visibly white and hot and the earth heavy
and hard (cf. fr. 21). Then since these 8taqOpal come into existence, i.e.
become attached to the roots, they can also be removed from them, i.e. the
roots have no permanent characteristics. They may be said to be generated
from one another by a change of their t&aoopal, or indeed to be generated
from and destroyed into the One.'
Aristotle's criticism of Empedocles for this inconsistency is reproduced in
more emphatic and dogmatic terms by Philoponus. He maintains that the
Sphere under Love is cwroos' and &8tocdopos and that none of the roots pre-
serves its identity (cf. de Gen. et Corr. 19. 3 Vitelli; D.-K. 31 A 41):

7rpo1, /1 ydp 7d yp &awodEla Evaavla AyE' avapwvv T7v aAAOlwa)C r'apy77 o..aav,
7TrpOS, Eav~o' 8 8t0Tt AmYEL Tl atLE7a/9A17Ta Td c TTOXEia, Kat avTa /La ' /L77 yElvUOat
Ee &aAXAi'A oTd Se'Aa EIC TOVTO)V. ITaA0Ll 8E'!77U T1 U S .9PtAtas KpaTOvO7S- Ta Tal'Ta
El' yWEUO61t Kat TO'v Eqatpov CLITOTEAEZ-l' aITOtOl lflrapXOl'Ta, WS09 77KETL 717TE T77l' TO
?rrvpos g pqTel aWl T WO'fS a(wSEUEOat E'v avTc t8LOT77Ta, a cLTOflaAOlTog EKaUTov
TOV 0TOCXEOl TO OOCOELOVO ETOOS.

Cherniss, whose aim is to demonstrate the unreliability of Aristotle's treatment

of the Pre-Socratics, believes that Aristotle's present criticism is simply the
result of his having read back into Empedocles' thought his own theory of
prime matter.' But, while it may be agreed that Aristotle's treatment of his
predecessors tends to be coloured by his own philosophical beliefs (he is, after
all, only incidentally an historian of philosophy) and that as a result he often
misrepresents their theories, he is not so disingenuous as Cherniss would here
imply. Cherniss fails to consider that Aristotle might in fact be making a valid
philosophical point. For if the Sphere under Love is to be viewed as a complete

SCf. Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy (Baltimore, 1935), P. 121 (cf., too, p. 96,
n. 405; P 36, n. 15, and pp. 5o-5I).

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 03 May 2016 15:47:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 3

blending Aristotle would then have some justification for drawing the com-
parison between Love and his own prime matter.
If we are not prepared to accept that Aristotle is as disingenuous as Cherniss
would imply, we must face the question how it is that in the same treatise
Aristotle can on the one occasion accept that Empedocles' elements are pre-
served in a mixture (cf. de Gen. et Corr. 334a26 ff.) and on the other criticize
him for not having consistently conceived them as dLEidflA7rpa (cf. 315 a4 iff).
The answer is surely that while Aristotle in the first passage quoted has re-
cognized Empedocles' intention he nevertheless in the second passage feels
that he has detected an inconsistency in Empedocles' thought and criticizes
him for it accordingly. We must now consider whether Aristotle is justified
in levelling this charge at Empedocles.
Empedocles' assertion that the sun is not distinguished in the Sphairos and
that all things come together into one seems to support Aristotle's criticism
that Empedocles did not consistently treat his elements as elemental. If Aris-
totle's charge is valid then Empedocles is guilty of an extremely serious error
and there arises the paradoxical situation that the very originator of the concept
of an element because of the looseness of his thinking failed to conceive of his
own elements consistently as elemental.' But, although Empedocles does not
always work out fully and consistently the implications of his arguments and
Clara Millerd's remark that 'the important thing in understanding him is to
stop thinking at the right moment'2 has a good deal of force, further reflection
suggests that, in this instance at least, Empedocles may not be guilty of the
charge which Aristotle makes against him.
The basis for Aristotle's criticism is clearly frs. 17 and 27. In the first of
these fragments Aristotle, as we have already seen, interprets avvEpXO'dLE' ELs
v Jrravra as implying that the elements are combined into an essential unity.
But Empedocles, it should be noted, does not say that -rd a'roxaLa ylyvuETrat ev;
he says that they 'all come together into one' which more naturally suggests
that the single whole envisaged by Empedocles is nevertheless a whole of parts
(cf. fr. 26. 5, which is a repetition of this line with a slight variant, CrvvEpXO'LEV'
ELS eva Koadpov). Aristotle's second point is the more important of the two. In
fr. 27 Empedocles asserts that neither sun nor earth nor sea is distinguishable
in the Sphere. Aristotle infers from this statement that the Scauopal of fire
and earth come into existence and that, therefore, by implication, the elements
themselves come into existence. He thereupon equates the complete union
under Love with his own prime matter and consequently points out that
The begining of fr. 26 seems at first ai?erat. These verbs do not mean 'perish'
sight to support this view: or 'decline' and 'come into being'; they
Ev ~ ,pec KpatcEOU 7rcEpL7rAOtrOvOLO KKKAOLO, mean 'grow smaller' and 'grow larger'. The
K' OBlvet Ecs ' AAAa Kal a taiac' ev 'EpEL implication of these verses is that, although
the sum total of each element as well as its
Simplicius believes (in Phys. 16o. 14 Diels) characteristics is constant, at any particular
that Empedocles in these lines is asserting part of the cosmos the elements grow as
the mutual transformation of the elements, particles of the same element come together
and modern scholars have frequently implied (cf. 37) and diminish as they are separated
this in their translations. W. J. Verdenius, from their own kind and mingle with the
however, ('Notes on the Presocratics', other elements.
Mnemosyne, iv. i (1948), pp. I2 ff. cited by 2 On the Interpretation of Empedocles (Diss.
Guthrie, History of Greek Philosophy, ii, Chicago), 90o8, p. 21 (cited by Guthrie,
p. 146) has pointed out that such translation ii, p. 127, n. I).
involves the mistranslation of q06lvet and

