APPENDIX

RECONSTRUCTION
OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM

Apostolos Pierris


INTRODUCTION

The proposed reconstruction presents the poem in two books. The

K·ı·ÚÌÔ› are considered to be ther Prooemium of the work, figuring
as first part of Book Α΄. (It is perhaps significant that the number of
verses in the reconstruction preceding B17.1 = v. 233 Martin-
Primavesi is 207. In this view therefore there are missing some 26
verses from the part of the work going before the revelation of the
doctrine of cosmic cyclicity).
The general structure of the poem, as well as subdivisions into
sections of each book, are indicated in corresponding chapter
headings.
The main doctrine of the work, represented in its basic
articulation, consists in a strict, double-phased Cosmic Cycle. The
physical basis of this doctrine is analysed in my paper. Its abstract
statement in B17.1-13 esp. vv. 1-5 is binding [1]. The second book of
the poem unravels the details of the World’s cyclic process from
™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜ to ™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜ via the two succeeding phases of Ascending
NÂÖÎÔ˜ and Ascending ºÈÏ›·. As limiting condition between these
two phases in that process lies the state of Strife’s total supremacy. We
are now rapidly approaching this state [2]. The two phases of the
Cosmic Cycle are homologous [3], but in the reverse order [4].
Conformably to Aristotle’s testimony there is no cosmogony
reported in the phase of Ascending Friendship [5]. But there are
accounts of the two respective zoogonies, one starting with the ÔéÏÔ-
Ê˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ, the other with monstrosities (single members and then
misfits) [6].
The few testimonies as to the location of particular fragments in
the body of the poem are observed. For instance the account of the
constitution of bones (B96) is put in the section explaining the general
theory of mixture (Nos. 67-75) rather than in the part detailing the
theory of the constitution of organic tissues, parts and organs (Book
IV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

Β΄, Nos. 136-155), because of Simplicius’ specific ascription of it to

the first book (In Phys. 300.19 sqq.). Similarly, views at to foetal
development (B153a) have to be included in the Prooemium =
K·ı·ÚÌÔ› on similar grounds. We should in any case bear always in
mind that Empedocles indulged in repetitions of, and variations on,
the same theme or formulaic expression (adding further dimensions as
he was going along) both for stylistic reasons and for such of
substance. One example is the restatement of the crucial doctrine of
the double-phased cosmic cyclicity in B26 (= No. 66) after B17 (= No.
60). Another pivotal case is a(ii) 18-19 (in No. 60) and B35.3-4 (in
No. 129). In particular, this last variation helps us decisively to
correctly understand the mechanics of the cosmic cyclicity, as I have
argued in my paper. The method of repetition and its rationale are
explicitly expressed by Empedocles himself, B25 (= No. 64) and B24
(= No. 65) [7].

NOTES

[1] An intended discussion at the concluding session in the Symposium of the

overall philosophical and historical question of strict or loose cyclicity in the
Empedoclean Κόσμος, concentrated instead chiefly on the interpretation of
the five beginning verses of B17. Here is the entire passage:

B 17.1 ‰›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆØ ÙÔÙb ÌbÓ ÁaÚ íÓ ËéÍ‹ıË ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È

âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ, ÙÔÙb ‰’ ·s ‰È¤Ê˘ ϤÔÓ’ âÍ ëÓe˜ ÂrÓ·È.
‰ÔÈc ‰b ıÓËÙáÓ Á¤ÓÂÛȘ, ‰ÔÈc ‰’ àfiÏÂȄȘØ
ÙcÓ ÌbÓ ÁaÚ ¿ÓÙˆÓ Û‡ÓÔ‰Ô˜ Ù›ÎÙÂÈ Ù’ çϤÎÂÈ ÙÂ,
ì ‰b ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È·Ê˘ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ıÚÂÊıÂÖÛ· ‰È¤ÙË.
ηd Ù·ÜÙ’ àÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ‰È·ÌÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ,
ôÏÏÔÙ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ Âå˜ íÓ ±·ÓÙ·,
ôÏÏÔÙ ‰’ ·s ‰›¯’ ≤ηÛÙ· ÊÔÚ‡ÌÂÓ· N›ÎÂÔ˜ ö¯ıÂÈ.
<Ô≈Ùˆ˜ wF ÌbÓ íÓ âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ ÌÂÌ¿ıËΠʇÂÛı·È>
10. ä‰b ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È·Ê‡ÓÙÔ˜ ëÓe˜ ϤÔÓ’ âÎÙÂϤıÔ˘ÛÈ,
ÙFÉ ÌbÓ Á›ÁÓÔÓÙ·› Ù ηd Ôû ÛÊÈÛÈÓ öÌ‰Ԙ ·åÒÓØ
wF ‰b ‰È·ÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ‰È·ÌÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ,
Ù·‡ÙFË ‰’ ·åbÓ ö·ÛÈÓ àΛÓËÙÔÈ Î·Ùa ·ÎÏÔÓ.
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM V

àÏÏ’ ôÁ ̇ıˆÓ ÎÏÜıÈØ Ì¿ıË Á¿Ú ÙÔÈ ÊÚ¤Ó·˜ ·ûÍÂÈØ

ó˜ ÁaÚ Î·d ÚdÓ öÂÈ· ÈÊ·‡ÛÎˆÓ ›ڷٷ ̇ıˆÓ,
‰›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆØ ÙÔÙb ÌbÓ ÁaÚ íÓ ËéÍ‹ıË ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È
âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ, ÙÔÙb ‰’ ·s ‰È¤Ê˘ ϤÔÓ’ âÍ ëÓe˜ ÂrÓ·È,
ÜÚ Î·d ≈‰ˆÚ ηd Á·Ö· ηd ä¤ÚÔ˜ ôÏÂÙÔÓ ≈„Ô˜
NÂÖÎfi˜ Ù’ ÔéÏfiÌÂÓÔÓ ‰›¯· ÙáÓ, àÙ¿Ï·ÓÙÔÓ ê¿ÓÙFË,
20. ηd ºÈÏfiÙ˘ âÓ ÙÔÖÛÈÓ, úÛË ÌÉÎfi˜ Ù Ï¿ÙÔ˜ ÙÂØ
ÙcÓ Ûf Ófiˇˆ ‰¤Ú΢, Ìˉ’ ùÌÌ·ÛÈÓ wÛÔ ÙÂıËÒ˜Ø
≥ÙȘ ηd ıÓËÙÔÖÛÈ ÓÔÌ›˙ÂÙ·È öÌÊ˘ÙÔ˜ ôÚıÚÔȘ,
ÙFÉ Ù ʛϷ ÊÚÔÓ¤Ô˘ÛÈ Î·d ôÚıÌÈ· öÚÁ· ÙÂÏÔÜÛÈ,
°ËıÔÛ‡ÓËÓ Î·Ï¤ÔÓÙ˜ âÒÓ˘ÌÔÓ ä‰’ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙËÓØ
ÙcÓ Ôû ÙȘ ÌÂÙa ÙÔÖÛÈÓ ëÏÈÛÛÔ̤ÓËÓ ‰Â‰¿ËÎÂ
ıÓËÙe˜ àÓ‹ÚØ Ûf ‰’ ôÎԢ ÏfiÁÔ˘ ÛÙfiÏÔÓ ÔéÎ à·ÙËÏfiÓ.

Ù·ÜÙ· ÁaÚ rÛ¿ Ù ¿ÓÙ· ηd ≥ÏÈη Á¤ÓÓ·Ó ö·ÛÈ,

ÙÈÌɘ ‰’ ôÏÏ˘ ôÏÏÔ Ì¤‰ÂÈ, ¿Ú· ‰’ qıÔ˜ ëοÛÙˇˆ,
âÓ ‰b ̤ÚÂÈ ÎÚ·Ù¤Ô˘ÛÈ ÂÚÈÏÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔÈÔ.
30. ηd Úe˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÔûÙ’ ôÚ ÙÈ âÈÁ›ÓÂÙ·È Ô鉒 àÔÏ‹ÁÂÈØ
ÂúÙ ÁaÚ âÊı›ÚÔÓÙÔ ‰È·ÌÂÚ¤˜, ÔéΤْ iÓ qÛ·ÓØ
ÙÔÜÙÔ ‰’ â·˘Í‹ÛÂÈ Ùe ÄÓ Ù› ÎÂ; ηd fiıÂÓ âÏıfiÓ;
FÉ ‰¤ ΠÎäÍ·fiÏÔÈÙÔ, âÂd ÙáÓ‰’ Ôé‰bÓ öÚËÌÔÓ;
àÏÏ’ ·éÙ(a) öÛÙÈÓ Ù·ÜÙ·, ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ ‰b ı¤ÔÓÙ·
Á›ÁÓÂÙ·È ôÏÏÔÙ ôÏÏ· ηd äÓÂÎb˜ ·åbÓ ïÌÔÖ·.

The subject here is the cosmic whole, and not primarily or directly what
happens to individual entities. For the same principles that operate in the
World history at large, govern also each thing’s fate. But when the latter is at
stake, it is made clear by appropriate qualifications. As in B20, where the
unity meant is the oneness of a particular organic body at the acme of its
existence, at which stage displays maximal cohesion; as against its
approaching the limit of its life at the point of its dissolution; the matter
being rendered manifest by the formulation:

ÙÔÜÙÔ ÌbÓ àÓ ‚ÚÔÙ¤ˆÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ àÚȉ›ÎÂÙÔÓ ùÁÎÔÓØ

ôÏÏÔÙ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ Âå˜ íÓ ±·ÓÙ·
Á˘Ö·, Ùa ÛáÌ· ϤÏÔÁ¯Â, ‚›Ô˘ ı·Ï¤ıÔÓÙÔ˜ âÓ àÎÌFÉØ
ôÏÏÔÙ ‰’ ·sÙ ηÎFÉÛÈ ‰È·ÙÌËı¤ÓÙ’ \EÚ›‰ÂÛÛÈ
Ï¿˙ÂÙ·È ôӉȯ’ ≤ηÛÙ· ÂÚdÚÚËÁÌÖÓÈ ‚›ÔÈÔ.
VI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

The volume of mortal members (ùÁÎÔ˜ ‚ÚÔÙ¤ˆÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ) forms the

strongest unity of all parts of the body (Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ· Âå˜ íÓ ±·ÓÙ· Á˘Ö·, Ùa
ÛáÌ· ϤÏÔÁ¯Â), when life is at a pitch and this is due to the operation of
Friendship. Strife (ηÎFÉÛÈ âÚ›‰ÂÛÛÈ) separates (‰È·ÙÌËı¤ÓÙ·) those
members and parts destroying (Ï¿˙ÂÙ·È ôӉȯ’ ≤ηÛÙ·) that unity at the
verge of life (ÂÚd ÚÚËÁÌÖÓÈ ‚›ÔÈÔ).
Contrariwise in B17 we are at the level of what befalls the World as a whole.
The One here leaves nothing beside it, having integrated all existence: íÓ
ËéÍ‹ıË ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È. The talk is of ±·ÓÙ· simpliciter that have come
together into the One (v. 7 and cf. v. 4), not of ±·ÓÙ· Á˘Ö· or anything
similarly qualified. Moreover, what these ±·ÓÙ· are is given in the passage
itself: they are the cosmic elements in their universal role, not as entering into
the constitution of particular things as such. For in vv. 18-20 the ultimate
factors of existence are mentioned and the physical relationship of the two
principles to the four roots is indicated. And in vv. 21-26 a contrast is being
precisely emphasised between the recognition of Aphrodite’s works in the
communicability of human particulars and the total darkness existing in
mortals as to her cosmic function (ºÈÏfiÙ˘) amidst the elements themselves
in their World-role; ÌÂÙa ÙÔÖÛÈÓ in v. 25 answers to âÓ ÙÔÖÛÈÓ (v. 20) referring
to ÜÚ Î·d ≈‰ˆÚ ηd Á·Ö· ηd ä¤ÚÔ˜ ôÏÂÙÔÓ ≈„Ô˜ (v. 18). In fact, the very
expression ä¤ÚÔ˜ ôÏÂÙÔÓ ≈„Ô˜ leaves no doubt as to the cosmic
understanding of the elements in the passage. As does, more poignantly, the
reference to all four roots in the masculine (àΛÓËÙÔÈ v. 13, not àΛÓËÙ·,
despite the various misguided attempts at “correction”), clearly signifying
their divine status as in B6.
The fragment is indeed a prime example of Empedocle’s technique of
revelation. Repetitions with him are used to consolidate doctrines, but also to
further articulate them. (Cf. B24 and B25 for his conscious attitude in this
respect). First (vv. 1-2) there is the universal pendulum between the One and
the Many (ϤÔÓ·). Then (vv. 7-8), it is explained that the Many of that
cosmic alternation is really the All (±·ÓÙ·; cf. ¿ÓÙˆÓ Û‡ÓÔ‰Ô˜ v. 4), and
that the principle and agency of global unification is Friendship while the
one of separation is Strife. At the third reformulation (vv. 14-20) of the same
truth we learn (Ì¿ıË v. 14), that at bottom the initial Many (ϤÔÓ·), the
afterwards All (±·ÓÙ·), are the following four, which turn out to be the
roots. Of the two principles, Friendship is in the elements and their mixtures
being the agency by which elements and mixtures exist in any bulk at all.
Strife on the other hand lies always outside any given volume of an element,
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM VII

or any cohesive mixture, being their delimiting factor: it lies at the superficies
of entities, it is the spirit of closure and borders. Finally, in the last part of the
passage (vv. 27-35), the explanation is given why the six are the only true
beings, the only true factors in World-history, and how in principle they
produce, or rather they become (Á›ÁÓÂÙ·È v. 35), all cosmic variation under
the general law of cyclicity (cf. also vv. 9-13).
Now what is the abstract form and rhythm of that cosmic cyclicity? That is
precisely the content of the double truth enunciated in B17 (‰›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆ v. 1
and v. 16). Empedocles is not using words haphazardly. Our construal must
satisfy the conditions of some crucial and essential duplicity. It turns out that
the duplicity involved is twofold. First, there are the twin movements of
consolidation towards a Universal One and of dispersion from it (vv. 1-2).
Secondly, there is a double becoming of mortal things (ıÓËÙáÓ) and a
double extinction of them (v. 3). Mortal things, the immediate and apparent
subjects of these processes of becoming and perishing, are all mixed
individual things past, present and future in the World. For we know that the
Six real beings are eternal and unalterable, the roots and the principles.
Empedocle’s statement in B35.14:

·r„· ‰b ıÓ‹Ù’ âʇÔÓÙÔ, Ùa ÚdÓ Ì¿ıÔÓ àı¿Ó·Ù’ ÂrÓ·È,

should not confuse us into assuming a blurred or inconsistent division

between mortal and immortal entities. For the division is absolute, and is
dexterously highlighted by Empedocles in the very next line:

˙ˆÚ¿ ÙÂ Ùa ÚdÓ ôÎÚËÙ· etc.

Things unmixed (i.e. the roots and principles) are eternal; things mixed are
mortal. B35 describes the World’s state just after the absolute segragation of
the unmixed elements into their own. At the point of the total sovereignty of
Strife, the elements were aware (Ì¿ıÔÓ) of their full eternity, being each on
its own. Subsequently, they started to enter into mortal combinations and in
this sense were becoming mortal (âʇÔÓÙÔ, something we know is only
apparent; cf. B8; B9). One should be alert to this seeming inconsistency of
things immortal becoming mortal by the very proclamation of the reverse
transfiguration in the statement of Empedocle’s newly achieved divinity in
B112.4: âÁg ‰’ ñÌÖÓ ıÂe˜ ôÌ‚ÚÔÙÔ˜, ÔéΤÙÈ ıÓËÙfi˜ etc. B35 furthermore
makes evident what the θνητά in B17.3 are: namely composite things,
VIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

constituted by mixtures of the elements. It is emphatically reiterated that the

wondrous variegation of cosmic existence stems from variations in the
proportions of mixture of the four roots; B35.16-7:

ÙáÓ ‰¤ Ù ÌÈÛÁÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¯ÂÖÙ’ öıÓ· Ì˘Ú›· ıÓËÙáÓ,

·ÓÙÔ›·È˜ 剤FËÛÈÓ àÚËÚfiÙ·, ı·ÜÌ· 剤Ûı·ÈØ

But what exactly those second duplicities (v. 3) in the becoming and
perishing of mortal entities consist in? This has to be, and is obviously,
explained in vv. 4-5. And it is crystal clear that whatever these duplicities
amount to, there are just two conditions to account for them, namely the
twin movement of the world (as already posited in vv. 1-2) towards the
Universal One (¿ÓÙˆÓ Û‡ÓÔ‰Ô˜ v. 4) and away from it (‰È·-Ê˘ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ v. 5).
Now the fact is that the ultimate cause of mortal things emerging into the
world scene is the same one which effects their disappearing from it. (In
physical terms it is the Cosmic Vortex, as explained in my paper). So that
each of the two proclaimed general becomings of mortal things (‰ÔÈc ‰b
ıÓËÙáÓ Á¤ÓÂÛȘ) corresponds to one of the two announced general
perishings of them. One Á¤ÓÂÛȘ is coupled to one àfiÏÂȄȘ. And the other
Á¤ÓÂÛȘ to the other àfiÏÂȄȘ. Therefore by explaining the two causes of a
double becoming, an explanation of the double perishing of mortal things is
eo ipso given. And thus of the two becomings ÙcÓ Ì¤Ó refers to the former,
and ì ‰¤ to the latter, Á¤ÓÂÛȘ. References that are facilitated by the broader
sense of Á¤ÓÂÛȘ signifying things in the world of becoming. One condition
gives birth and destroys one becoming (or things belonging to one system of
(broader) becoming); the other becoming (or things belonging to the other
system of (broader) becoming) is grown and dispersed by the other
condition. But we have seen what these two conditions in the cosmic process
are. The conclusion is therefore inescapable: one system of becoming (and
perishing) is caused by the movement (consolidation) of the world to the
Universal One; another is engendered by the reverse movement from
(dispersion of ) the One. And there thus exists a nice pattern of
correspondences in B1-5: AΒΓΑΒ, where A and B explain each part of Γ
(Á¤ÓÂÛȘ and àfiÏÂȄȘ).
Despite the intentional dense intricacy of the formulation (with the obvious
play on a duplicity doubled to become a quadruple-phased whole), the
syntax of the phrazing is unambiguous. TcÓ Ì¤Ó has a feminine reference,
obviously one of the two generations mentioned in v. 3 (‰ÔÈc… Á¤ÓÂÛȘ):
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM IX

double is…; / one…/ the other… Similarly for ì ‰¤. Theoretically the
demonstratives could also be taken to refer to the double àfiÏÂȄȘ (the
other feminine around); but it comes to just the same effect. Or, they might
be made to refer to one Á¤ÓÂÛȘ and its corresponding àfiÏÂȄȘ (ÙcÓ Ì¤Ó
then it would be equivalent to Ùa˜ ̤Ӆ); still with no change as to the
doctrinal import of the passage. The meaning is so clear and fitting that one
can try other, fatigued, construals only on extraneous reasons. Which then
will be met on their own real ground.
There reigns, thus, a perfect harmony in the Empedoclean system. The
process from Sphairos to Antisphairos during the phase of ascending Strife
consists of two parts. In the first part the tendency of the elements to
segregate, working under the superior, if continually diminishing, power of
Love, creates increased differentiation-within-wholes and heightened organic
complexity at both the cosmic and the individual level. After the turning
point of a perfect balance between unifying and diversifying forces (at the
equlibration of the respective potencies of Love and Strife), there comes the
second part of this phase, with Strife now in prevailing, and increasing, force:
organic complexity and internal differentiation are now gradually reduced
resulting in simpler forms of existence, till the stage is reached of the absolute
segregation of the ultimate realities in their ineradicable otherness.
In converse homology stands the ensuing process from Antisphairos to
Sphairos. During its first part the tendency towards unification now, under
conditions of prevailing (but decreasing) Strife influence, creates increased
differentiation-within-wholes and heightened organic complexity. After the
midpoint where Love and Strife stand in strict equipoise, the optimal balance
between unification and diversification is disrupted, and existence starts to
assume continually simpler structures with an on-going reduction in organic
complexity, till all reality is integrated in the perfect fusion of the Sphairos.
“Perfect”, so far, that is, as the nature of reality permits. For the existence of
ineradicable differences is precisely the seed of the dissolution of the Perfect
God.

[2] That the present condition of the World lies in the phase of Ascending
NÂÖÎÔ˜ is explicitly testified by Aristotle; de generatione et corruptione,
B7.334a5 sqq.: ±Ì· ‰b ηd ÙeÓ ÎfiÛÌÔÓ ïÌÔ›ˆ˜ ö¯ÂÈÓ ÊËÛdÓ (sc. Empedocles)
â› Ù ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ ÓÜÓ Î·d ÚfiÙÂÚÔÓ âd Ùɘ ºÈÏ›·˜. That the World now
fast approaches the state of Hate’s full mastery is indicated by the enormous
acceleration of the cosmic gyration (A75: at an earlier stage of the phase,
X APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

nearer to the beginning, the world was revolving very slowly, taking ten
contemporary months to effect its diurnal rotation). To the proximity of
Hate’s absolute sway is probably referring d8 (Martin-Primavesi):

[âÍÈÎ]ÓÔ‡ÌÂ[ı· Áa]Ú ÔÏ˘‚ÂÓı[¤· ›ڷْ], ç˝ˆ.

(I propose ›ڷْ instead of the editors suggested ¢ÖÓÔÓ). When the

dynamic focus of the Cosmic Whirl reaches the deep limits of the World, it
reverses direction, the Vortex starts to decelarate, and the process of mixing
up the segregated elements starts anew. That boundary condition is the
moment of Hate’s total supremacy.

[3] Aristotle, de generatione et corruptione, 334a1 sqq. (A42): ±Ì· ‰b ηd ÙeÓ
ÎfiÛÌÔÓ ïÌÔ›ˆ˜ ö¯ÂÈÓ ÊËÛÈÓ â› Ù ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ ÓÜÓ Î·d ÚfiÙÂÚÔÓ âd Ùɘ
ºÈÏ›·˜. \Ed ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ = in the phase of ascending Strife; âd Ùɘ
ºÈÏ›·˜ = in the phase of ascending Love. Obviously, the state of the World
when Love reigns supreme is completely different from its state when Strife is
absolute sovereign. Sphairos (the total fusion of all elements in one whole)
and Anti-sphairos (the total separation of the elements from one another, and
their segregate coacervation in themselves) are, literally, worlds apart: in
between those two extreme conditions of existence lies the cosmos, typically
more or less as we know it excepting its states near the limiting conditions.

[4] Here lies the source of the curious Platonic myth of Cosmic Reversal in
Politikos, 268d-275a. The model is different, but there are common themes
and a shared general logic. The oscillation in the Platonic myth is between a
state of perfect order (when the world has grown harmonious under direct
divine tutelage) and the condition of total chaos (v. esp. 273a-e) inherent in
the material (= spatial) substratum of existence. Naturally, the myth is built
upon the doctrine of Timaeus as to the constitution of the world, but
imports upon it a dynamic aspect of cyclicity. And this must be
Empedoclean. Which also explains how Plutarch could construe the Reign of
NÂÖÎÔ˜ (in its absolute sway) as the Platonic Realm of Chaos. V. De facie in
orbe lunae, 926D-927A: the Empedoclean segregation of the elements into
separate totalities is identified with the Platonic condition of the absence of
God. Cf. ibid.: Ôé ÁÉ ıÂÚÌfiÙËÙÔ˜ ÌÂÙÂÖ¯ÂÓ, Ôé¯ ≈‰ˆÚ Ó‡̷ÙÔ˜, ÔéÎ ôÓˆ
ÙÈ ÙáÓ ‚·Ú¤ˆÓ, Ôé οو ÙÈ ÙáÓ ÎԇʈÓ, ôÏÏ’ ôÎÚ·ÙÔÈ Î·d ôÛÙÔÚÁÔÈ Î·d
ÌÔÓ¿‰Â˜ ·î ÙáÓ ¬ÏˆÓ àÚ¯·› (sc. Ùa ÚÈ˙ÒÌ·Ù·), Ìc ÚÔÛȤÌÂÓ·È Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛÈÓ
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XI

ëÙ¤ÚÔ˘ Úe˜ ≤ÙÂÚÔÓ Ìˉb ÎÔÈÓˆÓ›·Ó, àÏÏa ʇÁÔ˘Û·È Î·d àÔÛÙÚÂÊfiÌÂÓ·È

ηd ÊÂÚfiÌÂÓ·È ÊÔÚa˜ 剛·˜ ηd ·éı¿‰ÂȘ Ô≈Ùˆ˜ Âr¯ÔÓ, ó˜ ö¯ÂÈ ÄÓ Ôy ıÂe˜
ôÂÛÙÈ Î·Ùa ¶Ï¿ÙˆÓ·, ÙÔ˘Ù¤ÛÙÈÓ, ó˜ ö¯ÂÈ Ùa ÛÒÌ·Ù· ÓÔÜ Î·d „˘¯É˜
àÔÏÈÔ‡ÛË˜Ø etc. In the Platonic-Plutarchean interpretation, ºÈÏ›· is the
divine Goodness and NÂÖÎÔ˜ the inherent àÓ·ÚÌÔÛÙ›· (Ùe Ùɘ ·Ï·ÈĘ
àÓ·ÚÌÔÛÙ›·˜ ¿ıÔ˜, Politikos 273 c7-d1) of physical existence or an evil
principle like the ηÎc æ˘¯‹ of the Laws. Although Plato seems explicitly to
criticise the Empedoclean Dualism of Principles in Politikos 269e7 sqq.: âÎ
¿ÓÙˆÓ ‰c ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ÙeÓ ÎfiÛÌÔÓ Ì‹Ù ·éÙeÓ ¯Úc Ê¿Ó·È ÛÙÚ¤ÊÂÈÓ ë·˘ÙeÓ
à›, Ì‹Ù’ ·s ¬ÏÔÓ àÂd ñe ıÂÔÜ ÛÙÚ¤ÊÂÛı·È ‰ÈÙÙa˜ ηd âÓ·ÓÙ›·˜ ÂÚÈ·Áˆ-
Á¿˜, Ì‹Ù’ ·s ‰‡Ô ÙÈÓb ıÂg ÊÚÔÓÔÜÓÙ 뷢ÙÔÖ˜ âÓ·ÓÙ›· ÛÙÚ¤ÊÂÈÓ ·éÙfiÓ, àÏÏ’
¬ÂÚ ôÚÙÈ âÚÚ‹ıË Î·d ÌfiÓÔÓ ÏÔÈfiÓ, ÙÔÙb ÌbÓ ñ’ ôÏÏ˘ Û˘ÌÔ‰ËÁÂÖÛı·È
ı›·˜ ·åÙ›·˜, Ùe ˙ÉÓ ¿ÏÈÓ âÈÎÙÒÌÂÓÔÓ Î·d Ï·Ì‚¿ÓÔÓÙ· àı·Ó·Û›·Ó âÈ-
Û΢·ÛÙcÓ ·Úa ÙÔÜ ‰ËÌÈÔ˘ÚÁÔÜ, ÙÔÙb ‰’ ¬Ù·Ó àÓÂıFÉ, ‰È’ ë·˘ÙÔÜ ·éÙeÓ
å¤Ó·È, ηÙa ηÈÚeÓ àÊÂı¤ÓÙ· ÙÔÈÔÜÙÔÓ, œÛÙ àÓ¿·ÏÈÓ ÔÚ‡ÂÛı·È ÔÏÏa˜
ÂÚÈfi‰ˆÓ Ì˘ÚÈ¿‰·˜ ‰Èa ‰c Ùe ̤ÁÈÛÙÔÓ kÓ Î·d åÛÔÚÚÔÒÙ·ÙÔÓ âd ÌÈÎÚÔ-
Ù¿ÙÔ˘ ‚·ÖÓÔÓ Ô‰e˜ å¤Ó·È.
In the Politikos model there is a reversal of the heavenly revolution at the
point of the renewed divine intervention. But we have nothing to support a
corresponding trait in the movement away from the Antisphairos in the
Empedoclean Cycle.
The Saturnian Era (KÚfiÓÈÔ˜ ‚›Ô˜) and terrogeniture are ascribed by Plato to
the Phase of the Cosmic Cycle when the God directly takes care of physical
existence (Politikos, 271c-272c). At that time, there obtains a complete
reversal of human (and animal) life, with organic time going as it were
backwards to match the reverse celestial circumvolution (Politikos, 270d-
271b). This is to apply the reversion in World processes according to
Empedocles upon the succession of the two phases of the Cosmic Cycle (as
above explained, n. [1]), in a very specific, and picturesque, perhaps
powerful, image.
It all, however, appears to fit if Plato would interpret (or rather utilize)
Empedocles’ Cycle as a twin-phased one, with the two phases corresponding
to the Reign of ºÈÏ›· (= Rule of divine Goodness) and the Reign of NÂÖÎÔ˜
(= World’s Self-Rule). This would mean that there are not periods of
Ascending Love or Strife, only just periods of Love or Strife.
Such a construal or employment of the Empedoclean system, although, I
believe, wrong, tells in favour of a unique Empedoclean poem. For it gains
apparent support from the fact that in his Prooemium = K·ı·ÚÌÔ›
XII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

Empedocles describes the Saturnian life as belonging to the single and

absolute ladyship of Aphrodite = ºÈÏ›· (B128). Porphyry in fact identifies
K‡ÚȘ ‚·Û›ÏÂÈ· there (B128.3) explicitly with ºÈÏ›· (de abstinentia II 21).
And he associates the passage (evidently from the K·ı·ÚÌÔ›) as coming from
Empedocle’s theogony, i.e. his sacred, physical ÏfiÁÔ˜. In Empedocles on the
contrary, B128 refers to the state of the World near the condition of Sphairos,
with ºÈÏ›· still most powerful, if on the wane, and with Strife’s force
ascending, although still slight: yet enough to have caused the disruption of
Sphairo’s perfect harmony and the creation of multiple individual existence.
However, even so, Empedocles could have employed, mythologically
speaking, the Saturnian life as an image of divine perfection in Sphairos; as a
symbol of Dionysus undivided.
The above mentioned Platonic model survived as an Empedoclean
interpretation in the Neoplatonic world-view with Sphairos = the Intelligible
World and physical World as the world of the rule of NÂÖÎÔ˜. This, certainly,
is not what Empedocles meant, or could have meant.

[5] Aristotle, de caelo, Γ2.301a14 sqq.: âÎ ‰ÈÂÛÙÒÙˆÓ ‰b ηd ÎÈÓÔ˘Ì¤ÓˆÓ ÔéÎ

ÂûÏÔÁÔÓ ÔÈÂÖÓ ÙcÓ Á¤ÓÂÛÈÓ. ‰Èe ηd \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ·Ú·Ï›ÂÈ ÙcÓ âd Ùɘ
ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜Ø Ôé ÁaÚ iÓ ä‰‡Ó·ÙÔ Û˘ÛÙÉÛ·È ÙeÓ ÔéÚ·ÓeÓ âΠίˆÚÈṲ̂ӈÓ
ÌbÓ Î·Ù·Û΢¿˙ˆÓ, Û‡ÁÎÚÈÛÈÓ ‰b ÔÈáÓ ‰Èa ÙcÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙ·Ø âÎ ‰È·ÎÂÎÚÈ̤-
ÓˆÓ ÁaÚ Û˘Ó¤ÛÙËÎÂÓ ï ÎfiÛÌÔ˜ ÙáÓ ÛÙÔȯ›ˆÓ. œÛÙ’ àÓ·ÁηÖÔÓ Á›ÓÂÛı·È
âÍ ëÓe˜ ηd Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈ̤ÓÔ˘. The íÓ Î·d Û˘ÁÎÂÎÚÈ̤ÓÔÓ is the ™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜.
Formulae like âd ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ mean ascending role, not absolute supremacy.
The significance of Aristotle’s addition ηd ÎÈÓÔ˘Ì¤ÓˆÓ is made clear by the
account in my paper of the mechanics of the cosmic cycle: the moment of
Hates total sovereignty is characterised by maximal speed in the Worlds
revolution.

[6] The grand upheaval that followed the state of Antisphairos (i.e. Strife’s total
sway) is descrived in B35. Plutarch refers to it as “the Universal Change”, ì
ηıfiÏÔ˘ ÌÂÙ·‚ÔÏ‹. Quaestionum Convivalium V, 4, 677D: ...\EÌ‰ÔÎϤ-
Ô˘˜... ÂåÚËÎfiÙÔ˜ âÓ ÙFÉ Î·ıfiÏÔ˘ ÌÂÙ·‚ÔÏFÉ Á›ÁÓÂÛı·È “˙ˆÚ¿ Ù Ùa ÚdÓ
ôÎÚËÙ·” (B35.15). The physical details of what happened are explained in
my paper above. Even in antiquity (!) some seem to have been misled because
of B35.4-5 to question Empedocle’s consistency. At least Simplicius
methodically answers to some such misunderstanding that there cannot be
produced a spectacular variegation of mortal things precisely under the rule
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XIII

of Friendship when all things become one. No less interpreter than

Alexander provided the basis for such misunderstanding by construing B35.5
(âÓ ÙFÉ ‰c Ù¿‰Â ¿ÓÙ· Û˘Ó¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È íÓ ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È) and Aristotle’s reference
to the state of affairs described in that fragment as âd Ùɘ ÊÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ (de
coelo, 300b30), as signifying the condition of Loves absolute sway. To which
Simplicius gives the correct answer that this is the period of ascending
Friendship, clearly defined by Empedocles himself in B35.10-3. Simplicus,
In de caelo, 587.8 sqq.: ηd ᘠٷÜÙ·, Ê·›Ë ôÓ ÙȘ, âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜
Á›ÓÂÛı·È ϤÁÂÈ ï \AÚÈÛÙÔÙ¤Ï˘, ‰È’ mÓ ¿ÓÙ· íÓ Á›ÓÂÛı·È ï \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ
ÊËÛÈÓ (Β35.5):

âÓ ÙFÉ ‰c Ù¿‰Â ¿ÓÙ· Û˘Ó¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È íÓ ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È;

Ì‹ÔÙ ÔsÓ ÔéÎ âÓ ÙFÉ âÈÎÚ·Ù›÷· Ùɘ ºÈÏ›·˜ Ù·ÜÙ· ϤÁÂÈ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È ï
\EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ, ó˜ âÓfiÌÈÛÂÓ \AϤͷӉÚÔ˜, àÏÏa ÙfiÙÂ, ¬Ù Ôûˆ Ùe NÂÖÎÔ˜
(Β35.10-3):

ÄÓ âͤÛÙËÎÂÓ â’ öÛ¯·Ù· Ù¤Ú̷ٷٷ ·ÎÏÔ˘,

àÏÏa Ùa Ì¤Ó Ù’ âÓ¤ÌÈÌÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ Ùa ‰¤ Ù’ âÍ‚‚‹ÎÂÈ.
¬ÛÛÔÓ ‰’ ·åbÓ ñÂÎÚÔı¤ÔÈ, ÙfiÛÔÓ ·åbÓ âF‹ÂÈ
äÈfiÊÚˆÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ àÌÂÌʤԘ ôÌ‚ÚÔÙÔ˜ ïÚÌ‹.

Obviously B17.5 describes the final condition of Sphairos, towards which

the processes started with the Grand Change following the polar state of
Antisphairos lead under the increasing influence of Love (phase of ascending
Love). And so, consequently, must be interpreted a(ii) 18-20. Hence, a(ii)21
sqq. refers to the results of the Grand Change; and the remains (ÏÔÈ¿) of
that creation in a(ii)25 signify tokens now (in the phase of ascending Strife)
that testify to the production modes obtaining then (in the phase beginning
with the dissolution of Antisphairos).
The creation-pattern in the phase of ascending Love is beyond doubt. The
elements (starting to move through one another after the collapse of their
total segregation in Antisphairos) mix up in various ways producing separate
members without organic integration in whole-forms (forms of wholeness).
Thus, conclusively, Aristotle, de caelo 300b26 sqq.: fiÙÂÚÔÓ [‰˘Ó·ÙeÓ j]
Ôé¯ ÔxfiÓ Ù’ qÓ ÎÈÓÔ‡ÌÂÓ· àÙ¿ÎÙˆ˜ ηd Ì›ÁÓ˘Ûı·È ÙÔÈ·‡Ù·˜ Ì›ÍÂȘ öÓÈ·, âÍ
zÓ Û˘Ó›ÛÙ·Ù·È Ùa ηÙa ʇÛÈÓ Û˘ÓÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓ· ÛÒÌ·Ù·, ϤÁˆ ‰’ ÔxÔÓ çÛÙÄ
ηd Û¿Úη˜, ηı¿ÂÚ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ÊËÛd Á›ÓÂÛı·È âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜Ø
ϤÁÂÈ ÁaÚ ó˜
XIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ÔÏÏ·d ÌbÓ ÎfiÚÛ·È àÓ·‡¯ÂÓ˜ â‚Ï¿ÛÙËÛ·Ó.

The best commentary on the passage is supplied by Simplicius, who (after

the above given quotation) goes on: âÓ Ù·‡ÙFË ÔsÓ ÙFÉ Î·Ù·ÛÙ¿ÛÂÈ (sc. of
retreating Strife and ascending Love) ÌÔÓÔÌÂÏÉ öÙÈ Ùa Á˘Ö· àe Ùɘ ÙÔÜ
N›ÎÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÚ›Ûˆ˜ ùÓÙ· âÏ·ÓÄÙÔ, Ùɘ Úe ôÏÏËÏ· ̛͈˜ âÊȤÌÂÓ·.

·éÙaÚ âÂd (ÊËÛ›) ηÙa ÌÂÖ˙ÔÓ âÌ›ÛÁÂÙÔ ‰·›ÌÔÓÈ ‰·›ÌˆÓ (Β59.1),

¬Ù ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ âÂÎÚ¿ÙÂÈ ÏÔÈeÓ ì ºÈÏfiÙ˘,
Ù·ÜÙ· ÙÂ Û˘Ì›ÙÂÛÎÔÓ ¬FË Û˘Ó¤Î˘ÚÛÂÓ ≤ηÛÙ·,
ôÏÏ· Ù Úe˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÔÏÏa ‰ÈËÓÂÎb˜ âÍÂÁ¤ÓÔÓÙÔ (Β59.2-3).

âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ ÔsÓ ï \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ÂrÂÓ, Ôé¯ ó˜ âÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Û˘ õ‰Ë

Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜, àÏÏ’ ó˜ ÌÂÏÏÔ‡Û˘ âÈÎÚ·ÙÂÖÓ, öÙÈ ‰b Ùa ôÌÈÎÙ· ηd
ÌÔÓfiÁ˘È· ‰ËÏÔ‡Û˘.
The crux of the problem, and the key to its solution, are well set out by
Simplicius. It concerns Empedocle’s meaning in B35.5 and Aristotle’s
rendering of it “âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜”. Here is the issue: Ùe ‰b “ηı¿ÂÚ
\EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ÊËÛd Á›ÁÓÂÛı·È âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜” ï ÌbÓ \AϤͷӉÚÔ˜ ó˜
̛͈˜ ·Ú¿‰ÂÈÁÌ· àÎÔ‡ÂÈ, âÍ w˜ Û˘Ó›ÛÙ·Ù·È Ùa ηÙa ʇÛÈÓ ÛÒÌ·Ù·Ø Î·d
Û˘Ó·›ÚÂÛı·È ‰ÔÎÂÖ Ùˇá ÏfiÁˇˆ ·éÙÔÜ Ùe âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ ÙÔÜÙÔ Ï¤ÁÂÛı·È,
̛͈˜ ·åÙ›·˜ ÔûÛ˘, œÛÂÚ ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÚ›Ûˆ˜. ᘠ‰b iÓ ÂúË
̛͈˜ ÛËÌ·ÓÙÈÎeÓ Ùe “àÓ·‡¯ÂÓ˜ ÎfiÚÛ·È” ηd ÙpÏÏ· Ùa ñe ÙÔÜ \EÌÂ-
‰ÔÎÏ¤Ô˘˜ ÏÂÁfiÌÂÓ· âÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÔȘ (Β57.2-3):

Á˘ÌÓÔd ‰’ âÏ¿˙ÔÓÙÔ ‚Ú·¯›ÔÓ˜ ÂûÓȉ˜ ü̈Ó,

ùÌÌ·Ù¿ Ù’ Ôx(·) âÏ·ÓÄÙÔ ÂÓËÙ‡ÔÓÙ· ÌÂÙÒˆÓ,

ηd ÔÏÏa ôÏÏ·, ±ÂÚ ÔéÎ öÛÙÈ Ì›Íˆ˜ ·Ú·‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù·, âÍ w˜ Ùa ηÙa

ʇÛÈÓ Û˘Ó›ÛٷٷÈ; And the answer is simple, once one properly understands
the position in the Cosmic Cycle which we are investigating. The separate
members show enough of Love’s work as to represent mixtures of the
elements; but the influence of Strife is strong and it forbids the formation of
higher order integrals with more varied articulation and intenser organic
unity capable of securing significant degrees of self-presentation and self-
perpetuation to the entities produced.
So the pattern of Loves zoogony is settled. Cf. also Simplicius in Phys. 37.33
sqq.: œÛÂÚ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ηÙa ÙcÓ Ùɘ ºÈÏ›·˜ àÚ¯‹Ó ÊËÛÈ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È ó˜
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XV

öÙ˘¯Â ̤ÚË ÚáÙÔÓ ÙáÓ ˙ˇÒˆÓ ÔxÔÓ ÎÂÊ·Ïa˜ ηd ¯ÂÖÚ·˜ ηd fi‰·˜, öÂÈÙ·
Û˘ÓÈ¤Ó·È Ù·ÜÙ·

‚Ô˘ÁÂÓÉ àÓ‰ÚfiÚˇˆÚ·, Ùa ‰’ öÌ·ÏÈÓ âÍ·Ó·Ù¤ÏÏÂÈÓ (Β61.2).

...ηd ¬Û· ÌbÓ Ô≈Ùˆ Û˘Ó¤ÛÙË àÏÏ‹ÏÔȘ œÛÙ ‰‡Ó·Ûı·È Ù˘¯ÂÖÓ ÛˆÙËÚ›·˜,
âÁ¤ÓÂÙÔ ˙ˇá· ηd öÌÂÈÓÂÓ ‰Èa Ùe àÏÏ‹ÏÔȘ âÎÏËÚÔÜÓ ÙcÓ ¯Ú›·Ó, ÙÔf˜ ÌbÓ
ç‰fiÓÙ·˜ Ù¤ÌÓÔÓÙ¿˜ Ù ηd Ï·›ÓÔÓÙ·˜ ÙcÓ ÙÚÔÊ‹Ó, ÙcÓ ‰b Á·ÛÙ¤Ú· ¤Ù-
ÙÔ˘Û·Ó, Ùe ‰b q·Ú âÍ·ÈÌ·ÙÔÜÓ. etc. The elements mixing first produce the
simpler compounds (members), which then combining create more complex
forms. These survive if the combination is such that the joining members
offer mutual help in meeting the needs of one another (‰Èa Ùe àÏÏ‹ÏÔȘ
âÎÏËÚÔÜÓ ÙcÓ ¯Ú›·Ó). The initial mixtures were probably coming up from
the earth (âÍ·Ó·Ù¤ÏÏÂÈÓ, cf. ¯ıÔÓe˜ âÍ·Ó¤ÙÂÏÏÔÓ Β62.4). So Censorinus, de
die natali, 4, 7-8: Empedocles autem egregio suo carmine, …, tale quiddam
confirmat: primo membra singula ex terra quasi praegnate passim edita,
deinde coisse et effecisse solidi hominis materiam igni simul et umori
permixtam. cetera quid necesse est persequi, quae non capiant similitudinem
veritatis (he refers to Empedocle’s ÙÂÚ·ÙÔÁÂÓ¤ÛÂȘ).
The law of development in Loves zoogony is thus expressed in this series:
simpler mixtures → producing single parts and members → chance
combinations of them → disappearance of monstrous formations → survival
of the fit compounds → existence of more complex organisms capable of
sustaining and reproducing themselves. The tendency is towards more
complex articulation and higher integration simultaneously. The first
characteristic comes from the fact that the elements get more and more
mixed up as they move from the state of absolute segregation (Antisphairos)
to that of total unification (Sphairos). The second is caused by the ascending
power of Love. But this tendency, as was explained above, works up in the
first part of the phase of ascending Love. There follows a second part when
the influence of Love prevails to such a degree that things start getting fused
as they are prepared for their final dissolution into the Sphairos. Now
increased unification must go with less internal differentiation at the cosmic
level as a whole and in each existent within it. Distinction of parts and
members start to coalesce into “whole-natured forms”, ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ.
This process becomes more and more pronounced, till we reach the complete
interpenetration of the elements in the otherwise undifferentiated Sphairos.
The law of development in the phase of ascending Love (comprising both its
parts) gives therefore the following sequence:
XVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

(α) ÌÔ˘ÓÔÌÂÏÉ Á˘Ö· (Β58) -

(b) combinations (B57, 79, 60, 61) -
(c) ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ (Β62)

The appearance of sex belongs in this phase to (a) as isolated members and to
(b) in organic compounds. In (c) there is no sharp, well-defined
differentiation of members, including the vocal parts and the sex organs, as is
explicitly stated in B62.7-8:

ÔûÙ ٛ ˆ ÌÂϤˆÓ âÚ·ÙeÓ ‰¤Ì·˜ âÌÊ·›ÓÔÓÙ·˜

ÔûÙ’ âÓÔcÓ ÔxfiÓ Ù’ âȯÒÚÈÔÓ àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈ Á˘ÖÔÓ.

We may envisage a gradual blurring of distinctions and divisions in the

perfectly developed organisms leading to more and more coalescing integrals
(ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ). (a), (b) and (c) clearly characterise the beginning, the
middle and the final period of the phase of ascending Love from Antisphairos
to Sphairos.
But B62 cannot refer to the concluding part of this phase in the Cosmic
Cycle. For in the fragment the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ come before (ÚáÙ·) the
full differentiation of sexes, not after it. This is also observed by Simplicius, in
Phys. 381.29 sqq.: ÂåfiÓÙÔ˜ ‰b ÙÔÜ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏ¤Ô˘˜ âÓ Ùˇá ‰Â˘Ù¤Úˇˆ ÙáÓ
º˘ÛÈÎáÓ Úe Ùɘ ÙáÓ àÓ‰Ú›ˆÓ ηd Á˘Ó·ÈΛˆÓ ÛˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÚıÚÒÛˆ˜
Ù·˘Ùd Ùa öË etc.
Now the developments in the two cosmic phases are the reverse one to the
other. This has been explained above with reference to the cosmic processes;
but it also necessarily applies to the organization of life in each world period.
The law of development during the phase of ascending Strife (in the
movement from Sphairos to Antisphairos now) postulates therefore a
zoogonic sequence on the pattern:

(c) - (b) - (a).

Things get started with the formation of ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ of high unification
and homogeneity under the sway of still overwhelmingly powerful Love.
More and more differentiation is introduced, more and more variegation is
caused by the unremitting acceleration of the universal circumvolution as
Hate becomes stronger and stronger. At some point a harmonious balance is
achieved between differentiation and unification. After that the segregating
influence of Hate takes the upper hand and existences begin to be rent apart.
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XVII

The dissolution of created entities continues constantly intensifying, till the

uncreated divine elements are coacerbated in totally separate places, in the
absolute self-satisfaction of isolation (Antisphairos).
B62, 63 refer to the sequence (c) - (b) in the phase of ascending Strife. They
belong to Strifes zoogony. There is also an eloquent reminder of the
obtaining situation in B62.6: ÙÔf˜ (sc. ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡Ô˘˜) ÌbÓ ÜÚ àÓ¤Â-
Ì ı¤ÏÔÓ Úe˜ ïÌÔÖÔÓ îΤÛı·È. Fire and earth (and water; v. B62.5: àÌÊÔ-
Ù¤ÚˆÓ ≈‰·Ùfi˜ Ù ηd Âú‰ÂÔ˜ (= fire) ·rÛ·Ó ö¯ÔÓÙ˜) coexist: it is the tendency
of fire to get out of (and separated from) the earth, and to reach its own
(ı¤ÏÔÓ Úe˜ ïÌÔÖÔÓ îΤÛı·È), which creates the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ. (Since the
fire comes up into the air in this “desire” of it, air is also mixed in the
resulting compounds of the other three elements; not to mention that air will
also exist in considerable quantity at this stage within earth as well). So this is
taking place during the process of differentiation of the all inclusive universal
unity, the Sphairos.
Aristotle seems to provide in this connection a striking illustration of how far
we may misunderstand his meaning if we fail to provide appropriate
framework to his dense and hypopnematic argumentation. In Physica B, 7,
having before explained the doctrine of the quadruple causality, he explains
natural teleology. Empedocle’s comes naturally up for criticism. Aristotle
takes exception to the idea of an “as-if” teleology activating natural processes;
he considers, rightly, Empedocle’s as a prominent exponent of that theory.
He criticises the (a)-(b) zoogonical sequence. Among other things, he argues
in the main, that a monstrosity presupposes a normality which can be
corrupted in its first principle in order to result to the monstrosity in
question. It is not what is regularly happening (unless impeded) that can be
explained by a chance adaptation that proved successful, but on the contrary
chance combinations are needed to explain miscarriages in the more or less
steady workings of nature. The natural is normal, and requires an altogether
different kind of explanation than chance arrangements, namely a
teleological perspective, since ì ʇÛȘ ÙáÓ ≤ÓÂο ÙÔ˘ ·åÙ›ˆÓ (âÛÙÈ),
198b10-11.
In this context he comes back to Empedocle’s (a)-(b) sequence. 199b1 sqq.:
Âå ‰c öÛÙÈÓ öÓÈ· ηÙa Ù¤¯ÓËÓ âÓ Ôx˜ Ùe çÚıᘠ≤ÓÂο ÙÔ˘, âÓ ‰b ÙÔÖ˜ êÌ·ÚÙ·-
ÓÔ̤ÓÔȘ ≤ÓÂη Ì¤Ó ÙÈÓÔ˜ âȯÂÈÚÂÖÙ·È àÏÏ’ àÔÙ˘Á¯¿ÓÂÙ·È, ïÌÔ›ˆ˜ iÓ ö¯ÂÈ
ηd âÓ ÙÔÖ˜ Ê˘ÛÈÎÔÖ˜, ηd Ùa Ù¤Ú·Ù· êÌ·ÚÙ‹Ì·Ù· âΛÓÔ˘ ÙÔÜ ≤ÓÂο ÙÔ˘.
ηd âÓ ÙÔÖ˜ âÍ àگɘ ôÚ· Û˘ÛÙ¿ÛÂÛÈ Ùa ‚Ô˘ÁÂÓÉ (i.e. we find ourselves now
in the combinations resulting from chance mixtures of members at the first
XVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

part of Loves zoogony according to Empedocle’s), Âå Ìc Úfi˜ ÙÈÓ· ¬ÚÔÓ Î·d

Ù¤ÏÔ˜ ‰˘Ó·Ùa qÓ âÏıÂÖÓ, ‰È·ÊıÂÈÚÔ̤Ó˘ iÓ àگɘ ÙÈÓÔ˜ âÁ›ÁÓÂÙÔ (as
Aristotle maintains, and against Empedocle’s who would not recognize any
prior distinct principle whose failure would produce the monstrosities),
œÛÂÚ ÓÜÓ ÙÔÜ Û¤ÚÌ·ÙÔ˜. The ÓÜÓ contrasts to âÍ àگɘ. The Aristotelian
point is that just as now (i.e. in this order of things obtaining now) genetic
malformations or malfunctions are due to some flaw in the seed or semen
(which is one kind of principle of organic life) - so at the beginning of the
Empedoclean world-period (where the monstrosities appeared first) there
should obtain a principle of normality whose corruption would occasionally
lead to miscarriages of the normal, and normative, processes of nature.
As a side-thought to this last turn in his argument, Aristotle remarks, 199b7-
9: öÙÈ àÓ¿ÁÎË Û¤ÚÌ· ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È ÚáÙÔÓ, àÏÏa Ìc Âéıf˜ Ùa ˙ˇá·Ø ηd Ùe
“ÔéÏÔÊ˘b˜ ÌbÓ ÚáÙ·” Û¤ÚÌ· qÓ. He merely adds (still against the (a)-(b)
Empedoclean sequence of Love’s zoogony), that there could not in his view
be animals before their semen; as Empedocle’s seems to acknowledge by
putting his ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ first; which first ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ are according
to Aristotle semen. But this ÔéÏÔÊ˘¤˜ is clearly imported here from a
different Empedoclean context: Aristotle has “Û¤ÚÌ· qÓ”, not “Û¤ÚÌ·
âÛÙÈÓ”. Far from undermining Empedocle’s double zoogony, Aristotle
indirectly here confirms it. There are two zoogonical sequences: one starting
with single members and monstrosities simple and compound; the other
beginning with ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ. And more importantly, Aristotle proves
that the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ are not stable organic compositions as against the
instable concoctions of members, but more or less internally undifferentiated
formations. On the other hand, the equation ÔéÏÔÊ˘¤˜ = Û¤ÚÌ· is
Aristotle’s own construal and projection. The Empedoclean ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ
must have been gigantic. Smaller and smaller entities are effected as the
history of the Universe proceeds in the now obtaining phase, this diminution
in size resulting from the increasing velocity of global circumvolution, itself
the physical manifestation of the continuously increasing dispersive power of
Strife. A confirming testimony to this deduction is provided doxographically;
A77 = Plutarchean, Epitoma, V 27, 1 (DG p. 440.8-10): ÙÔf˜ ‰b ÓÜÓ àÓıÚÒ-
Ô˘˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÚÒÙÔȘ Û˘Ì‚·ÏÏÔ̤ÓÔ˘˜ ‚ÚÂÊáÓ â¤¯ÂÈÓ Ù¿ÍÈÓ.
B64 also seems to corroborate the same conclusions, at least according to its
more natural and direct interpretation. The reminiscence that generates
sexual desire correlates nicely to the Platonic doctrine in Symposium 191A: it
is a recollection of a former unity that drives the two sexes together. Thus an
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XIX

ÔéÏÔÊ˘c˜ Ù‡Ô˜ (without characteristic sex, as in B62.11) should be

presupposed working in the encitement of sexual love. It cannot be a
remembrance of monstrosities (separate members or misfits) that arouses it.
In the cosmic phase we are living in, zoogony started with undifferentiated
wholes, not with differentiated parts.
There remains to account for the troublemaking doxographical piece A72:
\EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ Ùa˜ ÚÒÙ·˜ (1) ÁÂÓ¤ÛÂȘ ÙáÓ ˙ˇÒˆÓ ηd Ê˘ÙáÓ Ìˉ·Ìá˜
ïÏÔÎÏ‹ÚÔ˘˜ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È, àÛ˘ÌÊ˘¤ÛÈ ‰b ÙÔÖ˜ ÌÔÚ›ÔȘ ‰ÈÂ˙¢Á̤ӷ˜, Ùa˜ ‰b ‰Â˘-
Ù¤Ú·˜ (2) Û˘ÌÊ˘ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÙáÓ ÌÂÚáÓ Â剈ÏÔÊ·ÓÂÖ˜, Ùa˜ ‰b ÙÚ›Ù·˜ (3) ÙáÓ
ïÏÔÊ˘áÓ, Ùa˜ ‰b ÙÂÙ¿ÚÙ·˜ (4) ÔéΤÙÈ âÎ ÙáÓ ïÌÔ›ˆÓ ÔxÔÓ âÎ Áɘ ηd
≈‰·ÙÔ˜, àÏÏa ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ õ‰Ë etc. The first generation is that of single
members, not whole organisms. The second mentioned is one of (chance)
coallocations of members resulting in entities like the mixed beings of
mythology (idol-like). The third is that of ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ and the fourth is the
one endowed with the power of procreation. There seems to be implied an
increasing level of unity and articulation; the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ look like meant to be
stable organic compositions as distinct from the idol-like compilations of
category 2. If so, category 1 corresponds to my (a) above, while categories 2,
3 and 4 to (b), indicating internal subdivisions within it. But it is more likely,
that this doxographical piece represents a (compilators) misunderstanding of
the sources. If we construe in an Empedoclean way ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ and if we,
consequently, reverse the order of categories 3 and 4 (since differentiation of
sex precedes the decrease of differentiation characterising the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜
Ù‡ÔÈ in the world-period of ascending Love), then we obtain this broad
correspondence:
1 →(a)
2, 4 → (b)
3 → (c)

Which, we saw, is the pattern of development during the phase of ascending

Love. The reverse is the one obtaining during the phase of ascending Strife.
To cut through the doxographical piece by assembling 1 and 2 in the former
phase and 3 and 4 in the latter is mistaken on many counts that have been
observed by a number of scholars. It should be remarked how more accurate,
so far as it goes, Censorinus’ report is (de die natali, 4, 7-8, a passage above
quoted). It is misleading to put the two testimonies side by side as in Diels,
Doxographi Graeci, p. 189. Censorinus preserves the uncorrupted or
unconfused doxographical tradition, as against the Plutarchean Epitoma.
Relative material is completely missing from Stobaeus. On a more general
XX APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

plane, this is one more instance of how precarious the reconstruction of an

“Aetius” is. One final terminological point.
At the starting dissolution of Antisphairos, the power of Love is small in
extension; while it is very great at the beginning of Sphairos’ disintegration.
In this sense talk of ascending Love, respectively Strife, at those periods seems
bizarre and may be misleading. But their powers are correspondingly
steadfastly rising. And the dynamics is the substance of the matter. The
process of the dissolution of Antisphairos is, once started, ineluctable; and the
operative principle of the dissolution is Love. Similarly in the opposite case.
So talk even of the Era of Love / Strife (âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ / âd ÙÔÜ N›-
ÎÔ˘˜) is in this way justified. And it seems to be countenanced by
Empedocle’s himself; as when in describing the developments activated by
the end of Antisphairos he emphasises their end result, namely the state of
Sphairos (cf. b35.5; a(ii)20).

[7] It is worth mentioning that recent developments in scientific cosmology and

astrophysics betray uncanny analogies to cardinal Empedoclean ideas. In
contemporary theoretical physics, weird, apparently, speculations are tested
experimentally and supported by evidence drawn from soundings into the
World’s past.
One such examination project is the following. An American satellite called
the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has provided more
precise answers to a number of questions relating to the structure of the
Universe and to the Beginning and End of Time (Reports in The Economist
February 15th, 2003 and in The New York Times, February 28, 2004). The
WMAP scans the Universe measuring small variations in the cosmic
microwave background, i.e. cool radiation created 380.000 years after the Big
Bang. The angular resolution and temperature sensitivity in its scanning
seem sufficient to establish certain startling results.
The Universe looks like being composed of three substances. One, a mere
4.4% of it, consists in “ordinary” matter (the stuff of atoms). Another
approximately 23% of the Universe is made of “cold dark matter” (nature
unknown). The third and by far greatest part, up to about 73%, is the
mysterious “dark energy”.
Little is know about these larger components of the Worlds constitution. But
dark energy acts as a repulsive force, driving the rest asunder and tearing
things apart. Dark energy is thus the polar force to gravitation, a NÂÖÎÔ˜
against cosmic ºÈÏ›·.
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXI

In fact a theory as to the Big Bang seems also to have been confirmed by the
WMAP. “Inflation”, which is set to have caused and sustained the beginning
and earliest development of the Universe, appears to be some kind of brief
and violent antigravitational force, thus a manifestation of repelling,
dispersing “dark energy” or NÂÖÎÔ˜, when, at the beginning of time, it
resumed its unassailable rights.
Finally, there is now envisaged the possibility that a Big Rip at the End of
Time will answer the Big Bang at its beginning. If the dark energy is strong
enough, the Universe may in the end be completely pulled apart. First the
universal expansion is speeded up, then galaxies spin apart, then stars and
planetary systems, then planets explode, then atoms are rent asunder, finally
protons and neutrons rip apart. At the end only the ultimate constituents of
matter remain, probably electrons and quarks, totally incommunicable to
each other, in awesome isolation.
It is tempting to correlate this state of the Universe to the Empedoclean
Antisphairos. And by parity of speculation, the state of the World before the
Big Bang to the Sphairos, a totally unified, homogeneous, dense condition of
matter. So we have matter and its ultimate elements (the four Empedoclean
roots or electrons and quarks nowadays), two forces one of friendly attraction
(Gravitation - ºÈÏ›·) and one of hateful repulsion (Dark Energy - NÂÖÎÔ˜), a
pre-Big-Bang Sphairos and a post-Big-Rip Antisphairos. We are now moving
towards the Big Rip under the influence of Dark Energy (NÂÖÎÔ˜). One only
thing remains to complete this picture of general homologies. Are the cosmic
processes as a whole cyclical? Is there a reverse movement from post-Big-Rip
state to pre-Big-Bang state? Should Gravitation and Dark Energy be exactly
equipoised the pendulum must start moving in the opposite direction once
one of its polar, extreme positions has been reached. There would then be in
rerum natura an Oath of Necessity between ºÈÏ›· and NÂÖÎÔ˜.

The following text of the Empedoclean fragments is meant not as an edition, but as a
working tool in illustration of the proposed unifying reconstruction of Empedocle’s
poem and system. However, a few textual changes have been made and a very
selective apparatus added, together with occasional indicative explanations.
Comparationes numerorum between this arrangement of the Fragments and Diels-
Kranz’s sequence are subjoined at the end.
ΕΜΠΕΔΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ
ΦΥΣΙΚΑ
 BIB§ION Aã

Destiny of Soul and Structure of Existence



a) ¶ÚÔÔ›ÌÈÔÓ (K·ı·ÚÌÔ›) Nos. 1-36

[Empedocle’s condition. Truth of his Word]

B 112
t Ê›ÏÔÈ, ÔQ ̤Á· ôÛÙ˘ ηÙa Í·ÓıÔÜ \AÎÚ¿Á·ÓÙÔ˜
Ó·›ÂÙ’ àÓ’ ôÎÚ· fiÏÂÔ˜, àÁ·ıáÓ ÌÂω‹ÌÔÓ˜ öÚÁˆÓ,
ÍÂ›ÓˆÓ ·å‰ÔÖÔÈ ÏÈ̤Ó˜, ηÎfiÙËÙÔ˜ ôÂÈÚÔÈ,
¯·›ÚÂÙ’Ø âÁg ‰’ ñÌÖÓ ıÂe˜ ôÌ‚ÚÔÙÔ˜, ÔéΤÙÈ ıÓËÙfi˜
ˆÏÂÜÌ·È ÌÂÙa ÄÛÈ ÙÂÙÈ̤ÓÔ˜, œÛÂÚ öÔÈη,
Ù·ÈÓ›·È˜ Ù ÂÚ›ÛÙÂÙÔ˜ ÛÙ¤ÊÂÛ›Ó Ù ı·Ï›ÔȘ.
ÙÔÖÛÈÓ ±Ì’ ÂsÙ’ iÓ ¥ÎˆÌ·È ☠ôÛÙ· ÙËÏÂı¿ÔÓÙ·,
àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈÓ ä‰b Á˘Ó·ÈÍd Û‚›˙ÔÌ·ÈØ Ôî ‰’ ±Ì’ ≤ÔÓÙ·È
Ì˘Ú›ÔÈ âÍÂÚ¤ÔÓÙ˜, ¬ËÈ Úe˜ ΤډԘ àÙ·Úfi˜,
Ôî ÌbÓ Ì·ÓÙÔÛ˘Ó¤ˆÓ ίÚË̤ÓÔÈ, Ôî ‰’ âd ÓÔ‡ÛˆÓ
·ÓÙÔ›ˆÓ â‡ıÔÓÙÔ ÎχÂÈÓ ÂéËΤ· ‚¿ÍÈÓ,
‰ËÚeÓ ‰c ¯·ÏÂFÉÛÈ Â·Ṳ́ÓÔÈ <àÌÊ’ 片ÓFËÛÈÓ>.
_______
V. Diogenes Laertius VIII 62: ¬ÙÈ ‰’ qÓ \AÎÚ·Á·ÓÙÖÓÔ˜ âÎ ™ÈÎÂÏ›·˜ ·éÙe˜
âÓ·Ú¯fiÌÂÓÔ˜ ÙáÓ K·ı·ÚÌáÓ ÊËÛÈÓ “t Ê›ÏÔÈ etc.” .
v. 3 ηÎfiÙËÙÔ˜ ôÂÈÚÔÈ: cf. B144: ÓËÛÙÂÜÛ·È Î·ÎfiÙËÙÔ˜
v. 7 ÙÔÖÛÈÓ sc. Ù·ÈÓ›·È˜ et ÛÙ¤ÊÂÛÈÓ
±Ì’ ÂsÙ’ iÓ Planudes, codd. Diogenis: ±Ì’ iÓ
codd. Diogenis primarii: <‰’> ÂsÙ’ iÓ Kranz
ÙÔÖÛÈÓ ±Ì’ ÂsÙ’ iÓ: <ÄÛÈ ‰b> ÙÔÖ˜ iÓ Wilamowitz:
ÄÛÈ ‰’ ±Ì’ ÂsÙ’ iÓ Wright

***
XXVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

B 114
t Ê›ÏÔÈ, Ôr‰· ÌbÓ Ô≈ÓÂÎ’ àÏËıÂ›Ë ¿Ú· ̇ıÔȘ,
ÔR˜ âÁg âÍÂÚ¤ˆØ Ì¿Ï· ‰’ àÚÁ·Ï¤Ë ÁÂ Ù¤Ù˘ÎÙ·È
àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈ Î·d ‰‡Û˙ËÏÔ˜ âd ÊÚ¤Ó· ›ÛÙÈÔ˜ ïÚÌ‹.

***
3

Β 113
àÏÏa Ù› ÙÔÖÛ‰’ â›ÎÂÈÌ’ óÛÂd ̤Á· ¯ÚÉÌ¿ ÙÈ Ú¿ÛÛˆÓ,
Âå ıÓËÙáÓ ÂÚ›ÂÈÌÈ ÔÏ˘ÊıÂÚ¤ˆÓ àÓıÚÒˆÓ;

***

[State of Blessedness]
4

B 128
Ô鉤 ÙȘ qÓ Î›ÓÔÈÛÈÓ òAÚ˘ ıÂe˜ Ôé‰b K˘‰ÔÈÌfi˜
Ôé‰b ZÂf˜ ‚·ÛÈÏÂf˜ Ôé‰b KÚfiÓÔ˜ Ôé‰b ¶ÔÛÂȉáÓ,
àÏÏa K‡ÚȘ ‚·Û›ÏÂÈ·.
ÙcÓ Ô¥ Á’ ÂéÛ‚¤ÂÛÛÈÓ àÁ¿ÏÌ·ÛÈÓ îÏ¿ÛÎÔÓÙÔ
ÁÚ·ÙÔÖ˜ Ù ˙ÒÈÔÈÛÈ Ì‡ÚÔÈÛ› Ù ‰·È‰·ÏÂfi‰ÌÔȘ
Û̇ÚÓ˘ Ù’ àÎÚ‹ÙÔ˘ ı˘Û›·È˜ ÏÈ‚¿ÓÔ˘ Ù ı˘Ò‰Ô˘˜,
Í·ÓıáÓ Ù ÛÔÓ‰a˜ ÌÂÏ›ÙˆÓ ®›ÙÔÓÙ˜ ☠Ôs‰·˜Ø
Ù·‡ÚˆÓ ‰’ àÎÚ‹ÙÔÈÛÈ ÊfiÓÔȘ Ôé ‰Â‡ÂÙÔ ‚ˆÌfi˜,
àÏÏa ̇ÛÔ˜ ÙÔÜÙ’ öÛÎÂÓ âÓ àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈ Ì¤ÁÈÛÙÔÓ,
ı˘ÌeÓ àÔÚÚ·›Û·ÓÙ˜ â<Ó>¤‰ÌÂÓ·È ä¤· Á˘Ö·.
_______
In ÂÚd ʇÛˆ˜ (ıÂÔÁÔÓ›· = ÎÔÛÌÔÁÔÓ›·) teste Porphyrio,
de abstinentia II 21: àÏÏa ηd ·Ú’ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏ¤Ô˘˜, n˜
ÂÚd Ùɘ ıÂÔÁÔÓ›·˜ ‰ÈÂÍÈgÓ Î·d ÂÚd ÙáÓ ı˘Ì¿ÙˆÓ
·ÚÂÌÊ·›ÓÂÈ Ï¤ÁˆÓ “Ô鉤 etc.”
v. 8 àÎÚ‹ÙÔÈÛÈ Scaliger, DK: àÎÚ›ÙÔÈÛÈ codd. Porphyrii:
àÎÚ¿ÙÔÈÛÈ codd. Eusebii P.E.: àÚÚ‹ÙÔÈÛÈ Fabricius, Kranz

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXIX

B 130 + 77 + 78
qÛ·Ó ‰b ÎٛϷ ¿ÓÙ· ηd àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈ ÚÔÛËÓÉ,
ıÉÚ˜ Ù’ ÔåˆÓÔ› ÙÂ, ÊÈÏÔÊÚÔÛ‡ÓË Ù ‰Â‰‹ÂÈ.

<‰¤Ó‰Ú· ‰’> âÌ‰fiÊ˘ÏÏ· ηd âÌ‰fiηÚ· Ù¤ıËÏÂÓ

ηÚáÓ àÊıÔÓ›ËÈÛÈ Î·Ù’ ä¤Ú· ¿ÓÙ’ âÓÈ·˘ÙfiÓ.

***

[Another case of blessed wisdom like Empedocles’: Pythagoras]

Β 129
qÓ ‰¤ ÙȘ âÓ Î›ÓÔÈÛÈÓ àÓcÚ ÂÚÈÒÛÈ· Âå‰Ò˜,
n˜ ‰c Ì‹ÎÈÛÙÔÓ Ú·›‰ˆÓ âÎÙ‹Û·ÙÔ ÏÔÜÙÔÓ,
·ÓÙÔ›ˆÓ Ù ̿ÏÈÛÙ· ÛÔÊáÓ <Ù’> âÈ‹Ú·ÓÔ˜ öÚÁˆÓØ
ïfiÙ ÁaÚ ¿ÛFËÛÈÓ çڤͷÈÙÔ Ú·›‰ÂÛÛÈÓ,
ÚÂÖ’ ¬ Á ÙáÓ ùÓÙˆÓ ¿ÓÙˆÓ Ï‡ÛÛÂÛÎÂÓ ≤ηÛÙÔÓ
η› Ù ‰¤Î’ àÓıÚÒˆÓ η› Ù’ ÂúÎÔÛÈÓ ·åÒÓÂÛÛÈÓ.

***

[Divine Wisdom concerning Gods]

B 132
ùÏ‚ÈÔ˜, n˜ ı›ˆÓ Ú·›‰ˆÓ âÎÙ‹Û·ÙÔ ÏÔÜÙÔÓ,
‰ÂÈÏe˜ ‰’, zÈ ÛÎÔÙfiÂÛÛ· ıÂáÓ ¤ÚÈ ‰fiÍ· ̤ÌËÏÂÓ.
_______
v. 2: cf. B 131.4
Salvationis fundamentum gnosticum, i.e. scientia de rebus divinis
naturalibusque.

***
XXX APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

[Necessity and the Law of Genesis]

B 115
öÛÙÈÓ \AÓ¿Á΢ ¯ÚÉÌ·, ıÂáÓ „‹ÊÈÛÌ· ·Ï·ÈfiÓ,
à›‰ÈÔÓ, Ï·Ù¤ÂÛÛÈ Î·ÙÂÛÊÚËÁÈṲ̂ÓÔÓ ¬ÚÎÔȘØ
ÂsÙ¤ ÙȘ àÌϷΛËÈÛÈ ÊfiÓˆÈ Ê›Ï· Á˘Ö· ÌÈ‹ÓËÈ,
<ӛν ı’> n˜ Î(Â) â›ÔÚÎÔÓ êÌ·ÚÙ‹Û·˜ âÔÌfiÛÛËÈ,
‰·›ÌÔÓ˜ Ô¥Ù ̷ÎÚ·›ˆÓÔ˜ ÏÂÏ¿¯·ÛÈ ‚›ÔÈÔ,
ÙÚ›˜ ÌÈÓ Ì˘Ú›·˜ zÚ·˜ àe Ì·Î¿ÚˆÓ àÏ¿ÏËÛı·È,
Ê˘Ô̤ÓÔ˘˜ ·ÓÙÔÖ· ‰Èa ¯ÚfiÓÔ˘ Âú‰Â· ıÓËÙáÓ
àÚÁ·Ï¤·˜ ‚ÈfiÙÔÈÔ ÌÂÙ·ÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ÎÂχıÔ˘˜.
·åı¤ÚÈÔÓ ÌbÓ Á¿Ú ÛÊ ̤ÓÔ˜ fiÓÙÔӉ ‰ÈÒÎÂÈ,
fiÓÙÔ˜ ‰’ ☠¯ıÔÓe˜ Ôs‰·˜ à¤Ù˘ÛÂ, Á·Ö· ‰’ ☠·éÁa˜
ìÂÏ›Ô˘ Ê·¤ıÔÓÙÔ˜, ï ‰’ ·åı¤ÚÔ˜ öÌ‚·Ï ‰›Ó·È˜Ø
ôÏÏÔ˜ ‰’ âÍ ôÏÏÔ˘ ‰¤¯ÂÙ·È, ÛÙ˘Á¤Ô˘ÛÈ ‰b ¿ÓÙ˜.
ÙáÓ Î·d âÁg ÓÜÓ ÂåÌÈ, Ê˘Áa˜ ıÂfiıÂÓ Î·d àÏ‹Ù˘,
N›ÎÂ˚ Ì·ÈÓÔÌ¤ÓˆÈ ›Û˘ÓÔ˜.
_______
V. Plutarchus, de exilio, 607c: ï ‰’ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ âÓ àÚ¯FÉ Ùɘ ÊÈÏÔÛÔÊ›·˜ ÚÔ·-
ӷʈӋ۷˜ “öÛÙÈÓ... àÏ‹Ù˘” etc.
v. 5 Cf. ıÂÔd ‰ÔÏȯ·›ˆÓ˜, B 21.12; 23.8
v. 14 N›ÎÂ˚... ›Û˘ÓÔ˜: cf. N›ÎÂÔ˜ âÓÓÂÛ›FËÛÈÓ, Β 22.9

***

B 142
(according to O. Primavesi, Die Haϋser von Zeus und Hades: zu Text
und Deutung von Empedocle’s B 142 D.-K., in Cronache Ercolanesi
33/2003 p. 59)

ÙeÓ ‰’ ÔûÙ’ ôÚ Ù ¢Èe˜ Ù¤ÁÂÔÈ ‰fiÌÔÈ ·åÁ[Èfi¯ÔÈÔ]

[Ôû]Ù Ù[› ]FË ≠÷A‰Ô˘ ‰¤[¯ÂÙ·È ˘]ÎÈ[Óe]Ó ÛÙ¤ÁÔ˜ [ ]‰[ ].

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXXI

10

Β 125
âÎ ÌbÓ ÁaÚ ˙ˆáÓ âÙ›ıÂÈ ÓÂÎÚa Âú‰Â’ àÌ›‚ˆÓ,
<âÎ ‰b ÓÂÎÚáÓ ˙ÒÔÓÙ·>.

***

11

Β 126
(ì ‰·›ÌˆÓ Ùɘ ÁÂÓ¤Ûˆ˜ sc. Aphrodite)
Û·ÚÎáÓ àÏÏÔÁÓáÙÈ ÂÚÈÛÙ¤ÏÏÔ˘Û· ¯ÈÙáÓÈ.

***

12

B 148
(Ùe ÙFÉ „˘¯FÉ ÂÚÈΛÌÂÓÔÓ ÛáÌ·)
àÌÊÈ‚ÚfiÙËÓ ¯ıfiÓ·

***

13

Β 153α
[Ùe ÁÔÜÓ ‚Ú¤ÊÔ˜ ‰ÔÎÂÖ ÙÂÏÂÈÔÜÛı·È âÓ ëÙa 낉ÔÌ¿ÛÈÓ,
ó˜ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ·åÓ›ÙÙÂÙ·È âÓ ÙÔÖ˜ K·ı·ÚÌÔÖ˜]

***

14

B 117
õ‰Ë Á¿Ú ÔÙ’ âÁg ÁÂÓfiÌËÓ ÎÔÜÚfi˜ Ù ÎfiÚË ÙÂ
ı¿ÌÓÔ˜ Ù’ ÔåˆÓfi˜ Ù ηd öÍ·ÏÔ˜ öÏÏÔÔ˜ å¯ı‡˜.

***
XXXII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

15

B 119
âÍ Ô¥Ë˜ ÙÈÌɘ Ù ηd ¬ÛÛÔ˘ Ì‹ÎÂÔ˜ ùÏ‚Ô˘...
_______
Cf. B 128; B 115.

***

16

B 120
äχıÔÌÂÓ Ùfi‰’ ñ’ ôÓÙÚÔÓ ñfiÛÙÂÁÔÓ...
_______
Mundus significatur

***

17

B 116
(ì X¿ÚȘ)
ÛÙ˘Á¤ÂÈ ‰‡ÛÙÏËÙÔÓ \AÓ¿ÁÎËÓ

***

18

B 118
ÎÏ·ÜÛ¿ Ù ηd ÎÒÎ˘Û· å‰gÓ àÛ˘Ó‹ı· ¯áÚÔÓ.

***

19

Β 154·
(¤ÔÙ·È ï Ùɘ Û˘ÓËı›·˜ ΢ÎÂÒÓ)
è‰ÖÓ¿˜ <Ù’> 片ӷ˜ <ÙÂ> ΢ΤˆÓ à¿Ù·˜ Ù ÁfiÔ˘˜ ÙÂ

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXXIII

20

B 121
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . àÙÂÚ¤· ¯áÚÔÓ,
öÓı· ºfiÓÔ˜ Ù KfiÙÔ˜ Ù ηd ôÏÏˆÓ öıÓ· KËÚáÓ
·é¯ÌËÚ·› Ù NfiÛÔÈ Î·d ™‹„Ș öÚÁ· Ù ®Â˘ÛÙ¿
òAÙ˘ àÓ ÏÂÈÌáÓ· ηÙa ÛÎfiÙÔ˜ äÏ¿ÛÎÔ˘ÛÈÓ.
_______
v. 4 äÏ¿ÛÎÔ˘ÛÈÓ: cf. Homer B470

***

21

B 122
öÓı’ qÛ·Ó XıÔÓ›Ë Ù ηd ^HÏÈfiË Ù·Ó·áȘ,
¢ÉÚ›˜ ı’ ·îÌ·ÙfiÂÛÛ· ηd ^AÚÌÔÓ›Ë ıÂÌÂÚáȘ,
K·ÏÏÈÛÙÒ Ù’ AåÛ¯Ú‹ ÙÂ, £fiˆÛ¿ Ù ¢ËÓ·›Ë ÙÂ,
NËÌÂÚÙ‹˜ Ù’ âÚfiÂÛÛ· ÌÂÏ¿ÁÎÔ˘Úfi˜ Ù’ \AÛ¿ÊÂÈ·.

***

22

B 123
º˘ÛÒ Ù ºıÈ̤ÓË ÙÂ, ηd EéÓ·›Ë ηd òEÁÂÚÛȘ,
KÈÓÒ Ù’ \AÛÙÂÌÊ‹˜ ÙÂ, ÔÏ˘Û٤ʷÓfi˜ Ù MÂÁÈÛÙÒ
ηd ºÔÚ‡Ë, ™ˆ‹ Ù ηd \OÌÊ·›Ë...

***

23

B 124
J fiÔÈ, J ‰ÂÈÏeÓ ıÓËÙáÓ Á¤ÓÔ˜, J ‰˘Û¿ÓÔÏ‚ÔÓ,
ÙÔ›ˆÓ öÎ Ù’ âÚ›‰ˆÓ öÎ Ù ÛÙÔÓ·¯áÓ âÁ¤ÓÂÛıÂ.

***
XXXIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

24

B 136
Ôé ·‡ÛÂÛı ÊfiÓÔÈÔ ‰˘Û˯¤Ô˜; ÔéÎ âÛÔÚÄÙÂ
àÏÏ‹ÏÔ˘˜ ‰¿ÙÔÓÙ˜ àÎˉ›ËÈÛÈ ÓfiÔÈÔ;

***

25

B 0 (apud B 136)
‚ˆÌeÓ âÚ‡ıÔÓÙ·˜ Ì·Î¿ÚˆÓ ıÂÚÌÔÖÛÈ ÊfiÓÔÈÛÈÓ

***

26

B 138
¯·ÏΡá àe „˘¯cÓ àÚ‡Û·˜

***

27

B 137
ÌÔÚÊcÓ ‰’ àÏÏ¿Í·ÓÙ· ·ÙcÚ Ê›ÏÔÓ ˘îeÓ à›ڷ˜
ÛÊ¿˙ÂÈ â¢¯fiÌÂÓÔ˜ ̤Á· Ó‹ÈÔ˜Ø Ôî ‰’ àÔÚÂÜÓÙ·È
ÏÈÛÛfiÌÂÓÔÓ ı‡ÔÓÙÂ˜Ø ï ‰’ ·s Ó‹ÎÔ˘ÛÙÔ˜ ïÌÔÎϤˆÓ
ÛÊ¿Í·˜ âÓ ÌÂÁ¿ÚÔÈÛÈ Î·ÎcÓ àÏÂÁ‡Ó·ÙÔ ‰·ÖÙ·.
ó˜ ‰’ ·ûÙˆ˜ ·Ù¤Ú’ ˘îe˜ ëÏgÓ Î·d ÌËÙ¤Ú· ·Ö‰Â˜
ı˘ÌeÓ àÔÚÚ·›Û·ÓÙ ʛϷ˜ ηÙa Û¿Úη˜ ö‰Ô˘ÛÈÓ.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXXV

28

B 145
ÙÔÈÁ¿ÚÙÔÈ ¯·ÏÂÉÈÛÈÓ àχÔÓÙ˜ ηÎfiÙËÛÈÓ
ÔûÔÙ ‰ÂÈÏ·›ˆÓ ௤ˆÓ ψʋÛÂÙ ı˘ÌfiÓ.
_______
v. 2 cf. ·Ú¤ÛÛÂ[Ù·È ôÏÁ]· ı˘Ìˇá, d9 Martin-Primavesi.

***

29

B 139
ÔúÌÔÈ ¬ÙÈ Ôé ÚfiÛıÂÓ Ì ‰ÈÒÏÂÛ ÓËÏÂb˜ wÌ·Ú,
ÚdÓ Û¯¤ÙÏÈ’ öÚÁ· ‚ÔÚĘ ÂÚd ¯Â›ÏÂÛÈ ÌËÙ›Û·Ûı·È.
_______
Cf. d 5-6 Martin-Primavesi

***

[Purification of polluted State of Soul]

30

B 135
Ôé ¤ÏÂÙ·È ÙÔÖ˜ ÌbÓ ıÂÌÈÙeÓ Ùfi‰Â, ÙÔÖ˜ ‰’ àı¤ÌÈÛÙÔÓ,
àÏÏa Ùe ÌbÓ ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÓfiÌÈÌÔÓ ‰Èa Ù’ ÂéÚ˘Ì¤‰ÔÓÙÔ˜
·åı¤ÚÔ˜ äÓÂΤˆ˜ Ù¤Ù·Ù·È ‰È¿ Ù’ àϤÙÔ˘ ·éÁɘ...
_______
Ex Aristotelis Arte Rhetorica (A, 1373 b 14 sqq.) primum versum restituit
Karstenius: Ôé ¤ÏÂÙ·È ÙÔÖ˜ ÌbÓ ‰›Î·ÈÔÓ Ùfi‰Â, ÙÔÖ˜ ‰’ àı¤ÌÈÛÙÔÓ
Sturzius.
v. 3 cf. B17.18 ηd ä¤ÚÔ˜ ôÏÂÙÔÓ ≈„Ô˜
cf. B22.2 äϤÎÙˆÚ Ù ¯ıÒÓ Ù ηd ÔéÚ·Óe˜ ä‰b ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·

***
XXXVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

31

B 140
‰¿ÊÓ˘ ʇÏÏˆÓ ôÔ ¿Ì·Ó ö¯ÂÛı·È.

***

32

B 141
‰ÂÈÏÔ›, ¿Ó‰ÂÈÏÔÈ, ΢¿ÌˆÓ ôÔ ¯ÂÖÚ·˜ ö¯ÂÛı·È.

***

33

B 143
ÎÚËÓ¿ˆÓ ôÔ ¤ÓÙ ٷÌfiÓÙ’ <âÓ> àÙÂÈÚ¤È ¯·ÏÎáÈ
¯Úc ÌbÓ àÔÚÚ‡ÙÂÛı·È...

***

34

B 144
…ÓËÛÙÂÜÛ·È Î·ÎfiÙËÙÔ˜.
_______
Cf. B112.3 ηÎfiÙËÙÔ˜ ôÂÈÚÔÈ.

***

35

B 127
âÓ ı‹ÚÂÛÛÈ Ï¤ÔÓÙ˜ çÚÂÈϯ¤Â˜ ¯·Ì·ÈÂÜÓ·È
Á›ÁÓÔÓÙ·È, ‰¿ÊÓ·È ‰’ âÓd ‰¤Ó‰ÚÂÛÈÓ ä˘ÎfiÌÔÈÛÈÓ.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XXXVII

[End of Purification: condition of Empedocle’s in No. 1]

36

B 146 +147
Âå˜ ‰b Ù¤ÏÔ˜ Ì¿ÓÙÂȘ Ù ηd ñÌÓÔfiÏÔÈ Î·d åËÙÚÔ›
ηd ÚfiÌÔÈ àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈÓ âȯıÔÓ›ÔÈÛÈ ¤ÏÔÓÙ·È,
öÓıÂÓ àÓ·‚Ï·ÛÙÔÜÛÈ ıÂÔd ÙÈÌÉÈÛÈ Ê¤ÚÈÛÙÔÈ.

àı·Ó¿ÙÔȘ ôÏÏÔÈÛÈÓ ï̤ÛÙÈÔÈ, ·éÙÔÙÚ¿Â˙ÔÈ

âfiÓÙ˜, àÓ‰Ú›ˆÓ ௤ˆÓ àfiÎÏËÚÔÈ, àÙÂÈÚÂÖ˜.


b) General Theory of Reality Nos. 37-74

[Way of Truth]

37

Fr. 133
ÔéÎ öÛÙÈÓ ÂÏ¿Û·Ûı·È âÓ çÊı·ÏÌÔÖÛÈÓ âÊÈÎÙfiÓ
ìÌÂÙ¤ÚÔȘ j ¯ÂÚÛd Ï·‚ÂÖÓ, wF ¤Ú Á ÌÂÁ›ÛÙË
ÂÈıÔܘ àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈÓ êÌ·ÍÈÙe˜ Âå˜ ÊÚ¤Ó· ›ÙÂÈ.
_______
v. 2 wF ¤Ú Á Karsten: wF ÂÚ Ù DK: ≥ÂÚ Ù codd.

***

38

B 131
Âå ÁaÚ âÊËÌÂÚ›ˆÓ ≤ÓÂÎ¤Ó ÙÈÓÔ˜, ôÌ‚ÚÔÙ ÔÜÛ·,
ìÌÂÙ¤Ú·˜ ÌÂϤٷ˜ <±‰Â ÙÔÈ> ‰Èa ÊÚÔÓÙ›‰Ô˜ âÏıÂÖÓ,
Âé¯ÔÌ¤ÓˆÈ ÓÜÓ ·sÙ ·Ú›ÛÙ·ÛÔ, K·ÏÏÈfiÂÈ·,
àÌÊd ıÂáÓ Ì·Î¿ÚˆÓ àÁ·ıeÓ ÏfiÁÔÓ âÌÊ·›ÓÔÓÙÈ.
_______
v. 4 cf. B 132.2
ÂÚd ʇÛˆ˜ ac àÌÊd ıÂáÓ idem opus esse; cf. B128; B132

***
XL APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

39

B1
¶·˘Û·Ó›Ë, Ûf ‰b ÎÏÜıÈ, ‰·˝ÊÚÔÓÔ˜ \AÁ¯›Ùˆ ˘î¤.

***

[Pragmatism of Knowledge]

40

B 111
Ê¿Ú̷η ‰’ ¬ÛÛ· ÁÂÁÄÛÈ Î·ÎáÓ Î·d Á‹Ú·Ô˜ ôÏηÚ
‡ÛFË, âÂd ÌÔ‡Óˇˆ ÛÔd âÁg ÎÚ·Ó¤ˆ Ù¿‰Â ¿ÓÙ·.
·‡ÛÂȘ ‰’ àÎ·Ì¿ÙˆÓ àÓ¤ÌˆÓ Ì¤ÓÔ˜ Ô¥ Ù’ âd Á·Ö·Ó
çÚÓ‡ÌÂÓÔÈ ÓÔÈ·ÖÛÈ Î·Ù·ÊıÈÓ‡ıÔ˘ÛÈÓ àÚÔ‡Ú·˜Ø
ηd ¿ÏÈÓ, jÓ âı¤ÏFËÛı·, ·Ï›ÓÙÈÙ· Ó‡̷Ù(·) â¿ÍÂȘØ
ı‹ÛÂȘ ‰’ âÍ ùÌ‚ÚÔÈÔ ÎÂÏ·ÈÓÔÜ Î·›ÚÈÔÓ ·é¯ÌfiÓ
àÓıÚÒÔȘ, ı‹ÛÂȘ ‰b ηd âÍ ·é¯ÌÔÖÔ ıÂÚ›Ԣ
Ú‡̷ٷ ‰ÂÓ‰ÚÂfiıÚÂÙ·, Ù¿ Ù’ ·åı¤ÚÈ à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ·È,
ôÍÂȘ ‰’ âÍ \A˝‰·Ô ηٷÊıÈ̤ÓÔ˘ ̤ÓÔ˜ àÓ‰Úfi˜.
_______
v. 8 Ù¿ Ù’ ·åı¤ÚÈ à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ·È Wilamowitz: ٿْ ·åı¤ÚÈ Ó·È‹ÛÔÓÙ·È cod. P1
Diogenis: ٿْ âÓ ı¤ÚÂÈ à‹ÛÔÓÙ·È P2: ٷٷÈıÂÚÈÓ·›Ë˜ ùÓÙ· Β: ٿ٠ı¤ÚÂÈ-
Ó·‹ÛÔÓÙ·È F: ٿْ ·åı¤ÚÈ· ı‹ÛÔÓÙ·È Tzetzes: ٿْ âÓ ı¤ÚÂÈ öÛÔÓÙ·È Σ: Ù¿
Ù’ ·åı¤ÚÈ Ó·È‹ÛÔÓÙ·È DK: Ù¿ Ù’ ·åı¤ÚÈ Ó·ÈÂÙ¿Ô˘ÛÈ Bollack.

***

41

B5
…ÛÙÂÁ¿Û·È ÊÚÂÓe˜ öÏÏÔÔ˜ ÂúÛˆ.
_______
Cf. B 110

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XLI

42

B2
ÛÙÂÈÓˆÔd ÌbÓ ÁaÚ ·Ï¿Ì·È ηÙa Á˘Ö· Τ¯˘ÓÙ·ÈØ
ÔÏÏa ‰b ‰Â›Ï’ öÌ·È·, Ùa Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ Ì¤ÚÈÌÓ·˜.
·ÜÚÔÓ ‰’ âÓ ˙ˆÉÈÛÈ ‚›Ô˘ ̤ÚÔ˜ àıÚ‹Û·ÓÙ˜
è·ÌÔÚÔÈ Î·ÓÔÖÔ ‰›ÎËÓ àÚı¤ÓÙ˜ à¤Ù·Ó
·éÙe ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂÈÛı¤ÓÙ˜, ¬ÙˆÈ ÚÔÛ¤Î˘ÚÛÂÓ ≤ηÛÙÔ˜
¿ÓÙÔÛ’ âÏ·˘ÓfiÌÂÓÔÈ, Ùe ‰’ ¬ÏÔÓ <Ę> Âû¯ÂÙ·È ÂñÚÂÖÓØ
Ô≈Ùˆ˜ ÔûÙ’ âȉÂÚÎÙa Ù¿‰’ àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈÓ ÔûÙ’ â·ÎÔ˘ÛÙ¿
ÔûÙ ÓfiˆÈ ÂÚÈÏËÙ¿. Ûf ‰’ ÔsÓ, âÂd z‰’ âÏÈ¿Ûı˘,
‡Û·ÈØ Ôé ϤÔÓ ≥ Á ‚ÚÔÙÂ›Ë ÌÉÙȘ ùÚˆÚÂÓ.
_______
v. 1 Τ¯˘ÓÙ·È codd: ٤ٷÓÙ·È Pap. Herc. 1012
v. 2 cf. ± Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·˜, B110.7
v. 6 <Ę> Bergk, DK: <Ù›˜ ôÚ’> Frδnkel: <Ôé‰Âd˜> Βοllack
v. 9 distinxit post ‡ÛÂ·È Bollack
ϤÔÓ metri causa edd.: ÏÂÖÔÓ codd. Sexti
fortasse ‡Û·È, Ôy (i.e. ¬Ô˘) ϤÔÓ etc. [The sense: since you have
wandered here, you will get the knowledge (denied to mere men), here
where mortal wisdom waxes full].
≥ ÁÂ scripsi: ÁÂ codd. Sexti: äb DK: j Stein
Cf. zÓ ı¤ÌȘ âÛÙÈÓ âÊËÌÂÚ›ÔÈÛÈÓ àÎÔ‡ÂÈÓ, Β3.4
Ôé ϤÔÓ ≥ ÁÂ: Ôy ϤÔÓ ÔûÙÈ Fränkel

***

43

B3
àÏÏa ıÂÔd ÙáÓ ÌbÓ Ì·Ó›ËÓ àÔÙÚ¤„·Ù ÁÏÒÛÛ˘,
âÎ ‰’ ïÛ›ˆÓ ÛÙÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ Î·ı·ÚcÓ ç¯ÂÙ‡۷Ù ËÁ‹Ó.
ηd Û¤, ÔÏ˘ÌÓ‹ÛÙË Ï¢ÎÒÏÂÓ ·Úı¤Ó MÔÜÛ·,
ôÓÙÔÌ·È, zÓ ı¤ÌȘ âÛÙdÓ âÊËÌÂÚ›ÔÈÛÈÓ àÎÔ‡ÂÈÓ,
¤Ì ·Ú’ EéÛ‚›Ë˜ âÏ¿Ô˘Û’ Âé‹ÓÈÔÓ ±ÚÌ·.
Ìˉb Û¤ Á’ Âé‰fiÍÔÈÔ ‚È‹ÛÂÙ·È ôÓı· ÙÈÌɘ
Úe˜ ıÓËÙáÓ àÓÂϤÛı·È, âÊ’ zÈ ı’ ïۛ˘ ϤÔÓ ÂåÂÖÓ
ı¿ÚÛÂ˚ - ηd ÙfiÙ ‰c ÛÔʛ˘ â’ ôÎÚÔÈÛÈ ıÔ¿˙ÂÈÓ.
XLII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

àÏÏ’ ôÁ’ ôıÚÂÈ ¿ÛËÈ ·Ï¿ÌËÈ, ÉÈ ‰ÉÏÔÓ ≤ηÛÙÔÓ,

Ì‹Ù ÙÈÓ’ ù„ÈÓ ö¯ˆÓ ›ÛÙÂÈ ϤÔÓ j ηْ àÎÔ˘‹Ó
j àÎÔcÓ âÚ›‰Ô˘ÔÓ ñbÚ ÙÚ·ÓÒÌ·Ù· ÁÏÒÛÛ˘,
Ì‹Ù ÙÈ ÙáÓ ôÏψÓ, ïfiÛËÈ fiÚÔ˜ âÛÙd ÓÔÉÛ·È,
Á˘›ˆÓ ›ÛÙÈÓ öÚ˘ÎÂ, ÓfiÂÈ ‰’ wÈ ‰ÉÏÔÓ ≤ηÛÙÔÓ.
_______
Post B2 teste Sexto VII 124
v. 4 cf. B2.9

***

44

B4
àÏÏa ηÎÔÖ˜ ÌbÓ Î¿ÚÙ· ̤ÏÂÈ ÎÚ·Ù¤Ô˘ÛÈÓ àÈÛÙÂÖÓØ
ó˜ ‰b ·Ú’ ìÌÂÙ¤Ú˘ ΤÏÂÙ·È ÈÛÙÒÌ·Ù· MÔ‡Û˘,
ÁÓáıÈ ‰È·ÛÛËı¤ÓÙÔ˜ âÓd ÛÏ¿Á¯ÓÔÈÛÈ ÏfiÁÔÈÔ.
_______
v.1 ̤ÏÂÈ Herwerden, D.K.: ¤ÏÂÈ cod. Inwood.
v.3 ‰È·ÛÛËı¤ÓÙÔ˜ Diels: ‰È·ÙÌËı¤ÓÙÔ˜ cod. Clementis:
‰È·ÙÌÈÛı¤ÓÙÔ˜ Wilamowitz
âÓd ÛÏ¿Á¯ÓÔÈÛÈ: cf. Âå˜ ÊÚ¤Ó· B133.3; B105.

***

[Doctrine 1, ÚáÙÔÓ ôÎÔ˘Â: the Elemental Roots of Existence.

First Revelation of Truth, first part of Divine Physics]

45

B6
Ù¤ÛÛ·Ú· ÁaÚ ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÚÈ˙ÒÌ·Ù· ÚáÙÔÓ ôÎÔ˘Â
ZÂf˜ àÚÁc˜ ≠HÚË Ù ÊÂÚ¤Û‚ÈÔ˜ 䉒 \AȉˆÓ‡˜
NÉÛÙ›˜ ı’, m ‰·ÎÚ‡ÔȘ Ù¤ÁÁÂÈ ÎÚԇӈ̷ ‚ÚfiÙÂÈÔÓ.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XLIII

46

B7
(Ùa ÛÙÔȯÂÖ·)
àÁ¤ÓËÙ·

***

[Doctrine 2, ôÏÏÔ ‰¤ ÙÔÈ âÚ¤ˆ: Second Revelation of Truth.

ʇÛȘ is Ì›ÍȘ. Two Opposing Principles (ºÈÏ›·, NÂÖÎÔ˜)
of Communion and Repulsion]

47

B8
ôÏÏÔ ‰¤ ÙÔÈ âÚ¤ˆØ ʇÛȘ Ôé‰ÂÓe˜ öÛÙÈÓ ê¿ÓÙˆÓ
ıÓËÙáÓ, Ô鉤 ÙȘ ÔéÏÔ̤ÓÔ˘ ı·Ó¿ÙÔÈÔ ÙÂÏÂ˘Ù‹,
àÏÏa ÌfiÓÔÓ Ì›ÍȘ Ù ‰È¿ÏÏ·Í›˜ Ù ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙˆÓ
öÛÙÈ, ʇÛȘ ‰’ âd ÙÔÖ˜ çÓÔÌ¿˙ÂÙ·È àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈÓ.

***

48

B9
Ôî ‰’ ¬Ù ÌbÓ Î·Ùa ÊáÙ· ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙ’ ó˜ ·åı¤Ú’ ú<‰ˆÓÙ·È>
j ηÙa ıËÚáÓ àÁÚÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ Á¤ÓÔ˜ j ηÙa ı¿ÌÓˆÓ
äb ηْ ÔåˆÓáÓ, ÙfiÙ ÌbÓ Ùe <ϤÁÔ˘ÛÈ> ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È,
ÂsÙ ‰’ àÔÎÚÈÓıáÛÈ, Ùe ‰’ ·s ‰˘Û‰·›ÌÔÓ· fiÙÌÔÓØ
wF ı¤ÌȘ <Ôé> Î·Ï¤Ô˘ÛÈ, ÓfiÌˆÈ ‰’ â›ÊËÌÈ Î·d ·éÙfi˜.
_______
v. 1 ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙ· (sc. Ùa ÛÙÔȯÂÖ·). ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙ’ ó˜ ·åı¤Ú’ ú<‰ˆÓÙ·È> dubitanter
proposui: ÌÈÁbÓ Êg˜ (sic) ·åı¤ÚÈ <6-8 litt.> codd. Plutarchi: ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙ’ Âå˜
·åı¤Ú’ ¥<ΈÓÙ·È> Diels, DK
Ôî ‰’ ¬ı’ ¥ÎFË Î·Ùa ÊáÙ· ÌÈÁ¤ÓÙ’ Âå˜ ·åı¤ÚÈÔÓ ÊᘠBignone: Ôî ‰’ ¬Ù ÎÂÓ
ηÙa ÊáÙ· ÌÈÁbÓ Ê¿Ô˜ ·åı¤ÚÔ˜ ¥ÎFË Mullach, Panzerbieter: ÌÈÁbÓ Êá˜
·åı¤ÚÈ <·ÚÛFË> Burnet, van der Ben.
XLIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

v. 3 Ùe <ϤÁÔ˘ÛÈ> Reiske, DK: ÙeÓ <7 vel 8 lit.> codd. Plutarchi: Ùfi<‰Â Ê·Ûd>
Bernardakis, Inwood: Ù¿ <‰Â Ê·Ûd> Xylander: ÙfiÓ <Ê·ÛÈ> dubitanter
Friedlδnder: Ùfi <Á¤ Ê·ÛÈ> Panzerbieter, Wright.
v. 5 w
F ı¤ÌȘ <Ôé> Bernardakis (in Plutarchi 820F), Bachet de Meziriac, Burnet,
Pohlenz: Fw ı¤ÌȘ (820F) vel ÂrÓ·È (1113 B) codd. Plutarchi: Ôé ı¤ÌȘ Fw
Wilamowitz: m ı¤ÌȘ <Ôé> DK (<Ôé> Wyttenbach): ì ı¤ÌȘ <àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈ>
van der Ben.

***

49

B 23
ó˜ ‰’ ïfiÙ·Ó Áڷʤ˜ àÓ·ı‹Ì·Ù· ÔÈΛÏψÛÈÓ
àÓ¤Ú˜ àÌÊ› Ù¤¯Ó˘ ñe Ì‹ÙÈÔ˜ Âs ‰Â‰·áÙÂ,
Ô¥Ù’ âÂd ÔsÓ Ì¿Ú„ˆÛÈ Ôχ¯ÚÔ· Ê¿Ú̷η ¯ÂÚÛ›Ó,
êÚÌÔÓ›ËÈ Ì›ͷÓÙ Ùa ÌbÓ Ϥˆ, ôÏÏ· ‰’ âÏ¿ÛÛˆ,
âÎ ÙáÓ Âú‰Â· ÄÛÈÓ àÏ›ÁÎÈ· ÔÚÛ‡ÓÔ˘ÛÈ,
‰¤Ó‰Ú¿ Ù ÎÙ›˙ÔÓÙ ηd àÓ¤Ú·˜ ä‰b Á˘Ó·Öη˜
ıÉÚ¿˜ Ù’ ÔåˆÓÔ‡˜ Ù ηd ñ‰·ÙÔıÚ¤ÌÌÔÓ·˜ å¯ıܘ
η› Ù ıÂÔf˜ ‰ÔÏȯ·›ˆÓ·˜ ÙÈÌÉÈÛÈ ÊÂÚ›ÛÙÔ˘˜
Ô≈Ùˆ Ì‹ Û’ à¿ÙË ÊÚ¤Ó· ηÈÓ‡Ùˆ ôÏÏÔıÂÓ ÂrÓ·È
ıÓËÙáÓ, ¬ÛÛ· Á ‰ÉÏ· ÁÂÁÄÛÈÓ à¿ÛÂÙ·, ËÁ‹Ó,
àÏÏa ÙÔÚᘠٷÜÙ’ úÛıÈ, ıÂÔÜ ¿Ú· ÌÜıÔÓ àÎÔ‡Û·˜.
_______
vv. 6-8 cf. B21.10-12
v. 8 cf. B 146.3
v. 10 ÁÂÁÄÛÈÓ à¿ÛÂÙ· Bergk, Inwood: ÁÂÁ¿·ÛÈÓ ôÛÂÙ· codd. Simplicii,
Bollack: ÁÂÁ¿Î·ÛÈÓ ôÛÂÙ· Diels, DK dubitanter
v. 11 Ù·ÜÙ’ sc. radices, elementa.

***

50

B 11
Ó‹ÈÔÈØ Ôé Á¿Ú ÛÊÈÓ ‰ÔÏȯfiÊÚÔÓ¤˜ ÂåÛÈ Ì¤ÚÈÌÓ·È,
ÔQ ‰c Á›ÁÓÂÛı·È ¿ÚÔ˜ ÔéÎ âeÓ âÏ›˙Ô˘ÛÈÓ
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XLV

õ ÙÈ Î·Ù·ıÓ‹ÈÛÎÂÈÓ Ù ηd âÍfiÏÏ˘Ûı·È ê¿ÓÙËÈ.

_______
v. 1 ‰ÔÏȯfiÊÚÔÓ¤˜ ÂåÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·È; cf. Ù¿ Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·˜, B 2.2;
cf. B110.7

***

51

B 15
ÔéÎ iÓ àÓcÚ ÙÔÈ·ÜÙ· ÛÔÊe˜ ÊÚÂÛd Ì·ÓÙ‡۷ÈÙÔ,
ó˜ ùÊÚ· Ì¤Ó Ù ‚ÈáÛÈ, Ùe ‰c ‚›ÔÙÔÓ Î·Ï¤Ô˘ÛÈ,
ÙfiÊÚ· ÌbÓ ÔsÓ ÂåÛ›Ó, η› ÛÊÈÓ ¿Ú· ‰ÂÈÏa ηd âÛıÏ¿,
ÚdÓ ‰b ¿ÁÂÓ Ù ‚ÚÔÙÔd ηd <âÂd> χıÂÓ, Ôé‰bÓ ôÚ’ ÂåÛÈÓ.
_______
Fortasse post B11, teste Plutarcho (adv. Colotem, 113C-D, p. 186.10: Ùe ÌÂÙ¿
Ù·ÜÙ’ (sc. B11) âd ÙÔéÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ iÓ ·åÙÈ¿Û·Ûı·È ·Ú¿Û¯ÔÈ, ÙÔÜ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏ¤Ô˘˜
ϤÁÔÓÙÔ˜ “ÔéÎ iÓ àÓcÚ... Ôé‰bÓ ôÚ’ ÂåÛ›”.
v. 3 ‰ÂÈÏa Bergk, DK, Wright, Inwood: ‰ÂÈÓa codd. Plutarchi, Bollack, fortasse
recte, teste probabiliter Plutarcho (adv. Colotem, 1113D, p. 186.21
Pohlenz).

***

52

B 12
öÎ Ù ÁaÚ Ô鉿̒ âfiÓÙÔ˜ àÌ‹¯·ÓfiÓ âÛÙÈ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È
ηd Ù’ âeÓ âÍ·ÔϤÛı·È àÓ‹Ó˘ÛÙÔÓ Î·d ô˘ÛÙÔÓØ
·åÂd ÁaÚ ÙÉÈ Á’ öÛÙ·È, ¬ËÈ Î¤ ÙȘ ·åbÓ âÚ›‰ËÈ.
_______
v. 1 öÎ Ù ÁaÚ Diels, DK: âÎ ÙÔÜ ÁaÚ codd. Philonis, Bollack: öÎ Ù vel âÎ ÙÔÜ
codd. textus de MXG: âÎ ÁaÚ ÙÔÜ Wright, Inwood.
Ô鉿̒ âfiÓÙÔ˜ Diels, DK: Ô鉷ÌÉ ùÓÙÔ˜ codd. Philonis: Ìc ùÓÙÔ˜ codd.
textus de MXG: Ìc âfiÓÙÔ˜ Bollack, Wright, Inwood.
v. 2 η› Ù’ âeÓ Stein, DK, Wright, Indood: Ùfi Ù ùÓ codd., Wilamowitz: Ùfi Ù’
âeÓ Bollack
XLVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

âÍ·ÔϤÛı·È cod. Philonis, DK: âÍ·ÔÏÂÖÛı·È ceteri codd. Philonis: âÍfiÏ-

Ï˘Ûı·È codd. textus de MXG, Bollack
ô˘ÛÙÔÓ Mangey, DK, Wright, Inwood: ô·˘ÛÙÔÓ codd. Philonis: ôÚË-
ÎÙÔÓ codd. textus de MXG, Bollack.
v. 3 cf. B110.1
ÙFÉ Á’ öÛÙ·È Panzerbieter, DK, Wright, Inwood: ı‹ÛÂÛı·È codd.: ıËÛÂÖÙ·È
Bollack

***

53

B 13
Ô鉤 ÙÈ ÙÔÜ ·ÓÙe˜ ÎÂÓÂeÓ ¤ÏÂÈ Ôé‰b ÂÚÈÛÛfiÓ.

***

54

B 14
ÙÔÜ ·ÓÙe˜ ‰’ Ôé‰bÓ ÎÂÓÂfiÓØ fiıÂÓ ÔsÓ Ù› Î’ â¤ÏıÔÈ;

***

55

B 18
ºÈÏ›Ë

***

56

B 19
ۯ‰‡ÓËÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙ·

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XLVII

57

B 16
(probably ºÈÏ›· and NÂÖÎÔ˜)
ö<ÛÙ>È ÁaÚ ó˜ ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·d öÛÛÂÙ·È, Ôé‰b ÔÙ’, Ôúˆ,
ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ àÌÊÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ ÎÂÓÂÒÛÂÙ·È ôÛÂÙÔ˜ ·åÒÓ.
_______
v. 1 ö<ÛÙ>È ÁaÚ ó˜ ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·d Lloyd-Jones, Wright, Inwood: Âå (vel qÓ) ηd
¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·d codd.: wF ÁaÚ Î·d ¿ÚÔ˜ öÛΠηd DK dubitanter: qÓ ÁaÚ Î·d
¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·d Bollack: q ÁaÚ Î·d ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·› <Á’> Marcovich: ηd ÁaÚ
ηd ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ <ÙÂ> ηd Schneidewin: q ÁaÚ Î·d ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ Î·d Miller,
Wendland: wF ÁaÚ Î·d ¿ÚÔ˜ qÓ <S˜> ηd Nauck.

***

[Doctrine 3: Third Revelation of Truth: ¢›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆ.

Cosmic Cyclicity in Two Opposing Phases
under Two Opposing Principles]

58

B 17+a+Metaph. 1000a29-32 + Simpl. in Phys. p. 161.20 Diels

B 17.1 ‰›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆØ ÙÔÙb ÌbÓ ÁaÚ íÓ ËéÍ‹ıË ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È

âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ, ÙÔÙb ‰’ ·s ‰È¤Ê˘ ϤÔÓ’ âÍ ëÓe˜ ÂrÓ·È.
‰ÔÈc ‰b ıÓËÙáÓ Á¤ÓÂÛȘ, ‰ÔÈc ‰’ àfiÏÂȄȘØ
ÙcÓ Ì¤Ó ÁaÚ ¿ÓÙˆÓ Û‡ÓÔ‰Ô˜ Ù›ÎÙÂÈ Ù’ çϤÎÂÈ ÙÂ,
ì ‰b ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È·Ê˘ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ıÚÂÊıÂÖÛ· ‰È¤ÙË.
ηd Ù·ÜÙ’ àÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ‰È·ÌÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ,
ôÏÏÔÙ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ Âå˜ íÓ ±·ÓÙ·,
ôÏÏÔÙ ‰’ ·s ‰›¯’ ≤ηÛÙ· ÊÔÚ‡ÌÂÓ· N›ÎÂÔ˜ ö¯ıÂÈ.
Ô≈Ùˆ˜ wÈ ÌbÓ íÓ âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ ÌÂÌ¿ıËΠʇÂÛı·È,
10. ä‰b ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È·Ê‡ÓÙÔ˜ ëÓe˜ ϤÔÓ’ âÎÙÂϤıÔ˘ÛÈ,
ÙÉÈ ÌbÓ Á›ÁÓÔÓÙ·› Ù ηd Ôû ÛÊÈÛÈÓ öÌ‰Ԙ ·åÒÓØ
wÈ ‰b ‰È·ÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ‰È·ÌÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ,
Ù·‡ÙËÈ ‰’ ·åbÓ ö·ÛÈÓ àΛÓËÙÔÈ Î·Ùa ·ÎÏÔÓ.
XLVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

àÏÏ’ ôÁ ̇ıˆÓ ÎÏÜıÈØ Ì¿ıË Á¿Ú ÙÔÈ ÊÚ¤Ó·˜ ·ûÍÂÈØ

ó˜ ÁaÚ Î·d ÚdÓ öÂÈ· ÈÊ·‡ÛÎˆÓ ›ڷٷ ̇ıˆÓ,
‰›Ï’ âÚ¤ˆØ ÙÔÙb ÌbÓ ÁaÚ íÓ ËéÍ‹ıË ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È
âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ, ÙÔÙb ‰’ ·s ‰È¤Ê˘ ϤÔÓ’ âÍ ëÓe˜ ÂrÓ·È,
ÜÚ Î·d ≈‰ˆÚ ηd Á·Ö· ηd ä¤ÚÔ˜ ôÏÂÙÔÓ ≈„Ô˜,
NÂÖÎfi˜ Ù’ ÔéÏfiÌÂÓÔÓ ‰›¯· ÙáÓ, àÙ¿Ï·ÓÙÔÓ à¿ÓÙËÈ,
20. ηd ºÈÏfiÙ˘ âÓ ÙÔÖÛÈÓ, úÛË ÌÉÎfi˜ Ù Ï¿ÙÔ˜ ÙÂØ
ÙcÓ Ûf ÓfiˆÈ ‰¤Ú΢, Ìˉ’ ùÌÌ·ÛÈÓ wÛÔ ÙÂıËÒ˜Ø
≥ÙȘ ηd ıÓËÙÔÖÛÈ ÓÔÌ›˙ÂÙ·È öÌÊ˘ÙÔ˜ ôÚıÚÔȘ,
ÙÉÈ Ù ʛϷ ÊÚÔÓ¤Ô˘ÛÈ Î·d ôÚıÌÈ· öÚÁ· ÙÂÏÔÜÛÈ,
°ËıÔÛ‡ÓËÓ Î·Ï¤ÔÓÙ˜ âÒÓ˘ÌÔÓ ä‰’ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙËÓØ
ÙcÓ Ôû ÙȘ ÌÂÙa ÙÔÖÛÈÓ ëÏÈÛÛÔ̤ÓËÓ ‰Â‰¿ËÎÂ
ıÓËÙe˜ àÓ‹ÚØ Ûf ‰’ ôÎԢ ÏfiÁÔ˘ ÛÙfiÏÔÓ ÔéÎ à·ÙËÏfiÓ.

Ù·ÜÙ· ÁaÚ rÛ¿ Ù ¿ÓÙ· ηd ≥ÏÈη Á¤ÓÓ·Ó ö·ÛÈ,

ÙÈÌɘ ‰’ ôÏÏ˘ ôÏÏÔ Ì¤‰ÂÈ, ¿Ú· ‰’ qıÔ˜ ëοÛÙˆÈ,
âÓ ‰b ̤ÚÂÈ ÎÚ·Ù¤Ô˘ÛÈ ÂÚÈÏÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔÈÔ.
30. ηd Úe˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÔûÙ’ ôÚ ÙÈ âÈÁ›ÁÓÂÙ·È Ô鉒 àÔÏ‹ÁÂÈØ
ÂúÙ ÁaÚ âÊı›ÚÔÓÙÔ ‰È·ÌÂÚ¤˜, ÔéÎ iÓ öÙ’ qÛ·Ó.
ÙÔÜÙÔ ‰’ â·˘Í‹ÛÂÈ Ùe ÄÓ Ù› ÎÂ; ηd fiıÂÓ âÏıfiÓ;
ÉÈ ‰¤ ΠÎäÍ·fiÏÔÈÙÔ, âÂd ÙáÓ‰’ Ôé‰bÓ âÚÉÌÔÓ;
àÏÏ’ ·ûÙ’ âÛÙÈÓ Ù·ÜÙ·, ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ Ù ı¤ÔÓÙ·
Á›ÁÓÂÙ·È ôÏÏÔÙ ôÏÏ· ηd äÓÂÎb˜ ·åbÓ ïÌÔÖ·.
a(i)6 [àÏÏ’ âÓ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fi]ÌÂÓ’ Âå˜ ≤Ó· ÎfiÛÌÔÓ,
[âÓ ‰’ òE¯ıÚËÈ Á ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È¤Ê˘ Ϥ]ÔÓ’ âÍ ëÓe˜ ÂrÓ·È,
[âÍ zÓ ¿Óı’ ¬Û· Ù’ qÓ ¬Û· Ù’ âÛı’ ¬]Û· Ù’ öÛÛÂÙ’ ç›ÛÛˆ
a(i)9 [‰¤Ó‰Ú¿ Ù’ â‚Ï¿ÛÙËÛ ηd àÓ¤Ú˜] ä‰b Á˘Ó·ÖΘ,
a(ii)1 [ı]ÉÚ¤˜ Ù’ ÔåˆÓÔ› [Ù ηd] ñ‰·ÙÔıÚ[¤ÌÌÔÓ˜ å¯ıܘ]
[Î]·› Ù ıÂÔd ‰ÔÏȯ·[›ˆÓ]˜ ÙÈÌÉÈÛ[È Ê¤ÚÈÛÙÔÈ.]
[â]Ó ÙÉÈ ‰’ à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ· [‰È·Ì]ÂÚb˜ Ôé‰[·Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ]
[]˘ÎÓÉÈÛÈÓ ‰›ÓËÈÛ[ÈÓ ]Ù [ ]
[Ó]ˆÏÂ̤˜, Ô鉤 Ô[Ù’ ]
[ÔÏÏ]Ôd ‰’ ·åáÓ˜ ÚfiÙÂÚ[ÔÈ ]
[ÚdÓ] ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ÌÂÙ·‚ÉÓ·[È ]
[¿]ÓÙËÈ ‰’ à˝ÛÛÔÓ[Ù]· ‰È·Ì[ÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈØ]
[œ˜] Ù ÁaÚ ä¤ÏÈÔ˜ Ú[‡Ì‚]ËÓ ö[¯ÂÈ, Ôé‰b ÛÂÏ‹ÓË]
a(ii)10 [ïÚ]ÌÉ <È> ÙÉȉ Á¤ÌÔ˘[Û· Ù ηd ÊıÈÓ‡ıÔ˘Û’ àÔÏ‹ÁÂÈ,]
[Ôû]Ù ÙÈ ÙáÓ ôÏÏˆÓ [̤ÓÂÈ öÌ‰ÔÓ ÔéÚ·Óˇá ôÛÙÚˆÓ,]
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XLIX

[àÏ]Ïa ÌÂÙ·ÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓ[Ù’ à˝ÛÛ]ÂÈ Î‡ÎÏˆÈ [±·ÓÙ·],

[Âå˜ ¬]Ù ÌbÓ ÁaÚ Á·Ö’ [à‚]¿ÙË ı¤ÂÈ ä¤Ï[Èfi˜ ÙÂ]
[ÛÊ·ÖÚ¿] Ù’ ¬ÛËÓ ‰c η[dÓ]ÜÓ â’ àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈ Ù[ÂÎÌ‹Ú·Ûı·ÈØ]
[S˜ ‰’ ·]ûÙˆ˜ Ù¿‰[ ]¿ÓÙ· ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ [ÚÔı¤Ô˘ÛÈÓ]
[ÎôÏÏÔ]˘˜ Ù’ àÏÏ[ÔÙ]’ ú·Û[È] ÙfiÔ˘˜ Ï·Á[¯ı¤ÓÙ· ηd
ôÏÏÔ˘˜Ø]
[Ú›Ó ÙÔÈ Î’ â˜] ÌÂÛ¿ÙÔ˘˜ Á[Â Û˘ÓÂ]Ú¯fiÌÂÓ’ íÓ Ì[fiÓÔÓ ÂrÂÓ.]
[àÏÏ’ ¬Ù] ‰c NÂÖÎÔ˜ [Á’ àÓ]˘¤Ú‚·Ù· ‚¤Ó[ıÂ’ ¥ÎËÙ·È]
‰[›ÓË]˜, âÓ ‰b ̤Û[ËÈ] º[ÈÏ]fiÙ˘ ÛÙÚÔÊ¿[ÏÈÁÁÈ Á¤ÓËÙ·È,]
a(ii)20 âÓ [ÙÉÈ] ‰c Ù¿‰Â ¿ÓÙ· Û˘Ó¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È íÓ [ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È.]
[ÛÂÜ]‰Â ‰’ ¬ˆ˜ Ìc ÌÔÜÓÔÓ àÓ’ Ôû·Ù· [ÌÜıÔ˜ ¥ÎËÙ·È]
[䉤] Ì¢ àÌÊd˜ âfiÓÙ· ÎχˆÓ [Ó]ËÌÂÚÙ[¤· ÊÚ¿˙¢Ø]
[‰Â›]͈ ÛÔÈ Î·d àÓ’ ùÛÛ’ ¥Ó· Ì›˙ÔÓÈ ÛÒÌ[·ÙÈ Î‡ÚÂÈ, ]
[]ÚáÙÔÓ ÌbÓ Í‡ÓÔ‰fiÓ Ù ‰È¿Ù˘Í›Ó Ù[ ÁÂÓ¤ıÏ˘]
¬Û[Û]· Ù ÓÜÓ öÙÈ ÏÔÈa ¤ÏÂÈ ÙÔ‡ÙÔÈÔ Ù[fiÎÔÈÔ,]
ÙÔÜÙÔ ÌbÓ [àÓ] ıËÚáÓ çÚÈÏ¿ÁÎÙˆÓ ôÁ[ÚÈ· ÊÜÏ·,]
ÙÔÜÙÔ ‰’ àÓ’ à[ÓıÚÒ]ˆÓ ‰›‰˘ÌÔÓ Ê‡Ì·, [ÙÔÜÙÔ ‰’ àÓ’
àÁÚáÓ]
®È˙ÔÊfiÚˆÓ Á¤ÓÓËÌ· ηd àÌÂÏÔ‚¿Ì[ÔÓ· ‚fiÙÚ˘ÓØ]
âÎ ÙáÓ à„¢‰É ÎfiÌÈÛ·È ÊÚÂÓd ‰Â›ÁÌ·Ù· Ì[‡ıˆÓØ]
a(ii)30 ù„ÂÈ ÁaÚ Í‡ÓÔ‰fiÓ Ù ‰È¿Ù˘Í›Ó Ù ÁÂÓ¤ıÏFË[˜.] Γ = 300
_______
In primum librum, teste Simplicio (In Phys. p. 157.25 sqq.): ï ‰b \EÌ‰Ô-
ÎÏɘ... Ô≈Ùˆ˜ âÓ Ùˇá ÚÒÙˇˆ ÙáÓ º˘ÛÈÎáÓ.
Β17.5 ıÚÂÊıÂÖÛ· Panzerbieter, Diels, DK, Inwood: ıÚ˘ÊıÂÖÛ· codd.
Simplicii, Karsten: ‰Ú˘ÊıÂÖÛ’ unus codex, Bollack.
‰È¤ÙË: Scaliger, DK, Inwood: ‰ÚÂÙ‹ codd.
9 ex B26.8 inseruerunt Bergk, DK, Wright, Inwood.
10 ä‰b Karsten, DK, Wright, Inwood: wF ‰¤ vel. w ‰Â vel ì ‰b codd.:
wF ‰b Wilamowitz, Bollack.
13 àΛÓËÙÔÈ (sc. elementa qua dei deaeque) codd., DK, Bollack,
Inwood, Wright: àΛÓËÙÔÓ Bock: àκινητd Panzerbieter.
18 ä¤ÚÔ˜ codd. Sexti, Athenagorae, Simplicii, DK: ·åı¤ÚÔ˜ codd.
Plutarchi, Clementis.
ôÏÂÙÔÓ: codd. Clementis, Simplicii, DK: õÈÔÓ codd. Plutarchi,
Athenagorae, Sexti.
19 ê¿ÓÙFË: codd. Sexti, Hippolyti, DK: ≤ηÛÙÔÓ codd. Simplicii:
ëοÛÙˇˆ Panzerbieter.
L APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ºÈÏfiÙ˘ codd. Simplicii, Sexti, Plutarchi, DK: ºÈÏ›Ë codd. Sexti in

alterum locum, Athenagorae, Hippolyti.
âÓ codd. Simplicii, Plutarchi, DK: ÌÂÙa codd. Sexti in locum
utrumque, Athenagorae, Hippolyti.
25 ÌÂÙa ÙÔÖÛÈÓ Brandis, DK, Wright, Inwood: ÌÂÙ’ ùÛÔÈÛÈÓ vel
ùÛÛÔÈÛÈÓ codd. Simplicii: ÌÂÙ’ ùÛÔÈÛÈÓ Bollack.
28 ÙÈÌɘ: cf. B30.2
29 cf. B26.1
30 ôÚ ÙÈ âÈÁ›ÓÂÙ·È DK: ôÚÙÈ âÈÁ›(Á)ÓÂÙ·È codd. Simplicii,
Wilamowitz (cf. Lucretius II 296 auctore Bignone): ôÚ âÈÁ›ÓÂÙ·È
cod. Simplicii: ôÚ Ù¤ ÙÈ Á›ÓÂÙ·È Diels: ôÚ ÔûÙ’ âÈÁ›ÁÓÂÙ·È Karsten;
Ô鉒 ôÚÙÈ ÙÈ Á›ÓÂÙ·È Lloyd-Jones.
31 ÔéÎ iÓ ö]Ù’ Papyrus, MP: ÔéΤْ iν codd., DK.
33 ΠÎäÍ·fiÏÔÈÙÔ Diels, DK: (ηd) Î‹Ú˘Í àfiÏÔÈÙÔ codd.
Simplicii: ηd âÍ·fiÏÔÈÙ’ iÓ Karsten: ηd âÍ·ÔÏÔ›·ÙÔ Stein:
ΠÎÉÚ’ àfiÏÔÈÙÔ Bollack.
Cf. B21.23; B26.3
34 ÙÂ Janko: ‰b codd. Simplicii: ÁÂ MP
a(i) 6 Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ correctio in Pap.: Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂı’ pr.m.
Pap., MP, Janko
a(ii) 9 [œÛ]Ù scripsi, cf. a(ii) 15 S˜ ‰’ ·ûÙˆ˜: [Ôû]Ù ΜΡ, Janko
Ú[‡Ì‚]ËÓ scripsi: Ù[‡Ú‚]ËÓ Janko
ö[¯ÂÈ, ÔûÙ ÛÂÏ‹ÓË] Janko
Ôé‰b scripsi: ÔûÙ Janko
a(ii) 10 [ïÚ]ÌÉ<È> Primavesi, Janko
Á¤ÌÔ˘[Û· Ù ηd ÊıÈÓ‡ıÔ˘Û’ àÔÏ‹ÁÂÈ] Janko
a(ii) 11 [̤ÓÂÈ öÌ‰ÔÓ ÔéÚ·Óˇá ôÛÙÚˆÓ] Janko
a(ii) 12 [àÏ]Ïa ÌÂÙ·ÏÏ¿ÛÔÓ[Ù’ à˝ÛÛ]ÂÈ ΜP, Janko
±·ÓÙ· Janko: ê¿ÓÙFË MP
a(ii) 13 [Âå˜ ¬]Ù scripsi: ‰c Ùfi]Ù MP, Janko
ÌbÓ pap: fortasse ÌcÓ
ä¤Ï[Èfi˜ ÙÂ] MP: äÂÏ[›Ô˘ ÙÂ] Janko
a(ii) 15 [ÚÔı¤Ô˘ÛÈÓ] Janko: [Ù ı¤ÂÛÎÂÓ] MP
a(ii) 16 Ù’ ôÏÏ[ÔÙ]’ ú·Û[È] Janko: Ù’ ôÏÏ’ [¥Î·]Ó MP
Ï·Á[¯ı¤ÓÙ· ηd ôÏÏÔ˘˜] Janko: Ï·Á[¯ı¤ÓÙ’ å‰›Ô˘˜ ÙÂ] MP
a(ii) 17 [Ú›Ó ÙÔÈ Î â˜] scripsi: [Ôû ÙÔÈ ‰c] Janko: [·éı¿‰Ë?] MP
Á[Â Û˘ÓÂ]Ú¯fiÌÂÓ’ íÓ Ì[fiÓÔÓ ÂrÂÓ] scripsi: Ù’ [ÂåÛÂ]Ú¯fiÌÂı’ íÓ
Ì[fiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È] MP, Janko
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LI

a(ii) 18-20 cf B35.3-5

a(ii)18 [Á’ àÓ]˘¤Ú‚·Ù· scripsi: [ÌbÓ ñ]ÂÚ‚·Ùa MP, Janko
a(ii) 22 ÊÚ¿˙¢ Janko: ‰¤Ú΢? MP
a(ii) 23 ÛÒÌ[·ÙÈ Î‡ÚÂÈ?] ΜΡ: ÛÒÌ[·Ù]’ àÌ›‚[ÂÈ] Janko ex g1
a(ii) 25 Ù[fiÎÔÈÔ?] ΜΡ (cf. d13 ÙÂÎÓÒı[Ë]Û·Ó): Ù’ [ô]ÌÔÈÚ[·]
Janko ex g3
a(ii) 26 ôÁ[ÚÈ· ÊÜÏ·] Janko: àÁ[ÚfiÙÂÚ’ Âú‰Ë] ΜΡ
a(ii) 27 àÁÚáÓ? MP: ôÓıÂˆÓ Janko
a(ii) 30 versum memorat Simplicius In Phys. 161.20

***

59

c+B 20
[ öÚÁ· ‰È?]¿ÎÙÔÚ· ÌË[Ù›Û·Ûı·È?,]
ÙÔÜÙÔ ÌbÓ àÓ ‚ÚÔÙ¤ˆÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ àÚȉ›ÎÂÙÔÓ ùÁÎÔÓØ
ôÏÏÔÙ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ Âå˜ íÓ ±·ÓÙ·
Á˘Ö·, Ùa ÛáÌ· ϤÏÔÁ¯Â ‚›Ô˘ ı·]ÏfiÔÓÙÔ˜ âÓ àÎÌÉÈØ
ôÏÏÔÙ ‰’ ·sÙ ηÎÉÈÛÈ ‰È·ÙÌËı¤ÓÙ’ \EÚ›‰ÂÛÛÈ,
Ï¿˙ÂÙ·È ôӉȯ’ ≤ηÛÙ· ÂÚd ®ËÁÌÖÓÈ ‚›ÔÈÔØ
S˜ ‰’ ·≈Ùˆ˜ ı¿ÌÓÔÈÛÈ Î·d å¯ı‡ÛÈÓ ñ‰ÚÔÌÂÏ¿ıÚÔȘ
ıËÚÛ› Ù’ çÚÂÈϯ¤ÂÛÛÈÓ å‰b ÙÂÚÔ‚¿ÌÔÛÈ Î‡Ì‚·È˜
_______
v. 1 cf. d6
[ ›ÎÂÔ˜ Â¥ÎÂÓÂÓ öÚÁ· ‰È]¿ÎÙÔÚ· Janko, sed opus principiorum
utrorumque describitur in sequentibus.
v. 3 Û˘Ó]ÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ’ post cor. Pap.; codd. Simplicii, DK: Û˘Ó]ÂÚ¯fiÌÂı’ ante cor.
Pap., Martin-Primavesi, Janko.
v. 4 ı·]ÏfiÔÓÙÔ˜ scripsi post cor. Pap. ut videtur: ı·Ï¤ÔÓÙÔ˜ cod. Simplicii:
ı·]ÏÔÜÓÙÔ˜ vel ıË]ÏÔÜÓÙÔ˜ ante cor. Papyrus ut videtur: ı·Ï¤ıÔÓÙÔ˜ codd.
Simplicii, DK, Inwood, Janko: ıË?]ÏÔÜÓÙÔ˜ MP.
v. 8 Ù’ çÚÂÈϯ¤ÂÛÛÈÓ Schneider, Diels, DK, Janko (cf. b127.1):τ’ çÚÂÈÌÂϤÂÛÈÓ
vel Ù ÚËÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ codd. Simplici: Ù’ çÚÂÈÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ Bollack, MP.

***
LII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

60

d + Β 139
[ôÓ]‰È¯’ à’ àÏϋψ[Ó] ÂÛ¤[ÂÈ]Ó Î·d [fiÙ]ÌÔÓ âÈÛÂÖÓ
[fi]ÏÏ’ àÂη˙Ô̤Ó[Ô]ÈÛÈÓ à[Ó·]Áη[›Ë˜ ≈]Ô Ï˘ÁÚɘ
[ÛË]Ô[Ì]¤ÓÔÈ˜Ø ºÈÏ›ËÓ ‰b [ηd E]éÓ[Ô›Ë]Ó Ó˘Ó ö¯Ô˘ÛÈÓ
[≠AÚ]˘È·È ı·Ó¿ÙÔÈÔ ¿ÏÔȘ [ìÌÖÓ ·Ú¤Û]ÔÓÙ·È.
ÔúÌÔÈ ¬Ù(È)’ Ôé ÚfiÛıÂÓ Ì ‰ÈÒÏÂÛ ÓËÏÂb˜ qÌ·Ú, B 139.1
ÚdÓ ¯ËÏ·Ö˜ Û¯¤ÙÏÈ’ öÚÁ· ‚ÔÚĘ ¤ÚÈ ÌËÙ›Û·Ûı·ÈØ 2
[ÓÜÓ ‰]b Ì¿ÙË[Ó âÓ] Ùáȉ ÓfiÙ[ˆÈ η٤‰]Â˘Û· ·ÚÂÈ¿˜Ø
[âÍÈÎ]ÓÔ‡ÌÂ[ı· Áa]Ú ÔÏ˘‚ÂÓı[¤· ¢ÖÓÔÓ?] ç˝ˆ,
[Ì˘Ú›· Ù(Â) ÔéÎ] âı¤ÏÔ˘ÛÈ ·Ú¤ÛÛÂ[Ù·È ôÏÁ]· ı˘ÌáÈ
[àÓıÚÒÔȘ?Ø ì]ÌÂÖ˜ ‰b ÏfiÁˆÓ âÈ‚[ËÛfiÌ]Âı’ ·sıȘ
[ΛӈÓØ ïfiÙ] ‰c Û˘ÓÂÙ‡Á¯·Ó Ê[ÏÔÁ]Ìe˜ àÙÂÈÚ‹˜
[ ]ˇˆ˜ àÓ¿ÁˆÓ [Ô]Ï˘‹Ì[ÔÓ]· ÎÚÄÛÈÓ
[ ˙áÈ]÷· Ê˘Ù¿ÏÌÈ· ÙÂÎÓÒı[Ë]Û·Ó
[ ÙáÓ Î·d? Ó]ÜÓ öÙÈ Ï›„·Ó· ‰¤ÚÎÂÙ·È äF Ò˜
[ ] Âå˜ ÙfiÔÓ âÛ¯¿ÙÈÔ[Ó ‚]ÉÓ
[ ÎÏ·Á]ÁÉÈ Î·d à¸ÙÉÈ
[ òAÙ˘ ÏÂÈ]ÌáÓ· Ï·¯fiÓÙ·
[ ]ÙÂ? ÂÚd ¯ıÒÓ
[ ]
_______
d5-6 cf. B139
d5a [Ôú]ÌÔÈ ¬Ù’ Ôé post corr. Pap. at videtur, codd. Porphyrii, DK, MP, Janko:
[Ôú]ÌÔÈ ÛÙ Ôé (sic) ante corr. Pap.
d6 ÚdÓ Û¯¤ÙÏÈ’ öÚÁ· ‚ÔÚĘ ÂÚd ¯Â›ÏÂÛÈ ÌËÙ›Û·Ûı·È codd. Porphyrii, DK
d7 âÓ] Ùˇá‰Â ÓfiÙ[ˇˆ post corr. Pap., MP: ÙÔ‡]Ùˇˆ Á ÓfiÙ[ˇˆ Janko
d10 âÈ‚[ËÛfiÌ]Âı’ ante corr. Pap., Janko; âÈ‚[‹ÛÔÌ]ÂÓ post corr. pap.: <Û’>
âÈ‚[‹ÛÔÌ]ÂÓ ΜΡ
d14 Ó]ÜÓ öÙÈ Ï›„·Ó·: cf. a(ii) 25 ÓÜÓ öÙÈ ÏÔÈ¿.
d15 ‚ÉÓ post corr. Pap.: ‚ÉÈ ante corr. Pap.
Hinc fragmentum f collocavit Janko.
d17 òAÙ˘? ÏÂÈ]ÌáÓ· MP; cf. B 121.4. Cf. Ùfi‰’ ñ’ ôÓÙÚÔÓ ñfiÛÙÂÁÔÓ, Β
120. Á·›Ë˜ ÎÂÈı]ÌáÓ· Janko.
d18 Dubium quid post correctionem legabatur; an ]ÙÂ? ·?sÙÂ ΜΡ . ]˘ÙÔ ante
correctionem: ¯]‡ÙÔ? ·?]éÙfi ΜΡ: ÂúÏ]˘ÙÔ Janko, quod in textum recepit.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LIII

61

B 10
ı¿Ó·ÙÔÓ… àÏÔ›ÙËÓ…

***

[Transition]

62

B 25
. . .ηd ‰d˜ Á¿Ú, n ‰ÂÖ, ηÏfiÓ âÛÙÈÓ âÓÈÛÂÖÓ.

***

63

B 24
ÎÔÚ˘Êa˜ ëÙ¤Ú·˜ ëÙ¤ÚËÈÛÈ ÚÔÛ¿ÙˆÓ
̇ıˆÓ Ìc ÙÂϤÂÈÓ àÙÚ·eÓ Ì›·Ó,
_______
v. 2 Ìc ÙÂϤÂÈÓ Knatz, DK, Inwood: Ì‹Ù ϤÁÂÈÓ codd. Plutarchi, Bollack:
Ì‹Ù’ âÏıÂÖÓ Lloyd-Jones.

***

[Recapitulation: Mixture of Elements under the Principles]

64

B 21
àÏÏ ôÁÂ, ÙfiÓ‰’ ç¿ÚˆÓ ÚÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ âÈÌ¿ÚÙ˘Ú· ‰¤Ú΢,
Âú ÙÈ Î·d âÓ ÚÔÙ¤ÚÔÈÛÈ ÏÈfi͢ÏÔÓ öÏÂÙÔ ÌÔÚÊÉÈ,
ä¤ÏÈÔÓ ÌbÓ Ï¢ÎeÓ ïÚÄÓ Î·d ıÂÚÌeÓ ê¿ÓÙËÈ,
ôÌ‚ÚÔÙ· ‰’ ¬ÛÛ’ Âú‰ÂÈ Ù ηd àÚÁ¤ÙÈ ‰Â‡ÂÙ·È ·éÁÉÈ,
ùÌ‚ÚÔÓ ‰’ âÓ ÄÛÈ ‰ÓÔÊfiÂÓÙ¿ Ù ®ÈÁ·Ï¤ÔÓ ÙÂ
âÎ ‰’ ·ú˘ ÚÔÚ¤Ô˘ÛÈ ıÂÏÂÌÓ¿ Ù ηd ÛÙÂÚˆ¿.
LIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

âÓ ‰b KfiÙˆÈ ‰È¿ÌÔÚÊ· ηd ôӉȯ· ¿ÓÙ· ¤ÏÔÓÙ·È,

ÛfÓ ‰’ ö‚Ë âÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Î·d àÏÏ‹ÏÔÈÛÈ ÔıÂÖÙ·È.
âÎ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ÁaÚ ¿Óı’ ¬Û· Ù’ qÓ ¬Û· Ù’ öÛÙÈ Î·d öÛÙ·È,
‰¤Ó‰Ú¿ Ù’ â‚Ï¿ÛÙËÛ ηd àÓ¤Ú˜ ä‰b Á˘Ó·ÖΘ,
ıÉÚ˜ Ù’ ÔåˆÓÔ› Ù ηd ñ‰·ÙÔıÚ¤ÌÌÔÓ˜ å¯ıܘ,
η› Ù ıÂÔd ‰ÔÏȯ·›ˆÓ˜ ÙÈÌÉÈÛÈ Ê¤ÚÈÛÙÔÈ.
·éÙa ÁaÚ öÛÙÈÓ Ù·ÜÙ·, ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ ‰b ı¤ÔÓÙ·
Á›ÁÓÂÙ·È àÏÏÔȈ¿Ø ÙfiÛÔÓ ‰Èa ÎÚÉÛȘ àÌ›‚ÂÈ.
_______
Post B17, intervallo longo posito, teste Simplicio (In Phys. 159.13): Ï›ÔÓ· ‰b
ôÏÏ· ÂågÓ â¿ÁÂÈ ëοÛÙÔ˘ ÙáÓ ÂåÚËÌ¤ÓˆÓ ÙeÓ ¯·Ú·ÎÙÉÚ·, Ùe ÌbÓ ÜÚ ≥ÏÈÔÓ
ηÏáÓ etc.
v. 3 Ï¢ÎeÓ... ıÂÚÌeÓ codd. Aristotelis, DK, Wright: Ï·ÌÚeÓ... ıÂÚÌeÓ
codd. Plutarchi, Inwood: ıÂÚÌeÓ... Ï·ÌÚeÓ codd. Simplicii,
Galeni, Bollack.
ïÚÄÓ codd. Aristotelis, Simplicii, DK: ¬Ú· codd. Aristotelis,
Plutarchi, Wilamowitz: ïÚ÷Ä cod. Simplicii.
v. 4 ‰’ ¬ÛÛ’ Âú‰ÂÈ Ù Wackernagel, DK, Bollack: ‰b ¬ÛÛ ‰¤ Ù vel ‰b
¬ÛÛ’ ö‰ÂÙ·È vel ‰’ ¬ÛÛ· â‰ÂÖÙÔ codd. Simplicii: ‰’ ¬ÛÛ’ ú‰ÂÈ ÙÂ
Diels: ‰’ ¬ÛÛ’ ÂúÏFË ÙÂ Wilamowitz.
v. 5 ‰ÓÔÊfiÂÓÙ· codd. Aristotelis, Plutarchi (‰ÓÔʤÔÓÙ· alii): ˙ÔÊfiÂÓÙ·
codd. Aristotelis: ÁÓÔÊfiÂÓÙ· cod. Aristotelis post corr.
v. 6 ÚÔÚ¤Ô˘ÛÈ codd. DK: ÚÔı¤Ô˘ÛÈ Schöne
ıÂÏÂÌÓ¿ Hesychius, DK, Wilamowiz: ıÂÏËÌÓ¿ vel. ıÂÏËÌ¿ vel.
ıÂÏ‹Ì·Ù· codd. Simplicii: ıÂÏËÌ¿ Bollack: ı¤Ï˘ÌÓ· Sturz, Diels,
Bignone.
v. 9 âÎ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ÁaÚ ¿Óı’ ¬Û· Ù’ qÓ ¬Û· Ù’ öÛÙÈ Î·d öÛÙ·È codd.
Simplicii, DK, Bollack: âÍ zÓ ¿Óı’ ¬Û· Ù’ qÓ ¬Û· Ù’ öÛı’ ¬Û· Ù’
öÛÙ·È ç›ÛÛˆ codd. Aristotelis: âÎ ÙáÓ ¿Óı’ ¬Û· Ù’ qÓ ¬Û· Ù’
öÛÙÈ Î·d öÛÙ·È ç›ÛÛˆ Wright, Inwood.
vv. 10-12 cf. B23.6-8
v. 14 ÙfiÛÔÓ ‰Èa ÎÚÉÛȘ DK, Bollack: ÙfiÁÂÓ ‰È¿ÎÚÈÛȘ vel ‰È¿ÎÚ·ÛȘ
codd. Simplicii: Ùa ÁaÚ ‰Èa ÎÚÉÛȘ Wright, Inwood.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LV

[Recapitulation: Double Phase Cyclicity]

65

B 26
âÓ ‰b ̤ÚÂÈ ÎÚ·Ù¤Ô˘ÛÈ ÂÚÈÏÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ Î‡ÎÏÔÈÔ,
ηd Êı›ÓÂÈ Âå˜ ôÏÏËÏ· ηd ·ûÍÂÙ·È âÓ Ì¤ÚÂÈ ·úÛ˘.
·éÙa ÁaÚ öÛÙÈÓ Ù·ÜÙ·, ‰È’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ ‰b ı¤ÔÓÙ·
Á›ÓÔÓÙ(·È) ôÓıÚˆÔ› Ù ηd ôÏÏˆÓ öıÓ· ıËÚáÓ
ôÏÏÔÙ ÌbÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÈ Û˘ÓÂÚ¯fiÌÂÓ Âå˜ ≤Ó· ÎfiÛÌÔÓ,
ôÏÏÔÙ ‰’ ·s ‰›¯’ ≤ηÛÙ· ÊÔÚÔ‡ÌÂÓ· N›ÎÂÔ˜ ö¯ıÂÈ,
ÂåÛfiÎÂÓ íÓ Û˘ÌʇÓÙ· Ùe ÄÓ ñ¤ÓÂÚı Á¤ÓËÙ·È.
Ô≈Ùˆ˜ wÈ ÌbÓ íÓ âÎ ÏÂfiÓˆÓ ÌÂÌ¿ıËΠʇÂÛı·È
ä‰b ¿ÏÈÓ ‰È·Ê‡ÓÙÔ˜ ëÓe˜ ϤÔÓ âÎÙÂϤıÔ˘ÛÈ,
ÙÉÈ ÌbÓ Á›ÁÓÔÓÙ·› Ù ηd Ôû ÛÊÈÛÈÓ öÌ‰Ԙ ·åÒÓ
wÈ ‰b Ù¿‰’ àÏÏ¿ÛÛÔÓÙ· ‰È·ÌÂÚb˜ Ô鉷Ìa Ï‹ÁÂÈ,
Ù·‡ÙËÈ ‰’ ·åbÓ ö·ÛÈÓ àΛÓËÙÔÈ Î·Ùa ·ÎÏÔÓ.
_______
Breve post B21, teste Simplicio (In Phys. 33.18): ηd çÏ›ÁÔÓ ‰b ÚÔÂÏıÒÓ
ÊËÛÈÓØ “âÓ ‰b ̤ÚÂÈ... ·ÎÏÔÓ”.
v. 1 cf. B17.29
v. 3 cf. B17.34; B21.13
v. 4 ıËÚáÓ Karsten, Stutz, DK, Bollack: ÎËÚáÓ codd. Simplicii: ıÓËÙáÓ
Bergk
vv. 6-10 cf. B17.9-13.

***

[The Mechanism of Communion and Repulsion.

General Theory of Mixture]

66

B 22
ôÚıÌÈ· ÌbÓ ÁaÚ Ù·ÜÙ· ë·˘ÙáÓ ¿ÓÙ· ̤ÚÂÛÛÈÓ,
äϤÎÙˆÚ Ù ¯ıÒÓ Ù ηd ÔéÚ·Óe˜ ä‰b ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·,
¬ÛÛ· ÊÈÓ âÓ ıÓËÙÔÖÛÈÓ àÔÏ·¯ı¤ÓÙ· ¤Ê˘ÎÂÓ.
LVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ó˜ ‰’ ·ûÙˆ˜ ¬Û· ÎÚÉÛÈÓ â·ÚΤ· ÌÄÏÏÔÓ ö·ÛÈÓ,

àÏÏ‹ÏÔȘ öÛÙÂÚÎÙ·È ïÌÔȈı¤ÓÙ’ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙËÈ.
â¯ıÚa <‰’ L> ÏÂÖÛÙÔÓ à’ àÏÏ‹ÏˆÓ ‰È¤¯Ô˘ÛÈ Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ·
Á¤ÓÓËÈ Ù ÎÚ‹ÛÂÈ Ù ηd Âú‰ÂÛÈÓ âÎÌ¿ÎÙÔÈÛÈ,
¿ÓÙËÈ Û˘ÁÁ›ÓÂÛı·È à‹ı· ηd Ì¿Ï· Ï˘ÁÚ¿
N›ÎÂÔ˜ âÓÓÂÛ›ËÈÛÈÓ, ¬ÙÈ ÛÊ›ÛÈ Á¤ÓÓ·Ó öÔÚÁÂÓ.
_______
v. 1 Ù·ÜÙ· ë·˘ÙáÓ DK: ë·˘Ù¿ (vel ·éÙa) ë·˘ÙáÓ codd. Simplicii: ë·˘Ùa
ë·˘ÙáÓ Bollack
v. 3 àÔÏ·¯ı¤ÓÙ· cod. Simplicii, DK, Bollack: àÔÏ·Á¯ı¤ÓÙ· codd.
Simplicii, Sider, Inwood
v. 6 â¯ıÚa <‰’ L> Diels, DK: â¯ıÚa <‰b> Karsten
v. 7 Á¤ÓÓFË codd. Simplicii: Á¤ÓÂÈ codd. Theophrasti
v. 9 N›ÎÂÔ˜ âÓÓÂÛ›ËÈÛÈÓ: Panzerbieter, DK, cf. B115.4: ÓÂÈÎÂÔÁÂÓÓ¤ÛÙËÛÈÓ
codd. Simplicii: ÓÂÈÎÂÔÁÂÓÓËÙ·ÖÛÈ Scaliger: ÓÂÈÎÂÔÁÂÓÓËÙFÉÛÈ Kasten,
Inwood: ÓÂÈÎÂÔÁÂÓÓ‹ÙÔÈÛÈ Sturz, Lobkec, Stein
Á¤ÓÓ·Ó öÔÚÁÂÓ Diels: Á¤ÓÓ·Ó çÚÁ÷Ä codd. Simplicii: ÄÓ ‰¤Ì·˜ çÚÁ÷Ä
Karsten: Á¤ÓÓ÷· âÓ çÚÁFÉ Wright coniecit, Inwood: Á¤ÓÓ·Ó <àÓ>çÚÁ÷Ä
Gallavoti

***

67

B 32
… ‰‡Ô ‰¤ÂÈ ôÚıÚˆÓ.
_______
Cf. ôÚıÌÈ· B22.1; âÓ¿ÚıÌÈÔÓ B91.1; ö‰ËÛ Β33
‰‡Ô ‰¤ÂÈ ôÚıÚˆÓ Cardini, Inwood. Cf. Solon F28c Ruschenbusch= Lucian,
Eunuchus, 10: ηd ÌÔȯe˜ â¿Ïˆ ÔÙ¤, ó˜ ï ôÍˆÓ ÊËÛ›Ó, ôÚıÚ· âÓ ôÚıÚÔȘ
ö¯ˆÓ, i.e. membrum virile in pudendis muliebribus: ‰‡ˆ ‰¤ÂÈ ôÚıÚÔÓ Diels,DK:
‰Èe ‰ÂÖ (vel ‰c) çÚıᘠcodd. textus de lineis insecabilibus.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LVII

68

B 91
(Ùe ≈‰ˆÚ)
ÔúÓˆÈ . . . ÌÄÏÏÔÓ âÓ¿ÚıÌÈÔÓ, ·éÙaÚ âÏ·›ˆÈ
ÔéÎ âı¤ÏÂÈ.
_______
v. 1 ÔúÓˇˆ ≈‰ˆÚ ÌÄÏÏÔÓ ÌbÓ Stein

***

69

B 33
ó˜ ‰’ ¬Ù’ çe˜ Á¿Ï· Ï¢ÎeÓ âÁfiÌʈÛÂÓ Î·d ö‰ËÛÂ…
***

70

B 34

ôÏÊÈÙÔÓ ≈‰·ÙÈ ÎÔÏÏ‹Û·˜…

***

71

B 92
… ÙáÈ Î·ÙÙÈÙ¤ÚˆÈ ÌÂȯı¤ÓÙ·… ÙeÓ ¯·ÏÎfiÓ
***

72

B 93
‚‡ÛÛˆÈ ‰b ÁÏ·˘Îɘ ÎfiÎÎÔ˜ ηٷ̛ÛÁÂÙ·È àÎÙɘ,
_______
ÎfiÎÎÔ˜ Diels, DK: ÎÚfiÎÔ˘, ÎÚfiÎÔÓ, ÎÚfiÓÔ˘ codd. Plutarchi: ÎfiÎÎÔ˘ Xylander,
Flaceliηre: ÎfiÚÎÔ˘ Bollack: (ÁÏ·‡ÎÔÈÔ) ÎÚfiÎÔ˘ Bennet, Inwood
LVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

àÎÙɘ Wilamowitz, DK: àÎÙ›˜ vel nihil codd.: àÎÙ›˜ Flaceliηre, Bollack,
Inwood, Wright
‚‡ÛÛˇˆ ‰b ÁÏ·˘ÎFÉ ÎfiÎÎÔ˘ ηٷ̛ÛÁÂÙ·È ôÓıÔ˜ Wyttenbach.

***

73

B 81
ÔrÓÔ˜ àe ÊÏÔÈÔÜ ¤ÏÂÙ·È Û·bÓ âÓ Í‡ÏˆÈ ≈‰ˆÚ.
_______
àe codd. Plutarchi, DK: ñe Xylander, Friedlδnder fortasse recte.

***

74

B 96
ì ‰b ¯ıgÓ â›ËÚÔ˜ âÓ ÂéÛÙ¤ÚÓÔȘ ¯Ô¿ÓÔÈÛÈ
Ùg ‰‡Ô ÙáÓ çÎÙg ÌÂÚ¤ˆÓ Ï¿¯Â N‹ÛÙȉԘ ·úÁÏ˘,
Ù¤ÛÛ·Ú· ‰’ ^HÊ·›ÛÙÔÈÔ, Ùa ‰’ çÛÙ¤· Ï¢Îa Á¤ÓÔÓÙÔ
^AÚÌÔӛ˘ ÎfiÏÏËÈÛÈÓ àÚËÚfiÙ· ıÂÛÂÛ›ËıÂÓ.
_______
In librum primum Physicorum teste Simplicio (In Phys. 300.19)
v. 1 ÂéÛÙ¤ÚÓÔȘ codd. Aristotelis, Simplicii In de anima, unus Simplicii In
phys., DK, Bollack: ÂéÙ‡ÎÙÔȘ codd. Simplicii In phys., Sider, Inwood
v. 2 Ùg Steinhart, DK, Wright: ÙáÓ codd. Aristotelis plerique: Ùa˜ codd.
Simplicii, unus Aristotelis, Bollack, Sider, Inwood: Ùa cod. unus Aristotelis,
unus Simplicii
ÌÂÚ¤ˆÓ codd. Aristotelis, Simplicii unus, DK: ÌÔÈÚ¿ˆÓ codd. Aristotelis,
Simplicii, Bollack, Sider, Inwood
v. 4 ıÂÛÂÛ›ËıÂÓ: codd. DK, Bollack: ıÂÛÂÛ›FËÛÈÓ Sider, Inwood
μ
 BIB§ION Bã

The Cosmic Cycle



a) ™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜ and Phase of Advancing NÂÖÎÔ˜ Nos. 75-128

[™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜]

75

B 27
öÓı’ ÔûÙ’ äÂÏ›ÔÈÔ ‰Â‰›ÛÎÂÙ·È àÁÏ·eÓ Âr‰Ô˜,
Ôé‰b ÌbÓ Ô鉒 ·ú˘ Ï¿ÛÈÔÓ Ì¤ÓÔ˜ Ôé‰b ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·
_______
v. 1 ‰Â‰›ÛÎÂÙ·È Karsten, Bernardakis, Pohlenz: ‰Â‰›ÙÙÂÙ·È codd. Plutarchi: ‰È›-
‰ÂÙ·È Cherniss, Inwood: ‰Â‰›ÛÛÂÙ·È Bollack
v. 2 ̤ÓÔ˜ Bergk, DK, Inwood: Á¤ÓÔ˜ codd. Plutarchi, Bollack: ‰¤Ì·˜ Karsten:
Ûı¤ÓÔ˜ Pohlenz dubitanter in apparatu critico

***

76

B 27
öÓı’ ÔûÙ’ äÂÏ›ÔÈÔ ‰È›‰ÂÙ·È èΤ· Á˘Ö·
...
Ô≈Ùˆ˜ ^AÚÌÔӛ˘ ˘ÎÈÓáÈ ÎÚ‡ÊˆÈ âÛÙ‹ÚÈÎÙ·È
™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜ ΢ÎÏÔÙÂÚc˜ ÌÔÓ›ËÈ ÂÚÈÁËı¤˚ Á·›ˆÓ.
_______
v. 1 ‰È›‰ÂÙ·È codd. Simplici, DK, Bollack, Inwood
v. 3 cf. B28.2
ÌÔÓ›FË codd. Simplicii, DK, Bollack, Wright: ÌfiÓË vel. ÌÔÓÉ alii codd.
ÂÚÈÁËı¤È codd. Simplicii, Bollack, Inwood: ÂÚd ÁÉı’ ì cod. Simplicii:
ÂÚÈ‹ıÂÈ codd. Marci Antonini: ÂÚÈËÁ¤˚ DK, Wright
LXII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

Á·›ˆÓ codd. Simplicii, Marci Antonini, DK, Bollack, Inwood, Wright:

·úˆÓ codd. Simplicii

***

77

B 28
àÏÏ’ ¬ Á ¿ÓÙÔıÂÓ rÛÔ˜ <ëÔÖ> ηd ¿Ì·Ó à›ڈÓ
™Ê·ÖÚÔ˜ ΢ÎÏÔÙÂÚc˜ ÌÔÓ›ËÈ ÂÚÈËÁ¤˚ ¯·›ÚˆÓ.
_______
cf. Parmenides B8.49, 57
v. 1 <ëÔÖ> Maas, DK, Inwood, Wright: <âgÓ> Grotius, Bollack: <öËÓ> Diels:
<ïÌÔÜ> vel <ïÌá˜> Wachsmuth
v. 2 ÌÔÓ›FË Diels, DK, Bollack: ÌfiÓË codd. Procli: ÌÔ‡ÓFË codd. Achillei: Ì·Ó›·
codd. Anonymi in Aratum: ÌÈ̛˘ codd. Stobaei
ÂÚÈËÁ¤˚ codd. Achillei, Anonymi, Procli, DK, Bollack, Wright: ÂÚÈÙÂıÉ
vel ÂÚÈÙ›ıË codd. Stobaei
¯·›ÚˆÓ codd. Achillei, Anonymi, Procli, Bollack: Á·›ˆÓ DK, Inwood,
Wright

***

78

B 29
Ôé ÁaÚ àe ÓÒÙÔÈÔ ‰‡Ô ÎÏ¿‰ÔÈ à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ·È,
Ôé fi‰Â˜, Ôé ıÔa ÁÔÜÓ(·), Ôé Ì‹‰Â· ÁÂÓÓ‹ÂÓÙ·,
àÏÏa ÛÊ·ÖÚÔ˜ öËÓ Î·d <¿ÓÙÔıÂÓ> rÛÔ˜ ë·˘ÙáÈ.
_______
cf. B 134
v. 1 ÓÒÙÔÈÔ... à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ·È edd.: ÓfiÙÔÈÔ... à˝ÛÔÓÙ·È cod. Hippolyti: à˝ÛÛÔÓÙÔ
proposuit Wilamowitz
v. 2 ÁÔÜÓ(·) Diels (cf. B134.3), DK, Bollack: ÁÔ‡Ó·Ù cod.
ÁÂÓÓ‹ÂÓÙ· Sauppe, DK, Bollack: ÁÂÓ‹ÂÓÙ· cod. (Ï·¯Ó‹ÂÓÙ· Β134.3)
v. 3 <¿ÓÙÔıÂÓ> rÛÔ˜ ë·˘Ùˇá Schneidewin (cf. Hesiodus, Theogonia, 126), DK:
rÛÔ âÛÙdÓ ·éÙˇá cod.: <¿ÓÙ’> rÛÔ˜ âÛÙdÓ ë·˘Ùˇá Miller: + rÛÔ˜ âÛÙdÓ ·éÙˇá
+ Wendland: rÛÔ˜ + âÛÙdÓ ·éÙˇá + Bollack

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXIII

79

B 134
Ôé‰b ÁaÚ àÓ‰ÚÔ̤ËÈ ÎÂÊ·ÏÉÈ Î·Ùa Á˘Ö· ΤηÛÙ·È,
Ôé ÌbÓ à·d ÓÒÙÔÈÔ ‰‡Ô ÎÏ¿‰ÔÈ à›ÛÛÔÓÙ·È,
Ôé fi‰Â˜, Ôé ıÔa ÁÔÜÓ(·), Ôé Ì‹‰Â· Ï·¯Ó‹ÂÓÙ·,
àÏÏa ÊÚcÓ îÂÚc ηd àı¤ÛÊ·ÙÔ˜ öÏÂÙÔ ÌÔÜÓÔÓ,
ÊÚÔÓÙ›ÛÈ ÎfiÛÌÔÓ ±·ÓÙ· ηٷ˝ÛÛÔ˘Û· ıÔÉÈÛÈÓ.
_______
Cf. B29
In librum secundum Physicorum teste, ut opinor, Tzetze. Codd. habent Ùˇá
ÙÚ›Ùˇˆ (sc. ‚È‚Ï›ˇˆ) ÙáÓ º˘ÛÈÎáÓ, errore signi numerationis (Á pro ‚ forma
impropria scriptum)
v. 1 Ôé‰b cod. Olympiodori, DK: ÔûÙ codd. Ammonii, cod. Olympiodori in
marg.int.
Ôé‰b ÁaÚ àÓ‰ÚÔÌ¤Ë ÎÂÊ·Ï‹ cod. Olympiodori: Ôé ÌbÓ ÁaÚ ‚ÚÔÙ¤Ë codd.
Tzetzes
v. 2 cf. B29.1
ÓÒÙÔÈÔ DK (cf. B29.1): ÓÒÙˆÓ ÁÂ codd. Ammonii
à˝ÛÛÔÓÙ·È DK (cf. B29.1; B100.7 ηٷ˝ÛÛÂÙ·È): à˝ÛÛÔ˘ÛÈÓ codd.
Ammonii
v. 3 fi‰Â˜ codd. Ammonii, DK: ¯¤Ú˜ cod. Olympiodori (in marg. inf.)
Ï·¯Ó‹ÂÓÙ· codd. Ammonii, cod. Olympiodori in m.i., DK: ÁÂÓÓ‹ÂÓÙ·
B29.1

***

80

B 27α
Ôé ÛÙ¿ÛȘ Ô鉤 Ù ‰ÉÚȘ àÓ·›ÛÈÌÔ˜ âÓ ÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ.
_______
âÓ ÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ: cf. B30.1 âÓd ÌÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ.

***
LXIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

[Phase of Ascending NÂÖÎÔ˜]

81

B 30
·éÙaÚ âÂd ̤Á· NÂÖÎÔ˜ âÓdÌÌÂϤÂÛÛÈÓ âıÚ¤ÊıË
☠ÙÈÌa˜ Ù’ àÓfiÚÔ˘Û ÙÂÏÂÈÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔÈÔ,
¬˜ ÛÊÈÓ àÌÔÈ‚·ÖÔ˜ Ï·Ù¤Ô˜ ·Ú’ âÏ‹Ï·Ù·È ¬ÚÎÔ˘…
_______
In aetate Contentionis crescentis teste Simplicio (In Phys. 1184.12: ϤÁÂÈ ‰b ηd
Ù·ÜÙ· \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ âd Ùɘ ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ âÈÎÚ·Ù›·˜ “·éÙaÚ.... ¬ÚÎÔ˘”.
v. 1 ·éÙaÚ âÂd codd. Simplicii, DK, Bollack: àÏÏ’ ¬Ù ‰c codd. Aristotelis
âıÚ¤ÊıË: codd. Aristotelis, Syriani, DK: âÚ¤ÊıË codd. Simplicii, Bollack
v. 3 ¬˜ ÛÊÈÓ codd. Aristotelis, Syriani, DK: ¬ ÛÊÈÓ cod Ab Aristotelis, cod.
Simplicii: ¬ÊȘ alter cod. Simplicii: ¬˜ ÊÈÓ Bollack (cf. B22.3)
·Ú’ âÏ‹Ï·Ù·È Sturz, DK: ·ÚÂÏ‹Ï·Ù·È cod Ab Aristotelis, codd.
Simplici, Syriani, Bollack: ·ÚÂÏ‹Ï·ÙÔ codd. Π Aristotelis
Ï·Ù¤Ô˜... ¬ÚÎÔ˘: cf. B115.2 Ï·Ù¤ÂÛÛÈ ... ¬ÚÎÔȘ

***
82

B 31
¿ÓÙ· ÁaÚ ëÍ›˘ ÂÏÂÌ›˙ÂÙÔ Á˘Ö· ıÂÔÖÔ.
_______
Post B27 teste Simplicio (In Phys. 1184.2 post B27.4: àÚͷ̤ÓÔ˘ ‰b ¿ÏÈÓ
ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ âÈÎÚ·ÙÂÖÓ ÙfiÙ ·ÏÈÓ Î›ÓËÛȘ âÓ Ùˇá ™Ê·›Úˇˆ Á›ÓÂÙ·È)

***
[The Great Law - ¬ÌÔÈÔÓ ïÌÔ›ˆ
ˇ ]
83

B 37
·ûÍÂÈ ‰b ¯ıgÓ ÌbÓ ÛʤÙÂÚÔÓ ‰¤Ì·˜, ·åı¤Ú· ‰’ ·åı‹Ú.
_______
‰¤Ì·˜ dui codd. Aristotelis, DK, Inwood: Á¤ÓÔ˜ ceteri, Bollack

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXV

84

B 90
S˜ ÁÏ˘Îf ÌbÓ ÁÏ˘Îf Ì¿ÚÙÂ, ÈÎÚeÓ ‰’ âd ÈÎÚeÓ ùÚÔ˘ÛÂÓ,
çÍf Ù’ â’ çÍf, <àÙa>Ú Á’ êÏ˘ÚÔÜ êÏ˘ÚeÓ Ï¿‚Â<Ù’ ·û>Ùˆ˜.
_______
v. 2 êÏ˘ÚÔÜ êÏ˘ÚeÓ e.g. scripsi (cf. ±Ï˜ B56). Sensus êÏÌ˘ÚÔÜ, salsi, oportet:
ratio de digestione nutritioneque est, unde requiretur nomen quartae
qualitatis gustatus. Fortasse ‰·ÏÂÚeÓ... ‰·ÏÂÚˇá retinendum est eadem
significatione; cf. Hesychius s.v. ‰·Ï¿Á¯·ÓØ ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·Ó; et s.v. ˙·Ï›˘Ø
fiÏȘ. ηd ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·; cf. sals, sale latinum. Quod etiam explicaret per
errorem interpretationis Macrobii, ıÂÚÌeÓ... ıÂÚÌˇá.
çÍf Ù’ â’ ç͇, <àÙa>Ú Á’ êÏ˘ÚÔÜ êÏ˘ÚeÓ Ï¿‚ÂÙ <·û>Ùˆ˜ proposui (cf.
Bernardakis): çÍf ‰’ â’ çÍf ‰·ÏÂÚeÓ ‰·ÏÂÚÔÜ Ï·‚¤Ùˆ˜ vel Ï·‚¤Ùˆ codd.
Plutarchi: çÍf ‰’ â’ ç͇, <àÙaÚ> Ì·ÏÂÚeÓ Ì·ÏÂÚÔÜ Ï¿‚Â<Ù’ ·û>Ùˆ˜
dubitanter cooniecit Bernardakis: çÍf ‰’ â’ çÍf ö‚Ë, êÏÂÚeÓ ‰’ êÏÂÚÔÜ
Ï¿‚ÂÙ’ tÎ<·>, Paton: çÍf ‰’ â’ çÍf ö‚Ë, êÏÂÚeÓ ‰’ âԯ‡Âı’ êÏËÚˇá
Bollack: çÍf ‰’ â’ çÍf ö‚Ë, ıÂÚÌeÓ ‰’ âԯ‡ÂÙÔ ıÂÚÌˇá codd. Macrobii:
çÍf ‰’ â’ çÍf ö‚Ë, ‰·ÂÚeÓ ‰’ âÔ¯ÂÖÙÔ ‰·ËÚˇá Diels, DK (cf. Hesychius
s.vv. ‰·ÂÚfiÓ, ‰·ËÚfiÓ; Etymologicon Magnum 244.42 s.v. ‰·ËÚfiÓ): çÍf ‰’
â’ çÍf ö‚Ë, ‰·ÂÚeÓ âԯ‡ÂÙÔ ‰·ÂÚˇá Maas.

***

[Formation of the World in the Phase of Ascending Strife]

85

B 38
Âå ‰’ ôÁ ÙÔÈ Ï¤Íˆ Úáı’ <ó˜ Ï¿‚Âı’> ≥ÏÈÔ˜ àÚ¯‹Ó,
âÎ Ù’ zÓ ‰ÉÏ’ âÁ¤ÓÔÓÙÔ Ùa ÓÜÓ âÛÔÚáÌÂÓ ±ÂÈÚ·,
Á·Ö¿ Ù ηd fiÓÙÔ˜ ÔÏ˘Î‡ÌˆÓ ä‰’ ñÁÚe˜ à‹Ú
TÈÙaÓ ä‰’ ·åıcÚ ÛÊ›ÁÁˆÓ ÂÚd ·ÎÏÔÓ ±·ÓÙ·.
_______
v. 1 Úáı’ <ó˜ Ï¿‚Âı’> ≥ÏÈÔ˜ àÚ¯‹Ó scripsi: Úáı’ ≥ÏÈÔÓ àÚ¯‹Ó cod.
Clementis: Úáı’ + ≥ÏÈÔÓ àÚ¯‹Ó + DK: Úáı’ ≥ÏÈο Ù’ àÚ¯‹Ó Diels:
ÚáÙ’ <âÍ zÓ> ≥ÏÈÔ˜ àÚ¯‹Ó Wright, Inwood
LXVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

v. 2 âÎ Ù’ zÓ, scripsi: âÍ zÓ cod. Clementis, DK: ÙpÏÏ· Ù Wright, Inwood

‰ÉÏ’: Weil (cf. B23.10), DK: ‰c cod. Clementis, Bollack: ‰c vel ‰‹ <Ú’>
Friedländer (cf. Hesiodus, Theog., 108-11)
âÛÔÚáÌÂÓ ôÂÈÚ· scripsi (cf. ôÛÂÙ· B23.10; Ì˘Ú›· B36.16): âÛÔÚÒÌÂÓ·
¿ÓÙ· cod. Bollack: âÛˆÚáÌÂÓ ±·ÓÙ· Gomperz, DK

***

[It so happened at the beginning]

86

B 53
(ï à‹Ú)
Ô≈Ùˆ ÁaÚ Û˘Ó¤Î˘ÚÛ ı¤ˆÓ ÙÔÙ¤, ÔÏÏ¿ÎÈ ‰’ ôÏψ˜.
_______
In doctrinam creationis mundi, teste Aristotele, Phys. B4196a19 sqq.: …ϤÁÂÈ
ÁÔÜÓ âÓ ÙFÉ ÎÔÛÌÔÔÈ˝÷· ó˜ “Ô≈Ùˆ... ôÏψ˜”.

***

[Sequence of Cosmogony]

87

B 54
·åıcÚ <‰’ ·s> Ì·ÎÚÉÈÛÈ Î·Ùa ¯ıfiÓ· ‰‡ÂÙÔ ®›˙·È˜.
_______
·åıcÚ <‰’ ·s> Diels, DK: <àÏÏ’> ·åıcÚ Karsten: ·åıcÚ extra versum reiecit
Joachim

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXVII

[Criticism of previous Cosmologies, in particular Xenophanes’]

88

B 39
ÂúÂÚ à›ÚÔÓ· Áɘ Ù ‚¿ıË Î·d ‰·„ÈÏe˜ ·åı‹Ú,
ó˜ ‰Èa ÔÏÏáÓ ‰c ÁÏÒÛÛ·˜ âÏıfiÓÙ· Ì·Ù·›ˆ˜
âÎΤ¯˘Ù·È ÛÙÔÌ¿ÙˆÓ çÏ›ÁÔÓ ÙÔÜ ·ÓÙe˜ å‰fiÓÙˆÓ…
_______
v. 3 cf. B2.5

***

[Continuation of Cosmogony]

89

B 51
(ÜÚ)
ηÚ·Ï›Ìˆ˜ ‰’ àÓfi·ÈÔÓ…

***

90

B 52
ÔÏÏa ‰ öÓÂÚı(Â) Ôû‰ÂÔ˜ ˘Úa η›ÂÙ·È.

***

91

B 40
≠HÏÈÔ˜ ç͢‚ÂÏc˜ 䉒 îÏ¿ÂÈÚ· ™ÂÏ‹ÓË.
_______
䉒 <·s> îÏ¿ÂÈÚ· Xylander: ì ‰b Ï¿ÈÚ· codd. Plutarchi

***
LXVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

92

B 41
(≥ÏÈÔ˜)
àÏÏ’ ï ÌbÓ êÏÈÛıÂd˜ ̤Á·Ó ÔéÚ·ÓeÓ àÌÊÈÔχÂÈ.
_______
àÏÏ’ ï ÌbÓ êÏÈÛıÂd˜ Etymologicon Magnum, DK: àÏÏ’ ï ÌbÓ êÏÂÖÛı·È cod.
Baroccianus 50: Ô≈ÓÂÎ’ àÓ·ÏÈÛı›˜ codd. Macrobii
̤Á·Ó Etymologicon Gudianum I, 22, codd. Macrobii, Barocc., codd. Suda:
̤ÛÔÓ Et.M., Et.Gud. I 47

***

93

B 44
(≥ÏÈÔ˜)
àÓÙ·˘ÁÂÖ Úe˜ òOÏ˘ÌÔÓ àÙ·Ú‚‹ÙÔÈÛÈ ÚÔÛÒÔȘ.

***

94

B 42

(ì ÛÂÏ‹ÓË)
àÂÛÙ¤Á·ÛÂÓ ‰¤ Ôî ·éÁ¿˜,
öÛÙ’ iÓ úËÈ Î·ı‡ÂÚıÂÓ, àÂÛÎӛʈÛ ‰b Á·›Ë˜
ÙfiÛÛÔÓ ¬ÛÔÓ Ù’ ÂsÚÔ˜ ÁÏ·˘ÎÒȉԘ öÏÂÙÔ Ì‹Ó˘.
_______
v. 1 àÂÛÙ¤Á·ÛÂÓ Diels, DK: àÂÛ··ÛÂÓ codd. Plutarchi: àÂÛΤ‰·ÛÂÓ
Xylander, Bollack: àÂÛΛ·ÛÂÓ Bergk: àÂÛΤ·ÛÂÓ Wenskus
Ôî sc. soli
v. 2 öÛÙ’ iÓ úFË Diels, DK, Inwood: öÛÙ ·r·Ó codd.: ☠Á·Ö·Ó Xylander
úFË sc.sol. Fortasse ñ¤ÓÂÚı pro ηı‡ÂÚı scribendum est, eidem subiecto
intelligendo verbis àÂÛÙ¤Á·ÛÂÓ, úFË et àÂÛ΋ʈÛ (sc. luna)

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXIX

95

B 47
àıÚÂÖ ÌbÓ ÁaÚ ôÓ·ÎÙÔ˜ âÓ·ÓÙ›ÔÓ êÁ¤· ·ÎÏÔÓ.

***

96

B 43
S˜ ·éÁc Ù‡„·Û· ÛÂÏËÓ·›Ë˜ ·ÎÏÔÓ ÂéÚ‡Ó…

***

97

B 45
΢ÎÏÔÙÂÚb˜ ÂÚd Á·Ö·Ó ëÏ›ÛÛÂÙ·È àÏÏfiÙÚÈÔÓ Êá˜.

***

98

B 46
±ÚÌ·ÙÔ˜ ó˜ ÂÚd ¯ÓÔ›Ë ëÏ›ÛÛÂÙ·È ≥ Ù ·Ú’ ôÎÚ·Ó
<„·‡Ô˘Û’ ôÍÔÓ·>…
_______
v. 1 ó˜ ÂÚd ¯ÓÔ›Ë ëÏ›ÛÛÂÙ·È Panzerbieter, DK (cf. Parmenides 28B1.6: ô͈Ó
âÓ ¯ÓÔ›FËÛÈÓ): œÛÂÚ ú¯ÓÔ˜ àÓÂÏ›ÛÛÂÙ·È codd. Plutarchi
·Ú’ ôÎÚ·Ó: ÂÚd ôÎÚ·Ó codd.: ·Ú’ ôÎÚËÓ Diels, DK.
v. 2 <„·‡Ô˘Û’ ôÍÔÓ·> proposui (v. Plutarchus, de facie in orbe lunae, 9 p. 925B:
Ùɘ ‰b Áɘ ÙÚfiÔÓ ÙÈÓa „·‡ÂÈ Î·d ÂÚÈÊÂÚÔ̤ÓË ÏËÛ›ÔÓ “±ÚÌ·ÙÔ˜
œÛÂÚ etc”; cf. Parmenides loc.cit.): Ó‡ÛÛ·Ó vel Á·Ö·Ó âÏ·˘ÓÔ̤ÓË Diels

***
LXX APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

99

B 48
Ó‡ÎÙ· ‰b Á·Ö· Ù›ıËÛÈÓ ñÊÈÛٷ̤ÓË Ê·¤ÂÛÛÈ
<äÂÏ›Ô˘>.
_______
<ìÂÏ›Ô˘> Kranz supplevit

***

100

B 49
Ó˘ÎÙe˜ âÚËÌ·›Ë˜ àÏ·ÒȉԘ…
_______
âÚËÌ·›Ë˜ codd. Plutarchi, DK: âÚÂÌÓ·›Ë˜ Nauck
àÏ·ÒȉԘ Xylander (cf. Hesychius s.v. àÏ·áÈÓ): àÁÏ·ÒȉԘ codd.

***

101

B 94
et niger in fundo fluvii color exstat ab umbra,
atque cavernosis itidem spectatur in antris.

***

102

B 55
…Áɘ î‰ÚáÙ· ı¿Ï·ÛÛ·Ó.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXI

103

B 56
LϘ â¿ÁË ®ÈÉÈÛÈÓ âˆṲ̂ÓÔ˜ äÂÏ›ÔÈÔ.

***

104

B 50
oIÚȘ ‰’ âÎ ÂÏ¿ÁÔ˘˜ ôÓÂÌÔÓ Ê¤ÚÂÈ j ̤Á·Ó ùÌ‚ÚÔÓ.

***

[∑oogony in the Phase of Ascending NÂÖÎÔ˜]

105

B 71
Âå ‰¤ Ù› ÛÔÈ ÂÚd ÙáӉ ÏÈfi͢ÏÔ˜ öÏÂÙÔ ›ÛÙȘ,
ᘠ≈‰·ÙÔ˜ Á·›Ë˜ Ù ηd ·åı¤ÚÔ˜ äÂÏ›Ô˘ ÙÂ
ÎÈÚÓ·Ì¤ÓˆÓ Âú‰Ë Ù ÁÂÓÔ›·ÙÔ ¯ÚÔÖ¿ Ù ıÓËÙáÓ
ÙfiÛÛ’, ¬Û· ÓÜÓ ÁÂÁ¿·ÛÈ Û˘Ó·ÚÌÔÛı¤ÓÙ’ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙËÈ…
_______
v. 1 ÏÈfi͢ÏÔ˜: cf. B21.2
v. 2 ¯ÚÔÖ·: cf. 58B43: Ùe ÁaÚ ¯ÚáÌ· j âÓ Ùˇá ¤Ú·Ù› âÛÙÈÓ j ¤Ú·˜. ‰Èe ηd Ôî
¶˘ı·ÁfiÚÂÈÔÈ ÙcÓ âÈÊ¿ÓÂÈ·Ó ¯ÚÔÈaÓ âοÏÔ˘Ó.
Cf. 58B26: …ϤÁÔ˘ÛÈÓ (sc. Ôî ¶˘ı·ÁfiÚÂÈÔÈ) ó˜ ÙÔÜ ëÓe˜ Û˘ÛÙ·ı¤ÓÙÔ˜...
ÂúÙ’ âÎ ¯ÚÔÈĘ... Cf. Plato, Meno, 75b-76d.
v. 4 ÙfiÛÛ’ ¬Û· Karsten, DK: ÙÔ›· ¬Û· codd. Simplicii: ÙÔÖ’ Ôx· Wilamowitz:
ÙÔÖ’ ¬Û· Bollack

***
LXXII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

106

B 151
˙›‰ˆÚÔ˜... \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙË

***

107

B 73
ó˜ ‰b ÙfiÙ ¯ıfiÓ· K‡ÚȘ, â› Ù’ ≛ËÓÂÓ âÓ ùÌ‚ÚˆÈ,
Âú‰Â· ÔÈÓ‡Ô˘Û· ıÔáÈ ˘Úd ‰áΠÎÚ·ÙÜÓ·È…
_______
Breve post B71 (= No. 105) teste Simplicio (In de Caelo 530.5)
v. 2 Âú‰Â· ÔÈÓ‡Ô˘Û· F Simplicii, DK (cf. B22.7; 71.3): Âå ‰b àÔÓÔÈÔÜÛ·
Simpl.: ú‰Â· ÔÈÓ‡Ô˘Û· Diels: ·åı¤Ú’ âÈÓÂ›Ô˘Û· Stein

***

[Plants first Organic Beings appearing near the Beginning

of World-ordering]

108

B 154
(Ô≈ˆ ‰’ ≥ÏÈÔ˜ ¥‰Ú˘ÙÔ àÏ·ÓÉ Î·d ‚¤‚·ÈÔÓ ö¯ˆÓ ‰ÚfiÌÔÓ)
äá
ηd ‰‡ÛÈÓ öÎÚÈÓÂÓ, ÂÚd ‰’ õÁ·ÁÂÓ ·sıȘ ç›ÛÛˆ
ηÚÔÊfiÚÔÈÛÈÓ âÈÛÙ¤„·˜ Î·Ï˘ÎÔÛÙÂÊ¿ÓÔÈÛÈÓ
≠øڷȘ, ÁÉ ‰’ ≈‚ÚÈÛÙÔ.
_______
Cf. A70

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXIII

[Structure of Organic Beings]

109

B 82
Ù·éÙa ÙÚ›¯Â˜ ηd ʇÏÏ· ηd ÔåˆÓáÓ ÙÂÚa ˘ÎÓ¿
ηd ÊÏÔÓ›‰Â˜ Á›ÁÓÔÓÙ·È âd ÛÙÈ‚·ÚÔÖÛÈ Ì¤ÏÂÛÛÈÓ.
_______
v. 2 ÊÏÔÓ›‰Â˜ Karsten (cf. Hesychius s.v. ÊÏÔÓ›‰Â˜Ø ÏÂ›‰Â˜), Bollack: ÏÂ›‰Â˜
codd. Aristotelis, DK: ÏÔ›‰Â˜ vel ψ›‰Â˜ alii codd. Aristotelis: ÊÔÏȉÔÓ›-
‰Â˜ codd. Olympiodori

***

110

B 97
… ®¿¯ÈÓ …
_______
Aristoteles, de part.anim. A, 1, p. 640a18 sqq.: ...\EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ... ÂúÚËΠϤÁˆÓ
ñ¿Ú¯ÂÈÓ ÔÏÏa ÙÔÖ˜ ˙ˇÒÔȘ ‰Èa Ùe Û˘Ì‚ÉÓ·È Ô≈Ùˆ˜ âÓ ÙFÉ ÁÂÓ¤ÛÂÈ, ÔxÔÓ Î·d ÙcÓ
Ú¿¯ÈÓ ÙÔÈ·‡ÙËÓ ö¯ÂÈÓ ¬ÙÈ ÛÙڷʤÓÙÔ˜ ηٷ¯ıÉÓ·È Û˘Ó¤‚Ë.

***

111

Fr. 152 Wright

ÙáÓ ÁaÚ ¬Û· Ú›˙·È˜ ÌbÓ â·ÛÛ˘Ù¤Ú·È[ÛÈÓ] öÓÂÚıÂ
Ì·ÓÔÙ¤ÚÔȘ [‰’ ¬]Ú[ËÍ]ÈÓ ñ¤ÛÙË ÙËÏÂı[¿ÔÓÙ·].
_______
Libro secundo K·ı·ÚÌáÓ adscripsit Herodianus fragmentum in K·ıÔÏÈÎc
ÚÔÛˇˆ‰›·: âÓ ‚ã ηı·ÚÌáÓ. Quod confirmat ¶ÂÚd º‡Ûˆ˜ et K·ı·ÚÌÔ› idem
opus esse,cuius titulus prooemii ad denotandum totum extendit. Similiter Theon
Smyrnaeus referens ad K·ı·ÚÌÔ‡˜ intellexit libros Physicorum. B153a: Ùe ÁÔÜÓ
‚Ú¤ÊÔ˜ ‰ÔÎÂÖ ÙÂÏÂÈÔÜÛı·È âÓ ëÙa 낉ÔÌ¿ÛÈÓ, ó˜ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ·åÓ›ÙÙÂÙ·È âÓ
ÙÔÖ˜ K·ı·ÚÌÔÖ˜.

***
LXXIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

112

B 75
ÙáÓ ‰’ ¬Û’ öÛˆ ÌbÓ ˘ÎÓ¿, Ùa ‰’ öÎÙÔıÈ Ì·Óa ¤ËÁÂ,
K‡ÚȉԘ âÓ ·Ï¿ÌËÈÛÈ Ï¿‰Ë˜ ÙÔÈÉÛ‰Â Ù˘¯fiÓÙ·…
_______
Post B73 in Simplicii Comm. In de Caelo (530.8)
v. 2 K‡ÚȉԘ âÓ ·Ï¿ÌFËÛÈ: cf. B 95

***
113

b+B 76
ÙÔÜÙÔ ÌbÓ âÓ ÎfiÁ¯·ÈÛÈ ı·Ï·ÛÛÔÓfiÌÔȘ ‚·Ú˘ÓÒÙÔȘ b0 B76.1
[䉒 âÓ Â]ÙÚ·›ÔÈÛÈ Î·[
[öÓı’ ù„ÂÈ] ¯ıfiÓ· ¯ÚˆÙe[˜ ñ]¤[Úٷٷ Ó·ÈÂÙ¿Ô˘Û·ÓØ] b2 B76.3
[ıÒÚËÍ ‰’ ·s]ÙÂ ÎÚ·Ù·ÈÓ[Ò]ÙˆÓ ·[
[Ó·d ÌcÓ ÎËÚ‡]ÎˆÓ Á ÏÈıÔÚ›ÓˆÓ ¯[ÂχˆÓ ÙÂ] b4 B76.2
[ùÛÙڷη η]d ÌÂÏ›·È ÎÂÚ·áÓ âÏ¿[ÊˆÓ çÚÈÏ¿ÁÎÙˆÓ.
[àÏÏ’ ÔéÎ iÓ ÙÂϤ۷ÈÌ]È Ï¤ÁˆÓ Û‡Ì[·ÓÙ·
_______
b0 ı·Ï·ÛÛÔÓfiÌÔȘ: ı·Ï·ÛÛÔÓfiÌˆÓ Diels, DK
b4 ÁÂ Pap. MP: ÙÂ codd. Plutarchi, DK, Janko
b5 ùÛÙڷη η] et çÚÈÏ¿ÁÎÙˆÓ supplevit Janko
b6 post Û‡Ì·ÓÙ· supplevit Á¤ÓÂıÏ· Janko, qui et fragmentum e huc
collocavit

***
114

B 83
·éÙaÚ â¯›ÓÔȘ
ç͢‚ÂÏÂÖ˜ ¯·ÖÙ·È ÓÒÙÔȘ âÈÂÊڛηÛÈ.
_______
Plutarchus, de fort. 3 p. 98D: Ùa ÌbÓ ÁaÚ œÏÈÛÙ·È Î¤Ú·ÛÈ Î·d ç‰ÔÜÛÈ Î·d
ΤÓÙÚÔȘ, ·éÙaÚ â¯›ÓÔȘ etc.
v. 2 ¯·ÖÙ·È Vulcobius, DK: η› Ù vel ‰¤ Ù codd. Plutarchi

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXV

[Plants. Oviparous Procreation. Fertility. Fishes]

115

B 79
Ô≈Ùˆ ‰’ èÈÔÙÔÎÂÖ Ì·ÎÚa ‰¤Ó‰Ú· ÚáÙÔÓ âÏ·›·˜…
_______
Ì·ÎÚa ‰¤Ó‰Ú·: cf. B72 ‰¤Ó‰Ú· Ì·ÎÚ¿

***
116

B 80
Ô≈ÓÂÎÂÓ ç„›ÁÔÓÔ› Ù ۛ‰·È ηd ñ¤ÚÊÏÔÈ· ÌÉÏ·
_______
ñ¤ÚÊÏÔÈ·: ...ñ¤ÚÊÏÔÈ· ÏÂϤ¯ı·È Ùa ÌÉÏ· ‰Èa ÙcÓ àÎÌ‹ÓØ Ùe ÁaÚ ôÁ·Ó
àÎÌ¿˙ÂÈÓ Î·d ÙÂıËÏ¤Ó·È ÊÏÔ›ÂÈÓ ñe ÙáÓ ÔÈËÙáÓ Ï¤ÁÂÛı·È (cf. ¢ÈfiÓ˘ÛÔ˜
ºÏÔÖÔ˜), Plutarchus, Quaest. Conv., V 8, 2 p. 683D.

***
117

B 72
ᘠηd ‰¤Ó‰Ú· Ì·ÎÚa ηd ÂåÓ¿ÏÈÔÈ Î·Ì·ÛÉÓ˜…
_______
‰¤Ó‰Ú· Ì·ÎÚ¿: cf. B79 Ì·ÎÚ¿ ‰¤Ó‰Ú·

***
118

B 74
ÊÜÏÔÓ ôÌÔ˘ÛÔÓ ôÁÔ˘Û· ÔÏ˘ÛÂÚ¤ˆÓ η̷ۋӈÓ.
_______
Plutarcus, Quaest. Conv. V 10, 4 p. 685F: ·éÙáÓ ‰b ÙáÓ ˙ˇÒˆÓ Ôé‰bÓ iÓ ¯ÂÚ-
Û·ÖÔÓ j ÙËÓeÓ ÂåÂÖÓ ö¯ÔȘ Ô≈Ùˆ ÁfiÓÈÌÔÓ ó˜ ¿ÓÙ· Ùa ı·Ï¿ÙÙÈ·Ø Úe˜ n ηd
ÂÔ›ËÎÂÓ ï \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ...
ôÁÔ˘Û·: sc. Venus probabiliter.

***
LXXVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

[Original Terrigenous Procreation of Animals / Humans]

119

B 62
ÓÜÓ ‰’ ôÁ’, ¬ˆ˜ àÓ‰ÚáÓ Ù ÔÏ˘ÎÏ·‡ÙˆÓ Ù Á˘Ó·ÈÎáÓ
âÓÓ˘¯›Ô˘˜ ¬ÚËη˜ àÓ‹Á·Á ÎÚÈÓfiÌÂÓÔÓ ÜÚ,
ÙáӉ Îχ’Ø Ôé ÁaÚ ÌÜıÔ˜ àfiÛÎÔÔ˜ Ô鉒 à‰·‹ÌˆÓ.
ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ ÌbÓ ÚáÙ· Ù‡ÔÈ ¯ıÔÓe˜ âÍ·Ó¤ÙÂÏÏÔÓ,
àÌÊÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ ≈‰·Ùfi˜ Ù ηd Âú‰ÂÔ˜ ·rÛ·Ó ö¯ÔÓÙ˜
ÙÔf˜ ÌbÓ ÜÚ àÓ¤ÂÌ ı¤ÏÔÓ Úe˜ ïÌÔÖÔÓ îΤÛı·È,
ÔûÙ ٛ ˆ ÌÂϤˆÓ âÚ·ÙeÓ ‰¤Ì·˜ âÌÊ·›ÓÔÓÙ·˜
ÔûÙ’ âÓÔcÓ ÔxÔÓ Ù’ âȯÒÚÈÔÓ àÓ‰Ú¿ÛÈ Á˘ÖÔÓ.
_______
In librum secundum teste Simplicio (in Phys. 381.29): âÓ Ùˇá ‰Â˘Ù¤Úˇˆ ÙáÓ
º˘ÛÈÎáÓ Úe Ùɘ ÙáÓ àÓ‰Ú›ˆÓ ηd Á˘Ó·ÈΛˆÓ ÛˆÌ¿ÙˆÓ ‰È·ÚıÚÒÛˆ˜.
v. 2 âÓÓ˘¯›Ô˘˜: âÌÌ˘¯›Ô˘˜ Panzerbieter
v. 5 Âú‰ÂÔ˜ codd. Simplicii, DK (cf. B21.4): ú‰ÂÔ˜ Diels
v. 8 ÔxfiÓ Ù’ Diels, DK: Ô¥· Ù’ cod. Simplicii: ÔûÙ’ cod. alter Simplicii: ÔûÙ’ ÔsÓ
Wilamowitz: Ô¥Ë Ù’ Bollack
Á˘ÖÔÓ Stein, Diels, DK: Á‡ˆÓ codd. Simplicii: Á˘›ˆÓ Bollack: ÁÉÚ˘Ó editio
Aldina

***
[Viviparous Procreation. Sexes]
120

B 63
àÏÏa ‰È¤Û·ÛÙ·È ÌÂϤˆÓ ʇÛÈ˜Ø ì ÌbÓ âÓ àÓ‰Úfi˜…
***
121

B 64
ÙáÈ ‰’ âd ηd fiıÔ˜ ÂrÛÈ ‰È’ ù„ÈÔ˜ àÌÌÈÌÓ‹ÈÛΈÓ.
(rememberance of the unity of sexes in the ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ)
_______
‰È’ ù„ÈÔ˜ àÌÌÈÌÓ‹ÈÛÎˆÓ Wyttenbach, Diels, Kranz: ‰È·¤„ˆ˜ àÌÌ›ÛÁˆÓ
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXVII

codd. Plutarchi: ‰È·ÌÂÚ¤ˆ˜ àÌÌ›ÛÁˆÓ Bollack: ‰È’ ±„ÈÔ˜ ·xÌ’ àÓ·Ì›ÛÁˆÓ

Ellis: ‰È’ ù„ÈÔ˜ àÌÌ›ÁÂÛı·È Dyer, Inwood.

***

122

B 66
Û¯ÈÛÙÔf˜ ÏÂÈÌáÓ·˜…\AÊÚÔ‰›Ù˘.
_______
ÏÂÈÌáÓ·˜ codd. Scholiorum in Euripidem, DK: ÏÈÌáÓ·˜ alius cod.: ÏÈ̤ӷ˜
alius cod., Swartz (cf. B98.3)

***

123

B 153
(ÛËÌ·›ÓÂÈ ‰b ηd ÎÔÈÏ›·Ó ó˜ ·Ú’ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏÂÖ)
‚·˘‚Ò
_______
Cf. Kern OF 52; 395 Bernabé; v.N.A. Georgopoulos, G.A. Vagenakis, A.L.
Pierris, “Baubo: a Case of Ambiguous Genitalia in the Eleusinian Mysteries” in
Hormones, International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2003, vol.
2, No. 1 pp. 72-4.

***

124

B 65
âÓ ‰’ ⯇ıË Î·ı·ÚÔÖÛÈØ Ùa ÌbÓ ÙÂϤıÔ˘ÛÈ Á˘Ó·ÖΘ
„‡¯ÂÔ˜ àÓÙÈ¿Û·ÓÙ· <Ùa ‰’ öÌ·ÏÈÓ ôÚÚÂÓ· ıÂÚÌÔÜ>.
_______
v. 1 ηı·ÚÔÖÛÈ: Ù·Ï¿ÚÔÈÛÈ Scaliger: η̿ڷÈÛÈ Weil
v. 2 <Ùa ‰’... ıÂÚÌÔÜ> e.g. supplevit Diels

***
LXXVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

125

B 67
âÓ ÁaÚ ıÂÚÌÔÙ¤ÚˆÈ ÙÔÎa˜ ôÚÚÂÓÔ˜ öÏÂÙÔ Á·ÛÙ‹Ú
ηd ̤ϷÓ˜ ‰Èa ÙÔÜÙÔ Î·d ê‰ÚÔÌÂϤÛÙÂÚÔÈ ôÓ‰Ú˜
ηd Ï·¯Ó‹ÂÓÙ˜ ÌÄÏÏÔÓ.
_______
v. 1 ÙÔÎa˜ ôÚÚÂÓÔ˜ öÏÂÙÔ Á·ÛÙ‹Ú Diels, DK: Ùe ηْ ôÚÚÂÓ· öÏÂÙÔ Á·›Ë˜
codd. Galeni, Bollack, Inwood: Ùe ηْ ôÚÚÂÓ· öÏÂÙÔ Á·ÛÙÚfi˜ Sturz:
ÙÔÎa˜ ôÚÚÂÓÔ˜ öÏÂÙÔ Á·Ö· Deichgrδber, Longrigg.
v. 2 ê‰ÚÔÌÂϤÛÙÂÚÔÈ Karsten, DK, Inwood: àÓ‰Úˆ‰¤ÛÙÂÚÔÈ codd., Bollack

***

126

B 69
(Á˘Ó·ÖΘ)
‰›ÁÔÓÔÈ.

***

127

B 68
ÌËÓe˜ âÓ çÁ‰Ô¿ÙÔ˘ ‰ÂοÙËÈ ‡ÔÓ öÏÂÙÔ Ï¢ÎfiÓ.
(sc. Ùe Á¿Ï·)

***

128

B 70
àÌÓ›ÔÓ.
_______
Rufus Ephesius, de nom. part. hom. 229 p. 166.11 Daremberg: Ùe ‰b ‚Ú¤ÊÔ˜
ÂÚȤ¯ÂÙ·È ¯ÈÙáÛÈ, Ùˇá ÌbÓ ÏÂÙˇá ηd Ì·Ï·ÎˇáØ àÌÓ›ÔÓ ·éÙeÓ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ
ηÏÂÖ.


b) Phase of ascending ºÈÏ›· Nos. 129-156

[Beginning of Intermixture]

129

B 35
·éÙaÚ âÁg ·Ï›ÓÔÚÛÔ˜ âχÛÔÌ·È â˜ fiÚÔÓ ≈ÌÓˆÓ,
ÙeÓ ÚfiÙÂÚÔÓ Î·Ù¤ÏÂÍ·, ÏfiÁÔ˘ ÏfiÁÔÓ âÍÔ¯ÂÙ‡ˆÓ,
ÎÂÖÓÔÓØ âÂd NÂÖÎÔ˜ ÌbÓ âÓ¤ÚÙ·ÙÔÓ ¥ÎÂÙÔ ‚¤ÓıÔ˜
‰›Ó˘, âÓ ‰b ̤ÛËÈ ºÈÏfiÙ˘ ÛÙÚÔÊ¿ÏÈÁÁÈ Á¤ÓËÙ·È,
âÓ ÙÉÈ ‰c Ù¿‰Â ¿ÓÙ· Û˘Ó¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È íÓ ÌfiÓÔÓ ÂrÓ·È,
ÔéÎ ôÊ·Ú, àÏÏa ıÂÏËÌa Û˘ÓÈÛÙ¿ÌÂÓ ôÏÏÔıÂÓ ôÏÏ·.
ÙáÓ ‰¤ Ù ÌÈÛÁÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¯ÂÖÙ’ öıÓ· Ì˘Ú›· ıÓËÙáÓ,
ÔÏÏa ‰’ ôÌÂÈÎÙ’ öÛÙËΠÎÂÚ·ÈÔ̤ÓÔÈÛÈÓ âÓ·ÏÏ¿Í,
¬ÛÛ’ öÙÈ NÂÖÎÔ˜ öڢΠÌÂÙ¿ÚÛÈÔÓØ Ôé ÁaÚ àÌÂÌʤˆ˜
ÙáÓ ÄÓ âͤÛÙËÎÂÓ â’ öÛ¯·Ù· Ù¤ÚÌ·Ù· ·ÎÏÔ˘,
àÏÏa Ùa Ì¤Ó Ù’ âÓ¤ÌÈÌÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ Ùa ‰¤ Ù’ âÍ‚‚‹ÎÂÈ.
¬ÛÛÔÓ ‰’ ·åbÓ ñÂÎÚÔı¤ÔÈ, ÙfiÛÔÓ ·åbÓ â‹ÈÂÈ
äÈfiÊÚˆÓ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ àÌÂÌʤԘ ôÌ‚ÚÔÙÔ˜ ïÚÌ‹Ø
·r„· ‰b ıÓ‹Ù’ âʇÔÓÙÔ, Ùa ÚdÓ Ì¿ıÔÓ àı¿Ó·Ù’ ÂrÓ·È,
˙ˆÚ¿ Ù Ùa ÚdÓ ôÎÚËÙ· ‰È·ÏÏ¿Í·ÓÙ· ÎÂχıÔ˘˜.
TáÓ ‰¤ Ù ÌÈÛÁÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ ¯ÂÖÙ’ öıÓ· Ì˘Ú›· ıÓËÙáÓ,
·ÓÙÔ›·È˜ 剤ËÈÛÈÓ àÚËÚfiÙ·, ı·ÜÌ· 剤Ûı·È.
_______
Ante B98 teste Simplicio (In Phys. 32.11)
Cf. B21
vv. 1-2 ·éÙaÚ... ÚfiÙÂÚÔÓ Î·Ù¤ÏÂÍ·: v. a(ii)18-19 Martin-Primavesi
~ Β35.3-4.
v. 2 ÏfiÁÔ˘ Bergk, DK: ÏfiÁˇˆ codd. Simplicii
LXXX APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

âÍÔ¯ÂÙ‡ˆÓ cod., DK, Bollack: âȯÂÙ‡ˆÓ cod.: âÔ¯ÂÙ‡ˆÓ

Brandis, Karsten
v. 5 âÓ ÙFÉ ‰c codd., DK. Bollack: âÓ ÙFÉ ì ‰b cod.: öÓı’ õ‰Ë Bergk: âÓ Ùˇá
‰c Kranz
v. 10 ÙáÓ Diels, DK: Ùe vel g vel Ôûˆ codd. Simplicii: πω Bollack
v. 13 ïÚÌ‹: cf. a(ii) 10 Martin-Primavesi
v. 15 ˙ˆÚ¿ ÙÂ Ùa ÚdÓ ôÎÚËÙ· codd. Athenaei, Plutarchi, DK, Bollack:
˙ˆÚ¿ Ù Ùa ÚdÓ ôÎÚÈÙ· cod. Simplicii: ˙á¿ Ù ÚdÓ Î¤ÎÚÉÙÔ (sic)
codd. Aristotelis: ˙ˆÚ¿ Ù ÚdÓ Ùa ΤÎÚËÙÔ Bergk: ˙ˆÚ¿ ı’ L ÚdÓ
ΤÎÚËÙÔ Gomperz
vv. 16-17: cf. B21.10-12; B23.6-8

***

130

B 36
ÙáÓ ‰b Û˘ÓÂÚ¯ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ âÍ öÛ¯·ÙÔÓ ¥ÛÙ·ÙÔ NÂÖÎÔ˜.

***

[Monstrous Formations]

131

B 57
wÈ ÔÏÏ·d ÌbÓ ÎfiÚÛ·È àÓ·‡¯ÂÓ˜ â‚Ï¿ÛÙËÛ·Ó,
Á˘ÌÓÔd ‰’ âÏ¿˙ÔÓÙÔ ‚Ú·¯›ÔÓ˜ ÂûÓȉ˜ ü̈Ó,
ùÌÌ·Ù¿ Ù’ Ôr(·) âÏ·ÓÄÙÔ ÂÓËÙ‡ÔÓÙ· ÌÂÙÒˆÓ.
_______
In aetate Amicitiae crescentis, teste Aristotele (de caelo Γ2, 300b25 sqq.): ...ηı¿-
ÂÚ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ÊËÛÈ Á›ÓÂÛı·È âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ (sc. âÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Û˘ ºÈÏfi-
ÙËÙÔ˜)· ϤÁÂÈ Á¿Ú: “ÔÏÏ·d... â‚Ï¿ÛÙËÛ·Ó”.

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXXI

132

B 58
ÌÔ˘ÓÔÌÂÏÉ… Ùa Á˘Ö·… âÏ·ÓÄÙÔ
_______
Simplicius In de caelo 587.18 (post B35.13): âÓ Ù·‡ÙFË ÔsÓ ÙFÉ Î·Ù·ÛÙ¿ÛÂÈ
(Amicitiae crescentis) ÌÔ˘ÓÔÌÂÏÉ öÙÈ Ùa Á˘Ö· àe Ùɘ ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ ‰È·ÎÚ›Ûˆ˜
ùÓÙ· âÏ·ÓÄÙÔ Ùɘ Úe˜ ôÏÏËÏ· ̛͈˜ âÊȤÌÂÓ·.
ÌÔ˘ÓÔÌÂÏÉ: cf. ÔéÏÔÊ˘ÂÖ˜ Ù‡ÔÈ B62.4; ÔéÏÔÌÂϤ˜ Parmenides, 28B8.4

***

133

B 60
ÂåÏ›Ô‰’ àÎÚÈÙfi¯ÂÈÚ·

***

134

B 61
ÔÏÏa ÌbÓ àÌÊÈÚfiÛˆ· ηd àÌÊ›ÛÙÂÚÓ· ʇÂÛı·È,
‚Ô˘ÁÂÓÉ àÓ‰ÚfiÚˆÈÚ·, Ùa ‰’ öÌ·ÏÈÓ âÍ·Ó·Ù¤ÏÏÂÈÓ
àÓ‰ÚÔÊ˘É ‚Ô‡ÎÚ·Ó·, ÌÂÌÂÈÁ̤ӷ ÙÉÈ ÌbÓ à’ àÓ‰ÚáÓ
ÙÉÈ ‰b Á˘Ó·ÈÎÔÊ˘É ÛÎÈÂÚÔÖ˜ äÛÎË̤ӷ Á˘›ÔȘ.
_______
In aetate Amicitiae crescentis, teste Simplicio (In Phys. 371.33): œÛÂÚ \EÌÂ-
‰ÔÎÏɘ ηÙa ÙcÓ Ùɘ ºÈÏ›·˜ àÚ¯‹Ó ÊËÛÈ ÁÂÓ¤Ûı·È ó˜ öÙ˘¯Â ̤ÚË
ÚáÙÔÓ ÙáÓ ˙ˇÒˆÓ ÔxÔÓ ÎÂÊ·Ïa˜ ηd ¯ÂÖÚ·˜ ηd fi‰·˜, öÂÈÙ· Û˘ÓȤӷÈ
Ù·ÜÙ· “‚Ô˘ÁÂÓÉ... âÍ·Ó·Ù¤ÏÏÂÈÓ” etc.
v. 1 àÌÊ›ÛÙÂÚÓ·: cf. Hesychius s.v. àÌÊ›ÛÙÂÚÓÔÓØ ‰ÂÈÓ‹Ó (Bollack)
àÌÊ›ÛÙÂÚÓ· ʇÂÛı·È: àÌÊ›ÛÙÂÚÓ’ âʇÔÓÙÔ Karsten
v. 2 àÓ‰ÚfiÚˇˆÚ·: cf. Hesychius s.vv. àÓ‰ÚfiÚˆÚÔÓ et àÓÙ›ÚˆÚ·Ø àÓ‰ÚÔÚfi-
ÛˆÔÓ (Bollack)
âÍ·Ó·Ù¤ÏÏÂÈÓ codd. Simplicii: âÍ·Ó·Ù›ÓÂÈÓ codd. Aeliani (teste Diels):
âÍ·Ó¤ÙÂÏÏÔÓ (cf. B62.4) Karsten
v. 3 à’ Karsten, Diels, DK: ñ’ codd. Aeliani, Bollack
LXXXII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

v. 4 ÛÎÈÂÚÔÖ˜ codd. Aeliani, DK: ÛÙ›ÚÔȘ vel ÛÎÈÚÔÖ˜ (cf. Lucretius V 855)
Diels: ıÈÌ‚ÚÔÖ˜ Hercher: ¯ÏÈÂÚÔÖ˜ Karsten: ÛÙÈ‚·ÚÔÖ˜ Bergk: ‰ÈÂÚÂÖ˜
Panzerbieter

***

[Combinations]

135

B 59
·éÙaÚ âÂd ηÙa ÌÂÖ˙ÔÓ âÌ›ÛÁÂÙÔ ‰·›ÌÔÓÈ ‰·›ÌˆÓ,
Ù·ÜÙ¿ ÙÂ Û˘Ì›ÙÂÛÎÔÓ, ¬ËÈ Û˘Ó¤Î˘ÚÛÂÓ ≤ηÛÙ·,
ôÏÏ· Ù Úe˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÔÏÏa ‰ÈËÓÂÎÉ âÍÂÁ¤ÓÔÓÙÔ.
_______
Post B58, in aetate Amicitiae crescentis, teste Simplicio (In de caelo 587.20):
(post B58) “·éÙaÚ â›, ÊËÛ›, ηÙa.... ‰·›ÌˆÓ”, ¬Ù ÙÔÜ N›ÎÔ˘˜ âÂÎÚ¿-
ÙÂÈ ÏÔÈeÓ ì ºÈÏfiÙ˘, “Ù·ÜÙ¿ ÙÂ... âÍÂÁ¤ÓÔÓÙÔ”. âd Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜ ÔsÓ
ï \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ âÎÂÖÓ· ÂrÂÓ, Ôé¯ ó˜ âÈÎÚ·ÙÔ‡Û˘ õ‰Ë Ùɘ ºÈÏfiÙËÙÔ˜,
àÏÏ’ ó˜ ÌÂÏÏÔ‡Û˘ âÈÎÚ·ÙÂÖÓ etc.
v. 2 ≤ηÛÙ·: codd. Simplicii In de caelo: ±·ÓÙ· codd. Simplicii In
physicorum
v. 3 ‰ÈËÓÂÎÉ: ‰ÈËÓÂΤ˜ Peyron, Karsten (cf. B17.35)

***

[Emanations]

136

B 89
ÁÓÔ‡˜, ¬ÙÈ ¿ÓÙˆÓ ÂåÛdÓ àÔÚÚÔ·›, ¬ÛÛ’ âÁ¤ÓÔÓÙÔ…
_______
ÁÓÔf˜: ÁÓáı’ Wakefield (cf. B4.3)

***
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXXIII

137

B 109a
...j ó˜ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ àÔÚÚÔa˜ Ê·›Ë iÓ àÈ¤Ó·È àe ëοÛÙÔ˘ ÙáÓ
ηÙÔÙÚÈ˙ÔÌ¤ÓˆÓ Î·d Ù[ÔÖ˜ ¬ÌÌ·ÛÈÓ œÛ]ÂÚ âÔ‡Û·˜ [ÂåÎfiÓ·˜ âÓ·Ú-
Ìfi˙ÂÛı·È].
_______
Diels supplevit

***

[Organic tissues, parts and organs]

[Eyes and Vision]

138

B 88
… Ì›· Á›ÁÓÂÙ·È àÌÊÔÙ¤ÚˆÓ ù„.

***

139

B 85
ì ‰b ÊÏeÍ îÏ¿ÂÈÚ· ÌÈÓ˘Óı·‰›Ë˜ Ù‡¯Â Á·›Ë˜
_______
ì ‰b DK (cf. B96.1; 98.1): ì‰b cod. Simplicii: ì ‰c cod. Simpl., Bollack: õ‰Ë
cod. Simpl.: ä‰b Wilamowitz

***

140

B 86
âÍ zÓ ùÌÌ·Ù’ öËÍÂÓ àÙÂÈÚ¤· ‰Ö’ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙË.

***
LXXXIV APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

141

B 87
ÁfiÌÊÔȘ àÛ΋۷۷ ηٷÛÙfiÚÁÔȘ \AÊÚÔ‰›ÙË.
_______
Breve post B86, teste Simplicio (In de Caelo, 529.24): ηd ÌÂÙ’ çÏ›ÁÔÓ...

***

142

B 84
ó˜ ‰’ ¬Ù ÙȘ ÚfiÔ‰ÔÓ ÓÔ¤ˆÓ óÏ›ÛÛ·ÙÔ Ï‡¯ÓÔÓ
¯ÂÈÌÂÚ›ËÓ ‰Èa Ó‡ÎÙ·, ˘Úe˜ ۤϷ˜ ·åıÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ,
±„·˜ ·ÓÙÔ›ˆÓ àÓ¤ÌˆÓ Ï·ÌÙÉÚ·˜ àÌÔÚÁÔ‡˜,
Ô¥ Ù’ àÓ¤ÌˆÓ ÌbÓ ÓÂÜÌ· ‰È·ÛÎȉÓÄÛÈÓ à¤ÓÙˆÓ,
Êᘠ‰’ ö͈ ‰È·ıÚáÈÛÎÔÓ, ¬ÛÔÓ Ù·Ó·ÒÙÂÚÔÓ qÂÓ,
Ï¿ÌÂÛÎÂÓ Î·Ùa ‚ËÏeÓ àÙÂÈÚ¤ÛÈÓ àÎÙ›ÓÂÛÛÈÓØ
S˜ ‰b ÙfiÙ’ âÓ Ì‹ÓÈÁÍÈÓ âÂÚÁ̤ÓÔÓ èÁ‡ÁÈÔÓ ÜÚ
ÏÂÙÉÈÛ›Ó <Ù’>çıfiÓËÈÛÈ ÏÔ¯¿˙ÂÙÔ Î‡ÎÏÔ· ÎÔ‡ÚËÓ,
<·Q> ¯Ô¿ÓËÈÛÈ ‰›·ÓÙ· ÙÂÙÚ‹·ÙÔ ıÂÛÂÛ›ËÈÛÈÓØ
·Q ‰’ ≈‰·ÙÔ˜ ÌbÓ ‚¤ÓıÔ˜ à¤ÛÙÂÁÔÓ àÌÊÈÓ·¤ÓÙÔ˜,
ÜÚ ‰’ ö͈ ‰È›ÂÛÎÔÓ, ¬ÛÔÓ Ù·Ó·ÒÙÂÚÔÓ qÂÓ.
_______
v. 1 ÚfiÔ‰ÔÓ codd. (enii ÚfiÛÔ‰ÔÓ), DK: Úe ï‰eÓ Bollack
v. 4 Ô¥ Ù’ codd., DK: ·¥Ù’ codd., Bollack
v. 5 Êᘠcodd., DK: ÜÚ codd., Bollack
post Êᘠ‰’ habet Paraphrasis: ö͈ ‰È¿ÓÙ·Ù·È ÙÚ›·ÙÔ ıÂÛÂÛ›ËÛÂÓ çıfi-
ÓËÛÈÓ ‰È·ÚıˇáÛÎÔÓ, ex quo Blass versum restituit quem post versum 8
posuit.
v. 7 âÂÚÁ̤ÓÔÓ codd., DK: âÂÏ̤ÓÔÓ alii codd. Bollack: â¤ÚÌÂÓÔÓ alii codd.
v. 8 ÏÂÙFÉÛÈÓ: ÏÂÙFɘ ÂåÓ Panzerbieter
<Ù’> Diels, Inwood: <Á> Bollack
çıfiÓFËÛÈ codd., DK: ¯ıÔÓ›ËÛÈ codd.: ¯Ô¿ÓËÛÈ Paraphrasis
ÏÔ¯¿˙ÂÙÔ codd., DK, Bollack: â¯Â‡·ÙÔ codd.: ⯤·ÙÔ unus cod.: Ïԯ‡-
Û·ÙÔ Fωrster, Sedley
·ÎÏÔ·: cf. ΢ÎÏÔÙÂÚ¤˜ B45; ·ÎψÔ˜… ÛÂÏ‹Ó˘ Parmenides,
28B10.4
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXXV

v. 10 àÌÊÈÓ·¤ÓÙÔ˜: cf. Ó·(È)‹ÛÔÌ·È B111.8

v. 11 ‰È›ÂÛÎÔÓ Paraphrasis, Diels, Ross, DK: ‰È·ÚıÚˇáÛÎÔÓ codd., Bollack

***

143

B 95
K‡ÚȉԘ, … âÓ ·Ï¿ÌËÈÛÈÓ ¬Ù ÍfÌ ÚáÙ’ âʇÔÓÙÔ.
_______
Fortasse post B87, v. Simplicius, In de caelo, 529.26: ηd ÙcÓ ·åÙ›·Ó ϤÁˆÓ ÙÔÜ
ÙÔf˜ ÌbÓ âÓ ì̤Ú÷· ÙÔf˜ ‰b âÓ Ó˘ÎÙd οÏÏÈÔÓ ïÚÄÓ [cf. A86, I p. 301.37 sqq.],
K‡ÚȉԘ, ÊËÛ›Ó, âÓ ·Ï¿ÌËÈÛÈÓ etc.
K‡ÚȉԘ âÓ ·Ï¿ÌFËÛÈÓ: cf. B75.2

***

[Ears and Hearing]

144

B 99
ÎÒ‰ˆÓ. ™¿ÚÎÈÓÔ˜ ù˙Ô˜.

***

[Respiration]

145

B 100
z‰Â ‰’ àÓ·ÓÂÖ ¿ÓÙ· ηd âÎÓÂÖØ ÄÛÈ Ï›Ê·ÈÌÔÈ
Û·ÚÎáÓ Û‡ÚÈÁÁ˜ ‡Ì·ÙÔÓ Î·Ùa ÛáÌ· ٤ٷÓÙ·È,
η› ÛÊÈÓ âd ÛÙÔÌ›ÔȘ ˘ÎÈÓ·Ö˜ Ù¤ÙÚËÓÙ·È ôÏÔÍÈÓ
®ÈÓáÓ öÛ¯·Ù· Ù¤ÚıÚ· ‰È·ÌÂÚ¤˜, œÛÙ ÊfiÓÔÓ Ì¤Ó
·ıÂÈÓ, ·åı¤ÚÈ ‰’ ÂéÔÚ›ËÓ ‰Èfi‰ÔÈÛÈ ÙÂÙÌÉÛı·È.
öÓıÂÓ öÂÈı’ ïfiÙ·Ó ÌbÓ à·˝ÍËÈ Ù¤ÚÂÓ ·xÌ·,
·åıcÚ ·ÊÏ¿˙ˆÓ ηٷ˝ÛÛÂÙ·È Ôú‰Ì·ÙÈ Ì¿ÚÁˆÈ,
LXXXVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ÂsÙ ‰’ àÓ·ıÚÒÈÛÎËÈ, ¿ÏÈÓ âÎÓ¤ÂÈ, —œÛÂÚ ¬Ù·Ó ·Ö˜

ÎÏ„‡‰ÚËÈ ·›˙Ô˘Û· ‰ÈÂÈÂÙ¤Ô˜ ¯·ÏÎÔÖÔ,
ÂsÙ ÌbÓ ·éÏÔÜ ÔÚıÌeÓ â’ ÂéÂȉÂÖ ¯ÂÚd ıÂÖÛ·
Âå˜ ≈‰·ÙÔ˜ ‚¿ÙËÈÛÈ Ù¤ÚÂÓ ‰¤Ì·˜ àÚÁ˘Ê¤ÔÈÔ,
Ô鉒 öÙ’ ☠ôÁÁÔÛ‰’ ùÌ‚ÚÔ˜ âÛ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È, àÏÏ¿ ÌÈÓ ÂúÚÁÂÈ
à¤ÚÔ˜ ùÁÎÔ˜ öÛˆı ÂÛgÓ âd ÙÚ‹Ì·Ù· ˘ÎÓ¿,
ÂåÛfiÎ’ àÔÛÙÂÁ¿ÛËÈ ˘ÎÈÓeÓ ®fiÔÓØ ·éÙaÚ öÂÈÙ·
Ó‡̷ÙÔ˜ âÏÏ›ÔÓÙÔ˜ âÛ¤Ú¯ÂÙ·È ·úÛÈÌÔÓ ≈‰ˆÚØ
S˜ ‰’ ·ûÙˆ˜, ¬ı’ ≈‰ˆÚ ÌbÓ ö¯ËÈ Î·Ùa ‚¤Óı· ¯·ÏÎÔÜ
ÔÚıÌÔÜ ¯ˆÛı¤ÓÙÔ˜ ‚ÚÔÙ¤ˆÈ ¯ÚÔ˝ ä‰b fiÚÔÈÔ,
·åıcÚ ‰’ âÎÙe˜ öÛˆ ÏÂÏÈË̤ÓÔ˜ ùÌ‚ÚÔÓ âÚ‡ÎÂÈ,
àÌÊd ‡Ï·˜ äıÌÔÖÔ ‰˘Û˯¤Ô˜ ôÎÚ· ÎÚ·Ù‡ÓˆÓ,
ÂåÛfiΠ¯ÂÈÚd ÌÂıÉÈ, ÙfiÙ ‰’ ·s ¿ÏÈÓ, öÌ·ÏÈÓ j Ú›Ó,
Ó‡̷ÙÔ˜ âÌ›ÙÔÓÙÔ˜ ñÂÎı¤ÂÈ ·úÛÈÌÔÓ ≈‰ˆÚ.
S˜ ‰’ ·ûÙˆ˜ Ù¤ÚÂÓ ·xÌ· ÎÏ·‰·ÛÛfiÌÂÓÔÓ ‰Èa Á˘›ˆÓ
ïfiÙ ÌbÓ ·Ï›ÓÔÚÛÔÓ à·˝ÍÂÈÂ Ì˘¯fiÓ‰Â,
·åı¤ÚÔ˜ Âéıf˜ ®ÂÜÌ· η٤گÂÙ·È Ôú‰Ì·ÙÈ ıÜÔÓ,
ÂsÙ ‰’ àÓ·ıÚÒÈÛÎËÈ, ¿ÏÈÓ âÎÓ¤ÂÈ rÛÔÓ ç›ÛÛˆ.
_______
v. 12 Ô鉒 öÙ’ ☠Diels: Ô鉤ْ ☠vel Ô鉒 ¬ÙÈ â˜ codd.: Ô鉒 ¬ Á’ ☠Bekker: Ô鉤
ÙȘ Bollack: Ôé ÙfiÙ’ ☠Stein: Ôé‰Âd˜ Wilamowitz, DK
v. 19 äıÌÔÖÔ: enii codd. Regenbogen, DK: åÛıÌÔÖÔ boni codd., Bollack (cf.
Hesychius s.v. ÂåÛıÌfi˜Ø ÂúÛÔ‰Ô˜ ≈‰·ÙÔ˜ ÛÙÂÓ‹)
v. 22 ‰Èa Á˘›ˆÓ codd., Michael, DK: ‰È’ àÁ˘ÈáÓ codd., Bollack
v. 23 à·˝ÍÂÈ Stein, DK: â·˝ÍÂÈ codd., Karsten, Bollack: â¿ÍÂÈÂÓ enii
codd.

***

[Nose and smelling]

146

B 101
ΤÚÌ·Ù· ıËÚ›ˆÓ ÌÂϤˆÓ Ì˘ÎÙÉÚÛÈÓ âÚ¢ÓáÓ,
<˙ÒÔÓı’> ¬ÛÛ’ à¤ÏÂÈ Ô‰áÓ ê·ÏÉÈ ÂÚd Ô›ËÈ…
_______
v. 2 <˙ÒÔÓı’> Diels, DK: <çÛÌÄı’> Pearson
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXXVII

¬ÛÛ’ Nauck: ó˜ vel n˜ codd. Alexandri

<˙ÒÔÓı’>¬ÛÛ’: <Ùa?>... Bollack

***

147

B 102
z‰Â ÌbÓ ÔsÓ ÓÔÈɘ Ù ÏÂÏfiÁ¯·ÛÈ ¿ÓÙ· ηd çÛÌáÓ.

***

[Awareness, Understanding, Thinking]

148

B 103
ÙÉȉ ÌbÓ ÔsÓ åfiÙËÙÈ T‡¯Ë˜ ÂÊÚfiÓËÎÂÓ ±·ÓÙ·.
_______
Cf. B107; B110.10

***

149

B 104
ηd ηı’ ¬ÛÔÓ ÌbÓ àÚ·Èfiٷٷ ͢Ӥ΢ÚÛ ÂÛfiÓÙ·…
_______
Breve post B103 teste Simplicio (In Phys. 331.13): ηd ÌÂÙ’ çÏ›ÁÔÓ etc.
Cf. Theophrastus, De sensu (§11, DK I p. 302.25 sqq.): ¬ÛÔȘ ÌbÓ ÔsÓ úÛ· ηd
·Ú·Ï‹ÛÈ· ̤ÌÂÈÎÙ·È (sc. Ùa ÛÙÔȯÂÖ· âÓ Ùˇá ·¥Ì·ÙÈ) ηd Ìc ‰Èa ÔÏÏÔÜ Ìˉ’
·s ÌÈÎÚa Ìˉ’ ñÂÚ‚¿ÏÏÔÓÙ· Ùˇá ÌÂÁ¤ıÂÈ, ÙÔ‡ÙÔ˘˜ ÊÚÔÓÈ̈ٿÙÔ˘˜ ÂrÓ·È Î·d
ηÙa Ùa˜ ·åÛı‹ÛÂȘ àÎÚÈ‚ÂÛÙ¿ÙÔ˘˜, ηÙa ÏfiÁÔÓ ‰b ηd ÙÔf˜ âÁÁ˘Ù¿Ùˆ ÙÔ‡-
ÙˆÓ, ¬ÛÔȘ ‰’ âÓ·ÓÙ›ˆ˜, àÊÚÔÓÂÛÙ¿ÙÔ˘˜. ηd zÓ ÌbÓ Ì·Óa ηd àÚ·Èa ÎÂÖÙ·È Ùa
ÛÙÔȯÂÖ·, ÓˆıÚÔf˜ ηd âÈfiÓÔ˘˜Ø zÓ ‰b ˘ÎÓa ηd ηÙa ÌÈÎÚa ÙÂıÚ·˘Ṳ̂ӷ,
ÙÔf˜ ‰b ÙÔÈÔ‡ÙÔ˘˜ çÍÂÖ˜ ÊÂÚÔ̤ÓÔ˘˜ ηd ÔÏÏa âÈ‚·ÏÏÔ̤ÓÔ˘˜ çÏ›Á· âÈÙÂ-
ÏÂÖÓ ‰Èa ÙcÓ ç͇ÙËÙ· Ùɘ ÙÔÜ ·¥Ì·ÙÔ˜ ÊÔÚÄ˜Ø Ôx˜ ‰b ηı’ ≤Ó ÙÈ ÌfiÚÈÔÓ ì ̤ÛË
ÎÚÄÛ›˜ âÛÙÈ, Ù·‡ÙFË ÛÔÊÔf˜ ëοÛÙÔ˘˜ ÂrÓ·ÈØ ‰Èe ÙÔf˜ ÌbÓ Ú‹ÙÔÚ·˜ àÁ·ıÔ‡˜,
LXXXVIII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ÙÔf˜ ‰b Ù¯ӛٷ˜, ó˜ ÙÔÖ˜ ÌbÓ âÓ Ù·Ö˜ ¯ÂÚÛ›, ÙÔÖ˜ ‰b âÓ ÙFÉ ÁÏÒÙÙFË ÙcÓ ÎÚÄÛÈÓ
ÔsÛ·ÓØ ïÌÔ›ˆ˜ ‰’ ö¯ÂÈÓ Î·d ηÙa Ùa˜ ôÏÏ·˜ ‰˘Ó¿ÌÂȘ.

***

[≠≠OÌÔÈÔÓ ïÌÔ›ˆ
ˇ in Sensation, Perception, Understanding]

150

B 109
Á·›ËÈ ÌbÓ ÁaÚ Á·Ö·Ó çÒ·ÌÂÓ, ≈‰·ÙÈ ‰’ ≈‰ˆÚ,
·åı¤ÚÈ ‰’ ·åı¤Ú· ‰ÖÔÓ, àÙaÚ ˘Úd ÜÚ à›‰ËÏÔÓ,
ÛÙÔÚÁcÓ ‰b ÛÙÔÚÁÉÈ, ÓÂÖÎÔ˜ ‰¤ Ù Ó›ÎÂ˚ Ï˘ÁÚáÈ.
_______
Cf. Aristoteles, de anima, A2.404b8 sqq.: ...ϤÁÔ˘ÛÈ ÙcÓ „˘¯cÓ Ùa˜ àÚ¯¿˜, Ôî
ÌbÓ Ï›Ԣ˜ ÔÈÔÜÓÙ˜ Ôî ‰b Ì›·Ó Ù·‡ÙËÓ, œÛÂÚ \EÌ‰ÔÎÏɘ ÌbÓ âÎ ÙáÓ
ÛÙÔȯ›ˆÓ ¿ÓÙˆÓ, ÂrÓ·È ‰b ηd ≤ηÛÙÔÓ „˘¯cÓ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ Ï¤ÁˆÓ Ô≈ÙˆØ etc.

***

151

B 107
âÎ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ <ÁaÚ> ¿ÓÙ· Â‹Á·ÛÈÓ êÚÌÔÛı¤ÓÙ·
ηd ÙÔ‡ÙÔȘ ÊÚÔÓ¤Ô˘ÛÈ Î·d ≥‰ÔÓÙ’ 䉒 àÓÈáÓÙ·È.
_______
Post B109 teste Theophrasto (De sensu ß10, DK I p. 302.21): ‰È·ÚÈıÌËÛ¿ÌÂÓÔ˜
(sc. Empedocle’s) Á¿Ú, ó˜ ≤ηÛÙÔÓ ëοÛÙˇˆ ÁÓˆÚ›˙ÔÌÂÓ, âd Ù¤ÏÂÈ ÚÔÛ¤ıËÎÂÓ
ó˜ “âÎ ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ etc.”. ‰Èe ηd Ùˇá ·¥Ì·ÙÈ Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ· ÊÚÔÓÂÖÓØ âÓ ÙÔ‡Ùˇˆ ÁaÚ Ì¿ÏÈ-
ÛÙ· ÎÂÎÚÄÛı·È [âÛÙd] Ùa ÛÙÔȯÂÖ· ÙáÓ ÌÂÚáÓ.

***

[Flesh, Blood]
152

B 98
ì ‰b ¯ıgÓ ÙÔ‡ÙÔÈÛÈÓ úÛË Û˘Ó¤Î˘ÚÛ ̿ÏÈÛÙ·,
^HÊ·›ÛÙˆÈ Ù’ ùÌ‚ÚˆÈ Ù ηd ·åı¤ÚÈ ·ÌÊ·ÓfiˆÓÙÈ,
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM LXXXIX

K‡ÚȉԘ ïÚÌÈÛıÂÖÛ· ÙÂÏ›ÔȘ âÓ ÏÈ̤ÓÂÛÛÈÓ,

ÂúÙ’ çÏ›ÁÔÓ Ì›˙ˆÓ ÂúÙ ÏÂfiÓÂÛÛÈÓ âÏ¿ÛÛˆÓØ
âÎ ÙáÓ ·xÌ¿ Ù Á¤ÓÙÔ Î·d ôÏÏ˘ Âú‰Â· Û·ÚÎfi˜.
_______
Post B35, teste Simplicio (In Phys. 32.11): ηd Úe ÙÔ‡ÙˆÓ ‰b ÙáÓ âáÓ [B98]
âÓ ôÏÏÔȘ ÙcÓ àÌÊÔÖÓ âÓ ÙÔÖ˜ ·éÙÔÖ˜ âÓ¤ÚÁÂÈ·Ó ·Ú·‰›‰ˆÛÈ Ï¤ÁˆÓ “âÂd
NÂÖÎÔ˜... ı·ÜÌ· 剤Ûı·È” (Β35.3-17).
v. 4 ÏÂfiÓÂÛÛÈÓ Panzerbieter, DK: ϤÔÓ âÛÙdÓ codd. Simplicii, Bollack.

***

[Understanding, Thought, Mind (Blood)]

153

B 105
·¥Ì·ÙÔ˜ âÓ ÂÏ¿ÁÂÛÛÈ ÙÂıÚ·Ì̤ÓË àÓÙÈıÔÚfiÓÙÔ˜,
ÙÉÈ Ù ÓfiËÌ· Ì¿ÏÈÛÙ· ÎÈÎÏ‹ÛÎÂÙ·È àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈÓØ
·xÌ· ÁaÚ àÓıÚÒÔȘ ÂÚÈοډÈfiÓ âÛÙÈ ÓfiËÌ·.
_______
v. 1 ÙÂıÚ·Ì̤ÓË (sc. ηډ›·) Grotius, Karsten, DK: ÙÂÙÚ·Ì̤ӷ codd.
Stobaei, Bollack
v. 3 ÓfiËÌ·: codd. Stobaei, codex Meletii: ôËÌ· codex Mel.: ôÓ·ÌÌ· cod. Mel.

***

154

B 110
Âå Á¿Ú Î¤Ó ÛÊ’ à‰ÈÓÉÈÛÈÓ ñe Ú·›‰ÂÛÛÈÓ âÚ›۷˜
ÂéÌÂÓ¤ˆ˜ ηı·ÚÉÈÛÈÓ âÔÙ‡ÛËȘ ÌÂϤÙËÈÛÈÓ,
Ù·ÜÙ¿ Ù¤ ÛÔÈ Ì¿Ï· ¿ÓÙ· ‰È’ ·åáÓÔ˜ ·Ú¤ÛÔÓÙ·È,
ôÏÏ· Ù fiÏÏ’ àe ÙáÓ ‰’ âÎÙ‹Û·ÈØ ·éÙa ÁaÚ ·ûÍÂÈ
Ù·ÜÙ’ Âå˜ qıÔ˜ ≤ηÛÙÔÓ, ¬Ë Ê‡ÛȘ âÛÙdÓ ëοÛÙˆÈ.
Âå ‰b Û‡ Á’ àÏÏÔ›ˆÓ âÔڤͷÈ, Ôx· ηْ ôÓ‰Ú·˜
Ì˘Ú›· ‰ÂÈÏa ¤ÏÔÓÙ·È ± Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·˜,
q Û’ ôÊ·Ú âÎÏ›„Ô˘ÛÈ ÂÚÈÏÔ̤ÓÔÈÔ ¯ÚfiÓÔÈÔ
XC APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

ÛÊáÓ ·éÙáÓ Ôı¤ÔÓÙ· Ê›ÏËÓ âd Á¤ÓÓ·Ó îΤÛı·ÈØ

¿ÓÙ· ÁaÚ úÛıÈ ÊÚfiÓËÛÈÓ ö¯ÂÈÓ Î·d ÓÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ ·rÛ·Ó.
_______
v. 1 Cf. B5
Î¤Ó (Miller) ÛÊ’ à‰ÈÓFÉÛÈÓ Schneidewin, DK: ηd âÓ ÛÊ·‰›ÓËÛÈÓ cod.
Hippolyti: η› ÛÊ’ ê‰ÈÓFÉÛÈÓ Bollack
ñe Ú·›‰ÂÛÛÈÓ: cf. âÓd ÛÏ¿Á¯ÓÔÈÛÈ B4.3
v. 2 âÔÙ‡ÛF˘ Schneidewin, DK: âÔÙ‡ÂȘ cod., Bollack
v. 4 ÙáÓ‰’ âÎÙ‹ÛÂ·È Diels, DK: ÙáӉ ÎÙ(‹.Ë)Ù·È cod.: ÙáӉ ÎÙ‹Û·È
Marcovich: ÙáÓ ÎÂÎÙ‹ÛÂ·È Meineke, Ritschl: ÙáӉ ÎÙ‹ÛÂÙ·È Bollack.
vv. 4-5 ·éÙaÚ ÁaÚ ·ûÍÂÈ Ù·ÜÙ’: de elementis, ut videtur, ratio est; cf. ·éÙa öÛÙÈÓ
Ù·ÜÙ· Β17.34: ·éÙa ÁaÚ öÛÙÈÓ Ù·ÜÙ· Β21.13; Β26.3
v. 7 ± Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·˜: cf. Ù¿ Ù’ à̂χÓÔ˘ÛÈ ÌÂÚ›ÌÓ·˜ Β2.2
v. 9 Á¤ÓÓ·Ó: cf. Á¤ÓÓFË B22.7
v. 10 cf. B103; B107
ÓÒÌ·ÙÔ˜ ·rÛ·Ó codd. Sexti, Schneidewin, DK: Áӈ̷ÙÔ ÛȘ ÔÓ cod.
Hippolyti VII29: ÁÓÒÌËÓ úÛËÓ cod. VI 12.

***

155

B 106
Úe˜ ·ÚÂeÓ ÁaÚ ÌÉÙȘ à¤ÍÂÙ·È àÓıÚÒÔÈÛÈÓ.

***

156

B 108
¬ÛÛÔÓ <Á’> àÏÏÔÖÔÈ ÌÂÙ¤Ê˘Ó, ÙfiÛÔÓ ôÚ ÛÊÈÛÈÓ ·å›
ηd Ùe ÊÚÔÓÂÖÓ àÏÏÔÖ· ·Ú›Ûٷٷȅ
_______
v. 1 <Á'> Sturz, DK: <Ù'> Stein, Bollack: <‰'> Diels, Wright, Inwood


CONCORDANTIA NUMERORUM
(Pierris, Diels-Kranz)

P DK P DK
Ιa 1 112 25 D apud 136
2 114 26 138
3 113 27 137
4 128 28 145
5 130+77+78 29 139
6 129 30 135
7 132 31 140
8 115 32 141
9 142 33 143
10 125 34 144
11 126 35 127
12 148 36 146+147
13 153a Ib 37 133
14 117 38 131
15 119 39 1
16 120 40 111
17 116 41 5
18 118 42 2
19 154a 43 3
20 121 44 4
21 122 45 6
22 123 46 7
23 124 47 8
24 136 48 9
XCII APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

P DK P DK
49 23 83 37
50 11 84 90
51 15 85 38
52 12 86 53
53 13 87 54
54 14 88 39
55 18 89 51
56 19 90 52
57 16 91 40
58 17 + a MP 92 41
59 20 + c MP 93 44
60 d MP 94 42
61 10 95 47
62 25 96 43
63 24 97 45
64 21 98 46
65 26 99 48
66 22 100 49
67 32 101 94
68 91 102 55
69 33 103 56
70 34 104 50
71 92 105 71
72 93 106 151
73 81 107 73
74 96 108 154
IIa 75 27 109 82
76 27 110 97
77 28 111 152 Wright
78 29 112 75
79 134 113 76 + bPW
80 27a 114 83
81 30 115 79
82 31 116 80
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XCIII

P DK P DK
117 72 137 109a
118 74 138 88
119 62 139 85
120 63 140 86
121 64 141 87
122 60 142 84
123 153 143 95
124 65 144 99
125 67 145 100
126 69 146 101
127 68 147 102
128 70 148 103
IIb 129 35 149 104
130 36 150 109
131 57 151 107
132 58 152 98
133 60 153 105
134 61 154 110
135 59 155 106
136 89 156 108


CONCORDANTIA NUMERORUM
(Diels-Kranz, Pierris)

DK P DK P
1 39 25 62
2 42 26 65
3 43 27 75, 76
4 44 27a 80
5 41 28 77
6 45 29 78
7 46 30 81
8 47 31 82
9 48 32 67
10 61 33 69
11 50 34 70
12 52 35 129
13 53 36 130
14 54 37 83
15 51 38 85
16 57 39 88
17 58 40 91
18 55 41 92
19 56 42 94
20 59 43 96
21 64 44 93
22 66 45 97
23 49 46 98
24 63 47 95
RECONSTRUCTION OF EMPEDOCLES’ POEM XCV

DK P DK P
48 99 82 109
49 100 83 114
50 104 84 142
51 89 85 139
52 90 86 140
53 86 87 141
54 87 88 138
55 102 89 136
56 103 90 84
57 131 91 68
58 132 92 71
59 135 93 72
60 133 94 101
61 134 95 143
62 119 96 74
63 120 97 110
64 121 98 152
65 124 99 144
66 122 100 145
67 125 101 146
68 127 102 147
69 126 103 148
70 128 104 149
71 105 105 153
72 117 106 155
73 107 107 151
74 118 108 156
75 112 109 150
76 113 109a 137
77 5 110 154
78 5 111 40
79 115 112 1
80 116 113 3
81 73 114 2
XCVI APOSTOLOS PIERRIS

DK P DK P
115 8 136 24, 25
116 17 137 27
117 14 138 26
118 18 139 29
119 15 140 31
120 16 141 32
121 20 142 9
122 21 143 33
123 22 144 34
124 23 145 28
125 10 146 36
126 11 147 36
127 35 148 12
128 4 149 --
129 6 150 --
130 5 151 106
131 38 152 --
132 7 153 123
133 37 153α 13
134 79 154 108
135 30 154α 19