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 03 May 2016 15:47:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 4 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

Empedocles is both a Monist and a Pluralist: a Monist in that he holds the

One to be the substratum from which the elements come to be; a Pluralist
in that he considers the One to come to be through a process of composition
due to the coming together of the Many.
But Empedocles, as is well known, failed to evolve a strict technical ter-
minology.' He appeals to the sun visible in the heavens as the most obvious
manifestation of the element fire and frequently uses 'sun' as a synonym for this
element. (In fact, ~'Atos appears in the fragments as a term for the element
almost as frequently as 7np itself.) Aristotle, too, takes sun as synonymous with
fire, and it is not surprising that when Empedocles in fr. 27 declares that the
sun is not distinguished in the Sphairos he should assume that the latter meant
that fire was not then characterized by its &abopat and that it acquired these
characteristics at a later stage in the cycle. He thereupon infers that fire itself
does not exist in the Sphere but comes into being later. But when Empedocles
speaks of the sun as not yet distinguished by its e&abopal, it seems more probable
that he is referring to the sun itself rather than to the element fire which it
elsewhere represents. He would then be looking forward to a later stage in
the cosmogony (described perhaps in fr. 38 ?)z when the Sta opal of the sun
come into being and it then becomes apparent. If this is the case there is then
no inconsistency. For, whereas Empedocles cannot consistently speak of the
Stabopal of fire coming into being, there is no reason why he should not speak of
the sun's coming into being with its distinguishing characteristics as a result
of the aggregation of changeless particles of fire which were previously in-
distinguishable owing to the uniformity of the mixture of the elements under
Love. This idea of an undifferentiated unity preceding cosmological differen-
tiation is shared by Empedocles with Anaxagoras3 and the latter explicitly
says of his pre-cosmic mixture that oV'Ev 'v7Aov 'v (fr. BI). He is, it may be
noted, more cautious than Empedocles and instead of describing his original
state of affairs as vy, he employs the less misleading substitution duov r~rdvi-a
XP aLa-ra -v.
University of Durham JAMES LONGRIGG

I He refers to his elements indiscriminately
by a variety of names. Fire, for example, in
addition to its mythological representation
is referred to as 'Sun' (both 7Atos- and
7AEKTowJp) and 'flame' (kAd6S), water by 'rain'
(6,flpoS) and 'sea' (both Oc4Aaaaa and Irdv0'o),
air as aLOWqp, o0pavs&, and vEv^a, and earth
as yata, xBOWv, and ala.
2 The received text of Clement, Strom.
v. 48 actually mentions the sun but the
reading is clearly corrupt. Diels-Kranz,
adopting the suggestion of H. Weil (who cites
B. 23. Io) i~' v 8VA ' y&vovro for manuscript
iE dv 841 eyEvovro, read:
The text as it now stands suggests that the
formation of the sun is under discussion.
But C. H. Kahn, developing the suggestion
of Diels for the first verse and following
Friedliinder in keeping the manuscript
reading of the second, reads:
aE S'7ye roL A E' w - r'E 7Tptra Ka'L 7ALKa &pOXvV
E6 87v dydeVov7ro0 v v d(Eop&LEv J7aVravra
(Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cos-
mology (New York, I96o), p. 125, n. 1), which
certainly makes good sense.
3 For the basic idea they are probably
both indebted to Anaximander.

S 3 ayE 1' L -'oto 'orpo' -~Atov JpXV'

le 1v &^A' E 'y4ovi-o -d vv^v E'aropW-itcv Jirrav-ra.

This content downloaded from 139.184.14.159 on Tue, 03 May 2016 15:47:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms